The Old Covenant.—The Sabbath—The Law—The Commonwealth Of Israel, And
Christ.
Infidels Live In Doubting Castle.
Infidelity, And The French And American Revolutions In Their Relations To
Thomas Paine.
Shall We Unchain The Tiger? Or, The Fruits Of Infidelity.
The Struggle.
The Records Respecting The Death Of Thomas Paine.
Three Reasons For Repudiating Infidelity.
Col. Ingersoll Is A Philosopher?
Life Of Elder E. Goodwin.
THE OLD COVENANT.—THE SABBATH—THE LAW—THE COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL, AND
CHRIST.
The original term, rendered “Testament” and “Covenant,” occurs
thirty-three times in the New Testament. Greenfield defines it thus: “Any
disposition, arrangement, institution, or dispensation; hence a testament,
will; a covenant, mutual promises on mutual conditions, or promises with
conditions annexed.” Secondly, “A body of laws and precepts to which
certain promises are annexed, promises to which are annexed certain laws;
the books in which the divine laws are contained, the Old Testament, and
especially the Pentateuch.” Upon a careful examination of these
definitions it will be seen at once that the term “Testament” is a good
translation. This is confirmed, in Paul’s letter to the Hebrews, in the
inter-changeable use of the terms “Will,” “Covenant” and “Testament.” Our
Sabbatarian brethren claim, that the Old Covenant, which was done away,
was the verbal agreement of the Children of Israel to keep the law of the
decalogue. But this definition is not sufficient. It excludes almost all
that was current in its use. It renders it improper to call it a
“Testament” or “Will,” because fathers make testaments or wills without
the consent of their children, and these are called dispositions of
estates. Their definition of the term also makes the “Covenant” depend
upon the will of man, for covenants, in the sense of agreements, have
nothing to do with those who do not enter into them. Neither can men be
regarded as transgressing a covenant, in the sense of an agreement, unless
they have first placed themselves under its obligations. So, if these men
are right in their definition of the Old Covenant, they are wrong in
trying to fasten its conditions upon all mankind. Their logic also
excludes, from all the promises of the covenant, all those who were
incapable of making an agreement. Hence, infants were left to the
uncovenanted mercies of God. And as for the wicked, who never agreed to
keep those commandments, poor souls! they must be dealt with as violators
of a contract to which they never became a party.
These absurdities, which are legitimately drawn from their own premises,
drive us to the conclusion that their whole theory, upon the covenant
question, is wrong. The apostle Paul says we are the children of a
covenant, which he denominates “The free woman.” “She is the mother of us
all.” But, according to Sabbatarian logic, they are the children of two
covenants, or women. How is this? One good mother is sufficient. When they
tell you that the old covenant, which was done away, was the people’s
agreement to keep the ten commandments, remember that they, by their own
showing, set up the same old covenant by agreeing to keep the ten
commandments. So it is done away, and it is not done away. That is, if the
people say, “We will keep and do them,” it is established, but if they
say, “We will not,” it is abolished. Again, if it was the people’s
agreement that was done away, and the ten commandments were the conditions
of that agreement, then they also are of no force, for the conditions of
an agreement are always void when the contract is nullified. Again, if the
Lord had nothing to do in causing the Old Covenant to be done away, how
did it pass away by the action of one party to it? And how can men enter
into it without the concurring assent of the party of the second part?
Accept the Sabbatarian definition of the term covenant, and it
legitimately follows that none were ever in that covenant save those who
held converse with Jehovah, through Moses, saying, “All these things will
we observe and do.” It is an old, trite saying, “that it takes two to make
an agreement.” And it also takes two to abrogate an agreement. But these
friends of the seventh day say, The people rendered that old covenant void
by their wickedness, that they were at fault, that God never abrogated it,
that He always stood firm in reference to its conditions and promises,
holding the people to its obligations. Then how was it done away? We will
let Zechariah answer this question: “And I took my staff, even Beauty, and
cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all
the people. And it was broken in that day; and so the poor of the flock
that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the Lord. And I said unto
them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they
weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me,
Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And
I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the
house of the Lord.”
Judas Iscariot sold his Savior for thirty pieces of silver, cast the money
down at the feet of the priests in the temple; the priests took it and
purchased the potters’ field to bury strangers in. And “in that day” the
covenant of God was broken by the Lord. Now, if the Lord broke that old
covenant, it follows that no man enters into it without one more
concurring action upon His part. Upon what mountain has He appeared and
reënacted this covenant? And if it was simply the people’s agreement to
keep the ten commandments, how did He make it with all the people of
Israel, seeing many of them were incapable of entering into an agreement?
The truth is this, the Lord made a covenant in the sense of a “Testament”
or institution. This sense alone admits of the irresponsible in its
provisions. In the argument from analogy, drawn from the introduction of
the New Testament, our position is confirmed. The Savior’s death gave
force to this testament or will, without any concurring action upon the
part of any man or number of men. And it is a covenant in the sense in
which Greenfield defines the term, that is, in the sense of a testament,
or will. This also admits of covenanted or bequeathed blessings for all
the incapable.
The Sabbatarian view of the term covenant, if applied to the “New
Covenant,” cuts off all who do not enter into this “contract.” But there
is no reason in calling either testament a “contract.” An earthly father
may incorporate, among other things, conditions, in his testament, or
will, and it is in force, by his death, even though his children find
fault with it. So it mattered not whether any man in ancient Israel was
satisfied with that ancient “testament.” But the Bible nowhere limits the
term covenant to the people’s agreement to keep the decalogue. On the
contrary, it is said, “And He declared unto you His covenant, which He
commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and He wrote them upon
two tables of stone.” Deut. iv, 13. These commandments were AFTER THE
TENOR of all that was given by Moses, as we learn in the thirty-fourth
chapter of Exodus. After Moses had given many precepts, the Lord said,
“Write thou these words; for after the tenor of these words I have made a
covenant with thee and with Israel. And he wrote upon the tables the words
of the covenant, the ten commandments.” This covenant, or testament, like
all other institutions which the Lord established with the children of
men, is accompanied with reasons for its existence, and all the laws and
instructions necessary to carry out its principles. The reasons were
placed upon the tables of stone along with the commandments. When
Sabbatarians hang up their copy of those tables, it is always a mutilated,
partial copy. The whole is given to us in the fifth chapter of
Deuteronomy. No Seventh-day Adventist dare exhibit the full copy before
his audience, unless he does it at the peril of his teaching. Here it is:
“I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from
the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other Gods before me. Thou
shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is
in heaven above, or that is in earth beneath, or that is in the waters
beneath the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them nor serve
them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of
the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and
keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in
vain. Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath
commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labor and do all thy work, but the
seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do
any work, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy
maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy
stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and maid-servant
may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the
land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a
mighty hand and by a stretched out arm, therefore the Lord thy God
commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day. Honor thy father and thy mother as
the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and
that it may go well with thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth
thee. Thou shalt not kill. Neither shalt thou commit adultery. Neither
shalt thou steal. Neither shalt thou bear false-witness against thy
neighbor. Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor’s wife. Neither shalt
thou covet thy neighbor’s house, his field, or his man-servant, or
maid-servant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is thy neighbor’s.
These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly, in the mount out of the
midst of the fire, of the cloud and of the thick darkness, with a great
voice; and he added no more, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone,
and delivered them unto you.”
Thus we have a _fac simile_ of the law upon the tables of stone. The terms
employed in this law limit it to the Jewish people, a people who were
servants in Egypt. This was the “testament,” “institution,” or “covenant”
given at Sinai, and it was after the _tenor_ of all the rest that was
given. It is worthy of notice, that there is not a penalty in all that was
written upon those tables. And yet there were terrible penalties inflicted
for a violation of its precepts. How is this? Was it all there was of
God’s law? If so, where shall we go to find its penalties? This covenant
is spoken of in Galatians, the fourth chapter. It is called “the bond
woman,” that was cast out. In the third chapter of Corinthians it is
termed “the ministration of condemnation,” and “the ministration of death
written and engraven in stones, which was done away.” Which Zechariah said
was broken by the Lord in the day of the terrible tragedy of the cross of
Christ.
The multiplicity of passages in the New Testament bearing upon this great
fact, causes our legalists in religion to shift about most wonderfully. At
one time, the people’s agreement to keep the law was the covenant that was
done away. At another, it was the act of executing the penalty of death
that was set aside. At another, it was the glory of Moses’ face that was
done away. And at another, it was none of all these, but it was the
ceremonial law of Moses that was done away.
All these positions were taken by one man, in one discussion with the
writer of these lines. All such turns are cheap; it requires no great
wisdom to accommodate yourself in this manner to the force of
circumstances. The fact that the “first covenant” was a “testament,” or a
body of laws with certain promises annexed, as well as penalties, is
evident from Paul’s statement in the ninth chapter of his letter to the
Hebrews. He says, “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of
divine service, and a worldly sanctuary, for there was a tabernacle made;
the first wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the show-bread;
which is called the sanctuary.” The distinction which our friends make
between “Moses’ law” and “God’s law,” as they are pleased to express it,
is not only unscriptural, the two phrases being inter-changeable, but also
_absurd_. Moses gave all, that these men are pleased to term his law, in
the name of the Lord. The law of the passover, found in the twelfth
chapter of Exodus, is prefaced with these words: “And the Lord God said
unto Moses.” In the twenty-fifth chapter of the same book we have the laws
concerning the ark, the tabernacle, the priestly service, and all are
introduced with this saying: “And the Lord spake unto Moses.” Moses never
gave a law in his own name. Neither did he give one of his own in the name
of the Lord, because it would have cost him his life. The Lord had guarded
this point in the following: “But the prophet which presumes to speak a
word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall
speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.” Now one of
two things is evident: first, all the laws that Moses gave in the name of
the Lord were His; or, secondly, Moses violated the law governing the
prophet. And if the record is false on this account, how can we trust it
in other respects? It is as easy to turn God out of all the pentateuch,
and put Moses into it, as to maintain the proposition that Moses had a law
of his own. Sabbatarians act the part of the unbeliever in getting the
Lord out of the law that was done away, and Moses into it. All that is
accredited to the Lord was His, otherwise the record is untrustworthy. If
our friend’s position is true, it follows that Moses is the sole author of
the sacrificial system of blood, without which there was no remission, and
thus the ancient remedial scheme falls, being without divine sanction. But
the Lord claims all that our friends hand over to Moses. The following
phrases are uttered with reference to the priests and other things: “My
priest,” “My sacrifice,” “Mine altar,” “Mine offering,” 1st Samuel, ii,
27-29; “The Lord’s pass-over,” Exodus, xii, 11; “The feasts of the Lord,”
Lev. xxiii; “My sanctuary and my Sabbaths,” Ezekiel, xxiii, 38. The manner
in which Sabbatarians emphasize the phrase “My Sabbath,” and “My holy
day,” is well calculated to mislead the unsuspecting, but those who are
schooled in biblical literature will regard it as mere _rant_, _cheap
theology_, _mere display_! All that Moses gave, as law, was from the Lord,
_was His_. “The Lord came down upon Sinai, and spake to them from heaven,
and gave them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and
commandments, and made known to them His holy Sabbath, and commanded
precepts, statutes and laws, by the hand of His servant Moses.” Nehemiah,
ix, 13, 14.
The seventh-day Sabbath was not given to the Gentile world. It would
require just as plain and positive legislation to bind it upon us as it
did to establish it in Israel. It was a sign between God and the Hebrews.
Ezek. xxxi, 13-18. “Moreover, also, I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign
between me and them, that they might know that I am Jehovah that doth
sanctify them.” If there are any Gentile Christians upon the earth who
think it is essential to know that it was the Lord that sanctified the
children of Israel, set them apart from the surrounding nations, I would
say to such, It is sufficient to your salvation that you know the Lord, as
manifested in the flesh in the person of Christ Jesus, and that you love
and obey him. I can not see that the seventh-day Sabbath, as a sign upon a
Gentile, would tell the truth, for the Lord never sanctified the Gentiles
in the sense of setting them apart from the surrounding nations. Again, if
our friends could succeed in making it universal, it would _cease to be a
sign_. It was a national badge, or sign, between God and the Hebrews. Its
object was to keep in their memory that which was true of them _alone_.
“Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord
thy God brought thee out thence with a mighty hand and a stretched out
arm, therefore the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to keep the Sabbath
day.” Deut. v. Can any Gentile obey this instruction? It is impossible!
Moses said, “Behold I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the
Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go
to possess it. Keep, therefore, and do them, for this is your wisdom and
your understanding, in the sight of the nations which shall hear all these
statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding
people. For what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and
judgments so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day.”
Deut. iv, 5. The authority and glory of Christ forbid all such Judaizing
as that which we speak against. “He was given of God to be head over all
things to the church.” “And He is head of all principality and power.” The
Father put all things under Him. The prophet Isaiah said, “He shall not
fail, nor be discouraged till He hath set judgment in the earth, and the
isles shall wait for His law.” Ch. xlii, 4. And Paul said, “Bear ye one
another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” Gal. vi, 2.
The object of law is to regulate the exemplification of principles. Some
principle is exemplified in every act that man performs. And one principle
may be in a great variety of acts. The principle of hatred is exemplified
in a great many different actions; and the principle of love to God is
manifested, or exemplified, in every act of obedience to God. So the
spiritual may be brought out under different dispensations, and by
different laws, while it remains always the same. Indeed, principles are
unchangeable; they belong to the nature of things. Covenants, priesthoods,
dispensations and laws have changed, but principles, _never_. So the moral
objective of every law is the same, viz., to bring out and develop the
spiritual in man. To accomplish this great end it is necessary that the
evil principles of a carnal, or fleshly nature, should be restrained by
the penal sanctions of law, and the principles of man’s higher nature
brought out by its motives of good. Such being the nature of principles,
and the facts of law, Paul says, “We know that the law is spiritual.” And
again, “The law is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after
the Spirit.” “Do we then make void law through faith? God forbid; yea, we
establish law.”
I have left the article out of this text because it is not in the
original. B. Wilson translates the verse in these words: “Do we then
nullify law through the FAITH. By no means; but we establish law.” The
negative use of law is to restrain the evil; and the affirmative is to
bring out the good, the spiritual. So, without any interference with _the
spiritual_ of any law that ever was, either divine or human, we have a
better covenant, or testament, than the old testament; one that is
established upon better promises, which contains “A new and living way
into the Holiest,” which Paul says, “Is heaven itself.” This new way was
consecrated through the flesh of Christ. The rule of life in this way is
the “Law of Christ.” It is a better law, for us, because its precepts are
not limited to our neighbor. The following is a part, at least, of the
contrast: