CAST OUT FOR THE CROSS OF CHRIST by Albion F. Ballenger, 1909

BIOGRAPHY

Ballenger, Albion Fox (1861-1921) was born on a farm near Winslow, Illinois. He was the son of John Fox Ballenger, an SDA minister. He was a teacher for four years before he was granted a ministerial license and sent out to preach. He became an effective preacher and writer. After he began preaching, he attended Battle Creek College for parts of two years.

In 1890 he was elected as secretary of the National Religious Liberty Association. Three years later he was invited to serve as assistant editor of the *American Sentinel* magazine who focused upon religious liberty issues. He resigned his editorial post after about a year to return to preaching. His most memorable sermon was entitled, "Receive Ye the Holy Ghost". During this time, he wrote the book, *Power for Witnessing*, which is still in print almost 100 years later.

About the turn of the century, he was invited to do evangelistic work in Great Britain. During this time, he began to re-examine the Seventh-day Adventist denomination's doctrine of the sanctuary. He came to the conclusion that the Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary needed to be revised to conform to the biblical types and the teaching of the book of Hebrews.

Ballenger suggested several revisions of the doctrine regarding the work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, stating that the book of Hebrews taught that Christ had entered the Most Holy Place at His ascension rather than 1844. He submitted a document of nine theses which outlined the main points of his views on the work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary to a committee at the 1905 General Conference Session and answered their questions. The committee, composed of W.A. Colcord, W.W. Prescott and M.C. Wilcox, rejected Ballenger's views and warned him not to print the manuscript or promote his views.

Later that same day, Ellen White, whom Seventh-day Adventists consider to be a prophet, issued a letter in which she charged that "Brother Ballenger is presenting theories which can not be substantiated by the Word of God" and "I testify in the name of the Lord that Elder Ballenger is led by satanic agencies and spiritualistic, invisible leaders" (MS 59, 20 May 1905).

Four days later, Ellen White issued another letter in which she said, "Brother Ballenger has been allowing his mind to receive and believe specious error. He has been misinterpreting and misapplying the scriptures upon which he has fastened his mind... I am bidden to say in the name of the Lord that Elder Ballenger is following a false light. The Lord has not given him the message that he is bearing regarding the sanctuary service... I have a warning for those who suppose that they have been given the work of revealing Scripture in a new light. This work means substituting human interpretation for the interpretation that God has given. - Thus did the heavenly messengers pronounce upon the effort into which Brother Ballenger has entered." (MS 62, 24 May 1905). When he refused to recant his views, he was terminated from denominational employment.

Over the next two years, Ellen White would issue seven more testimonies condemning Ballenger and his views on the sanctuary, making such statements as "the Lord has instructed me that he has misapplied texts of Scripture, and given them a wrong application" (MS 145, 31 October 1905), "I know that the sanctuary question stands in righteousness and truth just as we have held it for so many years" (S50, 30 January 1906), "the correct understanding of the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary, is the foundation of our faith" (T208, 29 June 1906) and "Any man who seeks to present theories which would lead us from the light that has come to us on the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary, should not be accepted as a teacher" (MS 125, 4 July 1907).

In 1909, Ballenger published his views in the book, *Cast Out for the Cross of Christ*. In 1914, he began publishing a magazine called *The Gathering Call* to bring his views before the Seventh-day Adventist people.

The central focus of Ballenger's views, that Christ entered the Most Holy Place at His ascension rather than 1844, has been revived many times since Ballenger's death in 1921.

W.W. Fletcher, a prominent administrator and Bible teacher for more than 25 years, was separated from denominational employment over this issue in 1930.

L.R. Conradi, a prominent evangelist and administrator for 50 years, separated from the Seventh-day Adventist denomination over this issue in 1932.

W.W. Prescott, veteran educator, president of four Adventist colleges, administrator and editor of the *Review and Herald* for seven years, had been present at the trials of Ballenger and Conradi. After serving the Adventist denomination for almost 50 years, he was terminated from employment as a Bible teacher at Emmanuel Missionary College in 1934 because of questions about his beliefs on the doctrine of the sanctuary.

Desmond Ford, veteran Bible teacher at Avondale College and Pacific Union College, was terminated from denominational employment in 1980 because he stated his belief that Christ had entered the Most Holy Place at His ascension rather than 1844.

The problematic content of the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary remains unresolved. There is little reason to believe those problems will be resolved as long as Seventh-day Adventists believe Ellen White to be the most reliable, divinely-inspired interpreter of the Bible.

The majority of Seventh-day Adventists are not aware that Ellen White incorporated large amounts of material from other authors, sometimes including what should have been obvious errors, into her writings. Ellen White's endorsement of the traditional Adventist doctrine which teaches that Christ did not enter the Most Holy Place until 1844 will remain a stumbling-block against the acceptance of any other viewpoints within the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.

Ellen White's condemnation of Ballenger and his views have provided the basis for condemning anyone who raises questions about the Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary.

CAST OUT FOR THE CROSS OF CHRIST by Albion F. Ballenger, 1909

PREFACE

Four years ago the writer was separated from the ministry of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, and from fellowship in that body, because of convictions entertained regarding the mediatorial work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.

When asked by the brethren what my future plans would be, I replied that I would go aside and labor with my bands and earn my bread, and that of my family, with the sweat of my face, and see how my convictions would stand the test of stress and storm, of toil and time. I told them that I would not then become aggressive, but as my friends and acquaintances in the denomination should ask the reason of the hope that is within me, I would try to give it in meekness and fear.

Besides, it seemed but fair to give the brethren time to carefully examine my position and refute it from the Word if they were able. This I did in response to their pleas that, while I had given the subject much study, they had not had time to carefully consider it.

I have failed to respond to all the calls of my brethren and sisters for copies of my manuscript, as my time and strength have been largely taken up in providing food, clothing and shelter for my family. When the crisis came, it found me in the position of most of the earlier ministers of the denomination, without means for the care of my family. But this will not excuse my failure to answer the calls for copies of my position. If I had always sought first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, "all these things" would have been added, as in many cases they were: and I hereby testify to the faithfulness of God and the kindness of his children in this matter.

I have felt condemned when friends, anxious to possess copies of the manuscript, have gone to the expense of time and means to make copies for themselves, and it is for this reason that the matter now appears in print.

Yes, dear, reader, it is possible for me to be in error in these things, but it would be feigned humility to appear not to believe them with all my heart; for I do believe them, and have shown my faith by sacrificing for them all that the human heart holds dear, save life itself.

Now let the reader follow the noble Bereans in searching the Scriptures to see whether these things are so, and if they are found to be in harmony with the Word, believe them; if not, reject them, and then like one who is his brother's keeper, attempt to show the writer where his convictions of truth contradict the plain "thus saith the Lord."

To the timid soul, whose love of peace and unity leads him to fear the consequences that may follow an investigation of the subject, let me say there is something more blessed than church conformity, and that is the stately, triumphant, onward march of truth; something more to be desired than stagnant peace, and that is a Jerusalem Council, a Diet of Spires, or a Minneapolis Conference, from whose "No small dissentions and disputations," truth, less shackled, bounds onward toward the perfect day.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." Matt. 10:34,35.

The reader is urged to read the following quotation from the pen of Mrs. E. G. White (Test. 33, pp.234-236), as presenting the writer's convictions on this important subject.

"Peter exhorts his brethren to 'grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.' When the people of God are growing in grace they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of his Word. They will discern new light and beauty in its sacred truths. This has be true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus it will continue to the end. But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God's Word and discourage any further investigation of the scriptures. They become conservative and seek to avoid discussion.

"The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth there will be many now, as in ancient times who will hold to tradition and worship they know not what.

"I have been shown that many who profess to have a knowledge of present truth, know not what they believe. They do not understand the evidences of their faith... When the time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others, who will find, upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason. Until thus tested they know not their great ignorance. And there many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe, but, until controversy arises they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of like faith, and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief they will be surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth. Certain it is that there has been among us a departure from the living God, and a turning to men, putting human in the place of divine wisdom.

"God will arouse his people; if other means fail, heresies will come in among them which will sift them, separating the chaff from the wheat. The Lord calls upon all who believe his word to awake out of sleep. Precious light has come appropriate for this time. This light should lead us to a diligent study of the Scriptures and a most critical examination of the positions which we hold . . . God would have all the bearings and positions of truth thoroughly and perseveringly searched, with prayer and fasting. Believers are not to rest in suppositions and ill defined ideas of what constitutes truth. Their faith must be founded on the Word of God."

Your brother in Christ, A.F. BALLENGER.

Cast Out for The Cross of Christ. by Albion F. Ballenger, 1909

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTORY..

No one who has not experienced it can realize the soul anguish that overwhelms one, who, in the study of the Word finds truth which does not harmonize with that which he has believed and taught during a whole lifetime to be vital to the salvation of the soul. This is the position to which I have been brought by a most earnest and prayerful study of the Word, and I am stating my difficulties in this pamphlet, praying that, if there is light that will harmonize the old position with the new, or show the new position to be unscriptural, the reader may be able to make it plain to me. I appeal by this to those in places of greatest responsibility down to the humblest believer in present truth. I care not through whom the help may come, only so it come. I fear not the valley of humility, for those who have read the little book "Power for Witnessing," know that in my Christian experience there set forth, my greatest victories were gained through humbling myself under the mighty hand of God. I plead with my brethren and sisters not to condemn me suddenly, but to examine carefully the scriptures which have led me to take the position I have, and if possible, see wherein I have missed the path of truth.

From a child I have been taught to demand a "Thus saith the Lord" in proof of every doctrine, and I have looked forward to the time when the great controversy should reach its crisis, and we would be called upon to stand for our lives, at which time, we have been taught that we should say, when the powers of earth demand submission to the laws of men in opposition to the law of God, "Show us from the Word our error." I repeat, all my life long I have been taught that "before accepting any doctrine or precept we should demand a plain 'Thus saith the Lord' in its support;" that "God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the decrees or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, and the voices of the majority, - not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain 'Thus saith the Lord' in its support... Though the Reformation gave the Scriptures to all, yet the selfsame principle which was maintained by Rome prevents multitudes in Protestant churches from searching the Bible for themselves. They are taught to accept its teachings as interpreted by the Church, and there are thousands who dare receive nothing, however plainly revealed in the Scriptures, that is contrary to their creed or the established teaching of their church. There are today, thousands of professors of religion who can give no other reason for points of faith which they hold than that they were so taught by their religious leaders. They pass by the Savior's teachings almost unnoticed, and place implicit confidence in the words of the ministers.

But are ministers infallible? How can we trust our souls to their guidance, unless we know from God's Word that they are light~bearers?

"A lack of moral courage to step aside from the beaten track of the world leads many to follow in the steps of learned men and by their reluctance to investigate for themselves, they are becoming hopelessly fastened in the chains of error."

Cast Out for the Cross of Christ by Albion F. Ballenger, 1909

CHAPTER II. "ON THE THRONE"

My first difficulty with the doctrines taught by Seventh-Day Adventists is the teaching that Christ began his ministry at his ascension, in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. All my life I have believed that he did, but that belief was not the result of personal investigation of the Scriptures, but was the result of accepting as truth the deductions of others. As, in the quotations given above, I trusted to my religious teachers and did not investigate for myself. When I came to present these things to the general public and to defend them with the Word of God, I found myself in difficulty.

The Scriptures of truth again and again declare in the most explicit terms that Christ, at his ascension, went directly to the Father's throne. And this he must do that the scriptures be not broken, for God himself, by the mouth of David, had long ago published to the world that he would invite his Son to share his throne when he returned from the earth after completing the work of redemption. Here is the invitation:

1. "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Ps. 110:1.
2. The New Testament writers unite in testifying that this predicted invitation was given and accepted at the ascension of Christ. Peter applied this scripture to his ascended Lord in his Pentecostal sermon, thus:
3. "For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, the Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool." Acts 2:34,35.
4. The Apostle Paul repeatedly refers to this exaltation of Christ to the right hand of the throne of God. Some of those references follow:
5. "When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high." Heb. 1:2.
6. "But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Heb. 1:13.
7. "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens." Heb. 8:1.
8. "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies he made his footstool." Heb. 10:12,13.
9. "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down on the right hand of the throne of God." Heb. 12:2.
10. "Which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in heavenly places." Eph. 1:20.
11. "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God." Col. 3:1.
12. As the Psalmist David was used to proclaim the prophetic promise of God to seat his Son on his throne at his ascension, so the beloved Apostle John was used by the Son to testify that his Father had fulfilled his promise, as follows:
13. "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne even as I also overcame and AM SET down with my Father in his throne. Rev. 3:21.
14. The martyr Stephen closed his testimony and sealed his doom with this glorious truth, so much emphasized in the apostolic teaching:
15. "But he being full of the Holy Ghost looked steadfastly into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of God standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city and stoned him." Acts 7:55,58.
16. From the foregoing it is evident that in the apostolic church, a church filled with the Holy Spirit, the fact that Christ at his ascension, sat down on his Father's throne, was a most important gospel truth. This gospel truth is the "chief point" of the whole epistle to the Hebrews, as stated in Heb. 8:1.
17. "Now in the things we are saying, the chief point is this: We have such a high priest, who sat down 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. Both Revised and American Standard.

WHICH IS THE "THRONE ROOM."

The next all important question is, Which apartment of the heavenly sanctuary contains the throne of God? which apartment is the "throne room" of Jehovah?

In the Mosaic sanctuary, the pattern of the true tabernacle, God's dwelling place in heaven, the throne of God abode in the second apartment.

"Let them make me a tabernacle that I may dwell among them." Ex. 25:8.

"And thou shalt put the mercy seat ABOVE UPON THE ARK, and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony which I shall give thee. And THERE will I meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are UPON THE ARK of the testament, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel." Ex. 25:21,23.

Inasmuch as the Mosaic tabernacle was a shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, it follows that the "throne-room" of God in the heavenly sanctuary is in the second apartment. The following quotation is in harmony with this Scriptural truth:

"In the sanctuary and the temple, that were the earthly symbols of God's dwelling place, one apartment was sacred to his presence. The veil inwrought with cherubims at its entrance, was not to be lifted by any hand save one. To lift that veil, and intrude unbidden into the sacred mysteries of the most holy place, was death. For above the mercy seat and the bowed, worshiping angels, DWELT THE GLORY of the Holiest, glory upon which no man might look and live. On the one day of the year appointed for ministry in the most holy place, the high priest, with trembling, entered God's presence, while clouds of incense veiled the glory from his sight." Test. to the Church, Vol.8, page 284.

"And beyond the second veil was the Holy Shekinah, the visible manifestation of God's glory, before which none but the high priest could enter and live. The matchless splendor of the earthly tabernacle reflected to human vision the glories of that temple where Christ our forerunner ministers for us BEFORE THE THRONE OF GOD." Gt. Con. Subscription ed., page 414.

"In the temple in heaven, the dwelling place of God, his throne is established in righteousness and judgment. In the most holy place is his law, the great rule of right by which mankind are tested. The ark that enshrines the tables of the law, is covered with the mercy seat, BEFORE WHICH CHRIST PLEADS HIS BLOOD in the sinner's behalf." Ib. page 415.

Nowhere in the Scriptures are we taught that the throne of God dwelt in the first apartment, either of the earthly or heavenly sanctuary. The earthly sanctuary was a shadow of the heavenly; and the reason why the shadowy throne was in the second apartment in that sanctuary, is that the real throne was in the second apartment of the real sanctuary in heaven. It therefore follows that since Christ at his ascension, sat down as priest on his Father's throne in the heavenly sanctuary, he must have entered into the holy of holies, "within the veil" at that time.

MOVING THE THRONE

Those who are well informed regarding the teachings of the Seventh-Day Advent denomination will be prepared to admit that when Christ ascended, he sat down on the throne with his Father in the heavenly sanctuary; but some of these will maintain that the throne of God was moved from the holy of holies to the first apartment at that time, and there remained until 1844. However, there are a goodly number, even of ministers, who have expressed surprise when it was stated that this was the denomination's position.

One minister who has preached the message for many years, writes as follows concerning this point:

"I am sure there cannot be found a single line in any book, pamphlet or periodical, written by our people, that ever intimates that the throne of God ever abode in the holy place or first apartment; and I have never heard it mentioned either in public or private... It is the most unscriptural position that could be taken and involves more unreasonable and absurd positions than the Sunday keeper offers for keeping Sunday. Why was one part of the sanctuary called 'the most holy place'? Was it not because that part contained the throne of God which was between the cherubim over the mercy seat under which was the constitution of the universe? Now, if the throne made that place most holy, then if it be moved into the first apartment, would it not make that apartment the most holy place?"

For the benefit of those who desire, like the brother referred to above, a definite statement from the denomination in proof that it teaches that the throne of God was in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary at the ascension of Christ, the following is submitted:

"When Christ commenced his ministry above, on the throne of his Father, that throne was in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary." Looking Unto Jesus, page 134.

"Thus the scene opens with the commencement of Christ's ministry, and at that time the throne of God was in the first apartment of the sanctuary, where the antitype of the golden candlestick was seen." Ib.

This teaching that God's throne was in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, raises some very serious questions.

THE ARK AND THE THRONE

If the throne of God was moved into the first apartment at the ascension of Christ, did that include the ark?

The denomination, through its Sabbath School lessons, has taught that the ark with its mercy seat, its cherubim, and its shekinah, was a representation of God upon his throne in the heavenly sanctuary. In the Sabbath School lessons for Feb. 8, 1890, questions 12 and 13, the following appears:

"12. What was the cover of the ark called ?" - Heb. 9:5; Ex. 25:21.

"13. Why was it called the mercy seat ? - Ans. It was there that mercy was dispensed. The sanctuary was God's dwelling place; the ark represented his throne; and from his throne he dispenses grace, or favor, or mercy. See Heb. 4:16.

Again, in Bible Reading Gazette, authorized by resolution of the General Conference, published in book form in 1888 is found the following:

"What was there in the type that represented God on his throne in heaven? Lev. 16:2." And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron, thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat which is upon the ark, that he die not; for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat." Reading No.1, The Sanctuary. Sub-question 14, under question 92.

And still again:

"21. What covered the ark in the worldly sanctuary? - Exodus 25:17,21. (The mercy seat.)

"22. What covered it in the heavenly? - Heb.10:19,20; 4:19." (The throne of grace). Reading 101, questions 21, 22.

If this teaching of the denomination be true and the mercy seat of Exodus is a type of the throne of grace of Heb 4.16 then it must follow that if the throne of God was located in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary from the ascension of Christ to 1844; then the real ark was in the first apartment during all that time. But this does violence to the type which put the ark in the second apartment with a veil between it and the rest of the furniture of the sanctuary.

It also does violence to the type by putting all the furniture of the heavenly sanctuary in one apartment and leaving the holy of holies empty and abandoned for eighteen centuries.

SEPARATING THE THRONE FROM THE ARK

Some have seen the dilemma into which this teaching leads, and have tried to escape the difficulty by separating the throne of God from the ark of God, and placing the throne of God in the first apartment in the heavenly sanctuary, and leaving the ark of God in the holy of holies as represented in the type. While this relieves the situation in the one direction, it greatly complicates it in another.

If God moved his throne from the holy of holies at the ascension of Christ, did he leave the mercy seat or throne of grace behind him in the holy of holies? And did he then minister the gospel for eighteen centuries from another seat than the mercy seat, from another throne than the throne of grace?

If the throne was moved into the first apartment and not the ark containing the law, was the gospel ministered for eighteen centuries divorced from the law?

In the type all gospel ministry centered at the mercy seat above the law, as is forcibly stated in the following quotations:

"Beyond the veil was the holy of holies, where centered the symbolic service of atonement and intercession; and which formed the connecting link between heaven and earth." - Gt. Con. p.348.

"The law of God enshrined within the ark, was the great rule of righteousness and judgment. The law pronounced death upon the transgressor; but above the law was the mercy seat, upon which the presence of God was revealed, and from which, by virtue of the atonement, pardon was granted to repentant sinners. Thus in the work of Christ for our redemption symbolized by the sanctuary service, mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." - Patriarchs and Prophets, p.349.

"Beyond the second veil, the sacred ark with its mystic cherubim, and above it the holy shekinah, the visible manifestation of Jehovah's presence, all but a dim reflection of the glorious temple of God in heaven, the great center of the work for man's redemption." Ib.

"It is not without significance that the mercy seat and the law of God were so closely associated, and that God's presence was manifested just above them between the cherubim. Here all the services of the sanctuary centered. Here the presence, character and government of God was represented. The law of God is the 'justice and judgment' which are the habitation of his throne." - Note 2, under S.S. Lessons for Jan. 26, 1895.

MOVING SALVATION'S CENTER

At this point there arises to the thoughtful mind a number of serious questions:

1st. If God moved his throne into the first apartment at the ascension of Christ, and left the sacred ark enshrining his law and covered by the mercy seat, did he move the center of salvation away from the law and mercy seat into another apartment?

2nd. Did God minister pardon for eighteen centuries from a throne which was not the mercy seat but which was separated from that mercy seat by a separating veil?

3rd. Did God minister the gospel for eighteen centuries from a seat whose foundation was not his eternal law, from a throne which was divorced from that law by a veil of separation?

4th. Did God pardon sin from another seat than the one which is the habitation of justice and judgment?

5th. If God could minister the gospel for eighteen centuries divorced from the law, why can he not continue to do it; as taught by the No-Law advocates?

6th. Did Christ as High Priest plead his blood for eighteen centuries before a throne whose foundation was not the broken law which demanded the transgressor's blood?

7th. Did Christ minister his blood before a throne where mercy and truth did not meet together, and where righteousness and peace did not kiss each other?

Does the reader not see that this doctrine which moves the throne from the holy of holies into the first apartment, divorces God and his Son from the mercy seat and the law, and changes the center of God's government and gospel from the mercy-covered law in the holy of holies to the first apartment which according to the type never contained either law or mercy seat; and that for a period of eighteen hundred years?

This latter horn of the dilemma is much more serious than the former. The first did violence to the type by moving the ark to the first apartment, and thereby making that apartment contain all the furniture of both apartments and leaving the holy of holies empty and desolate; but it still recognized that the law and the gospel are inseparable, that there can be no salvation which does not have its center at the mercy seat above the law. But this latter theory separates God and his Son from the ark of his testament, from his law and mercy seat, and centers the plan of salvation in a department of the heavenly sanctuary where abode neither God's holy law nor his mercy seat.

THE DIFFICULTY UNEXPLAINED

Some of my brethren have tried to make it appear that I was in error in my teaching, that at his ascension Christ entered "within the veil" and sat down on the antitypical mercy seat or throne of grace in the holy of holies in the heavenly sanctuary, by stating that God's throne is movable and living and not immovably fixed to any one place in the heavenly sanctuary. No one, with the most rudimentary knowledge of the Scriptures, would think of denying that God's throne is living and movable. The question is not, Is God's throne movable? But, Is the holy of holies in the heavenly sanctuary, the center of atonement and intercession, as was taught in the type?

Some time ago I met a member of the General Conference Committee and he raised the issue over which I was cast out from the denomination as unclean.

He said in substance, "Bro. Ballenger, do you not know that God's throne is living and movable, and could therefore easily be moved from the holy of holies into the first apartment?"

To which I replied in substance: "No one denies that the throne of Cod is living and movable, but the question is, Did God move his throne into the first apartment? and if so Did he move the mercy seat and the law? or Did he leave the mercy seat and the law behind, and minister the gospel from a throne separated from his law and mercy seat?"

After a few moments' reflection he replied, "I have not given that point any thought."

During the last four years I have laid this difficulty before the leading men of the denomination and no one has ventured an explanation. No one has dared to say that when the throne was moved out into the first apartment the ark and law went with it; and on the other hand no one has dared to affirm that the law and mercy seat were deserted - left behind in the holy of holies, while the gospel was ministered for eighteen hundred years from a seat which was not the mercy seat and from a throne divorced from the divine law by a separating veil. Reader, if you accept the plain, "thus saith the Lord," you need not tamper with the throne of the Infinite but leave it in the holy of holies above the law, "the great center of the work for man's redemption," where the whole testimony of Scripture places it.

IS THE LAW SATISFIED?

"On the day of atonement, the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat above the tables of the law. THUS THE CLAIMS OF THE LAW which demanded the life of the sinner, WERE SATISFIED." P.P. p.356.

In view of the foregoing and the many Scriptures which declare that Christ sat down with his Father on his throne, within the veil, at his ascension, some serious questions arise.

Did Christ sit down "On the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" before the law, which demanded the life of the sinner, and which is the foundation of that throne, was SATISFIED?

Did the law continue to claim the life of the sinner's substitute, the Son of God, for eighteen hundred years after he had "offered one sacrifice for sins forever" and "set down on the right of God?"

Did Christ remain under the curse of the law for eighteen hundred years after his exaltation to the throne of God? If he had not sprinkled his blood upon the mercy seat, thereby satisfying the claims of the law, could he be said to be free from its curse?

"The law enshrined within the ark, was the great rule of righteousness and judgment. That law pronounced death upon the transgressor; but above the law was the mercy seat, upon which the presence of God was revealed, and from which by virtue of the atonement, pardon was granted to the repentant sinner. Thus in the work of Christ for our redemption, symbolized by the sanctuary services, mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other." P.P. p.349.

Since mercy (the gospel) and truth (the law) met together at the throne of grace above the law, did Christ our great High Priest sit down upon that throne before he sprinkled the blood upon the mercy seat which caused mercy and truth to meet together, and righteousness and peace to kiss each other?

Or did God separate mercy from truth? Did he move his throne away from the law into the first apartment and minister mercy for eighteen hundred years divorced from the law by a separating veil? Before investigating further, let the reader ponder the following glorious gospel words, descriptive of the ascension of Christ and his reception at his Father's throne.

After describing the triumphal ascension of Christ and the eagerness of the heavenly host to glorify their King, we read:

But he waves them back. Not yet; he cannot now receive the coronet of glory and the royal robe. He enters into the presence of his Father. He points to his wounded head, the pierced side, the marred feet: He lifts his hands bearing the prints of the nails. He points to the tokens of his triumph; he presents to God the wave sheaf those raised with him as representatives of that great multitude who shall come forth from the grave at his second coming. He approaches the Father, with whom there is joy over one sinner that repents; who rejoiceth over one with singing. Before the foundations of the earth were laid, the Father and the Son had united in a covenant to redeem man if he should be overcome by Satan. They had clasped their hands in a solemn pledge that Christ should become the surety for the human race. This pledge Christ has fulfilled. When upon the cross he cried out, 'It is finished,' he addressed the Father. The compact had been fully carried out. Now, he declares, 'Father, it is finished. I have done thy will, O my God. I have completed the work of redemption. If thy justice is satisfied. 'I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am.'

"The voice of God is heard proclaiming that justice is satisfied. Satan is vanquished. Christ's toiling struggling ones on earth are accepted in the beloved. Before the heavenly angels and the representatives of unfallen worlds they are declared justified. Where he is, there his church shall be. 'Mercy and truth have met together righteousness and peace have kissed each other.' The Father's arm encircled his Son and word is given 'Let all the angels of God worship him.'" Desire of Ages, Trade edition, pp.1001,1002. Subscription edition, pp. 834.

Could this glorious scene take place at the throne of the universe, and the voice of God be heard proclaiming that "justice is satisfied," - could the sinner be "declared justified" "before the heavenly angels and the representatives of unfallen worlds" while the law was still demanding the life of the sinner's substitute, the triumphant Son of God?

THE THRONE IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION

A desperate effort is made to find scriptural proof that Christ sat upon the throne with his Father in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary until 1844. The Scriptures used are as follows:

"And behold there was a throne set in heaven and one sitting upon the throne. . . And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne." Rev. 4:2,5. R.V.

"And another angel came and 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. 8:3.

It is argued that inasmuch as the candlestick and the altar of incense were always in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary, therefore when these were seen by John in the heavenly sanctuary, he must have been looking into the first apartment; and as he saw the throne at the same time, the throne must have been in the first apartment.

But the logic is faulty. One might just as consistently argue that inasmuch as the second apartment was always the abode of the ark or typical throne, therefore when John saw the altar and candlestick at the same time that he saw the throne, they must have been in the second apartment. But both conclusions are wrong, for both contradict the type because in the type, the ark, or typical throne was never seen in the first apartment; and the altar and candlestick were never seen in the second apartment.

The candlestick and altar as seen by John, were in the exact position they occupied in the earthly sanctuary, and the throne in the exact position it occupied in that sanctuary. In the earthly sanctuary, the candlestick was in the first apartment before the veil, "before the Lord," and the altar was "before the ark."

Note the two following Scriptures and see how the earthly sanctuary as built by Moses agreed with the heavenly sanctuary as seen by John, as regards the relative positions of the altar and the throne. Moses placed "the golden altar for incense before the ark." Ex. 40:5. John saw "the golden altar (for incense) before the throne." Rev. 8:3.

But it may be asked, How could John see the throne at the same time he saw the altar unless the throne were moved out into the first apartment, or the altar moved into the second? For the simple gospel reason that when Christ died on Calvary as the antitype of the Lord's goat, the veil of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom; symbolizing the rending of the heavenly veil that our great High Priest might enter within the veil and offer his blood at the mercy seat or throne of grace.

"But this man, after that he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God." Heb. 10:12.

"The rending of the veil of the temple showed that the Jewish sacrifices and ordinances would no longer be received. The great sacrifice had been offered, and had been accepted, and the Holy Spirit which descended on the day of Pentecost carried the minds of the disciples from the earthly sanctuary to the heavenly, where Jesus had entered by his own blood, to shed upon his disciples the benefits of his atonement." Early Writings, page 122.

"Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an High Priest forever, after the Order of Melchesedec." Heb. 6:19,20.

"Having then a great High Priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not an High Priest that cannot be touched by the feelings of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us, therefore, draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of need. Heb. 4:14-16 R.V.

How much more reasonable and scriptural to believe that the heavenly veil was rent at the death of Christ so that the mercy seat, or throne of grace, could be seen at the same time with the altar and candlestick; than to move the throne of God from its foundation, the law, and place it for 1800 years in the first apartment, with Christ as High Priest ministering in the presence of his Father, with the veil behind them both, and separating them from the law and mercy seat, the only place where the gospel has its center; and this, too, in the face of the fact that the type calls for a ministry "before the veil," while God is enthroned "within the veil" above the mercy seat and the broken law; and still more, in opposition to the plain statement that Christ has entered "within the veil" and "is set down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens."

Cast Out for the Cross of Christ Albion F. Ballenger

CHAPTER III. "WITHIN THE VEIL"

That Christ entered the holy of holies at his ascension seems clearly proved from the Epistle to the Hebrews:

In Heb. 6:19, 20, we have the following statement concerning Christ: "Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an High Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec." This Scripture says plainly that at the time the Hebrew letter was written, Christ had entered "within the veil." Now, to which of the two apartments does this term refer? It will be noticed that the apostle refers to this place "within the veil" as if it were a place perfectly familiar to the readers. He does not stop to define it, but passes on, taking it for granted that the term is familiar to them; just as Matthew in his gospel refers to "the Sabbath" in Chap. 12:1. He does not stop to define which day is "the Sabbath," although there were other days in the Jewish system to which the term "Sabbath" was applied; he takes it for granted that when he uses the term "the Sabbath day," all will understand from their previous knowledge of the Old Testament that he is referring to the seventh day. Again, in the second chapter of Acts, the writer speaks of the "Day of Pentecost;" he does not stop to explain what day that is, but assumes that the reader, from his knowledge of the Old Testament, will know which day the "Day of Pentecost" is

THE FIRST VEIL

The only Scripture in all the Bible that is used to prove that the term "within the veil" refers to the first apartment, or within the curtain which formed the door of the tabernacle, is the Scripture found in Heb. 9:3. Paul, here, in describing the Mosaic temple says: "And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all."

"There" said my teachers, "that proves that the first curtain was a veil." Yes, it does; but it also proves that the first curtain was the first veil. It will not do to demand that the logic of Paul's statement makes the first curtain "a veil," and then shrink from accepting the full result of that same logic which makes it the first veil. Here, therefore, we have the Apostle Paul calling the second curtain the "second veil" and the first curtain the "first veil." Now, if the Scripture in Heb. 6:19 had said that Christ had entered the "first veil," then the question would be settled; but he simply says that Christ has entered "within the veil." Now, inasmuch as he uses the term without explaining it, taking it for granted that his readers understand to what place he refers, the all-important question arises: To which place within the first veil, or within the second veil-would the reader understand the term "within the veil" to apply? If the term "within the veil" applies to the first apartment, then we would expect that it had been thus applied so universally in the Old Testament Scriptures, that the reader would not hesitate in applying it to the first apartment. But when I came to study the matter carefully I found that the term "within the veil," in the Old Testament never applied to the place within the door of the tabernacle, or the first apartment, but always to the holy of holies, within the veil which separated the holy from the most holy. I found that the Hebrew Scriptures never call the curtain at the door of the tabernacle "a veil," much less "the veil." On the other hand, the term "veil" is applied to the curtain separating the holy from the most holy; and the term "within the veil" applies only to the holy of holies.

THE VEIL IN THE HEBREW

For the benefit of the reader, every passage in the Hebrew Scriptures which mentions "the veil" is here quoted. The Hebrew term for "veil," when referring to the sanctuary is Pah-roh-cheth. It occurs just twenty-five times. in every case it is applied to the "second veil," or the curtain between the holy and the most holy. The reader is also asked to note carefully that the name which the Scriptures give to the first curtain all through the Old Testament is "door of the tabernacle," with its modifications.

1. "And thou shalt make a veil of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine-twisted linen of cunning work; with cherubims shall it be made:

"And thou shalt put the mercy seat upon the ark wood overlaid with gold; their hooks shall be of gold, upon the four sockets of silver.

2,3,4. "And thou shalt hang up the veil under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the veil the ark of the testimony; and the veil shall divide unto you between the holy and the most holy.

"And thou shalt put the mercy seat upon the ark of the testimony in the most holy place.

5. "And thou shalt set the table without the veil, and the candlestick over against the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south: and thou shalt put the table on the north side.

"And thou shalt make an hanging for the door of the tent, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine-twined linen, wrought with needlework." Ex. 26:31-36.

Note how the first curtain is called in verse 36 "the door of the tent," in contrast to the "veil."

"And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamp to burn always.

6. "In the tabernacle of the congregation without the veil, which is before the testimony." Ex. 27:20,21.

"And thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon: of shittim wood shalt thou make it."

7. "And thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee." Ex. 30:1,6.

Note again how the Lord calls the first curtain the "door of the tabernacle," in the forty-second verse of the previous chapter, in contrast to the term "veil," which is again applied to the second curtain.

8. "The ark, and the staves thereof, with the mercy seat, and the veil of the covering.

"And the incense altar, and his staves, and the anointing oil, and the sweet incense, and the hanging for the door at the entering of the tabernacle." Ex. 35:12,15.

Again, the second curtain is called "the veil of the covering" while the curtain at he door of the tabernacle is called "the hanging for the door at the entering in of the tabernacle."

9. "And he made a veil of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen: with cherubims made he it of cunning work.

"And he made an hanging for the tabernacle door of blue~and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, of needlework." Ex. 36:35,37.

The reader is asked to notice once more that the Lord calls the curtain between the holy and the most holy, "a veil," and in distinction, calls the first curtain "a hanging for the tabernacle door;"

10. "And of the hundred talents of silver were cast the sockets the sanctuary, and the sockets of the veil; an hundred sockets of the hundred talents, a talent for a socket.

"And therewith he made the sockets to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." Ex. 38:27,30.

The first curtain is called "the door of the tabernacle," here as elsewhere, in contrast to "the veil."

11. "And the covering of ram's skins dyed red, and the covering of badger's skins, and the veil of the covering.

"And the golden altar, and the annointing oil, and the sweet incense, and the hanging for the tabernacle door." Ex. 39:34,38.

Once more the curtain at the door of the tabernacle is called "the hanging for the tabernacle door," in contrast to "the veil".

12. "And thou shalt put therein the ark of the testimony and cover the ark with the veil.

"And thou shalt set the altar of gold for the incense before the ark of the testimony, and put the hanging of the door to the tabernacle." Ex. 45:3,5.

Again the Lord carefully distinguishes the two curtains, calling the first curtain "the door."

13. "And he brought the ark into the tabernacle, and set up the veil of the covering, and covered the ark of the testimony; and as the Lord commanded Moses.

14. "And he put the table in the tent of the congregation, upon the side of the tabernacle northward, without the veil.

15. "And he put the golden altar in the tent of the congregation before the veil.

"And he set up the hanging of the door of the tabernacle." Ex. 40:21,22,26,28.

The reader must by this time be deeply impressed with the careful distinction which the Lord universally makes in discriminating between the two curtains. Here again the curtain between the holy and the most holy is three times called "the veil"; and in contrast to this, the first curtain is called "the hanging at the door of the tabernacle."

We have now examined fifteen out of the twenty-five instances where "the veil" is referred to in the Old Testament. Every one of these fifteen instances refers unmistakably to the curtain separating the holy from the most holy. The term "the veil" thus far is the name which the Holy Spirit gives to the second curtain, and to that curtain only; while "the door of the tabernacle" is the name which the same Spirit gives to the first curtain.

THE VEIL IN THE LEVITICAL LAW

We are now about to pass to the Book of Leviticus. In this book we have the law of God regulating the sacrificial system. The terms used in the book are legal terms. They must be definite, for they are for the information of the priests who were to offer the sacrifices. The names given by this Levitical law to the two curtains are as rigid and binding as is the name "Sabbath," as applied by the ten commandments to the seventh day. It will not be denied for a moment that the first curtain, or the curtain at the door of the tabernacle was a veil, both as to its construction and its use; but the question we are now examining is - does the Lord apply the term "within the veil" so universally to the space within the first curtain that when one reads in Heb. 6:19 that Christ has entered "within the veil," he will have no hesitation in applying it to the first apartment?

Thus far in our study the terms "the veil" and "within the veil" are applied rigidly to the second curtain, and the holy of holies; and now that we have come to the book that gives the legal names to the sanctuary and its offerings, let us see what names are given to these two curtains by the Levitical law.

In Lev. 1:5, we read, concerning the burnt offerings:

"And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord, and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar, that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." Here, the Levitical law names the first curtain, not "the veil," but the "door of the tabernacle of the congregation."

"And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary.

"And the priest shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." Lev. 4:6,7.

Here, the Levitical law gives the legal name of "veil" of the sanctuary to the curtain between the holy and the most holy; and the legal name of "door of the tabernacle" to the first curtain.

17. "And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, even before the veil.

"And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord, that is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out 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. 4:17,18.

Here again, the Lord designates the curtain between the two apartments as "the veil," and the first curtain as "the door of the tabernacle."

18. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron, thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place, within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat."

"And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation."

19. "And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil.

20. "Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil." Lev. 16:2,7,12,13.

Here, as always, the Levitical law makes a rigid distinction between the two curtains, calling the one separating the two apartments "the veil," and the first one "the door of the tabernacle."

21. "Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish." Lev. 21:23.

"Command the children of Israel that they bring unto thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamps to burn continually.

22. "Without the veil of the testimony, in the tabernacle of the congregation, shall Aaron order it from the evening unto the morning before the Lord continually: it shall be a statute forever in your generations." Lev. 24:2,3.

23. "And when the camp setteth forward, Aaron shall come, and his sons, and they shall take down the covering veil, and cover the ark of the testimony with it."

"And they shall bear the curtains of the tabernacle, and the tabernacle of the congregation, his covering, and the covering of the badgers' skins that is above it, and the hanging for the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." Num. 4:5,25.

Again we have the two curtains carefully distinguished.

24. "Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest's office for everything of the altar, and within the veil." Num. 18:7.

25. "And he made the veil of blue, and purple,and crimson, and fine linen, and wrought cherubims thereon." 2 Chr. 3:14.

These are the twenty-five instances in the Hebrew Scriptures where the term "veil" appears, and the reader must recognize that the Lord invariably applies the term to the curtain separating the holy from the most holy. Never has he called the first curtain "the veil" in the Hebrew Scriptures. Bear in mind, it is not denied that the first curtain was a veil, both as to its construction and use; but the Lord was careful, in naming the two curtains, to give the first one the name of "the door of the tabernacle," and the second one the name of "the veil."

THE VEIL IN THE SEPTUAGINT.

An effort has been made to weaken the force of this rigid distinction which the Hebrew Scriptures make between the two curtains, by referring to the Septuagint, which as all my brethren know, is a translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew into the Greek. It is claimed that in the Septuagint the first curtain is sometimes called a veil. This is true. And that the first curtain was a veil, both as to construction and use has never been denied. But I have contended that God had so clearly distinguished between the two curtains that when he uses the term "within the veil" in the book of Hebrews, the reader is compelled to apply it to the holy of holies in the heavenly sanctuary. Never in the Septuagint is the first curtain called a veil except in the directions for the making and moving of the tabernacle and then only when the connection plainly shows to which curtain it is applied. To illustrate: In Ex 28:16 we have "the veil of the gate of the court" and in Ex. 37:5 we have "the veil of the door of the tabernacle." Whenever the term veil appears in the Septuagint without qualification it refers to the veil separating the holy from the most holy.

Never in the Septuagint is the first curtain called a veil in the book of Leviticus, which contains the law governing the sacrificial system.

Never in the Septuagint is the term "within the veil" applied to any other than the holy of holies. Lev. 16:3,12,15.

Never in the Septuagint are the terms "before the veil" and "without the veil" applied to any other than the first apartment. Lev. 24:3.

In the Septuagint the first curtain is referred to twenty-two times in the hook of Leviticus, and every time it is called the door of the tabernacle, in distinction from the second curtain which in every instance (seven times) is referred to as the veil in such expressions as "the veil," "the veil of the sanctuary," "within the veil" and "outside the veil."

"WITHIN THE VEIL"

And now let us examine every instance where the term "within the veil" is used, and see how invariably it is applied to the most holy place.

The first use of the term is found in Ex. 26:33: "And thou shalt hang up the veil under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the veil the ark of the testimony; and the veil shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy."

The next three instances are found in Lev. 16:2,12,15, which verses read as follows: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron, thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat... And he shall take a censer full of burning coals from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil... Then, shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat."

The next and last instance of its use in the Old Testament is found in Num. 18:7, "Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest's office for everything of the altar, and within the veil."

Thus again it is made plain that the term "within the veil," in the mind of the student of the Hebrew Scriptures, meant in the holy of holies, and not in the first apartment.

"WITHOUT THE VEIL."

It must be evident to the reader that if the term "within the veil" refers to the first apartment instead of the second then the terms "without the veil" and "before the veil" would necessarily mean outside the first apartment, or outside the door of the tabernacle, where the altar of burnt offering was located. And now let us read all the references that use the terms in the Hebrew Scriptures, and see that they always refer to the place before the veil of the sanctuary, and not before the door of the tabernacle.

The first is in Ex. 26:35. "And thou shalt set the table without the veil, and the candlestick over against the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south; and thou shalt put the table on the north side."

The next use of the term is in Ex. 27:20, 21. "And thou shalt command the children of Israel that they bring thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamp to burn always in the tabernacle of the congregation, without the veil, which is before the testimony."

The next instance is found in connection with the erection of the sanctuary. Ex. 40:22,26. "And he put the table in the tent of the congregation, upon the north side of the tabernacle without the veil and he put the golden altar in the tent of the congregation before the veil."

The next two occurrences of the term are found in Lev. 4:6,17, "And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil."

"And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, even before the veil."

The next and last instance is found in Lev. 24:1-3: "And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamps to burn continually without the veil, of the testimony, in the tabernacle of the congregation."

Thus it is again made plain that the term "within the veil" must apply to the second apartment, or holy of holies, inasmuch as every time the terms "without the veil" or "before the veil" are used, they invariably apply to the holy place, or first apartment, and not outside the sanctuary, as it would of necessity be, if the term "within the veil" applied to the first apartment, as the denomination teaches.

Reader, it is for believing that "without the veil" and "before the veil" always refers to the first apartment of the sanctuary, and the term "within the veil" always refers to the second apartment, that I have been cast out of the church and declared an enemy of God and man. But I appeal to your honest convictions, have I a "thus saith the Lord" for my belief or have I not?

THE VEIL OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Passing from the Old Testament into the New, we find the Holy Spirit, still referring to the curtain between the holy and the most holy as "the veil." The Greek word translated "veil" is katapetasma, and it appears six times in the New Testament. The first reference is in Matt. 27:50-52, "And Jesus when he had cried with a loud voice, yielded up the Ghost; and behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose."

The next instance of the use of the term "veil" in the New Testament, as applied to the sanctuary, appears in Mark 15:37,38. "And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the Ghost: And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom."

The third instance occurs in Luke 23 :44,45, "And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst."

The reader will notice that the Holy Spirit in all these three instances calls the veil between the holy and the most holy places "the veil of the temple."

An effort is made to break the overwhelming force of this argument by saying that the reason why the Spirit of God was not more accurate, and did not say "second veil," was because there was only one veil in the temple at the time of Christ's crucifixion; but this is not borne out by the facts. Coneybear Howson's "Life and Epistles of St. Paul," p. 581, states that in the temple of Herod there was a veil at the door of the first apartment as well as a veil between the holy and the most holy. Josephus, in his "Antiquities of the Jews," hook XV, chapter 11, par. 3, speaks of the veils that adorned the doors of the temple. This objection loses its force also when we consider that at the time when there were two curtains, only one of them, and that one between the holy and the most holy, was called "the veil of the sanctuary."

"And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary." Lev. 4,6,7.

The Holy Spirit did not call the veil between the holy and the most holy "the veil of the temple" because there was but one veil, but because that was one name of the curtain separating the holy from the most holy.

There are but three more instances where this Greek word appears in the New Testament, and all of these three instances are to be found in the book of Hebrews. And can we suppose for a moment that the Holy Spirit in the hook of Hebrews would contradict the whole testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures, and its own previous testimony in the New, with this overwhelming evidence, both from the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, that the term "veil" when used without qualification applies invariably to the curtain between the holy and the most holy, and the term "within the veil" applies just as invariably to the most holy place, let us now read again the Scripture in Heb. 6:19:

"Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil, whither our forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an High Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec."

I appeal again to the reader: How can I, in the face the testimony of Scripture, teach that this term refers to the FIRST APARTMENT?

The next reference is in Heb. 9:3, "And after the second veil, the tabernacle, which is called the holiest of all." Here, as before stated, we have the Lord calling the second curtain the "second veil," and by implication calling the first curtain "the first veil."

And now from our study of the Old and New Testaments, which one of these veils does the Lord refer to when he uses the term "within the veil"? Unquestionably, the SECOND.

AN ILLUSTRATION

An illustration will help to impress this thought. A builder in a cold climate often has two doors at the entrance of his home. The first one is called "the storm door," and the second one "the door." To distinguish them, he writes these names with chalk upon the doors. He afterwards speaks of "the door" as "the second door," which would make the storm door the "first door." Now, if be tells his painter to go and paint "the door," which one of the doors would the painter paint? Surely not the storm door, for the storm door is not named "the door." It is the second door that is called "the door." So it is with these two curtains. God calls the first curtain "the door of the tabernacle," and the second curtain "the veil"; but in one instance only he refers to "the veil" as "the second veil," and by implication calls the first curtain the "first veil." Then when in the same epistle he speaks of "the veil," surely he cannot possibly be referring to the first curtain, because that is not the name of the first curtain, but the name of the second.

The last reference is found in Heb. 10:19,20. After proving that the Lord had, at the time of Paul's writing, offered the offering which was typified by the offering made by the high priest every year at the mercy seat, within the holy of holies, and after declaring that there is "no more offering for sin," the apostle continues, "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." The high priest of the Mosaic sanctuary made his yearly offering, (which typified the offering of Christ), within the veil, at the mercy seat, and since Christ has made the one offering for sin, which that offering typified, it follows, inevitably, that Christ made that offering upon the mercy seat, "within the veil," or in the most holy place. How very fitting, then, it is for the apostle to encourage us to follow our great High Priest "within the veil."

AN APPEAL TO THE READER.

And now I appeal to the reader: When the Holy Spirit in Heb. 6:19 tells us that Christ, our forerunner, has entered "within the veil," which department am I to understand is referred to by this term? Let me again call attention to the fact that the term "within the veil" is used in Heb. 6:19 without qualification, it being taken for granted that the reader is familiar with the term, and will know without explanation to which apartment it refers. Never for a moment would the student of the Hebrew Scriptures think of applying that term to the first apartment. When we go to the Old Testament to see which apartment is referred to by the expression "within the veil," we find the term applied invariably to the holy of holies. How dare I, then, in the face of this overwhelming testimony of Scripture, apply the term "within the veil," to the first apartment, a place to which the Spirit of God never applied it?

If I should teach that "within the veil" applies to the first apartment, the Word of God would condemn me. When I teach that it refers to the second apartment my church condemns me. May the Lord have mercy upon me and sustain me in the trial!

"Hear the Word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word; your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he will appear to your joy, and they will be ashamed." Isa. 66:5.

Cast Out for the Cross of Christ by Albion F. Ballenger, 1909

CHAPTER IV. SERVICES IN THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY BEFORE THE CROSS.

Just here the conscientious, thoughtful reader who trembles at the Word of God and still is anxious to be loyal to his former teaching will ask:

Was not the earthly sanctuary a type of the heavenly? Yes, certainly.

Did not the earthly sanctuary have two apartments and was there not a ministry in both? Most certainly.

Then ought there not be a ministry in both apartments of the heavenly sanctuary? Yes.

But if Christ entered into the second apartment at his ascension, when is the ministry conducted in the first apartment?

Answer: From the fall of man to the death of Christ.

Then you place the first apartment ministry of the heavenly sanctuary, or the ministry "before the veil," from creation to the cross?

Yes, a hundred times, Yes! and here is where a flood of light from the sanctuary falls on the path of the searching, praying pilgrim.

But was not the earthly sanctuary and its services a shadow of things to come?

Yes, some of the things were yet to come, hut not all. The true sanctuary was not yet to come, for it had existed long before the shadow was built. Heb. 8:5, and Ex. 25 :40. And God was enthroned above the mercy seat in the heavenly sanctuary when the earthly was built.

"The Lord is in his holy temple.

The Lord's throne is in heaven." Ps. 11:4.

"He sitteth between the cherubim." Ps. 99:1.

"For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; From heaven did the Lord behold the earth." Ps. 102:19.

Not only was God seated upon the throne in the heavenly sanctuary when the earthly sanctuary was built, but services were in progress there while the services were going on in the earthly sanctuary. This is shown first by the prayer of Solomon on the day of the dedication of the temple; and by the promise of the Lord which followed that prayer.

AS SEEN BY SOLOMON.

"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven, and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded." I Kings 8:27.

Solomon well knew that the temple which he had built was but a kindergarten toy faintly representing the dwelling place of God in heaven. And he also knew that the real sanctuary service on behalf of sinning men was at that very time going on in heaven. For in continuing his prayer he says:

"And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place: and hear thou IN HEAVEN THY DWELLING PLACE; AND WHEN THOU HEAREST FORGIVE." I Kings 8:30.

"If my people . . . shall humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear FROM HEAVEN, and will forgive their sin." II Chron. 7:14.

Had Solomon shared the views of those brethren who believe that the heavenly sanctuary was closed until after Christ's death and that, therefore, no pardon was ministered from the sanctuary during that time, he would not have prayed as he did and the Lord would not have promised to minister pardon from the heavenly sanctuary.

Eight times is this truth repeated in the prayer of Solomon. And as this prayer is repeated in 2 Chron. 6, this all important truth is told sixteen times in the two chapters.

Why did the Lord indict this prayer at the dedication of the temple? Why did the Lord lead Solomon eight times to call Israel's attention to the heavenly sanctuary and to the fact that it was from that sanctuary that he would hear their prayers and forgive their sins and not from the temple made with hands? For the solemn reason that he wanted the people to know that the earthly sanctuary was only a shadow of the heavenly, and that the service before the veil in that earthly sanctuary was only an index finger pointing to the heavenly sanctuary, where God, enthroned, "within the veil," between the cherubim, was then and there pardoning the sins of the people.

The Lord well knew that the devil would try to hide the heavenly sanctuary from their view by putting the earthly in the place of the heavenly; and so to persuade them that the only services carried on at that time were the earthly services and that their pardon was coming from the earthly instead of the heavenly.

AS SEEN BY THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL

Besides this prayer, we have the prayer which the Lord directed each man in Israel to make on the presentation of the first fruits, by which every soul in Israel would have his attention called to the heavenly sanctuary and to the fact that all real blessings came therefrom. This is a part of that prayer:

"Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel." Deut. 26:15.

Notwithstanding these precautions the devil did succeed in persuading the people to believe that the only services conducted on behalf of sin anywhere in all God's universe were those conducted in their sanctuary; and that all the pardon granted from any mercy seat was the pardon granted from their mercy seat. In fact, the devil persuaded them to believe that God's salvation for the whole human race centered in their twenty by sixty sanctuary.

AS SEEN BY ISAIAH.

The Lord, through the prophets, tried to direct their minds back to the heavenly sanctuary in the following words, but failed:

"Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: Where is the house ye will build unto me? And where is the place of my rest? For all those things have may hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord; but to this man will I look even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." Isa. 66:1,2.

Another solemn effort of the Lord to show that pardon was ministered from the heavenly sanctuary before the cross is found in the vision which Isaiah saw of the heavenly sanctuary as recorded in Isa. 6:1-7:

"In the year that King Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

"Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

"And one cried unto another, and said Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

"And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.

"Then said I, Woe is me, for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.

"Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:

"And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this that touched thy lips; and thy iniquity is taken away and thy sin is purged."

The scripture proves that the heavenly sanctuary was open in Isaiah's time and that the altar of incense was burning with live coals not cold and dead, and that the ministering angels were present to minister pardon from the sanctuary to the sinner.

Notwithstanding all this testimony the Jews lost sight of the heavenly sanctuary and worshipped the creature instead of the Creator and were ready to cast out any one from the synagogue who tried to call their attention back to the true tabernacle.

AS SEEN BY THE MARTYR STEPHEN

For his effort to show that the earthly sanctuary was only a "fashion" of the heavenly, the martyr Stephen was stoned to death. Their charge was that:

"This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law." From Stephen's defense, which follows, we can see that it was for teaching the same truth taught in the prayer of Solomon, and by Isaiah that he was stoned.

"Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen."

"But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, HEAVEN IS MY THRONE and earth is my footstool: What house will ye build me? saith the Lord: Or what is the place of my rest?" Acts 7:47-49.

For telling the truth about the typical sanctuary and calling attention to the real sanctuary where God's throne was always to be found, the first Christian martyr lost his life. And it is for telling this same truth that Solomon prayed, and Stephen preached, and Isaiah prophesied, that the writer has been cast out as unclean from among his people. I have taught that the Mosaic sanctuary was only a shadow, and that the real sanctuary, and the real mercy seat with God enthroned thereon, were in heaven at the time that the earthly was made. I have taught that at the time of the earthly ministry the real ministers carried the prayers to the real mercy seat in the real sanctuary in heaven, from whence pardon was ministered in harmony with the prayer of Solomon. And I appeal from the sentence pronounced upon me by my brethren, to the sanctuary which Solomon saw, and to the Father whom the martyr beheld enthroned in that sanctuary, and I make my appeal through my great High Priest whom the same martyr saw "standing on the right hand of God."

Cast Out for the Cross of Christ by Albion F. Ballenger, 1909

CHAPTER V. THE DAILY AND THE YEARLY ATONEMENT CONTRASTED.

There is a striking difference between the blood sprinkled "before the veil" and that sprinkled "within the veil." If the type had been perfect, the high priest would have sprinkled his own blood "within the veil" just as Christ entered with "his own blood." But as God would not countenance human sacrifices in the typical system, therefore the priest was allowed to enter within the veil with the blood of the Lord's goat instead of his own blood; but the reader must see that bad the type perfectly represented the reality, the priest would have sprinkled his own blood upon the mercy seat instead of the blood of the Lord's goat, and this clears the way for a better understanding of the difference between the blood which the priest sprinkles before the veil, and that which he sprinkles within the veil.

PRAYER FOR PARDON NOT THE PRICE OF PARDON.

The blood sprinkled "before the veil" was the blood which the priest had received from the hand of the repentant, believing sinner; the blood sprinkled "within the veil" was the blood of the goat chosen by the Lord, called "the Lord's goat," and stood for the high priest's own blood. The blood sprinkled before the veil, inasmuch as it was brought by the sinner, was nothing more than the sinner's confession of sin, and prayer for pardon through faith in the blood of Christ. It sustained the same relation to the death of Christ that the bread and wine of the Lord's table sustains today to that same death. The blood sprinkled "within the veil" was not a prayer for pardon received at the hand of the sinner, but was the blood of the sinner's substitute, which was the price of pardon. It is not the sinner who furnishes the price of pardon, but the sinner's substitute. The penalty of the law is not paid by the prayer of the penitent, but by the blood of his substitute.

"It is not thy tears of repentance, nor prayers, But the blood that atones for the soul."

The reason why the priest did not enter the holy place within the veil until the day of atonement was because he did not have the blood of the Lord's goat, a substitute for his own blood, to offer until that day. He could present the prayers of the penitent, represented by the blood which the penitent brought - he could present this "before the veil," and obtain pardon for the sinner - in and through the merits of Christ's coming death on the day of atonement; but he, being the sinner's substitute, could not enter within the veil until he had the substitute for his own blood, which alone could, in type, meet the penalty of a broken law.

"THE SIN OFFERING OF ATONEMENT."

There was a sin offering offered for the whole congregation on the day of atonement, "besides the sin offering of atonement" (Num. 29:11), but the priest would have lost his life, if after sprinkling the blood of this common sin offering "before the veil," he had gone "within the veil," and attempted to sprinkle that same blood on the mercy seat. And why? Because it was but a prayer for pardon in the name of Christ, and not the blood of the "sin offering of the atonement." After the priest had sprinkled the blood of the sin offering, which was merely the sinner's prayer for pardon, he changed his garments, putting on the white linen of the atonement day, and with the blood of another goat, which the Lord had chosen, whose blood was a substitute for the priest's own blood, he entered within the veil, and sprinkled that blood upon the mercy seat, which, being a substitute for his own blood, and typifying the blood of our great High Priest, met the penalty of the law in type.

The priest did not dare enter "within the veil" at the beginning of the yearly service, because he did not then have his own blood to offer. It was not until the day of atonement that the Lord chose for him a goat, whose blood was offered in the place of the high priest's own blood. So Christ did not enter "within the veil" at Creation, when sin first entered, and when he became man's substitute and surety, the one Mediator between God and man, because he did not then have his own blood to offer in payment for the penalty of sin. That blood was not shed until four thousand years later; and when his blood is shed at Calvary, the veil of the temple is rent in twain, and the way into the holiest is laid open, and Christ, now in possession of his own blood, enters "within the veil," and sprinkles that blood upon the mercy seat once for all, in payment of the penalty of a broken law. "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God."

It might be asked, Why was not the Lord's goat slain at the beginning of the yearly service, instead of on the day of atonement?

Answer: For the same reason that Christ was not crucified at Creation, but at Calvary. It was the plan of Cod that a long ministry should take place in the sanctuary before the substitute should die beneath the load of a world's guilt.

THE DAILY ATONEMENT IN THE HEAVENLY.

Leaving the type, let us examine the reality. When Abel offered his offering at Creation, what did his ministering angel receive at the hands of Abel to present before the throne of grace? Not the literal blood of Abel's lamb, for that blood was only a channel of faith, like baptism, and the Lord's supper. What then, I ask, did Abel's minister have to present to him who dwelt between the cherubim? Surely only that which the offering voiced - a confession of sin, and a prayer for pardon. With this prayer, his minister could go before the veil, and together with the incense burning on the altar before the throne, or Christ's own righteousness, present Abel's confession and prayer for pardon, and receive from the throne of grace the prayed-for pardon, which he could then minister to the sin-troubled heart of Abel. But why could he not go "within the veil" with that prayer, which he had received at the hand of Abel? For the sufficient reason that the prayer of a sinner for pardon is not the price or penalty of a broken law. If a ministering angel had gone "within the veil," at creation, and attempted to pay the penalty of sin with the prayer of a penitent, he would have perished; but, with Christ's promise to pay the penalty of sin with his own blood at Calvary, the ministering angel could approach the veil, and obtain pardon for the penitent through the merits of Christ's blood, which should be shed four thousand years later; but no priest dare enter "within the veil" until he has that which alone can meet the penalty of a broken law - his own precious blood. And this is why it is written after Christ's death and ascension, "When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." "But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the right hand of God." "By his own blood, he entered once into the holy place (holies), having obtained eternal redemption for us."

Let us then no longer confound the offerings which the priest received at the hand of the sinner and offered on behalf of the sinner "before the veil," which offerings were but a confession of sin, and a prayer for pardon - let us not confound this offering with that offering which was received at the hand of God, and which was a substitute for the priest's own blood, which alone could meet, in type, the penalty of a broken law. Remember that the first offering was but a prayer for pardon, while the second was the payment of the penalty of sin. Let it be kept in mind that the priest could for four thousand years, present before the veil in the heavenly sanctuary the prayers of the penitent, voiced by the blood of his offering and obtain through the merits of Christ's coming death, the prayed-for pardon; but when the hour comes when the penalty of sin must be paid, it requires infinitely more than the prayer of a sinner to meet that penalty; it requires nothing less than the precious blood of God's only begotten Son.

Nothing is clearer than that Christ was man's substitute from creation. "He hath made him to be sin for us" could have been said as truly by the patriarchs as by the apostle Paul. "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself," not merely from the cross onward, but from creation. After righteousness had been ministered to Abel, in response to his prayer of faith, the Lord no longer regarded him as bearing sin; but if he is not the sin-bearer, who is the sin-bearer? To this question the Father could make answer by pointing to his only begotten Son.

Reader, can you not see that from the fall of man, Christ became man's substitute, and being thus counted a sinner, there must be a ministry before the veil until he is in possession of his own precious blood, with which to sprinkle the mercy seat "within the veil"?

The veil in the earthly sanctuary was decorated with figures of angels, representing the real angels which guarded the approach to the throne of God, and it is before this cordon of living angels that the Melchisedek priesthood ministers from creation to the cross. For four thousand years, the sins of a world separated God's only begotten Son from his place at the side of his Father on the throne. For four thousand years, Christ was barred from his Father's face because he was the sinner's substitute. How full of meaning then, are these words in the prayer of our Savior, offered but a few hours before he was to pay the penalty of a world's sin in his death on Calvary, and then return to his Father's side:

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine ownself, with the glory which I had with thee before the world began." John 17:5.

The full meaning of this tremendous truth is brought out in the Twentieth Century New Testament. Here is the translation:

"And now do thou honor me, Father, at thine own side, with the honor which I had beside thee before the world began."

Thus it is plainly declared that Christ, our substitute, occupied a place at his Father's side on the throne, before the world began, which he did not occupy after sin entered; but when he was about to pay the penalty of sin in his own death, he asks that he be allowed to return to his Father's side. Oh, how full of meaning is the Father's answer to that prayer! At the moment of his Son's death, when he had uttered that triumphant cry, "It is finished," and his thorn-crowned head fell lifeless upon his breast, the hand of God who had suffered the cruel separation from his Son for four thousand years, on account of that terrible thing called "sin"' tore the veil of the temple from top to bottom, not the first curtain, but the one which had separated the high priest, the type of God's Son from the throne of his Father's glory; thereby saying in tragic tones to the angelic guard that had barred the way of the sinner's substitute, the Son of God, from the throne of his Father, "Stand aside! make way for the home-coming of my Son. The debt is paid that separated my only begotten Son from his place at my side." When, therefore, Christ arose from the grave freed from sin ("He that is dead is freed from sin") the way into the holiest was laid open and the angelic guard stood waiting to pass the all-conquering world's Redeemer on to the welcoming arms of his waiting Father. "When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Oh! the breadth, the length, the height, and the depth, of the love of God in Christ Jesus!

ATONEMENT FOR THE SINNER AND ATONEMENT FOR HIS SIN.

The very fact that the offerings during the year did not in any sense meet the penalty of transgression, but left the sanctuary uncleansed to be atoned for by the blood of the Lord's goat on the day of atonement, ought to convince anyone that there is a marked difference between the offerings which the individual or the congregation brought from day to day during the year, and the one offering made on the day of atonement.

But the reader will ask, when the priest sprinkled the blood before the veil, is it not clearly stated, "And the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them?" Lev. 4:20. Most assuredly it is. But, reader, if the penalty of sin had been met by this blood, why is it that the sanctuary must be cleansed on the day of atonement? Why is it that there must be another offering made, whose blood shall be sprinkled above the mercy seat, before the penalty of sin is met? Can you not see that if the first blood had met the penalty of sin, there would have been no need of a day of atonement to cleanse the sanctuary of the sins of the people?

Then you ask, What was the need of the daily offerings, and in what sense was atonement made for the people which would make it necessary for another atonement to be made for iniquity on the day of atonement? The whole matter is made clear when we realize that the offerings which the sinner brought during the year were but a channel of faith through which they acknowledged their sin, and expressed their faith in the coming Lamb of God, who would die to take away their sin. The offerings which the people made during the year sustained the same relation to the cross of Calvary that the bread and wine of the Lord's supper sustains today to that same cross. One was a channel of faith in the Lamb of God to come and die for the sins of men; the other - the bread and wine - is but a channel of faith for us to express our faith in the Lamb of God, who has come and died for our sins. Another has expressed it beautifully thus:

"The patriarchs, prophets, and all the holy martyrs, from righteous Abel, looked forward to the coming Saviour, in whom they showed their faith by sacrificial offerings. At the crucifixion, the typical system of sacrifices was done away by the great Anti-typical Offering." "Sufferings of Christ." p.3.

"It is as essential, no more so and no less, that we have faith in the Redeemer who has come and died - our sacrifice, as it was for the ancients to believe in the Redeemer to come, whom they represented by their typical sacrifices." Ib. p.4.

ILLUSTRATING THE DISTINCTION.

Let me illustrate the relation which the atonement for the sinner, which was made during the year sustained to the atonement for iniquity which was made on the day of atonement. We will say that I am renting a house in Ballymoney, Ireland, from a Mr. Hanna. Let it be supposed that I am unable to pay my rent, and am therefore in distress. I am anxious to leave for America, but Mr. Hanna brings suit against me, and levies upon my goods. In my distress, my friend, Mr. McClelland, steps up and says: "Mr. Hanna, charge the two pounds which Mr. Ballenger owes you, to me. I will pay it on the first of next June. Let Mr. Ballenger go to America." Mr. Hanna, perfectly satisfied with my substitute, transfers my debt from myself to Mr. McClelland, and says to me, "Mr. Ballenger, you are free to go. I hold Mr. McClelland in your stead." Mr. Hanna and I are now one. An atonement has been made for me which has reconciled me to Mr. Hanna, Reader, cannot you see that when Mr. Hanna accepted Mr. McClelland as my substitute in that acceptance an atonement is made for me, I am free from the debt? But the reader will recognize that no atonement has yet been made for the debt. The debt has not been paid. Mr. McClelland, my substitute, has assumed the debt, and Mr. Hanna has accepted him in my place, but he has not yet paid the debt. This payment will not be made until the 1st of June.

And so, during the four thousand years, from creation to the cross, the sinner is pardoned but the sin is not atoned for until the day when it is laid upon the Lamb of God.

"He hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all."

"Behold, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." Inasmuch as God forgave the sinner from creation to Calvary, and did not inflict the penalty of the sinner's sin, either on the sinner or his substitute, it follows that God's throne and his sanctuary have assumed the responsibility of man's sin.

Thus it was in the sanctuary service during the year. The sinner brought his sin offering, which was merely a channel through which he confessed his sin, and expressed his faith in the death of Christ yet to come. By his faith he was made to realize a oneness with God; but his sin, in type, still defiled the sanctuary until the day of atonement. On this great day, the service was changed. The Lord did not leave the sinner to choose the offering, but he chose the offering himself. He did not permit the sinner to lay his hands upon the head of this goat, for this was not the goat which was a channel for the faith of the repentant, believing sinner; but this goat was the one victim of the year which symbolized, from God's stand-point, his giving his only Son to die to atone for the sins of the world. The offerings during the year symbolized man's accepting, by faith, God's offering for sin; but this one offering on the day of atonement symbolized God's giving his Son to be the sin-offering for the world. And, inasmuch as he, God, laid upon him, Christ, the iniquities of us all, it was not fitting for the sinner to lay his hands upon this, the Lord's goat. By keeping in mind this clear distinction between the purpose of the daily offerings, and the offering on the day of atonement the whole sanctuary system becomes clear and plain.

HALTING CHRIST "BEFORE THE VEIL."

When we stop our great High Priest in the first apartment for more than 1800 years, we not only violate the type, which required that the high priest should pass, with the blood of the Lord's goat, immediately into the holy of holies; but, by placing him before the veil for all those centuries, we put him in the position of the priest against whom was charged the accumulated sins of the people, and who was awaiting the death of the day of atonement, whereby he was to unload his burden of sin. But why load up our Savior again with the very same sins with which he was already burdened when he suffered on Calvary's cross? Must he bear the same sins twice? If, after his ascension, he is again laden, in the first apartment, with the sins of the world, will not he have to die again to meet the penalty of these sins? But this is impossible, for the Apostle Paul says in the 6th of Rom.: "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him: For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God." Christ is no longer the sin-bearer. All the sins he ever will bear, he bore on Calvary's cross. If he were still laden with sin, he would still have to minister before the veil, and he could not enter into the presence of God, and sit down with him on his throne. It was not until he had purged our sins in his death, that he was allowed to pass into the presence of God, and sit down on his throne.

"When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Heb. 1:3. "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God." Heb. 10:12.

But the objection may be raised: When the sinner sins today, and confesses his sin, does not Jesus Christ load that sin upon himself? God forbid. That sin was already borne by him on the cross of Calvary, and all he needs to do is to raise that pierced hand, and plead that he has already borne that sin to Calvary, and paid its debt in his death. If he again loads himself up with sin, then he must offer himself again, and if he offers himself again, he must suffer again. "Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year, with the blood of others. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world, but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb. 9:25-26.

But does not God and his Son still suffer because of the sins of men? Yes, in the same sense that a parent suffers when a child is afflicted or is wayward. The love of the father for the son, causes the father to suffer when his son suffers or when the son is led into sin. In this sense God and his Son suffered with a sinning world from the fall to the cross, and from the cross to the end of sin; but this suffering is no part of that vicarious suffering which pays the penalty of sin. The wages of sin is DEATH," not sympathetic suffering with the sinner. The sacrificial lamb pointed forward to the death of Christ on the cross and the emblematic bread and wine point back to that same death. "Then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world, but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

There is another conspicuous violation of the type in the present position that it is strange we have not discerned. All must admit that the Lord's goat as the antitype of Christ, was slain on the day of atonement. Ought not Christ, then, to be slain on the day of atonement? and has not the day of atonement begun when atonement for iniquity is made? The Lord declared to the prophet Daniel that the atonement for iniquity was to be made within the seventy weeks. This proves positively that the day of atonement began before the seventy weeks ended. When I say "day of atonement," I do not refer to a day of twenty-four hours, but to a period. The type, in order to correspond with our present position should have had the Lord's goat, which especially typified God's giving his Son to die to put away sin, slain considerably earlier in the year, and the high priest should have sprinkled his blood, for months before the veil, and then on the day of atonement, he should have carried the rest of the blood, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat. But this, as anyone knows, is not the plan of the type. The first great act on the morning of the day of atonement was the slaying of the Lord's goat, which typified the death of Christ; therefore, when the cross of Calvary is upreared and the Lamb of God isn ailed to the cruel tree, the great anti-typical day of atonement has begun.

When a crime is committed in a state, the government is responsible for the purging away of that crime; and though the criminal may be already tried and sentenced to death, yet the government has not purged itself of this crime until it has inflicted the penalty of the law on the transgressor. In like manner, so long as God has pardoned the sinner, but has not inflicted the penalty of the sinner's sin upon his Son, the sanctuary in heaven was responsible for the putting away of that sin. So Abel was forgiven and went free, and thousands of years before the debt was paid, he was resting in his grave, God having transferred his sin to his substitute. God was holding Abel for the sin no longer. Yet it was not met in Christ's death until four thousand years later.

Year after year, during these centuries, the sins of men were accumulating in the sanctuary above, and God became responsible for them, and they were charged against his Son. But there came a day of reckoning, when the promise of the Son to pay the debt must be fulfilled. At that time we see Jesus Christ, with the accumulated sins of the centuries, which God had laid upon him, groaning under the load on Calvary, and paying the penalty of the world's sin in his own death. But not only did he suffer under the load of tile sins of the past, but he suffered for the sins of the future. "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the right hand of God." Heb. 10:12. And when he hangs dead on Calvary's cross, he is free from sin for he that is dead is freed from sin. Christ raised from the dead, stands in the position of the high priest, when on the day of atonement, he held in his hand the blood of the Lord's goat.

And why, I ask again, should we stop our great High Priest for more than 1800 years in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, there to receive upon himself again the accumulation of sins which he has already borne in his death on Calvary?

And thus, we see that the ministry in the first apartment of the Mosaic sanctuary, was a perfect type of the ministry on behalf of the sinner from creation to the cross, during which time the sins of men were actually accumulating in the heavenly sanctuary. Again the day of atonement in Israel was a perfect type of the actual putting away of sin, on which day the sins of men which had accumulated in the sanctuary were met in type by the blood of the Lord's goat. So on the great day of atonement, God laid upon his Son the iniquity of us all - the accumulated iniquity of the centuries, and the Lamb bore them, and paid their penalty in his death. Nothing is clearer than that the day of atonement began with the death of Christ. The Lord's goat, typifying Christ's death, was slain on the day of atonement; consequently Christ, in order to be the antitype, must himself be slain on the day of atonement.

NO MINISTERING PRIEST FOR FORTY CENTURIES.

Our old position leaves the world for the first 4000 years without an interceding priest. We admit that there was a sanctuary in heaven during that time; we admit that God dwelt between the cherubim, above the mercy seat; we admit that there was a world of sinners in need of pardon; we admit that those sinners prayed to God who dwelt upon the mercy seat, between the cherubim; but we have given them no priest, no advocate, no intercessor, to present those prayers before God. We have admitted that there was an altar of incense before the throne, but it was cold and deserted. No holy flame burning upon it, and no incense offered with the prayers of the saints.

When we are anxious to collect tithes from the people, we argue that the priesthood of Christ today, is but a continuance of a similar priesthood which existed in the days of Abraham. "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." If this is a good argument with which to collect tithes from the people, and it is, and the people should pay their tithes, it is also an excellent argument to prove that there was a priesthood during the first 4,000 years - a priesthood after the order of Christ's priesthood today, through whose intercession the prayers of the patriarchs were made acceptable to Cod in heaven. If we begin the priesthood in heaven at Christ's ascension, and say, as we have said, that only those sins which were carried in by the priest into the first apartment find forgiveness, then there is no forgiveness for the sins of the first four thousand years, for there was no one to carry them into the sanctuary, there being no priest.

In other words: the ministry in the first apartment during the year was a type of the ministry in the heavenly sanctuary until the cross, and the ministry in the second apartment was a type of the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary from the cross onward. And just as the sin offering for the atonement was slain on the day of atonement, so Christ, the antitypical sin-offering, was slain on the day of atonement.

But it is argued that the heavenly sanctuary could not have been open prior to the cross according to Heb. 9:8. The scripture says that the way into the holiest of all (or more literally, "the way of the holies"), was not yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle was standing. If the"first tabernacle" applies to the worldly sanctuary as a whole, and we understand this scripture to say that Christ had not entered into the heavenly sanctuary so long as the worldly sanctuary was standing, then Christ did not enter into the heavenly sanctuary until A.D. 70, when the worldly sanctuary was destroyed, for this earthly sanctuary did stand until that time. It may be replied that the word "standing" does not mean the literal standing of the sanctuary, but so long as its services had a standing in the sight of God, that is, were recognized as services of divine appointment; but as soon as one takes this position, they interpret this term "standing" in the very way I have interpreted it. But it must be applied to the work of the first apartment, and not to the whole sanctuary; for the antecedent is "first apartment" and not first, or worldly sanctuary. Therefore we have this scripture saying that the way of the holies is not yet manifested while the first tabernacle, (first apartment) "hath a standing," that is, while services are being conducted there.

Oh! how striking the rending of the veil of the sanctuary from the top to the bottom at the moment of Christ's death, thus saying in tragic words, - The services in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary are finished, and the way is now open for Christ to enter into the holy of holies, and offer his blood on behalf of a sinning world. And so we read: "When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." And again, "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the right hand of God."

The following diagram will present to the eye the relation which the services in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary sustained to the work in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary from creation to the sacrifice of Christ; and also the relation which the work in the holy of holies, on the day of atonement in the earthly sanctuary, sustains to the work of the great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary from the death of Christ onward. The parallel is complete, as the reader will readily see. This presentation of the matter relieves the awkward situation of having a sanctuary in heaven for four thousand years, in which no services on behalf of sinful man are being carried on, - God dwelling in the holy of holies of that sanctuary, upon the mercy seat, between the cherubim, and yet no ministry on behalf of man! This is too unreasonable to be entertained for a moment.

Of that which we have spoken this is the sum: The daily services in the earthly sanctuary, up to the day of atonement, were an exact type of the work on behalf of the sinner in the heavenly sanctuary from creation to the coming of Christ; and the ministry in the holy of holies in the earthly sanctuary, was an exact facsimile of the work wrought on behalf of the sinner, on the great day of atonement, which began with the coming of the Lord, and ends with his second coming.

Cast Out for the Cross of Christ by Albion F. Ballenger, 1909

CHAPTER VI. HOW THE SANCTUARY WAS DEFILED.

Before taking up a study of the day of atonement, and the cleansing of the sanctuary at the end of the 2300 days, let us study the Scriptures and see how the sanctuary was defiled. By this study we will clear away a fundamental error and be better prepared to appreciate the truth. "Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word." Isa. 66:5.

"And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Again thou shalt say unto the children of Israel; whosoever he be of the children of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed to Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people: because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name." Lev. 20:1-3.

This Scripture plainly teaches that when a man in Israel offered his children in sacrifice to the idol Molech, this sinful act defiled the sanctuary of the Lord and profaned his holy name, because his name was associated with his sanctuary. Deut. 12:5,6.

"But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord. Num. 19:20.

This Scripture again plainly declares that it is the uncleanness of the sinner that defiles the sanctuary. The sanctuary is defiled before he confesses his uncleanness, and if he never confesses it and is cut off, still he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord.

Again the same truth is repeated in the following passage:

"Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness when they defile my tabernacle that Is among them." Lev. 15:31.

THE SANCTUARY DEFILED BY THE SINNING OF THE SINNER.

Now that we see that it was the sinning of the sinner that defiled the sanctuary, and not his confession of the sin, let us notice why sin defiled the sanctuary. The scripture last quoted gives the clue to the answer.

"When they defile my sanctuary which is among them."

When God ordered the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness, it was built that he might dwell among them." And his choosing Israel as the place of his dwelling, identified him with the children of Israel. He was their God and they were his people. The nations therefore would look to Israel for a manifestation of the character of their God. "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord." Consequently, when Israel sinned, their sinning cast dishonor upon the Lord; it defiled the sanctuary, God's dwelling-place, and profaned his name.

"Both male and female (lepers) shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them, that they defile not the camp in the midst whereof I dwell." Num. 5:3.

"Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned my holy things; neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths and I am profaned among them." Ezek. 22:26.

"Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own ways, and by their own doings. . . Wherefore, I poured out my fury upon them, for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it. And I scattered them among the heathen . . . according to their doings, I judged them. And when they entered unto the heathen, whither they went, they profaned my holy name, when they said to them, These be the people of the Lord and are gone forth out of his land. But I had pity for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went. Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went, and I will sanctify my great name." Ezek. 36:17-23.

"The daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father." Lev. 21:9.

Should my child steal something from the village merchant, that sin would reflect upon me; that sin would defile my sanctuary - it would dishonor my home and household. If a neighbor's child steals from the same merchant, that act does not defile my sanctuary - my home, for I am not responsible for the acts of that child. I am not her father; she is not my child. Again, when one member of a church sins, it casts a reproach upon the whole church and that church cannot he clean from that defilement unless the sinner repents and makes restitution or is cut off from the congregation. The family is not defiled by the child's confession of the sin; the confession belongs to the process of cleansing. The church is not defiled by the confession of the sinning member but by the sinning of that member.

When the father has punished the child for the sin which defiled the home, then that home is cleansed from that defilement; the people are able to see that the acts of the child are condemned by the father.

So when Israel sinned, God, who had taken the position of head of the family of Israel, must see to it that the sin which defiled his sanctuary was cleansed away. And this could only be done by the shedding of blood, for "without the shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9:22.

"Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death." "So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are, for blood it defileth the land and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it."

"Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit wherein I dwell, for I, the Lord, dwell among the children of Israel." Num. 35:31,33,34.

Here the whole question is clearly stated. The sin of murder, (represented by shedding the blood of the murdered man) defiled the land. And this sin could he cleansed from the land only by the death of the murderer, whose death was represented by his blood. The blood of the sinner or the sinner's substitute instead of defiling the land or the sanctuary, cleanses the land or the sanctuary.

And now we are able to understand how the heavenly sanctuary was defiled. The scriptures describing how the earthly sanctuary was defiled were intended to teach us by way of type and antitype how the heavenly sanctuary was defiled. When God created this world, it became a part of his household. Adam is "the Son of God." Luke 3:38. "We are also his offspring." Acts 17:28. "Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool." Thus closely is God and his throne connected with the earth and its people; consequently, when Adam, the son of God sinned, his sin defiled the sanctuary of God and all the universe would look to God to purge his sanctuary of that sin. And what is true of the sin of Adam is true of the sin of all of Adam's posterity. Consequently, the heavenly sanctuary was defiled as was the earthly, by the sinning of the sinner, and not by the sinner's confession of that sin. His sin defiled the sanctuary whether he ever confessed it or not.

THE BLOOD OF THE SACRIFICE NEVER DEFILES.

This Biblical position relieves us from several embarrassing conclusions, one of which is, that when the priest sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice upon the altar of burnt offering or the altar of incense, he sprinkled sin upon it, inasmuch as sin, it is asserted, was carried in in the blood. But the blood of the sinner or his substitute, instead of defiling, always cleansed. "Without shedding of blood is no remission." "If the blood of bulls and goats sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ," etc. Heb. 9:13,14. "And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission." Heb. 9:22, R.V.

This and many other scriptures plainly declare that blood cleanses, and nowhere in the scriptures is the blood of the sinner or the sinner's substitute ever represented as defiling the sanctuary or the land.

And again, if the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar of incense sprinkled sin upon it and thereby defiled it, how could that same altar be cleansed from that sprinkled sin on the day of atonement by the sprinkling of more sin-laden blood on that same altar?

There is another conclusive proof that the sprinkled blood did not defile the sanctuary. This proof lies in the fact that the holy of holies was defiled by sin and needed to be cleansed on the day of atonement although no blood was sprinkled upon it during the daily service.

Again, sin cannot adhere to the blood of the sinner. The blood of the sinner represents the death of the sinner and sin cannot adhere to death. "He that is dead is freed from sin." Rom. 6:7. Blood is the evidence that the sinner is dead and is freed from sin in that he has paid the penalty of sin, which is death.

DID CHRIST'S BLOOD DEFILE THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY.

But still worse, if the blood sprinkled by the priest upon the altar defiled it, then, inasmuch as the earthly sanctuary and its services were a type of the heavenly sanctuary and its services, it follows that the heavenly sanctuary was free from defilement until Christ ascended and sprinkled his blood and thereby defiled it; and again, that the holy of holies was free from sin until Christ entered that apartment in 1844 and sprinkled his blood upon the mercy seat and thereby defiled it.

Who is willing to take the responsibility of declaring that the blood of Christ, which the Holy Scriptures call "precious blood," was so defiled with sin after Christ had paid the penalty on Calvary that when he sprinkled that blood, it defiled the sanctuary? The blood of Christ is represented in the scriptures as cleansing - never defiling. "And washed us from our sins in his own blood." Rev. 1:5. "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth (not defileth) us from all sin." I Jno. 1:7.

A tree is known by its fruits. Now let the reader note the fruit that is borne from this error that only confessed sins defiled the sanctuary.

1. It is taught that only confessed sins go into the sanctuary.

2. That only these confessed sins are placed upon the head of the scapegoat, which is Satan.

3. Therefore only confessed sins or the sins of the saved are placed upon Satan. And this is given as a reason for the great activity of the Evil One. He is working hard, it is asserted, to ruin men, because if he don't ruin them, he will have to bear the sins which they committed and from which they are saved; but, if he succeeds in ruining them, he will not have to suffer for the sins which they have committed, but they will have to suffer for them themselves. I once believed this terrible doctrine myself and based it upon the same error that only the sins of the saved went into the sanctuary. But I believed it because I had not given it personal study, but had accepted it as part of a system, which, to doubt any single point, was to be condemned already. But, when I investigated it carefully, I saw that it placed God in the position of putting a premium on deviltry. It made God say in substance to the devil: "If you are persistent in your deviltry, and succeed in holding my children under your hellish influence until they are eternally lost, I will reward you for your diligence by exempting you from the punishment due to the sins which you have led them to commit, and I will place all these sins on the victims of your Satanic cunning and they will have to bear the punishment themselves and you shall escape this punishment. But, on the other hand, if you are not diligent in your work of destruction and your victims escape from you, you will be punished, as a result of your lack of diligence, by having to suffer for all the sins of these escaped ones, none of which you would have had to hear, had you been more diligent and successful in ruining these souls forever."

INTO THE CAMP OF THE CALVINISTS.

Another baneful fruit of this error lies in the fact that it logically leads to the view that Christ died only for those sins which are confessed by the sinner. For, if it be true that the sinning of the sinner did not defile the sanctuary, but only the sins which the sinner confessed over the head of his victim, then it follows that Christ died under confessed sins only. If the sin of the sinner passed from himself to the lamb when he laid his hands on it and confessed his sins, then it follows that Christ, the antitype of the lamb, died for those sins only, which are confessed by the sinner and for no others. To state it another way; if no sins defiled the earthly sanctuary except those that were confessed on the head of the lamb before it was slain, then it follows that no sins were laid upon the "Lamb of God" except those sins which the repentant sinner placed there. This as before stated, leads directly into the camp of the Calvinists who teach that the death of Christ was on behalf of those only who will repent.

But if the sins of the sinner did not pass from the sinner to his victim when he confessed them over his head, what was the meaning of this ceremony? Let us see.

All will admit that the sanctuary service was an object lesson expressing:

1. God's plan of saving men from sin through the death of his Son and

2. Man's faith in that plan.

The blood of the Lord's goat, which the Lord chose, which was sprinkled upon the mercy seat, "within the veil," but once in the year, and which satisfied the demands of the law, illustrated God's giving his Son to die "once for all" to redeem us from the curse of the law.

On the other hand, the daily sacrifices which were brought by the people, gave opportunity for them to express their faith in Christ's death for them. The lamb was but a channel of faith, just as the bread and wine of the Lord's supper are channels of faith today; but no one but a Roman Catholic would say that our sins pass from us to the emblems at the time we partake of them. No, no! The lamb furnished the Israelite an opportunity to express his faith in the death of Christ yet to come, and the Lord's supper furnishes us with an opportunity to express our faith in the death of Christ which has come.

Yet again, the sinner has no right to place his sins on Christ. God alone exercises this prerogative. "The

Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all." And we not only have no right to do this but no opportunity to do it, because it was already done before we were born.

The foregoing errors, briefly summarized, are as follows:

1. The sanctuary was defiled by sin-polluted blood and then cleansed from that defilement by the sprinkling upon it of more sin-polluted blood.

2. The blood of Christ, called in Scripture "precious blood," was so polluted with sin that when be sprinkled it he defiled the sanctuary thereby.

3. Only confessed sins, or the sins of the saved, go into the sanctuary and out again upon the head of Satan, thus making Satan suffer under confessed sins only and thereby putting a premium on deviltry by exempting him from the penalty of those sins which are committed by those whom He eternally ruins.

4. The sufferings of Christ on Calvary were, as claimed by the Calvinist, limited to those sins only which are confessed by the sinner.

All these and many other fatal errors are escaped by the simple Scriptural truth that all the sins of men defile the sanctuary and are cleansed by the blood of the sinner or his substitute.

Cast Out for the Cross of Christ by Albion F. Ballenger, 1909

CHAPTER VII. HOW THE SANCTUARY IS CLEANSED.

But the conscientious believer in "present truth" will ask at this point, Will not this conclusion destroy the truths of the sanctuary so vital to the first angel's message? Will it not undermine the truth and the message of 1844? To which I answer, No indeed; but on the other hand, it clears that movement of errors that have impeded its progress from the beginning. No movement will lose by changing error for truth. The question may be asked? If Christ began his work in the holy of holies at his ascension, then what was the work that began in 1844?

The work which began in 1844 is the work which the Scriptures of truth say should begin at the end of 2,300 days, viz: the cleansing of the sanctuary. If I should quote the text thus, would I quote it correctly? "Unto 2,300 days then shall atonement be made for iniquity." Everyone familiar with this scripture would immediately correct me and say, It does not say that atonement shall be made for iniquity, but that the sanctuary shall be cleansed. But, in our teaching, we have made the cleansing of the sanctuary to mean the atonement for iniquity; whereas the Scriptures place the atonement for iniquity within the seventy weeks, and not at the end of the 2,300 days.

THE ATONEMENT FOR INIQUITY.

Dan. 9:24 reads thus: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy."

It will be noticed that I have used the words "atonement for iniquity" instead of "reconciliation for iniquity" and the reason why I have done this is that the word here translated "reconciliation" is Kepher, and is the word used for "atonement" in Lev. 16, in describing the work of the day of atonement. It is translated "to atone for iniquity" in the Lesser or Jewish translation.

And now since the Scriptures declare that the atonement for iniquity was made within the seventy weeks, but that the sanctuary is not cleansed until the end of the 2,300 days, what right have we to deny that the "atonement for iniquity" was made within the seventy weeks, and to teach that it was made at the end of 2,300 days? And where in type did the High Priest make atonement for iniquity? Assuredly, "within the veil," in the holy of holies. If, therefore, our great High Priest, Christ, made atonement for iniquity within the seventy weeks, it follows that he must have entered "within the veil," into the holy of holies, in order to make that atonement, before the seventy weeks were ended. Sixty-nine of those weeks reached to the baptism of Christ at the river Jordan. The seventieth week reached to the cutting off of the Jews, as God's depository for his truth.

It was during this same time that he ascended to the heavenly courts, and received from the Father the assurance that his sacrifice was accepted. "Jesus refused to receive the homage of his people until he had the assurance that his sacrifice was accepted by the Father. He ascended to the heavenly courts, and from God himself heard the assurance that the atonement for the sins of man had been ample, that through his blood - all might gain eternal life." "Desire of Ages," Subsc. Ed'n. p. 790; Trade Ed'n. p.949.

In harmony with this statement of Daniel that atonement was made within the seventy weeks, we find the apostle Paul, bearing positive testimony. However, before introducing it, let us go back and interrogate the patriarchs as to the meaning of their sacrifices:

Questioner: Abel, what do you mean by offering this lamb? Does the blood of this innocent lamb atone for your sin?

Abel: No, no. This offering is but a channel by which I acknowledge my sin, and express my faith in the promise of God to put my sins upon his Son, whose death will pay the penalty of my sin.

Q: Abel, can you tell me when this great transaction will take place?

A: No, I cannot.

Q: Abraham, what do you mean by offering this lamb? Can the blood of an animal atone for the sin of man?

Abraham: Oh, no; it is but a channel through which I confess my sin to be worthy of death, and an expression of my faith in the promise of God to find in his Son a substitute for me, who, dying in my stead, shall pay the penalty of my sin.

Q: Abraham, can you tell me when it will be?

A: I cannot.

Q: Daniel, what do you mean by this offering which you offer? Many of your people have come to consider the death of this lamb to be the atonement for the sinner. Is this the way you regard it?

Daniel:Oh, no; it is but a channel through which the sinner acknowledges his guilt, and manifests his faith in the promise of God to place our sins upon his Son, whose death shall atone for our sins.

Q: Daniel, can you give me any idea as to when this long expected event shall take place?

D: Yes, the Lord has shown me that it will take place within the seventy weeks, for he has said that "seventy weeks are determined upon thy people to make atonement for iniquity;" and in-asmuch as sixty-nine weeks are to reach to Messiah who makes this atonement; consequently, this great event takes place sometime during the seventieth week.

Q: Paul, why have you ceased to offer a lamb as a sin-offering?

Paul: Because the great sacrifice to which the sin-offering pointed has been offered. Daniel declared that within the seventy weeks, atonement for iniquity would be made, and the seventy weeks are in the past, and the promised atonement has been made.

TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices, which they offered year by year make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year; for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins. Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come: In the volume of the book it is written of me, to do thy will, O my God... By the which will we have been sanctified (R.V.) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he bath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Heb. 10:1-14.

Thus, we have it clearly stated by the apostle Paul that the great sacrifice so long looked forward to by the patriarchs, promised of God within the seventy weeks, had taken place when the apostle Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. Nothing is more clearly stated in the Hebrew letter than that Christ at the time the letter was written, had made the one great offering which was typified by the sacrificial system. This is evident from the scripture we have just quoted, and from the one which follows:

"But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Heb. 9:11-14.

"When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. Heb. 1:3.

Thus, it is stated again and again that Christ at the time of the writing of this epistle, had offered his blood to God on behalf of sin, in fulfillment of the yearly typical offering of the high priest on the mercy seat. The argument has been made that although Christ shed his blood at Calvary, as the antitype of the Lord's goat slain on the day of atonement, yet he did not sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat in satisfaction for the sinner's transgression of the law, until 1844. But what a violation of the type we have here! Every careful reader of the Old Testament knows that as soon as the high priest had caught the blood of the Lord's goat, he went immediately "within the veil," not stopping for a moment in the first apartment, but passing immediately to the holy of holies, he sprinkled the blood upon the mercy seat, and there made atonement for iniquity, the blood being evidence that the death of the sinner, who had broken the law, had taken place.

I appeal to the candour of the reader: Does not Christ, after he has died as the sinner's substitute, and has been raised from the dead, and is about to enter into the presence of him "who dwelleth between the cherubim," - is he not then in the position of the high priest on the day of atonement, when he has caught the blood of the Lord's goat, and is prepared to enter "within the veil," and sprinkle that blood on the mercy seat? No man can deny this truth. Then why stop him in the first apartment for eighteen hundred years before he sprinkles that blood? The high priest did not stop in the first apartment, but passed immediately into the second.

CLEANSING THE SANCTUARY.

The question may now be asked: What was the work which began at the end of the 2,300 days? or in other words, What is the cleansing of the sanctuary? Inasmuch as it has been shown that the atonement for iniquity was made within the seventy weeks, it is evident that the cleansing of the sanctuary after 1844 cannot be the work of atonement for iniquity, for that work according to the Scriptures, was accomplished within the seventy weeks. But someone will ask, Did not the atonement for iniquity cleanse the sanctuary? No, for if it did, there would be no announcement that the sanctuary would be cleansed after 2,300 days. The very fact that the Lord separates the atonement for iniquity and the cleansing of the sanctuary by more than 1800 years, proves positively that the atonement for iniquity is not the cleansing of the sanctuary, and that the cleansing of the sanctuary is not the atonement for iniquity.

One reason why the atonement for iniquity, made within the seventy weeks, did not cleanse the sanctuary, is because there are two sinners involved in every sin of man; and the atonement for iniquity, made within the seventy weeks, was an atonement made for but one of these sinners, and not for the other. The two sinners involved in man's sinning are, Satan, the instigator of all sin, and man, the agent through whom he works. "The spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." Eph. 2:2. "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it." John 8:44. "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil." I John 3:8.

All will admit that wherever the righteousness of God appears in a man, there the Spirit of God is at work, and that wherever unrighteousness appears in a man, there the spirit of Satan is at work. You cannot separate unrighteousness from the working of Satan any more than you can separate righteousness from the working of God. Consequently, there is involved in every sin of man two sinners, Satan, the instigator, and man, the agent. While there is but one act of sin, there are two guilty parties to that one sin. Satan is guilty of instigating the sinner to sin, and the sinner is guilty of yielding himself to perform the sinful act. Let it be illustrated thus

From the above illustration, it is evident that while there is one act of sin wrought by the hand of man, there are two guilty parties involved. One of them is Satan, who persuaded man to commit the sinful act, and the other is man, who yielded to the tempter.

Now, when Christ made the atonement within the seventy weeks, he made the atonement for the guilt of man, and not for the guilt of Satan, which was unpardonable. It must be evident to the reader that when Christ made atonement at the mercy seat on account of the iniquities of men, he did not make an atonement for the iniquities of Satan; and consequently man's sin still remains on the books of record in the heavenly sanctuary, not now against man, but charged against the other guilty party, Satan.

WHY TWO GOATS.

And this is why there were two goats chosen on the day of atonement to deal with the sins of the sanctuary. On this great day, there were two atonements made, the first on the mercy seat, on account of the iniquities of man; the other atonement on the head of the scapegoat, the type of the instigator of sin, Satan. The first atonement was made with the blood of the Lord's goat, and the second atonement was made upon the head of the scapegoat. The first atonement was made in mercy on behalf of the guilty man; the second atonement was made in judgment upon the head of the type of Satan. The first atonement is made in mercy, with the blood of the substitute; the second atonement is made in judgment upon the head of the offender himself.

This atonement in judgment is brought clearly to view in the case of Achan's sin as recorded in Joshua 7. God said to Israel, "Neither will I be with you any more except ye destroy the accursed from among you," (12th verse). Here, God declares that he is not at one with Israel, and that he will not be "at one" with them until they have destroyed the accursed thing; but when they have destroyed the accursed thing, he promises to be at one with them again. Therefore when every man in Israel throws a stone at Achan, thereby repudiating Achan's sin, and taking sides with God against him, atonement is made in judgment upon the head of Achan, and Israel and God are "at one." Although the word "atonement" is not used in this scripture, yet it is very clearly inferred. However in Num. 25, we have God separated from Israel again by the sin of Baal-Peor. Phineas, the high priest, rises up from among the praying lsraelites, and with his javelin destroys the offenders. Of this act, God says:

"Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel." Verses 12,13.

The Psalmist in speaking of this act of Phineas, says:" Then stood up Phineas and executed judgment; and the plague was stayed." Ps. 106:30. Here, we have an atonement made in judgment, similar to the atonement that was made upon the head of the scapegoat. God calls upon man not only to accept the atonement for iniquity that was made on his behalf at the mercy seat, but he asks man to join with him in condemning to banishment for ever from the congregation of Israel, him who was the instigator and author of man's sin.

Let me repeat the illustration given above:

Now, when a substitute is found for man, and this substitute takes man's place, and dies, his death atones for man's share of the guilt of his sin. Thus:

But man's sin still remains on the record books, - still defiles the sanctuary, not any longer against man, but against Satan, who is guilty of man's sin, and so long as man's sin defiles the sanctuary so long the sanctuary cannot be said to have been cleansed. It is true that the atonement for iniquity disposed of man's share of the guilt of that sin, but as it did not touch Satan's share of that guilt, it remains in the sanctuary until the judgment sits and it is placed upon the head of the original offender, and the sanctuary is cleansed.

THE ATONEMENT IN JUDGEMENT

And now we can see what work began in 1844. The Lord began with the work of atonement which is made in judgment, and which has for its goal the head of the scapegoat. When he had made the atonement for iniquity on behalf of men, (as promised in Dan. 9:24), when he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the throne of God, or as brought to view in Heb. 10:12, "This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the right hand of God: from henceforth expecting (waiting) until his enemies be made his footstool." The scriptures place a time of waiting between the atonement that was made for iniquity in mercy at the mercy seat, and the final atonement that is to be made in judgment upon the head of the enemy of God. When our great High Priest had made atonement for our iniquities at the mercy seat, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting for men to accept of this atonement and separate from Satan, so that when the long-deferred heel of judgment shall come down upon Satan, the sinner, for whom Christ made atonement, would not perish with him. This is the meaning of the "waiting" that has taken place since Christ took his seat at the right hand of God.

But there comes a time when the original offender must be dealt with; there comes a time when the judgment begins, when the cleansing of the sanctuary must begin, when the judgment is set, and the books are opened, when the cases of men are investigated, not to see whether Christ made an atonement for them - for he made reconciliation for the sins of the whole world, (see Rom 5:8-11,18,20, II Cor 5:19-21; I John 2:2; Lev. 16:33), but to see who have and have not accepted this reconciliation. Those who have rejected the atonement will be cut off from among the people of God; and at the close of this judgment the sins of men, which are held now against their originator, Satan, will be placed upon his head, and he will suffer, not as the substitute for sinning man, but he will suffer for his own guilt in causing men to sin.

A SAD MISTAKE.

And right here, through a misunderstanding of the sanctuary, a sad mistake has been made. Not understanding the foregoing, some have taken a position regarding the day of atonement, which really makes Satan man's Savior instead of Jesus Christ. The reader will certainly admit that if Satan suffers any or all of man's guilt, which man deserved himself to suffer, to that extent Satan becomes man's savior. But the devil is not man's substitute and savior. That place and glory belongs alone to Jesus Christ, "who gave himself for our sins."

For fear the reader may think l am wrongly stating the position, I will here quote from standard works wherein it is declared that the devil and not Christ, is the one who is really punished for man's guilt. I shrink from bringing to light these terrible quotations and should this paper fall into the hands of any of the enemies of my people, let me say here that while thus making Satan to be the substitute and savior of men is a logical result of a misunderstanding of the sanctuary service, yet it has not been logically followed by all those who preach the glorious gospel of the blessed God among them.

My first quotation is from the work, entitled "Looking unto Jesus." On page 268 I find these words:

"If Satan is punished for the sins of the righteous, are not those sins, it is asked, punished twice, once in the person of Christ, who suffered for our sins, and again in the person of Satan, upon whom they are finally laid?"

Now, let the reader note this statement carefully. Three positions are open to be taken. The first position would be to state that God does punish the guilt of sin twice, once in the person of his Son, and again in the person of Satan. The second position would be to deny that God punishes the same guilt twice, by stating that the guilt which God laid on his Son, was man's share of the guilt, and not the same guilt that was laid upon Satan, which guilt was his own share in man's transgression. The third position is to deny that Christ really bore man's guilt, and that this guilt is borne by Satan. The reader will note that in the following quotation, the author takes the third position, and denies that Christ bore man's guilt, asserting that Satan bears it himself:

"The trouble arises from a misapprehension of the part which Christ acts as our substitute. The idea seems to be generally entertained that Christ in his own person suffered all the punishment, that is, the bodily agony, due to the sins of all the saved, which they themselves would have endured, had they been lost. This leaves those who believe in eternal misery to grapple with an insurmountable problem; and it leads to the most ultra Calvinism. . . . We have seen from the type that the removal of sin from the penitent did not cancel the sin itself, but only transferred it to some other party who was then held in place of the sinner. The forgiveness was relative, not absolute; that is, as relating to the sinner it was forgiven, but the sin itself was considered still in existence to be disposed of in some other way. Christ has done for us in fact, what the ancient offering did for the sinner in figure; that is, he has provided a means through which sin, with its guilt, may be removed from us, and transferred to some other party (the devil). Thus, we can be saved; but the sin must meet its just deserts in some other quarter."

"Let us now consider where this desert in the case of the sinner, would naturally fall. Sin did not have its origin with mankind. They were not the original agents of this evil, but were seduced and led away under the power of temptation by another (Satan).... The practice of sin may, therefore, be represented as a partnership business. Satan is the senior partner, the sinner the junior. The latter having been seduced into that position, is allowed, under certain conditions, to leave the company, and step out from under the obligations of the firm. Upon whom will these responsibilities then fall? Upon the only remaining member of the firm, of course, the instigator of the whole evil business, the senior partner, Satan. If the sinner chooses to maintain the partnership in that illegitimate business, he can do so, and receive in his own person at last the punishment of his deeds. But it is in his power, if he so desires, to change his present relation to that commerce of hell, unite himself to Christ, and leave his former business with him (Satan) who is the head of the firm, and primarily responsible for it all."

In this quotation, we have the terrible statement that Christ does not suffer all the punishment, that is, the bodily agony due to the sins of all the saved, which they would themselves have endured had they been lost, but that Satan suffers for this guilt, thus making Satan the real substitute and sin-bearer in place of Jesus Christ.

Another quotation to the same end is found in the "Bible Students' Library," entitled "The Judgment: Its Events and Their Order," page 81. In explaining the sanctuary service, and the part the scapegoat takes, the author says:

"Every sin committed by man is instigated by Satan. This part of the transgression is the sin of Satan alone, and belongs solely to him, whether the man repents or not. But consenting to the tempter, and obeying him, is the sin of the one tempted. This part of the transgression, will, in the case of all who avail themselves of the work of the great High Priest be placed upon the anti-typical scapegoat Satan, and he will have to bear the full punishment of such sin."

Thus again, Satan is made to bear the guilt which properly belonged to man, as well as his own guilt in connection with man's sin. Before I found these quotations in our books, I discovered that the logic of our position, concerning the Day of Atonement, would make Satan instead of Christ man's substitute and savior; and on consulting these works, I found unhappily that my fears were too true. Now I do not feel like condemning these men. They wrote according to the best light they had, and if clearer light comes to us, let us correct their mistakes and go on in that "light which shineth more and more unto the perfect day."

THE TRUTH CLEARLY STATED.

It is with joy that I present a quotation from a later author, who, while not correcting the premises upon which the foregoing errors are built, yet repudiates the terrible conclusion and presents the truth as it is in Christ.

"Satan is the author and instigator of all sin, hence he is guilty of every sin which has ever been committed. He deceives and tempts into sin, and is, therefore, justly held responsible for it. By yielding to Satan's temptations man becomes a partner in Satan's guilt. Satan does not bear the sins of the righteous as Christ bore the sins of the world on Calvary. Christ gave himself as a voluntary offering for sin. He took the penalty of the law upon himself, dying in our room and stead, that we might live. Satan does not die for our sins, because he is not a sin offering. As a vehicle he bears away the sins of the righteous, because he is guilty of them all. He planned them, and executed them as far as he is able, and therefore in being punished for them he will be punished only for his own guilt." M.H. Brown, in Christ Our Advocate, p.108.

Those who make the scapegoat to represent Christ, have no opportunity to throw stones on this occasion, for they make Jesus Christ, after he has risen from the dead, and is freed from sin, - they make him so unclean that he must be driven forever from the camp of Israel, and separated from his people for whom he died; and that is too abhorrent to be entertained for a moment.

ILLUSTRATING THE TRUTH.

But the reader may ask, Does it not plainly state that "the priest shall confess over the head of the scapegoat all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, and all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat?" Yes, it does say so, but the illustration given above clearly explains it. I will here introduce it again:

And now when the Lord's goat dies as Israel's substitute and its blood is sprinkled above the broken law, upon the mercy seat, Israel's guilt is met on the day of atonement; but the reader will notice that the scapegoat has still charged against him the sins of Israel, and must needs meet his own guilt pertaining thereto. Now let us leave the type and illustrate the reality:

And now, let us introduce the world's substitute, Jesus Christ.

Thus it is seen that when Christ becomes the substitute for the world, and tastes death for every man, he meets in his death the penalty which should have been inflicted upon the world. But this leaves Satan still guilty of the sins which he caused the world to commit; and it is this guilt that Christ never bore on Calvary, which falls upon the head of Satan at the conclusion of the judgment. And all those who "neglect so great salvation," or reject the atonement so freely made for them in the death of Christ, must be cut off with Satan at the close of the judgment. This is the work which began in 1844, and will close with the placing upon Satan the guilt of the sins of all the world, - not the guilt which Christ bore, but his own guilt, which he himself must bear.

Before leaving this point, let me emphasize the fact, that if Satan bears the guilt of the sin which man himself should have borne, but did not bear, either in himself, or in his substitute, Christ, then Satan becomes to that extent man's substitute and savior. But God forbid that we should give to Satan the credit of that great salvation which was wrought out by Jesus Christ, when he suffered the penalty of the world's sin upon Calvary; and rob the Son of God of the glory which alone belongs to him, the marks of which, in his hands, feet, and side, are to constitute his unspeakable glory throughout the ceaseless cycles of eternity.

Cast Out for the Cross of Christ by Albion F. Ballenger, 1909

CHAPTER VIII. WHO SERVED IN THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY BEFORE THE CROSS.

Inasmuch as it seems clear from Heb. 7:28 that Christ did not become high priest until after his incarnation, "who then," it is asked, "was priest in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary for the first four thousand years?"

The Lord, speaking of the priesthood of Christ by the mouth of David said: "The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." Ps. 110:4.

One thing impresses the thoughtful reader of this solemn utterance, and that is the exalted position ascribed in this oath of Jehovah to the priest Melchisedec.

Some have labored to show that Melchisedec was only a mortal man - a sinning, dying man; but such a view belittles not only Melchisedec, and the priesthood of Christ, but God himself; for it represents God as taking a solemn oath, swearing by himself because "he could swear by no greater," "Thou (Christ) art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, a mortal, sinning man, now dead." If Meichisedec was only a mortal man who lived and sinned and died, in what respect was the Melchisedec order of priests greater than the Aaronic order, whose priests lived and sinned and died? Let this solemn truth impress the reader: He who degrades the priesthood of Melchisedec, thereby degrades the priesthood of Christ, for Christ is a priest of the same order as Melchisedec. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, unlike some modern writers, found it in harmony with the theme of his epistle, to show the exalted character of Melchisedec in every possible way. He interprets the name Melchisedec, which means "King of Righteousness;" and then his title, "King of Salem," which is King of Peace. Melchisedec was therefore King of Righteousness and Peace. Heb. 7:2.

He declares that Melchisedec was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days not end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually.

Here it is declared of MeIchizedec that he abideth a priest continually, unlike mortals who have a beginning and end of life. It is further stated that Melchisedec is "like unto the Son of God." Heb. 7:3.

"Now consider," says the apostle, "how great this (person) was. V.4. (The word "man" is not in the original.) This work of the Holy Spirit in showing how great Melchisedec is, is in striking contrast to those modern writers who spend their time in trying to show how insignificant Melchisedec is.

The greatness of Melchisedec is next shown by the fact that Abraham, the father of the Aaronic priesthood, paid tithes to Melchisedec, the King of Righteousness and Peace.

Again, the King of Righteousness and Peace was so exalted that he blessed Abraham who had the promises. The writer continues:

"Here (in the time of the Levitical priests) men that die (the Levitical priests) receive tithes; but there (in the time of Abraham) he (Melchisedec) receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth."

How dare men assert that Melchisedec was a mortal man who was born and died like other men when the Holy Spirit plainly declares that unlike mortal men who live and die, he like unto the Son of God abideth a priest continually? and again, that "he liveth," in contrast to "men who die"?

One thing will not he disputed and that is that Christ's priesthood is not the beginning of a new order of priests, like Aaron's priesthood was, but the continuance of an old order which existed at least as early as the days of Abraham. "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec;" "after the similitude of Melchisedec." vs. 15 and 17.

Another truth which cannot he denied is that since Christ belongs to the same order of priests as Melchisedec, the latter is therefore a priest of the same order as Christ, Melchisedec, like unto the Son of God abideth a priest continually. Heb. 7:3.

Putting these scriptures together, we have the positive statement that the Son of God is a priest for ever after the similitude of Melchisedec and that Melchisedec "abideth a priest continually" "like unto the Son of God." vs. 3,15,17.

Since Melchisedec is of the same order of Priests as Christ, it follows that the order of priests in which Christ now ministers, is an order of priests which existed as early as the days of Abraham.

And since Christ is a high priest of the New Covenant and of the New Covenant sanctuary, it follows that Melchisedec was a priest of the New Covenant and of the New Covenant sanctuary as early as the days of Abraham.

MELCHISEDEC A PRIEST OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY.

Since Melchisedec was a priest of the heavenly sanctuary in the days of Abraham, it follows that the heavenly sanctuary, which all admit existed from the beginning with God upon the mercy seat in the holy of holies, was not closed to a fallen world, as some assert, for four thousand years, with no ministering priest to minister pardon and life (blessings of the New Covenant) from the mercy seat in the heavenly sanctuary to the penitent sinners of earth.

And it is only reasonable to conclude that if there was a ministry on behalf of sinners in the heavenly sanctuary as early as the days of Abraham, that sanctuary was open to hear the prayers of the penitent from the beginning.

Or, in other words; since the Meichisedec or New Covenant Priesthood extends as far back as Abraham, it is only reasonable to conclude that it extends back to the fall of man and is contemporaneous with the gospel.

The writer in reaching this conclusion is in substantial harmony with one of the published positions of the denomination as it appears on page 39 of the pamphlet on tithing, entitled "Will a man rob God" and issued as No.145 of Bible Students' Library, and which reads as follows:

"In Heb. 5:6 Christ is said to be a priest after the order of Melchisedec. That order of priesthood existed from the fall of man till the introduction of the Levitical order of priesthood; and then contemporaneously with the latter, and since the Levitical order ceased (at the cross), the Savior has been a priest ... according to the Melchisedec order."

Again in the next paragraph we read:

"The Melchisedec priesthood is contemporaneous with the gospel."

Since we have before proved that the Melchisedec priesthood was connected with the heavenly sanctuary, it follows that that sanctuary was not locked up for the first four thousand years of the gospel ministry, but was open to the prayers of sinning men.

ANGELS AS PRIESTS OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY.

Among the ministers connected with the heavenly sanctuary before the cross, we have the ministering angels. "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them which shall be heirs of salvation?" Heb. 1:14.

Sent forth from where? From the heavenly sanctuary, of course, whence salvation was ministered from the beginning. That this ministry includes a priestly work in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary carried on before the cross, is proved by the fact that a ministering angel ministered pardon to the prophet Isaiah from the altar of incense before the throne.

"Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar and he laid it upon my mouth, and he said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips and thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin is purged." Isa. 6:6,7.

"Another angel" is brought to view in Rev. 8:3 as offering "much incense" "with' the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne."

That angels are ministering spirits, ministering from the heavenly sanctuary to the sinners of earth, is clearly expressed by another, thus:

"These (curtains) like the inner covering, which formed the ceiling were of the most gorgeous colors, blue, purple, and 'scarlet, beautifully arranged, while inwrought with threads of gold and silver were cherubim to represent the angelic host who are connected with the work of the heavenly sanctuary, and who are ministering Spirits to the people of God on earth. Patriarchs and Prophets, p.347.

In harmony with the foregoing evidence from Scripture some of the more studious of my brethren in the ministry have admitted that there was a service conducted between the heavenly sanctuary and the sinning world, from the fall to the cross, carried on by ministering angels. But they are loth to admit that it was a priestly ministry. But if these ministering angels offered the penitent prayers of sinners before the heavenly veil, and carried back the new covenant blessings of pardon and life, what more could a priest do? This is just what the priest did in the first apartment of the typical tabernacle. O the power of a creed to shackle the mind of the searcher after truth!

WHAT DID ANGELS MINISTER "BEFORE THE VEIL."

The objection has been made that there could be no ministry in the heavenly sanctuary until Christ shed his blood, because, it is argued, that the ministers would have nothing to offer. This objection betrays a sad misunderstanding of the type. The Aaronic priests had no blood to minister which met the penalty of the law, until the blood of the Lord's goat was shed. All they had was a prayer for pardon through the blood of Christ, which the sinner expressed through the channel of the blood of the victim which he brought and which the priest offered for him. The very fact that "on the day of atonement, the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood of this offering and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, directly over the law, to make satisfaction for its claims;" (Gt. Con. p.420) proves conclusively that the claims of the law were not satisfied by the blood ministered "before the veil." This is positive proof that there was a long ministry in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary before the blood was shed which satisfied the claims of the law. Therefore there must be a long ministry in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary before the blood is shed which satisfies the claims of the law. And there was such a ministry.

What did the ministers offer? They offered the penitent prayers of faith expressed by the offering which the sinner brought. And in response to these prayers of faith, ministering angels ministered pardon from the heavenly sanctuary to the penitent sinner for the space of four thousand years, before the blood of Christ was shed which satisfied the claims of the law. Therefore if there had not been a ministry in the heavenly sanctuary before Christ's blood was shed, the ministry there would not have agreed with the ministry in the earthly sanctuary. Therefore he who argues that there was no ministry in the heavenly sanctuary until the blood of Christ was shed which satisfies the claims of the law, makes the ministry in the earthly contradict the ministry in the heavenly.

Cast Out for the Cross of Christ by Albion F. Ballenger, 1909

CHAPTER IX. SOME FRAGMENTARY THOUGHTS.

One favorable feature of "present truth" is that it has tended toward the presentation of the oneness that exists in the great plan of salvation, extending from the creation to the crowning. It has corrected the view that men were saved by works before the cross and by grace afterwards. It has exhibited to scorn the idea that God was sore displeased with the transgression of his law before the cross, but now well-pleased with the transgression of the same law; but while this has been the general trend of the teaching, there is still lurking in the doctrines of the denomination that which logically followed, teaches that all those who were saved before the cross were saved by their own works, without the righteousness of Christ.

THE ALTAR OF INCENSE AND SALVATION BY WORKS.

What did the incense, which the priest offered morning and evening, and which was kept burning continually night and day upon the altar in the typical tabernacle, and which was offered with the prayers of the saints, - what did this incense represent? Our answer has always been "the righteousness of Christ," and the answer is, of course, correct. But were the prayers of all those before the cross offered without the righteousness of Christ? Did they offer up their prayers in their own merits? This cannot be. Their prayers were clothed in the righteousness of Christ as really as ours. But, when we admit this, we admit that the anti-typical incense was being offered on the altar of incense in the heavenly sanctuary from creation to the cross. And when we admit this, we admit that there was a priestly ministration in the heavenly sanctuary for the first four thousand years, for the incense was offered by the priest in the earthly sanctuary, and it must be the priest who offers incense in the heavenly sanctuary. Consequently we are driven to one of two conclusions: either men were saved by their own merits for the first four thousand years, or else there was a priestly service connected with the heavenly sanctuary from creation to the cross, as well as since that time.

But we are not dependent on so inevitable a conclusion as this to prove the existence of a priestly ministration in the heavenly sanctuary before the cross. We have, as before noticed, in Isa. 6:1-8 a definite description of that ministry.

By Isaiah's vision it is positively proved beyond all contradiction that the altar of incense was burning in the heavenly sanctuary before the throne previous to the cross; and that there was a ministry connected with the heavenly sanctuary; and that pardon was ministered from that sanctuary to the sinner.

THE MINNEAPOLIS CONFERENCE.

It is interesting to note the progress which the truth concerning the gospel has made among Seventh Day Adventists during the last sixty years. Before the general conference, held in Minneapolis in 1888, the teaching of the denomination did not extend the New Covenant beyond the cross. Since the agitation which began then, the New Covenant has been extended, in the teaching of the denomination, back to creation. See Patriarchs and Prophets, Chap. 32.

A sample of the published position of the denomination prior to that time is found in an old tract, entitled The Sanctuary of the Bible, republished as No.25 of the Bible Students' Library. On page 7 is found the following: "There are two covenants; the first or Old Covenant extends from the time of Moses to the death of Christ; and the second, or New Covenant, began at the death of Christ and extends forward to the consummation."

Again in an old pamphlet, entitled "The Sabbath and the Law" republished as No.53 of the B.S.L., we find these, to us, strange statements:

"This (Old Covenant) no longer exists; the New Covenant has taken its place."

Again, "the first Covenant, having waxed old, and vanished away, the New Covenant is made by God in its place."

No one among us today would teach that the New Covenant took the place of the Old Covenant, but that the New ran parallel with the Old, while the latter existed. If the New Covenant took the place of the Old, then the Old occupied the place until the New came, and this would make the Old Covenant the only covenant existing before the cross, and since the Old had no power to save, then there was no salvation prior to the cross!

Since the Minneapolis conference the New Covenant has been extended back to creation, but the New Covenant priesthood is still denied the patriarchs, as illustrated in the following diagram No.2.

When the denomination accepted the glorious truth that the New Covenant extended back to creation, and that by it the first sinner found salvation, the foundation was laid for the truth which I am now trying to bring forth. It follows of necessity that, if the blessings of the New Covenant were granted the patriarchs, then there must have been a priesthood by which these blessings were ministered from the New Covenant sanctuary to sinful man. We have extended the law back to creation, and made sin the same in all ages; but how serious to bring the patriarchs under condemnation and then fail to administer to them the blessings necessary to save them.

Let me illustrate the old position in this way:

An angel steps to the battlements of heaven, and shouts to the sinners of earth that heaven has decided to grant to them the mercies and blessings of the New Covenant that are necessary for the perfection of Christian character, which are pardon and a new life. And then he asks earth's dwellers to come up to heaven after these blessings. But they cannot climb up to bring Christ down from above; therefore it would be to taunt the sinner to offer him the blessings of the New Covenant and then give him no priest - no mediator, no minister, to convey those blessings from heaven to earth. I repeat, there ought to be no difficulty in the way of the truth herein presented, since the battle, following the Minneapolis meeting, was fought. The real battle was fought then, and it as logically follows that the patriarchs were blessed with the New Covenant priesthood, as that they were blessed with the New Covenant pardon.

ILLUSTRATING THE PROGRESS OF TRUTH.

In the accompanying diagrams, I have attempted to illustrate the growth in the knowledge of the truth concerning the New Covenant.

No. 1 represents the view of the plan of salvation held by the denomination prior to the Minneapolis general conference, held in 1888.

No.2 represents the view held since that time.

No.3 represents the truth as it should be held.

Prior to 1888 neither the New Covenant nor the New Covenant priesthood were represented as extending further back than the cross, though it was admitted that the New Covenant sanctuary existed from creation, but with its door closed to sinners until Christ died. (See "The Sanctuary of the Bible" p.10, par. 3.)

STILL THERE'S MORE TO FOLLOW.

Every one ought to be ashamed to teach today that:

"With the introduction of the New Covenant came the real sanctuary of God, the tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. Heb. 8:1,2. While the first

COCC - 93

tabernacle stood it signified that the way into the holy places of the heavenly temple was not opened." Heb. 9:8

"The ministration in the earthly sanctuary was now finished, and that in the heavenly was about to commence. The sanctuary therefore which at this time was anointed was that which at this very point took the place of the earthly sanctuary." The Sanctuary of the Bible. p.13.

It seems incredible that any one should teach that the only sanctuary that a sinning world had access to for forty centuries was a 10 by 30 moveable tent or a 20 by 60 temple!

It seems beyond belief that any one should think that the only throne of grace that was accessible to a sinning world for four thousand years, was a 1 1/2 by 2 1/2 gold plated wooden box, which men carried about on two poles!

How could men believe that the only ministers between the Most High and the human race were Aaron, Hophni and Phineas - one man and his two sons!

How could they conceive that the salvation of the fallen world had its center above a gold plated board between two hand made images, in a 10 by 10 room, roofed over with badger skins!

Am I belittling the shadowy sanctuary? No indeed. I am exalting the real sanctuary. My heart's burden is that of the wise man who in the presence of the earthly in the zenith of its glory, said:

"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?"

My burden is the same as that of Isaiah, who said, in the name of the Lord:

"Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool, where is the house that ye build unto me?"

And as the martyr Stephen tried to get the angry Jews to see that the real sanctuary was always in heaven, while its shadow stood, so I am pleading with Seventh-Day Adventists, trying to get them to see what every Spirit-taught man from Moses till Stephen saw, that the real sanctuary was in heaven, while its shadow was upon earth; that real pardon was ministered from the heavenly sanctuary while the shadowy came from earth.

But some one will say, it is a mistake concerning the past. All now believe that the real sanctuary is in heaven and the real service conducted there. Yes, but the past mistake affects the present. The ministry "before the veil" which should have been understood as in progress from creation to the cross has been applied to the time from the cross to 1844. Thus Christ has been barred from the mercy seat for more than eighteen centuries, no blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat to satisfy the demands of the law; the law still demanding the death of the sinner, and not a subject of grace in all the world that dare believe that the blood of Christ has been ministered at the mercy seat to meet the demand of the law for his life! Who will dare to go "within the veil" and approach boldly to the throne of grace, if the law beneath that mercy seat has never been satisfied with the blood of his substitute?

HAVE NEED OF NOTHING.

It ought not to be difficult for S.D.A.'s to accept more light if it is supported by a "thus saith the Lord," inasmuch as the Laodicean message, which the church applies to itself, with fearful threats, warns the church not to be satisfied with what it considers as its riches, but to seek the Lord for true riches.

"Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind and naked."

"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye salve, that thou mayest see." Rev. 3:17,18.

If there is anything that Seventh Day Adventists boast of possessing it is "the truth." And if there is any one "truth" in this creed, which they glory in above another it is the doctrines of the sanctuary. Where they think they are rich, God says they are poor. Where they think they see, God says they are blind. Where they think they are "girt about with truth," God says they are naked. And a failure to exchange their riches for God's riches will result in their being spewed out as a people.

Surely, in view of this terrible warning we ought to be at least willing to carefully compare that which we have thought to be true riches with the Word of God and see if it will stand the consuming flame of that Word.

But have we not been warned against examining the foundations of our faith, the platform on which we stand? In this connection the anxious soul may be encouraged with the following quotation from Mrs. E.G.White, in Review and Herald, July 12, 1889.

"INVESTIGATE EVERY JOT AND TITLE OF ESTABLISHED TRUTH.

Very many teachers are content with a supposition in regard to the truth. They have crude ideas, and are content with a surface work in searching for truth, taking for granted that they have all that is essential. They take the sayings of others for truth, being too indolent to put themselves to diligent, earnest, labor, represented in the word as digging for hidden treasure. But man's inventions are not only unreliable, they are dangerous; for they place man where God should be.

They place the sayings of men where a 'Thus saith the Lord' should be.

"The world's Redeemer alone possesses the key to unlock the treasure house of the Old Testament. He explores hidden things. He separates the precious truth from superstition and error and the devisings and imaginings of men."

"Sharp, clear preceptions of truth will never be the reward of indolence. Investigation of every point that has been received as truth, will richly repay the searcher; he will find precious gems. And in closely investigating every jot and tittle which we think is established truth, in comparing scripture with scripture, we may discover errors in our interpretation of scripture. Christ would have the searcher of his word sink the shaft deeper into the mines of truth. If the search is property conducted, jewels of inestimable value will be found. The Word of God is the mine of the unsearchable riches of Christ."

Oh, reader, when you are tempted to cast aside this humble plea for a more earnest search after truth, on the ground that "we have the truth," - we "have need of nothing," listen to him who rebukes in love when he says: "Thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked."

Cast Out for the Cross of Christ by Albion F. Ballenger, 1909

CHAPTER X. RECAPITULATION. TYPE VS. ANTITYPE.

The earthly sanctuary, which was a shadow of the heavenly, places the ark or throne of God, in the holy of holies, or second apartment, while the priest was ministering in the first apartment.

The denominational view of the heavenly sanctuary places the ark or throne of God, in the first apartment while the priest ministers in that same apartment, in violation of the type.

The teaching of the writer regarding the heavenly sanctuary and its service leaves the throne of God in the holy of holies, while the priest is ministering in the first apartment, in harmony with the type.

The shadow placed a veil between the priest and the ark, or throne of God, while the priest ministered in the first apartment.

The denominational view has the priest minister in the heavenly sanctuary, in the first apartment, with no veil separating him from the throne of God, but with a veil behind both priest and throne, in violation of the type.

The position herein advocated agrees with the type and places a veil between the priest and the throne God, while the priest is ministering in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.

The type represents the priest as performing a long ministry in the first apartment of the sanctuary before the blood is shed which was sprinkled on the mercy seat to pay the penalty of sin.

The denominational view teaches that the blood which was sprinkled upon the mercy seat to pay the penalty of sin, was shed before the ministry begins in the heavenly sanctuary, thus contradicting the type.

The view taught in this paper agrees with the type, and places a ministry before the veil in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, long before the blood was shed, which met the penalty of the law.

The type taught that the priest ministered for a long period in the first apartment, during which time there was accumulated against him the sins of the people, before the blood was shed, which met the penalty of those sins.

The denominational view locates the death of Christ before they have any ministry performed in the heavenly sanctuary.

The view taught by the writer agrees with the type in placing a ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, during which time the sins of the people were charged against Christ, long before his blood was shed which met the penalty of those sins.

The shadow placed the death of the Lord's goat, whose blood met the penalty of the law, in type, on the great day of atonement.

The denominational view places the death of Christ, whose blood meets the penalty of the law, more than 1800 years before they begin the great day of atonement.

The writer agrees with the type in placing the death of Christ on the great day of atonement.

The shadow represents the high priest as going from the court where the Lord's goat was slain directly into the holy of holies, on the day of atonement.

The denominational view teaches that Christ went from his ministry in the first apartment, and not from the earth where he died, into the holy of holies on the day of atonement which they begin in 1844.

The writer agrees with the type in teaching that Christ went from the earth where his blood was shed, directly into the holy of holies, and not from a ministry in the first apartment in the heavenly sanctuary.

The type represents the priest as unloading forever through the blood of the Lord's goat, the sins which had been accumulating against him during the year.

The denominational view represents Christ as loading himself up in the first apartment with the same sins which he had before borne at the cross, and unloaded in his death.

The writer agrees with the type in representing Christ as unloading forever in his death, the sins of the world. "He that is dead is freed from sin." "Knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over him, for in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God."

The shadow sends the high priest directly through the first apartment into the holy of holies as soon as he has in his hands the blood of the Lord's goat, or the blood that pays the penalty of sin.

The denominational view stops our great High Priest in the first apartment when he has his own blood which pays the penalty of sin.

The writer agrees with the type and teaches that Christ, after his resurrection, stands in the place where the high priest stood in the typical system, when he had caught the blood of the Lord's goat, and was ready to enter into the holy of holies. The writer teaches that Christ at his resurrection entered immediately "within the veil" to sprinkle his blood upon the mercy seat.

The shadow represents the high priest as going immediately with the blood of the Lord's goat into the holy of holies, and sprinkling that blood upon the mercy seat "within the veil."

The denominational view teaches that our great High Priest did not sprinkle his blood on the mercy seat "within the veil," for more than 1800 years after it was shed.

The writer agrees with the teaching of the shadow and affirms that Christ entered "within the veil" and sprinkled his blood on the mercy seat immediately after his resurrection.

SHOW ME MY ERROR FROM THE WORD.

And now should any of my readers feel called upon to reply to the positions herein taken, do not, I beseech you, pick flaws here and there and then throw the whole aside as refuted, but with Christian fairness show by a "thus saith the Lord" that I am wrong when I teach:

1. That the earthly sanctuary service was a shadow of the whole plan or salvation, as carried on before as well as after the cross.

2. That a ministry on behalf of sinners was conducted from the heavenly sanctuary prior to the death of Christ.

3. That the typical service "before the veil" represented the plan of salvation as carried on in the heavenly sanctuary before the incarnation.

4. That while the earthly sanctuary stood, the heavenly sanctuary was the center of gospel ministry for man.

5. That enlightened men from Abel to Stephen always understood that their prayers were heard in the heavenly sanctuary and answered from that sanctuary.

6. That the brethren who teach that the earthly sanctuary was the center of salvation and that the heavenly sanctuary was closed to the cries of sinners for four thousand years, have adopted a similar position to that held by the Jews in Isaiah's and Stephen's day.

7. That angels ministered the New Covenant blessings of pardon and regeneration from the heavenly sanctuary to repentant believers, for four thousand years before Christ died.

8. That the term "within the veil" in Heb. 6:19,20, refers to the holy of holies of the heavenly sanctuary.

9. That the throne of God in the heavenly sanctuary as well as in the earthly, abode in the holy of holies, "within the veil," while the ministry was conducted "before the veil."

10. That the throne of God abode above the law in the heavenly sanctuary, as well as in the earthly, while the ministry "before the veil" was in progress.

11. That the earthly sanctuary was defiled by the sinning of the sinner and not by the blood of his sacrifice of confession.

12. That likewise the heavenly sanctuary was defiled by the sinning of men and not by the "precious blood of Christ" offered for our cleansing.

13. That Satan will suffer for his share in the sins of the lost as well as the saved.

14. That the Lord does not give the Devil a rebate of his share of the punishment of all those sins which are committed by those whom he eternally ruins.

Cast Out for the Cross of Christ by Albion F. Ballenger, 1909

CHAPTER XI. WHY THE CONFIRMING SIGNS ARE NOT SEEN.

("From Power for Witnessing," Chap. VII.)

One important office of the gifts of the Spirit is to bear Witness to the truthfulness of the word preached. Of the ministry of tile Great Teacher, Peter spoke thus on the day of Pentecost: "A man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know." Acts 2:22.

Paul writes thus of the witnessing office of the gifts of the Spirit: How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also hearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? Heb. 2:3,4.

"And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the Word with signs following." Mark 16:20. "Long time, therefore, they (Paul and Barnabas) tarried there (at Iconium), speaking boldly in the Lord, which bare witness unto the Word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands." Acts 14:3, R.V.

The disciples understood the need of these confirming cures and witnessing wonders; and we read how they prayed definitely for them, and how the Lord just as definitely gave them that which they asked. Here is the prayer:

"And now, Lord, behold their threatenings; and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy Word, by stretching forth thy hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke the Word of God with boldness." Acts 4:29,31.

Thus clearly do the Scriptures teach that the gifts of the Holy Ghost are given to approve, to witness to, and to confirm the preaching of the Word. The signs and wonders are not the things of greatest importance.

The all-important thing is the preaching of the Word, and the "signs and wonders,' and "divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost," follow to bear witness that the Word spoken is the Word "which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord."

The healing of the sick must, therefore, follow the preaching of the Word. "Preach the kingdom of God" and "heal the sick," is the order in which the commission is given. It is therefore evident that if the Word is not preached, God will not confirm it with signs following. For God to confirm the preaching of anything but the Word, would be for him to confirm the preaching of a lie. If there is, therefore, any failure in the preaching of the Word, there must inevitably follow a failure in the signs following.

That there is a failure in the preaching of the Word today, is plain to those who are not entirely blinded by the god of this world. Of this time wrote the Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy, thus:

"I charge thee in the sight of God and of Christ Jesus who shall judge the quick and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the Word. . . For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables." 2 Tim. 4:1-4, R.V.

Will God confirm the preaching of fables? Then this falling away from the faith to fables is reason enough why God should refuse to confirm such preaching with signs following. Back to the Word, my brother, if you are seeking the witnessing signs. Back to the Word which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, before you begin to teach the fable that witnessing signs and wonders were for the apostles only. God working with them! What a blessed association in labor! "The Lord working with them, confirming the word with signs following." What a glorious experience the early disciples must have had when the Lord worked with them confirming the Word! But why look back? He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He will work with us again, and confirm the Word again, if the church will get back to that Word; for at the time he was working with them, confirming the Word with signs following, he promised his presence to us today, when he said: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Matt. 28:18-20.

And for what will he be with us? To work with us, of course. And how does he work with us? It is by confirming the Word with signs following.

The absence, therefore, of the confirming signs is a sad and solemn witness to the fact that there is a failure somewhere in the preaching of the Word.

Reader, does this touch your heart? Does it make any difference to you whether the Lord works with the church and confirms the Word, or whether he does not? I confess that it concerns us deeply, and "for Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth." Isa. 62:1.

And now, dear reader, I have tried in this pamphlet to give a reason for the hope that is within me with meekness and fear. If you are able to see clearly where I have missed the narrow way in my search after truth, point it out to me, giving scripture and verse. Four years have passed since my separation from the denomination, and not a single soul in the church has come to me, Bible in hand, desiring to show me from that Word where I am wrong.

On the other hand, if you see light in anything presented here, don't reserve your words of appreciation for the obituary, but say them now. Though the man with an unpopular message must receive his encouragement from the same place he obtained his message, yet it is a part of the reward of the man in the minority, to hear the witnessing words of those who have been helped by his ministry. There will be plenty to condemn, therefore the encouraging word of the few will be the more appreciated.

Cast Out for the Cross of Christ by Albion F. Ballenger, 1909

CHAPTER XII. "BUT HOW ABOUT THE TESTIMONIES."

Many of the brethren, after listening to Scripture evidences of my position, have admitted that from the standpoint of the scriptures, the teaching appeared sound; but invariably they would remark in substance: "Yes; but how about the testimonies?" The only answer I am able to make to this question is found in the following copy of a letter recently addressed to Sr. White:

Dear Sr. White: For some time I have been constrained to write to you regarding my convictions on the sanctuary. Many of my friends have urged me to do this, while others have thought it useless inasmuch as, in their opinion, the letter would never reach you.

Nevertheless I have decided to write, and state my difficulty frankly.

My first difficulty is with the interpretation which you give to the following scripture found in Heb. 6:19,20, "Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil, whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus made an high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec."

I cannot help believing that this term "within the veil" refers to the holy of holies of the heavenly sanctuary and the scriptures which convinced me, are given below.

On one side I have placed the interpretation given this scripture by the Word of God and on the other side the interpretation which you have given it. You will note that you merely assert that this term applies to the first department of the heavenly sanctuary, but you do not refer to any scripture which uses the term and applies it to the first apartment. What I am pleading for in this letter, is, that if there be a "thus saith the Lord" to support your statement, that, out of compassion for my soul you furnish it.

Five times the Lord uses the term "within the veil" and in every case it is applied to the second apartment of the sanctuary, and not to the first.

Seven times the Lord uses the terms "without the veil,' and "before the veil," and in every instance he applies it to the first apartment or tabernacle of the congregation, and never to the court outside of the door of the tabernacle. But if "within the veil" applies to the first apartment as you teach in your interpretation of Heb. 6:19,20, then the term "without the veil" must apply to the space in the court outside the tabernacle door. Every one of these seven scriptures which plainly state that "without the veil" and "before the veil" is in the first apartment, is a divine witness to the truth that "within the veil" in Heb. 6:19,20, must apply to the second apartment.

There are therefore twelve witnesses, a twelve-fold "thus saith the Lord" testifying that the term "within the veil" refers to the holy of holies, and not to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary as you assert.

At my secret trial four years ago, three leading brethren were chosen to answer me. (It is interesting to note in passing that two out of the three were then and are still under your condemnation inasmuch as they both teach that the "daily" of Dan. 8:13 refers to the heavenly service instead of paganism as taught by you in Early Writings.) In private conversation with me one took the position that "within the veil" meant within the sanctuary, but did not refer to either apartment. Another asserted at the trial that the term applied to the first apartment as you have interpreted it. The third, compelled by the witnesses quoted above admitted in his answer that the term "within the veil" does apply to the holy of holies, but that it is spoken prophetically, and although the scripture says Christ IS entered "within the veil" we are to understand it to mean that he WILL enter in 1844. This babel of voices did not help me to see my error, if error it be.

Before publishing my MS. I sent it to several ministers holding official positions, whose loyalty to the denomination is unquestioned, and asked them out of love for the truth and my soul, to show me from the Scriptures, where I was in error. I promised that should they do this I would never publish the MS.

Not one of these brethren attempted to show me my error from the Word. One wrote thus:

"Candor compels me to say that I can find no fault with it from a Bible standpoint. The argument seems to be unassailable."

Another said:

"I have always felt that it was safer to take the interpretation placed upon the Scriptures by the Spirit of Prophecy as manifested through Sister E.G. White rather than to rely upon my own judgment or interpretation."

This last quotation expresses the attitude of all those who have admitted that my position seemed to be supported by the Scriptures, but hesitated to accept it.

Honestly, Sister White, I am afraid to act upon this suggestion; because it will place the thousands upon thousands of pages of your writings in books and periodicals between the child of God and God's Book. If this position be true, no noble Berean dare believe any truth, however clearly it may seem to be taught in the Scriptures, until he first consults your writings to see whether it harmonizes with your interpretation. This is the principle always advocated by the Roman church and voiced in the following quotation:

"Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still of the two, TRADITION is to us more clear and safe." Catholic Belief p.54.

It was against this putting of an infallible interpreter between the man and his Bible that the Reformation waged its uncompromising war.

The Romanists robbed the individual of his Bible, denouncing the right of "private interpretation;" while the Reformation handed the Bible back to the individual while denouncing the papal dogma that demands an infallible interpreter between the child of God and his Bible.

The brethren urge me to accept your interpretation of the Scriptures as clearer and safer than what they call my interpretation. But I have not interpreted this Scripture, I have allowed the Lord to do this and have accepted his interpretation. Let me illustrate:

The first mention of the Sabbath in the New Testament is found in Matt. 12:1. It does not there tell us which day is the Sabbath, assuming that the reader knows which day is referred to, or if not, he will be able to learn from the Old Testament, which day it is. When one turns to Ex. 20:8-12 and reads, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord," is not that God's interpretation? Has any one the right to reply, "That is your interpretation." Surely not.

In like manner, the first and only instance where the term, "within the veil," is used in the New Testament, is found in Heb. 6:19. It is taken for granted that the reader will know to which apartment the Holy Spirit refers; but if not, the searcher can learn from the Old Testament which place is meant. Now, when I turn to the Old Testament and find that in every instance this term is applied to the holy of holies, can it honestly be charged that this is my interpretation? I have not interpreted it, but have given that honor to the Holy Oracles themselves. And now Sister White, what can I do? If I accept the testimony of the Scriptures, if I follow my conscientious convictions, I find myself under your condemnation; and you call me a wolf in sheep's clothing, and warn my brethren and the members of my family against me. But when I turn in my sorrow to the Word of the Lord, that Word reads the same, and I fear to reject God's interpretation and accept yours. Oh that I might accept both. But if I must accept but one, hadn't I better accept the Lord's? If I reject his word and accept yours, can you save me in the judgment? When side by side we stand before the great white throne; if the Master should ask me why I taught that "within the veil" was in the first apartment of the sanctuary, what shall I answer? Shall I say, "Because Sister White, who claimed to be commissioned to interpret the Scriptures for me, told me that this was the true interpretation, and that if I did not accept it and teach it I would rest under your condemnation?

Oh, Sister White, that this answer might be pleasing unto the Lord. Then would I surrender to your testimony. Then would you speak words of encouragement to me again. Then would my brethren, with whom I have held sweet counsel, no longer shun me as a leper. Then would I appear again in the great congregation, and we would weep and pray and praise together as before.

But on the other hand should the great and terrible God say to me on that day, "But disobedient servant, WHAT DID I SAY?". Oh what could I answer?

If I surrender my convictions to escape the testimonies of condemnation which you heap upon my head; if I yield the Word of God that I might again enjoy the love and fellowship of my brethren, how can I again look into the face of him who died for me? How could I again lay my Bible open upon my bed, and kneeling, plead for light upon his Word? No, no, I cannot do that. I must go on my pilgrimage alone. And while I would not put myself in the company of Him who was despised and rejected of men, the Man of sorrows, the Man of the lonely life, yet I am comforted in the thought that he knoweth my sorrow and is acquainted with my grief.

Your younger brother in Christ, A.F. BALLENGER. Tropico, Cal.

Go Back to E.G.White Plagiarist website INDEX

Go Back to Sabbatarian Main Menu

Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA