p. 1 | THE LAW OF GOD: by J. H. Waggoner

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Jul 18, 1854

THE LAW OF GOD:

By J. H. Waggoner

AN EXAMINATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF BOTH TESTAMENTS.

(Continued from Vol. IV, No. 20.)

Another objection is urged from Rom. x, 4:—"Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." If, because he is the end of the law, we are no longer to keep the law, the declaration only reaches those who believe. Of course those who do not believe are still under obligation to keep the law. Then this would not only prove that the law is still in force, but that those who do not believe are under obligation to observe moral precepts, which the believer in Christ is not under obligation to observe! This is the inevitable conclusion of antinomian teachings. Is it any wonder that infidelity abounds, while doctrines of such an immoral tendency are taught for Christianity? But to show that there is nothing in this text inconsistent with the teachings of the previous chapters, we copy the definition of the word here used, as given by Webster; also of the words fulfill, destroy and abolish:—

END, n. Extreme point; ultimate object; design; cessation; death. FULFILL, v. t. To perform; to complete; to accomplish. DESTROY, v. t. To kill; to annihilate; to demolish; to ruin; to lay waste. ABOLISH, v. t. To destroy; to repeal; to make void.

Is Christ the end of the law in such a manner that we may transgress it? The transgression of the law is sin, or unrighteousness; but it is not said that he is the end of the law for unrighteousness, but for righteousness, or obedience. We have shown from the scriptures the absurdity of supposing that the law of God is abolished or destroyed because it is fulfilled; and we would now refer to the following passages to show that end does not necessarily mean cessation, or death, but the ultimate object or design. Heb. xiii, 7, 8; 1 Pet. i, 9; James v, 11. "Behold we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." Now the law was ordained unto life, because it is a just standard of morals; but transgressors can obtain life only through Christ; and we understand this scripture to mean that the ultimate object or design of the law is accomplished in the person of Christ, who takes away the carnal mind, bestows upon us a moral character, and brings us to obedience.

Many have been made to stumble over the letter to the Romans, supposing that Paul's reasoning did tend to make void the law through faith. But we trust that the opposite has been shown to the satisfaction of all candid minds—that thus far God's law stands firm on the authority of the New Testament. But the question now arises, Did Paul, in writing to the Romans, contradict what he had written to the Galatians two years before? We cannot believe that he did; and as he has maintained the perpetuity of the law in his letter to the Romans, in order that the two harmonize, he must also maintain it in that to the Galatians; and in our examination of this epistle, if we "find some things hard to be understood," let us not wrest them to our own destruction, but compare them with the other scriptures, and thus ascertain the mind of the Spirit.

We have stated our belief that the Saviour and the Apostles spoke of the same law that the Prophets wrote of, because they drew no line of distinction, but regarded it in the same light, as possessed of the same nature, its observance securing the same great reward, and its transgression attended with the same fatal consequences. For the same reason we conclude that the same law is spoken of in Galatians and Romans; that the word law, whenever it is used in the epistle of James, or those to the Galatians and Romans, has reference to the moral law of God, the ten commandments, except when directly qualified, as in Rom. vii, 23, 25; viii, 2; and Gal. vi, 2. But the same term in Hebrews always has reference to the Levitical law; the precepts of the moral code being spoken of in the plural, "laws." Heb. viii, 10. That this word [law] is used in reference to more than one law in the New Testament, we have briefly noticed; and an examination of the nature and objects of these two laws must convince all that they cannot be regarded as one and the same, and are never confounded in the sacred writings. As we have dwelt somewhat at length upon the nature of the moral law, we will consider in contrast the nature of the ceremonial or Levitical law.

A moral precept cannot possibly be typical; but is of itself holy, just and good. But the Levitical law was typical. It was a system of types and shadows. The priests under it served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. Its offerings were remembrances of sin. Heb. x, 3. The priesthood was instituted that offerings might be made to God through them; and the offerings were made to atone for sin. When an individual brought his offering to the priest, it was an acknowledgment on his part that he had sinned; the victim was slain to signify that he, as a sinner, was worthy of death. Thus it is evident that the whole system was instituted to show the nature and desert of sin, and the method of making an atonement for it. But if no sin existed, no offering would be required; therefore the sin laid back of, or existed before, the offering. But sin is the transgression of the law; hence the law was transgressed before any system of offerings was required; and the Levitical law was instituted because the pre-existing moral law was transgressed. A priest serves as a mediator; but if man were already justified before God, he would require no mediator. Had man kept the law he would have been justified—he would not have had sin, and of course there would have been no necessity for a sin-offering. Here the ministration of the priest, and the law over which he ministers, are clearly distinct. The sin must be antecedent to the atonement for sin. The Levitical law being typical, pointed to Christ, and the death of Christ must have been determined before the types of his work could be instituted. The necessity of his death arose from man's transgression. "He died for our sins." But if there was but one law, and that containing types and shadows, then it is impossible to show what that law was given for; and if the moral law that existed previous to the death of Christ does not exist now, how can he mediate in the new covenant for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant? Heb. ix, 15.

Again, the difference between the two laws is shown in that the ceremonies of the Levitical law were not acceptable while the precepts of the moral law were disregarded. The types pointed to Christ; but Christ came to save his people from their sins, not in their sins, and to cause grace to reign through righteousness, not through unrighteousness. Therefore if those offerings had been accepted of the Lord, while the person who offered them continued to commit the crimes for which he sought forgiveness, then the Levitical law would not have "served to the example and shadow" of Christ's ministration. The Lord said, "Hear, O earth; Behold I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts; because they have not hearkened unto my word, 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. vi, 19, 20. If observing the law consisted in offering sacrifices, then they could not be said to have rejected the law while they made the offerings. The complaint is not that they had not brought sacrifices and offerings, but that they had not hearkened to his law, but rejected it; and for this reason their offerings were not acceptable.

That God's law was something entirely distinct from these sacrifices, is further shown in Jer. vii, 22, 23: "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices. But this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice and I will be your God and you shall be my people." When they heard his voice a few days after this commandment was given, he spoke the ten commandments in the hearing of all Israel. Ex. xix, 5, 6; xx, 1-22; Deut. iv, 12, 13.

The Apostle to the Hebrews says that the law had a shadow of good things to come: then that law was certainly typical. Its offerings could not make perfect, because the blood offered by it could not take away sin. The law of which he here speaks had sacrifices and offerings; but the law of God, the law of moral precepts, does not speak "concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices." Thus, by comparison, we find that two different laws are spoken of in the New Testament: one which is not made void through faith in Christ, which he came not to destroy; and another which he blotted out, and nailed to his cross. One a spiritual, holy, just and good law, the doers of which would be justified, by which is the knowledge of sin, of which Paul discourses to the Romans; the other, treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews, weak and unprofitable, carnal, making nothing perfect, containing mere shadows of good things to come. By the same method of comparison, we are led to the conclusion that one and the same law is spoken of to the Romans and Galatians; and also by the fact that the declarations in Galatians cannot be made to apply to the ceremonial law.

The letter to the Galatians is supposed to have been written about two years before that to the Romans, and on that account might have claimed the first investigation; but many are ready to admit that the Apostle to the Romans reasons concerning the moral law, who will not make the same admission respecting his letter to the Galatians; therefore we have given that our first attention, and proved, we trust, that not a single declaration has been found therein which can be referred to the ceremonial or Levitical law. We are now prepared to examine that to the Galatians, and expect that all will agree with us that this treats solely of the moral law, if an analogy can be shown between the main positions in the two epistles. Two expressions are found in Romans, [Chap. vii, 23; viii, 2,] which do not refer to the ten commandments; nor yet to the Levitical law; but the only place in Galatians where law is used in reference to any thing but the ten commandments, is in Chap. vi, 2: "the law of Christ." If this declaration is found to be correct, and it can be shown that the Apostle's reasoning tends to prove the perpetuity of the law of which it treats, then

the epistle to the Galatians may be considered a strong hold by those who "delight in the law of God."

To whom, and under what circumstances, did the Apostle write this letter? His declaration of what he said to Peter at Antioch, some six years before, shows that they had been troubled with judaizing teachers, who did not understand that justification was obtained wholly through Christ "without the law." Rom. iii, 19-23. This is also shown in Gal. iv, 21; v, 1-4, but this does not prove that they were Jews to whom he wrote, or that judaism was the only error with which they were in danger of being affected. It has been supposed by some that, although this was "written to the churches of Galatia," these churches were composed of Jewish converts resident in that country; but the expressions of Paul in Chap. i, 13, 14, evidently contradicts this. He told them they had heard of his conversation in times past in "the Jews' religion." When speaking of himself and others of his nation, [Acts xxvi, 4, 5,] he used the phrase, "our religion." Again, in Gal. i, 14, he said, "And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers." This was not his method of speaking when addressing himself to the Jews. At Rome he called the chief of the Jews together, and said, "I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers." Acts xxviii, 17; xxvi, 5.

It has also been supposed that Gal. iv, 8-10, refers to the ceremonies of the Levitical law, and must have been written to those who had observed that law—"When ye knew not God, ye did service to them which by nature are no gods;" and in referring again to this service he says, "Ye observe days and months and times and years." The ceremonies of the Levitical law were never contrary to the knowledge of God; never observed by those who knew not God; nor was their observance indicative of a "service to them which by nature are no gods;" inasmuch as they were required in the service of the true God under the former dispensation; so that these expressions plainly prove the contrary. But of this we shall speak more at length when we come to an examination of this chapter.

It is declared in Rom. iii, 23, that all have sinned, and this declaration is based on the authority of the scriptures; and let it be remarked, that in the New Testament dispensation the Apostle quotes from the Old Testament to prove that Jews and Gentiles were alike sinners. But this scripture could have no bearing on the point, if the Gentiles were not amenable to the law in the Old Testament. Neither would it be in point if the law which existed at the time the scripture was written had passed away before the Apostle quoted it; yet he has adduced it as the proof, and we are satisfied to rest it there, and consider them sinners on that authority. As Jews and Gentiles are all sinners, the Jew has no pre-eminence, but must come to Christ for justification the same as the Gentile. But Peter "was to be blamed," because he separated himself, and compelled the Gentiles to live as the Jews, thereby building again the distinction which had been destroyed by the manifestation of God's righteousness through faith in Christ. Rom. iii, 21-23; Eph. ii, 13, 14. The remarks respecting the law, in this chapter are parallel with those in Romans. By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. For I through the law am dead to the law that I might live unto God. Gal. ii, 16, 19. See Rom. iii, 20; vi, 11; vii, 4, 9. It might be inferred from Gal. iii, 2-5, that he is no longer speaking of the moral law; but we must remember that justification cannot be obtained by a law, however holy and just it may be, after it is transgressed; and those who receive the Spirit, or work miracles, must necessarily do so by faith, and not by the works of the law. But this argues nothing against the law, as it does not cease to be holy because it does not justify the transgressor; on the contrary, we could have no regard for a law which had not power to hold the transgressor under condemnation. If the transgressor of a law can justly escape its penalty, then the law itself is unjust, and should not be enforced. That which our opponents urge against the law, viz., that it holds men under the curse, is a strong argument for its justice and perpetuity.

As Abraham was justified by faith, made perfect by works, so we are the children of Abraham, if we are of faith, and do the works of Abraham: not merely believe the word, but "walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham." Rom. iv, 12. The gospel was preached to Abraham—the promise made of a blessing to the nations, because God would justify the nations through faith. So then they which be of faith, whether they are circumcised or not, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Rom. iv, 11; Gal. iii, 7, 9. As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse. Verse 10. Does this mean, that as many as do the works of the law, or keep the law, are under the curse? Surely not. Paul says, the doers of the law shall be justified; and James says, Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, shall be blessed in his deed—not cursed. The law was ordained unto life, but the wages of sin, or transgression of the law, is death. It is because they have not kept it, or continued therein, that they are cursed, as the quotation in verse 10 proves:—"For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." Compare Deut. xxvii, 10, 26; xxviii, 1, 2, 15; Ps. cxix, 21. That the Apostle is here speaking of the moral law, is evident, as it is a law that not only curses the transgressor, but by observing which a man would live. Verse 12. See Lev. xviii, 5; Eze. xx, 11, 21. From the curse of this law Christ has redeemed us, being made a curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Verses 13, 14. Two important points are presented in these verses: (1.) Christ has redeemed the Gentiles from the curse of this law. (2.) The curse of this law, unless removed by Christ, stands between us and the blessing of Abraham. That the work of redemption reaches the Gentiles none will deny; but that it reaches beyond the jurisdiction of this law, cannot be shown. This law holds the Gentiles under the curse, because by it is the knowledge of sin, and by it both Jews and Gentiles are proved sinners. But if the law was not given to the Gentiles, we fail to see how Christ can redeem them from its curse. Then the argument may be stated thus: The redemption of Christ reaches those only who are under the curse of the law; the law curses those only who transgress it; and those only can transgress it who are amenable to it, or to whom it was given. But it was a Jewish law, and not given to the Gentiles; therefore the redemption of Christ does not reach the Gentiles!!

We have seen what it was to obey the voice of God, and what he commanded when his voice was heard. Deut. xxvii, 10. Moses said, "Thou shalt therefore obey the voice of the Lord thy God, and do his commandments and his statutes;" and in verse 26, it is said, "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Paul certainly refers to the same law, inasmuch as he quotes this scripture, and applies it to the Gentiles. But if any yet deny that this is spoken in reference to the moral law, or affirm that the Apostle includes the whole system of law under the former dispensation, it will be time to answer them further when they show what connection the Gentile nations had with the Levitical law, or what was its curse, and how they were brought under it.

But God has promised that in Abraham and in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Gen. xxii, 18. Christ is the seed referred to in the promise; [Gal. iii, 16,] and he redeems the nations from the curse of the law in order to fulfill the promise, or that the blessing of Abraham may be conferred on them. Some have contended that the law itself is a curse, standing between us and the blessing of Abraham; but this view is contradicted by verse 21, which directly declares that the law is not against the promises of God. It is not the law that withholds the blessing, but it is the curse of the law; and this falls only on the transgressor; therefore the transgression of the law deprives the transgressor of the blessing of Abraham; and this is a strong confirmation of what we have proved from other scriptures; viz., that the law is the condition of the Abrahamic covenant, and that the faithfully obedient secure the promised blessings. And on the supposition that the law stands disconnected from that covenant, or is not the condition on which it was based, it cannot be shown why the transgressor of the law is not entitled to the blessing of the covenant without redemption from the curse of the law.

If this law had been kept by all, none would have been under its curse; and then no mediator would have been needed to secure to man the blessing of God. When the law is transgressed it is not set aside, neither are they who have transgressed it justified by future obedience. Then it becomes necessary to keep, not only the Commandments of God, the great and universal Law-giver, but also the Faith of Jesus, the Mediator between God and man, the Redeemer from the curse of God's violated law. In order to understand the Apostle's argument in Galatians, the object of this redemption should be kept in view, which is, that the blessing of Abraham might come on those who are redeemed. The covenant under which these blessings are given, was confirmed in Christ; as he is the seed to whom the promises were made, in whom all nations were to be blessed. Verses 16, 17. This is also shown, in verse 8, to be the gospel covenant. As the promises of the gospel were made to Abraham, he is constituted the father of all believers; and as before shown, the condition being violated, the blessing is conferred on those only who can claim them on the promise of God through faith in the Mediator. Compare Rom. iv, 12-16, with Gal. iii, 17, 18. In considering verse 19, we would refer the reader to our remarks on Rom. v, 20, where it is evident that the same law entered that was transgressed, otherwise it would not have the effect to cause the offense to abound. Here it is said that the law was added because of transgression. What was transgressed? Not, as some have vainly contended, the promise made to Abraham; for man cannot transgress the promise of God, though they can his law. It will be noticed that Paul does not introduce another law in verse 19, but speaks throughout of "the law," so we must consider him as speaking of the same law unless there is something in the argument which renders it positively necessary that another law should enter or be added because of transgression. But in Rom. v, 20, it is seen to be necessary that the same law that was transgressed should enter to cause the offense to abound; so in Gal. iii, 19, when we inquire into the nature and office of the law that was added, there will be no difficulty in viewing it as the same that was transgressed. The law was added to serve as a school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified through faith: justification by the law being impossible by reason of transgression. Here it is evident that he refers to the moral law; for none but a moral law could bring us to Christ. He is the only Saviour from sin; and as the sick need a physician, so the sinful need a Saviour. But in order that the sinner come to Christ, he must be made sensible of his sinful condition; this can be done only by the law; for "by the law is the knowledge of sin." So "the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;" perfect as a standard of right, convincing of sin, and thus bringing us to Christ, the way of salvation. Such conversion is genuine and complete. Thus it is evident that the law spoken of in Gal. iii, 19, 24, is a moral law, one that will detect and convince of sin.

But it is asked, was the law added to the law? No: "the covenant confirmed before of God in Christ" is the subject of the Apostle's discourse; and it was this to which the law was added. But it has been clearly proved that the law was also the condition of that covenant; neither was it added so as to become the condition of the Abrahamic covenant a second time, but as the condition of another covenant, the blessings of which did not rest on the promise of God through Christ, but on the obedience of those with whom it was made. As they had all transgressed, by entering into a covenant of works, or obedience, their weakness and sinfulness was made manifest; and thus the law brought them to a reliance on Jesus Christ for freedom from the curse which they had incurred by disobedience. Through Christ the Gentiles also receive the adoption of sons, being Abraham's seed by faith, where there is neither

Jew nor Greek, but all one in Christ; the Gentiles being "fellow-heirs, and of the same body, partakers of his promise in Christ, by the gospel," [Eph. iii, 6.] according to God's word to Abraham.

As the heir, while yet a child, differs in nothing from a servant, so we, before we were redeemed from the curse of the law, and received the adoption of sons, were in bondage under the elements of the world, and by nature the children of wrath, even as others. In what respect we were under the elements of the world, we learn from Eph. ii, 1-3. "Were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked, according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Thus we see that to be in bondage under the elements of the world is being in a state of sin, which is compared to that of a child who is under tutors and governors; so we were under a school-master; under the law, which has been shown to be under condemnation. The following expression of the same idea from the pen of Bro. J. N. Andrews, may be found in the Review and Herald, Vol. II, page 29:—

"The bondage of the Jewish church did not consist in that God had given them his law, but because they were its transgressors—the servants of sin. John viii, 33-36. The freedom of the children of Jerusalem which is above does not consist in that the law has been abolished, but in that they have been made free from sin. Rom. vi, 22."

We have all been in bondage under the elements of the world, [Gal. iv, 3.] and Christ was made under the law, [verse 4.] to redeem them that were under the law, [verse 5.] and God hath given us the spirit of his Son; [verse 6;] wherefore we are no longer bond-men, but sons and heirs through Christ. Verse 7. The expression in verse 8, as we have shown, does not refer to the Levitical law. As that law was not contrary to the knowledge of God, it was never observed by those who had not the knowledge of God; its observance did not indicate "service to them which by nature are no gods," but was required in the service of the true God under the former covenant. Then it is evident that turning back to the weak and beggarly elements, to which they wished again to be in bondage, [verse 9.] would be returning to a life of sin. Neither does verse 10 refer to the Levitical law, but to the former customs of the Galatians, who were Gentiles or heathen; and therefore they could not have lived in the observance of the law given to Israel through Moses. This conclusion is not only reasonable, but unavoidable, when we consider that the observance of times was a heathen custom, strictly prohibited by the Lord at the same time that the law of Moses was enjoined. Thus after the ceremonies of the law are described in Leviticus, it is said, [Chap. xix, 26.] "Neither shall ye use enchantments, nor observe times." That the connection to which the observance of times belongs may be clearly seen, we copy Deut. xviii, 9-12: "When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord; and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee." In 2 Chron. xxxiii, 2, 5, 6, it is said of king Manasseh, that he did "that which was evil in the sight of the Lord like unto the abominations of the heathen." "And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord. And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom; also he observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards." As we cannot believe that the Lord hath prohibited and enjoined the same thing at the same time, we are led to the conclusion that the times of Gal. iv, 10, have no reference to the Law of Moses. And we can see no

more necessity for referring the "days" mentioned in the text to the feast days and times of convocation in the law, than the "times." We find both these terms in common use, yet they are not used in the sense which is commonly attached to them in the scripture in question. Many, even in the present age, observe both times and days according to the customs of the heathen, who would be startled at the thought of observing the rites of the Mosaic law; they will neither plant nor sow except at particular times, nor begin any work but on particular days. With them Friday is made an unlucky day, and Sunday a sacred day, both ideas being derived from the same source, viz., heathen superstition; but who dare argue from thence that it is wrong to observe the seventh day or Sabbath, which God has blessed and sanctified as a holy day?

Some may object that this declaration conflicts with the fact that the first-day Sabbath was instituted by the Papal power; but there is a difference between dedicating a day to the sun and giving it the place and title of the Sabbath or Lord's day. That the heathen were the first to consider the first day as a day of worship or sacred day, the Catholics themselves allow; while they plainly declare that "the church" "changed the Sabbath into Sunday!" The following testimonies on these points are from the Douay Catechism.

Ques. What is Sunday, or the Lord's Day in general? Ans. It is a day dedicated by the Apostles to the honor of the most holy Trinity, and in memory that Christ our Lord arose from the dead upon Sunday, sent down the holy Ghost on a Sunday, &c.; and therefore it is called the Lord's Day. It is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of Dies Solis, the day of the sun, to which it was sacred.—Page 143.

Q. Why was the Jewish Sabbath changed into the Sunday? A. Because Christ was born upon a Sunday, rose from the dead upon a Sunday, and sent down the Holy Ghost upon a Sunday: works not inferior to the creation of the world.

Q. By whom was it changed? A. By the Governors of the Church, the Apostles, who also kept it; for St. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, (which was Sunday,) Apoc. i, 10.

Q. How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days? A. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.—Page 58.

All will admit that the Galatians had been affected with Judaizing notions of self-righteousness; yet we trust it has been made plain that other errors were obtaining among them, having no reference to the customs of the Jews. If they "turned back" to their former practices they would again become heathen idolaters; but if under the influence of other teachers they resorted to circumcision, and looked to the law for justification, they were also under condemnation, being proved sinners by their own rule of justification, and this is the signification of the phrase, "under the law," as used in the letters to the Romans and Galatians. Then when it is asked, (Gal. iv, 21.) "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" an explanation is given in Rom. iii, 19, where it is expressly declared that "the law speaks to them who are under the law;" therefore they are they who hear the law; and the effect produced is that every mouth is stopped, and all become guilty before God. This, we think, plainly shows that the Apostle was convincing them of sin by the moral law; yet it has been supposed to convey a different sense from its connection with the quotation in verse 22:—"For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free-woman." The scripture quoted is not written in the law, but in Genesis, in a record of events which transpired some four hundred years before the law was given at Sinai. There are those who contend that the quotation above was written in the law, and was what the Galatians were cited to hear; but again the same class of objectors will tell us that the whole system of law, moral, civil, and ecclesiastical, was unknown till after the exode from Egypt. How they will reconcile the two declarations, we are at a loss to determine; for if this scripture is any part of what was termed the law, then the pre-existence of the law

is evident. But as this would prove altogether too much to suit our opponents, we will consider it admitted that the quotation in question is not taken from the law, but the two sons of Abraham are introduced as an allegory or figure of the two covenants. It is often taken for granted that this signifies the two laws; but such a position is not warranted by any scripture, as we propose to show. First, I am willing to rest upon the evidence produced that there has been but one moral law, and there never will nor can be another. And, the phrase "two laws" may be properly used to embrace the moral law of God—the ten commandments—and the ceremonial law, or law of Moses. The first, or moral law, called also God's holy covenant, was not one of the covenants alluded to by the Apostle; but it was the condition of both covenants; and the second, or Levitical law, was not one of these covenants, but was appended to or connected with the Sinaitic covenant. Thus in Heb. ix, 1, where this covenant is mentioned, Paul says it had ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary; but the covenant itself was complete before it had these ordinances, or ceremonies, and before the sanctuary was made.

Having already shown the difference between the two laws, it will be necessary in the further consideration of this chapter to contrast the two covenants. The Abrahamic covenant, (Jerusalem above,) of which we are made children and heirs by faith in Christ, has been so fully noticed that it will be unnecessary to go into an extended examination of that; a recapitulation of the points brought to view being sufficient. We have seen that its basis was the moral law; and its promises, the blessings of the gospel. All the purposes of God toward man since his fall have been manifested with direct reference to man's condition as a sinner; so this covenant appears as the development of a great plan of salvation; and as man has violated the condition on which the covenant was based, he has forfeited the blessings, so that future personal obedience is no longer sufficient to obtain them; but the obedience of faith is required. Faith must have some object on which to rest; Christ is set forth as a propitiation for our transgressions; and therefore the Mediator of the covenant. Then we have the covenant in full thus: the law for its basis, the gospel blessings for its promises, Jesus Christ its Mediator, and the heavenly Sanctuary his place of ministration, where he is embraced and the blessing secured through the obedience of faith.

The Sinaitic covenant we now proceed to notice. This may be found in Ex. xix, 5-8. The Lord sent a message to the children of Israel by Moses, as follows: "If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me, above all people; for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." The people sent back an answer, saying, "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." But as yet they had not heard his voice, neither had he declared his covenant unto them: only they had seen what he did for them, how he bare them on eagles' wings and brought them unto himself. Verse 4. But the agreement was entered into, the arrangement made, and every thing in readiness for a declaration of God's holy covenant, the condition of the covenant made, or agreement entered into, with them. All should bear in mind the fact that the term covenant is used in reference to different things in the Bible; as a promise; [Gen. ix, 8-17;] agreement, [Ex. xix, 5-8; Heb. viii, 9,] or law; [1 Chron. xvi, 15-17; Deut. iv, 12, 13;] so that as in the chapter in consideration, a covenant or law may be given as the condition of a covenant or agreement made; and the signification of the word is sufficiently comprehensive to warrant such a use of it in the sacred writings: being, according to Greenfield, "Any disposition, arrangement, institution, or dispensation; hence a testament, will, or covenant." When they made the promise they had not yet heard his voice; but on the third day thereafter the Lord appeared on Mt. Sinai and gave with his own voice the ten commandments;

[Continued on Page 190.]

[Continued from Page 187.] [Ex. xx, 22; Deut iv, 12, 13, 36; v, 22-26;] therefore to obey his voice was to keep the ten commandments. Keeping his covenant was also keeping the ten commandments, as the following scriptures will show: 1 Chron. xvi, 15-18; Deut. iv, 12, 13; ix, 9-11; Ex. xxxi, 18; xxxiv, 28. These commandments are all that were comprehended in the expressions, "Obey my voice," and "Keep my covenant," as we have seen that these constituted the covenant which he spake with his voice, and wrote on two tables of stone; and it is said in Deut. v, 22, "He added no more." See also Jer. vii, 22, 23.

We have now before us the covenant with its conditions; and we next come to inquire into the nature of the promises of that covenant. It is generally supposed that these referred only to temporal benefits, and that these benefits were conferred according to promise. Against this view we have several objections to offer. As these blessings were conditional, if they were conferred according to agreement, it follows that they with whom the covenant was made either fulfilled the conditions, or had their transgressions atoned for by the mediators of that covenant. But the scriptures abundantly prove that they did not obey his voice, nor keep his covenant. [Num. xxxii, 14; Deut. ix, 6; xxxi, 27; xxxii, 20; Jer. xliv, 9, 10,] so that in their own persons they were not entitled to the promised blessings; neither did the priests who served under that covenant make an atonement for their sins; as the condition of the covenant was a rule of moral obligation, for the violation of which the blood of calves and goats could not atone. Heb. x, 1-4. "We admit that they atoned for these transgressions in a figure, looking to Christ for the realization of the fact; and Christ is the only priest who has ever offered blood, having power to cleanse from the transgression of that law; and for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, (covenant) that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." Heb. ix, 15. But this cuts off the idea that a temporal inheritance was contemplated in the promise, as the mediators of the first covenant did not take away sin, or secure the promise; and the mediation under the new covenant is for a different purpose: to wit, an eternal inheritance.

That this covenant did not embrace mere temporal benefits, is further seen by an examination of the nature of its promises and condition. The Lord promised that if they would keep his covenant they should be unto him a peculiar treasure, a holy nation. Now all the nations of the earth were sinners, and wicked in the sight of God, so that they would truly have been a peculiar people if they had kept the law of God; and they would have been a holy nation. This fact needs a careful consideration. We have seen that God's law is his own prescribed rule of holiness, and that this rule is eternal and unchangeable in its nature; that the requirement of holiness as the ground of acceptance with him is the same in all dispensations; therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the reward is ever the same. Prov. xi, 19; Isa. xxxii, 17; Rom. vi, 22. God's ways are equal. Life and death were suspended on their obedience or disobedience to his law. Deut. xxx, 15, 16. But it is insisted that they could not keep the law, and therefore if eternal interests were suspended on their obedience, God was merely tantalizing them by placing before them blessings which they could not reach, and requirements which they could not fulfill.

We have thus far argued from the nature of this law, and the consequence of complete, perfect obedience on the part of Adam and all his posterity, while we have not expressed or intimated a belief that any one unaided by the mediator of the new covenant, could perfectly keep it since the fall of Adam, and the consequent corruption of the human race through him, their representative head. On the contrary, we believe that the Scriptures plainly teach that we cannot, independent of Christ,

keep that law in its letter and spirit. If it were ever possible, since Adam's fall, for man to keep the law, no doubt that possibility still exists; and if so, inasmuch as the doers of the law would be justified, and life is the reward of obedience, (for the wages of sin is death,) then there would exist two complete methods of salvation at the same time—personal obedience, and faith in Christ. But this is not in accordance with the scripture which declares that when we were without strength Christ died for us; [Rom. v, 6;] and the Saviour says, without me ye can do nothing; [John xv, 5;] and again it is said, By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; but the just shall live by faith. Rom. iii, 20; Gal. iii, 11. Much might be quoted to the same effect, but it will be sufficient to direct the mind to those scriptures which show the impossibility of escaping the wrath of God, if we neglect the salvation offered through Jesus Christ.

But while we admit the fact that they could not keep the law, we deny the conclusion that has been drawn from it, viz., that it was inconsistent for God to place a condition before them which they could not fulfill. When we understand the purpose for which the law was proclaimed as the condition of the Sinaitic covenant, we shall see that that purpose was accomplished; but it would not have been accomplished if it had been in their power to keep it. We turn again to the Apostle's argument in Galatians iii. He first shows the necessity of faith, and that the blessing of Abraham is bestowed on the faithful; that the law on which the Abrahamic covenant was founded being violated, all are under the curse; and Christ the Mediator of that covenant redeems us from the curse, that we may inherit the promise. At Sinai the law was confirmed to Israel as the condition of another covenant, to continue for a limited time, and the object of its being so given was that it might serve as a school-master to bring them to Christ. Now it must be apparent to all that if they fulfilled the conditions of that covenant, or kept the law, it would fail to bring them to Christ, and if it were even possible for them to keep it, it would lead them to trust in themselves, and seek for justification by personal obedience, instead of seeking to the Saviour for it. The same fact is shown in Gal. iv, 24, where it is said that this covenant brings forth children to bondage, wherefore, it is fitly represented by Hagar, the bondswoman, the mother of Ishmael.

The two covenants are contrasted in Heb. viii, and ix. Some have supposed that the covenant mentioned in Heb. viii, 10-12, remains to be made in the future, in the administration of Messiah, when it is supposed he will be both King and Priest on the throne of his father David. As a correct understanding of this subject seems to be necessary to an understanding of Gal. iv, and as our present relation to the law is affected by the relation we sustain to this covenant, we will offer a few reasons why we cannot believe it to be in the future:—

1. Zechariah vi, 12, 13, refers to the present and not to any future dispensation. As this prophecy has been much relied on to prove the opposite, we will examine it. "Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his [the Lord's] throne; and he shall be a Priest upon his [the Lord's] throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." In Rev. iii, 21, Jesus declares that he is now set down in his Father's throne, and is in expectation of his own throne. See Acts ii, 29-35. Paul says, [Heb. viii, 1,] "We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the Sanctuary," &c. In the prophecy above quoted he is represented as sitting a Priest on the throne of the Lord, "and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." This is fulfilled in the present position of Christ on the throne of God, a mediator between God and man. But he is to leave the throne of the Father, and cease to minister in the Sanctuary before he comes to earth. Therefore,

2. There can be no remission of sins according to the promise of the new covenant, after the coming of Christ. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission, and the blood of Christ is the only remedy to heal the breach made in God's holy law. This blood he offers in the Sanctuary and true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man; and as there is but one offering, and this but once offered, [Heb. ix, 25, 26; x, 14,] so there is but one Priest who can approach the throne of God to make an atonement. 1 Tim. ii, 5.

3. A revival of the types of Christ's ministration is impossible. This we consider evidently true from the nature and object of such institutions: being shadows of things to come, or examples and illustrations of the work of Christ. No sin was remitted by the means of such blood as was offered in the worldly sanctuary, as it only pointed to a future fact: that fact being reached by faith, and realized when all the righteous with Daniel stand in their lot in the person of their Advocate. But such an order of things cannot exist after the priesthood of Christ closes. As the fact cannot go before the figure or type, or the thing signified before the sign thereof, it would seem to be absurd to make an atonement in figure for a sin which had already been atoned for in fact; and as repentance and confession must precede remission, [Mark i, 4; Acts ii, 38; 1 John i, 9,] it would seem still more absurd to make a typical atonement after the sin was committed, when it had been done in fact, and remission granted, before it was committed!

4. The Apostle represented himself and fellow-laborers as ministers of the new covenant. We presume none will contend that the saints can be priests independently: they must act in a subordinate sense. Jesus Christ himself is the High Priest, and minister of this covenant according to Heb. viii, 1-6; and Paul says in 2 Cor. v, 18-20, that God "hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you for us; we pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God." It is written in 1 Pet. ii, 5, "Ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (Whiting, Macknight.) And again Paul says in 2 Cor. iii, 3, 5, 6, "Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us;" (prepared by our service—Whiting!) "Our sufficiency is of God who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament."

These and other texts of a similar import clearly prove that the present dispensation is under the ministration of the new covenant. It will be recollected that Paul says, We have such an High Priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister &c.; [Heb. viii, 1, 2;] and in verse 6, "Now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant which was established upon better promises." And as the first testament was dedicated or ratified with blood, because a testament is of force only after the death of the testator; so Christ once offered himself to God, and is thus become the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Heb. ix, 14-18. But it may here be urged that if the promises of the Sinaitic covenant embraced the blessings to be conferred by Christ on the faithful, then the promises of the new covenant could not with propriety be called better; but the difference does not consist in the blessings contemplated, but in the manner in which they were to be attained. The promises of Ex. xix, 5-8, rest solely on the obedience of those to whom they were made, without any provision for the benefit of the transgressor; and the ministration of the priests under that covenant did not release the transgressor from the curse attached to disobedience; because it was not possible

for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin; but this was all the blood they had to offer, so that if promises of forgiveness had been incorporated in that covenant, such promises could not have been realized from the ministration under it, and therefore no such promises were then made. But the blood of Christ cleanses from sin, so that the covenant of which he is the mediator contains the promise: "I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." In this respect alone was the first covenant faulty. Had its conditions been perfectly obeyed, no fault could have been found with it; true, it was insufficient to give life to the transgressor, but if it had not been broken, they could certainly have enjoyed the favor of God: or if it had embraced forgiveness of sins, and thereby have given life, no necessity would have existed for another covenant. See Gal. ii, 21. In Heb. viii, where the necessity of the new covenant is shown, it says, verse 8, "For finding fault with them he saith, behold the days come," &c.; and the reason is thus given in verse 9: "Because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." He promised to regard them as a peculiar treasure, if they would obey his voice; but inasmuch as they did not obey his voice, the agreement was broken on their part, and the Lord was not bound by his promise to regard them as a peculiar treasure. Neither was it possible for him to regard them as a peculiar people, or holy nation, because that was not their true character. They were transgressors of his law, and of course sinners, unholy, like the other nations.