REVIEW OF A. N. SEYMOUR.
By J. M. Aldrich
"38. If the church is under obligation to her first husband, Moses and the law, that being still alive, which is the faith of some; and if the Christian church is married to Christ, which no man can doubt, then I ask in all candor if the church has not been living in adultery for the last eighteen hundred years? Christ is the lawful husband of the church; the former one, Moses and the law, being dead. See Rom. vii, 1-6. Hear him, says Father. Will you listen to him?" If your "father," Eld. S. teaches what you here assert, my former opinion as to his identity seems to be fully confirmed. John viii, 44. I therefore choose not to "listen to him," for in the question before me I too plainly see the sad effects of so doing. It is evident from the false assertions and the false reasoning contained in the foregoing, that the child is faithful to the teaching of the sire. The plea of "all candor" is only a disguise; it is a family trait, and only makes the deception all the more apparent. Another family characteristic is also noticeable in the fact of the proneness of Eld. S. to get up a contention in regard to the condition or whereabouts of Moses. Jude 9. And doubtless, the reply given by the archangel to the head of the family, is equally applicable to the junior member: "The Lord rebuke thee." Moses is indeed dead, friend S., as you affirm! The Scriptures inform us that he died in the land of Moab! Therefore I shall take no issue with you on this point. But that the law is dead of which Paul spake in the 7th of Romans, is quite another thing. Paul does not say so, the Scriptures nowhere affirm it, nor will a common sense interpretation of the chapter in question admit of such a verdict. Neither does Paul say, or even intimate, that "Moses and the law" is the first husband of the church. This, like the former assertion, is without proof. In fact, Paul makes no allusion whatever, in the 7th of Romans, to Moses, or the Mosaic law that was nailed to the cross. This is evident, from the fact that he speaks of a law that is operative, and gives the effect of the same upon himself, which therefore cannot be the law that "ceased its obligation upon the world" several years previous to the time of his conversion, and religious experience. But we are not without positive proof on this point. In the 7th verse, the Apostle clearly identifies the law of which he is speaking. It is the law of ten commandments. But Eld. S., if your theory be true, I would also ask, in all candor, what has been the condition of the church for the last eighteen hundred years? I affirm that adultery is chargeable to your theory, rather than ours. Let us see. If the law of which Paul speaks is the first husband, and the law is dead, as you affirm, then indeed is the church living in adultery; not being married at all; there being no law to bind her to the second husband. But let us look at the matter in the light of truth and common sense. Let Paul's illustration have a natural application, and all is clear. To illustrate the great and important truths involved in the work of Scriptural conversion, inspiration has chosen the simple yet very appropriate figure of marriage. In the illustration, four characters are prominently brought to view; the woman, the law of marriage, the first husband and the second husband. In making an application of the figure, we must be careful not to lose sight of the characters brought to view. We should also bear in mind that death is spoken of, only with reference to the first husband, and that the death of the husband can in no way affect or change the law of marriage; but simply operates as a release to the woman from its binding power, so that she is at liberty to marry another husband. And though she marries the second husband, it is not by virtue of a new law, but by authority of the same law that solemnized her former marriage. Now for the application. 1st. What is represented by the woman? Since the woman must be married to the second husband, to make the figure complete, and since the second husband represents Christ, as all concede, it follows that the woman represents such as shall finally be saved by virtue of a union with him. Then of course she must represent those who "shall be heirs of salvation," or candidates for eternal life, for only such become legally joined to Christ, the second husband. 2d. The law of marriage represents the law of God. 3d. What does the first husband represent? Here is where Eld. S. does not see clearly. Let him apply the "eye-salve." Let it be remembered that in the figure, it is the first husband that dies, and so makes the second marriage lawful. Then in the application we must have something to correspond with the figure. But what is the modus operandi of Scriptural conversion? What must die before a legal union with Christ can be effected? All will say the carnal mind; or as Paul has elsewhere expressed it, "the old man which is corrupt." Then it is very clear that the first husband represents the carnal mind, or the old man; and the second husband, the new man, which is our Lord Jesus Christ. The following texts are in harmony with this view, and speak to the point: "That ye put off concerning the former conversation, the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness." Eph. iv, 22-24. "Lie not one to another, seeing ye have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him." Col. iii, 9, 10. Whatever may be said of the impracticability of making certain parables or figures stand on "all fours," here is one that stands thus literally, and needs no propping. The apostle's conclusion is also in harmony with the foregoing view. "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law (quite different from saying that the law is dead,) by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead," verse 4. "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held," verse 6. This expression is claimed by some—Eld. S. particularly—as proving the death and abolishment of the law. This is a great mistake. In the figure, deliverance from the law of marriage was effected in consequence of the death of the first husband. So in the application, deliverance from the law of God, i. e., from its condemnation; or what is the same thing, released from the power of sin and made free to be united with Christ; is brought about in consequence of the death of the old man, or subjugation of the carnal mind to the will of God. Hence, being "delivered from the law," in the sense in which the apostle uses the expression, can not possibly be construed to mean the abolition of the law. Nor does the expression "that being dead wherein we were held," mean the death of the law; for the word "dead" does not relate to the law, but to that state or condition in which the person is held by the law previous to the death of the first husband, which was a state of sin or carnal mindedness; or as Paul has it, "Sold under sin," verse 14. Then instead of the death of the law, the foregoing expression means the death of sin or carnal mindedness; for therein "we were held;" and the language of the text is, "that being dead wherein we were held." The marginal reading perhaps is better, "being dead to that wherein we were held," i. e. being dead to sin or carnal mindedness. This is in harmony with other scriptures. "How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" Rom. vi, 2. Also verse 11, "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, through Jesus Christ our Lord." Also, 1 Peter ii, 24, "That we being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness." Such, in my judgment, is the natural, consistent and truthful view of the 7th of Romans. "39. Where is there one jot or tittle of testimony in the second will, or testament, or law of the Spirit, or of faith, or of liberty, denouncing any one as a sinner, who violates the fourth commandment, during the Gospel dispensation? Is there no penalty for the violation of so important a command, if binding? What, and where is it?" The above question, in substance, is but a repetition of several former ones, therefore demands but a passing notice. The law of liberty, to which reference is made26in the foregoing question, is composed of the ten commandments. James ii, 11, 12; therefore the fourth commandment is embraced therein. And James in commenting on this law, in the 10th verse, informs us that whosoever offends in one point, is guilty of all; or as expressed in the 11th verse, "becomes a transgressor of the law." And another apostle informs us that the transgression of the law is sin, 1 John iii, 4. The "penalty" that is enquired for, may be found in plain language in Rom. vi, 23. "The wages of sin is death." Here then is a "jot or tittle of testimony," which is all that friend S. calls for. "40. Does not the union formed between Jews and Gentiles by the cross of Christ, constitute the new man? If so, did the Gentiles constitute any part of the 'man' that existed previously, for whom the Sabbath was made? See Rom. ii, 1, 3, 17. James i, 1; ii, 20. Eph. ii, 15. 1 Pet. ii, 10. Rom. ix, 25, 26. Hosea i, 9, 10." Possibly Eld. S. may have had a definite idea in his mind, when he penned the foregoing; but if he had, I greatly doubt whether any of his readers have been able to perceive what it was, either from the question asked, or from the proof texts given. I infer that the foregoing questions and texts are designed as an argument against the Sabbath, only from the fact that they are numbered among the "fifty." Were it not for this fact, I should not have the least suspicion that such was their design. But the foregoing reasoning, if such it may be called, is evidently defective. Eld. S. makes a great mistake at the outset, in confounding the term "the new man," with another term, "one new man." The former occurs only in Eph. iv, 24 and Col. iii, 10, and is there used in connection or contrast with its proper antithesis, "the old man." The latter occurs only in Eph. ii, 15, and is there used in no such sense or connection as the former expression. There is indeed, a wide difference in the Scriptural signification of the two expressions. But, if it be insisted that "the union formed between Jews and Gentiles by the cross of Christ, constitutes the new man" of Eph. iv, 24, and Col. iii, 10, then the antithesis therein brought to view, "the old man," must be the disunion that existed between Jews and Gentiles before the cross of Christ! Therefore, the Sabbath being made for man before the cross of Christ, it must have been made for the old man, that "existed previously," i. e., for Jews and Gentiles, in their state of disunion! I submit that such is the logical conclusion of our friend's theory. Is he satisfied with it? Perhaps not. I will therefore produce an "unanswerable argument" that he cannot fail to appreciate. Christ said, "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Mark ii, 27. Paul said, "Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man." 1 Cor. xi, 9. Now then I ask, if "the union formed between Jews and Gentiles by the cross of Christ, constitutes the new man," "did the Gentiles constitute any part of the 'man' that existed previously for whom the 'woman' was made? Friend S. have you a wife? How dare you—being a Gentile—appropriate such a boon to yourself? "41. How much of the law was Israel required to keep in order to salvation? Let James answer, "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all." What is embraced in the whole law? Ans., the five books of Moses. The expressions, "as the Lord commanded Moses," or similar ones occur 80 times in Exodus, 40 times in Lev., 101 times in Num., and 63 times in Deut. Will any one have the audacity to say that they keep the whole law, when they only pretend to keep ten specifications, which are only a prominent fraction of the entire law? Who then are guilty and under condemnation continually? Let those who have the mind of Christ, answer. James ii, 10. Gal. v, 1-9. Ps. xix, 7. The whole law will convert a soul, but a part never will." I am surprised, Eld. S., at the doctrine you advocate under the foregoing number. Heretofore, you have said much about Moses and the law being dead—nailed to the cross—expired by limitation—ceased its obligations upon the world, &c. But now, strange as it may seem, we find you advocating the perpetuity of the "whole law," which, according to your view, embraces not only the ten commandments, but all "the five books of Moses." And though you have often appealed to the teachings of the Apostles for the proof that the "whole law" is dead, we now find you bringing to your aid the apostle James, and attempting to make him teach the obligation of "the five books of Moses!" I cannot think it is your intention to take a position so contrary to that which you have held heretofore; but such is the fact, for if the five books of Moses are embraced in the "whole law" of which James speaks in the 2d chap. of his epistle, then in the most emphatic manner, the apostle teaches their obligation; for he there teaches the obligation of the "whole law," informing us that whosoever offends in one point is guilty of all; and illustrates his teaching thus: "If thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou dost become a transgressor of the law." And John says that the transgression of the law is sin. It should be remembered that James wrote for the benefit of the gospel dispensation, and that he does not undertake to say "how much of the law" the Jews were required to keep in the former dispensation; but rather how much Christians are required to keep in the present or gospel dispensation, which, as before shown, is not a part but the whole, and which if you are correct, is the five books of Moses. Again, you give the most powerful reason that can be given in proof of the perpetuity of the "whole law," or, as you term it, the five books of Moses, viz., "The whole law will convert a soul, but a part never will." If it be a fact, that it requires the five books of Moses to convert a soul, then indeed is the controversy ended! Let us all go to keeping the Mosaic law in earnest! In thus inadvertently sustaining the five books of Moses, you of course sustain the Sabbath, and have, therefore, raised no issue with me on that point. But really, friend S., what sad work you make in wielding the "sword of truth!" Reader, can you not plainly discover his blunder? It is all from the fact that he makes no distinction between the moral and the ceremonial law. "42. How much of the law does God acknowledge to be his? Considerable capital has been made out of the expressions, "my holy day," "my Sabbaths," as though there was some thing peculiarly remarkable in them, that the author was nearer related to that sentiment than others contained in the same category. But God not only says my Sabbaths, but my Statutes, my Judgments, my Commandments, Lord's Passover, my Offerings, my Feasts, my Sacrifices, my Covenant and my Law. So, you discover, the relation is just as near to one as the other; they are all lawful, holy and spiritual children, bearing the same identity as regards relative importance. So let Sabbath advocates twist and turn which way they will, and "run to each avenue and shriek for help, yet they shriek in vain." God's holy word meets them at every turn and twist, unsheathed, and cuts their theory on every side." With due modesty, Eld. S., I venture to repel your charge, by saying that, twisting and turning is not the work of "Sabbath advocates." The word of the Lord in regard to the Sabbath, is too plain to require that kind of practice. But the man that undertakes to prove that the law of God is abolished, or that the Lord's Sabbath is blotted out therefrom, will doubtless find the art of twisting and turning peculiarly adapted to his business. "Judge ye!" "Thou art the man!" As to running to various avenues and shrieking in vain for help, I have only to say, that the latest specimens of that kind of shrieking are brought to notice, remarkably, in the tract before me, by A. N. Seymour. In regard to the "considerable capital," that you say has been made by the expressions, "My holy day," and "My Sabbaths," I can assure you, that it is "capital" that the Lord has furnished. And it is consoling to know that he has left an abundant capital to the disposal of all such as desire to take stock in his truth. When you seek to identify the weekly Sabbath of the Lord, with the annual sabbaths of the Jews, or to place them upon the same footing, as to duration and importance, it is enough to show that the Lord has regarded them in a different light, and that he has made a wide distinction between them. The above forms of expression are important items of the "capital" that is furnished for this purpose. The Lord instituted the one as a weekly memorial of his rest from creation; the others were given as annual memorials of certain events connected with the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt. Therefore the one is very appropriately designated by such expressions as "My holy day," "My Sabbaths," "the Sabbath of the Lord," &c., whilst the others are termed, "Your Sabbaths," "Her Sabbaths," &c. Compare Ex. xx, 10; xxxi, 13; Isa. lviii, 13, with Lev. xxiii, 24, 32, 39; Lam. i, 7; Hosea ii, 11. Surely the above "shriek" cannot be regarded as an "unanswerable argument against seventh-day Sabbath keeping." "43. Did the apostle Paul preach on the seventh-day Sabbath? Yes. Did he preach 78 or 84 Sabbaths? Yes. Was this his custom? Yes, yes! Why did he do all this? Paul, stand up here and answer for yourself, and give these Judaisers a plain strait-forward, thorough-going, penetrating, Holy Ghost answer. "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all that I might gain the more, and unto the Jews I became as a Jew; (What for, Paul?) That I might gain the Jews;—to them that are under the law, as under the law; (What for Paul?) That I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, [being not without law to God but under the law to Christ;] (What for?) That I might gain them that are without law, [these are Gentiles;] to the weak, became I as weak; (What for?) That I might gain the weak; I am made all things to all men." (What for?) That I might by all means save some." Now Paul, thou sent of God, what did you do all this for? have you a valid reason? Hear him! "This I do for the Gospel's sake, that I might be a partaker there with you." There thou ever faithful and venerable apostle, you have driven the nail in a sure place, and more than clinched it if possible.—1 Cor. ix, 19-23. "O shame, where is thy blush!" "Paul, stand up here and answer for yourself!" To say nothing of irreverence, modesty should have suggested the use of language more respectful, at least. Were the great apostle only conscious of the smart-little-school-boy catechising that Eld. S. has given him, he would, no doubt, consider himself exceedingly flattered! and especially so, in view of the school-boy praise that is so lavishly bestowed upon him, for having so well recited his task! As a reply to the foregoing, it would be enough to say that the language of Paul, quoted above, (1 Cor. ix, 19-23,) is not given by him as the reason for his custom of preaching on the seventh-day Sabbath. Seymour gives it as such, but Paul does not. But if Eld. S. is willing to receive the foregoing language of Paul as the reason for such custom, I will also receive it as such. Let us then examine the argument. This, I think we shall discover, is extremely leaky! It is admitted that Paul preached on the seventh-day Sabbath. It is also admitted with an emphatic "yes, yes," that this was his custom. The question then asked by Eld. S. is, "Why did he do all this?" Paul, after being commanded to "stand up," proceeds to answer, and gives four specific reasons, as follows: 1st. Unto the Jews, he became as a Jew; i. e., preached on the seventh-day Sabbath. Very clear indeed, says Eld. S. But Paul is here answered for himself, and we must hear him through. He has three reasons yet to offer. 2d. Unto them that are under the law, he became as under the law; i. e., preached on the seventh-day Sabbath. But hold, says Eld. S., this needs explanation! This is not so clear! Here, indeed, is where his argument begins to leak. But, don't judge, Eld. S., for if the first reason is good, the second, third and fourth are also good. They are all locked together, and the same key fits every lock. 3d. Unto them that are without law, (the Gentiles) he became as without law; i. e., preached on the seventh-day Sabbath. Another bad leak, surely. But if the argument is good, that preaching on the Sabbath made Paul a Jew when among Jews; then it is equally good, that preaching on the Sabbath made him a Gentile when among Gentiles; and in fact, the language must be so construed, otherwise, Paul's "thorough-going, penetrating, Holy Ghost answer," does not answer the purpose for which it was introduced; viz., to show the reason for his custom of preaching on the Sabbath. 4th. Unto the weak, he became as the weak; i. e., preached on the seventh-day Sabbath. But now, to make the matter doubly sure, Paul is asked if he has a "valid reason" for doing all this; i. e., for adhering to his custom of preaching on the Sabbath. Paul replies, "This I do for the Gospel's sake;" i. e., I preach on the Sabbath to Jews, to those that are under the law, to those that are without law, (the Gentiles) and to those that are weak, all for the "Gospel's sake,"27Amen! What stronger reason need we ask for the obligation of the Sabbath in the Gospel dispensation! If Paul has "driven the nail in a sure place," Eld. S. has certainly "clinched it."