WEIGH YOUR MOTIVES by R. F. Cottrell

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 9, 1876

WEIGH YOUR MOTIVES.

By R. F. Cottrell

A question of duty should not be decided without a careful examination of the motives which are liable to bias the mind and lead to a wrong decision. God knows our hearts, and will judge accordingly; and if we let false arguments and selfish motives blind our judgment, so that we refuse to do what God requires, our willing self-deception will not change the judgment of God; and we shall awake to a consciousness of our condition when it is too late to amend. When there is reason from the word of God to believe that he requires of us the performance of a duty which we are not doing, and which it would be a sacrifice of our convenience to do, we should try our motives with the strictest scrutiny, lest selfishness bias our minds, so that we follow false inclination instead of duty.

And on such a question as the perpetuity or abolition of the moral law, the ten commandments, we should consider well on which side lies the presumptive proof, or the probability in the case. As God is unchangeable, it is to be presumed that a moral code coming from him is unchangeable; and as he is all-wise, the presumption is that his law needs no alteration or amendment. All Christians are agreed that the New Testament teaches plainly that the law of circumcision and bloody sacrifices has been abolished, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross. But before we take those texts to prove that the righteous principles contained in the precepts of the decalogue have been abolished, we should ask ourselves whether any reason exists that they should be done away, besides the fact that in the present state of society it would be very inconvenient and unfashionable to keep them all.

The fourth precept, the Sabbath law, is all in reality that is in dispute in the Christian world. No Christian questions the binding force of the other nine. So nine-tenths of the argument is on the side of the perpetuity of the entire law. But some hold the Sabbath law to be utterly abolished, while others teach its abolition in part, or a change of the day. The “Jewish Sabbath,” they say, is done away; but the same law precisely still requires all to keep one day in seven. And those who observe the first day are not agreed in respect to it; but give a multitude of contradictory reasons for their position and their course. What is the cause of this? The probability is that it is a lack of evidence to sustain them in their practice, and to unite them on any one position concerning it. On the other hand, those who observe the seventh day are all united in their reason for it. It is presumptive proof that their theory and practice rest upon revealed truth—the word of the Lord. Otherwise their reasons would be as various and contradictory, like the others.

Now, in the absence of direct proof, is it presumable that God placed a Jewish rite, which was to be abolished, in the midst of the immutable precepts of his moral law? Is it possible that he placed it there with his own finger, to remain there only till the Son of God should die, to take it out of the way? Is it not rather a strong probability that he made a mistake or oversight in placing it in immediate company. Is not the fact presumptive proof that this precept is as enduring as the others? “Yes,” says my first-day-Sabbath friend, “the precept is binding as long as any of the others, at least the morality, or moral part of it.”

Let me ask you, my friend, where you get your rule for dividing a commandment of God into two parts? How would you keep the moral part of the precept, “Thou shalt not steal,” after setting aside the letter? Where do you get your authority for divorcing the Sabbath from the seventh day? If you have no authority, what is the presumptive proof in the case? Is it probable that when God said the seventh day, he meant only some one day in seven, especially as he refers it to the very day on which he rested from his work of creation? When he bids us rest on the seventh day, because he rested on it, is it to be presumed, without revelation to that effect, that any other day of the seven would be equally acceptable? Is it probable that he meant what he did not say, and said what he did not mean? Without evidence from him that this is the case, is it not most probable that he meant what he said, no more, no less; and that the act of contradicting it is truly daring presumption.

It is true, you have a way of making any day you choose the seventh day, by beginning where you choose to count. Is not this taking an unwarrantable liberty? This is a modern invention; the idea cannot be found in the works of any writer before the dawn of the Reformation. If it were true, is it not probable that some would have known it before, since it appears that the first day had been kept instead of the seventh for several hundred years? The “authority of the church” had been the all-sufficient reason for the change before, and still is, in the Catholic Church. But when the authority of that church was discarded, necessity demanded another reason; and so a new and unhistorical reason was discovered.

But my no-Sabbath friend claims that the Sabbath did not exist before Israel went out of Egypt. He has no positive proof of it. It is not the presumptive evidence against him. Why, then, does the commandment say, “Remember the Sabbath day,” or the rest-day, which is the same thing? and then go on to say “the seventh day is the day, and, for the reason that he rested the seventh day, he blessed and hallowed it? And why is the fact of his blessing the day and sanctifying it stated so plainly in the account of the creation, in Gen. 2? This, my friend, is not the presumptive proof against you, and is not something more than your assertion, or that of any other man, needed to make good your position?

It is true that Paul teaches that “the law, commandments contained in ordinances,” the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, “which was contrary to us,” has been abolished and taken out of the way. Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14. He also teaches that the law is not made void, but established through faith; that it is holy, just, good, and spiritual; that not all the Jews, but every individual of “all the world” were condemned by it; and that those who have transgressed it, having a knowledge of it, shall be judged by it, “in the day when he shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to the gospel.” Rom. 3:31; 7:12, 3:19; 2:12, 16.

Now, which is the more probable? that the apostle makes these contradictory statements concerning one and the same law, or that he speaks of two distinct codes, one of which is abolished, the other not made void, but enduring to the judgment of the last day? He himself distinguished the ten commandments by writing them separately on tables of stone. We know that in Romans the apostle discoursed of this law; for he quotes from it the precept, “Thou shalt not covet.” We know also that in Ephesians and Colossians he qualifies the law he speaks of by descriptive phrases which

do not apply to the ten commandments, such as “contained in ordinances,” ordinances that were “against us,” “contrary to us,” and “a shadow of things to come;” meats and drinks, festivals, new moons, and sabbaths which were a shadow, being specified, none of which are contained in the decalogue; the Sabbath of that law being a memorial of things done, instead of a shadow of things to come. On which side of this question is the presumptive proof? Which position harmonizes all the testimony of the Scriptures, leaving no ground of doubt?

On a question of vital importance—a question involving revealed duty, and consequently on which an erroneous decision may prove fatal, resulting in the loss of eternal life—it is good to feel the assurance that no testimony of Scripture presents the least difficulty, or creates the least doubt of the truth of our position. And bear in mind that on a question of moral obligation, on which the testimony of God creates as much doubt in the minds of those who are in the negative, as the Sabbath question does in the minds of those who do not keep the precept as it is, it is quite evident that all the danger is on the side of disobedience. God will not condemn a man for doing that which he knows he commanded in the only code he ever gave in his own handwriting, and in company with none other than moral precepts. But should we let pride, love of gain, or any worldly motive, bias our mind and lead us to take a course of disobedience, against strong reasons in favor of obedience, we have reason to fear; for condemnation is on the side of doubt and disobedience, not on the side of faith and submission.

I leave the subject, asking the reader to weigh the motives of his heart, considering on which side of the question is the presumptive proof, or probability, and to honestly inquire, in the light of revelation, whether there is positive proof to establish a thing so improbable as the abolition or alteration of the moral law, written by the finger of an all-wise and unchangeable God. And if this effort shall lead one soul out of darkness into light, who shall continue in the light and find eternal life in the end, my object will be attained, and the reward sought be secured.

R. F. COTTRELL.