THE TWO LAWS | AdventAI

Publishing Committee · Saratoga Springs, N. Y. · Oct 21, 1851

THE TWO LAWS.

1. The law of Moses, or "the law of commandments contained in ordinances."

"And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a BOOK, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, take this BOOK of the law, and put it in the SIDE of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God." Deut. xxxi, 24—26. See verses 9—11.

"And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a BOOK of the law of the Lord, given by the hand of Moses." (See marg.) 2 Chron. xxxiv, 14.

"And he read in their ears all the words of the BOOK of the COVENANT that was found in the house of the Lord." See 2 Chron. xxxiv, 30.

"And the king commanded all the people, saying, keep the passover unto the Lord your God, as it is written in the BOOK of this COVENANT." 2 Kings, xxiii, 21.

"And they spake unto Ezra the scribe, to bring the BOOK of the LAW OF MOSES, which the Lord had commanded to Israel." See Neh. viii, 1—3.

"Then said I, lo, I come (in the volume of the BOOK it is written of me) to do thy will, O God." Heb. x, 7.

"Have ye not read in the BOOK of Moses." Mark xii, 26.

2. The Law of God, or ten commandments.

"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, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them." Ex. xxiv, 12.

"And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone written with the FINGER OF GOD." Ex. xxxi, 18.

"And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables. See Ex. xxxii, 15, 16.

"And he wrote upon the tables the words of the COVENANT, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS." See Ex. xxxiv, 28, 29.

"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.

"And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the Lord gave me the two tables of stone, EVEN THE TABLES OF THE COVENANT." See Deut. ix, 9—11; v, 22.

God has here made the distinction between the two laws very plain. One he spake to the people, and wrote himself; the other he gave to Moses as he communed with him forty days, and intrusted him to write. One was engraven in the tables of stone, which were called the tables of the covenant; the other was written in a book, called the book of the covenant. These were not portions of a covenant, or of the law; but they were two entire distinct covenants, or laws. Jehovah would not trust man to write his immutable covenant; therefore with his own finger he engraved the ten commandments in the tables of stone to make them sure, and to impress us with their perpetuity. The law of ordinances which was given to the Jews for a limited period, Moses wrote in a book; and when Paul speaks of "blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances," &c. he can refer only to those ordinances of the Jewish church written in the book of the covenant by the hand of Moses. That which is written in a book may be blotted out; but it is not possible to blot out engraving in stone. When Paul uses the figure "blotting out," he does not use unmeaning words. But to apply this figure to the law engraven in stone, makes his words without meaning. The law of God is founded on obligations growing out of the nature of men, and their relations to God and one another; obligations binding on man before the law was written by the finger of God, and which continue to the close of time. The law of Moses, relating to outward observances which were not obligatory till they were commanded, was binding only on the Jews till the death of Christ, then it was abolished, and gave place to the "ministration of the Spirit."

2. The Holy Sabbath never was "against us;" but it was "made for man." One reason for its institution is because man needs a day of rest. The law of Moses was imperfect, and could not make the "comers thereunto perfect," so Christ took it "out of the way, nailing it to his cross." The weekly Sabbath never was in man's way. It is just what his natural and spiritual wants require. When we ask those who assert that there is no Sabbath for the gospel dispensation, why they cease from labor on the first day of the week, the usual reply is, because we need one day in seven to rest, and to attend to the worship of God. This is universally admitted, and being true, what folly to assert that the Sabbath, which God made for this same purpose, is "against us!"

3. The Apostle does not speak of "the Sabbath," which is associated with the other nine moral precepts of the Decalogue; but of the Jewish sabbath-days or sabbaths, which were associated with "meat," "drink," and "the new moon," &c. This view is objected to because the word "days," connected with "sabbath," is supplied by the translator. It is thought that it should be left off, and that the word sabbath refers to the seventh day. Here we will give a few lines from the pen of J. B. Cook. In his excellent "Testimony," published in 1846, he says—"Col. ii, 16, does not speak of the Sabbath, but sabbaths—called in our version incorrectly sabbath-days, (days being supplied by the translator,))"

"Days is supplied by the translators," says M., "we therefore omit it." Macknight, Whiting and Wakefield omit "days" in their translations of this text, but they do not leave the word "sabbath" in the singular, as M. has left it for his readers. They translate it "sabbaths," in the plural, which makes the text perfectly clear. Here we will give five translations of this text, beginning with our common version.

"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."

"Let none therefore judge you in meat, or drink, or in respect of a feast-day, or of the new-moon, or of sabbath-days.—Wesley."

"Wherefore, let no one judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a festival, or of a new-moon, or of sabbaths.—Macknight."

"Let no man therefore judge you in food, or in drink, or in respect to a holy-day, or the new-moon, or the sabbaths.—Whiting."

"Let no one therefore, call you to an account about meat and drink, or with respect to a festival, or a new-moon, or sabbaths; which are a shadow of what WAS TO COME."—Wakefield.

It is said by some that "holy-day" in this text must refer to the Holy Sabbath; but it is worthy of notice that Wesley translates the word "feast-day," and Wakefield and Macknight translate it "festival." The Jewish feast-days, or festivals, were "holy-days" or days of holy convocations.

If the Apostle refers to the Sabbath of the Lord our God, then we might expect to find the words "the Sabbath" or "the Sabbath-day" in this text, as well as in the many other texts in the New Testament where the seventh-day Sabbath is spoken of. But it reads "sabbath-days" or "sabbaths" in all the translations of this text that we have ever seen.

The only weekly Sabbath of the Bible is called, "THE SABBATH OF THE LORD THY GOD." It is also called, "MY HOLY DAY, (Isa. lviii, 13.)" "The HOLY OF THE LORD," "THY HOLY SABBATH," (Neh. ix, 14.) and "THE SABBATH." But the Jewish sabbaths are spoken of in the following manner. "In the first day of the month ye shall have a sabbath." From even unto even, (on the tenth day of the seventh month,) shall ye celebrate YOUR sabbath. (See Lev. xxiii, 24—32.) In Hosea, (ii, 11,) they are called HER sabbaths."

4. Those things that were blotted out and nailed to the cross, such as the Apostle mentions, were a shadow, as he testifies in the following words. "Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Col. ii, 17. But the seventh-day Sabbath is not a shadow; for it is to be observed as long as the New Heavens and the New Earth remain.

"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord." Isa. lxvi, 22—23. We can have no idea of an eternal shadow. The Sabbath was instituted in Eden, before the fall, when man was holy, and certainly fallen man needs it now more than then. And in the new heavens and new earth we see it observed to all eternity. Then it will be seen and kept in its Eden purity. All flesh will then reverence this institution of Jehovah, which has never been the case since Isaiah uttered this prophecy, and never will be, until the voice of the Son of God calls forth the righteous seed that sleep in Christ, and changes the righteous living. When that holy throng shall be led forth in immortal glory to view the work of God in its perfection, there will be no discord. No, "all flesh" will bow in sweet submission to the law of God, and keep his Holy Sabbath. We are aware that many cling to the tradition that the Sabbath is a type of the seventh thousand years; but we ask for bible proof. If it can be produced, then we will believe also. But admitting the Sabbath to be a shadow, and the seventh thousand years, the body, then certainly it would seem very natural to have the shadow or type reach to the body or antitype. But if there is no Sabbath, and if the shadow ceased at the cross, then there is a blank space of more than 1800 years between the shadow and the body. The law of Moses was a typical law, which reached to the gospel. Says Paul, "the law having a shadow of good things to come." The law of Moses, as a whole, was the shadow, and the gospel with all the good things of the better covenant connected to the body. The shadow of a tree, or monument

holds good until the body is reached; therefore, if the Sabbath is a shadow of the seventh millennium, it did not break off at the cross; but was to extend with all its force and blessing to the Second Advent. But as the weekly Sabbath extends, and is to be observed, to all eternity in the new earth, it has no body in which it is to be lost, as in the case of shadows.

Finally, the fact that the early Church was troubled with those who taught that the law of Moses must be kept in order to be saved, shows that Col. ii, 16, directly applied to the church in the Apostle's day. It is therefore wrong to apply this text to the case of those who now observe the seventh-day Sabbath; for none of us are judging others "in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new-moon" with which the Apostle has associated the Jewish sabbaths.

"These are the only reasons we have been able to gather from the scriptures, for the observance of the Jewish Sabbath; and if Paul, or any of the New Testament writers, thought it binding on Christians, why have they been entirely silent on a question of this importance, with the exception of such expressions as these: Let no man judge you in respect to the Sabbath. Col. ii, 16. One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Rom. xiv, 5."

Those who talk of the "Jewish Sabbath," and the "Christian Sabbath," do not use Bible language. The scripture terms are, "The Sabbath of the Lord thy God," "The Sabbath," "Thy Holy Sabbath," and "My Holy Day." But some, in order to bring God's Holy Sabbath into disrepute and contempt, choose the unscriptural terms, "Jewish Sabbath," and "Old Jewish Sabbath."

The following is given by M. as the language of the Apostle. "Let no man judge you in respect to the Sabbath." Why not quote the text as it reads? Why mangle the word of God thus, unless it is to make out one's theory? Christians ought to, and will, protest against such unfairness. This looks too much like handling the word of God deceitfully.

In regard to Rom. xiv, 5, we would say that Paul does not refer to the Sabbath in that chapter. His subject relates to eating, and those feast-days which some of the church then regarded, while others did not regard them. The word eateth is mentioned in this chapter eleven times, eat three, meat four, and drink twice; but the Sabbath, which many suppose is the subject of this chapter, is not once mentioned. The Apostle was giving the Romans a lesson of forbearance in relation to the Jewish views of eating and feast-days which some still retained. "Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth, for God hath received him."

He did not take measures to rid the church at once of all those errors which the converts from the circumcision were inclined to cling to. The Apostle even had Timotheus, his fellow laborer, "whose father was a Greek," circumcised, that they might better find access to the Jews. He was "all things to all men," that by "all means" he might "save some." But, says Paul, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is something." [Whiting's trans.] Cor. vii, 19.

The keeping of the commandments of God is nowhere in the New Testament spoken of as a thing of little importance, as circumcision and feast-days are, but it is always made a test of christian fellowship, and eternal salvation. The uniform testimony of the New Testament writers relative to keeping the commandments is as follows. "If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments." Matt. xix, 17. "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." i John v, 3. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a LIAR, and the truth is not in him." Chap. ii, 4.

Those who read only the fifth and sixth verses of the fourteenth chapter of Romans, which speak of regarding and disregarding days, without an understanding of the Apostle's subject, may suppose that the seventh-day Sabbath is referred to. But an understanding of his subject, his trials, and his labors with his brethren at Rome, destroys all reasonable grounds for even an inference that he refers to the Sabbath of the Lord.

It is urged by some that Rom. xiv, 5, 6, "refers to every day," therefore includes the seventh-day Sabbath. So it may be urged with equal propriety that some of the early Christians lived without eating, from the expression, "Let not him that eateth, despise him that EATETH NOT; and let not him which EATETH NOT, judge him that eateth." It is evident that the words "eateth not" were spoken in reference to those things forbidden by the Jews. It is also evident that the words, "every day alike" had reference only to disregarding feast-days. "Consistency is a jewel," and should ever be seen in those who teach the Holy Scriptures.

Those who profess to believe that there is divine authority for observing the first day of the week as the Sabbath, should not refer us to Rom. xiv, 5, 6, for proof that the seventh-day Sabbath is abolished; for if they admit that St. Paul refers to a day of weekly rest, then their first-day Sabbath is at once overthrown. Therefore, those who observe the first-day are not wise in quoting this Scripture to prove us wrong in keeping the Sabbath.

We are told by many of those who advocate the no-Sabbath doctrine, that if we observe the Sabbath we shall fall from grace and certainly be lost; and Gal. v, 4, is quoted as proof. "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law: ye are fallen from grace." But this does not harmonize with their own view of what Paul has taught in Rom. xiv, 5, 6. They first tell us that we may esteem the seventh day above the other six, and keep the Sabbath; or we may esteem all alike and work on all seven days of the week. In either case we are safe, if the Sabbath is not made a test question. And then we are told that if we do esteem one day above another, that is, observe the Sabbath, we shall fall from grace.

Again, if the word law, in Gal. v, 4, refers to the ten commandments, then, certainly, those who observe nine of them, all excepting the fourth, are also fallen from grace, as much as those who observe the fourth commandment. And if we have fallen from grace in observing the fourth commandment, we cannot be restored until we break it. And by the same rule those who observe nine of the commandments cannot be restored to grace, until they violate all ten of the commandments of God!! We leave the reader to decide as to the justness of this conclusion. Our object is to hold up the view that the commandments of God are abolished, in its true hideous form, that souls may take warning and not be devoured by it.

With the view that Gal. v, 4, and Rom. xiv, 5, apply to the case of those who keep the Sabbath, we will give the following. "One man esteemeth one day above another; [that is, he keeps the Sabbath and falls from grace;] another esteemeth all days alike. [He does not keep the Sabbath, therefore does not fall from grace.] Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." [That is, whether he should observe the Sabbath and fall from grace or not!] Those who will search the Word for themselves, may not only see the error, but the utter folly in applying these and similar texts to those who observe the Sabbath of the Bible.

How was the Sabbath to be kept? "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Thou shalt not do work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." Ex. xx, 8—11; also, xxxi, 11—16; xxxv, 2, 3; Lev. xxiii, 3, and Deut. v, 13, 14. This in part constituted the "yoke of bondage" from which the Galatians had been freed. Paul, however, was "afraid of them, lest he had bestowed upon them labor in vain; because they observe days, and months, and times, and years." Gal. iv, 10, 11; and v, 1.

The fourth commandment is the great Sabbath law. It is the standard to which all other testimony in both Testaments, relating to the observance of the Sabbath, should be compared. With the correct view of this commandment, a harmony may be seen throughout the divine testimony on this point. Here we will give the New Testament rule for observing the Sabbath, after the law of Moses was abolished. "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments, and RESTED THE SABBATH-DAY ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT."

The great God appointed six days for man to labor, and do the work necessary to obtain a livelihood. This labor is called "thy work." But on the seventh day he designed that man should rest from this world's toil and care, and engage in the service of his Creator. The Sabbath law does not require us to become stationary and inactive on the seventh day. When we speak of the Sabbath law, we refer only to the fourth commandment which God spoke with an audible voice, and engraved in the tables of the covenant. The words, "let no man go out of his place on the seventh day," Ex. xvi, 29, were spoken in reference to the children of Israel not going out into the field to gather manna on that day, as they did the six preceding days. Afterward the Jews did go out of their places on the Sabbath, not to do servile labor, but to worship God. On the Sabbath they had "an holy convocation," a religious assembly. Lev. xxiii, 3; Acts xv, 21. And further, the priests were required by God to offer on the Sabbath, even more offerings than on the other six days. See Num. xxviii, 9, 10.

The law that came by Moses, which he wrote in the book of the covenant, did not require the priests to violate that law uttered by the voice of Jehovah, and engraven in the tables of the covenant. Therefore the labor of the priests in presenting offerings before the Lord on the Sabbath, was not the labor prohibited by the fourth commandment, called "thy work." Again, male children born on the Sabbath were, according to the law of Moses, circumcised the following Sabbath, "the eighth day." See Lev. xii, 1—3; Luke i, 59. No reasonable person, with any knowledge of the Bible, will say that this was a violation of the Sabbath law. This view of the subject shows clearly the true import of the words "labor" and "thy work" in the fourth commandment. Six days are allotted to us to attend to that work necessary to this life; but the seventh is the Rest-day, in which we are required to rest from our own labor, and engage in the service of God.

It is said that the law of the Sabbath forbids kindling fires on the seventh day. To this we reply, that the great Sabbath law, the fourth commandment, says nothing concerning kindling fires. The children of Israel in the wilderness were not only forbidden to go out into the field to gather manna on the Sabbath, but, also, to pick up sticks to kindle a fire to cook it, and to wash their clothes on that day. "Bake that ye will bake to-day, [sixth day,] and seethe that ye will seethe." Ex. xvi, 23. They were a strong healthy people, free from disease, and were in a mild climate. It is said of them, [Ex. xv, 26,] "I am the Lord that healeth thee." Also, [Ps. cv, 37,] "And there was not one feeble person among their tribes." Their clothes were miraculously preserved, and their food was given them from heaven. As they were instructed to cook their manna on the sixth day, and therefore had no use for fires on the seventh, to kindle fires on the Sabbath for that purpose, would have been a plain violation of the fourth commandment.

We are differently situated. Our constitutions and climate require the heat of fire on the Sabbath a portion of the year. We kindle a fire on the seventh day as an act of mercy and necessity, the same as we would water an ox or a horse, or lift a sheep from a pit. Such acts, the "Lord of the Sabbath" pronounced "lawful." But it is evidently wrong, and a violation of the Sabbath, to neglect to make those necessary preparations for the rest of the Holy Sabbath, which can be consistently made on the sixth day. The Sabbath law forbids our doing on the seventh day that which can be done on the sixth, and also what is not really an act of mercy and necessity. But merciful acts, such as relieving the distress of man or beast, which cannot be done on the sixth day, are "lawful," on the seventh. A reasonable and Scriptural view of the Sabbath law does not require us to suffer cold or hunger; for the law is "holy," "just," and "good."

We deny that the commandments of God constituted any part of the "yoke of bondage," from which the Galatians had been freed. Says John, "This is the law of God, that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are NOT GRIEVOUS." But if the ten commandments constituted the "yoke of bondage," then the "liberty," in which the Galatians were to stand fast, was the liberty which a removal of their restraint would give. "Glorious liberty indeed," says the idolater, blasphemer, Sabbath-breaker, murderer, adulterer, thief, false witness and the covetous! It is evident

that the yoke of bondage was the hand-writing of ordinances of Moses' law that had been nailed to the cross, in which the observance of "days, months, and years," was taught.

That the sabbath was embraced in that law which was nailed to the cross—plain—taken out of the way, and abolished, is clear from what Paul says in 2 Cor. iii, 7—16. He there tells us that the 'ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was to be done away,' verse 7; and in verse 13, that it 'IS ABOLISHED;' and, verse 14, 'IS DONE AWAY in Christ.'

By a careful examination of 2 Cor. iii, we think it will be seen that the Apostle's subject is the contrast of the "ministration" of the old covenant under Moses, with the ministration of the new covenant under Christ. There is certainly an essential difference between a law, and the ministration of that law. One is the constitution necessary to govern the people, the other is the ministry, or the ordained powers to carry its laws into execution. With this distinction between a law and its ministration before us, we can better understand the language of the Apostle. That he refers to the ten commandments, when speaking of that which was "written and engraven in stones," is evident; but we fail to see the propriety of calling them a "ministration." There are many reasons why we think the Apostle did not design to be so understood. His language seems somewhat obscure, and, as the Apostle Peter has said of some things in the epistles of his "beloved brother Paul," "hard to be understood." But God forbid that we should "wrest" this portion of his writings to our "own destruction." We will give a few of the many reasons why St. Paul has not taught the abolition of the commandments of God in this chapter.

1. The Apostle speaks of two ministrations, one he calls the "ministration of condemnation" and "of death," the other he calls the "ministration of the Spirit." Neither of these ministrations can properly be said to be the law of God. The law of God is one thing, and the "ministration" of it, is entirely another thing. The ministration of death, or of condemnation, can refer to nothing but the outward observances of the law of Moses, the design of which was to carry out and enforce the principles embraced in the ten commandments. That ministration of the law of God is properly called a "ministration of condemnation" and "of death;" because while it condemned the transgressor, and by it the penalty "death" was enforced, it could not "take away sins," nor give life and immortality. The blood of Christ alone was to take away sins, and through him alone life and immortality was to be obtained. That "ministration" was "done away in Christ," and was emblematically illustrated by the glory of Moses' countenance, which was temporary.

2. The Apostle does not say that that which was "written and engraved in stones" was done away. His language will not warrant such an inference. But that which was to be "done away" he declares to be, first, the glory of Moses' countenance, [verse 7,] and second that which it illustrated, which was the "ministration of condemnation," or Moses' law.

3. If the Apostle has taught the abrogation of the Decalogue, that the ten commandments are "DONE AWAY," then they do not exist, and God's law is null and void, and sin does not exist; for "sin is the transgression of the law." [John iii, 4.] And "where no law is, there is no TRANSGRESSION." Rom. iv, 15. It is said that nine of the commandments were re-enacted for the gospel dispensation? We say that this assertion should not be repeated without Scripture evidence to sustain it. This view charges the Omniscient Lawgiver with abolishing and doing away all ten of the precepts of his law at the cross, and then at the same moment re-enacting and bringing back nine of them! All this had to be done to get rid of the Holy Sabbath!

Again, the Apostle, A. D., 60, says, "For if that which is DONE AWAY," &c. This certainly shows that whatever was done away at the cross, A. D. 31, did not exist 29 years later. Now if he wished to teach his brethren at Corinth that the Decalogue was done away at the cross, and that nine tenths of it was then re-enacted, we might expect him to use the words, was done away, instead of "is DONE AWAY." And then show them how nine of the commandments could be re-enacted and brought back by the very means that abolished and destroyed the whole of them. If the Apostle in speaking of the Decalogue when he uses the words "is done away," as many assert, then certainly it did not exist at that time; hence the folly, with the supposition that he refers to the Decalogue, in asserting that nine-tenths of it was re-enacted at the cross, 29 years before.

We are told that the crucifixion abolished the Decalogue, and that the gospel with nine re-enacted commandments was introduced by the same means. This is certainly a strange doctrine! Will some one explain this matter, and show how nine of the commandments of God could be re-enacted and brought back by the same means by which they were all abolished and "done away?"

4. If the Apostle has taught the abolition of the law of God, then we think he has contradicted the plain testimony of Jesus. After stating that his advent was not to destroy the law, the Son of God declares that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass" from it "till heaven and earth pass" away.

Finally, to say that St. Paul has taught the abolition of the Decalogue is charging him with contradicting himself. In his letter to the Romans, written the same year that he wrote to the Corinthians, he says, "The doers of the law shall be justified." He did not refer to the law of ordinances, for that had been dead 29 years. Therefore he is speaking of the Decalogue. Now if the ten commandments had been done away, and had been dead 29 years, how could he say that the doers of such a law should be justified? Again, when speaking of the same law, but especially the tenth commandment that slew him, he says, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." He also says, "For I delight in the law of God." "I myself serve the law of God." "For we know that the law is spiritual."

The ten commandments are the "Royal Law," the great constitution of righteous principles for all to observe. This constitution was to remain as long as heaven and earth. In the time of the first covenant it was engraven in stone, but in the time of the second and new covenant it was to be put in the mind, and written in the heart by the Spirit of God. "I will put my law into their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." See Jer. xxxi, 33; Heb. viii, 10. While this law was only engraven in stone, and its righteous principles carried out by outward observances, and enforced by the penalties of Moses's law, its ministration was that of "condemnation" and "death." But under the gospel, when the law of God is put into the inward parts, and written in the heart by the Holy Spirit, its ministration is that of the Spirit. "For if that which is done away [the ministration of Moses] was glorious, much more that which REMAINETH [the ministration of the commandments of God in righteousness by the Spirit] is glorious." 2 Cor. iii, 11.

The vail, [verses 13—16,] that is "done away in Christ," and which was on the heart of the unbelieving Jews, was the ministration of Moses; for as long as they read and continued in the service of Moses's law, they could not see that Christ was the end of those typical services. But when they look to the blood of Jesus for the atonement, then they can see that the "vail [ministration of Moses] is done away in Christ." "Now the Lord is that Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty," [verse 17,] that is, under the better ministration of the law of God by the Spirit there is "liberty," being freed from the "yoke of bondage," Gal. v, 1, which was the "ministration of condemnation." Now we can clearly see the difference in the two ministrations of the immutable law of God. One was the "ministration of condemnation," while this law was only engraven on stone, the other is the "ministration of righteousness," or justification, by the Spirit of Christ, while this law is put into the mind, and written in the heart.

What is the penalty for breaking the law of the Sabbath? "Ye shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from the people." Ex. xxxi, 14. "Whosoever doeth any work therein, shall be put to death." Ex. xxxv, 2. Death, was then the penalty for the violation of the law of the Sabbath; and death is now the penalty for the same offence—if the law is still in force. But some think the penalty was abolished, but the law not.

To this we reply, that temporal death never was the full and final penalty for Sabbath-breaking. The fourth commandment says nothing concerning it. Under the "ministration of condemnation" and "death," (2 Cor. iii,) by the services of Moses' law, the transgressor of the law of God was put to death. Why? Because, under that "faulty" ministration there was no atonement for such sinners. But under the "ministration of the Spirit," while Jesus is our Sacrifice and Priest, MERCY, the excellency and glory of the "ministration of the Spirit," pleads for the transgressor of the law of God, that he may be spared, and turn and live. This is why the stoning system was done away, with the other laws of Moses, at the cross. But if temporal death was the full penalty for violating the law of God, then he who broke the Sabbath, murdered, or committed adultery, only had to be stoned to death to fully satisfy the law. And in the judgment such sins cannot appear against him, for the law was fully satisfied when he suffered temporal death. When a man has suffered in states-prison the full penalty for violating the law, he is as free from it as the man who has kept the law. And if the full penalty for transgressing the law of God was temporal death, then in the judgment the transgressor will be as free from the law as those who strictly observed it. Therefore, the penalty for transgressing God's holy law was, and still is, Eternal Death. "Sin is the transgression of the law," and "the wages [penalty] of sin is death."

Sabbath-keepers are not the people that "think the penalty was abolished, but the law not." Who does not know that "when the penalty of a law is abolished, the law itself is also abrogated"? Those who teach that temporal death was the full penalty for violating the Sabbath should remember that there was the same penalty for idolatry, murder, adultery, &c. as for breaking the Sabbath. Is the penalty for these crimes abrogated? If so, then according to the argument of M., the commandments forbidding idolatry, adultery, &c. are also abolished. If the penalty for these crimes is not abolished, and if it is Eternal Death, as we have shown, then his argument that the Sabbath is abolished because the Sabbath-breaker is not now immediately put to death, falls to the ground. But says M.—

"To say that the penalty of the law of the Sabbath was abolished, and not the Sabbath, is as unreasonable as to say the penalty of every other command in the ten was done away."

This is so, certainly so. Here M. places all ten of the commandments on the same ground, just where they should be placed. And we will add, that it is as unreasonable for M. to say that the law of the Sabbath is abolished, because the Sabbath-breaker is not now immediately put to death, as to say that every other commandment in the ten is done away, because temporal death is not now inflicted on those guilty of breaking them. And therefore God has no law now for idolatry, blasphemy, theft, murder, adultery, &c. because the penalty of temporal death is abolished.

We think that none will fail to see that the position of M., that the penalty of the law of God is abolished, is unsound; for it makes his holy law null and void. "It is time for thee, Lord, to work; for they have made void thy law." Ps. cxix, 126. The penalty of the law of God ever was, Eternal Death, and could not be abolished, therefore every precept of that law is in full force.

The objections to the abolition of the Sabbath noticed by M., that "the Sabbath was given to the true Israel," and was "an everlasting covenant," and that the "type of our promised rest is destroyed," we do not urge. We go to the fourth commandment, Ex. xx, 8—11, where the Sabbath law is given in the midst of nine other moral precepts, as engraven in the tables of stone, and there we see the Sabbath law inseparably connected with God's Rest on the seventh day, showing clearly that the "Sabbath was made for man." Here is ground as firm, yea, firmer, than heaven and earth. See Luke xvi, 17.

Christ is asked, What is the great commandment of the law. He answers the question, but says nothing about the sabbath; therefore it was not the great commandment in the law. The same is taught in Mark xii, 28—34. Also in Luke xviii, 18—22, a question is asked, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Christ answers, "Thou knowest the

commandments: Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother." Not a word said about the sabbath.

It is true that Christ, in his answer to the lawyer, Matt. xxii, 35—44, does not mention the Sabbath; but this proves no more in relation to the fourth commandment, than it does in regard to the other nine, for not one of the ten are mentioned. Christ pointed out to the lawyer the two great principles out of which the ten precepts of the law naturally grew. Not because the law was abolished, and these two commandments had taken its place, as some in their blindness suppose. Mark this: No one has the commandments abolished earlier than at the cross, therefore, when Jesus answered the lawyer, the law was in full force, even if it could be shown to have been abolished afterward at the cross. Christ explained the true condition of the law of God at that time, that it hung on two great commandments or principles. It had always hung there, and it hangs there still. The first four precepts of the Decalogue hang on the principle of supreme love to God, and the last six on the principle of love to our neighbor, or brother, as oneself.

It is also true that "not a word is said about the Sabbath" in Christ's answer to the question of the ruler, Luke xviii, 18—22, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life." But does this prove that the Sabbath was then abolished? Certainly not. No one places its abolition earlier than the cross. Does it prove that the Sabbath law was not to extend through the gospel dispensation? If it does, then it also proves that the gospel dispensation was to be favored with only the seventh, sixth, eighth, ninth and fifth commandments, only those quoted to the ruler, and men may have other gods before the Lord, worship graven images, blaspheme the name of God, break the Sabbath, and covet, for "not a word is said about these commandments in Luke xviii, 18—22! We thus carry out the position of M. in relation to the commandments quoted in the New Testament, only to show the weakness of his position. Not one of the first four commandments, containing our duty to God, are quoted in the New Testament. Search and see.

The commandments, that are quoted in the New Testament, are no where given in a new account; but as the law or commandments of God found in the Old. "I had not known lust," says Paul "except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Rom. vii, 7. "For he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet." Chap. xiii, 9. Says James, "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture," &c. The word "scripture" here can not refer to the New Testament scriptures, for when James wrote they were not completed. It must then refer to the Old, to the Decalogue. May God help the Reader to see, and feel too, that this is the Christian's duty, to keep the ROYAL LAW according to the scripture. Ex. xx, 3—17.

Look at the conference held by the apostles at Jerusalem, named in Acts xv. The Gentile churches had been troubled with Judaizing teachers, and the apostles sent out their decree on the subject. In verse 24 they say: "Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us, have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying: Ye must be circumcised, AND KEEP THE LAW; to whom we gave NO SUCH COMMANDMENT." They then tell what they should do: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well." They gave no commandment to keep the law; but moral principles were strictly enforced, and we "shall do well" not to depart from their instruction. For further evidence on this point, consult Rom. x, 1—14; Eph. v, 1—7; and 1 Tim. i, 1—11; in all of which places moral obligations are enforced, but the keeping of the sabbath is not named. This is unaccountable if it was binding on the Gentiles.

We should first ascertain what was the subject that called the assembly at Jerusalem. It was not to determine whether the commandments of God should be kept; but whether "it was needful to circumcise them, [the Gentiles,] and to command them to keep the law of Moses." There is no record in the Bible that teaching the commandments of God ever "troubled" any Christian, and we see no reason why it should. Paul delighted in them, and called them "spiritual," "holy, just and good." John says, "This is the love of God that we keep his commandments." And James has taught that they should be observed "according to the scripture," James ii, 8; Ex. xx, 3—17.

There can be no good reason given why the discussion of the Sabbath question at that conference was necessary, or a decision relative to it. Therefore we should not expect that mention would be made of the Sabbath in the letters which they wrote to the Gentiles. No sane man supposes that they embraced the whole Christian duty. The inference so often employed that the Sabbath is abolished because no mention was made of it in these letters, is too weak for any man of candor, who has bestowed a thought on this subject, to use. They may as well infer that none of the ten commandments are embraced in the Christian's duty, excepting the seventh, because they were not mentioned in these letters. That is, the apostles and elders would "lay no greater burden" on the Gentiles, relative to the commandments of God, than that they should abstain from "fornication."

We cherish the best of feelings toward our friends who honestly suppose that the Sabbath is not binding on Christians, and we are not willing to injure their feelings unnecessarily; but we feel in duty bound to expose the no-Sabbath delusion into which they have fallen. We aim no blow at them, for we love them, but with their errors we are at war.

Then one day is no better than another. We admit it. Christ made no distinction, and the apostles enjoined none. Consult Luke vi, 1—5 and xiii, 11—16; John v, 1—17; Rom. xvi, 5, 6; and Col. ii, 16; and you will find Christ was accused of breaking the sabbath; and instead of enforcing its observance, he pleads his justification by saying, "The Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath." He had no right to, nor did he ever, break one of the commandments; but, he had a right to, and did, abolish the law; he did not, therefore break the sabbath. Otherwise, he did, and became a transgressor.

If we understand M's position it is as follows:

The Sabbath was abolished at the cross. He quotes Col. ii, 14—16, as proof. "Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances," &c., "NAILING IT TO HIS CROSS."
That "Christ made no distinction" between the days of the week, therefore did not keep the Sabbath, and when accused of breaking it, by the Pharisees, justified himself by saying, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
That "he had no right to, nor did he, break the Sabbath, because he, having a right to, abolished it before he began to heal the sick on the Sabbath."
That if Christ did not abolish the Sabbath about the time he commenced his public ministry, he "became a transgressor," for he made no "distinction" between the days of the week.

None will fail to see that M. has the Sabbath abolished twice! First, before he commenced to heal the sick on the Sabbath, ("otherwise" he "became a transgressor," says M.,) and then again at the cross! Reader, examine this position carefully, that you may see its absurdity.

A law abolished at the cross must of necessity be in force up to the time of the crucifixion, for it is not possible to abolish a law that is not in force. Christ was made under the law, [Gal. iv, 4,] and observed even the law of Moses up to the day of his crucifixion. He urged its observance upon his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees," said he, "sit in Moses's seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do." Matt. xxiii, 2, 3. As Moses's law extended to the cross, this injunction was to be obeyed till that time. Those who teach that the Sabbath is merely a Jewish institution, and that it was abolished at the cross, should know that, in that case, it continued in full force until the crucifixion. And if "Christ made no distinction," as asserted by M., then it follows that Christ was a Sabbath-breaker.

But among the many positions of our opponents, which are perfectly destructive of each other, perhaps no one is more at variance with the Bible, and more wicked in the sight of heaven, than that which charges the Son of God with Sabbath-breaking. He says, "I have kept my Father's commandments." But this view contradicts Jesus, and charges him with violating the fourth. It also contradicts the testimony of the beloved disciple. "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." 1 John iii, 4—5. This testimony proves that if Jesus did depart from the letter of the Sabbath law, then he was a sinner, for "sin is the transgression of the law." But as "in him is no sin," it follows that he did not transgress the law. He observed the Sabbath, as his followers did after his crucifixion, "according to the commandment." One thing is certain, Christ either kept the Sabbath law, or he broke it. If it is said that he observed it, then it is worse than idle to talk of his abolishing it when he entered on his public ministry. But if it is said that he did not observe it, but transgressed the Sabbath law, then Jesus is charged with being a sinner.

The wicked Pharisees charged the disciples with Sabbath-breaking, when they plucked the ears of corn, and ate to satisfy hunger, as they, with their Master, were on their way to the synagogue. But did Jesus teach that they had a right to break the Sabbath? Far from it. He referred them to what David did when he was hungry, also to the work of the priests, on the Sabbath, who were "blameless;" and then declared his disciples "guiltless." David and the priests were "blameless" on no other ground than this; what they did was no violation of the law. The disciples were "guiltless" on the same ground. The Bible nowhere forbids eating on the Sabbath when hungry.

When Jesus was asked, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-days," he replied, "What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath-day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is LAWFUL to do well on the Sabbath-days." Matt. xii, 11—12. The word lawful signifies "agreeable to law; conformable to law." [Webster.] When used by our Saviour in Matt. xii, and Luke xiv, it signifies conformable to the Sabbath law. Jesus did not give them a new Sabbath law, neither did he intimate that the fourth commandment was abolished. But he exposed the hypocrisy of those who falsely charged him with Sabbath-breaking, and declared that well-doing, that is, healing the sick, relieving dumb beasts in distress, or eating when hungry, was "lawful." The blind Pharisees, who rejected the first Advent to their own damnation, declared that these merciful acts which Christ performed on the Sabbath were "not lawful." Christ, on the other hand, pronounced such well-doing "LAWFUL." Those who teach that Jesus departed from the letter of the Sabbath law are on the side of the Pharisees, and their sin is worse, inasmuch as their blasphemous charge is against greater light. Christians should be on the side of Christ. Amen.

It is said that the "impotent man," to whom Christ said, "Rise, take up thy bed and walk," broke the Sabbath. This is but a repetition of the false charge made by the Jews, who were ever watching for a chance to accuse Christ. We reject their testimony, and choose to believe Christ. The healed impotent man walking with his bed was not for any selfish end, but for the glory of God. Such acts are not prohibited by the fourth commandment. Two of the prophets speak against bearing burdens on the Sabbath; but when their testimony is examined it will be seen that they refer to burdens of merchandise, such as "sheaves," "wine, grapes and figs." See Jer. xvii, 19—25; Neh. xiii, 15. [Concluded in our next.]