of the elders? His answer is, "Why do ye transgress the commandment of
God?" and he immediately cites them to the fifth commandment, Matt. xv:
4. Again, "the law and the prophets were until John; since that time the
kingdom of God is preached," &c.--Luke xvi: 16. Jesus was three years
after this introducing the gospel of the kingdom, unwaveringly holding
his meetings on the Sabbath days, (which our opponents say were now
about to be abolished; others say changed,) and never uttering a
syllable to show to the contrary, but this was and always would be the
holy day for worship. Mark says when the Sabbath (the Seventh day, for
there was no other,) was come, he began to teach in the Synagogue, vi:
[22]2. Luke says, "as his _custom_ was, he went into the Synagogue and
taught on the Sabbath day." iv: 16, 31. Will it be said of him as it is
of Paul on like occasions, some thirty years afterwards that he
uniformly held his meetings on the Sabbath because he had no where else
to preach, or that this day was the only one in the week in which the
people would come out to hear him? Every bible reader knows better;
witness the five thousand and the seven thousand, and the multitude that
thronged him in the streets, in the cities and towns where they listened
to him; besides, he was now establishing a new dispensation, while
theirs was passing away. Then he did not follow any of their customs or
rites or ceremonies which he had come to abolish.
I have already quoted Matt. 5: 17, 18, where Jesus said he had come to
fulfil the law, and immediately begins by showing them that they are not
to violate one of the least of the commandments, and cites them to
some--see v: 19, 21, 27, 33. Again, he is tauntingly asked "which is the
great commandment in the law: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind. This is the _first_ and great commandment. And the second is like
unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets." xxii: 36, 40. Here
Jesus has divided the ten commandments into two parts, or as it is
written on two tables of stone. The first four on the first table treat
of those duties which we owe to God--the other six refer to those which
we owe to man requiring perfect obedience.
Once more, "One came and said unto him, good master what good thing
shall I do that I may have eternal life? He said, If thou wilt enter
into life keep the commandments. Then he asked him which. He cited him
to the last part of what he called the second, loving his neighbor as
himself." If he had cited him to the first table, as in the xxii, quoted
above, he could not have replied "_all_ these have I kept from my youth
up." Why? Because he would have already been perfect, for Jesus in reply
to his question, what he should do to inherit eternal life, said he must
"keep the commandments." Matt. xix: 16-20.--Is not the Sabbath included
in these commandments?--Surely it is! Then how absurd to believe that
Jesus, just at the close of his ministry, should teach that the way, the
only way, to enter into life, was to keep the commandments, [23]one of
which was to be abolished in a few months from that time, without the
least intimation from him or his Father that it was to take place. I say
again, if the Sabbath is abolished, we ask those who teach it to cite us
to the chapter and verse, not to the law of rites and ceremonies which
are abolished, for we have already shown that the Sabbath was instituted
more than twenty-five hundred years before Moses wrote the carnal
ordinances or ceremonies. God said, "Abraham kept _my_ charge, _my_
commandments, _my_ statutes, and _my_ laws." Gen. xxvi: 5. This must
include the Sabbath, for the Sabbath was the first law given, therefore
if Abraham did not keep the Sabbath, I cannot understand what
commandments, statutes, and laws mean in this chapter. Jesus says, "As I
have kept my Father's commandments," John xv: 10. Did he keep the
commandments? Yes. Mark and Luke, before quoted--(but more of this in
another place.)
In John vii: 19, Jesus speaks of "Moses law," "_your law_," x: 34.
Again, "_their_ law." xv: 25. Here then we show that Jesus kept up a
clear distinction between what God calls _my_ law and commandments and
Moses law, "_their_ law," "_your_ law." Let us now look at the argument
of the Apostles. Paul preaching at Antioch taught the brethren that by
Jesus Christ all who believe in him "are justified from all things from
which ye could not be justified by the _Law of Moses_." Acts xiii: 39.
The Pharisee said "that it was needful to circumcise them and commend
them to keep the _Law of Moses_." xv: 5.
Again, when Paul had come to Jerusalem the second time, (fourteen years
from the time he met the Apostles in conference where they established
the decrees for the churches. See Acts xx: 19; Gal. ii: 1,) the Apostles
shewed him how many thousands of Jews there were which believed and were
zealous of the _law_; "And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest
_all_ the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake _Moses_ and the
_customs_." xxi: 20, 21. Any person who will carefully read the eight
chapters here included, must be thoroughly convinced that the Apostle's
troubles were about the law of ceremonies written and given by Moses,
and nothing to do with the ten commandments. For you see a little before
he comes to Jerusalem, he had been preaching at Corinth every Sabbath
for eighteen months. xviii: 4, 11. And this, be it remembered, was more
than twenty years after the Jewish Sabbaths and ceremonies were nailed
to the cross.--And [24]you see that Paul was the man above all the
Apostles to be persecuted on account of the abolition of the Jews' law
of ceremonies, for he was the "_great_ apostle to the Gentiles:" and if
the "Sabbath of the Lord our God" was to have been abolished when the
Saviour died, Paul was the very man selected for that purpose. It is
clear, therefore, that he did not abolish the seventh day Sabbath among
the Gentiles. This same Apostle tells the Romans "that Christ is the end
of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." x: 4. Again,
that "sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the
_law_ but under grace." vi: 14. Once more: He says the Gentiles having
not the _law_, are a _law_ unto themselves.--Why? Because, he says in
the next verse, it shews the _law_ written on their hearts. The law of
ceremonies? No that which was on tables of stone. ii: 14-16. We might
quote much more which looks like embracing the whole law. Let us now
look at a few texts in the same letter, which will draw a distinguishing
line between the two codes of laws. Paul, in the vii ch. 9-13v, brings
to view the carnal commandment, and the one unto life, and sums up his
argument in these words: "Wherefore the _law_ is holy, and the
commandment holy and just and good." In the 7v he quotes from the
decalogue. Again, he that loveth another hath fulfilled the _law_. How?
Why thou shalt not steal, nor commit adultery, nor bear false witness,
nor covet, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Therefore _love_ is
the fulfilling of the law. Rom. xiii: 8, 10.--This then is what the
Saviour taught the young man to do--to secure "eternal life." Matt. Once
more, in concluding a long argument on the law in Rom. iii: 31 he closes
with this language: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God
forbid ye, _we establish the law_."--What _law_ is here established? Not
the law of rites and ceremonies. What then, for Paul means some law. It
can be no other than what he calls the law of "life," of "love," the ten
commandments. How could even that be established twenty-nine years after
the crucifixion if one of the _greatest_ commandments had been abolished
out of the code, that is the Sabbath.
Paul's letter to the Corinthians teaches that "circumcision is nothing,
and uncircumcision is nothing, but the _keeping_ of the commandments of
God." vii: 19. Again, in his epistle to the Galatians, his phraseology
is somewhat changed, but the argument is to the same point, although
[25]some passages read as though every vestage of _law_ was swept by the
board when Jesus hung upon the cross. For instance, such as the
following: "But that no man is justified by the _law_ in the sight of
God it is evident, for the just shall live by faith, and the LAW is not
of faith, but the man that doeth them shall live by them." "Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the _law_, being made a curse for us."
"But before faith came we were kept under the _law_, shut up unto the
faith which should afterwards be revealed." "Wherefore the law was our
schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by
faith, but after that faith has come we are no longer under a
schoolmaster." Gal. iii: 11-23, 23-25. Again: "For as many as are of the
works of the _law_ are under the curse." 10v. Now are we to understand
from these texts that whosoever continueth in the _law_ is cursed, and
that the law _the whole law_, was abolished when Christ came as our
schoolmaster, he being the "end of the law?" Rom. x: 4. If so, how is it
possible for any man, even Paul himself, to be saved. But we do not
believe that Paul taught these brethren any different doctrine than what
has already been shown in the Acts, Romans, and Corinthians, and also
the Eph., Phil., Col., and Heb. If he did not mean the law written by
the hand of Moses, distinguishing it from the _law_ of the ten
commandments, written by the finger of God on tables of stone, then pray
tell me if you can, what he means (in the closing of this argument,) by
saying, "For _all_ the LAW is FULFILLED in one word, even this: Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." v: 14. Surely he is quoting the
Saviour's words in Matthew xxii: 39, relative to the commandment of the
Lord our God.--To his son Timothy he says: "Now the end of the
commandment is charity," (love) meaning of course the last part of the
ten commandments. In vi: 2, he says: "Bear ye one anothers burdens and
so fulfil the _law_ of Christ." Does this differ from the _law_ of God?
Yes, a little, for it is the new commandment, (some say the eleventh.)
See John xiii: 34. "A new commandment I give unto you, (what is it,
Lord?) that ye love one another." And also xv: 12. The other is to love
our neighbor as ourself.--John says: "And this commandment have we from
him (Christ,) that he who loveth God loveth his brother also." John iv:
21, and ii: 8-11. In his letter to the Ephesians he says: "Having
abolished in his flesh the _enmity_ even the law of commandments
contained in [26]ordinances." ii: 15. See the reverse in vi: 2 v. To
the Collossians he asks, "Why as though living in the world, are ye
subject to ordinances which all are to perish with their using?" And
says: "Touch not, taste not, handle not." (Does Paul here teach us to
forsake the ordinances of God, instituted by the Saviour--Baptism and
the Lord's Supper? Yes, just as clearly as he does to forsake the whole
law.)
When writing to the Hebrews more than thirty years after the
crucifixion, he calls these ordinances _carnal_, imposed on them (the
Jews) until Christ our High Priest should come. ix: 10, 11. He also
calls the law of commandments carnal too, and says: "For there is verily
a disannulling of the commandments going before, for the law made
nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did." vii: 16,
18-19. "For when Moses had spoken _every precept_ to all the people
according to the _law_ he took the blood of calves and of goats, with
water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the BOOK and all
the people." ix: 19. Now we see clearly that the book of the law of
Moses, from which Paul has been quoting through the whole before
mentioned epistles, is as distinctly separate from the tables of stone
(or fleshly table of the heart,) as they were when deposited in the Ark
thirty-three hundred years ago. Therefore we think that here is clear
proof that he has kept up the distinction between the "handwriting of
ordinances" (meaning Moses' own handwriting in his book,) and the "ten
commandments writen by the finger of God."
Let us now turn to the Epistle of James, said to be written more than
twenty-five years after the law of ceremonies was nailed to the cross,
and see if he does not teach us distinctly, that we are bound to keep
the commandments given on tables of stone. He says, "the man that shall
be a DOER of the _perfect law_ of liberty shall be blessed in his deed."
i: 25. "If ye fulfill the royal _law_ according to the scripture, thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well." Why? Because the
Saviour in quoting from the commandments, in answer to the Ruler, what
he should do to inherit eternal life, taught the same doctrine. Matt.
xix: 19. Further: "For whosoever shall keep the whole _law_ and yet
offend in one point, shall be guilty of _all_." In the next verse he
quotes from the ten commandments again, namely, Adultery and Murder
(what the Saviour in the fifth chapter of Matt. calls the [27]least,
that is the smallest commandment,) and says if we commit them we become
transgressors of the _law_. Of what _law_? Next verse says the _law_ of
_liberty_ by which we are to be "judged." ii: 8, 11.
Now will it not be admitted by every reasonable person that James has
included the whole of the ten commandments, by calling them the perfect
law of liberty. 2d, "The royal _law_ according to the scripture," and
3d, "the _law of liberty_ by which we are to be judged." (Royal relates
to imperial and kingly.) Perfect means COMPLETE, _entire_, the WHOLE.
Then I understand James thus: This _law_ emenated from the king, the
Supreme Ruler of the universe, and to be perfect must be just what it
was when it came from his hand, and that no _change_ had, or could take
place, (and remember now, this is more than twenty-five years since the
ceremonies with the Jewish Sabbaths were nailed to the cross,) for the
very best of reasons, until the Judgment, because he shows we are to be
judged by _that law_. Then I ask by what parity of reasoning any one can
make the law of the ten commandments perfect, while they at the same
time assert that the fourth one is abolished? and that on no better
evidence than calling it the Jewish Sabbath. Now let us look at the
Apostle John's testimony.
"And hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his commandments. He
that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandments is a LIAR, and
the truth is not in him." Now no man, more especially one who professes
to abide by the whole truth, feels entirely easy if he is called a
_liar_. Now John please explain yourself.--Hear him: "Brethren, I write
no new commandment unto you, but an _old_ commandment that ye had from
the beginning. The old commandment is the _word_ which ye have heard
from the BEGINNING." What do you mean by _beginning_? Turn to my gospel,
1st ch. "In the _beginning_ was the word,"--"the same was in the
_beginning_ with God." 1, 2. See Gen. i ch: "In the _beginning_ God
created the heavens and the earth." Then you are pointing us to the
seventh day of creation, in which God instituted the seventh day Sabbath
of rest, for the _old_ commandment in the _beginning_. ii: 3. Certainly
there is no other place to point to. Does not Jesus point to the same
place for the _beginning_ when marriage was first instituted. Matt. xix:
4. In my second letter to the church, I have taught the same doctrines:
viz. "This is the commandment that as ye [28]have heard from the
_beginnings ye should walk in it_." (practice it.) ii: 5, 6. "A _new_
commandment I write unto you." ii: 8 v. This is the one that Jesus gave
us on that memorable night in which he was betrayed, after he had
instituted the sacrament and washed our feet. He said "By this shall all
men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another." xiii:
34, 35. The first then teaches us, Love to God; 2d, to Love our neighbor
as ourself; "on these two commandments (says Jesus) hang all the law and
the prophets." Then we understand this is the essence of the ten
commandments, and if we do not keep the Sabbath we do not love God.
Jesus says, "If ye love me keep my commandments." We are repeatedly told
that the Sabbath was changed or forever abolished, at the crucifixion of
our Lord; and it is stated by the most competent authorities that John
wrote this epistle about sixty years afterwards, and that about six
years after this our blessed Lord revealed to him the state of the
Church down to the judgment of the great day. In the xiv ch. Rev. 6-11,
he saw three angels following each other in succession: first one
preaching the everlasting gospel (second advent doctrine); 2d,
announcing the fall of Babylon; 3d, calling God's people out of her by
showing the awful destruction that awaited all such as did not obey. He
sees the separation and cries out, "Here is the patience of the Saints,
here are they that keep the _commandments_ of God and the faith of
Jesus." And this picture was so deeply impressed upon his mind, that
when the Savior said to him "Behold I come quickly and my reward is with
me," he seemed to understand this, saying--"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." Now it seems to me that the
seventh day Sabbath is more clearly included in these commandments, than
thou shalt not steal, nor kill, nor commit adultery, for it is the only
one that was written at the creation or in the _beginning_. He allows no
stopping place this side of the gates of the city. Then, if we do not
keep that day, John has made out his case, that we are all _liars_. We
say in every other case the type must be continued until it is
superseded by the antetype: as in the case of the passover, until our
Lord was crucified. So then, as Paul tells us, "there remaineth a
keeping of the Sabbath to the people of God;" and that we believe will
be in the Millenium, the seven thousandth year, so that the seventh
[29]day Sabbath and no other will answer for the type, and those who
keep the first or the eighth day Sabbath cannot consistently look for
the antetype of rest or the great Sabbath, short of one thousand years
in future.
Again: Isaiah says: "To the law and to the testimony if they speak not
according to his word it is because there is no light in them." viii:
20. Now if the Gentiles are under no law, as is asserted, pray tell me
what right, the Gentiles, have we to appeal to the law and testimony, or
to this text.
In the xxiv. of Matt. our Saviour says to his disciples in answer to
their questions, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign
of thy coming and the end of the world? "When ye therefore shall see the
abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the
holy place," &c. 15v. "Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter,
neither on the Sabbath day." 20v. The first question is, at what age of
the world is this, where our Lord recognizes the Sabbath. 1st. It is
agreed on all hands that this time to which he here refers, never
transpired until the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, about 40
years after his crucifixion. 2d. Some others say down to the second
Advent! The first mentioned is safe ground and sufficient for our
purpose; nor need we stop to inquire why our Lord gave these directions,
it is forever settled that he directed the minds of his followers to
THE, not _a_ Sabbath. Keep it in remembrance, that he told the Pharisees
that he was Lord, not of _a_, but of THE Sabbath, meaning that one which
of course had already been established. The 2d question is, did our Lord
ever trifle with or mislead his disciples? The response is No! Then it
is clear that if he taught them to pray at all, it must be in faith, and
he of course would hear them and mediate with the Father to change the
day of their flight. I ask what kind of a prayer and with what kind of
faith would his disciples have asked to have this day changed, if, as we
are told, it was abolished some forty years before, and they had,
contrary to the will of God, persisted in keeping up the seventh day
Sabbath. Any one who has confidence in God's word, knows that such a
prayer never would be answered. What if you do say the Jews always kept
that Sabbath, and it was the same seventh day Sabbath that they kept
when he was teaching them in their synagogues? I say so too! and that
fact will be presented by and by, in its place. This does not touch the
point. Jesus was here, giving instruction to his [30]followers, both
Jew and Gentile, respecting _the_ Sabbath which they would have to do
with. It is immaterial what kind of sophistry is presented to overthrow
the point, nothing can touch it short of proving it a mistranslation.
Jesus did here recognize the perpetuity of the _seventh day Sabbath_.
And John will continue to make all men liars that say they know him, and
refuse the light presented and disregard this commandment. If God
instituted the Sabbath in Paradise and has not abolished it here, then
it must be _perpetual_. If Paul's argument in iii. Rom. that the law is
established through faith, is correct, then it is _perpetual_. If James'
royal _perfect law_ of liberty, which we are to be doers of, and judged
by, means the commandments, then is the Sabbath _perpetual_. If the
Apostle John has made out a clear case by citing us back to the
_beginning_ of creation, and by walking in and doing these commandments,
we shall have right to the tree of life and enter in by the gates into
the city; then it must be _perpetual_. If the earthly Sabbath is typical
of the heavenly, then must it be _perpetual_. If not one jot or one
tittle can ever pass from the law, then must it be _perpetual_. If the
Saviour, in answer to the young man who asked him what he should do to
inherit _eternal life_, gave a safe direction for Gentiles to follow,
viz: "If thou wilt enter into _life_ keep the commandments" (and these
included those commandments which his Father had given,) then, without
_contradiction_ the Sabbath is _perpetual_, and all the arguments which
ever can be presented against the fourth commandment being observed
before God wrote it on tables of stone to prove that it is not binding
on Gentiles, fall powerless before this one sentence: _If thou wilt
enter into life, keep the Commandments._ I say the proof is positive
that the Sabbath was a constituent part of the commandments, and Jesus
says the Sabbath was made for man. The Jews were only a _fragment of
creation_.
"The principle is settled in all governments that there are but two ways
in which any law can cease to be binding upon the people. It may expire
by its own limitations, or it may be repealed by the same authority
which enacted it; and in the latter case the repealing act must be as
explicit as that by which the obligation was originally imposed." Now we
have it in proof that the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, the
_first_ of all laws without any limitation, and no enactment by God to
abolish it, unless what we have already referred to can be considered
proof. One more passage which I have not alluded to, will show that
[31]it was not abolished at the crucifixion, for his disciples kept the
Sabbath while he was resting in his tomb. See Luke xxiii: 55, 56. Let us
now pass to another part of the subject. The third question:
WAS THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH EVER CHANGED? IF SO WHEN, AND FOR WHAT
REASON?