WHY THE CHANGE? by M. C. W.

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Mar 10, 1890

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 16, No. 10.

WHY THE CHANGE?

By M. C. W.

Not many years since all of the great Christian denominations of our land held to the immutability and perpetuity of the decalogue in its entirety. They believed in the binding obligation of every commandment of the law of God. As proof of this see the thirty-nine articles of the Episcopal Church, and the published creeds of the Congregational, Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian Churches. Representative men, pillars in these churches, have taught in harmony with the creeds. They make a distinction between the moral law and ceremonial precepts. Nevins, in his "Biblical Antiquities," p. 224, says that this moral law is "summarily comprehended in the ten commandments." The Methodist Episcopal articles of faith declare that "no Christian whatsoever is free from obedience to the commandments that are called moral." Their Catechism No. 2, pp. 38-40, has the following questions and answers:—

"86. What is the rule of our obedience? "The moral law. 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' Matt. 19:17. "87. Where is the moral law given? "In the ten commandments. Ex. 20:1-17."

Then following the first three precepts of the decalogue, with other references, is the question and answer below:—

"91. What is the fourth commandment? "'Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it.' [Then follow Lev. 19:30; 23:3; Ex. 31:17; Gen. 2:3; Ex. 23:12; Isa. 58:13.]"

This was examined and approved in 1851 by the following notable men: Revs. E. Hedding, N. Bangs, S. Olin, and J. Holdich. The next year it was approved by Revs. Elias Bowen, Geo. Webber, and John H. Power. At the same time the General Conference unanimously approved it and ordered it printed.

We might fill columns with quotations equally strong with the above, showing that these various denominations once believed most emphatically in the decalogue as summarily comprehending all morality, forbidding all sin, a rule of life, and binding in every part. Why the change now? The creeds, disciplines, and standards read the same now as they did then, we suppose. God's word has not changed. And yet we find many ministers and writers of the various denominations declaring that that law which God spoke and wrote, which Christ magnified and honored by his life, teaching, and death, is abrogated, done away, nailed to the cross. Some assert that it was all abolished at the cross, but re-enacted later. Others still declare that all the law is obligatory upon all except the fourth commandment. But none of those who take any one of these positions can point to any such array of evidences as is presented by those in their denominations who hold to the unbroken perpetuity of the moral law. Those who maintain the law are largely united even among the various denominations, while those who seek to abolish the law, or a part of it, are not agreed, even though they belong to the same sect. This ought to give ground for great searching of heart.

Before us lies an argument of a Methodist Episcopal clergyman which is too long to reproduce here. We wish, however, to notice one point. He says, and says truly, that what God requires of us is love; to love God with all our hearts and our neighbor as ourselves, comprehends all duty. If this love is the controlling principle in our hearts, by it we shall be enabled to fulfill the requirements of the law.

This is all good as far as it goes. But he says if we will study the so-called ten commandments carefully, and thoroughly, and prayerfully, we will observe that love is the basis or foundation of every command in the decalogue except the fourth. There is no moral principle involved in the fourth except what the Jews were under obligation to do, because God commanded them; and so he classes the Sabbath with the feast of the passover.

But if this is true, that the fourth commandment has no foundation in love, that it is different in character than the rest, notice what it involves.

1. The Lord classed the fourth commandment with the nine moral precepts. His classification is so marked that none can deny it. He spoke them all himself; he engraved them with his own finger; he added no more. Ex. 32:15, 16; Deut. 5:22. Did the Lord make a mistake?

2. This fiery law which went from God's right hand, was given because he loved the people. Deut. 33:2, 3. Jesus says that these two principles,—love to God, and love to man,—hangs all the law. Matt. 22:37-40. Paul declares that love is the fulfilling of the law (Rom. 13:10), and John says that "this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments" (1 John 5:3). These passages make no exception to the fourth commandment. Did Jesus make a mistake when he said all the law hung on these principles of love?

The Bible has made no mistake; the mistake is in the man. God placed the Sabbath commandment just where he did, in the very heart of the decalogue, to show its sacred and moral character. He foresaw how men would pervert its claims, therefore he "made known" its holy character by placing it among nine other moral precepts which men would not question. Neh. 9:13, 14. It is safe to leave it where God leaves it.

Simply because we do not in our human blindness see just how a thing can be, is no evidence that it is not so. Methodists once saw the obligation of the entire decalogue, and other denominations also. They held the true principle; their general interpretation was correct, that the law was binding in every particular. They did not understand it in detail. But in these days, when special light is shed upon the fourth precept, when it is seen that the inevitable logic of the Sabbath truths and Sabbath law of the Bible is the observance of the seventh day, they then depart from the sound principles of the past, deny that which made Protestantism what it is, and why?—Because they stand condemned by the true interpretation. Therefore the subject must interpret, the King and his words must be interpreted! Would these men who now teach the abrogation of the fourth commandment continue their teaching if the Bible facts concerning the two days were exactly reversed?—We know they would not. Then the change in the latter-day teaching upon this point looks as though it was done to escape duty. We wish that this may not be the case. If it is not, "he that doeth truth cometh to the light." May God help his people everywhere to trust not in man but in God.