p. 1 | Review and Herald, Vol. 2, No. 12. (2/17/1852)

Review and Herald

Feb 17, 1852

Publishing Committee · Saratoga Springs, N. Y. · Feb 17, 1852

Crozier’s Sabbath Arguments Reviewed

By John Nevins Andrews

Remarks of O. R. L. Crozier on the Institution, Design and Abolition of the Sabbath. REVIEWED.

BY J. N. ANDREWS.

[Concluded from our last.]

“2 Cor. iii was next examined: Those who believe in the Sabbath find it very difficult to make any use of this chapter. That which was “written and engraven on stones” was “done away,” “abolished.” What was written and engraven on stones? Ex. xxxii, 15, 16 will tell. It was the ten commandments. Those who contend for the perpetuity of the Sabbath have no evidence or arguments to present against these plain statements of God’s word; yet they express great surprise that the ten commandments should be abolished, and, admitting that, they cannot see how men can be any longer under any moral restraint. But this consequence by no means follows, and they very well know that we do not believe that God ever has or ever will absolve men from the obligations of his law; yet he has seen fit to change the verbiage and appendages of his law to suit the unfoldings of his progressive plan. Now this chapter is easy to be understood, if we only allow ourselves to look at the subject impartially. The ten commandments were the constitution of God’s religious system, from the departure from Egypt to Christ; but when he came he remodeled the religious system; to do which he set aside—“did away,” “abolished”—the old constitution and established a new one, naming and enforcing in the new all the precepts of the old, except that of the Sabbath, which is not once named as belonging to the new system.”

The above being the ONLY attempt to meet the real question at issue, viz: Is the royal law abolished? we present it entire. We have been taken down the steps gradually, thus: (1.) Christ relaxed the Sabbath; (2.) the disciples were not subject to it; (3.) the holy women kept it from fear of the Jews; (4.) Jesus and the disciples and those healed by him did more on the Sabbath than was lawful; (5.) The Father lightly esteemed it; (6.) Paul and Barnabas broke it, preferring in its place the first day of the week. There is another step, and the reader has reached the bottom of the stairs. We have been all the while descending, yet have remained in darkness respecting the fate of God’s law and of his Sabbath. The seventh step fitly closes this fearful descent, and shows their fate. Prov. vi, 16, 19. God has “abolished,” “done away” his “CONSTITUTION,” and thus, having abrogated the FIRST PRINCIPLES of his own government, (that is what is meant by his “constitution,”) we are at least set free from one of them, the fourth commandment—the holy Sabbath.

The FIRST PRINCIPLES of his moral government embodied THE SABBATH, (how ridiculous, then, the idea that it was a Jewish shadow!) and God abolished these first principles, and then established a new constitution, with all of them in it except the Sabbath! As though the Infinite Jehovah had no settled principles in his moral government, but was like man, “given to change!” Prov. xxiv, 21; Ps. 1, 21. The great truth that the Sabbath was once one of the first principles of God’s moral government, is thus distinctly confessed, but it is an astonishing doctrine that God has abolished all these first principles of his government, and then chosen a part in their stead. The standard of moral principles was defective, and another has been chosen in its stead!

We will state the points in the view presented by C. with which we agree, and also those from which we dissent.—We agree to his statement in the following particulars:

1. The ten commandments were engraven in the tables of stone. Ex. xxxii, 15, 16. (Note. Job xix, 24.)

2. We do confess ourselves surprised that the law of God should be abolished, and do not see how men can, in that case, be under moral restraint. Luke xvi, 17; Rom. iv, 15.

3. God has changed the appendages of his law. Heb. x, 14, 17. (The ordinances of the Jewish church, appended to the “constitution,” have given place to the ordinances of the Christian church. Heb. ix, 1; Eph. ii, 15; 1 Cor. xi, 2, 23, 26. But this is a very different thing from abolishing his “constitution.”)

4. That this chapter is easy to be understood, if examined impartially. Prov. viii, 8, 9; 1 Sam. iii, 10; Ps. cxix, 72, 126, 128.

5. That the ten commandments were once (at least) the constitution of God’s religious system. Ex. xx, 3, 17; Deut. v, 22; Eccl. xii, 13, 14.

We dissent from the following assertions:

1. “Those who believe in the Sabbath find it very difficult to make any use of this chapter.”

2. That which was written on stones was abolished.

3. They have no evidence or arguments to present against these plain statements (?) of God’s word.

4. Men are under as much moral restraint, as before God’s constitution was abolished.(?)

5. God, through his Son, abolished or did away his constitution in the days of the first Advent.

6. He has established a new one, embracing nine of the ten commandments.

We offer the following reasons for dissenting from each point:

1. We do not find it difficult to BELIEVE ALL that is written in 2 Cor. iii. But we have never thought of drawing an inference from it that would make Paul contradict his own direct and positive statements. We have left this for those to do, who having made “void the law through (pretended) faith,” would justify themselves in breaking the commandments and teaching men so. The attempt to press it into that service, shows the absolute necessity of wrestling and mangling it, before it can be made to say, “that which was engraven on stones was done away.” As direct proof on this point, we present the following from another column of the same “Harbinger:”

“But, the ministration of death, WRITTEN and ENGRAVEN on STONES was to be DONE AWAY is ABOLISHED * is DONE AWAY. What can be plainer than this?”

Had any observer of Jehovah’s Sabbath been driven to thus wrest and mangle this, or any portion of the divine testimony, in order to sustain himself, I would hide my face and remain dumb with shame. There is no heresy, however “damnable,” but what may thus be proved!(!!) 2 Pet. ii, 1, 3. The plain reading of the chapter not being enough to the point, the words which explained what was abolished, (viz: the appendages of the law,) are left out. It is by quoting Scripture thus, that it is made to prove that “the royal law” is abolished. We have read in Peter’s second epistle that some would wrest the words of PAUL to their own destruction. We had supposed that this remark of Peter belonged to some other period; we now think he rightly placed it in his account of the last days.

2. “That which was written and engraven on stones was done away, abolished.” This extraordinary assertion is uttered with the utmost positiveness. But we think that the mangled verses in which Paul has spoken, should be written out in full and suffered to speak for themselves.—Look at them as they stand in the Book of God:

Verse 7. “But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away;”

Verse 11. “For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.”

Verse 13. “And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:”

Verse 14. “But their minds were blinded; for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament: which veil is done away in Christ.”

We ask then, is this direct testimony that Jehovah has abolished his “constitution,” or is it only inferential? Not one of these verses can be presented as direct testimony, until that part of it which explains what was abolished is left out. For the question in verse seven is this, Was it the temporary glory that enshrouded Moses in his ministration, as he brought down the holy law of God from the hands of Jehovah, or is it that holy law itself, that has “been done away?” By leaving out the words between “written and engraven in stones,” and “is done away” it makes direct and positive, “plain Bible testimony” that the law of God is all abolished. If, however, the words remain as Paul wrote them, the other idea is taught. We pass to the next verse:

Verse 11. “For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which REMAINETH is glorious.” Now as no one will deny that that which is done away in verse 11, is the same as that which is done away in verse 7, we ask, what is that which REMAINETH in distinction from “that which is done away?” For there is direct testimony here, that something REMAINS, and that everything was not done away, or abolished. Were we to answer in the words of inspiration, we would say “the royal law” “REMAINETH;” the hand-writing of ordinances is abolished. James ii; Col. ii.—Were we to answer in the terms used by C. we would say the “CONSTITUTION” REMAINETH; “the appendages of the law” (the Levitical ministration) are done away by the glory of Christ’s more excellent ministry, before the ARK OF GOD in the heavenly tabernacle. Rev. xi, 19; Heb. viii, 1—5. The seventh verse, therefore, directly contradicts the view that every thing is abolished and that nothing REMAINS: But could we believe C. the ten commandments with all their appendages were abolished—nothing remains!—and nine of the abolished precepts have been gathered up in their stead.

Verse 13 tells us that Moses “put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.” This verse being explanatory of verse 7, we have here a good opportunity to determine what was abolished. WHEN the veil was upon the face of Moses, “the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.” What then did that veil hide? Were the tables of stone hidden by the veil? Nay verily. But the temporary glory of Moses’ face, which in the estimation of the Jews still abides. The veil hid that which is abolished. That which he held in his hand was not hidden—it is that which REMAINS!

Verse 14. The veil with which Moses hid the glory of his face still remains upon literal Israel. They still connect in an inseparable manner, the great constitution with the glory that enshrouded Moses, and that attended the Levitical ministration, not seeing that Christ’s “more excellent ministry” in the true tabernacle has taken its place. Israel can not see that the hidden glory is gone, but as they can still see the holy law, they believe that that glory must abide as well as that law. Others at the present day fall into the opposite extreme; they can see that that glory is gone, and hence conclude that that holy law has gone also. They do not see that in the heavenly tabernacle, where our Great High Priest is accomplishing his most glorious ministration, the ARK OF GOD abides as well as in the earthly tabernacle. They think highly indeed of the mercy seat, (Ex. xxv, 17—22,) but the law of God contained in the ark beneath that mercy seat, is despised and counted a thing of naught. Heb. ix, 4. The dream, that the blood of Christ blotted out the moral law (the very thing that caused it to be shed) will be found vain and delusive in the day of God!

The proof from this chapter, therefore, that God’s law is abolished, being only inferential, we now inquire into the character of an inference on which rests the most remarkable doctrine that was ever taught. That it is not a necessary inference we have already seen. And we now inquire whether it agrees with the plain statements of this same Apostle. The doctrine is this: The Infinite Jehovah abolished the first principles of his own government, and then formed the most of them into a revised constitution! To believe this requires strong faith on the part of any one who has any just conception of the Infinite Jehovah. Isa. lv, 8, 9. Rather, I should say, it requires strong testimony to establish such a view.

The apostle Paul has elsewhere stated in distinct terms what was abolished, and what is yet in force. He is consistent with himself, he is to be believed.

Eph. ii, 15. “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity.

even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.”

Col. ii, 14. “Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

Paul distinctly teaches that the “hand-writing of ordinances” was abolished. Now hear Paul speak of the “royal law.”

He shows in Rom. iii, 19, that the law of God condemns the whole world, and thence onward through the chapter, shows how men are delivered from its fearful condemnation, and how they are justified in the sight of God; viz: by faith in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, “the just for the unjust.” He then informs us whether the salvation and pardon of the Gospel, offered to men through faith in him who has been slain, destroyed the law of Jehovah or not:

Rom. iii, 31. Do we then make void the law through faith? GOD FORBID: YEA, WE ESTABLISH THE LAW.

The Apostle was converted AFTER the ascension of the Lord, consequently after the time when it is said the law was abolished. His conversion is the most remarkable one upon record. But mark what it was that shew him that he was a sinner, and that he was lost without a Saviour.

Rom. vii, 7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, “Thou shalt not covet.” (Tenth commandment.) Verse 12. “Wherefore the law is holy; and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”—An abolished law never yet convicted a man of sin. And on his own testimony, he had not known sin had the law been abolished.

But hear him again. He wishes to enforce obedience to parents, and he takes the fifth commandment to do it: [Eph. vi, 2, 3:] “Honor thy father and mother, (which is the first commandment with promise,) that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.” Mark, it is not Paul that establishes the commandment (as some would have us think) but the commandment that establishes what Paul has said. These statements of Paul show unequivocally that he did believe the hand-writing of ordinances to be abolished, and DID NOT BELIEVE that the ten commandments, God’s great constitution of holy principles were. But in order to examine this same point still further, we will introduce C’s next assertion:

3. “Those who believe in the perpetuity of the Sabbath have no evidence or argument to present against these plain statements (?) of God’s word.” Had C. refuted the plain testimonies of Holy Writ, bearing as he well knows directly against him, instead of passing them in silence, and then said that Sabbath-keepers have nothing to present against these inferences, he might have been somewhat entitled to confidence. Wholesale, sweeping assertions like the one just quoted may weigh with some as argument, but they are most frequent where argument is wanting. We offer the following direct testimony relative to the perpetuity of God’s constitution, asking that C. will either refute it, or else withdraw his assertions.

1. THE TESTIMONY OF THE LORD JESUS: “Think not that I am come to subvert, the law or the prophets. I am come not to subvert, but to ratify. For verily I say unto you, heaven and earth shall sooner perish, than one iota, or one title of the law shall perish without attaining its end. 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; but whosoever shall practice and teach them, shall be highly esteemed in the reign of heaven.” Matt. v, 17—19. [Campbell’s Translation.] Luke xvi, 17. Matt. xxii, 35—40.

2. THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL, already given. (1.) He testifies what is abolished. Eph. ii, 14—17; Col. ii, 14—17; Heb. ix, 10. (2.) He testifies to that which is not abolished. Rom. vii, 7—25; viii, 1—7; Eph. vi, 2, 3; Rom. iii, 31.

3. THE TESTIMONY OF JAMES. “If ye fulfill the royal law, according to the Scripture, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” James ii, 8—12.

4. THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. “And every man that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Whosoever commiteth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins and in him is no sin.” 1 John iii, 3—5; Rev. xii, 17; xiv, 12; xxii, 14.

4. Men are as much under moral restraint, as before God’s constitution was abolished. In explaining the point, he says that God “has seen fit” to change the verbage and appendages of his law to suit the unfolding of his progressive plan.” Had he said nothing more, we had altogether remained silent, for the constitution might be still supposed to abide, to hold men in check. But when we are told that the first principles of God’s holy law are abolished, we inquire where the moral restraint is found. Had C. considered it worth his while to show any act of God in re-enacting his law, and thus establishing another constitution, he might then assert that men are under moral restraint, even as before the holy law was abolished. But when the law of God is cut up by the roots and scattered to the four winds, we cannot restrain a feeling of deep anxiety for the ark of God.

No man has yet explained how, or by what means the law of God was re-enacted. Most have taken it for granted, because the last six commandments are several times quoted in the New Testament, that they are certainly re-enacted. But notice these points: (1.) The first four are not quoted in the New Testament. Then they are not re-enacted. (2.) The last six are several times quoted. Then they are several times re-enacted. (3.) When Christ quoted from the law of God, it was not in the form of a re-enactment, but as a quotation from the law of Jehovah. (4.) But since Christ quoted a part of the law, the whole law has been abolished. (5.) When the apostles quoted the law of God, they quoted from the original law and not from a revised edition of Jehovah’s constitution. And their quotations are proof, not of the re-enactment of God’s law, but of its perpetuity. Rom. vii, 7, 12; Eph. vi, 2; James ii, 8—12.—(6.) There is no re-enactment of God’s law recorded in the Bible. Hence, if the law of Jehovah has been abrogated, there is no moral law! We now request C. to explain how men are as much under moral restraint as before the royal law of the King Eternal was annulled.

5. God, through his Son, “abolished,” “did away” his constitution in the days of the first Advent. No further proof is presented, than the inference already noticed. Why God did this, we are told but in part, and nothing of the kind being written in the Book of God, we shall be indebted to C. for all the light we have. Will he explain the subject further. We can however suggest one reason, and but one. It is this: Jehovah’s Sabbath, a shadow, had entered into his constitution, and in order to get it out, God abolished his constitution, and then named nine of its precepts, (it is not shown when, nor where,) and made another. But as it may be possible that Jehovah places a higher estimate upon the Sabbath which he made for man, than its opponents do, and as the language of Job xxiii, “he is of one mind, and who can turn him,” may still be true, it is at least, possible that this is “a cunningly devised fable” that God has never sanctioned. Did the Infinite Law-giver in any instance that can be produced, ever enact a law, then abolish it, then re-enact it? Such variableness and contradiction might perhaps be found in men, but should never be charged upon God. How well can the Old and New Testaments agree, when one was formed on one constitution, and the other was formed on another? Is God “altogether such an one as thyself?” Can God deny himself?

6. He has established a new constitution. For this idea also, we are indebted to C. as it is not contained in the Holy Scriptures. God has indeed promised that he would make a new covenant, but when he did this, he would put his law into the heart and write it in the mind. No abolition or re-enactment named, and none has ever existed except in the theories of men. We are also indebted to C. for a knowledge of what the new constitution contains. It was made by naming and enforcing nine of the ten commandments. The facts in the case are, that while the New Testament distinctly teaches the perpetuity of God’s constitution, it has never repeated but six of the ten, those written on the second table. The constitution once consisted of the ten commandments. These God abolished at the death of his Son. He takes nine of these abolished precepts and makes a new constitution! A strange constitution truly, made up of precepts that God had abolished! Nine abolished precepts, are established without showing how! It is said that the creed of the sceptic involved the most unaccountable absurdities. But they can hardly excel such absurdities as these.

We invite attention again to 2 Cor. iii. The subject before the mind of the Apostle is the surpassing glory and excellency of the Gospel ministry. See verses 1—6. He then argues that “if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away; now shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?” The word ministration signifies “the act of performing service” or “service” itself. Macknight renders it ministry. It is thrice used in the New Testament. Luke i, 23. Zechariah accomplished the days of his ministration, (service.) Acts vi, 1. The Grecians “were neglected in the daily ministration” (service.) 2 Cor. ix, 13. Paul’s service for the poor saints at Jerusalem is called a ministration. The face of Moses when he came down from the Mount shone with glory. Yet what he brought down was only condemnation, and death written and engraved by the finger of Jehovah. His ministry or service, was only the ministration of condemnation and of death. The holy law was written in those tables of stone, and it could only show them to be sinners and condemn them to death. Rom. iii, 19, 20; vii, 7—10; Gal. iii, 21. The Gospel of Jesus Christ recognizes all men thus condemned and sentenced to death, (2 Cor. v, 14, 15; Rom. iii) and brings them the joyful tidings of pardon through the blood of the Son of God, in whom justice and mercy meet together. If the face of Moses shone with glory, though he only ministered condemnation and death, how much more glorious then is that ministry that offers life, pardon, and salvation!

Glorious as was that ministration it was not to abide. The glory was hidden, “the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.” But we all with open face, behold Jesus a merciful and faithful High Priest, standing before the ark containing God’s holy law, and sprinkling his blood upon the top of that ark, the mercy seat. The ministration of condemnation has given place to the ministration of righteousness, not because the law that condemned the world has been done away, but because the blood that brings pardon has been offered for guilty man.

The remarks of C. occasion the following suggestions:

1. The ten commandments embodied the Holy Sabbath and formed the constitution of God’s government; yet, according to C. the same argument that would establish the Sabbath embodied in this constitution, would also establish the Jewish feasts, which were only embodied in the hand-writing of ordinances!!

2. Christ relaxed a part of the constitution of God’s religious system, the disciples violated it, the holy women did not keep it, God the Father lightly esteemed it, and to get rid of it the whole constitution was abolished!

3. The whole foundation of God’s religious system, his constitution, has been torn up and scattered to the winds, in order to get the Sabbath out of it. This, it is very true would be necessary in order to get rid of the Sabbath—but it cannot be done until a stronger than the Most High shall be found!

We have descended the flight of steps presented by C. and now stand upon the last one for a moment’s reflection. This step we perceive is marked, “Law of God abolished.” We have noticed the deception and dangerous character of each step as we have descended. We have also seen that there is nothing real in the step on which we stand. We look into the gulf before us; it is a pit, the depth of which has never yet been fathomed.

In strong contrast with this, let us mark the steps which lead to the “holy hill of Zion” (1.) “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. iii, 20; vii, 7. (2.) “Repentance toward God.” Acts xx, 21. (3.) Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts xvi, 31. (4.) “Faith worketh by love.” Gal. v, 6. (5.) “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” 1 John v, 3; Rom. xiii, 10. (6.) “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. xxii, 14.

Reader I set before the life and death, (Matt. xix, 17; Rom. vi, 23,) which doest thou choose? Prov. ix, 12.

“Finally, Rom. xiv was examined.” The whole matter may be stated in a few words without doing injustice to C. This chapter proves that there is no difference in days—not merely feast days but between the first, third, seventh, or any other day; each is at liberty to esteem one day above another, or to esteem every day alike. And finally Col. ii, 16, was brought to prove that no one has a right to judge us in any such matter.

To expose the deceptive character of the broad field which C. thus endeavors to open at the foot of his flight of stairs, we call attention to the following admirable remarks of Dr. Justin Edwards in his (FIRST-DAY) Sabbath Manual:

“Some, after they embraced the Gospel, thought that the ceremonial as well as the moral laws were binding. Others, more enlightened, thought that they were not. This led to contention among them.

Paul, in the fourteenth chapter of Romans, presented such considerations as were adopted to lead them, in this matter, to a right decision.

“One man,” he says, esteemeth one day above another. Another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.—He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.” Both mean to honor God, and he will accept them. But what day does he speak of? “The Sabbath” of the fourth commandment, associated by God inseparably with the moral laws? Read the connection. What is it? Is it, one man believeth he must worship Jehovah; another who is weak, worshipeth idols? One believeth that he must not commit murder, idolatry or theft, and another thinks he may? Were those the laws about which they were contending, and with which were connected the days that he speaks of? No; about those laws there was no dispute.

But, “one believeth that he may eat all things,” (which are nourishing, whether allowed in the ceremonial law, which regulated such things, or not;) “another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him.” Those were the laws about which they were contending, and with regard to which the Apostle was giving them instructions. It was not the moral, but the ceremonial laws; and the days spoken of were those which were connected, not with the former, but with the latter.

So, in the second chapter of Colossians, “Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths.” The sabbaths spoken of are not “the Sabbath” associated with, Thou shalt not murder, or adultery, or theft; but the sabbaths associated with meats and drinks, and new moons, which were, indeed, shadows of things to come. But to take what he said about these sabbaths which were associated by God with ceremonial laws, and which the Apostle himself in this very discourse, associates with them, and apply it as some have done to “THE SABBATH” which God associated with moral laws, is wrong.” Pages 134, 135, 136.

Now we add, that in the beginning, Jehovah sanctified and hallowed his Sabbath for man, and thence throughout the Bible, it is called the “Holy Sabbath unto the Lord,” the “holy of the Lord honorable,” “my holy day,” “the Lord’s day” &c. But you will say, I do not believe that the day is now sanctified and hallowed, on account of Jehovah’s act at creation. Will you please listen a moment. Why do you see in every thing around you the most visible marks that mortality, decay and corruption, are stamped upon them? If you reply, because the earth is under the curse of God, we answer, Truth, but when did God put his curse there? All must answer, It was done at the fall of man. But why is it there now? Has he ever cursed it again? Never. Gen. viii, 21, 22. But the original curse abides, and will abide, until it shall have devoured the earth, (Isa. xxiv, 1—6,) when the curse shall be removed, and the family of the redeemed inherit the new earth forever. Rev. xxii, 1—3. We call attention again to God’s hallowed day. His blessing was placed upon the Sabbath, prior to his curse being placed upon the earth,—he hallowed the day—he has never removed his blessing from it—it abides there still—it will abide there ‘mid the glories of Paradise restored. Isa. lxvi, xvi, 23, 2. And in the language of Balak to Balaam though in a far higher sense we say; I wot that what he blesseth is blessed and what he curseth is cursed! Num. xxii, 6.

But did not Paul say “another esteemeth every day alike?” And does not the term “every day,” include God’s Sabbath? We answer if you will turn to Ex. xvi, 4, again, you will read, “The people shall go out and gather a certain rate EVERY DAY” and in the account of their acts we read “they gathered it every morning.” Verse 21. But when they went out on the Sabbath to gather, they found the frown and the rebuke of Jehovah was upon them. Verses 27—29. It is manifest therefore, that when Jehovah saith “every day,” that day is excepted which he hath reserved unto himself. Ex. xx, 8—11. But the point exactly illustrated by the language of 1 Cor. xv, 27. But we do not say on the authority of the Bible, that the first day of the week, for which C. puts forth all the plea that he is able, is one of “the six working days” (Eze. xlvi, 1.) and is one of the “every days” that we alike, an Apostle being judge. We should understand that God addresses us as reasonable beings, and “not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding; whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.” Ps. xxxii, 9; Prov. xxi, 16.

But as a direct and positive testimony that when he saith “every day alike” Jehovah’s Rest-day is excepted, we introduce Rev. i, 10, “I was in the Spirit on THE LORD’S DAY.” This is a direct testimony to the fact that in the GOSPEL DISPENSATION, one day is still claimed by God. As we do not read in any place (except in the “FATHERS” who prepared the way for the great apostasy by adding tradition to the word of God) that Jehovah has “put away” his holy day and chosen another, we submit the following testimony as to what is the Lord’s day. Gen. ii, 3. “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.” Ex. xvi, 23. “The rest of the Holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” Ex. xx, 8. “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.” Is. lviii, 13. “My holy day” “the holy of the Lord, honorable” Mark ii, 28. “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Rev. i, 10. “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day.”

We will not say of Sunday-keeping, as C. affirms respecting God’s Sabbath, that it is a type, unless perhaps it be a type of the day that follows God’s great week of time, WHEN THE WICKED SHALL BE RAISED AND PUNISHED; (Rev. xx, 5, 7—9;) but we do say that it is a shadow—there is no substance to it—nothing real—nothing divine about it. Rom. xiv, 5—6.

We now examine his remarks relative to the two laws. He states the view to be this: The ten commandments constituted the law of God; and the last four books of Moses, the ten commandments excepted, constituted the ceremonial law, the abolition of which is taught in 2 Cor. iii. He then disposes of the whole question, by stating that the two great commandments named by Christ, (Matt. xxii, 35—40,) are not found in the decalogue, but in the ceremonial law. Deut. vi, 4, 5; Lev. xix, 18. He adds, their theory would abolish the two pronounced greatest by Jesus Christ, and would retain the ten which Paul says are abolished. “They ought to feel the force of this fact.”

To this we answer, that we have already noticed the inference by which Paul is made to say that the divine constitution is abolished, and have shown that it is not only an unnecessary inference, but that it positively contradicts his own direct statements, also that of Jesus, of James and of John. We now respectfully represent that our “theory” does not teach that the two great commandments on which the others hang have been abolished. The force of his misrepresentation, we do feel. “The hand of Joab is in all this.”

That there may be no mistaking of the view, let me state it in distinct terms. We have believed and taught that “the ten words” written upon the tables of stone, were a summing up of ALL the principles of God’s holy law, and that they were unmixed with Jewish ordinances; and that those things which were against us, which were taken out of the way, were found in the book ONLY: NOT that every thing that was written in the book was abolished, (for the ten commandments after being given by themselves are interspersed through the ceremonial law,) and that NOTHING THAT WAS IN THE TABLES OF STONE WAS ABOLISHED.

Relative to the distinction mentioned may I not appeal even to C. Despite his hostility to the view, he confesses in distinct terms that the “Ten commandments were the CONSTITUTION of God’s religious system;” while that connected with it seems to be entitled to no higher designation than “the verbiage and appendages of his Law!” Is there no distinction between a CONSTITUTION, and the laws that may be appended to it?

We do not believe that the two great principles out of which our duty to God and our fellow man springs, viz: Supreme love to him, and the love of our neighbor as ourselves, are abolished; nor do we believe that our “whole duty” (the commandments of God that grow out of these two principles) is abolished. Eccl. xii, 13, 14.

We now present two New Testament expositions respecting these two laws; the one from the pen of the apostle Paul, as an exposition of that law which “is abolished;” the other from the pen of James, as an exposition of that law which is “established.” We trust that even C. will be satisfied respecting the distinction. We introduce, then, the apostle Paul to show the character of the law abolished, and to give an inspired commentary on it. Listen then to the words of the Apostle to the Gentiles:

“Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new-moon, or of the sabbath-days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” Col. ii, 16, 17.

Every word of this we believe. No part of the moral duty of men is contained in the above—no one of the ten precepts of Jehovah’s “royal law” is abolished by it!

Now we call attention to the apostle James. He is rebuking his brethren for the sin of partiality to the rich, and (what a marvel!) he takes the law of God to do it with; not an amended copy, or revised edition, but the original which was perfect! Hear him:

“If ye fulfill the royal law, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURE, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and ARE CONVINCED OF THE LAW AS TRANSGRESSORS. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, do not commit adultery, said also, do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” James ii, 8—12.

We believe every word of this also. And it does show that there is a “royal law” that is not abolished, as well as a “hand-writing of ordinances” that is abolished. And that the two great principles, are inseparably connected with the ten great duties.—Matt. xxii, 35—40. We appeal to C.—we appeal to all who may read, “Are not these things so!”

James quotes but one of the two great principles, (as he was speaking of our duty to our neighbor only,) and consequently names precepts that grow out of that, found on the last table. But this no more proves that the first table (our duty to God) is abolished, than it proves that the first of the two great principles (supreme love to God) is abolished also!

Besides, the Apostle does distinctly say in speaking of the ten commandments, that “whosoever shall keep the whole law, but shall fail with respect, to one precept hath become guilty of all.” [Macknight.] This also we believe. And in the last of the verses quoted above, he directs us to speak and to act as those “that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”

Christ in Matt. v, 18, in speaking of this same law of liberty, cites us forward to the time when heaven and earth shall pass away, as the first point (at least) to look for the passing of the law of God. And it is a fact of surpassing interest, that at that point John says: “And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face THE EARTH AND THE HEAVEN FLED AWAY; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.”—Rev. xx, 11, 12.

Mercy, which now offers pardon, obtained by the death of God’s only Son, to guilty man condemned by the holy law, [Rom. iii,] shall have then stepped out, and stern justice will vindicate the broken law, and the insulted blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.—The commandment keepers will then enter into life, [Matt. xix, 16, 17; Rev. xxii, 14,] and those who have continued in sin (“sin is the transgression of the law”) will receive the wages of sin—THE SECOND DEATH! Rom. vi, 23; Rev. xx, 15; xxii, 15.

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Gal. vi, 7. I dare no more suppress these solemn and fearful truths, than I dare to deny the existence of the Most High God. And I would solemnly charge, nay I would entreat with tears, those who are determined to break the fourth commandment and to teach men so, that they do it on their own responsibility, and that they do not charge the sin of Antinomianism upon Christ and his chosen apostles!

The statement of C. respecting the two laws being false, the force of the matter is against him and ought to be felt by him! Let him show from the divine testimony that “the royal law,” and “the hand-writing of ordinances” are the same, and we promise not to be “slow of heart to believe all that is written!”—We have taught the perpetuity both of the two and also of the ten commandments. Is such a theory any worse than the theory that (seems at least) to teach the abolition of both?

The ten commandments (duties) grow out of the two great commandments, (principles,) as materially as the fingers proceed from the two arms, and neither the two nor the ten, can be spared better than a man can part with his arms or his fingers. (We suggest that the directions given to Wisdom’s Son, [Prov. vii, 3,] to bind the commandments about his fingers, could be obeyed much better, before one of the ten was abolished than since that time.) We believe in the perpetuity both of the two and of the ten—both of the arms and of the fingers; but C. teaches, (I ask pardon for the figure,) that the fingers have all been cut off, and then nine of them have been joined on again, though the manner in which this latter process was accomplished, is not very fully stated by him. If it took Jehovah in person to enact his law, we ask whether it will not require quite as exalted a being to re-enact it, after it shall have been abolished by him!

The ten commandments hang on the two; they have ever hung there; they must continue to hang there until the principles of God’s own holiness can change—until the love of God and of our neighbor, can consist of something else beside keeping those commandments that embody our whole duty to them!

The ten commandments grow out of the relation that man sustained before the fall, and embody those moral principles that are as immutable as God’s character. Paul shows us that it is by the law (something just right itself) that the knowledge of sin exists. He shows that all men are condemned by it, and shown to be guilty in the sight of God, and that it is by the blood of Christ, and not by any typical sacrifice, that men are redeemed.

He shows that faith in that blood that was shed for our transgressions of the law, justifies us in the sight of him whose holy law has been broken. And that faith in him does not make void the law, but establishes it. He shows that faith works by love, and the love of God is manifested by keeping his commandments.

Then by the great work of redemption, supreme love to God and the love of our neighbor as ourselves (represented in the figure by the arms) is restored to us, and flows out through the ten commandments, (the fingers in the figure) in rendering not by mere outward act, but from a heart of pure love, those duties that we owe to our God and to our fellow man. The two are the principles; the ten are the principles carried out into acts.

The only way that these precepts can be kept, is by being filled with perfect love to God, which is the only fulfilling of the law that God will accept. As the work of salvation is all of grace through faith, there is no room left for Phariseeism, (self-righteous trustings in the law as though the obedience of a proud spirit would be acceptable to God. Luke xviii, 9—14,) nor yet for Antinomianism, (the making “void the law through faith,” forgetting that it is necessary that faith should cause us to fulfill the righteousness of the law. Rom. xiii, 1—7.) The one is solemnly rebuked by Paul, the other in no less measured terms by James. Rom. x; James ii.

The great evangelical doctrine of the New Testament may be summed up in a few words which the Holy Ghost useth:

WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH.
FAITH WORKS BY LOVE, WHICH IS THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW.

Those who are thus striving for salvation, have not fallen from grace!! They are not justified by the law nor do they sacrilegiously make it void through pretended faith. Those thus redeemed by the blood of Christ, constitute the church of the New Testament. The ordinances of Christ belong to these alone and in no sense to the world. It is the love of God that leads man to repent—it is the gospel that offers them pardon through Jesus Christ. Their relation to each other as members of the church of Christ, and to Christ as their Lord, is defined by that which Christ and his apostles have said. Their relation to God the Father and to their fellow men, as such, is defined by the law of God. We desire both “the Son and the Father,”—the commandments of God, AND the testimony of Jesus Christ. Amen.

As “the hand-writing of ordinances” or “law of commandments contained in ordinances” is abolished, some may be ready to assert that the ten commandments were ordinances of the Jewish Church. Let us test the matter. If the commandments were church ordinances, then those who were not members of that church were not amenable to them. For all church ordinances grow out of the relation that men sustain as members of the church.

But we ask whether the precept, “Thou shalt not steal,” was in the days of the Hebrew Church, or is now in the days of the Christian, a church ordinance? Were there no people but the Hebrews amenable to it then? Is there none but Christians amenable to it now? Test the commandments “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” or indeed any of the ten in the same manner, and then answer me. Were they church ordinances, or were they moral laws? Do they grow out of the relation that men sustain as church members, or as moral beings accountable to the government of God? True it is that the Jews had this advantage, that unto them were committed the oracles of God; [Rom. iii, 1, 2; Acts vii, 38;] but the Apostle proceeds to show that “exceeding broad” they were, by stating in verse 19, that every mouth is stopped by them, and the whole world shown to be guilty before God! But says one, As you deny that THE SABBATH WAS Jewish, do you call it Christian? No, by no means. It is like the other precepts of the moral law, DIVINE! It was made by Jehovah for man, embodied in the royal law of God, and is as immutable as that law itself! Matt. v, 17—19.

“But it was a sign between God and the children of Israel, throughout their generations, and what do you do with that fact?” We do that with that as with other portions of the divine testimony,—WE BELIEVE it. It was a sign between God and the Hebrews for a certain period, for it designated them as worshipers of the TRUE God IN DISTINCTION from the nations around them, who worshiped “the gods that HAVE NOT MADE THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.” Jer. x, 10—12; Eze. xx, 20. But this no more proves that it is now abolished, than the fact that Jesus is now a sign that is spoken against, [Luke ii, 34,] proves that he will be abolished, when he shall cease to be such a sign! We “delight” in the Sabbath, we adore the Lord of the Sabbath! He sums up the Bible class report thus:

“In reference to the position of the New Testament on the Sabbath question, two points were made: 1, Neither the Saviour nor any of his apostles ever enforced the Sabbath precept. 2. In all the catalogues of sins contained in the New Testament, Sabbath breaking is not once named.—In view of these facts, it was claimed that no christian could be required to keep the Sabbath day.”

(1.) The above reflects much greater credit upon the shrewdness of the writer, than it does upon his candor in summing up so important a question. The fourth commandment is a part of the royal law, and it is his part to get it out, NOT ours to insert it a second time. The idea that the moral law of God NEEDED to be enforced by the Son of God, or by any of his apostles, is a singular, and in the highest degree absurd, idea! Christ often took the law of it to enforce what he said himself, and so did the apostles!

But as marvels will never cease, we are given to understand that what Christ and his apostles did not enforce, is not binding on us as Christians. And the Sabbath precept having never been quoted directly by Christ or his apostles, we are not as Christians under obligation to keep it. Those who make this assertion seem not to have weighed it very well. The first four are not quoted; and we as Christians are not “required to keep them!” But to show how little weight it would have, had our Lord quoted the fourth commandment several times, we add that the last six, a part of which he quoted several times, are all abolished, together with the first four which he did not quote, all of which they attempt to prove from 2 Cor. iii. So that since that time we have a new law of God. That God who gave his holy law in person and himself wrote it, has abolished it, to re-enact it either through Christ or his apostles. Not approving the expression, we do not say that Christ and his apostles enforced the law, for how could the Son who says “My Father is greater than I,” much more how could the apostles who were not so great as him who sent them, enforce the law of Jehovah? But on the strength of their testimony, we do declare that they most solemnly teach its perpetuity, and its immutability. Matt. v, 17—19; xxii, 35—40; Luke xvi, 17; Rom. iii, 31; vii, 7—25; viii, 1—7; 1 Cor. ix, 21; James ii, 8—12; 1 John iii, 4, 5.

(2.) The catalogue of sins named in the New Testament, contain nothing that the law of God does not show to be sinful. But they may be used to justify other sins as well as the sin of Sabbath breaking.—The sin of slave-holding is not named unless by implication, the sin of Polygamy is certainly not noticed distinctly, yet both these sins were very general in the apostles’ days, and certainly very heinous. The New Testament never yet offered its catalogue of sins as a complete list, for some omit to name many grievous sins, and all omit some that are very heinous. But mark! there is a standard somewhere by which these things are shown to be sins. We ask what is it? Now will you agree to believe the NEW TESTAMENT? If so we pledge ourselves to show that it is that much hated law of God.

Hear the beloved disciple: “SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.” 1 John iii, 4. Now hear Paul tell how sin is made manifest: “BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.” Rom. iii, 20. Hear him again: “I HAD NOT KNOWN SIN BUT BY THE LAW.” Rom. vii, 7, 13. This is the only standard by which sin is shown. It is the embodiment of God’s own principles of holiness, and never can be improved even by Omnipotence. Ti. i, 2; Rom. vii, 12.

It is enough that the apostles have told us what the standard is by which sin is shown; we take the standard and tell any man who breaks the law of God, either the fourth, the seventh, or the eighth commandment, he is a sinner, and “the wages of sin is death!” We do not rebuke a man for an act of sin by turning to any of the catalogues of sin; we take the standard by which those acts are shown to be sinful and read to him “thus saith the Lord!”

Let me repeat the doctrine: The law of God is the only standard by which the acts of men as moral beings, are shown to be either righteous or wicked in the sight of God. Those who can present any other standard are requested to do it. (1) The New Testament distinctly teaches the doctrine, Rom. iii, 20; vii, 7; 1 John iii, 4. (2) It pronounces this standard perfect. Rom. vii, 12; James ii, 8—12; i, 25. (3.) But for the benefit of those who claim that the New Testament furnishes us with another standard by which sin is shown, besides the law of God, we ask that this imaginary standard may be tested with this question: Does the New Testament show it to be wrong for a man to marry his sister, or his daughter? Shall I be answered as I was sometime since, “Such an act would not be sinful?” Those who wish to see this subject defined, can read it at length, in Lev. xviii. That the abominations there described are not mere Jewish pollutions, is evident from the fact that the land of Palestine was said to vomit out its first inhabitants on account of these things!

With the following points from the New Testament, we submit the question:

The perpetuity and immutability of the law of God is distinctly taught.
The Law of God is made the standard by which sin is shown.
Redemption from its fearful condemnation by the death of God’s only Son, lays us under infinitely stronger obligations to keep it.

We cannot help noticing the assertion respecting prejudice. A few to be sure are shocked at the idea of calling God’s holy law “the old Jewish law,” “miserable rickety old law,” and the like expressions, but the prejudices of the mass is all against the observer of Jehovah’s Rest-day. Witness the expressions of contempt thrown upon the institution and its observers. “The old Jewish Sabbath,” &c; “Judaizers” &c. &c. Nor can we forbear the remark, that the remainder of the article in question is one of the most shrewd efforts to create prejudice, and to throw dust, that we have ever seen. Else why should he refute things as arguments, that he knows we do not rest upon, and make assertions respecting us that are absolutely false! We notice the following points in the order presented by him:

1. “As the Sabbath is a type, some think it should be observed till its antitype—the day of the Lord—comes. But this is a mistake; for the same principle would bind us to keep all the other sabbaths of the Levitical law; and also all the other typical ceremonies that have not yet met their antitypes, such as the cleansing of the Sanctuary, feast of tabernacles, jubilee &c.”—We do not believe that the Sabbath is a type, consequently have never used the argument, which C. refutes. The evidences upon which C. rests, to prove that it is a type, have been reviewed already. But as C. calls it a type of the day of the Lord—the thousand years, we ask him to explain why the type should be observed after the antitype has come. Isa. lxvi, 22, 23. Will not those who observe the Sabbath then, “walk in a shadow, or in the dark, instead of the light?” (See another column of the same paper.) When C. shall have refuted his own ARGUMENT on “the cleansing of the Sanctuary,” we will reconsider the subject.

2. C. next says that “Christ did not ‘break the law’ in abrogating the Sabbatical observance, any more than in abrogating the other legal ceremonies: he will ‘fulfill’ it as well as the rest, in its time.”—We ask C. if Christ did not break the law, in violating the fourth commandment before it was abolished? Does not C. believe that Col. ii, proves the abolition of the fourth commandment at Christ’s death? Will he now say that he abolished it at the beginning of his ministry? If so, we think that the law must have been very hard to destroy, [Luke xvi, 17,] to have needed abolition twice! FIRST before the ministry of Jesus, SECOND at his death. If you say the law was abolished but once, and that this was done at the death of Christ, as we may infer from your use of Col. ii, we ask if Christ did not break the law in violating the fourth commandment before that time? The absurdity of two abolitions of the law is quite equal to the two or three times of instituting the Sabbath.

3. “Some who are preaching the Sabbath, think they are the ‘angel’ of Rev. vii, 2, sealing the servants of God in their foreheads, and the Sabbath is that seal of the ‘living God.’” How wicked a thing it must be then to keep the fourth commandment! Rather, how wicked must it be to misrepresent those who are so doing! The idea conveyed by the above, that those who are trying to do and to teach the commandments [Matt. v, 17—19] believe themselves to be the angel of Rev. vii, with the seal of the ‘living God’ is false and is only thrown in for effect. Perhaps one or two individuals may have suggested the idea, but it has never been received by us as a body, nor do I know of one person that thus believes.—Read the following from the “Review and Herald” for February, 1851. “We learned that it had been reported in Bristol, (Vt.), that we profess to be the angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. &c. Rev. vii, 2. But those who have read our writings, and have known our faith

know better.” We do believe, however, that the four winds are about to be loosed, and that the time of trouble such as never was, will soon commence. Dan. xii, 1; Jer. xxv, 30—36; Isa. xvii, 12, 14; Rev. xiii, 14—17; xii, 17. We find no promise that those will be sealed, who break the commandments and teach men so. Can C. point it out? At another time we may notice this subject at length.