A Check on Adventism by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Dec 6, 1883

"A Check on Adventism."

By Editor

LOOKING over the matter as presented by Mr. Woodward we find that we were far too favorable to him in stating that he teaches the abolition of the fourth commandment. In truth he teaches the abolition of all the ten commandments, and the restoration of a part of them, or the substance of a part of them, on an entirely new basis. This we will prove by his own language.

The most outspoken antinomians, who openly teach that the decalogue was abolished, never claim that we are privileged to be blasphemers, or thieves, or murderers. They teach the abolition of the entire law, but they assert that certain parts of it were reinstated in the gospel by the authority of the Son of God. The position itself is a weak one; the reasons by which it is sought to be upheld are such as would provoke a smile of scorn from any jurist if they were applied to any transaction in any earthly Government. It is always held that laws must be plainly enacted in the first place, and that they then remain in force till they are plainly repealed. And when they are plainly repealed, they are no longer of obligation unless plainly re-enacted. Antinomianism overlooks every one of these just principles. 1. It disregards the Saviour's statement that he did not come to destroy the law. 2. It assumes that he did destroy the law; for if he repealed or set it aside he did all that could be done to destroy it. 3. They do not pretend to find a plain re-enactment of these laws in the New Testament, but they infer the re-enactment of them from a mere reference to the principles involved in them. And 4. This reference is always found before they claim that they were repealed! Where is there another system so lame as this? And this is exactly the position of Mr. Woodward. He is an out and out antinomian. Read the following from him:—

"We will first turn to the Lord's sermon upon the mount, which embraces the entire circle of human relations both to God and to man, and if we find in this perfect sermon no allusion to the commandment that refers to the Sabbath there kept, while all the other commandments are reinstated and reinforced, with great beauty and solemnity, we shall say that the omission was not accidental but intentional."

How is it that these commandments were "reinstated" if they were not first set aside or annulled? According to the Scriptures even the ceremonial law was recognized as of authority by the Saviour, during his life. When he healed a leper he said to him: "But go, and show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing according as Moses commanded." Luke 5: 14. According to Mr. Woodward's argument (!) this Mosaic law was "reinstated" and is binding now; and it is far more plainly given than he can find some parts of the decalogue in the sermon on the mount. Jesus recognized its validity then, because it was not "taken out of the way" until it was nailed to his cross. See Col. 2. But Mr. Woodward has all the ten commandments abolished even before the sermon on the mount, and some of them "reinstated" in that sermon. But we are not done quoting from him. We shall put him directly against the best Methodist authorities. He says:—

"When the young ruler stood before Jesus and asked the greatest of all questions, 'What shall I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus does not say, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' He does not even remotely refer to the fourth commandment; which becomes more remarkable, for in his reply he covers all of them but the fourth."

And again, in the same connection:— "Jesus, therefore, by this reply, first and last, covers the two leaves of the decalogue, viz., 'Love to God,' and 'Love to man.' But where is the fourth commandment? Does it come in his first reply? No, for while he mentions six commands he omits the fourth."

And once more, noticing our claim that the Sabbath precept belongs to the first table, where everybody but Mr. Woodward places it, he says:— "But let it be granted that it belongs to the first part of the decalogue, which is summed up by Christ in the words, 'Follow me,' and the Sabbatarian will have a still more difficult task to show that the fourth commandment is enclosed in the words, 'Follow me.'"

Before we proceed to show how he clashes with the highest Methodist authority on this subject, we will notice a few points bearing on his argument. 1. The "fourth commandment" against which he inveighs, is the only Sabbath law, given in express terms, in all the Bible. This is conceded by all. In striking at this he strikes at the highest authority for Sabbath observance. 2. The Sabbath of the fourth commandment, as given in the words of Jehovah himself, is the original Sabbath, the seventh day, on which God rested when he created the heavens and the earth. Removing this commandment were to remove the only "Sabbath of the Lord thy God." But that is just what Mr. Woodward is trying to do. 3. He is guilty of a double deception in his reference to the sermon on the mount, for (1) nine of the commandments are not "reinstated" therein. The whole law is endorsed, but there is not a sentence which can be construed into the enactment of any one of them. A re-enactment or reinstatement was out of the question, as they had not been repealed. (2) The fourth commandment is not omitted in any reference to the first table. In the Saviour's comment on the two commandments, Love God, and Love thy neighbor, he says: "On these two commandments hang all the law." We are free to express our belief that Mr. Woodward knew that the Saviour spoke these words, but for the sake of a short-lived victory which he hoped to gain, he not only concealed them from his readers, but he contradicted them. 4. It is contemptible sophistry to say that the precept, "Follow me," excluded the Sabbath, for the Saviour endorsed "all the law," and he also said: "I have kept my Father's commandments." The fourth could not be excepted, for it was one of those proclaimed by Jehovah himself on Mount Sinai. 5. In order to throw contempt upon the fourth commandment he squarely accuses Jesus of being a Sabbath-breaker; taking sides with those who put him to death. Thus Mr. Woodward says:— "And when arraigned at last before the high priest two accusations were brought against him, one that he had broken the Sabbath, the other that he made himself equal with God. He denies neither charge, nor even seeks to correct the impression made upon his friends as well as his enemies, that he had broken the Sabbath."

There are several shameful misrepresentations of the gospel record in the above extract, beside a blasphemous statement against the character of the Saviour. (1) The charge of Sabbath-breaking was not brought against Jesus when he was "arraigned at last before the high priest." That statement of Mr. Woodward is as false as the accusation was when it was made, at another time. (2) The Saviour was condemned on one charge only before the high priest, namely, that he was guilty of blasphemy. This he did not deny, but his silence did not make the accusation true. (3) Mr. Woodward conceals the charge of blasphemy in his statement, to make it appear that the accusations against Jesus were true! In this manner he seeks to fasten on him the sin of Sabbath-breaking. What a work for a Methodist. (4) Jesus was accused of Sabbath-breaking for healing the sick on that day, and for no other reason. While it is true that he did not always reply to the accusation, he once did directly, which forever sets that charge at rest with those who have faith in the Saviour's word. In Matt. 12: 10 his enemies asked him if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath day. His reply, verse 12, was, "It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." If it was lawful it could not be a violation of the law. Hence, notwithstanding the combined accusations of the Jews and Mr. Woodward, the Saviour was not a Sabbath-breaker. Now against Mr. Woodward's double position that Christ broke the Sabbath and that he abrogated the fourth commandment we will bring to bear some reliable Methodist testimony. And 1. We refer to Dr. Clarke's testimony on Ex. 20, which we quoted last week, that the Saviour fulfilled (kept) the fourth commandment. This is Clarke against Woodward, again. But it seems an insult to the Christian sensibility of all who profess reverence for Jesus to offer proof against Mr. Woodward on this point, as it would be an insult to the moral sense of men to offer proof that it is wrong to steal or to commit murder.

2. That the fourth commandment was not annulled by the Saviour, we will offer a few good testimonies. A work published by the Methodist house in New York, in 1839, contained the following words:— "Another explicit proof that the law of the ten commandments, and consequently the law of the Sabbath, is obligatory upon Christians, is found in the answer of the apostle to an objection to the doctrine of justification by faith: 'Do we then make void the law through faith?' Rom. 3: 31; which is equivalent to asking, Does Christianity teach that the law is no longer obligatory on Christians, because it teaches that no man can be justified by it? To this he answers, in the most solemn form of expression, 'God forbid; yea, we establish the law.' Now, the sense in which the apostle uses the term, 'the law,' in this argument, is indubitably marked in Rom. 7: 7: 'I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet;' which being a plain reference to the tenth command of the decalogue, and plainly shows that the decalogue is 'the law' of which he speaks. This, then, is the law which is established by the gospel; and this can mean nothing else but the establishment and confirmation of its authority, as the rule of all inward and outward holiness. Whoever, therefore, denies the obligation of the Sabbath on Christians, denies the obligation of the whole decalogue."

The above refers to no other Sabbath law but the fourth commandment. The following is from Bishop Haven:— "Now our belief is that the whole of the decalogue is binding upon all men." "That Christ and his apostles assumed to nullify a commandment of the decalogue no man of sound judgment could believe. Repeatedly Christ acknowledged and asserted the divine authority of the decalogue. To repeal it would have been to set himself in direct contradiction to what he pronounced the law of God. Such a repeal, if conceivable, must have been open, direct, and formal, or it would not be believed."

But Mr. Woodward says he does believe it, though he cannot produce the hint of a repeal. How can we reconcile this with the Bishop's statement that it would not be believed? The solution is easy: The Bishop meant that it would be believed by "NO MAN OF SOUND JUDGMENT." This is the Bishop's estimate of such a man as Mr. Woodward, and we fully concur in his opinion. And where shall we place Dr. Stratton, who indorses Mr. Woodward? Rather, where has he placed himself? The reader will now see why we expressed regret that the doctor had placed himself in such a position, because we truly respected the man. The Advocate said he did not need our sympathy, but it has quite often shown that its judgment is too nearly on the plane of that of Mr. Woodward! If it shall ever awake to reason it will change its mind. But we have yet another important testimony, and if Mr. Woodward has any conscience (of which we discover no evidence in his book), his ears will tingle as he reads it. It is from the works of John Wesley. He speaks to one who does not regard the fourth commandment, as we see by his founding his remarks on that commandment; therefore his words apply with cutting force to Mr. Woodward:— "'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' Have you forgotten who spoke these words? Or do you set him at defiance? Do you bid him do his worst? Have a care. You are not stronger than he. Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth; but woe unto that man that contendeth with his Maker. He sitteth on the circle of the heavens; and the inhabitants of the earth are as grasshoppers before him.' "'Six days shalt thou do all manner of work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.' It is not thine, but God's day. He claims it for his own. He always did claim it for his own, even from the beginning of the world. 'In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.' He hallowed it; that is, he made it holy; he reserved it for his own service. He appointed, that as long as the sun or the moon, the heavens and the earth, should endure, the children of men should spend this day in the worship of Him who gave them life and breath and all things."

This is Wesley's estimate of that fourth commandment which Mr. Woodward so heartily despises, and of that Sabbath which it enjoins. Indeed, there is no other. If Mr. Woodward reflected the views of the Methodist denomination, we could easily put "a check on" Methodism, in the sight of all people "of sound judgment." But he does not. The Methodist standards and best authorities are all against him. Having proved this, we might safely leave him to the condemnation

which he has courted, without further notice. But as the Advocate said his book "is good reading," and as Dr. Stratton pronounces it both "timely" and "cogent," we must notice it a little further. Some of the best reading which it contains remains to be noticed!