BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.
By Uriah Smith
Preble.—"Jesus speaks from 'a mountain'—hear him:— " 'Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by Heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. " 'Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father which is in Heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect.'—Matt. v, 27–48. praise God, worth having—superior to those of the old dead 'schoolmaster'! This also puts to silence all cavil about the 'ten commandments,' or the decalogue, being superseded by the commandments or laws of Christ: for in this case there are at least two of the commandments of the decalogue especially referred to, viz.: the sixth and seventh.—'Thou shalt not kill,' and 'Thou shalt not commit adultery.' REPLY.—We have been patiently waiting for Eld. P.'s new code of laws. We have been hearing incessantly about the "new law of faith," "the law of Christ," "the law of the New Testament," &c. Now if such a code of laws exists in the place of the ten commandments, it devolves on Eld. P. to produce this code, to show us the laws contained under it, and the extent of their requirements or prohibitions. We know sin only by the demands of the law; for, says an apostle, writing to the Gentiles and for the benefit of Gentiles, "By the law is the knowledge of sin;" and another apostle explains as late at least as the year A. D. 90, "Sin is the transgression of the law." Rom. iii, 20; 1 John iii, 4. Now what is sin, according to Eld. P.'s new law? Let him show us that law, or at once and forever abandon the idea. If such a law exists, it can and should be produced. Hence, as Eld. P. has grown rapturous over his new law, we have been waiting for him to produce that law, show of how many commandments it consists, tell us when it was enacted, by whom it was enacted, and how it came to take the place of the former ten commandments. We have at last come to something which he calls a "New code of laws, praise God worth having," and "superior to those of the old dead school-master," or the ten commandments. As much as to say that those commandments which David pronounced "perfect converting the soul," were not worth having! But what is this "new code of laws?" Simply, some comments which the Saviour utters upon the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees, as relating to the ten commandments. A moment's consideration of the subject will make this apparent to the impartial reader. 1. Christ sets up the moral law, the ten commandments, as the great standard. He had not come to relax, abrogate, or annul it, and not a jot or tittle of it was to pass, as long at least, as the heavens and earth should stand. Matt. v, 17, 18. 2. He declared that whosoever should break, and teach men to break, one of the least of these commandments, even a jot or tittle, he should be called the least, or be of no esteem, or have no part in, the kingdom of Heaven. But whosoever should do and teach them, the same should be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. And let it be noticed that this blessing pronounced upon the doing and teaching of the least of these commandments, is introduced with the word therefore, showing it to be a conclusion from the preceding statement that not a jot or tittle of the law should pass, till all things should be fulfilled. 3. He arraigns the standard of the scribes and Pharisees before the standard of the ten commandments, in these words: For I say unto you that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven. Verse 20. He had just said that those who broke one of these least commandments, should not enter into the kingdom of Heaven. His charge therefore against the scribes and Pharisees was virtually that they had broken these commandments. But what was the matter with the scribes and Pharisees? They pretended to keep the commandments most strictly; how had they broken them? Answer. Just as he accused them on another occasion, Matt. xv, 6. "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." Hence he goes on in Matt. v, to arraign their traditions, or their standard of righteousness, before the true standard of the law of ten commandments, tearing off from it their corruptions, and setting it forth in its true import and intent. The Jews, according to credible authors, had fallen into the error of teaching that the commandments only had reference to the outward acts: and that if, in this respect, a person's deportment was correct, the requirements of the law were sufficiently met, what ever might be the feelings, purposes, desires or passions of the heart. The Saviour lays bare the hypocrisy of such teaching by showing that the law of God has to do with the motives as well as the outward acts, and that it can be violated in spirit even though the letter remains unbroken. So we find that every principle laid down by him respecting murder, from verses 21–26, is included in the sixth commandment. All that is said from verse 27 to verse 32, is included in the seventh commandment. Verses 33–37 forbid an irreverent species of swearing, prevalent among the Jews, and coming under the head of the third commandment. And the remainder of the chapter is devoted to an exposition of the great principle on which one division of the law hangs, namely to love our neighbors as ourselves. Is there anything in this to show that the "ten commandments, or decalogue" were superseded by these words of our Lord? We are surprised that any person with a sane head and honest heart should make such a claim. Jesus is simply setting forth the extent of the principles of the ten commandments, showing how far the standard of the scribes and Pharisees fell below the true standard of the law of God. So194much on the meaning of this portion of scripture. We must notice a fatal objection or two lying in the way of Eld. P.'s view. 1. If these sayings of Christ constitute, as he claims, a new code of laws, they were enacted some three years and a half before the old were abolished! No theory involving such a feature, is entitled to a moment's consideration. 2. What Eld. P. here calls his "new code of laws, praise God worth having," is very incomplete. There are, at most, but three of the ten commandments specifically referred to. Hence, according to his view, this "new code of laws," this "new law of faith," will permit us to have other gods before Jehovah, bow down and worship graven images, violate the Sabbath, dishonor our parents, steal, bear false witness, and covet. Is this a complete and perfect law? But perhaps Eld. P. will say, This is not all the code. Why then did he not call it only part of a code instead of a "new code, praise God worth having?" But if this is only a part of the new code, where is the rest of it? and when, where, and under what circumstances was it enacted? The opposers of the ten commandments are called upon to produce their "code." The view we advocate, that Christ in Matt. v, is simply commenting on the commandments, and, after affirming in the strongest terms, the perpetuity of the whole code, refers to those on which the Jews were especially guilty, makes all harmonious and plain. We have already referred to the claim that all our duty is enjoined in the New Testament, as Fallacy No. 1, into which Eld. P. had fallen; and we promised to speak of it again. As we have now reached the only place where Eld. P. endeavors to collect his new code of laws, meagre as it is, this is the proper place to introduce it. We affirm, then, that the New Testament is not the law-book of mankind; that there is no new principle of morality introduced therein, and not only so, but that the second commandment cannot therein be found; that is, there is no law in the New Testament to forbid our making graven images and bowing down to worship them. Do you say the words of Christ forbid it in Matt. iv, 10, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve?" Then notice that these were the words of Christ to Satan; they are not a New Testament law, but only a quotation from the Old, introduced by the expression, "It is written." Do you say again that we are exhorted to flee from idolatry, 1 Cor. x, 14? What is idolatry? If the New Testament contains the law for its prohibition, the New Testament must also define it; but the only definition we have of it in the New Testament is, that covetousness is idolatry. Col. iii, 5. Nothing here certainly to forbid graven images. Do you say then, that we must go to the Old-Testament law for the definition, then we reply, we must go there also for the prohibition; for the law that is sufficiently in force to define a sin, is sufficiently in force also to prohibit it. We repeat, also, There is no law in the New Testament to forbid the formation or worship of graven images; and you who are teaching that all law is abolished but the New Testament, are practically, we do not say intentionally, breaking down the barrier and opening the way to one of the most heinous sins against the Lord Jehovah. Again, how will you prove from the New Testament that a man may not marry his sister or any one that is of near kin to him? Do you say that it is a species of adultery? How do you know the New Testament does not say so? Do you say that the common sense of mankind forbids it? Then you abandon your ground that the New Testament is a sufficient law, by making common sense come in to supply the lack. In the 18th of Leviticus we find full and explicit laws on this point. Do you say that these were given to the Jews alone? We reply that there is a moral principle involved therein, binding upon all other nations as well as the Jews, as we learn from the fact that this was among the abominations for which the Canaanites were destroyed out of the promised land, to make way for the children of Israel. Yet the New Testament has not a word to say about this sin. Let no more be said, therefore, about the laws of the New Testament "superseding" the morality of the Old, until it can be shown that no deficiency exists in what are called New Testament laws, either on the second commandment or the point now before us. We would again remind the reader of the view which we hold to be truth, namely that the moral law has been brought over into the New Testament as a whole, and is binding in this dispensation in all its particulars, and to their fullest extent, reaching even to the thoughts and intents of the heart; and we ask him to consider whether such a position is not preferable to the views which Eld. P. has set forth. Preble.—"If any one is disposed to think that the Lord Jesus Christ's laws, as found in the New Testament, are more lenient than those of the Old, let them take for an example what is said in the above quotation, and especially what is said in regard to the sin of 'adultery'; and they will find that THE NEW TESTAMENT LAWS ARE MORE STRICT THAN THOSE OF THE OLD: for the Lord Jesus Christ makes a man guilty of 'adultery' who shall even look on a woman 'to lust after her.' But says the caviler, Christ let the woman go, who was taken in the very act of adultery, without condemning her. Without condemning her for what? I ask. He did not, to be sure, condemn her to 'be stoned,' as 'Moses in the law commanded,' for the sake of gratifying the woman's accusers—those old 'hypocrites'—who themselves were guilty of the double crime of, first, complicity with the woman; and second, of tempting Christ, that 'they might accuse him;' but he did condemn the woman as a sinner! and said, 'Go and sin NO MORE.' REPLY.—The misapprehension under which Eld. P. labors in the remark that "the New Testament laws are more strict than those of the Old," is at once apparent, when we consider that what Christ says is only a comment on the moral laws of the Old Testament showing the extent of their principles, and the exceeding strictness of their requirements as already set forth. The trouble was here: The Pharisees had lowered the standard of the law, and by their traditions destroyed the spirit; and what Christ says, is not giving a new law, but simply stripping off the traditions of the Pharisees, and affirming the strictness of the Old. And we are sorry to see Eld. P. on this question arraying himself on the side of those hypocritical pharisees, instead of taking his stand with the "living Jesus." (To be continued in No. 1 of next volume.)