Earlier text: THE SABBATHPlease to read Gen. i, 14—18. God made the sun and moon to rule the day, and to rule the night, and to divide time into days and years. Now, as it is in the highest degree absurd to believe that the Creator then established two contradictory methods of reckoning time; we conclude that those who are favored with the light of the sun and moon as the earth revolves on its axis, enjoy the benefit of these great time-keepers, while those who may be beyond their light for a long period, do not enjoy the benefit of this division. Look at the words of the Review again: 'Relative to the people that have but 'one Sabbath in seven years,' we ask whether this statement made by C. was in sober earnest, or thrown in for effect. Look at the Sabbath law. We are to work six days because God made heaven and earth in six days—not in six thousand years—nor yet in six years; and we are to rest the seventh day—not a thousand years—nor yet one year, but one day, just as God did. That is the guide, 'given in the Sabbath law.' The first three days of the Creation week were reckoned without any sun.—When the plagues were poured out on Egypt there were three days of total darkness. These according to the view of C. made but one long night! And there is yet to be in the fearful scene before us, a period when the vials of unmixed wrath from Jehovah's temple, shall be poured out on the worshipers of the Beast and of his Image, and on those who have his Mark, when the kingdom of the Beast shall be full of darkness, and they shall gnaw their tongues for pain. But we ask, may not time be reckoned even then, by those to whom 'the plagues shall not come near'—could it not be reckoned in Egypt—was it not reckoned in the week of Creation? And finally, Cannot Sunday be reckoned in the polar regions, or do men who have spent a year there, reckon it but one day?' You continue: 'It concedes the 'difficulty' of keeping the Sabbath reckoning while circumnavigating the globe—one day being lost by sailing in one direction, one day being gained by sailing in the other direction.' The following is what you grasp as a concession of 'difficulty': 'Relative to circumnavigating the globe, we ask C. a question: Suppose that men were able to encompass the globe with the speed of a telegraphic despatch; suppose they could, for instance, be able to encompass it twenty-four times in one day, and thus gain twenty-four days, we ask how much weight such a circumstance would have in deranging dates? How much weight would it have in deranging his or your reckoning of Sunday? Verily none at all. It is doubtless very difficult to keep God's Sabbath in the polar regions, (if to here,) but it is not difficult to keep the day of apostolic 'preference' either there or in circumnavigating the globe! When you are called to circumnavigate the globe or to visit the polar regions we will try to aid you further; till then we earnestly suggest the propriety of your obeying God.' You think every body ought to yield the 'untenable' position, that the Sabbath was made for the human family, after reading these 'insurmountable objections.' And that these are laws of nature with which Scripture does not conflict. Will you please give attention to a few thoughts from the Volume of Inspiration. 1. It appears that the Sabbath could be kept from the wilderness of Sin, west of Palestine, to the city of Babylon, a long distance to the east. These points are remote from each other, and the variations of time must be considerable. 2. Nor does it appear very evident that those violated the Sabbath, who performed voyages of three years length, by command of that king who thought it the whole duty of man to 'fear God and keep his commandments.' 1 Kings x, 22—24. 3. I next invite your attention to Isaiah lvi. The promise of gathering in God's holy mountain the outcasts of Israel, and the sons of the stranger, is here distinctly stated on the condition that they would keep the holy Sabbath. If you choose to do so, call this prophecy Jewish, these outcasts literal Jews, and this holy mountain, the land of their inheritance. Now where are these outcasts? Just where the leader of Israel predicted; scattered among all people from the one end of the earth even unto the other. Deut. xxviii, 64. What is the condition of the gathering of these outcasts together? The observance of the holy Sabbath! And if they can do it in every land under heaven, the sons of the stranger, who have the promise of being gathered on the same condition, can do it also. 4. The Holy One of Israel hath spoken on this point, 'For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord:' Isa. lxvi, 22, 23. Thus if the Holy One of Israel with whom a lie is impossible, be credited, we may consider one point established.—When the dominion of Christ is from sea to sea, and from the river to the end of the earth, and the kingdom, and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN, shall have been given to the people of the saints13 of the Most High, ALL FLESH shall come to worship before Jehovah from Sabbath to Sabbath, and from new moon to new moon. Then it is possible for the human family to observe the Sabbath over the whole globe! Your second article concludes as follows: 'But finally on this point, the Review appeals to Barrett's Grammar for help in the passage: 'The Sabbath was made for man.' Mark ii, 27. The rule quoted reads: 'A noun without an adjective is invariably taken in its broadest extension, as: Man is accountable.' Now it happens that this noun has an untranslated article, which Mr. Barrett calls an adjective. It is as follows: 'To sabbaton dia ton anthropon egeneto, ouk ho anthropos dia to sabbaton.' 'Ton' and 'ho' are the untranslated articles, agreeing with anthropon and anthropos, man. So the Review fails here again, as it must in every position it takes on this question, if attacked by the simple weapons with which the armory of Scripture and reason is replete, and for this reason, because it is advocating an error.' To show the character of your reply, and the manner in which you attempt to hide the arguments of the Review, I quote its words: 'C. having presented a groundless inference, and an amount of 'philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of man, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ,' we inquire, Does not the word of God contain some better answer than all this? Yea verily. The beloved Son of God has told us for whom the Sabbath was made, and his testimony would not have been disregarded, and an inference from the words of Moses chosen in its stead, were it not for the vain hope of making the 'Servant contradict the Son.' Jesus was with the Father at Creation, [John i, 1—3,] he is competent to testify. The Father says of him, 'This is my beloved Son, HEAR HIM.' We respond, Amen. He testifies in so many words; (his testimony is ultimate truth;) 'The Sabbath was made for man.' Mark ii, 27; 1 Cor. xi, 9. Now look at one or two Bible instances of such expressions. 'Man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more.' Job. xiv, 12. 'There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man.' 1 Cor. x, 13. 'It is appointed unto men once to die.' Heb. ix, 27. We offer the following grammatical rule from Barrett's Principles of English Grammar, p. 29. A noun without an adjective is invariably taken in its broadest extension, as: 'Man is accountable.' With the following points we submit the second question:- All flesh shall yet come to worship before Jehovah on the Sabbath.—God the Father.
- The Sabbath was made for man.—Son of God.'
As you have not attempted to reply to any part of the above except the grammatical rule, I remark that the rule being taken from the principles of English Grammar is with perfect propriety applied to our English version. But you point to an untranslated article for the purpose of invalidating the use of the rule. Why did you not have the frankness to say that it was the Sabbath article, ton, instead of calling it an untranslated article? Let us read the text with the article translated: 'The Sabbath was made for THE MAN, not THE MAN for the Sabbath.' This language fixes the mind on THE MAN, Adam, that 'was made' of the dust of the ground, just before 'the Sabbath was made for' him, of the seventh day. As this text comes in at the close of our discussion on the questions, 'When was the Sabbath instituted?' and, 'For whom was the Sabbath instituted?' its testimony is of great value. It exactly reverses your decision, that it was made for the Hebrews after they left Egypt, and shows that it was made for the head of the human family, and consequently made at Creation. The Sabbath was made for THE MAN, and not THE MAN for the Sabbath. Is not this a 'great truth plainly stated'? THE ARK.
By R. F. Cottrell
When ancient Israel met the foe,
That aimed at them a deadly blow,
Though oft their prospect seemed most dark,
They triumphed when they had the Ark. The Ark when borne to Jordan's tide,
Caused its deep waters to divide;
They need no boat in which t' embark;
They cross—because they have the Ark. They march around old Jericho,
Its towering walls are laid full low—
Hear ye that mighty shouting! Hark!
They triumph, for they have the Ark. Where was the strength by which it wrought,
And to its bearers victory brought?
It was a chest of wood—but mark!
THE LAW OF GOD was in the Ark. When men oppose that law of love,
They lack the wisdom from above;
Deluded souls! they're in the dark,
Without the truth—without the Ark. The remnant in these latter days
Will triumph sure; give God the praise!
They, of the beast, refuse the mark,
They keep God's law—they have the Ark. THE ARK AND THE MERCY-SEAT.
In the Sanctuary of the first covenant the ark and the mercy-seat were placed in the holiest of all, and were connected, the mercy-seat being placed on the ark. Heb. ix, 1–5; Ex. xxv, 10–21; xxvi, 33, 34. And if one exists in the heavenly Sanctuary, of which Christ is a minister, [Heb. viii, 1, 2,] most certainly both exist there. How natural and reasonable the view that the ark containing the commandments of God the Father, which are the rule of man's life, should be closely connected with the mercy-seat where mercy and pardon may be found through the blood of the Son of God for the transgression of that holy law. Christians have had much to say relative to the mercy-seat, as really existing in the present dispensation; but they have been almost silent about the ark on which it rests. The mercy-seat has been dwelt upon with pleasure. The servants of the Lord have pointed to it as existing in heaven as really as God and Christ, and saints have, in their prayers and songs of praise, mentioned the mercy-seat with great delight. And why not preach, pray and sing about the ark containing the ten commandments as well as the mercy-seat which rests upon it? Those who will examine the subject will find as much evidence for the existence of the ark in this dispensation as the mercy-seat. The apostle Paul in speaking of the first covenant Sanctuary [Heb. ix, 1–5] mentions the first tabernacle, or holy place, and its furniture, also "the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all," where the ark and mercy-seat were placed. An account of the typical Sanctuary, its two holies and furniture is given in Exodus. The idea of a mercy-seat in heaven, in this dispensation, is obtained from the law of types and Paul's commentary upon that law, contained in his epistle to the Hebrews. The Apostle declares that the priests of the law served "unto the example and shadow of HEAVENLY THINGS." Speaking of the cleansing of the typical Sanctuary, also the cleansing of that Sanctuary in heaven of which Christ is a minister, Paul says: "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than those. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Heb. ix, 23, 24. In this manner the Apostle shows that the earthly Sanctuary, its holies and furniture were patterns of the true in heaven, consequently, the mercy-seat must be there. Hence it has been dwelt upon with great delight as really existing in heaven as much as the literal person of Jesus. And thus they have sung: "There is a place where Jesus sheds
The oil of gladness on our heads;
A place than all besides more sweet,
It is the blood-bought mercy-seat.
Ah! whither should we flee for aid
When tempted, desolate, dismayed?
Or how the hosts of hell defeat,
Had suffering saints no mercy-seat?"
Now, there is precisely the same evidence in the law of types, and the epistle to the Hebrews, for the existence of the ark of the ten commandments in this dispensation, that there is for the mercy-seat. Let those who doubt, search and see—It would be considered infidelity to doubt the existence of the mercy-seat, and fanciful to believe that the ark of God is in the heavenly Sanctuary. Let one dare teach that the mercy-seat has the ark still to rest upon, and he will be called a fanatic, and represented as fallen from grace if he keeps all the holy precepts contained in that ark. It would be unreasonable to believe that the mercy-seat exists, and reject the ark, if there were as much evidence for one as the other; but it is a fact that there is more evidence that the ark of the ten commandments exists in heaven, than that there is a mercy-seat there. "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ARK of his TESTAMENT." Rev. xi, 19. "And after that I looked, and beheld, the temple of the tabernacle of the TESTIMONY in heaven was opened." Rev. xv, 5. Is the ark, mentioned here by John, empty? If it is, how can it be said to be "the ark of his testament"? Is not the testimony, the ten commandments uttered by Jehovah, in the Heavenly Sanctuary? If it is not, why does John mention the "tabernacle of the testimony in heaven?" Let it be here understood that John had this view of the Heavenly Sanctuary, A. D. 96, about 26 years after the typical Sanctuary was destroyed. We have given two texts of plain bible testimony that prove the existence of "the ark of the testimony." And it is a fact that there is not one such text in the New Testament to prove that there is a mercy-seat. Let those who have much to say relative to the mercy-seat, and think us fanatical for believing that the ark exists, pause a moment and look at these facts. With great delight we make mention of the ark of God, as well as of the mercy-seat, and believe that both exist in this dispensation. We love the mercy-seat, before which our merciful High Priest now stands ready to plead the case of those who come to him in sincerity and truth, and why not love the ark of God also beneath it? Those who do, may with propriety sing: "From every stormy wind that blows,
From every swelling tide of woes,
There is a calm, a sure retreat,
'Tis found beneath the mercy-seat."
"You will see a correct rendering of Rev. xxi, 1, in Prof. Whiting's translation, as follows:
'And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and the sea was no more.'" It is not asserted in the original that there is no sea in the new earth, but that the present earth, heaven and sea will have passed away. It as much asserts that there will be no more heaven and earth in the new creation, as it does that there will be no more sea. All that is affirmed of either, is that the former were passed away—were no more. He beholds the new heavens and new earth, because the former had disappeared. The revelator says nothing about a new sea, as he does a new earth; because the earth often includes both earth and sea. Thus the first verse of Genesis asserts that 'in the beginning God created the heavens and earth.' The sea is not mentioned, and yet the sea was then created; for it covered the entire earth, and had afterwards to be gathered into one place, before the dry land could appear. As the new earth is to be the restitution of all things spoken of by the mouth of all the holy prophets, it must correspond with the Eden state in the existence of a sea, as well as in other particulars."—Advent Herald, April 1852. Defense of the Truth.
By Editor
It may be thought unnecessary, by some, to reply to those who write against the Holy Sabbath, and show up their weak and deceptive arguments; but we think such judge in this matter hastily. It is true that for the last seven years there has been much strife and vain glory among professed advent believers, as they have been engaged in the discussion of subjects of no vital importance, and have left the scattered saints to starve for want of the bread of life, the "meat in due season," that would give life and strength to their faith. And many of the advent people have seen so much strife and bitterness in the advent papers, and with the "shepherds" and "principal of the flock," that they have become tired and disgusted with it. This is as might be expected. We wish, however, to say to such, that it has ever been the duty of God's servants to stand in defense of the truth, and it always will be their duty thus to do; but mark this, those called of God to defend his truth will ever possess and manifest the "Spirit of truth," the Comforter, given to guide into all truth. The truth of God, through which we are to be sanctified, is a unit, and those who have the Spirit of truth, and follow on in its channel, will be one, amen. How preposterous the idea, that those who have the Spirit of truth, and are called of God to publish his word, will be divided, hating and devouring one another! The reason why many of the advent people are in such a state of perfect confusion, is because they reject the present truth, consequently, have not the Spirit of truth to guide them in its even channel, and are left to follow the promptings of the carnal mind, and cause the world to look on, and wonder, and exclaim, How these brethren hate one another! As an illustration of what we have stated we refer the reader to the "law-suit," the trial of J. V. Himes, in which the whole advent body is more or less interested. But all this forms no good reason why those who have the truth should not stand in its defense. It is indispensably necessary—it is scriptural and right—that they should in a proper manner defend it. Said the apostle Paul, "I am set for the defense of the gospel." "Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart, inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace." Phil. i, 7, 17. "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." Titus i, 10, 11. We are exhorted by Jude to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." We have also the example of the apostle Paul for defending the truth among those who will hear, until they become hardened and refuse to listen. "And he [Paul] went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing in the school of one Tyrannus. And this continued for the space of two years." Acts xix, 9, 10. Says the Apostle, "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Rom. xii, 18. But it is not possible for the servant of God, who has the truth burning within him, to hold his peace when he sees that precious truth impiously trampled under foot. The Word justifies him in standing in its defense, God requires it of him, the Holy Ghost will help him. Those who teach the plain doctrines of the Bible in this age of apostasy may expect a warfare; but they should ever bear it in mind that without Jesus we can do nothing. "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God." 2 Cor. x, 4, 5.