Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Jan 31, 1854
THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED.
By John Nevins Andrews
WE have before examined the main pillars on which the first-day Sabbath rests; and it is perfectly apparent that there is not a single particle of divine authority for the observance of that day. Hence, its advocates must observe the Sabbath of the Lord, or they must resort to the tradition of the "fathers" for proof of its change. The history of the change will be given in its place. But we now ask, what right had the elders of the Christian church to change the fourth commandment, any more than the elders of the Jewish church had, to change the fifth?
The Pharisees pretended that they had a tradition handed down from Moses, which authorized them to change the fifth commandment. The Papist and Protestant Doctors of Divinity pretend that they have a tradition handed down from Christ and the apostles, authorizing them to change the fourth. But if Christ rebuked the Pharisees for holding a damnable heresy, what would he say to the like act on the part of his own professed followers? Matt. xv, 3–9.
The same fathers which changed the fourth commandment, have also corrupted all the ordinances of the New Testament, and have established purgatory, invocation of saints, the worship of the Virgin Mary and prayers for the dead.
The Protestant professes to receive the Bible alone as his standard of faith and practice. The Papist receives the Bible and the tradition of the fathers as his rule. The Protestant cannot prove the change of the Sabbath from his own standard, (the Bible,) therefore he is obliged to adopt that of the Papist, viz., the Bible as explained and corrupted by the fathers. The change of the Sabbath is proved by the Papist as follows:—
"Ques. What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferably to the ancient Sabbath which was the Saturday?
"Ans. We have for it the authority of the Catholic Church, and apostolic tradition.
"Q. Does the Scripture any where command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?
"A. The Scripture commands us to hear the Church, [Matt. xviii, 17; Luke x, 16,] and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess. ii, 15. But the Scripture does not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath. John speaks of the Lord's day; [Rev. i, 10;] but he does not tell us what day of the week this was, much less does he tell us that this day was to take the place of the Sabbath ordained in the commandments. Luke also speaks of the disciples meeting together to break bread on the first day of the week. Acts xx, 7. And Paul [1 Cor. xvi, 2] orders that on the first day of the week the Corinthians should lay by in store what they designed to bestow in charity on the faithful in Judea; but neither the one nor the other tells us that this first day of the week was to be henceforward the day of worship, and the Christian Sabbath; so that truly, the best authority we have for this, is the testimony and ordinance of the church. And therefore, those who pretend to be so religious of the Sunday, whilst they take no notice of other festivals ordained by the same church authority, show that they act by humor, and not by reason and religion; since Sundays and holy-days all stand upon the same foundation, viz., the ordinance of the church.
"Q. What was the reason why the weekly Sabbath was changed from the Saturday to the Sunday?
"A. Because our Lord fully accomplished the work of our redemption by rising from the dead on a Sunday, and by sending down the Holy Ghost on a Sunday; as therefore the work of our redemption was a greater work than that of our creation, the primitive church thought the day on which this work was completely finished, was more worthy her religious observation than that in which God rested from the creation, and should be properly called the Lord's day."—Catholic Christian Instructed.
If further testimony is needed listen to the following:—
"Ques. What does God ordain by this commandment?
"Ans. He ordains that we sanctify, in a special manner, this day, on which he rested from the labor of creation.
"Q. What is this day of rest?
"A. The seventh day of the week, or Saturday, for he employed six days in creation, and rested on the seventh. Gen. ii, 2; Heb. iv, 1, &c.
"Q. Is it then Saturday we should sanctify, in order to obey the ordinance of God?
"A. During the old law, Saturday was the day sanctified; but the church instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday, so we now sanctify the first and not the seventh day. Sunday means, and now is, the day of the Lord.
"Q. Had the church power to make such a change?
"A. Certainly; since the Spirit of God is her guide, the change is inspired by that Holy Spirit. The uniform, universal, and perpetual tradition of all ages and nations, attest the antiquity of, and consequently the Divine assent to, this change: even the bitterest enemies of God's church admit and adopt it.
"Q. Why did the church make this change?
"A. Because Christ rose from the dead upon Sunday, and rested from the great work of redemption; and because, on this day, the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles and on the church."—Catechism of the Christian Religion.
This testimony shows conclusively that the fourth commandment, which the New Testament has never changed, has been corrupted by the Romish church. It was from Rome, as we may here see, that Protestants learned to say that the Sabbath was changed because redemption was greater than creation. Here we will mention some things for special consideration.
1. Those who are now paying religious respect to the first day of the week, may possibly be led to examine the reasons for this course, by the following significant fact: The church of Rome undertakes to prove purgatory by the Bible, but acknowledges that Sunday-keeping cannot be proved by it, as she instituted that herself. Those, therefore, who despise the Lord's Sabbath, and in its stead honor the sabbath of the Romish church, virtually acknowledge that the authority of that church is above the authority of God, and sufficient to change his times and laws. Here is her statement respecting purgatory:—
"Question. But what grounds have you to believe that there is any such place as a purgatory, or middle state of souls?
"Answer. We have the strongest grounds imaginable from all kind of arguments, from scripture, from perpetual tradition, from the authority and declaration of the church of God, and from reason."—Catholic Christian Instructed, page 146.
Hear the Catholic church once more, while she contrasts purgatory with Sunday-keeping:—
"The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept holy: you [Protestants] without any precept of scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose against this point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of scripture, where it is said the first day of the week. Acts xx, 7; 1 Cor. xvi, 2; Rev. i, 10. Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us to scorn; for where is it written that these were Sabbath-days in which those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained they should be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate or abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of those is expressed in the written word of God."—An Antidote, or Treatise of Thirty Controversies.
Reader, shall not such facts as the above open your eyes? Have you any better authority for Sunday-keeping than Romish tradition? What think you of that prophecy which foretells that the Pope should speak great words against God, and think to change times and laws? Dan. vii, 25. That church who styles her head, "Lord God the Pope," has here openly testified, that without any authority from Scripture, she has changed the commandments of God. She also declares that of her two children, Purgatory and Sunday-keeping, the former is the most important personage. Cannot that mother judge impartially between two such darlings?10
2. But perhaps the fathers, as they are called, may be regarded by the reader as the best of authority. We are aware that not a few, who profess to be Bible Christians, rest their Sunday-observance solely upon such evidence. We request the attention of such to the following from Storrs' Six Sermons. It was written in defense of the author's views of future punishment; but the remarks are of equal value with respect to the Sabbath question.
"It is said, 'The fathers believed in the endless torments of the wicked.' In reply, I remark, Our Lord and Master has prohibited my calling any man father. But, if the fathers, as they are called, did believe that doctrine, they learned it from the Bible, or they did not. If they learned it there, so can we, if they did not learn it from the Bible, then their testimony is of no weight. It may have been an error that early got into the church, like many others."
Mosheim, in his Church History, tells us, as early as the third century, that the defenders of Christianity, in their controversies, 'degenerated much from primitive simplicity,' and that the maxim which asserted the innocence of defending truth by artifice and falsehood, 'contributed' to this degeneracy. And he adds:—
"'This disingenuous and vicious method of surprising their adversaries by artifice, and striking them down, as it were, by lies and fictions, produced, among other disagreeable effects, a great number of books, which were falsely attributed to certain great men, in order to give these spurious productions more credit and weight; for as the greater part of mankind are less governed by reason than authority, and prefer in many cases, the decisions of fallible mortals, to the unerring dictates of the Divine Word, the disputants of whom we are speaking, thought they could not serve the truth more effectually than by opposing illustrious names, and respectable authorities, to the attacks of its adversaries.'"
"This practice, spoken of by Mosheim, increased as the darker ages rolled on; and through these dark ages, what there are of the writings of the 'fathers' have come down to us. It is a truth, also, that the practice of corrupting the simplicity of the apostolic doctrine was commenced much earlier than the third century. Enfield, in his philosophy, says:—'The first witness of Christianity had scarcely left the world when' this work began. Some of the 'fathers' seemed intent upon uniting heathen philosophy with Christianity, and early commenced the practice of clothing the doctrines of religion in an allegorical dress.'"—Fourth Sermon.
Those who make the "fathers" their rule, would do well to consider the above facts. Every damnable heresy of the Romish church, she proves by those same fathers. Tradition is the unfailing resort of Romanists, to prove their dogmas; indeed, they openly acknowledge that tradition is a part of their rule of faith. Protestants claim that they make the Bible their only rule of duty; but, whenever their unscriptural arguments for Sunday-keeping are exposed, they fly for refuge to the fathers. Thus Protestants defend their heresies with the same weapons that the Papists employ to defend theirs. The same fountain head of corruption feeds the several streams of error that flow through both these bodies.
3. But, says one, do you not think that it would be safe to believe what those have said who conversed with the apostles, or at least, conversed with some who had conversed with them? If such should tell us that the Sabbath of the Lord was changed, would it not be safe to receive their testimony? We answer, that the holy Scriptures come to us with the divine guarantee that every word therein contained was divinely inspired. The tradition of the elders comes to us without a particle of such testimony. Wherefore it follows that the man who fears God will not reject that which he knows came from heaven, for the sake of following that which directly contradicts it, and which by that fact is proved to have come from the great enemy of divine truth.
But does the Bible contain the least intimation that what was written near the days of the apostles is any more sacred than what was written at a later period? Paul told the Thessalonian church that "the mystery of iniquity," or Romish apostasy, had already begun to work. 2 Thess. ii. If Paul was correct, it follows that it is far from being safe to adopt as sacred truth a doctrine which is not found in the New Testament, merely because it is said to have come from some who lived near the days of the apostles. Satan was then busily engaged in nursing in the bosom of the early church, the viper which should ere long infect with deadly poison a great portion of the professed people of God. Did not Paul warn those with whom he parted at Ephesus, that grievous wolves were to enter among them, and that of themselves men were to arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them? When any doctrine is brought to us from those who lived near the days of the apostles, it is then proper for us to inquire whether this comes from those who spoke the sentiments of the holy apostles, or whether it comes from those grievous wolves who were to follow after them, and speak perverse things.
Is there no way by which we can determine this question? Certainly there is an infallible test. The New Testament contains the precise language of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Now if the fathers speak according to that word, they speak the precious truths of God. But if they speak that which makes void the word of truth, it is a very strong evidence that they belong to that class which Paul notified the church, should arise in their very midst, and speak perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. If the Holy Spirit has given us notice that false teachers were to arise in the very days of the apostles, should it not serve as a warning to us, that things which purport to come from the successors of the apostles, may, for all that, contain the most deadly poison?
4. If it were certain that the early fathers, in their zeal to improve upon the New Testament, changed the fourth commandment, it would only prove that they were of the number of grievous wolves that were to arise. But it by no means follows that the mystery of iniquity was able thus early to change times and laws. The testimony given from Storrs' Fourth Sermon, evinces clearly that even the fathers themselves do not now come to us with their own words. Their testimony has been corrupted, and many shameless forgeries are palmed off as their genuine testimony.
If the reader ever looked into a Romish controversial work, he will there find the very fathers, who are so much relied upon to prove the change of the Sabbath, quoted to prove all the heresies of that anti-Christian church. It follows, therefore, that one of two things must be true: either the testimony of the early fathers has been shamefully corrupted, or those so-called early fathers were wolves in sheep's clothing.
5. If the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles were now on earth, mingling with the men of this generation, as they once mingled with a former generation, we ask, Would it be safe for the men of the third or fourth generation from this to receive as sacred truth all that the fathers of the present generation might transmit to them? Is it not self-evident that unless human nature should undergo a radical change, the men of the following generations would have handed down to them as Christ's sayings, all the vain and foolish sentiments that different partizans might wish to maintain? In the case supposed, we ask, What would be the safety of the coming generations? There is but one answer, and in this all will agree. If this were the age in which the New Testament was written, the safety of the coming generation would be secured only, by faithfully testing, by that sure rule, whatever might be handed down to them as gospel truth from the fathers of the present age. Should they thus rigidly cleave to inspiration, they would be safe; but if they added to that sure word all the fables which satan would instigate the present fathers to attribute to Christ and the apostles, what would become of them?
If the Advent body itself were to furnish the fathers and the saints for the future church, Heaven pity the people that should live hereafter! Reader we entreat you to prize your Bible. It contains all the will of God, and will make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Those who believe in a change of the Lord's Sabbath should look at these facts: The Sabbath of the Lord means the Rest-day of the Lord. Six days the Almighty wrought in the work of creation, and the seventh day he rested from all his work. The Sabbath or Rest-day of the Lord, is, therefore, a definite day, which can no more be changed to one of the days upon which God wrought, than the resurrection-day can be changed to one of the days upon which Christ did not rise, or the crucifixion-day be changed to one of the six days of the week upon which Christ was not crucified. Hence it is as impossible to change the Rest-day of the Lord as it is to change the crucifixion-day or the day of the resurrection.
Men of God, to whom the Scriptures have been committed, can you longer pervert the commandments of Jehovah and not be guilty of willful transgression? Must it not be exceeding sinful in the sight of Heaven for you to change the Sabbath of the Lord for another day, and then to steal that commandment which guards the holy Sabbath, to enforce the observance of that new day? When the hailstones of Jehovah's wrath shall sweep away the refuge of lies, [Isa. xxviii, 17; Rev. xvi, 21,] how many of the arguments for Sunday-keeping will be left? The Bible thoroughly furnishes the man of God to all good works. Sunday-keeping is not, therefore, a good work; for the Scriptures furnish nothing in its favor. Why should you be ready of heart to believe what God has never spoken, and slow of heart to believe his plain testimony? Thus saith the Lord, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;" "Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy."
NO TEARS IN HEAVEN.
WHAT if our bark o'er life's rough wave
By adverse winds be driven,
And howling tempests round us rave,
There are no tears in Heaven.
What though affliction be our lot,
Our hearts with anguish riven,
Still never let it be forgot
There are no tears in Heaven.
If sweetest joys here vanish all,
And fade like hues at even;
Our brightest hopes like meteors fall—
There are no tears in Heaven.
The mourner sad, who drown'd in grief
Hath long in sorrow striven,
Shall find at last a sweet relief,
Tears wiped away in Heaven.
Thou, God, our joy and rest shall be,
And sorrow far be driven;
And sin and death forever flee
The tearless courts of Heaven.
There from the blooming Tree of Life,
The healing fruit is given;
Yes! There shall cease the painful strife—
There are no tears in Heaven.
ALL THINGS ARE YOURS.
By Editor
A BROTHER sends us the following excellent communication, written by H. L. H. We know not what paper he took it from.
'Poor in this world—rich in faith—heir of every thing. This sentence contains an epitome of Christian history from the earliest ages to the present time; 'having nothing,' forsaking houses and lands; and yet possessing all things, even 'an hundred fold in this life.' 'Having nothing' that this blinded world can see or do desire—a pilgrim stranger—yea, houseless and homeless sometimes: yet he is rich. Though he has no gold or gems, no titles or honors; though he possesses no fame or glory, he is rich: for the love of God is his; the presence of Jesus is his; the comfort of the Holy Ghost is his; the sure word of prophecy is his; exceeding great and precious promises are his; fellowship of the saints is his; the faith once delivered to the saints is his: the bliss of expectation and the expectation of bliss; the joys of hope and the hope of joy—all these, and even more, are his, even in this dark and stormy world.
But, this, however, is the foretaste, not the fruition; this is the trial, not the reward; this is the warfare, not the victory; this is the labor, not the rest; this is the poverty, not the riches; this is the earnest, not the inheritance; this is the gloom, not the glory; this is the darkness, or, at best, the dim twilight, instead of the glory of the perfect and unending day.
There is, notwithstanding the gloom and sorrow that gather here, a brighter and lovelier scene before us. Beyond the dark night of weeping, comes forth the bright morning of joy; beyond the valley of sighs, is the mountain of singing; beyond the din of battle, is the heavenly song of peace; beyond the howling wilderness, is the Eden of bliss; beyond the barrenness of the desert, is the beauty and the verdure of the Paradise of God; beyond the darkness of the sepulchre, is the light of the resurrection; beyond the sad sleep of death, is the joyful waking to immortal life; beyond the weary pilgrimage, is the blessed home; beyond earth's week of toil, is the Eternal Sabbath of rest; beyond earth's passing gloom, is heaven's unending glory; beyond the endurance of 'tribulation,' the 'fight' of faith, and the 'patience' of hope, is the pilgrim's home, the saint's inheritance, the Christian's portion, the servant's reward, the victor's palm and the conqueror's crown.
There is the New Earth in its unmarred beauty—in its unfading glory—in its unstained purity. There is the wide-spreading kingdom, the far reaching dominion 'of our Lord and of his Christ.' There is the firm throne of Messiah, established in righteousness and truth. There, too, is the King 'in his beauty,' in his 'power and great glory,' 'ruling over men,' 'just,' reigning in glory, that far outrivals the shining of the 'morning without clouds.'
There is the 'Jeweled City,' with its radiant glory and dazzling light—with its burnished battlements and golden streets; there is the pure river with its bright waters and verdant banks; there is the living tree with its monthly fruits and healing leaves, and there is joy and blessedness untold, unfelt, unknown.
No wonder, then, that one who 'walked by faith,' who looked 'not on the things that are seen,' who had been 'caught up to the third heaven,' who had 'heard unspeakable things' while there, and who had, in constant and blissful prospect, 'Salvation with eternal glory'—while reviewing the saints' possessions, while seeing how much was comprehended, and how little was left out, while gazing on the crowns of glory, on the diadems of beauty, on the garments of salvation, on the robes of righteousness, on the glory of the glorified, on the salvation of the saved, and on the vast heritage of the blest inheritors, while his heart throbbed and his bosom swelled with struggling emotions, should exclaim with all the confidence of living faith, 'ALL THINGS ARE YOURS!'11
Second Coming of Christ.
THERE is no subject that is more calculated to inspire the heart of God's people with joy, than that of the second advent of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And not only is it a subject upon which the lovers of Christ at the present day desire to dwell, but in examining the Word of God, we learn that the prophets, apostles, and the early Christians, dwelt upon this theme with pleasing anticipations. And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, looked forward (through a long series of intervening ages) to the time when the Lord should come with ten thousand of his saints. And Job, who was declared to be a perfect man, cried out in the language of inspiration, and declared that at the latter day, his Redeemer should stand upon the earth. And although worms might destroy his body, yet in his flesh he should see God.
Paul, when he wrote to Timothy, declared that at that day, i. e., the resurrection, he should receive a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, would give him. And John, while looking forward to the glorious morn, when Christ would come to be glorified in his saints, and admired by all those that love him, cried out, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection." And the early Christians were willing to suffer persecution and death, knowing that if they suffered with him, they would also reign with him, at his appearing in his kingdom.
If the prophets, apostles, and the early Christians were enabled to rejoice while looking forward to the long promised period, when the Tabernacle of God would be with men, and tears, sorrow, pain and death should be felt and feared no more, ought not we who are living on the eve of eternity, to lift up our heads and rejoice, knowing that the day of our redemption draweth nigh?—Selected.
The Moral Law and Changing Obligations
By E. Miller, Jr.
FROM E. MILLER, JR.
FRIEND COTTRELL:—Although unavoidably hindered for so long a time from noticing your kind reply to my note in Review of Sept. 13th, and even now pressed by other duties, still I esteem it a privilege as all along has been my intention, to call your attention to it again: hoping to be instrumental in bringing you to see the light of truth more clearly.
I will first notice your exclamation, "Who hath bewitched you, that you should think that the rule, of moral obligation can be changed without a change in the relation existing between man and his Maker! Is God changeable?" My dear brother, is there anything absurd, in supposing that an unchangeable and all-wise God should require of men in one age what he does not in another? The plan of redemption is manifestly progressive in its development. Is it absurd that obligations should be laid upon men in different ages, corresponding with their different circumstances, and their different degrees of light? (1.) Absurd it may appear in your eyes, but a perfect Law-giver has most surely done so.
Again: You ask, "Could he make a better moral rule at the commencement of the gospel dispensation, than he could when he formed the first man?" The law that he enjoined upon the first man was doubtless best for him; but I see no absurdity in supposing that Jehovah in a 4000 years' training, should have prepared his people for one somewhat different. (2.) Again: You ask, "Can he improve his original law . . . by abolishing one tenth part of it?" I have said nothing about his having abolished "one tenth part of it," and trust I shall hear no more of it. Again: "Would he make known through the agency of man, that he had changed that law which he spoke with his own mouth," &c. Well, why not? God has had various ways of communicating his will to man, and he has a right to use whatever way he pleases. And his commands are of equal authority, whether spoken with his own mouth, or communicated through prophets or apostles. Hence, your supposed absurdities are only existant through your one-sided theory.
You say I admit that "the law from Mt. Sinai was the rule of moral obligation for that dispensation," and I did not admit that the ten commandments was the law of moral obligation; but distinctly stated that the rule of life for the people of God, as given in the law, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, was given to Israel, and forms the rule of moral obligation for that dispensation. I have never seen proof that the ten commandments ever were the moral law for any dispensation. Certain it is, that in the present dispensation, positive, moral duties are required, beyond what the ten precepts required. The same is equally certain relative to the past dispensation (the Jewish.) I know it is asserted that the ten commandments included all moral duties; but it is only assertion. Tell me, Is man's moral obligation summed up in two positive and eight negative duties? even so, if the ten cover all. I have only to keep the Sabbath and honor my parents as active duties, and refrain from doing eight acts. But suppose I do all this: keep the Sabbath and honor my parents, and refrain from idolatry, profanity, stealing, killing, adultery, false witness and covetousness, do I fulfill the "royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself?" (3.) Nay, verily: I may do all this, and knowingly leave my next-door neighbor to starve and freeze while I have plenty. Let us understand that a command of God imposes a moral obligation, and we are morally innocent or guilty, as we obey or disobey, whatever be the nature of the requirement; and we will be freed from the necessity of assuming that the ten commandments enjoin duties that they do not speak of.
You next give us an argument concerning securing the favor of God, based on the assumption, that man was made a sinner by transgressing the law of the ten commandments. You may well suppose that I was surprised to find a man regardful of the Bible, taking such a position; but I have since learned that it was no accident, but that the position is contended for by many. It must be answered then. Well, recorded facts contradict the position. See the record. First, the law given. Gen. ii, 16, 17. "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." That the transgression of this law introduced sin and death into the world, see Rom. v, 12, 19. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin," &c. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners," &c. Here then is the "original law," the transgression of which made man a sinner, and necessitated another law whereby sins might be forgiven. Which of the two is it? Ah! Adam might have obeyed every one of the ten, and transgressed this. (4.) To me it is the climax of absurdity to talk of the transgression of a code 2000 years before it was given. Worse than that, to attribute an effect to a cause, different from that assigned in the record of the facts, is equivalent to a denial of the record.
I never rejected "the idea of two laws being spoken of in the New Testament;" nor claimed "that the term, law, always means one and the same thing;" but I deny that the two laws spoken of are, one the ten commandments, and the other the balance of the Levitical law; and when you bring your proof of this position, I will consider it.
Further on, admitting a change of the law with the change of the priesthood, and asking, "What law?" you answer, "Not the original, royal law of ten commandments; for that can never change." If by this you mean that the ten commandments can never give place to another system of law, all the answer required is to ask, Where is your proof? I understand that it has given place to another code. For proof see Rom. vii; 2 Cor. iii. Not that the fourth commandment, simply, has been abolished! but that the whole code, having filled its time, served its purpose, ceased of obligation. You quote Matt. v, 18, "One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled," and say it "does not pass away by little fragments," but rather must "all go together." That is correct. It all went together, giving place to "the law of faith," the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, "the perfect law of liberty." (5.) You say "the context shows that all the prophets must be fulfilled before one particle of the law can pass." I can find no such idea in the context.
You think James speaks of the ten commandments. Chap. ii, 8. "If ye fulfill the royal law," &c. This is without warrant, as the Apostle tells what he means by the royal law; viz., "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;" which is no part of the ten. (6.) Again this royal law can be transgressed by showing respect to persons—by giving to the richly apparelled, a noble, and to the poor, an ignoble seat in the assembly; which is no transgression of either of the ten. Clearly then the royal law is something more than the Sinaitic code. The Apostle often refers to this code for illustration, to show that, although this showing respect to the rich was transgressing the royal law only in one point, it was still a transgression, and he was guilty of all. Your other quotations from James, David and Jesus, would have force if there was any evidence that they referred to the ten commandments. (7.)
I have referred you to Rom. viii, for proof that the ten commandments have given place to another law. Let us look at it a little. Verse 4. "Wherefore my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." As the woman is released from obligation to her husband when he is dead; so we are released from obligation to the law, that we may come under obligation to Christ. Verse 6 repeats the same idea. Does this law embrace the ten commandments? Verse 7. "Is the law sin? God forbid . . . I had not known lust except the law had said thou shalt not covet." If you can find your two laws in these passages, you have a system of grammar with which I am unacquainted. (8.) I can but regard the testimony of the first part of this chapter as proof abundant, that the ten commandments ceased of obligation with the rest of the law. The other chapter referred to is equally pointed. I would also suggest that the passages quoted, do plainly teach that the seventh-day Sabbath has been abolished, by teaching that the only law which ever required it has ceased of obligation, and would refer them to the Editor as an answer to his request. If then the Decalogue, as a code of enactments, has ceased of obligation, is it not necessary that the New Testament should enjoin the Sabbath, to make it binding upon Christians?
Hoping that your kind feelings may not be interrupted, I leave the subject for the present.
Yours, striving to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. E. MILLER, JR.
Middlebury, Elkhart Co., Ind., Dec. 22d, 1863.
REVEREND.
This word is found once in the Bible, and only applied to the name of the Lord—(Ps. cxi, 9)—"Holy and reverend is his name."
Now, to take this name, and give it to any man, appears to me to be not only idolatry, but also taking the name of the Lord our God in vain, if not even blasphemy. We read of a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy. Rev. xvii, 3. And does not this mean some who apply to themselves the names of the Most High?
Though ministers, or elders, or any other officers in the church, or in the state, should be honored and respected according to their station and worth, yet I would most respectfully and most earnestly request all Protestants to leave this species of idolatry entirely to those who love to worship "His Holiness" the Pope of Rome, their "Right Reverend Father in God," with other such "names of blasphemy!"
If our New Testament was filled up with the Rev. Dr. Matthew, the Rev. Dr. Mark, the Rev. Luke, the Rev. John, the Rev. Peter, the Rev. Paul, the Rev. Titus, &c., as full as some religious books and newspapers are, I would not object to giving such "flattering titles unto man." See Job. xxxii, 21, 22.
Again, if our blessed Saviour refused to be called "Good Master," because that title belonged only to God, (Mark x, 17,) and if one who showed many things to John, said to him, "See thou do it not," when John was about to worship him, (Rev. xxii, 8, 9,) then ought not every minister or elder to refuse to be called Reverend, because that title belongs only to God?
Would it not be as well, and as proper, for religious writers and editors to omit the "Rev.," and insert Eld., when speaking of religious ministers? As for myself, I should think it as right, and as proper, to bow down and pray to any man as to call him Reverend.—Sab. Rec.
BOTH SIDES.
By Editor
In one of the September Nos. of the REVIEW, we gave a letter from E. Miller, Jr., to R. F. Cottrell, and Bro. C.'s reply, that both sides of the question might be seen. We give the following, and the reply, on the next page, for the same object. "Those who have the truth can afford to be fair," while those who are in error will seek to hide the truth, and make their errors prominent.—Ed.