Earlier text: THE COVENANT MADE IN HOREBA Perversion of the Word of God.
By Editor
The “Harbinger and Advocate” of Dec. 1851, contains a “Report of Conferences, &c,” by C. He gives a lengthy account of “a bible class on the Sabbath question,” held at Fredonia, N. Y. We do not design to reply to his whole account of that bible class, at this time; but only to refer to the following singular statement. “Ex. xvi, was read. It was claimed that this chapter speaks familiarly of the Sabbath, as though it was an old institution, one month before the Israelites, came into the wilderness of Sinai. But it was shown that the testimony [the tables of stone] were spoken of at the same time even more familiarly than the Sabbath: And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the Lord, to be kept for your generations. As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony to be kept. Verses 33, 34, One might suppose from this that the Testimony was then actually in existence, and that the pot of manna was at that time laid up before it. But that was not so: the Testimony was not given till more than a month after this.” To represent that the “testimony [the tables of stone]” is spoken of in the same manner that the Sabbath is, and that they really existed, as much as the Sabbath, in the wilderness of Sin, is a perversion of the plain word of God. It is true that Moses told Aaron to “Take a pot, and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the Lord.” But when did he lay it up before the Testimony? He could not thus do until after the tables of stone were given at Sinai, more than a month later. “As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept. And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years,” &c., Ex. xvi, 34, 35. This is a simple relation of facts relative to Israel in the wilderness, and affords the same proof that the children of Israel ate manna forty years in the wilderness of Sin, that it does that the pot of manna was there laid up before the Testimony, a month before the tables of the testimony were given. There is nothing in this statement concerning the pot of manna but that is perfectly explainable, without making it disagree with the fact that the tables of the testimony were not given till Israel came to Sinai. The Sabbath is by no means a parallel case. The children of Israel did understand and observe it in the wilderness of Sin, more than a month before the tables of the Testimony were given at Sinai. This any one may understand by reading the statement of facts in Ex. xvi. It is a statement of what actually occurred in the wilderness of Sin. Said Moses “To day is [not will be] a Sabbath unto the Lord.” Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day which is [not will be, after the Lord comes down on Mount Sinai] the Sabbath.” When some went out on the Sabbath to gather manna, the Lord said to them, “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord HATH GIVEN [not will give in a little more than a month] you the Sabbath.” If the Sabbath law did not then exist, then we ask, how could it be a violation of God’s “commandments and laws” for them to go out to gather manna on the seventh day? The next verse shows that they well understood the Sabbath. “So the people rested on the seventh day.” These are the plain facts in the case, which are perfectly destructive of the view that the Sabbath was first made known, when God came down on Mount Sinai. And it is not in the power of man, thank Heaven, to conceal these69plain facts, by such means as resorted to by C. We ask our readers to examine Ex. xvi with care, and compare it with the remarks of C. This will give you some idea of the strange positions those are driven to, who, teach that the commandments of God are abolished. It is a very common thing to be told by the readers of the “Harbinger,” that the word Sabbath is not mentioned in the Bible, till after the giving of the law at Sinai. We suppose the reasons why they make this untrue statement is, first, because they have not searched the Scriptures for themselves to know what they do teach relative to the weekly Sabbath, and second, because what has appeared in the Harbinger on this point has been written in a manner to hide, as far as possible, the plain facts that the Sabbath was guarded by a three-fold weekly miracle in the people’s food, observed by Israel, and its violation, by “some,” rebuked by Jehovah, a month before they saw Mount Sinai. In our last we noticed the article of the Editor of the "Harbinger and Advocate," entitled the "Seventh Day Sabbath Abolished," that had then appeared. We now call attention to another article with the above title, in the "Harbinger" of Dec. 6th. In this article M. goes on in his usual manner denouncing the "Review" and "reviewer." We give the following from his last article. "We will point out a few more of the very many absurdities of the Review. It says Paul makes no reference to any of the commandments of God in Col. ii, 16, 17. His subject relates to meat, and drink, the new moon, &c." We will let Paul speak for himself; for doubtless he is full as capable of telling to what he referred, as is the author of the Review. Col. ii, 16, 17.—'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon.' [If Paul had paused here, then the Review would have told the truth; but it utters a positive untruth, as the case stands, for Paul in the next sentence adds with only a comma intervening, or of THE SABBATH days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.' No human rumblings in the form of reasonings, can invalidate this divine teaching. It makes the Sabbath days a shadow,—hence those who observe them walk in a shadow, or in the dark, instead of the light." If bold, overbearing assertions and bitter denunciations can prove our position on the Sabbath incorrect, then there is an "overwhelming" amount of proof against us in M.’s recent articles, for he deals largely in these things, so unlike the spirit of the gospel, and the motto of the "Harbinger" "Speak the truth in love," and which must disgust the candid reader of that paper." We say that those who teach that the ten commandments are abolished, and who profess to fulfill the law of God in LOVE, should prove to us their sincerity in taking this position by manifesting a better spirit towards us. If they think us "overtaken in a fault," why not seek to restore us in THE SPIRIT OF MEEKNESS? Why not meet us on bible ground with fairness and candor? We will here give our remarks on Col. ii, 16, 17, partly quoted by M., and commented upon in as unchristian a manner as is seen in the above quotation from his article. "If we would rightly understand the words of the Apostle, we should first learn the subject of his discourse. And here we would say that he makes no reference to any of the commandments of God in Col. ii, 16, 17. His subject relates to "meat," "drink," "the new moon," &c. which are associated with the sabbaths of the law of Moses, that were blotted out, and nailed to the cross." In the above remarks we are charged with "uttering a positive untruth!" But we inquire, where? in what? Certainly, M. will not say that meat, and drink, the new moon, &c., mentioned in Col. ii, 16, 17, are not associated with the sabbaths of the law of Moses. He knows they are. We have fully shown in our review, that the sabbath-days in this text properly apply to those days which are called in scriptures "YOUR SABBATH," and "HER SABBATH," for they were shadows of things to come, and not to the "Sabbath of the Lord our God," which is not a shadow. If we are incorrect here, we think it would look far more Christian for M. to point out our error, than to charge us with an untruth, and then wrap up the point with language of ridicule. We leave our readers to judge of the amount of "bible argument" in his remarks relative to those who observe the Sabbath walking "in a shadow,—hence in the dark," &c. We solemnly protest against treating any bible subject in this manner, and we are sure that all sincere, reflecting Christians will join with us here. As M. has not attempted to reply to our reasons for believing that the seventh day Sabbath is not referred to in Col. ii, 16, 17, we can only refer the reader to our remarks on this text in No. 6 of the "Review and Herald." 2 Cor. iii, is introduced to show that we are wrong. And from verses 7-14, M. has selected here and there an expression which he gives in the following manner. "But if the ministration of death, WRITTEN and ENGRAVEN on STONES . . . was to be DONE AWAY . . . is ABOLISHED . . . is DONE AWAY." He then adds, "What can be plainer than this?" We answer, the scripture as it reads would be much plainer. It is sometimes proper and necessary to omit a portion in quoting from the Bible, but we see no reason why twenty-one words should be selected from eight verses, as is the case in the above quotation, unless to make it appear that the commandments of God are abolished. After dealing out the usual amount of denunciations and assertions, charging us with contradicting the word of God, M. dismisses this portion of scripture. For a full reply to all that he has written on 2 Cor. iii, 7-16, we refer the reader to the "Review and Herald," Vol. II, No. 6, Page 46. Next, M. denies the distinction between the two laws, or covenants, one called the "BOOK of the covenant," and the other the "TABLES of the covenant," and asserts that "God has not made two covenants yet." He says that the old covenant was made in Horeb, and that the new covenant is future. And that "the first covenant embraced the Sabbath, the second does not; consequently the Sabbath is done away." This is a singular argument indeed! The Sabbath "is done away," and is not binding in the gospel dispensation, because a covenant, not yet made, does not embrace it. Rom. xiv, 6, 7, is next introduced. "It is mere assumption," says M. "to say that the Sabbath is not referred to in this text." We ask for proof that it is. We showed in our review of M. that there was no ground for even a reasonable inference that the weekly Sabbath is referred to in this text. Mark well the manner that the Apostle introduces his subject. "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not with doubtful disputations; for one believeth that he may eat all things; another who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth." This is sufficient to show that Paul’s subject related to the trials of the church at Rome, in consequence of some holding, and urging, the Jewish views of eating and feast-days. He does not once name the Sabbath. And there is no more evidence that the phrase "every day alike" proves that we should violate God’s Holy Sabbath, than that the phrase "he that eateth not" proves that we should not eat. And when it can be proved from Rom. xiv, 6, 7, that it is a sin to eat, then it can be proved by that chapter that we are wicked in observing God’s sanctified Day, and are, as M. represents, "stumbling into irretrievable ruin" by so doing. Consistency limits the words "eateth not" to the subject of discourse, which was the Jewish views of eating. It limits the phrase "every day alike," there also. That is, they did not esteem the Jewish feast-days, as the Jews had done, above the other common working days. Some, did as Paul states in Gal. iv, 10. "Ye observe days, and months, and times and years." But, admitting that Paul here refers to the weekly Sabbath, his language does not show that he thought those who esteem it, in danger of "stumbling into irretrievable ruin." It really seems very inconsistent for one to cry out against the Sabbath, as M. does, and represent those who observe it as "fallen from grace," walking in the dark, and sinking into certain ruin, and then say that the Apostle refers to the weekly Sabbath when he says: "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord." The New Testament nowhere gives liberty to break, or keep the commandments of God, just as may be thought best. Their observance is made a test of Christian fellowship, and Eternal Salvation. This is sufficient proof that the fourth commandment is not referred to in Rom. xiv. "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing," says Paul, "but the keeping of the commandments of God is something." Whiting's translation of 1 Cor. vii, 19. "If thou wilt enter into life," says Jesus, "keep the commandments," [Matt. xix, 17,] and in the next verses he quotes six of the ten. "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." 1 John v, 3. And in Chap. ii, 4, the beloved disciple, who has dwelt much upon the love of God, and the duty of Christians to love one another, addresses his children as follows: "He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments Is A LIAR, and the TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM." The love of God that dwelt in the bosom of the good old Apostle of Jesus Christ, made him jealous for the law of God, and led him to speak the truth thus plainly. That which was the love of God 1800 years since, is the love of God now. The commandments of God were not "grievous" then, but joyous to those who had the love of God. They are the same to such now. Like David they can say; "O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day." Ps. cxix. 97. Or, as Paul has said, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man." "For we know that the law is spiritual." "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." See Rom. vii, 12, 14, 22. Extra Copies of the Review and Herald.
By Editor
Of No. 8, containing the lengthy article relative to Babylon, from the “Voice of Truth” of 1844, we have 1,000 copies more than we usually publish. They are designed for distribution among those who have, in a great measure, forgotten past experience. In explaining the message of the third angel, it is necessary not only to show the first, but the second, and thus “call to remembrance the former days.” Those who wish extra copies of No. 8, should send for them immediately. The Postage will have to be pre-paid. Cost, including postage, about $2.50 per hundred. We also have nearly 1000 of the extra copies of No. 6, containing our entire review of the article published, for the fourth time in the “Harbinger” of Sept. 27th, entitled, “Seventh Day Sabbath Abolished.” This No. should also be circulated as fast as the way opens for it to accomplish good. It was our object to give the article of M. a fair and scriptural review, and in the spirit of the gospel point out its errors. And if we failed to do so, let the failure be pointed out. Let M., or any one else, show where the positions taken in that review are incorrect. This he has hardly attempted to do. Brethren, let No. 6, containing our review, be placed in the hands of those who will investigate, and we are sure that they will see the truth.—There are many honest souls who would rejoice in keeping the Sabbath of the Lord, if they could have the scripture evidences placed before them. Thank God, there are those who do, and will see the difference between plain scripture arguments, and the bold, unqualified assertions and denunciations of the Editor of the Harbinger. Remarks on the Two Laws.
By Justin Edwards
Under the Jewish dispensation were incorporated two kinds of laws. One was founded on obligations growing out of the nature of men, and their relations to God and one another; obligations binding before they were written, and which will continue to be binding upon all who shall know them, to the end of time. Such are the laws which were written by the finger of God on the tables of stone, and are called moral laws. The other kind, called ceremonial laws, related to various outward observances, which were not obligatory till they were commanded, and then were binding only on the Jews till the death of Christ. There were also two kinds of Sabbaths, or days of rest. One was a day of weekly rest; and the command to keep it holy was placed by the Lawgiver in the midst of the moral laws. It was called, by way of eminence, "THE SABBATH." The command to keep the other Sabbaths was placed by the Lawgiver among the ceremonial laws, because it was like them, as the command to keep the weekly Sabbath was like the laws with which it was associated. One class were fundamental, permanent, universal moral laws; the other class were local, temporary ceremonial laws. One had their origin in the nature and relations of man; the other, in the peculiar circumstances in which, for a time, a peculiar people were placed. One would be binding in all ages upon all who should know them, and the other would be binding only upon the Jews till the death of the Messiah. Sabbath Manual Nos. 1 and 2. It is with much pleasure that we give the following cheering letter from our dear Bro. Rhodes. DEAR BRO. WHITE: Since I last wrote a few lines at Elmira, (N. Y.), Sept. 23d, 1851, which were published in No. 5 of the "Review and Herald." I have not been idle. I returned from that tour of six or seven hundred miles through the south and west of this State to Camden, on the 26th of Oct. I found a few precious souls, by the way, after leaving Elmira who had "ears to hear," and who readily received the truth. After my return to Camden I felt it to be my duty to visit Jackson, Mich. We held meeting four days in succession, during which time the Lord wrought for us. I had liberty in explaining to the Church much of the prophecies of the book of Revelation, while the blessing of the Lord rested upon us, and greatly refreshed, strengthened, and united in love, the saints of God. I returned to Oswego Oct. 24th, and spent the following Sabbath with the Church in that place. On First-day morning six of the children of the brethren were buried with Christ in baptism. We truly felt that the Lord smiled upon us while we obeyed our Saviour in this ordinance. After baptism we broke bread and washed the saints feet, following the worthy example of our dear Lord and Master. I am sure it was the most interesting and solemn communion season that I ever attended, on account of the presence of the Lord. I spent Sabbath, Nov. 15th, with the Church in Volney; had communion, and quite a refreshing season with them. Visited the saints in Camden, and am prepared to say they have that strength that arises from perfect union. I spent the last two Sabbaths in Boylston, where I had much labor, and trust I saw the fruit of the Spirit of the Lord manifested among the saints. There is not far from twenty in the vicinity of Boylston who are making strong efforts to obtain the kingdom. The Lord signally blest the Church last Sabbath and First-day, with drops of the "latter rain." Praise the Lord. I wish to say to all the saints that I feel strong in the Lord, and of good courage to go without the camp, and cry aloud the last solemn, sanctifying message, Rev. xiv, 9-13. Salvation does attend this truth: "I am confident that I shall not be disappointed while I pray, expect and look for the Lord to do great and glorious things for us through the power of the commandments, the keeping of which is the condition of the latter rain, Deut. xi, 13-19. I do greatly praise our God for the increasing and glorious light, of present truth, which so brightens our pathway to heaven. I know not how to be thankful and humble enough for the unspeakable goodness of God in granting me a place among the humble followers of the Lamb, whom my soul loveth with an undying, and increasing love. How sweet to me is holy communion with the pure hearted people of God. I do hunger and thirst after righteousness, and earnestly desire that I may be humble enough to glorify our blessed God with my whole being. I feel that nothing shall be too great for me to suffer, if I may but go with, and be one among those that John saw in holy vision, standing on the Mount Zion, harping with their harps, and singing a song that no man could learn, but the hundred and forty four thousand. Rev. xiv, 1-4. The Lord has of late ravished my soul, while I have been traveling, and reading and committing to memory the prophecies in Revelation, from the tenth chapter to the end of the book, and in comparing one portion of the book with the other. I now see a light, a beauty, a glory, and a harmony in this book, that I never could have seen had I not committed it to memory. I feel as I once expressed myself in 1843, that my faith is eternally fixed, and that nothing shall be able to separate me from the love of God, his truth, and his people. My meditations are sweet. My mind is wrapped up in contemplating the word of the Lord touching the sublime and awfully grand scenes that await the present Church of Christ, prior to, and at the resurrection of the just. My soul leaps, at the thought of heaven, and beats high for immortality. I must ere long meet with angels, and tell them what Jesus has done for me. I long to mingle eternally with the celestial beings, who always behold the face of our Father, which is in heaven. In a little while from this if faithful we shall enjoy an eternal weight of glory. We will not be disheartened by any apparent discouragement; neither will we be dismayed at any of the sons of Anak. Be of good cheer, my dear tried brother, and in Jesus' name, turn the battle to the gate. The cause is the Lord's, and it will move triumphantly onward. No power can stop the wheels of the Lord's car which is now rolling toward the kingdom, propelled by the Holy Law of God, carrying holy passengers to the Holy City. [See Rev. xxii, 14.] Although Jacob may be small, yet soon the least of the saints will be as David, and the house of David as God. And that company seen by the Prophet to be as fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and as terrible as an army with banners, will soon appear in the field of action, clothed in white raiment, with the armor on (The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus) in marshal array, well disciplined, ready for the last mighty conflict. I break off writing as abruptly as I have written, and say publish all, a part, or none, as you see fit. I mean to go to Heaven with you. I love you more and more, and want to see you and talk much with you.
S. W. RHODES.