Part 2 (2/2)
”Yea, we establish the law.”-Rom. iii: 31.
”The law is holy and the commandment is holy.”-Rom. vii: 12.
”Not subject to the law of G.o.d.”-Rom. viii: 7, also xiii: 8-10.
”But the commandments of G.o.d.”-1st Cor. vii: 19; 1st Tim. i: 8.
”For whoever shall keep the whole law,” &c.-James ii: 10.
Moses' Code of Laws, by Jesus and His Apostles.
”That is written in _their_ law, they hated,” &c.-John xv: 25.
”Justified by the law of Moses.”-Acts xiii: 39.
”It is written in _your_ law, I said, ye are G.o.ds?”-John x: 34.
”Have ye not read in the book of Moses.”-Mark xii: 26.
”Judged according to _our_ law.”-Acts xxiv: 6.
”Out of the law of Moses.”-xxvii: 23, and xxi: 20, 22, 24, 28.
”And _your_ law.”-Acts xviii: 15. Paul.
This and much more could be given to show the clear distinction that Jesus and his Apostles and the Jews always kept up between the law of G.o.d and the law of Moses. This is why so much confusion pervades our minds, when we read Paul to the Cor., Rom., Gal., and Col. If we carefully read his letter to the Hebrews, his Jewish brethren, we shall see a clearer distinction. In the 7th chapter, and first part of the 8th, he describes the priesthood; the change to Christ in his sanctuary in the heavens, and then the second covenant, the law of G.o.d written on our hearts. 9th chapter explains the first covenant, with its appendages, and the change.
10th chapter shows that these appendages never could make us perfect. 9th verse speaks of the change; 16th verse of the law of G.o.d again, and the 28th of the law of Moses. These four chapters will give more light respecting the two codes of laws; how one is abolished, except the types, and the other established, than all that ever I read from the pens of these no-commandment professors. May G.o.d help us to see the clear light.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE BIBLE ADVOCATE.
SIR-I was very glad when learned that your columns were to be opened for the discussion of the Sabbath question, for I thought if you would allow this subject to be fairly brought out, G.o.d's holy law would be vindicated and more strictly revered; but I soon see this was, and would be, an unequal warfare. To prevent any one's writing but C. Stowe of N. H., you say her argument will cover, or about cover, the whole ground in favor of the Jewish, or seventh-day Sabbath, and then no one else, until some one had replied against it, &c. This was very well, but I soon perceived that you did not keep the s.h.i.+p on her course. The first part of C. Stowe's article, to cover the whole ground, has never yet appeared, and should it come forth at this late hour of the discussion, it would probably avail as much as you mean it shall in its isolated state. But to prevent what you did publish for her, in the same paper, (Sept. 2d,) you gave your own unscriptural view, to go with it. This, of course, still more prejudiced your hearers, as you had before that stated objections. I am not sorry, however, that it is still going on in some shape, if it is partly in disguise. We hear that you have now on hand five times as much matter against the Sabbath as you have for it. This is all natural enough, G.o.d's word has ever been advocated by the minority. And when such blasphemous language against the Saviour we are looking for, was permitted to blacken your columns, and again reiterated that he was right, and you not only let it pa.s.s unnoticed, but was endeavoring to screen him by withdrawing his real name from G.o.d's children. The inference is, and must be, strong against you. Look at your position now! THE BIBLE ADVOCATE!! Show if you can the chapter and verse where the BIBLE allows any man to advocate G.o.d's word, that ever withheld his real name and where those that stood in high places were trying to screen them, because as we should have a good right to suppose, that they were in fellows.h.i.+p with their doctrine. How do the columns of THE BIBLE ADVOCATE look now, since you have opened the way for them to follow your unrighteous course, to debase and still hold up G.o.d's holy law as a Jewish ritual, that had been abolished. It looks to me like the same horn that is to ”prevail against the saints until the ancient of days comes.” ”He thought to change times and laws;” (G.o.d's laws without doubt.) He, then, through this agency, has been blackening your columns with his iron hoof. The Devil has been too long engaged in this war to pa.s.s any one's enclosure, who has left his gate open, without walking in and taking possession. How could you be so careless or wilful, after warring with him as you have done in the past, to leave the way open for him to tread you down. Another thing: In your paper of Dec. 23d, you say, ”Br. Turner, have you sent your second article on the Sabbath? We have not received it.” Why in so much haste for this wonderful promised article, to overthrow history, after he has overthrown himself by the bible? Why not publish some of the so much ma.n.u.script you have already on hand? I cannot help thinking, after all, that you have no faith in your own argument of a no-Sabbath, no-commandment system, hence this partial call for J. Turner to speak again. His view is really the very thing! It is just as it used to be. If T. has got it right the discussion is forever ended, and we have always been right, but did not know it; if we had, we should not have resorted to these puzzling arguments of Paul to prove that there is no Sabbath, to get clear of plain, bible doctrine!
As I have answered nearly all your arguments against the Sabbath and commandments, in my work on the Sabbath, and Waymarks, and lastly in my reply to the Advent Harbinger, under the head of the Four Pillar system, I shall be brief because I want to say a word upon another subject that you have named. You say, ”to a.s.sume or infer that the Sabbath was commanded to men before the Exode from Egypt, is to walk as blind men. But at creation Adam's first day was the seventh day, or day on which G.o.d rested. Hence, if Adam kept Sabbath, he kept the first day, and then worked six days.”
Who said so? Not the bible. You would try to make out that Adam contradicted and disobeyed G.o.d's law, just as you have. Suppose you were born on Friday, the sixth day, would the next day, the seventh, be your first or second day? Your argument is not worth a straw; Adam's first day was Friday, the sixth day, and if he had been created the seventh day, that would have made no difference. How strange you talk! Because man should happen to come into life upon any other than the first day, then he must surely violate the Sabbath by doing his six days work first! This is in perfect keeping with ”let every man be persuaded in his own mind,” and not keep any. G.o.d rested the seventh day and blessed and sanctified it.
Surely it is not so dangerous to follow G.o.d's example as it is to contradict and disobey him. Such as these are the blind men. [See first three pages of work on the Sabbath.]
Again, you say, ”how long was the covenant or law of ten commandments to remain in force and effect, and answer Gal. iii, till Christ shall come.”
Under the third Pillar, I have answered this. The law of circ.u.mcision, and not the law of G.o.d, is Paul's whole argument here. The 17th verse shows the covenant is the one with Abraham, four hundred and thirty years before the law to Moses. There is not an intimation of the abolition of the law of commandments. Here it is the law of Abraham and Moses. Therefore it is right for the advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath to demand of you to prove a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day; and the reason we demand it is, because we positively know you have none. You also say that the Apostles availed themselves of the opportunity to preach to the judaizing christians in their synagogues on the seventh day, at the same time keeping up the christian solemnity and wors.h.i.+p on the first day.
I say you cannot prove this. You cannot present a pa.s.sage in the scriptures that shows that the disciples ever met together for wors.h.i.+p, in the day time, on the first day of the week, and only once of an evening; and not one word about that being a holy day or a day for them to wors.h.i.+p, but to break bread. But why do you want to prove this if all the commandments are abolished? The fact is, as soon as you leave the law of G.o.d, you are all adrift, with neither oar nor rudder, at the mercy of the tide. Again, you say ”the ministration of the law is done away, is abolished.” That is just what we say. Suppose you had ceased your ministration ten years ago, would that have abolished the Gospel? This is your reasoning, and it is the best argument you and others bring for the abolition of the commandments in 2d Cor. iii. There is nothing there but the ministration abolished, which no more affects the law of G.o.d, than the moving of your old sermons out of your house would affect the house.
Now will you just turn over your file to Nov. 4th, where you come out against J. P. M. Peck, about the sanctuary. As I have twice presented my view of the sanctuary's being in the heavens, I shall not stop here, only to say, that there is abundant bible proof for this view, and but one place for it, where Jesus, the High Priest is. But the one you advocate is first one thing and then another. Palestine, or Canaan, or Jerusalem, or mountains about Jerusalem; Mount Zion, and generally, the whole world. The reason for this is, because you have no proof of any certain place, after you leave Paul, in Heb. viii: 2. But you say, ”I deny that it has been any thing like a general belief that the twenty-three hundred days ended in '44. There were a portion of the adventists that embraced, for a while, that theory. But they soon abandoned it, with the exception of a few, who have followed anything but the word of G.o.d and sound reason; and they now have no fellows.h.i.+p for, or connection with those who truly look for the cleansing of the sanctuary, at the end of the days; and we have as little fellows.h.i.+p for their teaching as they have for us and our view of the plain word of G.o.d. We know enough of the effect of that theory that teaches the 2300 days ended in '44, and scores of Shakers can tell you more even than we can.”
<script>