BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.
By Uriah Smith
Preble.—"THE MORAL LAW.—What shall we understand by the term 'moral law'? That 'law of God which prescribes the moral and social duties, and prohibits the transgression of them.' We shall all agree, then, that the moral law is distinct or separate from the ceremonial or ritual law. Then the question arises, 'Is the old moral law, as contained in the Old Testament, now in force, or is it dead?' That law is 'dead,' or, in other words, it is 'fulfilled,' as I shall presently show. But as it is my only object, at this time, to speak of the moral law as bearing upon the seventh-day Sabbath, and as the law which enjoins the observance of this day is embraced in the fourth commandment, I will first prove that the law is abrogated, or 'dead,' as was alluded to in my last; from the fact that the penalty is 'done away,' and of course the law must also be 'done away' which enforced the penalty, which penalty was 'death;' for death was the penalty for the violation of the Sabbath surely. (See Ex. xxxi, 15; xxxv, 2, 3.) "But, says the objector, is there no law then now in force which relates to the moral and social duties of man with man, and also our duty to God? Certainly, there is the 'MORAL LAW OF THE NEW TESTAMENT;' but that of the Old is 'done away,' as will more clearly appear as we proceed. In Rom. iii, 20–22, we read: "'Therefore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference.' "What law is this here spoken of by the apostle?
Not the ceremonial or ritual, but the moral law. Then let us start fairly, and always bear in mind that 'by the deeds' or works 'of the law there shall no person living be justified in God's sight. We then inquire with the apostle, 'Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also; seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.' Rom. iii, 27–31. "But let us remember that we do not 'establish the law' by keeping the old law of works, 'but by the' new 'law of FAITH.' If we observe the old law of works, 'faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect.' 'For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect; because the law worketh wrath; for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.' Rom. iv, 13–16. Thus we see, that the promise made to Abraham, that he should be 'the heir of the world,' (Greek, kosmos—habitable globe,) was not through the works of the law, 'but through the righteousness of faith.' 'Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be of grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed.' Amen. "For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.' Rom. iv, 3–5. 'For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.' Rom. vi, 14, 15. 'For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.' 'Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life BY JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD.' Rom. v, 13, 14, 20, 21. 'Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him that is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.' Rom. vii, 4–6. "Here we reach a point of much interest. Two things in this last quotation require special attention. And first, here we prove positively that the law here spoken of is not the ceremonial, but the 'moral law;' for we see by referring to verse 3, of this same chapter, that the law referred to is that which speaks of 'adultery,' and this sin is the one mentioned in the 'seventh commandment' of the decalogue; and this is what gives us the positive proof that the 'moral law' is the one referred to. And second, we also prove positively, that this moral law is DEAD; as we find in the 6th verse of the last quotation: 'But now we are delivered from the law, THAT BEING DEAD wherein we were held; that we should serve in NEWNESS OF SPIRIT, and not in the oldness of the LETTER.' Amen and amen. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.' Rom. viii, 1–4. 'What shall we say then? that the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; but Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone.' Rom. ix, 30–32. "Yes, 'they stumbled at that stumbling-stone!' Would to God the stumbling had all been confined to the old Jews! But, alas! too many are still stumbling in the same way, and for the same cause! They love the old law of works better than the new 'law of faith!' And it appears to me that the language of the apostle to the Hebrews will most strikingly apply to such: "'He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under-foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?' Heb. x, 28, 29. "But, alas! alas! how many are still to be justified by the 'law of works,' instead of the 'law of faith,' through our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a fearful thing for men to trample 'under-foot the Son of God!' as they verily do, who turn aside from his 'law of faith,' the law of the 'Spirit,' the law of 'GRACE!' to follow the old law of works! In the fourth verse I have above quoted from Rom. viii, the apostle says: 'The righteousness of the law' is 'FULFILLED in us, who walk not after the flesh,' or the law, 'but after the SPIRIT.' Amen." REPLY.—We were at first disposed to regret the necessity of taking up the time of the reader with such lengthy, and seemingly uncalled-for, quotations and throwing together of scripture, as Eld. P. has given us above, as the only object, or, perhaps, we should rather say, tendency, of their quotation, can be nothing less than to worry the reader into complete bewilderment, on this subject. In another point of view, however, we do not regret it; as they furnish a fair illustration of the fact, that it is impossible for him to quote any large amount of consecutive scripture on the subject of the Sabbath and law, without running against testimony that directly contradicts his own position. We are gratified to find him admitting "that the moral law is distinct or separate from the ceremonial or ritual." In this he certainly bears away the palm for honesty, over those who would endeavor to create confusion on a point so plain, and confound objects so evidently and essentially distinct. We are no less gratified with his subsequent admission that this moral law is the decalogue or ten commandments. Nor is our gratification lessened when he admits that the seventh-day Sabbath is a part of that law. Here, then, we understand him. The moral law, in distinction from the ceremonial, is the ten commandments, and the Sabbath is a part of that law. But the reader will remember that Eld. P.'s first and greatest reason for giving up the Sabbath, was because it was a type. And, therefore, we now inquire, Does the moral law, "which prescribes the moral and social duties," deal with types? Does it incorporate into itself that which is shadowy and transitory? Do moral obligations differ in different ages? Verily not. Thus his reasoning on the162moral law completely nullifies his argument on the Sabbath as a type. But this moral law, he says, is dead, or, "in other words, it is fulfilled." He should have remembered that a moral law is not abolished by being fulfilled. A moral law can be fulfilled only by rendering perfect obedience thereto. This is the very meaning, and, we submit, the only meaning that the word fulfill can have as applied to a moral law. If it is still contended that fulfill means to abolish, we refer him to Gal. vi, 2:— "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." Then if God's law is fulfilled and abolished, and Christ's law is also fulfilled and abolished, pray tell us what there is left? Thus in their zeal to get rid of the Sabbath, men will adopt a course of reasoning which would prove the abrogation of all law! Would it not be better to accept of this institution which God has ever spoken of as his blessed and holy rest-day, which the holy men of the Bible have ever regarded with unfeigned delight, and which is ever represented as made for man, as an institution made to supply his want, and to be one of his greatest blessings; would it not be better, we say, to receive and observe this institution, than to fall into all the inconsistencies which opposition to it uniformly involves, and thus foster skepticism, and strengthen the sinner in his rebellion against the government of Heaven. Eld. P.'s reasoning that the law is abolished, because the penalty of death is not now inflicted, has been sufficiently refuted already. His "moral law of the New Testament," we shall call for in due time. We venture to predict that it will puzzle him somewhat to find it. He goes on to show that the law is abolished, because Paul says, in Rom. iii, 20, &c., that "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight." But let it be particularly noticed, that Paul does not say that the law cannot under any circumstances justify a person, but only that the circumstances in which the world is now, are such that none can be justified by the law in the sight of God. And what are those circumstances? He fully states them in the verse before. Verse 19: "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore, by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight." Two facts are brought out by this testimony, which should be held in continual remembrance: they are, first, that the moral law is binding not upon the Jews only, but upon "all the world;" and every mouth is stopped, and all the world becomes guilty by its transgression; and, second, that therefore no flesh can be justified by it. Here it is as plain as language can make it. The word, therefore, denotes a conclusion drawn from some preceding facts. The facts are that all the world have transgressed the law, and become guilty. Therefore they cannot be justified by the law; for the law cannot justify its transgressors; yet if we understand Eld. P., he finds fault with the law, and considers it an evidence that it is "done away," because it will not justify the guilty! A law that would justify its own violation! What would such a law be good for? Think of it. It would nullify itself, and be only an evidence of supreme foolishness on the part of the lawgiver. Amid all the weaknesses and shortsightedness of human counsels, they have never yet been marked by any such folly as this; and we can only add, May the Lord have mercy on those who will not receive his law, because it is not stamped with imperfection far exceeding anything that ever yet attached to human enactments! But will Eld. P.'s moral law of the New Testament justify its transgressor? If it will, for what purpose has Christ shed his blood? And if it will not, why does he object on that ground to the moral law of the Old Testament? Great stress is laid on the expression, "Justified by faith, without the deeds of the law." Rom. iii, 28. We would ask those who so confidently use this to prove the law abolished, Does the expression, "without the deeds of the law," signify that a person can be justified while living in violation of the duties enjoined in the moral law? If it does not, then we are in no wise released from the law by that expression; and if it does, then do you make Christ the minister of sin, and grant the wicked a license for his wickedness. Should the inquiry be raised how we would apply Paul's language, the answer is not difficult: The law requiring perfect obedience, we, having transgressed it, can never by our future obedience make up for our past transgressions: for no man can ever render more than perfect obedience, and perfect obedience only meets the present requirements of the law. Hence, in spite of all that we can do, our past transgressions stand against us, and the law demanding the death of the transgressor, or, in other words, the wages of sin being death, we are irrecoverably lost, unless we lay hold on the sacrifice of the Saviour, and avail ourselves of his freely-offered righteousness to supply our past lack. 1 Cor. i, 30. Doing this, our past offences are forgiven, and we are accounted righteous, that is, as though we had always been obedient. This is the relation that law and gospel sustain to each other. By the law is the knowledge of sin, says the apostle; and by the gospel is brought to view the remedy, or the good news of a way of escape, by justification from our transgressions, through the blood of Christ. Hence, our justification and salvation depend wholly on Christ, and we receive these "without the deeds of the law," that is, the deeds of the law not being taken into account, as we have transgressed the law, and so forfeited all claim to justification on that score. But yet the conditions on which justification through Christ is suspended should not be lost sight of. The first of these is repentance. "Repentance toward God." Acts xx, 21. It is the law of God men have transgressed; hence, repentance has to do with God. Sin, as defined by the apostle, 1 John iii, 4, is the transgression of the law. True repentance is not a lip confession merely, it is also to cease in our lives from doing those things which constitute sin; in other words, to turn to a faithful observance of the law. Now, putting the definition in place of the term repentance, the proposition can be stated thus: The first condition of justification through Christ, is a faithful observance of the law. Hence, we hear the apostle declaring, Rom. ii, 13, that the doers or observers of the law shall be justified, plainly implying that no others can be entitled to that blessing. And we also understand him when he says in the last verse of chap. iii, "Do we then make void [katargeō, annul, abrogate, destroy,] the law through faith [or by this system of justification through Christ]? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." On this point Eld. P. seems to have become somewhat bewildered. He says, "But let us remember that we do not 'establish the law,' by keeping the old law of works, 'but by the' new 'law of faith.'" The question at once arises, Of what law is Paul speaking? What law is it, which is not made void but established through faith? Is it Eld. P.'s "new law of faith?" If so, the text will read like this: "Do we then make void the law of faith through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law of faith!" This, it seems to us, borders hard on nonsense. Nor can we avoid making nonsense of the Apostle's language, except by taking the ground that the law of which he here speaks, is something outside of the New Testament, which he is laboring to show is not made void by the faith of the New Testament. It can apply to nothing else but the moral law of the Old Testament. At any rate, it is the law of which he so fully speaks in the preceding portions of the chapter, which is binding upon all the world, which all have become guilty by transgressing, and by which, therefore, no flesh can be justified. Eld. P. speaks of the moral law of the Old Testament as "the old law of works." Query: Does not his "moral law of the New Testament" require the same number and the same kind of works? We venture to say that it does; or, in other words, that he has every one of the ten commandments in his new system, not even excepting the Sabbath, only observing it on another day. Then is not his law just as much a law of works as the old? Where is the difference, so far as the works are concerned? And is there either reason or consistency in thus distinguishing between objects which in all their outward particulars are identical, and bestowing opprobrious epithets upon one, while the other is landed to the heavens? We now come to Rom. vii, 1–6. Scarcely ever do we read an exposition of this portion of scripture by an opposer of the law, without being pained at the amount of unnatural effort expended to wrest and pervert this language of the apostle. Somehow it must be made to teach, according to their programme, that the law is abolished, though the apostle designed no such thing, as a few words will suffice to show. Under the figure of marriage, Paul represents the condition of a person before and after conversion. In the illustration are four things, the woman, the law, the first husband, and the second husband to whom she is at liberty to be married after the first husband is dead. In the case illustrated there are also four things: the sinner represented by the woman, the moral law, represented by the law of marriage, something to which the sinner is bound, represented by the first husband, and Christ, represented by the second husband. In the illustration the husband dies, and then the woman is free to marry another. In the case of the sinner, that also which is represented by the first husband dies, and that alone. Now, it will be seen, the whole question is, What constitutes the first husband? Do you say it is the law? Then you violate Paul's illustration; for in that he makes the husband distinct from the law, and it is the husband, not the law, that dies. And again, if you say it is the law that has died, then you make the law the first husband, and represent Paul as teaching the following pitiful absurdity: The sinner is bound by the law to the law as long as the law lives; but when the law is dead, and there is nothing to show or condemn his sin, then he is ready, all reeking with moral pollution, to be received to the bosom of his Saviour! Again we recur to the question on which the whole controversy of Rom. vii turns, namely, What constitutes the first husband? We have seen what unpardonable confusion it introduces into Paul's figures to call it the law. What then shall we call it? Answer: That which dies when the sinner is converted. And what is that? It is what St. Paul so often speaks of as the "old man," the "body of sin," the "carnal mind." And this is always represented as being "crucified," "destroyed," and "put off," when the new man is put on. The sixth of Romans is introductory to the seventh. The reader is requested to examine it in this connection. Paul there gives us a discourse on conversion and baptism. He represents the sinner as slain by the law, or dead to sin, the old man crucified, and the body of sin destroyed: then he is ready to be buried with Christ by baptism, and rise to walk in newness of life. See the following scriptures, where the putting off of the old man, and the putting on of the new, or the release from the first husband and the union with the second is described. Eph. iv, 22–24; Col. iii, 9, 10; Rom. vi, 6. Then to illustrate his subject, Paul introduces the figure used in chapter vii, a woman bound by the law to her husband, and not being allowed to marry another till her first husband was dead. Now, mark the conclusion to which he comes through this illustration: Is it that the law is dead? No; but "wherefore, my brethren, ye also, are become dead to the law by the body of Christ." Verse 4. But, says the objector, do we not read in verse 6, But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, and does not the word, that, refer to the law, and show that the law is dead? By no means. The expression, that being dead, does not refer to the law. Turning to the Greek Testament, we find the word from which that expression comes, to be apothanontes. Did this word refer to the law, it should be in the genitive singular, the word law, just before it, being in that case and number; but it is in the nominative plural, and therefore refers to the word we: we are delivered from the law, we being dead to that, &c. The margin of our English version has the same reading, which is a literal rendering of the Greek. But even if we take it as it stands in the text, our opponents cannot make out of it what they claim; for the expression is qualified by the words, "wherein we were held." Wherein were we held while in sin? Not in the law, surely; but in a state of condemnation, or inseparably united to our old man of sin. This must die before we can be free from it. And the expressions, that being dead, or we being dead to that, are synonymous expressions; but the Greek forever settles163the question that it cannot refer to the law. Therefore, look at it in whatever light we will, Rom. vii contains no intimation whatever that the law is in any degree relaxed, or we in any wise released from its claims. Rightly understood, there is a beautiful harmony in the illustration that Paul here uses, and the seventh of Romans becomes a strong citadel, not for those who would have the law abolished, but for those who "delight in the law of God after the inward man," and who esteem the "commandment holy, and just and good." "Amen and amen," exclaims Eld. P., as he reaches the conclusion that the law is "dead." Was it a sense of relief in view of being free from the restraints of law that led to that fervent ejaculation of praise! If so, we are led to fear that the idea of obedience is irksome to him, and that the love through which God designs that all his service shall be prompted, is not found in his heart. He then quotes Rom. ix, 30–32, which speaks of the Jews' following after righteousness, but not obtaining it, "because they sought it not by faith." This he applies to those who keep the seventh-day Sabbath. How shall we account for this? He certainly must know that no Seventh-day Adventist expects salvation through keeping the Sabbath, or any other of the ten commandments; he must know that we rest all our hopes of righteousness and salvation on Christ and him alone; and he must know also, or if not, we can now inform him, that we are not presumptuous or foolish enough to expect justification from our past transgression of the commandments, unless we turn from that transgression, and endeavor for the future to keep those commandments. To claim to be justified from sin, and yet consider ourselves under no obligation to refrain from sin! Who could measure the presumption of such a course, or fathom the degree of insult it is offering to God and his Son, Jesus Christ! As though, because a way has been devised whereby sins can be forgiven, unlimited indulgence is granted us in the future. Eld. P., leave this matter of arguing for, or granting, indulgence, to the "mother of harlots;" it is unbecoming a Protestant and a Christian. But if we are surprised at his use of Rom. ix, what shall we say to his application of Heb. x, 28, 29? By his quotation of this scripture, he accuses us, because we keep the Sabbath, of treading under-foot the Son of God, counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and doing despite to the Spirit of grace!! Thus does he make the keeping of the seventh day the most heinous crime that can be committed against the Son of God! We pause in utter amazement at such an application of scripture. We would here refer the reader again to Waymark No. 2, in which Eld. P. argues that distinction in days was a matter of utter indifference. He represented Paul as teaching that every one might act according to his own persuasion in the matter, whether to observe them or not. It was not long before we came to Waymark No. 3, in which Eld. P. argued that if we did keep the seventh day we should surely be accursed; and now, behold, if we do it, we are treading under foot the Son of God! Did Paul give every man liberty to be persuaded in his own mind whether to tread under foot the Son of God or not?! Set this down as Waymark No. 4. So then the observance of the Sabbath is to subject us to the sorest of God's punishments. How was it under the former dispensation? Their violation of the Sabbath was one reason why God would not bring the generation of Israel that came out of Egypt, into the promised land. Eze. xx, 15, 16. Its violation by their children in the wilderness, was one of the prime causes of their dispersion from their own land. Verses 23, 24. God promised them that Jerusalem should stand forever if they would keep the Sabbath, but if they would not keep it, a fire should be kindled in the gates thereof, which should not be quenched. Jer. xvii, 27. And their continued transgression in this thing was the reason why Jerusalem was at length destroyed. See Neh. xiii, 15–22. Thus great blessings were pronounced upon them if they would keep the Sabbath, the Lord declared that his own honor was involved in their observance of it; Isa. lvi, 2; lviii, 13, 14; and curse after curse followed them on account of its violation. But we pass the dividing line between that dispensation and this, and lo, according to Eld. P., the same acts which before insured the blessing of God, now call down his bitterest curse; an observance which before he esteemed to his honor, he now regards as the highest crime that can be committed against his Son! Cursed there for violating the Sabbath, and blessed here for the same acts! blessed there for keeping it, and cursed here for the same acts! And what a scene would be presented in the Judgment, should we see God in dealing with a race which have ever borne the same relation to him, bestowing upon one class his most benignant blessings for keeping his Sabbath, according to his promise, and turning to another class, and for the very same acts, visiting upon them his fiercest wrath! Elder Preble, is such the character of the God with whom we have to do! Do you say that in quoting Heb. x, 28, 29, you had reference to such as were seeking justification and salvation outside of Christ? Then, as we have already shown, it has no application to Seventh-day Adventists, and you are simply fighting a man of straw of your own creation. We have gone upon the supposition that you were, according to your avowed purpose, arguing against the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, against which, unless you acknowledge a departure from the subject, you must have designed the quotation from Hebrews; and this being so, the impartial reader will pronounce our language none too severe. Rom. viii, 4, is quoted. "The righteousness of the law" is "FULFILLED in us, who walk not after the flesh," or the law, says Eld. P., "but after the SPIRIT." The word, fulfilled, is made emphatic by being put in small capitals, to which we respond. Amen. Righteousness, or a system of right doing, can be fulfilled only by conforming strictly thereto; and this scripture shows that the law is the standard of righteousness. The two verses 3 and 4 together present the idea thus: that the Son of God died for us that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. Yes, the righteousness of the law must be fulfilled in us; that is, we must attain to the same degree of righteousness as though we had never transgressed the law; but how shall this be done? Never by our own efforts alone; for we have already transgressed, and can never atone for those transgressions as already shown. It can only be done, therefore, through Christ. And as, through the merits of his blood, our past sins are cancelled, and we go on in obedience in the future, we are accounted as righteous as though we had never sinned, and thus the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us. How different is this teaching of the apostle from the representation of our opponents that Christ died to abolish the law. Christ does not make us righteous by breaking down God's great standard of righteousness, so that it cannot be shown who is a sinner, but by opening a way whereby our characters can be made to conform to that standard. Eld. P. is again unfortunate in his comments on "the flesh." "Who walk not after the flesh," he says, "or the law." Now if flesh there means law, the text would read, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the law!" But to speak of the righteousness of the law, or the righteousness which the law was designed to secure, being fulfilled by those who walk not after, or according to, the law, or in other words, who are not living in obedience to the law, is absurd.