Bro. Smith: The truth has met much opposition in Sutton, C. E., of late. Ministers of different denominations have united together to oppose the truth, and to discourage those who keep the Seventh-day Sabbath. Among those who have taken an active part in the work of opposing the truth, are Elders Fowler and Garvin—the former a Wesleyan, and the latter an Adventist. Last Sunday they spoke against our views of the law and Sabbath. Their remarks were reviewed by my brother and myself before a large congregation. The result was good. Many of those present acknowledged that we had got the truth on the Sabbath question. May the Lord help them to be consistent, and live up to what they acknowledge to be the truth.
While reviewing the positions of these two Elders we were reminded of the fact that "consistency is a rare jewel." One of the leading ideas of Eld. F. was, that "every precept of the decalogue is binding." He seemed to overlook the idea that if every precept of the decalogue is binding, we are in duty bound to keep the Seventh-day Sabbath, and that we cannot obey the fourth commandment by keeping Sunday. The fourth commandment enforces the observance of the day on which God rested, and which he blessed and sanctified at creation. If we substitute the first day for the seventh day, we must take the position that God rested on the first day and that he blessed and sanctified the first day and thus contradict the fourth commandment which shows that the seventh day is God's rest-day or Sabbath, and that the seventh day is the day which God blessed and sanctified in the beginning. Without the particular day on which God rested, and which God blessed and sanctified, the fourth commandment cannot exist. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work." Ex. xx, 10.
Eld. G. next read Matt. xxviii, 1; Mark xvi, 1; Luke xxiv, 1; John xx, 1; Acts xx, 7; 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2; Rev. i, 10, and leaped at the following conclusion: "The first day is the only correct, holy, Bible Sabbath." This conclusion is adopted by many. But is it correct? Can it be logically drawn from the texts on which it is predicated? Let us see.
1. The first two texts read by Eld. F. show that the first day is the day after the Sabbath.
3. Acts xx, 7, informs us that on the first day of the week the disciples met to break bread. "There were many lights in the upper chamber where they were gathered together." Verse 5. Hence this was an evening meeting. Again, this meeting was held on the "first day of the week;" and according to the Bible manner of reckoning time, the day commenced with the evening, or at sunset. See Gen. i; Neh. xiii, 19; Mark i, 32. Therefore this meeting was held on what is now called Saturday night. Paul preached all night, and Sunday morning he started on foot on his long journey to Jerusalem.
4. 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2, contains an injunction for each member of the Corinthian church to lay by him (Greek, παρ᾿ ἑαυτῷ, AT HOME), that there might be no gatherings when Paul should come.
5. Rev. i, 10, speaks of the Lord's day, but it does not say that the first day is the Lord's day.
Thus we have failed to see that Eld. F.'s texts sustain him in his conclusion. They do not say a single word about the change of the Sabbath, neither do they say that the first day is a "Holy Sabbath." To the foregoing texts we might add the two remaining passages in which the first day is mentioned, viz., John xx, 19, and Mark xvi, 9-14; but these texts would not help Eld. F., for they show that the "disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews;" that "they sat at meat" when Christ appeared unto them (they had a common abode: compare Mark xvi, 14; John xx, 19, 26, with Acts i, 13); and that they did not believe Christ had risen from the dead.
Eld. G. took the position that the first covenant was the ten commandments exclusively, and read 2 Cor. iii, to prove that they were abolished. In our reply we proved that the word covenant was used in different acceptations in the Bible (see Gen. ix, 8-17; xvii, 1-8; Heb. viii, 9; Deut. iv, 12, 13; Ex. xxxi, 16; Isa. xxviii, 15, 19; Eze. xvii, 12, 13); that the ten commandments were God's covenant, and were commanded to a thousand generations (Deut. iv, 12, 13; 1 Chron. xvi, 15-17; Matt. v, 17); that the Sinaitic covenant was an agreement between God and the children of Israel, comprising promises and conditions. See Ex. xix, 5-8. In this agreement or covenant God told the people that if they would obey his voice, and keep his covenant (the ten commandments), they would be a peculiar people, an holy nation; "and the people said, All that the Lord has spoken will we do." This covenant had a mediator or mediators (Gal. iii, 19; Ex. xx, 19, 21, 22); blood, "ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary." Ex. xxiv, 5, 6, 8; Heb. ix, 1, 18, 19. It could not reward those who were under it; for its conditions, the ten commandments, were broken by all. Besides, the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin. Hence the necessity of a "better covenant, established on better promises," embracing forgiveness.
But what about the law of God? Was it abolished? Eld. G. says that it was. But, says the Lord through Jeremiah: "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." Jer. xxxi, 33. With this passage accords the testimony of Paul in 2 Cor. iii, 3: "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart." The same law that was written by the finger of God in tables of stone, is now written by the Spirit of God in the heart.
In 2 Cor. iii, Paul contrasts the ministration of death with the ministration of the Spirit. The ministration of death or condemnation was so glorious "that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moses who administered the law; but the ministration of the Spirit exceeds in glory. The justice of God appeared in the condemnation and death of those who transgressed the law; the mercy and justice of God shine forth gloriously in the ministration of the Spirit, which postpones the penalty of the law, and brings mercy, pardon, and life to the penitent. It was the glory of Moses' countenance which represented the glory of the ministration, or service of condemnation, that was to be done away. Verse 7. Again it was that which was covered with the vail—the glory which enshrouded the face of Moses in his ministration—that was abolished. Verse 13. Now was the law vailed? By no means. The law remains the same. Says Paul, "Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." Rom. iii, 31. Again, Paul expostulates thus with the Jews, who had the form of the truth in the law: "Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? ... Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonorest thou God." Rom. ii, 21-23. Query. How could the Jews dishonor God in breaking the law, if the law had been abolished?
Eld. G. "We will next notice what was said at the apostolic council in Jerusalem. Acts xv. Says Peter, 'Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.' Verse 10. This was not the ceremonial law, but the law of ten commandments. It was a yoke and was faulty."
Answer. We are glad that Eld. G. speaks of "the law of ten commandments," and of "the ceremonial law," and virtually admits that there are two laws. We are here reminded of a discourse that Eld. G. gave in Sutton about two months ago, in which he took the position that there was but one law. He compared the law to a child, and said, "Those who say that there are two laws, divide the child in two." It is to be hoped that he will learn to be consistent, and rightly divide the word of truth on this important subject. But does Peter refer to the law of ten commandments? He does not. For those who troubled the disciples, said, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Verse 1. They said it was needful for the disciples to be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses. Verse 5. Paul says, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God." 1 Cor. vii, 19. Again, is it not strange that a perfect law (Ps. xix, 7), which was the delight of David (Ps. cxix, 77), and which Christ kept (Jno. xv, 10), should be a yoke?
Before Eld. G. got through, he brought in all the ten commandments (or their principles) but the fourth, and said that the fourth commandment was a yoke. So the yoke and the fault must have been in the Sabbath. But is there anything faulty—anything like a yoke—hard to be borne—in gratefully acknowledging the power, benevolence and goodness of the Creator, by resting171from our works on the seventh day? But notwithstanding the efforts made to get rid of this 'faulty yoke,' Eld. G. worked hard before he closed to manufacture another Sabbath yoke. He tried to make it appear that men should keep Sunday.
Eld. G. 'The law is dead. We have nothing to do with it. Proof. Rom. vii, 1-6. Verse 7 shows that Paul has reference to the law of ten commandments.'
Answer. We admit that Paul speaks of the law of ten commandments; but we think that Eld. G's conclusion does not agree with that of Paul. Says Paul, 'What shall we say then? (Then, implies a conclusion.) Is the law sin? ('O yes,' says Eld. G., 'It is dead.' But let us have Paul's answer.) God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good.' Verses 7-12. In Paul's figure [verses 2, 3], it is necessary that the first husband should die, in order that the woman may be married to another man; so in the Bible conversion, which Paul is illustrating, it is necessary that the 'old man' should be crucified with Christ [Rom. vi, 6], and slain by the law, that the sinner may be united to Christ. The sinner must first see the exceeding sinfulness of sin (the transgression of God's law) in the penalty that was inflicted on the Son of God, and become dead to the law by the body of Christ. Then he is delivered from the law, or is freed from the condemnation wherein he was held by the law. The penalty of the law is paid, the law is satisfied, and he who was once a sinner, can be married to Christ. The death of the first husband does not affect the law of marriage, neither does the death of the old man affect the law of God. Paul had to be slain by the law before he could be united to Christ [verses 5-11]; and when he had believed on Christ for the remission of his sins, he could say, 'I delight in the law of God after the inward man' [verse 22]; for he realized that Christ died 'that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in him.' Rom. viii, 4.
Eld. G. 'Christ was a lawgiver. He revised the law. We have a new decalogue. The first commandment is found in Matt. xxii, 37; the second, in 1 John v, 21; the third, in Matt. v, 34-37. The fourth commandment of the decalogue is omitted. In its stead we have, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Matt. xxii, 39. The last six are the same as in the old decalogue. Matt. xix, 18, 19; Rom. vii, 7.'
Answer. 1. The law was perfect. Ps. xix, 7. Therefore there was no need of revising it. To alter a perfect law would be to make it imperfect. 2. Christ does not claim to be a lawgiver, nor a reviser of the law. He was a prophet or teacher. Deut. xviii, 15-18. He taught his Father's law [John vii, 16; Rev. xxii, 14; Matt. v; xix], and never intimated that his teachings would constitute a new law, and take the place of the law which existed from the beginning. 3. Eld. G's first and fourth commandments are the sum of all moral law. Says Christ, 'On these two commandments hang ('depend'—French Trans.) all the law (the fourth commandment included) and the prophets.' Matt. xxii, 40. Why don't G. leave the law where Christ left it? If Christ revised the law, how does it happen that he did not particularly mention the second and tenth commandments of G's decalogue. Where is G's authority for introducing the precept, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,' in the place of the fourth commandment? and where does he find the idea of a new decalogue? Did Christ leave the work of revising the law, and arranging a new law in the form of a decalogue, to the teachers of the nineteenth century?
Eld. G. 'The fourth commandment is not binding. It is not in the new covenant. It never was binding on the Gentiles.' (Let the reader compare this with Eld. F.'s leading idea.)
Answer. Of the law of which the fourth commandment is a part, Christ says, 'Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.' Matt. v, 17. Heaven and earth have not passed; therefore the fourth commandment is binding; therefore the fourth commandment is in the new covenant. Read Matt. xii, 12; Luke xxiii, 56. We have already seen that the law of God was to be written in the heart under the new covenant; and the fourth commandment is a part of God's law. Paul delighted in the law of God, which G. calls 'dead,' 'a yoke,' &c. Rom. vii, 22. Therefore Paul delighted in the fourth commandment. See Acts xiii, 42, 44; xvii, 2; xviii, 3, 4, 11. Paul served the law of God [Rom. vii, 25]; and James says that he that offended in one point of the law is guilty. James ii, 10, 11. 'Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.' (Or 'He shall be of no esteem in the reign of heaven'—Campbell.) 'But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' Matt. v, 19. 'Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life; and may enter in through the gates into the city.' Rev. xxii, 14.