(7.) The minister or priest of the new covenant has also a sanctuary in which to officiate. The first covenant had “a worldly sanctuary” of two departments-the holy and the most holy. In that the priests ‘served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,’ as the sanctuary was made according to a pattern shown to Moses; Hebrews 8:5; 9:1. But our Priest serves in ‘the sanctuary and true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man,’-in the heavens; Hebrews 8:1-2. The earthly are called the pattern of the heavenly. ‘For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures [resemblance, copy corresponding to an original-Greenfield] of the true, [literally, true ones], but into heaven itself.’ There are, therefore, holy places in the heavenly sanctuary. When Moses made the first sanctuary the Lord promised to manifest his glory at ‘the door of the tabernacle of the congregation’-the holy; Exodus 29:42, 43; just inside of which door were the seven golden candlesticks, (properly, lamp-stands), and the table of show bread. And when St. John had a view of the majesty of God in Heaven, where our High Priest was when the revelation was given, he saw ‘seven lamps of fire burning before the throne.’ Revelation 4:1-6. But when ‘the seventh angel sounded,’ ushering in the third woe, coming down even to ‘the time of the dead that they should be judged,’ and to the giving of reward to the prophets and to all that fear the Lord, small and great, then ‘there was seen in his temple, the ark of his testament,’ or covenant. Revelation 11:14-18; comp. Chap. 22:12; Luke 14:14.WDUS 91.2

As the time of giving reward here brought to view is at the coming of Christ, we look to Revelation 14:14, where the Savior is seen coming to reap the harvest of the earth, and just preceeding his coming a call is made to ‘keep the commandments of God [the ‘one law-giver,’ ‘the judge of all’] and the faith of Jesus,’ the ‘mediator between God and man,’ in the heavenly sanctuary. Thus it appears that under the seventh trumpet our High Priest fulfills the type of ‘the day of atonement,’ or of ‘cleansing the sanctuary,’ Leviticus 16:1-19; Daniel 8:14, by entering into the most holy of the heavenly places, wherein is seen the ark of God’s testament, or covenant.WDUS 91.3

We readily admit that everything made by Moses was a figure or representation of the things in the heavens; but that which was in the ark—the law of God—was not made by Moses. It took hold on moral relations, and came directly from God himself. Paul says ‘the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets;’ and we see this illustrated in the writings of inspired men. Though all were inspired by ‘one spirit’ and ‘spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,’ they presented in their writings each the peculiarity of his own mind. What a difference is seen in the styles of Peter, John, Paul, Isaiah, Daniel, etc. Each book bears the visible impress of the mind of its writer even under inspiration. But look at the ten commandments. ‘Whose image and superscription is this?’ Here is an instrument which bears honors above all the revelation which God committed to the race—‘And God spake all these words.’ Jehovah himself wrote them. They bear the impress of Deity alone. With what reverence and sacred awe should all men stand before the ten commandments of Jehovah!WDUS 91.4

When the gospel age closes-when probation ends, and ‘the seven last plagues’ are to be poured out upon the earth, the angels receive these plagues from ‘the temple of the tabernacle of testimony in heaven’-the most holy place, Revelation 15. In those plagues ‘is filled up the wrath of God,’ because it is then and there that the work of our High Priest is finished; the atonement is made, and the sins of ‘all the Israel of God’ are blotted out. This is an extensive theme, but my limits will not permit me to enlarge upon it.WDUS 91.5

(8.) The new covenant was made with Judah and Israel. It was decidedly ‘Jewish,’ to use the language of our opponents, made with the Jews, and one born a Jew is its mediator! Paul says that to them pertains ‘the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.’ These are privileges not to be despised; but the chief advantage of the Jews was that ‘unto them were committed the oracles of God,’ Romans 3. Will the reader consider again the testimony of Stephen, Acts 7:38, that Moses ‘received the lively oracles [living oracles] to give unto us.’ Happy for ‘us’ if we obey those ‘living oracles’-God’s holy covenant, ‘the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.’WDUS 91.6

But Eld. Vogel says ‘the commonwealth of Israel’ was ‘a civil compact,’ and that nothing given to them remains. This assertion is disproved by the Scriptures, for the new covenant was made with them; and ‘the oracles of God’ which Moses received, were ‘living oracles’ in the time of Stephen. Such evidence cannot be evaded. And it strikes me there is unusual irreverence manifested in Eld. Vogel’s statements on this subject. Of that ‘civil compact’ he says:—WDUS 92.1

‘(3.) This is further evident from the fact that God stood to the Hebrews in the relation of political ruler, law-giver and King. For when they said to Samuel, Make us a king to judge us like all the nations, Jehovah replied, They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.’WDUS 92.2

This has no point at all except this, that Jehovah was a ruler in every respect just like the one they chase in his stead! Will Eld. V. squarely avow that conclusion, or renounce his position? Saul was only a civil ruler, and could not administer government on moral grounds; ‘hence it follows’ that Jehovah was a political-not a moral governor! Question: Did the priests minister between Saul and the people, after he began to reign? Or was there another important relation back of Saul’s rule? Were the ten commandments the law of Saul, or was the glory of Saul manifested over the ark of the testament in the sanctuary? Does it not appear that Eld. V. is a Very superficial reasoner on Bible relations? If we are to judge of the character and position of the one rejected by that of the one chosen in his stead, to what conclusion must we arrive from the Jews’ rejecting Christ and choosing a murderer in his stead? Some say that such things are not so much the fault of the reasoner as of the theory which he is advocating; but I cannot accept such a distinction. Any person of ordinary ability is responsible for advocating a theory built on such premises and leading to such conclusions. When the truth and honor of God, and the eternal welfare of our fellow beings are at stake, our teachings involve a responsibility calling for especial carefulness and reverence.WDUS 92.3

Another point of importance, relating also to Eld. Vogel’s errors on the term ‘Lord,’ I must waive to attend to that which I cannot longer postpone.WDUS 92.4

The reader may be assured that I regret the necessity of again referring to the Hebrew, but justice compels me to do so. I shall use ‘great plainness of speech’ as the occasion requires. I have already pointed out errors of statement and deduction in Eld. Vogel which ought to have settled the question, but he persisted in his course. In this I shall convict him of such inaccuracies, or ‘blunders,’ to adopt his own courteous style, as will, I trust, put it to a final rest.WDUS 92.5

1. The reader will please notice the following cases where sabbath is in predicate; Exodus 16:23, 25, 26; ch. 20:10; ch. 31:15 first time; ch. 35:2; Leviticus 23:3 twice; Deuteronomy 5:14; and the article is omitted in each case. It is not inpredicate in the following instances: Exodus 26:29; ch. 31:14, 15 second time, 16 twice; ch. 35:3; Leviticus 23:11, 15, 16; Deuteronomy 5:12; and in each case the article is used. This is not accidental; and I leave the reader to judge whether a first mention will account for its omission in Exodus 20, and 31, and 35, Leviticus 23, and Deuteronomy 5. Eld. Vogel’s invention of a ‘re-mention nearly equivalent to a first mention,’ is positively puerile, got up to meet the necessities of his case. If the statement of Gesenius is a ‘blunder,’ how is it that from first to last, in the same chapter and in the same verse, the article is omitted when the noun is in predicate, and inserted when it is not in predicate? This use fully justifies the words of Gesenius: ‘The precept is also correctly given by grammarians, that the predicate of a sentence does not take the article.’ Exceptions do not destroy this precept more than they do that quoted by Eld. V., and exceptions to that are abundant, though he did positively deny it. He misconstrues Green if he thinks he ‘condemns’ Gesenius in this. The absence of the article is fully accounted for on other ground than that by Eld, Vogel; hence his inference is unwarranted and his argument a nullity.WDUS 92.6

2. He does me great injustice in accusing me of blundering: in regard to the construction of Exodus 16:23. He said I once blundered with Gesenius in claiming the above as rule, and once again in claiming a definite construction for this text. But the reader will remember that I claimed it definite under this rule, and if the rule holds good I made no blunder at all, and this he knows. For, supposing that Gesenius did blunder in his statement, that does not show that I made any blunder in applying the rule to this text, nor did Eld. V. claim that. He ‘evaded the issue’ by referring to a rule which has no bearing on the case.WDUS 92.7

3. I could show the inconclusiveness is statement on the use of the preposition, and of the unfairness of his method of reference to Green; but as I instituted no claim on the preposition, I will pass it for brevity’s sake, only referring to the following ‘blunder’ of his: He claimed in his argument Exodus 16:25 as an instance of the indefinite use of sabbath; but it is just like Exodus 20:10 in construction, and he now claims the latter text as definite by construction! In a man who is ‘capable,’ never liable to ‘blunder,’ and never writes for ‘effect,’ this course is hard to explain.WDUS 93.1

4. His accusation that I blundered, accompanied with his reference to Green, §246. 3, was unjust and presented the matter in a false light. For [1.] He knew that I did not claim it definite by construction under that section. [2.] He knew that that section did not cover the whole field of the omission of the article, and therefore it would not settle a question raised under other rules. [3.] He knew that that section and number referred only to the construct state, and therefore would cut off his claim on Exodus 20:10, if it would mine on Exodus 16:23; for Exodus 20:10 is not in the construct. His course in this was unfair, tending only to mislead, and was as unjust to the reader as to me. I have little reason to expect that he will yield to proof, but I insist that in simple matters of fact he shall have some regard for justice.WDUS 93.2

5. He treats with raillery my saying that sabbath means rest, as if it were parallel to his own pedantry. But this is so well known that I assume nothing in the statement; the English reader has learned the same from Webster. His ridicule about my holding on to it would be in better place if I had said anything that admitted of denial.WDUS 93.3

6. Perhaps it is because I have not recently graduated at a theological school that I am not able to appreciate his very chaste and genteel remarks about ‘the turtle.’ But if I am any judge of their force they aptly represent his course on Exodus 24:12. Had he simply confessed his ‘blunder’ without trying to cover his retreat in such a questionable manner, he also would have done a ‘clever thing,’ and a thing more creditable to himself. But that would not be in keeping with his general course. As usual, when his proof is shown to be deficient, it makes no practical difference. Take away all his evidence, or turn it against him, and it never weakens his argument at all! To excuse his first blunder, which was too glaring to admit of denial, he runs into others equally apparent. Take the following in reference to the accents named:WDUS 93.4

‘They are just alike in character, and often nearly and sometimes wholly in position, so that they may be easily mistaken for each other, as I inadvertently did.’WDUS 93.5

They are just alike in shape, which is all the truth that the above statement contains, unless he dodges behind the word nearly, which is a poor refuge. They may occupy the same location on a given word, but not in consecution, that is, in their relation to other accents; so they may be easily and readily distinguished in any position. But in this case even that excuse is not admissible, for in this text pashta occupies a position in location as well as in consecution which Kadhma never occupies, and therefore it may not be easily mistaken for the latter except by a person who is entirely ignorant of both these plain and unvarying points of difference! And this, if we may trust his own showing, was the case with Eld. Vogel.WDUS 93.6

7. His farther remarks on that blunder betray a like ignorance of the laws of consecution. To destroy the force of the article he first said the accent on ‘the law’ was conjunctive, connecting these words with, ‘which I have written.’ Being corrected in that he now says ‘the practical result remains unchanged’ because there is a still stronger disjunctive over ‘the commandments’ than that over ‘the law!’ This is surely a novelty in consecution; if he wishes to get a patent on it, nobody will dispute his claim to the invention. Invariably the nearer you approach the end of a section, the stronger is the disjunctive; and that over ‘the commandments’ is a ‘kingly accent,’ and disjoins these and the preceding words from the ‘train’ following, leaving the words ‘which I have written,’ immediately connected by consecution with, ‘that thou mayest teach them.’ All that I have said in this and the preceding paragraph may be known from a single glance at the original by any person who has a knowledge of Hebrew accents.WDUS 93.7

At first I thought Eld. Vogel had at least a fair knowledge of Hebrew, but I have been forced to change my mind in regard to his attainments. Though his egotism was prominent all along, I inclined to overlook that, as it is so often manifested by young men not long from school who have not grace to restrain it. When I proved beyond denial the error of his statement in regard to the omission of the article, he coolly accused me of ‘blundering,’ and of being ‘incapable,’ with a haughtiness and air of scorn that might almost have made Goliath die of envy. As he says, he did ‘chide’ me often, and in an unseemly and arrogant manner, but I shall care but little for all that until I have some evidence that his knowledge nearly equals his assurance.WDUS 94.1

I have let forbearance rule as long as justice and a proper regard for the cause of truth will permit. As I write mainly for the benefit of English readers, I have had no desire to carry this discussion into the Hebrew; so far as I am personally concerned, I do not care how far he carries it in that direction, being confident that he can gain nothing by the controversy, because the truth is not with him.WDUS 94.2

His criticism on the English of Exodus 24:12, is as defective as that on the Hebrew, but of this hereafter.WDUS 94.3

ELDER PETER VOGEL’S SIXTH NEGATIVE

ELDER PETER VOGEL’S SEVENTH NEGATIVE