STRANGE POSITIONS ON LAW.
By J. H. W.
Not long since I heard Eld. Roe, a preacher and editor, of the Disciple order, of Buchanan, Mich., deliver a sermon against the Sabbath of the Lord, and his law. He affirmed that the laws and means of pardon were all different under the different dispensations—that all the laws given before the advent of Christ were peculiar to that dispensation, with which we, in this dispensation, have nothing to do. Especially was he outspoken against considering the ten commandments the law, or, as to be regarded by us; and strongly emphasized the declaration that we have “a new law of pardon” introduced by the gospel, and to this we are to look, and not to the law given to Israel. Of all the weak positions on law taken by those who oppose the Lord’s holy Sabbath, this seems the weakest, not having even the poor merit of plausibility. If the “law of pardon” is the only law we have now, what is its use or necessity? Does the “law of pardon” condemn any body? and if so, does it justify also? Alexander Campbell pronounced it an impossibility that any one should be justified by the same law that condemned him, and this must be indorsed by every one who regards the true nature and use of laws. But according to the above position there is “justification by law,” which is a legal absurdity. Any one can readily see that if there is no law back of “the law of pardon,” there is no need of pardon, because there can be no condemnation. Paul says, “By the law is the knowledge of sin,” but justification is through faith in Christ. The law condemns—the gospel justifies. But if there is no law underlying the gospel, there can be no condemnation, for “where no law is, there is no transgression,” and if no condemnation, there can be no necessity for a means of justification; then, of course the offer of pardon is a nullity. Hence it is that the apostle teaches “repentance toward God,” whose law we have transgressed, “and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ,” through whom we obtain pardon and remission. With this the whole Scripture is in harmony, both the Old and New Testaments. Another strange declaration was put forth by him, to wit, “A man may be a murderer, and a thief, and still keep this law!” referring to the ten commandments. We have heard other speakers say that that law only took cognizance of outward acts, and therefore love was not inculcated by it. Let us examine this. In that law the Lord speaks thus: “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” Iniquity is lawlessness or law-breaking; so breaking the law is coupled with hatred, while love goes with the keeping of the commandments. Hence the words of the Saviour showing that “all the law” hangs on love; also the words of the apostle, “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” All these expressions confirm the fact stated by Paul: The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God. But the objectors have sought to evade this by saying, Though it recognizes love to God, it does not enforce love to man. Now the Apostle John expressly says that we cannot love God unless we love our brother also. Therefore the Saviour divides the love upon which the law hangs into two parts: love to God and love to man. This is a very reasonable division, for the commandments show our duty to both our Creator and our fellow-creature. But the method taken to show the superiority of “the law of the new covenant,” over that given by God at Mt. Sinai, destroys the whole ground and claims of the objector. Thus the speaker said: “Christ informs us that adultery may be committed by the desire of the heart; and John shows that hatred is murder.” Under what circumstances did Christ impart this information? It was just after he had enforced the authority of his Father’s law, and said he did not come to destroy it; therefore, his declaration is not the giving of a new law, but sanctioning and commenting upon an old one. Now let us examine the claims and extent of the law in the light of these expressions, and see how far they go. Thus, the law says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery;” Jesus says adultery is committed by impure desire; therefore the law forbids impure desire. Again, John says hatred is murder; the law forbids murder; therefore the law forbids hatred. Examining the law in this manner, at once reasonable and Scriptural, we are prepared to understand and fully adopt the language of Paul: “For we know that the law is spiritual;” and, being so, it is indeed “a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” It may appear singular that different individuals or classes see so differently in regard to the nature and claims of the same law; but whatever objections may be urged against it, we are content to believe with David that it “is perfect,” and “exceeding broad;” and with Paul, that it is “holy, and just, and good,” and “spiritual” and with Solomon, that it contains “the whole duty of man;” and with our Saviour, that it must be kept if we would “enter into life.” And still we pray in the language of inspired devotion, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law!”