111111111. ,..„..„,„,. „..v.7 THE TWO COVENANTS I it ...AND THE... SABBATH, AN EXPOSITION OF THE TWO BIBLE TESTAMENTS; A REVIEW OF THE ..TWO COVENANTS," BY ELD. URIAH SMITH OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS; • AND OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST TEACHING IN GENERAL. ELD. L. W. SPAYD. EMBRACING THE: OWOSSO PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY. OWOSSO, MICHIGAN. LAP40.rk.0""h".01"0",•"Afe,./"..S\AFAM"'"",,e.".r"..PA.0"..2 r g-0144 (A),„,,,04-crx- ?ery-t4 jut l“ THE \ TWO COVENANTS ...AND THE... SABBATH, EMBRACING AN EXPOSITION OF THE TWO BIBLE TESTAMENTS; A REVIEW OF THE "TWO COVENANTS, " BY ELD. URIAH SMITH OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS; AND OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST TEACHING IN GENERAL. ELD. L. W. SPAYD. THE OWOSSO PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY, OWOSSO, MICHIGAN. JAMES \ini E ANDREWS UN1VERSiTY OiStfilia SPRINGS, MCI(. 091 '- w • "And if any man think he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know." "But if any man love God the same is known of him."—I Cor. 8:2, 3. J I PREFACE. In introducing the reader to the contents of this treatise I can perhaps do so as profitably by presenting for his considera- tion the introduction to a series of fourteen articles written by me and published in THE Owosso PRESS, beginning Dec. 6, 1896. The articles compose the matter found in the first half of this volume. Following is the introduction to that series: AN OPEN LETTER COPYRIGHT HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR. 214806 TO A. T. JONES, SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST— DISCUSSION INVITED. In the Evening Argus of Sept. 30, is a report of your sermon on "The Two Covenants." I am especially interested in it be- cause I believe it was inspired by a conversation I had with one of your campers, who has been communicating from me to you. Your reporter makes you to say that, "The old covenant is not the ten commandments, but is an agreement on the part of the people to keep the ten commandments. I'd like to reason with you upon that declaration. not in the spirit of contaltious disputants which is in the Bible called debate, and is forbidden us, but in such Christ-like spirit as Paul in Romans, Gallatians, and Hebrews, reasons with his brethren in the flesh, the Jews. There are certainly many things in the lives of Seventh Day Adventists that I admire, and knowing that "If any man thinketh he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know," I am not infallibly sure that I am right in op- posing their views. It is a principle of mine to review the ground of my faith often, for in the light of new experiences I may see the need of a change of mind in some things. I really would like such a schooling in the truths of God's word as such a brotherly investigation would give me, and as I would desire 5 4 to put the best thoughts of a dozen years' thinking upon our differences as to the "covenants," I would not care to enter the discussion except with the provision that we carry it for- ward with deliberation for a series of weeks in Owosso's week- lies, alternating in using the columns of the papers publishing the same. I would gladly undertake to show from the Bible that the ten commandments were the "Old covenant," and to follow them into the "New covenant," to learn their relation in it; then to consider such conclusions as would naturally follow. If you desire for the better presentation of Seventh Day Adven- tists' views on the covenant to also lead in the affirmative way in our investigations, I would be glad to have you frame and state an affirmative proposition. The good to come from such discussion would be: First, the education of the people in Bible truths in which in general they are not sufficiently interested. Second, if we conduct our. elves with Christ-likeness we may afford an example to the public of how God's divided people should conduct themselves toward each other, and of a way to bridge over their differences Hoping that you will receive and respond to this open let- ter in the spirit I address you, and that if impossible for you to conduct the discussion for your people, that your people will see fit to choose them a representative in some other person. I remain truly and sincerely, L. W. SPAYD, Owosso. P. S. I have seen the editors of the Argus, the Owosso Press, and the Times, and all agree after election to give us lib- eral space for the discussion. S. The above letter was never answered. I now purpose to begin a review of "The Two Covenants," by Elder Uriah Smith of Battle Creek, Michigan, who is one of the ablest and most voluminous authors of the Seventh Day Adventists. It may be that by the time I get through the subject, he will come to the defense of his positions. If any ask why I review Seventh Day Adventists' docrinal positions for Owosso readers, I answer:- First, because their recent camprpeeting in our city greatly disturbed the minds of some who will hail with pleasure the information herewith contemplated. Second, no modern reli- gious faith is of late more confusing in religious s Some of our states have deemed it necessary to legislate strict Sunday laws in order to give workingmen a day in seven for respite from consuming toil, and as a mark of respect for the Christian religion; but in all states where the strict Sunday laws obtain, the Seventh Day Adventists are among the very first arrested for breaking them. In Tennessee, Georgia, Arkansas, and other states, scores of these good people have done long time in prisons because they either could not or would not pay the fines imposed upon them. They sincerely believe that the popes of Rome made the "Sunday Sabbath," and gave it to the church instead of 'God's Seventh Day Sabbath," and that it is a great sin for Protestants to keep it. They hold that when Luther led a way from Roman Catholicism he did lead far enough; and so Protestants are unwittingly honoring the pope of Rome as a divine legislator by keeping his Sabbath, Sunday. Suppose in traveling from Owosso to Corunna on the high- way some day, you should suddenly come upon a gang of ten men under overseers, each man with pick or shovel in hand and a heavy iron ball chained to his ankle. That on further notice you should recognize them as being of Owosso's very best chris- tian men; that upon inquiry why these good men were in pris- on clothes and chains, you were answered that they were all serving out sixty day sentences because they could not or would not pay the fine and costs imposed upon them for working on Sunday, after conscientiously observing Saturday as Sabbath. Would you not feel a deep sense of shame for our state commonwealth for such unjust discrimination against its Christian citizens. But just such scenes have been witnessed in the above mentioned states. I know it does seem too bad that foreigners should be al- lowed to make a European holiday of our quiet Sunday; that they should get up big railroad excursions and spend the day in beer-garden revelry, with its disgraceful drunken brawls, as was done in Owosso the past summer, but unless we can legislate 7.,a, wimeg f; 7 Sunday laws that will exempt Seventh Day observ,rs from their penalties, I for one will oppose all such Sunday enactments. With the oppressive Tennessee Sunday laws in Michigan, what a time we would have of it every Monday morning to run in Seventh Day Adventists to the number of 8,000 that we might exact fines of them for violating our Sabbath? Notwithstand- ing, Christian people are everywhere of late years petitioning state legislatures for the prohibitory Sunday laws. Do my readers know that Mrs. Ellen G White, of the Sev- enth Day Adventists, is regarded by them as a prophet of God as truly as was Isaiah or Jeremiah of the Bible? Do you know that for years she has prophesied and prophesied that our United States government would develop into the "two•hcrned.' beast of Revelations 13:11, and as such would inflict upon the "true people" of God all the persecutions spoken of in said chap- ter? Do you know that since the states mentioned began im- prisoning the Seventh Day Adventists they hive grown in numbers more rapidly than ever? Why? Because they care- fully record every such persecution of their people in papers and tracts, with their predictions on the United States as a pro- spective persecuting nation, and then triumr hantly point to the comparison with a: "See, we told you so. Keeping the Pope's Sabbath is the 'mark of the beast.' The United States is fast becoming the 'two-horned beast,' who will persecute all Sabbath keepers who will constitute the true people of God in the last days. So you see our teachings must be true." Now this appearance of right Bible teaching on their part is captivating, and thus state persecution makes them all the more confident in their positions and enables them the easier to make converts. It is sublime to see people enduring martyrdom for the truth; but to see them enduring persecution for error's sake— like the Mormons of this country—almost excites our disgust• I think we can clearly prove to our readers that the Seventh Day Adventists are of the latter class of sufferers: that they suffer not for truth, but for error's sake. The Seventh Day Adventists have come to Owosso to stay. They have just ended their first campmeeting in our city, and, we are informed, that they intend re assembling here in the fu- ture. They have already located one of their professional read- ers here, and doubtless will send others. These go from house to house to give Bible readings on their doctrines, and to sell or give away their literature. Till next year's campmeeting they will thoroughly canvass all Owosso. People will read. At first they will be defenceless in answering against the; to them, new teaching. Naturally, they will cast about for something on the other side of the question. My hope is to furnish the other side in this series of articles. I desire to say at the outset that I recognize the Seventh Day Adventists as a very sincere Christian people. I have known them for a dozen years and I most cheerfully bear testi- mony to their zeal and faith in Christ There are many false and malicious statements circulated about them by people ig• norant of their teachings. Because I regard them as my breth- ren in Christ, I have often defended them in private and public wherein I knew them falsely accused. When they come into our homes to give us Bible readings and literature, I can but admire their zeal and faith. They are doing God's service as they understand it. Let us not reproach them, but set to the task of enlightening them. For I conclude if they can show so great zeal in the propagation of error, like Paul of old, when enlightenened, they will become all the more powerful in the propagation of truth. After all that I can concede to the Seventh Day Adventists in a commendatory way, I regard them as seriously in error in their definings as to what constitutes God's will to us of this Christian dispensation. I will now address myself to the task of bringing to light their fundamental error, hoping at the prop- er time Elder Uriah Smith will see fit to favor our readers by coming to the defense of his views—if he cares to defend them. In our next article we will at once come to the subject proposed for this series. These articles had no sooner begun their appearance than two Adventists requested space in the Press for reply. In fact, one of them tried to intrude two written replies while the series was running. But having invited the Adventists to joint exam- 7, 7 MINA MMir 8 ination of our differences and been !gnored, 1 decided not to al- low Adventists to intrude with replies till the series ended. Meantime the replier was so eager to get at my articles that he wrote Elder Uriah Smith for his consent to reply for him. He granted it. Then said replier wrote requesting that I accept him for respondent instead of Mr. Smith. I accepted him; he to make the same effort to recompense the edit nr for the space used that I was paying, which was exceedingly reasona- ble. Of cours I held back from publication his two articles, written in reply near the beginning of the series till its close, when I returned t hem to prospective replier for any changes he might care to make in them preparatory to an orderly reply. But when I reached the end of my series his great zeal to reply had S9 far abated that I could not get a word out of him further. After above fifteen months had elapsed, he wrote to tell me that it was ungentlemanly conduct in myself and the editor that decided him not to reply to the series. "This," said he, "and other good reasons that I bad, was the reason for my not following your 'wild goose' run." A "goose," was it, that I was on the "run" for? Perhaps; at least I will not be disputatious as to what it was; nor was I to blame for its being "wild." And seeing it was the thing I was after, if the "run" appeared "wild," I think my readers will at least give me credit for having kept persistently after it wherever it went. It may be then, after all, that said replier's saying is not more unc:mplimentary to me than to the person or system I pursued. The treatise, as it is, I new hand over to readers. I shall be glad for written word from any who may in future he able to certify, either as to the good or evil they can definitely trace to the influence of this book. L. W. SPAYD, Owosso, Mich. 11 CHAPTER I. The Bible consists in two volumes called the Old Testa- ment and the New Testament. They are called testaments because that each volume contains a real testament. Before dying, a man of wealth makes his will, or as it is called in law, his testament. In it he writes whom he has chosen to be his heirs and what each shall inherit. Twice in the his- tory of man, just as if he too were going to die, God made . his testament. The first was at Mount Sinai. In that testa- ment he willed his goods to one nation only; even to Israel whom he had just brought to himself out of Egyptian bondage. In its most condensed form, the ten command- ments were that testament. The relation of testator and heirs between God and Israel continued for hundreds of years. It was the subject of much sacred history. Many poets and prophets found it a fruitful theme for their pens. When all these sacred writings were brought together into a single volume, what name for the book could have been more pertinent than testament ? for God's testament to Israel was its nucleus• and orginated the volume. In Christ's day God made his second testament with Israel ; but not alone for them. Unlike the first, this chose the heirs from all nations. They were declared to consist of all who would accept inheritance upon the conditions mentioned in the testament. During the Apostolic age, much inspired history was written on God's new testament relation with his people; also prophets wrote much as to its future history. These writings collected into a second volume, came naturally to be styled—The New Testament; since which time, the first book, is called the Old Testament. Technically speaking, however, God's testaments comprised but a small portion in either volume These two testaments which are also called the "first" and "second," and the "old" and "new covenants" in Paul's writings, must now engage our studious attention. • 10 We hope to so clearly define and distinguish them that our readers may always know what commandments of God are in force in our day and by what testament we can lay claim to inheritance in the kingdom of God. The following quotations from Paul's writings make it easy for us to identify the first testament : Hi IL 8:6. "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." 7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." 8, "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." 9, "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." 10, "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts; and 1 will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people " 11, "And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest " 12, "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities will I re- member no more." 13, "In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." • HEn. 9:15. "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." 16, "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." 17, "For a testa- ment is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth " 18, "Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood." 19, "For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people." 20, "Saying, "This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you." 1. Notice, that as here used by Paul, the terms "coven- ant" and "testament" designate the same thing. To this Elder Uriah Smith agrees; for he says: "The words testa- .11 ment and covenant meaning the same thing, being from the same original word."—THE Two COVENANTS, page 12. The new covenant is said to be a "better covenant" than the first, because 'established upon better promises." The old covenant was made with Israel when he led ' them out of Egypt. The old testament was "enjoined" upon Israel. To "enjoin," according to Webster, means "to lay upon as an order or command." Plainly, then, the old covenant was a commanded covenant. Adventists deny this. Remember this, we will have use for it later. Webster defines covenant as, 1, "A. mutual agreement of two or more persons or parties, in writing and under seal, to do or to refrain from some act or thing; a contract; stipula- tion." He defines testament as, 1, "A solemn authentic instru- ment in writing, by which a person declares his will as to the disposal of his estate and effects after his death." These definitions differ; but they both apply in the making of the old and new covenants. When God took Israel by the hand to lead them out of Egypt it was that he might locate them upon the land of Canaan, which he had -promised Abraham he would give them. (See Gen. 15:13-21; Ex. 3:7, 8). He purposed to give the land with other favors to them as a testator bequeaths his effects to his heirs. Now, while God had promised Abraham to adopt his descendants through Isaac as His children, yet he wished the Israelites to express their own free will as to the plan. When, therefore, they were come as far as to Mount Sinai on their way to Canaan, as a proper preliminary step to the making of his will in their favor, he corresponded with them through Moses to ascertain whether they were willing that he should adopt them as His nation, His heirs. So he proposed to them through Moses, as follows: "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bear you on eagles' wings and brought you unto myself. Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant (i. e. if they would keep the will he was about to make in their favor), then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine; and ye 12 shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."—Ex. 19:1-6. Israel through Moses re- turned answer. "All that the Lord hath spoken will we do." —Ex. 19:8. This verbal agreement settled the question of their adoption. As testator, God was now ready to declare to them his covenant, testament, or will, which he had de- signed and made in their favor. Three days later, when Israel was sufficiently sanctified for audience with God, he descended to Mount Sinai and in thunder tones announced, "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Then he declared to them his testament, the ten commandments— Ex. 20:1-17 "And he added no more"—Deut. 5:22, signifies that as a testament they were in themselves complete. First, then, what did the testator bequeath to Israel in this testament? Three things—LAND, LONG LIFE and MERCY. "Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." From Ex. 3:8-17 and 6:6-8 we learn that the land here promised was Canaan. Wherefore Canaan with long life was to be their inheritance. He further pledged in the testament, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep. my commandments." "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." Two classes are thus mentioned in this testament: Those that hate him and those that love him. Ile gives due notice that he will visit penalties or judgments upon the haters and the irreverent. From this we see that God's testament to Israel provided for a subsequent judicial departinentrth6 Venal- t ies of which would be revealed and known later on. In Ex. 21:1, God said: "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them," and they are contained in the 21st, 22d and 23d chapters of Exodus. For the lovers of God, he pledges "mercy." What is mercy? Webster defines, 1, "Disposition to overlook injuries, or to treat an offender better than he deserves, inclination to forego justice, or to forgive obligation, out of compassion for the offender or debt- or; clemency." Plainly, then, God foresaw that even those 13 who loved him would not be free from offenses nor perfect in obedience. It is so in our day. Thousands love Christ, but they are not so entirely free from offending his Father but that he has to intercede for "mercy" towards them— Heb. 4:16. So was it then. The Testator foresaw the fail- ings of those who would love him, and for their encourage- ment and comfort he provided in his testament to exercise mercy toward them. In what way or upon what conditions, he left untold for the time. Later on, he ordered the taber- nacle built, and then ordained that they approach the "mercy seat" through bloody sacrifices. Thus did God provide in his testament for subsequent deliverances of secondary or incidental requirements, which the Seventh Day Adventists style "The ceremonial law." But, second, the testament contained ten primary con- ditions of inheritance: 1, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." 2, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." 3, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." 4, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." 5, "Honor thy father and thy mother." 6 "Thou shalt not kill." 7, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." 8, "Thou shalt not steal." 9, "Thou shalt not bear false wit- ness." 10, "Thou shalt not covet." Summing up the contents of the testament, we find it bequeathed to the heirs, "LAND," "LONG LIFE" and "MERCY upon ten primary, with prospective minor or secondary con- ditions. His mercy was to be to them that would love him and who kept his "commandments." The term command- ments as used in the testament was inclusive. It was equivalent to "Obey my voice indeed"—Ex. 19:5, which Israel agreed to do; and it would include whatever God should so$ Afitly see fit to require of them. In somewhat modern fi.,renant language, a statement of the covenant would be: God the first party pledges to Israel the second party that he will give to Israel the second party—"LAND," "LONG LIFE" and "MERCY," if Israel the second party will keep the ten primary and the herein provided for secondary precepts of the covenant. By this analysis it will be seen that within their compact form the ten commandments contained the old covenant in epitome. The acorn and the oak bush are Mao 14 the oak tree in epitome. In like manner the old covenant in all its details grew out of the covenant—the ten command- ments! Before writing this covenant in a book and dedicating it with blood, God expanded its "judicial provision" by the deliverances to Moses in the 21st, 22d and 23d chapters of Exodus, which precepts he calls the "judgments." These with the covenant were written in a book. Upon hearing both read from the book, Israel solemnly promised to keep them. Then "Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said: Behold the blood of the covenant, which God hath made with you concerning all these words."—Ex. 24:3-8. "And he took the blood of the calves and goats with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying: This is the blood of the tes- tament which God bath enjoined unto you."—Ileb. 9:19,20. The one passage says "covenant:" the other, "testament.'' They are one and the same, The one passage says "coven- ant which God hath made with you;" the other, "testament, which God nath enjoined unto you." To enjoin is to com- mand. Therefore, the testament was both a made and a commanded testament. Does this transaction between God and Israel answer to the definition of "covenant"—"a mutual agreement of two or more persons or parties, in writing and under seal ?" Yes. Does it answer to the definition of "testament"—"a solemn authentic instrument in writing, by which a person declares his will as to the disposal of his estate and effects after his death ?" Let us see, Paul says: "Where a testa- ment is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator."—Heb. 9:16. And did God the testator die ? He signified his death in that of the calves and goats,.:.::604;tem as by substitution he died. But this death sufficed to bring the testament in force. Why God did not actually die will be an interesting point for our consideration when we come to the making of the new covenant. CHAPTER II. Were the ten commandments that first covenant„testa- ment, or will, that God made with Israel at Mount Sinai? I have so stated. The statement finds abundant confirmation in the passages I shall presently quote. But the Seventh Day Adventists most persistently deny the claim. Hear Elder Uriah Smith their greatest living author and editor. "It may be asked, then, how the ten commandments can be called the 'covenant.' We answer: That is just where the people are misled. They are never called 'the' covenant, referring to the first or old covenant. That the ten com- mandments are called 'a' covenant, we admit; but what kind of a covenant ? and in what sense are they so called ? Please read again Ex. 19:5: 'Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant,' etc. Then God had something which he called his covenant, which antedated the covenant made with Israel. It was already in existence before any formal agreement whatever was made with that people. And this explains Deut. 4:13. Those who read that verse should be critical enough to observe that Moses does not call the ten commandments the covenant nor a covenant, but his (God's) covenant. 'And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments.' These, then, are what God referred to in Ex. 19:5, in the words my covenant; and these were already in existence when the covenant was made with Israel. It should be noticed further that the covenant of Deut. 4:13, is not a covenant made, but a covenant commanded; and surely any one can see the difference between an arrangement —2, upon the voluntary and mutual promises of two parties, and that which one party has power to enjoin with / authority upon another party. But the covenant here men- tioned, God did thus enjoin upon them without regard to any action on their part."—THE Two COVENANTS, pages 7 and 8. NOTICE 1. That he insists the ten commandments are never called the' covenant, referring to the first or old cov- enant. And, 2, that they are not the covenant "made!" — o 16 But what have God and Moses to say ? 1st. Ex. 34:27,28: "And the Lord said unto Moses, write thou these words; for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." "And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Words can not declare more definitely and directly that the covenant God "made" with Moses and Israel was the ten commandments. Since Moses wrote them with the "judg- ments" in the book which he sealed with blood, Ex. 21:3-8, God had given him the plan of the tabernacle and its furniture with ordinances of worship by which they were to approach the "mercy seat," for that "mercy" promised in the covenant, the ten commandments. "These words," God tells him now "to write;" for that they are "after the tenor * * of the covenant * * the ten commandments" which he had made with them. By this God would have them understand that "these words" were to be considered as in- cluded in the ten commandments, the covenant He had enjoined upon them. The man who can face the above passage with a denial that the ten commandments are the covenant God made with Israel is very reckless. 2d. But consider a passage from Deut. 4:12, 13: "And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude: only ye heard a voice." "And he declared unto you his cov- enant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten com- mandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Notice: 1. That this covenant is the same one men- tioned in the previous passage. Of both, it is said, that they were written on the tables of stone, and that the c the ten commandments. We have just seen Elder Smith's comment on this pass- age. His conclusion is substantially this: A covenant is a mutual agreement between two parties: but the ten command- ments were commanded to Israel for their performance. How, therefore, can a covenant be a mutual agreement between two parties, and commanded by one party upon the other at the same time ? On this slender basis he and 17 his brethren have built up the colossal error that the ten commandments are not the old covenant, nor indeed so much as a constituent part of it. He forgets that God's covenant with Israel was the testament form of covenant. In such there must be a mutual agreement between the Testator and his heirs or they cannot obtain their inheri- tance. I have known heirs who consented to go without their share of the inheritance because they would not agree to meet the requirements commanded by the Testator in his will as the conditions upon which the inheritance could be obtained. Was not such a testament a mutual agreement between the Testator and his heirs ? Certainly; for they agreed with him before they secured their inheritance. Was not the same testament commanded unto the heirs ? It cer- tainly was; for the conditions of inheritance were in the form of commandments to the heirs. And just so the ten commandments embodied God's covenant or testament to Israel. The inheritance was theirs if they obeyed the conditions God commanded. As many as secured their inheritance had first to agree with God in the covenant requirements. 3d. But consider a passage from Deut. 4:23. "Take heed unto yourselves lest ye forget the covenant of the Lord your God, which he made with you and make you a graven image, or the likeness of anything, which the Lord thy God hath forbidden thee." Observe 1: This covenant was the one that forbade graven images, which was the ten command- ment covenant. 2. That the covenant is called the covenant # of the Lord thy God; that is, it was "his (God's) covenant," instead of "the" or "a" covenant. 3. But see, this "God's covenant," Moses says, "he made with you." 4th. Dent. 5:2-5. "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb." "The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us alive this day." "The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire * * * saying —" Here follows Moses' recital of the words of the covenant, the ten com- mandments. Plainly, then, 1. The ten commandments are once more referred to as the "made" covenant. 2. Moses is emphatic in his statement that this covenant was not made A 19 18 with Israel's fathers —Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—but with themselves who were alive and who had heard him speak from the mount. This proves beyond all contradiction that the ten commandments as embodied in Deut. 5:5-21 had never before been given to this people. They never before had even constituted a covenant between God and the world, as Elder Smith would have us believe. 5th. Deut. 9:9. "When I was gone up in the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water." Observe 1, Moses went up to receive the "tables of the covenant." What covenant was contained in the tables? The ten commandments; so the passages already examined repeatedly and emphatically state. 2. For the fourth time Moses says it was the covenant "made" with them. 6th. I Kings 8:21. "And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is. the covenant of the Lord, which he made with our fathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt." 1. What covenant was always kept in the ark? The ten commandments. 2. Then, verily, Solomon also declares them to have been a "made" covenant; and made with their fathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. But Mr. Smith to carry his point that the ten com- mandments were not the covenant which God made with Israel, in the "Two COVENANTS," page 10, goes back into the Hebrew of the Old Testament to see whether by special translation he cannot make the word "wherein" in the above t text mean in the room where the ark stood, instead of in the ark itself. When a man has to desert our scholarly and commonly accepted translations and must go "a hunting" to get a special translation to support his claims, I am sus- picious of them. The book of the law was kept in the room beside the ark. The tables of stone containing the ten commandments were kept in the ark. Mr. Smith is very anxious that "wherein" of the text should mean "in the room;" then he hopes to make his readers believe that Solomon referred to a coven- ant contained in the book and not to the ten commandments in the ark. What weakness! since it was a fact that the ten commandments were written in that book as well as upon the tables of stone kept in the ark.7),Therefore in either case the reference is to the ten commandments which we have over and over seen were the first covenant God made with the Israelites after bringing them out of bondage. 7th. But consider from Paul's writings a passage des- cribing the contents of the ark with the same troublesome term "wherein." Heb. 9:1-4. "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service and a wordly sanctu- ary." "For there was a tabernacle made, the first, wherein was the candlestick and the table, and the she wbread; which is called the sanctuary." "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." Observe 1. That Paul is speaking of the cov- enant contained in the tables of stone which surely was the ten commandments, and which in first verse, he calls the "first covenant." 2. Mr. Smith would make us believe that in substance the first covenant consisted of ordinances; but Paul here says, "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances." If it had "also" ordinances, then the covenant itself must have been something beside ordinances: ra, the ten commandments were the substance of the first cov- enant and they enjoined but one ordinance—the Sabbath, although providing for others. 3. But note further that "within," in the passage just quoted, refers to what was "in the ark" the same as that in I Kings last cited. Why does not Mr. Smith hunt for a special translation to prove that Paul's, like Solomon's "wherein," does not mean "in the ark ? " How interesting it would be to see him try to per- vert the meaning of this passage in the same way. 8th. Please turn to II Cor. 3:6-14 and read carefully. Paul is here comparing the old and new testaments. He speaks of the old testament as "the ministration of death written and engraven in stones;" and of its being so "glorious" that while receiving the same from God, it trans- fixed such lustre to Moses' face that on coming to the people 20 with the tables of the covenant they could not look upon his face till he covered it with a veil. (See Ex. 34:29-35). Now, 1. What tables of stone did Paul refer to Y Those on which were written the ten commandments. 2. But Paul speaks of them as the "old testament." Well, Paul is exactly right in regarding them as the first covenant, or testament that God made with Israel. Mr. Smith is grievously in error when he denies the claim. It is amazing how he can con- tradict God, Moses, Solomon and Paul who all unite, in the foregoing passages, in the declaration that the ten com- mandments were the first testament God made with Israel. But the reader will now wish to know what object Mr. Smith and the Seventh Day Adventists can have in so persistently denying that the ten commandments were the first, or old covenant with Israel. I will let Mr. Smith himself tell you. "That the old covenant has been abolished by being super- seded by the new, Paul plainly states. Of this there can be no question. And we affirm further that nothing has been abolished but the old covenant. Whatever has been abolished was included in that covenant, and whatever was not in- cluded in that covenant still remains, unaffected by the change from old to new. If the ten commandments con- stituted the old covenant, then they are forever gone; and no man need contend for their perpetuity or labor for their revival. But if they did not constitute the old coven- ant, then they have not been abolished, and no man need breathe a doubt in regard to their perpetuity and immuta- bility. This therefore becomes a test question. It determines as definitely as any one subject can, the whole question of the perpetuity or abolition of the moral law."—THE Two COVENANTS, page 5. Here, let me observe first, That Mr. Smith is right in concluding that the ten commandments were abolished if they were the old covenant. For as he admits, that is Paul's teaching. Second; but he is most stupidly in error in his evident conclusion that in such event, we are now living withont a divinely authorized "moral law." For, if God, when he made his first testament, was careful to enjoin upon the heirs both moral and ceremonial precepts as the conditions upon which they must inherit the "LAND," "LONG LIFE" and "MERCY" bequeathed in that testament; why should 21 Mr. Smith assume that in the making of his second testa- ment God would fail to also enjoin moral requirements as in part the conditions on which we must obtain our inheritance ? Now, from the many passages cited in this chapter, I for one am simply compelled to believe that the ten command- ments were the old covenant in epitome. And when it comes to Paul's declaration that the old covenant, or will, was abolished, I simply accept the logical conclusion that the ten commandments were abolished. But I have yet to find the first Seventh Day Adventist teacher that will deal fairly and honestly with me in discussion at this point; for when in my public discussions the point of abolishing the testament was stated, then would my opponent turn to the audience and with frightened gestures urge—"Oh, just hear him! He wants us to believe that the ten commandments were abolished!! In so saying he teaches that we can lie, steal, kill, etc., as there is no law prohibiting such lawless deeds!!!" Of course this has always been said for effect. Even Uriah Smith in his Two COVENANTS, pages 3, 4, more than hints that we so hate the Sabbath that we argue for the ten commandments as the old covenant in order to get the Sabbath abolished. Reader, n'ever let an Adventist frighten you into the conclusion that because we have admitted and taught that the ten commandments were abolished as the first testament of God, that, therefore, we open the way for all kinds of lawlessness, as if there were no law to restrain evil doers. Remember, that if the Bible teaches that the first covenant, the ten commandments, was abolished; that it also teaches that God gave us in its place a new testament, or will, and that its conditions of "eternal inheritance" enjoin the ob- servance of every moral principle. The fact is, the new testament defines moral principles far more narrowly than was done in the the old testament, and it even more em- phatically enjoins their observance in order to Divine acceptance. But we will make this clearer in a following chapter. 22 23 enant except a special enactment of God providing otherwise. But the Bible contains no such special enactment, no such proviso On page 14 of "THE Two COVENANTS," Elder Smith assumes that the ten commandments could not have been the "covenant made" at Mount Sinai with Israel, because "that the principles of the ten commandments were well understood and acted upon; even from the creation down." But could I not just as consistently urge that the "ceremonial law" which Mr. Smith claims was '"made" into a covenant with Israel at Sinai, could not there have become the "cov- enant made" with Israel, because "that the principles of the" "ceremonial law" "were well understood and acted upon, even from creation down ?" Would it not be precisely as reasonable to deny that our Revolutionary fathers "made" the constitution of the United States because its principles were well understood and acted upon, even from before Christ to their day ? The principles of both the ten com- mandments and Mr. Smith's "ceremonial law" "were well understood and acted upon from the creation down," but I deny that they were ever before "made" into the forms, or the embodiments of the covenant—the law delivered to Israel at Mount Sinai. Paul is with me—see Rom 5:13,14. The form, in which the ten commanements stand re- corded in Ex. 20:1-17, was made at Sinai. In it. God brought together promises and conditions of inheriting them into such combination as to embody his first "will and testament" to Israel. The combination of principles of law and prom- ises as seen in the ten commandments, was originated at Sinai; and I affirm that in that form, embodied a testament of God to Israel, and of God to Israel only. In proof of this affirmation I offer: 1st. Deut. 5:23, "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb." "The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." "The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire * saying"— saying what ? The ten commandments. Verily, then, the CHAPTER III. In a sermon at the campmeeting mentioned in my introduction, Elder A. T. Jones declared that "The old cov- enant is not the ten commandments, but it is an agreement on the part of the people to keep the ten commandments." Elder Smith takes the same position in his "Two Covenants," and both men contend that said agreement—their old cov- enant—is recorded in Ex. 19:3-8. They insist that by "my covenant" in verse 5, God referred to the ten commandments, his pre existing covenant. Well, let us subgtitute "ten com- mandments" for "my covenant" and restate the agreement: "Now, threfore, (1) If ye will obey my voice indeed, (2) and keep my ten commandments, then (1) Ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine; (2) And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, (3) and an holy nation." The people replied: "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." This agreement consisted of five in- tegral terms—two for Israel and three for God to fulfil. But thus constructed the covenant had contained the ten com- mandments as a constituent part of itself. It had been the putting of a covenant into a covenant, or as the fixing of a wheel within a wheel. Now, what strikes me as very strange is, that after they have thus made the ten commandments a constituent part of their old covenant, these brethren deny that they were abolished when said covenant was abolished. That is to say, that if a watchmaker were to'fasten a small wheel into a larger one, then afterward cast the larger wheel containing the smaller out of his watch, the small wheel would not be cast out of the watch with the larger but would continue to do its office work in the watch just as before. Abolishing their old covenant of five terms, did but abolish four terms of the five, is what these brethren virtually affirm. The fifth term of the covenant—the ten commandments-- they say continues in force as before. What logic! Had the ten commandments been incorporated into their old cov- enant as they have described, nothing could have prevented their being abolished with the abrogation of their old coy- ten commandments were the made at Horeb with Israel testa- ment, and never previously "made"— no, not even with the fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 2d, In perfect accord with this claim is the address in the ten commandments:—"I am the Lord thy God which have brought the out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."—Ex. 20:2. So exclusive is this address to Israel and so against the theory of the Adventists that the ten commandments were designed of God in Eden and there delivered to Adam for a law to all mankind for this and the world to come; that they have actually argued that the above verse (Ex. 20:2) formed no part of the ten commandments. But of late years I seldom hear any of them make the denial. Well, then, the ten commandments were never addressed to any people but to redeemed from bondage in Egypt Israel. Did God ever deliver the Seventh Day Adventists from Egyptian bondage ? Or did he ever bring them out of the land of Egypt? No, verily. Then the ten commandments as com- posed in Ex. 20:1-17 were never addressed to them. They never constituted God's testament or covenant to them 3d. What land did God allude to in the fourth corn- mandment—"That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee ? ' What land was he giving them ? "I will bring you out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites."—Ex. 3:17. "I will bring you into the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and I will give it to you for an heritage; I am the Lord."—Ex. 6:8. This was God's message to Israel when he sent Moses to them in Egypt. The book of Joshua abounds in statements as to how God by Joshua caused Israel to "inherit the land." "The Lord spake unto Joshua." "Be strong and of good courage; for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I swear unto their fathers to give them."—Josh. 1:1-6. "So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheri- tance unto Israel according to their divisions by tribes, and the land rested from war."—Josh. 11:23. In the above pas- sages "heritage" and "inheritance" are pertinently employed for Israel were heirs to whom by his testament —the ten commandments—God bequeathed the land. Now, if the ten commandments are binding upon us, as then, upon Israel, without the change of a word, as the Adventists contend then God is also bounden to give precisely the same promises to the obedient now as he gave to Israel. Whatever those promises meant to Israel that is precisely what they must mean to us. To Israel they only directly meant Canaan and natural long life. By Heb. 9:15, it is seen that the first testa- ment secured the obedient in temporal blessings only, till Christ by death secured them "eternal inheritance." The law provided for them but the "shadow of good things to come."—Heb. 10:1. Many first day observers, to get authori- ty for keeping their day, have tried hard to show that it is right to substitute first day for seventh in the ten command- ments, and then go on affirming their authority as before. Against this unscriptural substitution the Adventists pro- test most vehemently. In like manner I do emphatically protest that the Seventh Day Adventists cannot substitute themselves nor any one else in the address of the ten com- mandments for that "people brought up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."—Ex. 20:2. Neither for long life in the land can I allow that they may substi- tute eternal life in the new earth. The truth is plain. The ten commandments embodied a covenant, a testament, between God and Israel only. To make them just as they stand in Ex. 20:1-17 applicable to us, we have to conceive of too many questionable substitu- tions that we are altogether without divine authority for making. I'd like to see how Elder Smith would explain away these difficulties. On pages 7 and 8 of "The Two Covenants," Elder Smith says of the ten commandments: "They are never called `the' covenant, referring to the first or old covenant. That the ten commandments are called 'a' covenant, we admit; but what kind of a covenant? and in what sense are they so called? Please read again Ex. 19:5. 'Now, therefore, if yt 24 25 26 27 ;rl ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant' etc. Then God had something which he called his covenant which antedated the covenant made with Israel. It was al- ready in existence before any formal agreement whatever was made with that people." Notice 1. He admits the ten commandments were a covenant. 2. They were the "something" called "his" cov- enant which antedated the covenant made with Israel;" i e. antedated, the making of the agreement of Ex. 19:3 8. Let Mr. Smith please tell us for how long antedating that agreement God had been calling the ten commandments "his covenant " He can't find a single instance before that agreement where God had ever called the ten command- ments "his covenant," and he very well knows it. Why does he seek to make such an impression ? Mr. Smith does well to admit that the ten commandments were "a" cov- enant, for indeed they were. But both he and Elder Jones err when they claim that the old covenant was an agreement to keep the ten commandment covenant. What would have been the object in making a covenant to keep a covenant, except that its promises were insufficient inducement to gain Israel's obedience; and that in the covenant made to keep the covenant there were stronger inducements given ? The comprehensive promises of the covenant were "Land," "Long Life," and "Mercy;" and would not Israel keep the covenant for these promises pledged in it? Must God make another covenant with Israel, the sole purpose of which was to pledge them yet greater inducements if they would only keep the ten commandments ? This is the position of Elders Jones and Smith. Well, will they please tell us what greater inducements God offered in their old covenant than were contained in the ten commandments themselves ? When a man makes a will the heirs generally find the be- quests of sufficient value that they are willing to keep the conditions upon which they must be inherited. But in this respect God's ten commandment testament was a failure, the logic of these teachers being correct; so God had to make another will with fresh inducements to the heirs to get them to keep the provisions of the first. How manifest it becomes that these Adventists are in ridiculous error. On page 8 of "The Two Covenants," Mr. Smith con- tinues, "It is now easy to be seen why the ten command- ments are called a covenant, and what kind of a covenant they were. They were simply the basis of that agreement recorded in Ex. 19:3-8. For the very first condition God im- posed was, 'If ye will keep my covenant.' It is simply the use of the figure of metonymy by which one thing is put for another with which it is clearly related. We say a man sets a good table when we do not mean the table at all, but only the food which the table contains. So the ten command- ments are called God's covenant because they are the con- dition on which his agreement with Israel rested, and upon which his promises to men in every age are suspended." To this I reply: 1. The ten commandments are not the "condition" upon which God's "promises" to men in every vge are "suspended." God promised Abraham, "In thy seed shall all nations be blessed." In Gal. 3d chapter, Paul de- clares that Christ was that "seed." The "blessing" he shows to have consisted in "justification," "Holy Spirit," and "life," —eternal life —and he denies, with emphasis, that the prom- ise of these was suspended upon keeping the law. "For if the inheiritance be of the law it is no more by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise." "For if there had been a law given which could have given life "—Gal. 3:2, 8, 11, 14, 18, 21. Eternal life of which Paul speaks is the gift of God. "But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 6:23. There never was a law that could give this life, is Paul's declaration. It was a gift, and never conditioned upon the keeping of the ten command- ments. Notice 2. That Elder Smith denies the impression he has all along been making that the ten commandments of themselves were a covenant. He now denies that they were a covenant at all. He represents that God did not really mean what he said when he called them "my covenant," but that he spoke of them as such in a figure of speech, even in 29 28 the figure of "metonymy." Reader, read again carefully, Ex. 31:27, 28, Deut. 4:13, and 5:2, 3. For I protest that lan- guage more destitute of figures of speech cannot be found in the Bible. God called the ten commandments "my cov- enant," and by analysis they are seen to state promises for God to fulfill and conditions for Israel to meet, thus prov- ing themselves to be in fact the embodiment of a perfect covenant. Hence to say that they could only be called a covenant by a figure of speech is absolutely untrue. They could be called the covenant because they were the cov- enant; and God called them his covenant because they were his covenant, and if Elder Smith were not unwittingly la- boring to establish a false theory on the covenant, he, too would call them the covenant. The abo've plain texts are very hard for Mr. Smith's cause, and so finally his easiest way to dispose of them is to just say that God did not really mean what he said. Notice, 3. Mr. Smith says the ten commandments were called the covenant because they were the "basis of the agreement recorded in Ex. 19:3-8." What does he mean by saying they were the "basis" of that agreement ? When a man makes a will, which forms the "basis," the things promised in the will or the eonditions upon which the promises must be inherited? Paul says, "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he mediator of a better covenant, which was establishedis the upon better promises."—Heb. 8:6. Paul will have it that both covenants were based upon "promises," and the new upon "better promises," than the old. The first testament directly bequeathed temporal blessings only. The second bequeaths "eternal inheritance."—Heb. 9:15. By so much was the latter the better testament, even by the fact that it had the "better promises" for its basis. Does a man talk of making a will when he has nothing to bequeath ? Why not? Even because he has no basis, no foundation for a will. God did have the land of. Canaan, with "long life" and "mercy," as the basis for a testament to Israel. As they were so greatly in need of these very things, he graciously made out his testament, with his promises and conditions, in the form of the ten commandments, which constituted his first testament to Israel; hence they consti- tuted God's testament to Israel, despite all Mr. Smith's argu- ments to the contrary. In his efforts to identify the old covenant, Mr. Smith manifests much confusion of mind. Having adopted Web- ster's definition of covenant to aid him in its identifica- tion, he first measures the agreement in Ex. 19:3-8 by it and concludes: "It answers most strictly to the meaning of the word covenant. Therefore, we say that this has the primary claim to be considered the old covenant of which Jeremiah prophesied and Paul discoursed."—THE Two COVENANTS, page 7. And he actually adopted this agreement as the real old covenant, and devoted several pages in arguing for the claim. Next he measured the agreement recorded in Ex. 24:3-8, and this, too, he regarded as measuring up to Webster's defi- nition of covenant, and so he also adopted it as the old covenant and contended for it as such throughout his tract. The adoption of both agreements as the old covenant involved him in much self contradiction and absurd reasoning, as we have already noticed and must still notice. His error at the start was in assuming that the agree- ment in Ex. 19:3-8 constituted the old covenant. It did not answer to Webster's definition of covenant: "A mutual agreement of two or more persons or parties in writing and under seal." It did not answer to Webster's definition of testament: "A solemn, authentic instrument in writing by which a person declares his will as to the disposal of his estate and effects after his death." Ex. 19:3-8 makes no mention of an agreement upon anything "in writing;" nor of "blood shed;" nor of a writing "sealed;" nor yet of the "testator's death." How then could Elder Smith truthfully say of that agreement. "It answers most strictly to the meaning of the word covenant ?" He certainly errs, for throughout the Bible the old covenant is spoken of as some- thing "written," and Paul in Heb. 9:18-20 points unmistak- 31 30 ably to the agreement of Ex. 24:3.8 as the first testament, and he knew, for he wrote by inspiration. In his "Two COVENANTS," Mr. Smith several times admits that "testament" and "covenant" in Paul's writings refer to the same thing, having been translated from the same word. Why, then, in identifying the old covenant did he not call to his aid Webster's definition of "testament ? " He certainly knew that Paul describes the making of the old covenant to be that of a testator making his will and testament; and that, therefore, of necessity, in making the old covenant the transaction must "answer strictly" to the meaning of the word "testament" as well as to the term "covenant." In my first article I remarked that the definitions of tes- tament and covenant differ, but that both apply in the mak- ing of the old and new covenants. Well, in what do they differ ? I answer: Every testament is a covenant but every covenant is not a testament. A testament always requires the death of a testator before it comes in force. "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator."—Paul, Heb. 9:16. This is not true of covenants ordinarily; for they come in force without the death of either party. Again, a testament always stands between the testator and his heirs as a covenant. The heirs must agree to the provisions of inheritance as specified in the testament or they cannot inherit. Its was, then, first of all, a necessity in identifying the old covenant to see that it answered strictly to the meaning of the word "testament,"— and then it would also answer to the meaning of the word "covenant." This Mr. Smith did not seem to discern. In- deed, he utterly ignored Webster's definition of "testament." He had a point to gain in contending that the agreement of Ex. 19:3-8 constituted the old covenant. By its adoption as the'old covenant he hoped to so distinguish the ten com- mandments from the old covenant as to make it appear that they were not abolished when the old covenant was abolished. Yet did we not see by his own reasoning they became an integral part of that agreement, and that with its abrogation they must have been abrogated? Upon the supposition that he had identified the old cov- enant in the agreement of Ex. 19:3-8, Elder Smith argued that the old covenant was an agreement with Israel to keep "his (God's) covenant," "the ten commandments." But when he adopted the agreement of Ex. 24:3-8 as the old covenant, he denied. the ten commandments to be contained in it, claiming said agreement provided for Israel to keep the "civil and ceremonial laws." If the first was an agree- ment with Israel to keep the ten commandments, and the latter was an agreement with Israel to keep the "ceremonial laws," how in the name of reason could he claim both were the old covenant, seeing they covenanted about things so different from each other as he tries to• have us think the ten commandments and his "ceremonial laws" were? It is the latter agreement and the latter only that "strictly answers" to the definitions of both covenant and testament; and particularly to the definition of testament, to which it must absolutely first answer, and to which the agreement in Ex. 19:3-8 in nowise does answer. The transac- tion of Ex. 24:3-8 describes something to have been written in a book and agreed upon between God and Israel and called the covenant; or, as in Heb. 9:18-20 the "testament." It represents the testator as signifying his death: "For where a testament is there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." Paul himself points to this identical transac- tion as the making and ratifying of the old testament. Therefore, it was the first testament; and therefore the agreement in Ex. 19:3-8 was not the first testament, Elder Smith's claim to the contrary notwithstanding. But what then must we consider the agreement recorded in Ex. 19:3-8? It was simply an agreement as to God's ad- option of Israel to be his peculiar people, "above all people." God had promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to take their children to himself for a people. When he sent Moses to deliver them from bondage he said, "I will take yod to me for a people, and I will be to you a God."—Ex. 6:7,8. But 33 32 L,1111 ► ilII ' how often before they came to Mount Sinai they murmured against God and Moses, and in their hearts turned back with longing toward Egypt!—See Ex. 14:10-12; 15:24; 16:2,3; 17:2-4. They even threatened to kill Moses just before reaching Sinai. Now as God had in mind his testament by which he would bequeath "Canaan," "Long Life" and "Mercy," what would be the use of declaring to them his testament if they only intended to desert him and return to Egpyt ? Where- fore it was in order that he first pledge them to become his people, his heirs. This was done in Ex. 19;3-8. This agree- ment, then, instead of constituting the old covenant, was but a mutual agreement between God and Israel that they should become his people, and it was but the first step looking toward the delivery to them of his testament as it was after- ward sealed to them in Ex. 24:3-8. CHAPTER IV. Throughout his "Two COVENANTS," Elder Smith per- sistently denies that the ten commandments were the old covenant. By indirect argument, he as persistently denies that they were even included in that covenant. As he finally believed that he had successfully excluded them from the old covenant, and that the reader may see how he gloried in his supposed accomplishment, I will quote at length from "THE Two COVENANTS," page 13. "Now to settle the fact, once and forever, that this cov- enant was not the ten commandments, we have only to remark that neither Moses nor the people had the tables of stone containing the ten commandments in their hands at that time. This will appear from the further record of Ex. 24. In verse 12 we read:—`And the Lord said unto Moses, come up to me into the mount, and be there, and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law and commandments which I have written, that thou mayest teach them.' But before Moses was called up to receive this law of ten command. ments which God had written, the first covenant had been made, closed up, finished and ratified by the shedding of blood," "These facts throw a fortification around this point which it is not possible to surmount or break down. The first covenant was dedicated with blood. But when that dedication took place, the tables of stone had not been put into the possession of the people; hence they were not dedi- cated with blood. Therefore the ten commandments were not the old covenant." How triumphant! How confident! Yet one only fact, overlooked by our exultant brother levels to earth his glorious fortification: Moses wrote the ten commandments in the book that was sprinkled with hlood.—Ex. 21:3-8. Therefore, they were "dedicated with blood." How do I know? 1st. God himself called the ten commandments his cov- enant made with Israel.—Ex. 34:27,28; Dent. 4:13,23; 5:2,3. Said covenant, as we have seen, was the testament form of covenant which never came in force till dedicated to the heirs by the death of the testator. Absolutely, therefore, it had to be dedicated with blood before Israel could inherit its promises. From Mr. Smith's remarks above, one gets the impression that the ten commandments were only written upon the tables of stone; that if, therefore, they did not have hand the tables of stone when the covenant was sprinkled with blood, so that they, too, could have the blood put upon them, then they were not dedicated with blood. But if the tell commandmentswere written nowhere except on the tables of stone, as Mr. Smith assumes, how came they to be found in Ex, 20th chapter, and later in Deut., 5th chapter ? The fact is, Moses did write them in that book that was sprinkled with blood and which Paul calls the tes- tament; and so down comes Elder Smith's "fortification." 2d. Mr Smith will have it that the matter contained in the book was "the instruction * *• found in the latter part. of Ex. 20, and chapters 21, 22 and 23 entire," which he calls, "an epitome of the civil and ceremonial laws given to the Hebrews." "These ordinances point unmistak- ably to the services and ceremonies of the Jewish worship, which constitute the body and substance of the old cov- enant."—THE Two COVENANTS, pages n and 23. 31 35 Note this, reader: The covenant in "body and substance" was composed of Jewish "ordinances" and "ceremonies" That is, in his testament, God bequeathed to Israel nothing but ordinances ! This is exactly Elder Smith's position. The testament of God in body and substance was—the ordinances! What a blunder! The "substance" of the cov- enant was the promise of "land," "long life" and "mercy" upon the condition of their keeping all his commandments. God, the testator, willed to Israel substantial earthly bless- ings upon manifestly righteous conditions. Mr. Smith's reasoning, however, is to the effect that God willed to Israel only a lot of conditions and no real substance at all. What an inheritance! Now let the reader notice what God himself calls the "instruction" contained in the chapters "Ex. 21, 22 and 23:" —"Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them."—Ex. 21:1. "Judgments" are they ? Well, we read, "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the "judgments." "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord."—Ex. 24:38. "Judgments," here, have a distinct mention apart from the "words of the Lord." But what words of the Lord had Moses to give to Israel at this time besides the "judgments ?- The answer is: The ten commandments which God had spo- ken to Israel were "words of the Lord," and these Moses re- hearsed to Israel with the "judgments." The judgments, it will be found, consisted of penalties for the most part that were affixed to transgressions of the ten commandments. That Moses, therefore, should repeat to Israel before writing them in the book, the ten commandments with the judg- ments, is but a reasonable conclusion. One thing is certain, something beside the "judgments" was called "All the words of the Lord." Were the ten commandments "words of the Lord ?" Yes, pre-eminently such. Look at the marginal reading of Ex. 34:28, and you will find that "ten words" is given as the translation of the words from which we have "ten commandments." Now, since it is said, Moses wrote in the book "all the words of the Lord," why does Mr. Smith refuse to concede that "all" means all; and that therefore, he wrote the ten commandments—"ten words"—and sprint- led them with blood? Against Elder Smith's claim that not the ten command- ments but the "ordinances" composed the "body and sub- stance of the old covenant," allow me to oppose the claim of Paul." "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary."—Ileb. 9:1. If the first covenant had "ALSO ordinances," then surely ordi- nances were not all it contained. Indeed, the reading shows that they were secondary conditions of the covenant We have clearly shown this was the case. As Paul here classifies the ordinances as secondary matter of the covenant, what then would he consider the primary matter of the covenant ? In the fourth verse he says of the ark, "Wherein were the tables of the covenant." Why call them "tables of the covenant ?" Because they contained the covenant. Hence primarily the ten commandments were the covenant. That God designed the ordinances to be secondary matter in his covenant appears from Jeremiah 7:22: "For I spake not unto your I fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egpyt, concerning burnt offerings -- and sacrifices." We need not cite our readers to further proof that the ten commandments were the old covenant. I believe it will be generally conceded that they were. Also, ' I believe that Mr. Smith's covenant-in-the-covenant and yet - . I. not-in the-covenant theory must appear as a theory that does not stand in the truth. Before we pass to the new covenant, we must consider the "Two Law" theory of the Seventh Day Adventists. In Deut. 4:13 the ten commandments are called God's covenant. In Ex. 24:12 they are called a "law." In II Kings 22:8 we read of the "book of the law;" but in II Kings 23:2, the same is called "the book of the covenant." It is thus seen that what God called his "covenant" he also called his "law;" and it is proper to use the terms interchangeably. As the Adventists persist in distinguishing two covenants in the old covenant, two laws in the old law, theirs is the critical Pririrr7" , 36 task of stating and establishinz the distinctions. The effort will involve them in contradiction and absurdity the same as Mr. Smith involved himself in arguing for his "Two Cov- enant" theory. Some of their two law distinctions are as follows: 1st. God spoke the ten commandments to the people but Moses spoke to them the "ceremonial law." God wrote the ten commandments on tables of stone; Moses wrote the "cer- emonial" law on parchment. The ten commandments were kept in the ark; the "ceremonial law" was kept in the room beside the ark. From these contrasts they conclude that God made and delivered to Israel two distinct laws. This conclusion is not a necessary one. For convenience modern churches publish chatechisms in longer and shorter form. A book is published in prospectus and complete editions. In like manner God issued his covenant, his law, in the epito- mized and the fully expanded forms. As to why he spoke the law, let God himself explain It was, "That the PEOPLE may HEAR when I SPEAK with THEE and BELIEVE THEE forever."—Ex. 19:9. Had Israel been in doubt on this point ? Evidently they had. When God sent Moses single-handed to deliver Israel from bondage, instead of with a great and mighty army, Moses foresaw that Israel would not have faith in his un- dertaking, nor yet in his being divinely sent to them. So he said to God: "They will not believe me. * * They will say, The Lord hath not appeared unto thee." God justi- fied his observation; and to enable him to create faith in Israel gave him power to turn his rod into a serpent, his hand to leprosy, and water into blood. Then said God, "If they will not believe thee for the first, nor the second sign, they will for the third."—Ex. 4:1-9. The signs succeeded; but only temporarily. Israel easily relapsed into unbelief. Then God promised to do such wonders that both Israel and the Egyptians would know that he was God.—Ex. 6:6, 7, 8; 7:4, 5. He kept his word, climaxing his wonders by drown- ing Pharaoh and host in the Red Sea. And now we read 37 that "Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians; and the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord and his servant Moses."—Ex. 14:31. Their faith in Moses, however, was again of brief dura- tion. Soon all confidence in him vanished and they purposed to stone him.—Ex. 17:2-4 and Acts 7:39, and return to Egypt. It was for Moses' sake, theret ore, that God proposed, "I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the PEOPLE may HEAR when I SPEAK with THEE and BELIEVE THEE forever," and to (Thrist's day they insisted, "We know that God spake with Moses."—John 9:29. The speaking was to cure their unbelief, and it did it most effectually. Do you notice that the speaking was to 1),, not so directly to the people, but "WITH THEE' (Moses)? There is point to this. Israel must have an illustration of God speaking with Moses. Throughout the ten command- ments God speaks to second person, singular number, as if he were addressing but one person. Malachi 4:4 makes the o have been to Moses directly. "Remember ye the my servant, which I commanded UNTO HIM for ALL SRAEL, with the statutes and judgments." The speaking then was God's testimony to Israel that Moses had not been imposing upon them when he gave them precepts professing to have received them from God, for he gave him same in their own hearing. If it be asked why God chose to speak the ten commandments rather than some section of the fully expanded law, let it suffice to say that in the ten commandments was contained his first will and testament in epitome —that is, in its most condensed form; and that in speaking the same he declared to them the substance of the first testament. Thus they heard the whole in summary rather than a detailed part. From Ex. 34:29-35 we learn how God once more honored Moses as a law-giver from himself to Is- rael in connection with the same ten commandments. Hay- ng with his own finger written them in stone, he sent Moses with them to Israel, and in testimony of their divine origin, aused his face to shine with miraculous splendor. And ow what was more natural than that they should come to 38 39 be called, "God's testimonies," seeing with them, God hel•; testified to Israel that he had made Moses to be his law-giver to them. For the like reason the ark came to be called, "the ark of the testimony."—See Ex. 25:16, 21,22; 31:18; 32:1517; 40:3-20, 21. The ark contained other testimonials, the significance of which I would like to remark upon. But the tables of stone were as divine credentials to Moses, a testimony from God to put to silence those who might question in future his divine appointment as leader and commander to Israel. With these explanations as to why God specialized the ten commandments as noted, let us next consider other alleged distinctions of the "two laws." 2d. Neh. 9:13, 14, is cited by Adventists with great assur- ance to prove that God gave Israel two distinct laws. "13. Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gayest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments," These terms, they say, refer not to their 'ceremonial law," but exclusively to the ten commandments. But the ten commandments were not called the "judgments." The "judgments" (Ex 21:1) Mr. Smith himself calls "The civil and ceremonial laws of the Hebrews." Again, the ten commandments were the constitutional law of the Israelites. To administer the punishment and "mercy" provided for in said law needed some statutory en- actments; hence the ' statutes" that thus grew out of the law were absolutely included in what Adventists call the "ceremonial law." Therefore, "right judgments" and "good statutes," in verse 13 do not refer to the ten commandments at all, but to their "ceremonial law." In verse 14 we read, "And madest known to them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes and laws by the hand of Moses, thy servant " Here they claim God distinguishes their "ceremonial law." But the Sabbath was primarily made known from Sinai, in their ten command- ment law. Again, the plural term "laws" is found in both verses, which might as easily prove that God gave at least four laws to Israel. Neh. 9:13, 14 does riot distinguish two laws. The passage evidently distinguishes what God gave of law from Sinai, from what he gave from elsewhere. The ten command- ments, Ex. 20:1-17; the "judgments," Ex. 2:1; and "statutes," Ex 25th to 40th chapters, God did give from Mount Sinai. Then when the tabernacle was set up, God took up his abode in it, and from the mercy seat gave to Moses all the "precepts" and "statutes" contained in the books Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy that had not previously been delivered from Sinai's top. The final delivery of the law was as per Deut. 29:1: "These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the chil- dren of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb." As at Horeb (Mount Sinai), God gave them the old covenant in epitome, it was necessary to deliver statutes from time to time as occasion required, until the covenant in fullest detail had been de- l'vered to them. As each of such deliverances of the law was "after the tenor of the covenant made with Israel" ( Ex. 34:27) Paul's saying, "If a law be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto," (Gal. 3:15) was not violated. We have, therefore, not yet found two laws distinguished, so we proceed to- 3d By comparison of Neh. 9:13,14, with Ezekiel 20:20-26, Seventh Day Adventists claim that God characterizes the ten commandments as the "right," "true" and "good" law, and the law "whereby a man may live;" but that he charac- terizes their "ceremonial law" as the "not good" law "where- by a man can not live." I protest that God is seriously mis- reprepresented by this claim, for in Ezek. 20:21 we read, "They walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments to do them, which if a man do he shall even live in them." As we have before noticed, the "judgments" and "stat; utes" were not the ten commandments. They composed the Adventists' "ceremonial law." Therefore the reverse of their claim is true. Instead of said law being as they say, "not good," and a law "whereby they could not live," God declares it to be "good," and "right," and "true," and a law "whereby 40 a man could live." When a man sinned his only hope waE what Adventists call the "ceremonial" or "Moses law," and "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses."—Heb. 10:28. In his testament God promised his heirs "mercy." This "mercy" we noticed was afterwards granted to those who would sacrifice for it. Such persons had the promise of "long life" in the "land" which God gave to Israel. And natural long life and not eternal life was the life bequeathed by God's first testament._ We will' prove this later. But Adventists will demand of me:—"What, then, were the statutes God gave them that were 'not good ?" Let the context explain. "Because they had not executed my judg- ments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my Sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols "Wherefore, I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they could not live." "And I polluted them in their gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know I am the Lord."—Ezek 20:24-26. (od gave them the statutes per- taining to the worship of their fathers' idols. Why? Be- cause they would not keep his "judgments" and "statutes" that were "right," "true" and "good." By the statutes of their fathers' idols they had to sacrifice their children; even those that "opened the womb," i. e. the first born. Why were such statutes "not good," and statutes "whereby they could not live ?" Plainly, because all their first born chil- dren died by them, and so families were made desolate. Hence, hereby, they indeed could not live by those statutes; for in their first born children Israel was daily dying by them, Gods' " judgments" demanded no human sacrifices; they were to be obeyed in order to preserve life, and not to destroy it. And God only gave them up to those statutes till they should 'know that he was Lord. Stephen in Acts 7:42, referring to the same circumstance says:—"Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven." Compare with these passages Rom. 1:22-28 and II Thos. 2:10-12, to find con- firmation of the fact that when God's people will not observe his ways, he will give them even what they are determined 41 to have—their own ways, that are not good, that he may judge them. Again, as Neh. 9:13, 14 and Ezek. 20:20-26 fail to distinguish the "two laws," let us consider:- 4th. Another text that Adventists say characterizes the ten commandments as the law "whereby a man may live" is Lev. 18:4,5. "Ye shall do my judgments and keep my ordi- nances to walk t herein; I am the Lord your God." "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments; which if a man do he shall live in them." "Ordinances," "statutes," and "judgments" in this passage refer to their "ceremonial law," and not to the ten commandments, for Elder Smith himself says of the "judgments" contained in Ex. 21st, 22d and 23d chapters, that they are an "epitome of the civil and ceremonial laws given to the Hebrews."—THE Two COVEN- ANTS, page 11. •Therefore, again I insist that the law where- by Israel could live was the Seventh Day Adventists' "ceremonial law." "Statutes" and "judgments" are contained in nearly every text in the Bible where the expression, "Ye shall live in them," is connected with the keeping of the law. And without exception they allude to their ceremonial law. 5th. In Rom. 7:14 we read, "For we know that the law is spiritual." In Heb. 9:10 the law is said to contain "carnal ordinances." How can the law be both spiritual and carnal at the same time? is asked by the Adventists. There must have been two laws, is their inference. The law was spirit- ual with its carnal ordinances, the same as a good christian is spiritual, serving God in a carnal body. The body is material, fleshly, or "carnal." The inner man is spiritual and contemplates spiritual things. As a man can be a spir- itual man within a fleshly, material, or carnal body, so the law was spiritual within its "carnal ordinances." Spiritual ideas inhered in every one of those ordinances. They were all shadows of some good things to come. Israel did not know this at the time, It was left for Paul to explain to us in his epistles. Adventists err in representing that Paul calls the law "carnal," He does not. He only speaks of some of its ordinances as such. Adventists dare not affirm that Paul uses the term "carnal" in the low sense of lust but 42 as the equivalent of material. Instead, therefore, of speak- ing of two laws, Paul speaks of but one law, which conveyed some of its spiritual ideas through fleshly sacrifices—"carnal ordinances." 6th. The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul."— Ps. 19:7 "The law made nothing perfect."—Heb. 7:19. Here, say Adventists, two laws must surely have obtained— one perfect. one not perfect. What a stupid comparison ! In trying to identify a man, A says to B, the man I saw had ears perfect in form. "Well" replies B, he could not have been the man I saw; for the man I met, had a very imperfectly formed nose. Would their conclusions, that they must have seen two different men, been necessarily correct ? Because they compared not ears with ears, nor nose with nose, but nose with ears, the man each saw might easily have been the same man. So here in the Adventists comparison. The law being perfect is one thing. The law making something else perfect is a different thing. The character of the law is compared with the work of the law. The comparison is not lawful. A German might be perfect in the use of his mother tongue; but he might not be able to bring a lot of Yankees to perfection in the use of the same language. The law of God in its entirety was perfect, even in all its precepts and ordinances. Through its promises and threatenings it made many converts in blacksliding Israel. But for lack of a proper atonement for sin it could not perfect one of them. The good begun work in the soul had to be completed by the Christ of the new covenant. 7th. Adventists say the ten commandments are never called "law of Moses" or "Moses' law," but always "Law of God," or "God's law." Again they err. "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel with the statutes and judgments."-- Mal. 4:4. Here, something besides "statutes and judgments" is called "the law of Moses," with which they were con- nected. The "commanded law" at Horeb, Mr. Smith says, was the "ten commandments." Therefore the ten com- mandments here were called "Law of Moses" by the Lord 43 himself. On his dying bed, David charged Solomon, saying, "And keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses."—I Kings 2:3. The "testimonies" we have seen, were the ten commandimnts. In nearly every text in the Psalms, Adventists themselves explain "testimonies" to refer to the ten commandments. For once they are right. But see in I Kings 2:3, David makes them a component part of the "Law of Moses," same as he does the "statutes' and "judgments" I need not note other texts. These prove beyond contradiction that the ten commandments were called the "Law of Moses" as well as "Law of God." Hav- ing examined the chief texts upon which Adventists rely to prove their "two law theory" and having found every one of them a failure, we are at last ready to define the new cov- enant, which we will do in the next chapter. CHAPTER V. Upon its first delivery to Israel the old covenant was embodied in the ten commandments. Upon its first delivery to Israel the new covenant was embodied in the person of Christ. "I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people for a light of the Gentiles."—Isaiah 42:6. "Thus saith the Lord, in an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee; and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages."—Isaiah 49:8. The prophet Isaiah has Christ in view. He calls him "a covenant," also "a light of the Gen- tiles." And this must be the new covenant, as it was the one in which the Gentiles could have inheritance. Covenant and testament being the same, it follows that Christ was God's second testament to Israel; that in him must have been contained the promises of its bequests and conditions of inheriting them. If the "tables of stone" and the "book" could be called the covenant because they contained the first 111111m.._ 44 45 covenant, with equal propriety Isaiah could call Christ "a covenant," because that in him was contained God's second covenant. God called the first covenant, the ten commandments, his "testimony."—Ex. 31:18; 32:15; 34:29. In I Cor. 2:1, 2 we read, "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." "For I determined not to know any- thing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified." Paul regarded Christ crucified as God's "testimony" to us. In II Cor. 3:6 Paul says of God, "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." In verse 17 he says of this "spirit" in which the new testament consists, "Now the Lord is that spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty." The real substance of the new testament was the `Lord"—Christ. Preaching Christ was preaching the new testament. Preaching the new testament was preaching Christ in whom was the in- heritance of the new testament heirs. Paul denies that he ministered the new testament in "letter." Why not in "letter ?" 1. Because, as yet, its text had not been put in "letter " Moses put in "letter" the text of the first testa- ment when he wrote it in the "book." God put it in "letter" when he engraved it in the tables of stone. But Christ did not put the new testament in "letter," He did not write a line of it. When Paul penned the above it had not yet been put in writing by the apostles, save here and there in frag- ments. For the best of reasons, then, Paul did not minster in "letter" the new testament, even because it was not yet put in "letter." It was embodied in the "Lord" that "spirit" that dwelt miraculously in Paul, and that inspired Paul to speak fourth the promised bequests it contained with the conditions upon which the heirs could inherit them. 2. Be- cause preaching directly under the inspiration of the holy spirit and the object of the preaching being—the convey- ance of the Spirit to those who heard in faith, (see Gal. 3:2-5) one could but expect that Paul would so preach as to convey to the hearers the substance of his testament and not its mere letter. The first testament was embodied in summary, in the ten commandments. Again, it was embodied in complete de- tail in the book Moses wrote, from which it was copied into many books. Corresponding to the first testament's embodi- ment in the ten commandments, we have the embodiment of the second testament in the person of Christ, the "Lord" that "Spirit." Corresponding to the embodiment of the first testament in the books written by Moses and succeeding copyists, we -hare the new testament embodied in the Apos ties and their immediate converts. Quoting Jeremiah, Paul says, "This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days saith the Lord, I will put my laws in their mind and write them in their hearts."—Heb, 8:10. Again, "Whereof also the Holy Ghost is a witness unto us; for after that he had said be- fore." "This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them.—Heb. 10:15, 16. Jeremiah and Paul are both speaking of the new covenant. They are telling us where it was to be written. The first testament was written in "tables of stone" and in a "book," but not so the second. It was to be "put" in the "minds" and "written" in the "hearts" of Israel. The Holy Ghost is here styled the "witness" of the covenant. A witness is one who testifies. Jesus himself provided that the Holy Spirit should communicate or testify to the Apostles the things belonging to the new covenant And he did so.—Compare JOhn 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-14: Acts 1:8; 2:1-4; I Peter 1:10-12. When he descended from heaven on Pentecost, he did "PUT" its "LAWS" in their "MINDS" and he did "WRITE" them in their "HEARTS." Thus was the prophecy fulfilled, ileA and thus was the new testament written in the hearts of the postles. Henceforth they were as walking new testaments, -"since by inspiration of the Spirit dwelling within them, they proclaimed the new testament promises and the conditions on which Israel might become heirs and inherit them. One power that was exercised exclusively by the Apostles was, the imparting to their converts, by the laying on of hands, the Holy Spirit with the nine miraculous gifts cited in I Cor. 46 12:9,10. Those that thus received the gift of "tongues" or of "prophecy" were also empowered to speak the things that pertained to the new testament by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that dwelt in them. A church thus endowed by an Apostle could edify itself without the presence of an Apostle. For an example of such self-edification by inspira- tion of the Holy Spirit read carefully I Cor. 14th chapter. Happy was the church thus endowed. What if they did not have a single copy of the written new testament in their midst? They had its equivalent, or what was equally to be desired. They had among them persons in whom the Holy Spirit dwelt in miraculous measures and through whom he spoke the contents of the new testament by inspiration. By virtue of the Holy Spirit dwelling in and speaking through them these also were as walking new testaments in the midst of their brethren. In Acts 18th chapter is contained an account of Paul's three years and six month's labor by which the church at Corinth was formed. Some time succeeding his labors there, ministers, evidently upon "letters of commendation;' (see II Cor. 3:1) gained admission to their pulpit. These tried to persuade the Corinthians that Paul was not an apostle. In his two letters to them he finds it necessary to come to the defense of his apostleship. In its support he cites them to the fact that "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs and won- ders and mighty deeds." "For what is it wherein ye are in- ferior to other churches ?"—II Cor. 12:12,13. "In everything ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowl- edge." "Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:" "So that you come behind in no gift.,'—I Cor. 1:5-7. "If I be not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord."—I Cor. 9:2. Here was a church in possession of all the miraculous gifts of the spirit; so that they were not inferior to other churches in the exercise of said gifts, nor did they come behind other churches in the number of the gifts. Truly he 11111111... 47 could say, "The seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." "If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you." It was through Paul's ministry, and his alone, that they had received the Holy Spirit with all of its rich endow- ment of those marvelous gifts. What better proof did he need of his -apostleship ? 'But, evidently, the faith of some of the Corinthians in Paul as an apostle of Christ was shaken. Hence, as he would soon visit them, he would know, "need we, as some others epistles of commendation to you ?" That is, must he come with a letter, say, from the twelve apostles, assuring them that he was an apostle? No. "Ye are our epistle." Forasmuch as )e are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ. ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."—II Cor, 3:13. In a previous chapter we noticed that the testament writ- ten in "tables of stone" and delivered to Moses served as credentials from God, certifying that he had chosen him to deliver law from himself to Israel. Here, in like manner, because of the testament contents written in the hearts of the spiritually gifted Corinthians by the Spirit given to them through Paul's ministry, they, too, became as credentials from God to Paul to certify that he had made him one of his "able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, hut of the spirit," v. 6. Seeing, as we have seen, the new testament was embodied in the "Lord" that "Spirit;" in im- parting the Spirit to the Corinthians by the laying on of his hands, they also became embodiments of the new testament by virtue of the Holy Spirit in them. This impartation of the Spirit to converts of Christ by laying on of hands was the work of none but apostles Hence, because by the min- istry of Paul they lacked none of the gifts of the Spirit, the Corinthians became epistles certifying to his claim to be "an able minister of the new testament." The death of the testator must now engage our attention; for Paul says "Where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator."—Heb. 9:16. And Paul insists upon making this rule apply in the person of 48 the author of the Old and New Testaments. As he insists upon the death of said testator as a "necessity" in order that his testament might come in force, it is a matter of no little concern who the testator really was. In "THE Two COVENANTS," page 19, Elder Uriah Smith says, "We now have before us the minister of the new cov- enant, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the sacrifice provided, his own blood, and the author of the new covenant, God, who made the first covenant, of which Moses was minister." Was God, indeed, the "author,' i, e., testator of both the old and new testaments? So Mr. Smith declares. Then of "necessity" God had to die. But Elder Smith has written a whole volume to prove and defend the proposition that death is "the cessation of life of the whole man." See "Man's Nature and Destiny," page 193. Well, then, when God died he ceased to be for space of three days and three nights; and I am perplexed to understand who in all creation could have restored him again to life. I agree with Elder Smith that God was the testator, but I deny that death is as he defines. I prefer a defining of death as given by the Apostle James: "The body without the spirit is dead."-- James 2:26. The spirit animates the body. The body is dead when the spirit departs from it, hence death is the cessation of life in the body. Paul's declaration that he could not tell whether that man "caught up to third heaven" was "in the body" or "out of the body," (II Cor. 12:2, puts it beyond doubt that Paul regarded man's spirit as capable of intelli- gent existence outside of the body. Who Christ was needs to be understood to proceed intelligently. The following new testament declarations are definitive: "They shall call his name Emanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." —Matt. 1:23. "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself."—II Cor. 5:19. "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the God-head bodily."—Col. 2:9. "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, be- lieved on in the world, received up into glory."—I Tim. 3:16. "He that hath seen me hath seen the father." "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me 49 The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."—John 14:9,10. "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us."—I John 3:16. These passages suffice to show that God, the Father, was as truly resident in that body as was the human soul and spirit of Jesus. That was God's body just as much as it was the body of the man Jesus. They jointly owned and resided in it. Now suppose God had departed from said body and left the spirit of the man Jesus in sole possession of it, would the body have become inanimate, dead ? No. Sup- pose, then, the spirit and soul of the man Jesus had departed from that body and left God as the sole occupant in it, would it have become inanimate with him resident in it Impossible! Suppose God had departed from it and later the spirit of the man Jesus had also departed from it? Had it, then, become, inanimate, dead ? Certainly. And even so it came to pass, First, God himself took his departure from the body after it had suffered much. In his desertion, Jesus called after him, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" —Matt. 27:46. How pitifully alone he must have felt! But his own spirit soon followed that of God, his Father. Again he cried after him, "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit." The spirit departed to God who gave it, and now the body was dead. Was God destroyed? No. Was the spirit of the man Jesus destroyed ? No. Was the body destroyed? Yes! Well, then death was not the destruction of the spirit, nor of the Spirit—("God is a Spirit"—John 4: 24), but it was the destruction of the body inhabited by them both. This is in agreement with Christ's saying: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."—John 2:19. "Temple." What is a temple? You answer, "A house." Is it, indeed, but a common house as for the abode of man or beast ? No, The temple is distinguished from other houses in this, that it is the dwelling place of God. Death destroy- ed the temple of God, i. e., his dwelling place and not God, nor even the spirit of Jesus; or, how could he say, "Destroy 50 51 this temple and in three days I will rear it up again." How could "I" raise it up if "I" had been destroyed with the body ? But it was raised up and reinhabited after the third day. With this conception of death it does not seem so shocking to hear John declare, "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us."—I John 3:16 But with Mr. Smith's definition of death, "cessation of life of the whole man," it is simply frightful. Since in Christ "dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," if there had been a "cessation of life" of that "whole man," the God man, the world had absolutely been without a God for three days and three nights. Seems to me that in these facts the dead-sou/- and spirit theory of all the Advent bodies finds its deathblow, being by them reduced to absurdity. The definition of testament according to Webster is: 1. A solemn authentic instrument in writing, by which a per- son declares his will as to the disposal of his estate and effects after death." Why, in trying to identify the coven- ants, did not Elder Smith quote and apply this definition ? Simply because having asserted that God was the author of the testaments, he would have ended with God awfully dead, and with no one in the universe able to resuscitate, or restore him. As explained in a previous chapter, every tes- tament is a covenant, but every covenant is not a testament. The ordinary covenant between two parties does not require the death of either party to bring it into force. But Paul declares that when the agreement constitutes a testament, the death of the testator is a "necessity" before said testa- ment comes in force. Having clearly shown, how within the Bible definition of death God the testator could, and act- ually did die, as God incarnate in the flesh; and how that Paul's demand for the testator's death was perfectly consist- ent even in the being of the incarnate God, let us next deter- mine when and where the new testament was dedicated and brought in force. To the question, "When was the new covenant made ?" Elder Smith points to the institution of the Lord's Supper.- Matt. 26:26-30, as the time of its formal making. But for the following reasons I dissent from his conclusion: 1st. The Lord's supper was designed to be of frequent recurrence. If its first observance constituted the formal making of the covenant, why was not each succeeding ob- servance the making of the covenant ? With allusion to the Jewish passover Paul says, "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."—I Cor. 5:7. As their passover ordinance was ordained before the making of the old covenant, so be- fore the making of the new covenant Christ instituted the Lord's supper. By Paul's reference the latter feast is seen to stand in the same relation to the new covenant as the for- mer feast to the old covenant; and, clearly, neither constitut- ed the making of the covenants in question. 2d. Mr. Smith rightly claims that Jesus was the "minis- ter" of the new covenant, as Moses was "minister" of the old covenant. Now, was the old covenant in force the moment Moses drew the blood of that covenant from the veins of the "calves and goats?" No, he must, and did, first officially minister that blood, applying it to the book and the people; and then was that covenant dedicated. But Elder Smith represents Christ as ministering the blood of the new testament even before it was shed. He represents him as dedicating the covenant with wine at the last supper. He knows better. In his book entitled "THE SANCTUARY," page 158, he says, "Having provided the sac- rifice, Christ commences his work as priest in the sanctuary above, and the invitation is sent out to all the world, come unto me for pardon and everlasting life." Yes, he did "com- mence" his work as priest in heaven. From thence he issued and dedicated the new covenant. For the old covenant Paul represents that Israel came "unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire," and to the "voice of words; which voice they that heard entreated that the words should not be spoken to them any more." But for our new covenant, Paul represents that we "come unto Mount Zion and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusa- lem." "To the general assembly and church of the first born (Christ's church, He is 'first born') which are written in heaven." "And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, 52 and to the blood of sprinkling." "See tiat ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake not on earth, much more shall we not escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven."—Heb. 12:- 18-25. Moses "on earth," "spake" the old covenant. He dedi- cated it with sprinkling of blood. He was its mediator until Aaron succeeded him. None escaped who refused him, "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses."—Heb. 10:28. Jesus is resident in "heav- enly Jerusalem." As mediator or minister of the new cov- enant there he sprinkled the blood. From thence he was speaking its contents in Paul's day to the Hebrews whom Paul warns, "Se that ye refuse not him that speaketh from heaven." This contrasting of the old and new covenants makes it plain that the latter must have been dedicated in "heavenly Jerusalem," and then spoken "from heaven.' Peter says that he and associates "preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Ghost sent forth from heaven."—I Peter 1:- 12, Revised Version. But Mr. Smith will have it that when the blood began to flow on the cross "from that moment the covenant came in force."—THE Two COVENANTS, page 26. It certainly did not. Its first and chief blessings were "remission of sins" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit." Had the covenant come in force at the cross, the apostles had at once proclaimed "remission of sins" and believers would at once have come into possession of the Holy Spirit. But as late as the fortieth day after the resurrection the blessings of the covenant had!! not yet been proclaimed, nor would Jesus allow them to be published till the apostles spent ten more days waiting for the Holy Spirit to descend and write in their hearts what t proclaim. He ordained "that repentance and remission o sins should be preached in his name among all nations be- ginning at Jerusalem."—Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8. The new covenant came in force on the day of Pentecost. On that day was made the first proclamation of "remission of sins' after Christ's death, and on that day for the first time did 53 they inherit the Holy Spirit. The proclamation was made "in the name of Jesus Christ." It was made "at Jerusalem." The last agreement between Christ and the apostles was that if they would tarry at Jerusalem he would send them the Spirit that would `•testify of him," "guide them into all truth," "bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever he had said unto them." They kept their part in the agree- ment and Christ kept his; and at Jerusalem the Spirit filled them by inspiration with the contents of the new covenant, and there they were of God sealed with the Holy Spirit, and constituted the walking testaments of Our Lord Jesus Christ. "A testament is of force after men are dead." How soon after? In God's case, fifty days after. CHAPTER VI. What God's new testament heirs inherit must next claim our attention. Reader, did you ever notice that the two great promises hat God made to Abraham to induce him to forsake his native country and wicked kindred, became the occasions of the old and new covenants? First he promised to give him the land of Canaan for an inheritance.—See Heb. 11:8, 9; 12:1-5. When he took his descendants from their bondage in Egypt, then he conveyed them Canaan as a testator conveys real estate to heirs by a testament. Thus the "promise" de- veloped into the first covenant. The second great promise was, "In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."— Gen. 12:3. Or as worded in Gen. 22:18, "In thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed." Of this seed Paul explains, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."—Gal. 3:16. So then, God intend- ed that Abraham should have Christ for his "seed" and that he would bless all nations through him. And in what did the, "blessing" consist? 1. Justification. "And the scrip- ture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through 54 faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, "In thee shall all nations be blessed." "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."—Gal. 3:8, 9 2. The Holy Spirit. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spir- it through faith."—Gal. 3:13, 14. In a word, the "blessing" consists of each and every favor God conveys to us through Christ; as justification (which includes the remission of sins) the Holy Spirit,adoption into God's family,joint heirship with Christ, resurrection from the dead, eternal life, a home in New Jerusalem and the New Earth, access to the tree of life, etc. All these we inherit in Christ, who, as we have shown, was himself the embodiment of the new covenant, until he, by the Holy Spirit, wrote its promises with condi- tions of their inheritance in the minds and hearts of the apostles. Thus was it, that the promise, "In thy seed shall all nations be blessed," developed into the new covenant; for God also conveyed by testament its "blessings" to all who become his heirs by obeying the gospel. Having learned what things God's new testament heirs inherit, we next inquire for the conditions upon which they must be inherited. The all comprehensive condition by which we inherit in the new covenant is FAITH. First, "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ." "For as many of you as have been baptized into Jesus Christ have put on Christ."—Gal. 3:26-27. But let me caution against an extreme view of faith. Before me lies the creed of a popular denomination. It concludes: "That we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort." "By faith only" is not a new testament state- ment. It is a human statement, and is untrue. "Faith" is not used in an exclusive sense, when spoken of as a condition of salvation, but in an inclusive sense. It includes repen- tance and baptism. In his last words Jesus authorized his Disciples to proclaim: "He that believeth and is baptised 55 shall be saved."—Mark 16:17. "And that repentance and re- mission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem."—Lu. 24:47. As Christ declared the conditions by which we are made heirs of the new testament and by which we appropriate our inheritance, they are, Faith, Repentance and Baptism. Again, to Peter, Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the promise, "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shalt be loosed in heaven."—Matt. 16:19. When those sinners on the day of Pentecost wished to be loosed from their sins, Peter directed them to "Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."—Acts 2:38. When he opened the door of salvation to the Gentiles, he testified to Cornelius and house, "that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." "And he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord." —Acts 10:13, 48. Thus also Peter, Christ's inspired key-hold- er of the new covenant kingdom, made Faith, Repentance and Baptism the conditions of inheritance in the new cov- enant, even of "the remission of sins." And they are the conditions. But Elder Smith affirms of the ten commandments that "they are the condition upon which all of God's promises to men in every age are suspended."—TRE Two COVENANTS, page 8. He certainly errs, for neither on the day of Pente- oost, nor afterward, did any of the inspired apostles ever men- tion the ten commandments as a condition of new covenant inheritance. There are ten detailed accounts of conversions in the book of Acts: The three thousand, the five thousand, the Samaritans, the Eunuch, Saul of Tarsus, Cornelius and house, Lydia and house, the jailer and house, the Corin- thians and the twelve Ephesians. All these were put in pos- session of the remission of sins and the Holy Spirit—the first fruits of new covenant inheritance. Yet in not a single instance were the ten command- ments enjoined as a condition of said inheritance. They are not "the condition upon which God's blessings to men in which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."—Phil. 3:9. Here, sure enough, one righteousness was by the law, but another was through faith in Christ. Again, there were two justifications: "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins." "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."—Acts 13:38, 39. From some things, then, they were justified by the law of Moses; but from oth- ers they were not, but for these they found "forgiveness" or justification in Christ. The "two" may be illustrated. In our civil government a man is counted righteous and just before the state's laws so long as he does not transgress them. When he transgresses them, if he satisfactorily meets all their penalties, then the judge pronounces him righteous and justified be fore the law, and entitled to life and liberty. He might commit an offense and for it be hanged or electrocut- ed and so forfeit his life. But would the righteousness and justification before our state laws entitle the man to eternal life in the kingdom of heaven ? No indeed. Why not? Because of the fact that many of our sins must be twice accounted for. Such sins as our Civil Governments call to account, may be remitted by the Civil Courts when we meet the penalties imposed by said Courts. Upon meeting them, the Courts also declare us right and justified in the sight of their laws, and as entitled to continue civil life and liberty. But suppose the sins in question were stealing and slander. Would justification from the Civil Courts end our accountability in respect to them ? No verily. Over and above all Civil Governments is God's Government. The same sins must again be called to account at his judgment seat." But through Christ's atonement for sin, if we embrace him as our Savior, God will also declare us righteous and justified from the sins committed against HIS government. Consequent upon this righteousness, and justification, is ETERNAL LIFE and LIB- RRTY. 56 57 • every age are suspended." The blessings of God in this Christian age are not suspended upon keeping ten command- ments. We will make this clear by and by. By the condi- tions of faith, repentance and baptism, a man is started upon his new covenant inheritance. But Christ added, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."—Matt. 28:20. What more must be observed, that we may finally and fully enter upon our new testament inherit, . ante we will consider later. It is often said that the Bible contradicts itself. To show how the Seventh Day Adventists easily have erred in sup- posing the ten commandments to be the condition of inher, iting in the new covenant, I will point out a few of such supposed contradictions: 1. "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justi. fied."—Rom. 2:13. "By deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."—Rom. 3:20. Here justification is promised to the "doers" of the law, and yet is denied to the "deeds" of the law. 2. In Dent. 6:25, after urging Israel to keep the "testimonies," "statutes," and "judgments" of the law, Moses declared, "And it shall be our righteousness if we observe to do all these commandments." But Paul says, "If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain," Gal. 2:21. Here righteousness is, and yet is not, by the law, 3. "Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those things shall live in them." —Rom. 10:5. "For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law."—Gal. 3:21. Here life is, and yet is not, by the law. Righteousness, is again denied to be by the law. The first verses in these three comparisons seem to contra- dict the second. How reconcile them? By this simple fact: The first verses in the comparisons refer to ONE righteous, ness, justification and life; while the second verses in the comparison allude to ANOTHER and different righteousness, justification and life. There WERE TWO RIGHTEOUSNESSES. Paul desired to be found in Christ. "Not having mine own righteousness, 58 Now, what careful bible student, but knows, that God at Mount Sinai, by his first testament, organized his heirs, the Israelites, into a civil kingdom of which He, himself, was the king ? and that his government combined both civil and spiritual laws ? To answer for sins to God as Civil Ruler was one thing. To answer for sins to him as their Spiritual Ruler was a very different thing. For breaking civil stat- utes, there were civil penalties affixed that were in the power of the offender to meet. Upon making the required restitu- tion, or otherwise answering to the penalties, God as Civil Judge declared the offender as absolved from his sins and as righteous, justified and entitled to continue life and lib- erty. It was for thus meeting the penalties of the law that it was said. "The man that doeth them shall live in them." He prolonged his natural life upon the earth. But if he rebelled against meeting the restitutional penalties imposed upon him, then God the Civil Judge could not declare him righteous and justified before the civil law, and an end was put to his life by stoning. Therefore, "He that despised Moses' law died withmit mercy under two or three wit nesses."—Heb. 10:28. Thus all can clearly see that there was a righteousness, a justification and a consequent living by the law: even a civil righteousness, justification and life. But over and above his Civil Kingship and Judgeship, God was Israel's Spiritual Ruler and Judge; and he intended to hold them responsible for their sins against him as the Moral and Spiritual ruler in the universe. Now, it was for their sins against him as their Spiritual Ruler and Judge that they could not obtain righteousness, justification and life by the laws of that first testament. They were not first testament inheritance. God reserved them for inheritance in his second testament, and so only typified, or foreshad- owed them in the first testament. For example, the sins of Israel for which God intended they must answer to him as their Spiritual Judge, had to be repented of with bloody sacrifices according to the law: but there was not sufficient atoning power in any nor all those millions of bloody sacri- fices offered by the first testament to procure freedom for so 59 Much as one sinner. The very utmost the offenders realized in them was but the "PROMISE" of "remission of sins."— Heb. 10:1-4. They served as the shadow of "good things to come," even of the sacrifice of Christ in which was atoning power sufficient to save the world; and on the basis of which by conditions revealed in his second testament, he declares penitent believers righteous, justified and heirs of eternal life. Where is now the contradiction between the quotations we set out to reconcile? There is absolutely none. The passages that declare the obedient as justified, righteous and as living by keeping the law, state the truth; for there was civil righteousness, justification, and life procured under that first testament. But the second passages in the com- parisons which declare that men were not made righteous, nor justified, nor given life for obedience to that law, do just as certainly state the truth. For there is a righteousness, a justification, a life that was not revealed nor brought to light till it was declared in God's second testament. (See Isai. 56:1; Rom. 1:16, 17; 3:20-22; I Tim. 2:10.) If Elder Smith had asserted that civil righteousness, justification, and life under the first coovenant were "supended" upon their keeping the ten commandments and all other pre- cepts of that law, he had been clearly right; but in his decla- ration that the blessings of God in every age are suspended on the the keeping of the ten commandments, he grievously blunders. Because Adventists have never distinguished God's righteousness from the righteousness of the law, and because of old the Israelites were declared justified by the law, they somehow (though they never can make plain how) still think we are justified by the law. Zacharias and Elizabeth "were both righteous before God walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."—Lu, 1:6. And Paul professed that "touching the righteousness in the law," he was "blameless." Yes, as to this civil righteousness before God, their civil king, they could be blameless. But from their sins against him as God, none were justified by the law of Moses—"no) 60 not one." In this sense, from Adam to Christ, there was "none righteous, no not one." tinder the first covenant said sins could not be forgiven and forgotten. There was not sufficient atoning power in their sacrifices to justify from them. Therefore, from year to year they were kept in re- membrance under the covenant.—See Heb. 8:12; 10:1-3. But the moment that Christ expired on the cross, God counted all the "called" ones under the first covenant righteous and justified from their sins against him as their God. There- fore we read, "And for this cause he is the the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemp- tion of the transgressions that were under the first testa- ment, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."—Heb. 9:15. Notice, 1. Christ "redeemed" the "transgressions" under the first testament. Hence for the first were they really re- mitted. Now, could God say, "Their sins and their iniqui- ties will I remember no more," and "where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."—Heb. 10:17, 18. Now, also, were those first testament saints "perfected.-- See Heb. 9:9; 10:14; 11:40. Notice, 2. That the "called" of that first testament were by Christ's death put into posses- sion of "eternal inheritance." The first covenant bequeath- ed the heirs only temporal blessings. The "second coven- ant" bequeaths the heirs eternal blessings. This is the great- est difference between the two. The first testament was, really, but a shadow of the sec- ond, the true testament. Its righteousness, justification, long life, land, temporal prosperity in the land, sabbath rest, rest in the land, bloody sacrifices, were each a shadow of the righteousness, justification, eternal life, new earth, favors in the new earth, soul rest, rest in the new earth, and Christ's blood of the new testament. Hence in Heb. 10:1, Paul could say: "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things." The first was but a shadow of the second and not a very good "image" or shad- ow at that. 61 CHAPTER VII. In my first article I promised to show in due time why God the testator did not die to bring in force his first testament "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." "For a testament is of force aft- er men are dead; otherwise, it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."—Heb. 9:16, 17. On dedicating the first testament, God substituted for his own, the death of calves and goats. How could he do so, when the law governing testament making demanded the life of the testator himself? The reason is evident. By the first testament God bequeath _ ed to Israel only the "shadow" of "good things to come."— Heb. 10:1. Why, then, did not a shadow death suffice to bring said testament in force ? It did; or God would not have dedicated it with a shadow death. When the proper time came for him to introduce by testament the "eternal inheritance," the "good things to come," he was willing enough to comply with the law that demanded the testator's death. To honestly and fairly meet the demand, he descend- ed and was incarnated. When by his own permission man had so wounded the body in which he was incarnated as to render it unfit for habitation, both he and the spirit of the man Jesus departed from it. Men had killed his body, but "Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul."—Matt. 10:28. The residents of the body they could not harm. Death could only separate God and his Son from the body in which it had pleased him to be incar- nated, The testament bequeathing "eternal inheritance" was thus brought in force by the actual death of its testator; but the testament bequeathing only the "shadow" of "good things to come" was brought in force by the shadow death. Paul says, "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance,"—Heb. 9:15. By this it is absolutely certain that Israel by their first covenant inherited temporal bless- ings only. The sacrifices of said covenant could procure them 63 nothing more. By keeping the ten commandments, the judgments and the ordinances, Israel inherited Canaan, long life in Canaan, and all the blessings enumerated in Dent, 28:1-14. Now if by their obedience under the first testament they only inherited things of this world, on what conditions were they afterwards able to appropriate the "eternal inher- itance" that Christ purchased them by his death ? For at the time Christ died, forty-four of the forty-five generations Who lived under that covenant were dead; hence they could not obey the conditions by which we of the new covenant appropriate said inheritance. My answer is: God made them a PRESENT of the "eternal inheritance." It was not given them in consideration for their keeping the ten command- ments, or the keeping of any commandments all. They re- ceived it simply as a GIFT from God. By the new testament we inherit, Remission of Sins, Holy Spirit, Adoption into God's family, Resurrection from the dead, Eternal life, New Jerusalem, New Earth, etc. These compose that same "eter- nal inheritance." Now it may surprise some to be told that even we new testament heirs are not given this "eternal inheritance" for our obedience, services and sacrifices; but that we toot receive it as a present from God the same as Israel received it! One will ask, "What, then; do we receive for our obedience, ser- vice and sacrifices which the new covenant requires at our hands ?" A reconciliation of the following apparently con- tradictory passages will answer the question: In Phil. 2,12 we read: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." In Eph. 2:8, 9, we read "By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." "Not of works, lest any man should boast!" Here we are commanded to work out our salvation, and yet it is declared not to be of works. On a saying of Christ let me base an illustration: "The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ran- som for many."—Matt. 20:28. A "ransom" is the price one pays for a slave when he buys him from a slaveholder to set him free. Then, Christ came to ransom and liberate slaves, Suppose that in the days of slavery a benevolent man had gone to the south, and there met a bright slave 16 years old; that upon seeing products of the boys fine mechanical talent he had resolved to set him free, that he might have opportu- nity to bring his talent to a perfect development; that upon inquiry he had found that his master would take $1500 for him. Suppose that after paying this ransom he had gone to the slave and proposed, "If you will forsake the land of slav- ery and come with me to the north to become a citizen there; if you will consent to be apprenticed to a skillful mechanic who can help develop your talent; if you will observe a man- ly behavior and diligently apply yourself to your trade, then upon oath, I promise that at the end of fide years' appren- ticeship, I will give you your freedom and I will turn over to you all the wages your employers will in the meantime pay you. My purpose in imposing these conditions is that you may be an honorable, self-supporting citizen when freed, instead of a dependent, wandering tramp. Mark this, fur- ther, if you cannot comply with these conditions for your freedom, or, if after complying with them for a few years you refuse to continue them to the end, then I certify to you that I will hand you back to your old master, notwithstand- ing I paid him $1500 for your ransom." Suppose the slave had joyfully assented to every condition proposed; that he had come north and served the required apprenticeship; that his employer had found him so apt and skillful as to have offered in wages $100 for the first year, $200 for the sec- ond, $300 for the third, $400 for the fourth, and $500 for the fifth, or $1500 for the five years. Suppose his redeemer had now come to him with, "Well done, good and faithful ser- vant. Enter into the joy of free citizenship. In my right hand is an instrument in which I declare you to be a free citizen. Your ransom cost me $1500, but in declaring you free I do so without charges. Your freedom is my GIFT to you. In my left hand is the $1500 paid you in wages for your services during apprenticeship. Beside this recom- pense for your compliance with the conditions by which I promised you your freedom, you are now a master mechanic which assures you of a continued resource for your support. 64 soW, question! By What was this man salted from bondage? Viewed from the standpoint of the slave, he was saved by his works, for had he refused to work he had not been liber- ated. So he "worked out his salvation." As viewed from the standpoint of his redeemer, his works had no credit whatever in his salvation, for instead of applying toward his ransom or toward a recompense to his redeemer for his favor, the redeemed man was given all his wages for his own enjoyment. Therefore from his standpoint his salvation from slavery was a gift. Suppose when freed the man had proposed to his re- deemer, "My ransom cost you $1500. Please accept my wages—$1500—then I will owe you nothing, but will prac tically have freed myself." Well might his redeemer have felt injured and demanded: "Of what value do you estimate my GRACE ? $1500 wages might cancel $1500 of ransom, but what can you render me as the equivalent of my GRACE? Hundreds who saw you before I met you could have paid your ransom. Why did none of them free you ? Because none of them had my gracious disposition,. Had I not of my GRACE redeemed you, you would still be in bondage; and if in the past five years you had earned twice $1500 it had availed you nothing towards freedom. In fact the more valuable your services in slavery had been the more you had been coveted as a slave." It is thus seen that his salvation was wholly to the credit of his redeemer's GRACE, for whatever of value there was in his works went into his own treasury, and was so much toward a fortune with which to begin his free life. Do not strain this illustration by making it cover too many points in the comparison. It does illustrate how Christ ran- somed us from sin, and how our works have absolutely no credit in our salvation. Salvation is therefore not of our works. They do not procure it. It is the gift of God. True the redeemed must work: but we will receive special rewards for works. So many scriptures indicate it. "Everyone that hath forsaken houses * * or lands, for my name's 65 sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit eternal life,"—Matt. 19:29. Here sacrifices are recompensed at the hundred fold rate; but besides, we "inherit eternal life,"which is "the gift of God,"—Rom. 6:23. If our "works shall be burned," we "shall suffer loss," though we ourselves may be saved "yet so as by fire."—I Cor. 3-15. He that "suffers loss" cannot have as much as if he had suffered no loss. "Add to your faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, etc." For so an entrance shall be administered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."—II Pet. 1:5-11. Add all the graces, and get in abun- dantly. Add less than all, and scarcely enter. For keeping the ten commandments, the judgments and the ordinances, Israel were rewarded with land in Canaan, long life in the land, and the blessings enumerated in Deut. 28:1-14. We will receive our recompenses at the "resurrection of the just." (Luke 14:14) for our obedience, services and sacrifices. In what? "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have en- tered into the heart of man the things God had prepared for them that love him."—I Cor. 2:9. Phil. 2:12 and Eph. 2:8, 9, are not at variance. "Work out your own salvation" is true, for except you work God will not save you. Again, salvation is "not of works." "It is the gift of God," for our works in no way recompense God for ransoming us. He pays us separately for all our works after giving us salvation as a present. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."—Jas. 2:24. God saves not idle but work- ing believers. Salvation is "not of works, lest any man should boast."—Paul in Eph. 2:9. Our works did not pur- chase our ransom. Christ bought it and made us a gift of it. Thus Paul and James are not at variance. The "eternal inheritance," then, I conclude was a gift to the 45 generations of Israel who died before Christ, even as it is a gift to us. Whatever their works merited, was paid them in the temporal favors bequeathed them in their testa- ment. If said favors did not fully compensate all, for their Works, depend upon it, God will pay the balance due them in 67 66 incidental favors in the world to come, where we, heirs of the new testament, are to receive rewards for our works, What did the benevolent man receive from the slave for his favors to him? He freed him from bondage at cost of $1500 to himself; he put him into a position, where, in five years, he earned $1500 with which he began life as a free citizen; and best of all, he developed the slave's mechanical talents until he ever afterward had in the same a sure re- source for a good living. For all this favor, what did he re: ceive ? Nothing, nothing at all, save the satisfaction of see- ing the improvement in the slave and his enjoyment of free citizenship. The distinction between what God GIVES use what he PATS us for WORK, is just as clear in the Bible as in the illustration just presented. And for all the Lord has done for us, He receives nothing in return, save the sat- isfaction of seeing us so developed in our powers and dispo- sitions as to make us useful to each other and happy; and in seeing us enjoy better environments. Now, since in the very constitution of man it would not be possible to develop .him into a manhood that would avail to him the aforesaid enjoy- ment without working himself into said developement, it is plain why God says, "Work out your salvation." And since we could never have recovered ourselves from sin, death, and the environments in this world in which we have so much misery; no, by no amount of labor on our part, God is strict- ly telling us the truth when he says—"By grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast." Since sal- vation is thus an absolute GIFT from God, and is reckoned to no man as from a debtor to a creditor of works, I can see how God may even redeem many heathen whose works he could not reward. Especially can I see how God can present salvation to thousands of those Israelites, who, for breaking- the ten commandments, lost their lives in the 40 years jour- ney in the wilderness. On leaving Egypt, the men, above 20 years of age, numbered 600,000. Because of their grevious sinning, only two of them reached Canaan—Joshua and Caleb. Even Moses and Aaron died in the wilderness for breaking the ten commandments. But if, as Elder Uriah Smith claims,` God's blessings in every age are suspended upon keep- ing the ten commandments," then 699,998 of those men, in- cluding Aaron and Moses will eventually find their portion in the lake of fire and brimstone; for all of them so grievous- ly broke said commandments that God destroyed them in the wilderness, so that they could not even inherit the blessings bequeathed in that first testament. How much less then could any of them inherit the "eternal inheritance" by those commandments. Truth is this; the blessings of the first cov- enant consisting of the temporal blessings of "LAND," "LONG LIFE" "INCREASE OF THE FLOCKS AND HERDS" etc. WERE "suspended upon their keeping the ten commandments." And because they FAILED to keep them, Moses, Aaron and the rest of the 699,998 never came to their inheritance. But as salvation from sin, death and hell was never suspended upon keeping the ten commandments, but is the free gift of God unto all to whom he deemed it wise to give it, I fully expect to meet Moses, Aaron and a great multitude of the rest of those offenders in the wilderness, in the company of the redeemed. The first covenant provided but for temporal punishments; and THAT those offenders all received. As it contained no promise of heaven to the obedient, so, also, it did not threaten hell and eternal torment to the transgres- sors. Hence many of them will be saved. CHAPTER VIII. Must we keep the ten commandments in order to obtain the inheritance of the new testament ? Adventists say,"Yes." I say, "No." In the promise, "In thy seed shall all the na- tions of the earth be blessed," Gen. 22:18. God first gave Abra- ham the same things we inherit in the new testament; for in Gal. 3:8, 14, 21, Paul shows that the Justification, Holy Spirit and Life bequeathed us in the new testament were in- cluded in the above promise to Abraham. As it was thous- ands of years yet before Abraham would realize the inheri- tance, God did not give it to him in fact, but only in "promise" 186 5 .S LAWRY REM AM KRAIP 68 He promised the blessing to him in a private covenant of which Paul says, "And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none effect." ' For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abra- ham by promise."—Gal. 3:17, 18. Notice, 1. The law, the ten commandments, was not made the condition upon which Abraham must obtain th inheritance which God confirmed to him in Christ; for Paul argues that the law was not given till 430 years after God had confirmed the blessing to him. 2. He further argues that the law was not the condition by which he should in' herit the blessing, because that "God GAVE it to Abraham by PROMISE." It was given to him not directly and in fact, for Christ was to give the blessing when he should come. So, it was only given in "promise," but it was a "given" inheri- tance. Therefore Paul argues that it was riot of the law. And what law does he have in mind ? The same one men- tioned in verse 12 and throughout the chapter. "And the law is not of faith; but the man that doeth them shall live in` them." I have already shown that Advertists contend that the ten commandments are always distinguished in the Bible as the "law whereby a man may live." Take them at their' word here, and it follows that Paul denies that the ten corn: mandments must be kept in order to secure inheritance in- Christ. Verse 19 raises the question, "Wherefore then serveth the law ?" That is, if they could not by keeping it obtain the inheritance, then of what use it? Paul answers, "It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made." In verse 16 he says Christ is that "seed." Positively, then, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS WERE ONLY IN FORCE TILL CHRIST CAME. Adventists themselves dare not deny that Paul in Gal. 3:12 27 is speaking of the law, the ten commandments, for see verses 22-27. "But the scripture bath concluded all un- der sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." "But before faith came we 69 were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." "Wherefore the law was our school- master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ." "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." 1. A schoolmaster is one who imparts knowledge. "By the law is the knowledge of sin."—Rom. 9:20. Adventists assert this last quotation refers to the ten commandments. 'Very well, then; Paul above must be calling them the schoolmaster because of the knowledge they gave in regard to sin. 2. The ten command-. ments were, then, the schoolmaster of the Israelites till Christ. When Christ came, who was "a teacher from God," the ten commandment schoolmaster gave way to him, for he could teach us more in regard to sin in an hour than the ten commandments could in a whole lifetime. If you wish to see how much more closely he defined sin than it was defined by the law, study carefully the sermon on the mount. 3. Notice further, that Israel did not receive justification on condition of their keeping the law. They were justified by faith on coming to Christ, for before Christ came the faith was not yet revealed. But when Christ came and the faith was re- vealed, in faith they were baptized for the remission of sins, which they then received with the Holy Spirit; and so they entered upon the enjoyment of the new covenant blessings; for the Holy Spirit is said to be "The earnest of our inherit- ance."—Eph. 1:14. That is, it is the "first fruits" of it. Adventists have a great deal of trouble to distinguish their two laws in Gal. 3d chapter; for though they think Paul is now speaking of one, then of the other law, they cannot tell which is meant in each verse where the term "law" occurs. Yes, and so it always goes. If you quote a new testament passage on the law that makes against their errors, they are sure to reply: "Oh! that means the cremonial law;" or "That means the ten commandment law." Thus you are never sure of their positions. If their distinction of two laws were scriptural, it would always be easy to decide which law were meant when the term "law" occurs in a given passage. But since God gave Israel but one law in two forms,—the shorter 71 and the longer forms, Adventists are put to to end ot trouble to always make sure whether the one, or the other of their laws is meant when "the law" is spoken of. And the distinctions, as I have abundantly verified, involves their teachings in endless contradictions of the word of God. But in verse 19 Adventists make quite a contention over the word "added." They always seek to make the impres' sion that Paul is telling us that God added the "ceremonial law" to the "ten commandment law" "because of trans-. gressions." This is downright foolishness. The context; shows that 430 years after God confirmed to Abraham in Christ the promise, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," which promise Israel had received from their fathers and were holding sacredly as a kind of family heirloom, and out of which they hoped some day to realize some good things; that even at the end of said 430 years, God "added" to the "promise" which they were keeping, the law, for their keeping, also. The 430 years brought Israel to Mount Sinai, where the law was "added" Was this the time and place where God "added" their "cere. monial law" to their "ten commandment law ?" If so, the world was without the redemptive system of law for 2500 years. But this is not true. Do Adventists find traces of the ten commandment law even back into the garden of Eden? Much more clearly can you trace what they call the "ceremonal law" to the same beginning. Tell me, when and where was the first animal sacrifice made on man's behalf? and who made it It was made by God in Eden, before he sent forth Adam and Eve. Being conscious that they were naked, they sewed ,fig leaves together and made them aprone that they might appear before God. God pitied them; and we read, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them."—Gen. 3:7, 21. Thus by a sacrifice of animal life did God find a covering for them: and a fit type was this of the sacrifice God afterward made to clothe us in "righteousness", that we might come to the "marriage of the lamb."—Rev. 19:7, 9. According to the narrative, God made the sacrifice for their raiment in Eden. From Eden onward we have fre quent mention of sacrifices, altars, priests and tithes. By a few references to moral precepts and a good deal of guess work, Adventists locate the giving of the ten command- ments in Eden. By the same process I can as easily prove that God gave their "ceremonial law" in Eden before he sent Adam and Eve forth into the world. That God gave to men some simple moral and sacrificial precepts before Moses' day is evident. But that he never gave the ten commandments with their promises, as embodied in the form delivered to Israel at Mount Sinai, I have abundantly proven in previ- ous articles. See Deut, 5:1-5; Rom. 5:13, 14: John 1:17. The two-law theory of Seventh Day Adventists is an in- vention to prevent the Sabbath from being abolished with the abolition of the old covenant. The law was "added because of transgressions"—Ga1.3:19. All the nations save Israel had forsaken God, having trans- gressed such simple requirements as God had given them. If Israel should also forsake him, who would carry the gospel to the apostatized nations when Christ should come? Reader did you ever notice that when God sought Israel's consent to his adoption of them to be his "peculiar people," how he pro- mised to make of them a "kingdom of priests and an holy nation ?"—Ex. 19:6. What is it to be a "priest ?" Re is one who stands between God and the people to minister from God to the people and from the people to God. Did Israel indeed thus serve between God and the nations ? Yes. When Christ came, his apostles and converts were all at the first from Israel. Through these he proclaimed to the world the knowledge of the "eternal inheritance" which he had be- queathed to Israel and all the nations. Thus did God keep his promise to them. But priests must he holier than those to whom they minister. To restrain Israel from "transgresions" God gave them as an inducement to keep themselves holy, that first testament in which he bequeathed them Canaan, long life in Canaan, and all those temporal blessings menti- oned in Deut. 28:1-14. All this he offered them if they would keep the ten commandments and all the other precepts that grew out of them by subsequent statutory legislation. The 73 law was thus given to Israel in addition to the Abrahamic promise to keep them as much within the bounds of right°. ousness and holiness as the greatest of temporal favors could induce in them. God had a special mission for Israel and that is why they, and they only, were given the law. When Christ sent forth his Apostles to preach the new testament, he commanded, "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature ? He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved " This he did because the new covenant blessings were designed for "ALL nations." Now if the ten commandments constituted the law by which God intended to judge all nations, why then did he not command Moses and the priests to "Go into ALL the WORLD and preach the ten commandments to every creature. He that believes and obeys them shall have long life in Canaan, and mercy as per the promises in the commandments ?" The truth is, that law was the bond within which God intended to fellowship Israelites only. There was no way for foreigners to unite under the law with the congregation of Israel except by intermarriage. And in the case of for eign males they could not be enrolled in the congregation of the Lord until the third generation. See Deut. 23:7,8. If' an Egyptian had married a Jew girl, his son had been half Egyptian and had been barred from the congregation. Had the son married a Jew girl, his son had been three-fourths. Jew, but barred from the congregation, also. Had this son married a Jew girl, his son had been seven-eighths Jew. He. could now be enrolled with Israelites and claim all the promises under their testament. The third generation was the earliest, even by birth, that one could be enrolled with the congregation of the Lord under the first testament. All this proves that the ten commandments were in force upon Israel only, and not upon all nations as Adventists assume when they say God will judge all nations by the ten com- mandments. They err in this assumption and we will prove: it in the next chapter. By laws of their own making, Israel in Christ's day were admitting foreigners to their fellowship whom they called "proselytes." But Christ declared they made such "two-fold more the children of hell" than themselves—Matt. 23:15. Why ? Even because the law provided no other way to make heirs to the blessings of that first testament than in the way above described. "I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," Ex. 20:2, is the address contained in the ten commandments. None dare deny that this was to Israel exclusively. There was not room in the land promised in the ten commandments for all na- tions. As God did not intend the promises for all nations surely he did not enjoin their commandments to all nations. Of course, the few sojourners in the land were required to keep the law. For doing so they were shown some inci- dental favors of God. Finally in Isaiah's day, chapter 56:1-8 to these same despairing strangers and to the Eunuchs, God promised if they would keep the law, and especially the Sab- bath, that when the "righteousness" of the new covenant should be revealed, he would remember them with favor. Isa 56:1-8, therefore, instead of enjoining the keeping of a Sab- bath in the new covenant, as Adventists teach, simply pledg- ed favors of the new covenant to those Eunuchs and strang• ers if they would keep the Sabbath back there in their day; for they had been urging that there was no use in their keep- ing the law in which they could have no inheritance. There- fore to encourage them to keep that law God pointed them to the new covenant for blessings that would fully compen- sate them for their faithfulness. Its blessings were to be a free gift to as many as the Lord God should see fit to num- ber among the saved. CHAPTER IX. The ten commandments are not the law by which God will judge all mankind, as the Adventists assert. The judg- ment of God is the subject in Rom. 2:1-16. He "will render to every man according to his deeds." "To the Jew first, and also to the Gentile." "For there is no respect of persons with 74 75 God." For as many as have sinned without law shall perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; * * In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Three standards are here set forth for measuring the deeds of sinners at the judgment. THE STANDARD OF THE WITHOUT LAW GENTIL "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by na. - ture the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves;" "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing, or el excusing one- another.' In the absence of revealed law nature itself will teach men the primary moral principles. Before these their conscience will accuse or excuse them God is particular to tell us here, that the Gentiles which have not the law shall be judged without the law. They will only have to answer before such law as nature developed among them, and before which their conscience accused or excused them. THE LAW. Israelites had the law. In the judgment their sins will be measured by the law. THE GOSPEL. Since Pentecost we discern our si by the light of the gospel. In the judgment day Christ will judge our sins, even the "secrets" of our hearts, by the gospel, This, then, is the sum of the matter. Israel who had the ten commandments ("the law") will be judged by the law. We who have the gospel, will be judged by the gospel. But those of every age who had neither the law nor the gospel, will be judged by the best law nature developed among them and before which their conscience accused or excused them. Every law offers inducement for its obedience. In the inducements is power to win obedience. "LAND," "LONG LIFE in the LAND" and "MERCY" were the inducements the ten commandments offered to all who would obey them. "REMISSION OF SINS," "HOLY SPIRIT," "ETERNAL LIFE" are the substantial inducements the gospel offers to those who will obey it. Would it not seem unjust enough for Christ to bring up a man who had never heard the ten command- ments nor the gospel with their respective inducements to obedience, and then condemn him because he had failed to obey a law he had never heard of ? Well, be at rest. Christ will do no injustice in judgment. He will measure men's sins by the law they had and not by the law they did not have; Seventh Day Adventists to the contrary notwith- standing. In I Tim. 1:7-11 we read, "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." "But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully." "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for mur- derers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers." "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doc- trine;" "According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust." Here notice, 1. The gospel, as a moral standard, is actually preferred before the law; for whatever those teachers wished to enforce by the law must be "according to the gospel;" that is, it must first be required of us in the gospel. To enforce by the law, what the gospel neither enjoins nor approves, would be placing the law ABOVE the gospel, and the same would NOT be, "ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL." "The law is good if a man use it lawfully." How use it lawfully ? Read it in disapproval of such things only as the gospel disapproves, or in approval of such things as the gospel approves. For example, the gospel forbids that any one shall call us to account for not keeping the "Sabbath days." —Col. 2:16. When, therefore, the Adventists seek to enforce its observance upon us by the law, they are not using the law lawfully, for such is not "ACCORDING TO the GOSPEL" but contrary to it. 3. The text mentions six to nine specific sins that the gospel disapproves, as profanity, murder, fornication, lying, perjury, etc. In making the gospel covenant, God incorpor- ated in it, precepts, prohibiting such immoralities. When those persons "desiring to be the teachers of the law" read 76 the law to disapprove those sins they made a lawful use of the law, it being "according to the gospel." It is thus seen that the gospel is an all-sufficient moral rule in itself, and perfect moral standard by which to judge us in the judgment day. The Adventists would make us believe that the gospel' embraces only a few such commands as, Believe, Repent, Confess Christ, Be Baptized, Partake of the Communion, Assemble Yourselves Together, and possibly a few more, which for the most part have to do with appropriating: pardon; that it does not contain in itself precepts defining. right and wrong morally speaking; that therefore except the gospel be added to the ten commandments it will form a very imperfect moral rule by which to live and to be judged- But in this they seriously blunder; for the gospel defines right and wrong in morals more closely by far than the ten commandments did. For example, "anger" and "hatred" it defines as "murder."—Matt. 5:22; I John 3:15. "Lusting" after another man's wife, "adultery."—Matt. 5:28. "Covet- ousness" as "idolatry."—Col. 3:5. All but two of the ten commandments were negative precepts. Doing what they forbade was sin. The gospel has more positive requirements. To disobey them is sin. Accordingly, a new definition of sin is, "to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin."—Jas. 4:17. How broad! How inclusive is this definition! The ten commandments did not enjoin that we love our deighbor. They only enjoined us negatively with regard to him, i, e., told us what we should NOT do to him. The gospel enjoins us positively to HELP him. "As we have -therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." The gospel enjoins us to love and to make ourselves to be neighbors to others.—Lu. 10:27-36, 37. It is one thing to count up to see how many have been neighbors to me; but another to count up to see to how many I have been a neighbor. The law was content with our obedience if we LOVED a neighbor as our- selves, but the gospel is not. It gave a "new commandment" requiring that we love one another as Christ loved us.—John 77 13:31. He laid down his life for us, "and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethern."—I John 3:16. This is loving our neighbor BETTER than ourselves. Finally see how utterly useless Paul renders the law in the presence of the gospel which is preached and defended against those would-be teachers of the law. "For all the law is fulfilled in - one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- self."—Gal. 5:14. "Owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that loveth another has fulfilled the law." "For this, thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love in the fulfilling of the law."—Rom. 13:8-10. Here are some most remarkable statements. Note. 1. After all the ado of the Adventists in their zeal to get us to keep the ten commandments. Paul declares that everything in that law that can possibly be made obli- gatory upon us is all "comprehended in"—"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." This fact Paul substantially states in the above passages three times. Therefore, IT MUST BE TRUE. I have just shown you, too, that the new command- ment of the gospel demands us to even love our neighbor better than ourselves. Where is the law in comparison with the gospel as a revealer of sin? Its light pales before that of the gospel, as the moon's light before the light of the glorious noonday sun. In the light of these facts I insist that the gospel is an all sufficient moral rule to live by, aid to be judged by, in the great day; yea, more, WE WILL BE JUDGED BY IT. "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God, and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God ?"—I Peter 4:17. "In flam- ing fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."—II Thes. 1:8. "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.—Rom. 2:16. Positively, 1, the gospel is something to "obey," a "law." Oh 78 Men will be counted sinners and will be judged for not obeying it. 3. Its judgments will extend to "secrets" of men. There is more immorality in the "secrets" of men than in their open conduct. If, then, judgment will be meted out "according to the gospel," for the immoral "secrets" of men, will Adventists still claim that the gospel contains no moral laws for regulating the moral conduct of men ? Again, "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty."—Jas. 2:12. Adventists regard themselves as sure of this text as of any in the new testament. From the allusions to "adultery" and "killing" in the context, they just know the "law of liberty" is the ten command- ments. But observe, 1. That James writes to the "twelve tribes."—Jas. 1:1. 2. Read carefully Acts 15:6-29 and Gal. 2: 14, to find that the Jew Christians insisted that the entire law, even circumcision, bloody sacrifices, etc., had to be obeyed with the gospel to render one acceptable to God; that the apostles found it needful to indulge their convictions for the time, and to make a division of the ministry into that of "the circumcision" and "the uncircumcision;" that James, Cephas and John took up the ministry to "the circumcision," while Paul and Barnabas ministered to "the uncircumcision." In Jas. 2:1-13, James reproves the "twelve tribes," "the cir- cumcision" for showing respect of persons. They ought not to prefer rich brethren before the poor. 1. "Because God hath chosen the poor." 2. Because "Rich men oppress you." Because "They blaspheme that worth name." Now, as his brethren were as strict to keep the whole law to the letter as the gospel, he urged as a fourth reason that respect of brethren is contrary to that "royal law" of the scriptures which they preferred to follow and which com- manded, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." For whosoever shall keep the whole law (as they contended all must do) and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all;" e., a man was as surely condemned who rebelled against one point in the law, as if he rebelled against all points. The easiest way to convict them of their error was to quote from their idolized law. Consistency required them to hear 79 to it, as they were everlastingly trying to enforce its obedi- ence upon their Gentile brethren. Question: Is James trying to enforce the "whole law" upon christian obedience ? No; but did he not quote two commandments of the ten and one outside the ten commandments? Yes; and if his quoting them signified that we must keep the law, it signi- fies that we must, as he said, "keep the whole law." v. 10. Adventists themselves are unwilling to do this. No; James simply takes advantage of their profession that Christians must "keep the whole law," to make them refrain from showing respect of persons; for in the next breath he turns from the law and commands "So speak ye, and so do as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." This was the gospel. How do Adventists attempt to show it to be the ten commandments ? Why they first guess that, Ps. 119:45, "And I will walk at liberty, for I seek thy precepts," refers to the ten commandments. Therefore the "law of liberty" over in James 2:12 is the ten commandments. What irrational logic! They themselves do confess that that man never lived, except Christ, who perfectly kept the ten com- mandments; and that, therefore, because of sin, they put all under bondage in sin. Did the ten commandments ever liberate any man from sin? Adventists say, "No." Flow in reason then are they the "law of liberty ?" They are not. Paul calls them, "the ministration of death written and engraven in stones," and "the ministration of condemna- tion,"—II Cor. 3:7,9. And the law of which they were a part "the yoke of bondage," see Gal. 5:1 and Acts 15:10. Here is the "law of liberty:" "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."—Rom. 8:2. The law of the Spirit is "the gospel preached by the Holy Ghost sent forth from heaven."—I Peter 1:12, Ilevised Version. By it 3000, on the day of Pente- cost were released from the law of "sin and and death"—the ten commandments—"the ministration of death written and engraven in stones." The citations .in this article prove beyond a doubt that the GOSPEL defines to perfection moral right and wrong; that it is a perfect moral rule to live by; 80 81 that we will be judged by it at the judgment day; that it is the "law of liberty"—Jas. 2:12; the perfect "law of liberty' —Jas. 1:25. Therefore, in its presence the ten commandments are as the moon in the presence of the glorious sun. Let me urge then, with James, that we all so speak and so do as they that shall be judged by this perfect law of liberty. CHAPTER X. Paul's "all things to all men" needs attention. "And t the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under th law;" To them that are without law, as without law, not. being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law." "I am become all things to all men that I might by all means save some," "And I do all things for the gospel's sake that I might be a joint partaker thereof."--I Cor. 9:20, 21, 23, Revised Version. Note 1. "Not being myself under the law " proves that it had ceased to be in force. 2. Was he now free to lie, steal and kill because not under "the law ?" No, for he says he was under law to Christ, whose "new commandment" (John 13:34, 35,) as we have seen, demanded even more of us than the old, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," in which Paul says, was "briefly comprehended" all that in the ten commandments was still obligatory upon us.—Rom. 13:8,10 " Whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him ?"—I John 3:17. "Bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ."—Gal. 6:2. Deny it as Adventists may, Christ's law, the gospel, is a perfect moral rule independent of the law, the ten command- ments. Therefore, he who obeys Christ's law, ceases his sinning. Notice 3. "And I do all things for the gospel's sake." Verily he thus puts the gospel above the law. lie might, as he saw fit, in his efforts to gain Jews and Gentiles keep or not keep the law, for it was now become a dead letter; but to be a "joint partaker of the gospel" he must faithfully comply with all the conditions of said gospel. This Paul did. Hence he did "all things for the gospel's sake." After he began his ministry regularly, Paul with Barna- bas soon presided over a large church at Antioch, composed of converts from both Gentiles and Jews. One day certain from the church in Jerusalem came to Antioch. Upon find- ing that the converts from Gentiles had not been circumcised neither were keeping the law, they insisted upon having them circumcised and making them keep the law. Paul refused to hear to them. After much disputing the church sent a delegation to Jerusalem to have the apostles there, render a decision upon the question. " And the apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter." After a thorough discussion, these wrote to the church at Antioch. "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment." * * "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:" "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."—Acts 15:6, 24, 28, 29. Here is a Supreme Court decision from which there can be no appeal. The judges were the Holy Ghost, and the apostles, and the elders at Jerusalem. The decision was that Gentile converts need not circumcise nor keep the law. But because "Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day," (verse 21) and because converts would frequent the syna- gogues, and by hearing the law read, would become unsettled and so yield to circumcision and to keeping the law, therefore, the apostles wrote their decision that it might be read to Gentile converts in every place, to prevent them from putting themselves under the law. The decree ESPECIALLY enjoined them to "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood and from things strangled, and from fornication." Why ? Because they were most liable to these things from intimate -..111111d1 82 83 associations with idolatrous Gentiles. Why not, if the apostles meant to set aside by their decree the whole old testament law, have especially enjoined them to refrain from lying, stealing, killing, ptc. ? Because the gospel which Paul preached was, as we have seen, a perfect moral rule and sufficiently enjoined them from these. They were by far most liable to the former sins. Therefore, they were specially emphasized. And there was need of it. See I Cor. 8th chap., Now, in the face of this Supreme Court decree, why do not Adventists cease their effort to enforce the law upon us? Because by their false "two law" theory they pretend that only the "ceremonial law" was here declared abolished. I have sufficiently exposed the "two laws" fallacy in previous chapters. By "circumcision and the law," the Holy Ghost and apostles, without the shadow of a doubt, included the entire old testament law. When the Adventists disprove my claim that the gospel is in itself a perfect moral law, then, and not until then, can they show a good reason for the separate use of the ten commandments in the new covenant. According to Gal. 2:1-14, the aforesaid Supreme Court deemed it wise to make a division of the gospel ministry into the "ministry of the circumcision" (the Jews) and the "ministry of the uncircumcision" (the Gentiles). This was because the "believing Jews" at Jerusalem would not let go of the law nor of circumcision. Rather than drive them from Christ altogether, therefore, the Holy Ghost suffered them at Jerusalem to keep the whole law, even if it was a dead letter, until such time as they could be weaned from it. By this division of the ministry it became necessary for Paul and Barnabas, ministers to the Gentiles when at Jeru- salem, to worship God according to the law, lest they offend their Jewish brethren. In like manner, James, Cephas and John, ministers to the circumcision, must worship God with- out the law, when they went among Gentile churches where they worshipped under the gospel law only. For example: One day Peter came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Here Jews and Gentiles were united under the gospel only, and ate together. Peter, of course, fell in with the order, and also ate with the Gentiles, which by the old law was improper. All went well until some of Peter's Jerusalem brethren also came to Antioch. Then he was in a dilemma. If he con- tinued to eat with Gentiles, his brethren would accuse him at Jerusalem of breaking their law, as they did on a former occasion (Acts 11:3 , and thus make it hard for him to go back and minister for them. If he ceased eating with the Gentiles it would result in confusion in the Antioch church. Well, he refused to eat with them. Then, imitating his example, the Jews in the Antioch church would no more eat with them. Lastly, Barnabas, Paul's helper, ceased eating with them. Poor Gentile brethren ! What could they do to reconcile their Jewish brethren to them ? Why, they might have all yielded to circumcision and commenced keeping the law, then the Jews had reunited with them. But no, Paul stood up for their rights. The "Supreme Court" at Jerusalem had decided that those who "from among the Gentiles are turned to God" need not circumcise and keep the law. So Paul went at Peter and gave him a sound lecture "to his face, because he was to be blamed" for not acting consistently with the decree he himself had help- ed to ordain, and for thus working up a division in the Antioch church.—See Gal. 2:7-14. From the sayings that Paul had "shorn his head in Cen- chrea; for he had a vow," and "I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem," Acts 18:18, 21, we can see that when Paul was among the Jewish Christians he tried fo keep the law that he might not stir up a commotion among them as Peter had at Antioch. But the "believing" Jews at Jerusalem had grown very bitter towards Paul. With them it was not enough that Paul should keep the law when among them. He must circumcise his Gentile converts and require them also to keep the law. By refusing to hear them, their bitterness increased, till, when on his final visit to Jerusalem, James actually feared for Paul's life among 84 85 them. So in a private meeting of the elders, James, with a view to securing him from harm, said: "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law." (Notice, James is not speaking of the unbelieving, but of the believing Jews—the Christian Jews) "And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to for- sake Moses. saying that they ought not circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs." (Did Paul so teach the Jews of his Gentile churches? It verily looks so in all his epistles, as in Gal. 5:1-12.) "i)o therefore this that we say to thee. We have four men which have a vow on them," "Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, (i.e. help pay the bill for the needed offerings, which for those who were purifying from expired vows, were a he lamb, a ewe lamb, a ram, etc., for each one of them. See Numbers 6:13-15) that they may shave their heads; and all may know that those things whereof they are informed of thee are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the law." But had Paul been walking orderly and keeping the law as the Christian Jews counted order and law keeping? If not, then at best it was only in part true. So in part he would have Paul assume in the action what was untrue in fact If it was so,then, James shows the same kind of cowardice that Peter did at Antioch. The Bible did not conceal the weaknesses of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David, even if they were good men, and often inspired of God. Neither, then, has it covered up the inconsistent doings of the new testament apostles Perhaps it was well to thus record their wrongs, lest we despair in our effort to be as perfect as we had supposed them to have been. James concedes "As touching the Gentiles which believe we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing," etc. From Acts 18:18, it seems that some VOW which Paul had made even before he became a christian had expired. It was not out of order if he saw fit, to purify him- self from that vow after the manner of the law; if by such observance of the law he could "gain the Jews." But if he tried to make believe thereby,that he always and everywhere was just so comformable to the law, then he either acted out what was not true, or he taught and required his Gentile converts to refrain from keeping the law; while he himself and Jewish brethren continued to walk in all the ordinances of the law. This cannot be possible, however, from Gal. 2:7- 14. "Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them."—See Acts 21:20-26 The scheme failed. It verily became a trap in which his Jew brothers caught him easily and made him to be a pris- oner for years. Now do we see how he became "all things to all men?" The Holy Ghost saw fit to indulge the weak Christian Jews by letting them, for the time, keep the whole law, even the sacrifices with all the other ordinances. But surely it made it hard for the apostles in passing back and forth between the two gospel ministries to do the right thing sometimes for lack of` courage. Peter, for example, at An- titch, was as between two fires, dreading to turn either way. When among the Jew brethren, Paul put himself "under the law" with them, but when he was among the Gentile breth- ren; he was "without law," yet not "without law to God, but under law to Christ." This, that "by all means, he might save some." Some modern preachers on the same principle justi- fy many denominations in order to accommodate people's present errors; but let them beware. For that division yon- der the Holy Ghost authorized temporarily, while sectarian divisions he foretold and condemned. But where, is now the Adventists' argument that we must keep the sabbath because, as they say, Paul kept it and so often preached on that day? See Acts 13:14, 42, 44, and 17:2, and 18:4, etc. I insist that they cannot find a single in- stance where Paul ever kept the sabbath or preached upon it except when among the jews, where he did, perhaps, "to gain the Jews." There are no scriptures so often cited by Adventists to prove that we must keep the sabbath as these telling of Paul's preaching in the synagogues. Adventists preach in our churches on Sundays whenever they get a 86 chance. Thus by their conclusions as to Paul, they keep Sunday, too. No, it is not because they wish to keep Sn day that Adventists preach on that day, but to get a bette hearing. So Paul, going to -the Jews' synagogues fon audiences always on the sabbath. He preached on that da not because he was a keeper of the day, but for the reaso Adventists preach on Sunday. Paul, as we have seen, ke the feasts and rites.,:of the,07eremonial law." TherefOr must we? If Paul's meeting with the Jews on the sabbat obligates us to keep the sabbath, then his offering sacrifice and keeping Jewish feasts equally obligates us to keep them also. Now, also, all can clearly see, as we showed in last article, why James quoted from both the "ten commandments" and "Ceremonial law" of the Adventists.--.1 as. 2:8-11. 1. Because he was writing to the "twelve tribes," the "circumcision," of which he was the chief minister.—Gal. 2:9. 2. Because as they professed to keep the "whole law," he could out of it convince them of the sin—'respect of persons." But in verse 12, he insists that they must so speak and do as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. And this we showed you was the gospel. Let Adventists never more represent James as authorizing us to keep the law; for if they do, they will surely misrepresent him. Again, we now see why Paul appealed to the law for support of certain things that he taught; as when he forbade women speaking in church. "As also saith the law," I Cor' 14:34. As when he required the church to support preachers— "or saith not the law the same also ?" I Cor. 9:8. In each case he appeals to the "Ceremonial law." Why ? Because he wishes to enforce the law? No, but because he knew that many professed to be keeping that law. Therefore he just appealed to that law to help them see the fitness of doing what he enjoined them to do. In Gal. 4:21-31, the Holy Spirit compares the old and neW covenants as God's two wives; one as a bond wife, one as a free wife; even as Abraham had two wives. The children God Si begat by the old covenant were his children but, as it were in bondage, like Ishmael of Hagar. The children he begets by the new covenant are as Isaac, free from birth. This posi- tively shows that children can be made to God exclusively by the law of the new covenant, which also in itself contains "milk" and "meat" to nourish God's children.—See I Peter 2:1-4; Heb 5:12-14. But Adventists, as it were, are ever urging, that unless you bring old Hagar (old covenant) over here to give suck to Goa's children of the new covenant, they will surely perish. In this they grossly err, for "the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."—John 1:17. Of this "truth" James, 1:18 says, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever." But by which word are we born again?. The ten commandments? No. "And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."— Verse 25. The gospel is, so to say, under God, the parent of all christians. And as said gospel gave them birth, so also does it contain in itself for their nourishment. So that it can bring up the children of the gospel to the full stature of men and women in Christ without the aid of old mother ten commandments—the first covenant. But the Adventists declare that Jesus kept the law and commanded others to keep it as the young man.—Mark 10:17- 21. But was not "Jesus Christ a minister of the circumcision ?" Rom. 15:8. Was not the law in full force throughout his entire ministry ? Was not Jesus circumcised ? Did he not keep the feasts of the Adventists' "Ceremonial law ?" Did he not require lepers to conform to the ordinances of the law ?—Lu. 5:14; 17:14. Did he not in general enforce all the law in saying, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat;" "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do ?"—Matt. 23:2, 3. And mark you, "Moses' seat' Adventists themselves will admit is equal to "Moses' law" their "Ceremonial law." To the young man's question, "What 88 shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ?" ( Mark 10:17 Jesus referred for answer to the ten commandments. Why. Because thay were still in force, and they continued in force until God introduced his second testament. As the old covenant continued in force till after Christ's death, both he and all Israel had to obey its laws, moral and ceremonial, t be approved of God. If we must keep the sabbath because Jesus kept it and commanded others do so, then we must be circumcised and keep the whole law; for Jesus also was circumcised and kept the whole law and commanded others to keep it, even to sac• rifices, feasts and all required by the law. We must ever bear in mind that the whole old testament law was obligate ry upon Israel until he substituted it by his new will and testament on the day of Pentecost. The only question for us to settle is, what does God require of us in the new will? And do not forget that in that he did give a NEW WILL, that said WILL, DOES CONTAIN his WILL concerning us, and ALL his WILL too. But, as regards the young man's question, "What must I do to inherit eternal life ?" it was never after the day of Pentecost answered as Jesus answered it, viz: "Keep the commandments." The three thousand, also Saul and the jailer were answered according to the conditions of the new covenant and not the old.—See Acts 2:38; 22:10-16; 16:30-33. Whatever Jesus as a "minister of the circumcision" taught, which he did not afterward set aside by the Holy Ghost, is in full force. That and no more. Christ observed all the law. But he is not our example that we should observe all the law that he observed. Adven• tists themselves must admit this. Go to the day of Pente• cost. Follow the Spirit's revelations onward. Whatever he enjoined for us all is in force. Whatever he set aside let us cease to advocate, lest by adding to his words welcome under the condemnation of Rev. 22:19. 89 CHAPTER XL The old covenant ordained sacred days as follows: 1st. Sabbath days.—Ex. 16:23-30. 2d. Holy convocation days.— Lev. 23:7, 8, 21, 24, 27, 35, 36. 3d. New moon days.—Numb. 28:11-15. Not one of these is re-enjoined in the new covenant. Further, the Holy Spirit forbade that any man should call us to account for not keeping them. "Let no man therefore judge you * * in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days;" "which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ."—Col, 2:16, 17. First. Adventists contend that the Greek word "heortee"-- , here translated "an holy day"—should have been translated "feast," as it is in every other place where it occurs in the new testament. Then what? Why, this. As "heortee" always refers to the Passover, Pentecost or Tabernacles feast the text could thus be made to enjoin that no man must judge us for not keeping one of those "feasts." In those "feasts" were contained the "holy convocation days" of Lev. 23:7, 8, 21, 24, 27, 35, 36, which sometimes were called "sab- baths." To these Adventists are determined to have "sabbath days" of Col. 2:16 refer. Then they prevent, as they hope, the seventh day being abolished with the other days of the text. But were not those "holy convocations" (called sabbaths) a constituent part of those feasts ? They certainly were. Well, then, how in the name of reason could the "feasts" containing those sabbaths be abolished and yet the sabbaths contained in them be unabolished? If by "an holy day" ("feast") Col. 2:16, those feasts are declared abolished, then by the same term—"heortee"--were those sabbaths abolished which were contained in those feasts. Adventists dare not deny this claim. But after representing those feasts with their sabbaths as abrogated in the term "heortee," Paul proceeds to show that something called "sabbath days" outside of those feasts was also abrogated. These latter "sabbath days" are from 16. 90 the Greek word, "Sabbaton," which always in the new testa- ment refers to the sabbath of the ten commandnients. It is therefore, absolutely certain that Col. 2:16, 17 declares for the abrogation of the seventh day sabbaths, the same as for the abolition of all the other days mentioned. Had it been in the mind of Paul to preserve the seventh day for our keeping, how easily he could have inserted in the text, "except the seventh day." But he made no such exception. In Ga1.4:10 he is equally specific. "Ye observe days (sabbaths) and months (new moons) and times (the "feasts," see Dent. 16:16) and years (sabbatic years, see Lev. 25th chapter)." Paul is careful in both texts to specify all the sacred days of the old covenant, and to represent that all alike, without an excep- tion, are abolished. Second. "But, oh," say Adventists, "Paul is only speak- ing in Col. 2:16, 17, of the sabbaths that were 'a shadow of things to come.' Therefore, he cannot inchide the seventh day in the sabbaths abolished, because it was not a 'shadow' of anything." But "sabbath days" of the text, as I have observed, was from "Sabbaton,:' which in the new testament always referred to the sabbath of the ten commandments. Therefore, Paul certainly does call it a shadow with the rest of the days in the text. But Heb. 4:3-5, Revised Version, settles this point: "For we which have believed do enter into that rest; even as he hath said, As I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest; although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day on this wise, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works; and in this place again, They shall not enter into my rest." Notice, 1. God's rest was the seventh day. 2. That he sware Israel should not enter into his rest. But did not Is- rael enter upon the rest of the sabbath in Ex. 16:23-30? Verily they did. But by reading Hebrews, 3d and 4th chap- ters, you will see that God had something else for Israel to enter, called his rest, after their entrance upon the sabbath rest; and that his oath prevented that generation from enter- ing into it. "For ye are not as yet • come to the rest and to the inheritance which the Lord your God giveth you." "But when you go over Jordan and dwell in the land which the 91 Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, ete."—Deut. 12: 9, 10. This was the rest of God for them in Canaan. Why did he sware Israel could not enter his Canaan rest? See Num- bers 14:21-24. Through Joshua, God gave this rest to their children. Hence we read, "The Lord your God hath given you rest "—Josh. 1:13. " and now the Lord your God hath given rest."—Josh. 22:4. "The Lord hath given rest to Israel." —Josh. 23:1. But in Revised Version, Heb. 4:8, Paul declares," For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterwards of another day." "Afterwards," that is, after Joshua had given Israel rest; even, as long after as in David's day, God still spoke of his rest as prospective, thus implying that Joshua did not give God's real rest to Israel, and that they had not realized it in keeping His sabbath day. In a nutshell, the truth is simply this: The rest of the sab- bath and the rest in Canaan, which God gave Israel were not his real rest that he had provided for his saints. They were simply the OLD COVENANT TYPES or SHADOWS, of the TWO NEW COVENANT RESTS. Like as Israel on coming out of Egyptian bondage found rest in God's seventh day for their weary bodies; even so we on coming out of bondage from sin receive rest for our souls It is a present experience. "We which have believed do enter into rest."—Heb. 4:3. The rest is in Jesus,who said, "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest." "Take my yoke upon you, * * * and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Although we have peace with God, and rest from the disturbance of a guilty conscience, yet we must "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." Our rest will not be complete till we are delivered from the adversity and strife with sin in this "present evil world," which will be when Christ comes and takes us to heaven. Therefore, like as Israel found a second rest of God in Canaan, that eased them of their forty years of weary pilgrimage in the wilder- ness, even so we shall finally rest in heaven from our weary earthly pilgrimage. The seventh day was a "shadow." Ad- ventists simply cannot disprove the claim. Verily, then, by 92 Col. 2:16, 17, it is abolished. The substance of which the seventh day was a "shadow" we already enjoy in Christ. The substance of which Canaan was a shadow is still future. `There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God." Third. Adventists declare that an ordinance cannot be both a typical and a memorial institution: that as the seventh day commemorated the creation rest, it cannot be a "shadow of things to come." Again they err. The Passover com- memorated the angel's passing over of Israel's houses when he slew the Egyptian's first born children.—Ex. 12:26-28. Yet Paul declares, "For even Christ our passover is crucified for us."-1 Cor. 5:7. If on the one hand the Passover could commemorate a past event and, upon the other, foreshadow certain truths, then why could not the sabbath ? It verily did—the Adventists to the contrary notwithstanding. Fourth. But laying hold on, "Blotting out the handwrit- ing of ordinances," in the context, Col. 2.14, they declare the sabbath was not an "ordinance." Elder Uriah Smith in "The Two Covenants," page 23, declares, "No one who can lay claim to any respectable degree of common sense will for a moment contend that there was anything in the ten corn. mandments pertaining to ordinances." Common sense or none at all, I do positively assert that the sabbath command- ment was an "ordinance;" that. therefore, God did put one "ordinance" right in the heart of the ten commandments. Since the ten commandments were the old covenant in epitome—as I clearly proved in my previous articles—and since so large a part of the old covenant consisted in "ordinances," the ten commandments could not have been the old covenant in epitome except the ordinances had been represented in them. Therefore, God did put right in the heart of the ten commandments the very first, the chiefest, the most glorious ordinance of the old testament. The great distinction in the Bible between a simple mor- al precept and an "ordinance," is, that the "ordinance" must be observed according to some prescribed formality, and it either commemorates or foreshadows some great truth; 93 while the simple moral precept is observed without formality and is never either commemorative of past events,or typical of "good things to come." For example: "Honor thy father and mother" is not an ordinance, but a simple moral pre- cept. The commandment contains no suggestion of form to be observed in its obedience. Baptism and the Lord's sup- per are two new covenant ordinances. Form, is absolutely essential to their proper observance; and both are commem- orative and possibly typical. Ordinances, like tableaux, convey ideas without speech. See a man buried beneath the water and raised again in the ordinance of baptism, what is the idea conveyed? Why this, that the man believes his Savior to have been dead, buried, and raised up to life again. Since Rom. 6:3-6 declares these ideas to inhere in baptism, it is self evident, that the moment you substitute sprinkling for immersion you have lost the idea God intend- ed to convey. Because form is absolutely essential in the observance of ordinances, in order to convey their inherent ideas, God was very particular in the old testament to have Israel observe them according to their due forms. The man, therefore, who picked up sticks on the sabbath, God com- manded to be stoned.—Lev. 15:32-36, Uzzah who touched the ark when it was on the move, was destroyed of God.—I Chron, 14:10. David was greatly displeased for this; but when he came to search the law upon how to move the ark, he found the breach was made upon Uzzah, "because," as he says, "we sought him not after the due order."—I Chron. 15: 13. God had ordained that the ark must be conveyed from place to place on the priests' shoulders, and not on ox-carts. Now as to the sabbath, God commanded, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." "To keep it holy, he demanded that they should cease from all work upon it, after six days devoted to their own interests, in imitation of his rest upon that day after his six days of creative labor. Here, then, is enforced a rigid formality in imitation of God at creation. The second primary mark showing the sabbath to have been an "ordinance," was, that it constituted a memorial of his rest at creation, Third, it was an ordinance 94 because typical of the rest in store for God's people in future, Verily, then, it had all the primal marks of a genuine ordinance. Mr. Smith is, of course, insistent upon the claim that those "holy convocation days" of Lei. 23d chapter, were genuine ordinances, and that by Col. 2:14-17, they are declared abrogated: but I here insist that he tell us of one single feature that they had which distinguished them as ordinances which distinguishing feature was wanting in the seventh day sabbath. He can never do it. It is, then, a fact, that the seventh day sabbaths were included in the list of Col. 2:16, 17, and that, therefore, all the sacred days of the old testa• ment were abolished when that testament was abolished, Therefore, no day can be enforced upon our observance by an old testament commandment. Here is where Adventists are forever blundering. They make their members to keep the sabbath , the seventh day to refrain from eating pork, to pay the tenth to support the gospel, etc., and enforce all by old testament commandments the same as if said testa, ment were still in force. In the absence of new testament commandments to enforce them, they fall back for Divine authority to enforce them, to God's ABOLISHED testament! But since the "Blot- ting out of the hand writing of ordinances," by God's "nailing them to the cross" (Col. 2:13, 14) Paul protests, "Let no man therefore, judge you in meat or 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." What better can we do then to obey God's inspired apostle ? For one, therefore, no Adventist shall call me to account for the ignoring of a day for the which God himself does not call me to account. Webster says a "testament" is, "A solemn, authentic in- strument in writing, by which a person declares his WILL! Would it be a testament if the writing did not contain his "WILL ?" No. It is from the fact that a testament must always contain the testator's "will," that said instrument is commonly called a "will." Now as God instructs us in his word as to his first and second testaments, he must have had two "wills." If ten precepts constituted the "will" element in the first testament, what precepts constitute the "will" element in the second testament? Adventists declare that the same ten precepts are the "will" element in the new tes- tament: that they constitute the conditions upon which we must inherit the bequests of the new testament. But we have shown that the commands to believe in Christ as the Son of God, to repent of sins, to be baptized in his name, were the primary conditions of securing inheritance in the new testament as laid down by Peter, Christ's appointed holder of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven " In the com- mission, Matt. 28:20, Jesus added to Peter's three specified conditions: "Teaching them to observe all things whatso- ever I have commanded you." The same "key-holder" Peter, in II Peter 1:-11, commands: "Add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and tcohatreimtyp.eran*ce pa*tienc*e; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness Make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Summing up what Peter, the key-holder, commanded us in order to secure inheritance in the everlasting kingdom of the new covenant, we have: "Faith," "Repentance," "Bap tism," "Virtue." "Knowledge," "Temperance," "Patience," "Godliness," "Brotherly Kindness," and "Charity." But, behold ! They are ten in number, also. Now can we not inherit by keeping these ten conditions ? Adventists will say, "Net.' But Peter says we cAN, and that "abundantly." Whom shall we believe ? You can plainly see that part of the old covenant ten precepts will be easily included in Peter's ten conditions but not all; notably the sabbath. Now if we must add five or ten more of the old "ten," to Peter's "ten," then the conditions of new covenant inheritance will consist of fifteen to twenty precepts. The truth is simply this: When God made his second will he did not make it like the first. He foretold Jeremiah, whom Paul quotes in r. 96 Heb. 8:7-13, "I will make a new covenant with the house o Israel and the house of Judah:" "NOT ACCORDING to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt." Now all can plainly see that he kept his word; and did make the new covenant, "NOT ACCORDING" to the oh but very different from it; so, that it properly can be called, "A NEW WILL," "A NEW covenant." Therefore, in the 13th verse of the context, Paul declares, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which de. cayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." And the old covenant did vanish away. There is then nothing fortis to obey but the new covenant. But here Adventists grow desperate and insist that in Heb. 8:10 when he says, "1 will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts," that—"MY LAWS," MUST mean the ten commandments: for say they, God called them "HIS LAWS," while the ceremonial laws were "MOSES LAWS.' But we have clearly shown in previous chapters, that said distinctions do not exist in fact. All the laws promulgated from Sinai, and in the wilderness are time and again called "Moses' law" and as often "God's laws," and that too with. out reference to the distinction of "moral" or "ceremonial," Adventists themselves know that I speak truly. But their adopted idol, the sabbath, has no possible support in its enforcement from the new testament, unless they can some- where, force the ten commandments, through an opening of their own making, into the new covenant. They had better take heed what they add to God's new will: and especially to see to it, that they do not add the sabbath which God in se many words excluded from it. See Col. 1:16, 17. But the Adventists try to make a strong argument on the terms "ever," "forever" and "everlasting." The Psalmist said: "All his commandments are sure. They stand fast forever and ever * * he bath commanded his co`.. enant forever " Ps. 111:7-9. But here they first assume! that "all his commandments" do not mean "ALL," except it be "ALL" the "ten commandments." Besides, they seem 97 lingly ignorant of the fact that ALL the ordinances of the old testament were enjoined "for ever" and for "everlasting." CIRCUMCISION was to be "everlasting."—Gen. 17:13. The PRIESTHOOD of Aaron of Levi's tribe was to continue "for ever."--Ex. 40:12-15. Yet it passed away as a shadow of the great priest in Judah's tribe.—See Heb. 7:10-14. The GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT With all its attendant ORDINANCES and its BLOODY SACRIFICES were commanded to be observed "for ever."—Lev. 17:29, 31. The PASSOVER was for an ordi- nance "forever."—Ex. 12:14, 17, 24. The HoLy CONVOCA- TION DAYS (the Adventists "ceremonial sabbaths") were en- joined to be. observed "forever."—Lev. 23:14, 21, 31, 41. The SEVENTH DAY was for a sign between God and Israel "for- ever."—Ea. 31:17. Now all these ordinances for Israel's observance came to an end at the cross, Adventists themselves so teach, except in the case of the seventh day. In that single instance, "forever" and "everlasting" mean endless duration with them. In the other instances they agree the words mean `age .1asting." This is another example of their gross inconsistency. Ps. 105:8-12. Is regarded by Adventists as one of their strongest scriptures supporting the endless obligation to keep the ten commandments. "He hath remembered his covenant forever, the word which he commanded to a thous- and generations." "Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac:" "And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:" "Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance:" "When they were but a few men in number: yea, very few, and strangers in it." In previous chapters I showed how Elder Uriah Smith divided God's first covenant so as to make two of it; and how he distinguished the ten commandments as the "covenant COMMANDED," and as "hi, (God's) covenant;" while the remainder, he distinguish- ed as the "covenant made." Well in the above passage from Psalms occur the words—"His covenant * * which he commanded to a thousand generations." Adopting Mr. Smith's distinction of "covenant commanded" they say, 98 "Surely he refers to the ten commandments." As there were but 60 generations from Abraham to Christ, they reason that as it was "commanded to a thousand generations," it was obligatory upon 940 generations to come from Christ's day: and from our own day, upon above 800 generations yet unborn. But they are not consistent even in this calculation: for since 1844 they have every where been preaching that the world will come to an end in "THIS GENERATION." In SO Say- ing, they make God to have misstated the truth by 800 gen- erations: for if there are no more generations to be born after this one, then as God could not have commanded 800 gener- ations never to be born, to keep "his covenant," he could have commanded it to but about 200 generations, at the very utmost. Again, I showed you how emphatically Elder Uriah Smith insisted that the ten commandments were not the "MADE" covenant, they having existed from creation down. Well, then, they again contradict their own position in say- ing that the covenant of the ten commandments is referred to in Ps. 105:8; for the very next verse says of said covenant: "Which covenant he MADE with Abraham." This would, after all, be admitting that the the ten commandments were "the MADE covenant' and it would be a farther admission that they were "MADE" in Abraham's day. As a thing does not exist before it is made, then by their claim here, the ten commandment covenant had no existence before Abraham's day. But in the other connections they have declared for their existence since creation. But Moses declared concern- ing the ten commandments as a covenant, "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb." "The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were their fathers) but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." "The Lord talked with you face to face out of the midst of the fire," "saying"— What? The ten commandments.—Deut. 5;2-21. Positively, then, Moses denies that the ten commandments were a covenant made with Abraham, seeing he was one of their "fathers." And as he declares them to have been made with Israel who were 99 yet alive with him, the Adventists are in gross error in con tending that Ps. 105:8 refers to the ten commandments. Verses 10 and 11 of the same context tells us just what covenant he was speaking of; "An everlasting covenant,"— "Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance." Now God had, indeed, made a covenant with Abraham in which he pledged to give him and his de- scendants the "land of Canaan."--Gen. 15:7-21. And it was this covenant "commanded to a thousand generations." And if the "thousand years of Rev. 19th chapter,are symbolic years as the "1260 days" of Rev. 12th chapter, are symbolic days, then the Israelites, when they are again settled in Ca- naan may even to a "thousand generations" hold that land; for according to the scriptures, the Israelites will yet, again, be put in possession of Canaan; the Seventh Day Adventists to the contrary notwithstanding. But, again, note in Ps. 105:10, that the "covenant made with Abraham" was confirmed to Jacob for a law. "Jacob" and "Israel" are used interchangeably. When Israel was brought out of Egypt to inherit Canaan as per the covenant made with Abraham, a "law" defining the division of the land into portions for tribes, families and individuals, defin- ing how to retain the land to succeeding heirs, or how it could be sold; defining how they might cultivate it, and what should be done with God's share of the produce; defin- ing how the land must have rest from tillage every seventh and fiftieth years, etc., etc. I say, such a law became a neces- sity. Thus was the land covenanted to Abraham, "Confirmed to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting coven- ant," even in that law, Adventists call the ceremonial law. How hard I have seen Adventists labor to prove that the "covenant commanded to a thousand generations" in Ps.105- 8-12, was the ten commandments; and all for the purpose of binding them still upon us, with the sabbath, But in what contradictions it involves them ! They destroy their own distinctions of "covenant made" and "covenant command- ed" regarding the old covenant. rig 100 ' Isai. 66:22, 23 is one of the chief scriptures used by Adventists to prove that the Sabbath is of endless obligation. "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain " "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come and worship before me, saith the Lord." Does this scripture teach that the sabbath must be kept in the new earth ? "Yes," say Adventists. Well, notice that the "new moons" are also to be kept there. Yet, Paul has declared both the "new moons" and the "sabbaths" to be "shadows" and "abolished." Col. 2:16, 17. To say the least, this looks very contradictory. But are the Adventists right in declaring that this "new heaven" and "new earth" referred to by Isaiah is the same as the Revelater John's "new heaven and new earth ?" Rev. 21:1-5? No: they are not. 1. Notice that in Isai. 65:17-25, Isaiah describes things minutely in that ''new heaven and new earth," and that he says, "the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed." The Revelator says of his "new earth"—"and there shall be no more death," Rev. 21:4. And there shall be no more curse" Rev. 22:3. Verily the two Prophets are speaking of two different new heavens and new earths. 2. Notice, again, that the "Gentiles shall bring all your brethren for an holy offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, * * and I will take of them for priests and Levites, saith the Lord, Isai. 66:20, 21. Horses and mules in "heaven," or "new earth!" Will redemption in Christ indeed include the much abused mules ?. But above all will God's people have such physical debilities in "new heaven and new earth" as to require to be carried on "litters" in "chariots" and on "beasts" ? The last two chapters of the book of Isaiah, are nearly as difficult to apply as the last nine in the book of Ezekiel. In the latter scripture God showed the prophet a magnificent temple with its altars, for bloody sacrifices and incense, and ordinances of worship as per the "Law of Moses." The last two chapters deal with a division of the 101 land among the twelve tribes of Israel and provide for inheritance of strangers and the children they shall beget among them. The Seventh Day Adventists' Prophet—Mrs. Ellen G. White and Elder Littlejohn, have given it as their opinion that God simply showed the Jews a vision of a happy state in store for them if they would cease sinning against him, and which would realize to them between their return from Babylonian captivity and the first Advent of Christ. But question: why do the Jews not in these days offer bloody sacrifices as when they inhabited Canaan? Because they were forbidden to offer the blood of sacrifices except where the Lord should record his name. (Compare Deut. 12:5 14; II Kings 8:29; 9:3). Well, suppose they could get possession of Canaan again in our day, as they had possession of it in Solomon's time; think you they would rebuild Jerusalem and the temple and renew their ancient worship as per the requirements of M o- ses' law ? They surely would, if they still believe their old testament; and we can not doubt they do. Then let me show you my opinion. The age from Adam to Christ, during which bloody sacrifices were offered, was divided into two chief epochs: the age, or world, before the flood; and the age, or world. as after the flood. The Christian Dispensation is likewise divided into two chief epochs: The age, or world, as before the Millenium; and the age, or world, as during the Millenium. If I understand the prophesies, there will be great revolutions, by war, before the Millenium age is in- troduced; and among the changes to take place, the Turks will lose possession and control of the land of Canaan, and the nations will combine to restore the Jews to their own land, bringing them on horses, and mules, and chariots, etc., as per Isaiah above quoted. Then when they are once established in their own land, I look for them to actually rebuild their own temple and to again begin their ancient worship in all its details as per the law of Moses. I look for them to literally divide their land as per the last two chap- ters of Ezekiel. Then from one sabbath to another, and one new moon to another, all within their dominions will/ Center for Acli: Andrews Berrien Springs, V:- - 102 assemble for worship. After they have gotten settled down a reasonable length of time to this order of things, I look for the self same Jews to apply themselves to a more diligent study of their prophets and their typical law, and to actual ly, thereby, convince themselves that the Christ came long ago. Then what? Well, their house will stand there as a monument—a study to the nations. It and its accompany- ing ordinances will be compared with the new testament in- stitutions, and so evidence will accumulate of the Divine authenticity of both old and new testament. Then will real- ize the vision of the river that issued from under the house, which went out "eastward" with miraculous healing power, as per Ezek 47:1-12. Then will the Jews be converted to Christ and cease from their bloody sacrifices and the law of Moses and follow new testament institutions. But as the Jews have preserved their identity as a people till now, SO all the more will their seed and name remain in the new heaven and new earth of the new millenium age. As the Adventist explanations of the last two chapters of Isaiah are involved in so much contradiction, I am per- fectly willing to risk my opinion of those prophesies as I have here done. According to Isaiah 66:23, the "new moon" is there as binding as the "sabbath." What will they do with it ? Some of them have even tried to persuade me that "new moon" there stands for the monthly meetings of churches as the monthly covenant meetings of the Baptists. With equal propriety I may assume that "sabbath" in the same text stands for our modern weekly assemblies on Sunday. It is mere assumption in either case. Isaiah 65:17-25 and 66:19-24, contain prophesies whose fulfillment is still in the future. Hence we can at most but have our queries of the order of things they forecast, even, as we can but indulge in opinions as to the fulfillment of the last chapters of Ezekiel. CHAPTER XII. To make more clear the import of reveral other scrip- tures, I must again refer the reader to II Cor. 3rd. chapter. Please to read it carefully before following these lines further. It is very clear that Paul is comparing the old and new testaments. "God,'' he says, made him an "able minister of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." v. 6. In verse 17 he says of this "spirit" of the new testament, "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Positively. then, in ministering the contents of the new testament, Paul ministered to the Corinthians the "Lord." even his "Spirit." In chapter VI, 1 showed how God's promise to Abraham -- "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," was, as the acorn out of which the oak, God's new testament grew. Paul tells us that the "seed" in the promise, was "Christ;" that "justification" and the "Holy Spirit" were in part the "blessing." See Gal. 3:8-10. Of the "Spirit," Paul further says, "Which is the earnest of our inheritance, until, the redemption of the purchased possession." Eph. 1:14 "Earnest," means foretaste, or first fruits. For much of new testament inheritance, we must wait till the resurrection: but the Holy Spirit, we inherit now, in the present life. A ministra- tion of the new testament that does not put its heirs in possession of the Spirit, is a failure: for "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rom. 8:9. To know that we have the Spirit as an abiding resident within us, is to know that God has adopted us as his heirs: "Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry &bba, Father." "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ." Rom. 8:15-17. A successful ministration of the new testament will Minister to the believer the Spirit. By preaching the new testament Paul ministered the Spirit to the Galations. "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the 104 works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ?" "He there fore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miraci among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by th hearing of faith ?" Gal. 3:3, 5. They surely received the Spirit; and not by the law ministration, but by the ministra. tion of the new testament. Many writers hold that when Paul said he was made an "able minister of the new testament; not of the letter but of the spirit," that by "letter" he meant the old testament, and by the "spirit" the new testament. I think they err in their conclusion. There is a "letter" to the new testament as wellas "spirit." Many are the pugilistic preachers, who from the beginning to the ending of a series of meetings, occupy the time with little beside disputing in regard to forms of doe, trine and methods of conducting gospel work. And their converts—what of the spirit imparted to them? Why, they were made partakers of the disputatious spirit of the preach, er and not of the Holy Spirit. Paul foretold of last day Christians "having a form of godliness but denying the pow er thereof."—II Tim. 3:5. "The Spirit giveth life." Beseech God, then, that your ministrations of the new testament will convey to the hearing believers heart the Spirit; then there will be power in his godliness; it will be no empty form. Paul was an "able minister of the new testament," because in hearing in faith, the Corinthians, Galatians and others did receive "the Lord that Spirit;" and so were liberated from there sins; "for where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty." But let no onehereby go to the other extreme and totally disregard the forms of new testament requirements; for this same Paul delivered its doctrine in a form, and fervently congratulated the Roman Christians for having obeyed it in the form delivered them. "God be thanked * * that ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you."—Rom. 6:17. Let us now see whether we can understand Paul's cm parisons of the two testaments. 1. The testament, the tea commandments, "written and engraven in stones," minister' ed "death" to its heirs: It convicted them of sin: but as it contained no sacrifices of sufficient atoning power to redeem from sin, it did but confirm the sentence of death upon them. The new testament, while it also convicts its heirs of their sins, contains in the person of Christ a sacrifice of sufficient atoning power to save them from their sins. Thus while the preaching of the testament engraven in the tables of stone, was the ministration of "condemnation" and "death," the preaching of the new testament, not in "letter," but in "spirit," was the ministration of freedom and life: for it min- istered the "Lord" that "Spirit" and "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty," v. 17. And the "Spirit giveth v.6. By this it will be seen, that the first testament was a bondsman maker; but the new testament an emancipator, a bondsman liberator. This is why James called the latter "The Perfect law of liberty:" and enjoined upon his hearers-- "So speak ye and so do as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." James 1:25; '2:12. This is why Paul could say, "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." Rom. 8:2. The new testament was a law that had the real living Christ in it, and that Spirit of the Christ that gave "life" and "liberty." Because, as shown in a previous chapter, the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and afterward, communicated the new law to the apostles therefore, pertinently it was called the "LAW OF THE SPIRIT." Despite all the foregoing facts showing the new testa- ment to be the "law of liberty," the Adventists are eternally insisting that the ten commandments are the law of liberty! Paul will have it that they ministered "condemnation" and "death." Which is right But, 2, notice, that in its ministration the "testament engraven in stones" was "glorious." "So that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance," v. 7. But Paul declared that in its ministration the new testament so far exceeded the glory of the other, that in comparison it had "no glory." 7-- r7771 106 107 After receiving the ten commandments,"engraven in stones," Moses came with them down from the mountain, and while ministering them' to Israel his face shone with such splendor that Israel could not look on his face when speaking to them till he covered it with a vail.—See Ex. 34:27-35. What was the glory producing element in that testament in stones that. could transfix such shining to Moses' face? I insist it was Christ the Lord. In verse 24, by way of comparison, Paul observes, "But we all, with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the spirit of our God." Who, then, is the grand object of revelation in the new testament ? Christ. Is he glorious ? Yes; he is "Christ in you the hope of glory."—Col. 1:27. On the Mount, "Hi-4 face did shine as the sun and his raiment was as white as the light."—Matt. . 17:2. A. more splendid, shining example, morally and spirit- ually, the world never saw. The plain historical speech of the new testament sets him before our eyes in his life and character, as the perfect image of God. And when we look into our testament as in a glass, and see him in all his love- liness,we try to make our character like his; and With contin- ued attention, Paul represents that we DO CHANGE into the SAME "IMAGE" from "GLORY TO GLORY." For this very purpose was Christ sent to live among us, and the history of his life recorded in the new testament; even, that we might become like him. "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him;- for we shall see him as he is " "And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."—I John 3:2, 3. But, question: Was it not the object of the old testament, as well as of the new, to reveal Christ ? It certainly was. Even the ten commandments contained language point- ing toward Christ. In them God pledged "MERCY" to Israel. Later he provided that they approach the "Mercy-seat" in the tabernacle with blood to obtain it. In this was foreshadowed the mercy God had provided to show them in Christ. That the "MERCY" pledged in the ten commandment covenant pointed to Christ, for its realization, is certain, by the fact, that when the holy Spirit entered into Zacharias he proph- esied of Christ, "Blessed be the God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people * * * * to perform the MERCY promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant." Luke 1:67-72. Again, in chapter XI, I clearly showed that by Paul's reasoning in Heb. 4:1-11, the seventh day, was a type of the "rest" God, gives us in Christ. Our souls, even now, realize that rest, Matt. 11:28-30. But that the "Sabbath days" Were a shadow of Christ, is told us in exactly so many words in Col. 2:16, 17. Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." What can he plainer then, that in Christ, was stored up some good things, to which the sabbath as a shadow pointed Israel ? Verily, then, in ministering the ten commandments to Israel with the vail over his face, Moses ministered not "condem- nation" and "death" alone: for a shining face is expressive of hope. He, therefore, ministered Christ in shadow to them, who was the hope of Israel. "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Col. 12:7. But Israel could not penetrate those shadows in their ten commandment testament, "written and engraver in stones," and see the glorious Christ at the other end of them. It was not intended they should for the time being. It was God's purpose to bring "life and immor- tality to light through the gospel," t See II Tim, 1-9, 10), the new testament, and not through the old testament. There- fore, he kept Christ the LIFE GIVER far in the background of their testament. He concealed him with shadows. But that he let Moses see Christ, as at the end of those shadows, ready in his day, to die to "redeem the transgressions under their testament," that "the called" among them might receive the promise of "eternal inheritance," I have not the least doubt. (Heb. 9:15). For we read that he "esteemed the reproach of Christ greater richer than the treasures of Egypt." Heb. 11:26. Doubtless God showed Moses how "Christ" would be "the end of that law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Rom. 10:4. How that said law would be Israel's "Schoolmaster to lead them to Christ," when they would no longer be under the schoolmaster, but 108 under the blessed dominion of Christ.—Gal. 3:22-29. Such revelation to Moses, alone, was enough to put that shine of hope on his face; even, if he must conceal from Israel the revelation made to him, and which he signified by putting a vail over his face. That. the "vail" symbolized the shadow language is certain by the fact that Paul put his "plain speech' in contrast with it. "Seeing then that we have such hope we use great plainness of speech." "And not as Moses which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which was abolished. "Moses preached Christ in shadow speech, even as through a vail, Paul preached Christ in the "plain speech of the new testament history. Christ had come, lived, died, risen and ascended to heaven, and become the "HISTORICAL CHRIST." The new testament, therefore, speaks of Christ in the plain speech of the historian, so that when we take a look at Christ in otdh testament it is as Paul says, "With OPEN FACE beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord," so that we are "changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of our God." But Israel's minds were blinded by the shadow speech: "For," says Paul, "until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testaments." "Nevertheless when it (Israel) shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away." If only they would turn to the Lord they would soon find that their testament in its shadows and types had him in view; that these veiled him from their sight: then, of course, they would read their testament with better understanding. "They could not look to the end of that which was abolish- ed," vs. 13. Now as they could not see Christ at the end of their testament which foreshadowed him, it was their testa- ment that Paul speaks of as abolished. But this suggestion will make a Seventh Day Adventist desperate. He will de- clare it was only the "shine on Moses' face" and the "vail" that was done away. Yes, and the "ministration" of the "law." But is he so short-sighted as not to see that when you put away the ministration of a law, that you most effect- ually make said law to be a dead law ? It is only when laws 109 are ministered that they continue to be living laws. But, again, did it need Paul to tell us that the "shine" ceased from Moses' face and that lie laid aside the "vail" of cloth`? No; Paul is speaking of that vail, as done away„ which was sym- bolized by Moses' vail, and that was the typical reference in the ten commandments to Christ as contained in the "sev- enth day" and the promise of "mercy." -As I showed in a previous chapter, Christ himself comes in place of the ten commandments. The new covenant had its embodiment in him at the first. He that will do as Christ commands has no need of further law. HE is law and Savior to all who will accept him. "For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him amen, unto the glory of God."—II Cor. 1:20. Webster says of "covenant," "a writing containing the terms of agreement between two parties: a contract." Let me draw you a picture for instruction as to the relation of the two covenants. Mr. A has a farm of 160 acres with 100 acres of plowable land. He wishes to move to town to edu- cate his children. He desires to rent the farm to Mr. B. He therefore proposes to him a contract as follows: "Mr. B, if you will observe 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, etc.,conditions of my covenant, I will fulfil to you the prom - ises 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc." Mr. B responds, "I will." They now write and sign thetr contract. A moves to town, B moves on the farm. But from the start, B violates his part of the contract. A overlooks, and forgives, until finally, at the end of the first year of the three, for which the con- tract was drawn, he removes B from the farm. B wanders about from place to place for a year, with finances growing worse and worse, till, at last, he returns to A pityfully and humbly confessing his past unfaithfulness; and as there had been one more year before the covenant had expired, he begs to be permitted to return to the farm, assuring A that he will keep his part hence forward. After deliberation, Mr. A concludes to reinstate him under the broken covenant and to live with him as per its terms. B moves back on the farm; but even yet, he keeps his part in covenant all too indif- ferently. The term of the contract, three years, at length 110 111 ends. Being kindly disposed toward B, A comes with a proposition for a new contract. He tells B that he will make a better contract, because the time has come when he can make him better promises. On hearing the promises and conditions for the new covenant, B is well pleased. The covenant is written and signed. Thus far, reader, the picture is a good likeness of God and Israel in covenants. Within 40 days after its sealing, Israel broke the first covenant by calf worship. For near a thousand years, they violated their agreement so often, that God at last turned them off the big farm, Canaan, and exiled them in the Babylonish captivity. After 70 years, upon their humble repentence, out of pity, God actually restored them under the covenant to go on as before, till it should expire by limitation. It was to last till that seed should come.-Gal. 3:19. The ark and contents with tables of ten command- ments were never received, however. Why? Well, because being lost when they went into captivity, and being witness of a covenant between God and Israel, they were no more of service or need. For it was purely optional with God to continue them longer in covenant relation. When the ark and tables were in Israel's possession, they could, in a man- ner, hold God to his promises, as they witnessed to his obligation on account of promises to Israel. But the coven- ant was now a broken covenant. Neither party could hold the other by it. Specially Israel could claim nothing from God by it. They were now altogether dependant on God's mercy, as to the length of time they might continue in coven- ant relation. But God was favorable to them for 500 years longer under that covenant. Then, he made with them, through Christ, the new covenant. It is this new covenant, Adventists get confused over, I will liken their position by reference again to A and B's covenants. Following the sealing of their second covenant, A one day comes to the farm and finds B plowing. Noticing that he has already plowed 70 acres, he protests: "Why B, you are breaking the contract which allows but 60 acres to be plowed in any given year, and requires the 40 acres of till- able land remaining, to be seeded. Now, you have not only plowed ten acres more than the contract allows, but you are still plowing. II replies, "I have not broken the contract. It specifies that I may plow 75 acres per year and keep 25 acres seeded in grass. Therefore, I will plow five acres more." A.— "B, you certainly are mistaken. The contract allows but 60 acres to be plowed in any year and calls for 40 acres to be seeded." Reader, how settle their dispute? "Why," you say, let. them re read their contract." Well, they go to their contract; and sure enough, A is right. Forty acres must remain in grass and but 60 acres may be plowed. B, however, defiantly shakes his head, insisting, that he has a contract which says, "75 acres to be for plowing and 25 seeded." He brings ow, now, the old contract of the first three years, and, sure enough, there it stands; "75 acres to be for plowing and 25 seeded in grass." With exultation see him hold it to the eyes of A. and insist, ' There, I told you I was right: see what is written." N. "Mr. B, *e are not doing business under that contract." B. "But is not this a contract? and can't I go by this ?" A. "It was a contract; but having expired by limitation, we made a new one and must now be governed in our covenant relation by it, and not by the old contract." B. "Well, 1 believe in going by all the contracts we have: and if you throw this one aside as of no authority, why not cast aside all we have of agreements ?" Hers is a true like- ness of Seventh Day Adventists. There is no new testament commandment authorizing us to keep the Seventh day. So they like B, fall back and seek to enforce its observance by the first covenant. Tell them, that God has set aside his first will, by the substitution for it of his second will, and vehemently they protest, "If you are going to set aside a PART of the Bible, then why not set aside the WHOLE of it." They seem willingly ignorant of the fact, that it is not WE but GOD, HIMSELF, who abolished his first will for which he gave us the SECOND. Giving the tenth for the'support of the gospel; refraining from the eating of pork; Adventists can not enforce by authority in the new testament; so they 113 112 must, like 13, go back and seek its enforcement by the old contract. This is an inconsistency of other denominations besides the Adventists. If it is lawful to enforce the sabbath by the first testament, and the giving of the tenth, and abstinence from pork eating; why, surely, it is equally right for other denominations to require by the same testament, that the minister and singers shall worship in sacred robes; and that candles shall be burning in church service; and that we must worship with burning of incense at church altars; and that we shall sprinkle with holy water: and anoint with holy oil. These are all in the same category, and authorized by the abolished testament. only. Paul was right, when he protested to the Jews, that. if their contention that all must be circumcised was right. then, they were debtors "to do the whole law."—Gal. 5:3, James, also, was right in insisting to his law keeping breth- ren, "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend hi one point, he is guilty of all." It was their contention that believers must be circumcised and keep the WHOLE law. (See Acts 15:5, 24; 21:21-24.) James had just showed them (James 2:143) that they had broken the law, "Love thy neigh- bor as thyself," in showing respect for persons. Out of their own law, the law they held we must keep, he convicted them of sin: for as the "whole law" was binding, they surely could not break its "ROYAL" precept and escape. For breaking it in just this one point, they would be guilty the same as ii they had broken all the law. But he urged to their attention the new law, and commanded: "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." v. 12. If A and B had some day sat down to compare their two covenants, they doubtless had found certain conditions required the same in both, Now, question: must they observe the conditions of the latter, because they were found authorized in the first ? or only, because authorized in the last? Only because authorized in the last, of course. Even so, now; we must not think because new testament com- mandments are found also in the old testament, that. THEREFORE, we must obey them. If you can not find a thing commanded in the new testament, you can not, by authority of God, force its observance upon anyone. CHAPTER XIII. "Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth ?" "For the woman which hath an hus- band is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." "So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adult- eress; but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to anoth- er man." "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead where- in we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, thou shalt not covet."—Rom. 7:1-7. In explaining this scripture our Seventh Day Adventist brethren say that the "Old man, the carnal mind, the body of sin, the unconverted man, is represented by the first hus- band, and the Lord Jesus Christ by the second husband:" that we ourselves are represented by the woman; that the ten commandments are the law of God that binds us in wedlock, first to the carnal mind; second, to Christ: that the adultery in the illustration will be answered to in our expe- rience, if we formally join ourselves to Christ while we still are devoted to the carnal mind. One of their ablest writers illustrated Paul's meaning thus:—"Today a woman in Iowa marries Mr. Smith. Now the law of Iowa binds her to Mr. Smith as long as he lives, * * if while Mr. Smith lives she should marry Mr. Jones, she would be an adulteress; for the law does not allow her 4 114 to have two husbands at the same time. * * If Mr. Smith dies, then she is free from the law of Iowa, and can now marry Mr. Jones lawfully." Thus do Adventists represent us every one as twice married: First, by the law of God, we are bound in wedlock to the carnal mind; then, when con- verted, by the same ten commandments we are bound in wedlock to Christ. This explanation of the scripture under consideration is manifiestly a very faulty one and does not at all express God's mind: for the office of the law of Iowa as to the marriage of the woman to Mr. Smith, is, to authi,rize and approve said marriage and to ardain that they shall be true to each other. Do the ten commandments in like manner authorize and approve our marriage with the ' old man, the carnal mind ?" Do they require us to be devoted to our carnal nature as Iowa's law demands that the woman be wholly devoted to Mr. Smith ? No, verily. If the ten com- mandments ever authorized any thing, it was that we should not be married to the "old man, the carnal mind;" and they do emphatically protest against such devotion to the old man as the law of Iowa demands the woman to observe to her hus- band, Mr.Smith. The only marriage that the ten command- ments ever authorized was that of Israel to their God: read them and verify my word. And by them, Israel and God did, truly enough, enter into holy wedlock; but the text does not even refer to that marriage. The text compares the ten commandments themselves as a husband to God's people till Christ came, at which time they were released from that law to be married to Christ. In Paul's day women were required to love and obey their hus- bands. (See Eph. 5:22-24 I Pet. 3:1,6.) Hence as those who lived under the law had to love and obey the law, it was apt enough for Paul to compare their relation to it as that of a woman to her husband. Paul is especially addressing Jews in the text:—"For I speak to them that know the law" v. 1. His contention is that like as a woman was under the dom- inion of her husband as long as he lives, even so were they under the dominion of the law until it became a dead letter 115 by Christ's death. Again, like as death of her husband re- leased the woman from his dominion, so that she was eligi- ble to a second marriage without liability to adultery, even so the law, by the death of Christ, had been rendered dead to them, so that it was no sin to them to now transfer their entire obedience from the law to Christ. The sum of the matter is this,—Christians are to obey Christ instead of the law. But Adventists are very contentious at this point. They must somehow explain the text and context so as to secure God's authority for enforcing upon us the keeping of the ten commandments Without their aid they themselves acknow- ledge that they can not enforce the keeping of the seventh day sabbath upon Christians. So we next hear them oppose, that the text does not say that the "law died," but that we `became dead to the law." Then they reflect that if the law was that first husband, and did not die, we must be guilty of adultery who wholly transfer our obedience from it to Christ. No: Paul did not say that the "law died " He said "W here- fore my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead." But what is it to "become dead to the law ?" What is it to become "dead to sin ?"— Rom. 6:2, 11, 12. To become dead to sin is to become so dis- sociated from it as to be no longer under its dominion. Even so, to become "dead to the law," is to be so dissociated from it as to be no longer under its dominion. If the husbanddies the wife is certainly free from his do- minion. If the woman dies again the husband's dominion over her is at an end. It matters not then which dies, the effect is practically the same. In either case the relation of ruler to subject is dissolved. If anything stands out clear and forcible in Paul's reasoning, it is that in passing from the Mosaic to the Christian dispensation the woman, the law keepers, became dead to that law. Death to the law certainly ended their accountability to that law. It cut off all vital relation from it. But why was such death to the law ordain- ed ? Answer, "That ye should be married to another, even 116 to him who is raised from the dead,"—Christ. v. 4. God's will to man had been contained in the law. But it was now contained in Christ. Anciently the wife had to hear and obey to her husband. Just so all who were under the law had to hear and obey the law. But God the Father himself, came from heaven to a mountain in Canaan to say to Peter, James and John, representatives of this dispensation, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." Matt. 17:5. Thus did the Father himself authorize them to be wedded to Christ who would constitute all the law they would need. The will of God to us is exclusively contained in him; so that outside of what Christ directly commanded to us through the Apostles, there is no law binding upon us whatsoever. Whatever precepts the new testament contains for us, these, and these only, must we obey. Being married to Christ we are dead to the law and need not, therefore, go back to it to learn our duty to God. Christ tells us all about that in God's new testament. That our exposition of the text, Rom. 7:1-7 is the true one, is further evident from v. 7. Paul knew that he had represented us as "dead to the law," and as therefore free from its dominion. Foreseeing, that the Jews would wonder whether the law was something so very bad that it must thus be forsaken, he anticipates their most natural query— " What shall we say then? Is the law sin ?" But how in the name of reason would that question have ever entered their minds, if they had not also understood that Paul was labor- ing to have them exchange the law for Christ? Only by so understanding Paul would they wonder whether the law were "sin." If it were something sinful, they might easily see why they ought to give it up and take Christ as law for their obedience. THE FACTS ARE:- 1. They were not to become "dead to the law" because that aught of sin could be found in the law. To that ques- tion Paul replied "God forbid." 117 They had not become dead to the law because it was not a "good" law. Paul says it was "Holy and just and good." v. 12. They had not become dead to the law because that it was not "spiritual:" "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal sold under sin." v. 14. They had not become dead to the law because it failed to convert men to God. "The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul: The testimonies of the Lord are sure making wise the simple." Ps. 19:7. The Psalmist could say: "Oh, how love I thy law" Ps. 119:97. And Paul, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man." Rom. 7:22 The law revealed such a just and yet lo.ving God, and it fur- nished so many motives to obey him, that thousands turned to him most devotedly, and for his sake obeyed his law as a loving wife does her husband. That Israelites experienced genuine conversion to God under the powerful influence of the law is certain; for the carnal mind can never say "0 how love I thy law." "I delight in the law of God after the inward man." "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God." Men who can thus say are no more carnal minded. This is just what Paul could say, and did say in Rom. 7th chap. 5, of his experience while under the domin- ion of the law. But the most spiritual minded people both under the law and under Christ have never been able to render perfect obedience to God. The fleshly body in which we all live has such a multiplicity of inclinations toward things that both the law and Christ forbid, that all have to confess with Paul, "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate that do I." "For the good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that do I." "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me." While both under the law and under Christ, genuine conversion could enable us to love God with the whole heart and render very accept- able obedience; yet it is but honest confession to acknow- ledge, that fleshly inclinations often have ensnared us into the doing of things we neither loved nor approved. But 118 119 now mark this one most solemn and awful fact; viz: Since the beginning of the world the one universal penalty for sin has been—"DEATH." No matter whether we live under the law, or under the dominion of Christ. Whether we sinned many times or but few times. All, all came under the penalty of death. Destruction is sure of us all, unless we some how can find redemption Here is the point at which the law showed its only defect, its only weakness. It could not redeem us from sin nor death. It could define the righteousness essential to life. It could define the sins that end in death. So far the law was a good educator, a good "schoolmaster." Here is the point at which Christ has glory above the law. First, he was a perfect teacher as to righteousness and sin. There is no sin but that his defining will enable us to discover. Also, by his definings, we may decern what is right in all things. Second; but he was more than a perfect teacher. He was a perfectly competent redeemer. "Able to save unto the uttermost all that come to God by him."—Heb. 7:25. He was able to raise us from the dead; and also to thereby so regenerate our physical bodies as to eliminate from them all the multiplicity of evil inclinations contained in them. Putting into these regenerated bodies, our regener- ated minds, which both under the law and under Christ were so genuinely converted as to say—"0 how love I thy law." "I delight in the law of God after the inward man." "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God." I say, when he shall put such converted minds back into the re- generated bodies, that will be the end of all sinning for the future. There will be no more inclination then to sin. In fact, the only reason why converted-to-God minds ever sin now, is because of sinful pressures in the flesh. Hence Paul declared, "Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing."—Rom. 7:18,20. The real I, the inner man, had been regenerated, and so dis- possessed of all its appetite for evil doing. But converting the inner man does not convert the body. Thus in the pres- ent life we are all groaning with Paul—"O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death f thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord."—Rom. 7:24,25. But when will he do it? When will he "change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body ?" Paul in Phil. 3:21, signifies that he will do so when he again comes from heaven. So, then, I suppose as the true people of God who hate sin, and "which have the first fruits of the spirit," even we ourselves, must with each failure of perfect obedi- ence,"groan within ourselves waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope; but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it."—Rom. 8:23-25. The regeneration of the body is, therefore, in "hope" and not a present fact: for what is in "hope' cannot be in fact. There- fore we must "with patience wait for it." Meantime as spiritually minded people let us continually watch and pray, that we do the least possible service to sin "with our flesh." Then for such sin as we do fall into, the intercession of Christ is all sufficient for its remission. But by what means could Christ take the wife (the obedient) from her first husband, the law, and make her his wife ? We will illustrate. Anciently for debt, the creditor could take possession of the debtor and make him his slave. He could then keep him in bondage or sell him to realize what was owed him by the debtor. If the debtor were a woman, the creditor might use her as a wife as well as a slave, even as Abraham used Hagar. Had any benevolent man taken pity upon one such woman used as a wife by the creditor, by buying her he might set her free, and as a free woman he might even marry and make her his free wife. Now, the law demanded one of the two things; perfect obedience, or the life of the transgressor. To trespass is to obligate ourselves; to get into debt. Hence in Lord's prayer we pray—"Forgive us our debts." As none ever obeyed the law perfectly they became debtors to the law in the sum of all their transgressions. Of course, for these debts, the law 120 121 demanded the life of the transgressors and so got them all into possession soul and body. And like slaVe women de- voted to creditors, so these served the law all their days. In such condition, Christ found the law keepers on com- ing into the world. Out of compassion for them he made a bargain, so to say, with the law. First, he gave himself soul and body to the law,and faithfully served the law for thirty- three years. For this service the law declared him right- eous, and so perfectly so, that it found no fault in him. Next as a redemption price to cover the debts of all who were under the law, Christ offered to the law his own pre- cious life blood for the privilege of ransoming them from the power of sin and death. The law struck a great bargain, to say the least. If mil- lions of creatures (lives of men and women) were to be sac- rificed to vindicate the honor of the law, that God might exalt the law above all creation, how infinitely more was the law dignified and honored when Christ the CREATOR honor- ed it with laying down his life to impress us with its supremacy. In this transaction Christ fulfilled the words of the prophet: "The Lord is well pleased for his righteous- ness sake: he will magnify the law and make it honorable." —Isaiah 42:21. How it was "magnified!" Millions of animal sacrifices were offered to atone for trespassing it. The whole human family were consigned to death for transgression of a single command. Think of the millions that have died and must yet die to pay the penalty of Adam's sin ! But, above all, what shall we say to the CREATOR HUMBLING HIMSELF before the LAW and DYING for IT ! How THE LAW WAS MAGNIFIED ! The Creator MAGNIFIED it ABOVE HIMSELF. HE SERVED IT ALL THE TIME OF HIS INCARNA- TION. HE THEN OFFERED HIS LIFE TO IT. Actually, in this fact, the LAW has more the appearance of being GOD SUPREME than has GOD HIMSELF. How IT WAS MAGNIFIED! How IT WAS HONORED! What was the lesson from all this devotion to the law ? This if any, that God would rather lose his own existnece, titan the supremacy of his law. Law! LAW! ! LAW ! ! ! The existence and well being of every object in the universe depends upon its conforming to laws governing it. There is not a thing in existence but is under law: and never, never, can all cre- ation run smoothly till all things in the universe obey the laws of their being. As all things are now constituted, the laws of our well being must be respected, or God himself cannot save us from destruction. All who are being redeem- ed are in the PRESENT LIFE learning this GREAT LESSON: and by the time the resurrection shall have completed our redemption from sin and death, we will have gained SUCH WISDOM, that we will KNOW BETTER than to EVER AGAIN DISRESPECT the LAWS to which we may be RELATED. Christ gave his "life a ransom for many."—Matt. 20:28. "Ransom" is the price one pays when buying a slave to set him free. But question: When the ransom is paid, to whom does the slave then belong ? To the ransomer, of course. To whom must the slave obey thereafter until the ransomer completely liberates him? To the ransomer; not to the master from whom he was purchased. This is exactly the case with Christ's purchase from the law. Thereby they became "dead to the law," the first husband, that they might henceforth give their exclusive devotion to Christ as to the second husband. Because he met the utmost demands of the law against them, fulfilling all its types and shadows of him; therefore, he became—"The end of the law for right- eousness to every one that believeth."—Rom. 10:4. Thus the "law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." What then? Why now, "we are no longer under a school- master." "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."—Gal. 3:24-27. We are now married to Christ. He is our lawgiver. Whatever he com- mands we must obey. As a man might buy a woman from a man who had enslaved her for debt, and then setting her free marry her, even so Christ ransomed us from the old law and took us in marriage to himself. We now obey to him direct and no more to the old law. -da '122 Married to Christ: This is now our condition. "There is, therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spir- it." "For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,"—Rom 8:1-4. But Adventists win urge by this last verse, that "the righteousness of the law,'' must still "be fulfilled in us." Now their question is, "How can it be fulfilled in us unless we still try to obey the law?'' And they try to make us believe that those who "walk after the Spirit do still obey to that old law, because that he leads us after that law and gives us strength to obey it? This is an error. The Spirit leads us after Christ and helps us to obey his law as in the new testament. Is there a person liv- ing, who since his conversion to Christ, can say that he has not committed one sin ? No, but there are some very spirit- ual people in the world; and has not one of them been able by the Spirit's help to so live as to say, he has not once sin- ned since his conversion? Then even with the Spirit's help, not one is righteous by obeying that law! As none can attain unto eternal life without perfect righteousness, how can even we who are led by the Spirit be saved under that law? Adventists are on hand with their explanation, viz:-- That we must, with the Spirit's aid, live as perfectly obedient to the law as we can; and then, for what we lack, Christ will impute to us out of his own righteousness. This looks a little plausible. Only it enables some people to almost save themselves—to almost earn eternal life. No; reader, this is not the arrangement in the gospel. No man in eternity will be able to say to his fellow, "It took less of Christ's righteousness to save me than to save you." When Christ for 33 years obeyed the law perfectly, he satis- fled its claims as to meritorious righteousness. He, and he only, of all who ever tried to obey it, could be declared right- 123 eons for personal obedience. Now that righteousness be- comes ours, not for our efforts at obeying the same law, but by "imputation." We are to believe in Christ and for our confidence reposed in him, by which we enter into wedlock with him, he imputes the righteousness to us which he obtained; so that it becomes ours the same as if we had merited it as he did. Let me illustrate how it is ours. In • Heb. 7th chapter, Paul tells us that the tribe of Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec. How could they, when Melchisedec (eased from earth hundreds of years before the tribe of Levi 'ame into existence? Paul's reasoning, is, that ABRAHAM ;)aid the tithes to Melchisedec and that Levi was yet in the ioins of Abraham when the tithes were paid. It was thus hat Levi was credited as paying tithes to Melchisedec. He said them in Abraham his great forefather. Just, so, have fee the righteousness of the law fulfilled in us; not by our direct and personal obedience to it; but by the obedience to it of Christ our head, by whom it is "imputed unto us."— ltom. 4:24. Study carefully the 4th chapter of Romans and you'll find that our righteousness before the law is wholly y imputation and in NO degree by our IERSONAL OBEDIENCE. But the theory of the Adventists, is, that by personal obedience to the law we Must still obtain all the righteous- ness possible, and that what we lack of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience, will be imputed unto us from out of the merited righteousness of Christ. So it comes to pass, that some, by the endowment of a pretty good nature, can almost be perfectly righteous from their obedience; and, conse- quently, do not need much of Christ's righteousness imputed to them to help them out. Others of course, with more per- verse natures would require much more of Christ's righteous- ness imputed to them in order to have "The righteousness of the law fulfilled in them." This makes the man's right- eousness to stand partly upon his own merits and in part upon the merits of Christ. And here, too, is room for boasting by one sinner saved, above another. But Paul insists that by God's declaration of Christ's "righteousness for the remission of sins that are 124 past, "boasting" is "excluded."—Rom. 3:25-28. By Adven- tist reasoning, infants who die less than a week old and so have never sinned, will never need to have any of Christ's righteousness imputed to them: and so with children much older. So that Christ did not taste death for them. We do not have to follow after the law for righteousness as the Adventists teach. Its righteousness, will be fulfilled in us by God's imputing it to us out of the righteousness Christ merited in his perfect obedience to said law. Hence. "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness which is of faith." "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteous- ness." "Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law."—Rom. 9:30-32. Here it is very plain. 1. That the Gentiles became righteous with- out at all following after the law. 2. It is equally certain, that Israel who so strictly followed the law did not attain to God's righteousness. Wherefore, then, should we expect. even in a degree, to be made righteous by personal obedience to the same law ? We err, if we do. In Rom. 5:15-21, Paul represents that God's righteousness passes to us from Christ much as the effects of Adam's sin passed from Adam to his posttutp . All the human family—inherited a sinful nature from Adam. So that even infants need redemption and so are included in Christ's salvation. But under the new cov- enant, God created a new race. He constituted Christ its head. By "regeneration" and the "new birth," we become "new creatures," "created in Christ Jesus unto good work." II Cor. 5:18; Eph 2:10. As thus compared, Christ becomes a father to us all. Even so was the prophesy Isai. 9:6; Heb. 2:13. Now when a person is truly regenerated by the power of God, and is born again, the same is thereby constituted a SOH or daughter in the posterity of Christ, the second Adam.— (1 Cor. 15:45-49; Gal. 3:26-29.) Once thus brought into the posterity of Christ, the righteousness that saves from sin, which is in Christ, our Great Head, is made to take effect in 125 us as by the law of new covenant spiritual heredity. Be sure, then, that you are a new creature by regeneration and the new birth, for thus you come into Christ's posterity in which you obtain the righteousness that saves, as by spirit- ual heredity from the Great Head—Christ. This is Paul's idea in Itom. 5:15-21, where he compares the two Adams, one the head of the natural race, and the other the head of the spiritual race; where,also, he shows how we inherit sin from the one, but the free gift of righteousness from the other. Surely, Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."—Rom. 10:4. But Adventists contend that Born. 3:31 obligates us to still keep the ten commandments. "150 we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." To "make void" they say means to "abolish." Not always; see the Englishman's Greek concordance. The Greek word is as often translated, "make of no effect." In the context, Paul argues that the righteousness by which we are justified is not of the law. He styles it "the righteousness of God without the law," which is declared to be ours for faith in. Christ. Is the law then made void, i. e. without effect ? No. It is established. It defined right- eousness; it urged righteousness as necessary to salvation; it pointed, by types, to the "lamb of God" who could take away the sins of the world; it was our "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." Instead of ignoring the law, Christ sat- isfied its claims for righteousness by perfectly obeying it. He paid it the ransom of his life to redeem those it had enslaved for their disobedience: and now, finally, Christ im- putes to us the righteousness which he gained by his merito- rious obedience to that law, thus fulfilling its righteousness in us. But this very far from teaches that we must still obey it. The law can not possibly claim our obedience fur- ther. Christ bought us from the law and now we obey to him and not to the law. For this reason, Paul could say: "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under 126 12; grace." "What then? shall we sin, because we are not nuclei the law, but under grace? God forbid" From Moses te Christ Israelites were under the law: and because under the law, they were also under sin; for the law contained no sacri- fice that "could take away sin."—Heb. 10:1-4. When Christ gave his life to meet the demands of that law against us, then he not only ransomed us from the law; but abolished the SIN that came to being by that law. Hence, neither that LAW nor the SIN under that law, had any longer dominion over them whom Christ ransomed by his blood. They were now under Christ's dominion, the same being "under grace." But Adventists do strongly protest that Paul was not giving the Israelites to understand that they were not "un- der the law" as to its governmental dominion over them: but only that they were not under the "condemnation of the law." What a faculty they have for making God's word mean something different from what it plainly says ! But their idea here does not harmonize with the question Paul antici- pates in the text. How could they have asked, "Shall we sin, because we are not under the law ?" if. by "under law' they had understood "under condemnation of the law;" see- ing, they also perfectly understood, that sinning would im- mediately bring them .under its "condemnation"again. No: they manifestly understood Paul to say, that they were no longer under the law ITSELF and as their sin, and the knowl- edge of sin had been by that law, their questions, as antici- pated by Paul, would very naturally be, whether they were now at liberty to sin, seeing the law would no more call them to account for their conduct. But a few verses farther on Paul gives them to understand, that while . not under the law, they were under Christ, having been married to him to -whom they must now obey as formerly to the law. By "under law," Paul evidently means in Rom. 6:14, 15, the same as in Gal. 4:21, where he asked, "Tell me ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law ?" Did the Judaizing brethren addressed really desire to be un- der the "condemnation" of the law, or just simply under the government of the law? The latter, of course. Or when Paul says, "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law ' (Gal. 4:4), does he mean that Christ was made under "condemnation of the law ?" Certainly not. What good reason, then, is there for making "under law" in horn. 6:14:15, Mean "under condemnation of the law," but in Gal. 4:4-21, the same to mean under the law's government? None whatever. It is but a 'tinkering of text to extort evidence to support false theories. But adventists are still persistent artd contend that, Matt. 5:17, 18, does certainly require us to keep the ten coin- !: mandments. "Think L ot that I am come to destroy the or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to ful- Al." "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.'' First, they have to GUESS that "the law' is the ten comMandments. Second, that Jesus means that one jot or tittle (even a little mark like a comma) shall not pass away from the ten commandments till the earth passes away. Then their conclusion is easily reached—that we must obey the ten commandments as long as the earth stands. But here comes to hand their erroneous "two law" theory again. It is plain from Christ's many quotations in his sermon, that he did not by "the law" mean the ten com- • mandments simply. "Thou shalt not foreswear thyself." - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," vs. 33, 38, are quotations outside of the ten commandments, even from what they call "the ceremonial law." Nothing is, therefore, clearer than that Christ, by "the law," referred to the law in its entirety—ten commandments and all. Well, from the law as a whole, even Adventists must .. confess, that not only "jots" and "tittles" but all they call "ceremonial law" paSsed away. But from their way of reasoning no part of "the law" must pass away till the earth passes away. Here is their blunder on this passage. Jesus did not say that no part of the law could pass away till the earth passes away. They always read it so. But it does not so read. It reads—"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot 128 or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." This makes it plain that when "fulfilled," it could pass away. And Christ came for what? "To fulfil," he says. According to the text, to fulfil and to pass away because ful- filled, would not be destroying the law. Yet adventists carry the idea that such would be destroying it. No: fulfilling it was not destroying it. It passed a way by natural limitation. It was only "Added till the seed (Christ) should come—Gal. 3:19. Then Christ became our law giver as per the new testa- ment. I can think of no saying that so fitly characterizes the Adventists as Paul's description of certain Jewish teach- ers—"Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."—I Tim. 1:7. They have perverted almost every passage in the book that contains the word law in it, in order to bind upon us the ten commandments with the "seventh day." CHAPTER XIV. As regards the seventh day, consider the following sum- mary of facts: First. It is a fact that the new tastament (by which God bequeaths to us eternal inheritance) does not once command us to keep the sabbath, the seventh day. In God's first testa- ment it was the commandment most of all emphasized, being commanded over and over. As it was so magnified in the first testament, as a condition of inheritance, is it not re- markable, if still required of us, that God should fail to command it, even so much as once in the new testament ? Adventists know this is a hard fact to explain satisfac- torily; but they think they find sufficient reasons for God's failure to re-command it in the fact that the Jews were, at the time of the delivery of the new testament, mak- ing altogether too much of the sabbath; making a great bur- den of it by the traditional requirements they added to its keeping. This is not sufficient reason for God's failure to 129 incorporate the commandment in his new will. The Jews were but a little people compared to the mighty heathen nations existing then and now; and God foresaw they would grow fewer and fewer in the world as to this day. Look at the six to eight hundred million heathen in our day who know not God. If the sabbath is binding, the Jews ought to be on hand to tell them so, if indeed God refrained from re-commanding it in the new testament on the ground that he foresaw the Jews by the old testament and their tradi- tions would sufficiently enjoin it upon the whole world. Yet look at the millions upon millions of Christians who died before our day, and are alive in our day, who have not known of the binding obligation of the seventh day ! Had God plainly written it down in commandment a few times in the new testament all Christians would be keeping it. If God made a new will, and left out the very principle requirement he desired us to obey, who is to blame? Ah, God actually did not want us to keep the sabbath, and told us not to let any man judge us for its non-observance —Col. 2:16-17. 2d. It is a fact that the new testament does not offer us so much as one promise, to induce us to keep the seventh day. The old testament made promise after promise to in- duce Israel to keep it. 3rd. It is a fact that the new testament does not once threaten to punish those who break the sabbath. The old testament did so repeatedly. Like a kind discreet father God first makes good promises to induce his people to do as he wishes them to do. But in view of their rebellion he also threatens to punish. But there is neither promise nor threat in the new testament as respects the keeping or breaking of the sabbath. This can only be accounted for by the fact that he set the sabbath aside. 4th. It is a fact that sabbath breaking is not once men- tioned as a sin in any of the long catalogues of sins enumer- ated in the new testament. This is remarkable if breaking the sabbath is a sin. Catalogue (1). "Being fulfilled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; 130 131 whisperrers," "Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents," "Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful."—Rom. 1:29-31. TWENTY- ONE SINS. Catalogue (2). "Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," "Nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."—I Cor. 6:9, 10. TEN SINS. Catalogue (3), "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lascivi- ousness," "Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditious, heresies," "Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which so do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."— Gal. 5:19-21. SEVENTEEN SINS. Catalogue (4). "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come." "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, un- holy," " Without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good ;" "Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;" "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."—II Tim. 3:1-5. NINETEEN SINS. Here are four long enumeration of sins; but the SIN of SABBATH BREAKING is not ONCE MENTIONED AMONG THEM. In the third catalogue it is not included among the "works of the flesh," for the doing of which Paul says, we "shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Evidently, then, the non-ob- servance of the sabbath is not a barrier to our inheriting of the kingdom of God. But I want the reader to especially notice, the fourth catalogue. Paul was a prophet. He looked down into the "last days" and foretold nineteen sins which he saw men committing in the "last days." Now is it not reasonable to conclude that in such a long list he would mention the very chief sin of all the "last day" sins? Certainly it is: for then we would be warned against committing it. Well, it is a fact that the Seventh Day Adventists do teach sabbath-break- ing, and the substitution of Sunday for Saturday, as the great sins of the "last days." They teach that Sunday keep- ing is to constitute the "mark of the beast," for which Sun- day keepers must and will be punished with the most awful punishment that Almighty God ever invented. Here is that punishment: "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand:" "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brim- stone in the presence of the angels, and in the presence of the lamb," "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."—Rev. 14:9-11. What intense lan- guage ! How terrific ! Who can drink a cup of clear alco- hol until he mixes it with much water, or some other mild fluid? But a cup of clear alcohol would doubtless be no comparison for severity to a cup of "God's wrath" first "poured out" into the "cup of his INDIGNATION." But worse than all, the Sunday keeper must drink that terrific liquid "without mixture." Then afterward, it will make him so full of misery that he can "not rest day nor night for- ever and ever." Now think of it, reader, does not reason itself teach you that God can not consistently thus punish us for a sin that he has not forewarned us against ? These five facts, viz: The new testament does not corn_ mand us to keep the sabbath; it does not offer a single prom_ ise to induce us to keep it; it does not once threaten to pun- ish those who break it; it does not once mention sabbath breaking among the sins enumerated in any of its many and long catalogues of sins; Paul the prophet did not foresee sabbath-breaking nor Sunday-keening among the nineteen chief sins of the "last days" that men are committing: these .01 132 five facts, I say, with all the testimony of previous chapters, make it absolutely certain that God never intended to have us keep the seventh day of the ten commandments. DID GOD GIVE LTS A NEW SABBATH ? If he did, he failed to command'us concerning it in the new testament. I was once in debate with a Seventh Day Adventist preacher who promised me $25 to find out one place in the new testament where God commanded us to keep the first day of the week. I immediately promised to give him $25 if he would find me one place in the new testa- ment where God commanded us to keep the seventh day. It is needless to add that neither of us gained nor lost by our propositions. But did not God command us to keep holy the first day of the week ? The new testament contains no such commandment. Is not the first day a sacred day, a holy day to the new covenant people? Not by commandment of God. It is a sacred day and holy to God to those only who "regard it to the Lord." Concerning the sacredness of days Paul declared, "One man esteemeth one day above an- other, another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord he doth not regard it."—Rom. 14:5, B. From this scripture it is certain that the Lord credits no one as keeping a day except such an one regards the day to him; and regarding a day to the Lord, makes of it a Lord's day. The apostolic Christians had a day they regarded to the Lord: for, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day," says John, Rev. 1:10. It was a day voluntarily and by common consent re- garded to the Lord, and not by commandment. Because Jesus said, "The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath."— Mark 2:28, Adventists jump to the conclusion that the sab- bath was the "Lord's day." But they err. The Jews who re- sented Christ's professed authority at every step, called him to account for letting his disciples do what they regard- ed as breaking the sabbath. But he gave them to under- stand that he was Lord over that day also, and he proved it, later by setting it aside altogether through the Holy Spirit. 133 Under the old covenant a thing became holy to God in one of two ways: 1. By commandment. God commanded Israel to give him every seventh day, the tenth of their in- crease, their first-born children, and the first fruits of their harvests. All these were declared to be holy to God. He appropriated them by commandment. 2. By offering to God of one's free will. "The altar sanctifieth the gift "Matt. 23:- 19. Hence when a thing of one's free will was put upon God's altar, it was then his property and holy to him. By solemn vows persons consecrated themselves or children to God. Then they must keep pure, being holy unto God. The things which God sanctified by commandment under the law, were not more holy than those sanctified by the altar placed thereon by the free will of the donors. Under the new covenant things became holy to God in precisely the same way as under the old. 1. By com- mandment. But how few things are holy to God under the new covenant by God's commandment. 2. By consecration, or our free will offering. "Present your bodies a living sac- rifice, holy and acceptable unto God which is your reasona- ble service."—Rom. 12:1. Yes, and until we do present ourselves to God, we are not holy unto him. So with our substance. "Every man as he purposeth in his heart so let him give." "If there be first a willing mind it is accepted of a man according to that he hath."—II Cor. 8:12, 9:7. For sixteen years I have given one-tenth of my income to God because of a vow to do so, and not by commandment of God: because the new covenant contains no such commandment. Dare Adventists deny that my tenth is holy to God? Several times at church dedications I have prayed God to accept the people's offering of their new houses. Were they not HOLY and SACRED to GOD by virtue of said FREE WILL OFFERING to him? They certainly were, if the donors then sacredly kept said houses wholly to God's service. Yet by COMMANDMENT, God has not made any new covenant chapel holy to himself. In like manner, TIME becomes HOLY time to God, by virtue of its FREE WILL devotion to him. God did command, "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves • seek to enforce respect in people for the sacredness of our houses of worship, there would be no chance for much con- tention with them from the Bible standpoint. But in such event, there would be no reason in subjecting themselves to the inconvenience of observing a day that the most of Christ- ians do not observe. But no; they, in about 1844 to 1846 adopted a day that they had never kept sacred before, and ever since have been scrapping the testaments from Genesis to Revelation to extort DIVINE AUTHORITY to enforce its observance upon others. I am candid to declare that 4here we face a fearful responsibility. Either Adventists, or I myself are making the testa- ments of God to lie outrageously. As to who is guilty of such unfaithfulness to God, the reader must judge. But if the Seventh Day Adventists do make God's testament to say what they do not say, in their zeal to enforce the keeping of the seventh day, what do they more than the majority of FIRST DAY people? In many instances these do worse than the former. For first, they try by divine authority to tear the seventh day out of the ten commandments, and then by the same authority to paste the first day into the ten com- mandments, and then they go on affirming their obligation in the exact number "TEN" just as before. God never authorized anybody to do such patching up of his testa- ments. Its our business to stand by what he says in them: and where they make against our usages in religion, to CHANGE OUR USAGES, and not to ADD TO, OT TO SUBTRACT FROM the WORD OF GOD, in order to reconcile the two. There is no commandment in the new testament to keep holy the first day of the week; as also no commandment to keep holy the seventh day. If the world had to keep the day just as Israel kept it, what inhuman inconveniences we would be subjected too. Ships on the high seas would have to cease firing their engines and bring their ships to anchor for rest; milkmen would not dare to peddle milk about the cities for babes; servants at hotels could not be kept at work to provide meals for the inmates; street cars, horses and 134 135 together."—Heb. 10:25. But it requires time to assemble and exhort one another. Time so devoted to God is surely HOLY TIME, In a general way, then, God has sanctified time to him- self; but has left it to us to say what time we choose to devote to him. At Troas they had their meeting day on the first day of the week. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them "—Acts 20:7. Again, at Corinth, Paul commanded, " As I have given ,order to the churches of Gal- atia, even so do ye." "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God has prospered him, that there may be no gatherings when I come."—I ('or. 16:1, 2. Here, clearly, were first day devotions to the Lord's work; and the devotions were at least by common consent, and in the latter instance by commandment, which had been laid upon "churches of Galatia," as well as upon Corinth. By "regarding the day to the Lord." there is no denying that the same was "Lord's day" to those so devoting it. But Seventh Day Adventists will demand, "Why, then upon the same principle, if WE conscientiously devote the seventh day to God, will not our day, also become the Lord's day with us, and be equally acceptable to God?" For ought commanded to the contrary in the new testament, it would if Adventists would cease to teach people to keep their day by authority from God. In this new testament dispensation no man can cite GOD'S AUTHORITY to enforce the keeping of the seventh day of the ten commannments. God's testa- ments tell no lies to the people: but if I have set forth God's word correctly upon the subject, those who represent God's new testament from Matthew to Revelation as enforcing the ten commandments and the sabbath observance, do make the new testament to tell falsehoods in every verse they quote to prove their purpose. If Adventists kept the day holy to God on the ground that as a people, they had volen- tarily consecrated the day to God; even, as they dedicate all their houses of worship to God; and if, then they tried to enforce reverence for the day upon such grounds only, as we µ 136 carriages would have to all come to rest etc., etc., etc- Ad- ventists themselves do not rest according to the command- ment. It enjoined in paticular—"In it thou shalt do no work, thou, * * nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle."—Deut. 5:14. Notwithstanding this clear prohi- bition, and so specific, I have seen Seventh Day Adventists load their families into wagons and drive six miles to their places of worship over roads so muddy that their horses were in foaming swet. As for two years they passed my door, thus, I ventured once on an awful muddy season to rebuke them by the commandment; but in response they only gloried in the zeal that would bring them to service under such conditions, and excused the breach of the law by con- tending that it was a work of necessity. But it was false. fti Their assembly days they could have appointed on other days than the sabbath: then the labor of the horses, or, of themselves had not interfered with the commandment. The fourth commandment authorized no assemblies whatever. , "REST," was the command. Therefore, Seventh Day Adven sts do break the commandment continually, even where there is no necessity for doing so. Here is a conspicuous instance: For two years the Adventists of Michigan have held their State Campmeetings in the suburbs of Owosso. Each year they have purchased large space in the Daily Ar- gus to report their sermons and doings at the campmeeting. Of course, the Argus is not printed on Sunday. It is printed on SATURDAY, THEIR HOLY SABBATH; and they have writ ten up matter and kept the force of the Argus employed setting up and printing their matter on Saturday the same as upon other days of the week. Many first day people will v,u patronize Sunday newspapers, but these certainly did patronize a Saturday. paper. And as for riding on Owosso street cars, thus helping to keep a big force occupied in see ular labor, they will not try to deny. All this is not keeping the sabbath according to the com- mandment. Neither can they do so the world over, as soci ety and business are at present organized. Furthermore, God himself never intended that they, or any other Chris- 137 tians, should be under the bondage that the ancient strict observance would impose, and so he just removed it with all the other ordinances of the old testament. It was because of the rigid exactions of the law that Peter said, it was a "yoke * * which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear."—Acts 15;10. And Paul in reference to the same law commanded; "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." These men knew what they were saying, for both were inspired. And the failure of Adventists to keep the sabbath according to the ten commandment, only shows that they feel the bondage of said yoke as keenly as Peter and Paul. As noticed in Acts, 15th chapter, the Jews were ever upon Paul's track, urging his converts from among Gentiles that they must circumcise and keep the law conjointly with with the gospel. Such preaching Paul styled "preaching another gospel ;" and with most awful solmnity called down upon the preachers of such gospel the curse of God. "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel." "Which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."—Gal. 1:6-9. At Jerusalem the Holy Ghost suffered the believing Jews temporarily, as we showed in a former chapter, to have for their own use a compound of "the law" and "gospel." But for carrying that compound, that perversion of the gospel, to his Gentile churches and for preaching it to them he commands, "Let him be accursed." Even if an angel or himself preached it, "Let him be accurs- ed." The Seventh Day Adventists come the nearest to this perversion of any people I know, and hence they stand un- comfortably near to the curse Paul pronounced. I cannot believe that God will reward their sabbath keeping when by 139 it they so fearfully mutilate the scriptures to enforce, As BY GOD'S AUTHORITY, its observance upon others. While the new testament contains no commandment authorizing first day observance, Yet Acts 20th chapter re- presents Paul as coming to Troas evidently on Monday, and tarrying there seven days, or till "first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread." vs. 0, 7. It is an easy, natural conclusion from the reading, that the Breth- ren at Troas did have their meeting day upon the FIRST DAY of the week; and that at that time, "breaking bread" was a chief part of the order in the meetings. Ill bring proof of this from another source presently. Again, although the new testament contains no com- mandment authorizing us to sacredly observe the first day of the week, yet there is a commandment that a certain act of devotion to God should be observed on that day. "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, (See it was a command to a number of churches) even so do ye." "Upon the first clay of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." Adventists here make the contention, that the sum demanded, each was to put by, by himself, at his own home, say, where he could get his hand upon it, when Paul should come for their offer- ings. But as the church was a large church and scattered over the large city, when Paul came, there would then needs be a general gathering up of these offerings: but Paul's com- mandment was to the end "that there beno gatherings when I come." The conclusion is far more natural and sensible that Paul expected them to collect their offerings weekly into a common treasury which they could very conveniently do when they assembled on that day. If otherwise, then why ask them to set the sum apart on the "first day of the week ?" If the seventh day was still the sabbath, then their six work days had ended on Friday night, by which time, the returns of the week being known, they could the same evening, or seventh day morning lay the sum aside. But Adventists would have us believe that Paul wanted them to every first day evening sit down and count up the earnings of that day only; and then at home, lay a part, or all of it apart for the time of Paul's coming. But fhat notion of Paul's intent would make a kind of chance, or lottery prospect for the offering. Suppose that on that day a man had no work, or had been sick, but more favored the rest of the week; then by Adventists' notion the person would have been exempt from giving on said week simply because he had not earned the offering upon the first day of the week. Paul did not t€11 them to set apart on first day what they had earned upon first day. The conclusion is more natural that the work days ended Saturday evening; and the returns of the week's labor being all now in, Sunday the sum could be set by him, and not only so, but conveniently gotton to a common treasury with offerings of other brethren, so "that there be no gatherings when I come." CHAPTER XV. I have in my library the "Ante-Nicene Fathers" in eight large volumes, aggregating 5,000 pages. It is the "American reprint of the Edinburgh Edition," published by the "Chris- tian Literature Publishing Company," Buffalo, New York, in 1886. The matter in the books consists of translations of the writings of the great preachers of the church who lived from A. D. 100 to A. D. 325. One or more in fact lived in the days of the Apostles and labored with them. If in our day we should make a collection of the writings of such men as Spurgeon of the Baptists, Beecher of the Congregationalists, Talmage of the Presbyterians, Phillips Brooks of the Episco- palians, Bishop Newman of the Methodists, Alexander Campbell of the Disciples, Uriah Smith of the Seventh Day Adventists, etc., etc., the same would constitute a combina- tion of church history and theology of our times as that of the Ante-Nicene Fathers is of their times. A 140 In perusing their writings, one will not fail to learn what they believed and taught, and what their customs and church ordinances were. I will copy for the information of my readers the testimony of a few of these "fathers" as to the Sabbath and Lord's day. 1st. IGNATIUS. In vol. 1, pages 45-48 he is said to have lived from A. D. 30.107. That both he and Polycarp had been under the tutorship of the Apostle John. Living in the very days of the Apostles and serving with them in the gospel, he surely ought to have known what John in Rev.1:10 meant by "The Lord's Day." Fifteen of his epistles have come to us, eight of them are said to be 'spurious, seven are are regarded authentic. Of the latter is the epistle to MAG- NESIANS. On page 62 of vol. I, Ignatius testifies: "If therefore. those, who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observ- ing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and his death—whom some deny, by which mystery we have ob- tained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ our only Master—how shall we be able to live apart from him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the spirit did wait for him as their teacher ?" This testimony is the shorter version. The longer by its side on the same page is as follows: "Let us therefore, no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoicing in days of idleness; for 'he that does not ,work, let him not eat,' For say the [holy] oracles, 'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.' But let every one of you keep the sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in medi- tation of the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating the things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observ- ance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's 141 clay as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, 'To the end for the eighth day,' on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ." Surely, Ignatius, did not like the Seventh Day Adven- tists, try to make believe that the "Lord's day" is the sabbath. Neither did he enjoin it to be kept in bodily rest and eating things prepared on the day before it. Only in a "spiritual manner," as you would keep any day of the week, did he instruct to observe it; so that he calls it, "no longer observing the sabbath." Rut he did lay emphasis upon keeping the "Lord's day, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days, as a festival." As to what kind of fes- tivity they had on said day let our next witness tell us. 2d. JUSTIN MARTYR. On pages 159-161, in Volume 1, he is said to have been born N. D. 114, or only a few years after the Apostle John's death. He suffered martyrdom A.D. 165. His writings are described as the most important that have come down to us from the second century." Of his writings the "Two Apologies and the Dialogue with Tripho," are said to be "unquestionably genuine." On page 186 in Vol. 1, is his testimony from the "unquestionably genuine" "First Apology: "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Nophets, are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of those good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in ',like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribu- tion to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons, And they who are well to do, and will- ing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is 142 deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter made the world; and Jesus Christ our savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday): and on the day after that of Sat- urn, which is the day of the sun, having appeared to his apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration." 3rd. TITUS FLAVIUS CLEMENT, vol. 2, pages 165-169 he is said to have lived in A. D. 153-217. lie was a vigorous and voluminous writer. In his "Stromata" of his authentic works, he alludes thus to the Lord's day. "lie in fulfilment of the precept, according to the gospel, keeps the Lord's day, when he abandons and evil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself." vol. 2, page 545. 4th. TURTULLIAN. On page 5-15 in Vol. 3, this writer is described at length as also his writings. He was one of the greatest Post Apostolic writers and lived A. D. 145-220. In his writings on `:Idolatry" he refers to the Load's day thus— "Not the Lord's day, nor Pentecost, even if they had known them would they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should seem to be Christians." Vol. 3, page 70. On page 123 in defense of the observance of Sunday he retorts as follows to his adversaries: "Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well- known fact that we pray toward the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What, then? Do you do less than this ? Do not many among you with an affectation of sometimes worshiping the heavenly bodies likewise, move your life in the direction of the sunrise? It is you at all events, who have even admitted the sun into the calandar of the week; and you have selected its day, in preference to the preceding day as the most suitable in the week for either an entire abstinence from the bath, as for its postponement un- til the evening, or for taking rest and for banqueting. By resorting to these customs, you deliberately deviate from your own religious rites to those of strangers. For the Jewish beasts are the Sabbath and 'the Purification,' and Jewish also are the ceremonies of the lamps, and the fasts of un- leavened bread, and the 'littoral prayers,' all which institions and practices are of course foreign from your gods. Where- fore, that I may return from this digression, you who re- proach us with the sun and Sunday should consider your proximity to us. We are not far off from your Saturn and your days of rest." 5th. ORIGIN. In Vol. 4, pages 223-235, he is said to have been "The great biblical scholar and critic of the first half of the third century," living from A. D. 185-254. It is further declared that "The treatise of Origin Against Lelsus, is of all his works, the most interesting to the modern reader." From this work on page 647, Vol. 4, we quote his reply to an objector as follows: "If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord's day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his thoughts, words, and deeds, serving his natural Lord, God the Word, all his days are the Lord's, and he is always keeping the Lord's day." 6th. PETER, Bishop of Alexandria. In Vol 6, pages 257- 259, he is said to have lived from A. D. 260-311. He is said to have been "A divine bishop, both for sanctity of his life, and also for his diligent study and knowledge of the Holy Scriotures, ' and was called "That excellent doctor of the Christian religion," On page 278 of Vol 6, he says, "But the Lord's day we celebrate as a day of joy, because on it he rose again, on which day we have received it for a custom not even to bow the knee." 141 These witnesses I have selected because the dates in which they lived, and the works they wrote are no more mat ters of doubt than are the dates and authors of the New Tes- tament books. In Vol. 7, are found two works entitled:— "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," and "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles." The editors of the 7th volume are uncertain as to who wrote these works. By a critical study of the texts, and by references and quotations of other wri- ters, they are almost absolutely certain that the former was written not later than the first half of the second century, and the latter not later than the third century. From the former, in Vol. 7, page 381, I cite this testimony: "But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgres- sions , that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." From the "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" I will make a few quotations' They are as follows: "And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praises to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from tht dead." page 423, Vol. 7. "But from the even of the fifth day till cock-crowing break your fast when it is daybreak of the first day of the week, which is the Lord's day," page 447. "We enjoin you to fast every fourth day of the week, and every day of the preparation, and the surplusage of your fast bestow upon the needy; every sabbath day excepting one, and every Lord's day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice: for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord's day, being the day of the resurrection, or during the time of 145 Pentecost, or in general, who is sad on a festival day to the Lord. For on them we ought to rejoice, and not to mourn." page 449. Z_.-!!But- keep the Sabbath, and the Lord's day festival; , e- cause the former is the memorial of the creation, and the ) latter of the resurrection," page 469. "On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is the Lord's day, assemble yourselves together, without fail, giv• ing thanks to God, and praising him for those mercies God has bestowed upon you through Christ, and has delivered you from ignorance, error, and bondage, that your sacrifice may be unspotted, and acceptable to God, who has said con- cerning his universal church: In every place shall incense and a pure sacrifice be offered unto me; for I am a great king, saith the Lord Almighty, and my name is wonderfu' among the heathen," page 471. In Vol. 1, pages 133-135, is found an introduction to the "Epistle of Barnabas." It is there said that, "Nothing cer- tain is known of the author of the epistle;" that "The gen- eral opinion is, that its date is not later than the middle of the second century, and that it cannot be placed earlier than some twenty or thirty years before." It is positively a work of very early date, because both Clement and Origen, who lived A. D. 153-254 often speak of it in their writings. They even stoutly insisted that it was written by that Barnabas who was the traveling companion of Paul. But if so, much of its text must still be badly corrupted; as it is not conceiv- able that the Barnabas of New Testament fame would write many of the things contained in it. But here is the writer's testimony, whoever he was: "He says to them, 'Your new moons and your sabbaths I cannot endure.' Ye perceive how he speaks: Your present sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but that in which I have made [namely this], when, giv- ing rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on 146 which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested himself, He ascended into the heavens."—Vol. I, page 147. What an array of testimony, and credible testimony, too. A few facts stated by these writers can not possibly be contradicted: `''—'f.1 `hat they regarded the sabbath as abolisTha; and, therefore, that it was no longer a duty to rest the body by cessation from all toil as per the fourth commandment. That they unitedly declare the RESURRECTION DAY,' "SUNDAY," to be the "LORD'S DAY." That in harmony with their conviction they are ever urging its observance as a day of assembly for Christians and for attention to the Lord's work, and not for "relaxation and "idleness." But I would strictly caution readers not to make an unlawful use of those ancient writings. Some Christians and Churches quote and apply them as if they were inspired writings, and as of equal authority with the writings of the Apostles themselves. This is a great folly. It is exactly as the folly of Seventh Day Advents who regard the writings of Mrs. Ellen G. White as inspired of God and quote and apply them as of the same Divine authority as Paul's writ- ings. That the early Church fathers as well as Mrs. White have both written excellent things and things that are right and proper for us to observe, no one disputes. But both have also written some very erronious things, which if we followed, would be plainly contrary to the New Testament. This only shows that neither they nor she were Divinely in- spired. They wrote as fallible and not as infallable writers write. Therefore, never follow them, nor quote them as you would Christ's apostles. Mrs. White in her visions has con- firmed as true teaching, all the fallacies of the Adventists that I have thus far exposed in this treatise. She is doubt- less sincere enough in her convictions and doctrinal state- ments; but sincerity is no guaranty that she is infallible in 147 her teaching. That the early church fathers were as sincere as she; that in general they were as correct expositors of the Bible doctrines as she, there can be no doubt. But we are all equally certain that they erred often, and so must be fol- lowed with the same caution we follow Mrs. White. That Mrs. White in her writings correctly states what Seventh Day Adventists believe, teach and practice,as a people in our day, no one disputes. Trust her sincerity to state these things correctly. That those early church fathers stated correctly what they believed, taught and practiced can likewise not be successfully disputed. In both cases, it is lawful to accept their testimony thus far, as true. And thus far, and thus far only, have I accepted the testamony of the fathers respecting sabbath and Lord's day. I simply referred to their writings to determine whether it was historically true, that they regarded the sabbath as abolished; and whether they also regarded Sunday as Lord's day. Both facts were abundantly confirmed by the quota- tions made from their writings. And what now? Why this, I showed you overwhelming proof from the New Testa- ment itself that the sabbath was abolished. I showed that there was a first day assembling church at Troas (Acts 20:7), and by commandment a first day giving-to-the-poor church at Corinth with a number in Gallatia (I Cor. 16;1-4). I showed you that as we had no sacred time set apart by command- ment of God in the new testament, that by consecration there still continues to be sacred time. The time we regard to the Lord, is the Lord's time. If it be a day in every seven, then positively we have a "Lord's day."—Rom. 14:5, 6. And scarcely one of the fathers quoted contends for a Lord's day by special command of God. They rather cite the fact that so did the Apostles and church before them practice. So far, then, as I have found their declarations to harmonize with the New Testament teaching, I accept their testimony and not farther. Seventh day Adventists have so far felt the force of this testimony of the early fathers, that they have made a des- perate effort to prove that the witnesses are untrustworthy, 148 149 In his "History of the Sabbath," Elder J. N. Andrews cites the testimony of many persons to prove that you cannot believe what the fathers have said about the Lord's day observ- ance of their times. He reminds one of the man who climbed a tree to saw off certain large limbs, but who was so short- sighted as to saw off one of them between himself and the tree, and was dropped to the ground with the limb. If those fathers can not be believed in their simple historical state- ments as to what day they regarded and observed as the Lord's day, then, positively, their testimony is equally un- trustwo,rthy on every other subject./ Mr. Andrews overlook- ed the fact that but for the testimony of those same fathers it would be impossible for us to have in our possession the Bible. How do we Ir11!t_:.1w2Atx;grx.ra_books.of the New Tesfamentwee handelLdawn. til.usirom the Apostles ? It is simply impossible to know it, except upon the testimo ny of those fathers, whom Mr, Andrews labored so hard to prove can not be believed. He forgets that from the end of first century (the last days of the Apostles) to the end of the third century, those very same fathers having received from the Apostles and their churches the New Testament books, made, with pen and ink, thousands of copies of them and passed them on to the Christians of the fourth century. But for their faithful preservation of the scriptures during those two centuries, the fourth century copyists could not have handed to us the Greek manuscripts and versions made by them. Those fathers wrote many controversial works into which they quoted so extensively from New Testament Greek manuscripts, that nearly the whole Bible, it is said, could be reproduced from their quotations alone. And, mark this fact: One of the great resources that our modern translators and Bible critics had for freeing the New Testa- ment from the many interpolations found in it when they 1 put it in its present printed form, was the quoted Greek texts of said fathers. And then, besides, we are dependent upon their testimony for many historical facts as to persons and events of those times. But Elder Andrews contends that their writings were so corrupted and interpolated ! So they were. But there was not a single litterary product religious, civil,or of other kin' of those times but suffered in the same way. But by the principles of higher criticism, all kinds of ancient writings have been purified. What makes "Gibbon's Roman Empire," from which the Adventists so like to quote, such a desirable civil history ? Even the fact that a more painstaking his- torian never wrote than he. No historian perhaps ever searched and compared so many ancient historical works as he, in order to get precisely the facts he gave us. Just so, the writings of the fathers by higher criticism have been themselves purged of much interpolated into them; and thus they contain much valuable history. In their writings they several times give us the names of each of our new testament books; and while some contended that Hebrews and a few other minor epistles did not of right belong in the cannon of the New Testament, and while others contended that a few outside of the testament should of right be placed in the canon, yet here as in other lines, the Critics were able to decern who of such writers were most probably correct. So that their testimony in making up the canon of the New Testament, as we now have it, and in puri- fying its corrupted text has simply been indispensable. Yet in order to carry his point that they are untrustworthy wit- nesses, as to the Lord's day, Eld. Andrews makes null, or void all these testify as to the canon of the New Testament: thus digging away in large part the foundation on which our faith, that we have the restored text of the Testament,rests. The man has surely sawed himself off from the tree of gos- pel revelation. He may excuse himself for this by saying, that their internal testimony is all-sufficient to prove them from the Apostle's hands. Yes, but what had their internal testimony been, if the corruptions of texts and the many, many interpolations had not been purged out of them ? Is their testimony all to be set aside because they taught so many things as gospel truth that were contrary to the gospel they professed to teach ? For the same reason then 151 1~3- 150 no one must ever, hereafter, believe any historical state- ments found in the writings of Mrs. Ellen G. White the pres- ent day Seventh Day Adventist Prophetess. For in much of her doctrinal teaching, she is as far from gospel truth as the fathers ever could possibly be. But before we conclude this chapter let me remind you of a most notorious inconsistency of the Seventh Day Ad- ventists. First, it is a well known fact that the Roman Catholics make the boast that they changed the observance of the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. And that because Protestants profess to go by the Bible and not by human legislation in their church practices, they are taunted by 110. man Catholic writers as going by the Roman Catholic church's legislation, at least, in their observance of Sunday. Now it happens that in Dan. 7:25, it is prophesied of the pope of the Roman Catholic church, who is there represented by the horn that pushed three of the ten horns aside, that said pope of Rome should "think to change times and laws." Here the Adventists' set the Catholics' claim over against the prophesy, with a—See, the Roman Catholic pope has done as prophesied of him. He has changed the "times" for he changed sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Well, if true, this would only be changing a time, and not "times," and we still inquire what other time of God has the pope changed so as to make it "times," plural ? But look here: In his latest edition of "Daniel and the Revelation," Elder Uriah Smith says of the time when the Pope would be in position to make the "change" of "Times and laws," that it was "A. D. 538." He says, "Whereas, evi- dently, the prophecy of verses 24, 25, refers, not to his civil power, but his power to domineer over the minds and con- sciences of men; and the Pope reached this position, as will hereafter appear, in A. D. 538; and the plucking up of the three horns took place before this, and to make way for this very exaltation to spiritual dominion," page 129, of "DANIEL AND THE REVELATION," Now, notice in particular, that that horn by Mr. Smith's own declaration did not get in "position" to make those "changes" till 538 A. D. Fact is, he did not come up at all within tho first three centuries of the Christian era and surely could do nothing till he "came up." But mark this fact, that the many witnesses I cited from the second and third century fathers testified that they were in their day, from before A. D. 100 observing Sunday. What is more, the editors of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers" unanimously declare that Alexandria Carthage, Cwssarea and other cities had the great and influential bishops for the first two centuries, and not the church of Rome. Bishops of Rome have no part in making that early literature of the church. They had no outside influence. Adventists know, therefore, that it is a pure and un adulterated falsehood—the claim that the Popes of Rome changed the Sabbath: and especially since Elder Uriah smith's own testimony is that the pope did not get in "posi- tion" to change the "times" and "laws" before A. D. 538. Did the popes after that date make laws respecting Sunday observance? Well, the "times" had been changed hundreds of years before, so that they were not the authors of the change, if Sunday is the "time." The Adventists can not believe the testimony of those second and third century fathers, respecting Lord's day observance. Oh, no. But they can believe 19th century Roman preasts who say that the pope changed the sabbath : and what is worse, they spent hundreds of dollars in publishing and distributing this Rom- ish falsehood. Ask Adventists who changed the Sabbath, when, and where? Now, they will tell you Constantine changed it in 325 A. D.; at least, that he enacted civil legislation in its favor. Well, did he do this at the behest of the pope of Rome ? They know better. But that was 213 years before the pope of Rome got in "position" to "change the times"— the sabbath. Adventists have collected into a number of tracts, these lying statements of modern Catholic priests; 152 and they spend hundreds of dollars in free distribution of them. Doing what? Propogating Romish lies. A gratuit- ous business! God will never reward anybody for publish- ing things which they themselves know to be false. And Adventists are not such poor students of history but to know that the pope s of Rome were not the authors of Sun- day observance. Not one of them can deny this charge. CHAPTER XVI. This treatise would not be complete if I did not go into the book of Revelation and examine some testimony manu- factured from its materials by Seventh Day Adventists to enforce sabbath keeping and to restrain from Sunday observ- ance. I doubt whether they do not terrify more Sunday keepers into keeping sabbath by their exposition of its sym- bols than by their efforts with the antire New Testament besides. Yet strange as it may seem, the words "sabbath" and "Sunday" are not once found in that book. Why has the book of the Revelation for so many years been as a sealed book ? Because written in an unknown language. To con- ceal his foreknowledge for the time, even till the events he foresaw had come to pass, God taught the prophets to write in a language in the alphabet of which are letters as follows: Woman, sun, moon, stars, child, dragon, heads, tail, heaven, earth ,winds, sea, eagle, wings, wilderness, lamb, angles, beast, mark of the beast, image of the beast, lake of fire, etc., etc. Generally, one can find the meaning of these symbols explain- ed, or suggested, in the Bible itself, Let us now see whether with this Divine alphabet we can spell out some of God's messages to us in said book, which is the "puzzle corner" that contains the spiritual rebuses of God's great library. "HEAVEN" AND "EARTH." "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.—"Isai. 55:9. "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in 153 heavenly places in Christ Jesus."—Eph. 2:6. "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." "Set your 'affec- tions on things above, not on things of the earth."—Col. 3:1,2 Here it is plain, that those who devote themselves to the "ways" and "thoughts" of God, are elevated above those who devote themselves to their own "ways" and "thoughts." Thus figuratively, the former can be said to dwell in heaven, and the latter upon the earth: the former live in the religious realm, the latter in the realm of the secular and civil. It is custom- ary in our day to speak of what is taking place in the religious world, and in the civil or secular world. In Rev. 12:1-3, John saw a woman in heaven. But he saw a viscious dragon there, too. These were not in the heaven of God's abode; for women do not give birth to child- ren in that heaven,with travel and pain. Neither has any man, nor will any man ever see, the Roman empire there, which is symbolized in the dragon. John is telling what he saw in the religious realm of the Roman Empire; as a little later he describes what took place in the political realm. Unless we thus regard and apply these symbols, we will fail to correctly understand much of the book; specially, of the twelfth chapter. "WoMAN." "I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." II Cor. 11;2, "Wherefore my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ: that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." Rom 7;4. "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it; * * That he might present it to himself a glorious church, * * For this cause shall a man love his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh, This is a great mystery: but I 6s6p:e8a. k concerning Christ and the church." Eph. 5:25-32. "For as soon as Zion traveled she brought forth children." Isai, These citations show that a "woman," in both the old and new testaments, is used as the symbol of the church. ikut since the church of the Old Testament and the church 155 154 of the New testament were two distinct institutions; begot ten by two different testaments by which each realized sue different inheritance, (see Gal. 4:30); which church does th "woman" of Rev. 12:I symbolize ? Her clothing will sett that point. She was "clothed with the sun, and the moo under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars, In Gen. 1:16 we learn that sun, moon and stars were set i the heaven to give light upon the earth. They constitut the sum total of nature's light. The New Testament churc and not the Old Testament church, is the one enveloped i the sum total of the light of revelation as to redemptio from sin. The prophets, including Moses with his revel tions at Sinai, gave us shadow light, reflected light, of salv tion, corresponding to the light of the moon, which is bo rowed light. ] Christ gave his New Testament church light correspond- ing to that of the blazing sun . "But unto you that fear my name shall-the sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings." Mal. 4:2. "That was the true light which light- eth every man that cometh into the world." John 1:9. Christ was that "sun of righteousness." He was that "true light To his twelve anostles Jesus said: "Ye are the light of the world." Matt. 5:14. The light Jesus directly and personally shed about him when present in the world collecting mater- ial for his New Testament church, he afterward by the Holy Spirit shed forth through the twelve Apostles. They were at the head of the church. They are therefore placed in the imagery where they belong, at the head, in the crown: for they are as ornaments of the New Testament church. The Old Testament church was not "clothed with the sin" (Christ). Had she been, she would not have urged Pilate to crucify him, nor put his ministers and followers to death. She was only clothed as with the dim light of the moon, so that she did not recognize Christ. "DRAGON," "BEAST." "Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt:" "Speak and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers." etc. Ez( k. 29:2. 3. "After this t saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns." "Thus he said, the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and shall break it in pieces." "And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise."—Dan. 7:7, 23, 24. Here it is seen that a "dragon"and a "beast,"used as symbols, stand for kingdoms with their kings at their head. Note, that Daniel was here told, that the ten horned beast, was the "fourth kingdom upon earth." In Dan. 2:31-45 we are told by this same Daniel that the gold, silver, brass and iron of the great image in Nebuchadnezzer's dream, symbolizes four kingdoms, of which, the one over which Nebuchodnezzar was head—the Babylonian, was the first. That the Medo- Persian was second,the Grecian third, and the Roman fourth, any ancient history will verify. These four grand monarchies symbolized here by the metals in the image, were also sym- bolized by the beasts in Dan. 7th chapter. The iron kingdom of the image, is the same as the ten horned beast kingdom in the seventh chapter. But counting the Babylonian kingdom the first, the Roman numbered the fourth: therefore, the "iron" and "fourth beast" both represented the Roman kingdom. From the attire of the woman, in Rev. 12:1, I have argued that she can be the symbol of none other than the New Tes- tament church, which began her independent existance on the day of Pentecost. But did you there notice that a ten horned dragon stood ready to devour her off-spring ? What kingdom could he represent but the Roman, seeing the whole civilized world was under the Roman dominion when the -woman," the New Testament church, started forth upon the day of Pentecost. And did not the Roman kingdom stand ready to devour the seed of the church ? Verily: and it did put to death millions of them within first three centuries of thei1gdCohm.ristian era. Surely the "dragon" stood for the Roman kingdom. e n h r- 156 Comparing the fourth beast of Dan. 7:7-23, with the "dragon," you will be struck with their resemblence. 1. Both are terrific monsters. 2. Both have ten horns, which are said to stand for ten kings. Dan. 7:24; Rev. 17:12. 3. Both are vicious towards God's people. Dan. 7-25; Rev. 12:4, 17. The truth is, both monsters represent the Roman do- minion, under which the New Testament church began her existence. As it is an important point, I wish to furnish more proof that the "woman" of Rev. 12:1 is the New Testament church. We have seen that the "iron" in the "image" of Dan. 2nd Chap. also stood for the "fourth kingdom"—the Roman. After explaining to Nebuchadnezzar that the gold, silver, brass and iron represented four great kingdoms, that should succeed each other beginning with his kingdom, Daniel adds: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forayer." Dan. 2.44. In the days of which kings? for there were four series of them: the Babylonian, the Medo Persian, the Grecian and the Roman. As he had just been speaking of the iron kingdom, the Roman, doubt- less he meant to say the kingdom of God should be set up in the days of their kings. But we can make sure of this. Was there ever a movement in the days of the Baby- lonian kings that looked like an effort upon God's part to set up a kingdom ? No. Was there such an effort in the days of either the Medo-Persian or Grecian kings ? No. Was there a movement in the days of the Roman kings thatlooked like an effort on God's part to set up a kingdom? Verily there was. John the Baptist began a movement look- ing to this end; and when he was put in prison, "Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the KINGDOM of GOD IS AT HAND: repent ye, and believe the gospel."—Mark 1:14, 157 15. "Verily I say unto you, that there be some of you stand- ing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the KINGDOM of GOD COME WITH POWER."—Mark 9;1. Before Pilate the Roman governor Jesus confessed, "Thou sayest that I am a KING. To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." John 18:37. In Acts 2:30, 36 Peter represents that God had raised Jesus up to sit on the throne of David and that he was now both Lord (ruler, master) and Christ. There- fore, "in his name" he commanded them to repent v. 38, "And there were added unto them about three thousand souls." "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." vs. 41, 47. Note 1. Peter is here speaking and commanding by the authority of, i. e. in the "name" of his king Christ. 2. See, the church is now an entity,which Christ said he would build,and people were being added to it. Jesus had said to Peter "Upon this rock I will build my church * * and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 16:18, 19. What he here calls "his church," he also calls "the kingdom of heaven." Verily, then, on Pentecost, Christ effected to bring his church, or kingdom into being; and by authority of Christ, Peter was using the keys to let people into it. Lets see. In the days of what kings did this move- ment occur ? In the days of the Roman kings. Thus, while John in Rev. 12:1-3, represents the "woman" the New Testament church, as traveling in pain and child- birth, in the days of the "dragon," the Roman Government; Daniel under another symbol the "iron" of the "image," shows us how God's kingdom or church was brought into Wing in the days of the kings of this same government. That God's kingdom came with power on the day of Pente- cost, according to the promise—"Verily, there he some of them which stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the Kingdom of God come with power"—is proven by these facts. 1. In all his parables and allusions to the kingdom be- 158 159 fore his death, Jesus represented it as still to come. But their writings after his death the Apostles represented it a. having come, and themselves as being in it—Col. 1:13, ami Rev. 1:9. That Christ entered upon his dominion as king when he ascended to heaven is clear from Eph. 1:20-23 an( Rev. 3:21, and kindred scriptures. It may still be urged, that Christ was to sit upon the throne of David (Acts 2:30); 'and that as this throne was on earth and Christ now resides in heaven, he cannot as yet have en- tered upon his reign. This is an interesting point. But consider Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the colt as recorded in Matt. 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:28-38 ;and John 12:12-19. What did that multitude suppose they were doing? Verily, it was their last effort to make him their king. And if you will believe it, this was Christ's real in- auguration ceremony, preliminary to his taking the throne of David. Was not Solomon his type, thus inaugurated king of Israel ? See I Kings 1:32-40. Zechariah looking down the ages saw this circumstance; and as if he would wake up all Jerusalem, he cried, "Rejoice greatly, 0 daughter of Zion; shout, 0 daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."—Zech. 9:9. And the multitude inaugurating him cried—"Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord."—John 12:13. So far as the people could, they had now done their part to make him their king. All were in expectation that he would now assert his power and become their temporal ruler: and the disciples were still striving with each other as to which of them should be the greatest in this kingdom. (See Luke 22:2430). Did Jesus take the throne after this inaugural ceremony ? Not at once. He had plans of his own they knew not of. David's throne and kingdom of that first covenant was dis- igned of God for a type of the throne and kingdom of Christ in this new covenant. The time had now come for its trans- lation from its typical to its antitypical estate. The process of translation began by translating from a civil king to a spiritual king, and from mortality to immortality, mm, who had just been made the LAST CIVIL KING of David's throne, by the Divinely appointed inaugural service just noticed. Through death and the resurrection KING JESUS was trans- lated from mortality to immortality; and then given his spiritual, for the civil dominion to which he had beer► in- augurated.—Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-23; Rev. 3:21. The next step in order was the translation of the seat of dominion from Jerusalem on earth to Jerusalem in heaven, "the heavenly city." See Heb. 12:22-28. From thence King Jesus by the Holy Spirit sent us the laws of the new coven- ant antitypical kingdom, under which we are now serving. Upon the Davidic throne translated from Jerusalem old earth to Jerusalem in heaven, sits the translated son of Dav- id ruling the regenerated subjects yet in the flesh: for on the day of Pentecost, the civil subjects to the throne of David, who were typical of the spiritual subjects of the new covenant kingdom, by regeneration, were translated from the typical to the anti-typical estate. His next move at translation of the kingdom will be, to come and translate from mortality to immortality his sub- jects, and take them to heaven. Then will the kingdom in its entirety be there. Why this kingdom so often called the kingdom of heaven ? Because heaven is its destiny, and to thus distinguish it from the old temporary kingdom of Israel. However, remember yet this one fact of Christ's kingdom. It has two stages of hisrory, so far as the sub- jects of it are concerned. From the day of Pentecost to the resurrection of the saints. This is its earthly stage. In this estate it contains had people as well as good. See parable of Fishnet and ten virgins, Matt 13th and 25th chapters. Its history from the resurrection forward to eternity, in which it contains none but loyal subjects. I will add, however, that according to the prophets, before the milleni- urn ends. Christ's dominion, even among men on earth, will embrace the great majority. 160 Christ's dominion on earth is growing, and will yet do so most extensively, before the final end of this world is reached. What I think I have now clearly proven in this chapter is:-1. That the "woman" of Rev. 12th chapter is the New Testament church, or kingdom; and that the same is a very different institution from the church or kingdom of the Old Testament age. 2. That the "dragon" of the same chapter stands for the Roman civil kingdom or dominion. With this beginning we hope in the next chapter to come more directly to the contents of Rev. 12th chapter, CHAPTER XVII. "MAN CHILD." Who does he represent? In his "DAN- IEL AND THE REVELATION," pages 509-512, Elder Uriah Smith declares of the symbol, that it "is applicable to only one being that has appeared in this world, and that is our Lord Jesus Christ." Without doubt, the circumstances of Christ's birth of the Virgin Mary; Herod's efforts to kill him; and his ascension to heaven; suggested the symbolism beginning the 12th chapter of Rev.; even, as much other symbolism in the book was suggested by Old Testament circumstances. But was this symbolism, designed of God to simply tell us about THAT circumstance ? If so, then, ofcourse, the Roman Empire represented by Herod, was symbolized by the "dragon," Jesus by the "man child," and the virgin Mary by the "woman". Thus, by the context, it would have been the VIRGIN MARY who "fled into the wild- erness" and was "fed * * a thousand and two hundred and three score days." That would have prolonged the days of the virgin Mary on earth to at least A D. 1793. But again: Jesus was a man child;" and he was to "rule all na- tions with a rod of iron:" and he was "caught up unto God and to his throne." This language being literally true, it can not be symbolic language: and so the phrase "man child" 14 no symbol at all: and so only the mother of Jesus 161 Ana the lioman Empire are represented in their perform- ance by symbols. But more than all is Mr. Smith's explanatian confusing, when he explains the symbol, "The woman clothed with the sun," to be the church "clothed with the light of the gospel sun." In last chapter, I also showed that the "woman" must symbolize the New Testament church. Mr. Smith agrees, then, that it was the New Testament church who "fled into the wilderness to be fed 1260 days." But thus employing the symbol of the "woman," his explanation makes CHRIST to have been BEGOTTEN by the NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH. This is an error. "On this rock will I build my church."— Matt. 16:18. Christ was the builder and begetter of the church, and not the church the begetter of Christ. The church proceeded forth from Christ, as typified in Eve who was made by a rib out of Adam's side. By the blood that came out of Christ's side, the New Testament church came to her existence. The symbols "woman," "dragon" and "man child," were not chosen of God to tell us that Jesus was born by the vir- gin Mary (nor yet of the New Testament church) and that Herod tried to kill him, and that he ascended to heaven: al- though, these facts may have suggested the symbolism. By Mr. Smith's explanation "man child," is not a symbol. But it simply must be a symbol in order to make good sense in explanation of the other two symbols and their doings. By these symbols, God tells us what happened from St. John's day, (the last epistle) onward. The woman, the New testament church of the Apostles' days, was beginning to experience great pain and sorrow in her efforts to beget children. She was just now beginning to be terribly persecuted by those devoted to paganism. Jewish persecution was as nothing in comparison to this by the idolaters. It is now the woman begets the "man child." Whom did he symbolize? Without doubt THE PREACHERS OF THE GOSPEL OF THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES, Evangelists and Elders were not ordained from among wo- 162 men by New Testament sanction; but wholly from among men. And it was a fact, that in these second and third cen- tury persecutions, the ministers of the gospel were specially sought out for death, as the loss of them would most afflict and cripple the church. Male sex may also have been assigned them in the symbol because in comparison with the profes- sing christians in the dark ages, they were as strong, vigor- ous, courageous men to delicate, feeble women. That "man child," did not symbolize Christ, seems to me is conclusively shown by verse 17. "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed,which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Notice 1, That there is here a.comparison of the woman's seed. "Remnant of her seed," implies previous seed. Her previous seed was the "man child." Surely then, the "man child" and the "remnant seed" were brothers of one mother, the Church of Christ. 2. But see the "remnant seed,""keep the commandments of God," and "have the testimony of Jesus Christ." As much could he said of Christians; but scarcely of Christ: for it could not be said of him, that he had the "testimony of Jesus Christ;" but it could be said of the ministers, the "man child" and this "remnant of her seed." It may be opposed, that the "man child" "was to rule all nations with a rod of iron;" and that in Ps. 2:9; and Rev. 19: 15 this is made the prerogative of Christ, only. But have you never, noticed, reader, that in Rev. 2:26, Christ pledges the overcomers the same dominion ? "And he that over- cometh and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations ;" "And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers; even as I have received of my father." Rev. 20:4- 6 graphically describes the prospective dominion they are to exercise with Christ. It is quite generally agreed among writers on the Revel- ation, that the dragon's career ended by A. D. 533 to 538, at 163 at which time the Leopard beast succeeded him as a symbol to represent the Roman Empire. Therefore, it is certain that by A. D. 533 the dragon had sought to devour the "man child;" had been vanquished in the "war in heaven" and "cast out into the earth;" had persecuted the "woman which brought forth the man child;" and had gone to war with the "remnant of her seed." All this was described as his pros- pective work by the Revelator, and was done within his career ending at A. D. 533. Watching for the destruction of the "man child," and the "war in heaven," being the earli- er events to take place can not easily be assigned later than the end of the third century for their completion. By the the end of the first century, Christian ministers, the "man child," were multiplying rapidly and going into every part of the empire of Rome with the gospel. Now did the Emperors of Rome begin to arrest and imprison and execute them, moved there to, by the idolaters who were de- cerning, that the Christian religion was undermining their heathen religions. And now, began a life and death conflict between the two systems of religion. Christian ministers determined upon nothing less than for absolute, exclusive and universal dominion for Christ in the realm of religion, The pagans aimed at the annihilation of Christianity. But the "man child" was "caught up to God and his throne. Heaven, as we have noted, symbolized the religious realm in this world. As heaven is the place of God's throne, so the symbolism denotes that God's throne had become, in process of time, a fixture in the religious world of the empire. One would have thought when the Emperors of Rome sided against the ministry of the church, that they never could have succeeded in bringing up the Christian religion in its influence and power so pre-eminently above all the other religions in the empire. The pagan religions, were the established State religions. The Christian religion was des- pised and outlawed by the civil authorities. How could it, then, so soon attain to such an eminence above all the others ? Answer is found in the saying, "And her child was caught up to God and to his throne." "Caught up" implies that by 164 a power from above them, they were elevated to his throne. Surely, by nothing but Divine help did they ever succeed in making theirs the controlling religion. Its ministers, in spite of their martyrdom, gained an ascendant influence and power in the religious world to such a degree, as to justify the saying, "caught up to God and to his throne." If their opposers possessed the civil throne within the sphere of their power, the Christian ministers held the throne, so to say, in the sphere of religion. The mighty struggle between the two parties for the ascendancy in the latter sphere is most graphically described in verses 7-10. "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels," "And prevailed not; neither was there place found any more in heaven." "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiv- eth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth and his angels were cast out with him." "And I heard a loud voice saying in heavin, Now is come salvation and strength, and the kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Some expositors deny that there is any symbolic lan- guage in these verses. They regard it as simple historic narrative, describing a struggle between the loyal and disloy- al angels of God in real heaven thousands of years ago. So they account for the origin of Satan, and how he and asso- ciate devils became resident in our world. For aught to the contrary found in the Bible, there may even have been the like of such a conflict in heaven in the distant past; and the same have suggested to the Holy Spirit the symbolism of these verses. But it is very evident that it was not to describe that conflict that these verses were written, The "dragon," we are certain symbolizes the Roman Empire; and it surely was never resident in real heaven; therefore could never have been cast out of that heaven upon the earth. But Elder Uriah Smith on page 513 of "DANIEL AND THE REVELATION" denies that "dragon" in the 7th verse is "The same as the dragon of verses 3 and 4." "That," says 165 ie, "was a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. It would be most grotes- que to try to apply this to Satan personally. Satan is not said anywhere in the bible to be red, and he is not blessed with the number of heads and horns there stated." By similar reasoning the Jews persuaded themselves that Jesus was not the Son of God, much less God himself. Vet he was the incarnation of God, and for this reason was called "God." The Roman empire, so to say, was the incar- nation of the devil. It was saturated with idolatry, and the i;ible insists that idol worship is devil worship. Deut. 32:16- 17; I Cor. 10:19-20. Very properly, then, did God give the Roman empire the further symbolic names, when he added to "dragon"----"Devil and Satan." I insist that we have not iwo different dragons in verses 3 and 7. The terms relate to one and the same institution; and because Satan was the mover of the Rowan Exutives to the assault upon the Chris- tians. "Devil" and "Satan" were further symbolic names befitting the Roman empire. As "dragon," "Devil" and "Satan" are used symbolical- ly hi the text, so I regard "Michael" and "angels" as sym- bols. Who then do the "angels" symbolize? Heb. 1:7-14 defines "angels" as "ministers." And I am persuaded from from all the circumstances, that the "angels" of the'"seven churches" spoken of in the 1st, 2d and 3d chapters of Rev. symbolized the ministers, the elders of those churches. Then in the text, the "angels" with "Michael," were the ministers of the Christian religion while the "angels" with the "drag- on" were the priests, the ministers of the pagan religions. "Michael" symbolized whom In John 5, 27-29, we read that the dead shall come forth upon hearing the "voice of the Son of God." In I Thes. 4:16, we read that Christ will wake the dead with the "voice of the arch angel." In Jude. verse 9 we read "Michael the arch angel." From this some conclude that "Michael" was Christ. In Ex. 23:20-23 God's presence with Israel was represented in the Angel. I incline to the thought, that "Michael" was one of God's angels ir)d 107 whom he so invested with authority and power that when sent to earth on missions his acts were endorsed of God as acts of his own. Being thus often with Israel, and as in God's stead to Israel, his name easily and naturally was sug, gested as a symbolic name of Christ, who said to his preach- ers when he sent them forth to preach to all nations, "And, lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the world.-- Matt. 28:20, In the "war in heaven," then I see Christ to have been invisably with his "angels" the ministers, helping them to continue preaching, to contend for the faith, and to endure in those trying times. I also see Satan invisably aiding the ministers of idolatry, the dragon's "angels," through the civil authorities. The struggle was for supremacy in the religious sphere. It was a prolonged struggle. On the one hand, Roman Emperors executed Christian ministers up into the thousands, hoping to tear down the religion of Christ from the splendid elevation to which they had brought it. On the other hand the ministers of Christ glad- ly died for the cause of Christ. Yet the latter succeeded in maintaining their supremacy in the religious sphere. The former could not dislodge them from it; but themselves were cast down from their former supremacy in the relig- ious sphere as from heaven to earth, thus leaving the Chris- tian religion in the throne with its faithful propagators. The failure of the pagans was due to the fact that in the struggle they used "carnal weapons of war fare." By this their religions were only made to appear what they really were —"earthly, sensual, devilish." But in that memorable strug- gle the Christians could say with Paul, "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;" "Casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowl- edge of God and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." II Cor. 10:4, 5. The Revelator says, "And they overcame him by the blood of the lamb, and by the word of their testimony: and they loved not their lives unto the death."—Rev. 12:11, They did not preach human speculations and philosophy as the way of salvation. Salvation is by the "blood of the lamb." This blood doctrine was included in the "word of their testimony." They were prhachers of the gospel, as I have shown, and so they kept right on delivering the "word of their testimony." Paul's "testimony of God," was "Jesus Christ and him crucified."—I Cor. 2:1, 2. So was theirs. Moreover, they were not choice of their lives; "They loved not their lives unto the death," It was all the same to them whether they lived or died for Christ. With such weapons they over came their adversaries and a splendid victory did they achieve. Cast down from supremacy in the religious realm; having achieved nothing by his efforts against the ministry in the church, the dragon in wrath, now persecutes the church, the Christians in general. In A. D. 403 the Emperor Diocletian inaugurated the most destructive persecution the church had ever endured. From his mouth issued forth decree after decree, which, had all been enforced, would have anni- hilated the church. And this was the design of the emperor as aptly expressed in the symbolism, "And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood." "Water," in streams, or seas, symbolize armies and peoples. The de- crees issued by the Emperor moved people against the church for their execution. But from unexpected sources the church soon obtained help. First, "two wings of a great eagle" are given unto her with which to flee from her persuers. In Ezek. 17,1-24 the king of Babylon was symbolized by a "great eagle," and so also was the king of Egypt. Did some king, indeed, about this time, give help to the church? Yes: between A. D. 413 and 424 Constantine, the Great, forced his way to the throne. His first care was to favor the church with the two great wings of his power—the legislative and executive powers of government under his control. Second, "The earth helped the woman" and "swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth." Even 168 169 before Constantine got the reins of government into his hands, many Roman officials suppressed or indifferently ex- ecuted the decrees of Diocletian; but especially did the great hosts of Rome's civil subjects help and encourage Constan- tine to suppress the viscious decrees previously legislated against the church. The "earth," the civil subjects, were weary and sick of murdering an innocent people: so they helped the woman." But though Constantine made so many changes favor- able to the church, yet paganism continued to hold strongly in the empire: so, that, but for the untimely death of the Emperor Julian A. D. 363 the church would have fared bad- ly. One of his first acts against the church was the issuance of la vs to the disadvantage of her ministers and so the dragon was fulfilling the saying of the last verse of chapter 12, "and went to make war With the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testi- mony of Jesus Christ." Have you noticed in the description of verse 4, how the dragon's "tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and did cast them to the earth ?" The "tail," the rear extremity of beasts, may fitly symbolize the close of the career of pagan Rome, symbolized by "dragon." In the saying verse 12, "the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time," we are assured that the government of Rome in its pagan estate was soon to end. Of the "seven stars" in his right hand, Rev. 1:16, 20 Jesus explained, "The seven stars are the "angels of the seven churches." Having decided that "angels" symbolized the ministers of Christ, it clearly follows that pagan Rome did by some means, at the close of its dragonic" (pagan) career, get an advantage over a large part of Christ's ministers, so as to occasion their fall from their splendid elevation in the religious sphere. Was it true? Yes, it was. But, before explaining, how? I would know, whether you noticed that the woman fled into the "wilderness" when given the wings of the great eagle? "Where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and three score days." I think God's discipline of Israel in the wilderness for 40 years suggested to the Holy Spirit this symbolism. There had been a long, bitter affliction of God's people in Egyptain bondage, corresponding to the second and third century persecution of the church. Then there was a strug- ale between Moses and Aaron, ministers under God, with magicians under Pharaoh, corresponding to the war in heaven. Corresponding to Pharaoh's being landed at the Red sea with his loyal soldiers, the "dragon" and his "angels" were "cast out into the earth." Having brought them to himself in the wilderness God observed to Israel: "Ye have sean what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bear you on eagles wings and brought you unto myself 19:4. Correspondingly the woman was given "two wings of a great eagle" to fly into the "wilderness." In the wilderness God fed and proved Israel 40 years. (See Ex. 20:20; Deut. 8; 2, 16,). Corresponctifigly, the woman had a place prepared of God to be fed in the wilderness for 1260 days. In pro- phetic or symbolic time, it is generally agreed that "day" is the symbol of a year. I will not stop to work out the proof. In I Cor. 10:1-11, Paul recites how Israel fell into divers lusts in the wilderness and were punished and observes, "Now all these things happened unto them for examples (the margin says "Type") and they are written for our ad- monition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." It is, then, certain, that the church's experience in the dark ages for 1260 years was typified back there in Israel's 40 years in the wilderness. As that wilderness of Israel was the place where God's ancient Israel fell into, and were disciplined, for all kinds of sinful lusts; even so didGod's modern Israel fall into all manner of wicked lusts in the dark ages, her "wild- erness." Did God all the time continue with Israel and feed and care for them in the wilderness, bad as they became? Yes; and just so was his nourishing hand with the churchia the dark ages. 170 When the christian religion began to be fostered by the civil government of Rome, then many opportunities present- ed themselves to ministers to secure positions of State. And as they became ambitious for worldly honors, "being drawn of their own lusts and enticed" (James 1:4), ministers became worldly, selfish and ambitious. Satan was ready to take advantage of this lust, and through the dragon drew the ministry into secular positions. Then they ceased to shine out the light of the gospel and they became as fallen stars. When christians were excluded from all political offices; when they were reproached and ostracized from the higher social circles: then was it that they attended strictly to the business of spreading the gospel of Christ. But when there began to be a union of church and state, and there were thousands of new officers created to meet the necessities of the new semi-civil, semi-christian, institutions, ministers no longer served in the sweet simplicity of former times, but many became ambitious for the chief offices. Hence the fall of ministers that the dragon at first tried to bring about by violence, but could not, he did really later bring about by drawing upon their ambition and absorbing them in world- liness. The better God favored the church in worldly pros- perity, the less she was devoted to him. The more he had suffered her to be persecuted, the more she depended upon him. "Prosperity hardeneth the heart." Alas! good old Moses could not resist the temptation to magnify himself yonder in the wilderness; and how he fell! (See Numbers 20:7-12.) So, in like manner the "dragon" drew and cast down so many as the "third part" of the "stars" in God's religious heavens: No wonder we call those the dark ages. The ab- sence of so many shining stars in the religious realm must have occasioned much darkness. Baalam of old could not curse, and so by violence, destroy Israel as he desired to do (See Numb. chapters 22d, 25th). But he could and did counsel Baalak to send beauti- ful women to entice Israel's men to their heathen festivities, by which:many:thousands in Israel fell from their God into idolatry(See Rev. 2:14 and Numb. 31:13-16 and Numb 25:1- :3). So, also, what the dragon Conld not do by violence, viz: bring about the fall of Christ's ministers, he did in the close of his career effect in a ifrightful degree, by enticing them into desiring fame and worldly attainments. CHAPTER XVIII. "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns,and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy." "And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority." "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast." "And they worshiped the dragon which gave power unto the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast ? Who is able to make war with him ? Rev. 13:1-4. Notice 1. That the dragon gives to the "bedst" which "was like unto a leopard," "his power, and his seat, and great authority." This proves conclusively that the leopard beast symbolizes the same government that the dragon symboliz- ed. But this fact was already sufficiently clear by the state- ment that he had "seven heads and ten horns." I proved, T think, conclusively, that the dragon symbolized the Civil Roman Empire. It follows, then, that we are still to consid- er that same civil power, but under a new symbol. Notice 2. That a beast of higher, nobler, rank is chosen for the symbol. The "dragon" of Ezek. 29:3 was doubtless sug- gested by the crocodile of the Nile river, which creature was chosen to symbolize the Egyptian government headed by King Pharaoh. The like creature combining the nature of a quadruped and a serpent, God regarded as a fit symbol to represent the Roman government when it fostered idolatry, and in conduct was governed by its principles. It was then ;0 low in the moral scale: so wicked, sensual, vicious and devilish, as to require a very hideous and low rank creature P-12 to symbolize it aptly. The devil appeared to :Eve in the form of a serpent: and as Satan was incarnate in the Roman gov- ernment so that the same was also called "that old serpent," "the devil," and "Satan," Rev. 12:9, a semi-quadruped, semi. serpent fitly symbolized it. But when the Roman govern- ment rejected and outlawed idolatry—"devil worship"—and in A. D. 527-565 adopted the christian religion, it certainly came up a good many degrees in the scale of civilization; so that it was proper to now symbolize the empire by a beast of higher, nobler, rank, as the beautiful leopard. From the days of Constantine to Justinian, paganism came.to be less and less in esteem till the latter found him- self able, once for all, to abolish it from the empire. And now, although the empire was nominally Christian, even as the United States is called a Christian nation, yet, because, at best, civil governments are bloodthirsty and do shed much blood; even as the United States is now doing and has done; the empire required a terrific beast to symbolize it. "And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion." The Roman Empire was built upon the ruins of the previous empires of Babylon, the Medes and Persians, and the Grecian, which were respectively symbolized in Daniel 7:1-6, by a lion, bear, and a leopard. The Roman empire in symbol combined features of the three before it. Being in body as the leopard, denoting swiftness: having "the feet of a bear," "the mouth of a lion" symbolizing its power to rend and devour. Above all this, its seven heads and ten horns added seven fold to its de- structive capacity' Since the landing of the pilgrims, the United States has been headed by two different forms of executive govern- ment. First, the king of England administered our govern- ment. Second, since our independence the president of our nation administers the government. But the Roman gov- ernment from its beginning had had, according to the his- torians, seven different kinds of executives to administer its 173 government: as, "Kings," "Consuls" "Dictators," "Emperors'' etc. And so it is distinguished from symbols representing other dominions by the seven headed beast. According to Swinton the Roman dominion broke up into ten divisions. The ten horns symbolized those divisions with their kings at their heads. See Rev. 17:12. Before we can proceed intelligently, we must notice a few facts regarding changes that had been obtaining in the church. As provided in the new testament, churches were to be organized into congregations independent of each other, each with cheaf officers called sometimes, "bishops," some- times "elders,'.' "overseers" and "pastors." These had helpers called "deacons." Evangelists were but itinerating preachers who formed new churches over which they bear rule until they had elders and deacons ordained over them. The bish- ops had no purisdiction over any but the churches where they held membership and otlice. When the Apostles passed away the highest authority in matters of discipline any church had to respect, was that of its own local bishops. But, in time, this simple independent congregational church government was intruded upon, by bishops in cities, who constitute themselves chief bishops over the bishops of smaller congregations about them. Such chief bishops mul- tiplied; and they kept enlarging their jurisdictions over churches, until in Justinian's day, we even have the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople striving for a bishopric over all the chief bishops of cities, with their churches; in fact, for a bishopric that would enable them to command obedience of all the bishops and churches in the empire of Rome and of the world. Some such general organization that should embrace all the "orthodox" churches, with a graded ministry in grade above grade, till it end in one great bishop who should be chief bishop of bishops and lord over all the churches, was thought a necessity of the times. Such strong organization of the churches 'and bishops was thought necessary, espe- cially against the many heresies that were making inroads. upon the churches. But what an honor it would be, to be this. —ad 175 bishop over all the bishops, and the fathei or pope ("pope" means father) of all the churches ! Bitter and long was the strife between the parties claiming the honor of the office; one, for the bishop of Rome, the other, for the bishop of Constantinople. But the great christian emperor, Justinian, took it upon himself to settle that controversy, and in A. D. 533, bestowed upon the bishop of Rome the title, "Lord of the Church." To this "Head over all the churches;" in his empire, Justinian demanded that the churches and bishops give as strict obedience in religious discipline as they yield- ed to himself as emperor of the State in civil matters. While Justinian conferred such power on the pope of Rome, he still regarded the pope as his subject, and made the churches to understand that the emperor of the state was to constitute the final court of appeal rather than the pope, in religious government. In his day, A. D. 527-565, Justinian completely revised the civil law of the empire. The rejection of idolatry and formal adoption of the christian religion to be the State re- ligion, made such a revision necessary. In Son AFE HE►tzou ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE," page 2071, it is said of his code that, "It begins with a profession of belief in the Nicene Creed and in the authority of the first four General Councils. It acknowledges the supremacy of the Roman church, commanding all the churches to be united with her. Justinian legislates, therefore, in this code, for Rome as well as for the East. The theory that the emperor is the religious as well as the civil head of the em- pire, is maintained throughout his legislation. The church officials are as much under his jurisdictios as the civil magis- trates. There are no exemptions, whatever, of the clergy from the ordinary operation of the civil law, The hierarchy in the church, is regulated by the provisions of this code; and the bishop (of Rome) is made an imperial officer for cer- tain temporal affairs. There are also minute regulations in this code concerning the discipline of the monasteries. These provisions in regard to the relation of the Roman government to christianity in the sixth century, form, of course, but a small portion of the great code of Justinian; but they seem to show very clearly, either that the hierarch- ical and sarcedotal pretensions of later ages were not then put forward, or that the imperial government wholly ignored them. Religion and civil law, Church and State appear in the legislation of Justinian to be practically identified under the common supremacy of the emperor; and church law throughout the world is based upon Roman ideas and meth- ods, which were all the outgrowth of the theory of the abso- lute unity of the State." Here it is clearly seen that the Roman Empire started out upon a new epoch; and had undergone such radical changes in its relations to the church, as to justify the intro- duction of a new symbol to symbolize it; even a beast of higher nobler rank than in the former symbol. But I es- pecially wish you to note that the code of Justinian under which the newly symbolized empire starts forth, made the Civil Emperor ruler above the pope and all the churches under him. Note, further, that the code of Justinian provided that there should be but one Catholic church. "Catholic" means "universal," "general." And 'so determined was he that there should be no sects outside the Catholic church, that when churches refused to submit to the pope, Gibon says, "Churches with their congregations were surrounded by Catholic soldiers, and the houses were burned with the con- gregations in them. Gibbon. Vol. IV, page 528. At this period then the church is drenched in blood in order to make the Romish power universal." So zealous was Justinian for the "universal" church which he had made by setting over it a universal head, that he declared all to be "heretics" who refused submission to her authority, and such also to be worthy of death. And now, once more, the Roman govern- ment began deluging the land with Christian blood: not as in the second and third centuries, to favor paganism; but to favor the Catholic church. But as then, so now, the perse- cuted churches only multiplied the more for persecution; and thus multiplied the number of saints slain. For they were not all "heretics" because:so called of Rome. The fact 176 is rather the reverse, viz: that the saints were found among the persecuted; for proceeding with Rev. 13:7, 8, we read of the "beast." "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds and nations and tongues." "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Had they even been God aband- oned hypocrites,genuine heretics,it had been very beastly for the government of Rome to have thus shed their blood. How fitly the government was symbolized by a BEAST, with the awful feet and claws of a bear, and the all devouring mouth of a lion. But mark this: For his awful destruction of "saints," God determined to make the beast responsible. So further on we read: "If any man have an ear let him hear." "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with his sword must be killed with the sword; Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." God determined in his own good time to treat the Roman Empire as it had treated the saints. Therefore, in patience and faith, the saints could afford to trust their cause with him. In verses 1, 5, and 6, the beast is described as being very blasphemous, having "on his heads the name of blasphemy:" with his "mouth he spake great things and blasphemies;" "And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven." It was blasphemous for the emperor to set a mortal man over the church as its head: seeing God had given "Jesus Christ to be head over all things to the church," Eph. 1:22. It was blasphemy for the emperor to declare the bishop of Rome to be the "pope," "father," of the churches; for Christ enjoined, "Call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your father which is in heaven." But the beast went fur- ther and styled the pope, "Lord of the churches," "Christ's Vicar," "Lord God the Pope" "Lord of Lords," "King of 177 Kings,'' etc., etc., names that belong to God. This was rank blasphemy. The church of Christ in the new covenant con- stitutes God's "tabernacle" or "temple." In putting to death God's saints in all manner of vile ways, the beast "blas- phemed God's tabernacle." In comparison with the world, Christians, symbolically, are said to "dwell in heaven;" be- cause in morals and spiritual relation with God, they are so far above the world, but in calling them "heretics," the beast blasphemed "them that dwell in heaven." But notice, again, that they even ' worshiped the beast:" that they made him an object. of universal worship: "All that dwell upon the earth shall worship him whose names are not written in the book of life," v. 8. What is worship ? Let a few examples decide. A leper worshiped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean,"—Matt. 8:2. Here "If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean," was said to be worship. The declara- tion magnifies Christ's power over the most incurable of dis- eases. It expressed the leper's confidence in his power to heal him. This magnified Christ and was true worship. "There came a certain ruler, and worshiped him, saying, "My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live."—Matt. 9:18. What magnifica- tion of Christ's Dower to propose, that by simply laying his hand upon her, she should return from death ! There was wonderful confidence expressed in Christ and his power. The "saying" was true worship. But have you noticed in what manner of "sayings" the people "worshiped the beast ?" Here they are: "And they worshiped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him." Here, what they SAID, mag- nified the "beast," and his "power:" and the "saying," was calculated to weaken opposition to the Catholic church, whose opposers, "the heretics," so called, the beast warred against and destroyed. Naturally enough, the Catholic church was the one most of all given to worshiping the 178 beast: for to the beast, her great defender, she could point her "heretics" with menacing finger, and say; "Beware how you oppose my authority; for 'who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?' If you don't want to reckon with him, submit to my authority." So was it that the beast worked to build up the Catholic church, and the church sought to make all respect the do- minion of the beast. In verse 5, it is said, that "power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." At 30 days per month, 1260 symbolic days are obtained. or 1260 years, which is the period the church would spend in the "wilderness," Was she not in the "wilderness" though? For forty years Israel lived in insubordination to God and in the indulgence of lusts. And there in the wilderness they exchanged God for idols. See I Cor. 10;7. Was not their manner toward God a perfect type of the church in the dark ages, which was also devoted to all manner of lusts and worldly ambitions? And who practically exchanged God as her protector for the beast whom she worshipped ? Had she simply depended on God to protect her, as the second and third century christian did, her enemies would not have been killed, But she wanted such professing christians as would not submit to her rule to be killed. So she went into alli- ance with the beast who did for her as she desired. Thus was she turned from her God's protection to the beast's. Do you wonder that God for this conduct called her "HAR- LOT ?"—Rev. 17:5. From A. D. 533 the beast began his career and continued through the remaining years of the unity of the empire, and onward into its divisions, as symbolized by the horns, till 1260 years had been accomplished. Now, while the beast all this time was partial to the Catholic church, and freely employed all his resources to support and to defend her; yet, he was not, during the whole time, the ruler of the church as in Justinian's day. For there came a time when the church had grown so powerful as to govern the empire, which she did in her interests, of course. The case may be likened: A 179 rich Man advanced in years, marries a robust girl. Taking her affectionately under his protection, he lavishes his wealth upon her to meet her every desire. Having been in the declining years of life at his marriage, while she was only in youth, he naturally grows feebler, while she grows stronger as she approaches her meridian. Naturally, too, he comes to depend upon her to transact his business for him, more and more, until practically she is the manager of his bush ness. So that, whereas at the first the husband personally managed his business and employed his resources in his wife's gratification and to avenge her on enemies, in later life he freely permits her, herself, to use his resources in self gratification and to avengement upon enemies. Question: Did the relation of the Civil Roman Govern- ment and the Catholic Church, begin, advance, and terminate as thus illustrated ? It certainly did. For proof of my as- sertion, please carefully study the following photograph of the "beast" and the "woman," taken of them by the Revela- tor in the latter years of this relation. "And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters," "With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication." "So he carri- ed me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns," "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:" "And upon her fore head was a name written, NIYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,TIIE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her I wondered with great admiration." Notice 1. The woman is in the "wilderness." In the last chapter we saw how she got there by aid of the "two wings" of "the great eagle." When the church remained in her own proper sphere, giving exclusive attention to the propagation 181 he should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; for the one linen is the righteousness of saints."—Rev. 19:8. Once her raiment was as pure and white as the light of the sun. Now it is scarlet. And the beast on which she sits, who at the first was spotted like the beautiful leopard, has turned to "scarlet." Why ? Because together they have shed so much blood of the saints that her garments and his body have become dyed wi; h. their blood. And she, poor besotted creature, is even intoxicated with their blood. For, he says, `I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus," v. 6. The mothers of one generation, beget the da‘ughters who became the mothers of a succeeding generation. Thus is a series of mothers through many generations, it may be found that their character, as found in one generation of the series, may in purity and virtue be away below that of a preceding generation. So was it with the New Testament church. After the third century the church deteriorated from generation to generation until she is found intoxicated with the blood of her own offspring. For it must not be forgotten that a "remnant" of her own "seed" all down the (lark ages, so soon as they grew up out of childhood's inno- cency, and got their eyes open to their mother's shame, in shame turned from her: but it generally cost them their lives; for the vicious mother soon thirsted for their blood. How God's old covenant church underwent similar changes of character is most graphically described in the 16th chapter of Ezekial. That wife he found defiled at the first, but purifying her, took her to himself: then she de- veloped in beauty and renown until she was the pride of her husband,—God. But in later generations she turned from God and became a harlot and destroyed God's offspring by her, by causing them to pass through the fire to the idol gods. The picture is an almost perfect type of the new cov- enant church in the "wilderness." But a word for the beast. He started forth, the spotted leopard. The dominion he symbolized began under the Emperor Justinian. Being himself a strict orthodox Chris- Ion of the gospel, she was not in the "wilderness." When she began to be secular, and ambitious for a ruling hand in the political world, and employed her time and resources to ad- vance her interests by politics, she then went swiftly into the "wilderness." When Constantine the Great came, and with the mighty arms of the State delivered the church from the persecution of Diocletian, the most awful and bloody she had ever endured, what a relief it must have been to so suddenly escape her tormentors. And when he afflicted and reduced paganism to help the church advance with her work, I do not wonder that the church appreciated the help of the civil power in her efforts to propagate the gospel, and that she should from thenceforward crave possession of the reins of civil government that she might with them advance her work. Though at first she craved civil dominion, doubtless, with purest motive and for the excellent purpose to spread the gospel: yet, she was not to be trusted with such a power. She had seen it employed effectually to suppress all opposi- tion of pagans and even paganism itself. Why should she not then use the same power to suppress what she consider- ed "heretics" and "heresy ?" Alas ! when she did secure civil power she did so use it; and because so many of God's true people were found among them, it can be readily seen why she could not be trusted with the civil power. Notice 2. That where, 'at the first, she was under the do- minion of the beast, the beast is now manifestly under her dominion; for she sits upon his back, having him subservient to her purposes, rather than subserving his purposes. Notice 3. How she has changed in her attire. When first photographed to us, Rev. 12:1-6, she was, in her virgin purity, giving birth to a "man child" (her seed unto Christ), by the Holy Spirit: even as Virgin Mary, by the Holy 'Spirit, bare Joseph a Son. And there, she "was clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars." How is she attired now ? "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour." Rai- ment symbolizes character. "And to her was granted that 182 tian, I think he doubtless had a love for God's church, and really meant to serve its best interests. When he came to the throne, he found the church divided into contending sects. It was his idea that there ought to be but one un- divided church. It was his idea that if all would come under one form of church government, under one chief head bishop and then become an adopted child of the State that with the State's help she would attain unto unprecedented prosperity. So in application of his idea, he revised the civil code of laws, and combined with them, a multitude of new laws de- signed to regulate:the relation of the State to the church: and then, in conclusion, declared the bishop of Rome the "Head of allithe churches." This was the real origin of the Roman -Catholic church. But for these enactments by Justinian in favor of the sect he regarded as the most orthodox; or, the like enactments by some later emperor, there never 'would have been "The Catholic Church." But however pure his intentions were, Justinian soon found that his human wisdom and legislation on behalf of God's people was anything but a success; for the sects would not come under the headship he had created for the church, nor regulate their church governments comformable to the laws he had enacted; so he next was easily provoked to ar- rest and punish the protestors. And when he had once begun to subdue "heretics" so called, he found the work was never to end, and that blood must flow eternally. Why will not some of our modern religious zealots be warned by Justinian's experience ? They are everlastingly beseeching Congress to pass this or that law, that would restrict the liberty of some sect, as for example, the law that all shall keep Sunday. Do they not know that every Sabba- tarian in the land would lay down his life for his Sabbath? Do they not know that they would have to harden their hearts and turn themselves into beastly natures to punish transgressors of their Sunday law ? Yet, I am sorry to say, that we have many professed christians in the United States who have already succeeded in getting their States to pass 183 the strict Sunday laws; and when the poor Seventh Day Ad- ventists would not keep them, they have arrested them, im- posed heavy fines upon them, which, of course, they would not pay; so they cast them into prison to serve them out. And then they gloried over their victims. I say it, without fear of contradiction, that every christian who has helped to put Seventh Day Adventists at such disadvantage by legis- lation has the mark of the beast in his forehead or hand and is sure of that awful hell of Rev. 14:9-11, except he repent. And yet, the keeping of Sunday is not the mark of the beast, as the Adventists affirm, and as I shall presently prove. I.solemnly charge all who read this book, to remember how the beast from his spotted appearance in which he evidently had much white in him; and the woman from her perfect envelopment in white: both became enveloped with scarlet covering, as if dyed by the blood of the saints which they shed. Let us remember that the cause of this was the direct result of legislation to favor a sect. And be not deceived: The like legislation will work the same results in our day. It will put the sect or sects, put at disadvantage, on the defen- sive, and then they will have to be punished unto death be- fore they are conquered. The only righteous way to meet error and to vanquish it, is to search for its opposite—the truth, and then live it, preach it, and write it; and in due time the error will cease to have an advocate. Where are many of the peculiar heresies preached by the sects of the third and seventh centuries ? They have long ago ceased. Because they were legislated out of existence? No; but because error must go down be- fore truth in time. Notice 5. The woman had a "golden cup in her hand." What does the cup symbolize? God said of Paul, "He is a chosen vessel unto me."—Acts 9:15. In II Tim. 2:20, minis- ters are compared as the "gold and silver vessels" or as the "wood and earth vessels" of a "great house." The former to "honor," the latter to "dishonor." The young minister, Tim- othy was exhorted by Paul to purge himself from the filth 184 of the "wood and earth vessels;" even from the heresy taught by "Himeneus and Philetus," that he might be a "vessel unto honor and meet for the master's use." As the matron of an orphan's home may have twenty little children gathered about her, each with a cup in its hand, into which from out of a large gallon cup in her hands she pours for them to drink: So from out of the intellectual vessels (his ministers). God serves the `milk' and "meat" of "his word" to the hum gry intellects of his people. Our intellectual capacities are fitly compared to "vessels." Have you noticed how Jesus held in his "RIGHT HAND," the "seven stars" in Rev. 1:16, which stars we showed you were a symbol of his ministers, even, as the "twelve stars'in the woman's crown" in Rev. 12:1 symbolized his ministers, the twelve apostles ? Having them in his right hand, symbolized his control over them: their consecration to him, and his complete possession of them. Well, the woman had the "golden cup," her priests, her ministers, in her hand. She had them completely under her control. But what did she minister from the cup? Evidently what it contained: the "abomination of the filthiness of her fornica- tion." In the Old Testament, the word "abomination" usually applies to idolatry. As in Dent. 29:17; 1 Kings 11:5, 7, II Kings 23:13, 24, etc.. etc. The "woman" had deserted her rightful husband, Jesus Christ, ceasing to govern her- self by his new covenant precepts, and had allied herself with her civil protector—The Roman government, and was giving obedience to the laws of the Emperor Justinian and of those who modified his legislation in later times. For this she was called a "HARLOT," And since she was thus living, as with another husband, instead of with Christ her lawful husband she is represented as guilty of fornication.. She "worshiped the beast," as we have already seen. Now, what had she for her ministers to preach; but to persuade the people that her adulterous relation to the beast was just right: thus having them defend and advocate her spiritual "fornication." What had she for them to prcach; but that all must obey and "worship the beast." This was defending 0** 185 and advocating her "abomination." If ever her priests under her control preached ought from the Bible, it was but to extort testimony in support of her abominable practices and man made doctrines and commandments, "Wine" stupefies and intoxicates. .It renders people incapable of fine moral distinctions; hence it is said, verse 2, chapter 17: "The inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication;" that is; they be- came so stupidly ignorant by continuous drinking out of her cup, so bereft of moral sensibility, that they were her willing backers for her every iniquity. They upheld all her iniquitous pretensions: they were pillars of support under her: for, "The waters which thou sawest where the whore sitteth, are peoples and multitudes, and nations, and tongues," v. 15. "I will shew the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters," v. 1. She was sup- ported in all nations: The beast represented the "EARTH"— the Roman empire upon which she sat. She succeeded in keeping the bible out of the hands of all but a very few here and there, and so the people were kept in stupid ignorance of what God's will was. All they knew was what she pleased to serve them out of the cup in her hand. Why was it called a "golden cup ?" Even, because that in her ministers were found the brightest intellects the world ever contained. Under Christ's control they had been mighty to accomplish for God. How inappropriate it would seem to devote a golden pitcher to the use of bailing swill from a filthy barrel to swine ! So to see a golden cup de- graded to the use the woman made of her ministers, makes thefacts of her degradation only the more pitifully deplor- able. CHAPTER XIX. In last chapter, we showed you how, at the first, the woman," the Catholic church, was under the dominion of the "beast," the Roman empire. In a later picture we saw __411111111 187 181 her exercising dominion over the 'beast," as symbolized in her being seated on his back: for, alluding to her position upon the beast, John said, "And the woman which thou saw- est is that great city, that reigneth over the kings of the earth,"—Rev. 17:18. How did the church get control over those "kings" of the divisions of the Roman Empire? For the "ten horns" symbolized the kings of divisions into which the empire divided: and it was over them that she "reigned.” Rev. 17:12. A careful examination of Rev. 13:11-18 will en- able us to answer the question. "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon." "And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and he causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed." "And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men." "And he deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image unto the beast, which had the wound by a sword and did live." "And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed." "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their fore- heads." "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that hath the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath under- standin count the number of the beast: for it is the num- ber of a g man; and his number is six hundred three score and six." Here, notice 1. That the two horned beast is very solici- tous to have "them that dwell on the earth," that is, the people, the citizens of the Roman Empire, help him make an image of the beast." That when made, he had power "to give life to the image of the beast;" so that it could speak and cause men to worship itself; or for refusal to do so, to be "killed." Notice, now, that the people have two objects of Wor- ship: The "beast' and the "image of the beast." Jesti, Christ was "the express image of God's person." —Heb. 1:3. And in the New Testament, worshipping Christ, God's "image" was worshipping God. You will find it so here, viz: that worshipping the image of the beast was worshipping the beast; for "he causeth the earth and them that dwell therein to worship the first beast," v. 12, and in verse 15, he gave power to the image that it should cause itself to be worshipped. The two horned beast is not then working to have two rival institutions worshipped, but one only. For we shall find their oneness to be as that of God and his Son. At this juncture we are ready for another issue with Seventh Day Adventists. Whom does the two horned beast symbolize? "The rnitedStates," affirm the Seventh Day Adventists. But he text furnishes four reasons that prove conclusively that they are mistaken: 1. It is said of the two horned beast, that "he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him." The first beast be fore him, counting backward,-was the leopard beast: even the one "which had the wound by a sword and did live.' To this beast did the two horned beast make the "image " It was then, HIS "power" that he exercised. But verse 2 tells us from whence the leopard beast got the "power" which he permitted the two horned beast to exercise. "And the drag, on gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority." From this the relation of the three beasts is seen to be as that of Grandfather (the dragon), to Son (the leopard beast), to Grandson (the two horned beast); or as Son, Father and Grandfather in the reverse order. Furthermore, the "power" is seen to have descended as by inheritance from the dragon on down to the two horned beast. The "seat'' of the dragon was his throne. His "authority," his right to epact laws and to expect obedience to them. His "power?" What could it have been, but the means by which he extended his domin- ion and maintained it, and the means by which he enforced his laws? All this was done by military force. The armies of Rome were invincible. But for this `power" supporting the 189 188 throne and its authority, the Great Roman Empire had nev er been heard of. It was on account of this executive "pow- er" that they worshipped the leopard "beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him But for said power, that beast could never have made titi Catholic church, nor won her admiration and worship. Now, reader, candidly; did the United States ever inherit and "EXERCISE" that "POWER" of the "BEAST ?" Never. The United States to have exercised that "power," would have required to live in the Euopean continent where the "power" resided to be exercised. But she is about 5000 miles away from where the "power" is. Verse 2 of the same chap- ter shows that the dragon was "before" the leopard beast whom the latter succeeded in his "power." Was the leopard beast "before" the United States in such manner that she could succeed to his "power ?" Never. Should the United States conquer those kingdoms of Europe in to which the Roman Empire was divided, and then govern them, the say- ing would be true;—"Ile exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him." The United States succeeded to England in the exercise of civil power. England was "before" her. If one should urge that once England was a horn of the Roman leopard beast, yet the application is unlawful. For England had, at least, been but one of ten horns of the beast and had repre- sented but a tenth of the beast's "power." But it is said the two horned beast "exerciseth `ALL' the 'power' of the first beast before him." Moreover, England herself rebelled against the beast and has been exercising a rival power to that of the beast. Furthermore, we have not even a remote semblance to either the form of England's nor of Rome's government, in our form of government. Ours is the demo- cratic form of governthent. Surely, then, in America we have no "image" of either of those beasts. We can not, therefore, be the nation symbolized by the two horned beast. 2. Again, it is said of the two horned beast, "He causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed." If not directly, he made them to worship him through the "image of the beast." And how had the beast been worshiped? By magnifying him so as to bring the fear of him upon all people: for they worshiped him, saying, "Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him ?" When at any time, did the United States ever exercise the beast's -power" to make them which dwell upon "the earth" to worship the beast? Never. The United states never at all exercised the beast's power. She never exercised her own power to persuade or force men to worship the beast. No: but her power is of national pride. Upon every Fourth of .July and Decoration, or other patriotic days, Americans pro- claim the sentiment with fervent patriotism, "Who is like unto America? Who is able to make war with HER? More wer, is not Sp tin one of the real horns of the leop- ard beast? Yes, she is; and she is one of the very most loyal of all to the beast. Is not the United Mates in deadly con- flict with her at this very time, Aug 2, 1898? Does this look as if the United States were trying to make us all worship the beast? Do you think the beast feels worshipped by the United States ? But the two horned beast according to the text was exclusively occupied with establishing the worship of the beast. Surely the United States is not the two horned beast. 3. The two horned beast was a miracle worker. He work- ed wonders to deceive the people, by means of them, into worshipping of the beast. To meet this specification of the text, the United States in its executive, legislative or judicial representatives, must be working miracles to deceive us, by them, into the worship of the beast. Is this true ? No, it is not, never was, nor ever will be. When, did any of our official representatives ever do the "wonder" to make "fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men ?" The nearest our nation came to performing that wonder, was, when our fleets under Dewey and Sampson, sent fire lying through the heavens and down on the beast's fleets to 190 their utter consumption. Wonder whether the beast i( worshipped by the aid of such a wonder? No; by this p formance all the horns of the beast are trembling and begi ning to say, "Who is like the United States? Who . is al,. to make war with her ?" 4. In Rev. 19:20 the two horned beast is called "the fake prophet." In the war there described, he is pointed out as confederate with the beast. " And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he had deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of tire burning with brimstone. This description does so plainly show that the "false prophet" is the same identical being as symbolized by the two-horned beast, that I am surprised to see expositors trying' to apply the name to a different being. THE Tivo HORNED BEAST WAS TIIE "VALSE PROPHET." What constitutes one a prophet ? In the 12th and 14th chapters of I Cor., those who received supernatural commu- nications from God were called the "prophets." And there the gift of prophecy is set down as one of the nine miracu- lous gifts given the church by the Holy Spirit. In prophecy messages are not of human origin; for Peter says, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spike as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."—II Peter 1:21. Well, when did any of the United States representatives acting officially, even pretend to utter words directly given them from God, whereby to impose the worship of the beast upon us? Never, at any time. It counts for nothing here, to have Adventists point to the pretended wonders of Spiritualits, as meeting this speci- fication of the text. Spiritualists, Mormons and Adventists all claim to have supernatural, communications from the other world. All claim to exercise supernatural powers; but their mediums and prophets are not identical with the United States Government. They are all three religious 191 sects each performing their professed wonders, not to de- ceive any one into the worship of old civil Rome, but each by means of them to build up its own sect. Had the United States ever adopted any one of said sects, so as to make it an official part of our government, then there would be some sense in thus applying the specification. It requires tha civil government, symbolized by the two horned beast, to act in national official capacity to meet the requirements of the text. Adventists know this, too. These four principal specifications descriptive of the two horned beast are not even remotely fulfilled in the United States government. It is therefore, impossible that she should be symbolized by the two horned beast. Well, then, whom did the two horned beast symbolize? He symbolized a civil government. In the 7th and 8th chapters of Daniel we are definitely shown that bloodthirsty beasts symbolize civil governments of some kind. The bloodthirsty nature the two horned beast shows, requires him to represent a civil power. He must symbolize a civil power within the area of the territory governed by the leopard beast. For "ALL"— HIS—"POWER" was what the two horned beast "exercised." He and that beast were confederates. He served for him as a Son for the father. He must symbolize a civil power that legislates and executes its legislation by the professed help of miraculous power: that professes to bring messages directly from God to the people it governs. He must symbolize a power that acts in the guise of Christ. All through the book of Revelation, the "lamb" is a symbol of Christ. The two horned beast "had two horns like a lamb." As the lamb symbolizes Christ, the lamb's horns must symbolize the spiritual dominion of Christ; for horns symbolize dominion: and since horns on the omnivor- ous beasts, symbolizing the Roman Empire, stand for civil 192 dominion, on the lanib, horns must symbolize religious dominion Only in the two horns, is the two horned beast described as in the semblance of the lamb. Otherwise, he he was beastly; being called a beast, and described as having the voice of a "dragon." It seems clear, then, that the two horned beast pretends to exercise the dominion of the lamb, Christ. But throughout the New Testament ( hrist is also represented as the "true prophet" that should come into the world. Compare Dent. 18:15-20 with Acts 3:19-26. The two horned beast certainly pretended to stand between God and man as his mouth piece to man; for otherwise, he could not have gotten the name "false prophet " It is plain that he is a power who would feign have the people believe that he is Christ; for he seems to imitate him even unto wonderful miracles. Now, did any civil dominion like unto all the above characterization, ever rise up within the area of the do- minion of the leopard beast? There certainly did. And it was no other than the HIERARCHY of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH HEADED BY THE POPE. Said HIERARCHY WAS THE TWO HORNED BEAST. The hierarchy of said church is composed of archbishops, bishops, priests, cardinals, and of all those officials of the church who help the pope administer the powerful government of the church. In Dan 7:7, 8.20, 21,23-25, is a description of the ten horned beast symbolizing the Roman Empire. But among his ten horns came up a singular horn that pushed three of the ten horns off. It is said to have had "eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things." An angel told Daniel, "Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon the earth." "The ten horns out of this king- dom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first and he shall speak great words against the most high, and he shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand until time times and the dividing of time." The Seventh Day Adventists agree with us that this singular horn symbolizes the papacy; and in his DANIEL AND THE REVELATION, Elder Uriah Smith,on page 125 says the ten horns symbolize "political kingdoms." But he will have it, that the papal horn symbolizes only the spiritual kingdom of the papacy:" and this because he is said to have been "DIVERSE" from the rest. Just as if his diversity must consist in his dominion being "spiritual," while theirs was political. This is not a sufficient reason for deviating from the rule that horns symbolize political dominion in the case of this papal horn. This horn like the others symbolizes political dominion. His diversity from the other horns is manifested in the fact that besides the civil dominion which he exercises the same as they exercise, he had additional do- minion over the saints; for we read that, "They shall be given into his hand until time times and the dividing of time." And he rules them so oppressively as to "wear them out." According to the prophesy, then, the papacy was to exercise both civil and religious dominion. But this fact was very plainly symbolized in the two horned beast. WQ have, then, in the two symbols representing the Roman Catholic hier- archy, the plainest proof that the power they symbolize must perform his work within the territory of the Roman Empire, and not in the United States. It is generally accepted by commentators that the leop- ard beast began his career A. D. 533 to 538. But at what date within the 1260 years of his dominion the once united empire divided into ten divisions, headed by ten kings, they are not so agreed: Nor when within the same space the papal horn displaced three, leaving with himself but eight kings and divisions. But this one thing is certain, viz: That according to Dan. 7:24 the ten kings all exercised dominion as civil kings be- fore the papacy did. "And the ten horns out of this king- dom are ten kings that shall arise; and another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings." Since, then, the ten kings arose to their dominion first, and the papacy came to its dominion 191 politically sometime afterward, by displacing three of thost dominions; it is a vital question: When did the papacy ob taro its political dominion ? Gibbon, whom Elder Uriah Smith and Seventh Day Ad ventists freely quote and regard as the most reliable of his- torians, says, that the papacy for the first came to the tem- poral dominion in the eighth century. He devotes nearly the whole of the 49th chapter of his splendid history to show how the popes of Rome obtained their temporal dominion. Ever since Justinian's day, who subjected Italy to the Ro- man emperors of the East, Italy had been under a governor sent by the Emperors of the East, who made Ravena, Italy, his capital. Instead of calling such rulers of states govern- ors, as in the days of the Csars, they now called them "Exarchs." And because the ruler of Italy had his seat of government at Ravenna, he was distinguished as the "Ex- arch of Ravenna." When the Emperor Leo the 'third, the 'saurian, A. D. 727, undertook to abolish the use of images from the worship of christians, the pope and all Italy rebelled and defeated the emperor's armies sent to enforce his enact- ment against the images. While the Exarchate of Ravenna still for a time after- ward administered the government in Italy, yet the pope, Gregory II, and successors practically ruled the state from Rome, until the Lombard kings once for all overthrew the Exarch's dominion and annexed Italy to their own domin- ion. As the Lombards were now the rulers of Italy, they imposed heavy tributes upon the popes who acted as the chief magistrates of Rome. Because of unjust exactions the pope went over to Pepin of the Franks, and besought him to help him against the Lombards. He returned with a great army and Iiing Pepin, who conquered the Lombards took away from them what had been the Exarchate of Ravenna and gave it to the popes of Rome for their own absolute possession. The same afterwards was designated the "Papal States." After a few later princes added to this grant it contained about sixteen hundred square miles and 195 three million population. Of this present from King Pepin to the popes, Gibbon says, "The splendid donation was grant- ed in supreme and absolute dominion, and the world beheld for the first time a christian bishop invested with the pre- rogatives of a temporal prince; the choice of magistrates, the exercise of justice, the imposition of taxes, and the wealth of the palace of Ravenna." Being absolutely his own possession, the pope was "Political King" of said ter- ritory. In his "OUTLINES OF THE WORLD'S HISTORY," page 248, Swinton says, "Pepin came and saved Rome, and won from the Lombards the territory of the Exarchate of Ra- venna. He then took a step that led to mighty results: he bestowed this territory on the popes, and this was the begin- ning of the temporal power of the Catholic church. When Charlemagne had over thrown the Lombard kingdom, and was crowned king of Italy and afterward Emperor of the West ( A. D. 800), he confirmed the grant which his father, Pepin made to the popes." We have it, then, upon the testimony of these two most reliable historians, that the Catholic hierarchy did not come into its political dominion until in the eighth century. And from that time the popes of Rome attempt to make that "image of the beast" that all must worship or be "killed." One reason why Eld. Ilriah Smith would object to the papal horn of Dan. 7:20-25 symbolizing the temporal domin- ion of the papacy, is, because it was said of the saints, "They shall be given into hisitand until time times and dividing of time." As usually figured out, the period thus symbolized amounts to 1260 years, or the time the leopard beast of Rev. 13:5 was to domineer 'over the saints. As Mr. Smith under- stands "until" in the above text of Dan. 7:25, the papacy was to have the saints in his hand for the full period of 1260 years. This is not a necessary conclusion. The time set for the leopard beast's career and for the "woman" to be in the wilderness was 1260 years. Since the popes did not get the civil dominion into their own hands, so as to be responsible for the execution of saints till in the eight century, 300 years of the 1260 years had, of course, already passed. But even 1' 1 196 if the popes did not acquire their civil dominion till then, Daniel could express the time the pope should have the saints in hand in the same terms, "And they shall be given into his hand UNTIL time times and dividing of time." For "until' looks forward to the time that marks the end of that period. Hence from such time as the pope got possession of his civil power to the end of the 1260 years would be—"until." Had the word FOR been in place of "until" the case had been dif- ferent. But, finally, since the horns of the beast in Daniel's vision did uniformly symbolize civil dominion and since it is a fact that the papacy did most conspicuously get the poses- sion of civil dominion, Mr. Smith has no proper reason for denying that the papal horn symbolized the"civil dominion" as well as "spiritual dominion" of the popes. But this fact would easily identify the papal horn of Dan. 7:21 as the two horned beast of Rev. 13:11 and would forever debar Mr. Smith from applying the latter symbdl to a nation outside of Europe, or the United States. When the Roman Catholic church hierarchy once ob- tained a secure title to temporal dominion as given them by the Kings Pepin and Charlemagne, then like most of the kings in their day, they became ambitious to re-unite, under their government, all the divisions of the empire, that their reign might be as universal as that of the Caesars had been. And then with their civil and spiritual dominion they- had indeed been as "King of kingtfo and "Lord of Lords,"— titles they had so determinedly sought to realize. But uni- versal dominion after this idea they never realized. They did, however, succeed in realizihg a splendid "image" of it. They did so far prevail in their mighty influence in the polit- ical sphere as to make all those Catholic nations believe that the kings of their nations must be persons that the popes could approve; and when so approved that it was the right of the popes to install them in their kingly offices by cere- moniously crowning them as kings. Thus in the eighth century was Charlemagne crowned by the popes. First, as King of Italy; then later on as Emperor of the Great West- ern Roman Empire, which he by conquest formed. 197 Thus it came to pass, as Gibbon observes, that "under the sacerdotal monarchy of St. Peter,the nations began to resume the practice of seeking, on the banks of the Tiber, their kings, their laws, and the oracles of their fate." Again, `the secretary of Charlemagne affirms, that the French scep- ter was transferred by the authority of the popes; and in their boldest enterprises, they insist., with confidence on this signal and successful act of temporal jurisdiction."-GIBBON :s ROMAN HISTORY, pages 272, 273. The city of Rome on the Tiber river, was the capital of the once united and mighty Roman Empire as under the Caesars. Then it embraced all Western Asia, all Northern Africa and nearly all Europe. The empire contained hund- reds of sections over which the Caesars appointed, kings, governors, and lesser rulers. In those days when men desir- ed to rule over some section in the empire they had to go to Rome and see the Caesars about it; for they only could dis- pense those offices. Now with the mighty influence the popes had secured in the political world, every man who cov- eted to govern some greater or less territory in Europe, found it to his advantage to seek first of all the pope's influence on his behalf. Again, mark this deplorable fact, that now was the pope in a position to extort from candidates for civil dominions any pledge he saw fit to require. Of course, he made them all to pledge to be loyal to the church, the Catholic church. And this meant that when the papacy pronounced persons and churches heretics and worthy of death, loyalty to the Catholic church meant that these rulers the pope helped get into their civil offices, should see that said heretics should be "killed." Thus, readers, you can all see how it came to pass, that if the papacy could:not exercise the same universal and abso- lute political dominion as did the Caesars, they had made by the aid of the peoples of the nations a splendid image of that dominion. In those days, except in Greek Catholic countries, the Roman Catholic church members were in the great majority everywhere. Kings, governors, rulers and • 198 all were Catholics, with few exceptions. As the popes of Rome since Justinian's day were recognized as "God on earth," there was ever a readiness on the part of the people to obey them in all their commands pertaining to religion. So when the popes suggested to the Catholic world that it was their God-given right to approve and crown men for civil kingdoms the people generally were found ready to support the claim. So with the people's aid the "image of the beast," that is, a universal dominion resembling that of the Cwsars, symbolized by the beast, was set up. And whereas the two horned beast, Rev, 13:15, was said to have "POWER" to give "LIFE" to the "image," that "it should both speak and cause that as many as would riot worship the im- age of the beast should be killed;" the POWER was in the hands of the papacy to make all civil rulers as with one voice to pronounce sentences of death against the "enemies'. or the church. If on many political questions the Civil Roman Catholic nations were divided, they were united in the exercise of their civil powers to advance and defend from enemies the great Catholic church. For the popes had seen to it that as far as possible they should all be pledged to loyalty to the church. Thus, we behold a machine for wearing out the "Saints of the Most High." To so-called heretics, the popes could point with menacing finger to the civil powers sworn to protect the church: Beware.of the "image" of the "beast," the civil powers as UNITED to defend the church. Who can prevail against them? Be subject to these higher powers. They are the revengers of God to execute wrath upon Min that doeth evil. See Rom. 13:1-4 The popes did not direct- ly execute saints. They gave the power to the "image of the beast"' and it did for them all that. was desired of it. But did the Roman Catholic hierarchy employ miracles and pretended revelations from God to persuade the people to help them to establish the new order of dominion that we have described as obtaining under the supervision of the papacy? Yes, conspicuously so. 199 In Vol. IV of Gibbon's Roman empire the. 49th chapter is occupied in describing how the papacy arose to its climax of temporal power. The occasion that gave the popes their first attainment in civil dominion was their rebellion against Leo, the Third, who. tried to abolish "images" from the wor- ship in the churches. How they got the people to reverence these images in the first place, was by VISIONS, and MIRA- cr,Es professedly obtained by them. "The scruples of reason or piety, were silenced by the strong evidence of visions and miracles; and the pictures which speak, and move, and bleed must be endowed with a divine energy, and may be consid• ered as the proper objects of religious adoration." Vol. IV, page 250. By the professed revelations that saints in pictures made to them; and by saints in pictures speaking, moving and bleeding, the hierarchy made the people believe that God was present in the pictures, and, therefore, it was right to worship them. On page 252 of the same volume he says of the images, "They were the objects of worship, and the instruments of miracles; and in the hour of danger or tumult, their venera- ble presence could revive the hope, rekindle the courage, or repress the fury of the Roman legions." On page 251 he says, "The cities of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt had been fortified with the images of Christ, his mother, and his saints; and each city presumed on the hope or promise of miraculous defence." This was done at the time of the Arab conquests. But the images, for all the priests had promised, were helpless to defend the cities against the Arab invaders. On page 258 Gibbon describes how the Catholics started for Constantinople to depose the Emperor Leo and to put a more Christian emperor in his place. He says. "They armed a fleet of boats and galleys, displayed their consecrated ban- ners, and boldly steered for the harbor of Constantinople, to place on the throne a new favorite of God and the pope. they depended on the succor of a miracle; but their mira- cles were inefficient against the Greek fire." On pages 276-278 Gibbon describes how, when the Em- peror Charlemagne, after confirming the grants of his father 200 to the popes, saw them gaining in influence even above him self, became jealous of their power and took steps to deprive them of their Papal States. He tells us how the popes now brought forth the forged ISIDORIAN DECRETALS in which were writings telling how the great Constantine had made the same grant to the popes in his day; so that back there in the early part of the fourth century, they were in posses- sion of the like temporal and spiritual • dominion; so that now, in fact, Charlemagne had only restored the popes what of right had been theirs ever since Constantine's day. It was recited further, how that Constantine the Great for his grant to the popes was "healed of lepro§y, and:puri- fied in the waters of baptism, by St, Sylvester the Roman bishop; and never was a physician more gloriously recoil- pensed. His royal proselyte withdrew from the seat and patrimony of St. Peter: declared his resolution of founding a new capitol in the East; and resigned to the popes the free and perpetual sovereignty of Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the west." Gibbon goes on to say, "This fiction was pro- ductive of the most beneficial effects. The Greek princes were convicted of the guilt of usurpation; and the revolt of Gregory was the claim of his lawful inheritance The popes were delivered from their debt Of gratitude; and the nominal gifts of the Carlovingians were no more than the just and irrevocable restitution of a scanty portion of the ecclesiasti- cal state. The sovereignty of Rome no longer depended on the choice of a fickle people; and the successors of St. Peter and Constantine were invested with the purple and peroga tives of the Caesars." Believing this lie and the pretended miracle wrought upon constantine, sufficed to induce Charlemagne to let the popes continue in peaceful posession of their temporal estates which gave them the necessary basis on which to build up the temporal dominion they so coveted. But for lack of space much more might be cited from many other historians, showing how the hierarchy with lying miracles and revelations made the people in general so superstitious that they would believe whatever the clergy told them; and join heart and soul in whatever the pope required of them- 201 I have now shown how the specifications of Rev. 13:11- 18 so far all find perfect fulfillment in the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy: and that the prophesies of Daniel confirm the proposition that the two horned beast symbolizes the papacy. Niko, While it required every specification yet to be fulfilled some time in the future in order that the two horned beast may symbolize the United States, they are as a matter of fact all clearly fulfilled in the papacy already. Besides, as I have shown, there are certain specifications that NEVER can be met in the United States. But I must yet define the 'mark of the beak, which I will do in the next chapter. CHAPTER XX. "The mark of the beast," what is it ? It must be some characteristic mark that distinguishes the beast: that would help us to identify him anywhere. There are characteristic marks by which we identify every visible object in exist- ence. So that to each and all we can give names and distin- guish them from other objects. Thus, I go into a forest; and say of this tree, it is a Maple; of that, it is an Oak; of a third, it is a Walnut; of a fourth, it is Hickory. In the midst of fowls, I point out one and say, it is a Turkey; an- other, and call it a Goose; a third I call Guinea; a fourth, Chicken. From among beasts I point out a bear, a lion, a horse, a cow. Here, first, I distinguish general different orders by characteristic marks. Then next, in a general order, I distin- guish by characteristic marks the different species of ob- jects. In like manner the beast of Rev. 13:1-4, to whom the two horned beast made an image, is distinguished by a char- acteristic mark. It is: VIOLENT PERSECUTION OF THOSE WHO DIFFER FROM HIM IN RELIGION. This was the distin- guishing trait in the character of the "dragon" who first symbolized the Roman empire. 202 The empire being then heart and soul with paganism, was fearfully furious toward christians, slaughtering many millions of them because they would not exchange their reli- gion for paganism. The empire, at length, being itself con- verted to Christianity, appears in a converted symbol—the leopard beast. But it still retains its characteristic trait for violent persecution of those who dare to differ from it in reli- gion. And so, now, first, the pagans are assaulted with great violence because they will not exchange their pagan- ism for christianity. In wars with the barbarians of the North, the conquered were compelled to chose between the sword and christianity. But when the State created the Catholic church in the days of Justinian, then the beast once more distinguished himself by his char ecteristic trait of violence in persecuting all who would not cease propagat- ing views of religion which the Catholic church pronounced "Heresy." And now how violent, through man centuries, the beast did act toward those who protested against the ever increasing unscriptural practices of the Roman Catho- lic church. The two horned beast, in this respect does not differ from his predecessors. True, he appeared in the guise of the Lamb of God, but his voice betrayed his dragonic nature. When the people helped him to make the "image of the beast," then, by his mighty power, he put "life into the image;" so that it could "both speak and cause, that as many as would not worship the image of the beast, should be kil- led." Now, for what use did the two horned beast bring the image into being? What did it do when he put life into it? Doubtless, he made it, and put life into it to do just exactly what it did do: namely, to kill those who would not worship the beast through his image: for remember, the two horned beast "exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them that dwell therein to wor- ship the first beast." His creation of the image, then, was to perpetuate the worship of the beast through it. As he was its designer, I conclude it answered his purpose. But 203 behold that trait of violence against those that would not worship what the image wanted them to worship! It decreed that they "should be killed." It is not then to be disputed that the characteristic trait in both, the two horned beast and the "image," was a violent temper toward those who differed from them in religion. And now, as from genera- tion to generation the characteristic trait of lions to tear, devour, and drink the blood, marks their species: even so in these successive symbols symbolizing the different attitudes of the Roman civil dominion in its religious aspects, there is seen the one predominant characteristic mark—VIOLENCE TOWARD THOSE WHO DARE TO DIFFER FROM IT IN RELIG- ION. This characteristic trait distinguishes the beast. AND IT IS THE "MARE OF THE BEAST." p, Anciently, masters put marks upon their servants (slaves ) to denote ownership; much, as out upon the western plains owners of herds now brand the initials of their names on their cattle to distinguish them from others. Now, it was the demand of the two horned beast and the "image," that the people should all become servants of the beast as indicated by asking them to receive his "mark" in the forehead or in the right hand. Of course to serve the beast acceptably was to do as the beast through his image might direct. As it took a beastly nature to do his beastly work, to become an acceptable servant to him was to become beastly; was to become a violent persecutor of those who were opposed to the beast's church, and her doctrines. Receiving the mark in the "forehead," was to freely con- sent to the persecution of the opposers. There are people who would not violently lay hands upon others who differ from them in religion; yet if some one else would throw stones or rotten eggs at them, it would really be grat- ifying to them. This disposition shows the mark to be as in the forehead of the person so disposed. Others more aggressive delight in throwing the stones and the filthy eggs at those whom they regard heretics. These have the mark in • the right hand. Either disposition was beastly, and marked the people possessing them as servants of the beast. fi -A 204 In the war in heaven, Rev. 12:7-9. is an account of how Michael's angels overcame the dragon and his angels. Verse 11 says, "And they overcame him by the blood of the lamb, and by the word of their testimony and they loved not their lives unto the death." The dragon and his angels, true to their characteristic trait, sought to gain the victory by kill- ing the servants of Michael (Christ); Michael's angels depend- ed for victory upon faithful delivery of the "word of their testimony," and when not avoidable to give their lives as martyrs for the cause. " They loved not their lives unto the death." And now, wonderful to relate, by their seemingly inadequate means, the latter gained the victory, and brought the cause of Christ in the ascendant, even unto the throne of God. Whereas, the pagan religion had been as in heaven's throne, they were overcome by the christian religion and cast out into the earth, as salt that has lost its savor and is only fit to be trodden down under the foot of man. it is the distinguishing characteristic of Christ, the Lamb of God, that he was never violent toward those who opposed his religion, as were the beasts all along the line. How he does contrast in disposition with them ! He was ever gentle, seeking to win his way by love, and the sacrifice of himself for the well-being of others. They, on the reverse, were violent and hateful to those out of sympathy with their religion, and were always thirsting for their blood to gratify their own Satanish hatred of them. And how the servants of the lamb of God contrast with the servants of those beasts ! The former were distinguish- ed by the self-sacrificing characteristic of the Lamb: but the latter by the fiendish disposition of the beasts that thirsted for the blood of the Lamb's servants. Violent persecution of protestors, in zeal for one's reli- gion, has a heavy judgment pronounced upon it by God:— "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity; he that killeth with the sword, must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and faith of the saints," Rev. 13:10. This was God's judgment foretold for the beast. Upon such 205 a pledge the followers of the Lamb were to establish them- selves in patience and faith. Followers of the Lamb do well to heed the exhortation, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place. unto wrath; for it is writ- ten, Vengeance is mine; I will repay saith the Lord." —Rom. 12: 19 . It is an open fact, that by Luther's day and for centuries before, the image of the beast had become so violent against the so called heretics of the Roman Catholic church, that it was dangerous for anyone to express sympathy for them openly when the image put them to death. They had to take refuge in the inaccessable mountain retreats and in caves of the earth. The cruelty enacted against the Albigenses and Waldehses is familiar to all. These, and others without number, could not freely and publicly enjoy their citizenship by trading and the employment of their crafts; for they were sure to be assailed by the defenders of the church. This feature of oppression was symbolized in the saying, "And he causeth * * * that no man might buy or sell save he that hath the mark of the beast."—Rev. 13:16,17. . I am now prepared to answer the question I raised in a previous chapter, viz: "How did the church get the assc end- ancy over the 'kings of the earth' as symbolized in her being seated on the beast's back, so that the Revelator called her `that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth ?" —Rev. 17;1-6, 18. It was as all can now plainly see by means of her influential and powerful hierarchy. When the popes so far advanced in their influence in the political world as to be looked to, to approve and crown the kings of the Catholic nations, the pledges of loyalty to the church they extorted from those who were candidates for civil offices, brought the kings all under the dominion- of the church. The Catholic church through her hierarchy had only to pronounce persons "Heretics;" and at once the kings under her dominion did the rest. Thus, as I have shown, if the popes failed to consolidate under their civil 206 dominion the divisions of the Once united empire; so that they might have the absolute political dominion as the Ca'- sars of old; they did not fail to realize a very good image of that universal dominion, By their influence they succeeded in pledging the civil kings to all unite in upholding the Catholic church. And as they were the "Lord of the Church"' under the specious plea, that this or that measure enacted into a law would be for the good of the church, they got the civil kingdoms of Europe to enact just about such laws as they wanted. As thus united, as with one mind and heart to favor the church you have the true "IMAGE OF THE BEAST" and you have it under the direction of the two-horned beast, which was THE PAPACY. And now, sinca the two horned beast and his work is per- fectly met in the papacy as I have shown, why should we, like the Seven Day Adventists, look for the United States to arise some day in the FUTURE, and go all over that fiendish work of the two horned beast? Do not be deceived. She will not do it. Adventists, especially Elder Uriah Smith, are as much in the fog in their attempts to explain the sym- bols in the book of Revelation, as I showed them to be in their efforts to explain the two covenants in relation to the sabbath. But we will now see how Eld. Uriah Smith defines the "mark of the beast." The qutations I am about to make are all from his work "DANIEL AND TIlE REVELATION." On page 521 he says of the beast to whom the image was made, "The leopard beast alone, therefore, symbolizes the the Roman empire in papal form, the controlling influence being ecclesiastical." You can see that he here almost makes the papacy to be symbolized by the leopard beast. No won- der, then, that he could not see the papacy symbolized in the two horned beast. Here was his fundamental error. The leopard beast, like the dragon, simply symbolizes the civil dominion or the Roman empire, except in one of its horns—the papal horn. If a heathen king after ruling 207 his kingdom ten years should be thoroughly converted to Christianity you would certainly expect to see him a dif- ferent kind of ruler afterward. If, however, he should take it into his head to pick out some sect of christianity and show it special favor by fighting to the death every other Christian sect, it could not be said that the sect he favored were the responsible party for the civil dominion exercised by the king. So here, when the Civil Government of the Roman Empire was converted, the symbol appears in con- verted form, not to symbolize the church, but, only the civil government still, which God makes responsible for the ex- ecution of saints and which he will judge as per Rev. 13:10. When the papacy really did get such large civil domin- ion in said empire as to be said to have the "image" of it, then God made the papacy responsible for the exercise of the civil government. And since the papacy then adminis- tered said government indirectly, and the spiritual govern- ment of the church directly, it was proper to represent the double natured dominion, by the double natured beast, the two horned beast, partly a lamb, partly a dragon. "And shall think to change times and laws," Dan. 7:25. This referred to the horn that had a mouth and speech: the the papal horn as we call it. But Mr. Smith will have it, that its work was done by the papacy as symbolized in the leopard beast. He must be in error. As that horn symbol- ized the papacy's civil dominion, it could not enact its pro- posed laws until the civil dominion was obtained, which we showed was not till in the eight century. Then, for the first, was it in position to change times and "laws." But being now in posession of both spiritual and civil dominion, behold! a symbol, the two horned beast, is introduced to symbolize its double dominion; even the double natured dragonic lamb. Did he now change "times and laws ?" Better ask what he did not change in both civil and religious lines. Changing "laws," Mr. Smith thinks was fulfilled by Catholics changing the ten commandments. Comparing them as written in their catechism with them as written in 208 Ex. 20:1-17, he notes that they have dropped out the second, and to keep the number at ten have divided the tenth com- mandment. He notes that they have substituted Sunday for Sabbath in the fourth commandment. Then he con- cludes that "a general answer" to the question. "What con- stitutes the mark of the beast ?" is, "The mark of the beast is the change which the beast has attempted to make in the law of God." See page 553. On page 559 he makes specific answer to the question thus: "This change of the fourth commandment must therefore be the change to which the prophecy points, and Sunday keeping must be the mark of the beast!" But I showed you in previous chapters that the ten commandments are no longer binding upon us, save as they may be re-commanded in the new testament. So what if he did make changes in an abolished law ? Their changing of "laws" extended to what Adventists style the ceremonial law. In a much changed form their worship in church is conducted now more nearly like it was under the old covenant than like in the new. For see them burn incense, light candles, call themselves priests, have priests' robes, altars, etc., etc., Here is what the papacy truly did change that does count for something, viz: the simple New Testament order of church service as given us by Christ our Lord, to that of semi Mosaic, semi heathen custom. Christ's simple model for organizing a New Tes- tament church, they set entirely aside for the huge monarch- ical form of their own invention as found in the Roman Catholic church. From Christ's New Testament ordaining that the gospel ministers should stand upon a common level, they turned to ordaining them in orders, in grades above grades, grades above grades, up to a bishop in Rome to be "Lord of all the churches," and of the ministry. The auth- ority of Christ to remit sins they have taken into' their own hands, and have invented a purgatory where they can put imperfect saints until, by extortion of big fees from living friends for praying them out by degrees, they have fattened their purses. 209 They have thrust aside Christ from being the one true and only intercessor between God and Christians, and have associated with him Virgin Mary, Apostles, angels and manufactured saints. Was Christ our high priest incompe- tent "to save unto the uttermost all that come unto God by him," that they must aAsociate with him in his intercessary otlice said multitude (see Heb. 7th Chap.) ? Thus have they turned Christ's church to idolaters by leading them to wor- ship Virgin Mary Apostles, angels and their mannfactured saints. As for changing "times," the New Testament ordaining is, that "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord, he doth not regard it."—Rom. 14:6. To be acceptable to God days must be regarded to the Lord. It is a matter of indi- vidual liberty. There is to be no coercion as to the observ- ance of days. For "One man esteemeth one day above an- othor; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."—Rom. 14:5. But see how the papacy wrested from the Church of God this liberty he gave and legislated into existance so many "holy days" that they are a veritable yoke of bondage. Moreover, for non- observance of them, they impose heavy penalties upon their members, counting it to them as a great sin. Is it not strange that Eld. Uriah Smith should overlook this conspicuous effort upon the part of the papacy to change "times" and "laws" of the living New Testament, the Testament now in force by God's own authority, and seek the fulfillment of the prediction—"And think to change times and laws," in the papacy's revision of the old coven- ant laws for his use? Especially when God himself calls said covenant "waxed old" and ready "to vanish away?"— Heb. 8:13. Why should he wish to find the prediction ful- filled in the papacy's tinkering of the obsolete old covenant and times ? You can plainly see he is at his old trade, manufacturing evidence to enforce sabbath keeping. Not very good material for the purpose, I should judge, does he find in the book of Revelation. 210 Relative to Sunday observance constituting the "marl. of the "beast," it is just to say of Mr. Smith's positiou; th:It he emphatically denies that any of all the millions who ever kept Sunday and are keeping it to date, have upon them the mark of the beast. He concedes that Sunday has never yet been made the test of loyalty to the beast. Wait till the United States, the prospective two horned beast, has legis- lated into existence a national law requiring all its citizens to keep Sunday; and ordained that those who refuse to do so, as the Adventists declare they will, must "be killed:" then will be the day that is to test people. All must then be Sunday keepers or Saturday keepers as he sees it. Sunday keeping will then he says, be. the mark of the beast in the right hand or the forehead. For that the papacy made the Sunday Sabbath. But Mr. Smith on page 129 distinctly tells his disput- ants there, in respect to the papal horn of Dan. 7:20 25 chang- ing "times and laws," that the papacy did not get in "posi- tion" to make these changes till in "A. D. 538." But will you please turn back to chapter XV, and again read those testimonies I copied from the fathers which prove conclus- ively that Sunday observance was the common practice of Christians ever since the Apostle's days and for many, many years before the popes of Rome had any influence whatever, in the church legislation of the times ? It is simply untrue that the papacy was the author of Sunday keeping: and as I have charged before, so I charge again, that the Seventh Day Adventists are guilty of circulating a Romish lie when they say it. Sunday keeping was auth- orized hundreds of years before A. D. 538 by common prac- tice, at least. So without fear of successful contradiction I deny that changing "times" was after A. D. 538 fulfilled by the papacy trying to change the practice from Saturday to Sunday keeping; for they surely could not change that which had been changed hundreds of years before. All can see that Eld. Smith in his effort to make Sunday keeping the "mark" of the "beast" has badly missed his mark. 211 This far I do cordially agree with Mr. Smith: viz , That if the United States should ever enact a national Sunday law, and for their refusal to keep it, put Seventh Day Adventists to death, she would verily become a beastly beast. And fur- ther, all her citizens who would approve such extreme measures against them, would have in their foreheads, the mark of the beast. And such as would take a hand in bring- ing them to judgment, would have the mark of the beast in their right hand. Only in the case of the United States en- forcement of such mark, it would not be the mark of the "leopard beast" as Mr. Smith contends; for I have clearly proved to you that that beast was not the author of Sunday keeping: but it WOULD BE the mark of such a beast as the "sited States would make of herself. I think some of the states in time past have shown them- selves considerably beastly toward both the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists, It seems never to so have occurred to the latter, as to the former, however. Perhaps the former they approved. Legislation in this country has, at different times, been unfavorable to some and favorable to other sects of religion. But it was not often intentional- ly so on the part of our legislators; but rather an incident, or accident; and which they cheerfully corrected in time. And its my faith that the like good spirit is is prevail in the future of our country. But Eld. Smith is persistent. In Ex. 31:13 he finds God lI'saying to Israel of the sabbath, "It is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you." By reference to the Hebrew word from which we have "sign" he finds that it may be translated "SEAL." So that by keeping the sabbath acceptably to God, Israel were, as it were, sealed unto God from among the heathen who did not keep it. Turning to the Rev. 7th chapter we are shown a great number sealed unto God, by an angel. Mistakenly so, he decides that the 144,000 sealed from the twelve tribes of Israel must be the people seperated unto God in the very last year or years 212 before Jesus puts in his second appearance. After some reasoning as to what constituted the "seal" in the angel's hand with which he sealed the servants of God, Mr. Smith concludes: "From the foregoing reasoning, it is evident that the fourth commandment constitutes the seal of the law of God, or the seal of God." page 44 .. On page 441 he repeats, "The sabbath, is taken by the Lord as a sign between him and his people, or the seal of his law in both dispensations; the people by that commandment signifying that they are the worshipers of the true God" Of course, here as ever, the ruling thought of Mr. Smith is that the ten commandments with their sabbath are of eternal obligation. So that it does seem to him as if there were no judgement too awful for the man who will not keep the sabbath. But I am just as certain that when God made his new will and testament, that he put his WILL into said TESTAMENT just as he wanted it to be there. And we do certainly all know that in not one single instance did he declare in said testament that the Sabbath observance was to constitute his WILL in part. Well, as he thin', s the Seventh Day Adventists have come to existence to reform people as to Sabbath observ- ance he concludes that since Sabbath keeping distinguished worshipers of the true God in former dispensation, therefore because still binding, it will distinguish them here at the close of the New Testament dispensation. But how easily he falls into blunders. Is he indeed ignorant that the new covenant has its OWN DISTINCTIVE SEAL by which to dis- cern who compose the TRUE PEOPLE of GOD and who DO NOT ? Here it is : "Now if any man have not the Spirit Of Christ, he is none of his,"—Rom. 8:9. "Ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise," "Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased posses- sion."—Eph. 1:13-14. "And grieve not the holy spirit of God, whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption." Not the keeping of the Sabbath marks new covenant people as of God, but whether they have that lamblike spirit of his. That spirit is the same as was in those third and fourth century christians who overcame the dragon and his angels, 213 "by the blood of the lamb and by the word of their testi- mony," and "who loved not their lives unto the death. Those who have the Christ spirit have the Christ nature, which is the very opposite of that symbolized by the mark of the beast. To be sealed with the Spirit God is a guarantee of protection from the beast, and of eternal redemption from sin. But Mr. Smith has decided that the 144,000 sealed, will be all that Christ will find of true godly people when he puts in his second appearance. Think of this: he tells us that since 1844 A D. we are in the last generation to live upon old mother earth, and that Christ's second coming is to be at the end of said generation. From 1898 take 1844 and we have 54 years of this generation already past. In the few remaining years of the generation, the United States is to enact the Sunday law and bring all to the test whether they will or will not receive the mark of the beast. This text is to put the millions upon millions of professed christians on one of the two sides: upon the side of the beast, or upon the side of the 144,000. He says it is not a symbolic number, but the definite number of 144,000. Is it possible that within ten to twenty years or so, we are to see all the professed christians of our day go over thus to the devil, until you can count but 144,- 000 on the Lord's side? So all the Seventh Day Adventists teach. I know the seemingly impossible does now and then happen: but this is too much for my credulity. But again, this great and horrible conception is founded upon Mr. Smith's blundering effort at exposition of scripture. Begin- ning with chapter six of Revelation we have account of the opening of the "seven seals." These so manifestly mark periods of time in regular order to elapse from John's day to the coming of Christ, that the proposition needs no arguing. Now read said chapter six, seven and eight, and find for yourself that the 144,000 were all sealed unto God from un- der the SIXTH SEAL, the one before the seventh which represents the period at the end of the world. Positively, then, seeing they were not sealed out of the period repres- 214 senting the end of the world, the seventh, they cannot mail. up such a company of elect at the end of the world as Mi Smith describes. So you see, reader there may yet be hole of our salvation. Suppose, now, that Christ really were to come within to 20 years, and that Mr. Smith's conception were right as t, the 144,000; what encouragement would there be henceforti for 5,000,000 Methodists, 4,000 000 Baptists etc., to seek to 1),- among the saved at Christ's coming? Just none at al:. Christians right from the start would be discouraged frog, any effort whatever to save their souls, seeing but 141,01, could be accepted of God from among them all. Nothing like such un-God inspired preaching as this would hasten people to dispair and to the devil. God ha never authorized Seventh Day Adventists to sound out such an unforbiding gospel as this. Again Mr. Smith has misses his mark. He has the 144,000 sealed in the wrong seal(period to realize his conception. Ills blunder consists in LITE': ALLY applying nearly all the language under the sixth seal instead of applying it as he does the language under a( other seals, according to SYMBOLIC import. Once more, Eld. Smith and the Seventh Day Adventist, think they find overwhelming support for their claim tha the ten commandments are still in force in this dispensatioi from the following passages. "And the dragon was wrotl. with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, an,. have the testimony of Jesus Christ."—Rev. 12:17. "Here i the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the COW mandments of God, and the faith of Jesus,"—Rev. 14:1 They here claim a sharp distinction to be made by God hiti self between "the faith of Jesus" and "the commandments 0: God." Very well. First, I have clearly proved that the cony mandments of God, whatever they consist of, must be con tained in his New Testament. Imagine a man making hi- testament and leaving out of it, his WILL. God put his WILL in his new testament. Well, then, beyond all contra 215 diction those who obey under God's new. testament, do have and keep "the commandments of God." Have you noticed how in Christ's commission to the Apostles, Matt. 28:18-20, he enjoined it in two parts? I. "Go ye therefore, and , teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" 2. "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoe 7er I have commanded you." 4111V In a former chapter I showed you that the command- ments of the New Testament consist in primary and sec- ondary precepts. The primary enjoin faith, repentance and baptism. For obedience to these we have been promised justification from sin, and the Holy Spirit. These are doubt- less what Paul had in mind in Gal. 2;16, when he says: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law." Ask a Seventh Day Adventist whether he can be justi- fied from sins that are past by keeping the ten command- ments. He will tell you "no," every time. Ask him wheth- er a man can be justified by obedience to "the faith." He will tell you "yes" And so he, too, recognizes the command- ments of God in the New Testament as primary and second- ary. I showed you, how Peter the "key holder of the king- dom" declared the remission of sins upon obedience as to "Faith," "Repentance," and "Baptism." Well, then, accord- ing to the saying of Paul "we are justified" by "the faith of Christ," we are justified by the faith of Christ when we. obey as per Peter for "the remissions of sins," And this .is "THE FAITH OF JESUS." But in the second part of the "commission" Jesus said "Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." These, ofcourse make up the main body of commandments in the New Testament and have to do with our moral behavior for the most part. They are, therefore, as we see, kept distinct from those that especially connect us with Jesus. --.-------,••••••••=•••••.••••••••••••••,mmon..m6, 216 The distinction is hinted in fleb. 1:1-2, "Therefore leav- ing the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God " "Of the doe trine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of recur rection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." Remember. then, that we do not have to go outside the New Testament for "the commandmants of God:" for they are all found there just as it pleased God to enjoin them, and there also. do we find "the faith of Christ," "the faith of Jesus." The assumption that the ' ten commandments" are meant by—"the commandments of God," in the Revelation texts under consideration has no foundation in fact. The idea that every time the expressions, "the commandments," "the commandments of God," are met in the new testament, they always refer to the ten commandments is one of the assumptions of the.Seventh Day Adventists. They invari- ably so assume in their comments on texts containing said expressions. The new covenant commandments are entitled to the designation "The commandments of God" the same as the ten commandments were under the first covenant. Therefore, when those expressions are met in Revelation and elsewhere in the epistolary writings, why not at once in mind refer them to the new instead of the old covenant, where they truly belong? In closing, take a look at God's final disposition of the "woman," the "beast" and the "false prophet." 1. THE WOMAN. God calls her—"The great whore that sitteth upon many waters;" "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMI- NATIONS OF THE EARTH;" and "That great city that reigneth over the kings of the earth."—Rev. 17:2, 5, 17. Contained in her fellowship were the very vilest and wicked: "Babylon is become the habitation of devils, the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird," Yet, even in this den of iniquity were peo- ple of God; for the "voice from heaven" urged, "Come out 217 of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and :'chat ye receive not of her plagues,"—Rev, 18:2, 4. "From heaven" means the fellowship of those who follow the word God; and even from before Luther's day, this voice of . theirs has been calling to t'em to come out of the Roman Catholic church Yea and our duty it is, to continue to call them out; for, "A mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, "Thus with vio- lence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all."—Rev. 18:21. With VIOLENCE does he say ? Yes, and he means it. Violently she put down the "saints;" thefore, violently will God end her career, "Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to all her work: in the cup which she hath -tilled, fill to her double." v. 6. So has God ordained for her; and thus shall it be done unto her. But who is to do it? If you please, those very same kingdoms symbolized by the ten horns, by whom she cast down God's people. "And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast , these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire."—Rev. 17:16. "Flesh," symbolizes her material possessions, of which she has millions upon millions of dol- lars worth in Europe among those civilized powers. Those nations are now, some of the them almost bankrupt. They are soon to be precipitated into a great war with other powers. In war, most anything will be regarded lawful; and those kingdoms will appropriate her material possessions to meet their expenses. Her resistance will incur their hatred, and they will burn her with fire; that is, as fire consumes, so will the Great Roman Catholic church, become disorganized, and forever cease to be found among denominations of christ- ians. The kings whom she once employed to destroy God's people, God will employ to destroy her: "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God be fulfilled." Talk about God's hand not manipulating civil powers to carry out. his judgments in this dispensation the same as in the Mosaic! 218 The above once for all refules the idea. Down! DOWN ! ! DOWN !! ! into the sea of humanity will the wicked organi- zation sink and cease to be. Its millions of members will then be turned, what are left of them, to something better. 2. THE PAPACY AND THE BEAST. Of course, the papacy, too, will go down with "VIOLENCE." As the woman was to be burned with fire, so also the false prophet and the beast were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. The beast and false prophet seem to go down together. "Horse ' symbolizes war; being a creature for war from ancient times. "White horse" symbolizes a just, a righteous, war: that is, such a war as God himself authorizes; even as those wars he authorized under Joshua against the wicked Canaanites. Christ is called by many names in the Bible. "Word of God" is one of them. Using the name with respect to its signifi- cation here, the "armies of heaven," seeing they "FOLLOW the WORD OF GOD;" I conclude they are chosen from a nation or nations that do follow and respect the teachings of the word of God as is not done by Roman Catholic nations. They are in white because they are chosen of God to execute his righteous indignation against the scarlet beast and red handed papacy, who together have shed the blood of his saints. That God does choose and authorize servants to execute his wrath and vengeance upon transgressors, see Rom. 13:1-6. seeing God declared concerning the beast— "He that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword,"—Rev. 13:10, it must needs follow that he would choose of servants to execute his wrath upon the beast and false prophet, soldiers from a nation so superior to them in righteousness as to represent them as arrayed in white on white horses. Therefore the conflict described in Rev. 19:11 21, I regard to be between Roman Catholic civilization upon one hand, and Protestant christian civilization upon the other. "Waters," symbolize, "Peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."—Rev. 17;15. "The beast that rose up out of the sea,"—Rev. 13:1, was a government that the peo- ple raised up over them and supported. "Lake" is a smaller 219 body of water than a "sea". "Armies" collected and brought together in war are selected soldiers out of nations. Inflam- ed with war spirit, they make a lake on fire. Modern explo- sives are in a large part composed of "brimstone." It takes real fire to make explosives effective in war. Add to the inflammation of armies with the war spirit, the fiery explos- ives from their guns and have you not a pretty good realiza- tion of a "lake of fire burning with brimstone ?" The Catholic nations of Europe are doubtless to be dissolved as nations, in the last great war before the millen- nium age. What became of the seven wicked nations of Canaan? God terminated their existence as nations because of their wickedness. What became of the empires of Baby- lon, Medo-Persians, and the Grecians? For wickedness, God ended their existence as nations, and what was left of individuals composing them after the great wars that broke them to pieces, were absorbed in the kingdoms succeeding them. Just so, the Roman empire as it still exists in the divisions symbolized by the horns of the beast is to be com- pletely ended, All those nations for the blood shedding of the saints, must, as to their national governmental organiza- tions come to an end. It will be done in a collision of armies; even their armies with the Protestant United States army as one of the "white horse" armies. In the great struggle, as in a lake of fire and brimstone, these three institutions will go into nonentity, viz.: The Roman Catholic church, the Hierarchy of said church, and the remnant nations of the Roman Empire. But with the beast and false prophet were confederated others called the "kings of the earth." Easily these may refer to Russia leavened with Greek Catholicism, and the Mohammeden powers. Have you ever noticed how after great universal wars, certain bad elements in a civilization being destroyed, the civilization following war is upon a higher plain ? In our war of the rebellion, the system of slavery went down, as in a lake of fire and brimstone, and for over thirty years has been in nonenity. Has not our civilization been upon a higher plain ever since? And so, also, before you can have that splendid civilization which we are promised in the miller 220 nium age (see it described in Isai 05:17-25), the "woman,' "false prophet" and "beast," as organized systems, 3ILWI COME TO AN END. Then new nations will organize upon their ruins. There will then need to be a new map made of Europe, and, perhaps, of the world. "Thy kingdom come, and thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven," is to realize here upon old mother earth before the millennium age closes. Daniel said, "In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever."—Dan. 2:44. Nebuchadnezzar broke kingdoms to pieces by taking from them their governmental bonds that bound them together. This left them a mass of individuals. These he absorbed into his great kingdom: but rus kingdom was broken to pieces and absorbed into a suc ceeding kingdom—The Medes and Persians. But God's kingdom is not only to break all earth's kingdoms into pieces and consume them: that is, absorb what is left of indi- viduals, after breaking up the kingdoms by revolutions a we have seen: but it is then never to be left to other people It is to stand for ever; that is, for the balance of the millen- nium age. Then will be fulfilled the saying, "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and 0; his Christ."—Rev. 11:15. I have been watching with great interest the present way between Protestant United States and Catholic Spain. Thy former the most Protestant of Protestant nations, the latter the most Catholic of Catholic nations. I've wondered whether the beginning of the end of this age were not, at last, at hand? Whether complications would not soon aris(, that would array on one hand the old continental kingdoms of Europe and Western Asia, against Protestant America and England on the other, or even against America alone? .Japan is fast becoming a christian nation and may yet com- pose one of the "white horse armies." It may take all of one hundred years yet, to suffice to end the great revolution- izing wars preceeding the millennium. By then six thous- 221 and years since creation will have been completed, each work clay in the creative week representing a thousand years of our history since then. Then a thousand years of quiet to follow, typified in the restful Sabbath of God. In isaid period "Swords to be beaten into plowshares," and '"Spears into pruning hooks" and the "Nations to learn war more." no My soul is thrilling with deep interest as I study qthe prophecies and note how they have been, and continue ::4o be fulfilling. Then I have wondered what the Catholics `:kof America might do in the event of a Protestant nation t.livarring against confederated Catholic nations with the pope upon their side. Would they at the pope's bidding turn and institute guerilla warfare here in America with Protestants upon our own soul ? Or would they not indeed turn Protestant? I could hope as American Catholics have never stained their hands with the blood of saints as those in Eurone did, that the latter might be their course. But these things are all in the future. The United States may soon conclude a temporary peace with Spain. The present war waged in the interest of justice and humanity may have been of God to wake up our nation to preparations for war upon the largest scale she ever dreamed; that some future day God may use her armies to execute his wrath upon the "beast" and the "false prophet" for the final disposition of them. One thing is certain Americans will now arise, build more war ships, create more deadly instruments for destruc- tion then ever they thought of doing before this war. This war has opened her eyes to the necessity to be prepared for any emergency, and that preparation she will surely make. Moreover, by her acquirements of coaling stations in the far east, and nearer the enemy in the Atlantic ocean, she has made a great advance already for future readiness for war. But here I close. Hoping it may prove as profitable to readers to read this treatise, as did to me to prepare it for them to read. If it awaken a new interest in bible study in working out our common salvation I shall be amply repaid for my effort. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PAGE Covenant Making, - 9 Testament and Covenant the same, 10 Testament and Covenant defined, 11 The Ten Commandments the first Covenant, 12 What Israel Inherited, 13 When the Covenant came in Force, 14 CHAPTER IL The Distinction of Covenant made, Covenant Com- manded, 15 The Scriptures that Refute the Distinctions and Prove that the Ten Commandments were the First Covenant, _ _ _ 16-21 CHAPTER III. The Jones and Smith Covenant in the Covenant The- ory Examined, 92 Were the Ten Commandments a Covenant before made with Israel ? 23 They were not a Covenant with any People but Israel, _ _ _ - 2426 The Ten not a Covenant by a Figure of Speech, - 27 Not a Covenant Because made the Basis of a Coven- -ant, 28 Mr. Smith's Confusion as to Whether Ex. 19:3-8 or Ex. 24:3-8 was the Covenant, 29.31 'CHAPTER IV. The Ten Commandments, or Ceremonial Law the Covenant ? - - - - - - - 32-35 The Two Law Theory Argued: Proof Texts Examined, 35-43 CHAPTER V. The New Covenant Introduced, - 43 It was at First Embodied in Christ, • 44 1