THE EXPOSITOR AGAIN by James White

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 13, 1857

THE EXPOSITOR AGAIN.

By James White

AFTER an absence of near two years, the Prophetic Expositor of Rochester, N. Y., J. Marsh, Editor and Proprietor, makes us a visit, and is found the 1st inst. among other papers on our table. What does this mean? was the inquiry, as we took it up. We soon found that the Editor of the Expositor, and A. N. Seymour, were renewing their efforts to deceive people upon the Sabbath question, and in regard to the course pursued by those who teach its observance. Read the following:

"BRO. MARSH: Is your paper open to a full discussion of the Sabbath question? J. H. Waggoner, I am informed, has said, and said it publicly, that your paper was not open to both sides of that question, and some brethren think if that is the case that you are afraid of an investigation. A. N. SEYMOUR. Reading, Mich."

"We have repeatedly called upon Sabbatarians to give positive Bible testimony which shall prove that Christians are required to keep the seventh day. However, we do not want mere speculations, affirmations, nor visions—but the plain word of God. On these conditions we invite them to write for the columns of the Expositor.—ED."

Those who are acquainted with the course pursued by Eld. Marsh in regard to the Sabbath and Sabbath-keepers, know that he has taken a most unchristian and one-sided course. The Expositor never has been open to a discussion of both sides of the Sabbath question. And he who will pretend any such thing under the garb of Christian freedom must be also capable of stating the grossest falsehoods in the most unblushing manner. The Editor of the Expositor has seized upon everything within his reach that would oppose the Lord's Sabbath, without regard to the confusion of sentiments among the different writers copied into his columns. Hence some three or four positions on this question have appeared in his paper, perfectly destructive of each other. This seemed no objection, if the Sabbath could be opposed. He has also shut out of his columns the arguments of Sabbath-keepers, drawn from plain scripture testimony—arguments upon the institution and perpetuity of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment which are in harmony with most Protestant writers for centuries past. Here let it be understood that Sabbath-keepers are in harmony with the body of Protestants, with very few exceptions, on the institution of the Sabbath at creation, and its perpetuity throughout all time.

But what has been most unchristian in Eld. Marsh, is the manner in which he has in times past slandered and wickedly abused Sabbath-keepers. And when he has been corrected, he has had nothing to take back. We would like to see the man that ever knew him to confess, even when his wrongs were pointed out in the clearest manner. He seems to delight in insinuations which he knows give a wrong idea. How much better is this than downright falsehood? Not a whit. In his note above he says, "We do not want mere speculations, affirmations, nor visions," as though this was the evidence we offer in defense of the Lord's Sabbath. We ask, where has a writer, in defending the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, ever quoted a modern vision as proof of his position? Nowhere! Has the thing ever been done? Never! Now in view of this fact, how much better is Eld. Marsh's insinuation in the sight of God, and of all sincere

men, than a downright falsehood? Those who have the truth can afford to be fair, while the best evidence of error and a weak position is the resort to insinuations and misrepresentations.

The readers of the Expositor know that articles on the Sabbath have been rejected by Eld. Marsh with the flimsy excuse that they were not based upon plain testimony; he always reserving to himself the right of deciding in the case!—free discussion (!)!! Why not let his readers judge whether the testimony was sufficient, and to the point? Why not publish both sides, (as the REVIEW has done,) then let his readers judge? He dare not do it. He has chosen to shut the testimony of Sabbath-keepers out of his paper, then resort to slander and misrepresentation to prejudice his readers—Free investigation!!

BOTH SIDES.

This is the title of a small tract which we published four years since, and have circulated of the same 5000 copies. We give the introduction as follows, which shows how things stood between us and the Harbinger, now Expositor, four years since, and the positions which we have maintained:

"This Tract contains a friendly letter by E. Miller jr., and a candid reply by R. F. Cottrell. The former thinks that Christians should not observe the Sabbath; the latter teaches that the Sabbath was "made for man" to observe in all dispensations. "The letter and the reply were both published in the REVIEW, Vol. IV, No. 10. One reason why we give them in this form for much wider circulation, is this: The Advent Harbinger for Sept. 24th, 1853, copied from the REVIEW the letter without giving the reply with it, or even stating that it had been replied to. A singular course this, we think, for that paper which has made such high professions of free investigation! "The Harbinger states (see its rules of discussion) that 'it is open for the free investigation of all Bible doctrines.' Then why give one side and suppress the other, as in the case of the letter and the reply? If it be said that the Sabbath is not a 'Bible question,' then we ask, why give one side of it? Does not common honesty say, in a case like this, Give both sides or none? The REVIEW gave both the letter and the reply that its readers might compare them, and decide for themselves. The Harbinger gives but one side, with the following note, calculated to deceive its readers relative to the Lord's Sabbath, and prejudice them against the REVIEW and its conductors. Let the candid judge whether acts of this kind are not more worthy a Catholic Priest, than a Protestant Editor, who has for years been talking of free investigation. "We have repeatedly published that if the advocates of the Jewish Sabbath would present one plain declaration from the Bible that Christians are required to keep that day, we would believe. By the equivocating course the conductors of the REVIEW have taken in the matter, by asking us to produce the same kind of evidence on other subjects, they have tacitly acknowledged that the Bible does not furnish one plain declaration that it is the duty of Christians, or any body under the gospel dispensation to keep the Jewish or Seventh-day Sabbath. We have considered their evasive offset to our unanswerable request unworthy of notice. Bro. E. Miller, jr., however, has given the following able article in reply to their quibbles. It may subserve the cause of truth, and we therefore copy it from the REVIEW of Sept. 13th." "In reply to this note we would say that the REVIEW teaches the weekly Sabbath mentioned in both Testaments, which is certainly binding on Christians, unless it has been abolished. The Harbinger affirms that the Sabbath has been abolished.

This it should prove. The REVIEW has justly called for proof in the following request:

A REQUEST.

Those who teach that there is no Sabbath for the gospel dispensation, are requested to give us one plain text from the New Testament that teaches that the Seventh-day Sabbath has been abolished. When any one will do this, we will notice it in the REVIEW.

This request has been repeated in eight or ten numbers of the REVIEW, the last four months, yet no one has presented the text or texts that declare the Seventh-day Sabbath abolished.

But the Harbinger says that if the advocates of the Sabbath would present one plain declaration from the Bible that Christians are required to keep that day, we would believe.' The mocking priests said of Jesus, 'Let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.' Jesus did not come down from the cross to remove their doubts; neither has the great God repeated the fourth commandment a second time in the New Testament for fear the caviler might have a chance to cavil. Why should a second edition of the Sabbath law be given, unless the first were abolished? The request of the Harbinger is unjust. When it will prove by plain testimony the first edition of the fourth commandment abolished, then we will either show a second edition from the New Testament, or give up the Sabbath. We teach the Sabbath of the Bible. Let those who assert that it is abolished, produce one plain text to prove their assertion. This is a reasonable request. Will they produce the text?

We want none of their inferences from 2 Cor. iii; Rom. xiv, Col. ii, 14-17, which have been a hundred times repeated. They should not be allowed in a case like this. God gave the Sabbath law in the plainest language possible; and no man should be convinced that it has been abolished, unless he can find testimony as positive and plain, coming from as high authority.

Rom. xiv does not mention the Sabbath. 2 Cor. iii, speaks of two ministrations of the law of God. That the ministration of death could be abolished, and give place to the ministration of the Spirit without affecting the law, is evident. Col. ii, 16 reads, '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.' That these sabbath-days, or sabbaths, here associated with meat, drink, holy day and the new moon, are the annual sabbaths of the Jews, associated with the same ordinances in Lev. xxiii, is perfectly plain. The text has no reference to the Sabbath of the Lord our God. But admitting that the Seventh-day Sabbath is meant, then what is gained? Verily nothing; for not a word is said about its being abolished. Men may infer that the Sabbath is included in the 'hand writing of ordinances,' mentioned in verse 14, or that it is referred to in verse 16; but such inferences should not be considered of the least weight in such a case as this, in the absence of plain and direct testimony.

Behold the display of Divine Power at the giving of the ten commandments. The smoke ascended from mount Sinai as the smoke of a great furnace; the lightnings flashed, and the thunders of Jehovah rolled down its base. God had descended upon it in awful grandeur, to speak in the ears of all the people the ten precepts of his holy law. These precepts were of such a character, of such vast importance, that the great Law-giver did not leave them for man to write; but with his finger engraved them in tables of stone. Behold them placed in the beautiful ark, overlaid and inlaid with the purest gold. Mark well the victories won by Israel, when with the ark of God they crossed Jordan, marched around Jericho, and went forth to battle. See the ark put in the Most Holy of the earthly Sanctuary. It was the center of their religious system, it was the glory of Israel. The fourth commandment was in that ark; and for its violation the greatest curses are pronounced by the prophets; and for the observance of the Sabbath, the greatest blessings are promised. And how preposterous the supposition that the Almighty, through his Son Jesus Christ, should abolish his Sabbath, without giving one plain testimony to the fact in the Book of Inspiration. And how awfully presumptuous for men to go on in violation of the fourth commandment, and risk their eternal salvation upon mere inferences!! May God help the reader to feel the force of the truth we are here stating.

"And we should not expect that such a momentous event as the abrogation of God's law, or even the Sabbath precept, would take place without being foretold by the prophets. God by the prophets has not only revealed the great events connected with his people, or in which his people have a special interest, but has by them pointed out those events which are more minute. "Now, if the Lord's Sabbath has been abolished, where have the prophets foretold the event? 'Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.' Amos iii, 7. As none of the prophets have foretold the abolition of the Sabbath, and as none of the apostles have recorded such an event, we are certain that no such event ever occurred. "To trample under foot the fourth commandment because it is not given a second time in the New Testament, and to teach its abolition, with nothing but unwarrantable inferences from a few texts that do not mention the Sabbath of the Lord, is the height of presumption."

Does the fact that the Sabbath commandment is not commanded over again in the New Testament prove that the fourth commandment should not be kept? If so, then the fact that the first, second, and third are not given over a second time proves that we should not keep the first, second and third commandments.

We frequently hear it asserted, 'It is very strange that nine of the commandments are given in the New Testament, and the fourth left out, if the Sabbath is binding on Christians.' But is it not indeed strange that professed Bible students should thus expose their ignorance of the subject of which they speak? It is a fact that the first four commandments are not repeated in the New Testament. Does this prove that we should not regard the first, second and third? If it does not prove this, then it does not prove that the fourth is not binding upon Christians.

It is said that an equivalent is given to those commandments not repeated in the New Testament. Well, when we come to equivalents, we can show five to one for the Sabbath commandment. We invite especial attention to New Testament testimony in regard to the Sabbath. 1. The testimony of Christ in regard to the duty of Christians relative to the Sabbath, as late as the destruction of Jerusalem. 'But pray ye that your flight be not in the Winter, neither on the Sabbath-day.' Matt. xxiv, 20. Again, 'The Sabbath was made for man.' 2. The testimony of the apostle Luke relative to the holy women. 'And they returned and prepared spices and ointments and rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment.' Luke xxiii, 56. If the Sabbath law was abolished at the crucifixion, several years before this fact was recorded, of what commandment does the historian speak? 3. The testimony of the same apostle in regard to Paul's manner. 'And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath-days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.' Acts xvii, 2. 'And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.' Chap. xviii, 4. 'And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.' 'And the next Sabbath-day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.' Acts xiii, 42, 44. 'And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river-side where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down and spake unto the women which resorted thither.' Acts xvi, 13.

J. B. Cook in 1852 tried to make it appear that nine of the ten commandments were given over in the New Testament on a larger scale. We will give his statement, with our reply at that time.

"All moral truth—nay, all the ten commandments are expressed, expanded and enforced in the gospel, save the fourth. The 1st, Mark xii, 29; 2d, Matt. iv, 10; 3d, Matt. v, 33; vi, 10; 5th, Matt. xv, 4; 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th, Matt. xix, 18; 10th, Luke xii, 15. 'Thou shalt not kill.' Beware of covetousness, is the style of Christ's command. But no mandate of Messiah was ever heard touching the fourth commandment."

That J. B. C.'s position may be seen in its true light, we will quote the texts which he refers to, as the nine commandments, commanded over again by Christ. 1. 'And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord.' Mark xii, 29. 2. 'Then said Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.' Matt. iv, 10. 3. 'Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths; but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven,' &c. Matt. v, 33-37. 'Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.' Matt. vi, 10. 5. 'For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother; and, he that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.' Matt. xv, 4. 6, 7, 8 and 9. 'He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,' &c. Matt. xix, 18. 10. 'And he said unto them, take heed, and beware of covetousness; for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.' Luke xii, 15.

Now let us see to what extremity C. has been driven to make out his case. Look at the text he refers to [Mark xii, 29] for the first one of the Father's commandments; but so 'expressed, expanded and enforced,' that it is indeed 'Christ's command.' We have only to remark, that Mark xii, 29 speaks of the first of the two great commandments, and not the first of the ten. Here is a perfect failure in trying to show the first of the ten. Look at the text referred to for the second of the ten commandments, [Matt. iv, 10], given by the Father, but improved by Christ. It is neither the second of the two great commandments, nor is it the second of the ten; but what Christ said to Satan! Jehovah spake the second commandment to Israel; but according to J. B. C., Christ speaks it, in its 'expanded' form, to Satan!! This second failure seems much worse than the first. Look at it with care. In the text referred to for the third commandment, [Matt. v, 33,] Christ does not quote the language of the third, but what it 'hath been said by them [not God] of old time,' relative, doubtless, to the third commandment. He then shows the true import of that commandment. We leave the reader to judge of what bearing the words, 'Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven,' [Matt. vi, 10,] have on the third commandment. Look at the fifth 'expanded' commandment. Matt. xv, 4. Jesus here says that 'God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother,' &c. Tell us; how much is it expanded? Jesus showed the scribes and Pharisees that they made the commandment of God of none effect by their tradition. He does not give it a second time. He does not intimate a change in it. He does not call it his commandment. He refers them to the commandment of God. Ex. xx, 12. 'Let no man deceive you.' For the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th expanded commandments, J. B. C. refers to Matt. xix, 18. Now look at the truth of this case. The young man came to Christ and asked, 'What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?' Jesus answered, 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' The young man saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, 'Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,' &c. We would inquire, How much are these four commandments expanded? The truth is, that there is no intimation, or reason to suppose, that Jesus gave these four commandments on a new account. And what folly to teach that he expanded them. He says, 'keep the commandments.' He does not say, keep the nine that

I am expanding for the gospel. He refers the young man to the original law of God, the ten commandments, and quotes four of them.

As to the text referred to for the tenth commandment, [Luke xii, 15,] Jesus says, "Beware of covetousness," &c. His words do not intimate the least change or expansion of the tenth commandment.

Now compare the above facts relative to the texts referred to by J. B. C., for the nine commandments, also the frequent references made to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment in the New Testament, with the statement that "all the ten commandments are expressed, expanded and enforced in the gospel, save the fourth," and J. B. C.'s position will be seen to be gross error. An effort to make out a case, but a perfect failure.

But let us look at this matter again. Admitting that the ten commandments were abolished at the cross, they were certainly binding until our Lord was crucified. Then in addition to the ten which continued to the cross, (according to J. B. C.) Christ gave nine expanded commandments, making in all nineteen from two Law-givers. Ten contracted, Jewish commandments from Jehovah, and nine expanded, gospel commandments from Jesus!! A favored period indeed!!

Again, if J. B. C., really believes that the ten commandments as given by Jehovah are Jewish, and have been abolished more than 1800 years; and that Christ has given nine expanded commandments for the gospel, why has he not warned his people in this city against circulating cards among their Sunday School children containing the ten old contracted, Jewish commandments. Why not be consistent with their own views, and have Christ's nine, expanded, gospel commandments printed for their children? J. W.