Both Sides

REPLY

Friend Miller:-I feel a pleasure in replying to your kind epistle arising from the hope that my labor will not be in vain. Cheerfully would I devote my time to converse with one who has not “a shadow of a doubt” of my being in error on the Sabbath question. This perfect freedom from doubt is evidence, to my mind, that you have not carefully examined the evidences in favor of the Sabbath. Perhaps you might, in truth, adopt the language of Bro. A. J. Richmond as follows: “But from reading the Harbinger, and hearing but one side of the subject, and neglecting to examine it closely for myself, I had concluded that it was a ‘yoke of bondage’ and ‘done away.’” But if you have carefully read the article in the Review of Aug. 11th, to which your attention was invited, perhaps you are not so free from doubts as you were. BOS 7.3

In stating what you call “two important facts,” you admit that the law from Sinai was the “rule of moral obligation for that dispensation.” Bear with me, for I must exclaim, Who hath bewitched you, that you should think that the rule of moral obligation can be changed, without a change in the relation existing between man and his Maker! Is God changeable?-Could he make a better moral rule at the commencement of the gospel dispensation, than he could when he formed the first man? Can he improve his original law, which the inspired Psalmist pronounced “perfect,” by abolishing one tenth part of it? And would he make known through the agency of man that he had changed that law which he spoke with his own mouth, in the hearing of all Israel; or that he had abolished it and given a new “rule of moral obligation” in its stead. BOS 7.4

After stating your two “facts” you speak of the different ways by which men might “secure the favor of God” in different dispensations. To live in favor with God, and to secure his favor are two things. Why is not man in favor with God? Because he is a sinner. What has made him such? Transgression of God’s law; for “sin is the transgression of the law.” Man is a sinner. He has lost the favor of God, and is justly exposed to the penalty of the law, which is death. There is no salvation for him unless God should abolish his law, or make another law by which he may be forgiven, and thus restored to favor. This second law is the same, in one sense, in both dispensations. That is, it consists of faith, repentance and obedience to certain rites, which are outward acts expressive of faith and repentance. In another sense it differs much in the two dispensations. In the former dispensation the faith was in a promised Messiah, and was accompanied by obedience to typical rites; in the latter, the faith is in a Messiah already come and sacrificed for sin, (transgression of the first named law,) and shown forth by corresponding obedience to commemorative rites or institutions. For example: In the Jewish dispensation the sinner must offer an animal, the blood of which must be shed; in the Christian age, he must be buried by baptism. The language of the former was, God will provide a sacrifice for sin; the latter declares that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again for our justification. Repentance is the same in both dispensation. It consists not merely in sorrow, but in breaking off from sin (transgression of the first law) by righteousness. (Obedience to that law.) Sorrow is not repentance; but godly sorrow worketh repentance, or reformation not to be repented of. BOS 8.1

“Repentance is to leave the sins I loved before, And show that I do truly grieve, by doing so no more.” BOS 9.1

Thus we see that, in order to save sinners, there must of necessity be a second law, or the first must be abolished. I have shown that this second law in the new dispensation, differs from the corresponding law in the old. Consequently they are distinguished from each other in the New Testament; the former being designated as “the work of the law,” the latter as the hearing, or obedience of faith. Did God abolish the first law, to save all mankind in their sins? or did he institute a second law, to save believers from their sins? Does forgiveness of sins entitle the forgiven to a right to commit the same thing again? Mark! Christ did not die to redeem man from the transgression of a law given by the apostles after his death but to redeem him from sin against a law already in existence. BOS 9.2

By moral law, or “rule of moral obligation,” I understand the first, or original law, the law man would have kept had he continued in favor with God, and which he must keep, if he is restored to his favor. By ceremonial or ritual law I understand the second,-the law which recognizes man as a sinner, and is a means of restoring him to favor. Viewing it thus, I am surprised when I hear any one speak of a change in moral obligation. To my mind, it seems equivalent to a change in God himself-that he has grown wiser since making his first attempt at a perfect rule of life. BOS 9.3

The Sabbath is a part of the original law. It was made before man sinned. And how was it made? God rested upon it, and then blessed and sanctified it, because he had rested upon it. If you can show any other time and manner of making the Sabbath, you are requested to do so. In regard to the expression of our Saviour, that the Sabbath was made for man, the learned have informed us that in the Greek, the word man is qualified by an “untranslated” article. That article, when translated, is the definite article the. So, in the original language, the passage reads, “the Sabbath was made for the man;” and as there was but one pair of human beings at the time when it was made, we cannot be at a loss in regard to the man for whom it was intended. This shows that the Sabbath was not a Jewish institution; and whether Adam could have been benefited by it without observing it, you will, of course enjoy your own opinion. BOS 9.4

We have found a necessity for the two laws in the nature of thing as they exist-man as sinner, and God willing to save him. Now if we can find the two laws in the Bible, the testimony to me, will be sufficient. God spake ten commandments with his own voice, and wrote them with his own finger in tables of stone. Moses wrote the ordinances of the Jewish church in a book. The first is called “the law of God”-the commandments of God;” the second, “the law of Moses,” and, “the law of the Lord, given by the hand of Moses.” The tables are called “the tables of the covenant;” the book is called “the book of the covenant” and “the book of Moses.”Exodus 31:18. Deuteronomy 31:21-26; 9:9-11. 2 Chronicles 34:30. Mark 12:26. BOS 10.1

The term law in the New Testament sometimes means one of these laws, and sometimes the other; the context always determining which is meant. Rejecting the idea of tow laws, and claiming that the word law always means one and the same thing, will you show how to reconcile or harmonize the following scriptures. BOS 10.2

The law of a carnal commandment. Hebrews 7:16. BOS 11.1

We know that the law is spiritual. Romans 7:14. BOS 11.2

The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:12. BOS 11.3

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18. BOS 11.4

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances. Ephesians 2:15. BOS 11.5

Think not that I am come to destroy the law.-Matthew 5:14. BOS 11.6

Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments and true laws, (margin, laws of truth.) good statutes and commandments. Nehemiah 9:13. BOS 11.7

Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, (had done these things before the giving of the law at Sinai.) and their eyes were after their father’s idols; wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. Ezekiel 20:24, 25. BOS 11.8

Peter calls “the law of Moses” a yoke “which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.” Acts 15:5, 10. BOS 11.9

Paul says, I delight in “the law of God” after the inward man. Romans 7:22. BOS 11.10

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Galatians 5:4. BOS 11.11

The doers of the law shall be justified. Romans 2:13. BOS 11.12

When the priesthood was changed, from the typical to the antitypical, there was of necessity a change of the law. What law? Not the original, royal law of ten commandments, for that can never change.-The idea that the fourth commandment was fulfilled by Christ, and consequently abolished, is false; for that law does not pass away by little fragments.-One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled So if fulfilling it does it away, it will all be fulfilled, and all go together.-But the context shows that all the prophets, must be fulfilled before one particle of the law can pass.-James informs Christians that, if they fulfill the royal law, they “do well.” He also tells them that “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one, he is guilty of all.” And lest any should mistake the law of which he speaks, he immediately quotes two of the ten commandments. James 2:8-12. The first law then is not changed: we must therefore look to the second. The ritual law, we have seen, is changed from a typical, to a commemorative character. It is now known as “the gospel” or “the faith.” Sin is still the transgression of the law, and the wages of sin is death. To escape this penalty, and “secure the favor of God” a person must be obedient to the faith.” “He must become a Christian and submit to the rule” submitted to and taught “by the apostle.” He must “delight in the law of God, after the inward man”-keep the whole law, and not offend in one precept lest he become guilty of all. “For there is ONE lawgiver, (not twelve) who is able to save and to destroy.” James 4:12.-“Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” The commandments are one thing, and the faith is another. The apostles taught them both. Says Paul, Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea. we establish the law. Romans 3:31. In no way could the immutability of the law of God be more effectually established, than by the death of the Son of God to deem man from its penalty. If the commandments could have been abolished. Jesus need not have died; but he died for our sins-for our transgression of the law! What gratitude is due to God for his exceeding love! and how can we demonstrate our gratitude better than by breaking off from our sins and keeping that holy law? Says David, The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul. (Turning the soul from transgression to obedience, from sin to holiness.) Says James, But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. O how love I thy law! says David; it is my meditation all the day. I delight in the law of God after the inward man, responds Paul. Says David, all his commandments are sure, they stand fast for ever and ever. It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail, says the Lord Jesus. BOS 11.13

With all the testimony of Jesus and the apostle to the perpetuity and immutability of Jehovah’s whole law of ten commandments, who can be so stubborn, as to refuse to keep the fourth, or any other commandments, because it is not given a second time, in the New Testament? The apostles frequently quote from the commandments, as a standard law; but they never re-enacted one of them, for the very good reason, that none of them were ever abolished. Do you still ask why there is not more testimony, for the Sabbath in the New Testament? I answer in the language of Bro. White. Speaking of the fulfillment of the signs in the sun, moon and stars, he says: “God has never revealed his truth to man in a manner to compel him to believe. Those who have wished to doubt his word, have ever found a wide field in which to doubt, and a broad road to perdition. While those who have wished to believe, have ever found everlasting rock on which to base their faith.” BOS 13.1

I feel perfectly satisfied with the evidence given for the Sabbath in the New Testament. I have no desire for one word to be added to it. The Lord does all things well. He has suffered the Man of sin to exalt himself above God, and dictate laws to the world; but he will, ere long, vindicate his own truth. The Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. For two reasons the wicked are condemned. 1. They know not God. (The Father.) 2. They obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. (The Son.) How do we know that we know God? Let an Apostle answer. “And hereby do we 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.” 1 John 2:3, 4. The Sabbath, in particular, is a sign of the knowledge of the true God. “Hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.” Ezekiel 20:20. So we see, that while the “remnant” keep both the commandments and the faith, the wicked are condemned for rejecting both. Happy will he be who has a part with the remnant. “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.” BOS 13.2

You have pronounced my argument, respecting the Harbinger’s rule, “excusable;” for I understood him to mean as he said. The demand was, that the passage should read that either Jew or Gentile Christian is required to keep the seventh day. And lest he should be misunderstood, emphasized the words, reads and Christian, giving them in italics. Besides this, after the Review had quoted some texts for the Sabbath, the Harbinger replied, “Not a word is said or Intimated about Christians in the texts quoted.” He did not say that these words were not addressed to Christians, but judges that the Review intended to make the texts read, Christians, remember the Sabbath day, etc. BOS 14.1

I admit that the apostles addressed themselves to Christians, and forbade, not only killing, stealing and lying, but the violation of every precept of that law which said, Thou shalt not kill. James 2:10, 11, see margin. Jesus addressed himself to “his disciples” and said. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever includes every body. Therefore signifies a conclusion drawn from what he had just affirmed of the perpetuity of the entire law, and shows that the law and the commandments are one and the same thing. These commandments refer to the commandments existing at the time, and not to those commandments given by the apostles” some years afterwards. The fourth commandment of the law required the observance of the Sabbath. It was connected with “good statutes” by God himself, being written with his own finger in the midst of them. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Amen! BOS 15.1

Be assured that all I have said proceeds from the kindest feelings; and if you, or any one else, can profit thereby, my object in writing will be attained. BOS 15.2

Yours in hope of meeting all the saints in the kingdom. R. F. Cottrell.
Mill Grove, N. Y., Aug. 18th, 1853. BOS 15.3