1. We shall endeavor to ascertain what ideas we are to
attach to the phrase "the law," in this, and similar
portions of the sacred scriptures.
2. Point
out those things which the law could not accomplish.
3.
Demonstrate the reason why the law failed to
accomplish those objects.
4.
Illustrate how God has remedied those relative defects
of the law.
5. In the
last place, deduce such conclusions from these
premises, as must obviously and necessarily present
themselves to every unbiassed and reflecting mind.
In this
discussing the doctrine contained in our text, we are
then, in the first place, to endeavor to ascertain
what ideas we are to attach to the terms "the law," in
this, and similar portions of the sacred scriptures.
The term
"law," denotes in common usage, "a rule
of action."--It was used by the Jews, until the
time of our Saviour, to distinguish the whole
revelation made to the Patriarchs and Prophets,
from the traditions and commandments of the Rabbis
or Doctors of the law.
Thus
the Jews called the Psalms of David law--John 12:34.
Referring to the 110th Psalm, they say, "We have
heard out of the law that Christ abideth forever."
And again, our Saviour calls the Psalms of David
law; John 10:34. Referring to Psalm 82:6, he says,
"Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods."
Thus when we hear David extolling God's law, we are
to understand him as referring to all divine
revelation extant in his time. But when the Old
Testament scriptures were finished, and divided
according to their contents for use of
synagogues, the Jews styled them, the law, the
prophets and the psalms. Luke 24:44, Christ says,
"All things written in the law of Moses, in the
prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me, must be
fulfilled."
The
addition of the definite article in this instance as
well as all others, alters the signification or at
least determines it. During the life of Moses, the
words "the law," without some explicative
addition, were never used. Joshua, Moses' successor,
denominates the writings of Moses, "the book of the law;" but never uses the
phrase by itself. Nor indeed have we any authentic
account of this phrase being used, without some
restrictive definition, until the reign of Abijah, 2
Chron. 14: 4, at which time it is used to denote the
whole
legal dispensation by Moses. In this way it is used
about 30 times in the Old Testament, and as often
with such epithets as show that the whole law of
Moses in intended.
When the
doctrines of the reign of Heaven began to be preached,
and to be contrasted in the New Testament with the
Mosaic economy, the phrase "the law," became very
common, and when used without any distinguishing
epithet, or restrictive definition, invariably denoted
the whole legal or Mosaic dispensation.
In this acceptation it occurs about 150 times in the
New Testament. To make myself more intelligible, I
would observe that when the terms "the law," have
such distinguishing properties or restrictive
definitions as "the royal law," "the law of faith,"
"the law of liberty," "the law of Christ," "the law
of the spirit of life," etc.;, it is most obvious
the whole Mosaic law or dispensation is not
intended. But when we find the phrase "the law,"
without any such limitations or epithets, as "the
law was given by Moses," "the law and the prophets
were until John," "if ye led by the Spirit, ye are
not under the law," "ye are not under the law but
under grace,"etc. we must perceive the whole law of
Moses, or legal dispensation, is intended.
I say the
whole law, or dispensation by Moses; for in modern
times the law of Moses is divided and classified under
three heads, denominated, the moral, ceremonial, and judicial law. This division of
the law being unknown in the apostolic age, and of
course never used by the Apostles, can serve no
valuable purpose, in obtaining a correct knowledge
of the doctrine delivered by the Apostles respecting
the law. You might as well inquire of the Apostles,
or consult their writings, to know who the
Supralapsarians or Sublapsarians are, as to inquire
of them, what is the moral, ceremonial, or judicial
law.
But like
many distinctions, handed down to us from Mystical
Babylon, they bear the mark on their forehead that certifies to us,
their origin is not divine. If this distinction
were harmless, if it did not perplex, bias, and
confound, rather than assist the judgment, in
determining the sense of the apostolic writings,
we should let it pass unnoticed; but justice to
the truth requires us to make a remark or two on
this division of the law.
The phrase,
the moral law, includes that part of
the law of Moses, "written and engraved on two
tables of stone," called the ten commandments. Now
the word moral, according to the most approved
Lexicographers, is defined "relating to the practice
of men toward each other, as it may be virtuous or
criminal, good or bad." The French, from whom we
have the term moral, immediately, and the Romans,
from whom we originally received it, used it
agreeably to the above definition. Of course, then,
a moral law, is a law which regulates the conduct of
men towards each other. But will the ten
commandments answer this definition? No. For Doctors
in Divinity tell us, the first table of the
Decalogue respects our duty to God; the second our
duty to man. Why then call the ten commandments "the
moral law," seeing but six of them are moral, that
is, relating to our conduct towards men? In modern
times, we sometimes distinguish between religion and
morality; but while we affirm that religion is one
thing, and morality another; and then affirm that
the ten commandments are the moral law--do we not,
in so saying, contradict ourselves? Assuredly the
legs of the lame are not equal!
A second
objection to denominating the ten precepts, "the moral
law," presents itself to the reflecting mind, from the
consideration that all morality is not contained in
them. When it is said that the ten commandments are
'the moral law,' does not this definite phrase imply,
that all morality is contained in them; or, what is
the same in effect, that all immorality is prohibited
in them? But, is this the fact?--Are the immoralities
called drunkenness, fornication, polygamy, divorces on
trifling accounts, retaliation, etc.;, prohibited in
the ten precepts? This question must be answered in
the negative. If it had been asked, is all immorality
prohibited in this saying, "thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself"?--we readily answer, yes;--but it
is the, so called, moral law, we are speaking of. We
affirm, then, that the above immoralities are not
prohibited in the decalogue, according to the most
obvious construction of the words. We are aware that
large volumes have been written to show how much is
comprehended in the ten precepts. But, methinks, the
voluminous works of some learned men on this subject,
too much resemble the writings of Peter D'Alva, who
wrote forty-eight huge folio volumes to explain the
mysteries of the conception of the Messiah in the womb
of the Virgin Mary!
And what
shall we think of the genius, who discovered that
singing hymns and spiritual songs was
prohibited, and the office of the Ruling Elder
pointed out, in the second commandment? that dancing
and stage plays were prohibited in the seventh; and
supporting the clergy enjoined in the eighth!!
According to this latitude of interpretation, a
genius may arise and show us, that law and gospel
are contained in the first commandment, and of
course all the others are superfluous. But this way
of enlarging on the Decalogue defeats the division
of the law of Moses, which these Doctors have made.
For instance, they tell us that witchcraft is
prohibited in the first commandment--incest and sodomy in
the seventh. Now they afterwards place these
vices, with the laws respecting them, in their
judicial law: if then their moral law includes their
judicial law, they make a distinction without a
difference.
There
remains another objection to this division of the
law.--It sets itself in opposition to the skill of an
Apostle, and ultimately deters us from speaking of the
ten precepts as he did. Paul, according to the wisdom
given unto him, denominated the ten precepts the
"ministration of condemnation and of death"--2
Corinthians 3: 7, 14.--This, we call the moral law.
Whether he or we, are to be esteemed the most able
ministers of Christ, it remains for you, my friends,
to say. Paul having called the ten precepts the
ministration of death, next affirms, that it was to be
done away--and that it was done away. Now the calling
the ten precepts "the moral law," is not only a
violation of the use of words; is not only
inconsistent in itself and contradictory to truth; but
greatly obscures the doctrine taught by the Apostle in
the 3d chap. 2d Cor., and in similar passages, so as
to render it almost, if not altogether, unintelligible
to us. To use the same language of the moral law as he
used in respect to the ministration of condemnation
and death, is shocking to many devout ears. When we
say the moral law is done away, the religious world is
alarmed; but when we declare the ministration of
condemnation is done away, they hear us patiently, not
knowing what we mean! To give new names to ancient
things, and speak of them according to their ancient
names, is perplexing indeed.
Suppose,
for example, I would call the English law which
governed these states when colonies, the constitution
of the United States, and then affirm that the
constitution of the United States is done away, or
abolished, who would believe me?
But if
the people were informed that what I called the
constitution of these states, was the obsolete
British law, they would assent to my statement. Who
would not discover that the giving of a wrong name
was the sole cause of such a misunderstanding?
Hence it
is, that modern teachers, by their innovations
concerning law, have perplexed the student of the
Bible, and caused many a fruitless controversy, as
unnecessary as that relating to the mark set on Cain.
It does not militate with this statement to grant that
some of the precepts of the decalogue have been
re-promulgated by Jesus Christ, any more than the
re-promulgation of some of the British laws does not
prevent us from affirming that the laws under which
the colonies existed are done away to the citizens of
the United States. But of this, more afterwards.
To what has
been said, it may be added, that the modern division
of the law tends very much to perplex any person who
wishes to understand the Epistles to the Romans,
Galatians, and Hebrews; insomuch, that while the
hearer keeps this distinction in mind, he is
continually at a loss to know whether the moral,
ceremonial, or judicial law is intended.
Before
dismissing this part of the subject, we should
observe,
that there
are two principles, commandments, or laws, that are
never included in our observations respecting the law
of Moses, nor are they ever in holy writ called the
law of Moses:--
These
are, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, soul, mind, and strength; and thy neighbor as
thyself." These, our Great Prophet teaches us, are
the basis of the law of Moses, and of the Prophets:
"On these two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets." Indeed the Sinai law, and all Jewish law,
is but a modification of them. [When asked about the
subject, God through the writers jell it down to
righteous living and the practice of social justice
-- never ritual]
These are
of universal and immutable obligation. Angels and men,
good and bad, are for ever under them. God, as our
Creator, cannot require less; nor can we, as creatures
and fellow-creatures, propose or expect less, as the
standard of duty and perfection.--
These are
coeval with angels and men. They are engraven with
more or less clearness on every human heart. These are
the ground work or basis of the law, written in the
heart of heathens, which constitute their conscience,
or knowledge of right and wrong.
By these
their thoughts mutually accuse or else excuse one
another. By these they shall be judged, or at least
all who have never seen or heard a written law, or
revelation.
But for
these principles there had never been either law or
gospel. Let it then be remembered, that in the
scriptures these precepts are considered the basis
of all law and prophecy; consequently when we speak
of the law of Moses, we do not include these
commandments, but that whole modification of them
sometimes called the legal dispensation.
It must
also be observed, that the Apostles sometimes speak of
the law, when it is obvious that a certain part only
is intended. But this, so far from clashing with the
preceding observations, fully corroborates them. For
if the Apostle refers to any particular part of the
law, under the general terms, the law, and speaks of
the whole dispensation in the same terms, without any
additional definition; then, doubtless, the phrase,
the law, denotes the whole legal dispensation; and not
any particular law, or new distinction, to which we
may affix the words, the law.
2d.
We shall now attempt to point out those things
which the law could not accomplish.
In the
first place, it could not give righteousness
and life. Righteousness and eternal life are
inseparably connected. Where the former is not, the
latter cannot be enjoyed. Whatever means put us in
the possession of the one, puts us in the possession
of the other. But this the law could not do.
"For if
there had been a law given, which could have given
life, verily, righteousness should have been by the
law," (Gal. 3: 21.)--"If righteousness come by the
law then Christ is dead in vain."
good
conscience
These
testimonies of the Apostle, with the whole scope of
divine truth, teach us that no man is justified by the
law, that righteousness and eternal life cannot be
received through it.
Here we
must regret that our translators, by an injudicious
supplement, should have made the Apostle apparently
contradict himself. I allude to the supplement in the
10th verse of Rom. 7th chap. From the seventh verse of
this chapter, the Apostle narrates his experience as a
Jew, under the law, and then his experience as a
Christian, under the gospel, freed from the law. The
scope of the 10th verse, and its context, is to show
what the Apostle once thought of the law, and how his
mistakes were corrected.
If any
supplement be necessary in this verse, we apprehend it
should be similar to what follows:--"And the
commandment (which I thought would give me) life, I
found (to lead) to death." This doubtless corresponds
with the scope of the context, and does not, like the
present supplement, clash with Gal. 3:21. Indeed the
law, so far from being "ordained to give life," was
merely
"added to
the promise of life, till the seed should come
to whom the promise was made"--"Moreover the law
entered that the offence might abound"--"For by
the law was the knowledge of sin."
For these
reasons we conclude that justification,
righteousness and eternal life, cannot by any means be
obtained by the law.
2. In the second place, the law could
not exhibit the malignity or demerit of sin. It
taught those that were under it, that certain
actions were sinful--to these sinful actions it gave
descriptive names--one is called theft, a second
murder, a third adultery. It showed that these
actions were offensive to God, hurtful to men, and
deserved death. But how extensive their malignity,
and vast their demerit, the law could not exhibit.
This remained for later times and other means to
develop.
3. In the third place, the law could
not be a suitable rule of life to mankind in this
imperfect state. It could not to all mankind, as it
was given to, and designed only for a part. It was
given to the Jewish nation, and to none else. As the
inscription on a letter, identifies to whom it
belongs; as the preamble to a proclamation,
distinguishes who is addressed; so the preface to
the law, points out and determines to whom it was
given. It points out a people brought from the land
of Egypt, and released from the house of bondage, as
the subjects of it. To extend it farther than its
own preface, is to violate the rules of criticism
and propriety.
How
unjust and improper would it be, to convey the
contents of a letter to a person to whom it was not
directed--
how
inconsistent to enjoin the items of a proclamation
made by the President of these United States, on the
subjects of the French government.
As
inconsistent would it be to extend the laws of Moses
beyond the limits of the Jewish nation.--
Do we not
know with Paul, that what things soever the law saith, it
saith to them that are UNDER the law?
not a
pattern
But
even to the Jews it was not the most suitable rule
of life. 'Tis universally agreed, that example, as a
rule of life, is more influential than precept. Now
the whole Mosaic law wanted a model or example of living
perfection. The most exemplary characters
under the law, had their notable imperfections.
And as
long as polygamy, divorces, slavery, revenge, etc.;,
were winked at under that law, so long must the
lives of its best subjects be stained with glaring
imperfections. But when we illustrate how God has
remedied the defects of the law, the ideas presented
in this particular shall be more fully confirmed.
But we
hasten to the third thing proposed in our
method, which is to demonstrate the reason why the
law could not accomplish these objects.
The Apostle
in our text briefly informs us, that it was owing to human
weakness that the law failed to accomplish
these things--"In that it was weak through the
flesh." The defects of the law are of a relative
kind. It is not in itself weak or sinful--some part
of it was holy, just and good--other parts of it
were elementary, shadowy, representations of good
things to come.
But that
part of it written and engraven on tables of stone,
which was holy, just and good, failed in that it was
too high, sublime, and spiritual, to regulate so weak
a mortal as fallen man. And even when its oblations
and sacrifices were presented, there was something too
vast and sublime, for such weak means, such carnal
commandments--such beggarly elements--such perishable
and insignificant blood, to effect.
So that
as the Apostle saith, the law made nothing perfect,
it merely introduced a better hope.
If the law had been faultless, no place should have
been found for the gospel. We may then fairly
conclude
that
the spirituality, holiness, justice and goodness
of one part of the law, rendered it too high;
and the carnal, weak and beggarly elements of
another part, rendered it too low;
and
both together became weak through
the flesh. Viewing the law in this light,
we can suitably apply the words of the Spirit
uttered by Ezek. 20:25, in relation to
its incompetence--"I gave them," says he,
"statues which were not good, and judgments
whereby they should not live."
We have now
arrived at the 4th head of our
discourse, in which we proposed to illustrate
the means by which God has
remedied the relative defects of the law.
All those
defects the Eternal Father remedies, by sending his
own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,
condemns sin in the flesh. "That the whole
righteousness which the law required, might be
fulfilled in us,
- who
walk not after the flesh
- but
after the Spirit."
The primary
deficiency of the law which we noticed, was, that it
could not give righteousness and eternal life.
Now, the
Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father, in the
likeness of sinful flesh,
- makes
an end of sin,
- makes
reconciliation for iniquity,
- finishes
transgression,
- brings
in an everlasting righteousness,
- and
completes eternal redemption for sinners.
He
magnifies the law, and makes it honorable. All this he
achieves by his obedience unto death. He finished the
work which the Father gave him to do; so that in him
all believers, all the spiritual seed of Abraham, find
righteousness and eternal life; not by
legal works of observances, in whole or in part,
but through the abundance of grace, and the gift of
righteousness, which is by him;--"For the gift of
God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
This
righteousness, and its concomitant, eternal life, are
revealed from faith to faith--the information or
report of
it comes in the divine WORD
to our ears, and receiving the report of it, or
believing the divine testimony concerning it,
brings us into the enjoyment of its blessings.
Hence it
is that Christ is the end of the law for
righteousness to every one that believeth. Nor
is he on this account the minister of sin--for
thus the righteousness, the perfect righteousness
of the law, is fulfilled in us who walk not after
the flesh, but after the Spirit. [This would chill the
Calvinists]
Do we
then make void the law or destroy the righteousness
of it by faith? God forbid: we establish the law.
A second thing that we observed
the law could not do, was to give a full exhibition of the demerit
of sin. It is acknowledged that the demerit
of sin was partially developed in the law, and
before the law.
Sin was
condemned in the deluge, in the confusion of human
speech, in turning to ashes the cities of the plain,
in the thousands that fell in the wilderness.
But
these, and a thousand similar monuments beside, fall
vastly short of giving a full exhibition of sin in
its malignant nature and destructive
consequences.--But a full discovery of its nature
and demerits is given us in the
person of Jesus Christ. God condemned sin in
him--God spared not his own Son, but delivered him
up--It pleased the Lord to bruise him, to pour out
his soul an offering for sin. When we view the Son
of the Eternal suspended on the cursed tree--when
we see him in the garden, and hear his
petitions--when we hear him exclaim, "My God, My
God, why hast thou forsaken me!" in a word, when
we see him expiring in blood, and laid in the
tomb, we have a monument of the demerit of sin,
which no law could give, which no temporal
calamity could exhibit.
We
sometimes in the vanity of our minds, talk lightly of
the demerit of sin, and irreverently of the atonement.
In this age of novelty, it is said, "that the
sufferings of Christ were so great as to atone for the
sins of worlds on worlds,"or at least for the sins of
the damned as well as the saved--that "one drop of his
blood is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole
world."
That is,
in other words, the sufferings of Christ so
transcended the demerit of the sins of his people,
as to be sufficient to save all that shall eternally
perish.
These
assertions are as unreasonable as unscriptural.
In our zeal to exalt the merits of the atonement--I
say, in the warmth of our passions, and in the fulness of our hearts, let us
be cautious lest we impeach the Divine wisdom and
prudence.
Doubtless,
if the merits of his sufferings transcends the demerit of his
people's sins, then some of his sufferings were in vain, and some of his merit
unrewarded.
To avoid
this conclusion, some have affirmed that all
shall be saved, and none perish, contrary to the
express word of God. Indeed, the transition from these
inconsistent views of the atonement, to what is
called Universalism, is short and easy.
[Behind
the rejection of Alexander Campbell's Sermon on the
Law lies the urge of ecumenical unity. While it is
judgmental to be exclusive it is just as judgmental to
be inclusive when we have no authority]
But I would
humbly propose a few inquiries on this subject. Why do
the Evangelists inform us that Christ died so soon
after his suspension on the cross? Why so much marvel
expressed that he was so soon dead?--so much sooner
than the malefactors that were crucified with him? It
might be presumed his last words solve these
difficulties--"It is finished, and he gave up the
ghost." From these and similar premises, it would seem
that his life and sufferings were prolonged just so
long as was necessary to complete the redemption of
his people. We are accustomed, on all subjects that
admit of it, to distinguish between quantity and
quality.
In the
common concerns of human intercourse, sometimes the
quality of a thing is acceptable when the quantity is
not; at other times the quantity is acceptable when
the quality is not. If a thousand slaves were to be
redeemed and emancipated by means of gold, the person
in whose custody they were could not demand any more
precious metal than gold--when one piece of gold was
presented to him, he might object to the quantity as
deficient, though the quality is unobjectionable. In
respect of the means of our redemption, it must be
allowed that the sufferings of Christ were they.
These
sufferings, then, were the sufferings of a divine
person--such doubtless was their quality. And a life
of sufferings of any other quality, could avail
nothing in effecting redemption for transgressors. If
but one of Adam's race should be saved, a life and
sufferings of such a quality would have been
indispensably requisite to accomplish such a
deliverance. Again, if more were to have been saved
than what will eventually be saved, the quantity and
not the quality of his sufferings would have been
augmented. The only sentiment respecting the atonement
that will bear the test of scripture, truth, or sober
reason, is,
that the
life and sufferings of Christ in quality, and in
length of quantity, were such
as sufficed to make reconciliation for all the sins
of his chosen race;
or for all them in every age or nation that shall
believe in him.
There was
nothing deficient, nothing superfluous; else he shall
never see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied;
which would be the reverse of his Father's promise,
and his own expectation. When the life and sufferings
of Christ are viewed in this light, the demerit of sin
appears in its true colors-- all inconsistencies
vanish, and all the testimonies of sacred truth, of
patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, harmoniously
correspond. But if we suppose that the sufferings of
Christ transcended the demerit of the sins of "his
people," then we have not full exhibition of the
demerit of sin. Nor are "his people" under any more
obligation of love or gratitude to him than they who
eternally perish.
That
which remains on this head is to show how the
failure of the law in not being a suitable rule of
life, has been remedied.
We noticed
that example is a more powerful teacher than precept.
Now Jesus Christ has afforded us an example of human
perfection never witnessed before.
He gave a
living form to every moral and religious precept
which they never before possessed. In this respect
he was the distinguished Prophet, to whom Moses and
all the inferior prophets referred. In entering on
this prophetic office, he taught with a peculiarity
unexampled by all his predecessors--"He spake as
never man spake."
The highest
commendation he gave of Moses was that he
wrote of him, and that he was a faithful
servant in Christ's house.
Heb. 3:1 Wherefore, holy
brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,
consider
the Apostle and
High Priest
of our profession, Christ Jesus;
Heb. 3:2 Who was faithful to him that appointed
him,
as also
Moses was faithful in all his house.
Heb. 3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more
glory than Moses,
inasmuch
as he who hath builded the house
hath more
honour than the house.
Heb. 3:4 For every house is builded by some man;
but he
that built all things is God.
Heb. 3:5 And Moses verily was faithful in all
his house,
as a
servant, for a TESTIMONY of those things which
were to be spoken after;
Heb. 3:6 But Christ as a son over his own
house;
whose
house are we,
if we hold
fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the
hope firm unto the end.
Heb. 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To
day if ye will hear his voice,
Heb. 3:8 Harden not your hearts,
as in the
provocation, in the day of temptation
in the wilderness:
Heb. 3:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved
me, and saw my works forty years.
Heb. 3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that
generation, and said,
They do
alway err in their heart; and they have not
known my ways.
Heb. 3:11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not
enter into my rest.)
From
the beginning of his ministry to the end of his
life,
he claimed the
honor of being the only person
that could
instruct men in the knowledge of God or of his will.
He
claimed the honor of being the author and finisher
of only perfect form of religion; the Eternal Father
attested all his claims and honored all his
pretensions.
Respecting
the ancient rules of life, the law and the prophets,
he taught his disciples they had lived their day--
he taught
them they were given only for a
limited time. "The law and the prophets
prophesied until John"--then they give place to a greater Prophet,
and more glorious law.
Matt. 11:11 Verily I say unto you,
Among them that are born of women there hath not
risen a greater than John the Baptist:
notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of
heaven is greater than he.
Matt. 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist
until now
the kingdom
of heaven suffereth violence,
and the
violent take it by force.
Matt. 11:13 For all the prophets and the law
prophesied UNTO John.
Matt. 11:14 And if ye will receive it, this is
Elias, which was for to come.
Matt. 11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him
hear.
Malachi,
the last of the ancient prophets, informed Israel
that they should strictly observe Moses' law, until a person should come
in the spirit and power of Elias.
Mal. 4:4 Remember ye the LAW Moses my
servant,
which I
commanded unto him in Horeb for all ISRAEL,
with the
statutes and judgments.
Mal. 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the
prophet before the coming of the great and
dreadful day of the Lord:
Mal. 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the
fathers to the children, and the heart of the
children to their fathers, lest I come and smite
the earth with a curse.
Matt. 1:1 The BOOK of the generation of Jesus
Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit
and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the
fathers to the children, and the disobedient to
the wisdom of the just; to make ready a
people prepared for the Lord.
Jesus
taught us that John the Baptist was he, and that the
law and prophets terminated at his entrance upon
his ministry; for since that time the kingdom of
God is preached and all men press into it.
To attest
his character, and to convince the church of his being
the great Prophet, to whom all
Christians should exclusively hearken as their
teacher; to weaken the attachments of his disciples to
Moses and the prophets,
it
pleased God to send down Moses and Elias from
heaven;
the one the lawgiver, and the other the
law-restorer, to
resign their prophetic honors at the feet of the
Messiah, in presence of select witnesses. "
Jesus took
with him Peter, James, and John into a high mountain,
and was transfigured before them, and his face did
shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as snow,
and behold there appeared Moses and Elias talking with
him." Peter, enraptured with these heavenly visitants,
proposes erecting three tabernacles--one for Christ,
one for Moses, and one for Elias. But while he was
thus proposing to associate Christ the great Prophet,
with Moses and Elias inferior prophets,
a bright
cloud overshadowed them, and a voice out of the
cloud, an indirect reply to Peter's motion--"This is
my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear
ye him."
Thus when
these ancient and venerable prophets were recalled
to heaven, Christ alone is left as the
great teacher, to whom, by a commandment from the
excellent glory, the throne of the Eternal, we are
obliged to hearken.
Luke 9:33 And it came to pass,
as they departed from him,
Peter said
unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be
here:
and let us
make three tabernacles;
one for
thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not
knowing what he said.
Luke 9:34 While he thus spake, there came a
cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as
they entered into the cloud.
Luke 9:35 And there came a voice out of the
cloud, saying,
This is my
beloved Son: hear him.
Luke 9:36 And when the voice was past, Jesus was
found alone.
And they
kept it close, and told no man in those days
any of
those things which they had seen.
Heb. 1:1 God, who at sundry
times and in divers manners
spake in
time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb. 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us
by his Son,
whom he
hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also
he made the worlds;
WORLDS: g165 Aion the world specialy a
Mesiianic period.
Heb. 1:3 Who being the
brightness of his glory,
and the
express image of his person,
and
upholding all things by the WORD of his POWER,
when he
had by himself purged our sins,
sat down
on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
That this
transaction was significant of the doctrine above
stated, must be manifest when we take into view all
circumstances. Might it not be asked, 'Why did not
Abel, Abraham, or Enoch appear on this occasion?' The
reason is plain--the disciples of Christ had no
hurtful respect for them.--Moses and Elias, the
reputed oracles of Jewish nation, were the two, and
the only two, in respect of whom this solemn and
significant revocation was needful.
The plain
language of the whole occurrence was this--Moses and
Elias were excellent men--they were now glorified in
heaven--they had lived their day--the limited time
they were to flourish as teachers of the will of
Heaven was now come to an end. The
morning star had arisen--nay, was almost set,
and the Sun of Righteousness was arising with
salutiferous rays.
Let us,
then, walk in the noon-day light--let us hearken to
Jesus as the Prophet and Legislator, Priest and King. He shall reign over
all the ransomed race. We find all things
whatsoever the law could not do are accomplished
in him, and by him--that in him all Christians
might be perfect and complete--"for the law was
given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ."
It
now remains, in the last place, to deduce such
conclusions from the above premises, as must
obviously and necessarily present themselves to
every candid and reflecting mind.
First: From what has been
said, it follows that there is an essential
difference between law and gospel--the Old Testament and
the New. No two words are more distinct in their
signification than law and gospel. They are
contradistinguished under various names in the New
Testament.
The law
is denominated "the letter;" "the ministration of
condemnation;" "the ministration of death;"
"the Old Testament or Covenant, and Moses."
The
gospel is denominated "the Spirit," "the
ministration of the Spirit," "the ministration of
righteousness," "the New Testament, or Covenant,"
"the law of liberty and Christ."
In respect
of existence or duration, the former is denominated "that
which is done away"--the latter, "that which remaineth"--
- the
former was faulty, the latter faultless--
- the
former demanded, this bestows righteousness--
- that
gendered bondage, this liberty--
- that
begat bond-slaves, this freemen--
- the
former spake on this wise, "This do and thou shalt
live"--
this
says, "Say not what ye shall do; the word is nigh
thee, [that gives life,] the word of faith which
we preach: if thou believe in thine heart the
gospel, thou shalt be saved."
The
former waxed old, is abolished, and vanished
away--the latter remains, lives, and is everlasting.
Second: In the second place, we learn from what has
been said, that "there is no condemnation to them
which are in Christ Jesus."--The premises from which
the Apostle drew this conclusion are the same with
those stated to you in this discourse. "Sin," says
the Apostle, "shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under
the law but under grace."
In the
6th and 7th chapters to the Romans, the Apostle
taught them that "they were not under the law"--that
"they were freed from it"--"dead to
it"--"delivered from it."
In the
8th chapter, 1st verse, he draws the above
conclusion.
What a pity
that modern teachers should have added
to
and clogged the words of inspiration by such
unauthorized sentences as the following: "Ye are not
under the law" as a covenant of works, but as a rule
of life. Who ever read one word of the "covenant of
works" in the Bible, or of the Jewish law being a rule of life to the
disciples of Christ? Of these you hear no more from
the Bible than of the "Solomon League" or "St.
Giles' Day." Yet how conspicuous are these and
kindred phrases in the theological discussions of
these last three hundred years! But leaving such
phrases to those who are better skilled in the use
of them, and have more leisure to expound them,
we
shall briefly notice the reason commonly assigned
for proposing the law as a rule of life to
Christians.
"If
Christians are taught," say they, "that they are
delivered from the law, under it in no sense; that
they are dead to it, will not they be led to live
rather a licentious life, live as they list;
and will not the non-professing
world, hearing that they are not under the law of
Moses, become more wicked, more immoral and
profane?"
Such is the
chief of all the objections made against the doctrine
inculcated respecting the abolition of the Jewish law,
in respect of Christians, and also as this doctrine
respects the Gentile or Heathen world. We shrink not
from a fair and full investigation of this subject.
Truth being the only allowed object of all our
inquiries, and the sole object of every Christian's
inquiry, we should patiently hear all
objections--coolly and dispassionately hear, examine,
and weigh all arguments pro and con.
That
the first part of this objection is very natural, has
been very often made, and strongly urged against the
doctrine we advocate, we cheerfully acknowledge. As
this objection was made against the Apostle's
doctrine concerning the law, it affords a strong
probability, at least, that our views on this
subject correspond with his. We shall then hear how
he stated and refuted it. Rom. 6:15. "What then?
Shall we sin because we are not under the law, but
under grace?" Here he admits the objection, and in
his answer incontestably shows that Christians are
not under the law in any sense. If they were in any
sense, now was the time to say, 'We are not under
the law in some sense, or under a certain part of
it; but in one sense we are under it, as a rule of
life.' We say the Apostle was here called upon, and
in a certain sense bound, to say something like what
our modern teachers say, if it had been warrantable.
But he admits the doctrine and states the objection,
leaving the doctrine unequivocally established.
He guards
the doctrine against a licentious tendency thus--"God forbid!"
"How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer
therein?" and in the subsequent verses shows the
utter impossibility of any servant of God, or true
Christian, so abusing the doctrine we have stated.
Now whether the ancient way or guarding the New
Testament, or Gospel, against the charges of
Antinomianism or a licentious tendency, or the
modern way is best, methinks is easily decided
amongst true disciples. Not so easy, however,
amongst learned Rabbis and Doctors of the Law.
- But,
query,--
-
Is the law of Moses a rule of life to
Christians?"
-
An advocate of the popular doctrine
replies, "Not all of it."
- Query
again--What part of it?
-
"The ten commandments."
- Are
these a rule of life to Christians?
-
"Yes."
- Should
not, then, Christians sanctify the seventh day?
-
"No."
- Why
so?
-
"Because Christ has not
enjoined it."
Oh! then,
the law or ten commandments is not a rule of life to
Christians any further than it is enjoined by
Christ;
so that reading the precepts in Moses' words, or
hearing him utter them, does not oblige us to
observe them: it is only what Christ says we must
observe.
So that
an advocate for the popular doctrine, when closely
pressed, cannot maintain his ground.
Let no man
say we have proposed and answered the above queries as
we pleased.--If any other answers can be given by the
advocates themselves than we have given, let them do
it.
But it is
highly problematical whether telling Christians that
they are under the law will repress a licentious
spirit.
True
Christians do not need it, as we have seen: "how shall
they that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
And dare we tell professing Christians, as such, that
the law as a rule of life, is a condemning law? If
not, then what tendency will the mere affirmation that
they are under a law as a rule of life which cannot
condemn them, have to deter them from living as the
list.
Upon the
whole, the old way of guarding against immorality and
licentiousness amongst Christians will, we apprehend,
be found the most consistent and efficacious. And he
that has tried the old way and the new, will doubtless
say, as was said of old, "No man also having drunk old
wine, straightway desireth new; for he saith the old
is better." And, indeed, every attempt to guard the
New Testament, or the Gospel, by extrinsic means,
against an immoral or licentious tendency, bears too
strong a resemblance to the policy of a certain
preacher in Norway or Lapland, who told his hearers
that "hell was a place of infinite and incessant
cold." When asked by an acquaintance from the south of
Europe why he perverted the scriptures, he replied,
'if he told his hearers in that cold climate that hell
was a place of excessive heat, he verily thought they
would take no pains to avoid going there.'
But as to
the licentious tendency this doctrine we inculcate is
supposed to have upon the non-professing or
unbelieving world, it appears rather imaginary than
real. It must, however, in the first instance be
ascertained whether the Gentiles, not professing
Christianity, were ever supposed or addressed by the
Apostle sent to the Gentiles, as being under the law
of Moses. We have under the second head of our
discourse particularly demonstrated that the
Gentiles were never under the law, either before or after
their conversion.
To what
has been said on this subject we would add a
sentence or two. It was prophesied of the Gentiles
that they should be without law till Christ came.
42:4. "And the isles shall wait for his law." The
chief glory which exalted the Jews above the
Gentiles, which the Jews boasted of to the Gentiles,
was, that to them "pertained the adoption, the
covenants, and the giving of the law."
They
exclusively claimed the law as their own. And why will
not we let them have it, seeing him whose law the
Gentiles waited for, is come, and has given us a more
glorious law.
Whatever
was excellent in their law our Legislator has
re-promulgated.
But shall
we say that we are under the law as a rule of our
Christian life, because some of its sublimest moral
and religious precepts have been re-promulgated by
him, who would not suffer one tittle of it to pass
till he fulfilled it?
As well
might we affirm that the British law which governed
these states when colonies, is the rule of our
political life; because some of the most excellent
laws of that code have been re-enacted by our
legislators.
Paul, the
Apostle to the Gentiles, plainly acknowledged in his
addresses to them, that they were without
law,
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, having no
hope, etc.; And of them he said that "when the
Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the
things contained in the law, these having not the
law, are a law unto themselves."
[This
would not involve any Jewish ceremonials which were
national practices. Rather, Gentiles have a sense of
right and wrong and if amenable to the gospel may
already practice righteousness and social justice]
But, in so
saying, does he or do we excuse their sins or lead
them to suppose that they are thereby less obnoxious
to the wrath to come? By no means. For we testify that
even natural conscience accuses them of sin or
wrong in their thoughts, words, and actions,
according to its knowledge.
And
consequently "as many as have sinned without law,
shall also perish without law."
In so
testifying, do we cherish a licentious spirit? By no
means. For their stand a thousand monuments in this
present world, independent of Jewish
law,
on which is inscribed these words, "For the wrath of
God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men."
But one
thing demands our observation, that the Apostle sent
by Heaven to preach to the Gentiles, in accusing
them of sins of the deepest dye, and of the most
malignant nature, dishonorable to God and
destructive to themselves;
never
accuses them of any sin which the light of nature
itself would not point out, or natural conscience
testify to be wrong.
Hence it
is that in the long black catalogue of sins
preferred against the Gentiles, is never to be found the crime
of Sabbath-breaking, or of transgressing
any of the peculiarities of Judaism.
And now
what is the difference between an ancient Greek and a
modern American or European who disbelieves the
gospel? Under what law is the latter, under which the
former was not? Was the former a sinner and chargeable
in the sight of God, as well as the latter? Yes. Would
not natural conscience according to its means of
knowing right and wrong, or work of the law written in
the heart, condemn the unbelieving Roman as well as
the unbelieving American? Most assuredly. And what is
the difference?
Not that
the latter is under any law that the former was not
under; but the means of discerning right and wrong in
the later are far superior to the former, and
consequently their overthrow or ruin will be more
severe. In point of law or obligation there is no
difference between the unbelieving American and the
rudest barbarian; though the former is polished with
science, morals, etc.; like the ancient Greeks and
Romans, and the latter remains an uncultivated savage.
They will
be judged and condemned by the same law which
condemned the Roman who died 1900 years ago. And the
condemnation of the latter shall be more tolerable
than the former, not by a milder law, but because his
knowledge of right and wrong was much inferior to the
former; and having heard the gospel of salvation and
disbelieved it, he adds to his natural corruption and accumulated guilt
the sin of making God a liar, and preferring
darkness to light, because he believed not the
testimony of God. This is the sole difference in
respect of condemnation between the Indian and the
most accomplished citizen. From these few remarks it
will appear, we trust, obvious to every person who
has an ear to distinguish truth from falsehood,
that
there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ
Jesus--
that they
are under no law that can condemn them--that he who
was made under the law is become the end of the law
for righteousness to them--that being dead to sin,
they should live no longer therein--
that
there is no necessity, but a glaring impropriety in
teaching the law as a rule of life to
Christians--that all arguments in favor of it are
founded on human opinion, and a mistaken view of
the tendency of the gospel and Christian
dispensation--
that all
objections against the doctrine we have stated, as
licentious in its tendency, are totally groundless.
"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation
teacheth us that denying ungodliness and worldly
lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and
godly in this present world. Looking for that
blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great
God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself
for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity,
and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous
of good works."
3d. In the third place, we
conclude from the above premises, that there is no
necessity for preaching the law in order to
prepare men for receiving the gospel.
This
conclusion perfectly corresponds with the commission
given by our Lord to the Apostles, and with their
practice under that commission.
"Go,"
saith he, "into all the world, and preach the gospel
unto every creature."
"Teach the disciples to observe all things
whatsoever I command you."
Thus they
were authorized to preach the gospel, not the law, to every
creature. Thus they were constituted ministers of
the New Testament, not of the Old. Now the sacred
history, called the Acts of the Apostles, affords us
the most satisfactory information on the method the
Apostles preached under this commission; which, with
the epistolary part of the New Testament, affords us
the only successful, warrantable, and acceptable
method of preaching and teaching. In the Acts of the
Apostles, we see the Apostles and first preachers
paid the most scrupulous regard to the instructions
they received from the great Prophet.
They go
forth into all nations proclaiming the gospel to
every creature; but not one word of law-preaching in
the whole of it. We have the substance of eight or
ten sermons delivered by Paul and Peter to Jews
and Gentiles, in the Acts of the Apostles, and not
one precedent of preaching the law to prepare
their hearers, whether Jews or Gentiles, for the
reception of the gospel.
This
conclusion corresponds, in the next place, with the
nature of the kingdom of heaven or Christian church,
and with the means by which it is to be built and
preserved in the world. The Christian dispensation is
called "the ministration of the Spirit,"
and
accordingly every thing in the salvation of the
church is accomplished by the immediate energy of
the Spirit.
Jesus Christ taught his disciples that the testimony
concerning himself was that only which the Spirit
would use in converting such of the human family as
should be saved. He was not the speak of himself,
but what he knew of Christ.
Now he was
to convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of
judgment; not by applying the law of Moses, but the
facts concerning Christ, to the consciences of the
people.
The Spirit
accompanying the words which the Apostles preached,
would convince the world of sin; not by the ten
precepts, but because they believed not on him--righteousness, because
he went to the Father--and judgment, because the
prince of this world was judged by him. So that
Christ, and not law, was the Alpha and Omega of
their sermons; and this the Spirit made effectual to
the salvation of thousands.
Three
thousand were convinced of sin, of righteousness, and
judgment, in this precise way of hearing of Christ, on
the day of Pentecost; and we read of many afterwards.
Indeed, we repeat it again, in the whole history of
primitive preaching, we have not one example of
preaching the law as preparatory to the preaching of
reception of the gospel.
This
conclusion corresponds, in the third place, with the fitness of
things.
That men
must be convinced of sin by some means, prior to a
welcome reception of saving truth, is generally
acknowledged.--Now as the gospel dispensation is the
most perfect revelation of salvation, it must be
supposed that it possesses the best means of
accomplishing every thing connected with the
salvation of its subjects.
It must,
of course, possess the best means of convincing of
sin. This truth, however, does not depend on mere
supposition. The fact, that the Holy
Spirit makes an exclusive use of it in convincing of
sin, is a striking demonstration of its superior
excellence for that purpose.
But
independent of these considerations, it must be
confessed that the gospel or testimony concerning
Christ affords the fullest proof of divine justice and
indignation against sin--it presents the clearest view
of the demerit of sin, and of all divine perfections
terrible to sinners--it exhibits the most alarming
picture of human guilt and wretchedness that ever was
given, and on these accounts is of all means the most
suitable to convince of sin. It was already observed
that the eternal Father condemned sin in the person of
his Son, more fully than it ever was, or could be,
condemned in any other way.
Suppose,
for illustration, a king put to death his only son,
in the most painful and ignominious way, for a crime
against the government: would not this fact be the
best means of convincing his subjects of the evil of
crime, and of the king's detestation of it?
Would not
this fact be better than a thousand lectures upon the excellency
of the law and the sanctions of it?
But every similitude of this kind falls infinitely
short of affording a resemblance of the eternal
Father not sparing his Sole Delight when sin was
but imputed to him.
Having seen
that this conclusion corresponds with the commission
given by the Redeemer to his Apostles--with their
practice under that commission--with the nature of his
kingdom, and with the fitness of things; one
would suppose that no objection could be preferred
against it. But what doctrine of divine truth
is it, against which objections numerous indeed, and
strongly urged, and by men who profess to be zealous
for the truth, have not been made? Is it the
doctrine of sovereign, free, and abundant grace? No.
Is it the doctrine of the natural sinfulness and
corruption of all men. No, no, Against these, many
objections, yea, very many, are urged. We must not
suppose, then, that this doctrine we now maintain
shall be free from objections. We shall, then,
attend to some of those objections which have been
made, or which we anticipate may be made against
this conclusion.
It
may, perhaps, be objected that there are some
expressions in the apostolic epistles,
which
imply that the law was
necessary to convince of sin,
as pre-requisite to a welcome reception of the
gospel:
such as "by
the law is the knowledge of sin"--"for without the law
sin was dead." There is no authority from the original
for varying the supplements in these two clauses. If
it corresponds with the context or with the analogy of
faith, to supply was in the last clause, it doubtless
corresponds as well in the first clause. But we lay no
stress on the one or the other;
for
before Christ came all knowledge of sin was by the
law; and "the law entered that the offence might
abound."
For the
law was added to the promise of life, because of
transgression, till the seed should come
to whom the promise was made.
Now we would suppose that when the Seed is come,
and the time expired for which the law was added,
it is
superfluous to annex it to the gospel, for the
same reason it was annexed to the promise made to
Abraham. And although it should be allowed that
Christians derive knowledge of sin from the law,
it does not follow that it is the best means of
communicating this knowledge--that Christians are
dependent on it for this purpose-nor that it
should be preached to unbelievers to prepare them
for receiving the gospel.
The seventh
chapter to the Romans contains the fullest
illustration of the once excellence and utility of the
law, that is to be found in all the New Testament; and
as this chapter will doubtless be the strong hold of
our opponents, we shall make a remark or two on the
contents of it.
In the
first place, then, let it be remembered that in the
fourteenth verse of the preceding chapter, the Apostle
boldly affirms that Christians are not
under the law. To the conclusion of the sixth
chapter he refutes an objection made to his
assertion in the fourteenth verse. In the first six
verses of the seventh chapter he repeats his
assertion, and uses an apt similitude to illustrate
it. Having, then, demonstrated that Christians are
not under the law, in the seventh verse of the
seventh chapter he states an objection which had
been made,
or he
anticipated would be made, against his
doctrine---"If Christians are not under the law, if
they are dead to it, if they are delivered from it,
is it not a sinful thing?" "Is the law sin, then?"
This
objection against the nature of the law, the Apostle
removes in the next six verses by showing the
utility of the law in himself as a Jew, under that
law; and concludes that the law is holy, just, and
good.
To the end
of the chapter the Apostle gives an account of his
experience as a Christian freed from the law, and thus
manifests the excellency of his new mind or nature
by its correspondence to the holiness of the law; so
that he most effectually removes the objection made
against the law as being sin, and at the same time
establishes
the fact that Christians are delivered from it.
Such
evidently is the scope of the latter part of the sixth
and all of the seventh chapter. We cannot dismiss this
chapter without observing first, that the law, or that
part of the law which the Apostle here speaks of, is
what modern teachers call "the moral law."
If so,
then Christians are not under it; for the law which
the Apostle affirms Christians are delivered from in
the sixth verse, in the seventh verse he shows it is
not sin; and the law which he shows is not sin, he
demonstrates to be holy, just, and good.
So that
here, as well as in the third chapter of his second
epistle to the Corinthians, Christians are expressly
said to be delivered from the so called moral law;
and that it is abolished or done away in respect of
them.
We must
remark again, that before any thing said, in this
chapter respecting the utility or excellence of the
law, can be urged as a precedent for what we
condemn--namely, preaching the law as preparatory to
the gospel, or a law work as preparatory to
genuine conversion, it must be shown that the
Apostle gave this account of his experience under
the law as preparative to his conversion. Otherwise
no objection can be made from any thing in this
chapter to the conclusion before stated. But this
cannot be; for the account we have of his conversion
flatly contradicts such a supposition. Previous to
his conversion he was a very devout man in his own
way--"touching the righteousness which was in the
law he was blameless." See the account he gives of
himself, Phil. 3:4, 5, compared with Rom. 7: 7, 12;
Acts 22:1; 23:1; from which we learn that he was
taught according to the most perfect manner of the
law, and was a Pharisee of the strictest kind; had
clear ideas of sin and righteousness; and,
externally considered, was blameless and lived in
all good conscience until the day of his conversion.
But
it was not the law, it was not a new discovery
of its spirituality, but a discovery of
Christ exalted, that convinced him of sin, or
righteousness, and of judgment; and
instantaneously converted him. So that nothing in
his previous life or attainments, nothing of his
experience as a Jew, nothing of his knowledge of
sin or of righteousness by the law previous to his
conversion, can be urged in support of preaching
the law or a law work to unbelievers, to prepare
their mind for a welcome reception of the truth.
When we
shall have mentioned a favorite text of the law
preachers, and considered it, we shall have done
with objections of this sort. It is Galatians 3:24.
We shall cite from the 23d verse.
"Before
faith [Christ] 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 to Christ, that we might be justified by
faith. But after that faith [Christ] is come, we are
no longer under a schoolmaster."
Methinks it
looks rather like an insult to the understanding of
any person skilled in the use of words, to offer a
refutation of the use that is frequently made of the
24th verse. But let the censure rest upon them who
render it needful. Every smatterer in Greek knows that
the 24th verse might read thus:--
"The law
was our schoolmaster until Christ" came;
Is the
law then against the promises of God? God forbid:
for if there had been a law given which could have
given life, verily righteousness should have been
by the law. Gal 3:21
But
the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that
the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be
given to them that believe. Gal 3:22
But
before faith came, we were kept under the law,
shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be
revealed. Gal 3:23
Let me
put it another way. The Jewish laws were our
teacher and guide until Christ came to give us
right standing with God through our faith. Gal
3:24LIV
and this
reading unquestionably corresponds with the context.
Now is it not most obvious that instead of
countenancing law-preaching, this text and
context condemn it? The scope of it is to show
that whatever use the law served as a schoolmaster
previous to Christ, it no longer serves that use.
And now that Christ is come, we are no longer
under it. We see, then, that this conclusion not
only corresponds with the commission to the
Apostles; with the nature of Christ's kingdom;
with the apostolic preaching; and with the fitness
of things: but that no valid objection can be
presented against it, from any thing in the
apostolic epistles.
Some,
notwithstanding the scriptural plainness of this
doctrine, may urge their own
experience as contrary to it.
It would,
however, be as safe for Christians to make divine
truth a test of their experience, and not their
experience a test of divine truth.
Some
individuals have been awakened by the appearance of
the Aurora Borealis, by an earthquake, by a
thunderstorm, by a dream, by sickness, etc.; How
inconsistent for one of these to affirm from his own
experience, that others must be awakened in the same
way? How incompatible with truth for others to preach
such occurrences as preliminary to saving conversion!
But the
difference between ancient and modern conversions is
so striking as to merit an observation or two. Now
that the law is commonly preached to prepare men for
Christ, it must be expected that modern conversions
will be very systematic,
and
lingering in all. While preachers will not condescend to proclaim
the glad tidings until they have driven their
hearers almost to despair by the thunders of Mount
Sinai--
- while
they keep them in anxious suspense for a time,
- whether
the wounds of conviction are deep enough;
- whether
their sense of guilt is sufficiently acute;
- whether
their desires are sufficiently keen;
- whether
their fears are sufficiently strong;
- in
short, whether the law has had its full effect
upon them:
I say, when
this is the case, conversion work must go on slow; and
so it is not rare to find some in a way of being
converted for years; and, indeed, it is generally a
work of many months. It would be well, however, if,
after all, it were commonly genuine.
Contrast
these conversions with those of which we read in the
Acts of the Apostles, and what a contrast? There we
read of many converted in a day, who yesterday were
as ignorant of law and gospel as the modern Hindoos
or Birmans. To account for this we have only to
consider and compare the different sorts of
preaching and means, by which those were, and these
are, effected.
But some
may yet inquire, are unbelievers under no law or
obligation by which conviction may be communicated to
their minds? Or they may ask, in other words, How does
the testimony of Christ take hold of them? And why do
they welcome the gospel?
We have
already shown that there is a law written on every
human heart, which is the foundation of both law
and prophets, under which both angels and men exist;
whose obligation is universal and eternal.
It is
inscribed more or less distinctly on every heathen's
heart. It is sometimes called the law of nature, but
more correctly called by the Apostle, conscience.
This
natural conscience, or sense of right and wrong,
which all men possess in different degrees,
according to a variety of circumstances, but all in
some degree, is that in them
which God addresses.
This
natural conscience is fitted to hear the voice of
God, as exactly as the ear is fitted to hear sounds.
This
renders the savage inexcusable. For the invisible
things of God, even his eternal power and godhead, are
manifested to his conscience in the natural world. Now
God addresses conscience in those whom he brings to
himself in a variety of ways. Sometimes even where his
word is come, he speaks by awful events to the
consciences of men. In this way he awakens inquiries
that lead to the saving truth. Witness the jailor and
his house, of whom we read in the Acts of the
Apostles. God spake to his conscience by an
earthquake, and put an inquiry in his mouth, that was
answered to his salvation and that of his house. That
which fits the savage to hear God's voice in the
natural world, fits him, or the man of civilization,
to hear his voice in the gospel, when it is sent to
them in power.
Are we to
preach this law of nature, then, some will inquire; or
Are we to show men that they possess this natural
conscience, previous to a proclamation of the glad
tidings? I would answer this question by proposing
another. Am I to tell a man he has an ear, and explain
to him the use of it, before I condescend to speak to
him? One answer suits both inquiries. We should
consider the circumstances of any people before we
address them. Do we address Jews? Let us address them
as the Apostles did. Persuade them out of their own
law that Jesus is the Messiah. Do we address professed
Christians? Let us imitate the apostolic addresses in
the epistles. Do we preach to Barbarians? Let us
address them as Paul preached to the Lycaonians. Speak
to their consciences. Do we preach to polished
infidels or idolaters? Let us speak to them as Paul
spake to the Athenians. Speak to their consciences.
4th.
A fourth conclusion which is deducible from
the above premises is, that all arguments and
motives, drawn from the law or Old Testament,
to urge
the disciples of Christ to baptize their infants;
to pay tithes to their teachers;
to observe holy days or religious fasts, as
preparatory to the observance of the Lord's
supper;
to sanctify the seventh day;
to enter into national covenants;
to establish any form of religion by civil
law:--and all reasons and motives borrowed from
the Jewish law,
to excite the disciples of
Christ to a compliance with or an imitation
of Jewish customs, are inconclusive,
repugnant to Christianity, and fall
ineffectual to the ground; not being
enjoined or countenanced by the authority of
Jesus Christ.
5th.
In the last place we are taught from all that has been
said, to venerate in the highest degree the Lord
Jesus Christ; to receive Him as the Great Prophet,
of whom Moses in the law, and all the prophets did
write. To receive him as the Lord our righteousness,
and to pay the most punctilious regard to all his
precepts and ordinances. "If we continue in his
word, then are we his disciples indeed, and we shall
know the truth, and the truth shall make us free--if
the Son shall make us free, we shall be free
indeed."
It is
remarkable how strong our attachments are to Moses as
a teacher; though Moses taught us to look for a
greater prophet than he, and to hearken to him! It is
strange that three surprising incidents in the history
of Moses would not arrest our attention and direct us
to Christ. With all his moral excellence, unfeigned
piety, and legislative dignity, he fell short of
Canaan. So all who cleave to him will come short of
the heavenly rest! His mortal remains, and his only,
the Almighty buried in secret; and yet we will not
suffer his ashes to rest in peace! He came down from
heaven to give place to the Messiah, to lay down-his
commission at his feet; and we will not accept it!
Strange infatuation!
If Moses
was faithful in Christ's house as a servant, shall not
Christ be faithful as a son over his own house! Let us
as his disciples believe all he teaches, and practise
all he enjoins in religion and morality; let us walk
in all his commandments and ordinances; and inquire
individually, What lack I yet? If we are then
deficient, let us say, with the Jews who disowned him,
"We are Moses' disciples, but as for this fellow, we
know not whence he is."
But let
all remember that if he that despised Moses' law,
died without mercy, of how much sorer punishment,
suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who despised
Christ as a teacher!
His
commandments are not grievous to his disciples--his
yoke is easy, and his burden is light.
Let every
one that nameth the name of Christ depart from all
iniquity. Let us walk worthy of him. Let us take heed
lest by our conduct we should represent Christ as the
minister of sin. Let us not walk after the flesh but
after the Spirit; and then we shall show that the
righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us. Then
shall no occasion be given to the adversary to speak
reproachfully. And if any should still urge the stale
charge of Antinomianism, or affirm that we lived in
sin that grace might abound; did evil that good might
come; or made void the law through faith; let us put
to silence the ignorance of foolish men, by adorning
the doctrine we profess with a blameless conduct. Let
us not merely rebut such insinuations with a--God
forbid! but evince, how shall we that are dead to sin,
live any longer therein.
May he that
hath the key of David, who openeth and no man
shutteth, and shutteth and none can open, open your
hearts to receive the truth in the love of it, and
incline you to walk in the light of it, and then ye
shall know that the ways thereof are pleasantness, and
all the paths thereof are peace? AMEN.
Notes:
1 There are
not a few professors of Christianity who suppose
themselves under equal obligations to obey
Moses or any other Prophet, as Christ and his
Apostles.
They
cannot understand why any part of divine revelation
should not be obligatory on a Christian to
observe;
nor can they see any reason why the New Testament
should be preferred to the Old; or why they should
not be regulated equally by each.
They say,
'Is it not all the word of God, and are not all
mankind addressed in it? True, all the holy Prophets
spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and men
were the objects of their address.
It is,
however, equally evident that God at sundry times
and in diverse manners spake to men, according to a
variety of circumstances, which diversified their
condition, capacity, and opportunities.
Thus he
addressed individuals, and classes of individuals,
in a way peculiar to themselves. Witness his address
to Noah, Abraham, Daniel, Jonah, Paul, and Peter.
Witness his addresses to the Patriarchs, the Jews,
and the Christians. Again, men are addressed as
magistrates, fathers, masters, husbands, teachers,
with their correlates.
Now to
apply to one individual what is said to all
individuals and classes of individuals, would,
methinks, appear egregious folly. And would it not
be as absurd to say, that every man is obliged
to practise every duty and religious precept
enjoined in the Bible.
Might
we not as reasonably say, that every man must be
at once a Patriarch, a Jew, and a Christian; a
magistrate, a subject, a father, a child, a
master, a servant, etc.; And, certainly, it as
inconsistent to say, that Christians should
equally regard and obey the Old and New Testament.
All
scripture given by divine inspiration, is profitable
for various purposes in the perfection of saints, when
rightly divided, and not handled deceitfully. But
when the above considerations are disregarded, the
word of God must inevitably be perverted.
Hence
it is that preachers deceive themselves
and their hearers
by selecting and applying to
themselves and their hearers such portions of
sacred truth as belong not to them nor their
hearers.
Even the
Apostles could not apply the words of Christ to
themselves or their hearers until they were able to
answer a previous question--"Lord sayest thou this
unto us or unto all?" Nor could the Eunuch understand
the Prophet until he know whether he spoke of himself
or of some other man. Yet many preachers and hearers
trouble not themselves about such inquiries.
If their
text is in the Bible, it is no matter where; and if
their hearers be men and women, it is no matter
whether Jews or Christians, believers or
unbelievers.
Often
have I seen a preacher and his hearers undergo three
or four metamorphoses in an hour.
- First, he is a moral
philosopher, inculcating heathen morality,
- next a Jewish Rabbi,
expounding the law;
- then, a teacher of
some Christian precept;
- and
lastly, an ambassador of
Christ,
- negotiating
between God and man.
The
congregation undergo the correlate revolutions:
- first, they are
heathens;
- next, Jews;
- anon, Christians;
and
lastly, treating with
the ambassadors for salvation, on what is
called the terms of the gospel. Thus,
Proteus-like, they are all things in an
hour.
2. Indeed
we have yet to learn what advantage can accrue from
preaching the so called "moral law," to prepare sinners for the gospel.
In the nature and fitness of things it cannot
prepare or dispose the mind to a belief of the
gospel.
The
Apostle teaches us that "the law worketh wrath."
This is
inevitably its effect on every mind which does not
believe the gospel. It irritates and excites the natural enmity of
the mind against God.
A clear
exhibition of the divine character in the law, apart
from the gospel, tends more to alienate than to
reconcile the mind to God.
When a preacher
of the law has labored to show his hearers the
immaculate holiness, the inflexible justice, the
inviolate truth, and consuming jealousy of
Jehovah, manifested in the fiery law, supposing the
gospel kept out of view,
he has
rather incapacitated and disqualified their minds
from crediting the gospel or testimony of the
condescension, love, mercy, and grace of the
eternal Father to mankind.
How
opposite is the divine wisdom to the wisdom of
many modern scribes and teachers of the law! They
preach first the law to natural fallen man, then
the gospel. But He, who seeth not as man seeth,
preached first the gospel to fallen man, and
afterwards added the law, because of
transgressions, till the seed should come. Eternal
life was promised through the seed, and the law
added till the seed come.
Nothing can
be more inconsistent than the conduct of the law
preachers. When they have echoed the thunders of
Mount Sinai in the cars of their hearers almost to drive them
to despair, and to produce what they call
"legal
repentance," then they begin to pull down the work
of their own hands by demonstrating the inefficacy,
unprofitableness, and danger of legal repentance.
Might
they not as well at once imitate the Apostles and
primitive preachers--preach, the gospel, which, when
received, produces repentance not to be repented of?
Might
they not preach Christ crucified, in whom is manifested
the wrath and judgment of God against sin; and his
condescending love, mercy, and grace to the sinner.
Might they not, knowing the terror of the Lord,
persuade men by the persuasives of the doctrine of
reconciliation, rather than to increase their
enmity, awaken their suspicions, and work wrath in
their minds, by an unlawful use of the law? But in
order to this, their minds must be revolutionized;
they must take up a cross which they at present
refuse: and what is difficult indeed, they must
unlearn what they have themselves taught others.
Restoration
Movement Index
Musical Worship Index
Home Page
Counter
added 2.28.05 2:30p 2550 10.23.07 July
19 8217
'
s Sermon on the Law
Alexander.Campbell.Sermon.on.the.Law.html
