Earlier text: SIGNS OF THE TIMESIn view of the testimonies already given, (which are not one hundredth part of what might be given,) we are constrained to believe that the manifestations are caused by spirits. It is not possible to believe that so many men of distinguished intelligence, judgment and apparent candor, could be deceived by a mere cheat, or trick, and then engage with such ardor to deceive others. These manifestations have endured the closest scrutiny, and most thorough investigation, and yet what is called, the cause of Spiritualism is advancing more and still more rapidly. Those who can, under such circumstances, receive the testimony of those who cry 'Humbug,' 'trickery,' &c., are more to be charged with credulity, than the most ardent Spiritualist. The question now arises, what kind of spirits are these? Are they what they profess to be, namely, the spirits of the dead? We answer, they are not; and give the following reasons: (1) They profess to be commissioned by God to visit this world to communicate instruction for the benefit of mankind. That this is not so is evident from the fact that God has forbidden necromancy in his word. Deut. xviii, 11; Isa. viii, 19. And admitting that the dead know a thousand times more than the living, it is certain that God does not commission them to come to this world to lead men to break the divine command. (2) They cannot be spirits of the dead, because the Bible teaches that the dead have not knowledge. 'For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.' Eccl. ix, 5, 6. Says David: 'Let my soul live, and it shall praise thee.' Ps. cxix, 175. Why David! Cannot your soul praise God when separated from the body, and you are dead and buried? Let him answer: 'The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.' Ps. cxv, 17. These manifestations cannot be from the Spirit of God, neither can they be good angels, ministering unto certain ones, from the fact that they profess to be something else; and the Spirit of God and good angels will tell the truth. Then what are they? We answer: they are lying spirits, the messengers of the father of lies. The fact that they are very numerous is no objection to this view.—The unclean spirit that was cast out of the man from among the tombs, by our Lord, answered, 'My name is legion; for we are many.' Mark v, 1-13. That the Devil has angels or messengers to go at his bidding, and carry out his purposes is evident from the following texts: 'And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.' Jude, verse 6. 'And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.—And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.' Matt. xii, 7-9. 'Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels.' Matt. xxv, 41. Now when these spirits visit individuals, professing to be the spirit of Paul, Peter, John or James; of the Patriarchs, Prophets; Dr. Franklin, Washington, Paine, Calhoun, or some dear friend, or perhaps a lovely infant recently buried, they come with a lie in their mouths. It is no such thing! Behold the deception! Job says of the dead: 'His sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them.' Job xiv, 21. These spirits testify that they know all about the condition of the living. Now if the testimony of the patient man of God, of old, be true, are not these spirits liars? Solomon says of the dead: 'Neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun.' Eccl. ix, 6. But these spirits, in many cases, act a very conspicuous part in what is done under the sun. They rap, write, play on musical instruments, and move chairs, tables, &c. Then these spirits do lie abominably in saying they are the spirits of the dead. With the word of God to sustain us, we fearlessly make this charge against the whole race of these invisible demons. David in speaking of man says: 'His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.' Ps. cxlvi, 4. Here are three inspired witnesses perfectly agreeing in their testimonies that the dead have not knowledge.—Therefore, the testimony of these rapping and writing spirits, in regard to themselves, is false, and the reader must allow us to call them lying spirits. They say one great object of their manifestations, is, to convince the world of the immortality of the soul, that all men have immortality. But the Bible plainly teaches that immortality, or, eternal life, (which is the same thing,) is the gift of God through Jesus Christ, and, consequently, conditional. 'The wages of sin is death; But the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.' Rom. vi, 23. 'Who will render to every man according to his deeds; to them who by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immortality; eternal life.' Rom. ii, 6, 7. Certainly, God does not require man to seek for immortality, if all men now possess it! Paul says to Timothy: 'Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and the only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, &c. 1 Tim. vi, 15, 16.— These spirits teach that all men possess immortality; but St. Paul teaches that it is possessed by the King of kings and Lord of lords only; and that Christ has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel; [2 Tim. i, 10.] and that it is to be put on at the sound of the last trump, at the second appearing of Christ. 1 Cor. xv, 52-54. AWAKE! O, awake! now to life and to duty—
Faint not by the way till thy labor is done;
For quickly the King will descend in his beauty—
The warfare be ended—the victory won.
Though tempests may lower, and foes are deriding,
Stand firm for the truth in the face of earth's frown;
O, watch, fight and pray, in thy Saviour confiding,
Till in glory thou sharest the conqueror's crown. AWAKE! O, awake! seek in Heaven thy treasure,
Where free from all care and all sorrow and pain,
Thou shalt range with delight o'er the bright fields of pleasure,
And join in the songs to the Lamb that was slain.
Be active and faithful, with ardor untiring,
Fearless and bold in defense of the right;
With faith, love and joy in thy bosom inspiring,
With courage undaunted to work with thy might. AWAKE! O, awake! heed the loud voice of warning—
Sound the tidings afar o'er the land and the sea,
Till dawns in its splendor the last, lovely morning,
When the shadows of night and of sadness shall flee.
Then gird on the armor, with lamps trim'd and burning,
Calmly upon his sure promise rely;
O, wait, hope and trust till thy Master's returning,
To gather his chosen to mansions on high. A. R. S. "THE ANTITYPICAL TABERNACLE."
By John Nevins Andrews
THE Advent Herald of July 30th has another article on this subject. It is written in reply to the remarks in the ADVENT REVIEW of July 7th, on their previous article. As the REVIEW gave the article of the Herald entire, we entertained the hope that the Herald in replying to us, would give its readers some general idea, at least, of the arguments of the REVIEW. But in this we are much disappointed.—We are glad, however, that the Herald keeps this subject before its readers, as we trust that it will call the attention of some, at least, to the investigation of this question. The Herald begins by declining the discussion respecting a literal tabernacle in heaven of which the Jewish was a copy. It says: "We shall spend no time in the discussion of that question, because it is not material to the question at issue, and because the application of the scriptures quoted to sustain it, shows a want of knowledge of the nature and laws of symbols and tropes to which violence is thus done. The point at issue is whether Heb. ix teaches that Christ had entered on the work typified by the services of the inner apartment of the Jewish tabernacle; or whether it was on that only which was symbolized by the outer." We will not call in question the sincerity of the writer, but the truthfulness of these remarks we are compelled to deny. We deny the violation of the "laws of symbols and tropes" in proving the existence of a literal temple of God in heaven. As proof on that point we presented without comment seven texts of scripture, from Revelation, Psalms and Hebrews. The texts from Revelation are the only ones where we could violate the laws of symbols, as the Psalm from which we quoted, and the book of Hebrews are not symbolic visions. We were not ignorant of the fact that Bro. Bliss, in applying the laws of symbols to the book of Revelation, explains the tabernacle in heaven to be heaven itself; and the New Jerusalem, which contains the throne of God and the Lamb, and the river and tree of life, he explains to be "the redeemed Church." Now we have no complaint to make against the acknowledged laws of symbols; we only claim that in these cases, Bro. B. has misapplied them. We suppose that the Herald in charging us with the violation of the laws of symbols, reasoned on this wise: "All agents or objects seen in symbolic visions are symbols;" the book of Revelation is a symbolic vision; therefore the temple in heaven seen by John must be a symbol. The reader will perceive at once that this same argument will prove that the Lord Jesus Christ, [Rev. i, 12-18,] the throne of God with him who sits upon it, [Rev. v, 2, 3,] the whole company of the redeemed before the throne, with all the angelic host, [Rev. vii, 9-12,] the new heavens and new earth, and the river and tree of life, [Rev. xxi; xxii,] are all symbols.—All these objects are proved to be symbols by the same argument that proves the temple in heaven a symbol. Another admitted law of symbols will, however, explain all that is difficult on this point. It is this: "Symbols that are of such a nature, station or relation, that there is nothing of an analogous kind that they can represent, symbolize agents, objects, acts, or events of their own kind. Example, Dan. vii, 9." This law of symbols fully justifies us in believing that the representation of the temple in heaven, and of the New Jerusalem, and of the new earth, were symbols or representations of these glorious objects. But we are not left to doubtful conclusions on this subject. That there will be a literal new heavens and new earth, as shown to John, is proved in the most positive manner by another Apostle, who certainly is not using symbolical language. I refer to him who said, "The heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." 2 Pet. iii, 12, 13. We will say the same respecting the New Jerusalem. The book of Hebrews, which is not a symbolic vision, proves that there is a literal city for the saints. Chap. xi, 10. "For he [Abraham] looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Surely this is a real city. Verse 16. "But now they desire a better61 country, that is, an heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city." Chap. xii, 22, testifies that this city is the heavenly Jerusalem. We reject the view, therefore, that the New Jerusalem, which John saw, was a symbol of the redeemed saints, and believe it to be a faithful representation of that beloved city. The book of Hebrews bears equally decisive testimony respecting the existence of the greater and more perfect tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. Chap. ix, 11, 12; viii, 1-5. And the existence of the temple in heaven being established, we are constrained to believe that when John saw that temple with its ark, its censer and its altar, he had a just representation of that building of which Moses erected a pattern. The testimony of the book of Hebrews cannot be set aside as symbolic. But Bro. Bliss claims that the word "tabernacle" in Chap. viii, 2; ix, 11, and the word "pattern," in Chap. viii, 5; ix, 23, are metaphors. It is because we receive these words literally and not as metaphors that Bro. B. accuses us of having violated the laws of tropes. But we think that the REVIEW of July 7th clearly proves that the Herald has no ground for calling these words metaphors. If there is any farther evidence that these words are metaphors, we kindly invite the Herald to present it. If not we shall be constrained to receive these statements in their literal import. To us, there would be greater propriety in calling the tabernacle which Moses erected, a metaphor, than in calling that a metaphor which Paul says was greater and more perfect, and built by God himself. But the Herald thinks that the existence of a literal tabernacle in heaven, consisting of two holy places like the Jewish tabernacle, is not material to the question at issue; that is, it has no connection with the time of Christ's entrance into the holiest. The existence of a tabernacle in heaven consisting of two holy places, and the fact of Christ's ministration in those holy places, after the "example" of the Levitical priests in the earthly holy places, [Heb. viii, 5; ix, 1-7,] is actually all that has ever been claimed by the REVIEW. It was because that the whole frame-work of the Herald's argument rested upon the denial of this doctrine, that this part of the subject was taken up at length in the REVIEW of July 7th. We think that the unsoundness of the Herald's position on this point, was clearly shown in that paper; and we deeply regret that they did not either acknowledge the point or else show us our error. Its reasons for declining the discussion of this part of the question, we have here seen to be not valid. If the Herald will show just reasons for denying the existence of the temple of God in heaven, we will not prolong the discussion of this subject. After declining the discussion of this part of the subject, the Herald re-states its former argument from Heb. ix and x, in proof that Christ began to minister in the holiest at his ascension. As we gave this argument entire, with a reply appended to each point, in the REVIEW of July 7th, we will not occupy space in presenting it a second time. But though our brethren of the Herald thus carefully state their own argument the second time, they omit every argument presented by the REVIEW in reply, with the exception of a single item, viz: the fact that the word rendered "holiest of all" in Heb. ix, 8, is plural, literally signifying holy places. On this the Herald says: "Admitting that point, it would still be true that when the Jewish tabernacle ceased to be significant, Christ would have entered into whatever the holy places signified, and therefore into that typified by the second as well as by the first." We think the Herald draws very hasty conclusions from this text. Admitting this literal translation of the word, it would then follow that the two holy places of "the pattern" had corresponding holy places in the true tabernacle. And that the continuance of the "figure" or "pattern" through the typical dispensation, signified that the way of the true holy places was not yet manifested. The statement of Paul does not prove that the Lord Jesus began to fulfill the work in both apartments at the same time. On the contrary, it is in perfect accordance with his own statement in another place, viz: that the priests in their ministration in the two holy places of the pattern, served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things; that is, of Christ's more excellent ministry in the true tabernacle. The Herald presents in conclusion the criticism of a correspondent on the word rendered "holiest of all" in Heb. ix and x. The writer says: "In Heb. ix, 3, 8, 12, 24, 25; and x, 19 and xiii, 11, the plural of hagion is used in some one of its cases. To build a hypothesis on the use of this plural form in these cases, though it must, according to the usage of our own language, imply more than one object, will appear ridiculous to any one who is at all familiar with Hebrew, or with any of its cognate dialects, as Chaldnic or Syriac." The reason assigned is that "the Hebrew has a plural of excellence applied to objects that in their nature are singular." And that in the Septuagint and New Testament Greek, this Hebrew usage is followed in many instances. The writer cites Lev. xxi, 22, as an instance in which this plural of excellence, is in the original applied to each of the holy places. But he also shows that in other cases they are written in the singular as in English. The writer of this criticism labored under a mistake in supposing that the view of Christ's ministration in the two holy places of the heavenly Sanctuary, grew out of the fact that the word hagion in Heb. ix, 8, is plural, literally signifying holy places. This is a mere item among many important facts on which our faith is based. The fact that the Herald, in replying to us, based its main argument on the expression "holiest of all" in Heb. ix and x, made it perfectly proper that we should name the fact that the word is plural, simply signifying holy places, and that these texts are, therefore, in perfect harmony with the plain statements which we argue in behalf of our faith. But we are willing to receive with all candor, the facts presented in this criticism. We inquire then, does this criticism furnish a very firm foundation for the Herald's argument? The facts being given us by this writer, we may be allowed to judge of the amount of support which they furnish the Herald.—We will state the matter in few words, requesting the reader to observe the amount of argument presented. 1. In Hebrew and Greek, a plural of excellence is sometimes applied to each of the holy places. 2. Therefore the plural used in Heb. ix, 8, must be the plural of excellence, and a single apartment is all that is designated. 3. That single apartment is certainly the holiest. Does the fact named in the first statement, prove the points named in the second and third? By no means. All that can be claimed is, that in view of the fact named in the first statement, the second and third might perhaps be true. The second statement is pure assumption, but if we could add as a fact the second statement to the fact named in the first, the third statement would not even then be proved. Can this syllogism fortify the Herald with an invincible argument? We think not. But let us look at this matter still further. If any proof could be presented that a single apartment was all that Heb. ix, 8, designated, there would then be some reason to suppose that a plural of excellence is used in that text. But the reader will notice that in this text the word is used to designate the antitype of the two holy places, named in the six verses preceding; and that it evidently signifies the same as the greater and more perfect tabernacle named in verse 11.—Hence there is perfect propriety in believing that the whole building of the temple in heaven—the true holy places—is here designated. Doubtless the writer of the criticism knows whereof he affirms respecting "the plural of excellence."—But in citing Lev. xxi, 22, as an instance, "perfectly decisive," in which it is applied to each of the holy places of the earthly tabernacle, he has made an unfortunate selection; the reference there being not to the holy places of the tabernacle, but to the fact that a priest in whom was a blemish, should not be allowed "to offer the bread of his God," but yet should be allowed to eat that bread, both of the holy and the most holy. With regard to this bread consult Lev. ii, 1-3, 10; vi, 14-18; xxiv, 5-9; xxii, 10-12. No bread pertained to, or was offered in, the most holy place.62 In conclusion, we present for consideration, some of the leading facts on which our faith is based. 1. The Bible many times names the tabernacle, temple, or sanctuary, in heaven; we therefore believe that such a building exists. Heb. viii, 1, 2; Ps. cii, 19; Jer. xvii, 12; Ps. xi, 4; Isa. vi, 1-6; Rev. xv, 5-8; 2 Sam. xxii, 7; Ps. xviii, 6; Rev. vii, 15; xi, 19; xiii, 6; xiv, 15, 17; xvi, 1, 17; Heb. ix, 11. 2. The Bible repeatedly testifies that the earthly sanctuary which consisted of two holy places [Ex. xxvi, 33; Heb. ix, 1-5,] was made by Moses in strict accordance with the pattern showed to him in the mount; [Ex. xxv, 8, 9, 40; xxvi, 30-33; Acts vii, 44,] which pattern was a representation of the heavenly sanctuary itself. Heb. viii, 1-5; ix, 23. We therefore believe that the heavenly tabernacle consists of holy places also; and to this agrees the fact that the word rendered "Sanctuary" in Heb. viii, 3, and "holiest of all" in Chap. ix, 8; x, 19, is plural, literally signifying holy places. 3. The Bible testifies that the holy places made with hands are "the figures of the true," in the greater and more perfect tabernacle. Heb. ix, 11, 12, 23, 24. We therefore feel compelled to reject the view that the two apartments of the Jewish tabernacle were the figures of two dispensations, and believe that they represent corresponding holy places in the true tabernacle. 4. The Bible testifies that the ministration in the earthly tabernacle—the yearly round of service in its two apartments—was the shadow of good things to come; [Heb. x, 1;] and that that shadow continued till the death of Christ. Col. ii, 14-17. We therefore reject the view that locates the antitype of the ministration in the first apartment, before the death of Jesus, in the period of the shadow itself, and believe that the antitype of the service in both apartments belongs to the period in which our Lord is the High Priest of good things to come, which were shadowed forth by that ministration. Heb. ix, 11. In other words, the holy places of the worldly sanctuary, and the ministration therein belong to the shadow; the true holy places, and the ministration in them belong to the good things to come. The death of Jesus is the dividing point between the two.—Hence the antitype of the service in both apartments belongs to the gospel dispensation. 5. The Bible further testifies that the Levitical priests ministered first in the holy place, and second, in the holiest of all, [Heb. ix, 6, 7,] their final act being the cleansing of the Sanctuary. Lev. xvi. And it further declares that this round of service is the "example" of Christ's more excellent ministry in the true tabernacle. Heb. viii, 5. Webster defines the word "example" thus: "A pattern; a copy; a model; that which is proposed to be imitated. A pattern in morals or manners; a copy, or model; that which is proposed, or is proper to be imitated. 'I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you.'—John xiii." We therefore believe that the Lord Jesus must perform his ministration in each of the holy places in the order of that service which Paul has called an example, as well as a shadow of Christ's more excellent ministry. In other words, his ministry must commence in the first apartment of the heavenly tabernacle, and end with the cleansing of the Sanctuary in the holiest of all. Heb. ix, 23; Dan. viii, 15; Rev. xi, 19. The Herald exactly reverses the example, and teaches that Christ at his ascension entered into the holiest and began his work by cleansing the Sanctuary. We kindly, but urgently invite its conductors to re-examine this subject, and either to point out our error, or to acknowledge their own.
J. N. ANDREWS. Letter from Bro. Day.
By J. C. Day
DEAR BRO. WHITE :—I have before me the Watchman for March 30th, 1853, in which I find a letter from L. Boutell, written from Dartmouth, wherein he attempts to give a history of the state of the cause in that place; as also a representation of the Sabbath-keepers, their teachings, &c. Now I wish to notice some of his statements, and compare them with truth. And in doing this, perhaps we shall discover why he labors with such untiring zeal to show that the law of God does not exist; for it is an old adage, that "a drowning man will catch at a straw," especially, if there is no other way for his salvation. Now as B's influence is very extensively felt, and his points are gained more from sympathy than argument, I felt it my duty to expose his inconsistent and wicked course; for such I considered it to be. As he travels from place to place, and can find a Sabbath-keeper who has any sympathy with him, he will misrepresent and hold the Sabbath-keepers in such a light as to turn them if he can; and at the same time pretend so much love, that some even think that the Lord blesses him for exhibiting so much hatred against His own righteous law; but of such teachers, John says, if they come bringing any other doctrine, receive them not into your house neither bid them God speed. 2 John 10. I know some will think this hard, and will want us to have a great deal of charity; but if we receive such, we should receive them as enemies of God and his truth, and not servants of Jesus Christ. I will now examine some of his statements. He begins by informing the brethren of the Watchman that the church in that place is standing on the Old Jerusalem platform. With this statement, I fully agree, since Old Jerusalem is in bondage with her children, and that bondage came through disobedience to the law of God. I must believe that most of them have had sufficient light to place them upon that platform; for since the law of God is a law of prohibition and not a law of works, only those who offend it, can be said to be under it, or condemned by it. Rom. iii, 19-23. Hence, the man who violates the law of God, is condemned by it, so long as he is found in its violation. The idea that a man is under grace, who is living daily in open rebellion against the law, is as idle as any thing can be; as it takes a preparation of heart by the ministration of Jesus Christ, and the law written there by the Spirit of the living God, to constitute them under grace, or place them on the new-covenant platform. The mere idea that Jesus Christ came into this world, suffered and died, does not avail us any thing; but it is when we repent of our sins, and for his sake get a free pardon of them, that we are benefited. And we remain justified or benefited, no longer than we refrain from violating the law; but the moment we transgress, we are no longer under grace, but under the law. He next informs them that the old enemy has been that way with his chaff-basket, bringing in it that destructive heresy, the seventh-day Sabbath theory.—He says there has been quite an effort on the part of some few here, to draw away young disciples after them, while at the same time they do not believe any can be saved since 1844, as they teach that the door of mercy was then shut, that Jesus since then is not the way, but that Moses with the law of the Sabbath is the only way. And then exclaims, O! reckless rejectors of Christ and the atonement! unless they repent they will lose their own souls and destroy others. Now this statement needs no comment; for there is not an individual in Dartmouth but knows, if they know anything about the preaching there, that there is not the least semblance of truth in it. I was at the meeting to which he alludes, and heard Bro. Barr, while he clearly and forcibly set forth the reasons of our hope, and very minutely dwelt upon every point, and especially our view of the shut door.—Says B. God always blesses me in getting all I can out of it, and when I put up with them and stop over their Sabbath, I generally get them to work before night. This is part of my work. A very mean employment, indeed! God knows I wish he was about a more honorable work; and although he makes high pretensions to being a servant of God, and after the seed of Abraham, I fear he will find his descent is from another source; for while the Jews came to Christ and claimed to be the seed of Abraham, he reminded them that their works did not agree with their profession. Thus he determined their ancestry by their works. John viii, 44. He again exclaims, The third angel's message:—Only think of it!! The third angel down here, (after the other two angels, in Rev. xiv,) bearing a message laid aside more than 1800 years ago! That is a little too far apart—too much out of joint, to give life! It is a message 1800 years behind present truth. Now this presents some of the inconsistencies which characterize the preaching of that party. In the first place, more than 1800 years ago would be some forty or fifty years before John saw this in vision, A. D. 96, which would appear very strange indeed when compared with the first verse of this book. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass. And he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John. But if Eld. B. had lived in those days, with the same spirit that he now manifests, he would have said to John as he does to us, that his message was some forty or fifty years behind present truth. And this is not the only inconsistency in his preaching; for while he teaches that the message, The hour of God's judgment come, [Rev. xiv, 6, 7,] ceased more than 1800 years ago, he is very zealously contending that the year 1854 is the time when Christ will come to judge the world: but more than 1800 years ago would be in the apostles' days; and we do not find an instance of their preaching the hour of God's judgment come, but that he had appointed a day in the which he would judge the world in righteousness. Acts xvii, 31. B. continues: With these teachers, Jesus Christ's words, or the words of the apostles' weigh nothing when their theory is at stake. Now, either Paul did not tell the truth, or they do not. He said he had not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God, and he never intimated the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath, but contrariwise, that some esteem all days alike, and simply says, let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind. So I say, only do not trample on the blood of Christ, by keeping the law. They always grasp at this 14th chapter of Romans as though it was a strong argument in favor of their position; but to say nothing of the inconsistency of their charge, that we are fallen from grace by keeping the seventh day when they say that Paul gives us that privilege, it is no argument in their favor; for there can be but one consistent view taken of the language. If Paul was talking of feast-days on which the Jews eat certain meats, with bitter herbs, then his meaning is plain: they were not essential to salvation at all, no more than circumcision, and Paul says, circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the commandments of God. 1 Cor. vii, 19. Although none were bound to keep them, yet some did observe them, while others did not; yet they were not to judge each other in this matter. Now if any thing more than this is meant, then it equally proves, that part of the people did not eat in those days, as those who eat were not to judge those who eat not, &c. But B. talks a great deal about the old and new covenants, applying the term old covenant invariably to the ten commandments, and the new, to the gospel dispensation. And here is where many stumble, while they do not see the inconsistency in it; for he makes the old covenant mean the law, and while the new covenant takes the place of the old, he makes it mean the ministration. Thus he entirely overlooks the fact that both covenants are ministrations upon the same law. Under the old covenant, the law was written upon tables of stone; under the new, upon tables of the heart. Heb. viii, 10.—New mark: Moses the ministrator, or mediator of the old covenant, prepared the tables after the first were broken, on which the law was written. Deut. x, 1, 2. God himself was the writer, the ten commandments the matter written. Under the new covenant, it is through the blood of Christ that the heart is prepared. God is to be the writer, while his law is the matter written. But I will refer to one more inconsistency, and then close for the present. While they are strenuously contending that the law is done away, and has no claims upon us, they are continually harping upon the penalty—death. Poor souls, they have preached death until I fear many of them have nothing but death. But I am very thankful that there are some coming over on the side of this life-giving truth—the third angel's message. We live where there are but a few who sympathize with us in our views; and know but little what is going on in the world, except what we learn through the Review, and we do most sincerely hope it will soon be made a weekly visitor, and if the Lord will, we shall send our proportion of the means to make it each soon. Rock Bottom, Mass., Aug. 1st, 1853. COMMUNICATIONS.
By John Alexander
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—Although personally unacquainted, I take the liberty to inform you that I rejoice in the third angel's message. It is about twenty-three years since I became acquainted with the cross of my blessed Lord. I have met with a great deal of opposition, both from the world and sectarians; but by the grace of God, I have been enabled to rejoice in the truths of his Word. I first joined the Christian Church; but seeing its corruptions I left it, and stood alone on Bible truth. In 1842, the ministers persuaded me to join the Free-will Baptist Church, and use my influence in the conversion of the French Catholics in Canada East. In 1843, the first angel's message sounded in my ears, and it was glad tidings to me. And when the second angel followed, saying, "Babylon is fallen," I left her to meet the Bridegroom, on the tenth day of the seventh month, believing that he would then come to deliver his people. But, oh, how disappointed!—What heart-rending sorrow, what confusion soon followed, in the Advent bands, in Canada East, and elsewhere. Some said there was a mistake in the reckoning of the time. I could not believe this; for the Bible taught me that there would be such a cry before the Lord came, and I believed that God was in the move. I moved from Canada East, soon after, where I have heard nothing of the Lord's coming, until last April, when, by accident, a few numbers of the Review which my neighbor brought from Massachusetts for a curiosity, fell into my hands. Glory to God, it was just what I wanted. It was the very key to unlock the whole mystery of the Advent move. Amen. Glory to the most high God, who will have every jot and tittle of his Word fulfilled, and all his commandments observed and kept by the remnant of his people, who shall stand on Mount Zion with the Lamb. O, glory, hallelujah. "O, what a happy meeting,
When salvation is completed,"
and the saints have got the victory over the beast, and his image, and his mark, and the number of his name. My family are trying with me to keep all the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. I live twenty miles from any one of like precious faith. On the third day of June last, I started to find Bro. Elon Everts, seeing his name as agent in the paper. I found him and the little company keeping the commandments. I met with them on the Sabbath, and O, what a soul-reviving time it was to me. Bro. Everts exhibited his chart, and made a short explanation on the Sanctuary. A flood of light burst into my mind, and filled my soul to overflowing. "Blessed are the people that know the joyful sound; for they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of thy commandments." Truly the Word of God is a lamp—it shines the whole length of the way. I am surrounded with opposition to the seventh-day Sabbath. Anti-christ has a great many servants here in this place, and they all are very eager to serve him. But thanks be to God, he will lead the armies of Israel, and we shall be well able to go up and possess the goodly land. Never did I see the way so strait and plain before. My cry is, let the saints go through, and by the grace of God I will try to keep his commandments, and the faith of Jesus. I desire your prayers that I may overcome. I received the papers you sent me and they are welcome messengers. Their contents are meat in due season. Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when he cometh shall find so doing. Yours, waiting for redemption through our Lord Jesus Christ, at his appearing and kingdom. JOHN ALEXANDER.
Leicester, Vt., July 24th, 1853. The Church at Hamilton
By J. Hamilton
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—A sense of duty prompts me at this time to write a few lines to my dear brethren and sisters. I thank God for the soul-stirring epistles that come to us through the Review, and that we have such a medium of communication, and such means of instruction; for by it we are both edified and strengthened, while the glorious news comes to us by this messenger, that has made angels in heaven rejoice that one after another has repented of the sin of breaking God's holy law, and are resolved, by his assisting grace, to keep all his commandments. And they now give good evidence that the law is written in their hearts, and are rejoicing that they are permitted to bear some humble part in proclaiming the last notes of warning to a doomed world. O, may we all feel the responsibility that rests upon each one of us, and that without holiness no man shall see the Lord. I trust we shall all realize how strait and narrow is the path that leadeth unto life, and how few there be that find it. And as the Review is to come to us weekly, let each strive to contribute something to make it interesting. The little church in this place are united and happy in striving to keep all the commandments of God. Bro. Joseph Bates was with us Sabbath and First-day, July 23d, 24th, and fed the flock with meat in due season. His labors were blest among us. One more was brought to see the truth on the Sabbath, and third angel's message, and yesterday followed the Lord by baptism. May the Lord keep us through the patient-waiting time, unspotted from the world, ready for the coming and kingdom of Christ, is the prayer of your unworthy brother.
J. HAMILTON.
Fredonia, N. Y., July 31st, 1853. Prepared for the Lord’s Coming
By Avery Lanphear
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—I am a stranger to you personally, but through the Review, I have formed a happy acquaintance with you, and many other dear friends whose letters appear there, which are very interesting to me, and often revive my drooping spirits. There are not many about here that openly avow your principles in regard to the speedy coming of the Lord; but are putting the day far off, and I fear that it will come upon them when they are not ready, and find them without oil in their lamps. It is a dark time at present among the professed followers of Christ. Few, indeed, are those who are full of the Spirit and power of religion. O, may the Lord help, ere he comes and finds us unprepared, and we perish. Your brother in the Lord, AVERY LANPHEAR. Nile, N. Y., July 28th, 1853. THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH NOT ABOLISHED!