Earlier text: UNITY AND PERSONALITY OF GODTHE TEN COMMANDMENTS NOT ABOLISHED.
By Joseph Harvey Waggoner
A REVIEW—BY ELDER J. H. WAGGONER. Rom. 10:4: “Christ is the end of the law.” In what sense? Does “end” here mean abolition? No; for he did not come to destroy it, Matt. 5:17; and it is not made void, or abolished. Rom. 3:31. In James 5:11, and 1 Pet. 1:9, the same word is used where the sense is the object or design. And this is its meaning here. In Rom. 7:10, it is said the law was ordained unto life. Life was the object or design of the law. See Deut. 30:15, 16; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 2:13; etc. But man, by transgression of the law, brought himself under condemnation, and Christ now works out the object or design of the law by procuring our pardon and giving us life. In this work, the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, and not in subordination to his law, is taken away, and the “body of sin” destroyed; of course the person on whom this is wrought is restored to obedience. And this is the full meaning of Rom. 10:4, for righteousness is not without obedience. “Unrighteousness is sin,” says the apostle, and “sin is the transgression of the law.” If unrighteousness is transgression of the law, its opposite, righteousness, must be the opposite of transgression, which is obedience. But none but the believer will obey—the genuine believer, too; for many profess to believe who will not obey; they say to Jesus, Lord, Lord, but do not the will of his Father; they make void the commandments of God by their tradition; they will not keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. To such, Rom. 10:4 has no reference whatever. But if it be still contended that the perpetuity or abolition of the law is brought in question in this text, let us read it so. “Christ has abolished the law for righteousness, to every one that believeth.” Passing by the singularity of the “righteousness” which is accomplished by the abolition of a law that is “holy, just, and good,” we inquire, Does it affirm, with your own rendering, the abolition of the law to any but the believer? No. Singular again; a universal law abolished to some and not to others! Is it abolished to the believer before he believes? We wish our opponents would answer this, as their view involves principles of law with which we are not acquainted. But we will consider it answered in the negative, as the text refers only to the believer, which no man is, in a state of unbelief. Then suppose he should “fall from grace,” or deny the faith, or reject Christ and his gospel entirely, as many have done, does the law still remain abolished to him, or is it re-enacted in his case? Does anybody believe the apostle Paul was ever guilty of teaching such absurdities as the views of the no-law theorists involve him in? We deplore their work; not that we particularly object to their erecting a monument to their own folly, for they are worthy of it, but we pity the blind who are being led by such blind leaders. “(4) In the days of the apostles, some said that believing Gentiles ‘must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, or they could not be saved.’ Acts 15. To decide this question was the object of the first general council convened at Jerusalem. The result was, under the direct teaching of the Holy Ghost, that the council decided that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, they (the Gentiles) shall be saved even as we (the Jews). Four things only were enjoined on them: ‘To abstain from idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.’ This, then, became, not the Mosaic law and condition of justification as such, but a Christian rule of action, enjoined by the Holy Ghost on believers, through this council.” If the writer of the above really supposed that it would pass as an argument against the ten commandments or the Sabbath, he must have presumed greatly on the ignorance of his readers. It is enough to read that circumcision and the law of Moses were the subjects of discussion, to see the irrelevancy of the above argument. Does any one—even the writer of the above—suppose that the apostles and elders in council would gravely discuss and formally decide that the Gentiles need not keep “the ten commandments or any part of them?” Were they absolved from the duty to honor parents? and could they blaspheme, steal, kill, bear false witness, and break the Sabbath, and incur no guilt thereby? Yes; most surely; for the apostles said nothing about these things! Such is the conclusion of the no-law and no-Sabbath argument. Do not think, dear reader, that we misinterpret or misrepresent our opponents. Read for yourself: “FOUR THINGS ONLY were enjoined on them: To abstain from idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.” This, and this “ONLY,” is declared to be “a Christian rule of action.” This not only does not mention any other duties, but it specifically excludes them. Therefore, whoever says that the Gentiles should not kill, or steal, or blaspheme, contradicts the decision of this council, according to the testimony of our opponents. We should think they would cease to advocate a theory so immoral in its tendency, for shame’s sake. And may it ever be a warning to us, as we witness how completely men are blinded and snared by the enemy when they oppose God’s law. We hold, and teach, in harmony with the council of Jerusalem, that circumcision and the law of Moses are not binding; and in harmony with the Saviour also, who said that worship is vain when it makes void the commandment of God. “(5) Christ said, ‘I am not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill.’ Matt. 5:17. He did fulfill each jot and tittle, both in its preceptory and penal departments. He then cried, ‘It is finished,’ and gave up the ghost. John 19:28–30. He had fulfilled all its precepts, and for us he met its penalties. Thus he magnified the law, and made it honorable, and ‘nailed it to the cross.’ Col. 2:14. No jot or tittle of the law now remains in force as a rule of life, or condition of justification or salvation; ‘that being dead wherein we were held.’ ‘We are delivered from the law.’ ‘Ye are also become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another; to him who is raised from the dead.’ Rom. 7:4, 6. If we are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, and are married to another, what right has the old husband to control our action? We are bound only to Christ. Hence, when he sent his disciples to teach all nations, he said, ‘Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’ It was not what Moses or the prophets had commanded that was to constitute a rule of life, but what Jesus commanded. He is our Lord and Master, and his commandments are not grievous.” First, the Saviour’s words are quoted wherein he said he did not come to destroy the law, and then a labored argument is instituted to show that he did destroy it; thus making his action contradict his words. Can any one have confidence in Jesus as a Saviour, and in such teachings at the same time? Reference is also made to Isa. 42:21: “He will magnify the law and make it honorable.” Magnify, says Webster, is “to extol; to exalt; to elevate; to raise in estimation.” Do our opponents believe the Saviour did such a work as this? And if they do, who would ever gather it from their writings? Was it “elevated” by its abolition? Did he “raise it in the estimation” of the no-law theorists, who spare no pains to disparage it? But again he “will make it honorable.” This does not show that it was not honorable before, for we know it was; it therefore means that he will make it still more honorable; the same as to magnify it—exalt it, extol it, raise it still higher in estimation than it had before been held. Though every way honorable in itself, it had been dishonored by transgression, and he came to vindicate its claims, to suffer its penalty, thereby showing its sacredness and perpetuity, and to enforce it on men anew, yes, to write it in their hearts; so that instead of transgressing it, they might love it, delight in it, consent that it is holy, just, and good, and so worship God by obeying his law “in newness of spirit,” and not merely in letter. We believe the blessed Saviour does all this in taking away the carnal mind, which Paul says is not subject to the law of God, and giving us hearts of love and obedience. But how do our opponents say he magnified the law and made it honorable? By, 1, breaking it himself; 2, teaching others to do so; 3, abolishing it; 4, inspiring his apostles to denounce it as a yoke of bondage, &c. But the reader who loves reason, justice, and consistency, will see that the law that is magnified and made honorable is not the same one that is abolished; the one written in the heart is not the one nailed to the cross; the spiritual law is not a carnal commandment; the law which becomes a delight to the converted believer in Christ is not a yoke of bondage. “No jot or tittle of the law now remains in force as a rule of life.” How different from the teachings of Jesus: “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all [all things—Greenfield, in heaven and earth—Wesley,] be fulfilled.” So far from his teaching that it is not a rule of life, he proceeds to condemn those who break the law, or “any part” of it, and who teach others to do so. The writer, arguing that the Christian is released from obligation to keep the law, quotes, “that being dead wherein we were held,” and applies it to the law. If this were a correct rendering of the original, the above application would still be a perversion of the text, for all the context shows that it is the sinner that dies—not the law. But it is not a true rendering. Paul never made any such declaration concerning the law. Probably the writer of the above knew that all authorities were agreed that the marginal reading was the true one; possibly he knew that the word apothanontes, from which “being dead” is rendered, was plural and therefore, could not refer to the law; but it was far from serving his purpose to recognize such facts. He had a theory to maintain, and oftentimes it happens that false theories may be as effectually advanced by concealing the truth as by promulgating an error. Nor is the law represented by the husband in the illustration of Rom. 7. By reference to verse 4, it will be seen that the same individuals that died were afterward married to another, by virtue of a new life received through faith in Christ. The law is that by which a woman having two husbands is convicted of adultery. We prefer Paul’s application of this illustration to that of the no-law theorists, and there is a very wide difference between the two. The expression “dead to the law” is equivalent to that of Chap. 6:2: “dead to sin;” for it is only on account of sin that we die to the law. We have sinned, and the wages of sin is death and the law holds us under its condemning power until death takes place, because a state of sin is a state of condemnation. We need not, however, literally die; but to avoid this, “the old man is crucified,” “the body of sin is destroyed,” that “henceforth we should not serve sin.” Through faith in Christ we so change our relation to the law that we are freed from its condemnation. We die to transgression; the law does not die. We change our relation to the law; the law does not change at all. But if the law was abolished by the Saviour, how do we die to it? By what act, or in what manner, is our relation ever changed to a law which was abolished 1800 years before we were born? Will our opponents attempt to show? When they do, we shall be pleased to note their progress. God Asks No Impossibilities
God asks no impossibilities. When your will is yielded to do just what he bids you, trusting him for all consequences, you are where the Holy Spirit will guide and empower you to take the leap of faith into the Saviour's arms. You are utterly helpless as to purchasing or winning salvation; but this one thing you can do; that is, yield yourself to trust just what God tells you in his word. The result is sure. Commit yourself unreservedly to him. Faith and Works, Again.
By James White
SERMON PREACHED BY ELDER JAMES WHITE, AT BATTLE CREEK, MICH., SABBATH, AUG. 18. Last Sabbath our subject was faith and works. We stated that a man's works are the measure of his faith; or that a man will show what faith he has by his works. We presented the testimony of the apostle James where he makes the emphatic statement that “faith without works is dead, being alone.” Again he says: “I will show thee my faith by my works.” And what a biting rebuke there is in that very same connection in his reference to the believing devils that do not hold to good works. “Thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well; the devils also believe and tremble;” as much as to say, If you simply have faith without works, that faith will not save you any more than the faith of the trembling devils will save them. Not one of these devils, poor fellows, hold to good works. And with these the apostle has classed those Christians who are all faith and no works. A backwoods preacher once represented them by frogs who have large mouths and small hands, always croaking about the power of faith to save, while doing little or nothing. Paul speaks of the heroes of faith in the eleventh chapter of his epistle to the Hebrews. And did these cherish the easy doctrine that they were to do nothing, but believe themselves into heaven? In the first verses of chapter twelve the apostle speaks of these men of God under the figure of a cloud of witnesses. They are set forth as examples, as far as holy men may be examples to those who live after them. With these men before us as examples, the subject becomes an easy one. How do these heirs of glory obtain the eternal reward? In this chapter Paul goes on to speak of Abel and Enoch and Noah. “And Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house.” Did Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all those ancient worthies, just sit down and believe, and let the Lord work out the problem for them, without any special effort on their part? They are presented as our pattern. Do they, in this way, believe themselves into heaven? or did they take hold and work? “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” In this verse we have Cain and Abel brought before us. Abel was accepted and Cain was rejected. They both brought their offerings. Abel was accepted because he united works with his faith in the Redeemer to come. “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” Now suppose that Noah should have sat down and said, There is a flood coming, but I cannot do anything. I believe the flood is coming; I have full faith in this, but all my efforts would be in vain; God would not accept them. Preposterous! Noah believed that the flood was coming; and he showed how much he believed it by his works. We have a measure of Noah's faith in this matter. He had a faith that moved him, that bore him right out to build the ark. There was mental effort in planning, and work in building that immense ship, which was to endure for a year or more the rough winds and waves of the flood; and to contain the beasts that God was to send into it to preserve them. But if Noah had taken the position which some take at the present time, that is, merely to believe and live, and not to do and live, he would not have built the ark, and have saved his family. Supposing, however, that Noah had folded his hands, and said, I cannot do anything; I will leave this for the Lord to do, and there waited as though he expected a balloon to come, and take him up and suspend him in the air until the flood should have passed, and then let him down upon the earth again. Do you suppose that this faith would have saved him without works? Oh, no! But Noah had faith. He was warned that the flood was coming, and he was wise enough to know that for his own safety, and for the safety of his house, he must prepare an ark. And he built it; and in the act of building the ark he showed his faith in what God had told him about the approaching flood. Now Paul presents another grand character, and remember, my friends, these have been put here for examples to us who should live after them. “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise.” There was some labor in that tent life. “For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.” Was there not an effort in the offering up of Isaac? Please read the history. God points out a mountain where Abraham is to offer his only son, his beloved son. He is required to take him and go to that mountain, and there offer him. Now what could have been done if Abraham had just sat down and said, I cannot do anything. I believe God, but I have nothing to do in this matter. Abraham was required to show his faith by his works. He had fallen, through polygamy, and he had an opportunity to redeem himself. The circumstances in the case are all recorded in the Old Testament. He could not see how the promise of God, in reference to the promised seed, could be fulfilled. He had not implicit confidence in God; and when he heard those foolish pleas of Sarah, that he should take one of her handmaids to wife, that the promise might be fulfilled, he was led astray. What an astonishing weakness that marred the life of the patriarch! But God gives him the privilege of redeeming himself; and he has orders to take that son, his very son Isaac, who had been a subject of promise; a subject of that promise over which he had stumbled, and offer him as a burnt sacrifice before the Lord. How much more trying was this than if Abraham had believed God and left the promise to be fulfilled in God's way! That must have been a terrible scene for the patriarch. Imagine the struggle that the fearful test which God brought to bear upon him must have caused him! That terrible test wrung the patriarch's soul. Under what a weight of mental agony must Abraham have taken Isaac, taken his servants, taken the wood, etc., and passed up that mountain to offer Isaac as a burnt sacrifice before God! Was there not work in all this? Imagine the patriarch on his way up the mountain. What is this for? It is to show to the world, and to future generations, that he believed in God. Would the character of Abraham have been redeemed if he had refused obedience in this matter? If Abraham had had no sense of his duty as regarding God, and taken a sort of easy position, and said, the Lord must do all this, and bring it all about, he would never have redeemed himself; he would never have stood out so prominently on the page of sacred history as God's faithful servant. He took his son, he took his servants, he took the wood, he took the fire, he took the knife; and he marched up the mountain; he made all the preparations necessary for the sacrifice, and he there perfected his faith in the eyes of all who knew him then, and in the eyes of all future generations. And he stands out as a father of the faithful. Why? It was because he did not simply believe, but he went forward and did. By works he perfected his faith. God save us from this sleepy lullaby doctrine, that the Lord will save us if we only believe on him. The apostle next mentions Moses. “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment. By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.” How convenient for Moses would the doctrine of faith without works have been! He might then have had the pleasures and honors of Egypt; he might then have avoided the care, perplexity and toil of leading the hosts of Israel from Egypt to Canaan. If he could only have believed himself into heaven what a blessed thing it would have been for him! but he refuses to remain in the house of Pharaoh. Now Moses was a financier. “Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he had respect unto the recompense of reward.” What! the reproaches of Christ in the days of Moses! Moses figured upon the value of the reproaches of Christ in his day. No Christ in the Jewish age, some people will say, and no law in the Christian age. It is all law in the old dispensation; and in our dispensation it is all gospel, it is all Christ. My friends, I am happy to know that Moses sat down and estimated the reproaches of Christ in the Old Testament—the same blessed Christ of the New Testament. The blessed Saviour was with his people in Moses' day the same as he is with his people in our day. The Son of God was and still is in perfect harmony with the moral code. He says, “Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” But time will fail me if I dwell longer upon this eleventh chapter of Hebrews. I wish to call your attention to the words of the Saviour upon this subject. We have his first address recorded in the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Matthew. It is his inaugural address as he enters upon his public ministry. I wish you would all read that address. You will, doubtless, find time to do so this afternoon. The Lord Jesus in this address lays out a great deal of work for the church. I can only refer to the summing up of that address, chapter 7:21, and to its closing part. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” It seems to me that this text is a rebuke to that class of persons who cry, I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and at the same time trample the commandments of the Father under their feet. He continues: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me ye that work iniquity. Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, [Mark the doing:] I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock.” Now there is work in building. “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them; [Doeth them by faith? Doeth them by sitting down and doing nothing? No.] I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock.” He built; he went to work. There is the figure. And so hearing the words of Christ and doing them is represented by the putting up of a building. “And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,”—you may hear the sayings of the Lord and you may believe; you may believe in the gospel and Christ; you may have all the faith you please; but if you leave out the doing you shall be like what? “He shall be likened unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand [he could not stop to dig deep and remove the sand to get down where he could find a solid foundation. It is work to lay a good foundation]; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it.” The men who are building their hopes of heaven upon faith without works, are building upon a sandy foundation that will not stand the storms of the coming day. The apostle Peter speaks of Christian works as follows: “And besides this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.” In order for this scripture to suit those who trust to faith without works, it should read: Giving all diligence, believe that the Lord will add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; etc. Here is work for the church in adding grace to grace. “For if these things be in you and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things [that does not work; that does not add these graces one to the other] is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure; for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.” Thank God, we have not got to go our whole journey, our whole pilgrimage, before we find that we are among the elect; that we were elected from the foundation of the world for heaven; or that we were reprobated from the foundation of the world for perdition. We have not got to go clear through the Christian life to find this out, but it is our privilege now to make our election sure. Here is the true doctrine of election. The apostle explains this in another place—“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” Yes! God foreknew and God fore-elected that all the obedient and believing should be saved. This is how men were elected. You are to go about the work yourself, and make your election sure by obedience of the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ. God bless you. Every one of you may be among the elect. But how is our election made sure? It is through obedience and the blood of sprinkling. With this agrees that remarkable statement in the Revelation, that the redeemed millions on the shining shore had washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. The Spirit of God will come down and sanctify every soul that believes and works. “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure.” How shall we make our calling and election sure? Oh! how can I make my calling and election sure? says one, I would go to Jerusalem, or I would go to Mecca, I would spend this short life in afflictions and tortures if I could only make my calling and election sure; if I could only have eternal life, a life that will run parallel with the life of God. But you do not need to go to Jerusalem; you do not need to go to Mecca. You may worship God in the spirit and in the truth, and he will accept that worship; for he says that where two or three are gathered together in his name, he is with them. We cannot believe our way into heaven while doing nothing. If you try to get there in that way you will fail. Peter is my authority. “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure; for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.” Now, brethren, do you want to be saved? Do you want to make your calling and election sure so as not to fall? This morning, dear brethren, I feel very anxious to enter the city of God, and to see for myself how it looks inside the pearly gates. I want to see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob there; I want to see all the redeemed there; and I want to see my blessed Lord there; and I am determined that by the grace of God I will make my calling and election sure, by the way of the old apostolic line of obedience, and the blood of sprinkling. Will you meet me there? “For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Take the pledge, brethren, on this Sabbath morning before heaven, that you will do these things, that you may never fall; that we may all meet within the pearly gates of the city of God. Amen.
J. W. Thoughts on the Book of Daniel.
By Uriah Smith
CHAPTER VIII.—(VERSE 14, CONTINUED).
4. There remains but one more position to be examined; namely, That the sanctuary mentioned in the text is what Paul calls in Hebrews the “true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man,” to which he expressly gives the name of “the sanctuary,” and which he locates in “the heavens;” of which sanctuary, we had, under the former dispensation, first in the tabernacle built by Moses, and afterward in the temple at Jerusalem, a pattern, type, or figure. And let it be particularly noticed, that on the view here suggested rests our only hope of ever understanding this question; for we have seen that all other positions are untenable. No other object which has ever been supposed by any one to be the sanctuary, neither the earth, the land of Canaan, nor the church, can for a moment support its claim. If, therefore, we do not find it in the object before us, we may abandon the search in utter despair; we may discard so much of revelation as still unrevealed, and may cut out the numerous passages which speak on this subject, as so much useless lumber on the sacred page. All those, therefore, who, rather than that so important a subject should go by default, are willing to lay aside all preconceived opinions and cherished views, will approach the position before us with intense anxiety and unbounded interest. They will lay hold of any evidence that may here be given us, as a man bewildered in a labyrinth of darkness would lay hold on the thread which was his only guide to lead him forth again to light, or as the perishing man would leap for the last life-boat that could rescue him from destruction.269 It will be safe for us to put ourselves in imagination in the place of Daniel, and view the subject from this stand-point. What would he understand by the term sanctuary as addressed to him? If we can ascertain this, it will not be difficult to arrive at correct conclusions on this subject. His mind would inevitably turn, on the mention of that word, to the sanctuary of that dispensation; and certainly he well knew what that was. His mind did turn to Jerusalem, the city of his fathers, which was then in ruins, and to their “beautiful house,” which, as Isaiah laments, was burned with fire. And so, as was his wont, with his face turned toward the place of their once venerated temple, he prayed God to cause his face to shine upon his sanctuary, which was desolate. By the word sanctuary, Daniel evidently understood their temple at Jerusalem. But Paul bears testimony which is most explicit on this point. Heb. 9:1: “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.” This is the very point which at present we are concerned to determine: What was the sanctuary of the first covenant? Paul proceeds to tell us. Hear him. Verses 2–5: “For there was a tabernacle made; the first [or first apartment], wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the sanctuary [margin, the holy]. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.” There is no mistaking the object to which Paul here has reference. It is the tabernacle erected by Moses according to the direction of the Lord, with a holy and a most holy place, and various vessels of service, as here set forth. A full description of this building, with its various vessels and their uses, will be found in Exodus, chapter 25, and onward. If the reader is not familiar with the subject, he is requested to turn and carefully examine the description of this building. This, Paul plainly says, was the sanctuary of the first covenant. And we wish the reader to carefully mark the logical value of this declaration. By telling us what did positively for a time constitute the sanctuary, Paul sets us on the right track of inquiry. He gives us a basis on which to work. For a time, the field is cleared of all doubt and all obstacles. During the time covered by the first covenant, which reached from Sinai to Christ, we have before us a distinct and plainly-defined object, minutely described by Moses, and declared by Paul to be the sanctuary during that time. But Paul’s language has greater significance even than this. It forever annihilates the claims which are put forth in behalf of the earth, the land of Canaan, or the church, as the sanctuary. For the arguments which would prove them to be the sanctuary at any time would prove them to be such under the old dispensation. If Canaan was ever the sanctuary, it was such when Israel were planted in it. If the church was ever the sanctuary, it was such when Israel were led forth from Egypt. If the earth was ever the sanctuary, it was such during the period of which we speak. To this period the arguments urged in their favor apply; and if they were not the sanctuary during this time, then all the arguments are destroyed which would show that they ever were, or ever could be, the sanctuary. But were they the sanctuary during that time? This is a final question for these theories; and Paul decides it in the negative by describing to us the tabernacle of Moses, and telling us that that, not the earth, nor Canaan, nor the church, was the sanctuary of that dispensation. And this building meets all the requirements of the true sanctuary. 1. It was the earthly dwelling-place of God. “Let them make me a sanctuary,” said he to Moses, “that I may dwell among them.” Ex. 25:8. In this tabernacle, which they erected according to his instructions, he manifested his presence. 2. It was a holy or sacred place: “The holy sanctuary.” Lev. 16:33. 3. It is over and over again called the sanctuary, in the word of God. Of the one hundred and forty-two instances in which the word is used in the Old Testament, it refers in almost every case to this building. The tabernacle was at first constructed in such a manner as to be adapted to the condition of the children of Israel at that time. They were just entering upon their forty years’ wandering in the wilderness, when this building was set up in their midst, as the habitation of God and the center of their religious worship. Journeying was a necessity, and removals were frequent. It would be necessary that the tabernacle should often be moved from place to place. It was, therefore, so fashioned of movable parts, the sides being composed of upright boards, and the covering consisting of curtains of linen and dyed skins, that it could be readily taken down, conveniently transported, and easily erected at each successive stage of their journey. After entering the promised land, this temporary structure in time gave place to the magnificent temple of Solomon. In this more permanent form it existed, saving only the time it lay in ruins in Daniel’s day, till its final destruction by the Romans, in A. D. 70. This is the only sanctuary connected with the earth, about which the Bible gives us any instruction, or history any record. But is there nowhere any other? This was the sanctuary of the first covenant; with that covenant it came to an end; is there no sanctuary which pertains to the second or new covenant? There must be; otherwise there is no analogy between these covenants; and, while one has a system of worship, which, though minutely described, is without which the other is unintelligible, the other is indefinite and obscure. And Paul the same as asserts that the new covenant, in force since the death of Christ the testator, has a sanctuary; for when, in contrasting the two covenants, as he does in the book of Hebrews, he says in chapter 9:1, that the first covenant “had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary,” it is the same as saying that the new covenant has likewise its services and its sanctuary. Furthermore, in verse 8 of this chapter, he speaks of the worldly sanctuary as the first tabernacle. If that was the first, there must be a second; and as that existed so long as the first covenant was in force, the second must have succeeded to it when that came to its end, and must be the sanctuary of the new covenant. There can be no evading this conclusion. U. S.