Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Jul 8, 1852
THE SABBATH.
By John Nevins Andrews
LETTERS TO O. R. L. CROZIER.—NO. V.
DEAR SIR:—The remarks with which your fifth article, in reply to the Review, commences, and which occupy nearly one half its space, need no reply of course. Being addressed to some brother, who thinks that your Bible class report was not a faithful record of that occurrence, and that your language, in replying to the Review, is somewhat improper, your remarks in self justification have no bearing on the position of the Review. Those who have the opportunity to read both sides, can judge of the propriety with which you claim a triumphant victory in this discussion. To such this point is submitted.
But there is a reason why, in passing over these remarks of yours, I take any notice of them. It is this: while you had space for almost a whole column of matter that had no bearing, whatever, on the question at issue, you had NO SPACE for the arguments of the Review. You quote one whole sentence, six words from another sentence and three words from another. This is all that you allow your readers to know of the arguments of the Review.
Now one of two things is certain: either the Review is worthy of a reply, or it is not. If it is not worthy of a reply, Why have you expended eight articles in trying to put down its refutation of your Bible class report? But if it is worthy of a reply, and you felt conscious that you could answer it, Why have you not presented the arguments of the Review and then proceeded to answer them, so that all could see that the position of the Review is false, and could have some idea of what it is that you are refuting?
The arguments of the Review, referred to in your fifth article, pertained to 2 Cor. iii, the portion of scripture, which you and all no-Sabbath teachers regard as your strongest witness. And yet you did not dare to let your readers hear what the Review had to offer.
Sir, if you had a bright light in your hand, and were about to enter a dark room would you be likely to fear that darkness?—Not at all, I am very certain.—Why not?—The darkness would be gone in a moment. It could not exist in a room where the light shone.—Now if you have the light of truth to hold up, why, I ask, are you afraid to let the real position and arguments of the Review be seen? If they are false and unreasonable, if they consist of mere inferences and assertions, and not of sound reason that cannot be condemned, nothing can show them up in their true light, like a fair statement of them, and the presentation of "plain Bible testimony" of which you so often speak. But this is the very course you shun. Why you thus act, I leave you to answer.
I now request your attention while your "chambers of imagery" are opened, and a little of the sunlight of heaven allowed to shine into them.
I present that portion of the review of your Bible class report, that you refer to in your first paragraph. The review of your report presented your remarks on 2 Cor. iii, and then spoke, as follows:
"The above being the ONLY attempt to meet the real question at issue, viz: Is the royal law abolished? we present it entire. We have been taken down the steps gradually, thus: (1.) Christ relaxed the Sabbath; (2.) the disciples were not subject to it; (3.) the holy women kept it from fear of the Jews; (4.) Jesus and his disciples and those healed by him, did more on the Sabbath than was lawful; (5.) The Father lightly esteemed it; (6.) Paul and Barnabas broke it, preferring in its place the first day of the week. There is another step, and the reader has reached the bottom of the stairs. We have been all the while descending, and yet have remained in darkness respecting the fate of God's law and of his Sabbath. The seventh step fitly closes this fearful descent, and shows their fate. Prov. vi, 16—19. God has 'abolished,' 'done away' HIS 'CONSTITUTION,' and thus, having abrogated the FIRST PRINCIPLES of his own government, (that is what is meant by his 'constitution,') we are at least set free from one of them, the fourth commandment—the holy Sabbath.
The FIRST PRINCIPLES of his moral government embodied THE SABBATH, (how ridiculous, then, the idea that it was a Jewish shadow!) and God abolished these first principles, and then established a new constitution, with all of them in it except the Sabbath! As though the Infinite Jehovah had no settled principles in his moral government, but was like man, 'given to change!' Prov. xxiv, 21; Ps. i, 21. The great truth that the Sabbath was once one of the first principles of God's moral government, is thus distinctly confessed: but it is an astonishing doctrine that God has abolished all these first principles of his government, and then chosen a part in their stead. The standard of moral principles was defective, and another has been chosen in its stead!"
I now present your first paragraph, written in reply to this. It is as follows:
"But to the Review. After giving from the report our remarks on 2 Cor. iii., it says, 'The above being the ONLY attempt to meet the real question at issue, viz: Is the royal law abolished?'—we present it entire.' How strange the effects of error! It makes the Review see the 'royal law' in our remarks on 2 Cor. iii., where it is not once named, nor alluded to.—For fear it may forget, we will quote the royal law again: 'If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.' Jas. ii, 8. Now what is the 'royal law'? It is: 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' So says James, and this is the only place where that phrase occurs. Now certainly this is so plain, there is no need of misunderstanding or misapplying it. It is not the ten commandments, nor any one of them. It is quoted from Lev. xix. 18: 'Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I am the Lord.'"
I very well understand your reasons for contending in so zealous a manner that the ten commandments are not included in the royal law. For it is a plain matter of fact, that the law of which James speaks is not abolished. Hence if the commandments of God are therein contained, it directly refutes your inference from 2 Cor. iii, that they are all abolished.
Now let us read the testimony of James, and see if his account of the royal law is limited to verse 8.
"If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that 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. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." James ii, 8—12.
Those who, in addition to verse 8, will read verses 9—12, can judge something of your difficult position. Let me state it:
1. The royal law is limited to the precept named in verse 8, and is not the same law and commandments described in verses 9—12. For if it is the same law, then the ten commandments form a part of it, and are not abolished!
2. But there is only ONE law referred to in the New Testament. For if there are two laws therein referred to, then the abolition of the hand-writing of ordinances in Col. ii, is no proof that the ten commandments of Jehovah's constitution are abolished!
You attempt to maintain both these positions, notwithstanding they are in direct opposition to each other; hence your task is extremely difficult and arduous.
Now as it seems necessary to expose again your position on James ii, your attention is particularly requested.
1. Verse 8 tells us that if we love our neighbor as ourselves, we fulfill the royal law and thus do well.
2. Verse 9 takes up the idea, and presents the opposite of fulfilling the law, by saying that if we have respect to persons, we commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. That law, which, according to verse 8, was fulfilled by loving our neighbor as ourselves, is, according to verse 9 transgressed by having respect to persons. The two verses are united by the conjunction, "BUT," and present one complete idea. Hence the law in verse 9, is the same as the law called royal in verse 8.
3. Verse 10 is intimately connected with verse 9 by the conjunction "FOR," and states, in addition to it, the great truth that those who violate one of the precepts of this law are guilty of all. Can you, without doing violence to the laws of language, break the connection of these verses?
4. Verse 11 is linked to verse 10 by the conjunction "FOR" once more occurring. Then these verses stand34inseparably united together. (The marginal reading is particularly commended to your notice. Instead of reading, as in the text, "He that said, Do not commit adultery," the margin has it, "That law which said, Do not commit adultery." Hence the Apostle has the law of the ten commandments before his mind.) Now mark this important fact: this verse, which follows the statement that those who violate one precept are guilty of all, quotes from the ten commandments!
5. Verse 12 calls this law which contains these commandments of "everlasting bondage," a "law of liberty!" It also informs us that we shall be judged by it.
6. Then it is a plain, undeniable fact that the commandments are included in this royal law, and that he who violates one, is guilty of all!
7. Look at this portion of scripture again. The law and commandments here referred to, had not been once enacted, then abolished, then re-enacted, as our no-Sabbath teachers are obliged to contend. No, it would be blasphemy to charge such folly upon the Infinite Lawgiver. The apostles have never countenanced such an idea. The law to which James refers, is the original, unabolished law of God, something which is according to the Old Testament scriptures.
8. The transgression of this law is sin, not was sin; the keeping of this law is duty, not was duty. The transgressions which he points out, are transgressions of this holy standard—the royal law of God.
9. Now these facts show that you are attempting to break down every precept, save the one named in James ii, 8, of that law which the Apostle calls royal, which is the guide of moral conduct, and the standard by which we shall at last be judged.
10. But as you limit the royal law to the single precept, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," I inquire, To what law does that precept belong that reads thus: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind?" you recollect that Jesus calls this precept the greatest and associates it with your single precept in the royal law. Matt. xxii, 35—40; James ii, 8.
11. You speak of the strange effects of error! And to this effect, that it enables the Review to see that the royal law contains the ten commandments &c.—Listen for a moment. James could see the commandments in that law, and I esteem it a privilege to read, believe and obey his testimony! What is it but error, that forbids you to "Go and do likewise?" James is in harmony with the Messiah; in the record of our Lord's teaching, we read the two great commandments, quoted by him from the Old Testament, which comprehend all the others, or on which all the others hang. The fact of these two great precepts is all that you allow in the royal law, notwithstanding you say that these two form Jehovah's present constitution!
12. I regret that your position so nearly resembles that of the Pharisees in Matt. xxii, 24—27. If you say that there is but one law referred to in the New Testament, you must acknowledge that the royal law in James ii, 8, is the same law that is referred to in verses 9—12, which contain the commandments.—But if you say that there are two laws brought to view in the New Testament, then you must admit that the abolition of the hand-writing of ordinances may leave the royal law with its commandments unabolished, and in full force. If the question, ARE THERE TWO LAWS RECOGNIZED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? were addressed to yourself, Would you not be obliged to answer as did the Pharisees in the case referred to, we cannot tell?—Your next paragraph reads as follows:
"The Review thinks it was 'the temporary glory of Moses, face' that was abolished, referred to by Paul in 2 Cor. iii., and 'that which remaineth' is the ten commandments written on the tables of stone? Well that shows an effort to make out an explanation of that chapter. But it will not work very well. This would make the contrast in that chapter, subsist between the glory of Moses' face and the glory of the ten commandments: the glory of Moses' face is done away, but that of the ten commandments remaineth. It was necessary that Paul, two thousand years after Moses' death, should devote a chapter to inform the Corinthian brethren and all men who should live afterward, that the lustre seen on Moses' face when he came down from the mount, 'was to be done away,' 'abolished'! That's all there is of it! No; no; Paul did not trifle in that manner. He is contrasting two 'ministrations.' The glory of Moses', countenance was not administered. There is 'the ministration of death,' and 'the ministration of the Spirit'; 'the ministration of condemnation,' and 'the ministration of righteousness.' Now what was the ministration of death, of condemnation? Paul says it was 'written and engraven in stones,' which can only refer to the decalogue; and he says it is 'done away,' abolished. What is the ministration of the spirit, of righteousness? Evidently the gospel; and that is what 'remaineth.' Now this is entirely plain; the meaning is obvious and unique: there is no chance for a variety of hypotheses."
To show the character of your reply in the true light, I present the language of the Review to which you refer. I request the candid reader to compare your reply with the words of the Review and then to judge for himself. The argument of the Review was as follows:
"We do not find it difficult TO BELIEVE ALL that is written in 2 Cor. iii. But we have never thought of drawing an inference from it that would make Paul contradict his own direct and positive statements. We have left this for those to do, who having made 'void the law through (pretended) faith,' would justify themselves in breaking the commandments and teaching men so. The attempt to press it into that service, shows the absolute necessity of wrestling and mangling it before it can be made to say, 'that which was engraven on stones was done away.' As direct proof on this point, we present the following from another column [Editorial] of the same 'Harbinger':
'But if the ministration of death, WRITTEN and ENGRAVEN on STONES was to be DONE AWAY is ABOLISHED * is DONE AWAY. What can be plainer than this?'"
Had any observer of Jehovah's Sabbath been driven to thus wrest and mangle this, or any portion of the divine testimony, in order to sustain himself, it would hide my face and remain dumb with shame.—There is no heresy, however 'damnable,' but what may thus be proved! (??) 2 Pet. ii, 1—3. The plain reading of the chapter not being enough to the point, the words which explained what was abolished, (viz: 'the appendages of the law,') are left out. It is by quoting scripture thus, that it is made to prove that 'the royal law' is abolished. We have read in Peter's second epistle that some would wrest the words of PAUL to their own destruction. We had supposed that this remark of Peter belonged to some other period; we now think he rightly placed it in his account of the last days.
'That which was written and engraven on stones was done away, abolished.' This extraordinary assertion is uttered with the utmost positiveness. But we think that the mangled verses in which Paul has spoken, should be written out in full and suffered to speak for themselves.—Look at them as they stand in the Book of God.
Verse 7. '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;'
Verse 11. 'For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.'
Verse 13. 'And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:'
Verse 14. 'But their minds were blinded; for until the day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament: which vail is done away in Christ.'
We ask then, is this direct testimony that Jehovah has abolished his 'constitution,' or is it only inferential? Not one of these verses can be presented as direct testimony until that part of it which explains what was abolished, is left out. For the question in verse seven is this, Was it the temporary glory that unshrouded Moses in his ministration, as he brought down the holy law of God from the hands of Jehovah, or is it that holy law itself, that has 'been done away?' By leaving out the words between 'written and engraven in stones,' and 'is done away' it makes direct and positive, 'plain Bible testimony' that the law of God is all abolished. If, however, the words remain as Paul wrote them, the other idea is taught. We pass to the next verse:
Verse 11. 'For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which REMAINETH is glorious.' Now as no one will deny that that which is done away in verse 11, is the same as that which is done away in verse 7, we ask, what is that which REMAINETH in distinction from 'that which is done away?' For there is direct testimony here, that something REMAINS, and that everything was not done away, or abolished. Were we to answer in the words of inspiration, we would say 'the royal law' 'REMAINETH;' the hand-writing of ordinances is abolished. James ii; Col. ii. Were we to answer in the terms used by C. we would say the 'CONSTITUTION' REMAINETH; 'the appendages of the law' (the Levitical ministration) are done away by the glory of Christ's more excellent ministry, before the ARK OF GOD in the heavenly tabernacle. Rev. xi, 19; Heb. viii, 1—5. The eleventh verse, therefore, directly contradicts the view that everything is abolished and nothing REMAINS. But could we believe C. the ten commandments with all their appendages were abolished—nothing remains—and nine of the abolished precepts have been gathered up in their stead.—
Verse 13 tells us that Moses 'put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.' This verse being explanatory of verse 7, we have here a good opportunity to determine what was abolished.—Where the vail was upon the face of Moses, 'the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.' What then did that vail hide? Were the tables of stone hidden by the vail? Nay verily. But the temporary glory of Moses' face, which in the estimation of the Jews still abides. The vail hid that which is abolished. That which he held in his hand was not hidden—it is that which REMAINS?
Verse 14. The vail with which Moses hid the glory of his face, still remains upon literal Israel. They still connect in an inseparable manner, the great constitution with the glory that unshrouded Moses, and that attended the Levitical ministration, not seeing that Christ's 'more excellent ministry' in the true tabernacle has taken its place. Israel cannot see that the hidden glory is gone, but as they can still see the holy law, they believe that that glory must abide as well as that law. Others at the present day fall into the opposite extreme; they can see that that glory is gone, and hence conclude that that holy law has gone also. They do not see that in the heavenly tabernacle, where our Great High Priest is accomplishing his most glorious ministration, the ARK OF GOD abides, as well as in the earthly tabernacle. They think highly indeed of the mercy-seat, [Ex. xxv, 17—22,] but the law of God contained in the ark beneath that mercy-seat, is despised and counted a thing of naught. Heb. ix, 4. The dream, that the blood of Christ blotted out the moral law (the very thing that caused it to be shed) will be found vain and delusive in the day of God?
The proof from this chapter, therefore, that God's law is abolished, being only inferential, we now inquire into the character of an inference on which rests the most remarkable doctrine that was ever taught.—That it is not a necessary inference we have already seen. And we now inquire whether it agrees with the plain statements of this same Apostle. The doctrine is this: The Infinite Jehovah abolished the first principles of his own government, and then formed the most of them into a revised constitution! To believe this requires strong faith on the part of any one who has any just conception of the Infinite Jehovah. Isa. lv, 8, 9. Rather, I should say, it requires strong testimony to establish such a view.
The apostle Paul has elsewhere stated in distinct terms what was abolished, and what is yet in force. He is consistent with himself, he is to be believed.
Eph. ii, 15. '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.'
Col. ii, 14. 'Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.'
Paul distinctly teaches that the 'hand-writing of ordinances' was abolished. Now hear Paul speak of the 'royal law.'
He shows in Rom. iii, 19, that the law of God condemns the whole world, and thence onward through the chapter, shows how men are delivered from the fearful condemnation, and how they are justified in the sight of God, viz: by faith in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, 'the just for the unjust.' He then informs us whether the salvation and pardon of the Gospel, offered to men through faith in him who has been slain, destroyed the law of Jehovah or not:
Rom. iii, 31. 'Do we then make void the law through faith? GOD FORBID: YEA WE ESTABLISH THE LAW.'
The Apostle was converted AFTER the ascension of the Lord, consequently, after the time when it is said the law was abolished. His conversion is the most remarkable one upon record. But mark what it was that shew him that he was a sinner, and that he was lost without a Saviour.
Rom. vii, 7. 'What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.' (Tenth commandment.) Verse 12. 'Wherefore the law is holy; and the commandment holy, and just, and good.'—An abolished law never yet convicted a man of sin. And on his own testimony, he had not known sin had the law been abolished.
But hear him again. He wishes to enforce obedience to parents, and he takes the fifth commandment to do it: [Eph. vi, 2, 3:] 'Honor thy father and mother, (which is the first commandment with promise,) that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.' Mark, it is not Paul that establishes the commandment (as some would have us think) but the commandment that establishes what Paul has said. These statements of Paul show unequivocally that he did believe the hand-writing of ordinances to be abolished, and DID NOT BELIEVE that the ten commandments, God's great constitution of holy principles, were.
We invite attention again to 2 Cor. iii. The subject before the mind of the Apostle is the surpassing glory and excellency of the Gospel ministry. See verses 1—6. He then argues that '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?' The word ministration signifies 'the act of performing service' or 'service' itself. Macknight renders it ministry. It is thrice used in the New Testament. Luke i, 23. Zechariah accomplished the days of his ministration, (service.) Acts vi, 1. The Grecians 'were neglected in the daily ministration' (service.) 2 Cor. ix, 13. Paul's service for the poor saints at Jerusalem is called a ministration. The face of Moses, when he came down from the Mount, shone with glory.—Yet what he brought down was only condemnation, and death written and engraven by the finger of Jehovah. His ministry or service, was only the ministration of condemnation and of death. The holy law was written in those tables of stone, and it could only show them to be sinners and condemn them to death. Rom. iii, 19, 20; vii, 7—10; Gal. iii, 21. The Gospel of Jesus Christ recognizes all men thus condemned and sentenced to death, [2 Cor. v, 14, 15; Rom. iii,] and brings them the joyful tidings of pardon through the blood of the Son of God, in whom justice and mercy meet together. If the face of Moses shone with glory, though he only ministered condemnation and death, how much more glorious then is that ministry that offers life, pardon, and salvation?
Glorious as was that ministration it was not to abide. The glory was hidden, 'the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.' But we all with open face, behold Jesus a merciful and faithful High Priest, standing before the ark containing God's holy law, and sprinkling his blood upon the top of that ark, the mercy seat. The ministration of condemnation has given place to the ministration of righteousness, not because the law that condemned the world has been done away, but because the blood that brings pardon has been offered for guilty man."
I have been thus particular to present your reply in connection with the words of the Review, that the candid reader might compare them together, and thus judge for himself. In another letter if Providence permit, I will further notice your doctrine of the abolition of God's constitution, and the establishment of another in its stead. But I cannot forbear the remark in this place, that if you are correct, it required a vast effort on the part of Omnipotence itself, to get rid of the fourth commandment. The whole constitution of God's moral government was abolished, and then a no-Sabbath constitution was formed in its stead!—In taking leave of the portion of your reply last quoted, I call attention to a few points:
1. It is a plain fact that you did not name one of the arguments of the Review.
2. You give a very imperfect (not to say absolutely false) idea of its position.
3. Your statement of what it is that 'REMAINETH,' involves a perfect absurdity. You state that that which has succeeded to the ministration of condemnation is that which remaineth. But 'that which remaineth,' is not that which takes the place of a thing, but that which abides when a part is removed or taken away; or at least that which continues. When, therefore, every thing is destroyed or abolished, How can any thing be said to remain?
4. Let us contrast the two ministrations. Ministration signifies 'service,' or 'the act of performing service.' Hence the tables of stone with the ten commandments engraven by Jehovah's finger, are not a ministration. But what are they? I answer, the words are the just and righteous law of the Great Governor of the universe, which show the just 'condemnation,' and righteous sentence of 'death,' which rests upon every individual of Adam's fallen race.—Rom. iii, 19.
When did the ministration of the words which the Lawgiver graved in stone, commence? I answer, when Moses took them from the hands of the Great Lawgiver and brought them down to the people.—2 Cor. iii, 7. Was there any glory that rested upon Moses in that act of ministration or of 'service'?—Yes, so great was that glory, that Israel could not steadfastly behold his face. Ex. xxxiv, 25—35.
What did Moses do with these tables? By command of God he placed them in the ark which had been made for that express purpose. Deut. x, 1—5. What became of this ark? It was placed in the holiest of all in the tabernacle. Ex. xl. How was the ministration of this holy law continued, after it was thus placed in the tabernacle? I answer, that the Levitical priesthood was ordained to minister before this ark, and to abide many generations. Ex. xxviii, 1—4.
Was the glory of God manifested to them in their ministration? It was. See Lev. ix, 23, 24; Num. xvi; 1 Kings viii, 6—11. What did they do for the people? They offered the blood of bulls and goats daily; and once a year the high priest entered the holiest where the ark of God stood, and sprinkled with blood the mercy-seat—the top of the ark. Could this take away their transgressions of that law? Never!
For what purpose then was this ministration? It was the example and shadow of Christ's ministration in the presence of God for us. Heb. viii, 5, 6. What did Moses' act of covering from the sight of Israel, the glory that beamed from his face at the commencement of that ministration, denote? It denoted that that ministration with its glory was not to abide, and that when it should be succeeded by a ministration that could give life and pardon to guilty man, Israel would not understand the fact. 2 Cor. iii, 13, 14.
What has become of that tabernacle in which that ministration was so long continued? It has given place to the true, of which it was but a pattern. Heb. ix, 21—24. Where is the ARK OF GOD now? It is in the true tabernacle in heaven. Rev. xi, 19; xv, 5. What has become of the Levitical ministration? It has given place to Christ's more excellent ministry.—Heb. viii, 6. Do the people of Israel understand this change? They understand it not; for until this day the same vail remaineth untaken away.
What does Christ's ministration before the ark in the heavenly tabernacle avail? He pleads his blood there for us: it speaks better things than that of Abel; it takes away our sins; it brings pardon, redemption and salvation. Does the sprinkling of Christ's blood upon the top of the ark, blot out the holy law contained therein? God forbid. Rom. iii, 19—31.
Then while this ministration continues, the fallen race of Adam are not only pointed to the law in the most holy place in the heavenly tabernacle, which contains the just sentence of death and condemnation, but to the mercy-seat above that law, and to the blood of Christ sprinkled upon it, which can take away sins, and avail for our pardon and forgiveness in the sight of God.
If the face of Moses shone with surpassing glory when he only brought down condemnation and death, what must be the brightness of the glory of that ministration that offers pardon and salvation to the fallen, the guilty, the lost! In this ministration, the blood of Christ avails as an atonement in the sight of the broken law. 'Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.' Ps. lxxxv, 10.
At the close of this ministration He, who now pleads his blood before the ark of God, will then become the Judge of quick and dead. 'By the law of liberty' or 'royal law' we shall then be judged.—James ii, 8—12. Those who have kept the commandments will then enter eternal life; while those who have violated them and taught men so, will be of no esteem, and will receive the wages of sin, the second death.
The language of Paul, therefore, in contrasting these two ministrations, does not afford you the least countenance, whatever, in teaching that Jehovah has abolished his constitution and adopted another.
The Great Governor of the universe acts, in the exercise of his power over the unnumbered worlds of his creation, by certain fixed principles called the 'laws of nature.' It is believed that few men have the hardihood to teach that God ever has abolished, or ever will abolish these laws by which he acts, and adopt another system of principles 'to suit the unfoldings of his progressive plan.'
But if the idea of the abolition of the physical laws of the God of nature, would justly meet the scorn and derision of every person to whom it should be presented, What must be said of the doctrine that the God of Revelation has abolished the constitution (first principles) of his own moral government and adopted a better? We repudiate the idea and say with the leader of Israel:
'Ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.' Your next paragraph reads as follows:
'The Review takes exceptions to this statement of ours: 'The ten commandments were the constitution of God's religious system from the departure from Egypt to Christ; but when he came, he remodeled the religious system: to do which he set aside—'did away,' abolished'—the old constitution and established a new one, naming and enforcing in the new all the precepts of the old, except that of the Sabbath, which is not once named as belonging to the new system.' The sentiment contained in this statement is correct, but the language might be improved. The decalogue was the constitution of the law administration, containing the fundamental rules or principles on which the law religion and government were administered. This will not be denied.'
Remarks on the above:
1. You will bear in mind that you have not proved that Christ abolished his Father's constitution.—Hence, this is nothing but an unreasonable assertion.
2. You speak of the decalogue, as containing the fundamental principles of the 'law religion.'—So it does, and the fundamental principles of morality and holiness, dating prior to the fall of man; and every one of these 'laws of nature' could be abolished, before one of these fundamental principles of God's own holiness could fall. But as you speak of 'law religion,' I inquire, How many kinds of religion does the Bible recognize? Just as many kinds of religion as it does different constitutions, and different Jehovahs. I will read of what the 'law religion' consisted, from the Old Testament, and of what the gospel religion consists from the New, requesting you to point out the difference:
Micah vi, 8. 'He hath showed thee, O man what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?'
James i, 27. 'Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.'
3. But there is one important idea in this statement of yours, that 'The ten commandments were the constitution of God's religious system.' If so, then they were distinct from the hand-writing of ordinances which Christ blotted out.
'The ten words' included in their number, the Sabbath of Jehovah, which he hallowed for man at Creation.
The hand-writing of ordinances included the feasts, new moons and annual sabbaths, which were instituted for the Jews in the wilderness. Lev. xxiii, 24, 32, 39. The fact that there were at least four of these sabbaths 'beside the Sabbaths of the Lord,' you have never once held up to your readers.
One additional remark. If the original constitution of Jehovah's government has not been abolished, (and as each of its holy principles date prior to the fall, which of them could be abolished, unless the Great Creator can deny himself?) and if another constitution has not been adopted, then the Sabbath of the Lord, made for the human family before the fall of man, is still one of the first principles of God's moral government.
The reader will notice that in the above paragraph, you teach that the new constitution was made by Christ's naming and enforcing nine of the ten commandments, which somehow survived the abolition of the decalogue. But instead of allowing these nine commandments to form the new constitution, in your next remarks, you contend that Christ made the new constitution out of the two great commandments, on which the law and the prophets have always hung.—You speak as follows:
'Now we ask, Do the Saviour and his apostles profess to administer the gospel, or the religion of the present dispensation on the same basis? If they do, where is that fact stated? We have no such statement in the Bible: but we do hear the Saviour announcing two great commandments as containing the fundamental principles of his religion:
First.—'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.'
Second.—'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'
Strictly speaking, these are the constitution of the gospel system of religion. In the law these two great principles were only incidentally mentioned (see Deut. vi, 5; Lev. xix, 18), but in the gospel they are brought out as the head and front, or rather as the broad basis on which the grand superstructure is rested. It is true, these underlie the whole previous, as well as present, economy of the divine government, and are adapted to all latitudes, to all nations, and to all ages.—Upon them as a broad foundation, the law was constructed and the prophets taught: these did not comprehend those; but were comprehended by them, as the less by the greater. The two are wide as the world, and enduring as God and man; the ten were special, embodied at a particular time, for a particular people in a particular country, designed for their peculiar training. As men could acquire and maintain a righteous character before the law was given from Sinai, so afterwards others, we conclude, besides the Jews, to whom that law was not promulgated, could be accepted with God without that law.'"
Your attention is invited, while the above is examined.
1. In answer to your question, 'Do the Saviour and his apostles profess to administer the gospel, or the religion of the present dispensation on THE SAME BASIS?—I answer, The law and the gospel have the same basis, if we can believe your testimony.—You state that the two great commandments 'are the constitution of the GOSPEL system of religion;' and in the third sentence from this remark, you state further as follows, respecting these two precepts: 'Upon them AS A BROAD FOUNDATION the LAW WAS CONSTRUCTED and the prophets taught.'
2. But what shall I say to this effort to prove that we have two new no-Sabbath constitutions, for 'the gospel system of religion?' It was so difficult to get rid of the Sabbath, which was made for the man at Creation, that the whole constitution of Jehovah had to be abolished. And it is so difficult now to get along without it, that two new constitutions have to be formed for 'the gospel system of religion.'
3. But what makes it peculiarly unfortunate, for the first of these new constitutions, viz: the one composed of nine of the ten commandments, which had been 'abolished' or 'done away,' is the fact, that the apostles who wrote many years after this imaginary new constitution had been formed, never recognized or quoted from this constitution, but always from the original, which they, from some cause, believed to be perfect, and still in force. Rom. vii, 7, 12—14; xiii, 9; Eph. vi, 2; James ii, 8—12.
4. And what renders it equally unfortunate for the second of these new constitutions, viz: the one composed of the two commandments, is the fact, that Christ was not asked what the commandments were that he would establish in the place of the ten; nor yet was he asked, What shall be the great commandment in 'the gospel system of religion?' but the question was, (see if I read it right,) 'Master, which is the great commandment IN THE LAW?'
Mark! Our Lord in his answer says nothing that bears the slightest resemblance to the abolition of his Father's constitution, or the establishment of another; or that even looks like the modification of the law of God. Hearken: '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.'—Matt. xxii, 36—40.
I append one or two thoughts. (1.) Christ did not then enact these precepts; no, he quoted them from the Old Testament. Deut. vi; Lev. xix. (2.) He did not then make them the greatest; no, they always had been such as they then were. (3.) He did not then hang the law and the prophets upon these two precepts; no, they had always hung upon them, and he leaves them still there.—Consequently, there is not a fraction of proof that Christ here established a new constitution. If you persist in asserting that there is, please make it visible.
5. But we will unite both of these new constitutions, and consider them but one. We have, then, the two great commandments, and nine of the ten abolished commandments hanging upon them. Now I have a question to propose. Will you take this new constitution, (the present embodiment of the first principles of God's moral government, according to yourself,) and point out to me the True God?
The first of these two great commandments, requires me to love this great being with all the strength of my affections. But who is HE? The second of the two, commands me to love my neighbor as thyself, but leaves the question unanswered.
Now we inquire of the nine which hang upon them. The first forbids me to have other gods before the True; but I anxiously inquire Who is HE? The second forbids me to make a graven image to bow down unto, and the third forbids me to take in vain the name of Him whom I am to worship. But the question returns. Who is HE whom I am alone to worship and adore?
The fourth commandment (according to your theory) was a Jewish shadow or ordinance, that was destroyed by the abolition of the ten commandments, and consequently it has no part in the new constitution. I inquire, therefore, of the last six precepts of the decalogue; but alas! They only define the first principles of my duty to my fellow man, and leave this important question unanswered. What shall I do? For I am but standing in the place of many millions of our race 'who know not God.' 2 Thess. i, 8.
Will you tell me that the language with which the decalogue is prefaced, is quite sufficient, which says, 'I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt.' I answer, No Sir! That is not the fact that points out the True God; for at the very base of Sinai itself, Israel made a golden calf, and said, 'These be thy gods, O, Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.' Ex. xxxii, 8.
My neighbor, for instance, worships the sun, and with the utmost sincerity, assures me that he worships the True God. By what precept of this new no-Sabbath constitution can I point out his error?
Another, equally sincere and zealous, worships the moon, the stars, the blue expanse of heaven, the ocean, or even the element of fire; for there are many millions, that with sincerity, thus act. By what part of this improved constitution, can I show them their grievous and fatal mistake? Alas, I have not the means.
There is a sad deficiency, then, in your new constitution. You have saved enough of the precepts of the original constitution, to teach us that we ought to love and worship the True God, alone, but you have saved nothing to point out who the True God is, and nothing to keep this Adorable Being in memory.—Hence, you have left us like the Athenians, to worship the UNKNOWN GOD, and to say, 'Verily, thou art a God that hidest thyself.'
But will you not allow me to read that despised fourth commandment? Perchance that contains the very instruction needed, which, in searching the precepts of this new constitution, we fail to find.
'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it.'
Ah! here is the very precept that points out the True God. That Being, whom we are required alone to worship, by the first three commandments, is, in the fourth commandment pointed out. It is not the sun, the moon, or the host of heaven; it is not the earth, the ocean or the forest, but it is the Being that CREATED all these things in six days and rested on the seventh. And here is the memorial of this Adorable Being, his Rest-day from the work of Creation, which, at the close of that work he set apart and hallowed, Gen. ii, 1—3. I have found him whom my soul seeketh; I bow, I adore, I obey.
Who, and where is he that would destroy this fourth commandment, which points out the God that we should alone worship? Who is he that would destroy that institution which alone keeps in memory the True God?
To such I say, blot out as many of the oracles of God [Acts vii, 38; Rom. iii, 2,] as you will, 'but know thou that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment.'
For shame, cease this strange effort to establish an improved constitution for Jehovah; cease for ever this unholy warfare against the oracles of God.
A new constitution was established 'to suit the unfoldings of his progressive plan!' And how was the new constitution established? Simply, by striking from the original constitution of Jehovah, that precept which alone pointed out himself!! Such a plan may be very 'progressive;' but the progress is not heaven-ward; the plan is not the plan of God. No, its very face proclaims that its paternity is of the kingdom of darkness; its father is the Father of lies.
You assert that the New Testament was framed on a constitution from which the fourth oracle of God was excluded. The Old Testament which was framed on the original constitution, pointed out Jehovah by the language of its fourth oracle. (Please to read Jer. x, 10—12; Isa. xl, 12—28; xlv, 18; Ps. cii. 25—27;35Gen. i, 1; ii, 1—3.) Now how does the New Testament do it? It does not take one of the precepts of your revised constitution, but takes the very language of that abolished fourth commandment. Acts xvii, 23, 24; Rev. xiv, 7; x, 6; iv, 11; Heb. i, 1, 2, 10, 11; Acts xvii, 15.