DEAR SIR:—From the heading of your sixth article, viz: "The Review's Direct Testimony," one might imagine that a spirit of candor had at length come over you; but the very first sentence dispels every such impression. To give a false idea, respecting the testimony presented, you commence with the quotation of part of a sentence from the Review, with the addition of such words as form a sentence to your mind. As I have had occasion in every letter to point out the unfairness of your course, and your unwillingness to state correctly the position and arguments of the Review, I regret that the first sentence of this article should exhibit the same lack of candor. I will not, however, say much by way of censure; for it is evident that the necessities of your case are great; nothing else could cause an honorable and high-minded man to resort to the unfortunate course pursued by yourself in this whole matter.
The review of your Bible class report, exposed the inferences by which you attempted to prove that God had abolished his constitution, the ten commandments. As you stated that Sabbath-keepers had nothing to present against such a doctrine, the Review remarked as follows:
"We offer the following direct testimony relative to the perpetuity of God's constitution, asking that C. will either refute it, or else withdraw his assertions."
You commence by saying:
"The Review says, 'We offer the following direct testimony'—of course to bear on the question at issue—the Sabbath. Well, this is all we ask. Give us 'direct testimony,' and we will listen."
You wish to give the idea that the point before us, was the separate perpetuity of the fourth commandment, and not what it really was, the perpetuity of the whole ten, the constitution of the Father. And the fourth commandment not being separately referred to in the texts quoted, you wish to convey the idea that they have no bearing upon the point before us.
But the perpetuity of the great constitution, the perpetuity of the commandments of God, the perpetuity of that which was deposited in the ark [Deut. x, 1—5; Rev. xi, 19] is, in reality, the most direct and positive testimony to the perpetuity of each of the ten words of Jehovah.
And as we shall presently notice that Christ enjoins the keeping of them as the condition of entering eternal life, and affirms that those who break even the least precept, shall be of no esteem in the reign of heaven; and as we shall further notice that the apostles quote from the original version of God's constitution, as written by God himself, and not from a revised edition of it, and in addition to this, that they distinctly recognize the perpetuity of that law which caused the Son of God to pour out his soul even unto death for guilty man, and never intimate that his death blotted out that holy law, we can form some idea of the sacred and immutable character of that great constitution. You continue:
"It adduces the testimony of four witnesses—our SAVIOUR, PAUL, JAMES and JOHN. The united testimony of those four witnesses is certainly enough to establish any point: we will agree, however, to close the controversy and keep the Sabbath, if the 'direct testimony' of either one of them can be produced in its favor as a gospel institution. Is not that fair?"
As the testimony of Christ and his apostles relative to the commandments of the Father, may not be of any importance on this point in your estimation, that testimony shall be set aside.
If a gospel institution is one made at the commencement of the gospel dispensation, and designed for that alone, then the Sabbath is not a gospel institution.—But if an institution established by the Creator in Paradise, [Gen. ii, 2, 3; Ex. xx, 8—11,] and designed for the whole race of man, consequently covering all dispensations, even that which succeeds the resurrection, [Isa. lxvi, 22, 23,] then the Sabbath is a gospel institution.
On this point I offer the direct testimony of one of the witnesses, viz: "the Lord of the Sabbath." He testifies respecting it, that "The Sabbath was made for man." Then it was made for that portion of the human race that live during the gospel dispensation, as really as for that portion, that lived prior to it. Hence this testimony gives the Sabbath to the whole human family. And as the gospel of the Son of God does not destroy that which the Great God made for our race, the Sabbath abides in the gospel dispensation!
I would ask you to delight in the Sabbath made by Him, who "doeth all things well," but you loathe it as Jewish. I would ask you to keep the commandments as uttered by the voice of Jehovah, and written with his finger, but no, they are "abolished, done away," &c. If I should not keep nine of them, however, you would pronounce me a wicked person; but if I keep ten of them, you say that I shall fall from grace?
The character of the testimony borne by our Lord and his apostles to the perpetuity of his Father's constitution, will appear upon examination. After saying, "now let us hear the witnesses," you present the following:
1. "TESTIMONY OF OUR LORD. Matt. v. 17—19. Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Luke xvi. 17. "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
Matt. xxii. 35—40. "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
"This is the first and great commandment.
"And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
"On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Who can see any 'direct testimony' on the Sabbath in those passages? Surely nobody, but the Review and those who sympathize with it. They say nothing about it either way: if we get any testimony from them, we must infer it. So the Review fails here again: and these passages, it regards as its strongest holds.
But it may answer, It was 'the perpetuity of God's constitution' they were adduced to prove. Please notice: we have never intimated that the constitution of God's religious system, in the abstract or in a general sense, was abolished. This the Review knows well, and its perversion of our language is inexcusable.
The misrepresentation with which you commenced, appears again. The texts were not offered as pointing to the fourth commandment, but as bearing directly upon the continued existence of the ten. And that you thus understood it, appears from your own acknowledgment, that "It was the perpetuity of God's constitution they were adduced to prove."
But you say that you have never intimated that God's constitution in the abstract was abolished, and that the Review's perversion of your language is inexcusable.
Let us see how many positions you have taken on this.
(1.) In your Bible class report, you stated that the ten commandments were once the constitution of God's religious system, and that they were "done away," "abolished." And you then teach that Christ made a new constitution out of nine of the commandments.
(2.) But to avoid the absurdity of teaching that God re-enacted nine of the commandments, which he had abolished, you say in your third article that the abolition of the decalogue, "did not necessarily involve the abolition of every precept in it that had existed before the time referred to." This saves nine of them for the new constitution. The statement amounts to this: God abolished the ten commandments, yet nine of them remained unabolished, for they had existed prior to the Exodus, and it was the fourth one, only, (viz: the one that traces its origin back to Paradise,) that was abolished, for it originated after the departure from Egypt!!
(3.) But in your fourth article you say that the ordinances engraven in stone, were abolished. You have applied the word ordinances to the ten commandments without limitation, and say that they are abolished. This does them away effectually, and was probably written to give the idea that Col. ii applies to the decalogue. But what God abolishes will need re-enactment before any part of it can become his amended constitution!
(4.) But in your fifth article instead of teaching, as heretofore, that Jesus formed a new constitution for his Father, one of nine of the ten precepts, you say that he made it out of the two great ones! And in this your sixth article, as will presently appear, you42have him in strong contrast with the second precept of this new constitution!
If the Review has not been able to understand your position, after having the chance to see how many times you could alter it, perhaps it ought to be thankful that you have stated it once more.
According to your present statement, God has abolished his constitution, but he has not abolished it abstractly!
That is, God abolished nine of the ten commandments, but did not do it abstractly; so they continued in force just the same as though they had not been abolished! But one of the ten (the fourth) he abolished abstractly, and thus put an end to a carnal ordinance, that had unfortunately, obtained a place in his constitution.
2 Cor. iii, then, does not teach that the ten commandments are abstractly abolished. No, it shows that nine of them are abolished, but not abstractly, but the fourth is abstractly abolished! All thanks for so much light! But where did you find this doctrine in the Bible? If you did not find it there, on whose authority does it rest?
Now let us weigh the testimony here presented by Jesus respecting his Father's law:
1. He did not come to destroy the law or the prophets; then he did not destroy them.
2. He came to fulfill; then he did not violate or transgress them.
3. One jot, [the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet,] or one tittle, [the small point by which one of those letters is distinguished from another,] shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Then one part shall not pass and leave another in existence. But if one precept has gone, and nine abide, more than a jot or tittle has passed from the law, certainly!
4. But there is a point of time specified, before which, one jot or tittle shall not pass. 'O, yes,' say you, 'that point is the crucifixion.' I answer, No, Sir, that was the point at which the hand-writing of ordinances was blotted out, [Col. ii,] but not the point specified by Jesus, before which no part of this law shall pass. That point is explicitly stated: 'Till heaven and earth pass.' When is it that heaven and earth shall pass? Rev. xx, 11, answers: 'And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heavens fled away, and there was found no place for them.' This event has not yet transpired; hence a single precept has not passed from the law of God.
5. That our Lord refers to that 'royal law' that 'remained,' or is not made 'void' but 'established,' [James ii, 8—12; 1 John iii; Rom. iii,] and not to that hand-writing of ordinances that he did blot out, nail to the cross, take out of the way, abolish, &c., will be evident when we come to examine further the testimony of the chapter.
To fulfill the law of ceremonies, or to use your expression, 'the Levitical ceremonies,' appended to the constitution, is to become the antitype of all those types, the body that cast all those shadows. This renders it complete, and takes it out of the way. Heb. x, 1—10; Col. ii.
To fulfill the great constitution of holy principles, is to render strict, entire, and perfect obedience to every point of this royal law. The work of Christ in thus fulfilling the will of the Father, does not strike out of existence the precepts of the moral law. For the great object of his mission was to bring out a people in whom the precept of the law might be fulfilled. Whiting's translation of Rom. viii, 5; James ii, 8—12.
6. But we are not left in the dark as to whether the moral law was destroyed by the act of our Lord Jesus Christ in keeping it. John xv, 10. The verse which succeeds the statement respecting the passing of the heavens and the earth, speaks out in language not to be misunderstood, or explained away. 'Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' Note a few facts:
(1.) The word 'whosoever' includes you and me. (2.) The word 'therefore' shows that this conclusion respecting the commandments, is something drawn from the premises just laid down, which were. He had not 'come to destroy the law,' and 'Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.'
(3.) It is a fact therefore that in the most solemn manner Christ enjoins the keeping of the commandments. The Messiah, the Prince, here lays open the purpose of his heart concerning the commandments of his Father. Would you with Paul, 'have the mind of Christ' relative to them? It is expressed in simple language, easy to be understood, and most precious and blessed to obey. Keep the commandments and enter into life—be highly esteemed in the reign of heaven; break them and teach men so, [those who teach men so must contend that they are 'abolished,'] and be of no esteem in the reign of heaven—be left without the gates of that city; into which the commandment-keepers will enter, and remain with those who love and make a lie.
7. The law, then, to which Jesus refers, is the commandments.
8. But the translation of this portion of scripture by Campbell is worthy of notice:
'Think not that I am come to subvert, the law or the prophets. I am come not to subvert, but to ratify. For verily I say unto you, heaven and earth shall sooner perish, than one iota, or one tittle of the law shall perish without attaining its end. Whosoever, therefore, shall violate, or teach others to violate, were it the least of these commandments, shall be in no esteem in the reign of heaven; but whosoever shall practice and teach them, shall be highly esteemed in the reign of heaven.'
9. The translation of this text by Whiting is as follows: 'Think not that I am come to annul the law, or the prophets: I am not come to annul, but to fulfill. For truly I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one point will by no means pass away from the law, till all shall come to pass. Whoever therefore shall break the least of these commandments, and teach men so, he will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever shall perform, and teach them, he will be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.'
10. But as you affirm that this is direct testimony in the estimation of the Review and its friends, only, I remark, that in conversation some time since with one of these who stand foremost in teaching men that unless they break the commandments, they will fall from grace, he admitted that Christ here enjoined obedience to all the commandments, 'But' said he, 'This was before they were abolished!'
We will now examine Luke xvi, 17, 'And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fall.'
1. Then it is easier for heaven and earth, than for one of the commandments of God.
2. How hard, then, must it have been for every precept of the great 'constitution to be done away abolished,' and for a new one to be established in its stead! Easier could heaven and earth be destroyed, and new heavens and new earth be created! When God shall abolish his constitution and establish another, it will not only be marked as distinctly as the establishment of the original constitution by himself in person at Sinai, but it will be even a more extraordinary spectacle than for heaven and earth to flee from the presence of him that sits upon the throne!
3. But if we compare this text, with the one just quoted from Matt. v, we find that it is not only easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law, but that one tittle shall not pass till 'the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.' Amen.
Whether this looks like the perpetuity or the abolition of the great constitution, I submit to yourself. However, the law here referred to, has such an intimate connection with Jehovah, that he could easier destroy the works created by himself, than to destroy the smallest fraction of it. As the abrogation of the Sabbath makes the destruction of the whole constitution necessary, and as heaven and earth could be struck out of existence easier than a fraction of the law in question could fail, it certainly required Omnipotence itself to destroy what God made into a Sabbath at the close of his Creation Week.
We turn to Matt. xxii, 35—40, and read that portion of Christ's language, which in your fifth article you adduced as proof that he established a new constitution. Whether it teaches the abrogation of God's constitution and the establishment of a better one, or whether it reads like the perpetuity of the one in existence, we now are interested to inquire.
On the two commandments here named by Jesus, hang all the law and the prophets. Such had ever been the case, such was then the case, and for aught that appears to the contrary in the word of God, they still hang there. Let us notice a few points:
1. The law here referred to, is, manifestly, that moral law of God which defines what it is to love God with the whole heart and our neighbor as ourselves, not that 'hand-writing' in which were the carnal ordinances, the law of divorce, the law of retaliation &c.
2. The great constitution does define the first principles of man's duty to his God and to his fellow man. Ex. xx, 3—11; Eccl. xii, 14. Christ here states the two great reasons why man should obey these first principles. (1.) Because he should love God with all his heart; (2.) Because he should love his neighbor as himself.
3. The two commandments did not here take the place of the ten, for there is no intimation that Christ here wrought any change, whatever.
4. It is a fact that James makes his quotation of the second of these great precepts, not from the new constitution which you suppose that Christ here formed, but from 'the Scriptures,' the Old Testament.—He recognized the original precepts, he recognized no change.
5. The Great Jehovah has drawn out into four essential particulars, the great precept, 'Love God with all thy heart.' He has drawn out into six essential precepts, the great commandment, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself.' The two are the sum; the ten are the particulars that make up that sum. Rom. xiii, 9; 1 John v, 3; James ii, 8—12. Hence they are alike immutable. The New Testament neither abolishes the sum, nor the particulars which make up that sum. For its great design was to place man where he could fulfill 'the righteousness [or precept] of the law.'—You continue as follows:
'But it will say, these texts prove the perpetuity of the ten commandments. Do they say that? Not one of them; hence they contain no 'direct testimony' to that point. It is only inferred that the 'law' in these passages was the decalogue. That it included the decalogue, there is no doubt, and it also included much more, as we shall see presently. The Jews regarded Christ and his gospel, as arrayed against Moses and the law. He endeavors to correct them on this point, and tells them that he came not to 'break' or 'destroy the law.''
You object to the idea that these texts teach the perpetuity of the ten commandments, notwithstanding you stated in your last paragraph that you did not believe that God's constitution (the ten commandments) had been abstractly abolished.
As you fail to see any evidence in these texts let me bring it to your mind. Matt. v, 19, is 'direct testimony' that the commandments are not abolished.—Those who keep them shall have life; those who teach men to break them (How can any do this without contending that they are abolished?) shall be of no esteem in the reign of heaven! And from Luke xvi, 17, we learn that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fall. Then it is not a light matter for the Great Law-giver to 'abolish, do away' all the precepts of his constitution! And from Matt. xxii, we learn that on the two great, unabolished commandments hang all the others.
Now we inquire, to what does the term law in these texts refer?
(2.) The law here referred to, was not to be destroyed; but the hand-writing of ordinances was43abolished, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross.
(3.) The law of ceremonies has been all abolished, yet heaven and earth have not passed.
(4.) It is EASIER for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of this law to fail. Yet the law of carnal ordinances was disannulled for the WEAKNESS and unprofitableness thereof.
(5.) The law which Christ did not destroy, is that law which caused him to lay down his life for a guilty, condemned world, [1 John iii; Rom. iii,] and not that law of ordinances, which was blotted out by his death. Col. ii.
(6.) That law which hangs upon or is comprehended in the two great precepts, evidently has direct reference to the precepts of the great constitution which define what it is to love God with all the heart, and our neighbor as ourselves, and not to that law of retaliation, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” and the law of carnal ordinances, which was imposed only until the time of reformation.
(7.) But we shall presently notice the distinction as made by our Lord in the continuance of his discourse in Matt. v.
Those who now attempt to array the gospel of the Son of God against the commandments of the Father, have fallen into the same mistake that you say befall the Jews. Look at their harmony. The law of God in the Ark of his Testament, shows all men to be sinners in the sight of God. The blood of Jesus, sprinkled upon the mercy-seat—the top of the Ark, avails to take away sins. Hence the gospel offers pardon. If the gospel and the atonement be taken away, there is no hope for guilty man. If the law be taken away there is no necessity that men avail themselves of the pardon offered by the gospel. Like the attributes of justice and mercy, they stand united; and what God hath joined together let not man put asunder. Even the law of types, which shadowed forth the great salvation of the gospel, is thus shown to have an important meaning. Christ did not come to break or to destroy the law; hence he did not break it, he did not destroy it. You continue:
“But for what did he come? The Review would answer to keep it. But hold; does our Saviour say so? No! He says he came to ‘fulfill’—fill out, accomplish—the law and the prophets, so as to make them honorable, by demonstrating that they were true, in their typical and prophetic references. ‘The law and the prophets’ here is the same as ‘Moses and the prophets’ in Luke. xxiv, 27. The fulfilling of the law is evidently to be understood in the same sense as the fulfilling of the prophets: hence, of course, it has no reference to the precepts of the law, but to its fulfillment in the sense stated above. This left him free to change the preceptive portion of the law, which he did, as will be seen from the following table arranged from Matt. v.”
According to yourself, then, the Saviour came to fulfill the typical law; but in thus stating the object of his mission he had no reference to the great constitution of his Father. Indeed he was left “free to change” that. Yet in your last paragraph you stated that that law which Christ said he came to fulfill, “included the decalogue.”
Then if the fulfilling of a law does it away, the ten commandments were not done away by Christ, for according to yourself he did not fulfill them! He did not do them away by modifying them, for we shall presently notice that your effort to prove that he modified them, is an entire failure.
As you refer the law which Christ came to fulfill, to “the Levitical ceremonies” and to the law of types, I do not object to the use made of Luke xxiv, 27.
But mark the fact! the law, which Christ came to fulfill, [Matt. v, 17, 18,] is the same as the commandments named in verse 19. And these abide in full force, under his fearful sanction! Hence Christ has direct reference to the precepts of the moral law.—And that which Christ thus fulfilled, he did not abolish, but requires that his people, through grace, fulfill it also. Rom. viii, 4; James ii.
If you still contend that the typical law was that which Christ came to fulfill, then that abides in force under his fearful mandate. Matt. v, 19.
But before thus lightly setting aside the moral law, note two or three points: (1.) Since the fall of Adam, none have been able through the whole period of their lives to render complete, entire and perfect obedience to all its holy precepts, though it is the embodiment of the principles of God’s own holiness. (2.) When Christ came, the law not only demanded this perfect obedience, but it demanded the death of all, for all were its transgressors. 2 Cor. v, 14, 15. (3.) Christ rendered perfect obedience to all its precepts through life. (4.) He then took upon himself its fearful curse, and died the just for the unjust. And having thus answered its demands, he offers pardon to the guilty, through his blood, and grace to fulfill the righteousness of the law.
But let us now examine your effort to set aside the great constitution by teaching that Christ modified and changed it. You present what you call a series of antitheses, between Moses and Christ. The first is Matt. v, 21, 22, and reads with your heading thus:
MOSES.—“Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment.”
CHRIST.—“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the fire of gehenna. Therefore . . . be reconciled to thy brother, &c.”
The first thing that strikes the eye in this alleged contrast, is the fact that Christ, instead of placing himself in opposition to the sixth commandment of the Father, which you head “Moses,” was speaking with direct reference to the manner in which the Pharisees, thought to keep the commandments. Verse 19 solemnly enjoins the keeping of the commandments. Verse 20, which is intimately connected to verse 19 by the conjunction “for,” shows that such obedience as that which the Pharisees rendered, which was a mere observance of the letter, without any idea that the commandments were “spiritual” and “exceeding broad,” was not that obedience that the law of God required.
Christ does not here abolish the sixth commandment; he does not re-enact it; he does not lesson the obligation to obey it; but in the most solemn manner, he points out its spirituality, and shows that it may be violated by the act of the heart. Hence, to “fulfill the righteousness of the law” was something far beyond the poor obedience of the Pharisees. Verse 22 therefore does not modify, nor stand in array against the commandment in verse 21. But you have another contrast with which to “modify,” “do away” or “set aside,” the great constitution. It is from verses 27 and 28, and reads thus:
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
“But I say unto you,—That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
If you are in earnest, in saying that Christ modified this commandment, then your position is one to be ashamed of, certainly.
These two precepts are the only ones quoted from the decalogue in this table of comparison. The precepts quoted are shown to be spiritual and to refer to the thoughts and motives of the heart. Hence, your effort to prove that Christ established a new constitution by modifying the original precepts is not sustained by any evidence. The only way that you can claim that Christ modified these commandments, is to take the ground that once the law of the All-Seeing Jehovah referred only to the outward act, and that when Christ came, he added the spiritual meaning and application to each of the precepts as he suffered to exist! Such a position, however, is “blasphemous enough to make one tremble!” Your next contrast [verses 31, 32] is as follows:
“Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.”
“But I say unto you,—That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
Now it will be noticed, that, instead of quoting from the great constitution, which is the only thing that you are anxious to set aside, you have presented for contrast with the words of Christ, that precept which he said was given because of the hardness of the hearts of the Hebrews. Matt. xix, 7, 8. Observe, that instead of showing that this was spiritual and binding as the rule of men’s lives as he did the two precepts quoted from the decalogue, he shows that it was not of such a character, and would not be continued in force. The difference in his language is very significant. Your next contrast [verses 33, 34] is as follows:
“Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.”
“But I say unto you, Swear not at all, &c.”
Some have referred this precept to the third commandment, others to the ninth. The third commandment reads, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;” but this precept is, “Thou shalt not swear falsely.” The one forbids blasphemy, the other forbids a false oath. Hence, they are not the same. The ninth commandment reads, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” It might be supposed that this was the same as, “Thou shalt not swear falsely.” But it is certain that an oath is not a necessary part of bearing witness. And if they are the same, then Christ forbids us to bear witness at all, for he adds, “Swear not.” And if it be thus understood, he violated this his own direction, himself, for he said, when before the high-priest, to one that smote him, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness. John xviii, 23.
But the first part of the above is quoted from Lev. xix, 12. The last part may be read in Num. xxx, 2; Deut. xxiv, 21—23. Hence, we have not yet been able to discover Christ’s act of “doing away,” setting aside, abolishing his Father’s constitution, and establishing a better. But you have another contrast to present. See verses 38, 39. It is this:
“An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”
“But I say unto you,—That ye resist not evil, &c.”
It is sufficient, perhaps, to remark that the law of retaliation is not a part of the great constitution which you are so anxious “to do away, set aside, abolish,” and is not included in the commandments which are to be obeyed under Christ’s terrible sanction. What proof does this contrast furnish that Christ “superseded the constitution of God’s religious system?” (the decalogue.) But you have one more contrast to offer. Verses 43, 44. Perhaps this one will help you. Let us see:
“Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.”
“But I say unto you,—Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you, &c.”
I might turn this last contrast upon yourself.—For instead of its being a contrast with one of the ten precepts of the original constitution, it looks more like a contrast with one of the two great commandments, which, according to yourself, form the Great Law-giver’s amended constitution; But I forbear, and remark, that the sentence appended, which is not to be found in the law, is the point that Christ corrects. The Pharisees had such an imperfect idea of the great precept quoted, that they thought that it would allow them to hate their enemies. Christ’s act of correcting them does not abolish the commandments of his Father. Your next remarks present your idea of the above contrasts. You speak as follows:
“Here are six antitheses, drawn by our Saviour himself, between the Law and the Gospel, and so strong are some of them, that the precepts of the law are negatived by those of the gospel, and Jesus forbids a literal obedience of Moses, as in swearing, in retaliation, and in hating an enemy. And it should be noticed, that he quotes indifferently from the decalogue and from the book of the law, treating the one no more reverently than the other, but placing himself in strong contrast to both. He makes no distinction between them, but regards them as constituting only one law.”
To the above remarks, I reply:
1. Your attempt to make Christ stand in strong contrast with the sixth and seventh commandments is an entire failure, as we have already seen.
2. Your contrast between Christ and the law of divorce,44of forswearing, and of retaliation, does not bear against the great constitution.
3. But if you wish to maintain that Christ placed himself in strong contrast with the great precept, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," which you say is a part of the constitution which Christ established for the gospel, you are at liberty so to do. But if you say "no, he placed himself in contrast with the words appended to it," then you yield all argument on the point.
4. Although Christ has not mentioned the distinction between the great constitution and the law of carnal ordinances, divorce, retaliation &c., nor even intimated that the great precept quoted by him, was the sum of the last six commandments, [Rom. xiii.] and a part of the royal law, [James ii.] and one of the two on which hang all the law and the prophets, [Matt. xxii.] yet this does not invalidate the scriptures in which these facts are stated. But it is an obvious fact that he does recognize the widest possible distinction. Mark! the precepts of the decalogue he lays open as binding, as reaching even to the thoughts and motives of the heart! But the law of retaliation &c., is the reverse of this, and is to be set aside.
5. "But placing himself in strong contrast to both." That is, Christ not only stands in contrast with the law of retaliation, divorce, &c., but he also stands in strong contrast with the sixth and seventh commandments, and with the second of the two, on which all hang! But this blasphemous position is, in reality, as much against the new constitution which you wish to establish, as it is against the original which you wish to abolish. For you have arrayed Christ in strong contrast with one of the two great precepts, (which you say form the present constitution,) as well as in the same strong contrast with two of the ten, which form the original constitution of God's religious system.
6. He "regards them as constituting only one law." Very well. Now let us see: here is the precept which James quotes from the Old Testament, and to which he applies the term, "royal law;" here are some of the precepts of the decalogue; here, also, is retaliation, divorce, &c.; and all constitute but one law! Then you will be kind enough to take back the statement in your second article, that the Review had perverted the royal law, because it claimed that the commandments are in it. You have now admitted the ten commandments, and I know not how much more!—You continue as follows:
"These are only specimens of the changes he wrought in the perceptive portion of the religious system that had been in vogue with the Jews from the departure from Egypt. Others are noticed elsewhere in the New Testament; as, that covetousness is idolatry; hating a brother, murder, &c. These specimens establish a rule of interpretation, and justify 2 Cor. iii; Rom. xiv., and Col. ii."
Recollect a few things:
1. The changes which Christ wrought, were not in the constitution of God's religious system. The sixth and seventh, with all the other commandments of the holy, just and perfect law, were always exceeding broad. Ps. cxix, 96; li, 6—11. But your position requires you to believe that the law of God once took cognizance of the outward act only, and that when Christ came, he enlarged them, and made them exceeding broad. This is in admirable keeping with the doctrine that the penalty of the law was once nothing but temporal death, inflicted by the hand of man.—But when it is seen that the eye of the All-Seeing Jehovah has ever taken cognizance of every departure from the holy standard of right, even those in heart, and that men will be judged by his law in the day of God, and then receive the great penalty—a part in the lake of fire—the law of God is magnified and made honorable.
2. To your remarks respecting covetousness, hating a brother, &c., I answer, that the law of God had taken cognizance of those things before the first Advent, or it had not. If it had not so done, then men in that period could hate each other &c., and not be amenable to God for it! But if it had always been a crime in the eye of God's law to act thus, then the New Testament in stating the fact, merely lays open a truth as old as Creation.
It is by such specimens that you establish a rule of interpretation, and justify 2 Cor. iii; Rom. xiv; Col. ii. The chapters need no justification; but the use you make of them needs a better justification than such perversions as these. Your use of 2 Cor. iii, in which you attempt to abolish the ten commandments, was noticed in my last letter. Your use of Rom. xiv, which you justify at the expense of the commandments of God, will be noticed in my next. Your use of Col. ii will be noticed in this letter. You continue:
"Now in the light of these facts, we ask, Did not Christ remodel the religious system? Did he not supersede the law, with its constitution, the decalogue? No one can deny it: it is to obvious to be doubted.—For the priesthood being changed, there is made of NECESSITY a change also of the LAW.' Heb. vii, 12."
You say that it is so evident that the decalogue, God's constitution, has been superseded, that no one can deny it. It has been superseded of course, thereby the new constitution which you say Christ formed for the gospel system of religion, of the two great commandments. Now it is a fact that you have presented better evidence that he superseded one of the two great precepts, than that he superseded either of the ten!
There was a law that regulated the earthly priesthood in every particular; it was the law of carnal ordinances. There was a law that made an atonement and a priesthood necessary; it was the royal law; it was shut up in an ark. The one required that the priesthood be of the order of Aaron &c.; the other said nothing about priesthood. The one has been done away, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, as its priesthood could never take away sins. The other law abides, even now in the Ark of God's Testament in his Temple in Heaven. And before it stands a great High Priest, whose blood can take away sins. The priesthood being changed, the law which required that it should be of the race of Aaron is necessarily changed; but no necessity is created that the moral law of God should be changed also.—Let Heb. vii speak for itself.
To your further assertion that in your remarks noticed above, you have presented direct evidence that the commandments have been "done away, abolished," by Christ's better law, and that the Sabbath has not escaped in this change, but has gone with the things written in the hand-writing of ordinances, I answer, that every thing which you could address as proof has been weighed, and the assertion stands before us unsupported by evidence. And in taking leave of the testimony of our Lord, I may be allowed to repeat his answer to him who sought the way of life: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." You next speak as follows:
"We will now hear the other three witnesses. 2. TESTIMONY OF PAUL. (1.) He testifies what is abolished. Eph. ii, 14—17; Col. ii, 14—17; Heb. ix, 10. (2.) He testifies to that which is not abolished. Rom. vii, 7—25; viii, 1—7; Eph. vi, 2, 3; Rom. iii, 31."
The Review quotes Col. ii, 14—17, to show "what is abolished." The passage reads as follows:
"Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
"And, having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days;
"Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
Very good: then upon its own showing, the Sabbath "IS ABOLISHED! This, remember, is "direct testimony."
To this I answer, that Paul recognizes a plain distinction between that law which caused the death of the Lord Jesus, and that law which his death blotted out. Rom. iii; Col. ii.
God's Sabbath was sanctified and hallowed by him; consequently it stands in the midst of the nine precepts of his moral law. The annual sabbaths of the Jews were never sanctified and hallowed by him, consequently, they were placed with the feasts and new45moons of the hand-writing of ordinances. Lev. xxiii. 24, 32, 39.