The hand-writing of ordinances, which Christ blotted out, is the decalogue, or it is not. If it is the decalogue, then I inquire, how could Paul speak of meats, drinks, new moons, holy days, [literally festival, Macknight,] and sabbaths, [plural,] as there is nothing of the kind in it? But if you say that it does not refer to the decalogue, but to those carnal ordinances which regulate all those matters, then you yield all argument from this text.
But you may take still another position and say, (notwithstanding no one of the things here mentioned as abolished is to be found in the decalogue,) that the hand-writing of ordinances included the decalogue. Let us test it. If it did include the decalogue, then the blood of Jesus "blotted out" the precepts which forbid idolatry, blasphemy, disobedience to parents, murder, adultery, theft, false-witness, and covetousness! And that which the blood of Christ blotted out has never been re-written!! Is not such a doctrine most shameful, inasmuch as it not only delivers men from the sentence of God's law, whether they repent or not, but it makes the great salvation of the gospel to consist, not in deliverance from sin, but in deliverance from every principle of morality that God ever laid down!! But if the ten commandments were not among the ordinances that Christ blotted out, then you fall of any proof, whatever, from this text!
Whatever was contained in the hand-writing of ordinances was "abolished abstractly," and entirely, and not left in existence, as the abolition of the decalogue left nine of the commandments, according to yourself!
But if you say that the hand-writing of ordinances included only a part of the ten commandments, (in order to avoid the absurdity that the whole ten are utterly destroyed by the blood of Christ,) then I ask you to show your authority! If you say, because that the term "holy-day" occurs, I answer, that Wesley, Macknight, and the Doway version render it feast day, festival, festival day; and that they render it rightly is evident from the fact that it is the same word that is thus rendered in Luke ii, 21; xxii, 1; John xiii, 1; Matt. xxvi, 5; xxvii, 15, &c. If you say that it is because the word sabbaths, [plural,] is used, I answer, that is slender proof, inasmuch as the hand-writing of ordinances included at least four annual sabbaths. Lev. xviii, 24, 32, 39.
But when God uses figures, does he not use reasonable ones? And what idea can you get of blotting out words engraven in stone? And what a figure to speak of nailing tables of stone to a cross!
Your "direct testimony," therefore, that the Sabbath of Jehovah, embodied in the fourth commandment, is abolished, is obtained, like your other proofs on the same point, by wrestling the scriptures, and particularly the words of Paul.—You speak again:
"3. 'TESTIMONY OF JAMES.' If ye fulfill the royal law, 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 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.
"So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty."
What 'direct testimony' is there here for the Sabbath? Not a particle; there is no allusion to the subject. If it is claimed that the Sabbath is 'one point' in the 'law' to which James refers, we reply: This is only an inference, and we demand proof that such is the fact. The law here in James is 'the law of Christ,' and not 'the law of Moses.' So in Rom. iii. 31; vii, 7—25; viii, 1—7, and Eph. vi. 2, 3—texts quoted by the Review to show what is not abolished—'the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus' gives freedom; but this is not the law of Moses."
It is an important fact that James quotes, not from a new edition of the law of God, called by yourself "the law of Christ," but from the "Scripture"—the Old Testament—and from that law [see margin] which was composed of the commandments.
Having heretofore pointed out the defects in your argument from this text, a few words are all that is now needed. He that shall "offend in one point, [precept, Macknight] he is guilty of all."
The "ALL" here referred to, means one of two things: (1.) It means only those precepts which James has quoted, which makes "the whole law" to consist of the three precepts here cited, and leaves us at liberty, not only to violate the fourth commandment, but also the first, second, third, fifth, eighth, ninth, and tenth, and even the first of the two great ones:—Strange liberty! And you have not offended in a single point!!
(2.) Or the "ALL," to which James points, includes the ten precepts from which he quotes, and he that violates one has transgressed them all!
The second is the position of the Review; the first is left for those who break the commandments, and teach men so!
But Paul in Rom. iii, 31, refers to "the law of Christ" does he? This is a virtual admission that the law there referred to is not abolished. We inquire, then, whether Paul refers to the original, unabolished law of Jehovah, or to some other law. Verse 19 shows the whole world condemned and guilty before God in the sight of this law. Verse 23 gives the reason. Verses 24—26 shows that by faith in the atonement, the shedding of the blood of the Son of God, guilty man may be pardoned.—And verse 31 shows that salvation through the great propitiation, does not make void the law, but establishes it!
These facts point us to a law in existence before the first Advent of the Messiah, and not to one enacted by him after his coming. To the law which made an atonement necessary, viz: "the ten words" shut up in the Ark, on the top of which was the mercy-seat where the blood of atonement was sprinkled. The Ark is in the true tabernacle where Christ is. Its top is the mercy-seat from which we receive pardon; the testament within it is the holy, unabolished constitution of the Father.
You also attempt to set aside the law in Rom. vii, 7—25, as "the law of Christ." For it is manifest that the law there noticed is an unabolished law. But this is a failure, for several reasons. (1.) The words purport to come from the law, an expression never used with reference to the words of Christ. (2.) The words in verse 7 are a literal quotation from the decalogue; but as Christ never used the expression, and never quoted the tenth commandment, they are not a quotation from what you call "the law of Christ." (3.) But there is direct proof in verses 22 and 25 that Paul refers to "the law of God." Hence Paul did quote from the decalogue in the year 60, and recognized it as unabolished.
And as we read forward in chapter viii, we find that the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, delivered him, (not from the law of God, as some vainly imagine, but) from that other law of sin, which in chapter vii, 7—25, he represents as baffling all his efforts to keep the law of God. In the third verse he offers praise to God for the atonement; (just as in chapter iii;) and in the fourth verse he testifies that the righteousness [precept, Whiting,] of the law can now be fulfilled in us. For he is delivered from the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, and which is not subject to his law; (the same that now leads men to fight the commandments of God.)
Now, we inquire, from what law does Paul quote in Eph. vi, 2, 3. You think that he quotes the commandment from the law of Christ, and not from the law of Moses, a term which you delight to apply to the commandments of God. Let us test this also. It is a fact, that though Christ has quoted this commandment, he has never appended a promise to it; much less has he added the one here quoted by Paul. But it is also a fact that this commandment does stand in the decalogue, not only as its first commandment with promise, but with the very promise in question annexed! Hence it is a fact that Paul quotes from the decalogue, which you say is abolished; and not from the law of Christ, which, according to yourself, Christ established by amending his Father's commandments! Hence it is a fact that the decalogue is not abolished! You continue, and conclude as follows:
"TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 'And every man that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself even as he is pure.
"'Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.
"'And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.' John iii, 3—5.
"'And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.' Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus! Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.'—Rev. xii, 17; xiv, 12; xxii, 14.
"What 'direct testimony' is there in these passages in favor of the Sabbath, or of the law of Moses, or of the decalogue?—There is none at all.
"'We cover the whole ground of these passages when we acknowledge ourselves to be 'under the law to Christ,' (1 Cor. ix, 21,) without acknowledging the present authority of the law of Moses; and by 'doing the commandments' of the New Testament. If we thus continue faithful to the end, 'under the law to Christ,' and 'doing his commandments,' we cannot be convicted of sin, nor excluded from the tree of life.'"
Before calling attention to the defects in your argument from these texts, I notice one or two facts.
(1.) You have not succeeded in establishing a new constitution, or in modifying the original. (2.) You have not succeeded in establishing a new law, in place of the holy and just law of God. Hence the commandments of God remain unamended and unabolished. Let us examine the scriptures quoted.
1. John shows that the law still exists.
2. Sin is the transgression of it.
3. Christ was manifested not to take away the law, but to take away sin, the transgression of it. Hence this is the original law of God, one that existed before the Advent of Jesus, and one that rendered his death necessary, as shown in Rom. iii. It still exists, and whosoever breaks the commandments of God is convicted by it, as a sinner. The blood of Jesus did not blot it out. But say you, "Love is the fulfilling of the law." So it is, but what is love? John answers: "This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." 1 John v, 3. Such love does indeed fulfill the law of God, and any thing less, no matter what the profession, is not the love of God!
The book of Revelation speaks on the commandments of God. At the very end of time John saw the dragon and the last fragment of the church contending: Listen: "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." What is the feature by which the remnant are distinguished? The keeping of the commandments of God! What was done to them? The dragon made war with them, for he was wroth. Will the powers of this earth make war on the remnant for not worshiping other gods, not bowing down to idols, not blaspheming? No, they recognize them as right thus far. Will they be offended with those who do not dishonor their parents, or murder, or commit adultery, steal, or bear false witness, or covet? No, they imprison those who do thus. But those are only nine of the commandments of God. The fourth commandment is the precept that brings out the ire of the dragon.—When the remnant take hold of this precept, which the dragon has with such care been laboring to change, the wrath of worldlings, Catholics, Protestants, and even of Adventists, is roused to crush them, and to check the work, "that it proceed no further!" What is the trouble? O, they are keeping the commandments as God gave them, and they condemn us!—Will the enemies of God succeed in destroying the remnant? No!
"The remnant in these latter days
Will triumph sure; give God the praise!
They, of the beast refuse the mark,
They keep God's law—they have the Ark."
The wrath of the dragon, already beginning to be stirred, will doubtless increase until that "time of trouble such as never was." And some perhaps with whom the remnant have taken sweet counsel, will be left to think that in killing them they are doing God's service.
But John sees them again. "Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." But when is it that John sees the commandment-keepers this time? In the patience of the saints, (waiting with hope long-deferred,) and under the message of the Third Angel. Then those who live in the period referred to, will have much to say about the commandments of God. And those who oppose will doubtless attempt to prove that they are abolished, or that they have been superseded by the testimony of Jesus Christ. But the saints of God, not heeding this folly, will keep both. But does not John see them again? Yes. He sees the commandment-keepers enter the holy city, while those who love and make a lie, are left without. Christ had said, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments;" John sees such enter into it!
This is direct testimony that the commandments of God are not abolished. It is direct testimony that they have not been superseded by the testimony of Jesus Christ.
You may attempt to set aside the commandments of God, as the law of Moses, or to teach that they have been superseded by the testimony of Jesus, but this will not avail. Those who are "under the law to Christ" will do as he has directed, viz: "Keep the commandments." The commandments of Jesus have not taken the place of the commandments of God, as you try to give the idea. They stand together—they are inseparable. How long wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
J. N. ANDREWS.
Port Byron, Cayuga Co. N. Y., July, 1852.