Defense of the Truth at Gilboa, Ohio.
By M. E. Cornell
FROM the time of our last report of meetings in this place, the interest continued to increase, and almost every day new ones were deciding for the truth; but the opposition grew more and more violent, and finally an effort was made to close the meeting house. Five different ministers had been trying to stop the work there, but still they had to resort to the lock-out argument. The people called Campbellites gave notice that they had sent for one of their strongest men, and they were not afraid to risk their cause in his hands. By the request of the church, we tarried and held meetings till he came. The people were anxiously awaiting the arrival of Eld. J. J. Moss, who was a somewhat celebrated disputant, and was coming a long distance to overthrow the Sabbath, and law. In a sermon, Eld. Moss laid down propositions and dared any one to "grapple with them," with such an air of triumph that one would conclude that in his own view we were already driven from the ground. For the truth's sake we consented to discuss the following question. "Are the Ten Commandments, given on Mt. Sinai, now binding?" The investigation continued three days, about eight hours each day. Moderators were chosen, and good order maintained during most of the time. On the affirmation we laid down one general proposition; viz., The ten commandments are the constitution of God's moral government—perfect—perpetual—and unchangeable; and around this common center, we endeavored to rally all our minor propositions and proof texts, somewhat in the manner following: 2. There was a perfect law, [Ps. xix, 7.] that embraced the whole duty of man [Eccl. xii, 13.] in the former dispensation which could never be superceded. 3. The decalogue is based on the relations of man to God, and man to his fellow man, and must remain as long as those relations exist. 4. The design of the law is to develop holy character, [Ex. xix, 5, 6.] and will continue as long as there is a necessity for accomplishing that object. 5. The commanded covenant is the holy, [Dan. xi, 30.] everlasting [Ps. cxi, 9.] covenant, and the basis of all other Bible covenants which God ever made exclusively with man. 6. Only a minister of sin could abolish a holy, just and good law. Rom. vii, 7. The universality of the preaching of repentance shows that all both Jew and Gentile were under sin. On this point we introduced the following from Alexander Campbell: "Paul indeed asks and answers the question, 'What profit was there in circumcision?' Many advantages, indeed, were connected with it. 'Chiefly to them were committed the oracles of God.' The Gentiles now have their oracles, without faith, without circumcision, without baptism. So then, the matter of circumcision, as to its advantage, is settled by high authority. It gave the oracles of God in keeping to the Jewish nation." Campbell on baptism, p. 99. "Christianity presupposes that its subjects shall first be taught by Moses, and then come to Christ. No man can come to Christ, unless God induces him to come by the former intimations given by Moses and the prophets. 'If they will not hear them' they never will, they never can, come to Christ."—C. on baptism, p. 208. On this point we read again from Campbell on baptism, p. 285: "Salvation in the aggregate, is all of grace, and all the parts of it are, consequently, gracious. Nor do we, in truth, in obeying the gospel, or in being buried in baptism, make void either law, or gospel, but establish and confirm both." Also an extract from the Christian Age (Disciple Paper) of Aug. 4th, 1857. "It seems that those who now plead for justification by faith, differ not only from Paul, but from John Wesley. This reform is as explicit upon the subject of baptism for the remission of sins as any one. So is Calvin. The reformers however, could not help bringing with them some relics from the eternal city. But that men now should plead for justification by faith, and make that exclude baptism for the remission of sins, is as if we should adopt the doctrine, and argue, that under the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, faith could justify any one without a corresponding observance of all things commanded and required by God." On the question, how can God be "just," and the "justifier" of the ungodly, Mr. Campbell answers: "The gospel meets the demand by declaring, 'The righteousness of God' at the same time that it proclaims his mercy. All the ends of government are answered—no license is given to offence—The moral law is unrepealed—a day of judgment is still appointed."—Christian System, p. 43. Again of a "sin offering" he says: "It magnifies and makes honorable his violated law and insulted government. It is the most effectual guard against new infractions of the divine law, and superlatively deters from sin."—C. S. p. 48. "True Christian faith which brought salvation was—
Belief in all that God revealed to men;
Observe, in ALL that God revealed to men,
In all he promised, threatened, commanded, said,
Without exception, and without a doubt." 9. The ten commandments referred to by the apostles, as a holy, just, good royal, whole law of liberty, to be the rule in judgment. Rom. vii, 7, 12, 14; James ii, 8-12. And the original order of the decalogue recognized by them. Eph. vi, 2. On this point Mr. Campbell says: "When I think of the nature of sin, and the holy and immutable laws of God, against whom it is committed, I see no difference between one sin and another. There may be great and little sins, as to their temporal relations and consequences, but when it is against whom every sin is committed, and that divine and holy law, which is violated in the least offence, is considered; we must say with the apostle James, 'He that offended in one point is guilty of all.' He that magnified his law and made it honorable, will suffer no person to add to—to subtract from—to change or to violate a single point with impunity."—Debate with Purcell p. 204. Again speaking of the Catholic's version of the ten commandments, he says: "Are these the ten commandments of God, as all Roman Catholic children are taught? The single fact that the four archbishops of Ireland and the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth should have impiously dared to strike one commandment from the ten, which God wrote on two tables with his own finger, and should have changed and divided the tenth into two, speaks volumes in proof of my allegation against the Romanist's rule of faith." Ib. p. 214. 10. An abolished law could not make sin exceeding sinful, as in Rom. vii. 11, 13. 11. If a law is abolished or repealed, it must be by the same authority that did first enact it; and the repeal must be as plainly stated, as the original enactment. No such repeal of the ten commandments can be found, hence that law is still binding.22 The elder complained that we were trying to create prejudice in the audience by placing all denominations against him and his people; but we replied that not only Christ and the apostles, and the most learned and devoted men of all other denominations since the reformation were against him, but that Mr. Campbell, the most learned man in the Scriptures, in his own denomination was most decidedly against him. So that he unfortunately was found fighting against even the best of their own ministers. We then read from different authors as follows: J. Wesley says: "It was not the design of Christ's coming, to revoke any part of the law of God. There is therefore the closest connection that can be conceived, between the law and the gospel." Scott says: "The moral law he came to fulfill by perfectly obeying it as the surety of his people in his life, suffering, death and doctrine; to establish it in its fullest honor and authority, and to make the most effectual provision for man's loving and obeying it." A. Barnes says: "Matt. v, 18. 'Till heaven and earth pass.' This expression denotes that the law never should be destroyed till it should be all fulfilled. It is the same as saying, Everything may change, the very earth and heaven may pass away, but the law of God shall not be destroyed till its whole design shall be accomplished." In conclusion on verse 19th, he says: "We learn here: 1. That all the law of God is binding on Christians. 2. That all the commands of God should be preached in their proper place, by Christian ministers. 3. That they who pretend that there are any laws of God so small that they need not obey them, are unworthy of his kingdom. And, 4. That true piety has respect to all the commandments of God, and keeps them." The Christian Manual (Baptist) pp. 221, 369 says: "The duties of the decalogue did not originate when the law was given on Sinai. The obligations always existed; they grow out of the very nature and relations of man. Every command given, relates either to moral beings, or things of a moral nature already existing. No new moral obligations were there originated. 'Remember the Sabbath day' implies its previous existence. This is no new enactment, but the observance of an old one. 'The Sabbath was made for man.' Both its physical and moral natures absolutely require it.
"Christ came to explain, magnify and fulfill the law; it becomes the christian's rule of life, and is established by faith. Saints are made free from its curse. It is to be the rule of the judgment day." Bishop Hopkins in his work on the ten commandments, published by the American Tract Society, pp. 19, 29, says: "Far be it from any Christian to indulge himself in any licentiousness, from such a corrupt and rotten notion of the law's abrogation; for, so far is it from being abolished by the coming of Christ, that he expressly tells us, he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Matt. v, 17. There is no duty required nor sin forbidden by God, but it falls under one at least, of these TEN WORDS." A book on entire holiness, by John H. Wallace, recommended by Methodist Conferences, on pp. 43, 45, says: "This law which we understand to be still in force, and by which it may be presumed God governs all rational and intelligent beings, is embraced in the moral code delivered on mount Sinai.
"This is the moral law; the law that admits of no repeal, and needs no amendment; nor does it require any modification in its application to any and all the unnumbered hosts that stretch along the line of moral agents &c." The Methodist Discipline says: "No Christian, whatsoever, is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral." Dr. Dick on the ten commandments says: "They unfold to us the moral laws of the universe—they present to us a summary of moral principles and precepts, which is applicable to all the tribes and generations of men, to all the orders of the angelic beings, and to all the moral intelligences that people the amplitudes of creation—to man during his temporary stay on earth, and to man, when placed in heaven, so long as eternity endures—Precepts which if universally observed, would banish misery from the creation, and distribute happiness without alloy, among all the intelligent beings that exist throughout the empire of God"—Dicks works Vol. I, P. R. p. 92. Mr. C. H. Spurgeon of England, who is now attracting so much attention from all parts of the world; in his parable of "a sinner's trial," introduces the law as saying, "I am law; the law of God." Mercy asks "And what hast thou to say?" "I have this to say?" and he lifted up a stony tablet, written on both sides; "these ten commands this wretch has broken. My demand is blood; for it is written, 'The soul that sinneth it shall die!' Die he, or justice must." "Thus it appears that a man cannot have a true notion of sin, but by means of the law of God. And it was one design of the law, to show the abominable and destructive nature of sin; as well as to be a rule of life. It would be almost impossible for a man to have that just notion of the demerit of sin, so as to produce repentance, or to see the nature and necessity of the death of Christ, if the law were not applied to his conscience by the Holy Spirit; it is then alone, that he sees himself carnal, and sold under sin, and that the law and commandment are holy, just and good. And let it be observed that the law did not answer this end merely among the Jews, in the days of the apostles; it is just as necessary to the Gentiles, to the present hour. Nor do we find that true repentance takes place where the moral law is not preached and enforced. Those who preach only the gospel to sinners, at best only heal the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly." Alexander Campbell speaking on the "immoral tendencies of the Romish rule of faith," says: "License is given to violate in some way or other, every precept of the decalogue. The Sabbath as a divine institution is set aside."—Debate with Purcell, p. 193. "It is a poor apology for this expurgation of the decalogue, that it is so done in the Douay Bible. What myriads, then, through this fraud, must have lived and died in the belief that the second commandment was no part of God's law. It is clearly proved, that the pastors of the church have struck out one of God's ten words! which not only in the Old Testament, but in all revelation are the most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all religion and morality." For the perpetuity of the Sabbath, Mr. Campbell says: "The moral and religious institutions of the patriarchal or family worship . . . were the Sabbath, the service of the altar, oral instruction, prayer, praise and benediction. Family worship, was then the first social worship, and during the first ages of the world (for at least 2500 years) it was the only social worship of divine authority. Though other institutions have since been added, this has never been superceded. While the forms of this worship have always been adapted to the genius of the various revelations of God, vouchsafed to mankind, it has continued through all the changes of six thousand years" &c.—Christian System. pp. 129, 130. The course pursued by Eld. Moss was to build up negative arguments independent of most of our leading propositions; so that several of our most pointed arguments and proof texts remained without even an attempt to answer them. Much of this man's twisting and turning to get around the law of God was quite original and somewhat amusing. 1. He endeavored to fix the covenant of ten commands in Abraham's flesh and in the flesh of his literal seed [Gen. xvii, 13] and consequently it never was binding on the Gentiles. In reply we denied that the covenant of ten commands was ever in Abraham's flesh in any sense whatever, and affirmed that there was nothing that God ever commanded placed in Abraham's flesh, but circumcision, which was no more than the token of the covenant, and that in Gen. xvii, 13, covenant is put by a figure of speech for the token as in Acts vii, 8. 2. Denied the distinction of moral and ceremonial laws and affirmed that all the laws of the Old Testament were abolished or nothing. In reply we contrasted Heb. vii, 16 with Rom. vii, 14 and Acts xv, 5, 10, with Rom. vii, 22, and Neh. ix, 13 with Eze. xx, 24, 25, to show two distinct laws of different natures. A law could not be spiritual and carnal, good and not good, a yoke of bondage and a delight, all at the same time. 3. Acts xv, 10. From this he made the law of ten commands an unbearable burden; said that nothing was brought into the New Testament, either from the book or the tables of the law, except the four points named in verse 29. 4. In his argument on Rom. vii, said, "If you are married to Christ before the law dies, you are spiritual adulterers and will receive the wine of God's wrath &c." Rev. xiv, 10. In reply we quoted verse 12, "Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." 5. To "establish the law" as in Rom. iii, 31, he said was to establish it to the Jews. 6. Said we had perverted A. Campbell's words because we made him say the ten commands were positive, or divine laws; he knew Mr. Campbell to be too much of a scholar to call the precepts of the decalogue positive. In reply we read from Campbell and Purcell's debate. p. 185, speaking of the Catholic's rule of faith, Mr. Campbell says:
"But still worse: this immoral law or rule of faith repeals certain positive or divine laws. I have here two catechisms published by the authority of the church. They have 'both wholly expunged' the second commandment." In attempting to turn off the testimony of Mr. Campbell by destroying confidence in our quotations, he acknowledged an impropriety in calling the ten commandments positive laws, yet in his very speech, took the position that the fourth commandment was wholly positive. 7. The first commandment not binding now, because since Christ took his seat as ruler, we have "another God" to worship besides the eternal Father. In reply we cited Matt. i, 23 and ii, 2, 11 to show that Jesus was worshiped before the time when he said the law was abolished, and the supposed "kingdom of grace" set up. 8. To turn away the testimony of Christ on the perpetuity of the law, he took the position that we have nothing to do with the "four gospels" but to learn the divinity of Christ; and in his next speech, he quoted in the 5th. chap. of Matthew, to show a "law of Christ, or amendments of the ten commandments." 9. The ten commands had their origin in the fallen nature of man, (proof 1 Tim. i, 9.) and therefore are carnal. In reply we said, all must admit that angels keep, inviolate the sacred principles, guarded by at least nine of those precepts, and the Sabbath all know was given to man before his fall. 10. Spent much time in contrasting law and gospel, and building an argument on the superior excellence of the gospel, or ministration of the new covenant. In reply, we acknowledged most of his speech to be true, but denied that it superceded the law, but on the contrary, established it. Rom. iii, 31. "By the law is the knowledge, and by the gospel is the cure of sin." Adam Clarke. 11. Quoted Gal. iii, 19, emphasised the word "till," and remarked "I will draw out this till and see what is in it," and found it covered the whole time from Sinai to Christ, "and no more," hence the law is no more. In reply we said, there were two more "tills" to be drawn out [Matt. v, 18.] and we would see what could be found in them; and behold one "till" measured from Christ, in the passing away of heaven and earth, and the other contained the sweeping declaration that "not one jot or one tittle of the law should fail." This was one "till" too many for the elder's position, so he had no more to say about it. But we saw it duty to examine his "till" in Galatians a little more closely, and lo, we found in verse 21 a GOD FORBID, which, compared with other texts showed clearly that a God forbid, was against every position he had taken. 1. He said the law was made void, or superceded by the gospel. Rom. iii, 31 forbids it. 2. The law might be now transgressed, because Paul said Christians were not under it. Rom. vi, 15 forbids it. 3. The law of ten commands was carnal. Rom. vii, 7 forbids it. 5. Argued that Christ would now justify without obedience to the law which would make Christ the minister of sin. Gal. ii, 17 forbids it. 6. All his arguments were to the effect that the law was against the promises or purposes of God. Gal. iii, 21 forbids it. During the discussion, several remarked that the elder's manner betrayed that he was arguing against his own better judgment, and we were confirmed in this opinion, by a traveler that was present at a former discussion, where he said Eld. Moss argued the importance and perpetuity of the law. But why should he argue against the truth? The reason is23 obvious; he had been sent for at a considerable expense, and had come nearly two hundred miles to defend their position, that the law was abolished. For four or five weeks, they had been under close examination for their transgressions of the fourth commandment. They plead not guilty, because the law had been repealed. Two or three different ministers had undertaken for them with much zeal, but all to no purpose, for they were still held in custody under the law; and finally when nearly in their last extremity (though not the last, for the execution of the judgment is yet future) they said, "they would stand or fall with Bro. Moss." Of course then as a man employed and under pay, the Eld. felt bound to clear the prisoners. We say prisoners, for "whoso committeth sin, is the servant of sin." John viii, 32-34. These are in bondage as much as ever the Jews were in transgression. The Jews plead that they were Abraham's children, and these plead that they are Christ's children, or disciples; but we find that neither Abraham nor Christ were against God's commandments. See Gen. xxvi, 5; John xv, 10. The elder repeatedly promised that "to-morrow" or "by to-morrow-noon" he could settle the question, and once said he would so completely upset our position that we would not get a chance to baptize another person in Gilboa. Every time the elder arose, the people anxiously looked for that sweeping argument; but they looked in vain, even to the close. Immediately after the discussion closed, ten more were baptized. One of the moderators (a Methodist minister) publicly declared himself a Sabbath-keeper. A meeting was appointed for the church, and about seventy joined in celebrating the ordinances of the Lord's house. It was a heavenly, melting, confessing season. The church seemed to be brought into closer union and fellowship than before. We shall long remember that meeting, and pray that its effects upon the church may never be lost. Green Spring, Ohio, Oct. 23d, 1857.