OUR RULE OF LIFE | AdventAI

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 1, 1857

OUR RULE OF LIFE.

A DISCOURSE BY E. MILLER, JR., REVIEWED.

(Concluded.)

THE point which next claims our attention is the manner in which Eld. Miller carries out the instructions which Paul gave to Timothy, as found in 2 Tim. ii, 15: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." He first laid down as a substratum of his whole discourse, the proposition that we were to judge of the intent of any portion of the Bible, by considering to whom it was addressed. With this preparation he proceeded to "divide" the word of truth as follows:

The first books of the Bible are historical, containing accounts of events more or less minute from the beginning, to the latest date of which they treat; but they are purely historical, and therefore do not particularly concern us, so far as regards instruction how to regulate our lives. Therefore he slashed off these, and threw them away. Thus the first "division" was effected.

The Psalms, he told us, were divine songs, given under the Jewish dispensation, and for those who then lived. The Proverbs were axioms, and the remaining portions of the Old Testament were mainly prophecies; but the main fact he wished to impress upon the mind was that it was all given to the Jews, and we had nothing to do with it as far as moral obligation was concerned, whatever. Thus the Old Testament was "divided" and thrown away. But doubtless being instinctively admonished that he had thus done violence to the word of truth, he endeavored to palliate his position by admitting that the Old Testament nevertheless contains some good things! Poor subterfuge! That would indeed be a strange book that did not contain some good things. Doubtless the Koran and the Book of Mormon could sustain a good claim to as much credit as this.

Having thus disposed of the Old Testament, those scriptures in which Paul told Timothy to continue, as they were able to make him wise unto salvation, [2 Tim. iii, 14, 15.] the New Testament comes next in order. The four Gospels he tells us are biographical sketches; and therefore we are not to look to them for a rule of duty. Christ's memorable sermon on the mount, and all his instructions to those who were, or should ever after be his disciples, are thus conveniently disposed of. The Acts, he continued, is the only place in the Bible where we learn how to make a Christian; and there never was a Christian made, till Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost. As the definition of Christian, is, one who is a disciple of Christ, we had supposed that all who followed him while on earth, and Peter among the rest, were Christians; but it appears they were not; that is, E. Miller, jr., says so.

We now come to the epistles, that part of the Bible which, according to M.'s theory, really has claims upon us, and places us under moral restraint. There, exclaimed the speaker, holding up his Bible and embracing with thumb and finger the epistles from Romans to Revelation, "these are addressed to Christians, and tell them how they ought to do. The Epistles are the whole rule of Christian life." Thus rightly(!) dividing the word, we find nothing left to direct our conduct, but a few epistles. Is this the work of a workman "that needeth not to be ashamed?" Verily the epistles themselves would do us but little good if we were to act upon all their instructions as M. acts upon 2 Tim. ii, 15.

The reader will here perceive that the view that the epistles were given for a new rule of duty for Christians, presupposes another view; namely, that every rule of life in force previous to that time, had been abolished. For this position M. delights to contend. His language is that all law of every kind, ten commandments and all "went by the board" at the death of Christ. This point demands a word. And first we are led to wonder at the views which such must entertain of the plan of Salvation! Why was it necessary that Christ should die? To make a way of escape for man. But what is the trouble with men. They have transgressed God's law; not a few, but all; for says Paul, "ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God; and again," "that every mouth may be stopped and ALL THE WORLD may become guilty before God." Rom. iii, 19, 23. Sin is the transgression of the law. [1 John iii, 4:] all have sinned; and the law demands the death of its transgressors; for the just sentence is, The soul that sinneth it shall die. Man being in this condition, one of three things must follow: they must all die, or the law must be taken back, and they thus released from it, or a ransom must be paid. It was God's purpose to devise means whereby man might live. But he could not take back his law, as that would be to deny his own moral character as expressed in that law; therefore he gave his beloved Son a ransom for them. Hence the Saviour says in the very commencement of his ministry, "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill." He fulfilled it by rendering perfect obedience to all its requirements. "I have kept my Father's commandments." John xv, 10. "Who did no sin." 1 Pet. ii, 22. He fulfilled it by meeting the demand which it had upon mankind as transgressors, by dying, the just for the unjust. Now can we suppose that by giving his life to meet the demands of the law he abolished the law? It is the height of absurdity to suppose this. We might just as well say that every time a man is hung he abolishes capital punishment. It would be an exact parallel. Further, all can see that if the law could have been abolished, the Saviour need not have died; and we may be assured that it was no trivial demand that called the Saviour from glory to give his life a ransom for man.

Christ died. We avail ourselves of the merits of his sacrifice by faith in him. When we exercise that faith in him, his righteousness is imputed unto us; [Rom. iii, 22; 2 Cor. v, 21:] and thus we are freed from the claims which the law has upon us for past transgressions. And here, Paul, as if anticipating the attack which some would make upon the law of God, puts the question direct: Do we through this faith which we exercise in Christ, make void the law, that law from which Christ died to redeem us? God forbid! exclaims he in reply; and by this answer annihilates all the theories which all the law abolishers in the land have ever been able to rear. Yea we establish the law. Rom. iii, 31. The mass of testimony on this point we have not space to present, but refer the reader to our numerous publications.

Look again at the scene which took place, according to Eld. M.'s theory, at the cross of Christ. 1. God lost his only and beloved Son. 2. He lost his perfect and holy law. 3. By abolishing his law he denied his own moral character, and abolished the principles of his own moral government. They all went down in a crash together! But what is now to be done? The Saviour is dead, the law is abolished, and the disciples, scattered like sheep without a shepherd, have repaired to their sorrowful abodes. The field is now open to all intents and purposes for Eld. Miller to tell us how to make Christians. O, he will tell us, the apostles, being instructed by the Lord while alive, immediately set about repairing the ruin which God wrought at the crucifixion, by promulgating a new law. But how do you know? Who says this? Where is it written? Where is the first inch of firm footing for such a position? Where is the first glimmer of light to show us where to tread? Thus stands the anxious inquirer, under such teaching as this, wildly reaching forth in fruitless efforts to find something tangible, and gazing bewildered into utter emptiness blacker than the shades of Erebus. It may be answered, that they have given us the new law in their epistles. But we find that nearly all of the epistles were written between the years 54 and 66, A. D., in the neighborhood of 30 years this side of the crucifixion. What were men to do during all that time? Were they left to live by guess? and form a kind of chance morality?

We have now arrived, in the course of our inquiries, to the time when it is proper to seek an answer to the question at first proposed; namely, What must I do to be saved? for we have now reached the gospel dispensation; and this question was proposed by many in the commencement of this dispensation, and to those, too, whom Eld. Miller himself will acknowledge to be divinely authorized to make Christians. Said Peter to the inquiring multitude, [Acts ii, 38,] "Repent and be baptized." Now might they not have asked with astonishment, Why, sir, we understand you that the law "all went by the board," some fifty days ago; now, pray, what are we to repent of? for a dead law can have no claims upon us. Thus Peter's exhortation to repentance would have been detected as untimely and useless, and all his efforts to make Christians, proved a failure. Then one of two things must here be true: either Peter exhorted them to repent when they had nothing to repent of, or he believed the law of God was still binding and held them to obedience. Those who are prepared to take so absurd a position as the former, are at liberty to do so: we have nothing to say. But if the latter be true, which alone accords with reason and revelation, it follows that the law was not abolished at the death of Christ.

Christ died to redeem men from the curse of a law which existed previous to his death. The first victim that was offered this side the gates of paradise, pointed to him who was to die for the transgression of a law which had then been committed. Every one will admit that the merits of Christ's sacrifice, reach as far back as to the time when offerings were instituted in view of his death. But immediately after man's fall we find offerings instituted; and in view of this fact what becomes of Eld. M.'s assertion that no sin was imputed till Moses? Why do we find them continually offering up sacrifices, and thus signifying their faith in a coming Saviour who would redeem them from sin? To limit their transgressions to a few independent personal commands given as occasion might require, notwithstanding God declares that he had during those days, statutes and laws, [Gen. xxvi, 5.] is taking a position which there is no necessity for taking, and which is both antiscriptural and absurd.

But Christ died not only for transgressions that were then past, but to provide a way of escape for those who should sin or transgress the law in the future. What law? That law, of course, which caused his death. And here we would remark that no circumstance could be more calculated to impress men with the immutability and perpetuity of God's holy law, than the fact that the Son of God himself had to die in order to open a way whereby men might be released from its inflexible grasp. Those who can see no force in this, must be callous to all impression.

But if it was left to the apostles to promulgate a law among men as fast as they could after the Saviour's death, it follows that Christ died to redeem men from the transgression of a law which had not then been enacted! This would be about equal to the idea of granting pardon for sins before they are committed—a favor which none but the popes and their legates have ever presumed to dispense. There is one Lawgiver, [Jas. iv, 12,] and there is one sacrifice to cover all transgression from beginning to end. Heb. vii, 27; ix, 26, 28. Now to say that this Lawgiver let the world for a while run at large without law, that he then enacted one, but found it "weak" and "unprofitable," so that he had to abolish it, and in abolishing it put to death his only and beloved Son, and then, after suffering another break in the divine government, that he left it to men to enact a law which should be suited to the condition of mankind in the future;—to say this, is casting the foulest imputations upon the wisdom and justice of the Ruler of the universe; and "shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Gen. xviii, 25. Surely the mind that can see light in all this, must be darker than ten thousand midnights.

But, says one, Christ abolished some law? To be sure, he did; but he did not come to abolish it. It was first a fact that he was coming to die; and in view of this fact, a law of types and shadows was instituted. When he came therefore this law would of course cease, and be nailed to the cross, as the shadow had then reached the substance. Of this the Apostle speaks in the following instances: Eph. ii, 14-16; Col. ii, 14-17; Heb. vii, 18. On the other hand the moral law has run parallel with the existence of man. By it the world has been required to develop moral character. By its principles all are to be judged; and transgressors, either side of the crucifixion, are to look to Christ for justification; to avail themselves of the merit of his shed blood by faith in him.

What then are we to do to be saved? Repent, (of our transgressions of God's law,) believe, (that the blood of Christ can cleanse from all sin,) and be baptized. So said Paul and Silas to the jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." Acts xvi, 31. Said Christ to the young man, "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt. xix, 17. Says James, "If ye fulfill the Royal Law, &c., ye do well?" and that we may know what he means by the royal law, he proceeds to specify

some of the ten commandments. Jas. ii, 8-12. And in Matt. xxiv, 20, and all through the book of Acts, the Sabbath is recognized as an institution fully binding in this dispensation.

M. tells us that by keeping the commandments we are going about to establish our own righteousness; [see Rom. x, 2-4;] and he reads verse 4, as though it said, Christ is the end of the law, and nothing more; but Paul adds an important specification. In what respect is Christ the end of the law? Ans. FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS; that is, Christ having by his death satisfied the claims of the law, when we avail ourselves of his righteousness by faith in him, the law ceases its claims upon us; we are made free from its sentence. Thus Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. But are at we liberty on this account to continue to transgress the law? Hear Paul again: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!" Rom. vi, 1. Now if keeping the commandments, which we have shown to be binding, is going about to establish our own righteousness, any act of obedience is equally so; and consequently we may not do anything but continue in all sorts of disobedience and transgression, relying upon the righteousness of Christ, lest we be accused of doing something to establish our own righteousness. This is the very idea that Paul, with abhorrence, forbids. As often therefore as Eld. Miller accuses commandment-keepers of laboring to establish their own righteousness, Paul in Rom. vii, 1, rebukes him. Thus rebuked we leave him.