MORAL AND CEREMONIAL LAW

Bro. S.S.Snow, in writing on this subject about one year ago, in the Jubilee Standard, asks “by what authority this distinction is made.” He says “neither our Lord or his apostles made any such distinction. When speaking of the law they never used the terms moral or ceremonial, but always spake of it as a whole, calling it the law,” and further says, “we must have a thus saith the Lord to satisfy us.” So I say! I have no doubt but thousands have stopped here; indeed, it has been to me the most difficult point to settle in this whole question. Now let us come to it fairly, and we shall see that the old and new testament writers have ever kept up the distinction, although it may in some parts seem to be one code of laws.SC2 72.1

From the twentieth chapter of Exodus, where the law of the Sabbath was re-enacted, and onward, we find two distinct codes of laws. The first was written on two tables of stone with the finger of God; the second was taken down from his mouth and recorded by the hand of Moses in a book. Paul calls the latter carnal commandments and ordinances, (rites or ceremonies) which come under two heads, religious and political, and are Moses’s. The first code is God’s. For proof see Exodus 16:28, 30 “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws: see for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath; and so the people rested on the Sabbath day.” Also in the book of Leviticus, where the law of ceremonies is given to the levites or priests, Moses closes with these words: “These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai; in Hebrews 7:16, 18, called carnal commandments.SC2 72.2

Again, “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.” Exodus 34:12 Further he calls them the ten commandments-34:28 And Moses puts them “into the ark” - 40:20 Now for the second code of laws. See Deuteronomy 31:9, 10; and 24:26 “And when Moses had finished writing the law, he commanded them to put this book of the LAW (of ceremonies) in the side of the ark of the covenant, to be read at the end of every seven years.” This is not the song of deliverance by Moses in the forty-fourth verse of the thirty-second chapter. For, eight hundred and sixty-seven years after this, in the reign of Josiah, king of Israel, the high priest found this book in “the Temple,” (2 Chronicles 34:14, 15) which moved all Israel. One hundred and seventy-nine years further onward, Ezra was from morning till noon reading out of this book. Nehemiah 8:3; Hebrews 9:19 Paul’s comments.SC2 72.3

Bro. Snow says in regard to the commandments, “The principles of moral conduct embraced in the law, were binding before the law was given, (meaning that one of course at Mount Sinai) and are binding now; it is immutable and eternal! They are comprehended in one word, LOVE.” If he meant, as we believe he did, to comprehend what Jesus did in the 19 and 22 chap. Matthew 37-40, and Paul, and James, and John after him, then we ask how it is possible for him to reject from that code of laws, the only one, the seventh day rest, that was promulgated at the beginning, while at the same time the other nine, that were not written until about three thousand years afterwards, were eternally binding; without doubt, the whole ten commandments are coeval and coextensive with sin. Again, he says, “We readily admit, that if what is called the decalogue or ten commandments be binding on us, we ought to observe the seventh day, for that was appointed by the Lord as the Sabbath day.” Let us see if Jesus and his apostles do not make it binding. First then, the distinction of the two codes by Jesus.SC2 73.1

The Pharisees ask the Saviour why his disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? His answer is, “Why do ye transgress the commandment of God?” and he immediately cites them to the fifth commandment, Matthew 15:4 Again, “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached,” etc. - Luke 16:16 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, 6:2SC2 73.2

Luke says, “as his custom was, he went into the Synagogue and taught on the Sabbath day.” 4:16, 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 multitudes 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.SC2 74.1

I have already quoted Matthew 5:17, 18, where Jesus said he had come to fulfill 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 6:19, 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 they 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.” 22:36, 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 refers to those which we owe to man, requiring perfect obedience.SC2 74.2

Once more, “One came and said unto him, good master what good thing shalt I do that I may have eternal life? He said, I 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 22, 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.” Matthew 19:16-20 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, 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.” Genesis 26:5 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 15:10 Did he keep the commandments? Yes. Mark and Luke, before quoted - (but more of this in another place.)SC2 74.3

In John 7:19, Jesus speaks of “Moses law,” “your law.” 10:34 Again, “their law.” 15:25 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 believed in him “are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses.” Acts 13:39SC2 75.1

The Pharisees said “that it was needful to circumcise them and commend them to keep the Law of Moses.” 15:5SC2 75.2

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 20:19; Galatians 2:1,) 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.” 21:20, 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. 18:4, 11 And this, be it remembered, was more than twenty years after the Jewish Sabbaths and ceremonies were nailed to the cross. -SC2 75.3

And 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.” 10:4 Again, that “sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law but under grace” 6:14 Once more: He says the Gentiles having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Why? Because, he says in the next verse, it shows the law written on their hearts. The law of ceremonies? No; that which was on tables of stone. 2:14-16 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 7 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. Romans 13:8, 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 Romans 3:31, 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.SC2 76.1

Paul’s letter to the Corinthians teaches that “circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God.” 7:19 Again, in his epistle to the Galatians, his phraseology is somewhat changed, but the argument is to the same point, although some passages read as though every vestige 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.” Galatians 3:11-13, 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?” Romans 10:4 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.” 5:14 Surely he is quoting the Saviour’s words in Matthew 22:39, 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 6:2, 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 13:34 “A new commandment I give unto you, (what is it, Lord?) that ye love one another.” And also 20:12 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 4:21, and 2:8-11 In this letter to the Ephesians he says: “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” 2:15SC2 76.2

See the reverse 6:2. To the Colossians he asks, “Why as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances where 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.)SC2 78.1

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. 9:10, 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.” 7:16, 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.” 9:19 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 written by the finger of God.”SC2 78.2

Let us now turn to the Epistle of James, said to be written more than twenty-five years after the law of ceremonies were 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.” 1:25 “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. Matthew 19:19 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 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.” 2:8, 11SC2 78.3

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. 2nd, “The royal law according to the scripture,” and 3rd, “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 emanated 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 that 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.SC2 79.1

“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 which 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 same was in the beginning with God.” 1,2 See Genesis 1 ch.: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Then you are pointing us to the seventh day Sabbath of rest, for the old commandment in the beginning. 2:3 Certainly there is no other place to point to. Does not Jesus point us to the same place for the beginning when marriage was first instituted. Matthew 19:4 In my second letter to the church, I have taught the same doctrine: viz. “This is the commandment that as ye have heard from the beginning ye should walk in it.” (practice it.) 2:5, 6 “A new commandment I write unto you.” 7th 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.” 13:34, 35 The first then teaches us, Love to God, 2nd, 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 ye will 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 14 ch. Revelation 6-11, he saw three angels following each other in succession: first one preaching the everlasting gospel (second advent doctrine); 2nd, announcing the fall of Babylon; 3rd, 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 on his mind, that when the Saviour 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.” 22:14 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 antitype, 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 Millennium, the seven thousandth year, so that the seventh 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 antitype of rest or the great Sabbath, short of one thousand years in the future.SC2 79.2

Again: Isaiah says: “To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” 8:20 Now if the Gentiles are under no law, as is asserted, pray tell me what right, as Gentiles, have we to appeal to the law and testimony, or to this text.SC2 81.1

In the 24 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,” etc. 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 forty years after his crucifixion. 2nd. 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 2nd 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 this 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 which 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 instructions to his 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 must it be perpetual? If Paul’s argument in Romans 3 that the law is established through faith, is correct then is it 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, falls 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.SC2 81.2

“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 it was not abolished at the crucifixion for his disciples kept the Sabbath while he was resting in his tomb. See Luke 23:55, 56 Let us now pass to another part of the subject. The third question:SC2 82.1