It is of great importance that it should be distinctly seen that the Bible contains two laws which are styled the "law of God," and the "law of Moses." Those who teach the abolition of the Holy Sabbath find it very convenient for their position to confound these two distinct laws in one, so that they may apply to the commandments of God those expressions of the apostle Paul, where he speaks of the law of Moses, as in Gal. v, 4. "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."
Now if our opponents can make it appear that there is but one law, that the ten holy commandments spoken by the Almighty and engraven in the tables of the covenant with his own finger, and that law of "carnal ordinances" which Moses wrote in a book, called the book of the covenant, were but one law, which was abolished at the cross, then they can easily convince those who look to them for light and truth that the commandments are done away, therefore the Sabbath is not binding. But let it be clearly proved that there are two distinct laws, one the law of Moses, a typical law, which finds its body or antitype in the "good things" connected with the gospel, the other the law of God, not typical but a law of commandments, of holy principles, which are as immutable as Jehovah who descended in flaming fire upon the smoking mount to declare them with an audible voice to his chosen people, then it will be seen that the ten commandments, with all their importance and force, reach on through all time; therefore the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is a Christian duty. Here we will give the remarks of Bro. E. D. Cook on this subject, and the "answer" by J. B. C., which we copy from the 'Advent Harbinger' of June 7, 1851.
"I find something written by J. B. Cook, objectionable. Vol. i, No. 14, Sept. 22, 1849. Now, will Bro. Cook contend that there is but one law, when it is evident from Scripture that there are two laws: that is, the law of God, written with the finger of God on two tables of stone, Exod. xxxi. 18; Deut. v. 22, and the law of Moses, written by Moses in a book, Deut. xxx. 10; xxxi. 24-26, for the observance of the children of Israel, which was the schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. Bro. Cook is requested to read Gal. v. 4; iii., and 2 Cor. iii., all of which, except the last, is the law of Moses, and the last leaves something more glorious than that which is abolished.
Again, Bro. H. P. Crozier's reply to Bro. Pease. His whole argument against Bro. Pease is from the law, which I think no man doubts but that it was nailed to the Cross.
It now remains to get the truth upon this question. If there is no law binding except what is binding on us by the apostles, then no one can decide the point by the New Testament: but if there are two laws, though the one was nailed to the Cross the other is binding on us. I ask for light on this point. Also, for light on Rev. xiv. 9. (As time rolls on it will come out on Revelation.) But to make up our minds that the 4th commandment in the law of God is abolished, is giving toleration to observing no day. For the first day is not commanded in the New Testament as I can find."
ANSWER.
As to the two distinct laws, of which my respected brother speaks, I have heard it spoken of before. But were it so, it would have been easy for the Holy Ghost to have made it plain. Every great doctrine is plainly stated; but this so far as I could understand, was only inferred by those near me, who wished to make out their case. The usual apostolic phraseology is, 'The law'—not the 'two laws'—not laws—not the law of Moses and the law of God. No, Paul, speaking by the Holy Ghost, says, 'The law.' Rom. iii. 31 : Gal. ii. 16; v. 4; Heb. vii.; viii.; ix.
But on this point I will not 'contend.' I know that God wrote the law on two tables of stone—that Moses wrote a book by inspiration of God, &c. Now if this means that there were 'two laws,' very well. I know that Jesus speaks of 'the law of Moses; the prophets and the Psalms.' I have been accustomed to believe that this term 'law' embraced the Pentateuch—the five books of Moses. If so, and these books of Moses embrace 'the whole law,' given by God to Israel through Moses, then the doctrine of two laws is not sustained. It is God's one law given by Moses. It seems that the law 'written and engraven on stones' is spoken of, 2 Cor. iii., in utter contrariety to our brother's idea. But after stating these facts—after looking over my letter, Sept. '49, I need only add, that I cherish the sweet spirit of the Sabbath. I believe that God gave it in type—then further I believe that we shall have the antitype, in 'the Age to come.' This was confessed in my letter which called forth the above comment.
'The law was a shadow of heavenly things.' All the tabernacle was 'made according to the pattern shown to Moses, in the mount.' The antitypical High Priest must come out from 'within the vail'—gather 'his royal priesthood,' and 'restore the tabernacle of David'; then, we shall witness 'in mount Zion and in Jerusalem' the proper antitype of all those ancient types."
The "answer" of J. B. C. does not satisfy us, and we presume that it does not convince Bro. E. D. Cook, or any one that has searched the Scriptures on this point, that there is but one law, and consequently that the ten commandments are a part of that one law that died at the cross. There are many serious objections to this view. We will here point out some of them.
1. It is not possible to harmonize the testimony of St. Paul with this view, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God," says the Apostle, "but the doers of the law shall be justified." Rom. ii, 13. The epistle to the Romans was written A. D. 60. This was 29 years after the abolition of the law of "ordinances" at the cross. Two years before this, which was A. D. 58, Paul wrote to his Galatian brethren as follows: "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Gal. v, 3, 4.
To assert that the apostle refers to but one and the same law in both of these texts, virtually charges him with contradicting his own testimony. He testified to the Galatians that they were debtors to do the whole law if they did a part of it, and in so doing they would fall from grace. Wretched condition indeed. Two years after this he testified to the Romans that the "DOERS OF THE LAW SHALL BE JUSTIFIED." Will those who teach that there is but one law look at this testimony. Here we would say that those who will examine will find that Paul is speaking of the ten commandments, the law of God, in Rom. ii, 13. The doers of that law "shall be justified." It may also be seen that he is speaking of the ordinances of the Jewish church in Gal. v, 3, 4, for he introduces the subject with circumcision. Those who turned away from the faith of Christ, to those ordinances that had been dead 27 years, would fall from grace.
2. If there is but one law including the ten commandments, and if by doing that law, or a part of it, we fall from grace, then he that dares to observe the Sabbath, or the other nine commandments will fall from grace. And he that observes all or either of the ten commandments, is "a debtor to do the whole" ceremonial law of Moses. If there is but one law including the ten commandments, then the whole or none of it should be observed. But to observe the whole5would be rejecting Christ, and to neglect the whole would be doing worse than the heathen.
But it may be said that the whole law was abolished, and then nine of the precepts of the decalogue were incorporated into the New Testament. Admitting this to be so, their nature is not changed; they are still a portion of the law, whether in the Old or New Testament, and to observe either of them would bring one under condemnation, if there is but one law. But the view that God abolished all the precepts of the decalogue at the cross, and at the same moment re-enacted nine of them by the same means that abolished the whole law—all this to get rid of the Sabbath, is a monstrous absurdity. We agree with J. B. C. that "every great doctrine is plainly stated;" but the doctrine that nine of the commandments were re-enacted at the cross, at the very time that all ten were abolished, is not hinted at in the New Testament.
3. It is not possible to conceive how the Apostle could speak of the law, as he did to the Romans 29 years after the cross, if there is but one law, and that law died at the cross.
"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: . . . For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. . . . Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Rom. vii, 7—12. The Apostle further adds in the same chapter: "For we know that the law is spiritual." "For I delight in the law of God, through the inward man." "I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God."
Paul is not speaking of a part of the law, but of the law—a whole law. If there is but one law, including the precepts of the decalogue, and that died at the cross, then it was a dead law that convicted Paul, of which he speaks in such high terms. And this one law theory virtually charges the great Apostle with the folly of calling a law spiritual, holy, just and good, that had been dead 29 years; also of delighting in and serving it. We know that Paul was not speaking thus of a dead law, but of one that was living, one that convicted him of sin after the law of Moses was abolished.—This could be no other than the ten commandments. These are some of the absurdities of the view that there is but one law. The scripture view that there are two laws is free from all such inconsistencies. With this view a harmony may be seen throughout both Testaments.
It is true that "every great doctrine is plainly stated;" plain enough for those who wish to follow the truth, though it may lead them to go "without the camp," bearing the reproach of Christ; but unbelief can always find a handle to lay hold of. Many rejected definite time, because the definite year for the Second Advent was not in so many words revealed. The same spirit of unbelief will lead men to reject the doctrine of two distinct laws, because the words "two laws," or "laws" is not used.
We will now state some important facts relative to the two laws, recorded in the Old Testament. First, God spake the ten commandments to Israel with an audible voice, and with his finger wrote them in the tables of stone. He did not thus speak and write only the words of the ten precepts of the decalogue. "These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice; and he ADDED NO MORE: and he wrote them in two tables of stone." Deut. v, 22. Second, the ten commandments are called "a law," and not a part of the law, as would be proper if they were only a part of the law of Moses. "And the Lord said unto Moses, come up to me into the mount, and be there; and I will give thee tables of stone, and A LAW and commandments which I have written, that thou mayest teach them." Ex. xxiv, 12. Third, this law of commandments God calls "his covenant." "And he declared unto you HIS COVENANT which he commanded you to perform, EVEN TEN COMMANDMENTS, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Deut. iv, 13.—"And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Ex. xxxiv, 28. If there is but one law, and the ten commandments are only a part of that law, then the Omniscient Law-giver has certainly incorrectly called the ten commandments "His Covenant." In fact according to the one-law theory, they are but a very small part of "his covenant." But the truth is correctly stated, and plainly revealed, and the incorrect theory of only one law must fall before the word of God.
The tables of stone in which the Almighty engraved the ten commandments only, are called the "tables of the covenant." Said Moses, "the Lord gave me the two tables of stone, EVEN THE TABLES OF THE COVENANT."
See Deut. ix, 9—11; v, 22. They were not the tables of only a very small portion of the covenant; but they were the tables of the covenant. They contained a complete and entire covenant, and that covenant is the holy "law of God," which is perfectly adapted to the wants of mankind in their mortal state throughout every dispensation.
The ark of the covenant was made purposely to contain the tables of stone in which was written the law of God. "And thou shalt put the mercy-seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee." Ex. xxv, 21. "There was nothing in the ark, save the two tables of stone that Moses put there at Horeb." 1 Kings, viii, 9. It was called the ark of the covenant because it was made purposely for, and contained an entire covenant, even the ten commandments.
The typical law of Moses was written by the hand of Moses in a book, and that book was called the book of the covenant. "And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a BOOK of the law of the Lord, given by the hand (margin) of Moses." 2 Chron. xxxiv, 14. "And he read in their ears all the words of the BOOK OF THE COVENANT." Verse 30. See Deut. xxxi, 4—11, 24—26; 2 Kings, xxiii, 21; Neh. viii, 1—3; Heb. x, 7; Gal. iii, 10; Mark. xii, 26.
God has made the distinction between the two laws very plain. One he spake to the people, and wrote himself; the other he gave to Moses as he communed with him forty days, and intrusted him to write. One was engraven in the tables of stone, which were called the tables of the covenant; the other was written in a book, called the book of the covenant. These were not portions of a covenant, or of the law; but they were two entire distinct covenants, or laws.—Jehovah would not trust man to write his immutable covenant; therefore with his own finger he engraved the ten commandments in the tables of stone to make them sure, and to impress us with their perpetuity. The law of ordinances which was given to the Jews for a limited period, Moses wrote in a book; and when Paul speaks of "blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances," &c. he can refer only to those ordinances of the Jewish church written in the book of the covenant by the hand of Moses. That which is written in a book may be blotted out; but it is not possible to blot out engraving in stone.
Again, the special honor that God has bestowed on "his covenant" shows that it is distinct from that law of "carnal ordinances." An ark of shittim-wood was made on purpose to contain it, and that ark must be overlaid with pure gold within and without, and have a crown of gold round about it. The place for this ark was the "holiest of all," the holiest place on earth. Before the ark containing the law of God the river Jordan parted, and the waters rolled up and stood still, while Israel passed down through the bed of the river. The walls of Jericho also fell down before it, and for looking into this ark, and gazing upon God’s ten immutable laws fifty thousand and seventy of the men of Beth-shemesh were slain.
The New Testament shows the distinction between the two laws. Christ speaks of the "book of Moses," [Mark. xii, 26,] and the "law of Moses," [Luke xxiv, 44,] and Paul mentions the "book of the law," [Gal. iii, 10,] and the "volume of the book," [Heb. x, 7,] when speaking of the same law. This law was abolished and destroyed at the cross; but there was a law that Christ declares that he did not come to destroy and adds that "till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law." Mat. v, 17—19. Paul, speaking of the same remaining law, 20 years after the abolition of Moses’ law, says, "For I delight in the LAW OF GOD."
Says J. B. C., "I know that God wrote the law on two tables of stone," and in the same paragraph he adds, "I have been accustomed to believe that this term 'law' embraced the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses." Now will J. B. C. argue that there is but one law, and then tell us that "this term law," embraces the five books of Moses? If so, then how could he assert that he knows that "God wrote the law [five books of Moses] on two tables of stone?" If there is but one law, then the term law embraces the whole of that one law. We know that only the ten commandments were written on the tables of the covenant, [Deut. v, 22,] and God calls them, "a law." Ex. xxiv, 12.
We really never supposed that the book of the law of Moses included the history of the creation, flood, &c., found in the book of Genesis. We see no reason why the term law, in any sense, should include this first book of the Bible. The book of the law included the law of the Jewish nation, the law of Moses. Much of the Pentateuch is the history of important events, such as the creation, flood, the plagues of Egypt, &c., and the giving of the law of the Jewish nation, which Moses wrote in a book, and the wonderful display of the power and glory of God, when he uttered his ten immutable commandments.
We are at a loss to see how a man can "cherish the sweet spirit of the Sabbath," as J. B. C. says that he does, and at the same time desecrate it every week, and teach that the fourth commandment is abolished! God "blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it" at creation. Jesus said that it was made for man. And those only who observe it, cherish the hallowed, "sweet spirit" of God’s sanctified day. Those only who cherish the true spirit of the Sabbath, who imitate the example of the holy followers of Jesus, the day following the crucifixion, when the law of Moses was abolished. "They rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment." "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath," says the prophet, "from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth." Isa. lviii, 13, 14. Such, praise the Lord, possess and cherish the sweet spirit of the Sabbath.
The thief may extol, and profess to admire, the law of theft while in the practice of stealing; so may the Sabbath-breaker talk of the "sweet spirit of the Sabbath," while his feet are treading down the fourth commandment. But those who turn away their feet from treading down the Sabbath, and keep it according to divine direction, will have its sweet spirit, and "ride upon the high places of the earth."
The law of God is not a typical law. Those ten commandments are all of the same nature and duration. None of them are types. We are aware that many cling to the tradition that the Sabbath is a type of the seventh thousand years; but we have seen no bible proof on this point. Says J. B. C., speaking of the Sabbath, "I believe that God gave it in type." We ask for bible proof. If it can be produced then we will believe also. But admitting the Sabbath to be a shadow, and the seventh thousand years, or the age to come, the body, then certainly it would seem very natural to have the shadow or type reach to the body or antitype. But if there is no Sabbath, and if the shadow ceased at the cross, then there is a blank space of more than 1800 years between the shadow and the body. The law of Moses was a typical law, which reached to the gospel. Says Paul, "the law having a shadow of good things to come." The law of Moses, as a whole, was the shadow, and the gospel with all the good things of the better covenant connected, is the body.—The shadow of a tree, or monument holds good until the body is reached; therefore if the Sabbath is a shadow of the age to come, it did not break off at the cross; but was to extend with all its force and blessing to the Second Advent. But as the weekly Sabbath extends, and is to be observed, to all eternity in the new earth, it has no body in which it is to be lost, as is the case with shadows.
"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord." Isa. lxvi, 22, 23. We can have no idea of an eternal shadow. The Sabbath was instituted in Eden, before the fall, when man was holy, and certainly fallen man needs it now more than then. And in the new heavens and new earth we see it observed to all eternity. Then it will be seen and kept in its Eden purity. All flesh will then reverence this institution of Jehovah, which has never been the case since Isaiah uttered this prophecy, and never will be, until the voice of the Son of God calls forth the righteous seed that sleeps in Christ, and changes the righteous living. When that holy throng shall be led forth in immortal glory to view the work of God in its perfection, there will be no discord. No, "all flesh" will bow in sweet submission to the law of God, and keep his Holy Sabbath.
We would call the attention of the reader to the remarks of J. B. C. that "the proper antitype of all those ancient types" is to be witnessed "in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem," after our High Priest comes out from within the vail. The Bible sets forth the Sanctuary in Heaven, as the proper and only antitype of the Jewish Sanctuary; the great Sacrifice on Calvary, as the antitype of the beasts slain under the law of Moses; and the priesthood of Christ, as the only antitype of the Jewish priesthood. Paul did not mean that the "good things," of which the law was a shadow, had not then come when he says, "the law having a shadow of good things to come;" for he taught that the antitype was then being realized. He could only mean that the law contained a shadow of the good things of the new covenant, which were to come as soon as the old covenant ceased.
Wakefield’s translation of Col. ii, 16, 17, gives the true idea more clearly. "Let no one therefore, call you to an account about meat and drink, or with respect to a festival, or a new moon, or sabbaths; which are a shadow of what WAS TO COME." The Jewish festivals, new moon and sabbaths, with all the ordinances of the law of Moses, were but a shadow of what was to come, when they should cease at the cross.6
We cannot close without warning the reader to beware of those fanciful and fanatic views, which wrest the Scriptures of truth from their true and simple meaning, and carry away in the future age those things indispensable to our present salvation. May God bless these remarks to the benefit of his humble children. Amen.
LETTERS.
By Joseph Bates
(From Bro. Bates.)
DEAR BRO. WHITE: After parting with you and sister White at the Western depot in Boston, I proceeded to Bro. Leonard Hastings', (New Ipswich, N. H.) where we had a profitable and interesting protracted meeting on the Sabbath and first day, (June 14th and 15th.) Some of our brethren from adjacent towns met with us. Parents and children seemed anxious to learn, and obey the present truth.
June 16, Bro. Hastings and myself started for Bennington, where we found several other brethren hungry for the present message. They are so seldom visited by the Messengers that the truth seemed to do them much good. May the Lord bless and strengthen them for the conflict that lies in their pathway.
Bro. L. Martin and myself started for East Lemster the 17th. Spent the night with Bro. S. Smith's family. Bro. John Andrews and myself started for Newhaven, Vt., the 18th, to attend a conference which was held in a schoolhouse near Bro. E. Everts, on the Sabbath and first day, (21st and 22d.) Here I was very agreeably surprised to meet with so many brethren and sisters from the adjacent towns, come together to honor the Most High God, in keeping his Holy Sabbath, where but a few months previous, little or no interest on this most important point was manifest. The present truth connected with the third Angel's message was listened to with deep interest. God blessed his waiting people, and others see that the Sabbath truth could not be refuted.
At the close of this meeting other meetings were appointed, and were attended by the preaching brethren in the adjoining towns during the week. I afterwards learned by Bro. E. Everts that the people were much stirred up in relation to this last work. Lord speed thy truth.
I reached Westford the 24th, and had a refreshing season with brother and sister Leach, and reached Johnson the 25th. Here the little church were struggling for victory. The scattered ones were soon convened at Bro. Loveland's, and we enjoyed two precious seasons in talking out the past and present truths connected. They have had much to try them respecting their present position, but they feel assured of victory, while they are under the banner of the third Angel, and strictly follow his message.
Started for Waterbury the 26th, to attend a conference to be held at Bro. E. P. Butler's, Sabbath and first day, (28th and 29th.) Quite a number present. The first part of the meeting things moved rather heavily, but the Lord gave us help from the Holy Sanctuary, and we were much refreshed. The truth in the types, and Angel messages, cleared away the mist and fog that our opponents are endeavoring to blind us with. Some attended for the first time, and gave their testimony for the truth. Our prayer meetings early in the morning were much blessed of the Lord. Prevailing prayer is inseparably connected with fasting.
Held two meetings at Bro. R. Lockwood's in Waitsfield the 30th. They had been in some trial there in consequence of one or two of their company objecting to the true time to commence and close the Sabbath. They claimed sunset to be the beginning and end of the day, whereas Jesus our teacher and pattern has shown that the day ends at even, at the termination of the twelfth hour of the day. See Matt. xx, 1—12. Here I met with Bro. Wheeler who had been holding a conference of days in Granville, and was on his way to his appointment in East Randolph to hold another.
I also visited Granville and Rochester. At the latter place we labored to set things in order, and hope that our labor will not be lost. If brethren are not united in their worship of God here, they cannot reign together with him in heaven.
On my way to North Springfield, Vt., I called on some of our brethren in Randolph and East Bethel. They were preparing for their conference. In Springfield there are a number of professed Adventists in a Laodicean state, very unwilling to hear the present truth. Bro. Benoni Lockwood and wife received me very kindly, and assented to all the truth in the third Angel's message. I believe they will commence the keeping of the true Sabbath. On first day, July 6, I held a public meeting at 5 P. M., and nearly all that attended were strangers. I left early on the 7th, for Boston, and met with the brethren in Winchester, Mass. This little company are struggling for the whole truth. I pray the Lord to give them victory.
Within two years the true Sabbath keepers have increased four-fold in Vt. and N. H. Within one year we believe they have more than doubled their number, and they are daily increasing as the paper and the Messengers go forth. In these two states alone, conferences have been held within a few months, where one year ago not one believer in the message could be found. We speak of this to the praise of God, and his rising cause, and to strengthen his dear children to press together; and also to encourage all honest Advent believers to examine the third Angel's message for themselves. God forbid that we should boast of our position, only to the honor and praise of his name; but we ask all sincere seekers after truth to show if they can, another company on this earth that are coming up in accordance with the declaration of God's inspired prophets, as this company now is. Again, we ask Advent believers, who profess to be so sure of immortality when the Lord Jesus comes, to look again, and see if these same Sabbath-keepers are not daily leaving their ranks, and swelling the ranks of those who are embracing the third Angel's message. The true believers that are alive at the second coming of the Lord, will be found united in the last message. How is it possible then, that those who stand aloof from this message, and are already divided into two parts, and subdividing and diminishing daily, can expect that they shall, or can be gathered to the fold of Christ?
Affectionately yours,
JOSEPH BATES.
Fairhaven, July 11, 1851.
[From Bro. Butler.]
By E. P. Butler
[From Bro. Butler.]
DEAR BRO. WHITE: Some reflections have been awakened in my mind since hearing a sermon delivered by Elder I. R. Gates, before the Advent congregation in this place, which embraced most, if not all, that usually attend from this and adjoining towns.
But before entering upon the subject of the discourse, I would observe that I feel more at liberty to bring some of the leading ideas of this sermon before you, than I should had the speaker not manifested so much confidence in the strength of his arguments to set all things right in respect to the Sabbath.
I visited Perry's Mills, N. Y., a week since, in company with Bro. Baker, where two of my daughters reside, and found a very strong prejudice existing against those who are spreading the third angel's message. Elder Gates had been there, and spent about a week in the neighborhood. And among other services that he rendered them, he preached one sermon against the Sabbath. And among other things, stated that the Jews had no other Sabbath than the Lord's seventh day Sabbath. After turning to Lev. xxiii, and reading relative to four sabbaths, "besides the Sabbaths of the Lord," [see verse 23,] I told my informant that I was surprised that Elder Gates should make such a statement. It will be observed that these sabbaths, which were on stated days of the month, could never come on the seventh day of the week oftener than once in six or seven years. Bro. Baker lectured at Perry's mills a few times, and much prejudice was removed; but what will be the result I know not. R. V. Lyon was to hold a
tent meeting in the neighborhood soon after we left.
But to return to the sermon. The speaker took his text in Acts iii, 22, "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you." The apparent object of the speaker in selecting this text was to show that Christ had a right to change or abolish the Sabbath, for he was Lord of the Sabbath. But after laboring more than two hours he appeared to be satisfied, from the many passages of scripture which he read, that he had proved the entire law of God abolished. He proved that the seventh day was the only Sabbath that ever had been given, and that it was instituted at the close of creation. He proved that it was given to the Israelites or Jews to be observed throughout their generations, and that the seventh day Sabbath would be observed on the New Earth.
As the Sabbath was made for man, for his benefit, and no reason can be given why we do not need it under the gospel dispensation, as much as in any age of the world, that the Sabbath, above all the laws, should be abolished, while Christ our great high priest and advocate is interceding for the children of men, to me appears inconsistent.—And to establish the position requires more proof than has been given or than can be given.
That the New Testament clearly shows that there was a law done away in Christ I freely admit; but the view that the law which was written by the finger of God on the tables of stone, and deposited in the ark of the testament, was abolished, makes Christ and the apostles contradict themselves in numerous cases. But as I design to be brief, I will mention one or two passages among the many that might be given to show that Christ in referring to the Ten Commandments, speaks of them as being in full force. See Matt. xix—17, and its connexion. "But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments." Here it will be seen that Christ has reference to the Ten Commandments, for he quotes from the fifth to the ninth, together with one of the two principles on which he has said in another place "hang all the law and the prophets." See also Matt. v, 17, 19. I know that it is contended that the word fulfilled, in verses 17 and 18, means no less than coming to an end, or abolishing the law. But it is evident that Christ performed the requirements of the law, and in that sense fulfilled it. But in verse 19, there is no dodging the point. The language is plain and cannot be set aside. Campbell translates it thus.—
"Whosoever, therefore, shall violate, or teach others to violate, were it the least of these commandments, shall be in no esteem in the reign of heaven."
I trust that it will not be contended that reference was made to any other than the Ten Commandments, as these verses contain the first reference to commands in the New Testament. Again, chap. xxiv, 20, "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day." Thus Jesus would cite his disciples to a Sabbath existing more than thirty years after his death, which he would have them observe.
But notwithstanding Elder Gates had been previously shown that Lev. xxiii, contradicted the statement he made at Perry's Mills, still he labored hard to confound the Sabbath of the Lord with the Jewish sabbaths. And after the entire abolition of the law, the speaker seemed to think the Sabbath of so much consequence that a substitute must be made. And in laboring for proof that the apostles usually met together on the first day of the week, he brought all those passages which are commonly brought to establish the first day sabbath, such as the appearing of Jesus to two of his disciples going to Emmaus on the first day, the day of his resurrection, and then meeting his disciples again after eight days. This was made to mean the seventh day. The church at Corinth being exhorted to lay by their contributions on the first day of the week was thought to be strong evidence of their meeting on Sunday for religious worship.
Acts xx, 7, and its connection, where they broke bread, and Paul preached till break of day, (with7some interruption in bringing the young man to life, and in breaking of bread,) ready to depart on the morrow, is considered the best of proof to establish Sunday as the Sabbath, notwithstanding Paul pursued his journey on the first day. And the "Lord's day," mentioned in Rev. i, 10, is considered proof positive that Sunday is the day of rest, instead of the Sabbath, which is the seventh day.
How far the humble, honest seeker for truth would be influenced by such testimony as this, after reading the practice of the apostles and disciples of our Lord, in the following texts, Luke xxiii, 5, 6; Acts xiii, 14—16; xvii, 2; xviii, 4 and 11; others must judge.
I have pursued the subject of this sermon thus far, not merely for the purpose of replying to it, nor for the purpose of finding fault with friend Gates, and making his sermon look weak, and destitute of argument, neither because I would be engaged in controversy; but because I think that the sentiments embraced in this sermon tend directly to infidelity. And in connection with the denial of the truth that Christ our Great High Priest is now ministering in the Heavenly Sanctuary, makes infidelity of the most heaven-daring kind. And I am persuaded that the effort made to oppose the truths connected with the third angel's message has a direct tendency to draw the dividing line, which we are shown by the Revelator will be made, between those who worship the beast, or his image, or have the mark, and those that keep the commandments of God, and have the faith of Jesus.
Why will ministers of the gospel, and especially those who have so recently been looking for the Lord, when they find there is nothing in the New Testament, nor in the Old, for keeping the first day, be so opposed to keeping the Sabbath of the Lord as to undertake to prove from the Scriptures of truth that the entire law was abolished by, or in Christ? In laboring to show the law dead these men affect to have great confidence in Christ's power to save; and in the merits of his atoning blood to cleanse from all sin, and to save to the uttermost all that believe in him. His power is shown to be great, till the law is made void. But how much real belief have they in the Saviour that will save? Do they believe in one that was a Prophet? They may. It costs but little persecution to acknowledge one that prophesied 1800 years ago. The Jews were high in their professions of faith in a Messiah that was to come. But to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ was too close a test for them.—But Jesus said, "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
If you take your Bible and attempt to show this class of Adventists that the Sanctuary that was to be cleansed, Dan. viii, 14, is the new covenant Sanctuary, they will say that there is nothing unclean in heaven. If you tell them that our Great High Priest is now, by the virtue of that blood shed on Calvary, making an atonement for the sins of his people, the answer is, "he died for our sins, and entered into heaven once for all." Now if one will deny the priesthood of Christ, of how much virtue will all his precious blood be, when there is no Priest to make atonement?
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Of what avail would it have been if the Israelites had brought his lamb before the altar, if there had been no priest to present the blood in the Sanctuary? Or of what use would it have been for the children of Israel to gather around the Sanctuary, and to afflict their souls from even to even, on the tenth day of the seventh month, or to bring their two kids of the goats for a sin-offering, and one ram for a burnt-offering, if there had been no high priest to offer the blood of the victim, and to cleanse the Sanctuary?
We see from the type that we need a High Priest in heaven to atone, as well as blood to cleanse. And if we have no Priest to offer his blood for us, we shall have no King to reign over us. And if we have a Saviour that is not prophet, priest and king, we shall not have a Saviour that will save us in the great day.
We see from the remarks that it is not a very harmless thing to set about doing away the law of God, and to set at nought the priesthood of Christ, for the sake of rejecting the third angel's message.
May the Lord lead those of my brethren on the no-Sabbath platform, to look about themselves, and see to what their belief is tending.