Chapter X: Part 10

Those who cowardly yielded to the clamors of opponents, to confess that they had been in error on the time, occupied the unhappy position of wearing the Advent name after giving up as error the very means which had made them Adventists. While those who apostatized so far as to give up the Advent faith, hope, and name, for a place in some one of the nominal churches, were destined to be regarded as vacillating, and ever feel the sting of remorse for so great a weakness as embracing the “blessed hope.” Those who wished to renounce the Advent faith, and free themselves from the reproach suffered by those who adhered to it, might find a degree of relief for the present in confessing their way back into the church. But of those who have been imbued with the spirit of the Advent faith and hope, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have been partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and have apostatized, there are few who can again enjoy the insipid piety of the popular churches. In fact such persons are very unhappy and dissatisfied with their position and relations in religious matters, unless their apostasy has been so sinful as to obliterate from the soul all traces of Christian experience, and they be given over to the sensual pleasures of this life. May God pity this unhappy class, and may they again stand with those who are looking for the blessed hope.

But the position of those who discard the great movement which made them Adventists, and yet cherish some of the leading views of William Miller, and rejoice in the Advent name, is more inconsistent, and their course far more sinful in the sight of God, than that of those who made an entire surrender of both position and name. What a position in the sight of God, angels and men! They bless the Advent faith, hope and name, and curse the very means which has made them what they profess to be! These may hold the doctrines of the personal coming of Christ, the literal resurrection of the dead, and life and immortality alone through Christ to be given at the resurrection of the just, but while failing to acknowledge the hand of God in the Advent movement in the past, and standing opposed to the third angel’s message of the present, have no well-defined position as to the plan of God in warning the world and proving his people preparatory to the coming of the Son of man. And it is because of the ignorance of the people as to the true position, and because there is no real cross in what these men do teach, that they have influence. Some of them speak of Millerism and Miller, as they would of Mormonism and the notorious Smith, and yet claim to be Adventists. But if the hand of God has been with those who have borne the Advent name at any time, it was during the great time movement of 1843 and 1844. More recent time movements and operations of various kinds, by those who regard that grand movement as an error of Millerism, compare with it about the same as a rushlight compares with the noonday sun.

And these men will speak proudly of their Advent faith, and bless the Advent name, while they curse the great Advent movement, which has brought the Advent doctrine before the present generation. The sin against the Holy Ghost, which had no forgiveness in the days of Christ, was to attribute the work of the Spirit, in the miracles of Jesus, to Satan. How much less, think you, is the sin of those who deny the work of the Spirit of God in the Advent movement, and attribute the power which attended that work to human and satanic influences? I do not say that all Adventists, besides Seventh-day Adventists, take the foregoing positions. Most of them, however, do; and the candid reader who regards the view of the great Advent movement taken in these pages with favor, will not fail to see both the glaring inconsistencies and the sinfulness of the positions taken by these professed Adventists.

But the true position is free from such absurdities, and is harmonious in itself. It honors God, vindicates his word, and sustains Christian experience. It explains the past, definitely points out present duty, and lights up the glorious future. It presents a connected system of truth, the most beautiful in all its parts, that the mind of man ever contemplated.

The period of the third message dates from the disappointment in 1844, and from that time to the present the development of its great truths has been progressive. Immediately after the passing of the time, not a few took a firm stand that the first and second messages were in the past, that the midnight cry had been given, that the 2300 days had ended, and that we had reached the patient waiting, watching time. But it was not until the subject of the cleansing of the sanctuary was brought out in 1846, that the termination of the 2300 days became one of the clearest points in the entire system of Second-Advent truth. This established us in the fulfillment of the first and second messages in the past, opened before us the ark of God containing the ten precepts of his holy law in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, and called our attention to the third message, with its solemn warning to flee the worship of the beast and his image, and in its stead keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. How forcible the closing words of the third angel: “Here is the patience of the saints, here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” And how natural the conclusion that the Sabbath reform should come in right here.

INTRODUCTION OF THE SABBATH.

As early as 1844, sister Preston, a Seventh-day Baptist, who was a believer in the soon coming of Christ, introduced the Sabbath to the Adventists of Washington, N. H., and made a good impression. With the help of the publications of her people, and the blessing of God, about forty embraced the Sabbath. The truth on this subject reached other points in New Hampshire. About that time Elder T. M. Preble embraced the Sabbath, and began to teach it. He called the attention of Adventists to the question, by a pamphlet on the subject, dated February 13, 1845. After showing the claims of the Bible Sabbath, and the fact that it was changed to Sunday by the Papacy, he said; “Thus we see Dan. vii, 25, fulfilled, the little horn changing times and laws. Therefore it appears to me that all who keep the first day for the Sabbath, are the Pope’s Sunday-keepers, and God’s Sabbath-breakers.” But Elder Preble, not seeing the Sabbath reform under the message of the third angel, and that in the ripening of the harvest of the earth, the Sabbath was to be a test, continued his ministerial labors in connection with those who bitterly opposed it. He soon lost his interest in the subject, and has since become one of its bitterest opposers. The same is true of Elder J. B. Cook, and a few other Advent ministers, who at a later point of time, embraced the Sabbath and abandoned it. Elder Preble had, however, called the attention of Adventists to this subject, and several in different parts of New England embraced the Sabbath, whose interest in it did not prove as transient as his had been.

In 1845, Elder Joseph Bates, then of Fairhaven, Mass., began to teach the Sabbath of the Bible, and several in Massachusetts, and Maine, embraced it as the fruit of his labors. He wrote and circulated gratuitously a small work upon the subject. By reading this little pamphlet, I was established upon the Sabbath, and began to teach it. This little work reached several in Connecticut, and with Bro. Bates’ personal labors, brought over to the Sabbath a number in western New York and different parts of New England.

But these were generally the poor of this world, and the very few among them who had means, did not realize that on them rested the responsibility of sending the truth to others. Hence the cause moved slowly.

In the autumn of 1847, Bro. Bates sat down to write a work of more than one hundred pages, with only a York shilling at his command. And I was chopping cord-wood for my daily bread for the support of my little family, where I could earn but fifty cents a day. We two were alone in publicly teaching the Sabbath. Under such circumstances we could do but little in the cause. I state these things to show the reader the humble manner in which this cause commenced, and the sacrifices then made to spread the truth.

I well remember when Bro. Bates felt deeply impressed with the duty to labor in Vermont, and, being destitute of means, resolved to start on foot from Fairhaven, Mass. A natural sister of Mrs. W. had come from Maine to Fairhaven, to perform the duties of the kitchen for one dollar a week, and in this way raise means to spread the truth. On learning Bro. Bates’ intention to perform the long journey on foot, she went to her employer and asked for five dollars, which she obtained and gave to Bro. Bates to help him on his way to Vermont. God greatly blessed the mission, as many witnesses, who still observe the Sabbath, can testify. Let not those brethren and sisters who take but little interest in spreading the truth, blush at this simple narrative. He who notices the sparrows, saw this act of self-sacrifice, and set his seal of approbation. It was written in the books from which all are to be judged according to their deeds. And did not the angels who rejoice much over one repenting sinner, rejoice over this simple means of sending the light of present truth among the Green Mountains of Vermont? That sister will receive her reward. I write not these things to shame the wealthy believer, who is burying himself up in his wealth and his cares, and losing his interest in the cause, and his hold on Heaven; but I design to state facts that you may be led to seek that spirit of sacrifice, which those who were first in this cause evinced, that you may walk in that humble path of obedience in which they walked, and enjoy the blessing of entire consecration, which then rested upon them.

FIRST CONFERENCE OF BELIEVERS.

In the spring of 1848, in company with Bro. Bates, Mrs. W. and self attended a conference of believers, at Rocky Hill, Conn. This was the first general meeting held by Seventh-day Adventists. In point of numbers and influence, it marked a new era in the cause; and yet we all numbered less than thirty. The brethren were much encouraged, and Bro. Bates began to labor more extensively as the way opened before him.

MRS. WHITE’S EXPERIENCE.

Here I must introduce the part which the Spirit of God has led Mrs. W. to act in connection with this cause. I do this,

1. Because her experience and labors have been closely connected with its rise and progress.

2. Because of the spirit of prejudice and enmity existing against her calling and labors. This is manifested by those who are ignorant of the facts in the case, or if not wholly ignorant, are led by a spirit of frenzied persecution. The bearing which this has upon the cause is a sufficient reason for laying the facts as they are before the public.

3. Because of the importance of her work, in connection with this cause, as will be seen in the following pages.

It was but a few weeks after the passing of the time, in 1844, that she had her first vision. The circumstances of this manifestation are briefly stated by Mrs. W. as follows: “I visited sister H., one of our Advent sisters, whose heart was knit with mine. In the morning we bowed at the family altar. It was not an exciting occasion. There were but five of us present, all females. While praying, the power of God came upon me, as I never had felt it before. I was surrounded with light, and was rising higher and higher from the earth,” &c. (_Spir. Gifts_, vol. ii, p. 30.) Her condition in vision may be described as follows:

1. She is utterly unconscious of everything transpiring around her, as has been proved by the most rigid tests, but views herself as removed from this world, and in the presence of heavenly beings.

2. She does not breathe. During the entire period of her continuance in vision, which has at different times ranged from fifteen minutes to three hours, there is no breath, as has been repeatedly proved by pressing upon the chest, and by closing the mouth and nostrils.

3. Immediately on entering vision, her muscles become rigid, and joints fixed, so far as any external force can influence them. At the same time her movements and gestures, which are frequent, are free and graceful, and cannot be hindered nor controlled by the strongest person.

4. On coming out of vision, whether in the day-time or a well-lighted room at night, all is total darkness. Her power to distinguish even the most brilliant objects, held within a few inches of the eyes, returns but gradually, sometimes not being fully established for three hours. This has continued for the past twenty years; yet her eyesight is not in the least impaired, few persons having better than she now possesses.

She has probably had, during the past twenty-three years, between one and two hundred visions. These have been given under almost every variety of circumstance, yet maintaining a wonderful similarity; the most apparent change being, that of late years they have grown less frequent, but more comprehensive. She has been taken off in vision most frequently when bowed in prayer. Several times, while earnestly addressing the congregation, unexpectedly to herself and to all around her, she has been instantly prostrated in vision. This was the case June 12, 1868, in the presence of not less than two hundred Sabbath-keepers, in the house of worship, in Battle Creek, Mich. On receiving baptism at my hands, at an early period of her experience, as I raised her up out of the water, immediately she was in vision. Several times, when prostrated by sickness, she has been relieved in answer to the prayer of faith, and taken off in vision. At such times her restoration to usual health has been wonderful. At another time, when walking with friends, in conversation upon the glories of the kingdom of God, as she was passing through the gate before her father’s house, the Spirit of God came upon her, and she was instantly taken off in vision. And what may be important to those who think the visions the result of mesmerism, she has a number of times been taken off in vision, when in prayer alone in the grove or in the closet.

It may be well to speak as to the effect of the visions upon her constitution and strength. When she had her first vision, she was an emaciated invalid, given up by her friends and physicians to die of consumption. She then weighed but eighty pounds. Her nervous condition was such that she could not write, and was dependent on one sitting near her at the table to even pour her drink from the cup to the saucer. And notwithstanding her anxieties and mental agonies, in consequence of her duty to bring her views before the public, her labors in public speaking, and in church matters generally, her wearisome travels, and home labors and cares, her health and physical and mental strength have improved from the day she had her first vision.

As to the character of the visions, I only wish to state at present that this may be learned by reading the several volumes of “Spiritual Gifts,” for sale at the Review Office. As to their fruits, and the nature of the opposition they have met, I shall speak more fully hereafter.

SECOND GENERAL CONFERENCE.

In the summer of 1848, we received an invitation to hold a Conference with the few friends in Western New York. I was destitute of means, and with feeble health entered the hay-field to earn the sum necessary to bear our expenses to that meeting. I took a large job of mowing, and when fainting beneath the noonday sun, I would bow before God in my swath, call upon him for strength, rise refreshed, and mow on again. In five weeks I earned enough to bear our expenses to the conference. Bro. Bates joined us at this meeting. The notice had been given to all in the Empire State who were in sympathy with our views, and there was a general rally; yet there were not more than forty present.

And what confusion of sentiment among this few! A spirit of discussion and contention for points not important prevailed, so that we who had come so far could hardly have chance to give our message, and the meeting would have proved a failure, and the good brethren would have separated in confusion and trial, had not the Lord worked in a special manner. His Spirit rested upon Mrs. W., and she was taken off in vision. The entire congregation believed that it was the work of God, and were deeply affected. She related what she had seen, which was given to correct some errors among them, and in melting strains exhorted them to leave their errors, and those points on which they had differed, and unite on the important truths of the third message. And on that good evening the brethren sacrificed their Babel of sentiments and united on the truth. And what was the result? Harmony began to prevail, and many came flocking to the standard of truth.

The fruit of this vision was good. It could not have been the work of an enemy, according to the test given by our Lord, in Matt. vii, 15-20: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.”

THE OPPOSITION.

By the spring of 1849 the subject of the Sabbath began to attract considerable notice from Advent believers, who, seeing that the first day of the week could not be sustained by divine authority, were falling back to the position of no Sabbath in the Christian dispensation. And it may be worthy of notice, that this is the result everywhere the Sabbath question is discussed. The reason why the regular Baptists have taken this position more generally than any other denomination, may be because of their relation to the Seventh-day Baptists, who have more or less brought the subject to their notice. As an illustration of this point, when William E. Arnold, of Rochester, N. Y., in 1844, stated to Elder Joseph Marsh his convictions of duty to observe the seventh day as the Sabbath, Elder Marsh replied that the first day of the week, as the Sabbath for Christians, was clearly proved from the word of God, and the unvarying practice of the Christian church. Mr. Arnold invited him to give the subject especial attention. He promised to do so and report the next Sunday. His report was simply this: That he had examined the subject, and had become satisfied that the Sabbath was Jewish, and that there was none for Christians.

The change from the first day to no Sabbath cannot be regarded in any better light than a change from bad to worse, and it is a matter of grief that thousands, finding themselves utterly unable to sustain the observance of first-day, take refuge from the pointed arrows of truth in this comparatively strong hold of unbelief. The masses are ignorant of the facts relative to the first day of the week. They think the New Testament abounds with direct testimony that it is sacred time. Elder Joseph Bates asserted in a grove, in Connecticut, in 1849, that there was not one text in the New Testament which taught a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. An intelligent-appearing gentleman interrupted by saying, “There are more than twenty.” “Well,” said Bro. Bates, “will you please to give us one?” The gentleman replied, “I can give you twenty.” Bro. B. urged, “If you can give twenty, you can certainly give one. We wait for one; only give us one text.” The gentleman was silent and Bro. B. went on with his subject.

It is a fact that the first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament only eight times, and is not in a single instance spoken of as a sacred day. Inspiration gives it the simple title of first day of the week. See Matt. xxviii, 1; Mark xvi, 2, 9; Luke xxiv, 1; John xx, 1, 19; Acts xx, 7; 1 Cor. xvi, 2.

It is also a fact that inspiration in the New Testament gives the seventh day of the week the sacred title of Sabbath, fifty-nine times, and in every instance refers to the day on which God rested, and which he sanctified and blessed. See Matt. xii, 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12; xxiv, 20; xxviii, 1; Mark i, 21; ii, 23, 24, 27, 28; iii, 2, 4; vi, 2; xv, 42; xvi. 1; Luke iv, 16, 31; vi, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9; xiii, 10, 14, 15, 16; xiv, 1, 3, 5; xxiii, 54, 56; John v, 9, 10, 16, 18; vii, 22, 23; ix, 14, 16; xix, 31; Acts i, 12; xiii, 14, 27, 42, 44; xv, 21; xvi, 13; xvii, 2; xviii, 4.

Those who examine the subject are generally compelled to admit that there is no inspired testimony favoring a change of the day. Some, however, cling to the idea that the change is sustained by the example of Christ and the apostles. As far as the example of our Lord is concerned, they can refer us to but two instances of his meeting his disciples on the first day of the week. The first occasion was when he appeared to them on the evening of the day of his resurrection; and they were astonished to learn that he had risen from the dead. The second was eight days after this, and hence could not be upon the first day of the week; and neither of these meetings, so far as we have any proof, were from previous appointment, or designed for religious worship.

And there is no evidence that the apostles regarded the first day of the week as a day of worship. There is no record of a single instance of their holding a meeting in the daytime of the first day of the week. It is true that Paul met with his brethren, at Troas, on a first-day evening to break bread. That meeting continued all night on the first day of the week. The night is the first half of the twenty-four hour day. Therefore that meeting was held on what we call Saturday night. The next morning, Sunday, Paul started on his long journey to Jerusalem, and spent the last half of that day in traveling on foot, and sailing with his brethren toward Mitylene. Thus we have apostolic example for regarding the first day as a proper day for secular business.

Neither can 1 Cor. xvi, 2, serve the cause of first-day observance. This text does not refer to a single element of the Sabbath. Holy time, rest from labor, and public assembling for divine worship, are not intimated therein. Justin Edwards, in his Notes on the New Testament, comments on this text thus: “Lay by him in store; at home. That there be no gatherings; that their gifts might be ready when the apostle should come.”

With this now contrast New Testament testimony relative to the Sabbath. Our Lord recognized the existence of the Sabbath at the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70, as verily as the seasons of the year. “And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter neither on the Sabbath day.” He refers to a definite day. Not one day in seven and no day in particular, but the day of the Sabbath. In Mark ii, 27, he says, The Sabbath was made for man.

In Luke xxiii, 56, is the record of the disciples’ resting the Sabbath day according to the commandment. This act of resting on the Sabbath was after the crucifixion, and the record of it was made by inspiration nearly thirty years later still.

The book of Acts shows what the apostles did. Which day of the week did they observe as the Sabbath? The writer of the book of Acts records instances of the apostles’ holding meetings upon the Sabbath. On one occasion when Paul had been addressing a mixed assembly, “the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them, the next Sabbath,” showing that it was understood even by the Gentiles, that the Sabbath was Paul’s regular day of worship. Acts xiii, 42. And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together, to hear the word of God. Verse 44.

At another time Paul and Timotheus, on the Sabbath, went out of the city of Philippi to a place “by the river side, where prayer was wont to be made,” and held a public meeting. Lydia believed, and was baptized, and her household. But was the Sabbath Paul’s regular preaching day? Was this his manner? Let chapter xvii, 2, answer. “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.”

Chapter xviii, 1-11, contains important testimony on this subject. Paul at Corinth abode with Aquila and Priscilla, and worked with them at tent making. “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” Verse 4. How long did he remain at Corinth? “And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.” Verse 11. Here is apostolic example for seventy-eight successive Sabbaths. And it will be seen by verses 5-8, that the apostle occupied the synagogue a part of these Sabbaths, until the Jews opposed and blasphemed, then he went into the house of Justus, where he preached the remaining portion. Here, dear reader, is apostolic example in harmony with the divine precept, showing its application and force in the present dispensation.

The cross of Sabbath-keeping in the face of decided opposition, when its friends were few, was very great. Thousands became convinced that apostolic example was in harmony with the fourth precept of the decalogue; but the numbers who had the moral courage to act up to their convictions, were found to be comparatively few. And no sooner was a by-path opened around this cross by way of no-Sabbath, than multitudes eagerly pressed into it. Some of those who taught the Sabbath abolished labored to obliterate all distinction between typical institutions and moral principles, and to show that everything in the form of law recorded in the Old Testament was abolished. Others could not go so far, but took the position that the seventh-day Sabbath was of the same nature as the feast days of the typical system, and expired with them. These could not see any reason why the precepts of the decalogue, excepting the fourth, should be abolished. In their nature they are adapted to man, throughout all dispensations of his fallen condition. They exactly meet his wants. He cannot dispense with them. Why, then, should the crucifixion of the Saviour of sinners do them away? These could see how typical institutions, pointing to the death of Christ, could cease at the cross, but could not understand how moral precepts, applicable to the entire period of man’s fallen state, could be affected by the death of the Son of God.

The mistaken view that the Sabbath was typical, had long been held by the churches; hence this class could more easily receive the idea that when Paul says, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come,” Col. ii, 16, 17, he includes the Sabbath of the Lord. The apostle here speaks of sabbath days, or sabbaths. Lev. xxiii, shows seven Jewish sabbaths, to be celebrated at their appointed times, “besides the Sabbaths of the Lord.” See verses 37 and 38. Here the distinction between the two kinds of sabbaths is seen. Paul refers to those which are classed with meat, drink, new moon, &c., and not to the Sabbath which the Lawgiver has wisely associated with nine moral precepts. The “Sabbath Manual,” by Justin Edwards, speaks with clearness and ability upon this point, and also in reference to the days spoken of in Rom. xiv:

“Under the Jewish dispensation were incorporated two kinds of laws. One was founded on obligations growing out of the nature of men, and their relations to God and one another; obligations binding before they were written, and which will continue to be binding upon all who shall know them, to the end of time. Such are the laws which were written by the finger of God on the tables of stone, and are called moral laws.

“The other kind, called ceremonial laws, related to various outward observances, which were not obligatory till they were commanded, and then were binding only on the Jews till the death of Christ.

“There were also two kinds of Sabbaths, or days of rest. One was a day of weekly rest; and the command to keep it holy was placed by the Lawgiver in the midst of the moral laws. It was called, by way of eminence, ‘The Sabbath.’ The command to keep the other sabbaths was placed by the Lawgiver among the ceremonial laws, because it was like them, as the command to keep the weekly Sabbath was like the laws with which it was associated. One class were fundamental, permanent, universal, moral laws; the other class were local, temporary, ceremonial laws. One had their origin in the nature and relations of man; the other in the peculiar circumstances in which, for a time, a peculiar people were placed. One would be binding in all ages, upon all who should know them; and the other would be binding only upon the Jews till the death of the Messiah.

“The Jews, at the coming of Christ, being in a state of great spiritual darkness and grievous apostasy from God, did not well understand the nature and objects of their laws. Often they overlooked the spirit, and were superstitiously devoted to the forms. Some, after they embraced the gospel, thought that the ceremonial as well as the moral laws were binding; others, more enlightened, thought that they were not. This led to contentions among them. Paul, in the fourteenth chapter of Romans, presented such considerations as were adapted to lead them, in this matter, to a right decision.

“‘One man,’ he says, ‘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; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.’ Both mean to honor God, and he will accept them. But what day does he speak of? ‘The Sabbath’ of the fourth commandment, associated by God inseparably with the moral laws? Read the connection. What is it? Is it, one man believeth he must worship Jehovah; another, who is weak, worshipeth idols? One believeth that he must not commit murder, adultery or theft, and another thinks he may? Were those the laws about which they were contending, and with which were connected the days that he speaks of? No; about those laws there was no dispute.

“But ‘One believeth that he may eat all things,’ (which are nourishing, whether allowed in the ceremonial law, which regulateth such things, or not); ‘another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth, for God hath received him.’ Those were not the laws about which they were contending, and with regard to which the apostle was giving them instruction. It was not the moral, but the ceremonial laws; and the days spoken of were those which were connected, not with the former, but with the latter.

“So, in the second chapter of Colossians, ‘Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths.’ The sabbaths spoken of are not the Sabbath associated with, Thou shalt not commit murder, or adultery, or theft; but the sabbaths associated with meats and drinks, and new moons, which were indeed shadows of things to come. But to take what he said about those sabbaths which were associated by God with the ceremonial laws, and which the apostle himself, in this very discourse, associates with them, and apply it, as some have done, to ‘The Sabbath’ which God associated with moral laws, is wrong.” pp. 133, 136.

All types point forward to something connected with the work of redemption. They have no other design than this. Hence no type would ever have been introduced had not man fallen and needed a redemption. They all originate, therefore, this side of the fall. But the Sabbath was instituted before the fall, before man needed redemption, and before anything was, or could have been, reasonably given to foreshadow that work. All the types that were ever instituted had no meaning except as they recognized the work of Christ in redemption; but the seventh-day Sabbath was from creation a holy day, and all the facts to which the fourth commandment points would have been just as true as they are now if Christ had never died. While the types, among which were the typical sabbaths of the Jews, recognized man’s guilt, and signified God’s willingness to save, the seventh-day Sabbath would have occupied the same place it now occupies, and ever has occupied, even if man had never sinned. The typical sabbaths were shadows of things to come; the seventh-day Sabbath was and is a memorial of things past. The two classes of sabbaths point in opposite directions, and hence cannot be classed together. The one pointed forward to redemption; the other points back to creation. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” The seventh-day Sabbath therefore is not a type, if reason and revelation may decide this question.

William Miller’s views respecting the perpetuity of the Sabbath, and its distinction from the sabbaths of the Jews, is also worthy of notice.

“I say, and I believe I am supported by the Bible, that the moral law was never given to the Jews as a people exclusively, but they were for a season the keepers of it in charge. And through them the law, oracles and testimony have been handed down to us. See Paul’s clear reasoning in Rom. ii, iii, iv, on that point. Then, says the objector, we are under the same obligation to keep the sabbaths of weeks, months and years that the Jews were. No, sir; you will observe that these were not included in the decalogue.... Only one kind of Sabbaths was given to Adam, and only one remains for us. See Hosea ii, 11. ‘I will cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.’ All the Jewish sabbaths did cease, when Christ nailed them to his cross. Col. ii, 14-17. ‘Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.’ These were properly called Jewish sabbaths. Hosea says, ‘her sabbaths.’ But the Sabbath of which we are speaking, God calls ‘my Sabbath.’ Here is a clear distinction between the creation Sabbath and the ceremonial. The one is perpetual; the others were merely shadows of good things to come, and are limited in Christ.”--_Miller’s Life and Views_, pp. 161, 162.

Here let it be distinctly understood that those who hold that no change has taken place in the law of God, excepting in the fourth precept, have no right whatever to appeal to those texts usually quoted to prove the abolition of the entire code.

Those who took the extreme position that all ten of the commandments were abolished, relied with great confidence on what the apostle has said respecting the two ministrations. 2 Cor. iii. These seemed to overlook the fact that a law is one thing, and the ministration of that law quite another thing. Paul is here contrasting two ministrations of the same law. He is contrasting the ministration of the law of God under Moses, (which was a ministration of condemnation and death,) with the ministration of the same law under Christ (which is the ministration of the Spirit). It is the ministration of death that is done away, to give place to the more glorious ministration of God’s law, called the ministration of the Spirit. But we would inquire, Why should all ten of the commandments of God be slain at the cross, even if it were necessary to abolish the fourth? All agree that nine are good, yea, indispensable for the Christian dispensation. Was it an oversight in the Lawgiver in placing the Sabbath in the midst of nine moral precepts? And did he have to slay the whole ten in order to get rid of the Sabbath? But if all ten were abolished at the cross, how is it that nine are still binding? “Why,” says the objector, “nine of them were re-enacted by Christ for the gospel.” But here is a serious difficulty; the objector has nine of the commandments re-enacted during Christ’s ministry, before the ten were abolished at his death!

If it be said that the apostles re-enacted nine of the commandments for the gospel after their Lord ascended and the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them, we reply that according to this view there was a space between the abolition of the ten, at the cross, and the re-enactment of the nine; a space when there was no law, consequently no transgression, and men might blaspheme, murder, &c., and not commit sin! But if the objector takes the ground that the nine commandments were re-enacted at the cross at the time when he thinks the ten were abolished, then we shall understand him that Heaven aimed a blow that killed all ten of the commandments, and that the same blow, at the same moment, brought nine of them to life again! And all this to get rid of the Sabbath which Christ says was made for man.

By many it was assumed, 1. That Christ was the Christian’s lawgiver, and 2. That he has given in person and by his inspired apostles, a complete code of laws for the present dispensation. It was then asserted that as the law of the Sabbath was not repeated in the New Testament, the seventh-day Sabbath is not binding upon Christians. Deuteronomy xviii, 15-18, was offered as proof that Christ was our lawgiver, but it may be seen that the text teaches the reverse. “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.... And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”

Peter, speaking of Christ, says: “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.” Acts iii, 22.

Christ, as a prophet, or teacher, was like Moses. We now inquire, Did Moses legislate? Did he make laws for the people? He did not. Moses received words from the mouth of God and spake them to the people. There is no record that he ever assumed the position of an independent lawgiver; while the inspired word furnishes facts quite the reverse. In the case of the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath, (Num. xv, 32-36,) Moses did not presume to decide his case, but left that for the great Lawgiver. “And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done unto him. And the Lord said unto Moses, the man shall be surely put to death.” See also Num. xxvii, 5-7; Lev. xxiv, 11-14.

That Christ, as a prophet, or teacher, was like Moses, we have the united testimony of Moses, (Deut. xviii, 15,) the Lord, (verse 18,) and Peter, (Acts iii, 22,) therefore he was not an independent lawgiver. Says the eternal Father, when speaking of his Son, “He shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” Jesus testifies of himself on this subject, and his testimony agrees with that of his Father. Mark well the following declarations of the Son of God:

“Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.” John vii, 16.

“Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” Chap. viii, 28.

“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” Chap. xii, 49, 50.

“He that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.” Chap. xiv, 24.

By these testimonies from the Father and Son, we learn that it was not the work of our Lord Jesus Christ to legislate; but he received the doctrines which he taught, from the mouth of the Father, and spake them to the people. In this respect, as a prophet, or teacher, he was like Moses. In both cases the Father is the lawgiver.

The transfiguration is referred to as proof that Christ is the lawgiver in the gospel age. It is said that the presence of both Moses and Christ, (the teachers of both dispensations,) and Moses’ being placed upon the background by the voice from Heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear him,” shows that Christ is the lawgiver of the present age, and that his teachings take the place of the law of God. But a very important personage is overlooked by those who take this position. It is the Father. He also appears at the mount of transfiguration. His voice is heard as the highest authority--“This is my beloved Son, hear him.” However much the glory of Christ excelled that of Moses, it did not eclipse the glory of the Author of the ten commandments. The great God spoke the ten precepts of his holy law in the hearing of all the people. He did not leave them with Moses to write and deliver to the people. Neither was it the work of the Son of God to deliver them, or any portion of them, the second time for the men of the present dispensation. Under circumstances of awful grandeur, the great Lawgiver spoke the ten commandments directly to the people, and wrote them in the tables of stone. Christ quotes several of them at different times to enforce the doctrines he taught. He treats them as the law of his Father, and affirms their immutability.

If it be said that the apostles in their writings have given a code of laws for the gospel age, we reply, that this view makes twelve lawgivers, whereas James says, “There is one lawgiver.”

See the commission to the eleven: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Matt. xxviii, 19, 20. Christ taught the apostles what he had received of the Father, and this they were to teach men to observe. Notice also the work of the Holy Spirit, and from whom it proceeds. “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John xiv, 26. “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever.” Verse 16. The Holy Spirit came from the Father, and one object for which it was sent, was to call to the disciples’ memory the words of divine truth which the Son had received of the Father, and had spoken to them.

It is God, the great Lawgiver, that speaks to his people in both dispensations: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.” Heb. i, 1, 2.

A PAPER STARTED.

The subject of the Sabbath was growing clearer, and up to this time the foregoing positions were being presented to small congregations, by Bro. Bates and myself. Opposition was waxing stronger, and the battle was increasing. Burdened with a sense of duty to enter the field in defense of truth, in July, 1849, I issued the first number of a little sheet called _The Present Truth_, from which I give the following extract to show the spirit of that time:

“It is through the truth that souls are sanctified and made ready to enter the everlasting kingdom. Obedience to the truth will kill us to this world, that we may be made alive, by faith in Jesus. ‘Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.’ John xvii, 17. This was the prayer of Jesus. ‘I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.’ 3 John, 4.

“Error darkens and fetters the mind, but the truth brings with it freedom, and gives light and life. True charity, or love, ‘rejoiceth in the truth.’ 1 Cor. xiii, 6. Thy law is truth.’ Ps. cxix, 142. David describing the day of slaughter, when the pestilence shall walk in darkness, and destruction waste at noonday, so that ‘a thousand shall fall at thy side and ten thousand at thy right hand,’ says: ‘He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust; his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.’ Ps. xci, 4.

“The storm is coming. War, famine and pestilence are already in the field of slaughter. Now is the time, the only time to seek a shelter in the truth of the living God. In Peter’s time there was present truth, or truth applicable to that present time. The church have ever had a present truth. The present truth now, is that which shows present duty, and the right position for us who are about to witness the time of trouble such as never was. Present truth must be oft repeated, even to those who are established in it. This was needful in the apostles’ day, and it certainly is no less important for us, who are living just before the close of time.

“For months I have felt burdened with the duty of writing and publishing the present truth for the scattered flock; but the way has not been opened for me to commence the work until now. I tremble at the word of the Lord, and the importance of this time. What is done to spread the truth must be done quickly. The four angels are holding the angry nations in check but a few days, until the saints are sealed; then the nations will rush, like the rushing of many waters. Then it will be too late to spread before precious souls the present, saving, living truths of the Holy Bible. My spirit is drawn out after the scattered remnant. May God help them to receive the truth, and be established in it.”

A few numbers of this little sheet had been published, which, with Bro. Bates’ publications, were a great help in the cause. Then the few that taught the truth traveled on foot, in second-class cars, or on steamboat decks, for want of means. The testimony they bore was pointed. God worked with them mightily; and the cheering news of conversions to the truth were coming in on every hand. Several brethren sold possessions, and handed out their means, to advance the cause. Young men and women could then give up their wages to help preachers from place to place, and to publish books for gratuitous distribution. All seemed to give cheerfully, and God abundantly blessed the cheerful giver. Ministers and people then felt for souls, and labored for them as though the coming of the day of God was an absorbing reality. But in those days of prosperity to the cause, there were trials; and these generally arose in consequence of a disposition to draw off from the great truths connected with the third message, to points of no vital importance. It was impossible to make some see that present truth really was _present_ truth, and not future truth, and that the word, as a lamp, shines brightest where we stand, and not so plainly on the path in the distance. Hence the order of events a thousand years in the future, or just before or after the coming of the Lord, was the all-absorbing theme with some.

THE REVIEW AND HERALD.

In 1850 I commenced publishing the _Review and Herald_ at Paris, Me. As friends were few and generally poor, we chose this country location to save expense. By this time several preachers had united in the proclamation of the present truth, and our hearts were often cheered by their success. But those were days of poverty, deprivation, toil and anguish of spirit. We labored ardently to bring some to a knowledge of the truth, divided our scanty purse with them, and at the same time were suffering for the comforts of life. With feeble health we traveled from town to town, and from State to State, preaching the word and holding conferences; and at the same time issuing the _Review_ once in two or three weeks.

About this time Bro. J. N. Andrews commenced his labors, which was no small reinforcement. Faithfully has this dear brother labored in the cause, which is now blessed with his clear expositions of Bible truth in our most important publications.

The first number of the second volume of the _Review_, was issued at Saratoga Springs, N. Y., August 5, 1851. Up to this time we had no permanent home, but had traveled as the way opened, then stopped to write and publish where brethren made us welcome. Our two little boys were from us, and six hundred miles from each other.