At the National Convention of Spiritualists in Chicago about three years since, almost the only subject of discussion was that of free love and freedom from the restraints of marriage. The following extracts from the report of that convention, given in the Chicago Times, give a good idea of the spirit of the meeting:—
"Mrs. Woodhull contended that the issue was before them clearly. They had to vote whether they were in favor of free sexual relations, unrestricted by law, or whether they were in favor of tyranny."
"The speech was received throughout with cheers from the thronged galleries, and the delegates in the body of the hall."
"She defined freedom to be in general terms, that each and every individual has the right in his or her own proper person to make use of all his or her powers and capacities as he or she may elect to do."
"It is simply none of your business what other people do, nor any of the business of society what any of its members do, unless they interfere with somebody else without his or her consent."
"What does it matter whether the child or any one knows who is the father? Is he, or is society, any the better for the knowledge?"
"If it cannot be determined what will become of the children, that fact should not be held as an obstacle to freedom, if it be proved that freedom itself is right."
"Relationship in the future will be based upon kindredness of spirit, rather than upon ties of blood; while family clanship, like all similar cliqueisms, the remnants of barbarism, will be forever banished from the earth."
"They say I have come to break up the family. I say, Amen, to that with all my heart. I hope I may break up every family in the world that exists by virtue of sexual slavery."
"Mrs. Loomis, of Battle Creek, wanted to read a poem on 'progression.' She did so, and at its close announced that copies could be had for 25 cents each. There was an immediate rush to get copies. The poem was rather blasphemous."
"Mr. B. Tod, of Michigan, also was moved by the spirit. His address was devoted chiefly to proving that no law prevented the free use of his eyes, his hands, and his feet; that it was wrong altogether to impose any restrictions upon the use of his sexual organs."
"Laura Cuppy Smith ascended the platform and delivered a thrilling address, in which she defied all the elements of society, religion, politics, etc."
A delegate charged Mrs. Woodhull with resorting to prostitution to advance the cause she was advocating. To this she replied in terms which we do not wish to publish, that it was nobody's business what she had done; and she was not ashamed of anything she had done.
This convention was largely attended from all parts of the country, and did not lack in intelligence. But Mrs. Woodhull was the leading spirit; the platform adopted fully indorsed her position, and she was elected president of the National Association of Spiritualists. Soon after that, the State Convention of Michigan also indorsed her.
The following we take from the Boston Daily Globe, being extracts from a report of a meeting in Vineland, N. J.:—
"Free love, atheism, ignorance, and presumption were the most noticeable features of the addresses then and there delivered. The grand speech of the occasion was delivered by the notorious Victoria Woodhull. It was characterized by almost revolting coarseness and hurled defiance at every precept that social law has enacted for social decency. This was no more than to be expected from such a woman, and the fact would scarcely be worth the chronicling were it not that it was warmly applauded throughout by her listeners, who only too plainly showed the goal whither Spiritualism was tending. She calmly advocated the abolition of marriage, and was proclaimed by Mrs. Laura Cuppy Smith as the 'Redeemer,' while virtue and respectability were stigmatized by the same eloquent creature as 'the two thieves on the cross.' It was argued that every married couple should separate, and the wife was denounced as a creature worse than the street-walker. This woman announced that she has declared relentless warfare against marriage, and has sworn to wage it 'until the last vestige of this remnant of savagery shall be wiped from the otherwise fair face of present civilization.'"
"These reformers, who defy God and society, assume the tone of philanthropists, and pretend to work for the good of their species; but, after all, they simply attempt to defend their own vicious practices by advocating a general indulgence to them. . . . After having blasphemed religion, laughed at the decencies of social life, scoffed at marriage, and advocated universal prostitution, this notorious woman concluded by stating that it was the sublime mission of Spiritualism to free the human race from the thraldom of matrimony and to establish sexual emancipation. There was not one word of dissent from her listeners. On the contrary, the filthy theories and the disgusting arguments were applauded to the echo. No woman was shocked and no man offended by the upholding of a theory that would reduce humanity to the level of beasts"
"We would not dwell upon this revolting subject were it not for the fact that the sentiments so boldly uttered by Mrs. Woodhull were fully indorsed by a large body of Spiritualists. We do not intend to enter upon the question of the truthfulness or the falsity of Spiritualism. We simply take its teachings as here exemplified, for the past fifteen years. What the few timid hangers-on to the skirts of this great delusion may do or believe is nothing to the point, while it is indubitable that the leaders give their support to the vilest and most destructive of doctrines. It matters not how many tables may have jumped about the room, how many raps have been heard upon the wall, how many folded papers may have been read unopened, or how many people have been told things that nobody but themselves could have known; the fact is undeniable that the most disgusting theories are accepted by Spiritualists, and that the most advanced advocates of the 'new religion' receive the vicious ravings of a Woodhull 'with cheers and enthusiasm unbounded.' Lord Brougham, Louis Napoleon, Bulwer, Lytton, and a score of other eminent men, may have been believers in the manifestations, but their belief will in no wise palliate the fact that immorality and Spiritualism go hand in hand. Even as we write we learn that one of the leading female lights of Spiritualism has just eloped with another woman's husband. In this case, it is evident that Spiritualism is progressing, since her three previous ventures she submitted to matrimony. There must be something wrong in a religion that accepts a Woodhull as its high priestess, and numbers a Cora L. V. Hatch Daniels Tappan among its most active proselytes and propagandists."
At this meeting a Dr. Fairfield said:—
"The Jews needed a Moses to lead them out of Egyptian bondage; so we need a Victoria C. Woodhull to lead society from the bondage of the marriage relations."
And the same speaker, professing to be "inspired" by the spirit of Lorenzo Dow, dismissed the meeting with the "benediction":—
"And now may the life and power, the wisdom, love, and mercy, of Victoria C. Woodhull save us from all our married curses, and bring us into individual and universal freedom, with love and good-will for all. Amen."
These are not the utterances of a few ultra fanatical Spiritualists, but they are the words which received the assent and the cheers of the whole body, with comparatively few exceptions. To prove this, Mrs. Woodhull contrasts the last with other meetings in Vineland. Formerly, the conservative element prevailed, and they, she says, "were numbered by fifties;" in this was hailed "with yells of delight the most extraordinary radical speech ever uttered," and its attendants were counted "by thousands."
Moses Hull, in a letter in Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly, avowed that he was practicing what so many were avowing in theory. A few sentences will give an idea of the whole:—
"I lived years 'in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity,' especially the bond that said: 'Forsaking all others I will cleave unto thee.'"
But he is now free from those bonds, and the reasons he urges in justification of his course are sickening and sometimes blasphemous. For what is it but blasphemy to denominate the depraved lusts of the flesh, "the law of God written in the heart"? See the following as an instance:—
"Several years have passed since the first choice between the law of God and the law of man, and I have never regretted the step, but have continued to repeat the offense against man-made institutions whenever God's law informed me commanded."
Of his home relations, he said:—
"My wife, so far as I am concerned, has had the same privileges I had taken. Whether she used them or not is not for me to say."
His wife, in the same paper of date Aug. 20, 1873, avowed the same position; and she said:—
"I am a firm believer in the doctrine, and my friends who know me best will say that I will not preach what I dare not practice."
The Banner of Light, seeming to forget its indorsement of Dr. Child's book, denounced Mr. Hull for avowing his practice. It said:—
"If such ideas are an integral part of the church to which he some time since belonged, he had better go back to it again. Spiritualism has no affinity with such grossness."
To which Mr. Hull replies:—
"Why does Luther make a dash at the church of which we were once a member? More than ten years since, we renounced that for Spiritualism, where we found just what we preach, write, and practice."
In view of the general teachings of Spiritualist authors for several years past, and of the well-known practices of some of the most celebrated mediums and lecturers, the condemnation of Mr. Hull would seem beyond explanation. But he gives a reason, as follows:—
"The result was the society with whom I had a contract, broke its engagement. In every instance where the reason was assigned, it was not my course of life, but its publication. I have more than two-score of letters on file now, indorsing my course, yet condemning its publication. Hundreds have said: 'This is right for you, and it is right for me, but it is not right for the world.' . . . My crime was, not that I urged others to believe and practice as I did, but that I published my experience."
It is a most disagreeable task to note the follies and vices of our fellow-creatures, especially when they assume a form to meet the words of the apostle in Eph. 5:12: "For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret." We cannot record their actions, even in their own language; but justice to the truth requires that the warning should be given, that those who have been slow to believe that our ideas of the signs of the times, of the fulfillment of prophecy, and of the nature of the coming perils, were correct, may be convinced by what is now transpiring before their eyes.
Mrs. Woodhull and her followers talk long and loud of the tyranny of the marriage tie, and they clamor for "freedom" and "social rights" with as much boldness as if right was on their side. They have no higher idea of freedom than that of following their own inclinations without legal or social restraint. They make no distinction between liberty and licentiousness. They are not only fitly characterized, but, again, directly referred to by the apostle Peter in his letter which speaks so much of the last days and of the coming of Christ:—
"For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption."
Marriage and the marriage institution are much abused; this all must regret. If the Spiritualists were aiming to correct these abuses of a beneficent institution we should heartily second their efforts. But they are not; they are seeking to destroy the institution itself, because it is abused; and this they call reform! as reasonable, and no more so, as to abolish the laws against theft because some men steal! Why, the fact that men show a disposition to abuse the institution and to commit adultery, is sufficient reason why there should be laws to restrain them, and thus protect society from their outrages. And this necessity for laws on this subject not only exists, but it is increasing by the increasing restlessness and lawlessness of the vicious, who are incited on to this "rebellion" and "anarchy" by just such teachings as we quote from Moses Hull, Warren Chase, and others. They are lighting the torch which must "result in a conflagration." They are opening the flood-gates of iniquity; and when we think what lies before us; of our Saviour's prophecy that the last days will be as the day when Lot went out of Sodom; of the youth and children growing up surrounded by such influences, we can but earnestly cry, "Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly."
EDITOR.
BEHOLD YOUR KING
By Francis Ridley Havergal
"Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow."—Lam. 1:12.
BEHOLD your King! Though the moonlight steals
Through the silvery shade of the olive-tree,
No star-gemmed scepter or crown it reveals,
In the solemn shades of Gethsemane;
Only a form of prostrate grief
Fallen, crushed, like a broken leaf.
Oh, think of this sorrow, that we may know
The depth of love in the depth of woe!
Behold your King! Is it nothing to you,
That the crimson tokens of agony
From the kingly brow must fall like dew,
Through the shuddering shades of Gethsemane?
Jesus himself, the Prince of Life,
Bows in mysterious mortal strife.
Oh, think of this sorrow, that we may know
The unknown love in the unknown woe!
Behold your king, with his sorrow crowned!
Alone, alone in the valley is He!
The shadows of death are gathering round,
And the Cross must follow Gethsemane.
Darker and darker the gloom must fall,
Filled is the cup—He must drink it all!
Oh, think of His sorrow, that we may know
His wondrous love in His wondrous woe!
—Francis Ridley Havergal.
Clergymen like the Stand-bys.
By Sunday Afternoon
The simple presence of such persons in the church is of itself to every minister a powerful help and encouragement. He is glad, of course, to see new faces coming in from time to time. The poor mother, the stand-by at home, who has a breakfast and a husband and half a dozen children to get ready in the morning, so that she herself can come out only now and then, whenever she does come is seen with pleasure. The young men of his flock, flowers of the kingdom, whose eyes and religious natures open usually only in the latter part of the day, but who occasionally under the inspiration of a new suit of Sunday clothes blossom out in the forenoon, excite in him till he learns better, a gleam of hope. The religious casual, the small and infrequent worshiper described by Horace, owning a pew but occupying it so seldom that when he does use it it has to be found for him by the sexton, is not by any means unwelcome; and there is always an inspiration of some sort in the great crowd of strangers who appear Sunday nights when it has been advertised that he is going to speak on the kingdom of Satan, or the doings of the devil, or the sowing of wild oats, or some kindred theme. But after all it is the stand-bys, the men—usually old ones—and the women living often farthest from the church, who are absolutely sure of being in their places punctually every Sunday, Thanksgiving and even Fast day, whatever the season or the weather or the subject may be—these that he looks upon with special delight and finds to be the fountains of his greatest earthly inspiration.—Sunday Afternoon.
Missionaries in Zululand.
THE London Times correspondent at Durban states that John Dunn, the Zuluized Scotchman, who is now the most important of the thirteen new chiefs of Zululand, has announced to the veteran missionary of Tebro, over which John Dunn is appointed, that he does not intend to allow any missionaries to settle in his territory. This is the most important of the new districts, and the nearest to Natal. The Zulus were gladly welcoming the missionaries back when they were thus stopped. It is much to be feared that the bad example thus set by John Dunn, who is a European although polygamist, may be followed by the other chiefs.
The Times says: "It will hardly be reckoned among the satisfactory results of the war now happily at an end that the missions scattered throughout Zululand should be abandoned, and that many peaceful examples of a civilized and a self-denying, not to speak of a Christian life, should hereafter be withdrawn from the country."
The Gulf Stream
THERE is a river in the ocean. In the severest drouths it never fails, and in the mightiest flood it never overflows. Its banks and the bottom are of cold water, while its current is of warm. The Gulf of Mexico is its fountain, and its mouth is the Arctic seas. It is the Gulf stream. There is in the world no other so majestic a flow of water. Its current is more swift than the Mississippi or the Amazon, and its volume more than 1000 times greater.
Its waters, so far as the Carolina coasts, are of indigo blue. They are so distinctly marked that the common sea water can be traced with the eye. Often one-half the vessel may be perceived floating in the Gulf stream water, while the other half is in the common water of the sea, so sharp is the line and the want of affinity between these waters; and such, too, the reluctance, so to speak, on the part of those of the Gulf stream to mingle with the common waters of the sea.
In addition to this, there is another peculiar fact. The fishermen on the coast of Norway are supplied with wood from the tropics by the Gulf stream. Think of the Arctic fishermen burning upon their hearths the palms of Hayti, the mahogany of Honduras, and the precious woods of the Amazon and the Orinoco.
Something on Your Head and in It
It is not advisable to go out of doors without anything on your head, nor into company without anything in it.
Matthew XXIV.
SEVERAL times we have been requested to make some remarks on certain parts of Matt. 24. Hitherto we have refrained, because we cannot consent to write so fully as others have on this portion of the sacred word, and we felt inclined to let the writings of others suffice. Several works have been published on this chapter. One is in our list of publications; a pamphlet of 80 pages, by Elder James White. We recommend this to all readers as full of instruction, and doubtless the best on this subject. It sheds great light on this and kindred scriptures.
But some questions are still presented by those who have read on this subject, as to the literalness of the coming of Christ, that is, whether he will come in person, or only by his Spirit; and as to the chronology of Matthew 24, that is, whether it refers to events in the past or in the future. Now we have no idea that all will be satisfied on these questions by any evidence that may be presented; for, at this age, a strong effort is being made by many styling themselves evangelical, to do away with the faith of Christ's personality in the second advent. The second question really depends upon this.
In complying with these several requests we do not propose to traverse the ground at length which has been thoroughly examined by others, but shall confine ourselves as nearly as possible to the points stated.
Perhaps there is no chapter in the entire Bible which has been the subject of greater controversy than Matt. 24. But the nature of the controversy has almost entirely changed within the last forty years. Forty years ago the controversy was between the Universalists and orthodox Christians. The Universalists denied that there is to be any future judgment and punishment. Of course they referred the 24th chapter of Matthew altogether to the destruction of Jerusalem—to the past. Evangelical Christians then denied that it referred solely to the destruction of Jerusalem; they affirmed that it taught a personal coming of Christ, to reward his saints and to take vengeance on his foes. Those commentators who referred it in general to the destruction of Jerusalem in their expositions, yet admitted that it had a further reference to the second advent and the end of the world. They uniformly applied part of the Saviour's discourse in chapters 24 and 25 to the latter event.
The Universalists now take a different position; they have mostly become Restorationists, admitting that there will be some punishment, even in the future. But they contend that it will be disciplinary or reformatory. They still maintain their former position that Matt. 24 has no relation to that future punishment, but refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.
The opponents of Universalism, in the churches, have also changed their base, in part. While they yet contend that there will be a future judgment and eternal punishment, they now deny that Matt. 24 proves anything in regard to that day, or event, and affirm that it was all fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem. They are also extensively changing their position in regard to the nature of the second advent, many of them agreeing with the Universalists, saying that the advent is figurative or spiritual and has already taken place. From present indications we think that this will very soon be the prevailing opinion in all the popular churches. Many of their ablest and most influential men now advocate this view. A little more change in the same direction will unite them fully with the Universalists in a denial of the future coming of Christ, of a personal, literal advent, and of any real, tangible punishment of the wicked. They find it no more difficult to spiritualize the judgment and punishment, than the coming of the Lord. Very many of them now assert that the Bible expressions concerning the perdition of the wicked, such as those in 2 Thess. 1, and 2 Peter 3, and Rev. 20, are to be taken figuratively—not at all literally.
We think we do not over-estimate the extent and importance of the changes which are taking place in the churches. They are fast wheeling into line under the banner of old-fashioned Universalism on the points here indicated, which, indeed, cover nearly all the former ground of difference between them.
We are very confident that Matt. 24 reaches to matters beyond the destruction of Jerusalem, and into the yet future; and that it refers to a literal, personal, visible coming again of our glorified Saviour. But the instruction which it contains was not given to prove this truth—that his coming will be personal or literal. This, now, has become the chief point of controversy on the chapter, whereas it is not made a point at all in the chapter. To this we shall call further attention hereafter.
Two questions were asked by the disciples:—
1. "When shall these things be?" On this no controversy has ever been raised. It is universally conceded that it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, or the overthrow of the temple, of which he had but recently spoken.
2. "What shall be the sign of thy coming, and the end of the world?" This is but one question. The coming of Christ and the end of the world are so closely related that they may properly be embraced in one statement. See a parallel case in the first letter to the Thessalonians. The writer speaks of the coming of the Lord (the Lord himself), and adds; "But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." The "times and seasons" of the advent and the resurrection, of which he had just spoken, are identical with those of the day of the Lord. This phrase—the day of the Lord—covers a period immediately subsequent to "the day of salvation," this latter being applied to this present dispensation.
Several points of query must be noticed:—
(1.) "The end of the world." It is asserted that this is a wrong translation; that it should be "the end of the age," and that it refers to "the Jewish age." If we grant the first part of this statement, we cannot also grant the second. But we do not admit the first. We believe that the Authorized Version gives correctly the idea of such passages as Luke 1:70; John 9:32; and Heb. 1:2. The rendering of this latter text by the Emphatic Diaglott (on account of whom he constituted the ages), is not sustained by the lexicons, by authorities, nor by such passages as Col. 1:16. The point is not of sufficient importance in the discussion of this question to warrant an extended criticism. We will only say that Greenfield gives as one meaning of the original, "the world, universe;" and this is sustained by other authorities.
But, allowing that it should be rendered, "end of the age," it does not follow, by any means, that it refers to the Jewish age, or past dispensation. It certainly does not in Matt. 28:20. The promise that He will be with his ministers "until the end of the age," certainly refers to that age in which they are to preach the gospel, for these words are in the gospel commission. It is to the end of this same age to which Matt. 24:14 refers. The question was in regard to the end of the world (or age, if preferred). He said, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come." This is decisive on the point, for (a.) they were to tarry at Jerusalem, after receiving their commission, until the day of pentecost, and then they were to be his witnesses to the nations. (b.) The Jewish age ended before the preaching to the nations commenced; therefore it is impossible that Matt. 24 and 28 should refer to that age.
An effort has been made to put forward the ending of the Jewish age to the destruction of Jerusalem. But it is exceedingly lame. To prove that, it will be necessary to show that the Christian dispensation was not fully opened until the destruction of Jerusalem! This is disproved by the whole body of the teachings of the New Testament. Paul settles the question in affirming that the peculiarities of that age were taken out of the way—nailed to the cross.Col. 2:14. If the gospel dispensation was not opened by the preaching of the apostles on the day of pentecost, and afterward by turning to the Gentiles to preach the gospel to them, then it has not yet been opened.
It is a settled question. The end of the age, or end of the world, in Matt. 24, is the utmost limit of the gospel dispensation. And we shall offer proof most positive that the second coming of Christ is at the end of this dispensation.
(To be Continued.)
The Sanctuary.
By John Nevins Andrews
In the great Advent movement under the preaching of William Miller and his fellow laborers, the evidence was brought out with great clearness that the 2300 days would end in 1844. He believed that the sanctuary to be cleansed is our earth. He found no testimony in the Bible that the earth is the sanctuary, but he did find that the earth is to be purified by fire (2 Pet. 3:7-13), and so he inferred that this was the sanctuary which Michael said should be cleansed at the end of 2300 days. He therefore concluded that this period was given to mark the time of Christ's coming. And as it was sufficiently evident from the several great lines of prophecy in Daniel and Revelation, and from the signs of the times, that the advent of Christ was at the doors, the time was preached in connection with the signs with very great solemnity and power.
But though it could be clearly shown that the 2300 days actually ended in 1844, the Advent people were doomed to a great disappointment. The ending of the 2300 days was not the time appointed of God for the coming of Christ, nor for the burning of the earth. But the great Advent disappointment made it necessary that two important questions should be carefully studied.
1. What is the sanctuary of the Bible?
2. What is meant by the cleansing of the sanctuary?
The fact that the cleansing of the sanctuary is an event located in the prophecy in the very conclusion of one of Daniel's great prophetic chains, shows that it is an event of deep interest to mankind. And as we live at a time when the 2300 days are in the past, we are most deeply concerned to understand the nature of the work called the cleansing of the sanctuary.
The Bible is full of the subject of the sanctuary, and we shall find it a theme of intense interest if we give it careful study. The Bible doctrine of the sanctuary is this: That the sanctuary is the place where the high priest stands to offer blood before God for the sins of those who come to God through him. The central object in the sanctuary is the ark which contains the law of God that man has broken. The cover of this ark was called the mercy-seat, because mercy came to those who had broken the law beneath it, when the high priest sprinkled the blood of sin-offering upon it, provided they accompanied his work by repentance and faith. Last of all was the work of cleansing the sanctuary when the high priest by blood removed the sins of the people from the sanctuary into which they had been borne by the ministration of the priests before God. We now invite attention to the testimony of the Bible respecting the sanctuary.
1. There are two covenants; the first, or old covenant, extends from the time of Moses to the death of Christ; the second, or new covenant, begins at the death of Christ and extends forward to the consummation. Gal. 4:24-26; Heb. 8:7-13; Luke 22:20.
2. The first covenant had a sanctuary, which was the tabernacle erected by Moses. Heb. 9:1-17.
3. The new covenant has a sanctuary which is the temple of God in Heaven, into which our High Priest entered when he ascended up on high. Heb. 8:1-5.
4. When Moses erected the tabernacle, he was commanded by God to make it according to the pattern which he showed to him; and this pattern must have been a representation of the temple of God in Heaven; for the earthly sanctuary is declared to be a pattern of the heavenly. Ex. 25:9, 40; Heb. 8:5; 9:23.
5. The earthly sanctuary consisted of two holy places; the first of which contained the table of shew-bread, the candlestick with seven lamps, and the golden altar of incense; and the second contained the ark of God's testament with the tables on which the ten commandments were written by the finger of God, and over which was the mercy-seat with the cherubim of glory overshadowing it. Ex. 40:18-28; Heb. 9:1-5.
6. The temple of God in Heaven is not only spoken of as the original from which the earthly sanctuary was copied, (Heb. 9:23, 24; 1 Chron. 28:11, 12, 19;) but it is also spoken of as consisting of holy places, in the plural, Heb. 8:2; 9:8, 12, 24; 10:19, in each of which verses the original is holy places, in the plural, and they are so rendered in various translations.
The word sanctuary in the Bible, except in the few cases where it is used figuratively, refers always to the place in which the high priest ministers before God for the sins of the people. It was first the tabernacle erected by Moses; then it was the temple built by Solomon, which was a more glorious structure than the tabernacle, but with the same two holy places; and when the typical sacrifices ended in the death of Christ, who is the true sin-offering, the earthly sanctuary, or holy places, ceased to be the center of God's worship, and Christ entered the temple in Heaven as a great High Priest—the Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. The temple of God in Heaven is the sanctuary from which the psalmist says the Lord beheld the earth (Ps. 102:19), and which Jeremiah speaks of as being where the throne of God is found. Jer. 17:12; Rev. 16:17.
The ministration in the earthly sanctuary could not actually take away sins; for it had only the blood of bulls and goats to offer. Heb. 10:4. It was ordained for the purpose of instructing men with reference to the work of Christ, and of encouraging them to look forward to his work. It is a shadow or representation of the service of Christ in the sanctuary of God in Heaven. Heb. 8:5; 10:1; Col. 2:17. It took one year to complete the round of service in the earthly sanctuary, at349the end of which the cleansing of the sanctuary took place. The round of service was repeated each year, even as a shadow is renewed each day. But the ministration of Christ which casts this shadow fills out each part of the work once for all, and is not repeated. We shall therefore find the study of the service in the earthly sanctuary full of instruction as to the work of Christ in the sanctuary above.
The ministration in the first apartment occupied the entire year, with the exception of one day, which was devoted to work in the second apartment, or most holy place, to close up the work which had been wrought in the first apartment. The work in the first apartment was on this wise: When a man repented of his sin, he brought a sin-offering to the priest to the door of the sanctuary. Then he confessed his sin to the priest, and put his hand upon the head of his offering to indicate the transfer of the guilt from himself to his offering. Then the victim was slain because of that guilt thus transferred to it, and the blood, representing the life of the victim, was taken by the priest and carried into the sanctuary, and sprinkled there before God. This act was the offering of the life of an innocent victim in the place of the life of him who had broken the law of God, and it was the transfer of that man's guilt from himself to the sanctuary of God. See Lev. 4, and the parallel scriptures. This was the most important feature of the work in the first apartment, and by it the guilt of the penitents was transferred from themselves to the tabernacle.
On the tenth day of the seventh month, which was called the day of atonement, the ministration was transferred to the second apartment, or most holy place. Lev. 16. By God's direction, the high priest on this day caused two goats to be brought to the door of the sanctuary. On these he was to cast lots. One was for the Lord, the other was for Azazel. Then he slew the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell, and took his blood to present it before God as a sin-offering in the most holy place, sprinkling it upon the mercy-seat. He did this for two purposes: 1. To make atonement for the people. 2. To cleanse the sanctuary by removing from it the sins of the people of God. Lev. 16:15-19.
The sanctuary being cleansed, the high priest comes out of the building, and having caused the other goat to be brought, which was for Azazel, he lays both his hands upon his head, and confesses over him all the transgressions of the children of Israel in all their sins. These he puts upon the head of the goat, and sends him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness. And it is said that "the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited." Verses 20-22.
The work of the high priest on this great day of atonement was for the purpose of completing the work which had been partially accomplished in the first apartment. By the work in that apartment, the sins had been transferred to the sanctuary through the blood of sin offering. By the work in the second apartment, the sanctuary is cleansed and the sins of the people of God blotted out. Such was the work in the earthly sanctuary, and such was the cleansing of the sanctuary as set forth in the example and shadow of heavenly things.
The earthly sanctuary was only made as the pattern of the sanctuary in Heaven. Heb. 8 and 9. Itself and its services pertained only to the first covenant. Heb. 9:1. With the introduction of the new covenant came the real sanctuary of God, the tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man. Heb. 8:1, 2. While the first tabernacle stood, it signified that the way into the holy places of the heavenly temple was not opened. Heb. 9:8. 'But when our Lord ascended on high, he became a great High Priest, and by his own blood he entered the temple of God. Verses 11, 12. The order of his ministration is clearly indicated by the service in the two apartments of the earthly sanctuary. Heb. 8:5; 9:8-12; 10:1. And we are able to trace the ministration of Christ in these two apartments of the temple above in the New Testament.
Thus, when John looked into the temple of God in Heaven, he saw the Father sitting upon the throne, and before the throne were seven lamps burning. Rev. 4. In this place also he saw the Son of God. Rev. 5. Before the throne also stood the golden altar of incense. Rev. 8:3. These things do clearly mark the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and show that this was the place where our Lord began his ministration as our High Priest. J. N. A.