to stand upon than many who are hung on the
gallows for venturing to practice after such teaching, by violating the
eighth and sixth commandment. I am aware that their Judge Advocate, Joseph
Marsh of Rochester, N. Y. has filed in his plea, (see Advent Harbinger,
Nov. 9th,) that _we_ are under the law of grace, the new testament, and
not the law of Moses, which he asserts embraced the ten commandments. Why
does not the law of grace save thieves and murderers and liars from the
gallows here, and eternal death hereafter. (Rev. xxi: 8.) Answer--because
there is no _precept_ by which it can be done out of the law of
commandments, which was made for _all men_, Jew and Gentile. How would
murderers and robbers understand their sentence, viz. You are to be hung
until you are dead for violating the law of the new testament, and may the
Lord have mercy on you for violating his law of grace. Stop, says the
American, you are bound to show me the precept. I ask where it is to be
found if the commandments are abolished? Oh, sir, but you have violated
the spirit of them. Well, but do tell me, sir, how I have violated the
spirit of a law that you say was abolished and forever done away more than
eighteen hundred years ago. I am ignorant, I never professed religion, I
do not understand the meaning of grace in the new testament--I pray you,
sir, don't hang an innocent man.

I have already shown what they tell us that their foundation is for the
abolition of God's law; it is in Gal. ii.; Cor. iii, and Col. ii: 14-17.
The very day that our Lord was nailed to the cross--(every writer that I
remember to have read before on this subject begins at the cross, where
Paul directs us to look for the abolition of offerings and oblation,
Moses' ceremonial mode of worship)--but you have attempted, without proof,
to show that this was done three years before, and that without a shadow
of proof that the fourth commandment, or any of them, was done away.

In this second article, you cite us for the same proof to Col. ii: 8-17.
How unfortunate for your argument; first that Christ annulled the _law_,
and of course the Sabbath, when he began to preach, according to Luke iv:
18-20, and xvi: 16. And then in another place quote Col. ii: 8-17, for the
same point of time. How could Christ annul any law twice. First, at his
preaching and second at his death, three and a half years apart. Your
argument is groundless and futile; therefore the uncalled for blasphemou