DEAR SIR:—In exposing the folly of the view that God abolished the ten commandments, and then re-enacted nine of them, the review of your Bible class report spoke as follows:
"No man has yet explained how, or by what means the law of God was re-enacted. Most have taken it for granted, because the last six commandments are several times quoted in the New Testament, that they are certainly re-enacted. But notice these points:—(1.) The first four are not quoted in the New Testament. Then they are not re-enacted. (2.) The last six are several times quoted. Then they are several times re-enacted. (3.) When Christ quoted from the law of God, it was not in the form of a re-enactment; but as a quotation from the law of Jehovah, (4.) But since Christ quoted a part of the law, the whole law has been abolished. (5.) When the apostles quoted the law of God, they quoted from the original law and not from a revised edition of Jehovah's constitution. And their quotations are proof, not of the re-enactment of God's law, but of its perpetuity.—Rom. vii, 7, 12; Eph. vi, 2; James ii, 8—12. (6.) There is no re-enactment of God's law recorded in the Bible. Hence, if the law of Jehovah has been abrogated, there is no moral law! We now request C. to explain how men are as much under moral restraint as before the royal law of the King Eternal was annulled."
Your seventh article commences with a notice of this language. It will be seen, however, that you do not attempt to meet the exposure of this folly, but merely quote a single sentence, and do not notice the points presented in the Review. You speak thus:
"The Review says, 'The first four of the ten commandments are not quoted in the New Testament.'—If this is so, then certainly the Sabbath commandment is not quoted in the New Testament, for that was the fourth of the ten. But its object is, to place the fourth commandment on precisely the same footing as the first three; and as they are by universal consent established by the New Testament, in which, as the Review would have us believe, they are incorporated only by implication, it hopes to bring in the fourth on the strength of the first three. This is a tacit admission of what we have stated, viz: that there is not a precept or statement in the New Testament that enjoins the observance of the Sabbath. On what authority then does the Review enjoin it?"
I pass over your misstatement of my "object," viz: an exposure of the folly of those who teach that God abolished the ten commandments and re-enacted nine of them,—and remark that your further statement is absolutely false. We have never taken the ground that any of the commandments rest upon implication, but have repeatedly shown that they were not only the unabolished commandments of Jehovah, (a fact that clothes them with all possible authority,) but that they were also solemnly enjoined by Christ.—This is the authority on which we enjoin the fourth, and all the other commandments.
But I inquire into the manner in which the first three commandments exist. That they rest upon one of two foundations, may be seen at a glance.
(1.) On their original authority as the unabolished commandments of Jehovah.
(2.) Or they have been abolished, and now rest upon re-enactment as their authority.
But in the whole New Testament, there is nothing that looks like their re-enactment; and in your third article, you expressly denied such a doctrine. Hence, they exist on their original authority, or they do not exist at all. But if they exist upon their original authority, the decalogue has not been abolished! We shall presently notice the manner in which you enforce the commandments. Your next statement, which is also false, is as follows:
"But it will reply, Then the first three are not enjoined by the New Testament. Let us see if the New Testament treats the first three commandments as it does the fourth."
We have never rested the authority of a single commandment upon its re-enactment in the New Testament; for no such re-enactment exists; but have ever rested them upon the original authority of God, the Father, who gave them; yet the New Testament does solemnly enjoin obedience to the commandments.
But you rest the commandments upon "re-affirmation," and present, as proof, that the New Testament re-affirms the first commandment, Luke iv, 8; words, which in resisting the Devil, Christ quoted, not from the commandment, but from Deut. vi. And as further proof, Rev. xix, 10; xxii, 8, where the angel forbids the worship of himself, and commands John to worship God.
If the first commandment was "abolished, done away, superseded," it is certain that what is here presented, would but poorly supply the lack. The words used by our Lord, in resisting the Devil, are the only words of his that you produce as proof, that Christ re-affirmed the first commandment, and they are not quoted from the decalogue, but from something else! Christ's act of establishing the new constitution by "naming and enforcing" the first commandment, is certainly very vague, consisting only of the quotation of a text in resisting the Devil, and can hardly, even in your own estimation, justify your doctrine that the commandments are done away by a better law!
But in showing the re-affirmation of the second commandment, you do not attempt to offer any thing from the words of Christ, (notwithstanding, you stated in your report, that Christ named and enforced all the commandments but the fourth,) but you cite as a re-affirmation of it, the words of the apostles, [Acts xv, 20, 29; xvii, 16—31; 1 John v, 21,] spoken from 20 to 30 years after the crucifixion.
Now, with regard to these texts, I remark, that the apostles either forbade idolatry on the authority of the second precept of God's great constitution, or they believed that that precept had been abolished, and proceeded to enact one to take its place in the new constitution.
If you take the first of these positions, then the original constitution had not been "done away, abolished;" but if you take the second, then a space of from 20 to 60 years elapsed between the abolition of the second commandment of Jehovah, and the establishment of this apostolic precept in its stead! Whether this could be called Christ's "better law," given to supersede the original precept of the Father, I leave to yourself.
But to what law were men amenable, with reference to idolatry, in that period of 20 years between the abolition of the ten commandments, and the enactment of this precept by the apostles?
For a re-affirmation of the third commandment, you quote the words of the Lord's prayer, [Matt. vi, 9,] "Hallowed be thy name;" an expression of reverence and filial awe on the part of those who approach Jehovah. But if the precept forbidding the profanation of the name of God, were "done away, abolished," how sadly would its loss be felt for all that the Lord's prayer contains to supply its place. And how evident it is, that this very expression "grows out of the unabolished commandment, which says, 'Thou shalt not take my name in vain.'" You have, also, another evidence that Christ re-affirmed the third commandment, and that is the very evidence, which, in your sixth article, you adduced as proof, that he "placed himself in strong contrast" with it, "set it aside, superseded it!" You refer to Matt. v, 33—37. The precept, however, which Christ referred to, was not the third commandment, but was a statute from Lev. xix, which forbids a false oath.
You next ask for the re-affirmation of the fourth commandment, and assure your readers that they need not keep that commandment unless the New Testament gives it again.
This is but dodging the real question. It is not, Has God re-enacted either or all of the commandments? but, Has he abolished them? This is the point, and on this I need not say you have most signally failed. The Sabbath is binding without re-enactment in the New Testament:50
(1.) Unless it can be proved that the ten commandments are abolished.
(2.) Or the fourth one changed.
(3.) Or God's object in making the Sabbath in Paradise for the human family defeated by the gospel, and only a portion of our race have it.
But mark a few of the facts already noted:
(1.) There is no text in the New Testament that tells us that God's constitution is abolished, or that either of the ten commandments are done away.
(2.) But the New Testament does teach the perpetuity of the great constitution.
(3.) And it does solemnly enjoin the keeping of the commandments.
I pass over the testimony of Christ, that the Sabbath was made for man, also Luke's recognition of the fourth commandment [Luke xxiii, 56] many years after you say that it was abolished, and if I may use your expression, point you to Christ's solemn "re-affirmation" of all the commandments. Matt. v, 19; xix, 17.
The fact that the Sabbath was instituted, at Creation, is proof positive that it was made for Adam and his posterity, and that it was not made in the wilderness of Sin for the Hebrews!
In examining your position on Rom. xiv, the Review presented as worthy of notice, the remarks of Dr. Edwards in his First-day Sabbath Manual.—Your reply to them consists in pronouncing them of no consequence, mere assertion, and the like. And you affirm that Sabbath-keepers are driven to a fearful extremity to support their views. But if your course of argument is a proper one, any theory could be maintained without difficulty, as any one could suppress the arguments of an opponent, and pronounce them mere assertion. But I commend to you the following from the Sabbath Manual as worthy of a better reply:
“Some, after they embraced the Gospel, thought that the ceremonial as well as the moral laws were binding. Others, more enlightened, thought that they were not. This led to contention among them. Paul, in the fourteenth chapter of Romans, presented such considerations as were adopted to lead them, in this matter, to a right decision.
‘One man,’ he says, ‘esteemeth one day above another. Another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.’ Both mean to honor God, and he will accept them. But what day does he speak of?—‘The Sabbath’ of the fourth commandment, associated by God inseparably with the moral laws? Read the connection. What is it? Is it, one man believeth he must worship Jehovah; another who is weak, worshipeth idols? One believeth that he must not commit murder, idolatry or theft, and another thinks he may? Were these the laws about which they were contending, and with which were connected the days that he speaks of? No: about those laws there was no dispute.
But, ‘one believeth that he may eat all things’ (which are nourishing, whether allowed in the ceremonial law, which regulated such things, or not,) ‘another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him.’ These were the laws about which they were contending, and with regard to which the Apostle was giving them instructions. It was not the moral, but the ceremonial laws; and the days spoken of were those which are connected, not with the former, but with the latter.
So, in the second chapter of Colossians, ‘Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths.’—The sabbaths spoken of, are not ‘the Sabbath’ associated with, Thou shalt not commit murder, or adultery, or theft; but the sabbaths associated with meats and drinks, and new moons, which were, indeed, shadows of things to come. But to take what he said about these sabbaths which were associated by God with ceremonial laws, and which the Apostle himself in this very discourse, associates with them, and apply it as some have done, to ‘THE SABBATH’ which God associated with moral laws, is wrong.” Pages 134, 135, 136.
You affirm that the Review, in introducing the expression in Ex. xvi, that the people should gather a certain quantity of manna “every day,” as calculated to throw light on the expression, “another esteemeth every day alike,” has been guilty of perversion. Your reason is, that while verse four says that the people should gather a certain rate every day, verse five says that on the sixth day they should prepare that which they bring in, and it should be twice as much as they gather daily. And verses 25 and 26 except the Sabbath, on which they should not gather at all.
But to show how little sincerity you could have in pointing out the double quantity, on the sixth day as an exception to the act of gathering a certain rate every day, I need only remark, that you believe that they gathered the same on the sixth day as on the other days, and that God miraculously doubled it! And with regard to the seventh day, on which they were not to gather, I remark, that such a statement was not made to the people until the Sabbath itself drew on.
I believe, indeed, in accordance with verse 22, that the children of Israel voluntarily gathered a double quantity of manna on the sixth day; but it is evident from verse 23, that Moses had not previously said any thing of the kind to them; so that the direction that they should gather a certain rate EVERY day had not been qualified to the people, and yet it did not authorize them to violate the Sabbath.
This chapter was referred to as direct proof that the expression “every day” does not necessarily include that day, which at Creation Jehovah hallowed and reserved to himself. We shall presently notice that the expression as used by Paul is necessarily limited by the subject of discourse.
I pass over your remarks respecting the folly, blindness and perverseness of the Review, merely remarking that such is a cheap method of supplying the lack of Bible argument.
You speak of the meaning of Rom. xiv, 5, as obvious and plain. I answer, yes. And the subject of discourse is such that it is highly unreasonable to apply these remarks to the moral law.
If there is any propriety in applying the words of Paul, in Rom. xiv, to the abolition of the great constitution, then you have not pervert it them. But if his whole subject is the law of carnal ordinances, as in Col. ii, then you have greatly erred.
Now what is Paul’s theme in Rom. xiv? Is it the commandments of God? Not a word respecting them. He says, “One believeth that he may eat all things, another who is weak eateth herbs.” And in verse 14 he declares that there is no distinction between clean and unclean meats. Now there was a law which made such distinctions; but that was the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, [Eph. ii,] and not the constitution of God’s religious system, which said nothing on the subject. Connected with these meats, drinks &c., were many days of feasts, new moons, annual sabbaths and the like, which had no other existence than that which the law of carnal ordinances gave them. Hence, the same act that destroyed the distinction between meats, clean and unclean, destroyed all the authority on which these things rested. Thenceforth they were matters of indifference.
Now the whole subject of Paul’s discourse forbids the idea that he had the great unabolished constitution of Jehovah before him; for that had nothing to do with these matters. But in the preceding chapter he does quote its last division, and acknowledges its authority.
When Paul speaks of those who “eat not” and that put a difference in days, and of those that do eat, and do not put this difference in days, reason, as well as Scripture requires that we understand him to refer to that law which regulated all this. And when it is further seen that every fact in the New Testament shows that God’s great constitution is unabolished, the character of the effort that would break down its fourth precept, may be seen in the true light.
With how much propriety do you attempt to prove the abolition of the fourth commandment, by citing a portion of Scripture whose very face points us to the law that regulated meats and drinks?
Your eighth article opens with further remarks on this chapter. You quote a single sentence from the Review, and, overlooking the fact that the Review has shown from the entire testimony of the New Testament, the perpetuity of God’s constitution, you affirm that I have hunted through the whole book for a single text with which to correct Paul. The following is a good specimen of your candor:
“As a last resort, it flees to the mystic isle of Patmos, and there it hears the beloved disciple say, that while he was wrapt in the visions of the future he was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.’ By the aid of its fancy it conjectures that the venerable prophet meant the Seventh Day Sabbath; and the necessity of the case transforms this conjecture into a direct and positive testimony that in reading Paul’s language in Rom. xiv, 5, we must make an exception so as to make it enforce the observance of the Seventh Day Sabbath. And so confident is it in the correctness of its conjecture, that it is ready to judge the whole world by it; as though great boldness in a doubtful position would make it certainly correct, or at least, make others think it correct.”
With these remarks of yours, please contrast the words of the Review. How little propriety there is in your affirmation respecting “conjectures,” “judging” &c., appears from its words, which are as follows:
“But as a direct and positive testimony that when he saith ‘every day alike’ Jehovah’s Rest day is excepted, we introduce Rev. i, 10. ‘I was in the Spirit on THE LORD’S DAY.’ This is a direct testimony to the fact that in the GOSPEL DISPENSATION, one day is still claimed by God. As we do not read in any place (except in the ‘FATHERS’ who prepared the way for the great apostasy by adding tradition to the word of God) that Jehovah has ‘put away’ his holy day and chosen another, we submit the following testimony as to what is the Lord’s day. Gen. ii, 3. ‘God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.’ Ex. xvi, 23. ‘The rest of the Holy Sabbath unto the Lord.’ Ex. xx, 8. ‘Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.’ Isa. lviii, 13. ‘My holy day.’ ‘The holy of the Lord, honorable.’ Mark ii, 28. ‘The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.’ Rev. i, 10. ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.’”
But as it is necessary for you to explain away this testimony in some manner, you undertake to prove that the day is a mystic day, just as you call the isle, a mystic isle.
You state that this is the only instance in which the phrase occurs in the New Testament, but that it occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and means a season of special visitation, or the great day, yet to come. Wherefore you conclude that it means in this text, the great day of God’s wrath,—the thousand years.
Your mystic isle, and mystic day, are in admirable keeping, and nothing is wanted to complete the picture except to present us also with a mystic John.—But let us see if you have not made some false statements.
(1.) You state that the phrase Lord’s day occurs frequently in the Old Testament. This statement is false; though it is a fact that the Old Testament tells us what day God calls his, [Isa. lviii, 13,] and also how it happened that he reserved one day to himself. Gen. ii, 1—3; Ex. xx, 8—11.
(2.) But if you say that the Lord’s day means the same as the day of the Lord, and that the latter phrase often occurs in the Old Testament then I remark, that you have made a false statement respecting the New Testament as it there occurs several times. 1 Thess. v, 2; 2 Pet. iii, 10, 12.
In what sense John could, according to your theory, have a vision on the great day of the Lord—the thousand years, which are even yet future, we now proceed to inquire.
(1.) It is not only impossible for a prophet 1800 years since to be in vision on a period of time not even yet arrived, but I know of nothing in all the Bible, to justify such an idea.
(2.) That John was not standing in vision mid the events of the day of God is evident from the reading of the first chapter. The single word “hereafter” in verse 19, which included the events of the future down to the eternal reign of the saints, ought to correct for ever this strange idea.
(3.) But to see the events of the day of the Lord soon before one in vision, and to be in vision on that day, are two widely different things. The first is frequent in God’s dealings with the prophets; the last is utterly impossible until that day actually arrives.
(4.) The place and the date as given by John are simple and literal. He was in vision in the isle of Patmos, on the Lord’s day.51
But as if you anticipated that such a strange doctrine would be exposed, you remark, that if in a subordinate sense, this is applied to one of the days of the week, you think there is better reason to apply it to Sunday than to any other day, because on that day Christ was raised from the dead. And it is proper to obey the laws of the land, and needful to be uniform in the day of worship, &c.
It is a fact that the term Lord's day is now applied to Sunday; few persons, however, are aware who gave Sunday this appellation. 'The history of the Sabbath' on the authority of Lucius' Eccl. Hist. Cent. 4, p. 740, makes the following statement:
'To give the more solemnity to the first day of the week, Sylvester, who was bishop of Rome while Constantine was Emperor, changed the name of Sunday, giving it the more imposing title of Lord's day.'
The masses have followed in the wake of the great apostasy, [2 Thess. ii.] and hence 'the laws of the land' uphold this papal institution, and the body of professed Christians are united in its observance.—You attempt to justify the act of following a multitude to do evil, [that is, to reject the commandment of God in order to keep in its place this tradition of the Elders,] for saying that Christ was raised from the dead on that day.
But were you on the opposite side of the globe where the mass observe Friday, the sabbath which Mahomet instituted, you could raise just as good a plea for violating the fourth commandment to follow them, by simply asserting that Friday on which Christ poured out his most precious blood for our redemption is the Lord's day.
But as God has said nothing of the kind respecting either of these days, those who thus plead to justify themselves in following Mahomet or 'the beast,' are not to be regarded.
The Lord of the Sabbath was crucified between two thieves; in like manner has the Sabbath itself been crucified between two thieves, the sixth and the first day of the week.
The Scriptures are explicit respecting the day, which, in the beginning, God reserved to himself, and thence forward throughout the Bible calls his holy day. Gen. ii, 1-3; Ex. xx, 8-11; Isa. lviii, 13; Mark ii, 27; Rev. i, 10. If you have any proof that Jehovah has put away his holy day and chosen another, I call upon you to present it. But as I know well that you can present nothing of the kind from the Bible, I call upon you to cease this unholy warfare upon the 'Holy of the Lord and Honorable,' the Sabbath.
Rev. i, 10 contains, therefore, direct testimony that John did esteem one day the Lord's day, and did not 'esteem every day' such. Now one of two things are certain: either the Lord's day is excepted by Paul, or Paul and John stand in array. You can pour out your ridicule and anathemas upon John if you wish; the Review only believes his testimony. But in the language of J. B. Cook, I remark, 'All the Bible is all the truth.'
I agree with you that it is necessary to have a stated day for worship. But it is not necessary, in order to have this, that we take the day set apart by 'the beast;' no, the Sabbath of the Lord made for man, is quite as good.
You ridicule the Review for referring Paul's language in Rom. xiv, to the hand-writing of ordinances, that regulated meats, and drinks and days, and not to the great, unabolished constitution. And finally you exhort your 'dear reader trust not your salvation in such reckless hands.' The 'reckless hands' referred to, would do and teach the commandments, the one who utters such an exhortation, would break them and teach men so. The reader can choose for himself.
In your sixth article, after attempting to prove that Christ placed himself in strong contrast with the decalogue, and did it away, or superseded it, you remarked that this justified Rom. xiv. Fearful justification! purchased at the expense of the commandments of God. But your whole effort was exposed in my last letter; hence, your use of Rom. xiv, is unjustifiable.
The review of your Bible class report exposed at some length your remarks on the two laws. This you pass in silence.
In order to show the character of your reply, it is necessary to present next, an extract from the Review. It begins with an extract from your report, and appends a reply. It is as follows:
'In reference to the position of the New Testament on the Sabbath question, two points were made: 1. Neither the Saviour nor any of his apostles ever enforced the Sabbath precept. 2. In all the catalogues of sins contained in the New Testament, Sabbath-breaking is not once named.—In view of these facts, it was claimed that no Christian could be required to keep the Sabbath day.'
(1.) The above reflects much greater credit upon the shrewdness of the writer, than it does upon his candor in summing up so important a question. The fourth commandment is a part of the royal law, and it is his part to get it out, not ours to insert it a second time. The idea that the moral law of God NEEDED to be enforced by the Son of God, or by any of his apostles, is a singular, and in the highest degree absurd idea! Christ often took the law of God to enforce what he said himself, and so did the apostles!
But as marvels will never cease, we are given to understand that what Christ and his apostles did not enforce, is not binding on us as Christians. And the Sabbath precept having never been quoted directly by Christ or his apostles, we are not as Christians under obligation to keep it. Those who make this assertion seem not to have weighed it very well. The first four are not quoted; and we as Christians are not 'required to keep them!' But to show how little weight it would have, had our Lord quoted the fourth commandment several times, we add, that the last six, a part of which he quoted several times, are all abolished, together with the first four which he did not quote, all of which they attempt to prove from 2 Cor. iii. So that since that time we have a new law of God. That God who gave his holy law in person and himself wrote it, has abolished it, to re-enact it either through Christ or his apostles. Not approving the expression, we do not say that Christ and his apostles enforced the law, for how could the Son who says, 'My Father is greater than I,' much more how could the apostles who were not so great as him who sent them, enforce the law of Jehovah? But on the strength of their testimony, we do declare that they most solemnly teach its perpetuity, and its immutability. Matt. v, 17-19; xxii, 35-40; Luke xvi, 17; Rom. iii, 31; vii, 7-25; viii, 1-7; 1 Cor. ix, 21; James ii, 8-12; 1 John iii, 4, 5.
(2.) The catalogue of sins named in the New Testament, contain nothing that the law of God does not show to be sinful. But they may be used to justify other sins as well as the sin of Sabbath-breaking.—The sin of slave-holding is not named, unless by implication, the sin of Polygamy is certainly not noticed distinctly, yet both these sins were very general in the apostles days, and certainly very heinous. The New Testament never yet offered its catalogue of sins as a complete list, for some omit to name many grievous sins, and all omit some that are very heinous.—But mark! there is a standard somewhere by which those things are shown to be sins. We ask, what is it? Now will you agree to believe the NEW TESTAMENT? If so, we pledge ourselves to show that it is that much hated law of God.
Hear the beloved disciple: 'SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.' 1 John iii, 4. Now hear Paul tell how sin is made manifest: 'By the law is the knowledge of sin.' Rom. iii, 20. Hear him again:—'I had not known sin but by the law.' Rom. vii, 7, 13. This is the only standard by which sin is shown. It is the embodiment of God's own principles of holiness, and never can be improved, even by Omnipotence. Ti. i, 2; Rom. vii, 12.
It is enough that the apostles have told us what the standard is by which sin is shown; we take the standard, and tell any man who breaks the law of God, either the fourth, the seventh, or the eighth commandment, he is a sinner, and 'the wages of sin is death!' We do not rebuke a man for an act of sin, by turning to any of the catalogues of sin; we take the standard by which those acts are shown to be sinful and read to him, 'thus saith the Lord!'
Let me repeat the doctrine: The law of God is the only standard by which the acts of men as moral beings, are shown to be either righteous or wicked in the sight of God. Those who can present any other standard are requested to do it. (1.) The New Testament distinctly teaches the doctrine. Rom. iii, 20; vii, 7; 1 John iii, 4. (2.) It pronounces this standard perfect. Rom. vii, 12; James ii, 8-12; i, 25. (3.) But for the benefit of those who claim that the New Testament furnishes us with another standard by which sin is shown, besides the law of God, we ask that this imaginary standard may be tested with this question: Does the New Testament show it to be wrong for a man to marry his sister, or his daughter? Shall I be answered as I was sometime since, 'Such an act would not be sinful?' Those who wish to see this subject defined, can read it at length, in Lev. xviii. That the abominations there described are not mere Jewish pollutions, is evident from the fact that the land of Palestine was said to vomit out its first inhabitants on account of these things!
With the following points from the New Testament, we submit the question:
1. The perpetuity and immutability of the law of God is distinctly taught.
2. The Law of God is made the standard by which sin is shown.
3. Redemption from its fearful condemnation by the death of God's only Son, lays us under infinitely stronger obligations to keep it.'
In replying to the above, you quote the extract from yourself, and the first short paragraph from the reply of the Review; (the longest extract, however, which you have ever made;) but you keep out of sight all the leading arguments of the Review, and not even notice one of the brief points made by it in summing up the matter.
Because I stated in the paragraph which you quote, that the moral law which Christ came to obey in all its requirements, and then to submit to its curse and die for the unjust, did not need to be enforced by him, as it already possessed the highest authority and himself was made under it, you affirm that I concede that the New Testament does not require the keeping of the fourth commandment. Those who will read the above extract from the Review can judge for themselves.
You next quote from the second paragraph its first sentence, and then attempt to wrest it. Willfully overlooking the statement in the same paragraph that Christ solemnly taught the perpetuity and immutability of the commandments. Your language, that blind superstition will carry its willing victim to fearful lengths, is not inappropriate to your own case.
You cite the words of the Father requiring us to hear the Son; also the words of Moses to the same effect. Acts iii, 22-24.
I answer, we have ever manifested a willingness to hear him as the great expounder of his Father's law. He says that 'the Sabbath was made for man;' which gives us a definite idea of its great design, and causes us to love it as something made for us. He says again, 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. We have heard him in this; but those who will not hear him as affirmed in the text just quoted by yourself, shall be destroyed from among the people. He says, also, that those who do and teach the commandments shall be highly esteemed in the reign of heaven; we have heard him in this, and his words encourage us, as we are compelled to meet the scorn of those who break them and teach men so, and now if you have heard him say that we need not keep the fourth commandment, we will act accordingly. But as you cannot produce such a text as he has said, 'keep the commandments?'
You next style the Review, Moses' disciple. I answer, No Sir. In doing and teaching the commandments we are the disciples of Jesus Christ. But those who break them and teach men so, are neither the disciples of Moses nor of Jesus.52
You are the one that refuses to hear Christ on the commandments; and even his statement respecting the design of the Sabbath, is of less importance with you than an inference from the words of Moses.
In keeping “the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ,” we are, according to yourself, making “readily back from the light of the gospel to the cloudy Sinai;” but according to the word of God, we are on our way to the Holy City. “Let God be true, but every man a liar.”
Your remarks that we reject Christ’s testimony, and admit that we have a different gospel from Christ and his apostles, are false. And with this you attempt to comfort “fearful souls!”
To those of your readers, who would say, with the man in the parable, “I pray thee have me excused,” it is doubtless very comforting to be soothed with the idea that they need not obey the open of present truth. But it will not be comforting to awake in the day of God to the fearful fact that they were soothed with a falsehood, comforted with a lie.
The language of the Review can be wrested only in a willful manner. Christ acknowledged the authority of the moral law, and solemnly enjoined obedience to the commandments.
In the preceding extract from the review of your report, you were requested to present another complete standard of holiness beside the moral law. You think that you did this in your sixth article, where you endeavoured to place Christ in strong contrast with the sixth and seventh precepts of the decalogue, and also with the second of the two great commandments. The character of your effort was shown in letter vi.
Styling the ten commandments the law of Moses, you next remark:
“We are under the law to Christ, but if we are under the law of Moses we are under the curse.” Gal. iii, 10.
I answer, those who are living in violation of the law of God, are under the law, and under its fearful curse. Rom. iii, 19. Those who have been pardoned through the blood of Jesus, are UNDER THE LAW to Christ, and live, through grace, in the fulfillment of its righteous precepts. Rom. xiii, 8–10; viii, 4; James ii, 8–12.
You quote the following sentence from the Review, and append to it the remark which follows it:
“We ask C. if Christ did not break the law in violating the fourth commandment before it was abolished?”
No, Christ was never subject to the Sabbath; he was its Lord.”
Let me illustrate the above: Jesus Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath; therefore, he was at liberty to violate the fourth commandment. Answer: God is the “God of truth,” but to be, therefore, at liberty to violate the truth? No, Sir. He is the God of truth, indeed, but for that very reason, “God cannot lie!”
Without notice, you next pass over something more than a column of the review of your report, in which several of your statements, little short of direct falsehood, were opposed. You then cite a remark of the Review, respecting the unfairness of your report; and reply, that the Review’s distorted expositions, groundless inferences, and unreasonable assertions have not much enlightened you. I need only reply to this, that it is a thankless task to expose the errors of any man, and I did not expect your approbation as my reward. You next speak as follows:
“We confess we cannot see the Sabbath in the word ‘law’ wherever it occurs, like the Review can: hence, we did not notice every text that has that word in it. Nor did we suppose that the word ‘law’ in the New Testament, always means God’s law in the sense of the Review’s language above. If we had, we should have noticed and enforced the following: Acts xiii, 39; xv, 5, 24; xxi, 20; xxii, 3, 4; Rom. ii, 25.”
Now it is a fact, that one of the same apostles, who did not give commandment concerning the observance of circumcision and the law of Moses, did give commandment concerning the royal law, in which are the commandments of God. Compare Acts xxi, 18–25; James ii, 8–12. You confess, indeed, that you cannot see the Sabbath in these texts; hence, an extended notice is unnecessary.
You cite me, also, to Rom. iii, 20; vii, 4. But if I rightly understood your sixth article, you there affirmed that the law in Rom. iii, and vii is the law of Christ, to which, you say, we are amenable.
You cite me to Rom. iv, 14. This text evinces that poor, guilty man can never be counted righteous in the sight of God, without the grace of God in Christ Jesus. But if it proves that the law of God is abolished, the next verse, which asserts that “where no law is there is no transgression,” is positive proof that the law does not now exist. 1 John iii, 4.
You present, also, Rom. ix, 31, 32; Gal. ii, 16; iii, 2, 10, 11. The theme of all these texts is not that the holy, spiritual and just law of God, its great standard of right, has been abolished, but that sinful man, condemned and shown to be guilty by it, must find something to avail for him, or he must receive in his own person, its fearful curse. Christ took its curse upon himself, and by his death, opened the fountain of mercy and salvation for the lost.
That “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness,” [Rom. x, 4, 5,] is no evidence that he abolished that law which defines a righteous character, as some vainly imagine; nor yet does it prove that Christ is the end of the law so far as obedience is concerned. The end of the law, that is, its great design, or object, viz: a character perfectly holy, just and righteous in the sight of God, is obtained by faith in him, whom God hath set forth as a propitiation; and in this sense, charity is said to be the end of the commandment; not the abolition of the commandment, but its great design or object. 1 Timothy i, 5.
Mark, Christ’s death avails thus for those only who “believe;” but those who do not avail themselves of his atonement, are left in their sins, under the sentence of the law, and awaiting its penalty—the second death.
Paul teaches the doctrine of justification by faith, but justifying faith did not, in his estimation, set aside the law of God. “Do we, then, make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Rom. iii, 31.
And James shows that such faith must perform the righteous acts of God’s law, or it is no better than the faith of devils. James ii. You speak again as follows:
“The Review would have its readers believe, that because we advocate the abolition of the Sabbath and the equality of days, we have turned deist, or worse, and believe that God has abandoned the whole universe to chance! If it had evidence and argument to defend itself in its position, it would not resort to such means, and hold up such false frights.”
I am not certain to what you can refer, as I said nothing about your believing that God had abandoned the Universe to chance. Perhaps, however, you said this to help yourself over the following points in the Review:
“1. The doctrine of the destruction of the wicked rests upon the perpetuity of the law of God. The wages of sin is death. Rom. vi. Sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John iii; Rom. iv, 15.
2. If the death of Christ destroys the moral law, then the human family are delivered from its fearful sentence, whether they repent or not. This makes the atonement unconditional, hence, it is the real foundation of Universalism. 1 Cor. xv, 3; Matt. xx, 28; John iii, 16.
3. The doctrine that temporal, instead of the second death, is the ultimate penalty of God’s law, is the real foundation of the non-resurrection of the wicked. For after the penalty of the law has been inflicted, those who have suffered it, cannot be raised to suffer something else.”
If you will disprove either of these points, the Review would be interested to see you do it.
It is not necessary that I should again notice your perversion of Gal. ii. Your final conclusion is as follows:
“We are now done. The Sabbath brethren rely on a multitude of inferences that have no bearing on the subject; but as they are of importance to them, we felt bound to notice them: this has protracted our articles more than we intended. We had designed to close with a general summary of the evidence on the Sabbath question, but must omit it for the present.”
Such a statement as this of yours, comes with but ill grace from one who has kept out of sight nearly every leading argument of the Review. Your testimony, however, will doubtless satisfy many, that the Review has nothing but inference to offer. Had you presented its arguments, they could have judged then for themselves.
Deeply have I regretted the course pursued by yourself, yet that the blood of souls be not found upon me, I have deemed it duty to expose it. I know very well that such men as J. B. Cook, yourself and others, who have drawn back from obedience to the fourth commandment, can exert a greater influence against it than those who have never obeyed it. I have loved you both, for the testimony you once bore to the truth of God. My heart has bled to witness your strange course since. But I leave you to the mercy of that God, whose commandments you dare to fight.
If you are resolved to continue in disobedience to God, I respectfully invite you to present, as proposed by yourself, a summary of the evidence on which you rest your hope; but would it not be far better to obey HIM, who said, “REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY?”
J. N. ANDREWS.
Port Byron, Cayuga Co. N. Y., July, 1852.