You may contradict Paul if you will, and call out all your professed second advent adherents and brethren, (whom you say will not see much of any difference on this subject after they have examined the new testament,) and they will not in the least strengthen your arguments unless G. Needham should come out again and publicly declare that God also told him that Paul's testimony respecting his law and commandments, was not to be credited. And this he can as readily establish as he can his first blasphemous assertion. You might still go on and contradict James' perfect, royal law of liberty, whose testimony is to the same point and in the same year, and tell John the beloved disciple also, whose testimony is thirty years beyond James', that he ought to have called his old commandment, which he received from the FATHER, "which ye have heard from the beginning," (1st John ii: 7, and 2d epistle, 4-6 verses.) "The law of grace." because that would eventually be the right name that you should give them in 1847, after you had been designated one of the two great reformers in the world, to give light on the second coming of Christ, and so make him and James, who had heard their Lord declare that he had kept his Father's commandments; and Luke and Matthew testifying to his declaration that "the law and the prophets hung upon them," and that the teaching and keeping of them would ensure "great esteem," and "eternal life in the reign of heaven," he would most likely have cited you to the epistle again, and said, read your sentence: "He that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandment is a LIAR and the TRUTH is not IN HIM."
I should not be at all surprised if you called all this inferential, irrelevant New Testament testimony, because your grand object is to destroy the seventh-day Sabbath. If the Sabbath is not to be found in the commandments of God, then where is it to be found?
If those to whom I dedicate this work believe that I have proved beyond controversy that the commandments are valid and still to be kept, as the Revelation also teaches, xii: 17; xiv: 12; xxii: 14; then they are a perfect law, and cannot fail in one point without risking our salvation. Then the seventh-day Sabbath is included or the testimony of Jesus and his Apostle would be false. Again, there is but one Sabbath that was ever required to be kept, in the bible, and that is
Jesus kept the Sabbath, and when he was giving them the signs of his coming and the end of the world, he pointed them at least thirty-five years after his death, to the very same Sabbath. On the 29th of June last, you replied to J. Gifford's inquiries on this point, and perverted the word, and called THE, their Sabbath. You also say, "The day before the resurrection was the Jewish Sabbath, which Christ kept in the tomb. When that Sabbath ended, the law of types ended, and of course the typical Sabbath ceased—a new dispensation commenced on the first day, which should be observed in commemoration of the death of Christ, until he come." Now look at your zig-zag course. First, that the whole law with the decalogue was nailed to the cross. But here, to get rid of this brother's argument, about the Sabbath being kept the day before the resurrection, and after the crucifixion, you stretch out the Sabbath in the fourth commandment about twenty-seven hours, (as long as you wanted it,) and then put it back with the other nine that died the day before. Here too, you say, "ended the law types, and of course the typical Sabbath," and then about twelve hours after a new dispensation commenced. Your argument looks like this—the Jewish dispensation ended at the preaching of Christ. Oh no, it was at his death—where the law of Moses, with the commandments of God, were all nailed to the cross. But stop again—the Sabbath did not end, nor the types, until twenty-seven hours after; and finally—come to think of it—the dispensation did not end until about twelve hours after that, when Christ arose. Surely J. Turner, with all his mesmeric influence, could not do much better. How much better to follow Paul in Col. ii: 14, "blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances (the ceremonial law) and nailing it to the cross" on Friday, the 14th day of the first month, "FINISHED" at 3 o'clock, P. M.—John xix: 30; Mark xv: 33, 37. Again, you say "the Jews were so tenacious about the strict observance of their Sabbath, that they would have prevented the disciples fleeing on that day, had they made an attempt to do so; hence for their own salvation, Christ taught his disciples to pray that their flight might not be on that day, not because it would be wrong to save their lives on that day, which the Sabbatarian view seems to teach." In the first place Christ never intimated a word about their Sabbath; it was THE Sabbath, the same that he had kept. Your sophistical argument about their flight, &c. &c. touches not the main point. Christ did here recognize THE Sabbath of the Lord thirty-five years beyond the time which you say it was abolished. At that time, if it never did before, as you have it, it belonged as much to the Gentile as the Jew, unless you make another attempt to stretch out the Jewish dispensation thirty-five years to cover it. His disciples certainly kept the Sabbath, the day after his death, and you cannot prove by the scriptures that the disciples ever held a meeting but once of an evening on the first day. Therefore you must be very much pushed for a Sabbath, to continually call that day one, as you do, at the same time reiterating, "we want none of your inferences!" Luke also recognizes THE Sabbath twenty years beyond the resurrection, and shows that Paul kept it, and the Gentiles also.—Acts xiii: 42, 44. You attempt to destroy all this proof too, because you say this was the Jews' day for worship, and Paul could get a better hearing. Don't you see that the Gentiles invited him to preach to them—they kept the same day, 44th verse. See xvi: 13; here they are by the river's side. Paul's manner was to reason with them on the Sabbath; see xvii: 2, and xviii: 4, 11. So was it the custom of the Saviour; Mark vi: 2, and Luke iv: 16, 31. Now if all this is not New Testament evidence enough for honest believers, in the absence of any other testimony for an abolition, or change of the Sabbath, then it is because men would rather pervert the word of God than keep it.
God's Code of Laws in the New Testament.
"Why do ye transgress the commandments of God."—Matthew xv: 3.
"What is written in the law, how readest thou?"—Luke x: 26.
"Even as I have kept my Father's commandments."—John xv: 10.
"Yea, we establish the law."—Rom. iii: 31.
"The law is holy and the commandment is holy."—Rom. vii: 12.
"Not subject to the law of God."—Rom. viii: 7, also xiii: 8-10.
"But the commandments of God."—1st Cor. vii: 19; 1st Tim. i: 8.
"For whoever shall keep the whole law," &c.—James ii: 10.
Moses' Code of Laws, by Jesus and His Apostles.
"That is written in their law, they hated," &c.—John xv: 25.
"Justified by the law of Moses."—Acts xiii: 39.
"It is written in your law, I said, ye are gods?"—John x: 34.
"Have ye not read in the book of Moses."—Mark xii: 26.
"Judged according to our law."—Acts xxiv: 6.
"Out of the law of Moses."—xxvii: 23, and xxi: 20, 22, 24, 28.
"And your law."—Acts xviii: 15. Paul.
This and much more could be given to show the clear distinction that Jesus and his Apostles and the Jews always kept up between the law of God and the law of Moses. This is why so much confusion pervades our minds, when we read Paul to the Cor., Rom., Gal., and Col. If we carefully read his letter to the Hebrews, his Jewish brethren, we shall see a clearer distinction. In the 7th chapter, and first part of the 8th, he describes the priesthood; the change to Christ in his sanctuary in the heavens, and then the second covenant, the law of God written on our hearts. 9th chapter explains the first covenant, with its appendages, and the change. 10th chapter shows that these appendages never could make us perfect. 9th verse speaks of the change; 16th verse of the law of God again, and the 28th of the law of Moses. These four chapters will give more light respecting the two codes of laws; how one is abolished, except the types, and the other established, than all that ever I read from the pens of these no-commandment professors. May God help us to see the clear light.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE BIBLE ADVOCATE.
SIR—I was very glad when learned that your columns were to be opened for the discussion of the Sabbath question, for I thought if you would allow this subject to be fairly brought out, God's holy law would be vindicated and more strictly revered; but I soon see this was, and would be, an unequal warfare. To prevent any one's writing but C. Stowe of N. H., you say her argument will cover, or about cover, the whole ground in favor of the Jewish, or seventh-day Sabbath, and then no one else, until some one had replied against it, &c. This was very well, but I soon perceived that you did not keep the ship on her course. The first part of C. Stowe's article, to cover the whole ground, has never yet appeared, and should it come forth at this late hour of the discussion, it would probably avail as much as you mean it shall in its isolated state. But to prevent what you did publish for her, in the same paper, (Sept. 2d,) you gave your own unscriptural view, to go with it. This, of course, still more prejudiced your hearers, as you had before that stated objections. I am not sorry, however, that it is still going on in some shape, if it is partly in disguise. We hear that you have now on hand five times as much matter against the Sabbath as you have for it. This is all natural enough, God's word has ever been advocated by the minority. And when such blasphemous language against the Saviour we are looking for, was permitted to blacken your columns, and again reiterated that he was right, and you not only let it pass unnoticed, but was endeavoring to screen him by withdrawing his real name from God's children. The inference is, and must be, strong against you. Look at your position now! THE BIBLE ADVOCATE!! Show if you can the chapter and verse where the BIBLE allows any man to advocate God's word, that ever withheld his real name and where those that stood in high places were trying to screen them, because as we should have a good right to suppose, that they were in fellowship with their doctrine. How do the columns of THE BIBLE ADVOCATE look now, since you have opened the way for them to follow your unrighteous course, to debase and still hold up God's holy law as a Jewish ritual, that had been abolished. It looks to me like the same horn that is to "prevail against the saints until the ancient of days comes." "He thought to change times and laws;" (God's laws without doubt.) He, then, through this agency, has been blackening your columns with his iron hoof. The Devil has been too long engaged in this war to pass any one's enclosure, who has left his gate open, without walking in and taking possession. How could you be so careless or wilful, after warring with him as you have done in the past, to leave the way open for him to tread you down. Another thing: In your paper of Dec. 23d, you say, "Br. Turner, have you sent your second article on the Sabbath? We have not received it." Why in so much haste for this wonderful promised article, to overthrow history, after he has overthrown himself by the bible? Why not publish some of the so much manuscript you have already on hand? I cannot help thinking, after all, that you have no faith in your own argument of a no-Sabbath, no-commandment system, hence this partial call for J. Turner to speak again. His view is really the very thing! It is just as it used to be. If T. has got it right the discussion is forever ended, and we have always been right, but did not know it; if we had, we should not have resorted to these puzzling arguments of Paul to prove that there is no Sabbath, to get clear of plain, bible doctrine!
As I have answered nearly all your arguments against the Sabbath and commandments, in my work on the Sabbath, and Waymarks, and lastly in my reply to the Advent Harbinger, under the head of the Four Pillar system, I shall be brief because I want to say a word upon another subject that you have named. You say, "to assume or infer that the Sabbath was commanded to men before the Exode from Egypt, is to walk as blind men. But at creation Adam's first day was the seventh day, or day on which God rested. Hence, if Adam kept Sabbath, he kept the first day, and then worked six days." Who said so? Not the bible. You would try to make out that Adam contradicted and disobeyed God's law, just as you have. Suppose you were born on Friday, the sixth day, would the next day, the seventh, be your first or second day? Your argument is not worth a straw; Adam's first day was Friday, the sixth day, and if he had been created the seventh day, that would have made no difference. How strange you talk! Because man should happen to come into life upon any other than the first day, then he must surely violate the Sabbath by doing his six days work first! This is in perfect keeping with "let every man be persuaded in his own mind," and not keep any. God rested the seventh day and blessed and sanctified it. Surely it is not so dangerous to follow God's example as it is to contradict and disobey him. Such as these are the blind men. [See first three pages of work on the Sabbath.]
Again, you say, "how long was the covenant or law of ten commandments to remain in force and effect, and answer Gal. iii, till Christ shall come." Under the third Pillar, I have answered this. The law of circumcision, and not the law of God, is Paul's whole argument here. The 17th verse shows the covenant is the one with Abraham, four hundred and thirty years before the law to Moses. There is not an intimation of the abolition of the law of commandments. Here it is the law of Abraham and Moses. Therefore it is right for the advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath to demand of you to prove a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day; and the reason we demand it is, because we positively know you have none. You also say that the Apostles availed themselves of the opportunity to preach to the judaizing christians in their synagogues on the seventh day, at the same time keeping up the christian solemnity and worship on the first day. I say you cannot prove this. You cannot present a passage in the scriptures that shows that the disciples ever met together for worship, in the day time, on the first day of the week, and only once of an evening; and not one word about that being a holy day or a day for them to worship, but to break bread. But why do you want to prove this if all the commandments are abolished? The fact is, as soon as you leave the law of God, you are all adrift, with neither oar nor rudder, at the mercy of the tide. Again, you say "the ministration of the law is done away, is abolished." That is just what we say. Suppose you had ceased your ministration ten years ago, would that have abolished the Gospel? This is your reasoning, and it is the best argument you and others bring for the abolition of the commandments in 2d Cor. iii. There is nothing there but the ministration abolished, which no more affects the law of God, than the moving of your old sermons out of your house would affect the house.
Now will you just turn over your file to Nov. 4th, where you come out against J. P. M. Peck, about the sanctuary. As I have twice presented my view of the sanctuary's being in the heavens, I shall not stop here, only to say, that there is abundant bible proof for this view, and but one place for it, where Jesus, the High Priest is. But the one you advocate is first one thing and then another. Palestine, or Canaan, or Jerusalem, or mountains about Jerusalem; Mount Zion, and generally, the whole world. The reason for this is, because you have no proof of any certain place, after you leave Paul, in Heb. viii: 2. But you say, "I deny that it has been any thing like a general belief that the twenty-three hundred days ended in '44. There were a portion of the adventists that embraced, for a while, that theory. But they soon abandoned it, with the exception of a few, who have followed anything but the word of God and sound reason; and they now have no fellowship for, or connection with those who truly look for the cleansing of the sanctuary, at the end of the days; and we have as little fellowship for their teaching as they have for us and our view of the plain word of God. We know enough of the effect of that theory that teaches the 2300 days ended in '44, and scores of Shakers can tell you more even than we can."
Out of the great mass of advent believers in '44, I do not believe you knew of twenty that did not think the days were ended in '44. We will try to show, by-and-by, who have followed sound reason; and who have got "the plain word of God." You say you "know enough of the effect of that theory that teaches the 2300 days are ended." Allow me to tell you that you do not know so much about it as you think you do, or as you will wish you had. You are as much afloat here as you are on the subject of the Sabbath and commandments. That portion who abandoned the idea of the days being ended, of which you boast, are of those that organized and entered the state of the Laodocean church, "neither hot nor cold;" neither in one position nor yet in another; "always learning and never coming to the knowledge of (the present) truth." The ending of the 2300 days was the great burden of the advent teaching in '43 and '44; "then the sanctuary shall be cleansed." You will have it that this cannot be before the coming of the Lord, and you see he may come at any time; yes, now, by the first of January, as your Bible Advocate states. You have now heard something of the character of this J. Weston. He would have us believe that he was so full of the spirit of the Lord, that God had revealed to him that Jesus would come the 24th of December, or by the 1st of January. All good—we will publish it! What about the 2300 days, Br. W.? Oh, no matter, Jesus is coming now. H. H. Gross has refuted this time, but look at him last spring; the 1335 days must end the 18th day of April, and the resurrection, or they would not end under forty-five years. Well, he confessed that he was wrong in ever believing that they had ended in '44. Come, then, where will they end here? Oh, somewhere a little while before the 1335 days end in the spring of 1847. Well, time has passed on; out he comes again and says the Lord will come in the spring of 1848. Where will the 2300 and 1335 days end, friend Gross? Can't say—that is, he don't say—neither does J. Weston, and he does not correct him for this; it is only because the advent cannot be until spring. And here I will ask an opinion—that there is not a man in the whole advent ranks—(it seems to me that I will not even except you)—that can show that the Lord will come this winter or next spring. H. H. Gross is just as much mistaken in his calculation this coming spring, as he was the last. Now you may go on and call us what it seems to you good, we are confident that you have not got the present truth, neither have you had it since you have followed any thing but "the word of God and sound reason." And this is the main reason why you cannot answer brother Fuller's important questions on THE OPEN BOOK OF REV. x: 2. It requires some one that has followed the truth, the present truth, nearer than you have, to reply to such questions, and they as surely involve the days as a cry at midnight brought us to the end of them. Do you not see how you are first blowing hot and then blowing cold? Six weeks ago, you said you knew enough of the effect of that theory that the days are ended. You say "all will see by reading the article, what are Br. F.'s views." That is, he is one that we have no fellowship for. But, you say, we hope that he and many others may be benefitted by a careful and prayerful investigation of some of the many questions he has asked. &c. &c. Now this is the right and only way to investigate. But if some one undertakes to follow your advice by the scripture, it would not amount to much, for we should expect to see you right out against them, for those that have rejected plain scripture, connected with experience, as you have, and ridiculed those who had faith in it, have but little hope now, since you have become an editor. We deeply lamented that you should have taken such a course; but we have seen since, that it required something more than common moral courage, for a shepherd to remain with the tried and tempted flock, when he sees that all his fellow shepherds were deserting them. The warnings you have had, have no doubt brought many solemn convictions to yours and their minds, or else we should not find you in this lukewarm state. Yes, you have been faithfully warned by your old, firm friends, not to come out with your Advocate; you have heard their voice, that two were enough to give the light on the doctrine of the advent, and they had hard work to get along. But no, your paper was going to take different ground, in some things! In one respect, it has shown pretty clearly, as the scriptures fully demonstrate, that "the dead know not any thing;" and allow me here to tell you, if you go on with your no-law-of-God and no-commandment system, and continue to reject the clear fulfillment of prophecy, in our past experience, you will as clearly prove that you know but a very little more. But after all you have said and done, you are following hard on in the track—the same old deep-cut rut, made by your predecessors. Pharaoh's host like, the ruts so deep you can neither back nor turn out; but on you drive after them, thinking, no doubt, that you are going to accomplish something for God and his cause. The only way that I can see for you to do that, will be, either to abandon your load, or shift the tongue of your chariot on the opposite end, drive back with all speed, and get into the highway of the Waymarks and high heaps, that you so wilfully abandoned more than three years ago.
The Saviour's admonition to the Philadelphia state of the church, which was forming in '43 and '44, was to hold fast that which we had—and he would "write upon us his new name." This is what we are endeavoring to do; and when we see you doing the opposite, we know you are wrong. You quote Paul to the Hebrews, viii: 10, "Saith the Lord I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts." Whose hearts? Answer—the house of Israel; of course, all of God's people. What is this done for? Answer—that he may be our God and we may know him and be his people. Can you tell your no-law no-commandment readers which law of God Paul meant? Whether it was the one you say he abolished in Col., Gal., Cor. and Romans, or was it another code of laws which he had made for our purpose, and then hid them from us. If you know in what book, or chapter, or verse they are in the bible, I beseech you to let us know immediately, for I see by John's visions in the Rev. that in the last days there certainly will be a company keeping them, and the Devil will persecute them for it; but they will eventually be saved, and enter the city. Rev. xii: 17; xiv: 12; xxii: 14. And finally, if you cannot find any others than those which God gave by his own mouth and wrote with his own finger on Mount Sinai, more than 3300 years since, the same which Jesus confirmed to us more than 1800 years ago with his Gospel, won't you make that known by publicly confessing that it is impossible for you to tell what other object God had in view than our keeping these same laws; and that you had, contrary to the direct teachings of God, derided both his law and his willing, obedient children. Don't tell us that this law is the "law of Christ or the law of grace," or any other name unless you can show us how many commandments they contain, because James has told us "if we fail in one we are guilty of the whole." Jesus never gave but one commandment.
P. S. As I predicted on your second page, J. Turner's piece has come. The child is fairly born, and you have fallen in love with it. Now brethren, just haul down all your other colors, J. Turner has got the very thing! The first day of the week is the seventh-day Sabbath! We have always been right, but we never knew it till now! Thanks to J. Turner for confounding the whole world, and now no more about this much vexed question! "We shall fill our paper mostly with other matter for the future." The wind has favored us and we have made a first rate tack to windward, and now we can breathe much freer seeing our enemies are under our lee. Hear what he says? "We supposed and still do suppose that Barnabas had reference to a class well known to the adventists in Connecticut and Massachusetts, who went into the shut door, and staid in, and almost every other door but the true one into the sheepfold, and many of which became great sticklers for the seventh day." &c. Now he goes on and speaks in high praise of those who have been writing for the Sabbath—they are consistent Christians, &c. And now, says he, "we must all be exceedingly careful how we write and speak; the enemy seeks to devour us, and one of his most artful wiles is to divide the saints by dark insinuations, evil speaking, and jealousies," &c.—See Bible Advocate, Dec. 30th, p. 160. Why this caution after the above unsparing epithets; are you afraid that some of these misguided, mistaken people will get into your open door? If they should happen to, and confess that they were wrong in believing in the shut door, no matter how many others they had been guilty of entering into what you call almost every door, they would immediately become consistent Christians! Out of hundreds who have crawled into your open door and made such confessions, causing the hypocrites and unbelievers to rejoice, and the hearts of the righteous to be sad, &c., I will just name a few: J. and C. Pearsons, F. G. Brown, of wonderful memory; and now a few Sabbath keepers: W. M. Ingham, John Howell, of vascillating memory, and J. Turner, your fellow laborer. Well, you are not so far to windward as you think for; here comes another head flaw, that will drive you down on that lee shore again, where you may see the awful havoc you have made of those who are following in your wake. See them dashing there upon the rocks and into those overwhelming breakers! Your whirlwind of doctrine has utterly dismantled them, and their cry for help is unavailing! and unless you put forth some more strenuous efforts to avoid these dangerous seas, you will never get off from this lee shore, while under these deceitful and flattering winds of doctrine.
Again he says—"We take the liberty to add, that Br. T.'s article is IRREFUTABLE, and that we are now observing the Sabbath of the Lord our God, and not the Jewish, nor a Pagan Sabbath." Where is he now? Does he mean that J. T.'s Sabbath is "the Sabbath of the Lord our God?" He has always insisted, in his former articles, that "the Sabbath of the Lord our God," was the Jewish Sabbath. There is but one named in the bible. If this what he calls "the plain word of the Lord," I doubt whether any one will understand him.
He says further—"If Friday was the sixth day—every transaction on the day of our Lord's crucifixion is involved in utter confusion—and the law of types in a like failure, and makes it an impossibility for the Sabbath of the Lord our God to be kept the next day, for this [wise] reason, that it was a feast day"! and quotes John xix: 31, again and again, for positive proof. I wonder if he can tell how, and when, and where the Jews lost that day, since the crucifixion, and where is the history to show that they did really pass over the seventh-day Sabbath and keep the first day for the Sabbath? I have already answered this in J. Turner's article; there you will see the reason why John called this "an high day." Now, as he has spoken of the law of types, I ask where is the chapter and verse in the bible in which the Jews were ever forbidden to hold a feast, when it fell on the seventh-day Sabbath? for, as I before stated, this always did occur every year. Besides this Jewish feast was an holy convocation; no servile work was to be done on this day. This was always continued seven days, and the last day was like the first. Lev. xxiii: 6-8. Now then, all that they did on these feast Sabbaths, was to worship God by their offerings. You see that on God's holy seventh-day Sabbath, [see J. T.'s article,] they always offered four lambs; therefore, whenever the other Sabbaths, or holy convocations fell on the seventh day, they were equally observed, as is positively proved by the direction of God in the 37th and 38th verses of this same chapter, "every thing upon his day besides the Sabbaths of the Lord," &c. Now see—here are seven holy convocations, Sabbath feasts named in this chapter, which the Jews were required to keep besides the weekly seventh-day Sabbath, and when their feasts fell on the holy Sabbath of the Lord, all the extra labor was in offering to God the extra bullocks, lambs &c. Do let me entreat you, before you further expose yourself, to read in connection with this, the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth chapter of Numbers, for here you will find every identical thing specified: therefore, when one of these seven holy convocation days of every year came on the weekly Sabbath, it was of more importance, inasmuch that they had more offerings to make to God, and hence John or any one else, might call it "an high day;" but none the less holy, any more than for us, instead of assembling together on the Sabbath, in our several places for worship, to have a general conference meeting in Boston, to continue over the Sabbath.
But J. Turner, instead of overthrowing history, as he promised he should, is exulting, and says, "unless I utterly misapprehend the technical veracity of Christ and his apostles, I have the argument by their concurrent testimony." In his Note 3, he says, "But if the day that followed the crucifixion was the seventh-day Sabbath, it could not be said that the Sabbath drew on, for it was even then began. It commenced at evening, at the same time the pascal lamb was slain in the law, at which time according to the record, Jesus expired."
Now, I say, this is not true, and he or the editor who published it, knows it to be so. I presume that both of them have stated in their preaching, again and again, that Jesus expired on the cross at the ninth hour, as the Evangelists testify, which was at three o'clock in the afternoon, and three hours before the Sabbath commenced. If he can assert such positive falsehoods as these, and others which I have stated, to prove what never has, nor never will take place, and at the same time have multitudes crying "amen!" "that's true!" &c., it is no wonder he can "set as calm as heaven!"
But I have one other proof to offer, which will destroy their whole foundation. I had overlooked it in the multitude of texts that had come up here, but God in answer to our prayers, both in our closet and at meetings, for wisdom to guide us in giving the present truth to the little flock in this work, at this important crisis, has so directed that I may have it in time to put into this Postscript, just as it is going to press. [I could not see before why it was that the printer could not get his promised help, in order to proceed faster with this work. I see it now—it is all in God's own wise way. He was not willing, (as it now appears to me,) that my work should come out to check or disturb you, until you began to settle somewhere on this subject.] The proof then, I transcribe from a letter received from Br. JAMES WHITE, dated Topsham, Me. January 2d, 1848. Here it is:
"The plain, simple truth in regard to the holy Sabbath flows out from the blessed bible in one clear, strait channel; while erroneous views are fated to run crooked and devour themselves. I think that those who are not fully settled as to what day of the week is the seventh or Sabbath, would do well to refer to the type, in Lev. xxii: 5-21. Here are three types which were fulfilled at the time of the first advent. Every adventist in the land once believed that these types were exactly fulfilled as to time. The paschal lamb was slain on the 14th day of the first month. So was Jesus crucified on the 14th day of the first month. The handful of the first fruits of the harvest was waved before the Lord on the 16th of the first month; so was Jesus the first fruits of the resurrection, raised from the tomb the 16th of the first month. [See 1st Cor. xv: 20.] Now if the resurrection day, which was the first day of the week, was the 16th of the first month, then it follows that the 14th of the first month when Jesus was crucified, which was Friday, was the sixth day of the week; Saturday, the seventh day or Sabbath, and Sunday, the first day of the week.
"St. Paul preached that Christ would rise the third day, according to the scriptures. He certainly could refer to no other scripture but the type. Our Lord, while preaching the resurrection to the two, on their way to Emmeas, began at Moses. So we are not on forbidden ground when we go there also, to prove that he arose on the third day.—See Luke xxiv: 27, 44-46. Jesus came not to break, but to fulfill every jot and tittle of the law—therefore he arose Sunday, the 16th day of the first month, which harmonizes with the joint testimony of the Apostles and Christ himself, that he arose on the third day."
Other brethren, (in reference to J. Turner's article,) from Canandaigua, N. Y. and Dorchester, Mass. have also, about this same time, referred us to this strong hold, for which we thank them and praise the Lord for this light, that forever settles the question. A most striking proof of the unity of the saints in their patience, (Rev. xiv: 12,) no matter where located, though hundreds and thousands of miles apart, they are one on this question. This is as we now understand the Sabbath of the Lord our God, to be the rallying point of all those who are truly looking for the speedy coming of Jesus. Whosoever, therefore, shall attempt to destroy or displace God's holy Sabbath, will have to pass the examination of the host. Paul to the Corinthians, 5th chapter and seventh verse, says, "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." How? Answer—expired on Friday, the 14th day of the first month, at 3 o'clock, P. M., in exact fulfillment of the type by Moses, in Exo. xii: 6, 11-14, continued for 1670 years. He rested from all his works only one twenty-four hour day, and that was God's holy day. Paul tells the Romans that "he was raised again for our justification." iv: 25; and the Corinthians "that he is risen and become the first fruits of them that slept." 1st Cor. xv: 20; and Col. i: 18, "first born from the dead." Again, "should be the first that should rise from the dead." Acts xxvi: 23. John says, "The first begotten of the dead." He arose on Sunday morning, the first day of the week, before sunrise—say about 5 A. M.—having been dead about thirty-eight hours. Thus he fulfilled the type in Lev. xxiii: 10-11 verses—the first fruits of the harvest, the handful of barley, called the wafe sheaf, which was waved by the priest, with the offering of a lamb, [emblem of Christ,] as first fruits of the resurrection, on the morrow after the Sabbath—the 16th of the first month—the Sabbath, or feast day, always being on the 15th of the same month. Then, from the 14th, at 3 P. M. to the 16th, at about 6 P. M. is but thirty-eight hours, two whole nights, (not three,) one whole day, a part of Friday and a part of Sunday. "Thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day." This is his own testimony a few hours after his resurrection; also a few hours after the offering of the wafe sheaf. If this can be overthrown then can also the time of his crucifixion. The chaotic confusion that you would make about this great feast day which always followed the passover, is answered here. It so happened in the order of time to come on God's holy Sabbath; and that God so ordered it that Christ should rest from all his works on his holy day, was without doubt, to fulfill some glorious event yet to come.
Now, friend Timothy, if you will not reverence God's holy Sabbath and commandments according to the clear precept, do you let them alone, if you do not want a worse thing to befal you, for just so sure as you fight against them they will destroy you. This beating the air, is some like daubing with untempered mortar; you cannot make any of it stay put. If I were in your place, I should a great deal rather have been fast asleep than to be caught in such heaven-daring business—fighting against God! This looks like "following anything but 'the word of God and sound reason.'"
During '43 and '44, Dowling, Stewart, Colver, Chase, Bush and others, took their stand against William Miller and his brethren, to demolish Daniel's vision of the 2300 days. You remember that no two of these agreed, but each started upon a theory of his own; but God's children were united and on the one point, and therefore triumphed over them all. Now you leading men are acting the drama over again, with regard to the Sabbath and commandments of God. See how it looks; William Miller believes the first day is the Sabbath; J. V. Himes believes in selecting any day, just as you are persuaded, but still calls the first the Sabbath; Joseph Marsh is not particular, don't believe there is either law, Sabbath or commandments—says we are under the law of grace; but still he will have it, that Sunday is the Sabbath! you say the first day is the seventh of the Lord our God, but it is not the Jewish Sabbath,—that is; the one which is in the decalogue. It is something new—I don't understand you; don't think you can make your brethren understand it, either. J. Turner says the first day is the true seventh-day Sabbath! D. B. Wait says the commandments are right, but the first day is the true seventh-day. Barnabas says "the Jews were right in killing our Lord for a notorious Sabbath breaker, if he did not abolish all the law when he commenced his ministry," three years before he abolished Moses' law. Up starts another mighty man, G. Needham, and says God told him that the commandments were all abolished in 2d Corinthians, chapter 3d. And a great portion of your flattering readers are flying like Mother Cary's Chickens(2) to get into your WAKE to pick up the crumbs! Don't smile, gentle reader, the picture is not overdrawn. These are some of the principal leaders in the second advent; they will tell you to your face that they have renounced all sectarian creeds and formulas, and believe every word of God. Now the "great sticklers for the seventh day," are all united on the Sabbath and commandments; they believe God, if they keep his Sabbath, that they shall be sanctified and ride upon the high places of the earth.—Ezekiel and Isaiah. They believe Jesus, that the law and the prophets hang upon the commandments, and that the keeping of them will give eternal life and great esteem in the reign of heaven. This carries them beyond the Jewish, Gospel, and all other dispensations. See also Rev. xxii: 14. They believe the holy Apostles, Paul, John and James—that "the law is holy, and the commandments holy, just and good." "Here are they [Jan. 1848] that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." Rev. xiv: 12. "If we keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, we are guilty of all." They feel perfectly secure in following such leaders, and they understand that though you be ever so moral in regard to the nine commandments, you fail in the fourth, the Sabbath. They believe this to be the "plain word of the Lord," and on this Sabbath question they will all be united, waiting for Jesus. And just so sure as the first class of expositors were overthrown by rejecting the sure word, just so sure you will be overwhelmed in utter confusion that oppose God's holy Sabbath and commandments, and your case is now hanging in awful suspense. O Lord, let the clear light shine.
A word more—as your wonderful prototype has also threatened to unsettle the world with respect to the history of the seventh-day Sabbath. If he proceeds with it as he has with the unerring word of God, our minds will have to be remodelled, to believe with him. If any of the little flock feel desirous of spending an hour in looking into this subject, I would recommend them to send to the New York Sabbath Tract Society, and purchase Sabbath tract No. 4, vol. 1, 48 pages. This will save the labor of poring over Roman and English history, or of following the sophistical arguments of the blind leading the blind. Much reliance is placed upon the history of the "early fathers," so called, who succeeded the Apostles, to settle the question. We ought to remember that these were uninspired men, and we do not know even so much about their characters, as we do of the uninspired fathers of the last century, whose teaching led us all into Babylon. If the true history of the advent doctrine from 1842 to the autumn of 1844, had, with the subsequent events in our history up to 1848, been published 1800 years ago from the Advent Heralds, and their conductors had been called the fathers—it would have puzzled all the wise heads in Christendom, in this age, to have expounded their meaning; for we see it requires all the energies of the human mind to trace their crooked tracks, even when right before us. For this reason, I have said but little about history; my whole and entire reliance being upon the inspired word of the living God. This, we are told, will make us "perfect and entire—wanting nothing."—2d Tim. iii: 17.
If what I have and may here present in this work will not stand the test of what we have seen and felt ourselves—fulfilling the clear word of God in these last days, then I shall fail in my object of comforting and strengthening the flock of God. I fully believe in history, when all deductions are fully allowed.
PAST AND PRESENT EXPERIENCE.
TO WILLIAM MILLER,
Dear Sir,—The time was, when all second advent believers were dear to you, and they called you father and brother Miller. Alas, how changed the scene is now! Jesus says "whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother." They can't believe that you are doing the will of God, as you once was, though they cannot help loving and venerating your name for the great light which you have given—because you are wounding their feelings by calling them Fanatics, Door-Shutters, and almost any thing but honest people, to destroy all their reputation and christian fellowship, and make them feel if possible, that they are worse than the heathen. In this way you have weaned their affection from you, and when you give them an exposition of God's word now, they doubt: say they, he first gave us the light, and we rallied to his standard, because it agreed with the scriptures—but when we were come to the most trying and toilsome part of our journey then he forsook us and joined in with the shepherds and those of like faith, to berate us. But we soon learnt from the prophets that there would be a people in the last days, answering this description, that God had promised to save, called Outcasts!—Jer. xxx: 17; Psl. cxlvii: 2. Now you are encouraging these same deniers of our faith to be peaceable; for—say you—we shall soon get into the kingdom of God. Methinks if we should all meet there under existing circumstances, there would be a great deal of confessing before we could be reconciled to listen to each other's joys. But it will not be so; if you and your brethren, and the outcasts too, are saved, then I predict that we shall have to stay here until a perfect reconciliation takes place. When that will be, I cannot tell, for in my judgment the gulf between us has been widening for the last three years. Now, I prefer to remain on that side of it with the Outcasts, for they have the promise that they shall be gathered. When we made our sacrifice during a cry at midnight, we considered and were fully persuaded that we were doing our last work, and surely that would be done the best of any work. Then of course we had no right whatever to take back the sacrifices we then made, and rob God. We were fully aware that our disappointments would not change our course, for if we were ever saved it must be by our onward course. But those with whom you were associated sounded the retreat, and all that did not follow in their train have been subject to your unsparing epithets.
If you knew as much about this afflicted and torn people, (whom you have been the instrument in leading out into the Philadelphia state of the church, and then leaving and driving them from you,) as I do, you would shudder to appear before Him who has promised to be a Father to them and keep them. The principal cause of many offences which they committed were from bad teachers and teaching. You have a sample here in this work. (We have no wish, neither do we uphold any one who does not follow the teachings of the sure word.) I think you have listened too much to them.
If I could just take you with me to some of the stopping places of these people, and show you their scanty wood piles at this inclement season of the year, and then to the barrels which once held their beef, pork and flour, together with the scanty subsistence they now have, and with no earthly prospect of another supply, only as their trust is in the living God, in whom they had committed their all, because of their honest sacrifice and anxious waiting for their coming Lord; turned out of their former employment and reproached for keeping God's holy Sabbath day; whipped by cruel, unmerciful men for shouting the praises of their God and king, and still persevering in their faith, &c. And then, for a contrast, to step on board the cars and be rolled away to your own comfortable and commodious house, with well stocked barn and granaries, beef and pork barrels—the produce of your own valuable farm—with all things that heart could wish for, and set down by your comfortable fire with your family, (all believers with you in the coming of Jesus,) and recount to them the strange scenes you had witnessed among an afflicted people, who once listened with anxiety and delight to every word you had to say about the second coming of Jesus, and they were so delighted with this, to them, joyful news, that they wanted to hear about it all the time. We may imagine your conversation to proceed somewhat in the following strain:
"You remember how elder Himes used to insist on my going with him from city to city, and from state to state, because of the people's anxiety to hear me preach about the coming of Christ in 1843 and '44."
"Yes, father, I remember it well—for when I was with you it seemed as though the people were hardly willing to let us come home and rest a little while."
"I know it, my son, and I used to think that God never would have sustained me in such continued and incessant labors as I was then called to perform, if it were not his cause. Why, when I saw the wonderful effect that it produced on backsliders and sinners, in bringing them to God, and the glow of joy that lit up in the countenances of God's honest, believing children, and how they hung upon every word; and then the contrary effect, when some of their learned ministers raised their objections—I said I know this is God's cause, and as it rolled on through that cry at midnight, down to its closing scene, you all remember with what joy and glory I was filled, and how I publicly declared my faith, and stated that 'I might be called a FANATIC, but, I said, call me what you please, Christ will come,' &c. Well, these singular people are some of the very ones that used to hang on my words and others, who preached to them of this doctrine. And during this cry at midnight they made a sacrifice of all they had—(some of them were almost as well off as we are, and some were poor,)—but they offered what they had, and that was all that was required."
"Grandfather, what makes them poor now that had something then? You know the Saviour didn't come then, as you said he would, and that is more than three years ago."
"Well, they thought it would be contrary to scripture to take back their sacrifice, and so many of them have made no improvements on their farms, nor their buildings,—no, they have not even made stone walls! Some of them sold what they had, and have been trying to help the poorer ones, because they said they still believed that Christ was coming, and they would not need it. For instance, they believe what Luke has recorded in his xii: 33—'Sell your goods and give alms; lay not up treasure on the earth,'—they think this must be understood literally! and they have gone off into many strange notions, believing the door is shut, &c. &c."
"Well, how do they appear, father?"
"They do not seem to be, in the least, alarmed at poverty; they are expecting soon to be delivered and made heirs with Jesus, to an incorruptible inheritance that will abide forever. I could get along with many points in their faith, and believe them honest, if they did not make them tests for us; and because we do not believe in the great work that was wrought in the past, and the present truths that they advocate, they have no charity for us. They say we have backslidden and gone into a cold lukewarm Laodocean state of the church."
"Well, father, I believe there is a great deal of truth in their statements, for there certainly is a wonderful difference in our camp and conference meetings, to what there used to be, for if any one shouts glory to God, now, as they used to in '43 and '44, it seems as if the whole meeting was agitated, until it is ascertained that it is one of the deluded ones, it seems as though they hardly dare say amen, either because they do not believe what you say, or for fear they shall be called fanatics. You know how they tried you and how hard you talked to them about it in the conference in Boston, last spring. You thought it was because they had no religion. And then the camp meeting too, at Lake Champlain; I suppose the most of them thought that you were going to prove that the door was shut, and that the past was true; and a good many of them might still have thought so, if elder Marsh had not taken it up and called forth your explanation, in his paper of Sept 28th. For my part, I don't really understand all these things—that as soon as you begin to advocate the past truths in any of our meetings, these editors are either writing or visiting you to explain it more fully in their papers, and then neither party seems to be satisfied. If I were you, I would take a strait-forward course, and try to please God, if I could not any one else."
"Well, my son, you know that these two editors have stood by me ever since 1842, and as for elder Himes, he has stood by me and been my warm and fast friend all these last seven years of joy and trials, and I cannot separate from him. No, I have told him that I would sustain him and his paper if I had to carry down our 'potatoes to Boston,' to raise the means. You see I must stand by him, and he and brother Marsh will defend and justify my course and views of bible doctrine; and defend my character from the aspersions of my enemies, and gladly publish any thing I have to say against the Door Shutters, &c."
"Yes, yes—I know all that, father, but some how or other, these things do not look right. You began with a strait-forward bible course, and it cut like a sword with two edges, and that is the reason why these door shutters, &c., as you call them, believed your testimony, and they think there is just as much edge to the sword now as there ever was. However, you have studied the bible much more than I have, therefore I shall not dispute you, but I cannot see that this people, whom you have been to visit, are so much out of the way for venturing to go forward, after your clear directions to them, soon after the cry at midnight."
But it may be said that these are what are termed the "No-work Folks." No sir, they do not belong to that class, although their views are, in most all other respects, similar. You have been told—or, I have—by one of your traveling lecturers, that there were but twenty-five of them, all told. He said they were proclaiming that they were all that would be saved at the second advent. We have no such view. We believe, what I shall attempt to prove by-and-by, that there will be 144,000 saved at the coming of Jesus. Furthermore, we believe that the same commandment which teaches us to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, also teaches that we may labor the other six days for just as much as we comfortably need; more than that would counteract the direction of Jesus, viz. "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on the earth," &c. This is all right, for our faith teaches us we do not need it. If we hoard up what we have got, it certainly is not selling and giving alms. My opinion is, that this is now to be made clear, and that God's people will be absolutely afraid to be found with a surplus treasure here, when Christ comes. As the keeping of the fourth commandment, in its true scriptural sense, carries us to the gates of the city, so our laboring honestly for what we immediately want, also carries us to that point. But we have no controversy with those who honestly and sincerely live to God without laboring; though they tell us that they have no charity for us, still we believe if they honestly live out their faith God will not condemn them for not working six days.
Your explanation respecting the time that Christ might, or has, began to reign, to prove that you had no connection or fellowship with "door shutters" or their views, is the most enigmatical of all your ideas, since 1845. I refer to your letter in the Advent Harbinger of Sept. 28th. It is endorsed by the editor, and also by the Advent Herald, in justifying the ground you took—and grew out of a report that elder S. Hall of Bangor, made from your conversation and preaching at the Champlain camp meeting. I reported what I heard, and it was therefore stated that I was present. This you could have contradicted, but the editor has since acknowledged his mis-statement. S. Hall is an entire stranger to me. I have written him two letters on the subject, without reply. But it is your own written statement that so puzzles me. You give from 1815 to 1847, thirty-two years, for Michael in Dan. xii: 1, to stand up to reign, and you further say it might have been at the end of the 2300 days. This is the first intimation I have had, since you took your stand against us, that you believed the days ended; but the forty-five years latitude for Christ to begin to reign, and your anathemas at those who believe the door is shut, is as incomprehensible to me as Swedenbourgenism—J. Marsh's explained exposition of Nov. 9th, to the contrary notwithstanding. As I have already given my views about the time when Christ began to reign, in Way Marks, page 35 and onward, I may not say much here. Have the 2300 days really ended then, and nothing to mark their end? This was the burthen of your cry. It was also the prophets, and one of them said it should speak and not lie. Then, of course, it would not come silently; but the wise would understand when it did end. You reply, I suppose, according to the 11th chapter of Revelations, from which you was speaking, that the seventh trumpet had began to sound; but was there nothing else connected with the ending of the 2300 days? Yes—the third wo, because that belongs to the seventh trumpet; see viii: 13. Now the 10th chapter, 7th verse, shows us that when this seventh trumpet begins to sound, the Mystery of God should be finished. Oh, you say, that's the old story of 1845. Yes sir, and more than seventeen hundred years beyond that. Here is your trouble; but the most of your hearers, though they may listen with delight to you, yet they preach that the seventh trumpet does not sound until Christ comes to raise the dead. You ought to correct them here, for they are certainly in the dark; Christ is not the seventh messenger.
Besides, if Christ has began to reign as you say, over the nations, he has, according to your showing in Daniel xii: 1, changed his position. If so, how can he be in the mediatorial seat? His leaving that finishes the Mystery, and that forever shuts the door, unless you or some one else can prove that he leaves this work over the nations, and goes back again to finish what he left undone. Now, who is the fanatic here? You cannot make all this work in harmony—it is impossible; besides, you call us spiritualizers, because of our view of the Bridegroom. If we are, pray what are you? and how did you find out that Christ had changed his position, even twenty years ago? or when the 2300 days ended, somewhere since 1843? It really appears to me, that if we had put forth such a view, that we should have been pronounced crazy! and yet your two editors will patch it all up, and throw all the stigma upon us, forsooth, because they think we shall claim you as an Outcast! Their fears are unnecessary—we have no claim to such views; they would only disturb our ranks. We believe that the seventh trumpet began to sound on the first day of the seventh month. Then the Mystery was finished, and the third wo came. The virgins in the parable, were divided—some went after oil. On the tenth day of the seventh month is the day of atonement. At this point in 1841, in the order of the fulfillment of the types in Leviticus and New Testament testimony, (which we have referred to in the Way Marks) Jesus received his Bride and the kingdoms of this world, and entered the Holy of Holies as our Great High Priest, and commenced the cleansing of the Sanctuary. Why? Because here the 2300 days ended:—The appointed time. At this point too, commenced the trial of God's people. Surely you never can forget this, until the trial ends; and that cannot end in accordance with the type, until our Great High Priest and King has finished the cleansing of the Sanctuary, the New Jerusalem, and it is made holy; see Joel iii: 17. Now follow the type and Bible testimony, and it is positively clear that Jesus changes his position from the daily ministration to the most holy place, just as certainly as Aaron did. Here then, in short, is where we prove the Bridegroom come to the Marriage, and the door shut, in the parable of Matt. xxv, and in the types. If it does not prove this in our past history, and that we are now waiting for our coming king, then these types are superfluous. We do not believe that Michael stands up, as you have stated, until he has accomplished what is above stated. We cannot possibly see how he can begin to reign over the nations as king, while he is in the most holy place, cleansing the Sanctuary, and the saints being perfected for the blessing when he lays aside his priestly robes and takes the sickle, as in Rev. xiv: 14; and God speaks, as in Joel iii: 16. If what you have stated, had been even approbated in Oct. 1844, it would have thrown the whole harmony of the scriptures, in our past history, into confusion. As I have said, I will here repeat it, that unless you follow the Bible rule as I have stated here and in the Way Marks, you never can harmonize the scriptures with the past nor present; and I think I shall make it plainer still, before I lay down my pen.
One thing more: Much derision is made about those of our company that have joined the Shakers. I say it is a shame to them first, to have preached in clearly and distinctly the speedy coming of our Lord Jesus Christ personally to gather his saints—and then to go and join the Shakers in their faith, that he (Jesus) came spiritually in their Mother, Ann Lee, more than seventy years ago. This, without doubt in my mind, is owing to their previous teaching and belief in a doctrine called the trinity. How can you find fault with their faith while you are teaching the very essence of that never—no never to be understood, doctrine? For their comfort and faith, and of course your own, you say "Christ is God, and God is love." As you have given no explanation, we take it to come from you as a literal exposition of the word; and although the editor of the Herald, of Dec 4th, endeavors to justify you in your published view of the Unity in 1842, and thinks he has made it clear that you have not changed your views on this subject, just as he is in the habit of doing without your knowledge, but still you have not confirmed it, and your having changed your views once at least since 1844, leaves us in doubt about the editor's remarks. We ask, then, where you find this passage, and if ever love was seen; and if that is what we are looking for from heaven, to come the second time? If so, how will it look, and where is the scripture that describes it? It seems to me that the shakers have a better claim to you than we have.
We believe that Peter and his master settled this question beyond controversy, Matt. xvi: 13-19; and I cannot see why Daniel and John has not fully confirmed that Christ is the Son, and, not God the Father. How could Daniel explain his vision of the 7th chapter, if "Christ was God." Here he sees one "like the Son (and it cannot be proved that it was any other person) of man, and there was given him Dominion, and Glory, and a kingdom;" by the ancient of days. Then John describes one seated on a throne with a book in his right hand, and he distinctly saw Jesus come up to the throne and take the book out of the hand of him that sat thereon. Now if it is possible to make these two entirely different transactions appear in one person, then I could believe your text if I could believe that God died and was buried instead of Jesus, and that Paul was mistaken when he said. "Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus that great shepherd of the sheep" &c., and that Jesus also did not mean what he said when he asserted that he came from God, and was going to God, &c. &c.; and much more, if necessary, to prove the utter absurdity of such a faith. Without going any further, we say that one of two things is certainly clear, that the doctrine of the second advent, which you, and your adherents promulgated down to Oct. 1844, was positively wrong, if you now are right. We believe it was right and approved of God and therefore we fully believe that we are in the right road still, but we have nothing to boast of; our track has been made dark by your opposition, but still we have travelled on, believing that light is sown for the righteous, and we have realized it; to God be all the praise. If you and your adherents could have turned us into your course, you would. We rejoice that we are in the furnace. Our deluded course, as it is termed, arises from three things that we practice: First, we are called Judaizers, because we keep the Sabbath according to the commandment; our reasons for it, are with you. We say further that God set us the example, as he has the whole world. Jesus and the apostles followed, and so do we. Second, because we wash one another's feet, here we have the plain and positive teaching and example of Jesus: "If I, then, the master and the teacher, have washed your feet.—Happy are ye who know these things provided ye PRACTICE them."—[Camp. trans.]—John xiii. Third, that we practice kissing.—Here we have the teaching, of the great apostle to the Gentiles, to churches and households and every individual believer in Christ Jesus; see Rom. xvi: 3, 6, 12-16; 1st Thes. v: 26, "Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss;" Phil. iv: 21. "Salute every saint in Christ Jesus." Now I do not say but here is dangerous ground, and no doubt many have fallen, because they could not stand the test, as Paul's brethren could not the communion; but did Paul advise them to give it up because some had lost their lives for it? No! Well, then, the rule is the same with us, not to yield because some have spiritually died. It is a test of our fellowship for one another, and we may just as well be ashamed of the teachings of the bible as to be ashamed or afraid to practice what is clearly taught. Our course is onward; we leave you say what you please of us. We very clearly see if we persevere in this course, that it will lead us to immortality.
P. S. Some days after writing the above, an acquaintance of mine loaned me the Advent Herald of Jan. 8th, 1848, to read the remarkable dream, which you had in November last. I am glad that the Lord comforted you by giving you this dream. Since I have read it, I do feel a hope that the Lord will yet save you from the delusive snare into which your pretended friends seemed to have drawn you. Joel's prophecy, quoted by Peter, at the Pentecost, respecting dreams and visions of the last days, are not, in my view, fulfilled; nor cannot be, unless it can be proved that the last days are past. I fully believe that God warns and instructs his children in various ways, when deep sleep is fallen upon them. There certainly are some very remarkable cases on record in the Bible, and I as much believe them, as other portions of his word.
It seemed to me that I could see some of the outlines of this dream; for instance, the "curiously wrought casket, filled with all sorts and sizes of jewels, diamonds, precious stones, and gold and silver coin of every dimension and value, beautifully arranged in their several places in the casket." These, I think, clearly represent the special treasure, the jewels of the Lord of hosts, that are now being made up in this day of trial, as saith Malachi; brought out and made manifest by the second advent doctrine, which you began to give to the world some few years ago. Many of them, at that time, bound down by the sectarian creeds and formulas in Babylon, were aroused and won away by the soul-stirring doctrine of the coming of Christ, in 1843 and '44. No wonder that your friends, who then gathered around you, shouted for joy when they began critically and earnestly to examine the curiously wrought casket, (the word of God,) and to see, the more they examined and expounded, the more the diamonds and jewels increased in splendor, brilliancy and numbers, (converts from the churches and the world,) and scattering all over the land, (the centre table,) and in a few years throughout the world, every nation, kindred, tongue and people, (all over the floor and furniture.) By this time the flying messengers in Rev. xiv, began to draw these jewels out into a clear place by themselves, (the Philadelphia state of the church,) saying, behold, the Bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet him! As soon as the disapointment came in Oct. 1844, then your counterfeit coin and immense quantities of spurious jewels (hypocrites and unbelievers) were seen as you saw, scattered among the genuine. Here you felt the great responsibility of the doctrine you had been propogating, and proclaimed that our work for the world was done, and you was grieved to see that so few of the great multitude which had appeared delighted with your doctrine, really believed it. Hence you became "vexed in your very soul, and began to use physical force to push them out." Here, I think is where you changed your views and course, in the spring of 1845, and united with those that have been increasing three to one, as you saw, bringing in dirt, and sand, and shavings and all manner of rubbish and covered up both the genuine and false jewels and diamonds, &c. These I think represent the false doctrine, since 1844, mixed up with almost every thing, and from every where, calling the honest and confiding children of God almost any thing but their true names; thus covering them up with, as you saw, dirt, sand, shavings, and rubbish of all kinds; at the same time so covering up also the spurious coin, (false teachers) that nothing of them, or of that beauty and glory that was so apparent a little while since, can now as it were, be seen, breaking in pieces your casket (the word of God) and trampling it also under foot. Just look at the Sabbath controversy, for one item, and the daubing with untempered mortar, this all absorbing subject of Christ coming to Judgment, and compare it with Ezek. xxxiv chapter, particularly the 21, 22 and 31st verses, and surely it will be admitted that "the Dream is certain and the interpretation thereof sure."
And whereas thou sawest a man enter the room with a dirt brush and open the windows to cleanse it of its filthiness at which time all the people passed out. The spurious coins also arose and passed out of the windows. The room was then cleansed of all its rubbish. All the genuine diamonds, precious coin and jewels, even to those not larger than the point of a pin, were collected, and beautifully arranged in another casket, which, when the man called you to look into, caused you to shout with very joy.
"Know therefore and understand;" that in this day of atonement, while our Great High Priest is cleansing the sanctuary, (blotting out his people's sins,) preparing his jewels (Mal. iii: 17) of all sizes to enter the splendid and most glorious mansions in the New Jerusalem, which he promised them, John xiv. And whereas thou wast not shown in thy dream, how the first casket was prepared, that being unnecessary, as thine own experience for the last few years would clearly come into thy mind, which, when compared with our history, brought to view in the xiv chapter of Rev. particularly 6-11 verses, would show thee how it was done. And the oneness of the angel or messenger in performing this first work, will help thee to understand, how the man (or messenger) which thou sawest enter the room will also be distinctly seen; since our great disappointment in Oct. 1844, operating under the divine guidance of the word and spirit, as far as can be seen through the gross darkness and infidelity that is becoming more and more manifest; through all of their instrumentalities, such as prayer, exhortation, visiting, comforting, writing, especially epistolary correspondence, and all other proper means to ascertain the whereabouts, and the number of the scattered sheep of the house of Israel: even the most lonely and most despised.
Wait patiently therefore and watch, remembering what God has taught in these last few years respecting the clear fulfillment of his word in our experience, and the perfect harmony we are now made to see in place, manner and time, for every point. As he had distinctly taught us, viz. "Which ye shall proclaim in their seasons." "A time for all things." "Every thing on his day." "Not one jot or tittle of the law to fail," even the thoughts of God towards us to be perfectly considered in the latter (or last) days.—Jer. xxiii: 20. As therefore it required the space of a few years to arrange and develope the first casket, so then here likewise must be order and time to cleanse, prepare, and properly arrange, the second casket, by the same kind of instruments.
And whereas thou didst cry to him to forbear for fear he would injure the precious jewels, and he replied fear not, I will take care of them; that is, those that are "keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus," will not injure the jewels (their brethren) for they will act in harmonious concert, under the new commandments of their officiating great high priest and king.
Your cry to forbear, looks ominous of further resistance and as for any of your assistance in collecting, cleansing and arranging the jewels of the Lord of hosts (the last casket,) it looks still more dubious, as it seems you kept your eyes closed (in a quiet state,) until the jewels were all arranged. This is the reason why you did not see the pains that the man (or messenger) took in arranging them.
This I fear, that you will not open your eyes to see this important work until the sealing time, and God speaks himself; but I cannot but still hope that your "shout for very joy," will be one of triumph and redemption.
Several nights before I saw your dream, I had finished writing your letter, I presented the subject of my work before the Lord again, for wisdom to direct me in all that I had, or may write for the benefit of his children, and the vindication of his word. And that I may do so, I asked for a dream, vision, or any way that was consistent with his will to instruct me. The next thing, as near as I can now recollect, was the following
A great tumult behind me, with corresponding commotion in the heavens, so fully confirmed me that the Lord Jesus was coming, that I began to sing and rejoice; very soon the people began to assemble around me. They wanted to hear my opinion about the coming of the Lord. I felt no spirit of communication; my work seemed to be done, except to answer a few questions put to me by one or two out of a great number of backslidden adventists that seemed to be engaged in almost any thing but the work of God. This scene soon changed, and I was in meeting with a large assembly of worshippers. The speaker arose and pointed to a man that he said was under conviction; he seemed very anxious that I should see him. The congregation seemed to have a oneness with the speaker looking at him and myself. I looked, and although the man's head was resting on the railing of the seat, I perceived that it was an old neighbor of mine, who had lived and died a Universalist, several years ago. The preacher's theme, and whole labor, was, look! behold! this man is under conviction! I thought if they knew the man as well as I did, their wonder would soon cease. No other effect was produced, by this effort, other than to remind me of the extra exertions that had been made by the leading professed adventists since the spring of 1845, to prove that God was converting souls under their labors. Here the scene changed again, the house was cleared, and the seats laid away. The room now appeared very large, with a high stage at one end, on which I was standing with an instrument like a mallet in my hand, knocking off the top of a large box. A few spectators on one side, and a large fleshy man, the owner of the box, on the other, apparently very unwilling for me to open it. But it seemed a clear duty that I was fully authorized to examine all contraband goods, and therefore there was no resistance. As the top of the box flew off, this man eagerly seized two or three bottles apparently filled with water and hugged them close to him, silently waiting the result of the examination. The box was about one-third full of what appeared to be wooden feet and legs—it seemed as though they were painted idols. Among them was a very large glazed wide rimmed hat, with the hatters block fitted into it. I looked up to the man and exclaimed! what in the world did you smuggle this hat with a block of wood in it, in here for. The man still grasping the bottles, (I have thought emblematical of the water of life,) darted away to the east end of the room, and entered what appeared to me a closet door painted light blue, from which I could discover no light. Now, dear sir, as I have candidly, and prayerfully attempted to interpret your dream, will you write the interpretation of mine, and receive my love and earnest desire for your perfect reconciliation with God, and all his precious jewels in the last casket.
JOSEPH BATES. SCRIPTURAL OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
The only safe rule, is according to the commandment; see Exo. xx: 8-11. This is the manner the disciples kept it; Luke xxiii: 56. The great God of heaven instituted the Sabbath, or day of rest, when he ended his six days work of creation, rested himself and sanctified the day, and thereby set the example for man. As there was but one man then, it is evident that it was not made for him alone, nor for any particular nation or people that should afterwards come—for he is said to be "no respecter of persons." Some think it was made for the Jews alone; but the commandment refers us to the creation, twenty-five hundred years before there was a Jew on earth. It also requires the stranger (the Gentile) to keep it, and God has promised to make him joyful in his house of prayer, by doing so; Isa. lvi: 6, 7. He has also given this day of rest to the beasts of burden, and makes man accountable for causing them to violate his day. They cannot speak for themselves; how important, therefore, that we should not, in any way, allow our beast to labor on that day. But, says the objector, surely there is no harm in using my horse to carry my family three or five miles to meeting on the Sabbath. The word says "obedience is better than sacrifice." If the meeting cannot be nearer home, and we cannot walk, why, then go before the Sabbath commences and stay until the day has ended. If a general meeting, and all cannot be accommodated, then it would be proper to have it some other day. God has plainly taught us how we shall keep this day: "We are not to do our pleasure on his holy day, but call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable, and shalt honor him, not doing our own ways, nor finding our own pleasure, nor speaking our own words, then thou shalt delight thyself in the Lord," and he will bless thee. See also what to us an unaccountable promise God made to his chosen people, if they would not carry any burdens in nor out of their houses, nor do any work on the Sabbath day: "The city of Jerusalem should stand forever."—Jer. xvii: 22-25; see also how Nehemiah enforced the sacredness of the day,—xiii: 15-21. Moses also, and many others; shewing clearly that God gave more directions about the fourth commandment, and greater promises, than for all others of his laws, and says "Verily, my Sabbaths ye shall keep that ye may know that I, the Lord, do sanctify you." And as I think that I have made it plain and positive from the scriptures alone, that the Sabbath was never changed nor abolished, then how simple, plain and safe to follow the example of our Father in heaven. Surely no living person can be condemned for this. Then let us keep the day as the bible teaches us that he did.
The Sabbath, God says, is a sign and covenant between him and the children of Israel forever; see Exo. xxxi: 16, 17; Ezek. xx: 12, 20. Read the curse that followed their violating it—xxii: 8, 25-28. Do you still say this is only for the Jewish dispensation? read in Deut. vii: 9, the promise to them who keep his commandments to a thousand generations. Suppose a generation to be thirty years: then you have 24,000 years yet to come. But allow the scripture rule, seventy years, and then we have not reached that point by at least 64,000 years. Do you think his mercy will cease then, so many ages after immortality? It is not in the power of man to make a figure of this. Some other passages regard generation and generation, without limitation.
UNDER THE GOSPEL.
Christ, the Son of God, and his Disciples, kept the same Sabbath—(it is folly to speak of any other, the scriptures forbid it.) He was the Lord of the Sabbath, and he said it "was made for man."—Mark ii: 27, 28. For what man?—[See article, 2d Pillar.] He says he kept his Father's commandments. Paul says they are holy, just and good. John says, they are from the beginning, and points a company who are now keeping them. James tells us we are to keep the whole—surely the Sabbath is here; God himself, says it is.—Exo. xvi: 27, 28, and xx: 8-11.
Jesus, then, is our example. Surely we shall not err if we follow him. Respecting working, cooking, making fires, &c. &c., please see my reply to Barnabas. Jesus always preached on the Sabbath, and healed, and wrought miracles, and blessed his honest followers. And I know for one that he blesses them still, who worship on that day; see Mark vi: 2, "And when the Sabbath day was come, he began to teach in their synagogues," "as his custom was." Luke iv: 16, 31, he asked "if it was lawful to do well on the Sabbath days?" If we can do good in like manner, we shall be perfectly safe; if better, try it. Just read in the following passages, how and what he did. His being judged by primitive and modern professors, is no rule for us, "What is that to thee, follow thou me."—Matt. xii: 1-15. He shows that his disciples were "guiltless for eating," 7th v. They were soon into their meeting; see, he's at work immediately, 13th v.; see Luke xiii: 11-17, healing the woman; how withering his reply to his enemies, 14th v. I would that his adversaries were as much ashamed now; 17th v. See xiv. chapter, 1-6, and 7-14; here he went in to eat bread on the Sabbath day; 1st v., here he cures the dropsy and teaches them how to treat the poor, &c. See also John v: 1-20, and vii: 21-24, he shows that all of this is not (servile work) but works of mercy and necessity. He even instructed his disciples, Jew and Gentile, respecting the sanctity of THE Sabbath, thirty-six years after his death, Matt. xxiv: 20. In chapter v, he shows that the keeping of the law, &c., will make us great in the kingdom of heaven, 17-19. Then in 38-48 verses, shows us that under the Gospel, we are to follow his teachings and that we are now about to make the change from the ministration of Moses to that of his own, in the Gospel. Do see how John puts it together, Rev. xii: 17; xiv: 12, explained to be the spirit of prophecy, in xix: 10. Now every law with respect to the keeping the commandments and of course the Sabbath, is embraced in the testimony of Jesus. The special messenger of the Lord to the Gentiles, to teach them the abolition of Moses's ministration in the law, observed the Sabbath in obedience to his master; see Acts xvii: 2: xiii: 42-44, preaching to the Gentiles, 42 v.; xvi: 13, by the water side; xviii: 4, every Sabbath; 11 v. seventy-eight in succession. Luke records these, many years after the law of Moses was abolished. John had his vision on the Lord's day. Jesus never claimed any day for his, but the seventh-day Sabbath, Mark ii: 28; neither did his Father, Exo. xx: 10. Therefore, in following the authority and example of God, Jesus Christ, and the holy Apostles, we shall meet our glorious king with clear consciences. We never need to fear of keeping the holy and sanctified Sabbath day too strict. We cannot keep it holy, nor acceptable, if we employ men or beasts to labor for us on that day, neither printers, postmasters, nor carriers. The day is not ours, it is the Lord's: follow the Scripture rule, and the Sabbath will be a delight to us, and God will sanctify and save.
THE BEGINNING OF THE SABBATH.
Here, also, we cannot be too particular; God claims every moment of his day. Out of one hundred and sixty-eight hours in the week he claims twenty-four, and gives man the balance, one hundred and forty-four, to do his servile work. According to the record of Moses, in Gen. i: 2, God commenced the motion of this Planet from a chaotic state of darkness, and sent it flying round the sun at the rate of about fifty-eight thousand miles per hour. He "divided the light from the darkness, and God called the light day, and the darkness he called night, and the evening and the morning were the first day,"—4, 5. God "made the sun and the moon; the sun to rule the day, and the moon the night, to divide the light from darkness."
Jesus says "are there not twelve hours in the day?" Well, then, there must be twelve hours in the night, to make a twenty-four hour day, and it must be equally divided, for us to keep the weeks correct. For example—say now the first of Jan., the inhabitants of the north pole have no sun, while those at the south have the sun all the twenty-four hours; now as we approximate to the centre or middle of the globe from the south pole, we shorten the days, but from the north we shorten the nights; when arrived at the centre, or under the sun, (the great time piece for the inhabitants of all the earth, Deut. iv: 19,) we find the days and nights are equal. At the beginning of the sacred year, for the passover, the sun rises at 6 A. M. and sets at 5 P. M., and there is not an inhabitant on any part of this globe that can regulate the time for day, or night without admitting the polar distance into his calculation, which is 90 deg. from the centre. This at once shows that all the way we can calculate time is by calculating from the centre of the earth, and also bringing the sun there, if his declination be north or south. Therefore by the same rule (and no other,) we regulate the weeks, and must of necessity begin the scripture day at 6 P. M., or else being in one place, we never have two Sabbaths begin at one time. Says the objector we might begin at sunset. If so, no two persons could keep the same time except they were directly north or south of each other. But can they keep the same time all over the globe if they begin at six P. M.? Yes, certainly. For example.—Jerusalem being about 90 deg., or fifty-four hundred geographical miles east of us, makes a difference of six hours; it is six P. M. with them when it is noon day with us; their Sabbath closes then, six hours before it does with us—but it is at six o'clock P. M. there. And so when the Sabbath closes here, although it is precisely the same hour of the day, viz. six P. M., and in like manner all round the globe. Hence the necessity of beginning the twenty-four hour day at sun set from the centre of the earth. We are told that we cannot keep time right, because men, who circumnavigate the globe, make a difference of twenty-four hours in time. Well, suppose men could girt the globe with their magnetic wires, so that half of the inhabitants of the United States could pass clear round ten times a day, what odds would that make to the motion of the globe. This looks like another snare of Satan. The change from old to new style, they say, if eleven days are taken from the calender then that certainly has changed the seventh day, but some how or other it does not affect the first day, Sunday. How is it done? say some two hundred members in the British Parliament on Thursday, at six P. M. the first day of Jan. pass a unanimous vote by uplifted hands that we drop eleven days from the calendar. Now all the change here, is, it is now a few minutes past six P. M. on the same Thursday night called the eleventh of Jan. God never stopped the earth's motion one moment to listen to them. This certainly did not effect the day of the week, any more than the sun's standing still a whole day, that being true also, at 4 P. M., did not prevent them from counting Friday when it came. If he stood still for twenty-four hours, then no time would be lost to us, for Friday could not come until six, P. M., two hours after he started again. If it had been less than twenty-four hours then must it be regulated. The shadow going back ten degrees or forty minutes on the dial of Ahas, ("not ten hours,") was another miracle, but it remains to be proved that the sun went back. If any thing could possibly affect the time before the christian era, Jesus certainly had the correct time, the Sabbath before he was crucified. Astronomers can find no change since. If the christian era was four years out of date, it does not follow that the day of the week has changed since God instituted the Sabbath in Paradise. Gen. first chapter teaches when the sun is up it is day or morning; when he is down it is night, or evening. God reckoned the first six days from evening to morning; but further on, in the history of the world, he says "from even to even shall you celebrate your Sabbath," or rest. This proves that every day in the week began at evening; so it must continue while we have day and night. Surely God has done all things well, but man has sought out many inventions. God help the little flock to follow the truth, and "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy." Amen.
THE LAST EXPERIMENT ON DEFINITE TIME; THE PROLONGING OF THE DAYS ALL FAILED.
In 1843, the Herald and Midnight Cry for many months stated that all the signs preparatory to the second coming of Christ, were in the past. Soon after the passing of the time in 1844, they changed their minds and told us that we had but "just entered upon the ground of disputed chronology and that we should be justified in looking with more and more confidence to the extreme boundary of 1847, the extreme point of time in dispute."—See Advent Harbinger, Sept. 28th, 1847. On the strength of this, A. Hale came out with his definite time—LAST EXPERIMENT.
Well, we have now come to Jan. 1848, and all has failed. What is the matter? Answer—the disputed time was properly named; there is no truth in it. It is all a perfect failure; hence all their boasting ends with it. We say the cry at midnight, was right, and the appointed time did end in the fall of 1844, as shown in the Way Marks. We will now try some further proof, and still farther that their confessions and reorganization have fairly led them into the Laodocean state of the Church. They say that Christ may come any time; this is the teaching of all three of the Editors, and some of them talk loudly about the ending of the 2300 days, at that point of time. How vain to assert that the 2300 days will end here, the first of January. It is well known that the spring, or fall is the only place ever fixed for their ending.
Those who believe that Christ was crucified any where but in the middle of the week are teaching, as H. H. Gross, that his advent will be in the spring. Those who still believe in the types, and that Christ was crucified in the midst or half of the week can see no place for the ending of the 2300 days or the advent of Jesus, but in the seventh month. Neither can the 6000 years end any where but in the seventh month; the proof is clear in Gen. i: 11, 12, and 29, that the seed and fruit was ripe for the harvest when God finished his six days; proof, Adam and Eve partook of it. It is also perfectly clear that God changed the beginning of the year from thence to the first month, to commence the feasts of the Lord and the types to which we have, and still may, refer; see Exo. xii: 2; xiii: 3, 4; xxxiv: 18; Deut. xvi: 1. This was the beginning of months and the beginning of the year, the passover month.
Now we say here, according to the scriptures, Christ was crucified on the 14th day of Abib, or April, in the midst (or middle) of the week, meaning the last week of the seventy. This is just 486-1/2 years; then the balance eighteen hundred and thirteen and a half years more, would just make the 2300 days, or years. Now carry the half year from the Passover to the fall of the seventh month, then you will have just 1813 full years to come. Then, of course, every full year unto the last, must end here; and it is not in the power of man to make them end any where else, but in the seventh month. Neither is it in the power of any adventist, who says he believes in the speedy coming of Christ, to show any thing about their ending, since Oct. 1844, because we never have, and it is not likely we ever shall know of any other place or point, for their ending. If the beating of the air, three years, has proved a failure, and made the subject gross darkness, what can be expected from a farther experiment. If any one disputes this point, he will confer a great favor by showing where they do end.
There is one more point; that is, God's people are now in their trial foretold by prophets and apostles; and in their every day experience. If they deny this, then they cannot look for Jesus, because that trial must take place here in time; and according to the type, it must be while Jesus our great high priest is cleansing the sanctuary—for by turning to Lev. xxiii: 27-32 verses, we see the type of affliction was always on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement, and it continued all the time that the high priest was in the most holy place, cleansing the sanctuary. The reason for this is obvious; if we turn to Lev. xvi: 15—"And he shall make an atonement for the holy place because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins," &c.; see also 29-34 verses, particularly the 30th verse. Then the true meaning of the cleansing of the sanctuary is, Christ our high priest in the sanctuary which the Lord pitched and not man; Heb. xiii: 2, that is, the new Jerusalem in the heavens, making atonement, or blotting out the sins of his true waiting people; and while he is doing this, they are in their trial. "Here is the patience of the Saints," as it was in the type referred to, with this difference—their day and trial and atonement was "from even to even," just twenty-four hours, whereas ours is to be from the tenth "day of the seventh month, until God roars out of Zion and utters his voice from Jerusalem," then Jerusalem will be holy, the atonement will be finished.—Joel iii: 16, 17—God's people be cleansed, sealed, and the captivity of Zion turned. This will be the shaking of the Heavens and the earth, the sea and all nations. Matt. xxiv: 29; Amos i: 2; Hagg. ii: 6-7; Jer. xxv: 30, 31; Heb. xii: 26; Eze. xiii: 25, 28. According to the signs given by Jesus, the next after this will be the sign of the son of man in heaven; "And then the son of man."—Matt. xxiv: 30. But as the world is to be taken by surprise, "crying peace and safety," they will not long be troubled with the shaking of the heavens and earth, it will pass from the mind, most likely, as has the cry at mid-night, so that after this, Christ will "come as a thief." But I do not design now to take up the argument, but merely refer to these points to show our position. For further reference, see Way Marks. I now propose to show the certain failure and confusion of all those Adventists who have denied the past, and the ending of the 2300 days. As I have already shown, they have prolonged, or, as in Prov. x: 27, "added to the days." The 2300 days, all the time from where they ended, Oct. 1844, to the extreme end of 1847, which would be three and a half years. Hosea calls this removing the bounds; well, we see they have finally moved them 1260 days. But God calls to Ezekiel and says: "What is that proverb that ye have in the land of Israel, saying the days are prolonged, and every vision faileth. Tell them therefore, thus saith the Lord God, I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel, but say unto them the days are at hand and the effect of every vision, for there shall be no more any vain vision, nor faltering devination within the house of Israel; For I am the Lord, I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; It shall be no more prolonged, for in your days, O rebellious house, I will say the word, and will perform it, saith the Lord God" xii: 22-25. Three things here we notice; first, that the effect of every vision is to fail with the rebellious house of Israel. This, then, most certainly includes the effect of Daniel's vision on the second advent believers, it is the effect of every vision. The effect of John's vision fails with this. Now we actually know that the effect of Daniel's vision since 1842, has caused the whole world to tremble. We have no account in history that any vision, or all the visions of the prophets together, ever began, as it were, to have such an EFFECT as was produced down to Oct. 1844. From that time the effect began to cease. Second, here at the end of the prolonging of the days then, of this vision, God is to speak. It is well known that he never has spoken to the world since these prophets were born; therefore this is in the future, and right here at this point of time, and after this effect, and before the coming of Jesus. Third, then these days spoken of here are no other than the days of Daniel's vision, to measure time, for Ezekiel's vision nor any other vision given to the prophets, have chronological time to mark their fulfillment, save Daniel's and John's. Respecting the rebellious house of Israel, the prophets plainly and emphatically describe them to be in these last days, according to the texts above. The 27th and 28th verses of this xii chapter of Ezekiel, is more emphatic still: "They of the house of Israel (same rebellious house,) say the vision that he seeth is for many days to come, (yes, it is already advocated that it is thirty years, in the future,) he prophesieth of the times that are far off." God says "there shall none of my words be prolonged any more, but the word which I have spoken shall be done saith the Lord God." Here, then, if we will believe God, no man after the prolonging of the days shall do it any more; that is, after the effect of the vision. What is the sign? Answer—God says, He will SPEAK. This, then, will end all the controversy. Now our history fully proves that the prolonging of the 2300 days with the effect of the vision, is claimed, to the end of the Jewish year of 1847, this spring. Now mark this! The rebellious house continue to say that these days, say Daniel's 2300, will not end until the coming of Christ, and he may come any time. I think I have proved conclusively that the 2300 days cannot end any where but in the seventh month; and the above scriptures and our history do clearly show that they have ended, and the time has been prolonged to the end of 1847. Now the seventh month 1847, is past, and this was the last point in their land marks, where the types, or seventy weeks shows they could end. It is impossible for any man to show their ending in the coming spring; and they have by their own showing forever shut themselves out for saying it will be in the fall of 1848, because this spring is the very extreme point to which the days are, or can be, prolonged. Here then, I say, according to the heading of this article, their last experiment fails, and fails them forever; they have no point to guide them to now, it is all gross darkness. Now if this is what the Bible Advocate calls "following the word of God and sound reason," I am glad that the shut door and Sabbath believers, are on the other side of the gulf, with "light in all of their dwellings."