UNCHANGEABLE DURATION OF THE MORAL LAW.
Extract from a Sermon by Joseph Stennett. "Those persons subvert the doctrine of our blessed Saviour, who deny their obligation to the moral law, and pretend that Christ hath delivered us from the obligation of it, as some have had the confidence to assert. As if it did not now oblige us in point of duty; or, however, that all the regard we were to have to it, was only to arise from a principle of generosity, so as to make some thankful returns to God for his favors, but not because we are obliged to it. In answer to this absurd notion, no more needs be added to what hath been already said concerning the establishment of the moral law: but however, we may remark the pride and arrogance of those persons, who would fain fancy themselves in such a condition, that there is no duty encumbent on them; as if they might act as they pleased, and yet incur no guilt. And their great folly, as well as arrogance, further appears, in that since they pretend nothing can be required of them in a way of duty; consequently, all that they perform is a sort of work of supererogation, more than is required of them. Thus they who pretend to abdicate all merit, seem to seek something or other which may look meritorious; for if they do something more than they are obliged to do, then it may be fairly enough said there is something of merit in what they do. How far is this from the temper which Christ requires in his disciples, who, when they have done all those things which are commanded them, are taught to say we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to do; and to acknowledge their imperfections in what they have done. But then it is absurd, on the other hand, for them to pretend many things are good, as they are performed from a principle of generosity, but that they are not so in point of duty; for if the obligation of the law was taken away, and so their conformity to it were not a duty; to what purpose should they shew their generosity this way? For if there were no duty, the transgression of the law could be no sin, and if no sin, God could not be displeased with them. And then, if they did something conformable to the law, seeing it was no duty, what thank could they have from man, or what applause from God himself? So that according to their notion, good and evil would be things indifferent. So strangely absurd are men when they abandon this rule which God has laid down in his word; this rule of duty, to which we ought to be conformable under all dispensations." This shows how guilty they are who break any part of the moral law, and establish principles which may dispose men to do so; as those of the Romish communion do. One of these laws forbids idolatry, and commands that we should worship the only true God, and serve him only; and another forbids our worshiping of images. How do these make void the laws of God by their own traditions, when they multiply to themselves objects to worship, and bow down to graven images, contrary to the express letter of the divine law? These are highly to be reproved, in that they act contrary to the express words of our Saviour, who says, that not one jot or tittle of the law is to pass away. Another instance I may give you, in which many others transgress this righteous rule: and that is, in not observing the fourth command according to its precise and literal meaning, but imposing other interpretations upon it, as if at least it were partly vacated and abrogated; when according to the tenor of the words of Christ in our text, it appears to remain still in its full force. It will not be sufficient for men to say, it is enough that some time be devoted to the worship and service of God: for that must necessarily have been, had there never been any fourth command in the world. It is also in vain to say that that law requires only a seventh part of time, and leaves it to us to determine what part that shall be: for God himself hath determined that for us, as every one may see. Nor will it be to any purpose for men to pretend they keep this law, when they keep another day which God hath appointed for work, instead of the Sabbath, and work on that day, which God hath appointed for rest. Would this be understood, as a just observation of a law amongst men? If a day of fasting or thanksgiving were appointed by public authority; would it excuse any who neglected the observation of that determined day, which was appointed by authority, to say they kept a day, though it were not the precise day appointed? Would this way of reasoning do amongst men? And thus can it be called obedience to the fourth command, to keep another day than that which God hath required therein? Is keeping the first day of the week obedience to that law which requires our keeping the seventh? Then Jeroboam said well, that he obeyed the law of God in keeping the feast on the eighth month, because he kept it on one of the months of the year, though the law appointed it should be kept on the seventh. Men do not trifle so in the observance of human laws; why should they then trifle with the laws of God? Every one understands, if such a law requires such a day of the week and month to be observed, what the meaning of it is. And why should it be supposed so difficult in this case, of keeping the Sabbath, when God speaks in the most decisive terms that can be? Can it be supposed that this law is partly vacated, or abolished, when our Saviour says, that not one jot or tittle of this law shall pass away; heaven and earth may sooner pass away than this law? Is there any place in the New Testament wherein this is precisely declared to be abolished? On the contrary, did not our Saviour and his own apostles practice this law punctually and precisely? Is there any instance of the Jews taxing them with the breach of any one of these laws, from any fair color and pretence? It is not therefore a sufficient excuse for men to say they keep some part or some parcel of the law, when our Saviour declares the whole is obligatory on us; and not one jot or tittle of it is to be abolished. Does not the apostle James say the same thing, and declare, that he who offends in one point, is guilty of all: that is, violates the whole law; because it is the same authority that enjoins all." Sermons, Vol. 2, p. 480. London, 1731.