Of a Series of Lectures on the Sabbath Question, delivered in Battle Creek, March 31st-April 4th, 1857.
(Continued)
F. "We have examined the Decalogue and found a plain and vast distinction between the fourth commandment and the other commandments. That was a shadow of things to come—a teacher to bring to Christ, and is now abolished."
He elsewhere denied that there was any distinction between the seventh day Sabbath, and the Jewish festival Sabbaths. But that distinction has been plainly shown. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord." Here he asserts that there is a vast distinction between the fourth commandment and the other commandments in the Decalogue. But every attempt to prove that assertion has proved a failure. "A shadow of things to come," has reference to Col. ii, 17. The question now before us is this. Was the seventh day Sabbath a shadow of anything to come of which the body was of Christ? or, in other words, Is there anything in the plan of redemption typified by the work of Christ? A consideration of two plain facts will settle this point:
1. The Sabbath was made and sanctified before the fall of Adam.
2. The fourth commandment points the mind back to creation, not forward to redemption. God never commanded any body to keep the Sabbath because they were sinners, or because Christ was to die to save them; there is nothing in the whole Bible from which such an idea can be gathered; but because he rested and sanctified the seventh day when he made the world. The yearly or Jewish sabbaths pointed to the work of the Son in redemption; the seventh-day Sabbath points to the work of the Father in creation. This is a very plain point, and it is surprising that the words of the Apostle should be so continually misconstrued and perverted.
F. "Gal. iii. Judaizing teachers were bringing them back to the observance of the Jewish ritual. Here are the people that was not a people—the Gentiles." Hos. ii, 11-23.
Did we not know that error blinds its votaries, we should be truly astonished at the above declaration. Judaizing teachers were persuading the Gentile Galatians to return or come back to the observance of the Jewish ritual! Had they ever observed it? Of course not. Then why did the lecturer use this scripture in such a manner? He was evidently determined to make some capital out of Paul's writings to the disadvantage of Sabbath-keepers, and behold the result! Other passages were quoted to about the same effect, as we shall see.
F. "Gal. iii, 12. The man that doeth them shall live in them, that is, by perfect implicit obedience."
This little comment is important, it being an acknowledgement that the Apostle was writing of a law that would ensure life to the doer, (see Rom. ii, 13,) or him who rendered perfect implicit obedience. But this could not refer to the ceremonies of the Levitical law; for "in them is a remembrance of sin," (Heb. x, 3,) or an acknowledgment that "perfect implicit obedience" had not been rendered to the moral law. Therefore none but the moral law could be referred to here.
F. "Verse 25. If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law; yet we are told that the law will save the soul. The law is not our sanctifier, nor justifier but schoolmaster."
But the law spoken of in this chapter would have given life if "perfect implicit obedience" had been rendered. But an imperfect law could not give life even to the obedient, as it would not contain the principles of justification. Strike out the fourth commandment from the Decalogue, and we have nine left which Mr. Fillio said were as perpetual as the eternal throne. Would they give life to the transgressor? No; they would condemn him. Then we see it is no argument against a law that it will not justify sin. But he says we are told that the law will save. We have looked all around to see to whom this would apply, and conclude that as he was in weighing against Sabbath-keepers for observing the ten commandments, he meant to convey the idea that this was our faith and teaching. But we pronounce the insinuation false, and affirm that there was nothing before his mind to justify such a declaration. That he referred to us we consider evident from the manner and connection in which the statement was made. And if he knew anything about our views he knew the statement was not true; but if he did not know what we believe, he surely knew better than to state that to be a fact of which he was ignorant. Those who know our faith know that we endeavor to "keep the Commandments of God, and the Faith of Jesus," just as we find them in the Bible; (please read Rev. xiv, 12; xii, 17; Rom. iii, 31.) The law was only a schoolmaster. Well, whatever others may think of it, I accept it as such, and rejoice that it taught me my sinful condition, (for "by the law is the knowledge of sin," Rom. iii, 20,) and so convinced me of my need of a Saviour. And it teaches me also that there is a great God who created heaven and earth, and then rested and sanctified the seventh day; which some seem anxious to forget; and others have fully forgotten, therefore they worship what their own hands have made, instead of worshiping him who made all things.
F. "What pernicious influence is working to bring you again under the Jewish ritual?"
To prove that the laws given to the Jews were not designed for the Gentiles, Mr. Fillio read Ps. cxlvii, 19, 20: "He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord." This he referred to the Jewish ritual, for the moral law he said bound all alike, and then in the face of this exposition tried to prove that they who kept the same law, "knew not God," and "did service unto them which by nature are no gods;" for this is what Paul said of the Galatians in the verse preceding the one paraphrased above. Now if the Jewish ritual was what those Gentiles were turning back to, then Paul's words prove that the Jewish ritual was instituted by "them which by nature are no gods." Had we not heard these things for ourselves, we could scarcely have believed that an individual could be found professing to be a teacher of the word of God who was yet so utterly ignorant of its meaning. Yet it is to be feared there are many such "blind guides" who take away the key of knowledge, and make void the commandment of God through their traditions.
F. "The sum total of the law of Horeb is abolished."
To this especial attention is called as Mr. Fillio has publicly denied making such a statement. But in that he labors to a great disadvantage, for respectable citizens of Battle Creek can be produced who will testify that they heard him make it. But the best way is to convict him out of his own mouth; and we will now show that his argument on the New Testament tended to that point. He read Eph. ii, to show that "THE LAW" was abolished. In connection he read Heb. viii, and 2 Cor. iii, to show what law was abolished. In his remarks on Heb. viii, 6-10, he made the covenant and the laws identical. (The covenant here signifies an agreement: the laws signify the terms or condition of agreement. See Ex. xix, xx.) He stated that the law written in the heart was presented "in contradistinction from the one written on stone." The scripture does not present a contradistinction of laws, but of places and things whereon to write them. The same laws that were written on stone in the old covenant, are written in the heart in the new covenant. Contradistinction is defined by Webster, "Distinction by opposite qualities." Therefore, according to Mr. Fillio the law written on the heart is of opposite qualities to that written on stone. But what has become of that law that was written on stone? Did it pass away with the old covenant? It cannot be that it is written on the heart with the other law, for they are of opposite qualities; and as a man cannot develop two opposite characters at the same time, nor love and hate the same thing at the same time, so he cannot have two laws of opposite natures written in his heart at the same time. The law written on stone was the law of Ten Commandments; hence, the law of the new covenant is the opposite of the ten commandments!!!133
The same was held forth from 2 Cor. iii, 7-16. His exposition of this scripture went to show that the law "written and engraven on stone" was "done away." The Apostle asserts that the ministration of that which was engraven on stone, though glorious, was done away, and superseded by a ministration more glorious. Christ is the minister of the new covenant, and his service is far more glorious than that of the ministers of the old covenant. He is the mediator of a better covenant, having better promises, even the forgiveness of sin, because he officiates in the true Sanctuary, and offers better blood or sacrifice for sin. Heb. viii, 1, 6, 10-12; ix, 11, 12, 23, 24. But as on Heb. viii, so on this passage, Mr. Fillio said it was a better law. What law is spoken of in 2 Cor. iii? The one written on stone—the ten commandments. Then a better law than the ten commandments is the law of the new covenant. In view of his exposition of all these scriptures, is it not plain that he taught the abolition of the sum total of the law of Horeb? That declaration stands in our notes of his lectures as the conclusion drawn from the above scriptures. This chain of argument, as he termed it, is not forgotten by his hearers; and a denial, under such circumstances, involves him in far more difficulty than an acknowledgment would.
The most plausible argument that he presented we come now to consider. Most plausible, because it has the appearance of being founded on the facts respecting the nature of law. It is as follows:
F. "Matt. xii, 1-8. Dr. Doddridge in the Family Exposition says they traveled on the Sabbath, which was clearly a breach of the law. The law said, do no work. This was not a work of necessity. The law knew no exceptions, unless we say the exceptions were subjects of after enactment, and then the argument of the morality of the law would not stand."
He has claimed that the Sabbath was nailed to the cross, or abolished at the crucifixion. Then it was certainly in force till that time. And if the Saviour broke this law of the Father, without any necessity, as he now claims, and while it was yet in full force, in what sense is he our pattern? and wherein shall we follow him? He did that which was lawful, and that only.
But the point in his argument is this: the law said, do no work; and if exceptions are allowed it would disprove the argument for its morality. Which is to say that no after enactment could grant an exception to a moral law. As we desire all to examine this argument with care, we will state it and its conclusion in brief.
A moral law allows of no exceptions.
If an after enactment granted exceptions it proved that the law was not moral.
But after enactments did require the priests to labor on the Sabbath-day.
Therefore the Sabbath law was not moral.
This appears plausible, yet it is a fallacy as may be easily shown. These special or after enactments did not relax the claims of the law; they only proved the claims by foreshadowing the necessary consequence of its transgression. There is no intimation that the law was any less binding, or the Sabbath any less sacred, because offerings were made on it by the priests. In proof of this we remark that the work of the priesthood was instituted before the man was stoned for Sabbath-breaking; therefore the law was in its fullest, unrelaxed force after it is claimed that the priests continually transgressed it. It may be claimed, indeed, that a strong necessity existed for the labor of the priests on the Sabbath, but Mr. Fillio, in his remarks on Matt. xii, said that was not a work of necessity. Now if he is right in all his positions it would follow that Christ and the disciples deserved the fate of the man in the wilderness, or else God's ways are not equal. But we consider such charges against the Saviour and his followers, akin to blasphemy, and meet them with the fact that the Saviour always vindicated himself because he had done only what was "lawful," but a breach of the law would be unlawful. If he broke the law he could not have said, "I have kept my Father's commandments." John xv, 10.
But it is clear that their traveling was not a breach of the law; for they went to the synagogue, in obedience to the requirement of God, to have "a holy convocation." On this day they met to hear the reading of the law. Though the Saviour strongly rebuked the Pharisees for this, they still persist in accusing him of breaking the Sabbath.
But to further and most clearly show its fallacy we will now make an application of his argument to the sixth commandment. Mr. Fillio took especial pains to hold up in contrast the fourth and sixth commandments, and we have said that his arguments struck with peculiar force against the sixth commandment, provided they were of any force at all.
The sixth commandment says, Thou shalt not kill. Now if there is any precept in the decalogue to which Mr. F.'s argument will apply it is this; and this he says is perpetual and unchangeable as the eternal throne. We will now state this moral law as given at Sinai, and place by its side a special enactment given soon after.
AFTER ENACTMENT.—If thy brother . . . entice thee, saying, Let us go and serve other gods. . . . Thou shalt surely kill him. Deut. xiii, 6-9.
We have chosen this out of many texts of similar import, as it is very definite, and may therefore lay claim to the title of an "exception" if there is one to any law in the book. In the very passage which Mr. Fillio cited to prove that the Sabbath law was positive and not moral, [Num. xv, 32-36,] this "exception" to the sixth commandment is recognized, for the Sabbath-breaker was stoned, as the Lord directed. "The man shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones."
Here then we have (to use his terms) an after enactment granting exceptions to the sixth commandment.
Therefore the sixth commandment is not moral.
Thus the reader will see that we have fully sustained our position; to wit, that his argument bears stronger against the sixth commandment than against the fourth. The very words of the sixth commandment are reversed; therefore to make his argument bear against the fourth with equal force he must produce an "after enactment" exactly reversing the terms of the law, saying, "Thou shalt not remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy."
The truth of the matter is, there is no force whatever in his argument. The priests, when they offered the offerings on the Sabbath, and when they laid their hands on the murderer to put him to death, could not be charged with breaking the law, but they typified the work of remission in one case, and the execution of the penalty in the other, both to be effected by Christ subsequent to that dispensation. Mr. Fillio's argument would make the execution of the penalty equally wrong with the transgression. And in that case no law could be maintained except through wrong, and God would truly be unrighteous who taketh vengeance. Rom. iii, 5. Thus his argument is not only fallacious, but it tends to the most monstrous conclusions. We therefore dismiss it.
F. "It is a moral impossibility to tell which is the seventh day from creation. Suppose it was known when the Hebrews left Egypt, it was lost again during the Babylonian captivity, for the Babylonians reckoned time differently."
Those who observe the seventh day commence the day at sunset, while those who observe Sunday commence at midnight; yet I have never heard of any disarrangement of dates from that difference of reckoning, nor the loss of a day, by either class, in any community. Those who obeyed God in that dispensation reckoned time as we do now; while the Babylonians, who were heathens, commenced the day at sunrise. But we have yet to learn that there was any disagreement of days between them, or that the Jews would have lost the days of the week, even if they had adopted the custom of beginning them at a different hour. And if they lost it in Babylon so that it could not afterwards be found, how does he know that it was the seventh-day Sabbath on which the Saviour traveled. It seems truly singular that it was lost in Babylon so that it is impossible to find it even to this day, and yet it was so well known in Judea after the captivity. And here we would suggest a thought for his reflection, and for all who have such difficulty in finding the Sabbath in Babylon. Not only were the Jews in Babylon, but they were scattered through one hundred and twenty-seven provinces; yet after they were gathered from all the nations, they, with Jesus at their head, were all perfectly agreed on the return of each seventh day. Rather hard to lose, we think; and doubtless our opponents have not so great difficulty to find as to keep it.
But what was most amusing to the hearers of Mr. Fillio was, that after stating this objection, he almost immediately commenced his argument in favor of the first day of the week! As a moral law is unchangeable, and can never be set aside, so a moral impossibility can never be overcome. And if it is morally impossible to find the seventh day of the week, how can it be possible to find the first day of the same week?
These two days always come very close together; as there are but seven days in any one week, the seventh day of one will always immediately precede the first day of the next. And if Mr. Fillio can say, "To-day the Son arose from the dead," we can reply, "Yesterday the Father rested." Singular as all this may appear, Mr. Fillio is not alone here. Others have brought up the same objection against the Sabbath. What would they think if we should assert that they must all keep the seventh day now, as it is impossible to find the first day?
Reader, look at this position: two days of the week standing together, so that when one closes the other immediately commences, and one observed throughout almost the entire world by heathens, Catholics, and Protestants, and the other cannot be found! Mr. Fillio's quandary on this point strongly reminds us of a story of a certain man who had a pair of match cattle which were so nearly alike that he was always troubled to tell how to yoke them up. He said, however, that he had no difficulty in telling which was the off one, but the near one he could not tell.
We have now reached the climax of this part of the subject. That the Sabbath was blessed in Paradise he has not dared to deny. But to evade the force of this fact, he would fain make us think that the term "wickedness," in the days of Noah, specified every sin but Sabbath-breaking; he asserted that it originated in the wilderness, where it was instituted for the Jews: that it was openly disregarded and violated by the Saviour, but lost in Babylon beyond the possibility of recovery some time before. Now the way is fully prepared, to use his own words, to "take another step." This step is to establish the first day of the week. Having laid such a foundation as we have been examining, on which to build the next position, it might be expected that his first-day superstructure would be one of rare proportions. This we must next examine. J. H. W.
(To be Continued.)