[ELDER JONES of London has sent us a tract written by James Scott, of Elgin, Scotland, entitled, “The Only Sabbath-day by Divine Appointment, proved from Scripture and History.” It is of interest because Bro. Scott was ignorant that there were other Sabbath-keepers in Great Britain, when he wrote this little tract. Our readers are acquainted with all the arguments given, as they have been presented by those who have long studied the subject on this side of the Atlantic. The following extracts will show the style of the author. The Spirit of God seems to be moving on minds in all parts of the world to stand up for this important truth. In this we will rejoice, for herein we see the way preparing for a fulfillment of Rev. 14: 9-12.—Ed. Signs.]
I have, after carefully examining the Scriptures on the subject of the Sabbath, found that the seventh day, the day the Lord appointed, is the only authorized Sabbath in the Scriptures; that it was observed by the Lord Jesus and his apostles; also that the first day of the week was never observed by the apostles nor by the Church during the lives of the apostles as the Sabbath; neither is it once named in the Scriptures, which is the only authoritative guide we have, and we, frankly say on any religious subject whatever. If any man does not speak according to the “law and the testimony” we shall not be guided by him, or support him as a religious guide.
It appears to me that if Christian ministers would consider the Sabbath question, and observe the proper and appointed day, there would be a stumbling-block to the Jews taken out of the way, for all Jews know that the seventh day, and the seventh day only, is the Lord’s Sabbath. I may say that we are in duty bound to do all that can to bring the Jews to the faith in Jesus of Nazareth, because all the true religious knowledge we possess we have received from or through them.
It is admitted on all hands that the appointment of the Sabbath is of God only; that it is of his own-will, purpose, and appointment; that it is for his own glory, and for our benefit. It was kept sacred as a day of rest by him in honor of his making all things in heaven and earth by his word in six days, and working not (or resting) on the seventh, but rejoicing in all that he had made, because it was all very good. In Ex. 16: 23-31, we see that the sanctification of the Sabbath consisted in abstaining from the ordinary work of the other six days, and the desecration of the Sabbath consisted in working on that day, contrary to the commandment. In Ex. 20: 8, it is resting from labor that is especially marked as the sanctifying of the Sabbath. In Ex. 31: 13, the Lord exhorts the children of Israel to keep his Sabbath, commencing with the word, “Verily.” Now this word surely reveals to us the great desire that he has that we should keep his Sabbath (i. e., his rest) according to the commandment, even to rest that day from the work that we are commanded to do on all the other days, and he concludes by saying that it is a sign between Him and the children of Israel forever—“for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.”
Lev. 23 contains a description of all the feasts, but the holy Sabbath is specially described and commanded to be observed as a day of rest and a holy convocation. Thus we see that the people were to be called together, likely to hear the law, &c., read, and to worship God, and to pray to him for all the good things that we need. It is very instructive to read this chapter over carefully, and to compare the festivals here enumerated with the accounts in the New Testament of the passover and Pentecost, &c. It would relieve our minds from the foolish absurdities which we are apt to fall into by being half taught. I am sure I have attended the preaching of ministers for more than forty years, and I never knew what the feast of Pentecost was, nor what it was instituted for, till lately, when examining the Bible. Let us notice here again, that the sanctifying of the Sabbath consists in resting from labor, because God commanded it to be done. In Deut. 5: 12-14, we find that the sanctifying of the Sabbath is all along the same, even by resting from the ordinary manual labor of the other days of the week. In Neh. 13: 15-23, you can see how Nehemiah considered that the Sabbath should be sanctified, and how he believed that the great wrath that was upon Jerusalem was, in some measure at least, caused by disobedience to God in the observance of the Sabbath according to the fourth commandment.
The united testimony of Scripture is that the seventh day is the appointed Sabbath day; that it was recognized by the apostles during their lives, and any record that we have of their actions and sayings bear testimony to the same; and also it is evident that they know nothing about the historical invention of the first day of the week, or Sunday, being the Sabbath day.
But some say that the resurrection was a greater work than the creation, and therefore God changed the Sabbath day to be a memorial. Without entering at all into the merits of the statement about the comparison of the creation and the resurrection, as to their relative values and comparisons, I am of the opinion that it is above my knowledge or that of any other man, and therefore I hold it to be dangerous to meddle with it. But I do say that there is no such statement in all the New Testament that the first day of the week was to be observed as the Sabbath because the Lord rose from the dead on that day.
Seeing that there is no authority for the observance of the first day (or Sunday) as the Sabbath, what are the duties that are to be performed on that day? What are we called to do? Are we called to rest from our labors, and to meet as a general convention, and perhaps hear a tune on some musical instrument accompanied by the human voice, and perhaps the preacher will go through a round of prayers, and read a text, and then lecture a long time, telling what the text is not—for the simple reason, probably, that he does not know what it is, but he must make an appearance? Is this what we are commanded to do on the first day of the week? Certainly not; for it is the first day of the six that we are commanded to work in. This is certainly the only divine authority how the first day of the week is appointed to be kept; and as we are commanded to rest on the seventh, so also we are commanded to labor in the other six days. Sunday, therefore, is the first of the working days. Mankind and beasts of burden require a weekly rest. Indeed, men would require more rest than they get. Look at an old working man, and behold him with his bent body and his laboring step, caused by being overwrought and badly fed, both of which are brought about by the dominant parties in order that they may hoard up money and eat and drink and live forever. But the working man must submit to it, in order to get a morsel of bread. We must have a day of rest, but let us have it on the divinely appointed day. We have a Bible, let us read it, and pay no attention to teachers who tell us anything that we cannot get in it, such as that the first day of the week is the divinely appointed Sabbath, it being only a human transformation of a heathen practice, adopted by the clergy and political governors in the fourth century, without any divine authority whatever. Is it not Sabbath desecration in the Christian church to work on the seventh, the appointed day, and to observe the first in its stead, contrary to the commandment of God? Search the Scriptures and see if it be not so. —W. J.
Spiritualizing.
By W. Laing
THE proper use of language is the communication to others of what we feel, think, or purpose; the words we speak are the symbols of what we think or feel; and, in order that the means may accomplish the end contemplated, it is indispensably necessary that there be a common understanding between speaker and hearer, or writer and reader, as the case may be, regarding the import of the terms employed. In conversation, any defect in this matter can be remedied by explanation; but written language, to convey the ideas of the writer correctly, must be used and understood in a sense that is settled by usage and common consent; otherwise it would be impossible to have the conviction that we understood what the writer meant to express. These observations, of course, are as true of the language of Holy Scripture as that of any other writings; yet it is simply by acting otherwise that there are so many conflicting meanings put upon words spoken by the messengers of God to men.
If the Bible is a revelation of the mind and purposes of God, we surely ought to understand its terms in the same sense we would understand the same terms in any other book; yet, strange to tell, men, apparently by common consent, treat the words of the Scripture as if they were those of an enigma, rather than those of a revelation; and modes of interpretation the most capricious, empirical, and fanciful, have been applied to the blessed book; hence those whom it was meant to enlighten and save have been perplexed, bewildered, and led astray.
There are only two senses in which ordinary language is understood, namely, the literal and figurative; but interpreters of the Bible affirm that its language is sometimes used in a third sense, which they call the "spiritual,"—a sense never sought for in the language of any other book. And what is meant by the spiritual sense? Not the figurative, which is as apparent, where it is used, as the literal; for where language is used figuratively the figure is either expressed or implied, and every term in such a sentence must have a literal signification; because a figure of speech does not consist in the terms of a sentence, but in their application to subjects to which they do not properly belong. For example, in the sentence, "Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield," all the terms must be understood in their literal sense before the import of the figure, evidently used in the language, can be properly apprehended. Neither does the spiritual sense mean the symbolic, which differs somewhat from the figurative, and is sometimes used in the sacred writings.
The spiritual sense is the mystic, which is no way expressed, but rather concealed, by the terms used. Its character will be more apparent by a few examples. Thus one interpreter affirms that the language, "Behold I create new heavens and a new earth," means, "Behold I am about to give my Church a new and beautiful form, by introducing a new dispensation of grace." When Jehovah says, "Behold I create Jerusalem a rejoicing," "Jerusalem" means the Church of God under the New Testament dispensation. The prediction, "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox," is resolved thus: "The wolf" means the fierce, rapacious enemies of the flock of Christ; "the lamb" means the disciples of Jesus; "the lion" represents the blood-thirsty foes of the Church; "the ox," the preachers of the gospel; and "the straw" is the Gospel itself!
This mode of treating the word of God was introduced among the adherents of the Christian faith in the third century, by Origen, who is often styled "the father of biblical criticism." Deeply imbued with the neo-platonic philosophy, and the puerile allegorizing of the Jewish Rabbins, whatever he found in Scripture that contradicted his notions of truth and propriety, he explained according to, what he termed, the spiritual sense. He affirmed, that "as man consists, according to Plato, of body, soul, and spirit, so Scripture has a three-fold sense,"—that is, the literal, intellectual, and allegorical, or mystic. By this means he got rid of the garden of Eden, the serpent, Adam and Eve, or whatever he found in Scripture contrary to his philosophy. This is the man who, in our day, is styled "the father of biblical criticism and exegesis," by theologians who, with filial faithfulness, follow his track in accommodating the true sayings of God to their systems of theology.—W. Laing.
The Deluge Confessed.
It is quite refreshing to find one fact mentioned in the Bible, which the modern men of science are willing to admit is confirmed by the progress of discovery. Mr. George Smith, of the British Museum, makes the subjoined most interesting account of the record of the deluge, which he has lately deciphered from the Assyrian monuments:—
The cuneiform inscription which I have recently found and translated, gives a long and full account of the deluge. It contains the version or tradition of this event which existed in the early Chaldean period at the city of Erech (one of the cities of Nimrod), now represented by the ruins of Warka. In this newly discovered inscription, the account of the deluge is put as a narrative into the mouth of Xisuthrus, or Noah. He relates the wickedness of the world, the command to build the ark, its building, the filling of it, the deluge, the resting of the ark on a mountain, the sending out of the birds, and other matters. The narrative has a closer resemblance to the account transmitted by the Greeks from Berosus, the Chaldean historian, than to the biblical history, but it does not differ materially from either. The principal differences are as to the duration of the deluge, the name of the mountain on which the ark rested, the sending out of the birds, etc. The cuneiform account is much longer and fuller than that of Berosus, and has several details omitted both by the Bible and the Chaldean historian. This inscription opens up many questions of which we knew nothing previously, and it is connected with a number of other details of Chaldean history which will be both interesting and important. This is the first time any inscription has been found with an account of an event mentioned in Genesis.
Only Two.
ONLY two ways. One broad, the other narrow; one leads to destruction, the other to life; many go by the one, few by the other. Which is your way?
Only two sorts of people. Many sorts in man's opinion—many societies, classes, sects, denominations. Only two in God's sight—the righteous and the wicked, the wheat and the chaff, the living and the dead. Which are you?
Only two deaths—the death of the righteous, and the death of the wicked. Which do you think you will die? Which do you wish to die? Which would it be if you were to die this moment?
Only two sides at the day of Judgment—the right hand and the left. Only these two. Those on the right hand will be blessed—“Come ye blessed of my Father.” Those on the left hand will be cursed—“Depart, ye cursed.” All must appear before the Judgment-seat of Christ, to receive the things done in the body, whether good or bad. What word shall be spoken to you? Reader, on which side will you stand?
The Law and the Gospel.
TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST CONSIDERED.
The apostle James illustrates the object and work of the law of God by that of a common mirror. In the one, we see the imperfections of the face. In the other, we behold the imperfections of the moral character. The apostle introduces the figure in these words: "If any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass ; for he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was." James 1 : 23, 24.
The figure is thus clearly set before us. And the application of this impressive figure is made in forcible words: "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." Verse 25. In this scripture God's great looking-glass is termed the perfect law of liberty. In the next chapter it is called the royal law, and is applied to the Christian's every-day life in a most searching manner. The apostle continues:—
"If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well. But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." Chap. 2 : 8–10. And to place the matter beyond all cavil as to what is meant by the law of liberty, or the royal law, the apostle next quotes two of the ten commandments. "For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." Verse 11. And we also learn by this last verse that it requires the observance of all ten of the precepts of the moral code to be a commandment-keeper, while the violation of only one of the ten commandments constitutes one a commandment-breaker. Hence, the declaration that he who offends in one point is guilty of all.
And let it be borne in mind that the epistle of James was written A. D. 60, about twenty-nine years after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and the day of Pentecost. The church had been fully established, and had passed down in the Christian age more than a quarter of a century when the apostle took up his pen to write. Consequently, what he said of the nature and work of the royal law, or the perfect law of liberty, and which he illustrated by a mirror, in the year of our Lord sixty, is applicable in all its original force in the nineteenth century.
The beloved John, whose epistles are so rich and thorough in Christian experience, speaks of both the Father and the Son as holding close relation to true believers in the Christian age. In this fact may be seen the relation which the law of God, and the gospel of the Son of God, sustain to each other in Christian experience, and in the great plan of redemption. John speaks of what he had seen and heard of the Word of life, which makes him a proper witness of Christ. But he does not by any means leave the Father out of the scheme of redemption from sin and death. John says:—
"That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you that your joy may be full. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." 1 John 1 : 3–5. The statement of the apostle that "truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ," is worthy of especial notice. It is in wide contrast with that stripe of modern gospel which leaves the Father and the ten precepts of the royal law upon the background, and brings the Son to the front, as lawgiver, mediator, and redeemer, so that Christ alone sustains a close relation to Christians. If John was of this class we might expect him to repeat the popular revival strain, that "Christ is light," and "Christ is love," and "Behold what manner of love Christ hath bestowed upon us." But the apostle brings the Father also to the front, and declares that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." Again he says, "God is love." Chap. 4 : 8. And again he exclaims, "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God." Chap. 3 : 1. John continues:—
"If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." Verses 6, 7. Please notice:
1. That it is the Father that is represented as a body of pure light, in whom is no darkness at all. This is evident from verse 7, where Jesus Christ is called his Son.
2. That while Christians should seek to walk in the light as Christ is in the light, this is but a part of their duty. They should endeavor to walk in the light as the Father is in the light. They should come very near the Father by cheerful obedience to all the precepts of the divine law.
3. It is when Christians walk in the pure light of the Father, in obedience to all his commandments, that the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth from all sin. The chapter closes:
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." Verses 8–10. The apostle has written very pointedly and sharply in this first chapter of his first epistle. And as though fearing that feeble minds might be discouraged at the straightness of the way, he magnifies the grace of God through Jesus Christ in the first verse of the next chapter. Hear him:—
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." The beloved John has written pointedly that the church might be faithfully guarded against sin. And at the same time he has set before the erring the height, and depth and breadth of the pitying love of the Father through his Son Jesus Christ for those who are overcome by sin. Three parties are here introduced.
1. The Father, the author of the divine law.
2. Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the sinner's advocate with the Father.
3. The sinner who, having transgressed the law of the Father, needs an advocate with the Author of the divine law.
"Sin is the transgression of the law." What law? "If any sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." Chap. 2 : 1. The sinner is in trouble with the Father. He needs Christ to plead his cause with the Father, simply because he has transgressed the Father's law. But if it be said that John speaks of the law of Jesus Christ, then we inquire:
1. Is Christ an advocate with himself?
2. If Christ is the law-giver in the Christian age, why should the apostle introduce the Father into the plan? Why not say: If any man sin against the law of Jesus Christ, we have an advocate with Jesus Christ, which is Jesus Christ? If it be objected that Christ cannot be an advocate with himself, then:
3. If Christ be our law-giver, who is our advocate? The Catholic may answer, "The Virgin Mary." But if the Protestants cling to the popular error that Christ is the law-giver for the Christian age, then we press the question — Who?
Those who recognize the harmony of the law of God and the gospel of the Son of God in the plan of redemption will see the natural application of the text, and will feel the force of the great facts stated therein. "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."
Religious Self-Deception.
By John Harvey Kellogg
THE fifty-eighth chapter of Isaiah has especial reference to these times, and is, in all respects, very interesting to us. It opens with a two-fold description of a certain class of worshipers. Viewing them only in the light of one of these descriptions we should be forced to admit they are a truly devoted and God-fearing people, and accepted with the Lord. Notice what the Lord says of them:--
1. They worship God. "They seek me," says the Lord. Such would scorn to worship idols. They pity the heathen; and their conscience would not permit them to renounce their profession of Christianity.
2. They are diligent worshipers. "They seek me daily," says the Lord. This is a mark which every Christian should bear.
3. They are intelligent worshipers. They "delight to know my ways." They are pleased to learn the doctrines of the Bible, and are diligent to attend the preaching of the word. Another good mark of Christian character.
4. They are cheerful worshipers. "They take delight in approaching to God." They are not driven to their worship. It needs no arm of authority, no urgent appeals, to keep them in the way of their devotions. It is a pleasant path to them, in which they take delight.
After reading such a description as this, and noting in them so many marks of true Christians, and marks in which so many professors are lacking, it is sad to be compelled to admit that the very people so described are self-deceived and hypocritical. There is another view of them which gives them quite a different appearance from the above.
1. A call is made to show them their transgressions and their sins. They are sinners, transgressors of God's law. They draw near to God with their lips while their hearts are in the world. They cry, Lord, Lord, but do not his will. They love an easy religion, which does not cross their selfishness; which leads to no self-denial.
2. They seek God only "as a nation that did righteousness." Says an apostle, "He that doeth righteousness is righteous." The religion in which they delight consists in profession, prayer, church-going, and that which is no deeper than feelings or emotions. "The weightier matters of the law they neglect. Though the Scriptures say, "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination," they will not listen to it, nor reflect on its meaning or application. They profess to delight in "gospel liberty"--freedom to choose their own path. They are afraid of "legal bondage," as they call obedience to the commandments of God. Truly they are but "as a nation that did righteousness."
3. They have forsaken the ordinance of their God. What the ordinance is which they have forsaken we learn by reading this chapter. Two prominent faults are marked against them: they do not righteousness, and they have forsaken the ordinance of God. In verses 4-12 their shortcomings are particularly noticed, and exhortations to certain duties are given, whereby by their light should spring up and their righteousness should abound. In verses 13, 14, the ordinance of God is pointed out which they have forsaken. "If thou turn thy foot from the Sabbath;" they are trampling the Sabbath under their feet. A horrible abuse of that which Jehovah so highly honored; "from doing thy pleasure on my holy day;" they have profaned the holy day, and degraded that which is sacred to the Lord to make it pleasure to their own carnal pleasures; "and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable;" the holy day of the Lord has been no delight to them. In the expressive language of the prophet, they "have snuffed at it." Every feature has been expressive of scorn when the Sabbath is mentioned. It is not honorable in their esteem. Instead of calling it a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable, they have derided it and all who observe it, stigmatizing it as "the old Jewish Sabbath," and "a yoke of bondage." They have departed very far from "the right ways of the Lord," while professing to be his servants.
4. They do not understand why their fasts have not been seen of the Lord, and why their prayers are not answered. The Lord shows them that the fault is in their own lives. If they will work righteousness as well as pray; if they will "honor him" in his own sacred institution which commemorates his work of creation, then will their "light rise in obscurity," and they shall "delight themselves in the Lord," not merely in their own form of worship. Here God shows that his honor is concerned in the observance of the Sabbath, and they who dishonor him he will lightly esteem.
Here is a lesson of warning to all. It is a faithful description of the superficial religion of the age. And it shows how fearfully strong is self-deception. It will admit of our wearing the garb of Christianity, of making a great profession, and of working ourselves up to a feeling of delight in worship. With all this our profession may be that of the Pharisee, and all our worship vain. "The heart is deceitful;" we should not trust it, but constantly compare ourselves with the divine standard. "Who can understand his errors," asked the psalmist; and the only means of a correct understanding of them is given in the same psalm: "The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes."
Examination of self, and meditation on the word of God, are much needed to keep us from thoughtlessly going astray. How greatly we need to keep ourselves in the love of God, and under the direction of his Spirit.
"Lord, let not all my hopes be vain;
Create my soul entirely new.
Let thy sweet Spirit me sustain;
Oh! guide me all my journey through."
J. H. W.
The Moral Law.
By Uriah Smith
A LATE exchange says that “Henry Ward Beecher, at a late meeting in Plymouth Church, took the ground that the patriarchs of the Old Testament, and the apostles of the New, were far behind the people of the present age, in their understanding and appreciation of the moral law. And yet the house, misnamed a church, was filled to overflowing, and the people calling themselves Christians applauded the sacrilege.”
Yes; the patriarchs and apostles believed that the moral law was binding and acted accordingly; but many in the present age, ministers as well as laymen, don’t believe it is binding; and they act accordingly. That’s the difference. U. S.
Roumania Orders Levy of 100,000 Troops
A DISPATCH dated Constantinople March 22, 1875, reads: "The Roumanian government has issued orders for the levy of 100,000 troops. This warlike measure excites comment there."
Matthew Twenty-four.
By James White
The readers of the Signs have been favored with a series of articles on the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, and we hereby express the hope that they have carefully read and treasured up the truths therein presented. The importance of the instruction given in this chapter in regard to the second advent, cannot be overestimated.
Perhaps no other chapter in the Bible has been made the subject of so much controversy. Universalists well understand its importance, and they have therefore been untiring in their efforts to enlist it in the service of their cause. It is indeed the deciding ground of the whole question between them and evangelical believers, for it must appear plain to all that, if the personal, second coming of Christ is not taught in Matt. 24, it is not taught in the Scriptures; and if the Universalists could succeed in spiritualizing this chapter, or of confining its testimony to the subject of the destruction of Jerusalem, it is easy to see that the ideas of a future advent, of a resurrection of the dead, and a future judgment might easily be discarded entirely. The victory on all these questions is with those who maintain their ground on Matt. 24.
If this is so, and we think none can dispute it, then it appears that all denominations who do not wish to yield the whole ground to Universalists, have an interest in maintaining the literal interpretation of this chapter. Certainly no part of the Scriptures more clearly teaches the actual coming of Christ, and the gathering together of the saints at his coming. Mistify this, and you have prepared the way to mistify every Scripture declaration on this important subject.
But there is another point of equal interest in this chapter to which we would ask the attention of all who feel an interest in the doctrines of the resurrection and future Judgment. Admitting that Matt. 24 teaches the literal second coming of the Lord, then we must admit that it teaches just as certainly that we may know when that event is near. Here we take our stand without any fear of successful contradiction. This is a consistent position as all must admit who candidly examine verses 29-51 in connection. And therefore there are but two sides to the controversy over this chapter, namely, that of the Universalists, and that of the Adventists. They who deny that Matt. 24 gives positive knowledge when the advent is near, even at the doors, virtually deny that it refers to the advent at all; and thus take sides with the Universalists. For again, they who deny that Matt. 24 teaches the literal coming of Christ, virtually deny that that doctrine is in the Bible, for no scriptures teach it more clearly and unmistakably.
We think all must agree with us in regard to the importance of this chapter in its bearing on the controversy between Universalists and evangelicals, and also between the Adventists and all their opponents. It should be well studied and carefully considered by all who have an interest in “the present truth.”
J. H. W.