REVIEW OF A. N. SEYMOUR.
By J. M. Aldrich
"15. Where is the proof that God gave to Israel any more than one law or institution, or constitution, or plan of salvation, as a rule of duty during the Jewish dispensation?" I know of but one "plan of salvation," either in the Jewish dispensation, or any other dispensation; viz., Obedience to God's law and faith in Jesus Christ. There may be different methods of manifesting faith, but the grand scheme of salvation is one. In the former dispensation faith was manifested through types, offerings and ceremonies, that pointed forward to Christ; in the latter, or present, dispensation, faith is manifested through types and ceremonies that point back to Christ. But was there more than one "law" given to Israel? I answer, Yes: The moral and the ceremonial; the one growing out of the relations we sustain to God and our fellow men, which is founded in "truth and uprightness," and binding upon all men through all ages unto the end of time, which was written with the finger of God on tables of stone, and of which it is said, "He added no more." Deut. v. 22. Here then is one law complete in itself, pure and unadulterated—secure in the ark of God. The other, or ceremonial, was temporary in its nature, not founded on fundamental principles, but growing out of the lamentable fact that man had transgressed the former, had sinned, and therefore stood in need of redemption; hence a system of types and shadows through which he might manifest his faith in the great remedy provided, and thus obtain the accomplishment of God's design in giving his Son to die. Here then we find another law separate and distinct from the former. Nothing seems clearer than this. The fact that we find one system of law shadowing forth a redemption, proves the existence of sin; hence the transgression of another and prior law, for "sin is the transgression of the law." "16. Where is the least proof that the expressions, 'The law of God, the law of Moses, the book of the law of God, and the book of the law of Moses,' does not signify precisely the same thing? Neh. viii, 1, 8, 14, 18. Luke ii, 22–24. 1 Kings ii, 3. Mat. iv, 4." Admit that the foregoing expressions are frequently used interchangeably, and signify precisely the same thing, would that constitute an unanswerable argument against seventh-day Sabbath-keeping? I think not! If friend S. designs the foregoing as an argument against the Sabbath, he should in some way indicate or suggest what bearing the same has upon the subject. Suffice it to say that the ten commandments and the law of Moses do not "signify precisely the same thing." Compare Matt. v, 17–19, with Acts xv, 5, 24. "17. Where is there one jot or tittle of testimony in all the book of God, stating that the ten commandments alone, constitutes God's moral, holy, or spiritual law, by which the world is to be saved or condemned?" "One jot or tittle of testimony" is all that is asked for. I will give that amount cheerfully. Paul, in speaking of the law that says "Thou shalt not covet," Rom. vii, says, verse 12, "the law is holy," also verse 14, "the law is spiritual;" and James, chap. ii, in speaking of the same law, or the law which forbids murder and adultery, informs us that man is to be judged by it; therefore, according to Paul and James, the law of ten commandments is "holy" and "spiritual," and is the rule of judgment, "by which the world is to be saved or condemned." Does not this "jot or tittle of testimony" answer the specifications above named? If not, will Eld. S. give us the additional testimony, and inform us what must be superadded to the ten commandments? "18. Where is the proof that the ten commandments alone, are a perfect law or rule of action to any people in any dispensation? Proof to the contrary, James ii, 10. Gal. v, 1–4. Matt. xxviii, 20. Acts ii, 38. 2 Pet. i, 4–7. Acts xvi, 30, 31. Rom. x, 6–10." God spake the ten commandments with his own voice, and wrote them with his own finger on tables of stone, and "added no more." Was the law thus spoken and written, imperfect? God forbid! If incomplete, how happens it that God "added no more?" If it lacked perfection, why did not God revise and perfect it when he wrote the second table? But it is said "he wrote on the tables according to the first writing—the ten commandments." Truly, "the law of the Lord is perfect." But here are several texts quoted as "proof to the contrary." I will notice but one of them, which I think will show the fallacy of his "proof." Take Acts ii, 38. Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. This text, with the rest, is referred to, doubtless to prove that repentance, baptism, &c., also constitute a part of God's "perfect law or rule of action." But does it prove any such thing? To me it clearly proves the perfection of a law, of which repentance and baptism are not a part. Let us see. What does repentance signify? It signifies that a just and perfect law has been violated; hence, repentance can be no part of that law. What of baptism? It signifies redemption from the penalty incurred in consequence of such violation; hence it can be no part of the law violated. The text says repent. But repent of what? Ans. Of sin. What is sin? "Transgression of the law." But sin is not the transgression of an imperfect law; therefore there must have been a perfect law violated to make repentance necessary. Why be baptized? Ans. To indicate death to sin; that we are no longer "transgressors of the law;" also redemption from death, through a resurrection to life. Then instead of baptism being a part of God's perfect law, it is a remembrance of sin, a reminder that such a law had been previously violated. Therefore, this text, like the rest, is not only of no avail to the objector, but is good testimony against him. "19. Where is the proof that the ten commandments written on the tables of stone were ever transferred to the fleshly tables of the apostles' hearts on the day of Pentecost? Echo answers where? If they were, then we must read on the fleshly tables of the heart, precisely the language of the fourth commandment written on tables of stone. Please turn and read the fourth commandment. See Ex. xx, 8–10." Is here an "argument" against the Sabbath? I confess I am not far sighted enough to see it. In my judgment it is rather like the author's "echo,"—"a thing of naught,"—"a creature of imagination;" and it would be difficult indeed to determine which of the two contains the greater substance! As the one "vanishes into thin air," so does the other! Whether the ten commandments were transferred from the "tables of stone" to the "fleshly tables of the Apostles' hearts," on the day of pentecost—the day before, or the day after—is of no consequence whatever, so far as concerned their obedience to the same, or the obligation they impose upon us, for they were binding and observed both before and after the day of pentecost,—whether written on "tables of stone," or "fleshly tables of the heart." But does Eld. S. take issue with the main fact, viz: The writing of the ten commandments in the hearts of God's people,—then his issue is with the word of God and not with me; for God says by his prophet, "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." Jer. xxxi, 33. No one will deny that the ten commandments were a part, at least, of God's law in the days of Jeremiah, when this promise was made; hence to fulfill the prophecy, they must be embraced therein, and consequently written in the heart. And should the objector, in pursuance of his one law theory, include therein any more than the ten commandments, and perchance get into some difficulty thereby, with the typical and shadowy part of the same, under the new covenant; let him bear in mind that that is his business, not mine. But where was this prophecy to meet its fulfillment? Ans. Under the new covenant. See prophecy in Jer. xxxi, also Paul's reference to the same, Heb. viii. But the new covenant pertains to this dispensation and henceforward; whereof Christ is now the mediator. Therefore the ten commandments must be binding under the new covenant, and consequently in the present dispensation. "Then," says friend S., "we must read on the fleshly tables of the heart, precisely the language of the fourth commandment written on tables of stone." Exactly so. Not one jot or tittle of the language of the fourth commandment, or any of the ten would we have altered or stricken out. But does our objector ask the process by which God's law is written in the heart? I reply, it is "written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God." 2 Cor. iii, 3.10 "20. Will the keeping of the ten commandments alone, secure to any one eternal salvation in the kingdom of God? and do they constitute man's whole duty? Some say yes, look well to this! for there is great danger." Suppose we admit the objector's claim, viz: That "the keeping of the ten commandments alone," will not secure "eternal salvation," and that they do not "constitute man's whole duty;" would such fact or admission, involve an "unanswerable argument," or even an objection against the observance of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment? Certainly not; for it would imply that something more was necessary, than keeping the ten commandments, rather than keeping less than ten. But again, if this question strikes a "death blow" to the fourth commandment, does it not also inflict nine mortal wounds upon the remainder of the decalogue? Such indeed would be the inevitable effect! But why need friend S. cut off all his toes simply to get rid of one useless and troublesome one! Such however is the sad havoc he makes in wielding the "sword of truth." Did I not tell him to be careful in the use of this weapon? that this "sword" was a "two edged one"? The caution he gives against great danger is timely! And I trust I may give a better example than he, in heeding a timely warning. But now lest he should think I meant to evade the only point involved in his question,—which however has not the slightest bearing on the subject under discussion—I will say, once for all, that "Seventh-day Adventists" believe in keeping not only the ten commandments, but also the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ; or in other words, in order to "secure to any one eternal salvation in the kingdom of God," they believe it to be necessary to "keep the commandments of God and faith of Jesus." Rev. xiv, 12. "21. Can the ten commandments constitute a perfect law, or man's whole duty when they neither require love to God or our neighbor? Any one can strictly keep the ten precepts and yet not love God nor his neighbor, for no one of them requires either. Turn and read each one of them carefully." If it be a fact (!) that the ten commandments "neither require love to God or our neighbor," I answer they do not "constitute a perfect law, or man's whole duty," for Christ says, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind," and also, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;" and he says, furthermore, "On these two commandments hang all the law, and the prophets;" therefore if all the law hang on these two great principles, of love to God and love to our neighbor, most assuredly the ten commandments hang there,—the fourth with the rest,—love being the very hook on which they hang. Again, if the ten commandments "neither require love to God or our neighbor," I ask what and where is the law that Christ referred to, as then hanging on those two great commandments? Was there no law under the former dispensation requiring love to God or our neighbor? If there was such a law, and it be not the ten commandments, will Eld. S. please to name it! Again I ask what is love to God or our neighbor but obedience to the precepts contained in the ten commandments? Or can a person love God or his neighbor without keeping the ten commandments? Paul says "the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." I need not make an application of this text, the case is too apparent. I leave it with Eld. S. however to make at his leisure. "22. Where is the evidence that there was, or is any more holiness, spirituality, or sanctity attached to the seventh-day Sabbath, than there was, or is to every part or parcel of the whole law given by God through Moses to the children of Israel. True, the Sabbath is called 'holy,' and 'my holy day,' but it is never said to be most holy; while sacrifices, meat offerings, trespass-offerings, &c., are called most holy. One is used in the positive degree, and the other in the superlative. Let the reader examine the following testimony: Ex. xxxv, 1–3. Gen. ii, 3. Ps. lxxxvii, 1–7. Dan. ix, 24–27. Luke xxi, 20–24. Lev. xvi, 33. Ezek. v, 11. Dan. viii, 13, 14. Deut. xxviii, 8, 9. Ex. xix, 5, 6. Matt. xxiii. John viii. Offerings most holy, Num. xviii, 8–10. Ex. xxix, 37; xi, 10. Lev. ii, 3, 10; vi, 17; x, 12; vi, 25; vii, 1–6; xxi, 16–23; xxiv, 9. Num. iv, 4–19. Entire law holy, Rom. vii, 12, 14." It is needless to produce "evidence" to controvert a point that has no bearing in the case. Were we to concede the point raised in the foregoing question, the fact would still remain, that "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it," and also gave a solemn command to keep it holy, therefore whether it be more holy, or less holy than something else, is not a proper question for us to consider, and certainly is not the question in issue. Friend S. has doubtless some small knowledge of grammar, from the ready use he makes of the grammatical terms, "positive" and "superlative," but the use he makes of these terms only confirms the truthfulness of the adage, that, "a little learning is a dangerous thing." What if certain offerings and sacrifices are called "most holy," and the Sabbath only called "holy," what though the superlative be applied to the one, and the positive to the other; does it therefore follow that such offerings and sacrifices are more holy than the Sabbath, which the Lord has blessed and hallowed as his own? Certainly not. Why? Simply because they are not compared with each other. Hence, there is no significance whatever, in the comparison he labors to make. He should have considered this before making such a fatal blunder. But why is not the superlative term "most holy" applied to the Sabbath, as well as to offerings, &c.? Because, that would imply that the Lord had a number of Sabbaths, and that one of them exceeded all the rest in holiness; whereas, the Lord has but one Sabbath—but one holy day,—he blessed and sanctified only the seventh day; therefore it is not susceptible of degrees of comparison; and hence only be regarded, and evidently was and is regarded by the Lord as much more holy than various other things, that are qualified by the superlative expression, "most holy." Therefore the multitude of texts presented in connection with the foregoing question, as vouchers for the exceedingly small point involved therein, not only come far short of proving the same, but show to what extremes man will resort to find objections against the Sabbath. The foregoing however, is note-worthy in one respect at least. It presents the singular anomaly of not only Multum in Parvo, but Parvum in Multo. "23. Where has God removed the holiness, spirituality, or sanctity attached to the whole law, any more than he has from the Sabbath commandment? The entire law was sanctified when it was given. It continued so through the Jewish economy, till the death of Christ, and it is a settled fact, that it is even so now, notwithstanding that the law has expired by limitation, or ceased its obligations upon the world." God has nowhere "removed the holiness, spirituality or sanctity attached to the whole law, any more than he has from the Sabbath commandment;" hence we argue that the "whole law" is still binding. But what law, Eld. S. may inquire. I answer, the same "entire law" which by scripture reference he most clearly proves to be holy, viz: the ten commandments. See his last reference under question No. 22,—"entire law holy." Rom. vii, 12–14. Here is good testimony, presented too, by an objector. Paul says in the text, "wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good." But Paul is speaking here not of a law that "had expired by limitation or ceased its obligation upon the world," but rather of a law that had convinced him of sin, viz., that law that says "Thou shalt not covet," verse 7. Of course Paul was not convinced of sin through the instrumentality of a law that had "ceased its obligations upon the world," hence the Mosaic law of types and shadows that was previously "nailed to the cross" did not constitute that "whole law" or "entire law" that is called holy in Rom. vii, 12. But friend S. informs us here of a "settled fact," which, if it be a fact, is certainly worth knowing. His "settled fact," however, resolves itself into two facts(!) thus: 1st. The "entire law" "has expired by limitation, or ceased its obligations upon the world." 2d. This "entire law" not only was holy and spiritual "through the Jewish economy, till the death of Christ" but "is even so now!" How such facts as these can be reconciled in the light of truth and common sense is more than I can determine. "The law is holy,"—"the law is spiritual," Rom. vii, 12–14, but "has expired by limitation!" has "ceased its obligations upon the world!" Truly we are living under a strange dispensation! But where, when, and by whom, I ask, did such doctrine become a "settled fact?" In absence of proof to the contrary, I must conclude that such theology has nowhere become a "settled fact," except in the cranium of A. N. Seymour. "24. Where is there the least proof that the seventh-day Sabbath is to be perpetuated any longer than the passover, priesthood, blowing of trumpets, burning of incense, offering of sacrifices, the practicing of circumcision, &c., all of which was to be observed forever, throughout their generations for a perpetual covenant? Proof, Ex. xxxi, 12–18; xii, 11–17; xi, 15. Lev. xxiv, 1–3. Num. x, 1–8. Lev. xxiii, 1–22, 22–24. 2 Chron. ii, 4. Ex. xxx, 1–10. Ex. xl, 1–16; xxx, 17–21. Deut. v, 29; xi, 1. Ps. cxix, 112; xix, 7–11." Did I fully acknowledge his kind of logic, I might present as a poser to his question, the following "argument." Where is the "least proof that the seventh day Sabbath" was to cease when the passover, priesthood, &c. ceased? We might wait for the "proof," but wait in vain. But let us give a partial examination of his question. It will be conceded by all, and especially by our interrogating friend, that the terms "forever" and "perpetual" do not always signify unceasing duration,—otherwise the passover, priesthood, blowing of trumpets, &c., are still binding, and must continue to be until the end of time,—but their definite signification is determined rather from the nature of the person or thing to which they are applied, than from the words themselves. Or in other words, they signify the utmost extent of duration, of which the person or things to which they relate are susceptible. For instance; are they applied to God or his attributes, they must necessarily signify unceasing duration; but are they applied to man or his works, they must necessarily imply limited duration. Again, are they applied to the passover, priesthood, offering of sacrifices, &c., they must from the nature of the same, imply limited duration; because their origin and destiny were with the Jewish nation, and the Jews being a typical people, these were instituted as types and shadows, and incorporated into their national polity, pointing directly to one object, as the full accomplishment of their design, viz., Christ. Therefore, when the substance or antitype was reached, the type and shadow must fail, the utmost extent of their duration having been fully accomplished. Not so however when applied to the Lord's Sabbath. The Sabbath is not a type. It was made at creation, before sin entered into the world, and therefore, before types were instituted or necessary. It is a memorial of the great work of creation, ever pointing backward instead of forward. The great fact upon which it is based, viz., that "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day," is just as much a fact to-day, and ever will be, as when the same was uttered from mount Sinai, and written upon tables of stone. "The Sabbath was made for man," therefore is universal in its nature, and as applicable to one man as to another; or to one nation or people as to another. The same necessity and the same reasons for a Sabbath exist to-day, that existed three or four thousand years ago. The Sabbath commandment is incorporated into a law, which by its very nature is as eternal and enduring as the God that made it. Therefore, I conclude that when the term "forever," or "perpetual" is applied to the "seventh-day Sabbath," it not only implies that it will outlive the Jewish passover, priesthood, &c., but that it will continue unceasingly. Also, from the very nature of the Lord's Sabbath—without any qualifying terms—I am forced to the same conclusion, that it will not only continue ad finem, but ad infinitum. Isaiah lxvi, 22, 23. "25. If the fourth commandment was binding from creation, did not the whole host of Israel break the Sabbath (and were not rebuked for it) when they traveled into the wilderness of Sin on the 15th day of the second month; the 22d of this month was a Sabbath, and the first from creation mentioned; running back seven days from the 22d, you strike the 15th again; which was a Sabbath, if any existed for observance at that time. See Ex. xvi." Much more is here assumed than can be proved. In the first place, I will say that it is not unreasonable to suppose that the children of Israel at this time, were habitual Sabbath breakers, from the fact that they had but just been separated from the bondage and idolatrous customs of the Egyptian nation, where from compulsion and otherwise, they had easily learned to neglect the Sabbath. And I now venture to assert,—friend11S. to the contrary notwithstanding,—that when they murmured for bread in the wilderness of sin, the Lord rebuked them for the sin of Sabbath breaking, saying, "Behold I will rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law or no." This language is clearly a rebuke for violation of the Sabbath; otherwise there had been no force or significance in the peculiar expression, "gather a certain rate every day that I may prove them." Or had they been Sabbath keepers, there would have been no need whatever of such a test of obedience to God's law. In the next place, I have to say, that though it be true that Israel came to the wilderness of Sin on the 15th day of the second month, there is no proof whatever, that that day was the Sabbath; neither is there a shade of proof that "the 22d of this month was a Sabbath." As the basis of such assertion, it is assumed, that much more was transacted by, and between the Lord and the children of Israel on the day that they came to the wilderness of Sin, than either the probabilities in the case, or the inspired record will warrant. Reference is made to Ex. xvi; but alas! the reference is made in vain. Like "the needle to the pole," the 16th chapter of Exodus is ever true to the Sabbath. But really, what an unfortunate chapter is this to the objector! There is no use, Eld. S., in trying to make Ex. xvi, bear testimony against the Sabbath. "26. Did not Jesus Christ strictly enforce upon the multitude, and upon his disciples the whole law (of which the ten commandments compose a fraction) previous to the crucifixion? Some deny this; but let me arraign them before the standard of God's tribunal, and let them, if they will, contend against his own immortal arm. See Matt. xxiii, 1–3. Oh, do not, I beseech you, make Christ a liar, and thus endanger your own eternal salvation." Don't wax so bitter, friend S., for we are not going to take issue with you on this point. We admit that the Mosaic law, as well as the ten commandments, were in force previous to the crucifixion. But is this therefore an "unanswerable argument" against the Sabbath? I fail to perceive it. It is rather an argument for the Sabbath; for according to your own proposition, Christ enforced the "whole law, of which the ten commandments compose a fraction." Therefore he enforced the Sabbath commandment. But who is A. N. Seymour, that he should presume to "arraign" men "before the standard of God's tribunal"? Who is he that he should "beseech" men not to "make Christ a liar!" Does perfection hang upon his lips, and reign supreme in his heart! Does no fallibility pervade his very being, and assimilate him to angelic ranks above! One might think from his swelling language that he claimed even such distinction. "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall."