REMARKS ON THE ABOVE by James White

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

REMARKS ON THE ABOVE.

By James White

It is with much pleasure that I have read the above article from Eld. Taft, although there is some disagreement between him and the Review and its writers. The spirit is brotherly and kind, and we hail with joy the criticisms and reviews of our position by those whose hearts are open to the truth, and with whom we can investigate the Scriptures without any of that harshness that too often characterizes controversies on points of religion. I like his frank confession on the "Sabbath question;" still I look upon the acknowledgment that the seventh day is the Sabbath, if there is any in this age, as a very slight concession for a Bible student to make, considering the entire absence of any evidence for any other.

On the other hand I was rather astonished that one who appears to have examined the subject with so much care, should introduce a proviso in the case. That the Sabbath is a divine institution all must admit; that it is confined to the seventh day is evident from the Scriptures; that God commanded its observance by a well-defined law is also true. And as a law must be definite in its terms, in order that we may clearly understand our obligation to the lawgiver; so any amendment, alteration, or repeal, must be equally plain and definite. If there is any wisdom or justice in the alteration or repeal, if we are bound to conform to such alteration or repeal, then it needs also to be stated in plain terms, that we may not continue in useless observances, or depart from established usages without good and sufficient reasons. I consider that doubts are not allowable in matters plainly revealed. The clear light of revelation on the rest, sanctification, and commandment of the Sabbath, imposes upon Bro. Taft the obligation to show that the doubt implied by him is allowable, or that the obligation to observe the commandment may have ceased. In this, as in all other cases, an unnecessary inference is without authority. But I am well satisfied that (1.) every objection brought against the Sabbath is merely inferential, there being no positive evidence against the Sabbath law; and (2.) every such inference is unnecessary, there being no passage of scripture expressed in such terms as to oblige us to infer that the Sabbath law is no longer of force. But we shall see that Bro. T. does not even leave himself much room to doubt as he proceeds to argue on the nature and extent of "the whole law."

Bro. T. has fallen into the too common error of supposing that the ten commandments are not the holy covenant which God commanded his people to perform, but only a part of his covenant. Before producing the evidence of scripture on this point. I will quote the words of one who looked at this law with a lawyer's eye, for the express purpose of ascertaining if any thing could be added to or taken from it so as to make it better. His conclusion was that it was perfect.

We need not stop to particularize on the first four. If, from a principle of love to God, we have no other gods before him, abstain from image worship, and reverence his holy name, and his holy day, we shall

doubtless fulfill the great law of love concerning our direct relation to God. Of the others, the person above alluded to says:—

“The fifth defines the peculiar duties arising from the family relation. Injuries to our neighbor are then classified by the moral law. They are divided into offences against life, chastity, property and character. And I notice that the greatest offense in each class is expressly forbidden. Thus the greatest injury to life, is murder; to chastity, adultery; to property, theft; and to character, perjury. Now the greater offense must include the less, of the same kind. Murder must include every injury to life, adultery every injury to purity, and so of the rest; and the moral code is closed and perfected by a command forbidding every improper desire in regard to our neighbor.” And when we consider further that these comprehensive precepts are to be observed from an active principle of love to our neighbor, the perfection of the code is at once perceived and acknowledged. If one scripture is given, defining evil, or showing what it is, and another forbids our following a multitude to do evil, I consider that the second is incomplete without the first.

I am not satisfied that Bro. Taft is correct in saying that there were more than the ten commandments on the tables of stone. His supposition of the size of the stones amounts to nothing at all, unless he can also show the exact size of the letters used in the engraving. In the English translation of the decalogue there are 304 words; which, with the modern improvements in printing, may be placed on a surface of a few square inches; yet with the usual sized letters made by stone cutters on marble slabs and monuments, it would take nearer ten stones the size of the commandment tables to receive so many words. Now if Bro. T. knows that the stones were just the size of the inside of the ark, and has any data by which he can arrive at a just or fair conclusion as to the size of the letters used, I would be glad to consider them; but if he has not, we must then conclude that he has failed in his argument, precisely in the manner that he imputes a failure to us; to wit, by putting forth a “naked assumption,” which cannot be proved. True, Bro. T. says he has no doubt the Lord did write many more thereon; but that does not prove it. It only proves that his doubts, on some points, are much more easily removed than mine. I will here give my reasons for believing that there were no more than the ten commandments written on the tables of stone.

When the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, he placed his promises before them with the condition that they should obey his voice indeed and keep his covenant. Ex. xix, 5. By a comparison of scriptures we find that these were but two different modes of expressing the same thing: when they heard his voice on mount Sinai he declared unto them his covenant which he commanded them to perform. But Bro. Taft seems to think that he declared only a small part of his covenant; for he admits that he declared no more than the ten commandments with his own voice, for to that declaration the words “he added no more” apply. But there stands the scripture: “The Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire, ye heard the voice of the words but saw no similitude, only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments, and he wrote them in two tables of stone.” Deut. iv, 12, 13. The ten commandments were his covenant complete. Moses rehearsed them to the children of Israel, and said: “These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice, and he added no more; and he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.” Deut. v, 22. One more text to show the identity of the ten commandments as the covenant of God: “And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights: he did neither eat bread nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.” Ex. xxxiv, 28. The tables were therefore the tables of the covenant; and the ark in which they were placed was the ark of the covenant. On this testimony of Scripture I am willing to rest the question for the present; and if Bro. Taft thinks the proof is not sufficient, I will engage to notice it further when he produces any proof whatever for his position.

I suppose he will not ask us to consider the arrangement of the Old Testament by the Jews, a correct one, making “the Law” to comprehend the five books of Moses. The arrangement is an arbitrary one, not founded on any necessity therefor in the Scriptures; neither do the texts he quotes from the New Testament prove what he adduces them to prove. That “Moses in the law” wrote of Christ is correct beyond a doubt, as the law of Moses but pointed to Christ: that sanctuary, priesthood, and system of sacrifices were but types of his offering himself for us, and pleading his blood in the Sanctuary in heaven. Heb. viii, 1–5. But that “the law” included the five books of Moses, and that “the whole law,” so understood, was written on the tables of stone, will not probably be contended for. But if Bro. Taft chooses to maintain that there were other moral precepts beside the ten commandments on the tables, I shall not consider myself bound to contend with him—I am willing to meet him on the ground he has laid down in his remarks on the nature and extent of the law. Speaking of the two great principles, he says: “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 is, then, 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,” &c. This is good testimony, and to the point. If the ten commandments are deduced from these two great principles, as the Saviour proves, and Bro. Taft admits, then the conclusion is unavoidable that the Sabbath commandment is a part of that “unchangeable, irrepealable law—from which there is no release—no, nor ever shall be.” And that this idea was also in Bro. Taft’s mind appears in that he says, “we must not only keep the ten commandments,” &c. thus showing that however much he may include in the moral law, the ten commandments certainly belong there. Such being his position, I shall, of course, expect to find him keeping God’s holy Sabbath without delay. Though I do not admit that there are moral duties not referable to the ten commandments, I am quite willing he should carry out the principle he has laid down for “sealing the law;” that is, faithfully keep all the ten commandments, and as many other moral precepts as he can find in the Bible.

Bro. T. quotes. Thou shalt not kill—thou shalt not steal. &c., and says they are deduced from the general principle of love, “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,” &c. I must think Bro. Taft is mistaken about Bro. C.’s referring Rom. vii, 6 to the law of Moses. That is not according to the belief of Bro. C. as expressed to me, or of any other who teaches the third angel’s message. It is contrary to all the writings on this subject published at the Review Office. Bro. Cornell, also, in his pamphlet entitled, “The Last Work,” on pages 12, 13, refers to this connection [Rom. viii] as being the ten commandments. But be that as it may, we have here an expression from Bro. T. that there is a sense in which those who are united to Christ are delivered from these precepts which are moral and of universal obligation. I notice this because there are many who contend that to be delivered from a law is to be freed from obligation to obey it. But Bro. Taft does not take this position, and his remarks lead in a contrary direction; I presume he believes, as we also do, that we are delivered from the law, in the sense of the scripture, without being released from obligation to keep it.

But “time and space” admonish me that I should close. I must express my regret that I have not the privilege of a personal interview with Bro. Taft. But though we may be separated in body, I hope we may be one in spirit. From his writing I have the fullest confidence in his deep love of the truth; and that he will act upon his convictions, so strongly implied in his remarks on the morality, universality, and perpetuity of the law, (including the ten commandments.) It would be a cause of rejoicing to me to know that Bro. Taft was living in obedience to all the commandments of God. I hope he will so live, and that we may all, by patient continuance in well-doing, receive the reward of immortality, have right to the tree of life, and enter through the gates into the city, and form an acquaintance there never to be marred by absence, united in the bonds of perfect love and peace, never to be disturbed by discord or care.

J. H. W.