LAW OF GOD vs. ADVENT HERALD.
One after another, the opponents of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, are falling into the ranks of no-lawism. The tendency of their opposition is uniformly in this direction, and if continued, will inevitably land them there. The only ground, consistent with itself, upon which a person can oppose the seventh-day Sabbath, is to take the position that the ten commandments have all been abrogated. But after he has taken this position, he is, unfortunately for his theory, more at variance with the Bible than before. The Advent Herald, heretofore reticent and non-committal on this question, has at last shown its colors. In its issue of Dec. 25, we find a lengthy editorial with this heading: “Are the Ten Commandments, or any part of them, binding on Christians?” And in answer to this question the article starts off with this bold, it sounds to us blasphemous, declaration, “We answer, No.” The Herald then endeavors to sustain this assertion by the usual method, that is, by inexcusable confounding together the moral and the ceremonial law, and then quoting those New-Testament scriptures which speak of the abrogation of the latter, as if they were applicable to the former. The scriptures which plainly show this distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws, our opponents have never, to our knowledge, endeavored to harmonize, on their hypothesis that there is but one law. Nor can they do it. Unless there are two laws, the Bible is a hopelessly-contradictory book. See Tract, Sabbath Institution and Two Laws, published at this Office. Having thus swept away God’s previous rule of morality as faulty and imperfect, a new one must of course be introduced, as it would not do to leave mankind without any rule by which to regulate their conduct in this life, and by which to be judged at last. Hence the Herald brings forward “the stereotyped “Law of Christ.” But like all its predecessors in this work, it has omitted to tell of what that law consists, or when, where, and under what circumstances, it was enacted and became binding upon the world. If there is such a law as this which has superseded the moral law of God of the previous dispensation, we have a right to know these particulars concerning it; we are under no obligations to it, until we do know them; and we shall not cease to call for them. One other point it might be expected that the Herald would particularly mention; and that is, the Sabbath. True Christianity and genuine piety think too much of this indispensable auxiliary to spiritual growth and prosperity to dispense with so beneficent an institution; but if the fourth commandment, the only law in all the Bible which provides for a Sabbath, has been abolished, how is the want to be supplied? This the Herald attempts as follows, which to all who want something more than the mere assertions of men, will be, to say the least, very unsatisfactory: “But is there no Sabbath now? No, not like that of Moses, that if you pick up a stick, or kindle a fire on that day you shall be stoned to death. But there is the first day of the week, the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which from that time has always been a day of rest and worship to his disciples. He has honored, owned and blest its observance, and put a mark of his displeasure on those who disregard and profane it.”
On this point we want proof, that the first day of the week has been, ever since the resurrection, “a day of rest and worship to his disciples.” We deny that the first particle of proof can be produced to substantiate this point. Second, we want proof that Christ has ever honored, owned and blest the observance of that day. Third we want a single instance, in a Bible point of view, of course, where he has “put a mark of his displeasure on those who disregard and profane it.” The remark about picking up sticks and kindling a fire, not only is too puerile to be noticed, but betrays an utter unacquaintance with the Sabbath controversy thus far. The historical part of the argument consists of one statement concerning Constantine, and even that is false, as the reader will find ample proof by looking at the “History of the Sabbath.” We are living in an age of investigation and inquiry. Mere assertions are no longer taken at par. Of this, our opponents, who are splendid performers in this line, do not seem to be aware. But we want proof of their statements on the Sabbath question. Can we have it? We would not distress them too much by calling for a great quantity, at first. But can we not have just a little; enough, at least, to give to the comparison of our views a semblance of respectable controversy?