LETTER TO W. SHELDON

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Jan 20, 1853

LETTER TO W. SHELDON.

DEAR SIR:—As we have been favored with the Advent Harbinger, your peculiar attacks on those who observe the fourth commandment have been noticed by us. Your general course, (which has been to slander and misrepresent this people,) we have not considered worthy of notice. We will say, however, that it has not been calculated to reflect much honor upon yourself, as a professed minister of the lowly Jesus, or that paper in which your bitter remarks have been published. Christians, and we say more; men of common judgment and taste, will not approbate such a course. And we should not address you in this manner at this time, were it not for your article in the Harbinger of Jan. 1, 1853, headed, “The Law of Moses” and “The Law of God,” which some pretend is unanswerable.

In this article your remarks savor very much of wormwood and gall as usual, and no doubt you express the real feelings of your heart towards those you call “Sabbatarians.” You have charged this class of christians, (without any exception,) who claim the right to do and teach the fourth commandment, with deception, with handling the word of God deceitfully. But why do you not present some better authority than your assertions? Why not cite some paragraph from the REVIEW where such deception exists, if, indeed, it does exist? The brethren are investigating this subject, and will not take any man’s bare assertions for proof. You say:

“But by the power of Jehovah’s truth we intend to let a ray of divine light shine into their favorite hidingplace, that the honest may discover the fallacy of their theory. We shall prove that the phrases, ‘law of Moses,’ and ‘law of God’ are interchangeable expressions, and are both applied to the same thing. Furthermore, we shall prove that that part of the law which Sabbatarians call the ‘ceremonial law,’ our Bible calls the ‘law of God’? Mal. iv, 4. ‘Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel with the statutes and judgments.’ What does the prophet call this law? Ans. The ‘law of Moses.’ Where was this law made? Ans. ‘In Horeb.’ What law was given in Horeb? Ans. ‘The ten commandments.’ Therefore, the ten commandments are called the law of Moses.”

Then after quoting Deut. iv, 10–13; Ex. xxiv, 12, which speak of the ten commandments, you add:

“This is the ‘law’ which was given in ‘Horeb,’ and which the prophet plainly calls the law of Moses.—There is no escaping unequivocal testimony!”

To the above we reply as follows:

1. It is true that God says by the prophet Malachi, “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant which I commanded him in Horeb.”

2. It is also true that God spoke the ten commandments to Israel in Horeb, and there wrote them on tables of stone.

3. You are fully aware that the law regulating the Jewish system of religion (properly called the ceremonial law) was also given to Moses at Horeb. This, however, you conceal.

4. Therefore you are perfectly aware that there is not the least necessity of applying the phrase “law of Moses,” used by Malachi, to the ten commandments; because the ceremonies of the Jewish religion were given at Horeb, where the ten commandments were repeated and written by Jehovah.

5. You ask, “What law was given in Horeb?”—Then you answer, “The ten commandments.” We need not tell you that you have not fully and fairly answered this question; for you know very well that after God spoke the ten commandments in the hearing of all the people, he communed with Moses forty days and forty nights, in which time he gave Moses laws of the Jewish nation, and the ceremonies of their religion. Now, why give the false idea that the ten commandments only were commanded in Horeb, and then talk of “unequivocal testimony” that Malachi calls the ten commandments the law of Moses? How much more natural and consistent to apply the phrase “law of Moses” to that which he received while communing with God forty days and forty nights, than to apply it to the ten commandments which God spoke directly to the people.

6. Mark well this phrase in Mal. iv, 4: “Law of Moses my servant which I commanded him.” The ten commandments were not commanded to Moses alone, but were repeated in the audience of all the people, while the “hand-writing of ordinances” was commanded to Moses on Mount Sinai, for him to present to the people. Now, in view of your effort to make it appear that the law of Moses spoken of by the prophet is the ten commandments, as though no other law was given in Horeb but the ten commandments, we wish to ask: In charging others with deception, do you not judge them by yourself?

But, for a moment, we will give you your position, that the phrase, “law of Moses,” in Mal. iv, 4, which we are to remember, is the ten commandments, and see where it will bring you. We have only to read the fourth chapter of Malachi to learn that it applies, not in the Jewish dispensation, but just prior to the day of the Lord. The chapter commences as follows: “Behold the day of the Lord cometh that shall burn as an oven,” &c. The second and third verses speak of the events of the same day. In the fourth verse we are commanded to remember the law of Moses.—The fifth, and the sixth and last verse, speak of the same day. Now if Malachi commands us to remember the ten commandments, as you think, we would inquire, Why should they be remembered? Can you assign any other reason why we should remember them, only to keep them? If you can, we wish you would. Hence your own position, if carried out, would lead you to keep the commandments of God.

But we have shown that there is not the least proof that Malachi refers to the ten commandments, but to the ceremonial law, the hand-writing of ordinances, or if you please, the “law of commandments, contained in ordinances.” And do you ask if we should now remember that typical law? We answer we should. And do you ask if those typical services should be observed? We answer. They should not. But those shadowy services should be remembered as a guide to the substance. The Jewish Sanctuary and services were a shadow of the Sanctuary and priesthood of Jesus Christ. By tracing out the type, we are clearly brought to the light of the true tabernacle, and priesthood of Christ in heaven. But it is not possible to show any other reason why we should remember the ten commandments, only to do and teach them. Will you do this? Or will you teach men to break them?

You next refer to Luke ii, 22, 24, 39, which call some portion of the hand-writing of ordinances the law of the Lord, or as Campbell translates, law of God. To this we reply, that no one supposes that the ceremonies of the Jewish religion originated with Moses. The Lord was the author of that law, therefore, properly called the law of the Lord. And as God delivered it to Moses alone, for him to write in a book, and present to the people, it is properly called the law of Moses.

The ten commandments are nowhere called the law of Moses. You cite Mal. iv, &c. but here you have utterly failed. Moses was not intrusted with the utterance of the ten commandments, neither with writing them. They were afterwards placed in an ark, overlaid within and without with pure gold, and placed in the holiest place on earth, in the Holy of Holies, where no mortal entered but once a year, and that was the high priest. The ten commandments were spoken by Jehovah directly to all the people, and engraven in tables of stone, and are properly called the law of God. Though all the written word is God’s in one sense, yet the ten precepts of the decalogue alone, are properly called the law of God, as they contain the principles of his moral government.

In an article on the two laws, in the REVIEW for Nov. 25th, you will see that the phrases “law of Moses” and law of God are thus qualified. Our mode of expression is, “The law of Moses, or the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” See first page, first column. “Law of God, or ten commandments.” Second column. God gave to Moses the “law of commandments contained in ordinances,” which Paul calls “the enmity,” and “the middle wall of partition.” He also spoke to the people, without the agency of Moses, the ten precepts of his holy law, which Paul calls “holy, just and good,” and spiritual, A. D. 60, twenty-nine years after the “enmity” was “slain,” and the “middle wall” was broken down. Rom. vii.

You next represent Sabbath-keepers as calling the two great commandments, named by Jesus, a part of the ceremonial law. Here you misrepresent them.—These two commandments are no more a portion of the hand-writing of ordinances, than the entire book of Genesis. Paul says, “blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances,” &c. “Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord, given by the hand of Moses,” margin, 2 Chron. xxxiv, 14. Now it is very evident that this book of the law was not the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, but that it contained what Paul calls the hand-writing of ordinances. On this point we offer the following reasons.

1. One of the five books of Moses, speaks of this book of the law. “And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book,” &c. Deut. xxxi, 24. Therefore, the Deuteronomy cannot be that book of the law.

2. Though, in a certain sense, the word law may apply to the whole Old Testament, yet, in the sense of “hand-writing of ordinances,” there is no propriety in applying it to the book of Genesis, and a portion of the other books of Moses. Moses wrote the ordinances of the Jewish religion in a book. God wrote the ten commandments on stone. And when the five books of Moses were written, mention was made of the tables of the covenant, [Ex. xx.] and the ten precepts were copied from them. Also, mention is made of the book of the covenant, and its ordinances are also quoted. They were nailed to the cross. And this position no more abolishes the two great commandments, than it abolishes and blots out the history of the Creation or the flood. We have not space to pursue this subject further now; but intend to notice it again.