Morality of the Ten Commandments.
No WRITER in the Old Testament had more wisdom from God imparted to him than had Solomon; and no one gave a more emphatic testimony on the nature of the commandments of God than he did in Eccl. 12:13, 14. In other places, as in Prov. 28:9, he also spoke decidedly on the subject. This text reads: "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination." This shows that the nature of the law is such that disobedience or neglect of it vitiates all religion. The same is shown by a text which we have quoted on another point, to mark the distinction between the law and the offerings and sacrifices, or ceremonials of religion. "Behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it. To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me." Jer. 6:19, 20. Incense, offerings, sacrifices, prayers—nothing is acceptable to God from those who reject his law. This is directly contrary to the opinion expressed by many at the present time. They affect to think that God will hear their prayers and accept their offerings notwithstanding they reject or neglect his law. Nay, more, they say that our worship in this dispensation is so much more spiritual and exalted than that in the days of the patriarchs and prophets that it is not only acceptable without regard to the law, but is even more acceptable if the law is disregarded! We shall show, when we come to examine the New Testament, how completely this position is negatived by Christ and his apostles. For the present we will notice but one statement of the apostle Paul, in Rom. 6. He meets the point squarely by raising the question: "Shall we sin [sin is transgression of the law,] that grace may abound?" Does he answer, Yes! neglect of the law is conducive to grace under Christ? He says: "By no means," or God forbid. "How shall we, that are dead to sin [to the violation of the law,] live any longer therein?" Christ removes his people from sin; saves them from sin; Matt. 1:21; saves them from walking contrary to his Father's revealed will. There is no intimation in the Bible that he will save anybody in sin, or answer their prayers if they turn away their ears from hearing the law. Eccl. 12:13, 14, reads thus: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Let us notice the relations presented in this text. It is an accepted truism that "God is Supreme Moral Governor." To be a governor he must have a government; to have a government he must have a law, for there is no government without law. In the absence of law there is only confusion or anarchy. The Scriptures abundantly teach—and reason approves—that God has exercised governmental control over man ever since the creation of the race. Not that he compelled everybody to obey him. He never did that; he does not now. He always left man free to act, and held him responsible for his actions. This is necessary where there is any free agency, for without freedom to act no character could be formed. All which goes to prove that God has always had a law for the government of his creatures. The opposite of this is an absurdity, and a direct contradiction of the Scriptures. As he is a moral governor his law is a moral law, and as he is supreme his law is a universal law. No one can be found who is not amenable to his law unless he is outside of his jurisdiction—beyond the sway of God's authority. But that is impossible. Can there be two moral laws? Yes, provided there are two moral governors! Not otherwise. Hence, if there are two moral laws, God is not supreme. Again, if his moral law has been changed, morality itself has been changed; man's moral nature and relations have been changed; and is it too much to say that, in that event, God himself has changed? We think not. Now we will consider further the objection that our religion is higher than that of the Old Testament, and that New Testament morality is above that of the Old. When God says: "Be ye holy; for I am holy," can there be a higher standard of holiness than this? And when he says if they will keep his covenant—his law—they will be a holy people, is not that proof that a holy character is formed by obedience to his law. As there cannot be two moral laws unless there are two supreme moral governors, there can be but one rule for the measurement of morality. All moral characters are formed according to that rule. Two more important statements made by Solomon remain to be noticed:— 1. That the commandments of God contained the whole duty of man. As man is a moral agent, the above declaration proves that the commandments of God cover all moral obligation. Every relation of man both to God and to his fellow-man, comes within the province of that law of which Solomon spoke. Types may give way, for these are not original or elementary, but circumstantial. Memorials may take the place of types; but no new moral relation can be instituted. Our relation to the salvation of Christ is exactly that of Adam when a Saviour was provided for him; our faith is exactly that of Adam when he accepted "the seed" of the woman as the one appointed to bruise the head of man's seducer; it is that of Abraham to whom the gospel promises were made, and who rejoiced to see the day of Christ; it is that of Moses who "esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt." And of all the ancient worthies who are held up to us as examples of faith whom we do well to follow. 2. On the authority of these commandments every work shall be brought into judgment. That law was no local affair; it was no temporary arrangement; it was not limited to a few outward acts. By it shall "every secret thing" be tested; it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And what need we say more? Yet much more remains for us to say on this the most important of all subjects. The points here examined will all come up for further examination when we come to the testimony of the New Testament concerning them. Concerning the term "covenant," we must express our surprise that any should take so limited views of the subject as to conclude that God's covenant commanded to them by his own voice, is identical with that covenant or agreement made with them through Moses as the mediator, or spokesman for the parties. See Ex. 19:5-8. The word covenant covers many different things in the Bible. It is not by the word, but by its connections and relations that we learn to what it refers in any instance. The agreement made with them was inoperative and passed away of necessity because they did not keep it. But what reasonable person will imagine that a moral law, the very basis of God's moral government, covering all moral relations of judgment-bound creatures, passes away because somebody broke it? The last great day will show that the transgressor passes away, not the law of "the Judge of all."