BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.
By Uriah Smith
"‘MINISTRATION OF DEATH WRITTEN AND ENGRAVEN IN STONES’—‘DONE AWAY.’—Can there be any law without a penalty? If, then, the penalty be changed, then is the law abrogated, or ‘done away.’ But those who contend for the seventh-day Sabbath, are obliged to take the position, that the moral law, as contained in the decalogue, or ‘ten commandments,’ which was written on tables of stone, is now in full force. "Death was the penalty for violating the law of the Sabbath. As we read: “‘Six days may work be done, but in the seventh day is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord; whosoever doeth any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.” Ex. xxxi, 16. And again: ‘Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord; whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day.’ Ex. xxxv, 2, 3. "Is this penalty now in force? No one dare say it is. If they do, then let them go without FIRE! (?) on the Sabbath, or else let them be put to ‘DEATH’ on Sunday, the first day of the week! If, then, the penalty is ‘done away,’ or abrogated, then the law is also ‘done away,’ or abrogated, which required the penalty. But those who contend for observing the Sabbath according to ‘the letter’ of the law, advocate ‘death,’ even until now. If they ask, why? I answer, ‘The letter killeth.’ Shall we advocate ‘life?’ or ‘death?’ Life, certainly, says the advocate for the seventh-day Sabbath. Then be consistent, and yield to the ‘able ministers of the New Testament,’ and follow the spirit, and not the letter; ‘for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life,’ as the apostle says: ‘God hath made us able ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away; how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.’ 2 Cor. iii, 6–11. "What distraction and ‘division’ those are guilty of who ‘preach another gospel,’ as those certainly do who advocate the following of the ‘letter’ as ‘written and engraven on stones,’ instead of advocating the following of the ‘spirit.’ ‘For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech,’ (2 Cor. iii, 11, 12,) and say with the apostle: “‘But there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Gal. i, 7, 9. "And why will not men take heed, and follow the ‘spirit’ instead of the ‘letter?’ For if any one follow the ‘letter,’ he will surely ‘be ACCURSED,’ for the ‘LETTER KILLETH!’ And the apostle would even denounce ‘an angel from heaven’ with a curse, if he should ‘preach another gospel!’ My ‘great plainness of speech’ must be continued so as to say: ‘Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.’ Rom. xvi, 17. "Did the apostle ever advocate the ‘doctrine’ of ‘the seventh-day Sabbath?’ Never. Then those who do advocate it, do so ‘contrary to the doctrine’ which the apostle preached; and, therefore, if man, or ‘an angel from heaven,’ ‘cause divisions’ contrary to the apostle’s ‘doctrine,’ let them ‘be accursed!’ Thus saith the Scriptures." REPLY.—The law and the ministration of the law, are two things. Paul, in 2 Cor. iii, is simply contrasting the two ministrations, the former, or Mosaic, and the present, or ministration of the Spirit. And a change of ministration in no wise affects the existence of the law. The fact, therefore, that we are now living under the ministration of the Spirit, has no bearing on the question of the abolition or doing away of the law, further than this: It shows that some law must be still in existence. Without a law there can be no ministration. If there is a ministration, there must be something to be ministered. What law it is of which we now have the ministration of the Spirit, we shall presently show. "Can there be any law without a penalty?" asks Eld. P., with as much apparent triumph as though that had something to do with the subject. We advocate no law that has no penalty. Death ever was and is the penalty of the violation of the law of God. And hence, we do well to decide carefully, lest by rejecting the Sabbath, we trample upon a portion of that law, and thus incur its penalty; for the apostle James, speaking of the ten commandments, says, that he who offends in one point is guilty of all. Elder P. is careful to single out the Sabbath commandment, as one to which the penalty of death was formerly attached. This seems to be a peculiarity with the opponents of the Sabbath. We wish it had not so much the appearance of a design to mislead the uninformed. Why do they pass over the other commandments of the decalogue? for these all had the penalty of death attached to them equally with the Sabbath. Why endeavor to raise an argument against the Sabbath, on account of its penalty, as though that penalty was peculiar to the Sabbath, while at the same time it was common to all the other commandments? For proof that the penalty of death was attached to all the rest of the decalogue, see the following scriptures:—Deut. xiii, 6–10; Lev. xxiv, 11–14; Deut. xxi, 18–21; Ex. xxi, 12; Deut. xxii, 24; Josh. vii, 10–26. Yet Elder P. has every commandment, except the fourth, binding in this dispensation without the death penalty. We might turn upon him his own question, "Can there be any law without a penalty?" How does he have these commandments still binding? When he will tell us, we will tell him how we have the Sabbath commandment still in force; for they all rest upon exactly the same basis. A word now in relation to the penalty, though it is not essential to a refutation of his argument. The penalty of death, to be inflicted by the magistrate under the former dispensation, was attached to the ten commandments as a part of the civil code of the Hebrew nation. The ten commandments were first proclaimed by the voice of God from Sinai, engraved with his own finger on tables of stone, and deposited in the ark in the most holy place of the sanctuary. As such, they constituted a distinct law. Ex. xxiv, 12; Deut. xxxiii, 2. They were especially "God's law," which all mankind, as subject to the government of God, were bound to obey, and for a violation of which they were answerable at his bar alone. These commands were also incorporated into the civil code of the Jews; and as such, penalties were attached to be inflicted by the magistrate. This penalty doubtless represented the final retribution of the ungodly. When the Jewish polity ceased, these civil penalties, as a part thereof, also ceased. But the real penalty of the law, to be inflicted by the great Lawgiver, has not been set aside. When a man, under the former dispensation, broke the Sabbath, or any other commandment, and was stoned for it, he was punished as an offender against the national constitution, into which these laws were, for the time being, incorporated. But this must not be confounded with the penalty of the law, as it existed independent of that Jewish system. To illustrate: The crime of murder is in some States, at the present time, punishable with death, according to the civil law; but though the criminal may suffer the penalty of this law, he is still answerable for the crime of murder at the bar of God. There are three gross absurdities which attach themselves to this position of our opponents, that death under the old dispensation was the full penalty of the law of God. 1. It makes God commit into the hands of man, the full penalty of his law, or the punishment of offences committed against himself! 2. When a person was154stoned, he paid the penalty of the law, and in the resurrection, he will be raised, of course, to salvation, for the law has no more claims upon him, he having paid the penalty. 3. If a person, under that dispensation, could elude the vigilance of the laws, and, though he had committed crime, was not detected, in the resurrection he also will be raised to salvation; for no law will be found to demand his punishment. And thus the sinner might offend against God, and yet, if he could escape the short-sighted and uncertain vigilance of man, go free! Was God ever thus slack and loose in his system of government? Let these alone believe it, whose position compels them to that absurdity. Here we detect Fallacy No. 7, in Eld. P.'s reasoning, as he confounds the penalty attached to the commandments as a part of the civil code of the Jews, with the penalty which will be inflicted on their violation, as the moral law of God. But Eld. P., like all other Anti-Sabbatarians, finds it impossible to pass over this subject without saying something about fires. It is very easy to throw out an objection, and leave it to work its own confusion in the mind of the reader, without attempting to show its direct bearing upon the subject. We shall only reply to this hint thus thrown out respecting the prohibition of fires upon the Sabbath, that it was simply a local and temporary statute. It was not even binding on the Jews after they entered the promised land, but only while they sojourned in the wilderness. Much less have we anything to do with it. See History of the Sabbath, pp. 67–71. Eld. P. continues: "If any one follow the letter he will surely 'be ACCURSED,' for the 'LETTER KILLETH.'" According to his vocabulary, the "letter" is the law with the Sabbath in it, and the "spirit" is the law with the Sabbath left out, or with Sunday in its place. For the law that Eld. P. now has binding, is exactly identical with the decalogue of the Old Testament, except that another day has absorbed the sacredness and clothed itself with the obligations of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Hence it is the Sabbath that kills, the Sabbath is the "curse," the Sabbath is the offending member in the old law. This must be so; for if the new is superior to the old, its superiority must consist in those points wherein it differs from the old; and the old must also be faulty in just those particulars; but all the difference there is, as we have seen, is, that the seventh day of the old is set aside, and the first day put in its place. Hence, we repeat, and let it be continually borne in mind, that the Sabbath alone is the object of all the denunciations bestowed upon the law of God. Let the reader bear in mind, while reading the remarks of Eld. P. from this time on, that it is the Sabbath that kills, and it is the Sabbath that is the curse. "If any one follow the letter," says he, "he will surely be accursed." It is now time to refer the reader back to Way-mark No. 2, in which he argued that distinction of days was a matter of perfect indifference; but now it seems it has come to be quite a serious matter; for thereby we become subject to death, and destined to be accursed. And this we will set down as Way-mark No. 3. Paul's language was quoted: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," and, "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord." Nevertheless, it now seems that though the day is regarded to the Lord, he who does it will be accursed and subject to death. Was Paul willing that every man should be persuaded in his own mind whether to be accursed or not? Was he thus indifferent to the welfare of his readers? And has Eld. P. so soon forgotten his own position? He continues, "Did the apostle ever advocate the doctrine of the seventh-day Sabbath? Never. Then those who do advocate it, do so contrary to the doctrine which the apostle preached." Eld. P. has announced his purpose to prove that the first day of the week should now be observed. And to anticipate a little, we will ask, Did the apostle ever advocate the doctrine of the first-day Sabbath? Never. Then they who do advocate it, do so "contrary to the doctrine" which the apostle preached; and let such "be accursed." Thus saith Eld. P.'s own version of the Scriptures. Preble.—"MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION BROKEN DOWN!—Are christians, under the gospel dispensation, required to go back to the law by which the 'commonwealth of Israel' were once to be governed? Or are they to come forward; and thus, by reason of Christ, who 'is our peace,' he 'made both one?' Or, in other words, was 'the middle wall of partition' broken down, 'that the Gentiles might go in where the Jews had been! (?) or were the Jews to come out where the Gentiles were?' May all give audience, and let the apostle Paul once more speak; "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world; but now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit." Eph. ii, 11–22. "Yes! thank the Lord Jesus, 'we are builded together for an habitation of God THROUGH THE SPIRIT,' (verse 22,) and not through the 'letter,' or the law. For 'the law worketh wrath,' or 'death,' but the 'Spirit' worketh 'peace,' or 'life.' And thus we greatly rejoice that Christ Jesus hath 'abolished' in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, SO MAKING PEACE." Eph. ii, 15. "In my next I promise to treat upon the subject of the 'Moral Law'!" REPLY.—In the above extract Eld. P. has so fully answered his own argument, that but very little is left for us to do. To his somewhat ludicrous question, "Was the middle wall of partition broken down that the Gentiles might go in where the Jews had been! (?) or were the Jews to come out where the Gentiles were?" a sufficient reply is found in the scripture he has quoted from Eph. ii, 11–22. Eld. P. would evidently design to convey the impression, however, that the partition wall was broken down that the Jews might come out where the Gentiles were! If so, let us see what they came to. What condition were the Gentiles in, and what blessings and promises did they inherit, when the Jews were permitted, according to this new view, to come out and be partakers with them? The first chapter of Romans describes their condition in all its beauty! It represents them as guilty of every abominable thing that the heart of man, aided by the inspiration of the Devil, could conceive. And the very scripture which Eld. P. has quoted declares them to be without Christ, without hope, and without God in the world. Was the middle wall of partition broken down that the Jews might come out and be partakers with them in these things, that they also might have no hope, and might be without God in the world? Glorious object (?!) But our limits forbid us to dwell upon it further. The truth is, the apostle represents just the reverse of this. We have "given audience" with unfeigned delight to the apostle's words; and Eld. P.'s italics are no less gratifying. They are exactly the same as we should have used, were we given to italicising. The apostle sets the matter forth in this clear light: The Gentiles were without Christ, and were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise; they were afar off; but the middle wall of partition that kept them far off, and separated them from the commonwealth of Israel, was broken down, and hence, (what? the Jews were removed afar off to be with the Gentiles? No; but) the Gentiles were "made nigh" by the blood of Christ; they were through Christ admitted into the commonwealth of Israel, so that Paul could say to such of them as turned to Christ, "Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." And why was the way laid open to the Gentiles to join themselves to the commonwealth of Israel? Because Israel had been made the possessors of all the treasures of truth, and the promises of salvation. "To them," says Paul, Rom. ix, 4, pertained "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants." Both the covenants, the old and the new, were made with Israel. Such a thing as a covenant with the Gentiles is never heard of in all the Bible; and the only way a Gentile can become a partaker in the new covenant, is to be made a member of the "commonwealth of Israel." The apostle goes on to say, that to them also pertain the service of God, and the promises. All the promises of future blessedness are ours only as we become "fellow citizens with the saints;" and the Saviour declares that salvation itself is of the Jews; John iv, 22; and if we would become heirs of the promises, or according to the promise, we must be Christ's and so Abraham's seed. Gal. iii, 29. The quotation Eld. P. has given us from Eph. ii, 11–22, is so much to our purpose that we request the reader to give it a second perusal. In connection with it, read also verse 6 of chapter iii, where Paul, in speaking of the mystery of the gospel, says, "That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise, in Christ by the gospel." Paul further illustrates this subject by his representation of the tame and wild olive trees, in Rom. xi. The tame olive tree represents the house of Israel; the wild olive tree the Gentiles. Through unbelief, or their rejection of Christ, some of the members of the household of Israel, or branches of the same olive, were broken off; and the Gentiles were simply grafted in to supply their place. Did the Gentiles thus become the root, trunk and branches of a new tree? No; but simply branches of the same old olive tree, or members of the commonwealth of Israel. Many speak and act as though all with which the Jews had ever anything to do, was only worthy of the bitterest contempt. But they have reason rather to thank God that such a people as the Jews ever lived, chosen at first because found faithful when all others had turned to idolatry, to preserve a knowledge of the living God, and of his truth in the earth, and to be the instruments through which the blessings of the gospel should be bestowed upon us. Among the advantages which we receive through them, Paul enumerates also "the giving of the law." Through them the moral law is transmitted to us, and we therewith receive the Sabbath—not the Sabbath of the Jews, but of Him who is the God of the Gentiles also. U. S.