BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.
By Uriah Smith
"Therefore, after the decease of the old 'school-master,' it was necessary to have a new law, or new commandments; and hence Christ declares to us one of THE NEW COMMANDMENTS in the following scriptures: 'A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.' 'This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. These things I command you, that ye love one another.' " John xiii, 34, 35; xv, 12, 17. REPLY.—Amid all the dust and confusion raised by the opponents of the law and Sabbath, it is necessary often to remind the reader of the true point at issue, and to refer to the principles for which we contend, and which they oppose. Remember then that our position is, that the moral law, summarily contained in the ten commandments, is, and ever has been, God's great constitution for the government of this world; that these commandments have, from Eden down, been binding, not upon any particular class alone, but upon all the world, as Paul, in Rom. iii, clearly shows; that this is the law which God by the Psalmist pronounces perfect, Ps. xix, 7; the law, the keeping of which Solomon tells us is the whole duty of man, Eccl. xii, 13; that this law is in no wise affected, either in its character or duration, by the giving of the ceremonial law to the Jews, and the abrogation of that law by Jesus Christ, but that it continues right on, as an unimpaired whole, binding upon the world, and is to be the standard of character at the last day. Jas. ii, 12. If that law was perfect as David declares, then God could not alter or abolish it, without marring his own work; for a perfect law can no more be altered and still be perfect, than there can be two straight lines between two given points, or two centers to the same circle. To argue, therefore, as the opposers of the Sabbath do, that that law which was once perfect has been changed or abolished, is to argue that God's system of government is now imperfect. Another thought relative to the abolition of the law. As already stated, whatever the New Testament declares to have been abolished, it as plainly declares was abolished at the cross. No change can be shown to have taken place in anything except that which was included in the "hand writing of ordinances," which was "blotted out," and "nailed to the cross." But can this language be applied to the ten commandments? These commandments were written on stone; and how would a man look, we ask, to carry out the figure, nailing tables of stone to a cross? or endeavoring with ink, to "blot out" what God had engraved deep in those tables with his own finger? Both the idea and the figure would be incongruous and absurd. But apply this, as the apostle does, to the book of the law of Moses, the ceremonial law, the Jewish ritual, and there is harmony and appropriateness in the figure; for what was written with ink, could be blotted out with ink, and it was a custom in those days, when a law expired by limitation or subsequent enactment, to nail up the parchment on which it was written, in some conspicuous place, that all might see that it had ceased to exist. From this custom comes the figure of Christ's nailing to the cross that body of ceremonies contained in the hand writing of ordinances. With this view there is harmony throughout; but to apply it to the ten commandments, is to violate every principle of propriety, and make Paul the merest simpleton in the use of figures. Again. We affirm without fear of contradiction that the view of the law above set forth, would be the view of nearly all, if not all, Bible believers at the present time, were it not for the Sabbath question. We make this assertion on the very apparent ground that it is only since the Sabbath controversy has arisen that men have begun to talk so glibly about the ceremonial nature, the carnality, and the abolition of the law of God. The good and pious of past ages have expressed views relative to the law, its holiness, immutability and perpetuity, exactly such as we now advocate. But the Christian world is of late beginning to awake to the fact, that that law which in times past they have so highly and so justly extolled, demands a day of rest different from the one they find themselves observing. They are beginning to learn that by some means and by some power, a new day has been foisted into the place of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment of the decalogue, and they betrayed into the practice of keeping it. We can tell them where it came from, if they wish to know. It originated with the first great rebel against the government of Heaven, was by him inducted into all the abominations of heathenism, then into the corruptions of the papacy, and finally landed in the very bosom of all the creeds of Protestantism. See history of the Sabbath. Finding themselves in this position, they have apparently debated the question thus: Shall we still adhere to the high estimate we have placed upon the law, and change our practice to conform to its requirements, or shall we at all events still adhere to our present practice, and make the law, or our theory, even if it involves the abolition of the law, conform to our practice? And too many have set themselves to work to accomplish this latter result. We are sorry to see Eld. P. laboring so zealously in their unworthy ranks. It is here that we and our opponents have parted company, and this is the issue between us. Occupying, years ago, common ground in reference to the law of God, when it was ascertained that our practice was not conformable to its requirements, we did not choose to surrender our views of its sanctity and binding obligation to suit our circumstances. We believe that the views formerly held by such good men as Wesley and others, in reference to the law of God, are all right, and knowing, according to the obvious principle of logic, that whatever is affirmed of anything as a whole is affirmed of all the particulars contained under it, when we find the law as a whole brought over into this dispensation, still binding upon the world, and the great instrument used in the conversion of the sinner, see Paul's experience in Rom. vi and vii, we know that each item of that law is just as much binding as though individually re-affirmed. In that law we have found a Sabbath, which we have accepted. In that law our opponents also find a Sabbath which they have rejected, and to avoid the claim of which, they even discard the law itself. But we must return from this digression to a more particular conflict with hydra-headed error; to a painful consideration of assumptions, assertions, false premises and false conclusions. This holy and living law of God, Eld. P. seems to take peculiar delight in denouncing as "the old dead school-master." And after the decease of the "old school-master," says he, it was necessary to have a new law, or new commandments; and hence Christ declares to us one of the new commandments, to love one another. But stop a moment. The law died, if it died at all, at the cross of Christ; but this commandment that Eld. P. refers to, was spoken by Christ, while yet engaged in his public ministry. Hence Eld. P. has a part of the new law enacted before the old was abolished! Here, says he, "is one of the new commandments." Where are the rest? Was the new law given in a hap-hazard and piecemeal manner? If so, who shall collect these commandments, and give them to us in the form of a code entire? No one has done this in the New Testament. And why did not Christ, when he commenced to give the new law, if he designed to legislate in the place of the old, give us a complete law at once, and inform us of his purpose in so doing? Was he not capable of it? Did not the circumstances of the case require it? All will agree certainly that the repeal of a law should be as explicit as its enactment, and that the new law should be no less precise than the old, both as to the time of its enactment, and the terms in which it is expressed. The ten commandments were once declared to men from Sinai, with the mighty voice of God, while the mountain quaked, the earth trembled, and the178hearts of the people fainted at the sublime manifestations of the divine majesty. And now shall we allow a person to impose upon our better judgment, by telling us that because Christ enjoined upon his disciples, in a private manner, to love one another, or an apostle wrote occasionally and years apart, to some of his converts, exhorting them in reference to some of these requirements, that this was the enactment of a new law, that the old was hereby abolished, and the new took its place, while yet Christ and his apostles have given us no intimation of any such thing? Another feature fatal to this position, is the fact that if Christ re-enacted the law, it was re-enacted before the old was abolished, which would be absurd; and if the apostles, as is sometimes contended, re-enacted it, then years elapsed between the abolition of the old and the enactment of the new; years in which God had no law for the government of the world; and as "where no law is, there is no transgression," Rom. iv, 15, years in which all iniquity might be committed without sin; if the first view is absurd, an imposition on human reason, this is blasphemous; for it impeaches the wisdom of Omniscience. Oh shameful confusion! Oh Egyptian darkness! Reader, we appeal to your common sense: is it not more reasonable and scriptural to believe that God so legislated in the beginning as never afterward to find himself under the necessity of giving a new law to man, and then resorting to weak and impotent human means for its enactment! But you may ask, What then does Christ mean by a new commandment? To which we reply, that he certainly could not mean that his commandment was new in the sense of now first having an existence; for we find in the days of Moses, in the book of Leviticus, an express injunction to love our neighbors as ourselves. Christ enjoined no more than this. But the spirit of this command had been lost from the hearts of the people, and Christ renewed it. And the same John who records these words of our Lord, says in his second epistle, that it was not a new commandment, as then first having an existence, but one which they had "had from the beginning," 2 John 5. It is called new, then, simply because renewed. Just as we read in 2 Cor. v, 17, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature," not then first made or created, but simply renovated or renewed. Preble.—"In this connection, we have an 'example' given us by our Saviour of the practical bearing of this 'new commandment.' It is found in the first part of John xiii: "CHRIST WASHING THE DISCIPLES' FEET.—And some contend that Jesus commanded his people to attend to the washing of feet, in connection with the ordinance of the Lord's supper, as a part of the ordinance itself, I am led here to say, this is a mistake! It is not so! There is no command or precept, as used by the Saviour in this connection, is entole; meaning 'precept, command, law,' etc. But the original word, used by Christ in John xiii, 15, when he says, 'I have given you an example,' is hypodigma; meaning 'an example, proposed for imitation or admonition,' etc. (Greenfield's Lexicon.) And in this case we shall find that the 'example' of Christ was for 'admonition,' for the disciples deserved it. The case was this: The disciples had first been engaged in a 'strife' among themselves, to see 'which of them should be accounted the greatest,' (Luke xxii, 24,) and the spirit of selfishness and rivalry was in direct violation of the true import of the 'new commandment.' Hence, 'their Lord and Master' just set them an 'example' of humility and 'love' toward each other; they must be servants to each other, and never strive to see 'which of them should be accounted the greatest.' Thus we see that 'love one to another' is the 'fulfilling' of Christ's new law or commandments; as we find in Rom. xiii, 8-10: "'Owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.'" "It appears that this 'example' of Christ was enough for the disciples while they lived, for we never find them, after this, washing each other's feet in connection with the Lord's supper. They doubtless remembered this 'example' of their 'Lord and Master' to 'love one another,' as Christ had loved them; and so there was no more 'strife' among them at the Lord's table to see 'which of them should be accounted the greatest.' And so would I recommend to all who feel like 'strife,' to see who shall 'be accounted the greatest,' just to wash one another's feet until they 'have love one to another.' But we need not wash each other's feet, as a part of the ordinance of the Lord's supper, because Christ commanded us to do it; for he never did any such thing. But under similar circumstances, we had better follow the 'example' of 'our Lord and Master;' and then, as he says, 'If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them;' yes, 'happy' are ye, if we only keep the 'new commandment' to 'love one another,' for there is no unhappiness or fear in love. We shall be 'happy' if we only follow Christ's 'example;' for 'perfect love casteth out fear.'" "'God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear; because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.'" 1 John iv, 16-18. REPLY.—We have chosen to give what Eld. P. says on John's record of Christ's washing the disciples' feet, at one extract, it forms so novel a portion of an argument against the Sabbath. The connection between Sabbath-keeping and washing the saints' feet, we leave the reader to ascertain if he can. But as we are reviewing Eld. P., it is of course our duty to follow him, wherever he may lead. And yet we cannot do this without apologizing to the reader for so far departing from the subject. We are in the position of the boy ploughing, who was told to make a straight furrow across the field. On inquiring how he should do it, his father told him to drive straight to the old red cow on the other side of the field. The boy started, and the cow started too! However, he obeyed orders and followed her all over the field. And if his furrow was not quite so straight, he could plead that he had only followed directions. So if our reasoning is not always on the subject in hand, our apology is that we are only following Eld. P. In relation to the subject of washing feet, we can give no better reply to Eld. P.'s remarks than is found in the words of the "living Jesus." Eld. P. has thus far manifested a remarkable passion for long quotations of scripture; and it strikes us as a little singular that on this point he has kept the language of the "living Jesus" entirely out of sight. But let Eld. P., as well as all others, give careful audience while the great Teacher speaks upon this question: "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; he riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them." John xiii, 3-17. When our Lord says, as above, "If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another's feet," does he mean that we should do it, or that we should not? When he says, "For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you," does he mean that we should do so, or do something else? And when he says, "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them," does he mean these things or something else? It is not a little surprising that Eld. P., while so strenuously professing to be a follower of the teachings of the "living Jesus," should so soon join issue with his teachings, endeavor to explain away his words, and avoid obedience to his plain and explicit requirements. But oh, if Eld. P. could have found any such language as this relative to Sunday-keeping, would it have been treated thus? If he could only have found where Christ kept Sunday, and then told his disciples, "If I then, your Lord and Master, have kept the first day of the week, ye ought also to keep the first day of the week; for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done," would not his language have been taken in its most literal and apparent sense, and considered a sufficient settlement of the Sunday controversy? But Eld. P. endeavors to explain away this language when applied to the washing of feet, and rejects that ordinance, while he accepts the Sunday institution on evidence that is not one-thousandth part as direct. Let him say no more about the "living Jesus," until he can pay as much regard to his language when applied to the humiliating ordinance of washing feet, as he would to the same language if uttered in behalf of the popular institution of Sunday-keeping. Preble.—"WHAT IS THE NEW LAW CALLED?—It is called 'The perfect law of liberty'—'The royal law;' as we find in James i, 25; ii, 8, 12. We are sure that it is the new law of Christ that is here called 'the perfect law of liberty;' for the apostle says: 'The law'—that is, the old law—the old 'school-master'—made nothing perfect; but 'it was the bringing in [margin] of a better hope;' as we learn from Heb. vii, 19; Acts xiii, 39; 'For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.' 'And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.'" REPLY.—In his endeavors to find a name for his new law, Eld. P. reminds us of his reasoning on the law in Rom. vii. He here goes to James and contends that the name of his new law is the royal law, the perfect law of liberty. In his argument on Romans we find this language: "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 5, 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." We take him on his own ground in reference to the law referred to by James. In Jas. ii, 10-12, we read, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all; for he that said [margin, that one which said] Do not commit adultery, said, also, Do not kill. Now, if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." What law was it which said these things, to which James in his day could refer? Answer, the old moral law of the decalogue, and that alone. Now Eld. P. argues that a reference to the seventh commandment, in Rom. vii, is positive proof that it is the moral law of the decalogue which is referred to there. Hence, on his own ground, a reference to the sixth and seventh commandments in James ii, is positive proof that it is the moral law of the decalogue that is referred to there. But Eld. P. overlooks this fact, and is very sure that the law is not referred to here, because it is "the perfect law of liberty," and Paul in Heb. vii, 19, speaking of some law, says that the "law made nothing perfect." What law does Paul refer to in Heb. vii? The moral law of the ten commandments? No, sir; but the ceremonial law. The sum of the argument, then, is this: Eld. P. through a mention of one commandment in Rom. vii, sees "positive proof" that the moral law of the decalogue is referred to there; but though two of those commandments are mentioned here in James ii, he sees no proof in them that the moral law is referred to here, but on the contrary, is quite sure that it is the "new law of Christ," because Paul in Heb. vii, says that the old ceremonial law could make nothing perfect! The reader will see plainly enough that James, by the royal law, and law of liberty, means nothing else but the original moral law, as contained in the ten commandments; and Eld. P.'s imaginary "new law" must go without a name awhile longer. Preble.—"I know that there are those who contend for the seventh-day Sabbath, that say this 'royal law,' as in James ii, 8, is the old law of the decalogue; and then they try to enforce their theory in regard to the179Sabbath. But they thus 'pervert the gospel of Christ.' For James says:—'If ye fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.' What law is this, then, which the apostle says is according to the Scripture? It is this: 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' And where do we find this law? Where did it have its origin? With the old 'schoolmaster,' or with Christ? We will see:— "'Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.' Matt. xxii, 36-40." "But again, 'For this is the message (commandment margin) that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.' 'Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.' 'I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father. And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.' And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.' 1 John iii, 11; iv, 7, 11; and 2 John iv, 6." "'Who would not choose to follow the LIVING JESUS, rather than the old dead 'schoolmaster'?'" REPLY.—As we were preparing to show the erroneous position involved in the extract just given, a private note was received from Eld. P. containing the following paragraph in relation to it, in which his statements are withdrawn, and a reply rendered unnecessary. He says: "'I committed one error through inattention which I hope pardon for; for I did not discover it until it was too late for correction. It is found in Crisis of March 1st, p. 94, near the close of my article. It is where I say that the phrase, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,' originated with Christ. This is not true, as the same is found in Lev. xix, 18.'" This is a surrender of the whole argument on Jas. ii, and also on the "new commandment." We honor Eld. P.'s frankness in taking back an argument when he sees it to be incorrect. But the erroneous statement has gone forth through the Crisis to its six thousand subscribers, and a private confession of it to this Office will not be sufficient. Justice to his own conscience will demand that the correction should be made as public as the wrong statement. And when this is done, he will find no unwillingness on our part to grant the "pardon" for which he "hopes." In the conclusion of the last extract from his article he says, 'Who would not choose to follow the LIVING JESUS rather than the old 'dead schoolmaster'?' To say nothing of the inappropriateness in the figure of following a dead schoolmaster, we affirm that Eld. P. is not following the living Jesus in his adherence to Sunday. And on this point we will let Preble of 1845 answer Preble of 1864. In his tract written in 1845 he says: "'And John Calvin, in his 'Institution of the Christian Religion,' p. 128, says, 'The Old Fathers put in the place of the Sabbath the day we call Sunday.' Mark this! The Old Fathers did it! Not the God of Heaven!! Whom will we obey? Thus we see Dan. vii, 25 fulfilled, the 'little horn' changing 'times and laws.' Therefore it appears to me that all who keep the first day of the week for 'the Sabbath,' are Pope's Sunday keepers!! and GOD'S SABBATH BREAKERS!!!!" Adopting Eld. P.'s style of interrogation, we now inquire, Who would not choose to follow the living Father and his Son Jesus, rather than the "mother of harlots?"