Earlier text: The only Safe PositionCarlow’s Defense of the Sabbath
From "Carlow's Defense of the Sabbath."
PUBLISHED IN LONDON, 1724. "Perhaps a man may say, with Samuel, 'Whom have I defrauded? whose ox or ass have I taken?' Some, though they have not thieved from their neighbor, yet have stolen from God the time of his holy day. Who is not afraid to be found such a felon? As the blessed body of Christ was crucified between two thieves, so this blessed day of God is now crucified between those called Christians and the Turks. The Christians keep the first day, and the Turks keep the sixth day. As Herod and Pilate both agreed for Christ's death, so these both join against the Lord's seventh-day Sabbath; and good Lord help them who labor to rescue it?" Austin well observes, that robbers are worse than thieves. Thieves take goods secretly by fraud, when the owners are not aware; but robbers take openly, by force, the owners looking on. Thus men take away the Sabbath day under God's all-seeing eye. That which God holds, they profanely pluck away." REMARKS IN KINDNESS.
By Editor
We have received a letter from Bro. T— of Broadabbin, N. Y., which we wish to notice, not only for the benefit of the writer, but others in a similar position. T—I have no disposition to say anything disrespectful of the paper, or any of the writers. But can say with Paul: With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment; . . . he that judgeth me is the Lord. If I rightly understand the Review, it teaches or judges thus: They that keep the seventh-day Sabbath have the Seal of the Living God. They that keep the first day as the Sabbath, and they that believe that the Sabbath is abolished, have the mark of the beast. I do not find that the Lord in his word judges thus. But the Lord does say by Paul, Let no man judge you in meats or in drinks, or in the keeping of a Sabbath. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Reply—We are far from believing that all Sabbath-keepers have the seal of the living God. The Jew that in his blindness rejects Jesus cannot have that seal, though he outwardly observes the fourth commandment. That then is to be a sign, distinguishing mark, or seal of God, that is to distinguish God's people in the time of trouble when the mark of the beast shall be enforced, is evident. And we are of the humble opinion that the despised Sabbath of the living God will be that very distinguishing sign. But let no one suppose that the "Review and Herald" teaches that those who embrace the Sabbath are now sealed and sure of heaven, for it teaches no such thing. In that hour of conflict, the time of trouble such as never was, when the mark of the beast shall be enforced, none will be able to stand, and bear the distinguishing sign or seal of God, only those who are sanctified through the whole truth, and washed from all sin, by the blood of Christ. May the Lord prepare Sabbath-keepers to stand in that time, and bear the seal of the living God. After they keep all the commandments, and repent before God of past transgression of his holy law, their only hope of salvation is through faith in the atoning blood of Jesus. A man may outwardly observe all ten of the commandments of God, yet if he is not benefited by the atonement of Jesus it will profit him nothing. But the doctrine that one may live in constant violation of the law of the Father, and still be saved through faith in his Son, is a heresy that we fear, will sink souls in perdition. The Jew may be tenacious for the law of the Father, and reject the Son; the professed Christian may boast of his faith in the Son and reject the commandments of the Father, but will not both sink in perdition together if they remain in unbelief. O Lord, help thy people to see that "here are they that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus." God forbid that we should make void thy law through faith. We do not teach that those "that keep the first day as a Sabbath, and they that believe the Sabbath is abolished, have the mark of the beast." We have shown that there is no divine authority for observing the first day of the week, as the Sabbath. We have also shown that it is an institution of Papacy. And we have given some of our reasons for believing that the observance of the first day of the week is to constitute the mark of the beast, when the line shall be drawn between the worshipers of the beast and image, and the worshipers, or servants of God. Says the third angel, "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark," &c. This is a warning to those to whom the message is to be given not to receive the mark; consequently, they have not the mark now, in the sense it is yet to be received by the worshipers of the beast. Christians who have conscientiously observed the first day of the week, in time past, whose minds were never called to investigate the Sabbath question, certainly did not receive the mark of the beast. But after the true light on this subject shall be given, and that period of anguish when the mark of the beast shall be enforced shall have come, and the division made between the worshipers of God and the worshipers of the beast, then will be the danger of receiving the mark of the beast. In view of that decisive hour, the third angel gives his warning message, that we may be prepared to stand, and not receive the mark of the beast, instead of the seal of the living God. The burden, the loud cry of this message, is evidently future. Our object is to give our views in the spirit of the gospel, and we know not why we should be charged with judging others, more than those who differ from us, and give their views of Bible truth. Some seem to forget that they differ from us as far as we do from them. It is not our work to judge and pass sentence upon any one. Some rash spirits have greatly erred here. We wish to speak the truth in the spirit of Jesus, with all boldness, and let that do its work, on the heart. But when we do this, we are at once "judged" as having a lack of charity and of judging others. But we cannot stop here. Let others plead charity, and we will preach the truth. Charity ever "rejoiceth in the truth." See 1 Cor. xiii. 6. Bro. T. has greatly erred in saying that the Lord says by Paul, "Let no man judge you in the keeping of a Sabbath;" for Paul has not thus spoken. He has said, however, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new-moon, or of the sabbath-days; which are a shadow of things to come." Col. ii, 16, 17. Our views of this text may be seen in No. 6. of the "Review and Herald," Vol. II. We say that Col. ii, 16 and 17, as far as we do, do not refer to the Sabbath of the Lord, but to those sabbath-days which are associated with "meat" "drink" and feast-days of the law of Moses. When God wrote his law on the tables of stone he associated the Sabbath with nine other moral precepts. He has associated the ceremonial sabbaths with the other ceremonies of Moses' law. T—Jesus says, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment: And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On those two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Also, love is the fulfilling of the law. Surely this is good authority. We are certainly required to be the children of God every day. We cannot expect to be more. If indeed we keep the seventh day as was required of the Jews, it cannot add anything to our favor, because love fulfills it. It appears evident that our Lord foresaw what time and circumstances have proved, that even his children in this life would not be one, or united in belief, or in deeds; therefore, under his gospel dispensation, the broad principle or requirements are based on love; love to God and our fellow men. This fulfills all law and commandments. Having this principle and spirit within his children may be one. On this principle our Saviour says, be ye one even as I and my Father are one. The blessed promise is that all things shall work together for good to those that love God. I am far from being capable of teaching others, neither wish I to judge others, but have investigated the subject for myself, I trust without the fear or favor of any man; and expect soon to give an account at the judgment seat of Christ. And if found wanting on account of not keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, I feel free to think, at least, that a part of my blood will be found at Paul's and Jesus' hands. Reply—If we understand Bro. T. he thinks the two great commandments have in the gospel dispensation taken the place of the ten, or "all law and commandments." But has Jesus thus taught? We answer he has not. Our friends who bring this objection should first notice that Jesus was stating the condition of the commandments in the law at that time, and not what would be, in the new dispensation, after his crucifixion. Mark this: The lawyer does not ask, which would be the great commandment in the law, in the new dispensation, at a future period, but what was then the great commandment. Jesus then shows the two great principles on which God's law then hung, ever had hung, and on which it now hangs; love to God, and love to one another. Now Bro. T. will see that instead of Jesus teaching a change in his Father's law, he has shown it to hung on principles as immutable as God himself. When God can be abolished, those principles on which the law of God hangs can be abolished, and then and not till then, will the ten precepts of his moral government fall. We very much regret that Bro. T. should say that he had investigated this subject before discovering this great error in applying the words of Jesus. Now we may see how love, instead of breaking the law, fulfills it. He who loves God will certainly keep those four precepts which he wrote on the first table of stone, which hung on the principles of love to God. Has one fallen off? Never. He will also observe the other six precepts which hang on the principle of love to our neighbor. "This is the love of God that we keep his commandments." 1 John v, 3. But how does Bro. T. have the fourth commandment fulfilled in love? Does he show that he loves God with all his heart in the act of treading down his Holy Day? So the profane swearer may show his love and fulfill the law of taking God's Name in vain, and the thief may fulfill the law in stealing? It will be seen at once that the only way to fulfill the law relative to our neighbor, and show our love to him, is to observe those six moral precepts showing our duty to him. And no one has ever thought of fulfilling the first, second and third commandments in any other way than to observe the letter of these three precepts. Then, in the name of reason and religion, why not fulfill the fourth commandment in the same way?101 We think the remark of Bro. T. relative to a part of his blood being found at Paul's and Jesus's hands quite presumptuous. After reading his letter and seeing that he had mis-quoted Paul, and strangely mis-applied the words of the Son of God, (as many professed teachers have done,) we were pained and grieved at the expression, which seemed to us no near blasphemous. Our heart yearns over misguided souls who are taught to violate God's immutable law, and speak in reference to it with irreverence. If they thus continue while the light of truth is shining around them they must certainly find, that instead of their blood being found at the hands of Jesus and Paul, it will be upon their own heads. Dodging the Real Questions.
I see that Elder Marsh is amusing himself and others by loudly demanding that we should prove that God has given the fourth commandment a second time. This is an artful dodging of the real question. What has become of the fourth commandment? What has become of the oracles of God? Does the New Testament teach their abolition or their perpetuity? These are the real questions at issue, and they place the burden of proof on the shoulders of M. “Take heed that no man deceive you.” J. N. Andrews. This very important duty enjoined upon the church by our Divine Lord is greatly neglected. It is not enough to merely read the Bible as we would read other books; for its precious truths are given in such a manner, "precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little," that it is necessary to search the Sacred Volume. There never was more need of searching the scriptures than at the present time. The varied forms of deceptive error that are now in existence, and so industriously propagated, make it necessary that we should search the scriptures, and search them diligently and with great care. Said Paul to Timothy, "Preach the Word," and assigns this reason, that the time would come when men would not endure sound doctrine, but turn their ears from the truth unto fables. That time has certainly come. Those who preach, should preach the Word; not the commandments and traditions of men; not the "Fathers," but the word of God. That will abide for ever. Our position is one that requires study. Those who observe the Sabbath of the Bible, have taken a bold position, and in order for them to maintain it, and enlighten others around them, they must be prepared to give from the Bible the reasons of their faith. Those who observe the first day of the week, as a Sabbath seldom feel the importance of searching the scriptures for light on the Sabbath question. That theory will stand best where the Bible is not searched. But those that turn aside from the multitude, to observe the weekly memorial of Jehovah's Rest, and stand out boldly in its defense, can but feel the importance of a thorough knowledge of the subject. The course that has been pursued by our opponents for a few years past, in taking the many positions they have taken against the Sabbath, (positions perfectly destructive of each other,) is sufficient to show that they will try every possible means to keep the children of the Lord from embracing it. These false theories are calculated to confuse the minds of those who do not search the scriptures for themselves. In order to stand firm in the truth and in this warfare "bear hardness as good soldiers," we must be armed with scriptural reasons of our faith. The brethren who have the privilege of hearing and reading the reasons of our position should be prepared to teach them to others; but instead of this, in some cases they have need that one teach them the first principles of the truth. Some cannot grasp an argument as readily as others, nor retain it as long; but in many cases it is for want of interest, in the truth, and a knowledge of the Word. Such should search the scriptures with redoubled energy, patiently and prayerfully. The Spirit of God will then help their infirmities, and lead their minds fruitfully into the unfolding truths of the Bible. Those who really love the precious word of God, do not have to go abroad for joys, having a feast at home. It is evident that the proclamation of the message of the third angel is attended with the special blessing of the Lord. This is no small evidence in favor of the correctness of our position; yet it would be extremely unsafe to settle down on this evidence alone, without being able to give from the Bible the reasons of our faith. Many believed the Advent, while powerful revivals, and the conversion of thousands resulted from the labors of those that proclaimed it. But as they did not search the scriptures, and learn their true position from the Bible, when the trial of their faith came, they could not endure. The only safe position then was to study the evidences of the Advent faith. Those who neglected to do so, and trusted to be led by the Spirit alone, or were willing to rest down on the evidence that God was in the Advent movement, without studying the Word, have in the scattering time been dreadfully shaken. But very few if any have any faith at the present time. This is sufficient to show that our only safe position is to have our faith based on the word of the Lord, and that it is the duty of every brother and sister to search the scriptures, and know the reasons of their faith. No means will be left untried to turn you from the truth. Every objection that can be raised against it, you will doubtless hear sooner or later. And then there is a scene of anguish before us that will try men's souls, and will shake everything that can be shaken. Brethren, have your feet upon the rock. Know why you believe. Stand fast, be strong. Be ready to give the reasons of your faith with meekness. REPLY TO MARY A. SEYMOUR.
By John Nevins Andrews
An article in the "Harbinger" for January 31, from the pen of Mary A. Seymour, seems to demand a brief notice. The cause of truth is the Lord’s; but this consideration does not excuse us from speaking out in its behalf. It is not pleasant to me to point out the errors or the faults of another, but I shall not on this account refrain from speaking. Some one, it seems, had been kind enough to send to the writer of the article in question, a quantity of publications on the subject of the “present truth,” for which the only thanks given, consist in a sneer.—The result of the investigation, she thus states: “The conclusion of the whole matter with us is as follows: First, God gave the Sabbath to the Jews and them only, as a distinctive sign betwixt them and himself, because that was his rest-day, and because he had brought them out of the land of Egypt. I do not learn that this rest-day was ever given to the Gentiles. And it seems to me that those who keep it might take to themselves the admonition of the wise man when he says, ‘Be not righteous over-much, neither make thyself over-wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself.’ Eccl. vii. 16.” These inferences, which are all the testimony that she offers to justify herself in the violation of the fourth commandment, have been repeatedly exposed. It is nowhere stated in the Holy Scriptures that the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel because that it was made “for the natural seed of Abraham.” Yet this inference is regarded by many, as “direct and positive” testimony. Read Eze. xx. When God took Israel by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, some of them were defiled by its idols, (while every nation around them was wholly sunk in idolatry.) “Hallow my Sabbath,” saith God to them, and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God. Look back upon that scene for a moment. See every nation under heaven, the Hebrew nation excepted, bowing down to the gods that their own hands had made, or else worshiping the host of heaven. But mark the Hebrews. Six days with patient industry, they labor, but on the seventh all is hushed; they rest from all their work. What meaneth all this? Could we call up one of those “holy men of old” and ask him, he would answer, “We worship not the idols of gold and silver, we worship not the work of our own hands, we worship not the Sun, the Moon, or the Stars, but we worship Him, who in six days created all these things and rested on the seventh. This sign, Jehovah’s rest-day from his work of creation, points us to the True God in distinction from all false gods; this sign designates us as his people in distinction from all around, who are idolaters.” This great memorial is a bulwark erected by Jehovah, which atheism and idolatry can never overthrow; it points us back to a God, it points out the True God. The Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel, for a certain period, as it designated the Hebrews as the worshipers of “the True God,” in distinction from the nations around them who worshiped “the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth.” Jer. x, 10—12. But this no more proves that the fourth commandment is now abolished, than the fact that the “Lord of the Sabbath” is now a sign that is spoken against, proves that he will be abolished, when he shall cease to be such a sign. Luke ii, 34; xi, 29, 30. It is very true that God says he had brought Israel out of “the house of Bondage,” and that he therefore commanded them to keep his Sabbath, but this text does not utter a word respecting the origin of the Sabbath. The text presents no objection, when we reflect that the children of Israel could not keep the Sabbath in “the iron furnace” of Egyptian Servitude. Ex. ii, 23, 24; iii, 7, 9; Jer. xi, 4. The fact that God in the most solemn manner made “known unto them his Holy Sabbath,” is far from proving that he then made it for them; it proves quite the reverse of this. The account of the creation of the man, the woman and the Sabbath, may be read in Gen. ii. Paul says the man was not “created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” 1 Cor. xi, 9. Christ says the Sabbath was “made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Mark ii, 27. The principles of logic that would make the word “man” in these texts mean merely the Jews, (in the face of the fact that the Jewish nation did not exist for 2000 years,) would probably find no trouble in showing from Heb. ix, 27, that the Jews were the only persons appointed “once to die,” or from Job. xiv, 12, that they are the only persons to be raised from the dust of the earth. “But the Sabbath was given to the Hebrews.” Truth; so also were the other “oracles of God,” when Jehovah spake to them from the Holy Mount. Acts vii, 38; Rom. iii, 1, 2; 1 Pet. iv, 11. This fact in the estimation of many, may make the ten “lively oracles” all “Jewish,” and a “thing of naught;” for the first, fifth, or seventh, is quite as “Jewish,” as the fourth. But the Apostle extends his remarks respecting these oracles of God from Rom. iii, 1, 2, to verse 19, where he declares that this Holy Law condemns the whole world, and shows all men guilty in the sight of God. And in verse 31, that it is not made void by faith, but established by it. But I will submit the point in a tangible manner: The Gentiles were amenable to the moral law, or they were not. If they were not amenable to the moral law, then we must regard them as moral beings, but accountable to no God, except those of their own creating. But if they were amenable to the moral law, we add that the fourth commandment was an important part of that law. “The Royal Law” has been abolished, or it has not. If it has been abolished, then no one of its precepts exist to hold men in “bondage,” or to destroy their “liberty,” for the man does not exist, that can show when, where, or by whom, any one of them have been re-enacted. But if it has not been destroyed, Gentiles as well as Jews are under the most solemn obligations to “keep the commandments of God.” We have now examined all the inferences by which the writer excuses herself in breaking the fourth commandment, and teaching men so; [Matt. v, 17—19;] will they avail her in the day when “the penalty of the law” shall be inflicted on every soul of man that doeth evil? She attempts, indeed, to make “the wise man” speak against those who keep the fourth commandment. But if he is capable of speaking for himself, she has sadly perverted his words. Having given what she calls “the conclusion of the whole matter,” she now calls on him to bear testimony in her behalf. He has spoken more to the point than she seems to perceive. We will abide his decision. It is as follows: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Eccl. xii, 13, 14. “The conclusion of the whole matter” as stated by Solomon, is exactly the reverse of that stated by Mrs. S. “To fear God and to keep his commandments” is in her estimation to be over-righteous; in the estimation of Solomon, it is “the whole duty of man.” As the matter will soon be brought “into judgment, with every secret thing,” it will then be seen whose words shall stand, his or hers. We inquire however, what it is to be righteous, if to keep the commandments of God is to be “over righteous,” and to keep the “rest-day,” “made for man,” is to “destroy thyself?” The writer next declares that there is not a “shadow of a shade of proof,” that that Papal institution, the first day Sabbath, is the mark of the Beast. This is a “short and easy method” to dispose of an unwelcome subject. That that institution did originate with the great Papal apostasy, and that it is the most prominent mark of that power that should, in its arrogant, blasphemous assumptions, “think to change times and laws,” [Dan. vii, 25], cannot be denied. The mark of the beast stands in the message of the third angel in opposition to the commandments of God. Those who will show any other Papal institution universally observed by Protestants as well as Papists, which directly makes void one of the commandments of God, will do something towards disproving the point. It is the act of the dragon (or of the Two-horned Beast when he shall speak as a dragon, and make war on the commandment keepers) that will, I understand, bring this matter to a test, and constitute it emphatically the mark of the Beast, or mark of that power that should “THINK TO CHANGE TIMES AND LAWS.” When at the house of Mrs. S. I pointed to the open, and to the shut door of the Sanctuary, as represented on the chart, [see Rev. iii, 7, 8] and spoke a few words with reference to the ministration of our Great High Priest, at the end of the 2300 days in the most holy place by the Ark of God’s Testament. Rev. xi, 19. The first objection to this view she finds in the fact that when Christ commanded his disciples to go and “teach all nations,” he promised to be with them even unto “the end of the world.” Matt. xxviii, 18, 19. To this I answer that the three proclamations of Rev. xiv, 6—12, are a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, or they are not. If they are not a part of that gospel, then the angel of verse 6, with “the everlasting gospel,” is literally the very being on whom the anathema of Paul rests viz: AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN PREACHING ANOTHER GOSPEL. Gal. i, 8. But if they do form the closing part of that “great salvation,” then, unless the evidences of our position can be invalidated, which has not yet been done, we are right in proclaiming the solemn, and glorious truths of the third angel’s message to all “who have ears to hear.” Thus Christ preached. Matt. xiii, 9; Luke viii, 8. And to such is a great part of the Book of God addressed. Rev. ii; iii. And the blessing of Christ is promised to such only as at his coming he shall find giving meat in due season to his household. Matt. xxiv, 45, 46. Her next objection is this: Christ was to remain at the right hand of the Father “until his enemies become his footstool—not yet done.” Great stress is laid on the expression, “Sit on my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool,” to disprove the ministration of our Great High Priest in the holy places. Now look at the point for a moment. It is said indeed [Mark xvi, 19; Luke xxii, 6, 9] that Christ “was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” That much stress cannot be laid on the form of this expression is manifest from Acts vii, 55, where Stephen declares that he saw “the heaven opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” And that the expression furnishes no valid objection to the ministration of the Lord Jesus in both the holy places, is manifest from the fact that when he shall descend from heaven he is represented as still “sitting on the right hand of power.” Matt. xxvi, 64; Mark xiv, 62. The fact that Mrs. S. was not able to give the name of Sister White correctly, is strong presumptive proof that in speaking lightly of her visions, she is speaking “evil of the things that she knows not.” Though I would not speak against female preaching, I may yet be allowed to enquire whether there is not quite as much Bible to show that women shall “prophecy,” as there is to show that they shall act the part of public teachers? Joel ii, 28, 29; Acts ii, 17, 18; xxi, 8, 9; compared with I Cor. xiv, 34, 35; 1 Tim. ii, 11, 12. It would have been much more in place, had Mrs. S. then seen fit, to refute the few “arguments” which in a friendly manner we presented to her, than it is to come out now (with inferences which do not bear on the points we then discussed) in a paper where everything written against the fourth commandment is “unanswerable,” because (with all its professions of free investigation) the other side is excluded. There are more in Michigan who are willing to keep the commandments of God, than Mrs. S. is willing to believe. And we can assure her that whether she participates in the matter or not, “the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” will yet be proclaimed with a loud voice. The opposition or the sneers of those who should be leaders in the proclamation of God’s truth, will neither daunt nor deter us from this work of God. And the good tidings of the third angel’s message which the writer counts a “strange thing,” will still continue “the power of God unto salvation.” In traversing the field of her labors, I have seen much to remind me of Eze. xxxiv. The sheep scattered upon every mountain and high hill and left to perish, by those, who, instead of feeding the flock, have fouled with their feet that which God designed his flock should eat. But were there no one in Michigan who would hear the words of life, I would not refrain or forbear until I felt able to say, as I do in the case of Mr. and Mrs. S., I am free from the blood of all men.102 Herself and Husband would have been converted to this truth it seems, had their “compass drawn that way.” The needle of the compass draws towards the object of attraction. My compass draws towards the Holy City, and I read, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the City.” It is but too manifest that many Adventists (I fear greatly that Mr. and Mrs. S. are in the number) have another object of attraction, and consequently sail another way. Death is the great theme, and “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” No wonder such are not converted. Let me read the matter to them from the Book of God. “The wages of sin is death,” and “sin is the transgression of the law.” Rom. vi; 1 John iii. As our friendly visit has been made the subject of public notice, it may now be duty that I should state the facts in the case. 1. In presenting in a very brief manner the claims of "the Royal Law," and urging them upon the consideration of Elder S. and wife, I was answered that the New Testament contains all the prohibitions binding upon us. (Or words to that effect.) I asked what prohibitions the New Testament contained against a man marrying his sister or his own daughter. To this Mrs. S. replied that she did not believe that such an act would be sinful! though it would bring evil upon posterity. Surprised at this answer, I told her that she had spoken in haste, and uttered words that she would not speak before a larger company. But she replied that she would. As she now writes, she does not expect to keep the fourth commandment "unless (her) reason runs mad." I think the reverse is the case. She will not keep "the Royal Law" until her reason returns, and God shall have given her the spirit of a sound mind. 2 Tim. 1, 7. 2. I presented them the subject of the Sanctuary in the following manner. (1) What was the Sanctuary of "the first covenant?" I answered by reading Heb. ix, 1—5. It was the tabernacle, the pattern of the true. (2) What is the Sanctuary of the "new covenant." This question was answered by reading Heb. viii, 1—5. It is the true tabernacle, of which the tabernacle made by Moses, was the pattern or representation. (3.) How much of the 2300 days pertains to the earthly Sanctuary? The whole or a part? On this point Dan. ix (the inspired commentary on Dan. viii) was read. Seventy weeks were cut off upon "thy people and upon thy holy city" &c. One of the last events noticed in the account of the seventy weeks is the anointing of the "Holy of Holies" as it is said to read literally. This brings to view the True Sanctuary, which then, and there succeeded to the pattern. (4.) That the earthly Sanctuary was cleansed because the sins of the people were there borne, I read Lev. xvi. (5.) That the heavenly Sanctuary must be "purified" or as Macknight renders it cleansed in like manner, I read Heb. ix, 22, 23. I do not recollect that any attempt was made to refute this. 3. I spoke, accidentally, respecting the assertion of P. A. Smith, made in the office of the Advent Harbinger, and in the hearing of Elder Marsh, that he (Smith) could heal people by Mesmerism, and do other "wonders," and to my surprise, Elder Seymour vindicated Mr. Smith. He justified the investigation of Mesmerism, by the text "Prove all things hold fast that which is good." He also declared that he had heard Smith explain the principles of Mesmerism, and he believed a knowledge of these principles was proper, and might be of great service. I have heretofore feared that the remarks made by brother Rhodes on this point were too strong—I now greatly fear that they were just. Jackson, Mich., Feb. 9th, 1852. LETTERS.
By George W. Holt
DEAR BRO. WHITE: My heart swells with gratitude to God for what he is doing for his people in these last days of peril. He is truly blessing them with his truth, and the out-pouring of his Spirit, and uniting them in love and in the patient waiting for his Son from heaven. The meetings which I have attended since I wrote you last, the Lord has graced with his Holy Spirit. Our meetings in Paris, Me., were exceeding good. Humble confessions of past wrongs were made, and an earnest desire for a deeper work of grace, and a closer walk with God, was manifested by all the brethren. Some confessed the truth for the first time, and resolved to obey God by keeping his commandments. Last Thursday we had an interesting meeting at the house of Bro. Moore at East Boston, Mass.—Four were baptized. Friday morning I left Boston to meet the brethren in conference at Leverett. Here I found our beloved Bro. and Sr. Everett firm in the faith of the third message, keeping the Sabbath of the Lord our God. Bro. Everett was a preacher in the Baptist denomination for twenty years. He became interested in the Advent of our Lord by the first message, [Rev. xiv, 6, 7,] obeyed the second, and I believe the Lord will make him an instrument of good in the third. Brethren from Ashfield were at the meeting. Bro. Wheeler and others from Washington, Bro. Day and Hastings were also present. This meeting was one of deep interest to most that were present. The solemn and sublime truths of the Holy Bible were presented with much freedom by the brethren. Fervent prayers with tears were offered up to God for the spread of the truth, and the salvation of his people. Some present presented their objections to the Sabbath commandment; but they were answered in the spirit of the gospel, from the Scriptures, to the satisfaction of some at least, who confessed their determination to obey God by keeping all the commandments. Others promised to give the subject a prayerful examination. The fruits of this meeting I am confident will be seen hereafter. The banner of the third angel is unfurled in this region, and I expect to see many precious souls gather around the standard. I hope the brethren will remember Bro. Everett and family in their prayers. I feel sure that I have forsaken all to follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth; and I am willing to wear myself out in this holy warfare. My heart is fixed on the reward to be given at its end. This way I love more and more, for the Lord is with those that keep his commandments. I am fed from day to day with the bread of life, and am strengthened by the Holy Spirit in the inner man. I never felt the weight of the truth, and the worth of precious souls more than now. God's people are my people, to suffer with, to rejoice with, and reign with for ever in the kingdom of God. Hardwick, Mass., Feb. 24th, 1852. The Perpetual Obligation of God’s Law
By Roswell F. Cottrell
DEAR BRO. WHITE: Truth is simple, and its arguments easily understood. But I confess myself utterly incapable of comprehending how that law, which was engraven on stone, was all abolished, and yet mankind be under a perpetual obligation to obey all its precepts except one. The latest and most improved version of this doctrine, that I have heard, is this: "That form of the law, expressed in ten commands, is abolished." But the apostle James quotes two precepts from that dead (?) form, and gives us a rule applicable to "the whole." He shows us that He that spoke one precept, spoke the others; and that he that breaks any one of them, is a transgressor, that is, a sinner. Chap. ii. Again, we are informed [Rev. xi] that when "the seventh angel sounded," "the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament." In the worldly sanctuary the furniture of which was "the patterns of the things in the heavens," [Heb. ix, 23] the ark contained "the tables of the covenant, the ten commandments." Is the ark in heaven empty? How then is it the ark of the covenant? Who will inform us that it contains but nine "lively oracles," [Acts vii, 38] the other being dead? Be not deceived; God is not mocked. Let us seek to God, that our transgressions of that law may be blotted out, now while the High Priest is presenting his own blood before that ark, for the cleansing of the Sanctuary. If our sins are forgiven, let us "go in peace, and sin no more." ROSWELL F. COTTRELL.
Mill Grove, N. Y., Feb. 25th, 1852. HOWARD LOTHROP
By Howard Lothrop
DEAR BRO. WHITE: I still feel thankful to God for the truth, the third angel's message. His blessed word, which is a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path, contains it. I thought I would let you know something of the dealings of God with us, while on our tour South. We visited the brethren at Royalton, Vt., was with Bro. Ingraham at Tunbridge on Sabbath and First-day, and were blessed of God in preaching the truth. We then visited the brethren at Ashfield, Mass., and found them strong in the present truth. Next went to Dorchester. Found Bro. Nichols and family striving to keep the commandments of God through Jesus Christ. Then went to Fairhaven. Spent one Sabbath with the brethren there, and had a precious season. Then visited the brethren at Dartmouth found them strong in the faith, and had a good season with them. Bro. Gurney and myself visited Block Island, R. I., and there found a goodly number striving to keep God's holy law. Then myself and wife returned to Boston, spent one Sabbath there, and had a good meeting. Then we traveled on to Canada. Found the brethren at Eaton striving to overcome. I expect to be at Melbourne with the brethren there over the Sabbath, and then return home to Eaton, and then go to the state of New-York, if the Lord will, and endeavor to search out the jewels, and feed them with the bread of life. May God bless you in your labors, and all the remnant in Christ Jesus. Melbourne, C. E., Feb. 6th, 1852.