THE TWO LAWS AND THE SABBATH

To those who are acquainted with the reasons upon which S.D. Adventists base their views of the Sabbath, nothing would be necessary to be said under this head. But to those who may not be so familiar with these reasons, and who may cherish a candid, inquiring spirit in reference to our views, a few words may be in place. In a brief article we can touch upon only a few general principles, but enough, we trust, to show the nature of the ground we occupy.RCASDA 113.2

The best point of attack upon the Sabbath question, our opponents are coming to think is the position we hold in reference to the distinction between “laws which are called moral,” and this is now prominently set forth as the chief point of attack. They well understand that if this distinction can be broken down, everything is thrown into confusion, and in the general chaos they can very plausibly work in the abolition of the Sabbath, which is the point they want to gain. Hence Eld. C. labors to show that in the days of Moses, all the law which the most advanced religious people on the earth had any knowledge of, either human or divine, was “an entire system,” a “law taken in all its parts,” and that it “was a burdensome system,” a “yoke of bondage,” a “school-master designed only to lead us to Christ;” that it was “against us and contrary to us,” and was therefore “nailed to the cross.”RCASDA 113.3

If there was but one law, these conclusions would naturally follow. All was nailed to the cross; and the Sabbath with all the rest went by the board. But if this is so, then there are some of the most wretched contradictions to be found in the Bible, that can be found in any book on earth. And fundamental distinctions that exist in the very nature of things must be strangely ignored.RCASDA 113.4

Let us see. The apostle John says: “Whosoever committeth sin, worketh lawlessness; for sin is lawlessness;” very properly rendered in our version, “Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.” This is good New Testament doctrine, written some sixty years after the time when it is claimed by some that all law was done away, and men had only the gospel. To the same import are the declarations of the apostle Paul to the Romans, that by the law is the knowledge of sin (3:20); that where no law is there is no transgression (4:15); and that sin is not imputed when there is no law (5:13); and he says again, “I had not known sin but by the law” (7:7).RCASDA 114.1

These declarations lay down a fundamental principle on this subject. They show that the field covered by sin, is covered by something else called the law; that this is subject to the same limitations; that there is a set of regulations, a code of morals, the neglect or violation of any part of which by any morally responsible being at any time, in any place, and under any circumstances, is “sin”; and that this by itself, and independent of everything else, is a “law.”RCASDA 114.2

This being acknowledged (and every one must admit it), the distinction between laws is acknowledged, for there certainly are other rules and regulations the neglect or violation of which is not held as the evidence and test of sin. For instance, Paul says that “by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death by sin.” Adam then violated that law the transgression of which John says is sin. What was Adam’s sin?—It was in disobeying God in reference to the restrictions of the forbidden tree, an act which involved a violation of the first and last, third, fifth, and sixth principles of the decalogue, at least. Adam could not in his palmiest days violate any one of these without becoming a sinner. But while he stood in his innocency it was no sin in him that he was not baptized, no sin in him that he did not pay tithes, no sin in him that he did not celebrate the Lord’s supper, and no sin in him that he did not present offerings and oblations to the Lord. But afterward there were laws and regulations given touching all these points. But these could not belong to that system by which is the knowledge of sin. Even to-day the ordinances of the gospel are not appealed to in the cases of worldly men to show that they are sinners. If we are told that a certain man is a sinner, and we ask why, the answer is not, Because he is not baptized or Because or does not partake of the Lord’s supper, or Because he does not contribute to the support of the gospel; but it is always Because he has transgressed some one or more of the principles of the decalogue.RCASDA 114.3

And view of this subject must be only a partial and onesided view which does not go back to the beginning and take up first principles. When God placed Adam in Eden, we have no reason to suppose that he designed that he should ever sin; and if he never had sinned, he would have been under obligation to those laws only which were necessary to regulate his relation to God and to his fellow-beings. But this is just the field covered by the decalogue, no more, no less. And he would have had the Sabbath; for that was given to him, as the record expressly states, before the fall, and was “sanctified,” that is, placed under the sanctions of law. So if sin never had come into the world, all the world would have been keeping the Sabbath to-day. Think of this.RCASDA 114.4

But when man sinned, a remedy was provided. Another law was instituted, and law of ceremonies and sacrifices, through which men might show their penitence and desire for forgiveness. Now the law which shows sin, which existed before sin, which would have existed and governed the world if sin never had entered, cannot be the same as the law which owed its existence to the presence of sin, and was designed as a remedy for sin. This distinction exists in the very nature of things, and the efforts of men to abolish it, and their stout words in denying it, do not affect the case a particle. A man uses a knife carelessly and inflicts upon himself a severe wound. The surgeon spreads on a plaster to mollify and restore it. Now men may assert as much as they please, that the knife and the plaster are the same; but we know, after they are through as well as we did before, that they are not.RCASDA 115.1

When God separated Israel unto himself, and committed his cause in the earth into their hands, he kept prominently before them the same distinction. His own law, the summary of moral principles, the primary and universal law which antedated the fall, he proclaimed with his own voice, wrote with his own finger on the tables of stone, and set it apart by itself in the ark in the most holy place of the sanctuary. Men may say that these marked and wonderful circumstances so not indicate any distinction between these laws and the laws given them to regulated their sacrifices and offerings. But such assertions amount to nothing; the distinction is there just the same. To those who attach great importance to mere verbal technicalities we may say, that these commandments by themselves are called a law. Exodus 24:12: “And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there, and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written.” We know that the only words which God wrote at that time, so far as the record goes, were the “ten words” which he engraved upon the tables.RCASDA 115.2

This law was the first condition of the covenant which God made with Israel, and with reference to this the whole sanctuary service was instituted and carried forward from day to day and from year to year.RCASDA 115.3

It was this law, in vindication of the perpetuity, honor, and majesty of which Christ gave his life. For he died because man had transgressed law, and the way back to salvation was not over broken-down barriers and the demolition of the law which should satisfy its just claims. And we may be sure that he did not abolish by his death that law which his death was to vindicate and honor; and his death was to bear, and did bear, this very testimony to that law by which his death was to vindicate and honor; and his death was to bear, and did bear, this very testimony to that law by which is the knowledge of sin, and the transgression of which is sin. But according to Eld. C., Christ nailed to the cross and abolished all law, and consequently the very law which condemned men as transgressors, and on account of which condemnation his life was given. A more unreasonable position, and a more superficial view of the plan of salvation it would be hard to find.RCASDA 116.1

That which was taken away, which ended at the cross, was simply that shadowy system which pointed to the cross, not the standard of morality which showed men to be sinners. For a time, that is during the period of the Mosaic dispensation, the two systems were together in the hands of one people. They had the Sabbath of the moral law, and they had the ceremonial law. Some of the services of the latter were to be performed on the Sabbath. Hence there was frequent mention of the two together. And now with a gravity which is amusing a long array of texts is presented in which they are mentioned together, as proof that they all belonged to one system. Such reasoning is too flimsy for serious consideration.RCASDA 116.2

It is with reference to the same law, the law which shows what sin is, and the transgression of which is sin, that Christ perform his priestly ministrations. It was with reference to this that the priests of the old dispensation ministered. But their ministry was a shadow of Christ’s ministry. Hebrews 8:5. Christ’s ministry is the reality, the substance, shadowed forth by theirs. Hence the law, that object with reference to which the shadow was performed, which we know was the law in the ark, must be the very same as that in the real ministry of this dispensation. Or, to put it in other language, the real ministry of Christ must be performed with reference to the same law in every particular, with reference to which the shadowy ministration of the Levitical priesthood was performed. If not, then their ministry was not a shadow of his, the two dispensations are rent asunder, and the whole arrangement of God’s grace in both the Old and New Testaments is thrown into chaos. Men ought to pause before taking a position involving such conclusions.RCASDA 116.3

The whole difficulty arises from confounding the two laws. But when the distinction is admitted, and the perpetuity of the moral law is conceded, the Sabbath comes down with all the rest unchanged. It is the same blessed, beneficent institution that it has ever been, and some are yet to be found with enough of the love of God in their hearts to accept and observe it, rather than to throw away the whole law of God in order to get rid of it.RCASDA 116.4

We have not space to go into an examination of this subject in the interesting field of the New Testament. Its writers plainly show that one law is taken out of the way (Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14), the other remains (Matthew 5:17); one is made void by faith in Christ (Galatians 5:2), the other is not (Romans 3:31); one will judge men in the last day (James 2:11, 12), the other is nailed to the cross, and no man is to be judged by it (Colossians 2:16). So we might contrast them in many particulars from their own testimony. The reader is referred to a list of the contradictions involved in the New Testament, if there is but one law, and that is all done away, as found in the work entitled “The Two Laws,” published at the REVIEW Office. U.S.RCASDA 117.1