THE LAW OF GOD: AN EXAMINATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF BOTH TESTAMENTS by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Jul 25, 1854

THE LAW OF GOD: AN EXAMINATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF BOTH TESTAMENTS.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY J. H. WAGGONER.

(Concluded)

When we look at the nature of these covenants, and the object of their ministrations, it seems truly singular that any, with the truths of revelation before them, should argue that the law is abolished, because the old covenant has given place to the new, or because their ministrations are different. But as some seem to think that to change the ministration of a law, is to change or abolish the law itself, we will still further notice this point. The promise of the new covenant in full, as given in the Old Testament, is as follows:—“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: (should I have continued a husband unto them? Margin:) but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” Jer. xxxi, 31–34.

We now invite attention to a few facts connected with this covenant; and first, the necessity for its being made arises from the consideration that the condition of the old covenant was transgressed; and as it rested solely on obedience, after such transgression, another was needed embracing forgiveness of sins. Now if the condition of the first had not been broken, or if, after transgression, the priests under it could have atoned for sin, there would have been no necessity for another; for the very purpose for which the new covenant was made would have been accomplished by the old. The new covenant was not based on the obedience of those with whom it was made, for then it would have been exactly the same as the old, but perfect obedience was rendered by the mediator, and our sins are remitted, and the righteousness of faith imparted to us through him. Rom. iv, 7, 8, 23, 24; 2 Cor. v, 19–21. So the law is not set aside, but honored and established. If forgiveness had been granted under the ministration of the old, the “holy, just, and good” law would have been dishonored, and God would therefore have been unjust. Under the new, God can be just—vindicate and maintain his law—and justify the believer in Jesus. Rom. iii, 26. A careful examination of these points, must convince all that the law is now the rule of justification (though not the means) as much as if no new covenant had been made: the developement of character according to the principles of this law, being the object of both covenants. This fact alone is sufficient to show the fallacy of that view that makes void the law of God through faith in the mediator between God and man.

We next inquire, Who was this covenant made by? The Lord, that made a covenant with the children of Israel when he brought them out of the land of Egypt; and when he made that covenant, he proclaimed the ten commandments as his law, and we have abundant testimony in the scriptures that they were acknowledged still to be his law in the days of Jeremiah, when the promises of the new covenant were made, which was about six hundred years before Christ. Jer. vi, 19, 20; vii, 22, 23; xi, 1–10; Ps. cx, 10; Ezek. xx, 10–13, 18–21. God, who made that covenant, and proclaimed the ten commandments as his law, promised to make a new covenant, and to put his law in their minds and hearts; and if the ten commandments were not his law when these promises were made, then the old covenant was a nullity six hundred years before Christ; as they were its condition. It must be admitted by all that they existed until Christ; and that they were the law to be put in the hearts of his people is the unavoidable conclusion unless it can be shown certainly that he referred to another law. But in no case where the new covenant is spoken of is there any intimation of any other law: and to render assurance doubly sure, Paul quotes the words of Moses respecting this law, and affirms, twenty-seven years this side of the ratification of the new covenant by the shedding of the blood of the Mediator, that the Gentiles are under the curse of the law, and by transgression are deprived of the blessings to be derived from this covenant, unless redeemed by Christ. Gal. iii, 10–14.

When Moses had broken the tables of the law, he was required to hew out or prepare two other tables like unto the first, and the Lord promised to write on them the words that were on the first tables. Deut. x, 1–4. Paul places the service of the new covenant in contrast with that of the old, and says, “Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, prepared by our service, (Whiting,) written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God.” 2 Cor. iii, 3. As it was the duty of Moses only to hew out the tables for the Lord to write upon, so the service of the ministers of Christ consist in preparing the epistle, and not in writing it: that is the work of the Spirit of the living God. Under the old covenant the law was written in tables of stone and put in the ark, but under the new, it is written, “not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.” This is an exact fulfillment of the promise written by Jeremiah, and quoted by Paul in Heb. viii, 10: “I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts.” Under the first covenant the letter of the law only was written on stones, (for this was all that the tables of stone could receive,) and they who were under that covenant served in the letter, which had no quickening or life-giving influence, but convinced the hearers of sin, and of course brought them under condemnation; [Rom. iii, 19, 20; vii, 9; Gal. iii, 19–24;] but under the new covenant the law is written in the heart by the Spirit of the living God, by which we are enabled to “serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter,” fulfilling the precepts of the law in love, [Rom. vii, 6; viii, 4; James ii, 8;] and thus the Spirit quickens or gives life, while the blood of Christ—the “blood of the everlasting covenant”—cleanses from past transgression and “purges the conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” Rom. iii, 25; Heb. ix, 14.

The law which was ordained unto life, the transgressor finds to be unto death; because it convinces of sin and holds the sinner under its dominion as long as he lives. Thus the letter kills by its condemning power, and the service of the priesthood under that covenant “which gendereth to bondage,” is called the ministration of condemnation. We copy the following from the Advent Harbinger respecting “what Paul says in 2 Cor. iii, 7. He there tells us that the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones was to be done away; verse 7; and in verse 13 that it IS ABOLISHED; and, verse 14, IS DONE AWAY in Christ.” We should not be surprised if a cursory reader should receive a first impression that the Harbinger’s inference on the above text was true, viz., that the law of God was abolished; neither should we be surprised to find that a superficial view of some few passages of scripture should confirm the reader in the belief of universal salvation, or of the immortality of the soul; but for any to persist in that opinion after the accumulation of testimony which has been presented to prove the contrary, is strong, presumptive evidence that such persons love darkness rather than light. If no distinction had been shown between the law and its ministrations, or if two different laws had been presented as the conditions of the two covenants, then the inference would be more excusable; but when the opposite has been plainly proved, we find no place for the Harbinger’s conclusion. Let us examine the Apostle’s language, and see what is the intent of his declarations.

“But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious.” The ministration means the service of the minister; so Whiting renders it in verse 3, and in the margin of verse 7; but this service was not written on the tables of stone; they only contained that which the Lord spake with his voice when he said “nothing concerning burnt offerings nor sacrifices.” It was the law that was written on the stones; so that we are led to the conclusion that the law is

what the Apostle termed death; this may also at first sight, present a difficulty in the way of understanding the Apostle’s words, but when it is remembered that the cause is often used for the effect, no difficulty whatever can exist. To show how common this form of expression is in the Scriptures, we will quote a few texts. In discoursing on the commandments it is said, “My son, let them not depart from thine eyes; keep sound wisdom and discretion, so shall they be life unto thy soul.” Prov. iii, 21, 22. “My son, attend to my words; . . . for they are life unto them that find them.” Chap. iv, 20, 22. “Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law. For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life.” Deut. xxxii, 46, 47. In Chap. xx, 19, it is said, “The tree of the field is man’s life,” and in Chap. xxiv, 6: “No man shall take the nether or upper mill-stone to pledge; for he taketh a man’s life to pledge.” The Saviour says in John vi, 63, “the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life;” and in Chap. xi, 25, he says, “I am the resurrection and the life.” Col. iii, 4. “When Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.” When Pharaoh requested the removal of darkness, he said, “Entreat the Lord that he may take away this death only; [Ex. x, 17;] and when a poisonous herb was found to be in the pottage of the sons of the Prophets, they cried out, ‘O thou man of God, there is death in the pot.’ 2 Kings iv, 40. It is evident that in all these cases the cause is put for the effect, or the means for the end accomplished, or to be accomplished; and if the law is called life, because it is ordained unto life, and those who kept it would live by it, with equal propriety it may be called death, because it holds under condemnation and causes the death of the transgressor. That which is justification and life to man in one condition, is condemnation and death to him when he occupies an opposite position.

It is written in Deut. xxx, 15, 16, “See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments, and his statutes, and his judgments, that thou mayest live.” In reality the law is not the life, (compare Gen. ix, 4; Lev. xvii, 14; Deut. xii, 23; and others,) but life is the fruit of keeping it; therefore it is evidently a figure of speech by which it is termed life, as the tree of the field or the mill-stone are called the life of man. In like manner it is called death, not that it is in reality death, but as Paul has said in Rom. vii, it was found to be unto death because sin slew him by the commandment. We have also seen that the letter only of the law was engraven in the stone, and it is expressly declared that the letter kills. We cannot suppose that these would have been death without sin, but there could be no sin without the law, for sin is the transgression of the law; and where no law is there is no transgression.

But if any doubt yet remains it must be removed when the Apostle goes on to contrast the ministrations of the two covenants, showing that the ministration and not the law is what he is speaking of that was done away. The service of the old covenant was called the ministration of condemnation, as being the opposite of the present work of the Spirit, which is termed the ministration of righteousness or justification. (Whiting.) Justification and condemnation are opposites; and we have seen that there could be no justification by the ministration of the old covenant; therefore it is fitly termed the ministration of condemnation. That was the ministration of men, of condemnation and of death; this of the Spirit, of justification, and of life. That was glorious; this excellent in glory. When that was instituted there was a glory reflected from the face of Moses; [Ex. xxxiv, 29–35:] in this is given “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” 2 Cor. iv, 6. That was with a veiled, a temporary glory, designed to be done away to give place to a ministration that was to remain, of glory

that excelleth, where we with unveiled face behold “the glory of the Lord, and are changed into the same image from glory to glory;” [2 Cor. iii, 18;] as they are contrasted in Heb. vii, 23–25. “And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death; but this man, [Christ,] because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save evermore, [margin,] them that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.”

They who have the law written in their hearts by the Spirit of God, under the glorious ministration of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, are made heirs of God and children of Jerusalem above; while they who have not the law in their hearts are in the same rank with Agar—the Jerusalem that now is—and are in bondage, or under condemnation, being in a natural or carnal state. They who are children of Jerusalem above are redeemed from the curse of the law and are therefore free; and they whom the Son makes free are free indeed. John viii, 36. This is according to the gospel of Jesus Christ which proclaims liberty to the captives. Isa. lxi, 1. Paul says in Rom. viii, 15, “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father;” and again he distinctly states in Gal. iv, 3–5, that we were in bondage till Christ redeemed us from under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons. Again he says: “So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Gal. iv, 31; v, 1. Although this “yoke of bondage” has been supposed to be the law of Moses, we find no intimation that the Galatians ever observed that law, or that it was the subject of the Apostle’s argument. He does not even mention or notice the ministration of the old covenant, in Chap. iv, but contrasts the nature of the covenants themselves, and shows the different conditions of those who are under them. We have found him convincing of sin by the moral law; proving that the Gentiles are under the law, from the curse of which Christ redeems them; and that by effecting this redemption he constitutes them heirs of the promise made to Abraham and children of the Jerusalem above; and we cannot see how any one can doubt that the bondage of the children of old Jerusalem consisted in that they were transgressors of God’s law, the servants of sin; and the liberty in which we are exhorted to stand fast is freedom from sin—the liberty we enjoy in Christ while we follow that form of doctrine whereto we were delivered. Rom. vi, 17; margin.

As it is evident that none but the moral law is spoken of in Gal. iii, and that the redemption in Chap. iv, is from the curse of that law, if, as has been supposed, the Apostle speaks of the law of Moses in the first part of Chap. v, he has changed his subject very abruptly and without any apparent reason. But we think it is clear that the liberty spoken of in chapter v, 1, is freedom from sin, and that the “yoke of bondage” has no reference to the Levitical law; and if a change is made from the moral to the Levitical law, in verses 2–5, we must find place for another change when we come to verse 14; for the great principle there quoted, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” is developed solely by the moral law. See Matt. xxii, 39, 40; Jas. ii, 8. Compare Gal. v, 18–23. But arbitrary changes of this kind are not allowable, as, if allowed, they would be destructive to the force of any argument that might be adduced; therefore if such changes are made from one law to the other in a continuous discourse, a clear necessity will be apparent in the connection.

The main reason for supposing that the law of Moses is referred to in Gal. v, 2–5, is the fact that it stands in the text connected with circumcision; but this of itself can be no reason at all with those who have carefully examined the epistle to the Romans. “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” Gal. v, 2, 3. We learn from Rom. iv, 11, that circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of the righteousness of his faith; but as the doers of the law would also be justified, if any did the law, they too would be righteous, and circumcision would to them be valid as a sign; for Paul says in Rom. ii, 25, “Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law:” not a part of it, but the whole law; but if the whole law is not kept, circumcision becomes a useless and unmeaning ceremony; for, he adds, “If thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.” Therefore if they claimed any profit from circumcision they thereby acknowledged themselves in fact “debtors to do the whole law.” No one can for a moment suppose that Rom. ii, either in whole or in part, refers to the law of Moses; yet the connection between circumcision and the law is the same as in Gal. v. And again it is said in Rom. iv, 4, that “to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt;” but the works must be of such a kind as to merit a reward. The ceremonies of the Mosaic law in themselves considered, were of no esteem in the sight of God; and that law is declared in the Scriptures to be weak and unprofitable; therefore its works cannot be made a matter of debt, nor claim a reward. That moral duties are designated by these works is evident from the whole connection, and especially from verse 5, where the converse is shown: “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Here the righteousness of faith is placed in opposition to the righteousness of obedience.”

Any comment that could be made on Rom. iv, and Gal. v, would probably fail of presenting so striking a parallel as is drawn in the texts; we will therefore place a few verses side by side:— For I testify again to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. Gal. v, 3–5. Here it will be seen that exactly the same ideas are inculcated in the two scriptures: To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace; but by grace we are saved, and no flesh shall be justified in his sight by the works of the law. Then to be made partakers of God’s grace through faith we must renounce our own works and believe on him that justifieth. Such, and such only, are under grace; then if we seek again for justification by the law, we are fallen from grace. But those who oppose God’s law use this text as if it read, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you keep the law; ye are fallen from grace.”

And they pronounce a curse on those who continue in the things written in the law to do them, instead of letting it rest on those who continue not in them, as stated by both Moses and Paul. But to render obedience to God’s law while we seek to be justified by faith in Christ, through whom we receive “the remission of sins that are past,” is quite a different thing from seeking to be justified by the law. See Rom. iii, 25; Eph. ii, 8–10; Jas. ii, 8–14; John viii, 10, 11; Rev. xiv, 12.

But it may be insisted that the Apostle means the law of Moses in Gal. v, 2–5, because it is an unprofitable law, the doers of which are fallen from grace, even while they are justified by it. We would then inquire in what sense he uses the word justify? Was any one, under any circumstances, justified by the law of Moses, or was justification ever coupled with that law? We think not. Nothing but a moral law can be a rule of justification; and the law of Moses consisted only in shadows, which were remembrancers of sin, but could never take away sin. They were not instituted as a means of acceptance with God [see Ps. xl, 6–8; l, 8–12; Isa. ii, 10–20; Jer. vi, 20; Amos v, 21–24; 1 Sam. xv, 21, 22; Heb. viii, 5; ix, 9; x, 1–4.] and were not included in man’s whole duty to him; [Jer. vii, 22, 23; Eccl. xii,

13:] (for further proof of this we refer to previous remarks on the nature of the Levitical law;) therefore if the law of Moses is the law referred to in Gal. v, 2–5, it must be admitted that the word “justified” is used in an accommodated, rather than an absolute sense; and when it is shown that the term is used in an accommodated sense, we know of no further reason for referring this scripture to the law of Moses.

But we are further inclined to believe that the Apostle does not speak of justification positively; as it is not possible to be absolutely justified and fallen from grace at the same time. We have before noticed that there are but the two opposite states: under the law, and under grace. To be under the law is to be condemned, but to be under grace is to be justified, and no one can occupy two positions at the same time. He who has fallen from grace, is, therefore, under condemnation; the very opposite of justification. We understand the Apostle to be speaking to those who desired to be justified by the law, and uses language equivalent to saying, Every man that seeks to be justified by the law is fallen from grace; and this is the sense usually attached to his words by those who have written on the text, even though they considered it the law of Moses. We give two examples:— “And so far as any now seek to be justified by that dead law, ‘they are fallen from grace,’ according to the declaration of Paul.” “Surely those who turned from a living substance, the gospel, and sought justification by the deeds of a dead law of shadows, had ‘fallen from grace.’”

The 14th verse of Gal. v, we have already noticed, as clearly referring to the moral law. By a comparison of scriptures we find that verse 6 also refers to the same: making the expression parallel with that of 1 Cor. vii, 19, which says that “circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” In Gal. v, 6, the commandments are not expressly mentioned. It says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love;” but another Apostle informs us that “this is the love of God that we keep his commandments.” 1 John v, 3. The remaining expressions in the epistle to the Galatians respecting the law, are not liable to a misconstruction. All language may be perverted by those who disseminate error; so Gal. v, 23 has been made to say, “there is no law,” by cutting the sentence in two, and placing the writer’s remarks between the first two and last four words, and then displaying these last words in capitals as a separate quotation; but by a perversion of scripture no more palpable than this, it can be proved that “there is no God,” by keeping out of sight the fact that such a sentiment dwells only in the heart of the fool. Ps. xiv, 1.

Expressions are found in other writings of the Apostles, embracing important testimony on this point, which we have not time to notice at length; and so far as the present question is concerned, we do not consider it necessary. Many of these have been evaded by our opponents as not clearly defining the law of which they speak; and some of them alone considered are liable to such an objection; but taken in connection with facts elsewhere proved, their testimony is to the point. Thus, when John says that the love of God consists in keeping his commandments, doubts have been raised as to what he means by the commandments of God; but when we trace the existence of certain moral principles back to the beginning, and find that Jehovah has made a declaration of these principles in a code of ten commandments, that these have been the basis of all his requirements, and that they are presented as a test of moral character and a rule of action to a thousand generations, even for an everlasting covenant, all uncertainty vanishes at once. Again, when he tells us that sin is the transgression of THE LAW, we look to the perfect law of God in the days of David, that which embraced the whole duty of man in the days of Solomon, which Christ declared was more firm than heaven and earth, and presented as the means of entering into eternal life, and which Paul has so

clearly and ably proved to be of universal obligation in all dispensations; and we are at no loss to imagine what THE LAW is, of which John speaks so definitely; the transgression of which is unrighteousness or sin, and is unto death. When the perpetuity of the law is proved, that fact becomes a nucleus around which an overwhelming amount of evidence immediately clusters.

But the epistle of James demands particular notice. This is in perfect harmony with those to the Romans and Galatians, and contains evidence in itself that the law of ten commandments is the law of which it treats. No reason has ever been offered why James does not speak of the same law that is so often spoken of by Christ and his Apostles. It is admitted by all that Paul speaks of the ten commandments in Rom. vi; and in verse 23 he says, The wages of sin (transgression) is death. James says also, [Chap. i, 15,] “Sin when it is finished bringeth forth death.” So death is the penalty for transgression, and the time of its infliction is given in James ii, 12, where he refers us forward to the judgment, in connection with the obligation to keep the law. Now the sin spoken of in Jas. i, 15, must be the transgression of the same law that is referred to in Rom. vi: the penalty being the same, unless it can be proved that the “one Law-giver” will judge the world by diverse rules of judgment, which is an idea too preposterous to be entertained for a moment.

Again, it is very certain that the perfect law of liberty [Jas. i, 25] is the law of ten commandments; for David speaks of this law in Psalms xix, 7, and declares it to be perfect; and but one perfect, moral code can exist; and that cannot be susceptible of abolition or change. And again David says in Psalms cxix, 45, “I will walk at liberty; for I seek thy precepts.” The bondage from which we are freed by Christ, is the servitude of sin; and if there had been no sin, all would have enjoyed perfect freedom. No law can be termed a law of liberty but one that would justify the doer; as any other law, if kept, would still leave the doer of it in bondage. The code proclaimed on Mount Sinai was perfect and was ordained unto life—it would justify the doer; therefore this alone is entitled to the name of “perfect law of liberty,” unless another code equally perfect and comprehensive could be found.

Jas. ii, 8. “If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.” The only chance for opposition here, is to suppose that “the scripture” and “the royal law” are the same thing, which would be the same as to say, “If ye fulfill the royal law according to the royal law.” But the Saviour has shown [Matt. xxii, 36–40] that all the law hangs on the two principles of loving God with all the heart, and our neighbor as ourselves. God once used the fourth commandment as a test of obedience to his commandments and his laws. Ex. xvi, 4, 28, 29. Paul evidently uses the tenth in the same comprehensive manner, to show that all impure desire is forbidden by the law. Rom. vii, 7. The two principles on which all the law hangs, are not dissimilar, but like each other; [Matt. xxii, 39;] and John uses the second principle—love to one another—as a test of love to God; [1 John iii, 17; iv, 12, 20:] so to fulfill that precept perfectly is to keep the commandments which hang on these two principles. Therefore it is said in Rom. xiii, 8, “He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” Macknight renders Jas. ii, 8, “according to that scripture.” “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” is “that scripture” according to which “the royal law” is to be fulfilled.

The Apostle next lays down an important principle, that a violation of one of the commandments is disobedience to the whole law. We cannot conceive how any one of the commandments can rest on only a part of the authority of the Law-giver, each one being as effective and forcible as though it was the only one in existence. Therefore whosoever disregards one, as truly sets at defiance the authority of the Law-giver, as if all were disregarded. To illustrate this fact the sixth and seventh commandments of the royal law are quoted: thus placing the identity of this law beyond a doubt.

When Solomon presented the commandments of God as comprehending man’s whole duty of obedience, he exhorted to the keeping of them from the consideration that “God shall bring every work into judgment.” Eccl. xii, 13, 14. When Jesus instructed to keep the commandments he expressly declared that they were the condition of entering into life. Matt. xix, 16, 17. When Paul reasoned so forcibly to the Romans respecting this same law, he plainly declared that the transgressor should be judged by the law in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men; [Rom. ii, 12–16;] and further proves that by these oracles, God shall judge the world. Rom. iii, 1–6. James, in his brief but irrefutable argument on the obligation of fulfilling this law, directs the mind forward to the same great event, and exhorts so to do and speak as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. Jas. ii, 12.

And what more can the most sceptical require? Dear reader, if you are still in doubt, what amount of evidence will convince you? Surely you would not believe though one rose from the dead; for we have presented the testimony of God the Father, who declared this law and has ever claimed it as his own; of Moses the faithful servant of God; of the Prophets, and holy men of old; of Jesus Christ the Son of God, and of the holy Apostles. These delighted in the law, and have given their testimony in its favor. And in concluding we would again call attention to a few prominent and important points clearly established on such authority:—

1. God’s holy covenant of ten commandments existed from the beginning: having nothing in them peculiar to any dispensation, and were confirmed at Horeb for an everlasting covenant to Jacob. 2. The prophecies relating to the coming of Christ and the change of the dispensation never speak of a change or abolition of God’s law, but on the contrary, speak in a manner to show its perpetuity throughout all time. 3. Christ expressly declared that he came not to destroy it, but to ratify; which he has done in his life, teachings and death. 4. The Apostles in the clearest and strongest manner have proved the perpetuity of the law, and that it is in all times a standard of right and wrong, by which is the knowledge of sin, and by which the world will be judged. 5. All the promises of the gospel are based upon it, and Jesus Christ, by perfect obedience to it, has secured the blessings which were lost by transgression, and imparts his righteousness to us, conferring these blessings on the obedience of faith, and thereby showing that the law runs parallel with the gospel.

That the Jews were rejected for their disobedience to this law, none can deny. The blessing of God, which they blindly supposed was secure so long as the Mosaic ritual was performed in the temple, was withdrawn. They were to be a peculiar treasure to him above all people, if they obeyed his voice and kept his covenant; but they broke his covenant and he regarded them not. Their house was left unto them desolate. How fearful their fate when the word of the Lord was fulfilled; [Lev. xxvi, 14–43:] when terror and consumption was appointed to the transgressor; when the staff of their bread was broken, and they ate the flesh of their sons and their daughters; when they were scattered among heathen and their land desolated, till even their enemies were astonished at it. But a time more fearful than that is coming; for the Lord hath a controversy with the nations, and he will plead with all flesh; not Palestine alone shall be desolated, but the Lord will make the whole earth empty, and make it waste, and turn it upside down, and scatter abroad the inhabitants thereof; yea, the land shall be utterly emptied and utterly spoiled, for the earth is defiled under the inhabitants thereof: because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant; therefore shall the curse devour the earth. And this day is near—it is near and hasteth greatly. It is the day of the Lord’s vengeance; a day of darkness and gloominess; of

clouds and thick darkness, when the Lord shall roar out of Zion and utter his voice from Jerusalem and the heavens and the earth shall shake. Then shall the enemies of the Lord be confounded, when he pours out his fury on those who have so long resisted his righteous will, when sweet mercy is gone, and the vials of God’s wrath are poured out upon this devoted world. Flee, O sinner! flee from the wrath to come! Escape for thy life ere the dreadful sound shall burst upon your ear. Soon God, in judgment, will vindicate the honor of his holy law. But mercy is yet offered. The voice of the third angel is heard, presenting the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Rev. xiv, 9–12. Who will engage in the great work of repairing the breach in God’s holy law, that they may stand in the day of battle? The Saviour is yet pleading, and presenting his precious blood before the Father’s throne; and although you have transgressed the Father’s law, and are destitute of righteousness, he was without sin, yet he was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Hasten then to him as the only refuge from the coming storm.

“By sin we were exposed to wrath— He died for us, that he might draw Our wandering feet to virtue’s path, Where we may keep God’s holy law.” Waukau, Wisconsin, July 4th, 1854.