p. 70 | Wanted! by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA · Feb 4, 1886

Wanted!

By Editor

ALMOST every day we are receiving articles, tracts, pamphlets, or books, written against the ten commandments. Sometimes the writers start out with a tirade against the Seventh-day Adventists; but they never go far before indulging in invectives against the ten commandments. They sometimes say very bitter things about us,—things that are often so uncharitable and untruthful that they prove that the depth of their Christianity is not as great as the strength of their profession. But if we feel compelled to point out their injustice, we do not feel the least spirit of complaint, well knowing that the ten commandments are the sole object of their maledictions, and not ourselves. When Saul of Tarsus went to Damascus "breathing out threatenings and slaughter," he did not care a whit, personally, for those whom he was going to arrest. It was Jesus whom he was persecuting. If those individuals had renounced their faith in Jesus, he would not have harmed so much as a hair of their heads. Even so, when prejudice and ill-will lead our opposers to utter bitter things of us, we well understand that though they speak of us, their animosity is not against us, but it is against the commandments of God, which we are endeavoring to keep.

These thoughts were suggested to us a few days since upon our receiving a little pamphlet, a tirade against the ten commandments, written and printed in California. This State has been quite prolific of these effusions. Mr. Benson, formerly editor of the California Christian Advocate, published a small book, which, as we pointed out at the time, taught that the ten commandments were a Jewish code. And a Mr. Woodworth labored even a little harder to show that the words spoken by Jehovah at Sinai were for the Jews alone, and that Christ annulled them early in his ministry. He and Dr. Benson are both Methodists; and though their books directly contradicted the standards of the Methodist Church, and their teachings were condemned by the words of such men as John Wesley, Dr. Clarke, and Bishop E. O. Haven, yet they were recommended by the Advocate, and by Dr. Stratton, President of their University, on the principle, we suppose, that anything is lawful that leads to success! "anything to beat"—the Seventh-day Adventists. And later a Dr. Nisbet, of the Baptists, published a work which was highly indorsed by Prof. Leconte and others, teaching the same thing, namely, that the ten commandments are not the moral law, but a temporary code given to, and designed for, the Jews alone. Other representative Baptists on the coast have taken the same position, though that position is as contrary to the faith of the Baptists as it is to that of the Methodists. But, "anything to beat" the Seventh-day Adventists.

But these works seem to meet Paul's description of certain ones in 2 Tim. 3; they "wax worse and worse." The last is the most loosely written of all; it talks more foolishly and wickedly of the ten commandments, and of all the laws of the Old Testament. Of course he speaks more bitterly and more untruthfully against the Seventh-day Adventists. The author did not tell us to what denomination he belongs, if he belongs to any; but he did a very proper thing: he put his picture in his little pamphlet, the appearance of which seems to prepare the reader for the opposition to the law of God which the book reveals.

But it is not for lack of this class of "light literature" that we put "wanted" at the head of this

article.

We are overrun with these documents against the ten commandments. Each writer in turn, though he contradicts all the others in material points, proves conclusively that the ten commandments are not in force. Among them, they have abolished, demolished, and scattered to the four winds, that law spoken by Jehovah himself. If half they say of it is true, it is a wonder that the Lord ever made himself responsible for its existence! But the work of destroying that law is much like that of "upsetting Moses." The operation needs to be repeated very often; the work does not endure. Each can see clearly that his predecessor has failed, and therefore he starts out on a new and opposite track. And each in turn lays down his pen with the same self-satisfied air, convinced that he has squelched the ten commandments as effectually as ever Ingersoll "upset Moses."

But what we "want" is to see some of these reformers of the Government of God, who boast that they have overthrown the ten commandments by "unanswerable arguments," come forward and publicly declare that they are in the habit of disobeying and breaking the ten commandments! As far as we have seen their wondrous efforts, they have utterly failed in this respect. Why do they not make this avowal? If they have taught the truth, if the ten commandments are abolished, if they are unworthy the regard of the inhabitants of Heaven and earth, why not tell us at once that they do not keep the ten commandments? We once heard a minister in Maine say that that law was a yoke of bondage, so heavy on the necks of the human race that God sent his Son into the world for the express purpose of abolishing it! And if the first part of his theory is true, it certainly devolved upon God to do something for the relief of the poor race; for he alone was responsible for their deplorable state. He was the sole author of the ten commandments, and enforced them against the will of mankind. If they were what their enemies say,—no, we will not follow out their presumption. We will not, even to enforce an argument, place ourselves on the side of such blasphemy. We say that the theory, the statement, is a blasphemous reflection on the wisdom and goodness of God. We say that the law is holy, and just, and good; it is spiritual. Rom. 7: 12, 14. But man, in the pride and wickedness of his heart, trampled it under foot, and God mercifully sent his Son to redeem the race from iniquity (lawlessness), and to restore them to love and obedience.

Another minister in Indiana, a man standing very high in his denomination, said in our hearing that the ten commandments were abolished in order that our allegiance might be transferred from God to Christ! There is one merit in this statement—it is logical. It recognizes the fact that the ten commandments are a test and evidence of our allegiance to God. Whosoever sets aside the ten commandments thereby refuses allegiance to God. This is truth. Paul says that "the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God." Rom. 8: 7. But this doctrine of the transfer of allegiance from God to Christ is a shameful, or shameless, perversion of the gospel plan. The doctrine of the New Testament is, that Christ is "head over all things to the church;" but the Father gave him to be that head. He is Lord and Christ; but the Father "made him" such. He is expecting till his foes be put under his feet; but the Father will put them under him, or make them his footstool. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. The gift of God is eternal life through Christ. Christ is a mediator between God and man—not between man and himself! The Father sends the Spirit in answer to the prayer of

Christ. The doctrines of Christ are not his own, but his who sent him. Christ came not to do his own will, but the will of his Father. And finally, Christ will bid them depart from him who say to him, Lord, Lord, and do not the will of his Father. In that day he will be only an object of pity who has transferred his "allegiance from God."

But ultra as are the statements of these ministers in Maine and Indiana, we do not believe that either of them would be willing to publicly avow that he does not keep the ten commandments. Such an avowal logically leads to some unpleasant results. It is told of one of the English reformers that a man once sought an interview with him, and wished to lay before him his theory of the gospel, that the ten commandments were not binding. The sturdy preacher said to his servant: "John, show this man out, and keep your eye on him till he gets off the premises; for he does not believe in the ten commandments!" And he was right. When a man's "allegiance" is "transferred from God" and his law, we need some safeguard above his profession.

We have reason to believe they would not be willing to declare that they were in the habit of breaking the ten commandments; we have tested some on this point. We were once invited to discuss the subject of the perpetuity of the law with an Elder V. He applied Col. 2: 14 to the law of ten commandments, and affirmed that it was this law "that was against us," "was contrary to us," which was "taken out of the way," and nailed to the cross. Of course we affirmed that this was the law of ceremonies, or of types of the work and priesthood of Christ. See verse 17. To test the matter, we used the following language:—

“And I will leave it to the reader if ‘blotting out’ is not a figure more suitably applied to that which Moses wrote in a book, than to that which God wrote on tables of stone. And whether ‘nailing to his cross,’ and ‘taking out of the way,’ are not more fully referred to types of the cross and to positive institutions, than to such precepts as these, ‘Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal.’ For whose benefit, or in what interest, were these ‘taken out of the way’? In whose way did these precepts stand? or what class of men would rejoice to be assured that these were ‘blotted out,’ and left on no ‘tangible’ footing of ‘direct enforcement’? Elder V. reiterates this position in his last article, saying that not the Sabbath alone ‘was against us and contrary to us.’ This we have seen to be true of the entire decalogue. Is it possible that the ‘entire decalogue,’ if ‘directly enforced’ even in the most ‘positive manner,’ would be ‘against’ Elder V., and ‘contrary to’ him? Is he willing to admit that the precepts ‘Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery,’ would be in his way if they were yet of ‘direct enforcement’? Are they ‘contrary’ to him, and to the ‘liberty’ which he desires? Or if he would not admit the conclusion of his argument as applied to himself, I ask again, Out of whose way were they taken? In what interest were they abolished? This antinomian heresy is nothing new. It has been deprecated by the thoughtfully pious of all ages. And happy will it be for the world if the advocates of such a theory never fall altogether to the level of their own teachings.”

We were pleased for his own sake, that, in his reply to our remarks and queries, he resented them as being insulting to him! But we do not so regard the matter. If the whole decalogue is in the way of an individual, why is it? You cannot put the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," against any one but a thief. The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," never was in the way of any man who had not murder in his heart, and never could be brought against any one who was not a murderer actually. Deny this, ye who can. Let those who fight the ten commandments understand the position in which they place themselves.

Our invitation is not an unreasonable one. We ask those who teach the abolition of the law to come out consistently, and avow that they do not keep the ten commandments! If they fear the consequences of such avowal, let them know that they cannot evade the responsibility of their teachings. Not only breaking the commandments is condemned by our Saviour, but teaching men so. And against such the law will rise up in the day of Judgment. Eccl. 12: 13, 14; Rom. 2: 12, 16.