Discourse with Brother Carver by Editor

Review and Herald Publishing Association

Discourse with Brother Carver.

By Editor

Brother Carver writes that the recent remarks in the "Review and Herald," relative to "the two laws," are not satisfactory to his mind, and that he would like to speak in reply. If we mistake not, however, the arguments of brother C. are directed to prove that the law is all abolished, instead of answering the Scriptural arguments adduced to support the view that there is a plain distinction between "the law of a carnal commandment," Heb. vii, 16, and that law, of which the same apostle affirms, "we know that the law is spiritual," Rom. vii, 14; or between "the hand-writing of ordinances," "which was contrary to us," and which was nailed to the cross, Col. ii, 14, and "the royal law," which James affirms that it is a sin to transgress, James ii, 8—12; or between that law of which "there was made of necessity a change," Heb. vii, 12, and that law of which Christ says, "till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," Matt. v, 18; or between that law which was "a shadow of good things to come," Heb. x, 1, which was only "imposed until the time of reformation," Heb. ix, 10, and that law to which John referred, when he said that "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW;" 1 John iii, 4; or between "the yoke of bondage," from which we have been made free by Christ, Gal. v, 1, and that "law of liberty" by which we "shall be judged," James ii, 8—12; or between that law which Christ "abolished in his flesh," Eph. ii, 15, and that law which he asserts that he did "not come to destroy," Matt. v, 17; or between that law which he "took out of the way" at his death, Col. ii, 14, and that law which he came to "magnify" and "make honorable," Isa. xlii, 21; or between that law which Paul calls "good," Rom. vii, 12, which Ezekiel testifies was such as men should walk by, and live in, Eze. xx, 11—13, which Nehemiah characterizes as "right judgments," "true laws," and "good statutes," Neh. ix, 13, and those laws which Eze. xx, 25, declares were "statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;" or between that law, of which Paul says there was "verily a disannulling" "for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof," Heb. vii, 18, and that law respecting which he inquires, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; YEA WE ESTABLISH THE LAW," Rom. iii, 31; or between that law of retaliation, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," which Christ declares should not be binding, Matt. v, 38, 39, and that law, respecting which he affirms, that whosoever should "break one" of its "least commandments, and teach men so," should be of "no esteem in the reign of heaven," Matt. v, 19 (Campbell’s Translation;) or between the law of Moses, which the apostles called a yoke of bondage, which neither they nor their "fathers were able to bear" Acts xv, 5, 10, and the law of God, which Paul delighted in and served with his mind, Rom. vii, 22—25, and to which nothing but the carnal mind is opposed, Rom. viii, 7; or between that law which is the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, Eph. ii, 14, and that law, the work of which, even the Gentiles are said to have written in their hearts, Rom. ii, 12—15; or between "the law of commandments contained in ordinances," which was abolished by Christ, Eph. ii, 15, and "the commandments of God," which it is "the whole duty of man" to keep, Eccl. xii, 13, which are brought to view by the third angel, Rev. xiv, 12, which the remnant of the seed of the woman were keeping when seen by John, Rev. xii, 17, and which will ensure to those who observe them, access to the tree of life. Rev. xxii, 14.

The one law God gave in person, and wrote with his own finger, in the tables of stone. Ex. xxiv, 12. The other was given through Moses, and written by his hand in a book 2 Chron. xxxiv, 14. The one is a moral law which grows out of the nature of the relation which man sustains to God, and to his fellow man, the principles of which have been in force since man has had an existence. The other is a law of shadows which pointed men forward to redemption through Jesus Christ, and ceased when the great atonement for the sins of the world was made. Col. ii, 17. The one law pertained only to Israel; to the other, all mankind were amenable. By the one, the whole world was condemned and shown to be guilty before God. Rom. iii, 19. By the other was given a typical atonement, which pointed forward to him who should die for the sins of the world. The one having reached its antitype is abolished; but the other stands, if possible, on a firmer basis than ever. Rom. iii, 31. For the immutability of its character is shown in that the Son of God must lay down his life, before guilty man could be rescued from its just sentence. Though the law was not written before God himself engraved it with his own finger on the tables of stone, yet it is certain that each principle embodied in the Decalogue, did exist in the very beginning. For at the time when "God made man upright," there was not one of these principles which he could violate. He could not have other gods, he could not have graven images, he could not take the name of God in vain, he could not trample under foot the day which God then sanctified, (Gen. ii, 2, 3; Ex. xx, 8—11; Mark ii, 27,) he could not dishonor his parents, or kill, or commit adultery, or steal, or bear false witness, or covet. For these first principles, grow out of the very nature of things, and so long as man remained a holy being, he could never violate one of them. That he had this law implanted in his being, may be proved from the fact that natural men still retain something of the work of the law written in their hearts. Rom. ii, 12—15. But prior to the fall of man, the typical or ceremonial law could have no existence. It was the transgression of the law of his Maker that laid the foundation for the typical law. As soon as sin entered into the world, the typical law, pointing sinful man forward to the great atonement, began to be developed. Witness the sacrifices of Cain, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and in short, witness the gradual development of that law which was a "shadow of good things to come."

From the summit of Sinai, God gave his holy law to Israel, in ten precepts, "and he added no more." Then he proceeded, (with an occasional repetition of the precepts or principles of the Decalogue,) to give them through Moses, "the hand-writing of ordinances," which should point them forward to the great Sacrifice that should be offered for the sins of the world. When that sacrifice was offered, the shadow ceased, having reached the body by which it was cast. But there was a real law by which men were condemned, that made it necessary that Christ should die in their stead, Rom. iii, 19. The death of Christ was not for the purpose of abolishing this law, but to make an atonement for the transgressors, so that they could be pardoned.

H. E. Carver. Bro. White, As you have been so kind as to send me a number of the "Review and Herald," and have invited a review of the arguments contained in your answer to Bro. J. B. Cook’s reply to Bro. E. D. Cook, I take the privilege to comply with the invitation, and to give the view of the matter, as presented to my mind. Your first quotation is Rom. ii, 13, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Now it is not my purpose to array Paul against Paul, nor to explain what I do not claim to understand clearly, but by reading on to verse 19 of chapter iii, I read as follows: "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all those that believe; for there is no difference."

Answer. We hold no views of Rom. ii, 13, which make any discrepancy with Rom. iii, 19. Had men continued "doers of the law," they would have remained in a state of justification, and never have fallen under its fearful condemnation, as we learn from Rom. iii, 19, that all men have. Since man has fallen, however, the law of Moses, with all its sacrifices and offerings, can never afford him justification before God, because those sacrifices can never take away sins. Acts xiii, 38, 39; Heb. x, 1—4. Those who have the law written in their hearts by the Spirit of God, and who through grace fulfill "the precept of the law," are the only ones who can now be called "the doers of the law." We are justified by faith alone; but faith, if it exists, must "work by love;" and the love of God consists in keeping his commandments. 1 John v, 3.

The doctrine stated by Paul in this chapter, is worthy of careful study, and lasting remembrance. The great truth that the law of God condemns the whole world, is here unequivocally stated. The reason is also given in distinct terms: "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God," Verse 23. And such is the justice of this condemnation, that "every mouth" is "stopped." What is now brought to view as the hope of lost men? Is it that God will take back his law, and receive those into his favor who are now condemned before him? Sooner would heaven and earth pass "than one tittle of the law" of God. How then may men be justified before God, who now are condemned and guilty in his sight? The apostle answers: "Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness, for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare I say at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." Verses 24—26. That God, instead of abolishing his law, should give his own Son to die in the place of those who have broken it, and should offer pardon to such only as should avail themselves of this propitiation, is proof of the strongest character possible, that that law is immutable. Those only who avail themselves of his propitiation are "delivered from wrath;" the claims of the law remain good on all beside; for they are left to answer the demands of the broken law. The great idea held out in the New Testament, is that of pardon through faith in the blood of Jesus; but if his death abolished the law, the consequences are precisely the same whether men avail themselves of pardon or not. If they are pardoned it is well; if they are not, there is no law which condemns them. The fact that we are so urgently entreated to seek pardon through the blood of Jesus, shows that we may expect the fearful sentence of the law to be executed upon us. If we do not avail ourselves of it, Paul has settled the question, however, as brother C. might have seen, "by reading on to verse" 31, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea WE ESTABLISH THE LAW." Whether brother C. will abide by the doctrine of this chapter, or will attempt "to array Paul against Paul," we shall see hereafter.

H. E. C. Gal. iii, 11. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for the just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith, but, the man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law. In the twenty-first verse of this chapter, Paul argues, that if there had been a law given WHICH COULD HAVE GIVEN LIFE, verily righteousness should have been by the law; but in consideration that faith in Christ is requisite to salvation, it is evident that no such law was ever given—not even the ten commandments.

Answer. You have abundantly proved the doctrine that the law condemns the whole world, and that none can be justified in the sight of God, except through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He has "redeemed us from the curse of the law." But how? By abolishing it? No! verily. By offering up himself in our stead. 1 Pet. ii, 24. He took the curse upon himself. Gal. iii, 13. He did not "destroy the law," he submitted himself to its penalty. But how many are delivered from the curse of the law? Is it all the world? or is it such only as make a personal application of the atonement to themselves? If the former view be correct, then the doctrine of Universalism is true, for the atonement avails equally for those who do not, as for those who do, accept it. If, however, it is those only who believe on the Son of God, who are redeemed from the curse of the law, then the world is all under it, and remains in the fearful state described in Rom. iii, 19; and will have to answer, not only for breaking the law, but also for treading under foot the Son of God, who died to redeem them. The reason why the law could not give life, was not because the law was not "holy," "spiritual," and "perfect," but because man had broken it; and it could only condemn them, and show their guilt before God. Hence the apostle says that "by the law is the knowledge of sin." There is seen, therefore, the absolute necessity of the death of Jesus Christ. When, therefore, the New Testament holds out pardon through him, it is because the law condemns us, and we are exposed to its just sentence.

H. E. C. Our Lord did not deny that the young man had kept the commandments from his youth up, and yet applied a test to his character, that is not named in that law.

Answer. If the young man had actually kept the commandments, he would most certainly have entered into life. Matt. xix, 16, 17; Rev. xxii, 14. The test applied to him by Jesus, was calculated to undeceive him, with regard to himself; for had he, a RICH MAN, loved his "neighbor as himself" he would have sold cheerfully, and GIVEN TO THE POOR."

H. E. C. By reading Gal. iii, 19, we find that the apostle was speaking of the law given four hundred years after the promises made to Abraham and his seed, (Christ.) That law was the law of ten commandments, given by God from Sinai, and it was added (to the promises,) because of transgressions TILL the seed (Christ) should come. Verse 23. "But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster," (the law.)

Answer. There is but one sense in which it could be said that the law of God "was added to the promises." The covenant made with Abraham secured to him and to his seed the promised inheritance, and recognized one ground of justification, which is indeed the only one, viz: "the righteousness of faith." The covenant which God afterward made with his natural seed, added another condition of justification, viz: "the righteousness of perfect obedience." Ex. xix; xix; Jer. xi, 4, 5; Gal. iii, 12. This being perfectly just, and yet such a covenant as fallen, guilty man has never yet complied with, it is evident that if the inheritance is to be obtained by this condition only, then are the promises to Abraham made void and of none effect. The law is not "against the promises," but it is certain that we cannot hope for the inheritance through a law which already condemns the world. "The Scripture (by means of the law) hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe." But when the promised seed came, one was found who could render acceptable obedience to all the claims of the holy law. He kept his Father's commandments, and then gave up himself to die, because we had broken them. Then he could give us a covenant founded upon better promises, even the New Testament in his blood. Luke xxii, 20. He offers to us the merits of his death, as the foundation of our hope of pardon; he grants us the renewing of the Holy Spirit, and places THE LAW OF GOD IN OUR HEARTS. Rom. v, 6, 8, 9; Heb. viii, 10. The seed "to whom the promises were made," did not "come to destroy the law;" on the contrary he enforced it, by saying that "Whosoever therefore shall violate, or teach others to violate, were it the least of the 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." Matt. v, 19, Campbell's Translation.

The idea that the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith, is often urged as proof that the law is abolished. How is the law our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? We answer, it shows our guilt and just condemnation, and that we are lost without a Saviour. Hear the apostle Paul, who was converted since the time when it is said the law was abolished. "I HAD NOT KNOWN SIN BUT BY THE LAW." Rom. vii, 7. "BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN." Rom. iii, 20. Read a full account of Paul's experience in this school, also, his deliverance from the carnal mind, which "is not subject to the law of God." Rom. vii, 7—25; viii, 1—7. The instruction of the law is absolutely necessary, for without it, we can never know our guilt in the sight of God. It shows our just condemnation, its penalty hangs over our heads; we find ourselves lost, and fly to Jesus Christ. What does he do to save us from the curse of the law? Does he abolish the law that he may save its transgressor? He assures us that he did "not come to destroy" it; and we know that the law being "holy, just and good," cannot be taken back, without destroying the government of him who gave it. Does the Saviour modify its character and lessen its demands? Far from it. He testifies that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Matt. v, 18; Luke xvi, 17; James ii, 10. And he shows that those who in heart commit any act of iniquity, are transgressors of the law. Matt. v, 22, 27, 28; 1 John iii, 15. If the Saviour did not abolish or relax the law, how can those who have fled to him "for refuge," hope for salvation? What does he do, to save the transgressors from the sentence of the law? He gives up himself to die in their stead. He lays down his own "life a ransom for many." Matt. xx, 28. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." John iii, 16. Man, though justly condemned, can now be pardoned without dishonoring God, or making void his law. God can be just, and yet the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Rom. iii, 25, 26. Had the law been abolished at the death of Christ, it could not have been a schoolmaster many years afterward to bring the Galatians to Christ. Paul testifies that he "HAD NOT KNOWN LUST, EXCEPT THE LAW HAD SAID THOU SHALT NOT COVET." But an abolished law could never have convinced him of sin as a transgressor. James ii, 8, 9; Rom. iv, 15. We cannot know sin "but by the law;" but if the law was abolished by the death of Christ, the world has never known its sinful state, or realized its need of a Saviour. We may state on the highest authority, that the law brings us to faith, for justification, and that faith does not make void the law, but establishes it. Gal. iii, 23; Rom. iii, 31. The fact that the law is our schoolmaster to show us the claims of God, and our own just condemnation, is direct evidence that it has not been abolished; hence though we have been pardoned through the death of Jesus, and thus rescued from its righteous sentence, we can never violate its precepts, without being convinced by it as transgressors.

H. E. C. This brings us to another point in your argument. You state, and truly too, that God spake the ten commandments to Israel with an audible voice, and with his own finger wrote them on the tables of stone. "These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly, in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice; and he added no more and he wrote them on two tables of stone." Deut. v, 22. 2. The ten commandments are called "a law." "And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there; and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law." Ex. xxiv, 12. 3. This law of commandments God calls "his covenant." "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Deut. iv, 13. Now turn with me to the New Testament, and let us see in what estimation the apostle Paul held that "law" or "covenant." Gal. iv, 21. "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory; for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Verse 30. "What saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her son; for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, (said Paul) we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." (The old Sinaic covenant.)

Answer. The remarks to which brother C. takes exceptions were directed to show the distinction between "the law of God" and "the hand-writing of ordinances." We think there is no propriety in applying the remarks of Paul respecting the law which contained the account of Abraham's family, to the ten commandments which contain no reference to that family. But we will notice the remarks of Paul respecting "the two covenants." By the first covenant, God took the whole nation of Israel, or "the children of the flesh," to be his people. Ex. xix. And he chose Jerusalem as the place of his name. 2 Chron. vi, 6. These in the allegory, are represented by Ishmael and Agar. Gal. iv, 25. When God entered into covenant with Israel, he gave them his holy law in person, and also gave them through Moses the law of carnal ordinances, with its "meats and drinks and divers washings." He gave them also a typical atonement, and a typical priesthood, in the tabernacle which was the pattern of the true. The law of God condemned them as transgressors; the law of Moses with all its sacrifices, could not take away their sins because it could offer no real atonement. Heb. x, 11. Because they broke the covenant thus made with them, the Lord promised by the prophet Jeremiah, that he would make a new covenant founded upon better promises. He now takes believers only, "the children of promise," and he chooses Jerusalem which is above. Heb. xii, 22. These, in the allegory, are represented by Isaac and Sarah. Gal. iv, 26, 28. IN THE HEARTS OF THIS PEOPLE HE PUTS THE LAW, AND IN THEIR MINDS HE WRITES IT. Heb. x, 16. He gives them a real atonement, and "a great high priest" to minister for them before God in "the true tabernacle" Heb. i, 3; iv, 14; viii, 2. He makes them free, not from the law of God, but from the transgression of the law—sin, and from the yoke of bondage—the law of carnal ordinances. 1 John iii, 4, 5; Acts xv, 5, 10; Gal. v, 1, 2. The bondage of the Jewish church did not consist in that God had given them his law, but because they were its transgressors—the servants of sin. John viii, 33—36. The freedom of the children of "Jerusalem which is above," does not consist in that the law has been abolished, but in that they have been made free from sin. Rom. vi, 22. But "the yoke of bondage," according to the view of brother C., is the ten commandments. The liberty then, in which we are to stand fast, is that liberty which a removal of their restraint would give. "Blessed liberty!" exclaims the Sabbath-breaker, the blasphemer, the murderer, the adulterer, the thief, the false witness and the covetous. But, perhaps, brother C. will reply, that it is the Sabbath, which was "the yoke of bondage," and the freedom in which we are to stand fast is a freedom to break the fourth commandment only. We would then ask brother C. if "THE SABBATH WAS MADE FOR MAN," how it has become "a yoke of bondage?" If it be what the prophet requires us to call it, viz: "a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable," how can it be such a delight to trample it down, or a liberty, in which we are to stand fast, to break it? Isa. lviii, 13, 14.

Would you not be satisfied with the law of God as it is, if you had not some degree of the carnal mind? Rom. viii, 7. Had you really desired to "see in what light the apostle Paul held that law," (the ten commandments,) would you yet have quoted some of those texts in which he refers to it? Rom. vii, 7, 12, 14, 22, 25. "I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known that, except the law had said, 'Thou shalt not covet.'" "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, just and good." "For we know that the law is spiritual." "For I delight in the law of God, after the inward man." Rom. viii, 7. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom. iii, 31. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

H. E. C. I now wish to call your attention to Paul's letter to the Hebrews. I have not space to quote largely, nor to comment freely, even were it necessary. But I consider the "word" here spoken, too plain to need comment. Heb. vii, 11, 12. If, therefore, perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? Surely there would be none; for as we have already seen, if there had been a LAW given which COULD HAVE GIVEN LIFE, then righteousness, here called perfection, would have been by that law. Gal. iii, 21. And that too under the Levitical priesthood. But this idea Paul repudiates, and declares, verse 12, that "the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Verse 19. "For the law made nothing perfect, but (it was) the bringing in of a better hope, by the which we draw nigh unto God." Verse 22. "By so much [the oath of God] was Jesus made the surety of a BETTER COVENANT." Chapter viii, 6. "But now hath he (our high priest) obtained a more EXCELLENT MINISTRY by how much also he is the mediator of a BETTER COVENANT, which was established upon better promises," (compare with Gal. iii, 15—18) "For if that first covenant (Sinaic) had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second, (Sionic.) For finding fault with them he saith, Behold the days come saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." Chapter xii, 18, reads thus: "For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more." But YE ARE COME unto mount Zion, and to Jesus the mediator of the NEW COVENANT, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."

Answer. It is by confounding that law which was magnified, made honorable, established, which is holy, just, perfect, spiritual, good, royal, with that law which was abolished, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross, changed, disannulled on account of its weakness and unprofitableness, that brother Carver raises his argument from Hebrews vii. The apostle, in this chapter, speaks of that law which pertained to the Levitical priesthood, its sacrifices and offerings, and not to "that law" which had no mention of priesthood in it. Ex. xx. The idea that even the ten commandments could not give life, is no argument against their perpetuity. The reason why they could not give life, was because man had transgressed them, and fallen under their fearful condemnation. Rom. iii, 19. This made a real atonement necessary, instead of the typical one connected with those priests. When the apostle speaks of a change of the law necessarily following a change of the priesthood, we understand him to refer to that law which regulated the Levitical priesthood in every particular, and not to that law which had no mention of priesthood in it. The one is a law of which there was "verily a disannulling, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof;" the other is a law which is not made void by faith, but established by it, and written in the heart by the Spirit of God.

We come now to Hebrews viii. The promises on which the two covenants were based, are here noticed. The first covenant required entire obedience to the law of God, (Jer. xi, 4, 5; vii, 22, 23; Ex. xix, 3—9; xx.) but did not contain those clear and gracious promises of pardon through Jesus Christ, that were needed by fallen, guilty man. Hence it was not faultless, though the law of God on which it was based as its conditions, is pronounced by both Testaments, perfect, holy, just and good. Ps. xix; cxix; Rom. vii, 12, 14. The first covenant "waxed old" because its conditions were not kept: hence the new covenant, based on better promises, was introduced. This covenant offers to us the great atonement, from whence we may receive pardon for our transgressions of the law of God, reveals to us the fountain of grace from whence we may receive strength to render obedience, and places the law of God in our hearts. Rom. v, 8—11, 20, 21; Jer. xxxi, 33; Heb. x, 16. The transition from the old covenant to the new, is marked by the death of the Testator. Heb. ix, 15—17; 1 Cor. xi, 25; Gal. iii, 19. But if the law of God was abolished at that time, then it was not in existence to place in the hearts of his people! We see nothing in Heb. xii, to show that the law of God is abolished. It shows, indeed, that we have a real atonement "the blood of sprinkling," instead of that typical atonement that "could never take away sins." And that we have a great high priest, holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, the mediator of the new covenant, through whom we can come into the presence of God. But it does not show that the law of God has been destroyed. What though the first covenant failed, because the law of God was broken? The apostle shows that the new covenant contains promises that meet the exigencies of the case. The first covenant seems to grow out of relations which man sustained to God before the fall. The new covenant grows out of the relations which man has sustained to God since the fall. The one sets before him his duty, and treats with him as though he were able to perform it; the other recognizes his fallen condition, and offers him strength to perform the duties set before him. The whole matter shows God’s regard for his law. He does not leave man until he have performed that concerning which he spake to him—till he have placed man where he may fulfill the righteousness of the law. Rom. viii, 1—7. The glories of that city of God enshroud one thing, that you seem to overlook; "THE ARK OF HIS TESTAMENT" is there. Rev. xi, 19.

H. E. C. Deut. xviii, 15—19, "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like unto me; unto him shall ye hearken. According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, they have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." This is in substance the same alluded to by Paul, when speaking of the two covenants, and it proves that the law given by the voice of God upon Sinai, was to be superseded by a new law that should be communicated by a prophet sent of God. The apostle Peter in the temple at Jerusalem applies this prophecy to Jesus, and the first Advent. So does Paul. Heb. i, 1, 2; xii, 25. See also John i, 1—18, particularly verses 17, 18. "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Jesus himself testifies to the same truth. John xvii, 8. "For I have given unto them the WORDS WHICH THOU GAVEST ME AND THEY HAVE RECEIVED THEM."

Answer. That the Lord Jesus Christ was that Prophet who was to be RAISED UP IN THE PLACE OF MOSES, we believe as fully as yourself. We also believe that his sayings have taken the place of the law of Moses. But that law which God gave in person, was entirely distinct from the law of Moses. Ex. xx. We know of no proof that that law was "superseded," or destroyed by the sayings of Jesus Christ. The atonement made by him for our transgressions of that law, is the only foundation of our hope. Never have we rested the hope of heaven, on the idea that Christ abolished a part of the commandments, and that we might be saved, even though we "break" them, and "teach men so."

H. E. C. Jesus promised that the Holy Ghost should teach the disciples all things, and bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had said unto them; and he prayed for those who should believe on him through their word. Now I ask in conclusion, why it is that nothing plain and positive has been said by our Lord or his apostles concerning the Sabbath. He has spoken plainly, and positively, on other points of duty, and yet nothing stronger than inference, as I conceive, can be gleaned from the teachings of Christ or the apostles. On the other hand, we find the Saviour and his disciples traveling through the corn on that day, and plucking the corn, which was certainly opposed to the letter of the law. And when the Pharisees demanded that he should rebuke his disciples, he not only refused to do so, but asserted his superiority over the Sabbath, and consequently over the law of which the Sabbath is a part. And I am not aware of one instance where the apostles enjoined the observance of it as a duty, although opportunities were not wanting, where they might properly have introduced the subject. See the directions of the apostles and elders and brethren, to the brethren which are in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. Acts xv, 23, 29. Here was a good opportunity to inculcate the doctrine, but we read nothing of the kind. Why this silence on a subject which you regard so highly? I pause for a reply. Cincinnati, (O.,) Aug. 18, 1851.

Answer. So then, brother Carver, you make Jesus guilty of breaking the fourth commandment! And then justify him on the ground of superiority to the law. The Pharisees, indeed, charged him with breaking the Sabbath, but he justified himself and his disciples on the ground that those acts with which they found fault, were acts of mercy, and consequently lawful, [i. e. according to the law.] Will you stand with the Pharisees, or with the Son of God? Jesus Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath, even as the husband is the lord of the wife; not to destroy, to put away, or to take another, but to cherish, protect, defend. Mark ii, 27, 28; 1 Cor. xi, 9; 1 Pet. iii, 6. Jesus was "MADE UNDER THE LAW," and he testifies respecting himself that he had kept his Father's commandments. Gal. iv, 4; John xv, 10. Who but the Pharisees dare affirm that he did not? The apostle John testifies that "Sin is the transgression of the law, * and in him is no sin." 1 John iii, 4, 5. In him therefore was no transgression of the law. Had he, himself, been a sinner, how much would his sacrifice avail for a sinful world? 1 Pet. iii, 18.

It is true that the fourth commandment is not repeated in the New Testament; it is also true, that the first, the second, and the third, are not. But who from this consideration dares to break them? The apostles did not assemble at Jerusalem, at the time referred to, to determine whether the commandments of God were binding, but to determine whether "it was needful to circumcise them, (the Gentiles) and to command them to keep the law of Moses." Acts xv, 5, 6. Hence, in the letter written by them, they treat upon the question respecting which they had assembled—not upon the duty of keeping the commandments. Though neither of the first four commandments are quoted in the New Testament, the testimony of our Lord, and his apostles, was so decisive with regard to them all that we read of no dispute on the subject. 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." Rom. iii, 31. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." James ii, 8—10. "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." 1 John iii, 4. "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John v, 3. "For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous." J. N. A.