principles of God’s moral government are seen in ten precepts, worded
to meet man’s fallen condition. Love to God is taught in the first
four commandments, and love to our fellow-man is taught in the last
six. The prophets of the Lord, the Son of God, and the apostles of
Jesus, have all spoken in harmony with the ten precepts of the law of
Jehovah. The whole duty of man, says Solomon, is to fear God and keep
his commandments.
[Illustration]
The ten precepts of the decalogue, adapted to man’s fallen condition,
were enforced as early as the circumstances demanded them. The first
three were applicable to Adam, immediately after the fall. And although
the Sabbath of the fourth precept was instituted at the close of the
first week of time, before the fall, and we have evidence that Adam was
directed to observe it as a memorial of creation, yet that portion of
the precept adapted to the fallen state, relative to the man-servant,
the maid-servant, and the stranger, could not exist till a later
period when such relations existed. The fifth commandment could not
be enforced, until applicable to Adam’s children. The sixth, seventh,
eighth, ninth, and tenth, were enforced as early as the parties existed
to whom they could properly apply.
There is nothing in the moral condition of man in his fallen state, nor
in the nature of the ten commandments themselves, to restrict them to
any one dispensation more than another. Man’s moral wretchedness is the
same, only more deplorable as he advances from the gates of Paradise
toward the close of probation. And the law of God, adapted to his
fallen state, is applicable and necessary throughout the entire period
of his fallen condition, from Paradise lost to Paradise regained.
The reign of sin runs parallel with the reign of death, from Adam
until sin and sinners shall cease to be. And parallel with these,
stretching through all dispensations, there has been the knowledge of
the principles of the ten commandments, consequently a knowledge of sin.
The means of this knowledge has been the law of God. “By the law,”
says the apostle, “is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. iii, 20. “I had not
known sin but by the law.” Chap. vii, 7. As proof that this knowledge
did exist immediately after the fall, see Gen. iv, 7, 23, 24; vi, 5,
11, 12. Also, Noah was righteous before God. Chap. vii, 1. He was a
preacher of righteousness. 2 Pet. ii, 5. By his preaching right-doing,
reproving the sins of the people of his time, he condemned the world.
Heb. xi, 7. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were great sinners, excepting
one man. Abraham interceded, saying, Wilt thou destroy the righteous
with the wicked? Gen. xiii, 13; xviii, 20, 23, 25; xix, 7. The blessing
of God came upon Abraham, because he obeyed his voice and kept his
commandments. Gen. xxvi, 5. Those who refused obedience, experienced
his wrath for their transgressions. The cities of the plain were
condemned for their unlawful deeds. 2 Pet. ii, 6-8.
As an illustration of this subject, I will briefly notice the murder of
righteous Abel. Cain killed his brother, and, as a sinner, received the
mark of God’s displeasure. Sin, says the apostle, is the transgression
of the law. 1 John iii, 4. Cain broke the sixth commandment; hence that
precept existed in the time of Cain. Otherwise he did not sin; for
where no law is, there is no transgression. Rom. iv, 15.
The foregoing positions relative to the law of God would meet with
but little opposition were it not for the Sabbath of the fourth
commandment. The proper observance of the Bible Sabbath is not
only crossing, but with many inconvenient, and not favorable to
the successful prosecution of their worldly plans. The fearful and
unbelieving shun its claims, brand it as a Jewish institution, and
frequently assert that it was unknown to men until the Sabbath law was
proclaimed from Sinai. Sacred history, however, proves this statement
to be false. It is true that Sabbath-keeping is not mentioned in the
book of Genesis. But this does not prove that it did not exist during
the long period covered by that brief record. The facts connected
with the giving of the manna show that the Israelites understood the
obligations of the Sabbath, that some of the people violated them, and
were reproved by Jehovah, thirty days before they saw Mount Sinai. See
Ex. xvi-xix.
I now come to the New Testament. The first four chapters of Matthew
are devoted to a sketch of the genealogy of Christ, Joseph and Mary,
the birth of Jesus, Herod slaying the children of Bethlehem, John the
Baptist, the temptation of Christ, and his entering upon his public
ministry. The fifth chapter opens with the first record of his public
instructions. In that memorable sermon upon the mount, Christ warns his
disciples against a terrible heresy that would soon press its way into
the church.
The Jews boasted of God, of Abraham, and of the law, but despised and
rejected Jesus. The great facts connected with his resurrection were
soon to be so convincing that many would believe. And as the Jews were
to reject and crucify the Son, while boasting in the law, Christians
would run to the opposite and equally-fatal heresy of trampling upon
the authority of the Father, and despising his law, while receiving
Christ and glorying in the gospel. It has ever been Satan’s object to
separate, in the faith of the church, the Father and the Son. With the
Jews was the cry, The Father, Abraham, the law; but away with Jesus
and his gospel. With Christians the cry was to arise, Christ, the
cross, the gospel; but away with the law of the Father. To meet this
heresy, ere long to arise in the Christian church, the Master, in his
first-recorded sermon, spoke pointedly. Listen to his appeal to his
disciples in the presence of the assembled multitudes:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not
come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven
and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of
these least commandments, and teach men so, he shall be called least in
the kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.”
These words of warning from our Lord fully meet the case. They need
no comment. The history of the church, showing how loosely, great and
apparently good men have held the law of God, and the present, closing
controversy respecting it, give them especial force.
Jesus did not come to legislate. In no case did he intimate that he
would give a new law to take the place of that of his Father. Speaking
of the Son, the Father says, “He shall speak unto them all that I
shall command him.” Deut. xviii, 18. Jesus answered them and said,
“My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.” John vii, 16. “I do
nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these
things.” Chap. viii, 28. “The word which ye hear, is not mine, but the
Father’s which sent me.” Chap. xiv, 24.
Let us consider the grave question of the great apostle to the
Gentiles, relative to the law of God and the faith of Jesus: “Do we
then make void the law through faith?” Rom. iii, 31. This question
points directly to the true issue between us, and the men of this day
who teach that the gospel of the Son makes void the law of the Father.
Paul decides the question in these emphatic words: “God forbid: yea, we
establish the law.”
The gospel is a necessity in consequence of law transgressed. Where
there is no law, there is no transgression, no sin, no need of the
blood of Christ, no need of the gospel. But the gospel teaches
that Christ died for sinners, on account of their sins. Sin is the
transgression of the law. He came, therefore, as the great sacrifice
for those who transgress the law. The gospel holds him up as the
bleeding sacrifice for the sins of those who transgress the law. This
fact establishes the existence of the law of God. Remove the law, and
we have no further need of Christ and his gospel.
In the gospel arrangement for the salvation of man, there are three
parties concerned; the Lawgiver, the Advocate, and the sinner. The
words of the apostle are to the point: “If any man sin, we have an
advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” 1 John ii, 1.
Sin is the transgression of the law of the Father; hence the sinner
offends the Father, is in trouble with the Father, and needs Jesus
to plead his cause with the Father. But if the Father’s law has been
abolished, and Christ sustains to the sinner the relation of lawgiver,
who is his advocate? “Mother Mary,” or “father Joseph,” or some
other one of the multitude of canonized saints will answer for the
Papist; but what will the Protestant do in this case? If he urges that
Christ, and not the Father, is the lawgiver, and that in the present
dispensation, sin is the transgression of the law of Jesus Christ, then
I press him to tell me who the sinner’s advocate is. And I ask him to
harmonize his position with the words of the beloved John, “If any man
sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”
Paul addresses the elders of the church at Miletus, relative to the
fundamental principles of the plan of salvation, thus: “I kept back
nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed you, and have
taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to
the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith
toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Acts xx, 20, 21. The apostle has here
set before the men of the present dispensation two distinct duties.
First, the exercise of repentance toward God, for his law is binding
upon them, and it is his law that they have transgressed. Second, the
exercise of faith toward Christ as the great sacrifice for their sins,
and their advocate with the Father. These are both indispensable.
Paul presented both. He kept back nothing pertaining to the plan of
salvation, that was profitable.
The closing words of the third angel point directly to a body
of Christian commandment-keepers. “Here are they that keep the
commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. xiv, 12. The Jew
takes no stock in this text, because he sees in it the despised Jesus
of Nazareth. Many professed Christians find it as objectionable as
the Jew, for the reason that they find in it the equally-despised
commandments of God. But said the adorable Jesus, “I and my Father
are one.” So the law of the Father and the gospel of the Son pass
through all dispensations of man’s fallen state, in perfect harmony.
Oh! that both the blind Jew and the blind Christian might see this,
and embracing the whole truth, instead of each a part, might keep the
commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and be saved.
But here let it be distinctly understood that there is no salvation
in the law, that is, there is no redeeming quality in law. Redemption
is through the blood of Christ. The sinner may cease to break the
commandments of God, and strive with all his powers to keep them, but
this will not atone for his sins, and redeem him from his present
condition in consequence of past transgression. Notwithstanding all his
efforts to keep the law of God, he must be lost without faith in the
atoning blood of Jesus. And this was as true in the time of Adam, of
Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the Jews, as since Jesus died
upon the cross. No man can be saved without Christ.
On the other hand, faith in Jesus Christ, while refusing obedience to
the law of the Father, is presumption. An effort to obtain friendship
with the Son, while living in rebellion against the Father, is
Heaven-daring. No greater insult can be offered to either the Father
or the Son. What! Separate the Father and the Son, by trampling on
the authority of the one, and making a friend of the other? “I and my
Father are one.” The Jew insults the Father, in his rejection of the
Son; and the Christian flings in the face of Heaven equal insult, in
all his acts of worship in which he vainly thinks to make Jesus his
friend while, with light upon the subject, he breaks the commandments
of God.
The oneness of the Father and the Son is seen at the transfiguration.
That voice which is the highest authority in the universe, is there
heard saying, “This is my beloved Son; hear him.” It is also seen in
the closing benediction of the Son, in the last chapter of the Bible,
which presents before those who are loyal, the glories of the reward in
reserve for the obedient. “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.”
I briefly call attention to three grand events, which have taken place
in connection with the sad history of fallen man, either one of which
is sufficient to establish the perpetuity of the law of God.
First, the fall, with all its terrible consequences. If the law of
God was of such a nature that it could, in any particular, be changed
at any time, it would have been thus changed when there were but
two fallen beings, Adam and Eve, just before leaving Eden. If the
plan of God’s moral government could be changed, it would then have
been changed, so as to set them free, and save the tide of human
wretchedness and agony, which has followed. But, no; it could not be
changed. The curse must fall on man, and upon the earth for man’s sake;
and the blight and mildew of sin must follow everywhere, and hang
upon creation like a pall of death. Why? Because God’s law that had
been transgressed, could not be changed--could not be abolished. Every
fading flower and falling leaf, since man left Eden, has proclaimed
the law of God changeless. This has been the result of sin. It is the
result of the terrible fall. And this has all come about because of
the transgression of that law which is as changeless as the throne of
Heaven. If that law could ever be changed in any particular, it would
have been changed when there were but two fallen beings, in such a way
as to free them from the sentence of death, and raise them from their
degradation, and the race from continued sin, crime, and woe.
Think of the recent American war, with all its terrible agony. But this
is only an item in the vast catalogue. For six thousand years, the
tide has been swelling, and creation has been adding groan to groan.
Oh! the sorrow, the wretchedness, the agony! Who can compute it? The
fall, then, with all its accumulated wretchedness, proclaims God’s law
changeless. I hasten to notice the next great event which proclaims
this truth.
Second, the announcement of the ten commandments from Sinai with
imposing display. It was not left for Moses to proclaim this law. It
was not left for an angel to assemble the tribes of Israel, and utter
these ten holy precepts in their hearing. It was not even left to the
Son of God to do this. But the Father, the great Eternal, descends in
awful grandeur, and proclaims these precepts in the hearing of all the
people.
Do you say that that was the origin of the law of God? Do you say that
God descended on Sinai, and there legislated? And do you say that he
has since abolished that code, or changed it? When did he do this?
Where did he do it? Has any prophet foretold that such an event should
take place? And has any apostle recorded that such a work was ever
done? Never.
The commonwealth of Michigan sends her legislators to Lansing to enact
laws. These laws are published throughout the commonwealth. The people
understand them. Some of these laws are repealed or changed. Is it
done in secret, and the people permitted to know nothing about it? No.
The same body that enacts laws, also changes, amends, or abolishes
them, and the people are apprized of the fact. This is made as public
as the enactment of the law. And has not the all-wise and merciful
God manifested as much wisdom in managing affairs in which man has so
great an interest, affairs which affect his eternal welfare? He came
down upon Sinai, and proclaimed his law under such circumstances as to
impress the people with its grandeur, dignity, and perpetuity. Who can
suppose that he would abolish, or alter it, and say nothing about it?
Third, the Crucifixion establishes the law of God. If that law was
of such a nature that it could be abolished, or any of its precepts
changed, why not have this done, and set man free, instead of the Son
of God laying aside his glory, taking our nature, living the sad life
he lived here upon the earth, suffering in Gethsemane, and finally
expiring upon the cross? Oh! why should the divine Son of God do all
this to save man, if that law which held him as a sinner could be
changed, so that he could be set free? But no; nothing could be done
in that direction. Man had sinned, had fallen, and was shut up in the
prison-house of sin. His sins were of such a nature that no sacrifice
was adequate but the sacrifice of Him to whom the Father had said,
“Let us make man.” The death of an angel was not sufficient. He only
who engaged with the Father in the formation of man, constitutes a
sufficient sacrifice to open the door of hope by which he might find
pardon, and be saved. In the language of the hymn we sing, “Come, O my
soul, to Calvary,” and there behold love and agony mingled in the death
of the Son of God.
Behold him groaning in Gethsemane. His divine soul was in agony as the
sins of man were rolled upon him. “My soul,” said he, “is exceeding
sorrowful, even unto death.” The weight of man’s sin in transgressing
God’s immutable law was such as to press from his pores as it were
great drops of blood.
He then bears his cross to Calvary. The nails are driven into his hands
and feet. The cross is erected. There the bleeding Lamb hangs six
terrible hours. The death of the cross was most agonizing. But there
was in his case the additional weight of the sins of the whole world.
In his last expiring agonies he cries, “My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?” and bows his head in death.
The sun, the brightest luminary of heaven, can no longer view the
scene, and is vailed as with sackcloth. The vail of the temple, the
noblest work of man, is rent in twain. Christ, the noblest being in the
universe save One, is dying in agony. Creation feels the shock, and
groaning and heaving, throws open the graves of many of the saints,
who come out of their graves after his resurrection. This great event
transpired because it was the only way by which sinners could be saved.
The law must stand as firm as the throne of Heaven, although the earth
shake, and the whole creation tremble, as the Son of God dies in agony.
The law of God was given to man as his saviour. He broke it. Could
it then redeem him? It is not in the nature of law, either human or
divine, to redeem the transgressor. Those who transgress the law of
this commonwealth, must suffer the full penalty, unless the Governor
shall pardon the transgressor. This is his only hope of escaping
the full sentence of the law. It is said by those who do not fully
understand our position, that we trust in the law, and the keeping of
the Sabbath, for salvation. No, friends, you may observe all these
precepts, to the best of your ability, conscientiously; but if you look
no further than the law for salvation, you can never be saved. The hope
of eternal salvation hangs upon Christ. Adam hung his hope there. Abel,
Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and the believing Jews, hung theirs there. We can
do no more. The hope of the next life depends upon Jesus Christ. Faith
in his blood can alone free us from our transgressions. And a life of
obedience to the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus will be a
sufficient passport through the golden gates of the city of God.
[Illustration]
GOD’S MEMORIAL.
The Sabbath is a memorial of what the Creator did during the first week
of time. He wrought six days. He rested on the seventh day. Here is
the origin of the week. The weekly cycle is not derived from anything
in nature. Months are suggested by the phases of the moon, years by
the returning seasons; but the week can be traced only to the six days
of creation, and the seventh of rest. The patriarchs reckoned time by
weeks, and sevens of days. Gen. xxix, 27, 28; viii, 10, 12.
The Sabbath was instituted in Eden, at the close of the first week, by
three acts on the part of the Creator. First, God rested on the seventh
day. Second, he placed his blessing upon the day. Third, he sanctified
the day of his rest. He rested on the seventh day, and in this set an
example for man. He next blessed the day upon which he had rested. He
then sanctified, or “set apart to a sacred use,” the day of his rest.
He gave the first six days of the week to man, in which to obtain
a livelihood, and reserved the seventh day to himself, to be used
sacredly by man.
The great God was not wearied with the six days of creation. His rest
upon the seventh day means simply that on that day he ceased to create.
Nor did man in Eden need rest from toil, as since the fall. In fact,
rest from labor is not a leading feature of the Sabbatic institution.
The fourth commandment makes no reference to man’s physical wants of a
day of rest. Neither does it speak of his spiritual necessities of a
day of public worship.
It gives quite another reason for the Sabbath. Here it is: “For in six
days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,
and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day
and hallowed it” Ex. xx, 11. This reason relates to what God did in the
first week of time. He has given no other. It is as old as the world,
and will continue to be the reason why man should revere Jehovah’s
rest-day as long as the world shall continue. Man rests upon the day
of the Sabbath in honor of the Creator. And wherever he may turn his
eye, whether to the heavens, the earth, or the sea, there he beholds
the Creator’s work. As he rests upon the seventh day, he sees in the
countless varieties of nature the wisdom and power of him who created
all in six days, and thus is led from nature up to nature’s God. The
Sabbath now becomes the cord that binds created man to the infinite
Creator. It is the golden chain that links earth to Heaven, and man to
God. Had he always observed the Sabbath, there could not have been an
idolater nor an atheist. The Sabbath, as a memorial of what the Creator
did during the first week of time, is now seen in its dignity and
importance. It is the memorial of the living God. Man is to rest on the
day of the week on which the Creator ceased to create.
But those who belittle the grand Sabbatic institution to only serve
man’s physical wants of a day of rest, and to provide for him a day
of public worship, and see no higher design in it, are satisfied with
a change of the day of the Sabbath. They think that a day on which
the Creator did not rest, will do quite as well as the day on which
he did rest. With this limited view of the subject, why may they not
be content with the change? If a day of rest from toil, and a day
for the public worship of God, are all the blessings secured to man
by the Sabbath, the one-day-in-seven and no-day-in-particular theory
looks quite plausible. For, certainly, man can rest his weary limbs,
or weary brain, on one day of the week as well as on another. And if
only a season of divine worship is to be secured, Sunday may answer for
this purpose. In fact, one day in six might do as well for rest and
worship as one day in seven, if rest and a day of public worship are
the sum total of the reasons for the Sabbath. There is nothing in man’s
physical or spiritual wants to mark the number seven.
The original design of the Sabbath was for a perpetual memorial of
the Creator. Yet it secures the seventh day of the week to man in his
fallen condition, not only as a day of rest, but a day for public
worship, in which to draw nigh to God and share his pardoning love. But
these blessings, of comparative importance, can be obtained on either
of the other six days of the week, and do not constitute the grand
reason for the Sabbatic institution. That reason given in the law of
the Sabbath is, in its importance, as much above the simple idea of
repose from weary toil, and a day for public worship, as the heavens
are higher than the earth. With this agree the words of the prophet:
“If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure
on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord,
honorable, and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding
thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words, then shalt thou
delight thyself in the Lord.” Isa. lviii, 13, 14.