p. 12 | Reply to E. Miller Jr by R. F. Cottrell

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Jan 31, 1854

Reply to E. Miller Jr.

By R. F. Cottrell

FRIEND MILLER:—If you are striving to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, I can heartily bid you God speed; for these two constituted the primitive, or apostolic platform, and though men professing christianity have apostatized from, and corrupted both, still the remnant will be found upon the same platform when Jesus appears for their deliverance. Now if you will show clearly the dividing line between the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, without making any use of the ten commandments, which you think have "ceased of obligation," I will admit that you know whereof you affirm. Will you undertake it? If there are, in your own mind, definitely two things which you are striving to keep, you can doubtless tell what they are separately; if not, have you not borrowed an expression from your opponents without due consideration on the meaning of its terms? Do look at this seriously; for it is high time that we should be able to give a reason of the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear.

I will now proceed to notice several points in your letter, and, to avoid quotations, will refer to them by figures.

1. God has one standard of right and wrong for the human family which has no reference to the plan of redemption. What has the progressive development of the plan of redemption to do with this? Sin is sin, whether there is any plan of redemption or not; and sin is the transgression of the law. Consequently the law existed before sin; and had not man broken that law, no plan of redemption had been needed, and no dispute would ever have arisen about the Sabbath. Whatever you may say about the other nine precepts, the Sabbath existed before man sinned; and when it was made, it was made for man.

2. Supposing man had not sinned, would 4000 years training have prepared him for a law somewhat different from the original one? The difficulty seems to be this: you take man already a sinner, and make the law different at different times, corresponding to his different degrees of light on the plan of redemption. In other words, you make no distinction between the commandments of God, which prove man a sinner, and the faith of Jesus, which offers him pardon. Disease and medicine are two things.

3. James does not call the precept, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, the royal law; but would have that law fulfilled in a manner to accord with this scripture. That is, he would not have them profess to do two positive, and eight negative duties, and leave their next door neighbor to starve and freeze, while their own covetous selves had plenty of the gifts of Providence. This would be "negative" obedience indeed—no obedience at all. "The law is spiritual"—the "commandment is exceeding broad," it reaches the motives and desires of the heart, though summed up in so small a compass; and he that loves it can see in every negative precept a corresponding positive virtue inculcated. The prohibitions of having other gods and worshiping images, teach us that we should have one God and worship him. Does the Atheist, who says he has no God, keep the first commandment? According to your view of negative precepts he does; but Jesus would have us keep the first four precepts of the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. In the precept, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, I see the duty of revering his name as my God, and not the duty of never mentioning his name at all.

The second division of the royal law must be fulfilled according to the scripture which James quotes. Merely to refrain from killing, or positively injuring our brother is not enough. We must love him, not in word only, but indeed and in truth. He that hateth his brother is a murderer. We have not only the law, but the scripture to teach us how to keep it; so we are left without excuse for its violation, or for obedience to the letter merely, without love to the law or its giver. Merely to rest from labor on the Sabbath is not enough; it must be done from heartfelt honor to the Creator.

You say, "The Apostle tells what he means by the royal law; viz., Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, which is no part of the ten." Then we may read it thus: If ye fulfill the royal law, according to the royal law, &c. And then you set the Apostle to illustrate this one-precept, royal law, by the ten-precept, abolished law. How much easier it is, to understand the Apostle according to his most obvious meaning! Think, Brother, think, would you ever have thought that the "Sinaiatic code" was used here merely for "illustration," if that code had contained no sabbath precept? How much more natural to understand you do quote from the royal law. Hear him:

If ye fulfill the royal law, (not in the letter only, but) according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the (royal) law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all; for he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

What law? One which is abolished? When a law is abolished, it ceases to be a law; therefore it cannot be transgressed; for where there is no law, there is no transgression. Do you say it is the royal law which is transgressed? Then carry out the Apostle's reasoning, and you will find that he that gave one precept, gave another; and he that gave these two, at the same time gave ten "and added no more." If there never was a time when it was right to break any, and every one of the ten commandments, then there never was a time when "the ten commandments ceased of obligation." It is beyond my powers of mind to grasp the idea, much more to explain it, how the ten could cease of obligation, and nine of them be of continual force. Consequently I see no way for myself, or for any of the little children of my capacity, to please God, but by keeping them all. How can the poor little children ever get into the kingdom of heaven, if such hard tasks are required of them? I must comprehend the theory, or I dare not risk myself upon it, since it is not plainly declared in the Bible.

4. Does the prohibition of eating of a certain tree include the whole law given to Adam in Eden? No: he had a God, and was under obligation to reverence and obey him; he had a wife, and he was under obligation to love her as himself, and of consequence not to wrong her in any way; he had a Sabbath, and was under obligation to love it as a gift of God, and in so doing honor the Giver. The tree of knowledge he had no right to: God had not given it to him. On the contrary, it was forbidden. In pertaking then he dishonored his God and Parent, coveted what did not belong to him, and stole it. Yet you say "Adam might have obeyed every one of the ten, and transgressed this." In regard to the transgression of a code 2000 years before it was given, I would ask, Did Cain kill his brother, and then lie about it, 2000 years before there was any law against these crimes? If so, he did not sin in so doing; for sin is the transgression of the law, and where there is no law, there is no transgression. I regard the prohibition of the tree of knowledge, as a peculiar test of our first parents' fidelity, similar to the trial of Abraham's faith; yet in transgressing it, they broke some of the ten commandments. Now, were it not for this bone of contention, the Sabbath, I do not believe you would ever have doubted the existence of the nine from the beginning. And since we can prove the existence of the Sabbath from the creation week, why not drop this point by admitting that the nine, which all say are binding now, are as ancient and honorable as that?

5. How many precepts are there in "the law of faith," and "the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus"? What distinguishes them from the faith of Jesus? Does the phrase, "perfect law of liberty" imply a liberty to break one of the precepts of that ancient law, which David said was perfect converting the soul? We read of some who promise people liberty, while they themselves are the servants of corruption.

6. I will again attempt to show that Jesus did speak of the ten commandments, in Matt. v, 18. In drawing a conclusion in verse 19, from what he had said in the preceding verse, he changes the terms from law to commandments, showing that the law and the commandments are the same. He says, "these commandments," which must refer to a code then existing. Now go to Luke xvi, 17. "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." The law here mentioned is, most evidently, the same as in Matt. v, 18. "Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery." This fastens it to that law which forbids adultery: the ten commandments. Now mark what Jesus says, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall (future) teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

These scriptures most certainly prove that there existed at that time a code of commandments, known to Jesus and his hearers as the law. It was not some unknown, unembodied and unexpressed principles floating at random in the mental atmosphere, but a definite, well-known code, as familiar to the Jews as were the prophets mentioned in connection with it. What sane man will deny this? It would have been unjust to threaten wrath upon the violator of an unrevealed law. Again, it is equally certain that these commandments, whatever they were, were ratified to all people, in all future ages, as a test of character for the kingdom of heaven. "Whosoever therefore shall," includes everybody, and extends down through all time to the kingdom of God. "I am not come to subvert, but to ratify." (Campbell's translation.) The previously existing law is thus handed down to after generations, as the rule of Christ's house. Now I would ask, (if the ten commandments and what you are pleased to call "the balance of the Levitical law," expired at the cross,) of what law, existing in the form of commandments, did Jesus speak? If all laws then existing were limited in duration to three years and a half, why did our Saviour say, Verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass?

But it is claimed that the clause, Till all be fulfilled, limits the law to that period; that Christ fulfilled it and that put an end to it. If the law, only, is referred to in this expression, I can see no hint of its abolition. In what way can a law be fulfilled but by keeping its precepts? and does keeping the precept, Thou shalt not kill, abolish it? Jesus said to John, It becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Did it become them to abolish all righteousness? But I would call your attention again to the fact, that the prophets, as well as the law, are the subject of discourse. Think not, said he, that I am come to destroy, the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. And it is perfectly reasonable to understand it, that nothing shall pass from the law, till all the prophets be fulfilled. Wesley's exposition, however, differs superficially from this, but when fathomed, completely agrees; for the prophets mark out the course of all things in heaven and earth. He says:

"One jot or tittle shall in no wise pass, till heaven and earth pass; or as it is expressed immediately after, eos an panta genetai, till all (or rather all things) be fulfilled, till the consummation of all things. Here is, therefore, no room for that poor evasion (with which some have delighted themselves greatly) that 'no part of the law was to pass away, till all the law was fulfilled; but it has been fulfilled by Christ; and therefore now must pass, for the gospel to be established.' Not so; the word all does not mean all the law, but all things in the universe; as neither has the term fulfilled, any reference to the law, but to all things in heaven and earth."

It is absurd in the extreme to suppose that Jesus made this solemn and important declaration concerning a law which he knew would cease of obligation within four years. Equally absurd to think that he spoke of a law which was unknown to his hearers, and which, in fact, did not exist in the form of commandments. He came not to destroy the law; he did not do it.

If David, when he said, How love I thy law! and Paul, when he said, I delight in the law of God after the inward man, did not mean the ten commandments, what law did they mean? Do you say, “the balance of the Levitical law”? If David and James, in speaking of a “perfect” law, do not mean that law which Jehovah spake with his own voice, and wrote upon stone with his own finger, what do they mean? Some law that had never been published to the world, and of which David, certainly, knew nothing?

7. I will now look at the metaphor of Rom. vii. If you were discussing the life and death question, you would admit no inferences, drawn from parables, and metaphors, to weigh against the plain and positive declarations of the word of God. Bear this rule in mind while I examine your inference from this text.

In the figure, the woman is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he liveth. Not so long as the law liveth. There is nothing said about the law dying; but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law. Not because the law is dead, but her husband is dead. The law remains as it was before, but it does not condemn her as an adulteress, though she be married to another man. Then, in making the application, does the Apostle say that the law is dead, as you infer? By no means; but he tells his brethren, Ye are become dead to the law—the law is still holy, just and good, (verse 12,) but it does not condemn you, because your former husband, master and lord is dead.

I agree with you that the law here spoken of is the ten commandments; which is proved by the precept quoted, Thou shalt not covet. Paul had not known sin, but by this law. In verse 12, he acknowledges that this law and the commandment which condemned him, are holy, just and good, in the present tense. In verse 14 he says the law is spiritual, and in verse 22 he says, I delight in the law of God after the inward man. “If you can find two laws in these passages, you have a system of grammar with which I am unacquainted.”

But there is “another law” mentioned towards the close of this chapter, and I would suggest that it is the husband referred to that ought to be dead—the only thing that stands in the way of our being freed from the condemnation of a holy law by means of the crucified body of Christ, and being married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead. Verse 23. It is the law in the members, warring against the law of God, which is approved of the mind, and bringing the person into captivity to the law of sin, and consequently to the law of death, the wages of sin. What is sin? Transgression of the ten commandments; for Paul had not known himself a sinner, had the law been minus the tenth precept. He had led a life so exemplary, he was not conscious of having broken any other. But sin against this commandment slew him. Verse 11. The good, unabolished law would never have harmed him, but for sin. Verse 13. Now if he can become dead and buried with Christ, he will be freed from sin. The law cannot touch him now; for he is not under the law, but under favor. Now shall he sin (transgress the law) because he is not under the law, but under favor? God forbid! If he yields himself to sin again, he will be the servant of sin. The former master or husband will revive, and the same law will condemn. Chap. vi, 1-16.

Now, friend Miller, if there is in you a law warring against the holy law of God, written in the fleshly tables of the mind, you are indeed in captivity—in bondage to a cruel husband. In that case, the best advice I can give you is to crucify the old man with his deeds; become dead indeed to sin, and put on the new man; be married to him who is raised from the dead, and bring forth fruit unto God. Then you can say with the Apostle, There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

In conclusion I wish to address a few words to the “inward man” for that delights in the law of God. You can see how we can be freed from a good, holy unabolished law; that (sin) wherein we were held, being dead by the body of Christ, who suffered the penalty of sin to save us, not from obedience to his Father’s law, but from our sins. You can also see that the law of ten commandments is the only real code mentioned in this connexion; the law of sin and death, and the law of the spirit of life having no more precepts than the law of gravitation. The ten commandments then are spiritual, holy, just and good. Your inference from 2 Cor. iii, is equally baseless. I have not examined that chapter because it has been so frequently discussed in our publications, to which I would refer you for an answer. The Bible nowhere declares that the law of God, or one of its precepts is abolished; on the contrary, Jesus Christ, our only hope of salvation, has affirmed it stronger than the pillars of the universe. What a fearful position then you occupy, while you assert, upon groundless inferences, that the whole code has ceased of obligation. If this is the case with the “whole code,” it is the case with each of its precepts. But your inward man tells you that nine precepts, at least, of that law never did cease; and why should the other? Why should that precept which requires especial honor to our Parent and Creator be labeled “Jewish” and thrown aside? The Law-giver knew where to place it; and then if he had wished it removed, he could have told us plainly, and not left us to infer, from metaphorical expressions, that the whole ten were abolished to get rid of the one. Is this wisdom from above? Is it not rather from the carnal mind, which is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be? With feelings of unfeigned love, I entreat you, as you desire salvation, to look at this subject seriously, and try that spirit which rises in opposition to the unpopular, down-trodden fourth commandment, and, to attain its unworthy end, dares to say, with impious tongue, that the entire code of the Great God, the only code of morality he ever gave to man, is dead! Crucify that spirit, I entreat you, and then you can say with David, All his commandments are sure; THEY STAND FAST FOREVER AND EVER. Ps. cxi. Come, taste of the sweets of obedience.

Yours, striving to keep the ten commandments of God, and every requirement of the faith or gospel, given by Jesus and his apostles. R. F. COTTRELL. Mill Grove, Erie Co., N. Y., Jan. 5th, 1854.