By MILTON E. KERN

An answer to the false charges and
unscriptural teachings of E. B. Jones

REVIEW AND HERALD PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION
TAKOMA PARK, WASHiNGTON, D.C.

Copyright 1945

CONTENTS
[Page numbers refer to the actual pooklet]

Preface 3

The Nature of Christ (1-5) 5

Righteousness by Faith or Works (15, 17, 19, 20) 13

Present and Future Salvation(14) 19

The Atonement in Type (6-13) 21

The Scapegoat "Heresy" (7) 27

The Ministry of Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary (9, 10) 30

The Twenty-three Hundred Days and the Investigative Judgment (11-13) 35

Was the Atonement Completed on the Cross? (6) 42

Have the Ten Commandments Been Abolished (17) 45

Change of the Sabbath (35) 48

The Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast (18, 33, 34) 53

Prophecies Concerning the Jews (24-29) 58

The Order of Future Events (16, 36-39) 63

The Mission of the Church (19-23, 30-32) 70

Spirit of Prophecy (40) 77

Some Outstanding Reasons Why You Should Be a Seventh-day Adventist 91

PREFACE

WHILE Seventh-day Adventists do not court religious controversy, the circulation of a pamphlet by E. B. Jones, entitled Forty Bible-supported Reasons Why You Should Not Be a Seventh-day Adventist, seems to demand a reply. We certainly welcome the privilege of giving Bible evidences for our faith. It will be necessary, also, to show that in many cases Adventist teachings have been misrepresented by false statements and garbled quotations.

Inasmuch as Mr. Jones announces himself as a former Seventh-day Adventist worker, it is fitting that we should give some of the facts regarding his experiences in connection with the Adventist Church.

While one who has been a member of an organization might naturally be considered well qualified to point out its mistakes, it would be well to remember that the circumstances of the separation of such an individual from the organization may have engendered such bitterness as to make it difficult for him to be a fair critic. If the ideals and integrity of your home were at stake, you would doubtless feel that a disgruntled member who had been separated from the family would not be a good witness regarding the character of your home. Doubtless you would at least feel that the happy and loyal members of your household should be heard.

In the year 1914 the writer conducted evangelistic meetings in the Adventist church at Battle Creek, Michigan. At that time Mr. and Mrs. Jones, both worldly young people, professed conversion, were baptized, and united with the church. Imagine my surprise to read from Mr. Jones that his decision to serve God was "not made in a revival meeting" but on a street corner, and that he "had not attended a religious meeting for years," but that due to the influence of his early training "it was, of course, the natural thing for me to look up a Seventh-day Adventist church and make arrangements for baptism and induction into the membership of that body." We grant that his decision. may have been made on a street corner, but he was attending my meetings night after night, and it was not at all necessary for him "to look up a Seventh-day Adventist church."

Being a printer, Mr. Jones was accepted as typeroom foreman in one of our American publishing houses. Later he was sent to India as manager of the denominational publishing house in that field. There he manifested such a critical and noncooperative attitude that it became impossible to continue him in the work, and he was recalled.

Returning to America, Mr. Jones again united with the Adventist church in Battle Creek, where he had found employment as a printer. Still critical, but avowing absolute loyalty to all the teachings of the church, he gathered about him a group of fellow church members who, under his guidance, set for themselves the task of reforming the church. Some months later he united with a small group of people who had withdrawn from the Adventist Church in Germany and had established an office in America. He became the editor of their paper. This connection, however, did not last long. Mr. Jones went into business in Chicago. There he was rebaptized and became once more a member of the Adventist Church.

But again he became disaffected, gathered about him a few sympathizers, and finally declared himself out of harmony with some of the teachings of the church, and by his own request was disfellowshiped. Even after this, however, he continued to keep the seventh-day Sabbath for six years, or until about the time of the first edition of the pamphlet under review.

In the light of such a record of criticism, vacillation, and endeavors to lead dissent in the church, his present position is better understood.

In order to hold our answer to the limits of this pamphlet and still give positive Biblical proofs of our positions, and to avoid repetitions, we have grouped his "reasons" rather than answer each one separately. The figures given after each chapter heading in the table of contents indicate the numbers of the "reasons" dealt with in that chapter.

Some may have tacitly accepted statements by the author of this pamphlet without checking on their accuracy. In the interest of fair play we appeal to those who have read the pamphlet to carefully consider our defense. We sincerely hope that the reader will follow the example of the noble Bereans who "searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11. God's Word is our only guide.

"It is the chart and compass
That o'er life's surging sea,
'Mid mists and rocks and quicksands,
Still guides, 0 Christ, to Thee."

In his efforts to discredit Seventh-day Adventists, Mr. Jones sets forth a charge of heresy regarding a most vital doctrine of Christianity--the nature of Christ.

Mr. Jones' first complaint (No. 1) is that "Seventh-day Adventists teach that it was Christ, not the Father, who conceived the plan of redemption." He quotes Mrs. Ellen G. White to the effect that Jesus "offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself." This, declares Mr. Jones, is contrary to the Bible, which teaches that "God gave His only-begotten Son"; that He "sent" Him, and that it was "by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" that Jesus was "delivered" to be "crucified and slain." (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9; Acts 2:22, 23.)

Mr. Jones, however, fails to quote another scripture, which is very similar to the statement of Mrs. White to which he takes exception, that Christ "through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God." Heb. 9:14. There is no contradiction between this passage and those quoted above. They are complementary. Jesus said:

"Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father." John 10:17, 18.

The unity of the Father and Son in the plan of redemption is well expressed by Mrs. Ellen G. White as follows:

"This great sacrifice was not made in order to create in the Father's heart a love for man, not to make Him willing to save. No, no! 'God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son.' The Father loves us, not because of the great propitiation, but He provided the propitiation because He loves us. Christ was the medium through which He could pour out His infinite love upon a fallen world. 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.' God suffered with His Son. In the agony of Gethsemane, the death of Calvary, the heart of Infinite Love paid the price of our redemption. Jesus said, 'Therefore doth

"I and My Father are one," declared Jesus. John 10:30. And who with finite mind will venture to define exactly the respective parts taken by them in those councils of old, "before the foundation of the world," when the plan of salvation was first laid? And why should any Christian shrink from accepting a view that clearly magnifies equally the Son in offering Himself with the Father who gave that Son for a lost world?

In full recognition of God's sovereignty and prescience, Seventh-day Adventists agree fully with the Scriptural teaching that Christ was "foreordained before the foundation of the world" to die for fallen humanity. Since Mr. Jones has chosen to quote largely from Mrs. Ellen G. White, let us quote also from one of her widely circulated books.

"The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of 'the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal.' Rom. 16:25, R.V. . . . God did not foreordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency."--The Desire of Ages, p. 22.

Concerning scenes in heaven after man had sinned, she wrote:

"The Son of God, heaven's glorious Commander, was touched with pity for the fallen race. His heart was moved with infinite compassion as the woes of the lost world rose up before Him. But divine love had conceived a plan whereby man might be redeemed. . . . Before the Father He pleaded in the sinner's behalf, while the host of heaven awaited the result with an intensity of interest that words cannot express. Long continued was that mysterious communing,--'the counsel of peace' (Zech. 6:13) for the fallen sons of men. The plan of salvation had been laid before the creation of the earth; for Christ is 'the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world' (Rev. 13:8); yet it was a struggle, even with the King of the universe, to yield up His Son to die for the guilty race."--Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 63.

In the face of such clear statements Mr. Jones, who for many years was a student of Mrs. White's writings, declares that "Seventh-day Adventists teach that . . . the plan of redemption . . was formed after, not before, man's temptation and fall." And what is the basis for this false charge? He cites a passage in which Mrs. White described a council between the Father and the Son, after the fall of man, following which He announced the decision to the angels of heaven. She does not say that this was the first time the plan was considered by them; but Mr. Jones unequivocally asserts that Seventh-day Adventists teach that the plan of redemption was formed after the fall of man. The clear statements which we have quoted prove his assertion false.

The Virgin Birth of Christ

Perhaps one of the most flagrant misrepresentations brought by this critic in his attack against his former brethren is the implication that they teach that Christ was not Mary's first-born son. (No. 2.) It is based on a statement by Mrs. White to the effect that Jesus' brothers were older than He. This is declared to imply "that He was not Mary's first-born Son, also lending support to the destructive denial that His virgin birth was but a myth." But on the very page from which he begins to quote from Mrs. White occurs the sentence, "His brothers, as the sons of Jose ph were called, sided with the rabbis."--Ibid., pp. 86, 87. Could anyone read these pages and honestly say that Mrs. White teaches that Christ "was not Mary's first-born son"?

It is not necessary, in this connection, to enter into discussion regarding the three views held by eminent theologians, of various church affiliations, whether (a) the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former marriage; (b) cousins, sons of Cleopas or (c) later sons of Joseph and Mary. All three views are held and advocated by those who fully accept the Biblical record that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that He was Mary's first-born son. (Matt. 1:25.) Regarding the merits of these respective views, a well-known writer, Dean Frederick W. Farrar, D.D., has said:

"Whole volumes have been written on this controversy.

The evidence is so evenly balanced, the difficulties of each opinion are so clear, that to insist very dogmatically on any positive solution of the problem would be uncandid and contentious."--The Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 96.

Mr. Jones cannot support his charge that even by implication Mrs. White or Seventh-day Adventists teach that Christ was not Mary's first-born son. Indeed, in the very book from which he quotes the supposed heresy, allegedly denying the "virgin birth," Mrs. White speaks of "the sweet, childlike faith of Mary, the maiden ["An unmarried woman, especially one who is young; one who is still a virgin."--FUNK AND WAGNALLS, New Standard Dictionary] of Nazareth, whose answer to the angel's wonderful announcement was, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.' "--The Desire of Ages, p. 98.

Thus "Reason No. 2" is based on what Seventh-day Adventists do not teach, and falls to the ground.

Objection is made to statements in Seventh-day Adventist books which recognize that in His incarnation Jesus took "our nature," and that "on His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits,--a sinful nature." (No. 3.) It is asserted that this "could only mean His heart, too, was 'deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.'"

Such a shocking conclusion could be reached only by ignoring the fact that Seventh-day Adventists, in common with other Christian evangelicals, recognize the divine as well as the human in the mystery of the babe of Bethlehem, with a human mother, but divinely begotten by the power of the Holy Spirit. We are amazed to note that Mr. Jones recognizes no human element in Christ, but insists that "Christ possessed the nature of holiness because He was procreated, not of man, but of the Spirit of God." He quotes the following, with approval, from some unnamed source: "In the inherent elements of His being, the Son of God differs from all others, both men and angels, not only in degree but in kind. (See Heb. 1:1-9.) As for men, all, save Christ, have possessed the nature of evil, for all have been the offspring of their father, Adam."

But is it not true that through His mother, Jesus, also, like all mankind, was the offspring of Adam? Does not Luke trace His genealogy back to our common father? (Luke 3:23-38.) While the writer of the book of Hebrews, in the first chapter, cited above, sets forth the deity of Christ, in the second chapter he emphasizes the equally essential doctrine that "as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same"; that "verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham"; and as a climax, says:

"Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." Heb. 2:17, 18.

Through sin the human family has come under the condemnation of the law. The very heart of the plan of salvation is the fact that only by becoming one with us could Christ act as our high priest and be qualified to pay the sacrificial penalty for our sins. So Paul declares:

"When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Gal. 4:4,5.

"God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us." Rom. 8:3, 4.

"He both made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." 2 Cor. 5:21.

In contradiction to these scriptures, Mr. Jones declares that "in His nature He was more than human. He was divine; and, perforce, was immune to sin."

In his arraignment of Seventh-day Adventists and their teachings regarding the incarnation, Mr. Jones equally condemns practically every evangelical denomination.

The eminent English theologian H. P. Liddon, LL.D., who was made canon of St. Paul's Cathedral, London, said:

"When our Lord says that authority was given Him to execute judgment because He is the Son of man, it is plain that the point of the reason lies, not in His being Messiah, but in His being human. He displays a genuine humanity which could deem nothing human strange and could be touched with the feeling of the infirmities of the race which He was to judge. (John 5:27; Heb. 4:15.) . . . As the Son of man, then, our Lord is the Messiah; He is a true member of our human race."--The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, pp. 8, 9.

We also quote from a recognized Presbyterian authority, William N. Clark, D.D.:

"The unique person [Christ] was united to God and to humanity by the ties of life. With both, Christ was vitally one; by living naturally He lived in perfect unity with both, and from neither could He be separated. Hence there was no need of any special arrangement or appointment to bring Him into closest relationship with God or with men. By His very nature He had community of life with both--a community of life that was not imaginary but actual, not arbitrary but natural. Born into the human race, He shared in its life, while yet He had a solitary and unique community of life with God. He literally linked God and humanity. Between the two He was the living link. These relations are represented by the two titles, Son of God and Son of man."--An Outline of Christian Theology, pp. 305, 306. (Italics mine.)

It would seem that Jesus preferred the title "Son of man." While in the Gospels He speaks of Himself as the "Son of God" less than a half dozen times, it is significant that, as Philip Schaff, D.D., points out, He "asserts His humanity and calls Himself, about eighty times in the Gospels, the Son of man."--The Person of Christ, p. 79

Mr. Jones quotes the Bible correctly, and we do not object to the emphasis he places upon His divinity in the phrases, "God with us"; "God [was] manifest in the flesh." But it is no perversion of the Scriptures to transfer the emphasis, to read, "God with us," and "God was manifest in the flesh." Matt. 1 :23; 1 Tim. 3:16. Seventh-day Adventists hold that Christ's divinity and humanity are essential to bridge the gulf between man and his God. If this teaching is a reason why you should not be a Seventh-day Adventist, it is also a reason why you should not be a member of other evangelical denominations.

Mr. Jones claims that the prophetic assurance that He "would not fail nor be discouraged" and other predictions of "the successful fulfillment of God's plan of salvation," mean that Christ "ran no risks as to the final outcome of His earthly mission." On this ground he objects in "Reason No. 4" to the following statement by Mrs. White:

"Into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss."--The Desire of Ages, p. 49.

The seeming discrepancy between this statement and the prophetic assurance that Jesus would triumph over sin and death, involves a problem similar to that age-long controversy regarding the relation of God's omniscient foreknowledge and the freedom of the human will.

To give an illustration in the realm of human experience:

About ninety years ago a Mr. Blondin made several trips across the gorge below Niagara Falls on a tightrope, once pushing a wheelbarrow, once carrying another man across on his back, and again making and eating an omelette while poised on the rope more than one hundred and sixty feet above the racing waters. Of course, in His omniscience God knew that Mr. Blondin would not fall. Suppose that he had revealed this to man. Would anyone be justified, because of this omniscience, to say that Blondin "ran no risks as to the final outcome" of his acrobatic stunt? God's foreknowledge surely did not eliminate the peril of the undertaking.

Much ink has flowed in controversy as to whether it was possible for Jesus to sin. In declaring (with emphasis) that "He could not fail," Mr. Jones arrays himself against such theologians as F. W. Farrar, Philip Schaff, and many others whose works are accepted by devout men of all faiths.

In perfect agreement with Mrs. White's statement, and in utter disagreement with Mr. Jones, Philip Schaff says:

"Had He been endowed from the start with absolute impeccability, or with the impossibility of sinning, He could not be a true man, nor our model for imitation: His holiness, instead of being His own self-acquired act and inherent merit, would be an accidental or outward gift, and His temptation an unreal show. As a true man, Christ must have been a free man and responsible human agent: freedom implies the power of choice between good and evil, and the power of disobedience as well as obedience to the law of God."--The Person of Christ, pp. 35, 36.

Alexander B. Bruce, D.D., said by the New International Encyclopedia to be among the most distinguished Biblical scholars of his time, wrote:

"If the truth . . . that the force of temptation was strong enough to create the consciousness of a struggle be overlooked, then the whole curriculum of moral trial through which Jesus passed on earth degenerates at once into a mere stage performance. . . . In modern times this Doketic view finds no acceptance; theologians of all schools being agreed that the forces of evil, with which the Son of man fought so noble a fight, were not shadows, but substantial and formidable foes."--The Humiliation of Christ, pp. 269, 270.

Of those who, like Mr. Jones, insist that Jesus "could not fail," or could not sin, Dean F. W. Farrar has well said:

"Some, in a zeal at once intemperate and ignorant, have claimed for Him not only actual sinlessness but a nature to which sin was divinely and miraculously impossible. What then? If His great conflict were a mere deceptive phantasmagoria, how can the narrative of it profit us? If we have to fight the battle clad in that armor of human free-will, . . . what comfort is it to us if our great Captain fought not only victoriously, but without real danger; not only uninjured, but without even a possibility of a wound. . .

"Let us beware of contradicting the express teaching of the Scriptures, . . . by a supposition that He was not liable to real temptation."--The Life of Christ, Vol. I, pp. 123, 124.

We wonder whether the "many alert Christians, including pastors, Bible teachers, missionaries," and others, who Mr. Jones asserts are "lending their earnest support" to the distribution of this tirade against Seventh-day Adventists, have really given careful study to the theological errors they are thus supporting.

Did Jesus See Through the Portals of the Tomb?

"Reason No. 5" needs but a brief statement to reveal the absolutely unfair representation of Seventh-day Adventist teachings by Mr. Jones. In dealing with that portion of the crucifixion scene when darkness surrounded the cross, and Jesus cried out in despair, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me ?" Mrs. White says, "The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror."--The Desire of Ages, p. 753. Mr. Jones appears to be shocked by such a statement and concludes that "He had no fear that, as He commended His spirit to the Father, 'their separation was to be eternal.'"

By what rule of common honesty did Mr. Jones withhold the fact that Mrs. White, in continuing the narrative of the crucifixion in the same connection, made it clear that Christ triumphed over the darkness which temporarily oppressed Him? She said:

"Suddenly the gloom lifted from the cross, and in clear, trumpet-like tones, that seemed to resound throughout creation, Jesus cried, 'It is finished.' 'Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit.' A light encircled the cross, and the face of the Saviour shone with a glory like the sun. He then bowed His head upon His breast, and died. . . . As in submission Re committed Himself to God, the sense of the loss of His Father's favor was withdrawn. By faith, Christ was victor."--Ibid., pp. 755, 756.

If any doubt the temporary darkness and despair that wrung from the heart of Jesus that awful cry of agony, let them read the first part of psalm 22, generally recognized as a Messianic prophecy. The first sentence only was uttered audibly, but His thoughts are expressed in verses 2 to 20. Verses 21 to 31 set forth the triumph of faith as His cry to God was heard and answered.

It does seem strange that Mr. Jones, who came into the Adventist Church under the preaching of righteousness by faith, and who for years has studied our literature, should accuse us of advocating "not the gospel of pure grace" but "the gospel of dead works." (Nos. 15, 17.) Surely he has had abundant opportunity to know that the blessed doctrine of salvation through the merits of Christ alone, by faith in His name, has been the burden of our evangelistic message through the years. A few brief excerpts from leading Seventh-day Adventist writers will suffice to show this to be true.

"In some way the love of God shining from the cross of Calvary reaches that man's heart. He yields, repents, confesses, and by faith claims Christ as His Saviour. The instant that is done, he is accepted as a child of God. His sins are all forgiven, his guilt is canceled, he is accounted righteous, and stands approved, justified, before the divine law. And this amazing, miraculous change may take place in one short hour. This is righteousness by faith."--A. G. DANIELLS, former president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, in Christ, Our Righteousness, p. 23. (This book is an exposition of the precious truth of righteousness by faith, and was at one time a favorite with Mr. Jones; so he is not ignorant regarding Adventist teaching on this subject.)

"He [Paul] also makes clear that a man, upon repentance and faith in Christ, pleading the Saviour's blood for the remission of his sins, and before he has wrought a single act of obedience to the law, is justified by his faith. . . . This righteousness is a gift. We cannot earn it. We cannot claim it by any natural right that we have, but, thank God, we can accept it in all its blessed fullness by faith in the atoning blood of Jesus."--C. H. WATSON, another former president of the General Conference, in The Atoning Work of Christ, pp. 46, 48.

"Service for others is not a means of salvation, but the fruit of it. It is not service, but faith, that brings salvation to men. We are not asked to try to win salvation by some effort on our part but to accept it as a gift from God. We are not saved by anything we may do for God but by what He does for us."-- WILLIAM H. BRANSON, president of the General Conference, in How Men Are Saved, p. 27.

A Garbled Quotation

An attempt is made to prove that Seventh-day Adventists are legalists by quoting a few brief, disconnected phrases from the writings of Mrs. Ellen G. White; yet Mrs. White herself was converted and accepted righteousness by faith when a girl in the Methodist Church. Her writings on Christian experience are recognized by thousands outside the Adventist communion as most helpful. One of Mr. Jones' excerpts is taken from her book Steps to Christ, which is very well known, millions of copies of which have been circulated in more than fifty languages. Perhaps the best way to enable the reader to judge of the merits of the criticism is first to quote his brief, disconnected extract and then quote a larger selection, including his extract, which will be printed in bold type.

"The . . . dangerous error is, that belief in Christ releases men from keeping the law of God; that since by faith alone we become partakers of the grace of Christ, our works have nothing to do with our redemption. . . . The condition of eternal life is now just what it always has been,-- . . . perfect obedience to the law of God."

The fuller excerpt is as follows, with the portions quoted by Mr. Jones in bold type.

"There are two errors against which the children of God-- particularly those who have just come to trust in His grace--especially need to guard. The first, already dwelt upon, is that of looking to their own works, trusting to anything they can do, to bring themselves into harmony with God. He who is trying to become holy by his own works in keeping the law, is attempting an impossibility. All that man can do without Christ is polluted with selfishness and sin. It is the grace of Christ alone, through faith, that can make us holy.

"The opposite and no less dangerous error is, that belief in Christ releases men from keeping the law of God: that since by faith alone we become partakers of the grace of Christ, our works have nothing to do with our redemption.

"But notice here that obedience is not a mere outward compliance, but the service of love. The law of God is an expression of His very nature; it is an embodiment of the great principle of love, and hence is the foundation of His government in heaven and earth. If our hearts are renewed in the likeness of God, if the divine love is implanted in the soul, will not the law of God be carried out in the life? When the principle of love is implanted in the heart, when man is renewed after the image of Him that created him, the new covenant promise is fulfilled. 'I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them.' Heb. 10:16. And if the law is written in the heart, will it not shape the life? Obedience--the service and allegiance of love--is the true sign of discipleship. Thus the Scripture says, 'This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.' 'He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.' 1 John 5:3; 2:4. Instead of releasing man from obedience, it is faith, and faith only, that makes us partakers of the grace of Christ, which enables us to render obedience.

"We do not earn salvation by our obedience; for salvation is the free gift of God, to be received by faith. But obedience is the fruit of faith. 'Ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him.' 1 John 3:5, 6. Here is the true test. If we abide in Christ, if the love of God dwells in us, our feelings, our thoughts, our actions, will be in harmony with the will of God as expressed in the precepts of His holy law. 'Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.' 1 John 3:7. Righteousness is defined by the standard of God's holy law, as expressed in the ten precepts given on Sinai.

"That so-called faith in Christ which professes to release men from the obligation of obedience to God, is not faith, but presumption. 'By grace are ye saved through faith.' But 'faith, if it hath not works, is dead.' Eph. 2:8; James 2:17. Jesus said of Himself before He came to earth, 'I delight to do Thy will, 0 My God; yea, Thy law is within My heart.' Ps. 40:8. And just before He ascended again to heaven He declared, 'I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.' John 15:10. The Scripture says, 'Hereby do we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. . . . He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked.' 1 John 2:3-6. 'Because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps.' 1 Peter 2:21.

"The condition of eternal life is now just what it always has been,--just what it was in Paradise before the fall of our first parents,--perfect obedience to the law of God, perfect righteousness. If eternal life were granted on any condition short of this, then the happiness of the whole universe would be imperiled. The way would be open for sin, with all its train of woe and misery, to be immortalized."--Steps to Christ, pp. 64-67 (chap. "The Test of Discipleship").

Here again is clearly set forth Seventh-day Adventist teaching regarding righteousness "by faith alone" through "the grace of Christ alone," with a clear statement that "our works have nothing to do with our redemption," and that "obedience is the fruit of faith." If such teaching is good reason for not being a Seventh-day Adventist, it would likewise disqualify one from becoming a member of most of our evangelical churches. And it is difficult for us to believe that ministers of other churches who have endorsed Mr. Jones' pamphlet would have done so if they had really known of such glaring misrepresentations of Adventist teachings as demonstrated above.

As further evidence of the inconsistency of this tirade against Adventists, let it be said parenthetically that while here Mr. Jones accuses Mrs. White of teaching the doctrine of righteousness by works, under "Reason No. 32" he quotes her as saying that the message which the Adventists have to give is the doctrine of justification by faith.

Righteousness Witnessed by the Law

We are condemned by Mr. Jones for teaching that the "condition of eternal life is . . . perfect obedience to the law of God." (No. 17.) Yet we are told, in the same connection, that Jesus rendered that perfect obedience. That is right. He says, "I have kept My Father's commandments." John 15:10. And Jesus' practice was in harmony with His teaching. We read, "One came and said unto Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" What was Jesus' answer? "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." On being asked which, Jesus quoted five of the Ten Commandments. (Matt. 19:16-19.) Again a lawyer came asking, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" The lawyer quoted the two commandments that sum up the whole Decalogue, and Jesus replied, "Thou hast answered right: this do and thou shalt live." (Luke 10:25-28.) The instruction given by Jesus to such inquiry was different from that given by our critic, who declares, "There is, indeed, no law--no keeping of the law required as a means of salvation," because now we are "under grace."

Paul, the great exponent of righteousness by faith, plainly shows the fallacy of such a theory of salvation. He said, "By the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20), and, "I had not known sin, but by the law (Rom. 7:7). Having found, however, that he could not of himself obey the law, which is holy and just and good (verse 12), he accepted from God the blessed gift of righteousness, a righteousness that was "witnessed by the law and the prophets." (Born. 3:21.) And as the beloved John beheld in vision the glorious inheritance of the saints, he said, "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev. 22:14.

Christians on Probation

We are even condemned for teaching that Christians are "placed here on probation," and that those who "prove worthy" will have eternal life. (No. 15.) It really seems superfluous to answer such a charge. Jesus spoke of those who should be "accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead" (Luke 20:35), and Paul frequently charges his readers to "walk worthy" (Eph. 4:1; Col. 1:10). The Scriptures clearly teach that it is possible for Christians to fail and be lost. (See next chapter.)

Again Mr. Jones quotes from Mrs. White and leaves out a phrase that would have unmasked his efforts to deceive his readers. From Counsels to Teachers (page 366) he quotes: "Man is no passive being, to be saved in indolence. He is called upon to strain every muscle and exercise every faculty in the struggle for immortality." The remainder of the sentence which he now fails to quote is, "Yet it is God that supplies the efficiency."

It so happens that in a pamphlet which Mr. Jones published, on his own, when he was an Adventist, he approvingly used this same quotation, including the phrase which he now omits. And he spoke of the "unspeakably glorious" truth of righteousness by faith thus taught by Mrs. White. Is it not crystal clear that our critic, by his omission of the part of the sentence in bold type above, is deliberately endeavoring to deceive his readers regarding the teachings of Seventh-day Adventists? Regretfully, but in all sincerity, we ask, Is this kind of deceptive manipulation the fruit of "the gospel of pure grace"?

Health Reform and Tithing

Mr. Jones charges that Adventists endeavor to win immortality through health reform. (No. 20.) We do believe in the admonition to "glorify God in your body" (1 Cor. 6:20), and endeavor to heed the warning that "if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are" (1 Cor. 3:17). But anyone who has been a guest at an Adventist sanitarium or who has considered our health teachings, knows that we teach the subject of health from the standpoint of scientific research and not on the basis of Levitical law. We do, however, emphasize the fact that God wills that we should "be in health." (3 John 2.)

Our critic infers that to teach the payment of tithes as an obligation is to trust in works for salvation. (No. 19.) While tithe paying is not made a test of fellowship in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, we do believe and teach that we should render to God the tenth of our income for the support of the gospel.

Tithing is older than the Mosaic system. Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, king of Salem. (Gen. 14:20.) And when the Lord appeared to Jacob at Bethel in a dream and renewed to him the Messianic promises which had been given to Abraham and Isaac, Jacob there made a solemn vow to serve God, and he said, "Of all that Thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto Thee." Gen. 28:22.

It would seem that tithing was an understood obligation in the patriarchal times long before it was written into the laws of the Jewish economy that the tithe "is the Lord's." (Lev. 27:30.) It was not one of the typical services that would naturally pass away at the cross, but was based on the principle of the recognition of God's ownership, a principle as important in one dispensation as another. Jesus said this "ought ye to have done." Luke 11:42. The tithing system is beautiful in its simplicity and equality, and is not a yoke of bondage. We do not pay tithes in order to be saved, but because we have dedicated our lives to the furtherance of the gospel. In the same chapter in Testimonies for the Church from which Mr. Jones quotes, it is said: "Systematic benevolence should not be made systematic compulsion. It is freewill offerings that are acceptable to God."-- Volume III, p. 396. Of course "the tree is known by his fruit" (Matt. 12:33), and the support of God's work is indeed one of the fruits by which our love and faithfulness are manifested. Many Christians aside from Seventh-day Adventists can testify to the spiritual blessings that come through this regular and systematic plan of sustaining the cause of God.

PRESENT AND FUTURE SALVATION

The claim is set forth by our critic that we do not believe in present salvation, that we are teaching a false gospel, and that we are therefore "under the anathema of God." (No. 14.) But the accusation for which he would bring down the curse of God upon the denomination is not true, and the quotations from Mrs. White on which he bases the accusation are garbled; this makes it appear that she teaches what she does not. To show this to be a fact, a larger excerpt will be given which includes his quotations with the parts he quoted in bold type. In the book Christ's Object Lessons, page 155, the author is drawing a lesson from the fall of Peter when he denied his Lord. She says: "Never can we safely put confidence in self, or feel, this side of heaven, that we are secure against temptation. Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading. Everyone should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation. God's Word declares, 'Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried.' Dan. 12:10. Only he who endures the trial will receive the crown of life. (James 1:12.) Those who accept Christ, and in their first confidence say, I am saved, are in danger of trusting to themselves. They lose sight of their own weakness and their constant need of divine strength. They are unprepared for Satan's devices, and under temptation many, like Peter, fall into the very depths of sin. We are admonished, 'Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.' 1 Cor. 10:12. Our only safety is in constant distrust of self, and dependence on Christ."

Is it not perfectly clear that Mrs. White is warning Christians against that boastful confidence which Peter had? Even though we have given ourselves to God and "know that He accepts us," we should not deceive ourselves by regarding our salvation in the kingdom of God as an absolute certainty and thus fail to be diligent to make our "calling and election sure." (2 Peter 1:10.) Would Mr. Jones condemn Jesus because He said to His chosen disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation"? Mark 14:38.

Great stress is laid upon the fact that God has given to us eternal life. (1 John 5:11.) We believe that. It is repeated over and over in the New Testament. The book Christ's Object Lessons (page 38), commenting on John 5:24, says, "He who by faith receives the word is receiving the very life and character of God." But does this mean that one who receives this life cannot lose it? No, indeed. The "crown of life" is for those who are "faithful unto death." We are admonished, "Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." Rev. 2:10; 3:11. Jesus says, "And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day." "Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:40, 54. Mrs. White, commenting on 1 John 5:11, says:

"Christ became one flesh with us, in order that we might become one spirit with Him. It is by virtue of this union that we are to come forth from the grave. . . . Those who see Christ in His true character, and receive Him into the heart, have everlasting life. It is through the Spirit that Christ dwells in us; and the Spirit of God, received into the heart by faith, is the beginning of the life eternal."--The Desire of Ages, p. 388. (Italics mine.)

A very fine statement on this question of present and future salvation, with which we heartily agree, appears in What Is the Gospel? (pages 51, 42), by C. G. Trumbull, a book highly recommended by Mr. Jones. "Our salvation is complete, yet our salvation is not complete. Our salvation from the penalty of sin is unimprovably perfect and complete, finished and past. Our salvation from the power of sin is complete moment by moment as we trust moment by moment in the sufficiency of Christ for this. Yet we still have the possibility of sinning; we are still living in sin-injured bodies, subject to sin, disease, and death. Is there no salvation from this? Yes, praise God; we have a future salvation, which is to be ours at the coming of Christ. That is the 'hope' part of our salvation, the forward look, the 'blessed hope.'"

THE ATONEMENT IN TYPE

Eight of Mr. Jones' forty "reasons" pertain to the teaching of the Adventists regarding the atonement. (Nos. 6-13.) While some of his statements are very misleading, it is true that the Adventist doctrine of the atonement is, in some features, somewhat different from that held by other evangelical bodies. Far be it from us, however, to condemn as heretical any who believe as we do in the substitutionary death of Christ, simply because they do not understand just as we do the exact method of the atonement or the process by which all sin is finally eradicated from the universe. Our attitude in this matter has been well expressed by one of our writers as follows:

"Christ as 'the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world'; Christ as the divine Son of God; Christ as the Incarnate God, virgin-born; Christ as the great teacher and example; Christ as the miracle worker; Christ in His substitutionary, propitiatory death; Christ in His miraculous resurrection and ascension--are all well known and fully accepted by loyal Bible Christians. But the priesthood of Christ, His mediation in the heavenlies--His intercession with the Father, His ministry in the sanctuary above, His dealing with the sins confessed to Him, the application of His shed blood to remove sin from the sinner, and His final disposition of sin, and His salvation of the sinner--these have been left in the realm of misty speculation. They have not been clearly comprehended by the people of God."--CARLYLE B. HAYNES, The Hour of God's Judgment, pp. 7-9.

These important truths can be clearly understood, we believe, by a careful study of the sanctuary service of the Old Testament as interpreted in the New Testament, especially in the book of Hebrews, and by a study of the prophecies pertaining to the closing work of the gospel.

The word "atonement" is found but once in our Authorized Version of the New Testament (Rom. 5:11), and not at all in either the English or American Revised Version, though, of course, the idea of the atonement, the forgiveness and blotting out of sin, is clearly taught. The word is found many times in the Old Testament.

When Adam and Eve disobeyed their Creator and brought sorrow and death to the human race, God announced to them a plan whereby they might still be saved from eternal death--by a Saviour to be born of woman, who would eventually triumph over evil. (Gen. 3:15.) And so we find their son, Abel, bringing to God an acceptable offering of the firstlings of his flock, a bloody sacrifice pointing forward to the promised Redeemer--the Lamb of God who was (in the promise) "slain from the foundation of the world." Rev. 13:8.

All down through the tragic years of sin and sorrow until He came, those who served God expressed their sorrow for sin and their faith in the coming Redeemer by sacrificing innocent victims, with the blood of which atonement was made for their sins. And when Jesus came He was announced as "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. Type had met its antitype.

After the children of Israel had been delivered from Egyptian bondage under the leadership of Moses, the Lord came down on Mount Sinai and with His own voice gave them His holy law, the Ten Commandments, and wrote it for them on tables of stone. There the children of Israel were organized as a nation and given statutes and judgments for the development of their national life. They were to be His own peculiar people, to preserve the true worship of Jehovah in the midst of the surrounding heathen nations. The Lord gave them a system of worship centering in the tabernacle, or sanctuary, where the Ten Commandments were deposited.

Specific directions were given to Moses for the building of the tabernacle, its furniture, and its instruments of service. "Let them make Me a sanctuary," said God; "that I may dwell among them. According to all that I show thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it." Ex. 25:8, 9.

The tabernacle was surrounded by the court of the sanctuary, wherein was the altar of burnt offering and a layer for the washing and purification of the priests engaged in the service of the sanctuary. The tabernacle consisted of two apartments--the holy place, in which was the table of shewbread, the candlestick, and the altar of incense; and the most holy place, with its one article of furniture, the ark of the covenant, in which were deposited the tables of stone on which were written the Ten Commandments. The covering of the ark was the mercy seat, with its two golden cherubim, or angels, with spreading wings, between which shone a mysterious light, the Shekinah, a symbol of God's presence among His people. The door to the holy place was a hanging, or veil, and the holy place was separated from the most holy by a second veil.

Specific and minute directions were given concerning the priesthood, the sacrifices, and all the services to be conducted in the sanctuary. "This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meat offering, and of the sin offering, and of the trespass offering, and of the consecrations, and of the sacrifice of the peace offerings; which the Lord commanded Moses in Mount Sinai, in the day that He commanded the children of Israel to offer their oblations unto the Lord, in the wilderness of Sinai." Lev. 7:37, 38.

As there were two separate and distinct apartments in the sanctuary, so there were two distinct types of service: the daily and the yearly service. Each day there were the morning and evening sacrifices, the offering of sweet incense on the golden altar before the second veil, and the special offerings for the removal of guilt from those who had disobeyed the moral law, the transgression of which is sin. (1 John 3:4.)

The rules governing sin offerings varied somewhat, but in each case the sinner who by his sin had merited death, provided himself an offering as a substitute, brought it to the door of the tabernacle, laid his hand upon it--thus in type transferring his sin to the innocent victim--and then killed it. The disposition of the blood was somewhat different in different cases, but in every case the objective was the same, to transfer to the sanctuary in symbol, the record of the sin that had been laid on the victim and for which it had died.

In some cases the priest was to "dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary," and also put "some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation," and pour all the blood "at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." Lev. 4:6, 7. In other cases the priest was to "take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering" and "pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering." Verse 25. So in this case the blood was not sprinkled before the veil in the sanctuary.

When the blood was not taken into the sanctuary, the flesh was to he eaten: "The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation." Lev. 6:26. This distinction was made:

"No sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire." Lev. 6:30. Moses, in speaking of the sin offering that was to be eaten, told the priests that "God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord." Lev. 10:17.

The typical transfer of sin is clearly taught. Again and again, with reference to the work of the priest after the sinner laid his hand on his offering and killed it, the statement is made, as in Leviticus 4:31, "the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him." The sin had been transferred in type to the animal, which paid the penalty by its death. The record of this forgiven sin was carried by the blood to the horns of the altar of incense. In the cases in which the flesh was eaten, we are distinctly told that God had given it to the priests to "bear the iniquity." Lev. 10:17. When priests who thus bore iniquity made offerings for themselves, the record for those forgiven sins was likewise transferred to the sanctuary.

The sins of the repentant sinner who brought his offering were forgiven. Atonement was made by the sprinkled blood or the eating of the flesh, and he was free. But the sins had not yet been blotted out and finally disposed of. The record had been transferred in type to the sanctuary, which was cleansed from all defilement once a year on the Day of Atonement. The Bible statements regarding the Day of Atonement make that very clear.

The tenth day of the seventh month, the Day of Atonement, was the climax of the Jewish religious year. It is spoken of by all Jewish authorities as a day of judgment. (See Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 284.) And such it really was, for on that solemn holyday he who did not afflict his soul was "cut off from among his people." Lev. 23:29. First of all, the high priest killed a bullock as a sin offering for himself, for he who officiates in this solemn work must be holy and undefiled. But before administering the blood of the bullock he went into the tabernacle, entered the most holy place and deposited a censer of burning incense on the mercy seat, "that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not." Lev. 16:13. Then he went out, received the blood of the bullock from the priest, again entered the most holy place, sprinkled the blood "upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times" (verse 14), thus making "atonement for himself, and for his house" (verse 11).

The high light of this solemn service of the Day of Atonement was the disposition of the two goats furnished by the congregation. These goats were presented "before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle," and lots were cast upon them, "One lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat [Hebrew-- Azazel]." Verses 7, 8. The Lord's goat was offered "for a sin offering," but the other was "presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness." Verses 9, 10.

After the ceremony of administering the blood of the bullock for himself and for his house, the high priest came out, took the Lord's goat, and killed it. During the daily services throughout the year, the sinner who came with his sin offering always killed his sacrifice, but on the Day of Atonement the high priest, as the representative of all the people, slew the victim. Again he entered the sanctuary and sprinkled the blood of the people's sin offering on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. (Verse 15.) In doing this he made "atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins." Returning to the first apartment, or holy place, which is also called the tabernacle of the congregation, he did the same thing there "for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness." Verse 16. Then having made atonement for the sanctuary, he went to the altar of burnt offering and put some of the blood of both the bullock and the goat upon the horns of the altar, and sprinkled the altar with his finger seven times, to "cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel." Verse 19.

Thus was the sanctuary cleansed, not because of any inherent sin in it, but because of the "uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions." Verse 16. It was ceremonially and typically unclean because during the entire year sin-laden blood, the blood of victims over which sin had been confessed, had been brought into it.

The work of cleansing the sanctuary was now finished. "And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat, . . . and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness." Lev. 16:20-22. The sanctuary was cleansed, and all the confessed sins of the year were not only forgiven but entirely separated from the camp of Israel.

The high priest then washed himself and changed his garments; the man who led away the scapegoat into the wilderness had to wash himself and his garments before returning to camp, and likewise the man who disposed of the carcass of the bullock. With the evening sacrifice this momentous day came to an end. The summary of the day's ceremonies is given in these words:

"He shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation." Lev. 16:33. The sins of all who, during the year, had brought their substitutionary sacrifices and thus obtained forgiveness, and who had maintained their attitude of repentance through the day of final reckoning, now had all the sins of the year blotted out; all of which was "a figure for the time then present." Heb. 9:9.

The foregoing is a very brief description of the tabernacle which was built in the wilderness under God's direction, and a mere outline of the principal features of a rather elaborate priestly ritual, which was revealed to Moses and which is described in detail in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Then we have in the New Testament, in the book of Hebrews, an inspired commentary on this sanctuary service and its meaning. This system of sacrificial service was no idle ceremonialism but an integral part of the great truths concerning the plan of human redemption. It was a temporary arrangement which was "a figure for the time then present," and consisted of "ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation"--that is, until the gospel dispensation. (Heb. 9 :9, 10.) For centuries this system was a visual witness to the fact that God had provided a substitute who would die for sinners, and that atonement for sin would be made through the death of the promised seed, the Lamb of God. This ritual service also provided the means by which men could show their faith in the provision which God had made for their salvation.

When Jesus died on the cross, the veil of the temple was rent in twain--an indication that the typical system, "handwriting of ordinances" (Col. 2:14), had come to its end.

THE SCAPEGOAT "HERESY"

Because Seventh-day Adventists teach that the scapegoat in the tabernacle services of the Day of Atonement represented Satan, we are accused of substituting Satan for Christ as a vicarious sufferer for sin. (No. 7.) We do not now teach, nor have we ever taught, that the devil is a sacrifice for sin. There has been much discussion among Bible scholars over the question of what the scapegoat symbolized, some taking the position that the two goats represented different phases of Christ's work, and others that "the Lord's goat" represented Christ and that the scapegoat (margin, "Azazel") is a personal, wicked, superhuman being. Why we should be accused of "pernicious heresy" and "shocking blasphemies" for standing with this second group of scholars is difficult to understand, unless like the presidents and princes in old Persia who "sought to find occasion against Daniel," our opponent is seeking to find something by which Seventh-day Adventists may be discredited.

The Hebrew word for scapegoat is "Azazel," and is so transliterated in the English and American Revised Versions. The English word "scapegoat" was doubtless used in the common version because of the final disposition of the animal. Dr. M. M. Kalisch, a learned Jewish scholar, speaks of Azazel as the "evil demon, or devil, Azazel, the author and originator of sin." Azazel is a noted character in Eastern legend--doubtless reflections of the story of Satan's fall from heaven. In commenting on Azazel's part in the services of the Day of Atonement, Kalisch says: "It would be too much to consider both [goats] virtually as one sin offering presented to God; the two worked out the desired object in a very different manner; one was a victim intended to atone for sins, the other carried away sins already atoned for; the one was dedicated to God, the other to a different power. (Lev. 16:8.) . . . They implied the acknowledgment of two opposite and opposing forces in the moral world, since Azazel, though passive in the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement, was considered to have been most active throughout the year as a tempter and instigator to sin."--Commentary on Leviticus (English or Abridged edition), Part 2, p. 209. Again he says: "The goat was no sacrifice presented to Azazel, no offering meant to appease his wrath; it was not slaughtered, but left in the desert to its fate; it did not work the atonement of the people, which was effected solely by the blood of the second goat killed as a sin offering; it served, in fact, merely as a symbol of complete removal."--Ibid., p. 185.

Talbot W. Chambers, in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review for January, 1892, pages 22-34, speaking of the function of the two goats on the great Day of Atonement, says that "the double offering [one for Jehovah and the other for Azazel] typified not only the removing of the guilt of the people but its transfer to the odious and detestable being who was the first cause of its existence"--Satan.

In What Sense the Scapegoat Bore Sin

Is it not self-evident that if one goat was "for the Lord" and the other "for Azazel," these two were antithetical? The scapegoat could in no sense be a part of the atonement, for it was not killed, and "without shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9:22. How could a live goat bearing all the sins of the people (Lev. 16:21), sent into the wilderness entirely separated from the people, represent Christ?

The Lord's goat was a "sin offering, that is for the people," the blood of which was brought within the second veil and sprinkled on the mercy seat. With this blood, atonement was made "for the holy place," "for the tabernacle of the congregation," and for the altar of burnt offering, "because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins." Lev. 16:15, 16. Not until the high priest had "made an end of reconciling" ("atoning," A.R.V.), did the live goat have any part in the ceremony. (Verse 20.) After the atonement was finished and judgment passed, the high priest confessed over the scapegoat all the sins of the people, and it was sent away into an uninhabited wilderness, entirely separated from the camp of Israel. The scapegoat then atoned for sin only as a criminal atones for his crime.

A man who influences another to commit a crime is recognized as sharing the responsibility for it and is legally punished. Satan is the originator of sin. He is the direct instigator of all the sins that have cursed our world, and which caused the death of the Son of God. It is nothing but justice that Satan should suffer for all his own sins, and as the great tempter, for his part in the sins of God's children.

When the investigative judgment is finished and our Lord Himself descends from heaven with the trump of God to raise His sleeping saints, they, with the righteous living, will be caught up to meet their Lord. (1 Thess. 4:16, 17.) The wicked will be destroyed by the brightness of His coming (2 Thess. 2:8), and "shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried" (Jer. 25:33). They will not live again until after a thousand years. (Rev. 20:5.) The earth will be left a desolation, a land uninhabited (the bottomless pit) where Satan, the antitypical scapegoat, will have a thousand years in which to contemplate the terrible havoc and suffering that sin has caused. (Rev. 20:1-3.) At the close of the thousand years the wicked dead will be raised to life, and the devil and all the wicked host will be utterly destroyed. (Rev. 20:5, 7-10, 14, 15.)

The beloved John saw a new heaven and new earth, and he saw the Holy City coming down from God, and "heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Rev. 21:3, 4. The great controversy is ended. The blood-washed throng have received their inheritance. Sin and sinners are no more. The character of God has been vindicated.

THE MISTRY OF CHRIST IN THE
HEAVENLY SANCTUARY

Moses was directed to make the tabernacle "after the pattern" which was shown him in the mount. (Ex. 25:9.) This fact is referred to again and again in the book of Hebrews. We are told that "the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary." Heb. 9:1. Bishop B. F. Westcott, D.D., D.C.L., a noted scholar, translates this: "Now even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world."--The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 242. Reference is made here to the new-covenant sanctuary mentioned in the previous chapter. "We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." Heb. 8:1, 2. So the new covenant has a sanctuary, and "also" the old covenant had a sanctuary. The earthly sanctuary was "the patterns of things in the heavens." Heb. 9:23. "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Verse 24. What was shown Moses, then, was not simply a sketch or blueprint but figures (Greek--Antitupa, "copy, image, effigy, form, or likeness") of the true (Greek-- Alethinon, "that which is real"), "i.e., the original or heavenly sanctuary, of which the earthly one is a mere copy."--MOSES STUART, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 445.

It is significant that the word "true" here is plural in the Greek, as is "holy places." Dr. G. R. Berry, in his Interlinear Greek New Testament, translated the Greek thus: "For not into holies made by hands entered the Christ, figures of the true ones."

Two Chambers in the Heavenly Temple

We are criticized by Mr. Jones for teaching that there are two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary. (No. 9.) The Bible, we believe, clearly teaches that the glorious temple, or sanctuary, of God in heaven has two distinct divisions, representing the two phases of work for man's salvation to be done there; but our chief attention is focused not on the temple itself but on the work being accomplished. We recognize, of course, that the earthly sanctuary was only "a miniature representation of the heavenly temple" and "a dim reflection of the glories of the temple of God in heaven, the great center of the work for man's redemption" (ELLEN G. WHITE, Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 343, 349), where, in the time of the great judgment, thousand thousands will "minister unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand" stand before Him. Dan. 7:10.

It is easy to understand the absolute necessity of the two apartments in the earthly sanctuary in order that the two types of priestly service required might be carried on. It should also be observed that Solomon's temple had these two essential chambers and also Zerubbabel's and Herod's temples. And just as the Lord revealed to Moses the pattern for the wilderness tabernacle, so "by the Spirit" He revealed to David the pattern for Solomon's temple. (1 Chron. 28:12.)

In view of this continual emphasis in the book of Hebrews on the fact that the earthly sanctuary and its service was a type, figure, copy, or likeness of the heavenly, does it really seem an unscriptural delusion to believe that the great temple in heaven, where our High Priest ministers for sinners, has two chambers? If the earthly sanctuary and its service was a "shadow of heavenly things" (Heb. 8:5), can there really be any doubt that these heavenly things are like the earthly in such essential features as this?

But we have even more direct evidence. The counterparts of the two apartments of the earthly sanctuary have been seen in heaven. In vision John was permitted to see the temple of God. He saw "seven lamps of fire burning before the throne," and he saw an angel who "stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne." Rev. 4:5; 8:3. The golden candlestick with its seven lamps and the altar of incense were in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary. (Ex. 25:31-37; 30:1-6.) And again, "The temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in His temple the ark of His testament." Rev. 11:19. The prototype of this was, of course, the sacred ark of the testimony in the most holy place, which contained the law of God. (Ex. 25:10, 16; 26:33.)

In his effort to prove there are not two divisions of the heavenly sanctuary, Mr. Jones makes the assertion that "the Bible teaches that no intervening 'veil' divides the 'temple of God in heaven.'" By quoting this word and phrase from the Bible he evidently means to fortify his assertion that the "Bible says" this; but unfortunately for his theory there is no such statement in the Bible. He refers to Matthew 27:50, 51, where the statement is made that the veil in the temple at Jerusalem was rent when Jesus died. But far from teaching that the veil in heaven was removed, this indicated rather that the typical services on earth had come to an end, and that soon "by His own blood" our true High Priest was to enter "in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Heb. 9:12. The holy place (or "holy places"--Greek) into which He entered, we are told, was "heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.' Heb. 9:24. Soon after His resurrection Christ ascended to heaven, there to begin His work of mediation in the "true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." Heb. 8:2.

The other quotation by Mr. Jones--"the temple of God in heaven"--is from Revelation 11:19, which is quoted above. There is nothing said here either about there being "no intervening veil." So this assertion falls for lack of Bible evidence.

Another effort to prove that "the two apartments on earth did not represent two apartments in heaven," is based on an interpretation of Hebrews 10:19, 20, that the veil represents the flesh of Christ. These verses read, "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh." It is difficult to see, even if this interpretation were accepted, how that would prove that there are not two chambers in the heavenly sanctuary. There are many Bible scholars who are not Seventh-day Adventists who dissent from this interpretation, believing that "His flesh" is the "new and living way" and not the "veil." The reading of both the English and American Revised Versions lends itself to this interpretation. Both Versions read, "By the way which He dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh."

"This interpretation," says W. H. G. Holmes, in his The Epistle to the Hebrews, page 368, "requires that the comma after 'way' be deleted." Punctuation marks, as all Bible students know, are not in the original and must be determined by the evident meaning of the words and grammatical construction. Holmes says further:

"What is this way, which is new and living, by which we can pass through the veil? The answer is that it is His flesh. It is because the Word was made flesh that He has become the Way (St. John xiv. 6), that men may become His members, and 'in His blood' pass into the very presence of God. What is the veil through which they pass? The veil is all that keeps men from the true knowledge of God and shuts off access to Him. The Way is the Way of the Incarnation and the Sacrifice that it includes. It is new because though dedicated in eternity it is new in time, and remains ever fresh in efficacy. It is living, for He ever liveth to impart life. To tread the ways of earth is to grow wearier each step; to walk in Christ, the Way, is continually to receive new supplies of life."

Bishop Westcott takes the same position. He suggests the following construction. "A way through the veil, that is, a way consisting in His flesh, His true human nature." "This construction," he says, "appears to be followed by our Early English translations," mentioning Tyndale, Coverdale, and others. He further says: "The Greek certainly admits this construction:

And the sense agrees perfectly with the argument. . . . The thought which is thus expressed of 'a way consisting in Christ's flesh' falls in perfectly with the scope of the passage. It was by the 'way of His flesh,' by a way which lay in His humanity, that Christ entered through the veil after the offering of Himself as a High Priest able to sympathize with men. And it is by the 'way of His flesh,' as sharing in the virtue of His humanity, and sprinkled with His blood, that Christians come before God."-- The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 320.

Yes, thank God, Christ, who "was made flesh" (John 1:14), is the way. He became the Son of man and He entered "within the veil," thereby making it possible for us to enter into heaven. (Heb. 4:14; 6:19, 20.)

If the plain teaching of the book of Hebrews is accepted, that both the earthly sanctuary and its services foreshadowed the heavenly sanctuary and its services (Heb. 8:5), then the conclusion is inevitably that Christ, after His ascension, entered upon His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, and that a long period of ministry in the holy place will be followed by a short period of judgment--the antitypical day of atonement. Our critic complains that we are thus putting Christ in a "'place' separated from the Father" (No. 10), but he seems to be guilty of confining God to a place, for inasmuch as Christ appeared "in the presence of God," he insists that such appearance must have been in the most holy place. However, in two of his proof texts, the plural is used in describing where Christ is with God. Ephesians 1:20 says that Christ is at the right hand of God "in the heavenly places" (plural), as does Hebrews 9:24, already mentioned. The sanctuary is in heaven, but heaven is not the sanctuary.

It is true that the presence of God was manifested in the second apartment of the earthly sanctuary, the place where the sacred law was kept, and the place of final judgment at the end of the round of yearly services, but God's presence was also manifested elsewhere. (See Ex. 40:35; Ex. 33:9-11; Num. 12:5; Ex. 29:42.) In current phraseology we do not limit the expression "on the throne" to refer to a particular seat or room. At his coronation the king of England is literally there, seated on a throne, which may be viewed in Westminster Abbey. Though there may be a special place, known as the throne room, the ruler may be anywhere and yet rightfully said to be "on the throne." So, in the heavenly sanctuary, the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant, overshadowed by the cherubim, may be, in one sense, God's dwelling place. Yet it would be childish to understand such expressions as "He sitteth between ["above,"

A.R.V.] the cherubim" (Ps. 99:1; 80:1) as teaching that God

remains in one place.

It is argued that the expression "within the veil," where Christ entered (Heb. 6:19, 20), could only mean the most holy place. While the distinction of the two veils is not strictly preserved in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), in the Hebrew two distinct words are used. The word for the outer veil is masak, "hanging," and the word for the inner veil is pahrocheth, "veil." An exception to this is found in Numbers 18:7, where the word used for outer veil is pahrocheth. That it refers to the outer veil is clear from verse 5. And the expression here is the same as in Hebrews 6:19, "within the veil." It should be noted, too, that when the author of Hebrews refers to the inner veil, he calls it "the second veil." (Heb. 9:3.) So if a sanctuary veil is referred to in Hebrews 6:19, it must be the first veil. This is another evidence that Christ's priestly work began in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.

We are told in the beautiful prophecy of the "Branch" (Christ) in Zechariah 6:12, 13, that "He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne; and He shall be a priest upon His throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." As priest, Christ is now sitting down with His Father on His Father's throne (Rev. 3:21), and the mediation in behalf of sinners goes on. When this work is completed, and sin and Satan are forever destroyed, "The Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David," and "the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory." (Luke 1:32; Matt. 19:28.)

THE TWENTY-THREE HUNDRED DAYS AND THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT

Three objections have to do with the interpretation of the twenty-three-hundred-day prophecy of Daniel 8:14. (Nos. 11-13.) While it is impossible within the compass of this pamphlet to go into full explanation of this important prophecy, it will not be difficult to show the candid reader the weakness of the critic's position and to point the way to further study of this marvelous prophecy which foretold the very time that the Messiah would come and also the solemn events connected with the closing of the great controversy between Christ and Satan.

Daniel, the youthful Hebrew captive in Babylon, had become a man of great influence in the service of the kingdom. He had been given the interpretation to Nebuchadnezzar's dream, as recorded in the second chapter of the book of Daniel, and also the vision of world powers recorded in chapter seven. Shortly before the overthrow of Babylon by Medo-Persia, Daniel was given the vision recorded in the eighth chapter, in which Medo-Persia and Grecia were represented by a ram and a he-goat respectively. And following Grecia, he saw another power symbolized by a little horn, a wicked power, "exceeding great," casting "down the truth to the ground," opposing even "the host of heaven" and also "the prince of the host," and treading underfoot "both the sanctuary and the host." After describing this reign of iniquity, the angel said to Daniel, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Dan. 8:14.

As Daniel sought to know the meaning of these things, he heard a voice commanding the angel Gabriel to make him understand the vision. After explaining the symbols of the ram and rough he-goat, Gabriel proceeded to describe this little horn as a terrible persecuting power. "His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and s