text:
                                    A

                               Vindication

                                  of the

                           Seventh-Day Sabbath,

                                 and the

                           Commandments of God:

                        with a further history of

                          God's Peculiar People,

                            from 1847 to 1848,

                             By Joseph Bates.

                   1. "No God but me thou shalt adore;

                     2. No Image frame to bow before;

                    3. My Holy Name take not in vain;

                   4. My sacred Sabbath don't profane;

                    5. To parents render due respect;

                   6. All murder shun and malice check;

                7. From filth and whoredom base, abstain;

                   8. From theft and all unlawful gain;

               9. False witness flee and slandering spite;

               10. Nor covet what's thy neighbor's right."

                               New Bedford

                        Press of Benjamin Lindsey

                                   1848

CONTENTS

Preface.
The Sabbath Controversy.
Barnabas Against The Sabbath.
To The Editor Of The "Advent Harbinger."
To the Editor of The Bible Advocate.
Past And Present Experience.
Joseph Bates. Scriptural Observance Of The Sabbath.
Under The Gospel.
The Beginning Of The Sabbath.
The Last Experiment On Definite Time; The Prolonging Of The Days _All_
Failed.
Christ's Second Coming To Gather His People.
A Correction.
Seventh & Fourteenth Of Revelations.
Footnotes

PREFACE.

TO THE LITTLE FLOCK:

I DEDICATE to you the following pages, with my continued prayers to God,
through our Great High Priest and coming King, that they may, in
connection with God's Holy Word and guidance of the Divine Spirit, enable
you more clearly to discover the deceptive arts of the Devil, and the
agents he is employing in these last days, to betray and ensnare you in
his (almost) innumerable and complicated variety of sins and snares; and
see your true position _just here_ under the HIGH LANDS of IMMORTALITY! Do
not forget, while seeking to understand the Scriptures with a simple and
honest desire to live _here_ by every word of God, to read again and again
the warning that God in his infinite mercy gave to Jesus more than fifty
years after his glorious resurrection and triumphant ascension to his
Father's seat in his Sanctuary in the heaven of heavens; and he sent it by
his angel, who presented it before John in holy vision, recorded in his
Rev. xii: 13 and 17, and in xvi. chapter, first part of the 13th, and 14th
and 15th verses. You will see the opening developement of these very
things in the work before you. None will fully realize them but those who
are keeping _all_ of the Commandments of God, especially his Holy
Seventh-day Sabbath. Without fear of contradiction here or hereafter
before the great WHITE THRONE, I tell you there is not an Advent paper
(that I have heard of) published in the land, that is leading to the
kingdom. I do not say but what they publish many truths; but their
heretical doctrines will, if followed, never, no never, lead you to God!
And as you pass along through these peace and safety _valves_ in your
prophetical history, watching and anxiously waiting for God to give the
fourth sign of the coming of Jesus by shaking the heavens and earth, the
sea and all nations, and give you the _time_ of Jesus' coming, you will
more clearly discover the widening track these advocates are pursuing with
almost to a _unit_ every professed advent minister in their train. You
will also see that the _Waymarks_ and high heaps in your pathway, _past
and present_, are the only sure earthly guides to the peaceful haven of
eternal rest. From my watch-tower I have discovered and pointed out to you
some of the devouring WOLVES in sheep's clothing. Let us avoid them, and
live prayerful, humble and watchful, for more will yet be seen, and
perhaps start right out of your midst!

As I am unable to pay the Printer, your means--as God has given you
ability--will be needed. I trust that God's true children are ready.

Fairhaven, Mass. Jan. 1848.
J. B.

THE SABBATH CONTROVERSY.

Once more I feel constrained to speak in vindication of the Sabbath of the
Lord our God. I have been privileged to read about all the articles which
have appeared in the BIBLE ADVOCATE, both for and against the Seventh-day
Sabbath, for about four months past; and occasionally a thrust and a
challenge from the Advent Harbinger, declaring that the law of God was
abolished more than eighteen hundred years ago, and that we have since
that time been under grace. The most that I have feared in this
controversy was, that it would not be continued long enough to bring out
the whole truth, to the utter confusion and dismay of these professed
Second Advent Sabbath breakers. One trait in their characters is now
pretty clearly developed, that is--they are Sabbath haters! The law of God
is nicknamed by them, the "Jewish Ritual," the "Jewish Sabbath," the
"Sabbath of the old Jews," &c. &c., thus virtually showing up their
characters in these perilous times, according to Paul, as covenant
breakers, boasters, proud, blasphemers, denying the righteous law of God,
and yet professing to believe the whole word of God. "As Jannes and
Jambres withstood Moses" so do some of these leading men resist the truth.
"A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land, the prophets
prophecy falsely and the priests bear rule by their means, and my people
love to have it so; and what will ye do in the end thereof?" Answer--"The
soul that sinneth, it shall die." I think it is becoming very evident that
they are fulfilling Rev. xii: 17, and xvi: 13, first clause. None others
so likely to deceive as these, because of their position in the near
coming of the Saviour. It amounts to almost an impossibility to get
_their_ definition of the _Law and Commandments_. One class will tell you
that the old and new testaments are the Word and Commandments of God. A
second will tell you that the new testament contains all the commandments
and teachings that are now required of us. I was informed of a company of
professed advent believers, not thirty miles from this, having become so
alarmed or tenacious, that they would not carry the old testament with
them to meeting on the first day. There was nothing in it, however, that
they feared but the commandment to keep the Seventh-day Sabbath. A third
class will tell you that baptism, the Lord's Supper, washing one another's
feet, holy greeting, and all the commands which are given, are
commandments. Joseph Marsh, editor of the Advent Harbinger, says we are
not under the law (of Moses) but under the law of grace, the new
testament. Now the Apostle James has given us a test which will utterly
confound all such unscriptural arguments, viz.: "Whosoever shall keep the
whole law but shall fail with respect to one precept hath been guilty of
all."--[_Macknight's trans._] Now to make it still plainer for us, he says,
"For he who commanded do not commit adultery, hath commanded also, do not
kill. Now if thou commit not adultery, _but killest_, thou hast become a
transgressor of the law." Now I ask in all candor which of these _five_
are right? You answer, James, the inspired one. Well, does he justify
either of the other four? You answer no, for he has directed us to the
tables of stone, the ten commandments in the law, recorded in Exodus xx:
1-17. This is the true source. Is it doubted? Then here is the testimony
of Jesus in Matt. v: 17-19. Now read the 21st and 27th verses--the very
same ones James has quoted. See also the 33d verse, the third precept.
There are several others if required, but surely these two are clear.
Certainly no one will doubt from the above testimony but what the ten
commandments in the decalogue are all and the only ones that man is
required to keep, with the exception of the new one in John xiii: 34,
given for the church of Christ. But J. Marsh says, it is clear that all
the ten commandments in the decalogue were abolished at the crucifixion of
Christ. So says every one that takes this stand, and they quote for proof
2d Col. 14-17. But it happens very unfortunately for them all that James
saw his master crucified and his testimony is dated A.D. 60, about
twenty-nine years beyond their point of time, and shows us that the
commandments were as much enforced then and ever would be, as they were
when his master was crucified twenty-nine years before. Now I say that
this testimony pointedly and positively condemns them and will condemn
them at the judgment. For proof of this I appeal to the teachings of our
Lord Jesus Christ, what we must do to be saved, "_If thou wilt enter into
life, keep the commandments._" But some will say James called it the law,
therefore you must so expound it. I will let God and Jesus do that: God
says positively that the keeping of the Seventh-day Sabbath is my
_commandment and my law_. Exod. xvi: 28, 29. So he has in other places
taught us respecting the whole decalogue, and so in like manner does
Jesus. Read the same question and answer recorded in Luke x: 25-28: "WHAT
SHALL I DO TO INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE?" Jesus asks him what is written in the
LAW. He repeats the words of Jesus recorded in Matt. xxii: 36-40, or, in
37-39th verses. "_And_ (Jesus) _said unto him, thou hast answered_ RIGHT
_this do and_ THOU SHALT LIVE." Now, if you want it still clearer, read
Matt v: 17-19. Law and commandments are here too, synonymous: "Whosoever
therefore shall break one of these least [_laws_] commandments, and shall
teach men so, shall be in no esteem in the reign of heaven, but whosoever
shall _practice_ and teach them shall be highly esteemed in the reign of
heaven."--[_Campbell trans._] That he is speaking of the law of
commandments in the decalogue is positive and clear from the 21st, 27th
and 33d verses. That he means the whole, is also clear from this and the
above quotations in Matt. xxii. and Luke x. Now if the keeping of the
commandments will secure us eternal life, and the violation of them render
us of no esteem in the reign of heaven, how can those enter there who do
not keep them, and especially such ones as Joseph Marsh and his adherents,
who are teaching the world that there are no commandments, and are
endeavoring to dissuade and discourage and reproach all of God's honest
children, who are striving to be highly esteemed in the reign of heaven.
Does not the Saviour's language as clearly apply to them now as it did
when he was permanently establishing and confirming this covenant, the law
and commandments of God, "putting them into our minds and writing them on
our hearts." viz.: "Why do ye also transgress the commandments of God by
_your_ tradition? Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophecy of you saying,
this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with
their lips," [They are advocating his speedy coming to judge the world.]
"but their heart is far from me. But _in vain_ they do worship me
_teaching_ for _doctrines the commandments of men_." Oh, but say some, we
believe that the commandments are as valid now as they ever were. Why do
you then constantly and perseveringly reject, scoff at, and sneeringly
deride, and denounce, those that are as honest as you are, while they are
endeavoring to keep the fourth commandment just as God had directed them?
When you have been so repeatedly shown by their writings, drawn from the
clear word that the fourth commandment is not abolished and _never_ has
undergone any change more than the other nine, and that there is no other
weekly sabbath recorded or intimated in the old and new testaments. If you
will follow such downright infidelity as is taught in _all_ the second
advent papers respecting God's holy sabbath, and still continue to
stigmatize the holy law of God, how can you expect to be treated otherwise
than the rebellious house of Israel, and be made to feel in a very little
while from this, all the horrors of a guilty conscience, urging you to do
that which you now detest and abhor: even to come and bow at the feet of
these very despised--as you are now disposed to term them--"_door
shutters_," "_mystery folks_," "_Judaizers_," "_feet washers_," "_deluded
fanatics_," _&c._ _&c._ See Isa. xlix: 23, and lx: 14; Rev. iii: 9. Here
your characters are delineated. You say no, these mean the nominal church.
It is not so. _They_ have rejected the message of the second advent. And
_you_ since that time (1814) have rejected the word of God. Our testimony
will not be rejected when called for that you with us left them with all
their creeds and confessions of faith and professed to take the whole word
of God for our rule of faith and practice. This then is your clear
position, even while opposing the commandments of God. If you ask why I
speak in such positive terms about or concerning the commandments of God,
allow me to cite you to our history, Rev. xiv: 12. Is not this positive
proof?

Also in xii: 17. Do you not read your own characters as described above,
on the remnant of the last end? and are not these individuals who enter
the gates of the city the same remnant that are at last saved by keeping
the commandments? xxii: 14. Does not the 15th verse describe those who are
left out, "and whosoever loveth and maketh a _lie_." How perfectly this
compares with what I quoted above, Rev. iii: 9. See also 1st John ii: 4.
"He that saith I know him and keep not his commandments is a LIAR and the
_truth_ is not in him." You will possibly say the three texts which I have
quoted in Rev. xii., xiv. and xxii., have no reference to the Sabbath.
When I come to treat on the xiv. of Rev. I will look at this point. But
allow me to state here, that the first three commandments in the decalogue
have never been a subject of dispute (_separately_) in Christendom, while
the fourth _has_ been for fifteen hundred years. We know positively that
this is true in our second advent experience. Therefore it is plain that
by keeping the fourth commandment or the seventh-day Sabbath as it stands
recorded, and in the very time too in our history, we are clearly
fulfilling the prophecy, viz.: "Here is the patience of the saints, here
are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." Allow
me to state my conviction here with reference to the great mass of advent
believers especially, that if they could quietly dispose of the
seventh-day Sabbath and sink it with the Jewish rituals, then they would
never raise their voice against the other nine commandments of God. This,
then, is the evident reason why they are wielding their puny weapons to
smite down the only foundation that upholds the old and new testament. It
would be much easier work for them to stop the raging of the hurricane.
God has them in derision, he will laugh them to scorn. But I must pass to
the examination of this subject, as I intimated in the beginning.

IS THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK THE SEVENTH?

Before entering upon this subject, it will be proper for me to state, that
some time last August the editor of the Bible Advocate, being pressed by
his brethren to open his columns for the discussion of the Sabbath
question, rather reluctantly complied, by first giving his views against
it. He stated that he should first give C. Stowe's view, in the
affirmative, covering the whole ground, and then the view of some other
writer in the negative, before he published any thing more on the other
side, and so on. Sister Stowe's piece, accompanied by the views of the
editor, appeared in the B. A., Sept. 2d, 1847. C. Stowe sent the editor
two articles, as she says. The editor saw proper to publish her second
article and withhold the first, for purposes best known to himself.
Perhaps it was considered objectionable, as the editor of the Advent
Harbinger had refused to publish it for her. So for some reason or other,
only part of the ground was covered, and not one candid objection or
examination offered to her second, except by a certain character, who,
apparently, was ashamed to have his real name known among honest seekers
for the truth. So far as the subject has advanced, J. Croffut, of N. Y.
city, J. B. Cook, of New Bedford, Mass. and A. Carpender, of Sutton, Vt.
have spoken in the affirmative. The negative is advocated by the editor,
Joseph Turner and Barnabas, and perhaps two others; besides what has been
teeming from the Advent Harbinger, in the negative. Now, I do not
re-examine Turner and Barnabas, because they have not been ably replied to
by J. Croffut, J. B. Cook and C. Stowe of N. H., but because I see the
necessity of taking up the subject in a different form, without being
restricted, as all generally are, who write for papers. Another important
point which governs me, is, that all the little flock may understand the
true bearings of the subject, for there are undoubtedly a great many that
do not see the Bible Advocate, and because I felt like taking a part in
this great subject, in which I feel deeply interested, and I see from the
commencement that I was excluded from that paper, by the statement that C.
Stowe would cover the whole ground in the affirmative. I furthermore
perceived there were additional objections to their unscriptural views,
which continued to be presented to my mind.

JOSEPH TURNER in attempting to prove that Sunday, the first day of the
week is the seventh day of the week, and therefore the proper Sabbath, has
failed to make out his case. His proposed foundation is from Matt. xii:
39, 40. "But he answered and said unto them, an evil and adulterous
generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it,
but the sign of the prophet Jonas, for as Jonas was three days and three
nights in the whale's belly, so shall the son of man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth." He says, "to rear the temple of
this body in three days, or to remain in the heart of the earth three
nights and to rise the _third_ day was, according to the above scripture,
to be a sign. I will now prove by Christ and his disciples that this sign
was literally given, and that he arose, not the second, but _third_ early
in the morning." This statement is not true. The above scripture states
_three_ days, and not as you say you will now prove _in_ three days. If it
proves any thing, it proves three whole days, and then of course the
Saviour would rise on the fourth day. This, according to your mode of
calculating, would make the seventh day come on Monday. If you want the
third day, or within three days, why not take as many as you need for your
argument, from the eighteen other texts, and not take this isolated one,
and then pervert it, as you have done. The only object that I can see, in
your perversion of the text, is to prove, as you say, that Jesus was three
nights in the heart of the earth, viz.: Friday night, one; Saturday night,
two, and Sabbath night, three. You say, "that Christ was actually raised
the _third_ day and not the second, as tradition holds it." I am not aware
of any such tradition. That would be perverting the whole eighteen texts
instead of the one you have done. But that he was raised the third day,
and that third day was the first of the week, is the joint testimony of
the four evangelists, Matt. xxviii: 1; Mark xvi: 2; Luke xxiv: 1; John xx:
1. But let us see how you have obtained these _three_ nights as stated
above, which, as you say, "proves triumphantly that 'OUR SABBATH' is the
seventh day." First read the second paragraph in your P. S., where you
have attempted to pervert the plain and clear testimony of Luke, in chap.
xxiii: 54, 56. Here you stated one scriptural fact: That the Sabbath
always commenced at evening. "From evening to evening shall you celebrate
your Sabbath." Then, as a most natural consequence, the next day would
begin where the Sabbath ended, and so of every other day thenceforward, or
chaos and confusion would follow. This also perfectly agrees with God's
manner of commencing time at the creation: "The evening (first,) and the
morning is the first day," &c. Now as you have shown that Friday was the
first day of the crucifixion and that it was so far spent and passed away
at the time our Lord was buried, that the women could not have got home
and prepared spices, (which probably was not more than twenty minutes
labor,) before the next day began. How, and by what authority do you claim
Friday night? Does Friday night come after twenty-four hours of that day
are spent? You see how difficult God makes the way of transgressors. You
may reply that you made a mistake. Will you allow me to tell you where
your mistake commenced on this subject. If I am not very much mistaken it
was when you gave up keeping the true seventh day, the only historical,
chronological or biblical day of the week ever given to man. Well, you may
say, I have made some converts. True--but they are also deceived, and many
very likely rejoicing in it like D. B. WYATT, who seems to have swallowed
the whole, and is endeavoring, with the assistance of the Advent
Harbinger, (although they are at antipodes respecting the commandments of
God,) to spread the glad tidings far and wide. This editor is in no wise
particular about men and measures to accomplish his Jesuitical purpose, to
annihilate the very foundation and superstructure of the Bible, "the
commandments of God." Matt. xxii: 40. This wonderful piece of Advent
intelligence is recorded in the same paper with D. B. Wyatt's, Sept 9,
1847. See also April 28, page 38. Let it be well understood here also,
that this man and J. V. Himes, editor of the Advent Herald, are the two,
and only two, editors and papers in this country, which William Miller of
Lowhampton, N. Y. recommends to give the light on the second Advent. The
meat in due season.

Your erroneous doctrine is heartily welcomed by some here, and many I
understand in New Bedford, and very likely many in other places. Yes, I
have heard of it away on the Lakes. I was told by one the other day who
had backslidden like yourself, that it was the best argument he had yet
seen. Now if you undertake to rectify your mistake, it is possible you may
destroy all their joy, until some one presents another error--for the
truth, it seems, they are determined not to have. Again, you say, "let my
brethren remember that the law of Moses, made the first day of the feast
of the passover, a sabbath in which no work should be done; this was the
Sabbath that drew on. Moreover, I will here prove that the next day
following the crucifixion, was not the Sabbath of the Lord, which the Jews
at that time kept.--See Luke xxiii: 54." Now, I say if you will read the
next two verses, 55 and 56, which are connected with 54, it will
positively contradict your assertion, for it proves that they did keep the
next day as the Sabbath, according to the commandment, and the seventh-day
Sabbath was and is, the only Sabbath commandment in the whole bible. You
pass this over and cite us to Matt xxvii: 62, 64, and base your whole
proof on _inference_. It is this, that the Jews were so strict and pious
in the observance of the Sabbath that they would not have gone to Pilate
on that day to have asked him to set a watch over the body of Jesus, if it
had been the Sabbath, because it would be an important fact to record
against them. "How easy to have said in this record that the Jews on the
Sabbath," &c. Yes sir, it would have been just as easy for _your_ purpose,
to have said in this record also, that "OUR SABBATH _is the Seventh day_."
Then probably you would not have to answer for the sin which you have in
these instances, knowingly committed. Besides this, you must have
calculated largely on the credulity of your readers, to suppose that _all_
of them would swallow such absurdities. As that men, who had just
committed one of the most aggravating crimes ever recorded in the annals
of history, in barbarously and cruelly murdering the son of the living
God, should then for fear of having it recorded against them as touching
the purity of their motives that they had violated the holy Sabbath of God
by calling on the Governor, on the Sabbath of the Lord God, to set a watch
over their victim, for fear that some of his disciples would come and
steal him away, and thus openly expose them to the scorn of the world.
This is your proof why the next day after the crucifixion could not be the
Sabbath. How unfortunate and trying it must be to you, who, after being so
highly extalled by your hearers in New Bedford, Fairhaven, &c., for your
clear and plain Holy Ghost living and preaching, to have to flee to such
mean subterfuges to establish a position to justify your backsliding from
the plain and positive texts which stand right in your way.

Respecting your text in Matt. xii: 40. If you made use of it as it stands,
it would positively prove the resurrection to be on the closing hours of
Monday, between 3 and 6 P.M. and not in the morning, as every where
recorded. So then, to fulfill your text to the very extent, and have the
resurrection in the morning, it must be on Tuesday morning, for, Monday
morning would bring you twelve hours too soon, only two and a half days
instead of three. This would make _your_ Sabbath, as you exultingly claim
it for your adherents, come on Monday; that is, by your new mode of
establishing the Sabbath. And then D. B. Wyatt, if he followed your
strange view, would have to recall his address to his brethren and change
the time of celebrating the Lord's Supper on Monday evening, and have it
on Tuesday. I presume the editor of the Harbinger would have no objections
to the alteration, provided Mr. W. was satisfied.

I know it is stated that Jonas was three days and three nights in the
whale's belly. I know of no way to prove it but by the recorded time that
our Lord was in the earth. You see that Matthew says _as he was_ three
days, &c. Now for the proof of how long _he was there_. First
testimony--his disciples, Luke xxiv: 21-23. Second testimony--Angels, v: 7.
Third testimony--Jesus himself, 46 v. "Thus it behoved Christ to suffer and
to rise from the dead the _third_ day." This testimony, be it remembered,
was given a few hours after the resurrection, on the same day. Here then
is the proof of what Jesus had before asserted, recorded ten times by the
evangelist, and once by Paul; 1st Cor. xv: 4; Matt. xvi: 21; xvii: 23; xx:
19; Mark ix: 31; x: 34 and viii: 31;(1) Luke ix: 22; xiii: 32; xviii: 33;
John ii: 19. And five times by his accusers, Matt. xxvi: 61; xxviii: 40
and 63; Mark xiv: 58; xv: 29. Every one of these eighteen texts records
the resurrection _in_ three, some of them _within_ three days; and not a
syllable about _nights_. The one in Matt xii: 40, says three days and
three nights, referring to Jonas, as above. Now I ask, shall we take this
one isolated text, out of the harmony of the whole eighteen, _and then
pervert it_, to prove that some how or other the world have lost one day,
and therefore the first day of the week is the seventh. We all know that
our judgment always rests on the majority or weight of evidence. Here then
we have seven to one besides the testimony of Jesus himself after his
resurrection, that he arose the _third_ day, and clearly demonstrating
that he did not lie there three days and three nights, and proving, to my
judgment, that Jonas was also delivered the third day. See other scripture
rules, Esther iv: 16, 17, and v: 1. Here the Jews were to fast three days,
but Esther ended it the _third_. See also 1st Kings, xx: 29, the seven
days ended on the seventh. Also, Gen. xvii: 12, eight days. Lev. xii: 3,
shows the eighth the same. Thus we see that the testimony of Jesus is
clear.

It is clear to my mind that the Lord Jesus was not at furthest, more than
thirty-eight hours in the tomb, and yet he was there, according to
scripture proof, a part of Friday, the sixth day, _all_ of the seventh
day, Sabbath, and a part of Sunday, the first day, which last was the
third day. Proof, Luke xxiii: 54-56. "And that day was the preparation and
the Sabbath drew on." Mark this, that the preparation had come, and they
were drawing to the Sabbath. _See here_, the preparation was always on the
day of the Passover, the fourteenth of the first month. The feast day was
the fifteenth, the next day. Let Moses give the time: "And ye shall keep
it up [the Lamb] until the fourteenth day of the same month, and the whole
assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening." Exo.
xii: 6. The original--see margin--reads _between the two evenings_. See the
same in Num. xxviii: 4,--practiced and carried out even to lighting the
lamps in the tabernacle. Exo. xxx: 8.

Now our blessed Lord expired on the cross at the very time that this
preparation always took place for 1670 years before, namely, the ninth
hour, (Matt. xxvii, and Mark xv,) three o'clock in the afternoon. Then
between the two evenings is just three hours, from 3 to 6 P. M. Keep this
clear in mind and you will clearly understand how the disciples could have
three hours from the death of their master to see him put in the tomb, to
have gone and "bought sweet spices." (Mark xvi: 1,) and be ready to keep
the Sabbath according to the commandment, (please read it in Exo. xx:
8-11,) as stated in Luke xxiii: 54-56. You will understand Mark xv: 42,
"Now when the even was come because it was the preparation, _that is the
day before the Sabbath_," that it was the ninth hour, or 3 P.M. Here the
preparation goes on for three hours, until the Sabbath commenced. You see
he says this was the day before the Sabbath, and when the Sabbath was
passed, early in the morning of the first day, they found he had arisen.
Mark xvi. Here then is the three days: The day before the Sabbath he was
entombed, between the hours of 3 and 6 P.M., and the day after the
Sabbath, the first day of the week, he arose. As J. B. Cook says, I can
conceive of nothing more definite. Whitby and Scott say, "It is a received
rule among the Jews that a part of a day is put for a whole day." And so,
let me add, it is with the commercial nations of the earth. Every bill, or
note, or deed, counts the day of its date and the day of its
extinguishment. For instance, the transaction of an interest note takes
place at half past 11 o'clock in the evening of the first day of January,
1847, and the interest is cast to the first day of January, 1848, the
demand for it would be valid if called for at 30 minutes A. M. after
midnight. Both of these dates are counted days in this and all other kinds
of business transactions, as we reckon time. And I say it is impossible
for any rational being to understand it in any other way. When one day
ends the next begins, and so I have amply shown is the bible rule. Then,
according to the testimony adduced, if the Saviour was placed in the tomb
any where between the hours of 3 and 6 o'clock P. M. on Friday, then I say
that day was as much counted for one, as the day on which he arose; and no
man, not even J. Turner, undertakes to say that it was more than a part of
a day. That this work of preparation was all accomplished before the
Sabbath came, is perfectly clear from the two passages already quoted in
Luke and Mark. See also John xix: 31. Here then the antetype agrees
perfectly with the type, all the preparation work accomplished between the
hours of three and six in the evening, called between the two evenings.
Much also has been said about the next day, the fifteenth being a Jewish
festival Sabbath, and therefore God's seventh-day Sabbath could not
possibly be until the day after. Just as well might it be asserted when
our fourth of July happens to fall on Sunday, that it could not be Sunday,
because it was the anniversary of our independence, but the next day would
be Sunday. This explains all the difficulty. This feast day of theirs
always following the Passover day, happened this year to come on God's
holy Sabbath day, hence the peculiar expression of John, "for that Sabbath
was an high day." God's instruction to Moses respecting all the feast days
is right to the point, "_Every thing upon his day._" Lev. xxiii: 37. You
see there is no provision to defer the Sabbath festivals whenever they
happened on the Sabbath of the Lord our God.

Now I think the above Scriptures do clearly and incontrovertibly establish
the resurrection to have been on Sunday morning, the first day of the
week, and the day before, on which the Saviour rested in the tomb and his
disciples in the city of Jerusalem, was the seventh day of the week, the
Sabbath of the Lord our God, according to the commandment; and the day
before that, viz. on Friday, he was crucified and buried. This clearly
overthrows your unscriptural arguments to establish the first day of the
week for the seventh-day Sabbath.

I have gone much further into this argument than I should, had I not have
heard and seen the incalculable mischief that was being accomplished by
the spread of such an argument; from one too, who is looked upon by those
not personally acquainted with him as an ambassador, fully approved of
God; a pillar in the church of these last days; one who is fully competent
to preach and take the lead in camp-meetings, &c. &c. And still I feel
there is a duty devolving upon me, which I ought not to shrink from,
notwithstanding his high profession, and being fostered, and upheld as a
brother beloved, by the Advent papers.

It is that since the winter of 1845, you have, by your deceptive arts, and
false expositions of God's Word, taught and practiced ridiculous things in
the churches, such as God never has, nor ever will approve. Your
confession last spring in the Boston Conference seemed more like
justifying and exalting yourself from your debased and fallen condition,
than a bible confession, which says, "confess your faults one to another."
But you perceived, I suppose with others, that it had become fashionable
to confess the monstrous errors in our past experience in the advent
doctrine to those who had drawn back and organized under the Laodocean
state of the church. And also, that J. Marsh of Rochester, and others from
different places, were distinguishing themselves by their wonderful
confessions; therefore you also confessed how sorry you were for the
mischief (or injury) that you had done the cause of God by writing and
preaching the doctrine of _shut door_ and _Bridegroom come_. Here you
attempted to put down and destroy two of the most important and prominent
truths according to the types and new testament teaching, with our history
in the past, that is connected with the "twenty-three hundred days," and
"cleansing of, or vindicating the sanctuary"; and use them as a scape goat
to carry off and hide your unholy and iniquitous practices from their
view. Why not confess that after you and A. Hale had published this clear
scriptural view, that you had been so positive that you were right in your
position, that at one of your meeting places in Portsmouth, N. H., you
declared that you was ready to seal it with your own heart's blood, and
that the appointment which you afterwards made to meet at Richard
Walker's, if not, you would state the reason by writing, had been utterly
disregarded, although you had passed through there several times. Why not
confess with contrition your unscriptural teachings and practices? And
lastly, why not inform your listening audience of the wonderful discovery
and proficiency which you had made during that time, in the growing
science of your predecessors, "Jannes and Jambres?" and what a loving
drawing and wonderful effect this mesmeric influence produced on some of
the dear sisters! You was aware that such kind of satanic practices would
not go down with your hearers, therefore you withheld it probably for a
more convenient season. The response from heaven to this confession (I
think) is long since recorded by a servant of the Lord. Isa. i: 10-15.
Since you began to preach in New Bedford, where it was said such a
wonderful revival was following your preaching and practice, that some in
Fairhaven were looked upon as sinners, because they would not believe that
you were filled with the Holy Ghost. Here in New Bedford, I am told, that
in reply to some of these charges: that you had studied or looked into the
subject of mesmerism that you might ascertain the cause, or meaning, of
the delusions practiced by the advent people. I think that by comparing
dates, it may pretty clearly be known that this is one of the first and
principal causes of the state of things now among many in Maine,
especially where your influence was felt. In the course of this
conversation you stated something else, which you will remember, and for
fear, or something else, that it would not be believed, you said you could
prove it by certain persons whom you named. I have since ascertained that
these persons neither _know_, nor have ever _known_, or _have intimated
any such thing_. Now, I ask, how much your confessions are worth in Boston
or any where else. In the name of my Master, I here warn the little flock
to beware of your ungodly teaching.

Since answering your argument on the first day for the seventh, I see by
the Advocate of Dec. 16th, your exulting reply to J. B. Cook. Because he
has not met every point of your twisted, sophistical argument, you now
think it will stand forever. You say "The position _I_ have taken will
stand the onset of _all_ while the eternal rock of inspiration stands
secure; hence with confidence calm as heaven, I take my pen to reply," &c.
We read that "the Devils believe and tremble," while this wonderful man is
_calm_ as _heaven_, because he thinks he has gained one day since the
crucifixion, which would destroy the law of God, the fourth commandment,
when in fact he has only stole six or eight hours. Perhaps he will try to
borrow or take the balance in the forthcoming articles which he promises.
And here he says again, "_the matter shall_ REST _without a_ REVIEW ON
EITHER SIDE"!! "Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher!" Will God's word
forever remain unvindicated, because of your veto? Your one mistake that I
have shown, proves your infallibility. Let me repeat it in connection: In
your text, Matt. xii: 39, 40, it states three days and three nights. This
itself overthrows the whole of your argument--for three days are just as
long as three nights. See how it will work by _your_ rule: Jesus entombed
just about 6 P.M. on Friday. Now count--Friday evening, one night; Saturday
evening, two nights; Sunday evening, three nights. Now for the days:
Saturday, one; Sunday, two; and Monday three. But to make it three, the
resurrection must be on Monday evening, at 6 o'clock, and the scripture
says he arose in the morning! Then if you wait until Tuesday morning, you
make it just three and a half days and four nights, and _your_ Sabbath
commences on Monday. But if you say it must be Monday morning, then you
have but two days and twelve hours. You say this would be the third day,
just as I say--true, but this text says "three days." Besides, you say in
your second article, "some have been so _vain_ on this point as to count
the day of the crucifixion, one; the next day, one; and then the morning
while it was yet dark, one; and therefore the third day. _This is almost
wicked._ Does not Jesus Christ in whose word we trust--say three _nights_?"
Yes, sir, and does he not as expressly say three _days_, too? If we are
almost wicked in counting, as _you_ say, then all the evangelists were,
Mark and Luke especially. I say there is no other rule but the one you
call us _vain_ for using. If it is almost wicked to count a part of the
first day, for one day, by what authority do you count a part of the last
day, for one day? The scripture no where says, _two_ days, and _three_
nights.

And then as I have shown where you borrowed a part of a night, by counting
Friday night for one of your three nights, when you insisted upon it that
it was past, because the disciples had no time left of Friday to even
prepare their spices. Did you not see that if you claimed six hours of
Friday, to break the scriptures, that the disciples would have just as
much time to prepare for the Sabbath? How is it that you do not understand
what the angel Gabriel said should be in the last days: "But the wicked
shall do wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand." I really hope
no one will be troubled with your forthcoming article. It would be far
easier for you to shovel the Alleghany mountains into Lake Ontario than to
attempt to gain one day, or prove that we have lost one.

Your threat about the fallacy of history, and what you will do about it,
is also vain; yet, if you could do so, the bible is a sufficient rule in
this case. You have therefore made but two and a half days and two nights,
and work it which way you will, you will fail. You cannot destroy the
validity of the other eighteen texts.

It is clear that the Jewish feasts always occurred when they fell on the
Sabbath of the Lord. Lev. xxiii: 37, last cl.

BARNABAS AGAINST THE SABBATH.

Barnabas would fain have the world believe that God has made one law which
man could never keep without leading him into bondage. He says, "Sister
Stowe, nor any others of like faith pretends to keep the seventh-day
according to the commandment, that reads, 'thou shalt not do any work.'
Exo. xx: 10. 'Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.' There
stands the command with all its terrible sanctions of thunder and
lightnings. If this command is now in force sister S. and all the rest
must stand condemned at the dread tribunal of God, for they all break that
commandment as much as we who do not pretend to keep it." The speciousness
of B.'s reasoning is a great deal more likely to lead saints into bondage,
than what he has said of sister Stowe. He begins in the very onset to
mislead the mind. He quotes "Let no man go out of his place on the seventh
day," and says, there stands the command with all its terrible sanctions
of thunder and lightnings, and then says sister S. and Br. Bates and all
the rest must stand condemned at the dread tribunal of God, for they all
break that _commandment_. Now I say this is not a commandment, but a
command given to the children of Israel twenty days before they heard that
terrible thunder and lightning at mount Sinai, where the ten commandments
was made known to them by the Almighty God's speaking them all out in an
audible voice, and then writing them with his own finger on tables of
stone. These are all the commandments that God ever gave to man, and they
were as equally binding on the stranger, (the Gentile) that was within
their gates, as on the Jew. Every one can see how difficult it would be
for a man well versed in scripture to remember every direction, or a "thus
sayeth the Lord," for a commandment, especially the millions who cannot
read. They were of that character, of so few words, that God directed them
to "bind them for a sign upon their hands, and they shall be as a frontlet
between thine eyes," ("that the Lord's law may be in thy _mouth_." Exo.
xiii: 9,) "and thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on
thy gates." Num. xv: 38-40; Deut. vi: 8, 9. This, God's code of Laws was
put into the Ark. Deut. x: 5. And he says that "one law shall be to him
that is home born and to the stranger that sojourneth with you." Exo. xii:
49. Now Moses' code of laws was written in a book and placed in the same
ark. Deut. xxxi: 24-26. This law from the xiv. ch. and onwards, and in
Lev. was to be read to the whole assembly once in seven years; see xxxi:
10-12, and Neh. viii: 1-6. Six hours, reading from morning to noon. But
the ten commandments as in Exo. xx: 1-17, can be read in three minutes. If
you want to understand God's code of laws separately set forth and
enforced, see from iv. to xiv. of Deut. His reasons for giving them to the
Jews, vii: 6-8, and x: 22. He tells them they shall not add nor diminish
from them. Deut. iv: 2. (Mind this.) "The man for gathering sticks (either
to kindle a fire for his comfort, or cook some food, B. says,) was by the
command stoned to death." This is all supposition; nobody knows what he
gathered sticks for, or what size they were; he was stoned to death for
it, and so we might be now if the law of Moses was in force. Let it be
distinctly understood, that God's code of laws, which comprises the ten
commandments, does not forbid us to kindle fires on his Sabbath; nor
require us to stay in our houses, nor forbid us to assemble together to
worship; neither does it forbid us to administer to the sick on his
Sabbath, nor do any _work_ of absolute necessity. These I propose to treat
upon more at large, under the head _Scriptural Observance of the Sabbath_.

Barnabas says, "if the covenant is not altered, amended nor repealed, then
it means just what it says. 'Thou shalt not do any work,' stands out in
bold relief against those who talk so much about the command, but never
yet pretend to keep it. If they say they have a right to alter the
phrase," &c. Now we answer, that we never have attempted to alter it. It
is perfectly right, and your bare assertion, in the absence of any kind of
proof, does not, nor ever will prove, that we do not refrain from work on
the Sabbath, according to the commandment, as set forth in the Scriptures.

Two kinds of work are specified or inferred in the law of Moses. "In the
sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," &c. The way this is done, "man
goeth forth to his work and to his labor until evening." This of course
includes from the first day to the seventh. Then Sunday is the first
working day of the six. This is distinguished _servile_ work, because in
Lev. xxiii. chap. and xxviii. and xxix. ch. of Numbers, the Lord's Sabbath
and the Jewish Sabbaths of holy convocations are all brought to view, so
that from the 14th day of the first month to the 22d, is the feast of
unleavened bread with offerings, and fifty days from the wafe sheaf or
resurrection is another. See Lev. xxiii: 16-18, and then from the first
day of the 7th month until the 23d of the same, viz. 1st, 10th, 15th and
23d. The eight last days is a continual feast. Now the Sabbath of the Lord
God must inevitably be included in this last eight day feast of
Tabernacles; once every year, and very frequently on the first and tenth
day Sabbaths, and so from the passover feast to the end of unleavened
bread, always must include the weekly Sabbath every year; sometimes on a
feast day, which John calls "an high day." Now the order of these Jewish
Sabbaths and feasts. God says of them "_every thing upon his day, besides_
the Sabbaths of the Lord," &c. All the work was to be performed in these
feasts, come on what day they did, besides the offerings on the Sabbath of
the Lord. Lev. xxiii: 37, 38. Well, what was the work for every weekly
Sabbath? See Num. xxviii: 9, and on Sabbath two lambs, besides the daily,
which was two more; see 3d v. So we see here were always four lambs, with
the meats, &c. offered every seventh day, and sometimes thirty bullocks,
rams and lambs; and in all of the Jewish Sabbaths except that on the tenth
of the seventh month, it is expressly said "ye shall do no _servile work_
therein." Now all this was work and labor, but it was ceremonial worship
and obedience to God, hence it was not _servile_ work. It is explained in
Exo. xii: 16, "No manner of work shall be done save that which every
_soul_ must eat. That only may be done." What will you do with all these
commands, Barnabas. Did they not have to go out of their places after God
gave them the law from mount Sinai? Did they not assemble for worship? Did
they not prepare them food to eat, think ye, after the manna ceased? and
did not the Saviour say of his disciples, when reproached for eating corn
on the Sabbath day by the Pharisees, that they were guiltless? Was it
wrong to take it without leave? See Deut. xxiii: 24, 22. Was not the work
of circumcision always going on every weekly Sabbath? Now Jesus being the
Lord of the Sabbath, shows us under the Gospel, where he transposes these
ten commandments from the tables of stone, and gives them in our minds and
writes them on our hearts; shows us that this work or labor on the
Sabbath, were henceforth acts of necessity and mercy, instead of _servile
work_ because our mode of worshipping God was entirely changed. Hence
Jesus said, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work." John v: 17. See what
kind of work, xvii: 4. "Done the will of God, finished his work," after
supper. See also iv: 34, and v: 36. See his good works, x: 25, 32. This
then was the work that Jesus and his Father were doing, and for these he
is called a notorious Sabbath breaker. Well he is now doing a marvellous
work. Hab. i: 5, yet ye will not believe. "It is time for the Lord to work
for men have made void thy law." Psl. cxix.

It does not follow that men shall be put to death now for violating the
Sabbath, any more than for violating the first, fifth, seventh, or all the
commandments--for the penalty of death follows the violation of every one
of the commandments.

1st commandment: "Thou shalt have no other Gods." See Deut. xiii: 6-10 and
Exo. xxii: 20.

2d. "Thou shalt not make any image." Deut. xiii: 12, 16.

3d. "Thou shalt not profane my name." Lev. xxiv: 16, 22, 23.

4th. "Remember the Sabbath day." Num. xv: 32, 33, 36.

5th. "Honor thy father and thy mother." Lev. xx: 9.

6th. "Thou shalt not kill." Lev. xxiv: 21 and 17.

7th. "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Lev. xx: 10.

8th. "Thou shalt not steal." Joshua vii: 20, 21 and 25.

9th. "Thou shalt not witness falsely." Deut. xix: 16, 17, 19, 21.

10th. "Thou shalt not covet." Jos. vii: 20, 25.

All of the commandments together. Num. xv: 30, 31; see also Deut. xxviii:
15-67.

If these were all to be enforced now, there would be but a small remnant
of the ten hundred millions now living, left upon the earth. If it is
proper to enforce the fourth, it is the whole. How clear that all of these
death penalties were annulled with the Jewish dispensation.

When Jesus begins to promulgate his Gospel, the stoning system is all
broken up; see his admirable sermon on the mount. Matt v: 38-48. "Ye have
heard that it hath been said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,
but I say unto you that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee
on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," &c. &c. Here we see that
all the followers of Jesus are to be peace men, or non-resistants, an
entire change in administering the law. Says Barnabas, this is just what I
have been trying to make you believe, that the law, _all_ of the _law_
that the Jews were subject to in their dispensation was abolished under
the Gospel, for we are here under the new testament law, (grace). Not
quite so fast: Jesus forseeing such kind of teaching as this, placed the
commandments of God, (on which hung all the law and the prophets,) on an
immovable and fixed foundation and carried the teaching and keeping of
them clear into the reign of heaven; and any honest man who is seeking for
the truth though he be ever so ignorant in other things, will admit, when
he reads the 17-19, 21, 27 and 33d verses in this chapter, the force of
this truth. What an idea that Jesus should promise such invaluable
blessings to his followers after they become immortal only to mislead and
tantalize them. This is the tendency of your no commandment no law system.
Why Jesus tells you that the teachings of the bible have no other
foundations to stand upon. Well the multitude would not believe him then
as you and others will not now. See what confusion and shame they suffered
and bore in withering silence from his simple direction about enforcing
the old law for the violation of the seventh commandment. Here _she_ is
master, "Now Moses in the law, (not God's code of laws,) commanded that
such should be stoned. But what sayest thou?" "Let him that is without
sin, cast the first stone at her." The consequence was that the woman was
left without an accuser. Thus for once the whole multitude were convinced
that the stoning system for violating the commandments was abolished. See
John vii: 3-11. Again, you ask, "What type or part of the law was
fulfilled by Christ keeping the seventh day, or in our keeping it?"
Answer--"Love is the fulfilling of the law." "If ye keep my commandments ye
shall abide in my love, even as I keep my Father's commandments and abide
in his love." John xv: 10. "This is _my commandment_ that ye love one
another as I have loved you." 12 verse. Again, Jesus says in Matt. xxii:
37-40, where he includes all of the commandments that love to God and love
to our neighbor, is the whole law and the prophets, i. e. that this is the
substance of the whole ten commandments. The great one on the first table,
the second on the second table of stone. Paul tells the Hebrews that the
_law_ having a shadow of good things to come cannot make the comers
thereunto perfect. This is the _law_ of Moses. The ten commandments, the
_law_ which God audibly gave from his own mouth, is the one that Jesus
here refers to, and the only one that he kept abiding in his Father's
love. Isaiah says, "He will magnify the law and make it honorable." You
know he dishonored the law of Moses by abolishing sacrifices and offerings
altogether, and nailing it to his cross. It appears to me that any child,
anxious for the truth, would see this distinction. But no, you seem
determined on abolishing the whole. You see that Jesus' commandment, John
xiii: 34; xv: 12, is the very essence of his Father's and is given
exclusively for the church; but his Father's was, and is for the whole
human family, and the fourth contains the Sabbath. Now do you see what
Jesus means when he says he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill,
and don't you understand him to, that this law will stand after the
heavens and the earth are passed away. Here then is how and where he
fulfilled the law, or as you ask to know, a part of the _law_, for in
keeping the commandments he certainly kept the Sabbath; see Mark vi: 2,
and Luke iv: 16, 31. This, then, is the way we fulfill the law, by keeping
the very same seventh-day Sabbath. There is but two codes of laws brought
to view here, viz. God's and Moses'. Don't you see here he has fulfilled
the first and abolished the last. You take this rule with you to your
favorite texts, viz. Col. ii: 14-17; 2d Cor. iii, and Gal. ii. and v.,
where you say the commandments, the law of God, and the Sabbath, are
abolished; and you will find the same distinction. God never gave Paul,
nor you, nor any one else, any more liberty to preach that _his law_ was
abolished in this, or any other way, than he did to preach that there was
no salvation for man. Don't you preach that man should obey the law of
God, and when man obeys as Jesus did, don't he fulfill the _law_? Can you
tell how man can fulfill it without obeying the _whole_ law? You say that
will bring us into circumcision. How can that be, when he has, as I have
just stated, abolished all the ceremonial part of the law of Abraham and
Moses. Again, you say, the only reason given in the bible why the Sabbath
was ever kept was, that the Israelites might remember that God brought
them out of Egypt. Deut. v: 15. Your objection to the answer that was
given by C. Stowe, and reiterating the question, as you have the above
answered one, and challenging all who desire to be under the law to prove
the contrary, in B. A. Dec. 2d, only goes for proof of your ignorance, or
wilfull misunderstanding of God's commandment. If the fourth commandment
in Exo. xx: 11, as she quoted and you dissent from it, is not the reason
given why we should keep the Sabbath on the seventh day, as directed in
the ninth and tenth verses, then it would be impossible to understand the
simple word of the Lord. Because God has used the words "command _thee_"
to keep the Sabbath, in Deut. v: 15, every other word or form of speech
where God requires the keeping of the Sabbath, is made void by you. What
is the signification of commands? Is it not to appoint, enjoin, and
require by authority? Does it not mean the same as to say "Remember the
Sabbath day and keep it holy."--"_Thou shalt not_ labor or do any work on
the Sabbath day." Exo. xx: 8-10. Once more, God says, "Ye shall keep the
Sabbath." Again, "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the
Sabbath--for a perpetual covenant. _For_ in six days the Lord made heaven
and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." xxxi: 14,
16, 17. You see the word command is also used in the 16th verse, for the
fifth commandment, and because it is omitted in Exo. xx: 12, according to
your rule it is not valid. But it is not so--God speaks as positively and
understandingly when he says "_ye shall_," as when he says "I command
you." Again, you say--"If Christ did not virtually annul the fourth
commandment when he began his public ministry, _then the Jews were_ RIGHT
IN KILLING HIM AS A NOTORIOUS SABBATH BREAKER. He travelled about and did
much work on the Sabbath."

In your second article you offer as proof Luke iv: 18-20. There certainly
is no proof of the law's being annulled here. You then quote xvi: 16. "The
law and the prophets were until John," &c. This in your whole argument for
annulling the fourth commandment. Read the next verse, "And it is easier
for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail." Now
don't a law fail when it passes away? Yes. How then can this law fail till
heaven and earth passes? This was virtually showing how impossible it
would be for one tittle of the law of God to fail. Here Jesus reverts to
the seventh commandment, 18th verse, and shows that the law of the
decalogue was what he meant. But he does not say that any law was annulled
here. If you say that any part of the law of Moses was abolished here, you
upset all the foundation that infidelity raises to overthrow the whole law
of God. I wonder that all the second advent editors are not out against
you, for if this be true they have no more foundation for their no-law and
no-commandments of God system to stand upon than many who are hung on the
gallows for venturing to practice after such teaching, by violating the
eighth and sixth commandment. I am aware that their Judge Advocate, Joseph
Marsh of Rochester, N. Y. has filed in his plea, (see Advent Harbinger,
Nov. 9th,) that _we_ are under the law of grace, the new testament, and
not the law of Moses, which he asserts embraced the ten commandments. Why
does not the law of grace save thieves and murderers and liars from the
gallows here, and eternal death hereafter. (Rev. xxi: 8.) Answer--because
there is no _precept_ by which it can be done out of the law of
commandments, which was made for _all men_, Jew and Gentile. How would
murderers and robbers understand their sentence, viz. You are to be hung
until you are dead for violating the law of the new testament, and may the
Lord have mercy on you for violating his law of grace. Stop, says the
American, you are bound to show me the precept. I ask where it is to be
found if the commandments are abolished? Oh, sir, but you have violated
the spirit of them. Well, but do tell me, sir, how I have violated the
spirit of a law that you say was abolished and forever done away more than
eighteen hundred years ago. I am ignorant, I never professed religion, I
do not understand the meaning of grace in the new testament--I pray you,
sir, don't hang an innocent man.

I have already shown what they tell us that their foundation is for the
abolition of God's law; it is in Gal. ii.; Cor. iii, and Col. ii: 14-17.
The very day that our Lord was nailed to the cross--(every writer that I
remember to have read before on this subject begins at the cross, where
Paul directs us to look for the abolition of offerings and oblation,
Moses' ceremonial mode of worship)--but you have attempted, without proof,
to show that this was done three years before, and that without a shadow
of proof that the fourth commandment, or any of them, was done away.

In this second article, you cite us for the same proof to Col. ii: 8-17.
How unfortunate for your argument; first that Christ annulled the _law_,
and of course the Sabbath, when he began to preach, according to Luke iv:
18-20, and xvi: 16. And then in another place quote Col. ii: 8-17, for the
same point of time. How could Christ annul any law twice. First, at his
preaching and second at his death, three and a half years apart. Your
argument is groundless and futile; therefore the uncalled for blasphemous
language of yours, that the Jews were right in killing him (the Son of
God) as a notorious Sabbath breaker, will fall on your guilty head. Hear
the proof: "They that forsake the law praise the wicked.--He that turneth
away his ear from hearing the law, even his _prayer_ shall be
_abomination_." See also James ii: 10. Once more, the law that Jesus says
shall not pass away, &c. Luke xvi: 17, is proved to be the same as in ch.
x: 25-28. Jesus says, how readest thou? what is written in the law? He
answers by quoting the two great commandments in the law, in Matt. xxii:
36-40--the same as given in ch. v: 17-19, the keeping of which _then_ and
_thenceforward_ would make them of great esteem in the reign of heaven.
Compare also xix: 16-19 with Luke xviii: 18-20. If Jesus' promise of
eternal life by our keeping the law of--or, and commandments fails us here,
then all his new testament teaching, the "law of grace," so termed, will
fail with it.

In conclusion, you call us foolish adventists, and wish to know who has
bewitched us? Answer--not the strictly keeping the holy Sabbath and other
commandments, but by listening to, or following such unrighteous and
deceptive teachings as you set forth. No marvel that you would like to
preach it in all the sectarian synagogues in the land, if they would hear
you. Fallen Babylon is a more suitable place for such teaching than you
will ever find any where else. John describes their condition, Rev. xviii:
2. But I pass. There is but one more remark of yours that I deem worthy of
a reply, and I should not most probably have reviewed your articles, only
for the defence of God's law and the suffering little flock, my brethren,
who are endeavoring to stand where John, in his vision, saw them at this
present hour, viz. In their patient waiting time, "keeping the
commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."

You say, "If a tree may be known by its fruits, we have a woeful tree
here. First, _shut door_; next, _seventh-day Sabbath_, or the bondage of
the law; next, Oh, it would be a shame to speak of those things which are
done of them in secret. God grant them repentance which is unto life."
That we believe in the shut door, and seventh-day Sabbath, is true; that
we wash one another's feet, as Jesus taught, and greet one another as Paul
has taught, is true of a great portion of those who keep the Sabbath and
believe in the past and present truth. If you mean these, that it be a
shame to speak of, we answer that we do it openly and avowedly, and teach
and practice the same wherever we go, and prove it clearly by the
scriptures. If there is any thing secretly practiced by us, it is as much
unknown to the church as it is to you. The days of J. Turner and some
other leaders of fanaticism in Maine, I trust, have about all subsided,
since they have crawled into the Laodocean state of the church. If you
know of any thing that we secretly practice in our worship or service of
God, that which is a shame to us, we are not unwilling for you to make it
as public as you please. We have no faith nor fellowship for any such
thing, neither have we any claim on them.

As the editor of the Bible Advocate and yourself are aiming at the one
object, viz. the abolition of God's holy Sabbath, and the treading down
God's truth seeking children; he is approbating and upholding you in your
disguise; we are therefore left to conjecture. From some marks which I
have seen under your two coverings, I am very strongly inclined to believe
that your real name is Jacob Weston of New Ipswich, N. H. If I am wrong,
then what I am about to state will not apply to Barnabas. If I am right in
the real character, then I shall discharge _another_ duty by exposing an
enemy to both God and man, under the cloak of the apostle Barnabas, and
beneath that a sheepskin laced round the body of a WOLF, "speaking great
words against the most high, thinking to change times and laws." Your
unrighteous thrusts, to put down and destroy God's honest children, who
are endeavoring to live by every word of God, seems to be in perfect
keeping with your wayward, backslidden course. It is you, sir, that have
been practising things in secret, which are a shame, and a disgrace, and a
stigma upon the cause which you profess. Now lay off that apostolic cloak
which you have taken to cover your deformed and deceptive arts. The reason
why you have assumed this garb to oppose your opponent, C. Stowe, is to
_some_ very obvious. You knew that she was acquainted with some of your
ungodly proceedings. You had not forgotten the false promises and
pretences which you had resorted to, first, to obtain her money, and then
to keep her out of it. After repeated calls for it, you at length sent it
to her, stating that the reason why you did not answer her letters, was,
because you had not the money, and you did not write her, _because it
would subject her to pay the postage_, as _you could not_! and then in an
insulting manner to dictate a letter, teaching her how she should write to
you.

After this squall had blown over and things had become more settled, a
mysterious letter is presented to sister Stowe, signed Lydia B. Weston,
setting forth your helpless condition--not actually asking for money,
because it would not comport with her severe remark about "_dying
first_,"--but to draw still more on her sympathy, it states that her
husband had fell and lamed, or sprained his ancle, &c. &c. Sister S.,
although about forty miles from this scene of suffering and distress,
requested a friend and neighbor of yours to ascertain what was needed, and
she was ready to assist, notwithstanding all the past. Your house was
visited and inquiry made for the lame man, but he was away. "Well, you
have heard from Washington?" Your wife. L. B. Weston, replied, "she did
not know how?" [Another statement is, "have you heard from Washington?"
"No." "Have you not written to Washington?" (or sister Stowe.) "No."] The
messenger was much surprised! "Well, are you in need of any thing?." "No,
we have all that we need at present!" and she then proceeded to enumerate
all the comfortable things she had.

From this it is evident that your wife was an entire stranger to this
letter and its contents. Who wrote this forged letter? The capitals, it
was said by those who examined it, were J. Weston's, but the hand-writing
was rather finer than his. When you have been told of this your reply has
been that sister Stowe _lies_ if she says that I wrote that letter! It is
all in vain for you to reiterate such assertions. The question is, where
is the person in New Ipswich, whose hand-writing will compare with this
letter, and who is so interested in your behalf that they will even
contradict your wife, who manages your household affairs; and state
falsehoods, and then commit the high crime of FORGERY, by affixing her
name to their assertions, to obtain for you what you did not need; and
among other things, what could they mean by lying so about your lame leg?
If you can find this _daring_, loving, and insultingly magnanimous person
in your neighborhood, do, for the sake of the community at large, expose
him, and let this sister and others whom you have maligned, have their
real name. And then if you go to Nelson again, to preach the doctrine of
the second advent by a notice in the Bible Advocate of July 30th, or Aug.
5th, "Squire Hale will not refuse you the use of the meeting house,
because of said _forgery_." And possibly they may then sympathise with you
more in respect to your poverty in having but one feather bed in your
house, &c. &c., when it is well known that you have three, and other
things in proportion.

That must have been rather a stirring exhortation that you gave the man
who called to see you, a short time since; that the Lord was coming in
about three weeks. Did you cite him to the Bible Advocate of Dec. 9, and
tell him to read the caption that your old friend Timothy Cole had
published for you; that the _time for the Lord's coming was revealed_, and
that you felt so impressed with the truth of the above that you could not
hold your peace any longer, &c. Well, possibly he did feel the force of
the truth, that the Lord would soon come, but it soon vanished from him
when you read the note for twenty dollars, in his favor, which he now
presented, and which you told him was not negotiable, and that there was
no law by which he could collect it. Did you not feel rather singular, for
a professed ambassador of Christ, to be told by this man "how strange it
appeared to him that _you_ should go and put such a note on to an old
woman." [This is an old lady, partially deranged, who having a little
money, finally consented to loan it to him on a note for interest.] It
seems you had consulted a lawyer, to know whether it could be collected in
her life time for her.

Are you aware of the heinousness of these things? Did you ever read the
life of the pious Dr. Dod of England, who was hung for _forgery_; people
no doubt liked his preaching. I know a professed minister, who, not many
years since, was elected pastor of a church, with but two or three
dissenting votes, in a place situated in North latitude 41 deg. 33', and
longitude 70 deg. 53' W., who was told by one of his members, in a church
meeting, that he had committed the high crime of _forgery_, which he did
not attempt to deny. The member for daring to utter this and connected
things, was suspended from their communion until he should make ample
satisfaction. The minister was retained, and a great revival, by his
exertions, immediately followed, and numbers were added to _their_ church.
So, you see, ministers are not to be known by their great preaching and
revivals. "Ye shall know them by their fruits." So, I trust, the second
advent believers will know you hereafter. They will also know that God
never employed a righteous man to stigmatize and attempt to make void his
Sabbath and commandments. That is, and ever has been, the work of "the
Devil and his angels." "Surely the Lord God will do nothing but he reveals
his secrets unto his servants, the prophets." Amos. But "he that turneth
away his ear from hearing the _law_, even his prayer shall be
abomination." All men are liable to err and make mistakes, but when
persevered in, under disguise, they are to be rebuked.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE "ADVENT HARBINGER."

SIR:--After your repeated and unsuccessful attempts to stigmatize, put
down, demolish, and forever abolish the TEN WORDS, the law and
commandments of the living God, the only foundation for the bible, you
come forth in the A. H. of Nov. 9th, and say "We are not under the law (of
Moses,) but under (the law of) grace, the _New Testament_, and now all we
want to know is, does the NEW TESTAMENT _either by precept or example_
require us _to keep_ ANY day as a SABBATH?... We do not want your
inferences, but plain, direct NEW TESTAMENT testimony; nothing else will
do in a case of this character and importance." Your term, law of Moses,
according to _all_ your teachings on this subject, includes the law of
commandments. We have given it to you in our work on the Sabbath, and
again in the Way Marks, pp. 76-78. Why do you still continue to demand
proof, until you have found out some new method to explain those texts
away. It is evident that your object on this point is to confuse the minds
of your readers and not give them the clear word of God. What would Christ
and his apostles have done for proof from the old testament, if your new
restricted rule had been laid before them? and you had told them seven
months previous, (April 28th,) that the law of commandments, when they
were abolished, were incorporated into the new testament, or _law of
Christ_. And now we are under the _law of grace_. It appears to me that
Jesus would have replied as he did on one occasion, "Get thee behind me
Satan." Is the law of Christ and the law of grace, synonymous terms? or
are you so privileged now in the high station which you have assumed, that
you can change the name of _your_ NEW LAW once in seven months, and make
Christ and grace the same. It is impossible for any man to depart from the
clear word and abide in the truth. Call the commandments of God what you
will, and incorporate them where you will, you are bound, as I have told
you before, to show the precept, (i. e. how they read,) and then if you
refer us to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, and the Revelation of
John, you will only point us directly to the ten commandments of God,
which as clearly proves that they are not, nor ever have been abolished,
any more than the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah or Ezekiel; and just so
sure as Jesus has spoken the truth, that eternal life is obtained by the
keeping of them, and that James wrote by inspiration, we are to be judged
by them; and not by what you have misnamed them, the _law of grace_. How
can the commandments of God be abolished, and yet the keeping of them give
us an entrance into the city. Rev. xxii: 14. And yet if they are
abolished, as you assert, who can ever know when they fail in one precept
or when they keep the whole? Your attempt to incorporate God's law,
after--as you say--it has been abolished, and now enforce it without a
precept, because it is all incorporated in the new testament, is a
thousand times more inconsistent than a temporal millenium. "Grace is the
gift of God." Then, according to your logic, this is the law that we are
now under. How shall we enumerate all the gifts of God, and incorporate
them into the new testament? One thing I know, you will never mend the law
of God: It is as immutable as the sun in the heavens! and it would be far
easier work for you and all of like faith to blot out that luminary than
to prove that one jot or tittle of the ten commandments had failed by
being changed or abolished. I intend to prove this from the new testament
as I pass on, and if you and your adherents will still misrepresent the
plain teaching and lead others to do so, then the words of Jesus will
surely condemn you, and you "will be in no esteem in the reign of heaven."

First Pillar For No Sabbath.

There are four Pillars in the temple of your no-Sabbath, no-commandment
system, which we are always referred to as positive proof that you are
right. Now if I can prove from the new testament that they and all others
that you may present, are only your "_inferences_," (and you say you don't
want any,) what will you do? Further--these pillars of yours, be it
_forever remembered and never forgotten_, are fixed at the day of the
crucifixion of our Lord. Say, if you like, it was in A.D. 33. This is the
point where you have to bring your scripture to prove any thing of the
kind, i. e., if you go one week on either side of the death of our blessed
Lord, your arguments or pillars, all fall to the ground. Now, by this
plain rule, we will try the first two no-Sabbath texts: First--1 Rom. xiv:
"One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day
_alike_; let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that
regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord." Read the whole chapter;
Paul's whole argument here is against their feasts, and this of course
included their feast days, which some esteemed and others did not.
"Destroy not him with thy _meat_ for whom Christ died," says Paul, 15th
verse. Compare this with the first, third, and last four verses, where he
closes with "He that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not
of faith," 23d verse, and then tell me if you can, what other day or days
is here brought to view than feast days, as in Lev. xxiii chapter, which
Hosea said were to cease. This same chapter, 3d and 38th verses,
positively designates and separates the Sabbath of the Lord God from all
these feast Sabbaths, or days; also Num. xxviii: 9. Now as God's Sabbath
was not a feast Sabbath, it was impossible to connect it with these. And
that is not all--it is not even alluded to here--only guessed at from among
the feast days. Once set such a rule as this at work and there is not a
law in christendom that would restrain men. For all will have one day for
a holy, or holiday in the week. Now give them, by your bible rule, their
choice, and I don't believe that Satan himself would bring them to order.
Oh, but we have a law that the first-day shall be regarded as the Sabbath.
Well, that is what you now contend for, and so does almost all
christendom, and still it is an unrighteous and an unscriptural law,
because the first day is not, nor never was, the Sabbath. You have no
right by this rule to fix on any day, and yet every body would be right if
every day was kept. But, you may say, it means we shall have no day for
the Sabbath. It does not read so. It says, "let every man be persuaded in
his own mind," and if that were the case, what kind of order would there
be in God's house. I ask if there be a rational being on earth that for a
moment would believe that God ever intended to give the whole human family
such a choice as this, after he had required them to keep the Sabbath day.
No, he is a God of order, and he sanctified and set apart the seventh day
for man and beast. Does not the beast require rest now as much as he did
1900 years ago? Who is to advocate for them, if man does not? The great
mass of professed christians are insisting on the first day for one of
these days, and it is not at all likely that they would ever refer to this
test for this purpose were it not to destroy the idea of a seventh-day
Sabbath. See work on the Sabbath, pp. 11-12. This subject is continued
from the xiiith chapter, where the apostle had been enforcing the
commandments, and one is equally binding as the other, except the fourth,
which is more insisted upon than the rest. This letter is dated Corinthus,
A.D. 60.

Second Pillar For No Sabbath.

Col. ii: 14-17.--"Blotting out the hand writing of ordinances that was
against us; which was contrary to us, taking it out of the way; nailing it
to his cross." Now Paul says it was the hand-writing of ordinances that
was blotted out. You say it was the Sabbath, because he further says, "Let
no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy
day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of
things to come," &c. Now I say that the Sabbath of the Lord God is not
included in this text. 1st. Because it never did belong to the
hand-writing of ordinances. 2d. It never is called an ordinance in the
scriptures; it is a commandment. 3d. God's Sabbath never was taken out of
our way because it was against us. Jesus says it was made for us, (for
man.) Then pray tell me, if you can, why Jesus has taken away from us the
very thing, (the Sabbath) he had said was made for us? You see this is
impossible; but he did take away at the very hour that he yielded up his
life, the ceremonial worship of sacrifice and oblation, because _his_
blood was now shed once for all for the whole world, therefore the
shedding of bullocks blood, here at this hour, ceased forever; see also
Heb. x: 1-10, particularly the 9th verse. The angel Gabriel's testimony is
directly to this point; Dan. ix: 27. Therefore the mode of worshipping
God, in the law of Moses, ceased forever. But all of this no more affected
God's code of laws, the ten commandments, than the shining of the sun
would upon the inhabitants of Massachusetts after he had gone down below
the western horizon. The "hand-writing of ordinances" is what Moses wrote
with his hand in a book and put it into the ark with the tables of stone:
which tables were not the hand-writing of either God, or man, but written
by the finger of God. Deut. xxxi: 25-26. Neither can it ever be proved
that God's law on these tables of stone, was a shadow--it is a substance.
Paul says the things that were nailed to the cross here, were shadows; see
17th verse. Now if the Lord's Sabbath, the fourth commandment, was taken
out here, and forever erased from the tables of stone--_where is the
evidence?_ Further, if it was a shadow, as you say, would not all the
other nine commandments be shadows too? See if you can make the first and
second ones, shadows; if you can, the worship of idols is just as valid as
the worship of God; and so of the third--where would be the penalty of
taking God's name in vain, or to steal, or murder, or commit adultery? You
see the idea itself is ridiculous. I know you say the spirit of them is as
binding as ever. I ask how are we to know what the spirit of any thing is,
without the precept (the letter) to guide us? It is impossible for any
human being to know that it is wrong to worship idols and bow down to them
unless it read so in the scriptures. If the apostle has taught it so, he
has quoted from the decalogue. Thus you see the commandments can no more
be abolished than salvation. In the 20-22d verses, Paul further explains,
and says, "Why are ye subject to ordinances which are to perish?" Why
perish? because "they are after the doctrines and commandments of men."
"Touch not, taste not, handle not." Now, if these are not the ordinance of
the ceremonial law, the hand-writing of Moses, they are nothing; see also
Eph. ii: 15, and Heb. vii: 16. The holy day, new moon and Sabbath days
were their holy convocation, which, with the new moon and Sabbaths is the
same that is connected with their feasts, as in Rom. xiv, and as
distinctly separate, as I have shown in Lev. xxiii: 3, 38, and Num.
xxviii: 9. Now I say God's law containing the Sabbath is not even
mentioned here. Their Sabbath days, and not God's Sabbath days is here
abolished; as Hosea said they should be, ii: 11. It would be far more
reasonable to assert that Paul had abolished all the ordinances in 20-22
verses. But who undertakes to say that baptism and the Lord's Supper are
abolished here. Nobody. Why? Because neither of them are the hand-writing
of ordinances, but they are equally as much so, and as certainly made for
us as the Sabbath is. Jesus says it was made for man. You say it was made
for the Jews only. Shall the scriptures decide this, "MAN that is born of
a woman is of few days and full of trouble." "MAN dieth and wasteth away;
yea, MAN giveth up the ghost and where is he--So MAN lieth down and riseth
not till the heavens be no more."--Job. "And as it is appointed unto MAN
once to die, but after this the judgment."--Paul. Now just as certain as
the Jews and Gentiles are the "man" alluded to here, just in the same
sense and no other, is he alluded to by Jesus in Mark ii: 27--"The Sabbath
was made for MAN,"--Jew and Gentile, for every living human being.
Therefore it is impossible, yea it is a contradiction of terms to say that
the Sabbath of the Lord God, which was made for man, just as much as the
day of judgment is to judge him, was taken out of his way, because it was
_contrary_ to him, and against him, or that the Sabbath is an ordinance or
a shadow, but all the seven Jewish convocation Sabbaths that were nailed
to the cross, were shadows, as in Heb. x: 1-10. The woman was also made
for man, in the same sense. See how your rule will work here. This letter
is from Rome, A. D. 64.

Third Pillar For No-Sabbath, No-Commandments.

Gal. ii.-vi. chapters. Here we are told that the whole law and
commandments are abolished. I say the man was never yet born that can
prove it. You say "_we want none of your inferences_." Neither do we want
yours, unless you can back them up by scripture testimony. Paul begins
with the Gospel; in his second chapter he brings up the law of
circumcision, and goes on to show that it is abolished. Just look at the
7th and 8th verses, where he begins his argument, and then 11-14th. His
controversy with Peter respecting this point and eating, meets; then the
16th, 18th and 21st verses show again most clearly that he is contrasting
the Gospel of Christ with this law of meats and circumcision. He now
passes through the 3d chapter, (so much relied on for the abolition of all
_law_,) without intimating any other law whatever. In the 4th chapter, 4th
verse, he says, God sent forth his son, made, or born under the law. What
law? Answer--the law of Moses. There is not an intimation of the law of
commandments here; neither is there an intimation in God's law, relating
to Jesus, but there is in Moses'. In the 10th verse he begins again, and
says "yea, observe days and months and times and years." These are the
same feast days that I have been treating of in the two first Pillars,
viz. Rom. xiv. and Col. ii., for when he comes to the 21st verse, he says
again, "tell me ye that desire to be under the _law_, do ye not hear the
law." What is it? Why, Abraham had two sons, one by his bond maid, Hagar,
the other by Sarah, his wife. These two women represent the two covenants.
Hagar represents mount Sinai, where God gave the first covenant. Hagar
also answers to the present Jerusalem, now in bondage; Sarah represents
the second covenant, (which gives entrance into the) _New_ Jerusalem. See
9.

In the fifth chapter he begins again with circumcision, 2d and 3d verses.
In the 4th verse he says, "Whosoever of you are justified by the _law_ are
fallen from grace." This is the law of circumcision; see 6th and 11th
verses: "If I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution."
Now see the contrast at the close of his argument. Here is the law of God;
see 14th verse: "For _all_ the law is fulfilled in one word, even this,
thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." This was his very expression to
the Romans, four years previous; see xiii: 9. Here he has cited them to
the second table of stone in God's law, in respect to their neighbor,
which is alone, the clear meaning; and we are saved by "keeping the
commandments of God and faith of Jesus."--Rev. xii: 12; xxii: 14. Paul did
not stop to explain about these two covenants, but merely alluded to them
to show the two entirely different modes of worship under the two
dispensations. His letter to the Hebrews six years afterwards, explains,
"Now the first covenant had _ceremonies_ of _divine_ service and a worldly
sanctuary," ix: 1. Now the covenant ITSELF was in the ark; see 4th verse.
Now these rites and ceremonies which stood in meats and drinks, &c. were
carnal ordinances, a figure for the time then present, until the
reformation, or coming of the new covenant. Not a syllable about the
fourth commandment in 4th verse being a figure, or ordinance or ceremony,
or being done away. Why? Because in the preceding chapter, 6-10th verses,
he shows is the new or second covenant, which was to succeed the first,
and Jesus was to be the mediator of it. Now the first covenant was the ten
commandments, with ceremonies, &c. The second covenant is (_my laws_) the
same ten commandments, (not as before, on tables of stone,) but in our
minds and on our hearts; 10th verse. Connected with this is the testimony
of Jesus Christ--proof, Rev. xii: 17; xix: 10, and xiv: 12. This is the
New, or Gospel Covenant, which Jesus Christ came to confirm. Then all that
was nailed to the cross was the ceremonial law, the Jewish mode of
worshipping God. The first covenant the law of God, is here transcribed
from the tables of stone and placed on our hearts; see Rom. ii: 15: Heb.
viii: 10. This entirely changes the mode of worship, and shows us "without
faith it is impossible to please God." If the law of God is not the same
in both covenants, with Jew and Gentile, tell me if you can the chapter
and verse for the second, or new law of God. It is the very same that
Jesus had given in Matt. xxii: 39; the last six commandments. Here he
closes this chapter by contrasting the works of the flesh with the fruits
of the spirit, and then in the 6th chapter, 12th, 13th and 15th verses, he
alludes again to circumcision, and says, in 15th verse, "For in Christ
Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision," &c.,
showing conclusively that the great burthen of his argument from first to
last, was to abolish circumcision and vindicate God's law, instead, as you
and your adherents will have it, abolish the commandments in the law. I
say then in the 5th chapter, 14th verse, he has positively taught us that
the law of God was untouched in his argument. Suppose we take his letter
to the Romans, to explain how he sustains this law. "If there be any other
commandment it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself." xiii: 9. "Therefore love is the fulfilling
of the law." In the first place he is here showing us our duty to our
neighbor, (not to God), 8-10 verses--for he has quoted only five of the
commandments from the second table of stone. Will you say that because he
omitted the fifth one, it is abolished; see his letter to the Ephesians,
four years after this: "Honor thy father and thy mother, which is the
first commandment, with promise," vi: 2. Now Paul has here quoted from the
tables of stone, and this is proof positive that these six are not
abolished. But because he has not quoted the first four, will you say
_they_ are abolished? If you say they are, then you make void the
Saviour's words in Matt. xxii: 37, 38; and also Paul's in the 7th chapter,
12th verse, where he says "the law is holy and the commandments holy, just
and good." Again, because Jesus, in Matt. v: 19, 21, 27, 33, only quoted
the 3d, 6th and 7th commandments, are the other seven abolished? If so,
how strange that he should add three more, respecting love to our
neighbor, in chapter xix: 18, 19, viz. the 5th, 8th and 9th. And in the
15th chapter quote only one. Further, because he never mentioned the
fourth commandment separately, you would have us believe there is none--he
abolished it. Then, by the same rule he abolished the first, second, and
tenth, for he has not mentioned them. In this case Paul has taught heresy,
for he has mentioned the tenth commandment twice in Romans. Paul nowhere
speaks of the first four commandments, but he quotes the other six. James
only quotes two, the sixth and seventh, for his _perfect royal law of
liberty_, by which man is to be judged; but that we might not
misunderstand that he meant what he said, that it was a _perfect law_,
including the whole ten, he declares that "if we fail with respect to one
precept, we become guilty of all." Here you, and all of like faith, must
see the fallacy of your reasoning, which is, that because the fourth
commandment has not been distinctly expressed, then there is no Sabbath. I
say, by your rule, it is just as clear that Jesus and Paul never taught us
that we should not worship images, and bow down to idols, for they have
never quoted us the precept. But they both have taught us the whole law
and commandments; see Matt. xxii: 36-40; Luke x: 25-28; Rom. vii: 12; 1st
Cor. vii: 19. The reason, no doubt, why Jesus never quoted the 1st, 2d, 3d
and 4th commandments separately was because he never had occasion to use
them for an argument with his hearers. Now this certainly explains Paul's
meaning in Gal. v: 14, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in
this, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." That is--this is the law
respecting our duty to one another, as Jesus has taught us in Matt. xxii.
This, then, is the _law_ from the decalogue. Paul says this law is
fulfilled by keeping it, while that which was added to the law (or
covenant) is abolished; see Heb. ix. Then here the law of God is
established, and not, as you say, abolished. This letter is dated at Rome,
A.D. 58.

Fourth And Last Pillar For No-Sabbath, No-Commandments.

2d Cor. iii. Here a host of second advent believers join in with you, and
labor to prove that Paul has certainly and positively abolished the
commandments of God. Yes, one of your old correspondents, G. Needham, of
Albany, has publicly declared to the world that God told him so. Now if I
prove him to have uttered a positive falsehood, I suppose he will still be
considered in good standing, as a second advent lecturer and coadjutor in
carrying forward this work of heresy. If God ever told him any thing about
this text, he did not contradict Paul, who spake by the Holy Ghost. The
principal verses to sustain this heresy, are 7, 8, 11, 13, 14th, "But if
the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious,
so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of
Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away,
how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?... For if
that which is done away is glorious, much more that which remaineth is
glorious.... And as Moses which put a veil over his face, that the
children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is
abolished. But their minds were blinded, for until this day remaineth the
same veil, untaken away in the reading of the old testament, which veil is
done away in Christ." Now every bible student must admit that Paul was
contrasting the ministration of the Jewish nation with that of his own,
the Gospel ministration, (11th v.) under the two dispensations. If Moses'
ministry was glorious, then is the Gospel much more so. Now that which was
to be done away was not the _decalogue itself_, the ten commandments, but
the ministration of it, which was emblematically illustrated by the glory
of Moses' countenance, which was only for the time being. This clause
refers expressly to the glory of his countenance, and not to the glory of
the law on the tables of stone. So also the clause, "that which is
abolished," does not refer to the decalogue, but to the ministration of
Moses, including what he writes to the Heb. ix: 9-11, and x: 1-10; see
particularly 9th verse: "He taketh away the first that he may establish
the second." How? Answer--"I will put my law (the same law of the ten
commandments) in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." viii:
10, 5-9. Again, "we are not without law to God, but under the law to
Christ." This certainly is the same law and so is the following, "Do we
make void the law through faith? God forbid ye, we _establish_ the law."
It is impossible for this to be the law of ceremonies in Moses'
ministration, for that was nailed to the cross, certainly twenty-five
years before. Here then it is plain, as in Heb. ix: 4, that the tables of
stone, on which was the whole law of God, remained unmoved, to be written
on our hearts. No other law of God can be found for this purpose. The 14th
verse says, "which veil was done away in Christ." Again, if the
commandments were done away here, how could those "who teach them be of
great esteem in the reign of heaven;" and how could they teach them
without knowing the words from the decalogue? "The law of grace and the
law of Christ" would darken counsel without knowledge. If the tables of
stone were done away here, where are the commandments referred to so many
times in the new testament for us to keep, and how useless for Christ to
come at the first advent and write them in our hearts, if they were not to
be kept. Now this epistle is dated at Phillippi, A.D. 60; twenty-seven
years after the crucifixion.

The date of the other three Pillars, as stated, are, 1st, Rom. xiv: 5, 6,
Corinthus, A.D. 60. 2d, Col. ii: 14-17, Rome, A.D. 64. 3d, Gal. ii-vi.,
Rome, A.D. 58. Now remember what I stated before, that if the commandments
or Sabbath ever were abolished, the proof is contained in these four
principal texts or Pillars, and it was all done at the crucifixion or
death of Jesus; see Col. ii: 11, "nailing it to the cross," (in A.D. 33).
Now Paul's first letter to the Corinthians was dated at the same place one
year before his second letter, A.D. 59. Here he says, chapter vii: 19,
"circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the _keeping_
of the _commandments_ of God." Again, we will now go to the chapter to
which you exultingly point your readers, for the abolition of this same
law and commandments, viz. Rom. vii: 6, "But now we are delivered from the
law," &c. What law? Answer--the very same that you have had to make your
four Pillars of, viz. the law of Moses, the Jewish ritual. "What shall we
say then, is the law sin?" [You say it is.] Paul says, "God forbid," and
he quotes the tenth commandment to prove it; 7th verse, and then in the
12th directs us to the whole law of God, thus--"WHEREFORE THE LAW IS HOLY,
AND THE COMMANDMENTS HOLY, JUST AND GOOD." Now, I say, here is testimony
that all the opposers of God's law cannot impeach, and it utterly
demolishes and overthrows every idea that has been presented for the last
fifteen hundred years against the whole ten commandments and law of God.
It _nails_ the _point down twenty-seven years_ after the Jewish rites and
ceremonials in the law of Moses were nailed to the cross, as you and all
of your faith say it was, and fully and clearly sustains all the
scriptural arguments herein presented, as in Rom. iii: 31; xiii: 8-10,
same year, and Gal. v: 14, two years before, and Eph. vi: 2, six years
after. You may object to these dates. If they could be altered and carried
back twenty years, it would not help your case, for _without any date_, a
child might know that Paul was not even converted to Christianity until
years after the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross.

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

_THE_ SABBATH.

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

    Dream.

    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."

Now let Zachariah, the prophet, finish this subject. In his peculiar view
of the wonderful things to take place in the last days from the tenth to
the fourteenth chapter inclusive, he says, "And it shall come to pass that
in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and
die, but the third shall be left therein, and I will bring the third part
through the fire and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try
them as gold is tried; _they shall_ call on my name and I will hear them,
I WILL SAY IT IS MY PEOPLE; and THEY _shall say_ THE LORD IS MY
GOD."--xiii: 8, 9. Here then, is clearly pointed out the believers in the
coming of Christ; a cry at mid-night shows first, but two parts; but
before Christ comes Zachariah shows three parts. Now for the development
of the history. The first is already described, by prolonging the days and
denying the past. The three papers Advent Herald, Advent Harbinger and
Bible Advocate, are still advocating their views, and as I have shown,
_cut_ themselves off. Second, class or part, are the spiritualizers; a
large majority of which have joined the Shakers, whose faith is, that
Christ came the second time in Ann Lee, more than seventy years ago, thus
forever _cutting_ themselves off from even looking for his personal
appearing; John calls them anti-christ--thus, "Little children it is the
last time, and as ye have heard that anti-christ _shall come_, even now
are there many anti-christs (i. e. don't believe in any Christ--he is God,
and God is love, &c.) whereby we know it is the last time: They went out
from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would
no doubt have continued with us; but they went out that _they_ be made
_manifest_ that they were not all of us. Who is a liar but he that denieth
that Jesus is the Christ? _He is anti-christ_ that denieth the Father and
Son."--1st John ii: 18-22 verses. John classes all such with _liars_, and
they are barred from the kingdom of heaven. In the 19th verse he says,
"they were not ALL of us." This I think shows that some would see their
error and repent. John here embraces _all_ such believers from his day to
the last. Here, then it is clearly manifest that this second part have cut
themselves off! The third part are now in the fire (or fiery trial.); they
are to be _refined_ as silver, and _tried_ as gold; they shall call on
God, and they will be his people. They have nothing to boast of, they have
got to overcome "by their perseverance."--[_Camp. trans._ of Luke xxi: 19.]
Jesus also distinguishes them from the other parts: "They have a little
strength (nothing to boast of,) and hast kept my word and hast not _denied
my name_." Which one? New name--King of Kings and Lord of Lords.--Rev. iii:
8, 12. The first and second classes have denied his name. The first say he
is the Mediator, and therefore cannot have received his kingdom; the
second class have dissolved his name into vapor. Ninth verse shows they
have got to bow to his third part, because _they_ have kept the word of
his patience: Where is it shown that they do this? Answer--in Rev. xiv:
12th verse, "_Here is the patience of the Saints_; here are they that keep
the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." Yes! here are they who
are denounced as "_door shutters_" and "great _sticklers_ for the _seventh
day Sabbath_, in and out of _almost every door_ but the right one,
following _any thing_ but the _word_ of God and _sound reason_!" triumphed
at last. How amazing these things appear; not more so perhaps than to the
prophets when looking down into our history and beholding this first class
composed of the leading messengers and about all of the shepherds, after
leading the whole flock out into the most dangerous part of their journey,
desert, denounce, and betray them; and then go and form themselves into a
confederacy and positively disregard the message which God pressed upon
them, viz. "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God," &c. I
rejoice in my soul and praise the _living_ God, who is seated upon this
Great White Throne in the height of his Sanctuary in the heaven of
heavens, that I am still numbered in this third part. Call me what you
please, my feet are planted on the _Rock_. I had rather suffer affliction
with the Outcasts, than enjoy the pleasures of sin with all other people.
Praise the Lord! if faithful, we shall soon enter the everlasting kingdom.
Amen.

CHRIST'S SECOND COMING TO GATHER HIS PEOPLE.

According to the Scriptures, God will deliver his people out of the time
of trouble that is now flying from the coasts of the earth, and to all
appearances forming a junction in this retributive land of blood and
slavery; by his VOICE _from heaven_, when he has sealed them, and Christ
has made the atonement and fitted the mansions in the New Jerusalem, then
they will be his chosen ones to execute the "judgment written." After
this, in the order of events, the Lord Jesus "will descend from heaven
with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God,"
&c. When God speaks from Jerusalem, then, I believe the "wise will
understand" how long it will be before Jesus comes. "The times and seasons
are with the Father." I believe that the Scriptures most clearly teach
Christ's second coming at the feast of Tabernacles, and no where else; and
that our history, in the fulfillment of prophecy, has been imperceptibly
tending us there. Here is the chain in the types: "THREE _times a year
shall_ ALL _thy males appear before the Lord thy God_." These three feasts
are typical of three of the most important events since the birth of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and every advent believer should have a clear
understanding of them. 1st, The feast of the Passover; 2d, Feast of Weeks;
3d, Feast of Tabernacles.

_First feast_ was the crucifixion of our Lord at the Passover, on the 14th
day of the first month, at 3 o'clock P. M.; the very day and hour the lamb
was offered in the type for sixteen hundred and seventy years.

_Second feast_--the day of Pentecost, 1670 years from the time that the
commandments were uttered by the voice of God, in the morning.--Exo. xix:
16; see Acts ii: 15, undoubtedly at the same hour. Now as these two feasts
are perfectly fulfilled, we have nothing further to do with them here;
only to say, that God never taught any other way to find the fulfillment
of these two most important events, than by their typical observance.

_Third feast_--on the 15th of the seventh month; the feast of the
Tabernacles. This undoubtedly represents the gathering of all Israel at
the coming of Christ; the ingathering of the harvest; the end of the 6000
years: the end of the world. I see no other point of time for Christ to
come than at the feast; see Deut. xvi: 1-16: Lev. xxiii; Num. xxviii, and
xxix. It cannot be possible that God has been so exact in the fulfillment
of the first two, to the very hour of the day, and then left the other
without _order or time_! No, no! Here is the gathering of all Israel; see
Lev. xxiii: 39-44. Now, this being true, all of the other events which
precede this in this chapter, must, to harmonize with the types, be
fulfilled first. Now there are three types in this feast; their harmony
and order are as follows: First,--24th verse is the memorial of trumpets.
This is the type of the sounding of the seventh trumpet; there is nothing
else for an anti-type--try and see. Than it is fulfilled, by Rev. x: 7--"In
the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound,
the Mystery of God should be finished." &c. This then, we have shown,
sounded on the first day of the seventh month, 1844. Here the virgins were
divided, and the wise ones got ready for the coming of the Bridegroom to
the marriage. See _Way Marks_, 35 to 37th pages.

_Second type_--27th verse--"Also on the 10th day of the seventh month, there
shall be a day of atonement,--ye shall afflict your souls, for whatsoever
soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut
off from among his people." This, of course, was artificial; but it was a
type to represent the tried state which the virgins in the parable entered
into on the tenth day of this seventh month, 1844, when they see their
Lord did not come. Here is where the atonement commenced with the
affliction, and as they ended together in the type, so we believe they
will in the anti-type, when God speaks from Zion.--Joel iii: 16, 17; see
_Way Marks_, pp. 58, 59. Now it is certainly evident that God's people are
in this very state. This, then, according to the type, proves the
Bridegroom as High Priest, officiating in the Sanctuary, making the
atonement for this same people.

_The third type_ in order, and the last in this feast, is the feast of
Tabernacles, 34-39-44th verses. This is yet to come--the true point of our
deliverance. What a harmonious perfect chain is here. Just see first day
of seventh month, 1844; the seventh trumpet sounds, and the Mystery of God
is finished; third wo come; virgins divide; on the tenth day of the same
month, Bridegroom comes to the wedding; marriage takes place; door shut;
Jubilee trumpet sounds to prepare for the Jubilee and Supper in the
kingdom of heaven; cleansing of the Sanctuary commenced; the virgins on
their trial; the appointed time, the 2300 days ended, and a cry at
midnight, with all its messages. If the seventh trumpet has began to
sound, then the rest have followed. If the saints are now in their trial,
then, the seventh trumpet must have sounded first, or confusion would
follow in the types. Destroy one link, and the chain is broke. Take it in
all its parts, it is perfect, harmonious, and complete. Here, too, I
understand, ends all the days of Daniel. The chart is perfect, and has
answered its end. The world here also received their last warning. The
Gospel age ends; the message is, "comfort ye, comfort ye _my_ people." If
this was not all done before Christ should come, the scriptures would be
broken. It is perfect nonsense to talk of having these things done at his
coming, or after he comes. Tell me, if you can, how Christ can atone for
his people in the Holiest of Holies, at his coming? And then tell me where
the saints are to be on their trial, if they wait his coming first? Tell
me, if you can, where you will place the third wo, which brings in the
time of trouble, of which the saints are to be delivered? Tell me, if you
can, how, and for what purpose the seventh messenger will begin to sound
his trumpet, while Jesus is sounding the trump of God, and shouting for
his saints to leave the earth in a moment? And as the seventh messenger is
some of the living saints, tell me, if you can, how they will have time
even to turn and say the Mystery of God is finished? Tell me, if you can,
why God is going to have every thing in confusion at that day, when he has
always had perfect order in heaven and earth, ever since the creation? Two
things to be kept in remembrance:

FIRST--The 11th chapter of Revelations does not teach the coming of Christ
in the spring, nor at any other point.

SECOND--The ingathering of _all_ Israel _after the Voice of God_ is most
clearly taught to be at the feast of Tabernacles, the last type in the
feast, yet unfulfilled. All the others that have been, and are _now_
fulfilling in these feasts of the Lord, have been tested to the day, and
even to the hour of the day.

A CORRECTION.

I perceive that I have made a mis-statement, on page 56, 13th line; also
page 59, sixth line from the top, in calling the 15th day of the first
month, a holy convocation day, instead of the 14th, which always commenced
at the beginning of the 14th day and ended where the 21st began.--Exo. xii:
18. The wafe sheaf also, was to be waved on Sunday morning, the morrow
after the Lord's Sabbath--Lev. xxiii: 3, 11--all which makes the
resurrection on the third day as clear as light--two nights and three days.

SEVENTH & FOURTEENTH OF REVELATIONS.

A further History of the Second Advent Doctrine, from its commencement to
the treading of the Wine Press, &c.

    With The One Hundred And Forty-Four Thousand Living Saints, Which
    Are To Be Gathered At The Second Coming Of Jesus, From Every
    Nation, Kindred, Tongue, And People; Especially Those That Are Now
    Occupying The Position Referred To In The Twelfth And Thirteenth
    Verses Of The Fourteenth Chapter.

Second Advent History.

In the fourteenth chapter of Revelations, John gives a most graphic
delineation of the Second Advent movement, from its rise in about 1840, to
a glorious state of immortality. He begins to describe from this
never-to-be-over-looked, wonderful picture of the last days, forming, and
changing in quick succession, under the deep impressions made on the
heart, by the heavenly flying messengers, saying with loud voices--the hour
of his judgment is come; and reminds one in some of its features, in the
changing of positions, of that last dreadful conflict of nations, on the
plains of Waterloo, which decided the fate of Europe. So here, in this
last great conflict of contending armies, John, in his vision, hears a
glorious voice, [see i: 15 and xix: 6.] and harpers harping with their
harps. His eye is turned to the point from whence came the heavenly music,
and he beholds a glorified company, with their INVINCIBLE Commander,
standing away up on the Mount Zion, that had followed him through his
fiery trying conflict, and he had brought them off victorious, and clothed
them with immortality and everlasting life; and the Father had stamped
"his name in their foreheads," and they numbered 144,000, redeemed from
the earth; all the living saints that are saved out of the mighty host of
nations. Now read the first five verses of this chapter and methinks you
will agree with me, that John is here describing the character of the
144,000 as he had seen them sealed, as stated in the seventh chapter;
where he closes their history with the 8th verse, to describe the dead
saints, and seven angels with their trumpets, and the effect produced by
them, from the 7th chapter, 9th verse to the 12th chapter. Then in the
12th and 13th chapters, the dragon, the beast and his image, &c., &c. And
then he takes up the history of this same 144,000, from where he had seen
them sealed in the 7th chapter, 4-8 verses; and begins by describing them
sealed and redeemed from the earth, in company with the Lamb--the Lord
Jesus. From the 6th to the 14th verse, he gives the outline of what they
had been passing through, and the mighty host with whom they had been
engaged. It will here be remembered that this message, or proclamation of
"the hour of his judgment," has gone to every nation and tongue, and
people; therefore as Jesus has stated that his elect are to be gathered
from the four winds, or from one end of heaven to the other, then his
144,000 will be composed of all nations, particularly the poor ignorant,
but honest hearted Slaves of this doomed country. But more especially
those described in the 12th verse, walking out in their faith of all the
living _present truth_.

An objection may arise with some; still, supposing that the 144,000,
because they are named after the tribes of Jacob in the 7th chapter, they
cannot mean the Israel of these last days. Micah, speaking of Jesus, says,
"He is _to be_ the ruler in Israel."--v: 1-2. Gabriel said he would "reign
over the house of Jacob _forever_."--Luke i: 33. Paul says "they are not
_all_ Israel that are of Israel;" "If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's
seed and heirs according to the promise." When John was afterwards giving
a description of the holy city, he even saw the names of the twelve tribes
of the children of Israel inscribed on the twelve gates. This agrees with
the description in the 7th chapter, and makes a perfect harmony when we
understand that this vision was sixty years after the introduction of the
gospel, when the church was the whole Israel of God. The other view would
give the literal seed of Jacob full possession of the city; the gates
being theirs by the titles on them. This would make a division wall there,
and God would be a respecter of persons. The gentiles could have no claim
there; thus their joint heirship with Christ would fail and so would this
Revelation; for John was directed to "show (us) things which would shortly
come to pass."--i: 1; and to "write the things which thou _hast seen_, and
the things which are, and the things which _shall be hereafter_" in the
churches, in the future.--xxii: 16. So we see this vision was all of the
present and future; besides the tribes of _literal_ Israel had before this
been rejected and were to "be trodden down until the times of the gentiles
were fulfilled."

To make the 14th chapter more plain, in respect to the 144,000, we will
try to give an exposition of the 7th. "And after these things, I saw four
Angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds
of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the _earth_, nor on the
_sea_, nor on any _tree_. And I saw another angel ascending from the east
having the seal of the living God; and he cried with a loud voice to the
four angels to whom it was given to hurt the _earth_, and the _sea_;
saying hurt not the _earth_, neither the _sea_, nor the _trees_ till we
have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads."--1-3. I believe
the general view of these four angels being the four leading governments
[see 9th chapter 14, 15 verses,] is correct with the exceptions of Prussia
or Rome, because neither of those nations have any maritime force on the
sea. Great Britain, France, Russia, and the United States of North
America, possess this power over all seas, and the most part of
Christendom. Our not being a party in the great christian alliance at the
downfall of Napoleon Bonaparte, in 1815, neither in 1840, at the fall of
the Ottoman Empire, will not, I think, effect this point; but being one of
these four messengers, will make it clear, at least so far as relates to
the flying messengers and their work, and our power on the sea. Who does
this sealing angel ascending from the east represent? Answer--I think some
of the very same flying messengers brought to view in xiv: 6, 7, and x and
xviii chapters. If messengers in the form, and fashion of men,
symbolically represented as flying through the midst of heaven, preaching
the gospel to men, and "being clothed with clouds," rainbows and pillars
of fire, lighting up the earth with their glory; standing upon the sea,
and land, crying as when a lion roareth, that time should be no longer;
are called angels, I see not, nor know of any other exposition of this
second verse. If it is contended that an invisible angel is here
described, then, according to the 9th chapter, 4th verse, it was done in
like manner to individuals in the thirteenth century.

ASCENDING from the east, or sun's rising. I think this does not mean _rise
up_ out of, &c., as in chapter 13th, or _ascending_ in a similar manner,
as in chapter xvii: 8, but rather the following, for instance: these
northern and middle States, and the Canadas, are now and have been the
location of almost all the flying messengers, and the burden of their
messages, as represented in the 14th chapter. William Miller began to
proclaim the message from the west, (Low Hampton.) And now to reverse it,
the sealing messenger is seen ascending from the eastern, the Atlantic
States, bounded by the broad ocean, of nearly three thousand miles, which,
when looking to the east, as John did at sun rising, would give the
appearance of the sun's rising out of the water but a few miles off. Owing
to the round surface of our globe, every 15 deg., or nine hundred miles that
we sail from hence to the east, the sun appears _ascending_ from his ocean
bed one hour earlier in the morning. This is familiar to the mariner; as
also when they discover another ship, they cry, "sail ho!" Why? Because
the top of her sails are only seen, but as they approach each other,
_ascending_ up, as it were, out of the ocean bed, the lower sails, and
then the hull, and soon after the men are distinctly seen upon her decks.
If we look farther east for this sealing angel or messenger, even to Great
Britain, or still onward to the northern coast of China, we shall find
none that have been so much engaged in the work of God as those above
described. But if it is still insisted upon, that this sealing angel is
invisible, then we shall fail to know when we are sealed. But I think that
it is a work to be done here, and the saints will understand when they are
sealed or marked as readily as they did when they were rejoicing because
they had got the victory over the beast and his image, on the sea of glass
(or more sure word of prophecy.) Rev. xv: 2. This was their sectarian
profession that bound them in Babylon; and now their second advent
profession, as in Rev. xiv: 12, if adhered to, will bind them to Jesus and
seal, or mark, them for the city; see xxii: 14. Ezekiel had a
prefiguration of this, in his vision of the man clothed in linen with a
writer's inkhorn by his side, passing through the city, marking God
groaning, sorrowing children, (ix: 2, 4, 11,) preparatory to the awful
slaughter that was immediately to follow; with the strict charge not to
touch them that had the mark (or seal) in their foreheads;--just as it will
be in the last days, when the 144,000, all of the _living_ children, are
sealed with the seal of the _living_ God in their foreheads, having been
marked or sealed in a similar manner, and by the remnant of the messengers
that four years ago were writing, lecturing and exhorting the people of
God to get clear of the mark of the beast by coming out of Babylon,
because she had fallen; developing their true profession, or christian
character, even then, by the help of the marking iron, (the steel pen and
stamping type,) with the ink from the writer's _ink horn_; with this
difference, that this simultaneous sealing of the 144,000 will show such a
clear development of christian character in their lives and shining
foreheads (or faces,) that it will be clearly understood that Jesus has
redeemed them from _all_ iniquity, by purifying "unto himself a _peculiar
people_, ZEALOUS OF GOOD WORKS." [These good works, methinks, will be
something more than simply saying we believe the Lord is coming.] Yes,
says Malachi, when by his prophetic spirit, he saw Jesus "making up his
jewels," at this point of time, "_then_ shall ye return and discern
between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him
that serveth him not." "In the latter (or last) days ye shall consider it
perfectly."--Jer. Then "he that is unjust, let him be so, and he that is
righteous, let him be so still, and behold I come quickly, &c."--Rev. xxii:
11, 12.

This sealing process, then, I understand to be going on with the little
flock, progressing in accordance with the last eight years' peculiar labor
in their experience, and will be completed and approbated by God in the
agonizing time of Daniel's and Jacob's trouble, and proclaimed to the
world by God's roaring out of Zion, and uttering his voice from Jerusalem;
then he will be the hope of his people; (see Joel iii.) then their
atonement will be finished, the Sanctuary cleansed,--16th and 17th verses;
"Zion's captivity turned;" "their mouths filled with laughter;" "the
jewels made up," and the wise will understand the time of their coming
deliverer.(3)

_The four Angels._--How does the sealing angel, or messenger, ascending
from the east, cry with a loud voice to these four angels or governments
of messengers, to "hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees,"
&c. In the first place, I understand that symbolic prophecies have literal
statements interspersed, which serve as a key for the rest: i. e. they
have a mixed character; for instance, earth and sea here, literal;
_trees_, symbolical; meaning those that are _marked_, or _sealed_; the
professed people of God--followers of Jesus. See the clear proof under the
sounding of the fifth trumpet by the Turks, in ch. ix: 4th verse: "they
were not to hurt any tree, but only those MEN which have _not_ the _seal_
of God _in their foreheads_." This proves the trees to symbolize the
followers of God; see also Hosea xiv: 8. Again, it is said that these four
messengers were to "hold the wind from blowing on the _earth_, _sea_, or
any _tree_." By the _wind_, I understand as Paul teaches the Eph. iv: 14,
"every wind of doctrine and cunning craftiness, and slight of men to
deceive, and lead nations into carnage, war and bloodshed;" see also ii:
2, "being led by the Prince of the power of the _air_, working in men
disobedience, according to the course of this world." After the last great
battle of nations at Waterloo, in 1815, then these blood-thirsty,
conquering crowned heads, formed themselves into what they called a
christian alliance, showing that there was now peace with all the world;
since which time they and our own government have been petitioned or
prayed to by those who professed to be the followers of the Prince of
Peace, to abolish the wicked practice with themselves, and thereby
restrain all other nations. Now let us learn the difference between the
trees, (professors or followers of the Prince of Peace,) and _servants of
God_ which are now to be sealed, viz. the 144,000. Thousands on thousands
of these professors or trees since this work began, have died, and
probably one hundred times that number have turned traitors, by deserting
their leader and commander, while the great mass of advent believers,
which stamped this truth upon them, (the nominal church) in Oct. 1844,
have since that time, also turned into the enemy's ranks, leaving the
remnant to finish up the work. The great majority of these professors were
once under the right banner, but the winnowing fan of their great leader
has left them with the chaff, so that the voice of the remaining
messengers, some of whom were sending these petitions to the four
governments, and their prayers to God to restrain these wicked practices,
have become so feeble and disregarded by their former associates, that the
Devil, seeing his time is short, is now hard at work marshalling his
united forces throughout the world, for a mighty victory; and these four
messengers are his principle dependence to "gather the whole world to the
battle of that great day of God Almighty," but it will not become general
until the 144,000 saints are sealed.

Here, then, I understand, that the professed followers of the Prince of
Peace, (symbolized as trees,) have been crying with a loud voice by their
petitions, which is the symbol for prayer, see xiv: 15, 18, and Matt.
xxvii: 46, praying these four messengers that have power on all lands, and
_all_ seas, not to make any more war, either on the land or on the sea,
nor with the professed people of the Prince of Peace, by disregarding
their petitions. I know not in what other way these four nations could be
prayed to as represented in the second verse. Now the 144,000 are sealed.
Then John brings us to the resurrection. The 9th verse says, _after this_,
(mark this point,) I beheld, and lo, a great multitude which no man could
number of all nations and kindreds, and people and tongues stood before
the throne, clothed in white, with palms in their hands, &c. These I
understand are _all_ the sleeping saints from Abel down to the very last
one that falls asleep here. Their having palms in their hands, and robed
in white, looks to me like the perfect uniformity there will be with
_them_, and the 144,000 that have never died, that I believe will be
redeemed right from, or at, the time for the feast of Tabernacles, and
form a perfect phalanx, rending the air with their shouts while they are
mounting up with wings as eagles to meet their glorified king and Lord;
see xix: 14; Lev. xxiii: 39-44. Here, they will serve God day and night in
his temple.--15th verse. Therefore all the work that is pointed out here in
Revelations for the messengers, (called angels,) to perform, will all be
accomplished here before Christ comes. Now we will turn again to the

FOURTEENTH CHAPTER OF REV., FIRST TO FOURTEENTH VERSE.

"And I looked, and lo, a lamb stood on the Mount Zion, and with him an
hundred forty and four thousand; having his Father's name written in their
foreheads.--And I heard a voice from heaven as the voice of many waters."
Please turn back now to the beginning of the subject 19th page, you will
see it is the Father's name written in their foreheads--i. e., they are now
sealed--got through with their patient waiting time, and are marked with
the name of God; see iii: 10-12. In the 2d verse is the voice; this I
understand is God speaking after the saints are sealed, or Christ and the
saints; see i: 15, and xix: 6, as presented on the 96th page.

"And they sung as it were a new song before the throne--no man could sing
that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed
from the earth." [Margin says, _bought_.] Now mark! these were bought from
the earth, and they sung a song that no man could learn. This must have
been one which they had learned in their united experience, something like
the song of Moses on the banks of deliverance from the Egyptians. No other
people could have sung the song because it was the song of their
deliverance, for as I have stated these first five verses show this
144,000 in their immortal state, "redeemed from the earth," (not out of
it.) "These are they which were not defiled with women." "The woman which
thou sawest is the great city which reigneth over the kings of the
earth."--xvii: 18, called Babylon, (the nominal churches). These, then,
were the same ones that had come out of the churches; see 8-11 verses, and
xv: 2 verse. If the other view is insisted upon, then _all_ of this
144,000 must be men and the women would have no part in that number--no
matter where they are said to come from--"_for they are virgins_." Being
clear of the harlot mother and her children; and of those in the parable
of the ten virgins that went into the marriage of the Bridegroom makes
them emphatically so. "_These are they which follow the lamb whithersoever
he goeth._" The above shows that they did follow him, and John shows that
they do now in their glorified state; see xix chapter, 14th verse.
"_These_ WERE _redeemed from among men being the first fruits unto God and
to the lamb_."--4th verse. Redeemed or bought from among men (not from
among the dead) nor from out of the earth, but from "among men and from
the earth." The first fruits cannot be until the harvest, and that cannot
be until Jesus comes to reap it with his sharp sickle, see 14th and 15th
verses; remember too, that the description John is here giving, is the
144,000 with Jesus, after he has reaped the harvest of the earth.

See how perfectly it harmonizes with the type of Jesus being the first
fruits, to God, or handful of the _first_ harvest of barley to represent
his resurrection; since which time he has been laboring with his Father
for this very harvest. To have the figure harmonize the fruit must come at
the harvest time, not the seed time. This is the first fruits unto God and
to the Lamb conjointly. The dead saints are no where that I know of
represented as fruits, before the resurrection. This then is the
harmonious view; but we will look at the view which the Bible Advocate and
others, have shown, that the 144,000 shown here, were the saints that came
out of their graves after the resurrection.--Matt. xxvii: 52, 53; and we
are told that "Eph. iv: 8, is to the point." "When he ascended upon high
he led captivity captive"--[Margin says, a _multitude of captives_,] but
this marginal reading so much relied on for their proof by the mark thus
(||,) shows it to be the view of the bible translators. Now to get the
clear view, turn to the 68th Ps. 18th verse, from where Paul quoted. Here
the marginal reading marked thus [Heb.] shows it to be the original, the
inspired word. Now let us read--"Thou hast led captivity captive--thou hast
received gifts in _the man_, (in Jesus) yea, for the rebellious also."
This changes the meaning, and would make this multitude of captives
rebellious saints. Surely Jesus took no such present as this to his
Father; therefore there will be no more necessity for straining the plain
text in Cor. xv: 20, 23. This text is clear, emphatic, and repeated; which
distinctly teaches Christ the first fruits of them that slept;
_afterwards_ they that are Christ's at his coming, when both the dead and
living will be the first fruits to God and the lamb conjointly. To
harmonize the type, the saints at Christ's second coming are the next or
second fruits to God at the second or last harvest in the 7th month, the
revolution, or ingathering of the year, the feast of Tabernacles. Another
writer J. Porter, states, that Jesus took these saints that arose at
Jerusalem right up to his Father, and then received his power, and
returned the same day; and he might also have added, travelled with the
two to Emmaus, seven and a half miles; and as others will have it, was
back time enough to keep the whole day with his disciples, for the first
Sabbath after his resurrection. If we really want the truth, God will give
it to us, but not by rejecting other truths.

Now let us see whether the description of character given in these five
verses of the 144,000, will apply to the saints that arose in Jerusalem at
the resurrection. In the first place, these were never numbered.
Second--The record is entirely silent about their being united in their
trials and experience, to sing a peculiar song of their own. Third--These
were not redeemed from among men, on the earth, but out from among the
dead. Fourth,--They could not be the first fruit before the harvest, for
Paul says, "Christ the first fruits, _afterwards_ they that are Christ's
at his coming," (second coming,) not them that were his at his going away
at his first advent,--first harvest. That would be a clear perversion of
the text; we must wait for the second harvest for the next fruit, 7th
month. Fifth--To say that they were virgins, and not defiled with women, is
only admitting what we know nothing about. Sixth--John saw the messenger
that sealed, and says the number was 144,000; all this, was sixty years
after what transpired at Jerusalem. This is out of the limits of his
vision; and what will, and does forever, destroy this erroneous view, is,
that the four winds are to be holden by the four Angel nations, until the
whole number were sealed, and they have not let go yet; unless it can be
proved that it was done 1800 years ago. That old Jerusalem was called a
holy place; see Exo ix: 8; Acts vi: 13; also the testimony of Jesus, Matt.
xxiv: 15. Lastly--If it is objected that these are the living saints to be
redeemed at the second advent, then we fail to find them described in this
vision, which would destroy the chain of wonders which he saw respecting
the living and the dead, with the varied and changing scenes through which
they were continually passing. Now, how simple, plain, and harmonious
these verses appear when we apply them down at the end of all things,
where they were seen in this vision, and where they most certainly belong.
The 5th verse shows them without fault before the throne, clearly in their
redeemed and immortal state. Here then is the true description of their
characters. In the next seven verses from 6 to 13, John describes

THEIR LABORS IN THE MESSAGES.

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the
everlasting gospel to preach, unto them that dwell on the earth, and to
every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a _loud
voice_, fear God and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgment is
come."

This is so plain that all who have been engaged and laboring in the Second
Advent Doctrine must admit it to represent William Miller, and those of
his faith, as the flying messengers preaching the advent of Jesus to their
fellow men, since 1840. Invisible angels never yet preached the gospel to
men; but as it has been here--man preaching to man,--then these angels
represent our own neighbors, preaching, lecturing, and exhorting us with
loud voices to listen to their message, for the judgment was at hand.

He says he "saw another angel." Where did he see the first one, then?
Answer--In his description of the trumpets, viii: 13, thus he carries our
minds back to the simple narration of the first description of these
messengers and receivers out of which were sealed 144,000, in 7th chapter.
This message has gone to every nation, kindred, tongue and people.

"And there followed another angel saying Babylon is fallen, is fallen,"
&c., 8th verse. This fallen city, we say, was the nominal churches,
embracing all of the professed followers of the prince of peace; and they
have fallen, because they rejected this first message at the hour of God's
judgment, and shut it out of their worshipping assemblies, and out of
their hearts--"they _made light of it_."

And the third angel followed, saying with a loud voice, "If any man
worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead or
in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which
is poured out without mixture," &c.--9th and 10th verses.

These two last described angels, which follow the first, are only a part
of the flying messengers described in the 6th and 7th verses--for many of
the first class opposed the second and third messengers, and some
absolutely denounced them for saying Babylon, or the nominal churches had
fallen, and for calling God's people to _come out_ of them and leave them
forever. In chapter xviii, 4th verse, John heard the same voice from the
same people, called the third angel, telling them to come out from
Babylon. In the xiv. chapter, he more particularly describes the condition
of all those who _retain_ or _receive_ again the mark of the beast, or in
any way connect themselves with these churches,--Jer. iii: 3; the plain
English of which is, get clear of this mark, or profession, and _keep
clear_; come out and stay out of this "habitation of Devils." For a
further explanation of these texts, and definition of the locations of the
heavens, &c., see _Way Marks_.

Any advent believer who undertakes to dispute this, and the two preceding
angels' messages, with their clear fulfillment in advent history from 1840
to the fall of 1844, is, in my opinion, but a few steps removed from the
gross darkness that surrounds the habitations of Babylon. I will venture
again to reiterate the assertion, that since the days of the Apostles,
God's people have never witnessed such a simultaneous and righteous
movement, as they did during these three messages. I feel perfectly safe
in saying that I fear no contradiction here, nor condemnation hereafter,
for moving in perfect harmony, as we have done, during these three
messages. Many are writing and preaching that these are, and will continue
to be given, while the world stands. This mistake is as fatal as the
rejection of the first, because in so doing they will not see any work
which God has marked out for them, in this last work for man to fulfill
and finish the history of this prophecy. We say, then, that these messages
closed with the world, when they were condemned by them, at the end of a
cry at midnight, in Oct. 1844. God then had other and more important work
for his church to perform among themselves than they ever had before, and
it is clearly marked out in the verses which follow these messages, and
whoever fails here, fails to follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. Be
assured, John has not broken the thread of this most interesting narrative
here and left us in confusion, to call the testimony of _Jesus his
commandments_; and our resting from this most laborious work in these
messages, _the resurrection_. If our experience, for more than three years
past, has not taught us that God is fulfilling his word, by having every
thing in its place; one thing following another, then we have failed to
profit by it. Let me entreat you, my brethren, to critically examine the
next three verses: viz. "Here is the patience of the saints, here are they
that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."--12th verse.
What is the faith of Jesus? Answer,--Chapter 12th, 17th verse says it is
his "testimony;" chapter 19th, 10th verse, says his "testimony is the
spirit of prophecy." "Teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you."--Matt. xxviii: 20. Now observe, the faith, or
testimony of Jesus, embraces all his teachings. Now mark, this is what our
opponents call the New Testament _commandments_, or _grace_, which they
say embraces all the commandments that we are bound to believe or keep!

The text says that these people that are in their patience, their _trying
time_, keep the commandments of God, besides the testimony of Jesus. Here
then, we are absolutely directed, not only to the old testament but to the
decalogue--Exo. xx: 1-17, and even before there was any decalogue in the
form of a precept; see Exo. xvi: 27-30. This one text, in itself,
positively overthrows all of their unscriptural teaching about their New
Testament commandments, and clearly demonstrates the perpetuity of God's
holy Sabbath, because the commandments of God are one thing, and the
testimony of Jesus is another. These are the people, then, and the only
ones too, who abide by the whole word of God, in the Old and New New
Testament teaching, and they that deny the teachings of this text, deny
the word of God, and trample down His Holy Sabbath.

In the three preceding verses, God's people are called away, and required,
under penalty of their salvation, to continue disconnected from Babylon,
the churches to which the great mass before this belonged. Now the very
next thing after these messages, John declares that they are keeping the
commandments of God; that is, they are keeping the seventh-day Sabbath.
Where is the proof? says the objector. Here it is--when this same people
were making their sacrifice, in 1843 and '44, expecting the Lord to come,
they were walking out in all the commandments of God, as far as they were
taught or knew them at that time; and we all fully believed then, and do
now, that _all_ the honest ones were in a saved state; and if called away
then, as was brother Fitch and others, the same hope would follow them;
but we know that they could not be honest, nor be saved, if they were
knowingly living in violation of any of God's commandments; and yet we all
positively know _now_, that with a very few exceptions, we were all living
in open violation of the 4th commandment, which we were taught to do,
(though not always designedly,) in the churches to which they belonged,
and where they are still continued to be taught; and our staying with
them, _we now see_, would not have altered, for they _fell_ for rejecting
the message that came before this, and therefore the subject of this 12th
verse was not presented to them. Our keeping the first day of the week for
the fourth commandment, never was, nor ever will be, fulfilling it, any
more than keeping Friday for the Sabbath. John, who kept the right
Sabbath, and was now describing our real labors and characters, could not
have said that we kept the commandments, unless we were keeping the
seventh-day Sabbath, according to God's direction and _his_ practice.
This, then, being the only commandment that ever had been objected to,
from the days of the Apostles, by those who pretended to keep them, makes
it clear that John could not have had any reference to either of the
others, but the Sabbath only. Here then, for the first time, they were
_right_ in the keeping of God's commandments; and the history of God's
confiding children since the messages of 1844, are fully demonstrating
this point, which clearly proves this exposition to be unobjectionable and
_perfect_. Another point is, that they could not keep the seventh-day
Sabbath, until they were separated and undefiled by the woman, (see 4th
verse,) hence the declaration that they were doing so after the message of
the third angel had separated them from Babylon. John saw the dragon
making war with this remnant, (xii: 17,) and the unclean spirits coming
out of the mouth of the dragon (or devil,) have been, and are now, doing
this work. The very object in sending forth this work, has been to expose
these deceivers, who for the last five months more especially, have been
bearing down upon this remnant in a paper war, with all the power they
could wield. We do not, by any means, expect this is all of it, because we
know that the devil will never yield, nor discharge the volunteer company
which he is so judiciously marshalling out of the second advent ranks,
until every device to destroy the remnant is resorted to, and they are
seen emerging from the smoke and carnage of this unholy warfare, ascending
to the gates of the holy city, under the waving banner of the commandments
of God.--Rev. xx: 11-14.

The judgment hour cry, in 6th and 7th verses, was the only one that was
designed to go to all the nations of the earth; and that of itself was
sufficient to condemn a world of sinners and false professors that
rejected it. Other tests were required, especially in this land, more than
England and other lands, because the light of the church was, and still
is, in these middle and northern states. Here also, is where this doctrine
emanated from; hence the other messages to test and bring out the true.
Then those who reject the messages are the false ones; but the unlettered
slave and those who have been, as it were, enshrouded in moral darkness,
and have been honestly following the Lamb whithersoever he goeth, as far
as they knew, have not rejected this light as have the advent believers in
this land; therefore they are not under the same condemnation.

"And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, write: Blessed are the
dead which die in the Lord from henceforth; yea, saith the spirit, that
they may rest from their _labors_ and their works do follow them," 15th
verse.

I understand this verse as still referring to the same messengers and
their adherents, who had been laboring almost incessantly to convince
their friends of the reality of the messages, in an especial manner,
during a cry at midnight, where they closed with the world. If it was not
true of them then as a body, then there is no history since John had this
vision, to show any thing like it; and it looks like making scripture, to
attempt its application in the future, disconnected with the labor in the
preceding verses. The inference is natural, and it is just like God's
order every where, that these his honest believers, should rest from their
labors with the world, to get their own minds cloudy and calmly fixed on
the great event before them. Isaiah saw it; see xxvi: 20, 21, and xxv: 19.
How can God's children be shut away in their chambers from the world, and
then say at his coming we have _waited_ for him, if they were not resting
from their labors with the world, doing what he says, in his 40th chapter
1st verse. It is also in perfect harmony with the type.

Do stop here a little while, and turn to Lev. xxii: 27-32, and show, if
you can, where the harmony, anti-type, or clear fulfillment of these
verses are, if they are not found in Revelations xiv: 12th and 13th
verses.

_First_--then, the type in Leviticus: Here the primitive established church
annually, on the tenth day of the seventh month, had a twenty-four hour
day of atonement, to cleanse them from their sins. During these
twenty-four hours they were positively required by the statute or law to
enter into a _Sabbath_ of _rest_ and _day_ of _affliction_, or _trial_,
and rest from all their _labor_, "from even to even," under penalty of
being forever cut off from his people.--29th and 30th verses. There is one
more peculiar trait in this type which demands our particular attention;
that is, in every other Sabbath or holy convocation _they_ were positively
required to abstain from all _servile work_--but in the tenth day it is not
specified; see also Num. xxix: 7. This shows the perfect order of God that
when the church in the last days should enter upon the anti-type, as in
Rev. xiv: 12, 13, that they would not be required to cease from _servile
work_, (if necessary), because the atonement for them would require more
than twenty-four hours, seeing that them were 144,000 from every nation,
kindred, tongue, and people; whereas those represented by the type could
all be assembled in a few hours. This is also in harmony with the fourth
commandment for _laboring_ the other six days for food and raiment, as
long as we keep the Sabbath even to the gates of the city.--22: 14.

_Second_--the anti-type--Rev. xiv: 12, 13. After passing through the
messages above described they are now out of the Sardis, (or nominal,)
into the Philadelphia state of the church, and commenced their day of
atonement since Oct. 1844, they also enter into the same kind of rest by
keeping for the first time the right Sabbath of the Lord our God in their
_patient waiting_, or _trying time_; resting from their _labors_, in these
messages, from the world: having now done with them; waiting for their
great high priest to finish the cleansing of the sanctuary, which blots
out their sins, and purifies them to enter into the holy city. The reason
of the anti-type in the atonement, being longer than the type (twenty-four
hours) is obvious, because God will give his people sufficient time to
accept or refuse the light presented to them after their labors with the
world, to perfectly fulfill the type, by voluntarily entering into this
Sabbath and resting from their _labors_.

Will this be objected to because it reads "Blessed are the dead that die
in the Lord from henceforth;" and must mean such as die a natural death.
Well, Paul says "prove all things," &c. Suppose then we say this verse was
to have its fulfillment from A.D. 96, when John wrote it, henceforth from
that time. Then the strong and clear inference would be, that Stephen and
James, and all the rest of the disciples who had died before, would not be
blessed--because the blessing here given, is from the time when given,
henceforward. If we move the beginning of this time to Luther's day, as
some will have it, then we cut off John and all the saints up to that
time; and if we move it to Oct. 1844, then we cut off every saint that has
died in the Lord before.

But to get clear of all this, we are told that this 13th verse evidently
represents the saints at the resurrection. (See Bible Advocate, Sept. 23,
1847.) He refers, (as I have,) to the advent message in 6th and 7th
verses, but avoids the second and third angels' messages, (8-11 verses) or
leaves them and the 12th verse also, to be fulfilled in connection with
the 13th verse, at the resurrection. Then to make his view clear to our
understanding, we must read it something like this: Blessed are the dead
which die in the Lord, from the time the advent message began, (say 1840,)
until Babylon falls, and the statement is being made about what is
recorded in the 12th verse "where is the patience of the saints," &c.
Well, say then, that one hundred saints, or more, have actually departed
this life, since that time commenced, and they will be blessed at the
resurrection. The question then arises--If this must actually be fulfilled
for these few, where is the blessing for John, who had this vision, and
all the saints who have actually died since 1840? Is God partial? Shall we
find this distinction in the 7th chapter, 9, 10, 15 and 17th verses, where
the great multitude of all the departed saints are represented before the
throne of God with white robes, and palms in their hands? No. Shall we
find it in the 20th chapter? where he says, "Blessed and holy is he that
hath part in the first resurrection;" where not only the departed saints,
but the 144,000 living ones, are brought to view? No--nothing of the kind.
This Revelation was concerning "_things present_, (A.D. 96,) and things to
come." We see, then, if this 13th verse, as we are told, does represent
the departed saints any where, or time, since A.D. 96, and will be
fulfilled at the resurrection, it is yet incomprehensible. Is it not clear
that it only has reference to all the righteous saints in these messages
from Oct. 1844? How can it mean the literal dead? Is it not clear that the
dead know not any thing; therefore the blessing would not effect them as
this text teaches any more than to bless any other inanimate substance.
The Blessing belongs always to the living. Just look at Jesus' sermon on
the mount.--Matt. v: 3-11--"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and
persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for
my sake" &c. &c. This is now being fulfilled to the letter; see also Rev.
i: 3; xvi: 15; xix: 9; xxii: 7; v: 12, 13; Luke xxiv: 50, 51, "Blessed are
they that hear the word of God and keep it."--_Jesus._ "Blessed are they
that _do_ his commandments," they shall be saved,--xxii: 14. Also, Isaiah
lvi: 2, that keep the Sabbath; these two last are to the point, just what
they are doing in our text, 12th and 13th verses of Rev. xiv. John is here
certainly speaking of a _class_, or _company_, of living believers, and
not the literal dead. _Rest_ is opposite to _labor_. He shows that the
seraphim and cherubim, (invisible angels,) _rest_ not day, nor night, but
are continually "saying Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty."--also v: 11,
12. The sleeping saints at the resurrection have no rest, they serve God
_day_ and _night_ in his temple--vii: 15. Then the _rest_ spoken of here in
the 13th verse is of the living; resting from their labors with the world.
Once more, "Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord." Paul said the
commandment so affected him that he _died_--Rom. vii: 9. He means that he
died to sin. Again, he says, "I _die daily_,"--1st Cor. xv: 31; "In
_deaths_ oft"--2d Cor. xi: 23; "If ye be _dead_ with Christ," &c.--"For ye
are _dead_ and your life is hid with Christ in God" &c.--Col. ii: 20; iii:
3, 4; also, see Rom. vi: 8, 11, "_Dead_ indeed unto sin, but alive unto
God through Jesus Christ our Lord." In all these, and much more, he uses
these terms for himself and others that were actually alive in the church.
But the general term used for such as were literally _dead_, by Jesus and
the apostles, are asleep; _they sleep_; "Our friend Lazarus _sleepeth_."
He spake of his death; the people did not understand; he explained by
saying "_plainly_ he is _dead_."--John xi: 11-14. Paul says, "they also
which are fallen _asleep_ in Christ"--1st Cor. xv: 18; "Some are fallen
_asleep_."--6th verse: "We shall not all _sleep_, but we shall be
changed."--51st verse: see also 1st Thes. iv: 15, "Them also which _sleep_
in Jesus" &c.; "Since the Fathers fell _asleep_"--2d Pet. iii: 4.

_History._--We prove these, then, to be a part of the same class of the
messengers and their adherents that came out of the churches. Thousands of
living testimonies could be adduced to prove the multitudes who died in
the camp meetings and conferences, about the time that the messengers were
closing up their messages. Why, many were burdened with the cry, die to
sin, and the world; and live unto God. And thousands passed through this
death struggle. Yes, they were blessed by _dying in the Lord_. Those who
deny and make light of this part of our experience, were but little
acquainted with the work of God in the fall of 1844, and need to be
instructed again. But those that died to sin, and the world then; cannot
be in a saved state now, if returned to the world. To be safe, follow
Paul's example, "_die daily_."

Then, without destroying one single link of this harmonious chain of
events, these saints will be in the right place to fulfill the next
message in the 15th verse, "crying with a loud voice," (different from the
preceding ones,) this I understand will be a combination of labor among
the resting ones, to be united in the incessant prayer, or crying to God
day and night in the time of Jacob and Daniel's trouble (Jer. xxx: 7; Dan.
xii: 1,) for deliverance, and for Christ to come on the white cloud, as
represented in 14th verse, with his sharp sickle and reap the harvest for
all things will appear to be ripe on the earth; see Sam. vii: 8; Jer.
xxii: 4, 5; Mark xv: 34, 37; Luke xviii: 1, 7. Here, I believe, is where
the 144,000 living saints of all nations, are sealed; especially will it
be manifest among the tried ones then, that have passed through these
messages. Then the four angel governments will cease to restrain war and
bloodshed; God will speak as in Joel iii: 16, 17: the Sanctuary will be
cleansed; the sins of God's people blotted out--in other words, the
atonement finished and their trials ended; their captivity turned. Two
such ones will then put ten thousand to flight. Jesus comes out of the
most holy place, changes his garments, puts on his kingly robes and stands
up to reign over the nations, as in Dan. xii: 1; mounts his cloudy chariot
with his sharp sickle to reap the harvest of the earth. Here the 144,000
are in a state of deliverance, ready for the next and last message in the
17th and 18th verses. This message looks like one united and incessant
prevailing prayer, (differing from all the others, because of the
everlasting union that these messages have at length accomplished with
these sealed saints,) ascending to God, while these messengers who have
now, as it seems, become reapers similar to those in xix: 14, 15, "and are
to gather the vine of the earth and cast it into the great wine press of
the wrath of God," (19. v.) "to execute upon _them_ (the wicked) the
judgment written; this honor have all the saints. Praise ye the Lord." Now
return to the 7th chapter, 9-15 verses--"After this," (when? after the
saints were numbered and sealed,) "I beheld, and lo, a great multitude
which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people and
tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white
robes, and palms in their hands. And they cried saying amen, blessing, and
glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honor, and power, and might be
unto our God forever and ever, Amen." The 144,000 will then stand on the
Mount Zion.

                  -------------------------------------

"Fear not little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the
kingdom."

CHRIST NOT REPRESENTED AS AN ANGEL.

Christ is no where represented as an angel, in Rev. unless it can be
proved that he is so, in the 8th ch. 3-5 vs. He tells us that the 7 stars
in his right hand are the angels, or messengers; see i: 20. He is called
"one _like_ unto the _son_ of _man_." Read his description i: 13-18; xiv:
14; the same in Dan. vii: 13; x: 5, 6; xii: 6, 7. He is also called the
Lamb 26 times; see v: 6, 8, 12, 13 vs.; vi: 1, 16; vii: 9, 10, 14, 17;
xii: 11; xiii: 8, 11; xiv: 1-4; xv: 3; xvii: 14; xix: 7, 9; xxi: 9, 14,
22, 23, 27; xxii: 1, 3. This Lamb is the Lord of Lords, and king of kings;
and they that are _with him_ are _called_ and _chosen_, and faithful; see
xvii: 14; xix: 16. He is called the _word_ of God, and "the armies" the
"chosen and faithful" ones follow him; see xix: 13, 14. He is called the
_first_ and the _last_ i: 8, 17; ii: 8; xxii: 13. And the one which _was_,
and _is_, and _is to come_, i: 4, 8; iv: 8; xi: 17. He is the _true and
faithful witness_ i: 5; iii: 14. Also the root of David, the morning star,
xxii: 16; ii: 28; also Mich. xii: 7. And faithful witness i: 5; iii: 14;
xix: 11. Please examine this subject:

TYPE. Now turn to Lev. xxiii: 10, 11; when you reap the harvest (in the
spring,) then ye shall bring a sheaf of the first fruits, and the Priest
shall wave it before the Lord--on the morrow after the Sabbath, (as in 3d
v.). And ye shall count from the day after the Sabbath, (the some 7th day
Sabbath in 3d v.) the day after ye offer the wave sheaf, 7 Sabbaths shall
be complete; that is, counting the next day after the 7 Sabbaths, which
will make 50 days, 16, 17 vs.; then with the sacrifices they are to offer
two wave leaves, the bread made from the harvested grain; see 17-20. Now
turn to Exo. xxxiv: 21, 22: here we see God required the people to keep
the 7th day Sabbath, i. e. to rest in caring time, and harvest, but they
were to observe the first fruits in their place, Deut. xvi: 9, shows
where; begin to count the 50 days from the time thou beginnest to put the
sickle to the corn. Now send the reapers forth the next morning after the
Sabbath, what day is that? why, it is Sunday in the morning; so we see in
the anti-type the morning of the resurrection instead of being a holy day
(and as the world will have it the Sabbath) it was the day for the
laborers to go out into the fields to reap the spring harvest. How could
that be a holy day.

HYMN.--Tune--_Zion._

By H. S. GURNEY.

    Lo, an Angel _loud_ proclaiming,
    With the gospel of good news;
    To every kindred, tongue and people;
    Fear the Lord, give glory due;
        Proclamation,
    Of the hour of judgment near.

    Lo, another Angel follows,
    With another solemn cry!
    Babylon the _great_ is fallen,
    Peals like thunder through the sky:
        Let "Thy People,"
    Now forsake her POIS'NOUS CREEDS.

    Yet, a third and solemn message,
    Now proclaims a _final doom_;
    All who "worship _Beast_ or _Image_;"
    Soon shall drink the wrath of God:
        Without mixture,
    Mercy, _now_ no longer pleads.

    Here are they, who now are waiting,
    And have patience to endure;
    While the DRAGON'S _hosts_ are raging,
    _Those_ confide in God secure:
        Faith of Jesus;
    And COMMANDMENTS, _keep_ them pure.

    Hear a voice from heav'n proclaiming,
    "Write" the message, "firm decree":
    Bless'd are they, who die in Jesus,
    "From _henceforth_" forever be:
        The _Spirit_ sanctions,
    And the Saints ADORE HIS LAW.

FOOTNOTES

    1 Campbell translates this in three, and Matt. xxviii: 63, within
      three days.

    2 Small sea birds.

    3 Allow me, once more, to recommend to your careful, candid and
      prayerful attention, the simple, unadorned, scriptural, published
      visions of ELLEN G. HARMON, now WHITE. If you do not see the simple
      outlines of our history past _and at that time_ in the future,
      marking our pathway, then I fear you will not comprehend what I have
      written. Reject it not because of her childhood and diseased bodily
      infirmities, and lack of worldly knowledge. God's manner has ever
      been to use the weak things of this world to confound the learned
      and mighty. I often feel to praise my God for this simple means to
      strengthen and encourage the little flock, just at the time that
      their teachers and shepherds were deserting them. It looks like
      God's work.

***

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaBook