REVIEW OF A. N. SEYMOUR by J. M. Aldrich

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 17, 1862

REVIEW OF A. N. SEYMOUR.

By J. M. Aldrich

(Continued.)

"27. Where is the least proof that Christ or the twelve apostles ever enforced upon his disciples subsequent to the crucifixion, the whole law of God given by the hand of Moses, which was fulfilled, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross, abolished, and which we are delivered from and no longer under? Matt. v, 17. Luke xxiv, 25-27, 44. Rom. x, 1-10. Rom. iii, 20, 21, 28; vii, 1-6. 2 Cor. iii, 6-13. Gal. ii, 16; iii, 19-25; iv, 19-31; v, 1-14. Eph. ii, 15. Col. ii, 14-17. Heb. vii, 12, 22; viii, 6-13; x, 7-10."

The question may be answered in one word; nowhere. It is not supposable that any one is foolish enough to believe that "Christ, or the twelve apostles ever enforced upon his disciples," or any body else a law that was "taken out of the way, nailed to the cross, abolished, and which we are delivered from, and no longer under!" The asking of such a question betrays an inexcusable weakness.

But what our friend would like to prove, is, that the ten commandments, together with the ceremonial law, were abolished or nailed to the cross. How astonishing it is, that men will resort to such unreasonable extremes, to get rid of the Sabbath. As much as to say,—the Sabbath is such an ungodly institution, that all things else, however good or holy must fall, that it may have a free road to perdition! Abolish the ten commandments! Does it look reasonable? Does it look God-like? That the ceremonial law, which consisted of types and shadows, pointing to Christ, and which received in him the full accomplishment of their design, should cease,—be nailed to the cross or abolished, is reasonable. There had been no significance in them, this side of the cross. They had served their time.

But was it so with the ten commandments? Had they served their time? Was there no longer any need of them? Had their observance to a certain time accomplished the whole object of their design? "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." What! This commandment "nailed to the cross?" So says our friend. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," &c., this "taken out of the way?" So we are told. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," was this "abolished?" Eld. S. says so. "Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy." This; of course, must have been abolished, for A. N. Seymour has produced "fifty unanswerable arguments" to prove it! "Honor thy father and thy mother," write "fulfilled" against this commandment! No longer any need of it! Altogether too Jewish for this dispensation! "Thou shalt not kill." "Thou shalt not commit adultery." "Thou shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not bear false witness." "Thou shalt not covet." All these "taken out of the way, nailed to the cross, abolished, and which we are delivered from and no longer under!!" O certainly! for these were all written in the law of Moses, and pertained exclusively to the Mosaic dispensation! And Christ says, Luke xxiv, 44, "All things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses." i. e. come to an end!!! Again, I am constrained to ask; does this look reasonable, or God-like?

But notwithstanding it be argued with so much gravity, that the ten commandments were abolished, it is admitted after all, that nine of them are not so very bad, but are quite necessary for observance, even in the present dispensation, and in fact do constitute a part of God's law at the present time. So, that by some singular process untold, the same "death-blow" that abolished from God's law the ten commandments, at the same moment re-instated therein nine of them! Our friend's position in regard to the ten commandments is much like that of a novice in "bowling at ten-pins." His exultation is all the same, whether attended with good or ill success. At a lucky moment he shouts, "A ten strike!" "a ten strike!" then again with almost the next breath, and quite as rapturously as ever, he exclaims, "All down but nine!" So with the ten commandments. At one moment they are all abolished—all taken out of the way—at the next moment the exultant cry is, "All down but nine!"

For a full and thorough examination of the numerous texts referred to in the foregoing question, also for indisputable proof of the perpetuity of the ten commandments, the reader is respectfully referred to Eld. J. H. Waggoner's work entitled, "The Law of God."

"28. Where did Christ, the twelve apostles, or the seventy, ever call together a Christian congregation on the seventh-day Sabbath, and preach to them? That they preached on that day is admitted, but it was to the Jewish congregations, by request. Acts xiii, 15."

There happens to be one occasion, at least, recorded—enough to stop the mouth of our questioner—when Paul at Antioch preached on the Sabbath to the Gentiles by their request. Acts xiii, 42, 43. But the question is, did Christ or the apostles preach to "a Christian congregation on the seventh-day Sabbath?" It is admitted that they preached on that day; nor will it be denied that this was according to their manner and custom. Luke iv, 16; Acts xvii, 2. Now if it was according to their manner and custom to preach on the Sabbath, I submit that it is a poor compliment to their preaching to say that they never had "a Christian congregation" to hear them preach on such occasions. A Christian is one who believes in the religion of Christ. Think you, then, Eld. S., that with all the preaching done by Christ and the apostles on the Sabbath, they never had the happy privilege of preaching to Christians! I choose to be excused from such a supposition.

"29. When the law of Sinai expired by limitation at the crucifixion, did another law take the place immediately? Most assuredly! Proof, Rom. iii, 27; viii, 2; vii, 22; Gal. vi, 3; James i, 25; ii, 12; Heb. ix, 15-18; x, 9, 10, 28, 29; John xii, 47-50. We are now under the law of God given by Christ, and not under the law of God given by Moses; that administrator, law, and dispensation having passed away. Christ is head of the church in this dispensation, consequently administrator—Hear him!"

What naked assumption! If it be a fact that the ten commandments expired by limitation at the crucifixion, and "another law" took their place "immediately," will Eld. S. who speaks "most assuredly" on this point, be good enough to tell us where may be found the record of that other law? When, where, and by whom, was it first spoken or written? The proof-texts referred to speak only of a certain law, or laws, but do not contain the law itself—nor do they refer the reader to the book or chapter that does contain it. Away then with such "proof." But in the foregoing proof-texts we are referred to the "law of faith"—"the law of the spirit of life"—"the law of God after the inward man"—"the law of Christ," and "the law of liberty." Now as these different expressions are referred to as the law that went into effect at the crucifixion, they of course must be synonymous with each other, and hence synonymous with the first expression, viz.: "the law of faith," Rom. iii, 27, and therefore all must abide the rule that applies to it. Let us then try the strength of his proof from this text. And in so doing we have only to let Paul put a construction upon his own words, or draw his own conclusion. Will Eld. S. "hear him?" Verse 31. "Do we therefore make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." But again, it is a well-known fact, that not one word of the New Testament was written at the time of the crucifixion, nor until several years afterward; therefore the law which we are told went into effect at that time, was not a written law prior to the writing of the New Testament.

"Very well," says the objector, "but it was written when the New Testament was written."

But the New Testament was written in fragmentary portions, by a variety of writers, and also at several different periods, during the space of over half a century. Was the law of God which took effect at the death of Christ, and which is still the moral rule of the world, written in the same manner? i. e., in fragmentary portions—a certain part by one writer at one time, another part at another time by a different writer, and still another fraction at still a different time! The idea is too absurd to be entertained for a moment.

Then perhaps the first New Testament writer—Matthew—when he seized the pen of inspiration, delayed not to give a complete copy of God's new law. Such were indeed a reasonable supposition if the foregoing assumption were true. But in vain do we search the record of Matthew for any such law. But though he omitted to give even an abstract of such law, he did not omit to furnish a record of Christ's memorable sermon on the mount, wherein he specially and plainly taught the perpetuity of the old law—that law that contained jots and tittles, and hence was already written in Hebrew. Christ said of it, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." But heaven and earth have not yet passed, nor have all the "prophets" yet been fulfilled; therefore the law of which Christ thus spake is still good and in force. Christ is indeed administrator, instead of law-giver. Will Eld. S. "hear him?"

"30. Where is there one command of God from the lips of Jesus Christ, or the inspired apostles to any Jew or Gentile, to observe the seventh-day Sabbath after the crucifixion of Christ? If they did not require it, pray tell me why should any at the present time? Do they not preach another Gospel? Judge ye!"

In Ex. xx there is "one command of God" given by himself, "to observe the seventh-day Sabbath." And since that command has never been revoked by God himself, neither by "Jesus Christ or the inspired apostles," it is just as binding "after the crucifixion of Christ" as before that event. Therefore those who advocate the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, are not guilty of preaching "another gospel." "Judge ye!"

"31. Where does the Comforter, or Holy Spirit, or Spirit of Truth, which was to guide the apostles and church into all truth guide any one into the seventh-day Sabbath keeping? If the Holy Ghost never guided any one into this observance on the day of Pentecost, nor at the household of Cornelius, why will men do so now? Are they not wise above that which is written; and have they not run before they are sent? Father says (and I believe what Father says to be true, for I never knew him to lie), that prophet shall die, that shall presume to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak. Deut. xviii, 20. Dear brethren and sisters, let us obey our good Father, for he has raised us up a great prophet, and says to us, Hear him in all things. Children, let us anoint our eyes with eye-salve that we may comprehend the truth."

In answer to the first question I reply thus: Wherever there is a willingness to be guided by the truth, and the way is not hedged up with unbelief, false theories, or the traditions of men, there, and there only, will the "Spirit of Truth" "guide any one into the seventh-day Sabbath keeping." In reply to the second question I have only to say that Eld. S. has assumed what remains to be proved, viz.: that the "Holy Ghost never guided any one into this observance on the day of Pentecost, nor at the house of Cornelius." Until the assumption be proved, there is no pertinence whatever in the question. His next statement in regard to his "Father," and the cogent reason he assigns for having such confidence in him, are very suggestive at least, as well as extremely simple. In the absence of any disclaimer to the contrary, one might possibly conclude—and not without a fair show of reason—that a reference to John viii, 44 were intended.

But the closing exhortation in the foregoing "unanswerable argument" (?) is in good keeping with the rest. Of all the quack remedies recommended in the world for the various ills of mankind, the last one heard of, and doubtless the most noted of all, is the one suggested by friend S.; viz., the anointing of a person's "eyes with eye-salve" to make him "comprehend?" Not being particularly credulous in regard to the recommendations of quack nostrums, I am strongly inclined to doubt the real utility of the late discovery of Eld. Seymour. I would recommend him however to give the "eye-salve" a thorough application upon himself, for it is very evident that he has not yet done so; otherwise it totally fails to answer the recommendation.

"32. Which law of commandments are Christians under now, the one given by God to Moses, which is abolished, Eph. ii, 15, or the one given by God to Christ and the twelve apostles, Rev. xii, 17; xiv, 12; xvii, 14; 1 Cor. xiv, 37; Acts xx, 20, 27."

God gave to Moses a "law of commandments contained in ordinances" (rites and ceremonies) Eph. ii, 15, which all agree are abolished. God also gave to Moses a law of commandments not contained in ordinances, written on tables of stone, which is not abolished, as we have shown, and which therefore "Christians are now under." I have yet to learn that any law of commandments was "given by God to Christ and the twelve apostles," except that which was spoken from mount Sinai, and recorded in the Scriptures of truth, when they came upon the stage of action. Such is not shown to be true from the proof-texts referred to, neither is it anywhere affirmed in the Bible. Is not friend S. "wise above that which is written?" and has he not "run before he is sent?" I am surprised, however, that he should think of bringing to his aid such texts as Rev. xii, 17—"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." If he were to anoint his eyes with the genuine "eye-salve," he might doubtless be enabled to discover that the foregoing warfare mentioned in the text was being performed in a remarkable manner by himself!

"33. Where is there one text in all the Living Oracles of God, stating that all his commandments which are sure and stand fast for ever and ever, mean the ten on the tables of stone, no more, no less. This is an unwarrantable assumption, without a shadow of proof to sustain it. God's commandments are numerous both in the Old and New Testaments; but since Christ, we are under God's commandments given by Christ, the Holy Ghost, and the twelve apostles."

When Eld. S. will prove that all of God's commandments which are sure, and stand fast for ever and ever, mean any less than the ten, I will engage to further consider his question. Until then it is not necessary, so far as relates to the question in issue, viz., the obligation of the seventh-day Sabbath. In regard to the last clause in the foregoing I have only to say, that it "is an unwarrantable assumption without a shadow of proof to sustain it." God's commandments were "given" by himself. "Christ, the Holy Ghost, and the twelve apostles" enjoined their obligation.

"34. Why did not the apostles, when they turned to the Gentiles to preach Christ and the gospel, teach the obligation of the fourth commandment? The Gentiles were ignorant of the Sabbath and the law, for they were without law, without hope, and without God in the world, and strangers to the covenants of promise. Eph. ii, 12."

The apostles taught the obligation of the whole law, as I have heretofore shown from a number of references; therefore they did not except the fourth commandment. That the apostles in their writings did not specially, and in positive terms, enforce the obligation of the Sabbath, affords no argument against such obligation. But the apostle James failed not to teach on this wise: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." Now I ask, will it be doing any violence to the teaching of James to carry his illustration still farther? thus: "For he that said, Thou shalt not steal, said also, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Now if thou steal not, yet if thou break the Sabbath, thou art become a transgressor of the law." Thus James just as clearly teaches the obligation of the fourth precept of the decalogue, as he does of the seven other precepts not named in his illustration. Now this conclusion can be avoided is more than I can tell. But Eld. S. refers to Eph. ii, 12 as proof that the "Gentiles were ignorant of the Sabbath and the law." I am free to admit the proof, though the text does not declare it in positive terms. It will be readily seen that Paul was here contrasting the former condition of those to whom he wrote, with their then present condition. If therefore the 12th verse proves that in "time past" (ver. 11) "the Gentiles were ignorant of the Sabbath and the law," the next verse and onward, proves the contrary to have been true at the time the apostle wrote, viz., not ignorant of the Sabbath and the law. "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ." Unto what were they made nigh? Manifestly those things from which they "sometimes were far off." But among those things, according to the admission of Eld. S., were "the Sabbath and the law." Again the proof-text of Eld. S. informs us that the Gentiles were (i. e. in "time past") "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel." But the apostle says in the 19th verse, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners." Why? Because ye are "made nigh by the blood of Christ." The "middle wall of partition" (ver. 14) being now broken down, the Gentiles were inducted into, and made acquainted with, all the blessings and privileges that pertained to the commonwealth of Israel; and Eld. S. will admit that among those were "the Sabbath and the law." Will Eld. S. dodge the force of this argument? It is one of his own suggestion.

"35. The twelve apostles were holy men, and spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Where were they moved, as messengers, to preach the fourth precept, and make it an entering wedge, or hobby to every thing else they had to say? They preached the whole counsel of God, and kept back nothing that was profitable to the church. They did keep back the seventh-day Sabbath, consequently we conclude that it is not profitable. Who will spend their time, talents, and means, in publishing that which is not profitable? Who? I choose better employment, don't you my brother, my sister? Matt. xxviii, 19, 20; Deut. xviii, 18; John viii, 28, 29; xii, 49, 50; xvii, 8; Acts xx, 20, 27; 2 Cor. iii, 6; iv, 1-7; v, 18-20."

A very sensible choice, friend S., and no doubt your affectionate appeal to your "brother" and your "sister" will meet a hearty approval. But why did you not think of this before you commenced your unprofitable tract against the Sabbath? Or having thought of it just here, how happens it that we have eight pages more of the same sort? Surely, after having arrived at such a rational conclusion one might suppose that you would have dropped your pen at once, or else have commenced immediately to devote your "time, talents, and means" to the publication of something that might possibly be deemed "profitable."

But why do you say that the apostles "did keep back the seventh-day Sabbath?" If you say this with reference to what they preached, I may say that it is an "unwarrantable assumption." For aught the Bible says to the contrary, the apostles in their preaching may have made as much of "an entering wedge or hobby" of the Sabbath, as ever the seventh-day Adventists do. For all that they preached is not, by any means, recorded in the Bible; therefore not for Eld. S. to know. Acts xx, 20, 27, has been referred to before, also the expression, "whole counsel of God," but what do these texts prove? They prove that Paul during the "three years" that he "ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears," (ver. 31,) and during which time he taught "publicly and from house to house," (verse 20) "kept back nothing that was profitable;" also verse 27, that he "shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God." And now, believing that the observance of all the ten commandments was "profitable," and believing also that they were all embraced in "the whole counsel of God," I cannot be persuaded to believe that the apostle kept any of them back, or shunned to declare the whole of them during the course of his public ministry. Before you quote these texts again, friend S., to prove that the apostle did not preach the obligation of the Sabbath, you should first prove that the obligation of the Sabbath is not profitable, and does not pertain to the whole counsel of God. This you will find to be a difficult task. Your list of scripture references make a fair show on paper, but they afford you no aid whatever; for with the simple exception above noticed, they bear no relation to any thing asserted under the foregoing number; and if possible still less to the question in issue.

"36. Why is not the sin of Sabbath-breaking mentioned anywhere in the various catalogues of sins in the New Testament? All Protestant denominations are Sabbath-breakers, if the fourth precept is binding, besides all the unbelieving world; and why did not the apostles thunder forth their anathemas against Sabbath-breakers in these last days, and tell them they had got the mark of the beast, and consequently must drink the 'wine-cup of God's wrath?' Did God leave this to some few Sabbath-preachers to work out, independent of his counsel? Perhaps God may have revealed it in some vision to Mrs. White; but I confess that it is extremely doubtful after the knowledge I have of them. I wonder if James White is not the father of her visions?"

Why was not the Bible written in such plain English that there could be no possible chance for a difference of opinion in regard to its teachings and doctrines? It was not so written. In the arrangement of God, the great truths of the Bible were so left upon the page of inspiration, that those who are disposed to doubt and cavil, may find plenty wherewith to gratify their carnal inclinations. Therefore I may say that the "sin of Sabbath-breaking" is not mentioned in the New Testament that cavilers may cavil, that quibblers may quibble, and that there may be furnished a convenient handle for stubborn unbelief. It is true "Protestant denominations" generally are "Sabbath-breakers, if the fourth precept is binding." But what if such is the case? It only proves that it is no less true now, than it was when our Saviour was upon the earth, that the most popular and distinguished people of the age have "made the commandments of God of none effect by their tradition." Matt. xv, 6. As the scribes and Pharisees anciently regarded the "tradition of the elders" of greater importance than the fifth commandment, so do "Protestant denominations"—their true representatives at the present time—regard the traditions of the fathers of more consequence than the fourth commandment. How appropriate now would be the rebuke of our Saviour, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" But to the astonishment of Eld. S., if the fourth precept is binding "all the unbelieving world" are also Sabbath-breakers! Can it be possible! Doubtless such is a true and logical conclusion; for the "unbelieving world," not unlike himself, generously regard all days alike,—putting "no difference between the holy and the profane." Since Eld. S. is a professed advent believer I will answer his next question as follows: Why did not the apostle John tell us that the great red dragon which he saw, was Pagan Rome; and the beast with ten horns, the Papacy? Why did he not thunder forth his anathemas against the sins and corruptions of the popes, and tell them that their dynasty was the beast? Did God leave this to some few advent preachers to work out independent of his counsel? The scoffs that follow demand no reply. They betray a weakness that deserves, perhaps, quite as much pity as contempt. Pass them by.

"37. Where is there one text in the Bible which says the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath is the seal of the living God, and seal of this dispensation? The Sabbath is truly said to be a sign, but never a seal; there is a difference between their signification. The truth is, there is a seal to every dispensation. Circumcision is the seal of the Patriarchal—the law, the Jewish—the Holy Spirit, the gospel; and Father's name, the future and eternal age. May we ascertain to a moral certainty that we have the seal of this gospel age, that ultimately we may enjoy the realization of Father's name for ever."

In the foregoing, friend S. has assumed to tell us what "the truth is" in regard to the seal of God, though his assertions are naked, there being no proof to back them up. He is very particular to call on us repeatedly for the "one text" which says thus and so, according to his own form of expression, but is quite neglectful to back up his own assertions in like manner. The reason is obvious. Since he has given us no Scripture proof, nor any good reason or argument that "there is a seal to every dispensation," the assertion amounts to but little. That there should be a seal to God's law, i. e., something to show its authority, and the extent of its jurisdiction, is self-evident, and not contrary to Scripture or sound reason; for a law, whether human or divine, to be effective, must contain in itself authority; it must in a proper manner identify the law-giver, or law-making power; or in short, it must be confirmed. And whatever constitutes such confirmation, or shows the real authority of the law, may be distinguished as the seal thereof. But that there should be a seal peculiar to a "dispensation," or "age," is, in my judgment, an absurd idea. But let us examine for one moment our friend's theory.

1. Circumcision was not peculiar to the patriarchal dispensation, for it was also practiced during the Jewish. If therefore circumcision was the seal of the patriarchal dispensation, what was it during the Jewish dispensation, whereof we are told the law was the seal?

2. The law, i. e., the ceremonial, though peculiar to the Jewish dispensation, is nowhere affirmed to be the seal thereof. And the ten commandments, or God's moral law, as I have heretofore shown, are not peculiar to any age, but common to all, hence it is not the seal of any particular age or dispensation.

3. The Holy Spirit, though in some respects it may be deemed peculiar to the present, or gospel, dispensation, is not declared to be the seal of God, but the sealer. Eph. iv, 30. "And grieve not the Holy Spirit whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."

4. The Father's name is not peculiar to the "future and eternal age," for it is to be written in the forehead during the probationary state. Compare Rev. xiv, 1, with Rev. vii, 1-4. But under this head let us inquire what the Father's name signifies? I answer, It is a figurative term signifying the Father's authority; for name signifies authority. When we say, in the name of the people, we mean by authority of the people; in the name of the king, by authority of the king; in the name of Jesus Christ, by authority of Jesus Christ, &c. Then, indeed, the Father's name signifies the same as the seal of God. But having seen that our friend's theory will not hold to reason or facts, I ask, Where shall we look for the Father's name, or the seal of God? I answer, In his moral law, for there his rightful authority to rule and reign must of necessity be clearly shown. And truly enough, in the fourth commandment, and not in any other, do we find the evidence of such authority; for the fourth commandment alone points out and identifies the only true God, in contradistinction to all false gods; viz., the Maker of heaven and earth, and Creator of all things. The Sabbath then is given as a sign of the knowledge of the true God, and as a token of his authority; therefore it is the seal of the living God. At first view, to us who are favored with a knowledge of the true God, this reasoning may seem to lack force; but when we go back to first principles and consider ourselves as having no knowledge of God, worshipers of idols, or as Paul said of the Gentiles, "without God in the world," then perhaps we may more fully realize the force and application of the foregoing truth. Let the law of God be presented to us under such circumstances, and I doubt not the seal would readily appear, and commend itself to our judgment.

Whilst this view of the Sabbath seems so reasonable and apparent, it is also in accordance with the Scriptures. See Ex. xxxi, 13, 16, 17; Ezek. xx, 12, 20. Here inspiration calls the Sabbath a sign between God and the children of Israel forever, and they were to observe the same throughout their generations for a perpetual covenant. (See remarks on forever and perpetual, under question No. 24.) But the generations of the Israelites are not yet extinct. There are true Israelites still upon the earth. Therefore the Sabbath is still a valid sign, or the seal of God, between him and those who are "Israelites indeed." That sign and seal are used interchangeably in the Scriptures, and signify the same thing, friend S. to the contrary notwithstanding, I have only to refer to what Paul said of Abraham. Rom. iv, 11. "He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised."