REVIEW OF A. N. SEYMOUR.
By J. M. Aldrich
"44. Which ministration is the church under now—the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, or the ministration of the Spirit? This question is vital to the matter under consideration, and cannot well be overlooked. If the church is under the ministration of the Spirit, then 'he that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.' Has the Spirit taught that the Sabbath is the seal of the living God, and that all are under obligation to keep it? If so, where has the Spirit or the apostles recorded it?" I presume that no one doubts that the church is now living under the "ministration of the Spirit,"—the former ministration, or "ministration of death," or condemnation having passed away. See 2 Cor. iii, 7-13. But here it is proper to observe that the apostle informs us, that it is the ministration that is "done away," and not the ten commandments, or that which is "written and engraven in stones." It is quite common for those of Eld. Seymour's school, to quote the foregoing scripture as proof that the ten commandments, or that which is written and engraven in stones, is done away. But such "do greatly err." I do not admit, however, that this question of ministration is so "vital to the matter under consideration," viz., the Sabbath, as Eld. S. seems to regard it. For God's law, I hold, is the same under the present ministration, as under the former ministration; therefore the Sabbath obligation is the same. However, I have an ear to hear, and am willing to "hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." Then, friend S., tell us what saith the Spirit. Does the Spirit say anything against "seventh-day Sabbath keeping?" If so, where? Or, does the Spirit say that the Sabbath is not the seal of the living God? You have not informed us where the Spirit says thus; therefore we have no reason, as yet, to conclude that we are not in harmony with the teaching of the Spirit, in saying that the Sabbath is the seal of God. Evidently, there are many Bible facts, that are not in express language, taught in the Bible. For instance, it is doubtless a fact that the "fourth beast," in the prophecy of Daniel, symbolizes the Roman kingdom; but the chapter and verse that says so, in plain terms, are wanting. Again, it is no doubt a fact, that the "little horn" spoken of by Daniel, means the Papacy; but where is the record of such fact? The Spirit has not taught it in express language. So in regard to the Sabbath being the seal of the living God, I might say that it is a fact, quite as discoverable as either of the foregoing, though not recorded as such in express terms. For further remarks on this subject, and for proof that the Sabbath is the seal of God, see reply to No. 57. "45. Where does the church of God, of apostolic times—which was built upon the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; which composed the royal priesthood, the holy nation, and peculiar people, and the temple of God, filled with the Holy Ghost enjoyed all the gifts, were the salt of the earth, the luminary of the world, the pillar and ground of the truth, who went everywhere preaching the kingdom of God, the plan of salvation to dying men—ever enjoin the 4th commandment upon christians?" The various changes that Eld. S. has rung on the foregoing question and preceding ones, indicate clearly enough that he is hard pressed for matter, that affords even the semblance of an objection against the Sabbath. His mind is doubtless fixed on the round number, "fifty," as the sum total of his bulwark against "seventh-day Sabbath-keeping." Therefore, for lack of arguments, he has only to ring the changes on previous questions to make his number complete. If Jesus Christ, who is the chief corner stone of the church, and the prophets and apostles who are the foundation of the church, have taught the obligation of the Sabbath, then, certainly it is of no consequence to know whether or not the same has been enjoined by the church. And I think I have repeatedly shown that Jesus Christ, the prophets and apostles have plainly and pointedly taught the perpetuity and obligation of the whole law, viz., the ten commandments; therefore it is needless to inquire what the church has taught in regard to the fourth commandment. With the positive testimony we have on this subject, it is enough to know that the Scriptures contain no instance where the apostolic church ever taught anything against the Sabbath; but so far as their history is known, were ever accustomed to honor the same by a religious observance thereof. "46. Why did Paul, that eminent apostle have such heaviness, and continual sorrow in his heart? Why did he wish himself accursed from Christ? Why did he have such a heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel that they might be saved? Hear his answer, 'For I bear them record, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.' What was their zeal? See Acts xxi, 20.—'Then seest Bro. how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and are all zealous of the law.'—Acts xxii, 3. Hear the apostle Paul again: 'Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage; behold I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing, for I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law; Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law ye are fallen from grace.' Circumcision is one principle of the law; you may if you please put Sabbath or any other precept in the place of circumcision, and you will get the same pungent answer. The righteousness connected with faith was what Paul was ardently laboring to establish, and he had a zeal according to knowledge. Rom. x, 1-10." I readily concede your admission, Eld. S., that Paul had "a zeal according to knowledge." I therefore take pleasure in knowing that we—Seventh-day Adventists—advocate the same kind of righteousness that he labored to establish, viz., "the righteousness connected with faith." But whilst it is true that we advocate the righteousness of faith, it is also true that we do not forget that Paul has left on record an emphatic "God forbid" to the doctrine, that the law is made void, or abolished in consequence thereof. Rom. iii, 31. We therefore insist upon obedience to the law as well as obedience to the faith. But Eld. S. I desire you to distinctly understand, that we do not claim to be justified by the law; for the law condemns the sinner, rather than justifies him. Hence justification cannot be obtained simply through obedience to the law, for "all have sinned," i. e., transgressed the law, therefore are brought under its condemnation. Justification, then, must be obtained—if obtained at all—through the remedy that is provided, viz., the righteousness, or obedience of faith. Rom. iii, 19-31. But such justification, by no means exonerates one from continued obedience to the law. If a man commit crime against the law of your State; your law does not justify him, but condemns him; and though, henceforth, he may be never so obedient to the law, he still remains under the condemnation thereof. If therefore, he obtain justification, it must be,—not through the law, but through the remedy provided,—perhaps through executive clemency. But would such justification or pardon exonerate the offender from further obedience to the law of Michigan? Would he be at liberty to repeat his crime at his pleasure? Would the law have "ceased its obligation" upon him? I trust such is not the operation of your law in Michigan; nor such according to the wisdom of your lawmakers! Neither do I believe that such is according to the wisdom of God, with reference to the Divine law. But you ask, why did Paul "have such heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart?" and "why did he wish himself accursed from Christ?" (Query. Did Paul ever wish himself accursed from Christ? Read the passage again!) Also, why did he have such a heart's desire that Israel might be saved? And we are informed, rather indirectly however, that it was because they had "a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." As yet, I fail to discover any argument on your side of the question. If you can show that the zeal of the Jews, that was not according to knowledge, consisted in seventh-day Sabbath-keeping, then you have an argument in your favor, but not otherwise. This, you have not done, and cannot do. You refer us, however, to Acts xxi, 20, to show that such zeal consisted in being "zealous of the law." Now34the question is, what law was it that so enlisted the zeal of the Jews, and which was not according to knowledge? Was it the moral, or the ceremonial? If you can show that it was the moral law, or ten commandments, then again you have the argument, but not otherwise. This you are not able to do. The context however, shows plainly that it was the law of Moses, or ceremonial law, of which the Jews were so zealous. Think you, Eld. S., that it would have caused heaviness and sorrow in Paul's heart, to know that his brethren and kinsmen were zealous to keep the precepts of the ten commandments? I think not. Neither do I think that any such zeal, ever caused Paul to wish himself accursed from Christ!! Now, Eld. S., I propose to take the liberty, since you have granted it, to "put Sabbath, or any other precept in the place of circumcision," in the text which you have quoted. I will first try the Sabbath, and if that reads to suit you, I will try another. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye keep the Sabbath, Christ shall profit you nothing(!) for I testify again to every man that keeps the Sabbath, that he is a debtor to do the whole law, i. e., do all that is enjoined in "the five books of Moses," for such is your interpretation of the whole law! (See question No. 41.) Let us try the next precept. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye honor your father and your mother, Christ shall profit you nothing(!) for I testify again to every man that honors his father and his mother, that he is a debtor to do the whole law, viz., "the five books of Moses." Surely we do get a "pungent answer!?!" What extravagant theories men will concoct, simply to get rid of the Sabbath! Such persons, indeed, must have "a zeal" to impel them thus; but alas, their zeal is not according to knowledge! Friend S., it is much more difficult to defend error than truth. The futile efforts which you have put forth in your tract against the Sabbath, clearly show this remark to be true. "47. Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid, yea, we establish the law, and as Isaiah says, he will magnify and make it honorable.—Rom. iii, 31. Is. xlii, 21. Some positively claim that these passages teach the obligation of the ten commandments. Where is the authority for saying that the law here referred to, is confined to the decalogue? Why will men who claim to be Bible students, assume a thing that is impossible to prove? Let them give us a thus saith the Lord, that the ten precepts are a law first, then we will hear them. The law here referred to is the law, the whole law of God given by Moses, and every expression of the apostle relative to the law, will bear me out in what I here affirm. One single consideration is sufficient to demonstrate the signification of the expressions, 'Yea we establish the law, magnify and make it honorable.' Luke xxiv, 44. 'These are the words I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me.' Now then, I ask in all simplicity, and godly honesty, were not all the predictions relative to Christ's first advent, most perfectly accomplished, magnified, established and made honorable? And is it not even so with all the consecutive chains of prophecy relative to his second advent. In concluding this tract, I wish to say that I challenge all men, no matter who, or where, whether in Europe or America, to disprove the positions I have here taken. Really, Eld. S., your challenge is exceedingly broad! But my dear sir, don't flatter yourself that your "positions" are so sound, or that your bulwark against the Sabbath is so strong. For never was a man more deceived than yourself! You have no occasion to go to Europe, nor even to travel far in America, to find many a lad, not yet out of his "teens," who is abundantly able to show that your positions are utterly absurd, and many of them even nonsensical! The position taken in the question now under consideration is plainly one of the latter sort. You require us to give "a thus saith the Lord, that the ten precepts are a law." Really, I should think you would require a thus saith the Lord, to convince you that you have a nose on your face. The latter requirement, in my judgment, would indicate just about as much good sense, as the former. Why sir, if the ten commandments are not a law, what are they, I ask? Will you give us a better term? God spake the ten commandments with his own voice, in the presence and hearing of the assembled hosts of Israel, and to them "added no more." And Moses says further that "he wrote them in two tables of stone and delivered them to me." Deut. v, 22. This language clearly proves that the words which God thus spake and wrote in tables of stone, constituted something complete in itself. Now I ask was it not a law—a moral law—that was thus completed and given to Israel? Webster defines moral law, thus: "a law which prescribes to men their religious and social duties, in other words, their duty to God and to each other." Do not the ten commandments answer well Webster's definition of moral law? But, Eld. S., as it happens, we are not without a "thus saith the Lord" on this point. See Ex. xxiv, 12. "And the Lord said unto Moses, come up to me into the mount and be there; and I will give thee tables of stone and a law, and commandments which I have written." Whoever will cavil at such language as this must be willfully blind. At the commencement of your question you refer us to Rom. iii, 31, and Isaiah xlii, 21, and assert that the law there spoken of, is the "whole law of God given by Moses." In this connection I wish to propose a question, as an answer to one of yours, and will leave it with the reader to judge which involves the greatest offence. You ask, "Why will men who claim to be Bible students, assume a thing which is impossible to prove?" I ask, why will men who make the additional claim of "godly honesty," assert a thing so plainly contrary to reason and fact, as to say that the law referred to in the foregoing texts, is the "whole law of God given by Moses;" or as you elsewhere claim—"the five books of Moses." But for argument's sake, admit that you are correct; then according to Paul, this whole law, whatever it may be, is not made void, is not abolished, is not destroyed, is not done away, is not come to nought, but on the contrary is established. The word establish is defined by Webster, thus: "To set and fix firmly and unalterably; to settle permanently; to make firm; to confirm; to ratify," &c. Now as the Sabbath is embraced in your whole law as you admit, the text referred to, proves in the strongest language possible, that it is not abolished or done away, but fixed "firmly and unalterably," &c. Therefore we have no issue on this point. But if you thus establish the whole law of Moses, I have only to say that that is your matter, not mine. I wish to enter my protest however against such an absurdity. But one word about magnifying the law and making it honorable. It is folly to suppose that the language of the prophet—Isaiah xlii, 21—related to the fulfilling of what was written in the law of Moses concerning Christ; or to suppose that Christ came into the world to magnify and make honorable the law of Moses! He had a different object than this in view. It was to magnify and make honorable his Father's law, which man had dishonored by transgression. It was to demonstrate the great problem,—how God can be just and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Rom. iii, 26. Through the atonement of Christ, which was typified in the law of Moses, this great problem was solved; and the law of God—the ten commandments—which otherwise must have remained in dishonor in consequence of man's transgression, was magnified and made honorable. Then in regard to the question, which, truly enough, you ask in "simplicity," and which you profess to ask in "godly honesty," I have to say, that "the predictions relative to Christ's first advent," "which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets and in the Psalms," were truly "most perfectly accomplished;" and that by virtue of such perfect accomplishment, the law of God, which man had transgressed, was "magnified, established and made honorable." "48. Are all Sabbaths (seventh-day not excepted) shadows? This is a very important consideration; for if all Sabbaths are shadows and our Lord Jesus Christ the substance of them all; then all Sabbaths of a former dispensation ceased their binding force when the substance came, for shadows never reach beyond their substance. Some acknowledge willingly, that all except the seventh-day Sabbath are shadows; but are unwilling to admit the seventh to be such. But I ask, will not the same thing that makes one Sabbath a shadow, make all the rest the same; cause and effect are inseparable. Now what is it that makes all Sabbaths under the law shadows? The days in and of themselves independent of anything that transpired upon them, cast no shadows; but upon each of these Sabbaths, seventh-day not excepted, sacrifices were offered, and all these sacrifices were typical of the coming of the one great sacrifice, even Jesus Christ our great high priest. Paul an apostle, wise in the wisdom of God, when speaking of Sabbaths, says, they are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." Does he except the seventh-day? No, no. Would he not have done so had he known that God proposed that the church in this age was duly bound to observe it; let the wise answer. God is the author of all Sabbaths; all are blessed, sanctified, and made holy; all are shadows, and reach to the substance, Christ, and then terminate.—Num. xxviii, 9, 10. Ezek. xlv, 17; xlvi, 1-4. Col. ii, 16, 17. "Ye do greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures." The seventh-day Sabbath is not a shadow. This is clearly evident from the fact that it was introduced before sin entered into the world, and therefore before types and shadows were instituted, or became necessary. It is the height of folly to suppose that types and shadows of our Lord Jesus Christ, were introduced into the world to indicate redemption, before man had sinned, and needed to be redeemed. This consideration alone is proof positive that the seventh-day Sabbath is not a shadow, of which our Lord Jesus Christ is the substance. But let us look at your reasoning. You claim that the same thing that makes one Sabbath a shadow, will make all other Sabbaths shadows; and you cite us to the fact that sacrifices were made on all the Sabbaths, seventh-day not excepted, as the reason of their being shadows. Your reasoning here, as usual, is very defective. Your language implies that the act of appointing certain days as Sabbaths, and making them shadows, are separate and distinct transactions; or in other words, that certain days were first made Sabbaths, and afterwards made shadows, by virtue of the sacrifices that were made thereon! To me, it seems much more reasonable, and more in accordance with Bible truth, to conclude that the annual Sabbaths of the Jews received their shadowy significance from the circumstances or events that gave rise to their appointment. Take for instance the two annual Sabbaths that were connected with the paschal feast, which occurred on the fifteenth and twenty-first days of the first month. That which gave rise to these Sabbaths, and which gave them their shadowy significance, was the slaying of the paschal lamb, the Lord's passover and deliverance of the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage; a fit type indeed of Christ—the great passover that was slain for us; and of the great deliverance that he will eventually effect for his people. But think you, that the "same thing," viz: the slaying of the paschal lamb, &c., which made the Sabbaths of the first month shadows, also made shadows of the four annual Sabbaths that occurred in the seventh month! or what is still more preposterous, a shadow of the weekly Sabbath of the Lord, that was instituted as a memorial of his rest from creation. Do you not see the absurdity of your reasoning? It is true that the Jews were required to offer sacrifices on the seventh-day Sabbath, as well as on their annual Sabbaths; so were they also required to offer sacrifices daily, and especially upon each successive day during their paschal feast, and feast of tabernacles, with which certain of their Sabbaths were identified. Num. xxviii, 24; xxix, 12-40. And these daily sacrifices were also typical of Christ, as well as those that were made on the various Sabbaths. Therefore if your reasoning is good, to wit: that these sacrifices are what made the various Sabbaths, types and shadows of Christ, they would also have made every day a type and shadow of Christ! "Consistency, thou art a jewel!" In regard to what Paul says in Col. ii, 16, 17, to which you have referred, it is enough to say that he there speaks,—not of the weekly Sabbath of the Lord, (singular,) but of the "Sabbath days" (plural,) that were connected with meats and drinks, new moons, &c., which were the annual Sabbaths of the Jews, of which we have been speaking. "49. What constitutes the Royal Law spoken of by James? Some would have us believe that the decalogue is that law. But this cannot be; for that which requires neither love to God or your neighbor cannot be considered Royal. Webster in defining royal, gives the following significations, king-like, princely, august, majestic, superb, splendid, illustrious, noble, magnanimous. This signification perfectly corresponds with the two great commandments, to love God with all the heart and to love your neighbor as your-35self. Mark xii, 29, 30. These are truly royal, and upon these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Any one who will bestow a little thought upon the second chap. of James, the first nine verses, will never conclude that the ten precepts are the royal law. This royal law never was written upon the two tables of stone.' Such statements as the foregoing are altogether too unwarrantable to be received as truth, simply on your assertion. And your twice repeated sentiment, that the ten commandments neither require love to God nor man, is too much of an outrage on common sense, as well as being too directly opposed to God's word, to be received as proof that they do not constitute the royal law spoken of by James. I am certainly amazed, that any man claiming to be a minister of the Gospel, and withal, professing, 'godly honesty', should be guilty of uttering such an untruthful and God-dishonoring sentiment! The apostle Paul differs widely from you on this point. He enjoins us to love one another, and says, 'For he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.' Rom. xiii, 8. Also in the 10th verse he says, 'Love is the fulfilling of the law.' Therefore if loving one another is the fulfilling of the law, of course the law requires such love. And here Paul has not left us in doubt as to what law he referred to; for in the 9th verse,—immediately between the two positive expressions above noticed,—he clearly and unmistakably identifies the code of ten commandments, as the law of which he was speaking, by quoting five precepts from the second table thereof—that which relates to our duty to each other, and which was the subject of his remarks. Then his manner of reference to the second great commandment of Christ, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,' and the immediate connection it bears to the precepts he had just quoted, proves that it is a comprehensive term, or summary of the second table of the decalogue; as likewise the first great commandment, to love the Lord thy God, &c., is a summary of the first table. Thus, Paul's reasoning is in harmony with the statement of Christ, that 'On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.' But since you deny that the ten commandments constitute the law to which our Saviour referred, I ask you to inform us what law it was that hung on these two fundamental principles of love to God, and love to man, at the time our Saviour informed his questioner of the fact? It will not do for you to say the whole law, or five books of Moses, as you term it, for the ten commandments are embraced therein, and you deny that they require any such love. Truly, 'God's holy word meets you at every turn and twist unsheathed, and cuts your theory on every side.' Such is the select language you saw fit to apply to us, (see question No. 42) but does it not apply with ten-fold more force to yourself! 'Judge ye.' But Eld. S., you will allow me to say that your sense of discrimination must be very acute indeed, to enable you to designate the two commandments above named, as the royal law, to the exclusion of the ten commandments; whereas, the former are but a brief summary of the latter. Again, you show a remarkable power of discrimination in being able to discern that Webster's definition of royal, so much more 'perfectly corresponds' with the two commandments aforesaid, than it does with the ten commandments. God is pre-eminently the author of the ten commandments, for he spoke them with his own voice, and wrote them with his own finger on tables of stone. Look again, Eld. S., if you please, at the signification of the term royal, and then say if you dare, that the title of royal is not applicable, yea, pre-eminently applicable to the ten commandments, which were thus spoken and written by the great King of kings, the maker and preserver of the universe. In conclusion, I have to say that I have bestowed thought—according to your request—on the first nine verses of the second chap. of James, and also on the following verses; and I am thereby still constrained to believe that the ten commandments are not only a royal law, but the royal law spoken of by James, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. You should have learned ere this, that it is one thing to make an assertion, but quite a different matter to prove it!