p. 1 | WHAT IS THE LAW? by S. A. Taft

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Aug 21, 1855

WHAT IS THE LAW?

By S. A. Taft

BRO. WHITE:—Will you allow a stranger to say a word in the Review. I have been somewhat an attentive observer of the brethren of your faith, or rather, I should say, of their operations for the past few months; specially since September last, having then had for the first time, an opportunity of hearing an exposition of your views through Brn. Cornell and Loughborough; and am doubtless the individual referred to by Bro. Cornell in Oct. 10th, I think, of the Review. Since then through the politeness of Bro. Titus of this place, and who I have every reason to believe is veritably an heir of grace, I have frequently looked over the pages of the Review, besides having given some little attention to some of the smaller works published at your Office—all of which are now before me, and in which you say a great many good things, and I believe true things too, as well as good.

On the "Sabbath Question," I am frank to say, You are right; as are also our Seventh-day Baptist brethren—provided under the New Dispensation (Gospel age) any one point of time, or any one day of the week is more holy than another. The seventh day is most emphatically the Sabbath, provided we are now shut up to any one day as the rest day or period of holy time.

But without stopping to argue that question, as the matter both for and against, is all before me, I will come at once to the point before my mind. I will say, however, that I love the doctrine of Christ's second, actual appearing, and in its publication I bid you God speed.

The consideration I was after is this—I have just been reading in the Review and elsewhere, the answers to the following question,

WHAT IS THE LAW?

Bro. Cornell in No. 27, Apr. 17, asks this question, under the caption, "The last work of the Church," and the text, "Bind up the testimony; Seal the law among my disciples," &c. In fact a great deal, a very great deal is said in the Review upon this simple topic. Indeed Bro. Waggoner has a little work of 128 pages almost entirely given to this question. Nor are these all, others besides yourselves have written and written largely upon this theme. Andrew Fuller has an article on the law, the perpetuity of the law, &c. After all I cannot say that the answers given and views taken are altogether in harmony with my own mind. Perhaps I am dull. But then I cannot feel that I am to blame as long as I try to see. And in what I say I may not seem very orthodox. But orthodoxy in these days don't amount to much unless it is pretty certain that it is the doxy of God's Bible, and then even, I am sorry to say in a great many cases but little attention is paid to it, even among Protestants who hold that "the Bible alone is a sufficient rule of faith and practice." I reverence God's holy Word, but the opinions of men I will take for what they are worth and no more, if I know it. I despise their ipse dicit whenever, and wherever that dictum seeks to control my conscience; be it politics or religion, no matter.

But to the question, "What is the law"—"The law of God," &c. Bro. Cornell says, "From the scriptures already quoted we learn that the terms law and commandments are used interchangeably, referring to the same code." meaning, I suppose the code of the "ten commandments." This may be so in the scriptures he has quoted, they being in the first chapter which I have not seen. But, if Bro. Cornell means to make this a general rule—as I think he does; for he says, "And it is a fact worthy of notice that where the phrase, commandments of God, occurs in the Scriptures," though I am not certain that precisely that phrase does occur more than once in the Bible, "it almost invariably refers to the ten commandments written upon tables of stone." I join issue with him. The terms law and commandments may be used interchangeably and they may refer to the ten commandments so-called; but that this is an invariable rule, or "almost" an invariable rule I deny. When Bro. Cornell presents his testimony I will examine it.

The truth is, the Jews arranged the Old Testament Scriptures into three grand divisions: 1st. THE LAW, which comprised the five books of Moses, also known as the Pentateuch, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. 2d. THE PROPHETS, also divided into the former and the latter. The former prophets comprised the books of Joshua, Judges, 1st. and 2d. Samuel, and 1st. and 2d. Kings. The latter prophets included all the prophetic books except the book of Daniel. 3d. THE PSALMS, so styled because the Psalms of David stood first in the division, styled also Cetubim, which comprehended all the remaining inspired writings. For proof I refer you first to the arrangement of any common Hebrew Bible. Second to the New Testament Scriptures where these divisions are fully recognized. John i, 45. We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write. Luke xvi, 16. The law and the prophets were until John. Matt. xi, 13. "All the prophets and the law prophesied until John." Luke xxiv, 24. These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me. Verse 27. And beginning at Moses, (the law,) and all the prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Acts xxvi, 22. I continue unto this day, &c., saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses (in the law) did say should come.

But I have said enough to prove my point—Three grand divisions—The Law—The Prophets and The Psalms or The Cetubim. THE LAW was the grand statute and contained all the commandments of God. It was full also of Jesus Christ. THE PROPHETS were the expounders of that law. They were constantly calling the attention of the people to the true import of the commandments, the statutes and precepts of Almighty God as revealed in the law, blessing them when they obeyed, and cursing them when they disobeyed. The prophets also were full of Jesus Christ. THE PSALMS, Hagiographia, "the holy writings," contain the hymns and songs of God's people, the sayings of their wise men, and certain all-important prophecies. The Psalms also were full of Jesus Christ; and therefore beginning at Moses he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Blessed Book; and praised be the hand of the man that would detract aught from the Old Testament Scriptures.

The next question is, How are these terms, "The law," "commandments," &c., used in the New Testament Scriptures, and elsewhere even? Bro. Cornell says that they "almost invariably refer to the ten commandments written upon tables of stone." I deny it, and claim that they are general terms and not only "almost invariably refer," but refer altogether to the commandments or statutes of God in general as presented in THE LAW. Whence has arisen this Ten commandment scheme? (I mean no disrespect.) Why is it? On what principle or by what law, are these ten commandments so-called, made to have such a pre-eminent prominence over all the other commandments of God. The fact is his commandments are many; and they are all "perfect converting the soul," regulating the life and conduct of the individual. The ten commandments are not a tenth of all the heaven imposed obligations of the law. Then why select these and trumpet them from one end of the land to the other leaving the multitude unnoticed. Whence is it, I ask again that these ten commandments alone, are taken by the Am. Tract Society, yourselves and others, placed upon cards and scattered over the world like the leaves of autumn? Whence their denomination, "the code," par excellence. I am constrained to say, "This ought ye to have done and not to have left the other undone." But says one, Are not these "the moral law?" Who says, kind reader, that they are the moral law. Bro. Cornell, Bro. White, and others, say so I know: but who are they? The question is, Does the Bible say so. Will you please give me the "chapter and verse" and oblige, Yours truly. Suppose now, I lay along side by side two of God's holy commandments, dare you say that the one and not the other is a part of the moral law, and, if so, which will you take?

Thou shalt not kill. Ex. xx, 13.
Thou shalt not oppress the stranger. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God, &c. Ex. xxii, 21; xxiii, 2, 6; Lev. xix, 14.

I might mention many others, but these are enough to illustrate. Now which are the moral law, and on what principle do you make the precept, Thou shalt not kill, a part of the moral law and not the others?

But say you, "The former and not the latter was written upon the tables of stone." Then you maintain, do you, that just so much and no more as was written on the tables of stone constitute the moral law of God. Well, let us look into this a little: it is an important point; and you do well to take heed lest after all you yourself become obnoxious to the crime of "abrogating" a part of God's law, or what is equivalent thereto, by magnifying a part while you leave the remainder in total obscurity: just as I should do, if I magnified nine of the commandments and left the fourth to go into oblivion. But how do you know that just so many and no more of the commandments of God were written on the tables of stone? Why, say you, the Bible says so. Does it indeed! then that must end all controversy. But where does the Bible say so? I have not had the good fortune to find the chapter and verse yet, and therefore am not certain that I know just how many commandments, or how much and no more was written by the finger of God upon the tables of stone. I know that a certain number of commandments were written there; because the Bible in plain English says so: "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Ex. xxxiv, 28. But I do not know that no more were written there: indeed I have reason to believe, as I think, that a great many more than the ten commandments were written there. The fact is, it is a naked assumption that ten commandments and no more were written on the tables of stone; and I challenge the proof. But say you, Don't the Bible say, "and he added no more?" Certainly it does, but what of that? The Bible says too that "Cain dwelt in the land of Nod." But what of that? And it says a great many other things equally as good and equally as true. But what of that? How does that help us out of our difficulty? I answer, Not at all. But say you, If the Bible says that the ten commandments were written by the finger of God upon the two tables of stone, and then says, "And he added no more," must not that for ever settle the question? What question, kind reader? Why say you, The question as to the number of commandments written upon the tables of stone definitively. I answer, No. The Bible may say and say of a truth that the "ten words" were written by the finger of God upon the tables of stone and then add, "And he added no more," and still not say what you claim it does say. The question now is, And he added no more to what? Why, to the two tables of stone, say you. But hold, the Bible does not say so; and I go farther, I say it does not intimate any such thing. Indeed as expressed above, it intimates directly the reverse of this. Because the Bible expressly says, [Ex. xxxii, 15.] that the tables were two, and that they were "written on both their sides, on the one side and on the other were they written." Again, God says to Moses, [Ex. xxiv, 12.] "Come up to me in 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." Now from the size of the ark made expressly to contain these tables of stone, we concluded that the size of the plates, or tables rather, could not have been far from about two by four feet. This will give a surface of some thirty two feet which was all written over. God could write a great deal on so much space; and I have no doubt he did. So much then for the two tables of stone.

But say you, What about that Bible, "And he added no more?" Bro. Cornell has quoted it, Bro. Waggoner has quoted it, (page 21.) Bro. Loughborough has quoted it, Bro. White has quoted it, and, in fact, we have all quoted it, and I thought that was a settled point surely. So it is a settled point, dear reader; and we shall have no difficulty with it the moment we understand all the facts. The expression, "And he added no more," is found in Deut. v, 22. Moses is rehearsing the circumstance of the giving of the law at Sinai, as recorded in Exodus, and after having repeated what God had said with an audible voice to all the people from the summit of the mountain, he adds in the 22d verse, "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." But why did he add no more? Why did he not go on,—why stop by saying, thou shalt not covet, &c. In verses 23 to 30 inclusive of this same chapter Moses gives the reason why the Lord "added no more," why he ceased to speak in this awfully terrific manner, and a good reason it was too. But what did God do with these words which he spake with his own mouth unto all the people from the summit of the mountain? Moses tells us, "and he (God) wrote them in two tables of stone and delivered them unto me;" and here we have them, they are not lost. Here is a sublime instance of the Great Preacher, God, attempting to extemporize before a congregation of earthborns: but so awful was the subject, and so terrible was the voice of the Preacher, that the people could not endure it, and therefore he turned away and wrote the remainder, putting in what he had already said, and gave it unto Moses, and he taught it unto the people.

But you say again, Does not James style the law of ten commandments the royal law, and thus give them a pre-eminence? I answer, No. James does not call the law of ten commandments the royal law. James says, [Chap. ii, 8.] If ye fulfill the royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well. The royal law, then according to James is the great law of love, and not the law of ten commandments. And this is the moral law of the Bible. Expressed in full it stands thus: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. Luke x, 27; Deut. vi, 5. All else in the Bible, ten commandments and all, are but particulars deduced from these two great, all-comprehensive principles. The one belting the entire brotherhood of mankind; and the other linking us all to the throne of God. Here is unchangeable, irrepealable law. Here is moral law; law from which there is no release, no nor ever shall be. To keep this law then, is the whole duty of man. And in order to SEAL THIS LAW AMONG THE DISCIPLES; THEY MUST NOT ONLY KEEP "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS," BUT EVERY OTHER COMMANDMENT, STATUTE, LAW, OR PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN THE WORD OF GOD AS A LAW OF THE RACE.

There are laws, rules, regulations and commandments relating to societies and to individuals under certain circumstances and in certain localities which are of force only while the conditions which called them into being shall last. But the law, Thou shalt not kill—Thou shalt not steal—Thou shalt not oppress the stranger, &c., are particulars deduced from the general principle, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, and are therefore of universal obligation. And yet there is a sense in which those who are united to Christ are delivered from all these even; for Paul expressly says, [Rom. vii, 6.] "We are delivered from the law." What law? "The law of Moses," says Bro. Cornell, meaning the law of carnal ordinances which stood only in meats and drinks; and divers washings. But here Paul and Bro. Cornell are at logerheads. For Paul says, looking at the law from Bro. C's. stand-point, Paul says it is the law of ten commandments; for he says, We are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then—Is the law (from which we have been delivered) sin? (or are we delivered from it because it makes us to sin?) Nay I had not known sin but by the law, (that very law from which we have been delivered.) For I had not known lust except the law had said thou shalt not covet. But what law is it which says thou shalt not covet? Why it is the law of ten commandments. What law then is it we are delivered from? Why, the law of ten commandments, of course.

But, Bro. White, I have already written a great deal more than I intended when I commenced. This is long I know, but I could not say less, nor have I said the half I have to say; and if it should prove that I have not completely exhausted your own patience and that of your readers this time, though I believe you hold to the patience of the saints, you may hear from me again. With many wishes for your success, and with many prayers for the blessing of God to rest upon his own pure unadulterated truth, I subscribe myself, Yours truly. S. A. TAFT. Ypsilanti, June 16th, 1855.