Morality of the Ten Commandments.
By Editor
THE high indorsement which the then-existing law received from the Saviour, in his "Sermon on the Mount," ought forever to shield it from the assaults of those who strive to exalt the gospel of the Son above the law of the Father. The two must be in harmony. It should be borne in mind that the gospel is of the Father as well as of the Son. As Peter says, it is "the gospel of God." Christ himself was the gift of God to save a fallen race. When the love and mercy of God would devise a way to save man, it must be a plan which his justice could approve, otherwise these attributes in the divine character would stand in conflict with each other. That could not be. When God set forth Jesus to be a propitiation for the remission of sin, it was that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Rom. 3:24-26. No greater reproach can be cast upon the divine character and the divine government, than to assert that God's justice has been lowered, and that his law has been displaced, by the gospel. That assertion places the Son against the Father, and actually on the side of the rebellion which has been waged against the law and government of God ever since "the fall." Before examining the words of the Saviour it may be well to meet an objection which is often urged, that no one can be justified by the law. We admit it. But what is the reason? It is solely because all have broken the law. It is not, and cannot be, the province of law to justify transgressors. And while that is a truth recognized in all legal matters, we ask, Is it any disparagement to the claims of a law that it will not justify sin? To the contrary, Is it not a refutation of the charge against its morality, that it condemns all wrong-doing, and will not justify any departure from morality? They who oppose the law are not just in their reasonings against it, nor are they always consistent with themselves. On this point we copy the following remarks from our work on the Atonement:- Let it be distinctly noted that a moral duty, whether it be called law or gospel, cannot justify a sinner. That law which points out sin, which is therefore the rule of right, will not justify. This is the teaching of Rom. 3:20. It is singular indeed, that those who teach the abrogation of the original law, and its insufficiency to justify, and who hold that all that is binding in the law is incorporated in the gospel, really teach justification by law—by the same system that points out sin, which Paul calls "the law." This is contrary to reason, and to the apostles' words in Rom. 3:20. The truth is evidently this: The gospel upholds the law, and enforces it upon the conscience, and incorporates it into the life of the believer. But it does not abrogate law, nor release the believer from obedience to it; nor does it incorporate law into itself so as to have a blending of the two in one. The difference between the law and the gospel is as distinct now as it was in the days when the gospel was preached to the sinners in the wilderness. Heb. 4:1. The law is moral; sin is immorality; the gospel is the remedy. Medicine may restore health, but health is not medicine. This matter may be tested by the following plain statement: The blood of Christ, the blood of the covenant, is that whereby we have remission of sin. See Heb. 9:22; Rom. 3:25. And this is freely and exclusively by faith or grace. Hence, baptism may be a gospel condition of justification, because it is not any part of the original obligation or moral duty. If it were moral duty it could not be performed for remission of sin, simply because as such it would be required on its own account. So the commandment which says, "Thou shalt not steal," cannot be incorporated into the same system and take part in the work of remission, being itself a moral duty. How reasonable is the conditional plan which says, "Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sin." And how absurd it would be to read, Thou shalt not kill for the remission of sin; or, Honor thy father and mother for the remission of sin. It appears absurd, as I have stated, whether these be called law or gospel, to claim justification or remission through them. But they who teach the abrogation of the law, and the incorporation of these commandments into the gospel, are responsible for this absurdity. It belongs to their system. We shall have more to say on this subject when we come to the letter to the Romans. It is a fact worthy of note that the Saviour, at the commencement of the Sermon on the Mount, after pronouncing the blessings, began to guard his hearers against the idea that his mission would place him in conflict with the law. It was important that they who were to go forth to preach his gospel should be well instructed on this point; that they should thoroughly understand what effect his work was to have on the government of God. "Think not," said he, "that I am come to destroy the law." In the face of this prohibition, why will men declare that he did destroy the law? If he did, then he did that which he never came to do. And he proceeded to command those who shall keep the law and teach it to others, and to denounce those who do not keep nor teach it. But the objector says he set it aside by contrasting his teaching with that of the law. This objection, though raised by men who are looked up to as teachers, is founded on a sad want of consideration of what our Saviour really taught. It is true that he contrasted his teaching with some things which they had heard and been taught, but those things were not in the ten commandments. Two commandments, the sixth and seventh, are quoted, and instead of being negatived, are strongly confirmed. Thus, instead of saying-"but I say unto you, ye may kill," or, "I say unto you, ye may commit adultery," he shows that, not only killing, but hatred is a violation of the sixth commandment; and that, not only the open commission of the crime, but the indulgence of impure desire is a violation of the seventh commandment. In this the Lord not only confirms the law, but proves its spirituality and the depth of its morality, in asserting that the wicked thought of the heart is condemned by, or counted as a violation of, the law. This shows how God regards the claims of this law. Men say it is a law destitute of the purest morality, taking cognizance only of the outward actions. But God says that it are condemned those who indulge wrong feelings and desires. All this is in strict keeping with his declaration that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. He came not to make it void, "but to establish." (Diaglott.) Compare Gal. 5:2, and others. But especially has the "golden rule" been held up as an exposition of the morality of the New Testament in contrast with that of the law. And in this we say, again, there is a great lack of consideration of the full scope of the Saviour's words. He says: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: [why?] for this is the law and the prophets." "The law and the prophets" are often thus connected in the Scriptures, for the prophets were instructors in the law. He did not come to destroy the law or to reverse the teachings of the prophets. And the golden rule was presented, not to reverse the law and the prophets; not as something superior to the law and the prophets, but as a synopsis of the law and the prophets, and enforced by their authority. The truth is that the golden rule of the Saviour lives and breathes in the atmosphere of the law. The law lies embosomed in the golden rule. "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you," is in the law; and to do the same to them is the injunction of the law to you. This is a very desirable law, indeed; one in which we have reason to delight, as David and Paul said they did. If we even very briefly analyze the law, we shall find a confirmation of the words of Christ, and a vindication of the words of Solomon in Eccl. 12:13, 14. We will examine the last table first, giving the several precepts their proper numbering. 5. The fifth commandment takes us up in our childhood; and as parents stand in God's stead to the young, who cannot yet be led by arguments and reasoning, it regulates the conduct of the child toward the parent. Our whole life should be a life of trust toward God. So must the lives of children be those of trust in their parents. They should yield the same cheerful and unquestioning obedience to their parents that we should all yield to God. This, of course, lays a great responsibility upon the parents. They are God's ministers of the household, to train their young in the way of right and truth; to fit them for that service here, and for glory hereafter, for which they were created. And if the367parents do their duty, there is little fear of failure on the part of the young. Let the parents command respect-let them win it by deserving it-and the children will learn to yield it in love. Wherever we find a failure in the children, if we had the power and wisdom to trace back, we should find a foundation for their failure in a failure of one or both of the parents. It is truth, however much it may be disregarded, that if a child be trained up in the way he should go, "when he is old he will not depart from it." Prov. 22:6. But the extent and perfection of the commandment is shown in this fact, that though it takes us up in childhood it does not leave us there. It recognizes no time when we are "of age" to disregard the pleasure and honor of our parents. It does not command us for a period of twenty-one years only. Its authority is over us through life. To this degenerate age it sounds strange that a prophecy of the last days should say that "men shall be . . . disobedient to parents;" 2 Tim. 3:1-5. But to them who were raised under the influence of the law, who realize that the golden rule was but the out-breathing of the law, it no doubt seemed strange that such a state of things should ever exist, especially where the truth and law of the Most High were known. This is a great subject, but we must leave it here. Who realizes the full extent, the length and breadth of this commandment? Who realizes the happiness which God laid up in store for us in the family relation, which is to a very great extent forfeited, lost, by our losing sight of the importance of the precept which was given in love as its safeguard? The more we look at this law, the more we appreciate and love it, the more we will feel like praying with the devout psalmist: "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. Ps. 119:18. 6. In classifying those commandments which relate to our duties to our neighbor, that which serves as a safeguard to life must come first. Life is the greatest blessing which man can possess. It is true, no matter who said it, that "all that a man hath will he give for his life," for all possibilities are in life. Man may lose many things in life, but when he loses his life he has no more to lose. It is the supreme, final loss. Therefore the taking of life is the highest of all crimes. And the penalty of death is well called "capital punishment," because it is the chief or greatest of all penalties. It is of no use to talk of preserving other rights where the right to live is disregarded. The more we examine the decalogue, the more reason we shall find to admire the wisdom of, and to adore, the framer of this wonderful instrument which is so well calculated to preserve our rights, and thereby to secure our happiness. 7. Next to life itself in importance is the institution of marriage. While all possible blessings are embraced in life, the marriage relation is calculated to bring more happiness to the human family than any other relation in life. We need not multiply words to prove this. They who do not realize it have not well considered the subject; perhaps have not sensibility to appreciate it. It is a truth of universal application that the greatest blessings, when abused, become the greatest curses. As marriage was calculated to bring to man more happiness than any other relation in life, so does its abuse bring the greatest suffering, the keenest anguish, which it is possible for the heart of man to endure. The presence of the murderer would often be preferred in a household, to that of the seducer, the adulterer. God only knows -man never could measure-the suffering which the human race has had to endure because of the abuse of this relation. How benevolent of God to establish the relation! how kind, how thoughtful of our well-being, to give a commandment to guard its sanctity! Compared to what it has been, what a Heaven of bliss this world would have been, if man had lived in perfect harmony with the revealed will of God concerning the relation of the sexes, and the institution of marriage! 8. Even life itself often becomes a burden because of the abuse of its privileges; often for want of the means of sustaining life. Next after the marriage relation, the right of property is recognized and guarded by a precept. Were the spirit of this precept duly regarded; were all men as mindful of the rights and interests of their fellows as they are careful for their own, there would be on the earth no suffering from poverty. There is property enough in the world to meet the wants of all, if it were properly distributed. But equality can never exist while some are improvident and wasteful. The distiller and the brewer, who turn the nutritious grain into a useless or poisonous liquid, rob the starving poor of their daily bread. He who plants tobacco, where the Maker of the earth intended that corn and wheat should grow, defrauds the inhabitants of the earth who are appointed to subsist on its productions. He who spends his money for whisky and tobacco, steals from his wife and children that to which they have an undisputed right. It is impossible to enumerate all the ways in which this commandment is violated; impossible to describe the sufferings which result from its violation. 9. Necessary as is property or its representative, money, to the enjoyment of life, we often find people willing to spend all they possess to defend their reputation. So dear is reputation to man. And it is right that it should be so. There could be no happiness in society in the entire absence of confidence; and confidence would be unknown if no value were attached to reputation. And not only man highly regards reputation, but God himself has shown his estimation of it by making it the subject of one of the precepts of "the royal law." And thus are all the interests of man kept in view by his Creator, and provision made for their security and preservation. If any are so short-sighted, or so unmindful of the rights of others, as to feel that this law is burdensome-to feel that it restrains him where he would prefer to be left free to indulge his own inclinations,-let him remember that while it restrains him from injuring his neighbor, it also restrains his neighbor from injuring him. That which is your restraint, is also your security, your safeguard. Instead of having occasion to find fault with this law, you have every reason to be thankful that God has given it. Even though you may feel like deriding it, as some have done in their blindness, you have reason to bless Heaven that it yet exerts a restraining influence over the race. Without this, the earth would be literally "a habitation of demons." Before we close this article let us look for a moment at the extent and beneficence of this law. Remember, we have noticed only five of its ten precepts. We find that in these are guarded the welfare of children, and the honor and happiness of parents; our rights of life, the chastity of our families, of property, and of reputation. And where these are guarded and respected, what more can we ask from our fellow-man? Consider what kind of society that would be wherein every one's life, chastity, property, and reputation, were conscientiously cared for. No murder, no licentiousness, no stealing, no falsehood. Police officers, courts of justice, jails -all would be useless. Everywhere peace and harmony between men. No need of bolts and locks; no means of defence required. Reader, do you not wish that all would keep this law toward you? That all would perfectly regard these precepts in their dealings with you? And can you think of anything that you could justly ask beyond this? Are not all your social rights therein provided for? Well, as this law binds your neighbor, so it binds you. As you wish that all should regard your rights in respect to these precepts, so you must obey these precepts in regard to their rights. This is what the law requires, and this is the golden rule. We shall consider this subject further.