DESTRUCTION of sin is the only way of salvation. His name shall be called “Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.” So when I accept his offer, as certainly as I believe in Jesus I shall not perish. And in that, I accept the provision that I will let sin go. I agree that I am willing to be separated from the sin, and that I will separate from sin. Listen: “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him that the body of sin might be destroyed.” Then the object of the cross of Christ is the destruction of sin. Never miss that thought. Hold fast to it forever: the cross of Jesus Christ—the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the object of it—is the destruction of sin. Thank the Lord, that object will be accomplished. Now let us read the whole verse: “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” Romans 6:6. Not only is there destruction of sin, but freedom from the service of sin. “For sin shall not have dominion over you.” Verse 14. Let us follow that thought briefly right through the chapter. There is in it a whole world of Christian victory and joy.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.1

“For he that is dead is freed from sin.” He who is crucified, he who has accepted the death of Jesus Christ, and is crucified with him, he it is that is freed from sin.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.2

“Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.” But where does he live? Does he live in sin?—He never did. Then as certainly as we live with him, we live with him free from sin.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.3

“Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.” It could not hold the dominion which it had. It had the dominion, because he gave himself up in surrender to the dominion of death; but death could not hold him, because he was separated from sin. Neither can death hold anybody else; even though it has dominion, it can not hold the man who is free from sin.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.4

“Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you.”ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.5

There the apostle says that sin shall not have dominion over you. Let not sin therefore reign in your flesh, in your members. Then coming down a little farther: “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” The next verse reads: “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.”ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.6

The cross of Christ gives not only freedom from sin, but makes men servants of righteousness. The next verse tells us that the service of righteousness is “unto holiness;” the end of holiness is everlasting life; and without holiness “no man shall see the Lord.”ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.7

Then it is perfectly plain, as plain as A B C, that the only true preparation for the coming of the Lord is separation from sin. It makes no difference how much we talk about the coming of the Lord; nor how much we preach the signs of the times; nor how much we prepare for it otherwise, though we sell all we have, and give to the poor,—if we are not separating from sin, making it our constant consideration to be absolutely separated from sin, and to be servants of righteousness unto holiness, we are not making preparation for the coming of the Lord at all: our profession is all a fraud. We may not be working it as a fraud; but we are inflicting upon ourselves a fraud. It may be that we are deceiving ourselves by it; but that makes no difference: if our constant consideration is not entire separation from sin, our profession is a fraud.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.8

The profession of being an Adventist, of being a Seventh-day Adventist, looking for the coming of the Lord, telling people that the coming of the Lord is near, watching the signs of the times,—all this is right, absolutely and forever right. But, though I have all this, and have not that one thing,—the sole ambition to be completely separated from sin, and from the service of sin,—my profession of the Adventist faith is a fraud; for if I am not separated from sin, I can not meet the Lord at all in peace. Therefore if my sole ambition is not separation from sin, and from the service of it, I am not preparing at all to meet the Lord.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.9

Then the question for every one of us here to-day, and for Seventh-day Adventists of all people, is, Are you preparing to meet the Lord, whom, without holiness, no man shall see? I am going to ask you more than that: Are you ready to meet the Lord? Of the times and seasons, you have no need that I speak to you. It is not necessary for me to stand here, and talk about how near the coming of the Lord is. The signs are multiplying upon the earth. You are Adventists. You know all that; but it is proper for me, now and forever, to stand here and ask, Are you separated from sin? And being separated from sin, are you ready to meet the Lord? Because our God is a consuming fire, and there is no use trying to get away from that. He is nothing else. You need not coddle yourself with the notion that God is anything else than a consuming fire. Just make up your mind to that. He says that that is just what he is; and the sooner you and I make up our minds that God is a consuming fire, the better.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.10

Christ is coming; we are talking about it; it will be for us. He is coming in flaming fire, he comes as a consuming fire; but I want to know what is the use of talking about his coming unless we are ready to meet him in this consuming fire? It is all deception for any man to pass along carelessly when that is the eternal truth.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.11

Do you not remember that the Word not only says that we shall see him, but see him as he IS? that is, we shall see him as a consuming fire,—and I am glad of it. Thank the Lord! Here is a description of him when John saw him as he IS,—saw him as we shall see him,—and what of it? Just a few points: “His eyes were as a flame of fire.” “His feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace;” and “his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.” His raiment was “white as snow, so as no fuller on earth can white them,” “as white as the light”—the whiteness of piercing, consuming brightness. That is he. And that is he as he is when he comes; and without holiness no man shall see him. Without separation from sin, no man shall stand.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.12

Then the question with you and with me today, and all the time is, How shall we be so separated from sin that we may meet him in flaming fire? How, how, how?ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.13

Look at yourself and your record, and I will look at myself and my record. We will look at the evil traits that are in us, at the struggles we have made, and the longing we have had to overcome these besetments, and to separate ourselves from all the evil, that we might indeed be ready. Where is there time to get ourselves ready? In the short time that intervenes between now and that day,—is there time? and if so, when shall be that time when you and I shall have that thing so accomplished, shall have so separated ourselves from sin that we shall be ready to meet him in flaming fire? The answer is, Never. That time will never, never come.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.14

What, then, shall we do? Do not misunderstand. I did not say that the time will never would come when we could be separated from sin. I said, Look at yourself, and I will look at my self, and we will see what we are, how full of evil traits, and what little progress we have made in this work of overcoming, and ask the question, When will the time ever come when you and I shall have so separated ourselves from sin that we can meet him in flaming fire? It is that time which I say will never, never come.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.15

But, bless the Lord! there is time to be separated from sin. No time will ever come when we can do this work ourselves; but the time is now, JUST NOW, to be separated from sin. The time to be separated from sin is right now, and that now is all the time; for “now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation.” Only God can separate us from sin; he will do it, and he will do it just now. Bless his name!ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.16

Yet, what every one must understand is this: the only way that God does, or can, separate anybody from sin is by that very consuming fire of his presence. The only way, therefore, in which you and I can ever be so separated from sin as to meet God as he is, in the flaming fire that he is, in that great day, is to meet him TO-DAY as he is, in the consuming fire that he is. The only way that we can be prepared to meet him at his coming in that great day is to meet him in his coming to-day. For there is a coming to men now, as really as to the world in that great day. “I will not leave you comfortless: I will COME TO YOU.” John 14:18. But do not forget that whether he comes to you or to me now, or whether he comes to other people in that great day, he comes only as a consuming fire.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.17

Listen: “If any man hear my voice, and open the door,“—what does he say?—“I will come in to him.” Good. Thank the Lord! And “he is a consuming fire;” and when he comes in to you, that coming will consume all the sin in you, so that when he comes in the clouds of heaven in flaming fire, you can meet him in joy in the consuming fire that he is.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.18

Then do you hear his voice? “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I WILL COME IN TO HIM.” Do you hear his voice? Then swing open wide the door, and keep it everlastingly open. Bid him welcome, in the consuming fire that he is: and that flaming fire of his presence will consume sin in all your being, and so will thoroughly cleanse and prepare you to meet him in flaming fire in that great day.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.19

When I meet him to-day “in a flaming fire,” when I welcome him today “a consuming fire” in me, shall I be afraid to meet him in flaming fire in that day—No; I shall be accustomed to it; and knowing what a blessed thing it is to become familiar with meeting him as “a consuming fire,” knowing what a blessing that has brought to me to-day, I shall be delighted to meet him on that other day, when he shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire. “Our God is a consuming fire.” Bless the Lord!ARSH January 31, 1899, page 68.20

(Concluded next week.)

“Editorial” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 76, 5, p. 72.

WHEN Abraham and Sarah had cleared themselves of all the scheme of unbelief which had produced Ishmael, and had stood upon faith alone,—dependence on the word of God alone,—Isaac, the true child of the promise, was born.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.1

In harkening to the voice of Sarai (Genesis 16:1), Abram had swerved from the line of strict integrity to the word of God, from the strictness of true faith; and now that he had returned to the word only, to true faith, he must be tested before it could be certainly said of him that his faith was counted for righteousness.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.2

He had trusted the naked word of God as against Ishmael, and had obtained Isaac, the true child of the promise of God. And now, having obtained Isaac, the question must be determined whether he would trust the naked word of God as against even Isaac himself.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.3

Accordingly, God said to Abraham, “Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.”ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.4

Abraham had received Isaac from God, by trusting the word of God only. Isaac alone was the seed promised by the word of the Lord. After Isaac was born, God had confirmed the word by declaring, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Genesis 21:12. And now came the word of God, Take thy son, thy only son Isaac, and offer him for a burnt-offering!ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.5

But, if Isaac is offered for a burnt-offering, if Isaac is burned up, what will become of the promise of the blessing of all nations in him? What will become of the promise, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven innumerable? Yet there stood the word, Offer Isaac for a burnt-offering. Abraham had trusted the word of God only, as against Ishmael; but this is more than trusting the word of God as against Isaac—it is trusting the word of God as against the word of God!ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.6

And Abraham did it, hoping against hope. God had said: Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven; In Isaac shall thy seed be called; Offer Isaac for a burnt-offering. Abraham did not insist that God should “harmonize these passages.” It was all-sufficient for him to know that the statements were all the word of God. Knowing this, he would trust that word, would follow that word, and would let the Lord “harmonize these passages,” or “explain these texts,” if any such thing were needed.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.7

Said Abraham: God has said, Offer Isaac for a burnt-offering. That I will do. God has said, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called;” and, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven for multitude. I interfered once in the promise, and hindered it till I repudiated all that I had done, and came back to the word only. Then, by a miracle, God gave me Isaac, the promised seed. Now he says, Offer Isaac, the promised seed, for a burnt-offering. I will do it: by a miracle God gave him at the first; and by a miracle God can restore him. Yet when I shall have offered him for a burnt-offering, he will be dead; and the only miracle that can then restore him is a miracle that will bring him back from the dead. But God is able to do even that, and he will do it; for his word is spoken, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven for multitude, and, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. And even the bringing back of Isaac from the dead will be to God no more than he has already done; for, as to offspring, both my body and Sarah’s were as good as dead, and yet God brought forth Isaac from us. He can raise Isaac from the dead, and he will. Bless the Lord!ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.8

It was settled. He arose, and took his servants and Isaac, and went three days’ journey “unto the place of which God had told him.” And when on the third day he “saw the place afar off,” “Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.” Genesis 22:5. Who will go?—“I and the lad will go.” And who will come again?—“I and the lad will go, ... and come again to you.” Abraham expected to have Isaac come back with him as certainly as that he went with him.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.9

Abraham expected to offer Isaac for a burnt-offering, and expected then to see Isaac rise from the ashes and go back with him. For the word of God had gone forth, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, and, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven for multitude. And Abraham would trust that word only, that it could never fail. Hebrews 11:17-19.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.10

THIS IS FAITH. And thus “the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.” James 2:23. But yet above this, “It was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed; if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.” Romans 4:23-25.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.11

To trust the word of God only; to depend upon the word of God only; to depend upon the word of God, even as against the word of God,—this is FAITH: this is the faith which brings the righteousness of God.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.12

This is what it is to exercise faith. This is “what the Scripture means when urging upon us the necessity of exercising faith.” And “understanding how to exercise faith,” this is the science of the gospel. And the science of the gospel is the science of sciences.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.13

“Editorial Note” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 76, 5, p. 72.

WE can not purify ourselves, nor make ourselves better by self-inflicted pain. God forgives when we turn away from every known sin; and we are then in as fit condition for his blessing as we can ever be. spiritual growth is begun—or resumed—the moment we repent, are forgiven, forgive others who repent, and “judge not.”ARSH January 31, 1899, page 72.1

“Mr. Gamble’s Superficial Reading” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 76, 5, pp. 73, 74.

THE readers of the REVIEW are somewhat acquainted with the efforts of Mr. S. W. Gamble in telling what he does not know about the Sabbath coming annually each week. Last May he followed up his efforts in this line by telling a good deal that he does not know about me.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.1

I have not cared enough about what he has told, of what he does not know, about the Sabbath coming annually once a week, to take any notice of it since his publication of it, about two years ago, in the Christian Endeavorer as a “great discovery,” which was to take away from Seventh-day Adventists all reason of existence. And I do not care enough about what he does not know about me, even to mention it, except for the fact that he makes this a basis for employing and emphasizing a few sentences that I have written,—utterly perverting the plain meaning,—to bolster up and make acceptable what he does not know about the Sabbath coming annually once a week.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.2

However, what he has published of what he does not know about me is a splendid illustration of the value of the theory which he has propounded, and of what he has written upon it, as to his great discovery of the Seventh-day Sabbath coming annually every week. What he has said about me is as follows:—ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.3

While Brother Smith assails me upon the correct interpretation of Leviticus 23:15, 16, I will meet this argument by proving that my interpretation is true by the highest authority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.4

In the debate before the Senate Committee when the Blair Sunday Rest bill was under consideration (a bill asked for by seven million actual petitioners, and defended by W. F. Crafts, the National W. C. T. U., through Mrs. J. E. Bateham and others), Alonzo T. Jones succeeded in crushing the same, and causing the committee to report unfavorably upon the bill. Thenceforward he has ranked among them as one of their best debaters.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.5

Encouraged by their victory, the Advents put forward this new champion of Saturdarianism to write against what they call the strongest books in the English language upholding Sunday as the Sabbath.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.6

Dartmouth College offered a prize of five hundred dollars for the best book in defense of Sunday sacredness, and the prize was awarded to a manuscript by Elliot,—“The Abiding Sabbath.”ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.7

This was followed by the American Sunday-School Union’s offering one thousand dollars for the best book on that subject, which was awarded to “The Lord’s Day,” by Waffle.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.8

The Adventists reasoned that these rewards had drawn out the strongest arguments on the Christian sabbath side, so they put up the new champion of their ranks to write a review of these books. In getting at the meaning of the word “sabbath” in the verses I am criticized about by Mr. Smith, I have only to quote Mr. Jones, now his editorial colleague, in vindication of my claim. He says (paragraph 67): “On the morrow after this fifteenth day of the month—this sabbath—the wave-sheaf of the first-fruits was offered before the Lord; and with that day—the sixteenth day of the month—they began to count fifty days, and when they reached the fifteenth day, that was Pentecost.” Paragraphs 66, 67, he says: “The word ‘pentecost’ signifies the fiftieth day, and was always counted, beginning with the sixteenth day of the first month. It is also called the feast of weeks, because it was seven complete weeks from the day of offering of the first-fruits, which was the second day of the feast of unleavened bread, the sixteenth day of the first month.” ... This same champion gives us the correct name for these seven Sabbaths in his most favored child. “Rome’s Challenge.” The International Religious Liberty Association publishes the most carefully guarded doctrinal literature of that church. At the General Conference, 1893, they decided that “no literature shall be published or circulated under the name of this society by any of its officers or members until it has been endorsed by the executive committee of the association.”—Art. 2, By-laws of the Association, General Conference Minutes, page 126.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.9

Alonzo T. Jones was the editor of the official organ of the association. He edited “Rome’s Challenge” from four articles published in the Catholic Mirror in September, 1893, by Senex, and caused it to be examined by the committee elected by the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and after its approval, he had it published as one of the International Religious Liberty Association Library periodicals, and pushed its sale until in a short time it had reached a sale of over 500,000 copies, thus making it the most soundly doctrinal tract, and at the same time the most popular tract, of the association and of the church. On page 17 he says: “Pentecost is the fiftieth day after the Passover, which was called the Sabbath day after the Passover, which was called the Sabbath of weeks, consisting of seven times seven days; and the day after the completion of the seventh weekly Sabbath day.”ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.10

You notice here that he makes Abib 15 the weekly Sabbath; and the next seven weekly Sabbaths of fixed date, and places the day of Pentecost on the next day after the completion of the seventh weekly Sabbath.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.11

We return now to his prize review, page 66, where he says: “And everybody knows that the Pentecost came on each day of the week in succession as the years passed by, the same day as does Christmas or the Fourth of July, or any other yearly celebration.”ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.12

So that it is very clear that since Pentecost came the next day after the weekly Sabbath, and came on every day of our week in succession as the years passed by, the Sabbath, “the weekly Sabbath,” which was the day before, did the same thing. Having proved the case by the highest Saturdarianism authority in the world, I will omit the scores of better witnesses which might be produced to prove that the word “Sabbath” in Leviticus 23:15 was a day of fixed day,—Abib 15,—and that the seven Sabbaths were seven successive Sabbaths of fixed dates.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.13

The most of this will be news to every Seventh-day Adventist in the world. That I am, or ever was, the highest authority in the Seventh-day Adventist Church; that I have ranked among them as one of their best debaters; that I succeeded in crushing the Blair Sunday Rest bill; that, encouraged by this victory, the “Advents put forward” me, “this new champion of Saturdarianism, to write against what they call the strongest books in the English language, upholding Sunday as the Sabbath”—all this will be news to all the Seventh-day Adventists. And it will all be especially newsy because it is all so far from being true,—at least as far as Seventh-day Adventists know.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 73.14

I am not, and never was, either the highest or any other authority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That I succeeded in crushing the Blair Sunday Rest bill, and causing the committee to report unfavorably upon it,—if it be true,—is far more than I know; and I never heard of such a thing before, except from an old lady Covenanter of Washington, Iowa. I did not believe it then, and do not believe it now. True, I was there, and had something to do with it; but that I did all that, is a good deal more than I, or all the Seventh-day Adventists in the world, have claimed, or ever can claim.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.1

That since the discussion of the Blair bill with Senator Blair, I have been ranked among the Adventists as one of their best debaters, is also news to all of us. I never had but four debates in my life; three of these were before this occurred. Two of these were merely local occurrences where I happened to be preaching. For the other ones—the only one the brethren had anything to do with—I was the last choice and was taken then only because they could not get any others wanted. The other debate, though after the discussion of the Blair Sunday bill, was sprung suddenly by a gentleman’s rising in the congregation where I had made a speech, and asking for a discussion of a certain point. The requested discussion was arranged off-hand, right there, and occurred accordingly; it was merely a local matter, with which the church had nothing to do in arranging, endorsing, or ranking me as one of their best debaters.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.2

But now I come to one of the strangest points in this whole matter. Mr. Gamble, referring to this crushing of the Blair bill by me, says that, “encouraged by their victory, the Advents put forth this new champion of Saturdarianism to write against what they call the strongest books in the English language, upholding Sunday as the Sabbath;” then refers to these two prize essays,—the “Abiding Sabbath” and “The Lord’s Day,“—and continues: “The Advents reasoned that these rewards had drawn out the strongest arguments on the Christian-sabbath side, so they put up the new champion of their ranks to write a review of these books.”ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.3

Now the discussion of the Blair bill occurred Dec. 13, 1888. My review of both these prize essays was written, and first published, between Jan. 15 and June 3, 1887. Now the mind that can make out that because of my opposition to the Blair bill, Dec. 13, 1888, Seventh-day Adventists chose me to write a review which was written and published two and one-half years BEFORE THAT,—well, it ought not to be difficult for a mind that could do that, also to make out that the seventh-day Sabbath occurs annually every week.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.4

But more than this, that the Seventh-day Adventists chose me to write that review, even when I did write it, is not true. I did that altogether myself, and nobody knew of it until I began to write it. It came about thus (this I know; for I was there); in January, 1886, I was one of the assistant editors of the Signs of the Times. The Dartmouth College prize essay, “The Abiding Sabbath,” by Elliot, came to my notice. I read it, and decided to review it. I was absent from the Signs of the Times, teaching in Healdsburg College. Not even the other editors of the Signs of the Times knew anything of it until I had written my first instalment, and sent it to the office as copy, the thousand-dollar prize essay by Waffle came to my attention. When I had finished reviewing the five-hundred-dollar prize essay, with an interval of only a week I began the review of the one-thousand-dollar prize essay, just as I began the other, without anybody’s knowledge or initiative but my own. And as before stated, it was all done, written, and published, between Jan. 15 and June 3, 1886.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.5

Then the Pacific Press Pub. Co. decided to print the articles in pamphlet form, which they did in the latter part of 1886. But this was done by the publishing committee, merely as such, without any action by or any knowledge of, the denomination as such. This is the straight truth of the writing of that review of the prize essays. And the facts in this matter demonstrate that Mr. Gamble is a very superficial reader. And anybody who has read his scheme respecting the Sabbath knows full well that this matter is a fair illustration of his superficial reading in that matter.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.6

A second edition of my review of the prize essays was issued by the Pacific Press in 1889. Mr. Gamble may say that it was this edition that he had, and that he was misled by the date 1889. Yet if he does make any such plea, it only the further demonstrates his superficial reading; because the edition of 1889 is dated January 8, in plain print on the face of the cover. Jan. 8, 1889, is just twenty-six days after Dec. 13, 1888. The discussion of the Blair Sunday Rest bill shows that I was in Washington City, Dec. 13, 1888. Therefore in order for that review to come out in twenty-six days, the Seventh-day Adventists must, after the discussion of the Blair bill, choose me to write the review of the prize essays; I must study the prize essays sufficiently to be able to review them intelligently; I must write matter enough for one hundred and seventy-three pages, or about fifty-two thousand words; it must be sent to Oakland, Cal., which would take at least five days; the type be set; the printing all be done, and the pamphlet issued,—all inside of twenty-three working days. By all human consideration that is an impossible thing, and demonstrates that there is no possible refuge for Mr. Gamble in any plea of being misled by the date 1889. So that the whole matter, from beginning to end, demonstrates his superficial reading.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.7

Now he has cited all these things that are not so as the basis of a quotation from my review of the prize essays, referring to Pentecost, that “on the morrow after this fifteenth day of the month—this Sabbath—the wave-sheaf of the first-fruits was to be offered before the Lord: and with that day—the sixteenth day of the month—they were to begin to count fifty days; and when they reached the fiftieth day, that was Pentecost.”ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.8

The expression “this Sabbath” in that statement does not refer at all to the weekly Sabbath. It was never intended to, and never did, refer to it. The statement refers solely to the fifteenth day of the first month, the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, which, according to Leviticus 23:7, was an annual convocation, feast-day, or Sabbath. It is this first day of the feast of unleavened bread—this annual Sabbath—that is, and always was, referred to in the quotation made by Mr. Gamble. I said “this Sabbath,” not “the Sabbath.” I said “this Sabbath,” with a small “s,” not the Sabbath, with a capital. I never use a small “s” in writing or printing the Sabbath, but always a capital “S.” The whole passage reads as follows:—ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.9

The word “pentecost” signifies “the fiftieth day,” and was always counted, beginning with the sixteenth day of the first month. It is also called “the feast of weeks,” because it was seven complete weeks from the day of the offering of the first-fruits, which was the second day of the feast of unleavened bread, the sixteenth day of the feast of unleavened bread, the sixteenth day of the first month. On the fourteenth day of the first month, all leaven was to be put away from all the houses. They were to kill the passover lamb in the evening of the fourteenth; and with it, at the beginning of the fifteenth day of the month, they were to begin to eat the unleavened bread, and the feast of unleavened bread was to continue until the twenty-second day of the month. The first day of the feast—that is, the fifteenth of the month—was to be a sabbath; no servile work was to be done in that day. Exodus 12:6-8, 15-19; Leviticus 23:5-7. Because of the putting away of the leaven on the fourteenth day, and the beginning to eat the unleavened bread on the evening of that day, it is sometimes referred to as the first day of unleavened bread; but the fifteenth day was really the first, and was the one on which no servile work was to be done.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.10

On “the morrow” after this fifteenth day of the month—this sabbath—the wave-sheaf of the first-fruits was to be offered before the Lord: and with that day—the sixteenth day of the month—they were to begin to count fifty days; and when they reached the fiftieth day, that was Pentecost.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.11

This again demonstrates Mr. Gamble’s superficial reading.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.12

But if this is so by all that we have examined so far, what shall be said of what follows? He refers to “Rome’s Challenge,” and says that I edited it. That, at last, is one thing that he has said that is true. As is well known the text of “Rome’s Challenge” is matter reprinted bodily from the Catholic Mirror, and was written by a Catholic. What the editor did was to attach occasional notes; and of these notes there are nine, and every one of them is signed “ED.” All but one are in small type at the foot of the page: the other one, being something over two pages in length, is inserted in brackets, with the side-head “Note,” at the beginning, and signed “ED,” at the end, on pages 27 and 30.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.13

Now Mr. Gamble professes to quote what I said in “Rome’s Challenge.” He quotes from page 17; but lo! he quotes from the text, the words of the original Catholic writing; and not a word of mine at all. And this, too, in the face of the fact that on that same page, referring to this very point, stands a note by the editor signed regularly “ED.”ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.14

Assuredly, after this, nothing is needed—this certainly caps the climax—in demonstration of Mr. Gamble’s superficial reading. And when that is so fully demonstrated, and in so little space, this will be satisfactory evidence to every thoughtful reader that the whole scheme of his great discovery of the seventh-day Sabbath coming annually every week is but the result of the same sort of inexcusably superficial reading of the Scriptures.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.15

ALONZO T. JONES.

“Joseph Hoag’s Vision” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 76, 5, p. 74.

THE vision of Joseph Hoag is familiar to many of the older people of this generation; but to the younger it is not so well known. It should be familiar to all: and in order that this may be so, it should be often reprinted, and explained to the young.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.1

This vision was given in 1803. All but the last point of it is history now. And in view of current events, this last point bids fair soon to become history. Following is the record, as written by him:—ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.2

In the year 1803, in the eighth or ninth month, I was working one day alone in the field, and observed that the sun shone clear, but a mist eclipsed its brightness. As I reflected upon the singularity of the event, my mind was struck into a silence the most solemn I ever remember to have witnessed; for all my faculties were low and unusually brought into deep silence. I said to myself, “What can this mean?” I do not recollect ever before to have been sensible of such a feeling. And I heard a voice from heaven say:—ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.3

“This which thou seest, which dims the brightness of the sun, is a sign of the present and coming times. I took the forefathers of this country from a land of oppression, and planted them here among the people of the forest. I sustained them, and while they were humble, I blessed them and fed them, and they became proud and lifted up, and have forgotten me who nourished them, and protected them in the wilderness, and are running into every abomination and evil practise of which the old countries are guilty, and have taken quietude from the land, and have suffered a dividing spirit to come among them. Lift up thine eyes and behold!”ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.4

And I saw them dividing in a great heat. The division began in the church on the points of doctrine. It commenced in the Presbyterian Society, and went through the various religious denominations; and in its progress its effects were the same: those that dissented went off with high heads and taunting language, and those who kept to their original sentiments appeared exercised and sorrowful.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.5

And when the dividing spirit entered the Society of Friends, it raged in as high a degree as in any I had before discovered; as before, those who kept to their ancient privileges retired by themselves. It next appeared in the lodges of the Freemasons, where it broke out in appearance like a volcano, inasmuch as it set the country in an uproar for a length of time. Then it entered politics, through the United States, and it did not stop until it produced a civil war, and an abundance of human blood was shed in the course of the combat. The Southern States lost their power; and slavery was annihilated from their borders.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.6

Then a monarchical power arose, took the government of the States, established a national religion, and made all societies tributary to support its expenses. I saw them take property from the Friends to a large amount. I was amazed at beholding all this, and I heard a voice from heaven proclaim: “This power shall not always stand; but with it I will chastise my church until they return to the faith of their forefathers. Thou seest what is coming upon thy native land, for their iniquities, and the blood of Africa, the remembrance of which is come up before me.”ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.7

This vision was sent for many days. I had no idea of writing it for many years, until it became such a burden that for my own relief I have written it.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.8

JOSEPH HOAG.

Joseph Hoag was a minister of the Society of Friends. His home was Charlotte, Vt. He died Nov. 2, 1846, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. The vision was first printed in the Boston Journal about 1855. Upon investigation, Elder J. S. White, of East Boston, reported thus:—ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.9

I find that the original, written by Mr. Hoag, is in the family of Mr. Thomas Grover, of East Mansfield, Mass. Mr. Grover belongs to the society called Friends, and is one of their preachers. This is the exact copy written off by the daughter of Mr. Grover, and given to Deacon J. Miller, of Sheldonville (Wrentham), Mass.ARSH January 31, 1899, page 74.10

January 24, 1899

February 7, 1899