Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Aug 15, 1854
PERPETUITY OF THE ROYAL LAW.
By John Nevins Andrews
OR, THE
TEN COMMANDMENTS NOT ABOLISHED.
BY J. N. ANDREWS.
It is painful to witness the various inconsistent and self-contradictory positions resorted to by those who reject the Sabbath of the Lord. But of all the positions adopted, none seem so dangerous, or fraught with such alarming consequences, as the view that the law of God, by which the Sabbath is enforced, has been abolished, and that we are, therefore, under no obligation to remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. The question whether God has abolished his law or not, is, indeed, the main point at issue in the Sabbath controversy; for when it is shown that that law still exists, and that its perpetuity is clearly taught in the New Testament, the question is most conclusively settled, that the Sabbath is binding on us, and upon all men.
The Sabbath of the Lord is embodied in the fourth commandment of the Decalogue. This commandment stands in the midst of nine moral precepts which Jehovah, after uttering with his own voice, wrote with his own finger on the tables of stone. These nine commandments stand around the Sabbath of the Lord, an impregnable bulwark, which all the enemies of that sacred institution in vain attempt to destroy. It is evident that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment cannot be set aside unless the Decalogue can be destroyed. Hence the enemies of the Sabbatic institution have brought their heaviest artillery to bear upon the law of the Most High: calculating that when they had destroyed this strong hold, the Sabbath would fall an easy prey to their attack. We invite attention then to the law and to the testimony. By the unerring word of God we wish to settle this question; and this we believe can be done in the most satisfactory manner.
That the hand-writing of ordinances containing the feasts, new moons and the associated annual sabbaths of the Jews, has been abolished and taken out of the way, we do not doubt. This was not the moral law of God; but was merely the shadow of good things to come. But the royal law in which are the ten commandments of God is the subject of this investigation, and it is the perpetuity and immutability of this law that we affirm. If the law of God has been destroyed, the act must have been accomplished by one of three things; viz., 1. By the teachings of the Lord Jesus; or 2. By his death; or 3. By the apostles. We believe that all will agree to this statement.
1. Was the law of God abolished by the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ? Let us listen to his own words.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do, and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. v, 17-19.
Our Lord here testifies that he did not come to destroy the law or the prophets. Then it is a fact that he did not destroy either. But what is it to destroy the law? We answer, that it can only signify to abolish, or to annul it. And thus Campbell renders the word:—"Think not that I am come to subvert the law." Whiting renders it:—"Think not that I am come to annul the law." It is therefore certain that our Lord did not come to subvert, annul, or destroy, the law of God. Hence it follows that the law of God was not annulled or abrogated by him. He adds, that instead of coming to destroy, he came to fulfill. If this was the object of the Saviour's mission, did he not by this act do away the law, set it aside, and relieve us from obligation to keep its precepts? Let us see. As Campbell renders the text, it reads, "I am not come to subvert, but to ratify." That is, I am not come to abolish the law, but to confirm, and render still more sacred, its just demands. If that was the object of our Lord's mission, it follows that he did not lessen our obligation to obey the law of his Father.
But let us return to the word "fulfill." Christ came to fulfill the law, hence he did fulfill it. What is it to fulfill a law? Let the apostle James answer: "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." James ii, 8, 9. It is evident that James here places the transgression of the law in contrast with, or in opposition to, the fulfillment of the law; therefore it follows that the fulfillment of the law is the reverse of its violation. In other words, it is its observance. To fulfill the law in the manner that James enjoins, is to render complete obedience to its divine requirements.
But it may be contended that to fulfill the law in the sense of our Lord's declaration, accomplishes its purpose, and takes it out of the way. To show the absurdity of this view, let us take another of Christ's sayings which is of the same character, precisely. When John refused to baptize the Saviour, Jesus said, "Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." Matt. iii, 15. Did the Saviour, by fulfilling all righteousness, weaken, take out of the way, or destroy all righteousness? Certainly not. No one will claim that he lessened our obligation to fulfill all righteousness also.
But how did Christ fulfill the law of his Father? There is but one way in which this could be accomplished, and that is to answer its just demands. What were those demands? We answer: first, the law of God demands perfect obedience. The justice of this, none will deny. But when the law has been violated, it demands the death of the transgressor. "Sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John iii, 4. "The wages of sin is death." Rom. vi, 23. "The soul that sinneth it shall die." Eze. xviii, 4. When Christ came to fulfill the law, he came to do this, not for himself, but in behalf of our race. He came to fulfill the law as the Messiah: an office or character which no other being ever possessed. He came to undertake for fallen men, and in a certain sense placed himself in their situation. What then was the relation which our race sustained to the law of God? We answer: all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. The law of God stopped every mouth, and showed all men sinners in the sight of God. Rom. iii.2
Then, when the Saviour took upon himself our nature, and came to fulfill the law of his Father, that law not only demanded perfect obedience, but it also justly demanded the death of our race; for all were its transgressors. The work of the Saviour, therefore, in fulfilling the law of his Father, was of a twofold character. He must first render perfect obedience to all its precepts, and then offer up his own life as a ransom for guilty man. To fulfill the law as the Messiah, Christ must perform all this. Did he thus do? He kept his Father's commandments. John xv, 10. In him there was no transgression of the law. 1 John iii, 4, 5. He was the Lamb of God without spot, [1 Pet. i, 19.] in whom the Father was well pleased. Matt. iii, 17. And this was not all; he took upon himself the sin of the world. Isa. liii, 6; John i, 29. He bore our sin in his own body upon the tree. 1 Pet. ii, 24. He died the just for the unjust, giving his own life a ransom for many. 1 Pet. iii, 18; Matt. xx, 28. God can now be just and yet justify him that believeth in Jesus. Rom. iii, 25, 26. Thus Christ lived our example and died our sacrifice.
Did this work of the Messiah, in rendering perfect obedience to all the law of God, and then offering up himself as a ransom for its transgressors, weaken that law, or lessen our obligation to obey it? Never. It shows in the most striking light, its perpetuity and immutability. The law of God condemned our race. Jehovah would open the way for man's salvation. He could not destroy his own moral law; but he could give his own beloved and only Son to die for its transgressors. This evinces the estimate which the Father placed upon his own law. Isaiah predicted that Christ should magnify the law, and make it honorable. Isa. xlii, 21. The record of Christ's life and death shows the fulfillment of this prediction.
But Christ adds a solemn affirmation. "For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. What is a jot and a tittle? A jot is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. A tittle is a small point by which some of those letters are distinguished from others. Our Lord therefore solemnly affirms that the minutest point shall not pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Then it is certain that a part will not be destroyed and the remainder of the law be left in force. Consequently as long as a part of the original precepts continues all of them abide without one jot or tittle being destroyed. Further than this, Christ has plainly marked the point of time before which no part of the law of God shall pass, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Has heaven and earth passed away? Let those answer who teach the abolition of the law of God. When will heaven and earth pass? Let the beloved disciple answer: "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them." If the fulfillment of the law of God destroys it, that destruction cannot take place before the final conflagration of the heavens and the earth. 2 Pet. iii. Prior to that time the minutest point shall not be destroyed. If therefore one jot or one tittle shall on no account pass from the law, till all be fulfilled; and if the point before which this shall not be accomplished is the passing of the heavens and the earth, it follows that the Lord Jesus not only designed that the law should be fulfilled by himself for the brief period of his sojourn on earth, but also, that the righteousness of the law should be fulfilled in his church; or as Whiting renders Rom. viii, 4, "that the precept of the law might be fulfilled by us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." The next verse establishes this view.
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do, and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Let us carefully consider this verse. The word "whosoever" takes up all persons through all coming time. The word "therefore" shows that this verse is the conclusion drawn from the premises which the Saviour had just laid down, which were these: 1. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law." 2. "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." As not a single particle of this holy law was to be destroyed, it was fitting that the Lord Jesus should speak with distinctness respecting its observance and its violation. This is what he now utters.
"Shall break one of these least commandments." Then we have here the opposite of fulfilling the law; viz., the breaking of the commandments. We may also learn that the law in verses 17, 18, means the commandments.
"One of these least." Christ had said that not one jot or one tittle should pass from the law till all be fulfilled, so that there could be no excuse for those who teach that a part of the law has been destroyed, and that the remainder is yet in force. But Christ did not leave the subject thus. He now tells what shall be the fate of those who violate the least of the commandments. Those who select nine of them, and omit one of the commandments, which they think not worth their notice, are the very persons that Christ here reproves.
"And shall teach men so." Who are they that teach men to violate the commandments? Those who teach men that they have all been abolished go far beyond the crime that Christ has here noted. The Saviour spoke of those who should violate the least one. Some at the present day teach men that all of them are abolished. This is the grand and effectual method to teach men to violate the law of God. But those who make any one of the commandments void, that they may keep in its place a tradition of the elders, are doing exactly the work that our Lord has here solemnly warned men against.
"He shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven," or, as Campbell renders, "shall be of no esteem in the reign of heaven." This is, doubtless, the idea of the Saviour. This is the penalty of a violation of the least precept of the law of God. But how much more fearful must it be to break the commandments and to teach men that they have all been abolished!
"But whosoever shall do and teach them." Here we may learn what it is to fulfill the law of God. It is to do and to teach the commandments. "The same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Or, as rendered by Campbell, "shall be highly esteemed in the reign of heaven." Here is the ample commission; here is the vast reward of those who teach and keep the commandments of God. Surely, no man ever enjoined obedience to the law of God with such force as did our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us hear his words again:—
"But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded saying, Honor thy father and mother; and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." Matt. xv, 3-6.
These words disclose to us the sacredness of God's commandments in the mind of the Lord Jesus. He did not deny that he violated the traditions of the Jews, but he boldly arraigned their traditions, and condemned them as worthless in the sight of God. And not only as worthless, but also as sinful, inasmuch as they contradict and make void the commandments of God. The tradition in question was very venerable with the Jews, inasmuch as they supposed that it had been handed down from Moses; thus being equally ancient and sacred in their estimation with the commandment which it so effectually made void. On such authority the Jews thought themselves fully justified in an open violation of the fifth commandment. Nay, they even supposed that the observance of this tradition was more acceptable to God than the observance of the commandment itself.
At the present time we have a case precisely parallel. The professed church of this day hold a tradition which they say came from Christ and his apostles. On the authority of this tradition they suppose that they are amply justified in violating the fourth commandment. Like the Jews they even think that they are serving God more acceptably by keeping a tradition that contradicts his commandment, than they would be in keeping the commandment itself. The rebuke which Christ applied to the Jews, falls with all its force upon the heads of such: "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Verses 6-9.
"And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Matt. xix, 16-19.
Let us carefully consider these words of our Lord. The young man came to him with the most important question that he could ask. The Saviour returned to him the most simple, direct and appropriate answer. Jesus said to him, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." The young man, who, it is evident from the narrative, thought himself already observing them all, asked Jesus, Which? In answer, Jesus quotes from the second table, five of the ten commandments; and to this list he adds the second of the two great commandments on which hang all the rest. It is often said by our opponents that if we would name only those precepts which our Lord enjoined upon the young man, they would be happy to agree with us; that Christ did not name the fourth commandment, which is not therefore obligatory upon us. We reply that the fourth commandment is no more omitted than is the first, the second, the third, and the tenth, and also the first of the two great commandments on which hang all the rest! Does any one believe that the young man might violate all these and yet enter life eternal?
There can be but one of two positions taken with respect to this text: 1. When the Saviour said, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments," he named all the commandments which the young man should keep; or 2. When the Saviour said, "keep the commandments," he enjoined obedience to them all, and then in answer to the young man's inquiry, pointed him to the precepts of the second table, namely, his duty to his fellow-men, as that in which he was most deficient.
If the first position be correct, it follows that the young man could enter into life in the character of an idolater, a blasphemer, a Sabbath-breaker, and with an heart full of covetousness; for our Lord omitted to specify any of those precepts which define our duty to God, and he also omitted the tenth commandment: "Thou shalt not covet." This position needs no refutation, and we turn from it to the other.
That the second position is correct, namely, that Christ enjoined obedience to all the commandments, and then in answer to the young man's request, pointed him to the second table, and to the second of the two great commandments—his duty to his fellow-men—the following facts plainly evince:—
1. This is exactly what is recorded in the text. 2. The view that Christ specified all the precepts which the young man should observe has been shown to be false and unreasonable. 3. When the young man insisted that he was blameless in regard to his duty to his fellow men, our Lord applied a test to him which undeceived him at once. 4. When Christ said, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments," he spoke in harmony with his own words in Matt. v, 17-19. There he had declared that not even the minutest particle should pass from the commandments till the heavens and the earth should flee away, and that whosoever should violate one of the least of them, should be of no esteem in the reign of heaven. Then, our Lord being allowed to explain his own words, it follows that to keep the commandments, is to observe every one of them; and that the wilful violator of the least one, shall have no part in the kingdom of God. And the apostle James, as we shall hereafter see, establishes in the clearest manner the fact that whoever understandingly violates one of the ten commandments is guilty of breaking them all. What will those say to this who affirm that the young man could keep the commandments, and yet violate every one that defines our duty to God the great Law-giver?
"Then one of them which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt. xxii, 35-40.
Many mistake the question here proposed to Jesus, and read this text as though the lawyer had said, Master what is the great commandment which you will give to take the place of the ten commandments? The question was not asked on that wise; and those who present this scripture as evidence that Christ gave a new code to take the place of his Father's law, labor under a serious mistake. The question related to the original law of God; what is the great commandment in that?
Christ answered this question by pointing out the two great immutable first principles on which hang all the law and the prophets: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." This is the sum of our duty to God; on this hang all those precepts which define our duty to him. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." On this precept hang all those commandments which contain our duty to our fellow men. This is the sum of them, and out of this they all grow.3
The Saviour did not abolish the law of his Father by these two precepts; for they were as ancient as any part of the law of God. Deut. vi, 5; Lev. xix, 18. He did not then hang the law and the prophets upon them; for they had ever hung there; nor did Christ teach that on these two precepts all the law and the prophets were abolished. Nay, he showed by this the immutable basis on which the law of Jehovah rests. These two great precepts are, as all admit, unabolished. And the law of God which hangs upon them is like them, immutable, and must abide as long as they endure.
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke xvi, 17. Then it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one of the commandments of God. How hard then must it be for every precept of the law of God to be abolished and a new law of God enacted to take its place. Easier could heaven and earth be destroyed and new heavens and a new earth be created! Should God abolish his great constitution and establish another in its stead, that event would not only be marked as distinctly as the establishment of the original constitution by himself at Sinai, in person, but it would present even a more extraordinary spectacle than for heaven and earth to flee from the presence of him that sits upon the throne!
It is an important fact that our Lord in presenting portions of the law of God, always brought them forward as such; that is, he appealed to the law of his Father, as a living authority, and quoted from it, not as giving authority to what he quoted, but presenting these quotations as the authority for his statements. This fact evinces that Christ was not engaged in re-enacting a part of his Father's law as some are ready to affirm. Our Lord did not act in the capacity of legislator with his Father's law. He was its expositor; and as such he laid open its length and breadth and spirituality. Even the golden rule, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them," our Saviour bases on the fact that this was the law and the prophets. Matt. vii, 12. So that this most admirable saying was not given to take the place of the law of God and the prophets, but as a precious truth resting on their authority.
The scriptures which we have quoted must suffice to show the nature of Christ's teachings respecting the law of God. It shows that by his teaching he did not abolish the commandments of God. It also evinces that Christ not only taught that it was easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail, but that he taught, until heaven and earth pass a single tittle shall not pass from the law of God; and that whosoever would enter into everlasting life must keep the commandments of God, even the least of them. We will now consider the second question.
(To be Continued.)
Leading Doctrines Taught by the Review.
By Editor
The Bible, and the Bible alone, the rule of faith and duty.
The Law of God, as taught in the Old and New Testaments, unchangeable.
The Personal Advent of Christ and the Resurrection of the Just, before the Millennium.
The Earth restored to its Eden perfection and glory, the final Inheritance of the Saints.
Immortality alone through Christ, to be given to the Saints at the Resurrection.
'TIS ALL FOR THE BEST.
By Annie R. Smith
BY ANNIE R. SMITH.
"All things work together for good to them that love God"
THROUGH this dark "valley of conflict" and sin,
Trials without and temptations within,
Onward to glory, still urge thy lone way,
Joyful in hope of the long-promised day.
In every danger thou hast a sure guide;
To every cloud there is yet a bright side;
Falter then not at the sternest behest,
Ever remember—'tis all for the best!
Just as the eagle in teaching to fly,
Forceth her young from their covert so high;
Then if strength faileth, beneath them she flies,
On her wings beareth them safe to the skies;
So will the arm of Jehovah uphold;
In each affliction his mercies unfold;
Murmur then not that "he stirreth thy nest,"
Ever remember—'tis all for the best!
Never of Providence dare to complain;
Sunshine and storm both must ripen the grain;
Tried is the gold that the purest will shine;
Crushed is the vintage that yieldeth the wine.
He who the end from beginning can tell,
Works for thy good; for he doeth all well:
This that prepares for the mansions of rest—
Ever remember—'tis all for the best!
THIRD DISCOURSE ON THE SABBATH.
By Seth Williston
EXTRACT FROM SETH WILLISTON—1813.
LET us now search the New Testament scriptures, that we may see what they testify of the weekly Sabbath. Some have thought, the New Testament has done away the Sabbath; so that now one day is no more holy than another. Let us candidly hear its testimony, and then judge.
The three first evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, do in many instances record the same things. I shall examine their record concerning the Sabbath, as nearly as I can, according to the order of time, instead of being governed by the order in which the records are placed in the Bible. In pursuance of this method, the first passage which presents itself is Luke iv, 16. "And he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read."
On this passage we are led to remark:
1. There was a Sabbath-day in the time of Christ.
2. That it was common at that time to have meetings on the Sabbath, for religious purposes; especially for getting instruction out of the Scriptures.
3. We also learn from this portion of scripture, that Christ made a stated practice of attending these religious meetings on the Sabbath-day. We are not only informed, that he went into the synagogue, (or meeting-house,) on a certain Sabbath-day, but that it was his custom so to do. See also Luke xiii, 10; Mark i, 21; vi, 2. From this scripture, and from the other parts of the history of our Lord, we have reason to conclude, that from his early childhood, it was his custom to attend upon the worship and instruction of the synagogue, every Sabbath-day. So far, we have evidence in favor of a strict and constant sanctification of the holy Sabbath by our blessed Lord. A constant attendance on public worship, is one of the ways that the people of God manifest their regard to the Sabbath. If we would make Jesus Christ our pattern, (and we cannot have a better,) we must attend public worship, not once a month, or now and then; but it must be our custom to attend from Sabbath to Sabbath. Let me add, though it must be our custom to attend, yet we must not attend from custom, but from regard to God.
The next passage in order, which relates to the subject before us, is concerning the disciples of Christ plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath-day. This is recorded.
Matt. xii, 1-8. "At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath-day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered; and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat, &c."
Let it be noted, 1. That the complaint brought against the disciples was not for theft, because it was written, [Deut. xxiii, 25,] "When thou comest into the standing-corn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor's standing-corn." The complaint was for breach of the Sabbath, for doing "that which was not lawful to do upon the Sabbath-day."
2. Let it be noted, that Jesus, in clearing his disciples from the charge of doing that which was not lawful to be done on the Sabbath-day, never pretended that the command, enjoining the sanctification of the Sabbath, was repealed, or altered. If Jesus had considered this commandment as no longer binding, it would have been perfectly in point to have said so. But he answered the accusers, 1st. By referring them to the case of David, who in a time of extreme urgency, satisfied his hunger with the shew-bread, which God had separated to the use of the priests alone. Christ justified the conduct of David in this extreme case, without designing to find the least fault with the law, which prohibited any but the priests from eating the shew-bread. 2d. Christ answered these accusers by saying, "Have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath-days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?" i.e., the priests and Levites were obliged to perform considerable labor in killing the sacrifices which were to be offered on the Sabbath-days. And yet, as these sacrifices were divinely appointed, the labor must be performed. It is called profaning the Sabbath, not because it was wrong, but because it was such kind of labor as was performed on other days, and would have profaned the Sabbath, if it had not been enjoined, or necessary. 3d. Christ answered those who accused his disciples of profaning the Sabbath because that on this day they rubbed out a few ears of corn to satisfy their hunger, by referring to Hos. vi, 6, where the Lord says, "I desired mercy and not sacrifice." God had appointed sacrifices, but he hated robbery for burnt offerings: even if it was robbing the poor of those alms, which they needed to sustain life. He had appointed the sanctification of the Sabbath, but he allowed us out of this day a sufficiency of time to take our stated meals.
Mark and Luke both give us an account of the Pharisees' accusing the disciples of profaning the Sabbath, because they plucked the ears of corn. Mark, in his account of it, relates one thing which our Saviour said in his answer to the Pharisees, which is omitted by Matthew. It is contained in the second chapter of his gospel, 27th verse: "And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath."
Here let us observe, 1. That the Lord of the Sabbath tells us that there was a Sabbath made. We have heretofore seen when the Sabbath was made, even as soon as the heavens and earth and all their host were finished. We have also seen, that the Sabbath which was then made was renewedly enjoined by one of the ten commandments. We have also seen by recurring to a number of inspired records, what things were forbidden to be done on that day, and how the hours must be spent to please God. Now this very Sabbath, instituted by the Creator, written with his own finger on one of the tables of stone, and guarded by many promises and threatenings, was the Sabbath which our Saviour must have meant.
2. We observe, that this Sabbath was made for man,—not only for man to obey; but it was also made for the benefit of man. What is the inference from this? Is this the inference, "Then man may use the Sabbath as he pleases?" As well might it be inferred, that because Christ died for sinners, to do them an infinite favor, therefore they may treat him as they please. If sinners would have the death of Christ prove a blessing to them, they must receive him as he is freely offered to them in the gospel. So, if the children of men would have the Sabbath, which was made for them, prove a real benefit to them, they must keep it according to the commandment; they must make it a holy, and not a common day. Yet it was natural to infer, that since the Sabbath was made for man, and was not made a fasting day, that man might satisfy his hunger in such a way as the disciples did, without being considered as treading under foot "the holy of the Lord."
The great latitude which some have taken from this declaration of our Saviour, is very unreasonable. The Saviour evidently recognized the command obliging us to hallow the Sabbath-day, nor did he say anything to encourage a loose explication of the command. When he said that, "man was not made for the Sabbath," he did not mean to throw the reins on our necks, and tell us that we were made to live unto ourselves, and do with the Sabbath as we pleased. We were made to glorify God. This is our duty, and in doing this, we shall find the favor of God, which is life. God is glorified by a conscientious observance of his holy day; and not only so, but those who thus observe it, are blessed in it, and greatly furthered in their way to glory. *
Luke xxiii, 55, 56. "And the women also which came from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid, and they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment."
1. It is worthy of observation that these women who came from Galilee, from all the account which we have of them, were among the choicest disciples which Jesus had. From the eighth chapter of this gospel we learn, that they ministered to him of their substance. They followed him to the cross, and to the sepulchre. They prepared spices and ointments to perfume his dead body; and on the first day of the week, they came early to perform what they supposed would be the last kind office to him whom they loved. These women had all of them sat at the feet of Jesus, and heard his word. They had deeply drunk of his Spirit. By following him from place to place, they had opportunity to become acquainted with his practice, as well as with his doctrine.
2. It is worthy of observation that these holy women rested the Sabbath-day, according to the commandment. It is not said that they rested according to the tradition of the elders, the sentiment of Pharisees, or the superstition of the Jews; but that they rested according to the commandment. From this we may safely conclude, that Jesus Christ taught his followers, both by precept and example, to keep the Sabbath-day as an holy rest.
3. It may be worth noticing when this Sabbath was, on which these Christian women rested according to the commandment. It was after Christ came into the world. It was after he had gone through with his public ministry, and expired on the cross. Even then, his most devoted friends kept the Sabbath, according to the commandment. If the Sabbath outlived the life of Christ upon earth, then all which is drawn from the example of Christ, or of his disciples, while he was yet with them, to do away the obligation of sanctifying the Sabbath, is of no force.
Acts i, 2. "Then returned they unto Jerusalem, from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath-day's journey."
1. It may be proper to ascertain the distance of mount Olivet from Jerusalem. By turning to Zech. xiv, 3, you will see that it is contiguous to Jerusalem: "And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east." By comparing the passage which is now under consideration, with Luke xxiv, 50, we learn that Bethany was on mount Olivet; and from John xi, 18, we learn that Bethany was about fifteen furlongs off from Jerusalem. Fifteen furlongs are a little less than two miles. It was not therefore to exceed two miles from mount Olivet to Jerusalem.
2. It may be proper to inquire why this distance is expressed by a Sabbath-day's journey. Let it be remembered, that the Holy Spirit had a reason for directing the writer to this particular mode of expression in telling the distance from the mount of Olives to Jerusalem. By this we are taught that a "Sabbath-day's journey" is not more than two miles. And this is as much as to tell us, that it is no day to pursue journeys on secular business; for those who are pursuing such journeys, would not think of moving forward, for the sake of getting two miles on their way.4
But pursuing journeys of business or of pleasure and without restraint, not only pollutes the Sabbath, but is among the things which in our land greatly pollute it. It would appear worse than laboring in the field, if it were not sanctioned by the practice of so many. It is as much our work as labor in the field. The traveler interrupts more people in their sanctification of holy time, and places his bad example before a greater number of observers, than the man who labors in the field.
If to all this it should be replied, "It is a general practice, and therefore ought to be tolerated," let me beg of you to read Ex. xxiii, 2: "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." The greater the number who are in this practice, and the more the custom has become, as it were, a law, the more alarm ought to be excited. When the most evident transgressions of God's law are sanctioned by general custom, then may we expect to hear the holy One of Israel say, "Shall not I visit for these things, and shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?"
Vermont Tent.
By Editor
THE brethren in Vermont have found it difficult to get access to the people, especially in the busy season. Meeting-houses and many school-houses have been closed against them. They therefore concluded to obtain a Tent for the accommodation of those who might wish to hear the reasons of our faith and hope. "He that hath an ear, let him hear;" but how can they hear without a preacher, and a suitable place to assemble?
The present prospect is, that this effort will prove a blessing to the cause. Thousands will have a chance to hear, whether they are benefited or not, who would not come within the sound of the voice of truth, were it not for attending a Tent Meeting. But we have the best of reasons to expect that conviction will fasten upon the hearts of many, that will follow them till they embrace the truth.
We had the pleasure of attending their first Tent Meeting at Waitsfield. The circumstances were most unfavorable, it being the first attempt, in the midst of the haying season. There was quite a collection of believers on the Sabbath, and on First-day about 500 assembled to hear the word. It was indeed a free place to speak, and we judge that many present were satisfied that we had the truth, on the Sabbath question at least. Several preaching brethren were present, and took part in the services of the meeting.
We also attended the Tent Meetings at Sutton and Stowe. Social meetings were interesting. On First-day about 600 assembled at Sutton, and 400 at Stowe. The people gave the best attention to the word preached. Bro. J. Hart who goes with the Tent, has taken much responsibility and labor upon himself; but it will be a pleasure to all true believers to help him bear this burden.