p. 60 | OUR RULE OF LIFE

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 25, 1856

OUR RULE OF LIFE.

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

"What must I do to be saved?" is a question of importance to every one in whose heart there still lives a desire for eternal life. In God's will which he has revealed to men, the anxious inquirer may reasonably expect to find his question answered, and the way which he is to pursue plainly pointed out before him. But while we open the sacred volume to search therein for our rule of duty, in view of the many inventions which men have sought out, and the false glosses which commentators have thrown over the inspired records, we must bear continually in mind the admonition of the Saviour, "Take heed that no man deceive you."

We read in the Bible of a day of Judgment; and not only so, but it is expressly declared that every man shall be judged according to his deeds. Matt. xvi, 27; Rom. ii, 6; Rev. xx, 12, 13. From this we conclude at once that God has some standard by which these deeds are determined to be good or bad; that he has some rule by which we develop moral character. This must be so; for no man can develop any character whatever, unless there is some rule of right with which to compare his life; and to no actions can there be attached the quality of good or bad, unless there be something by which those actions can be shown to be right or wrong. This can be done in no other way than by comparing them with law; for law, according to a definition universally acknowledged, is "A rule of action." It must be evident to all, therefore, that the foundation of God's government is law, and that through his law, he requires obedience at our hands.

To this conclusion the scriptures bear direct testimony. Says Paul, "By the law is the knowledge of sin." Rom. iii, 20. And again: "Where no law is there is no transgression," and "sin is not imputed where there is no law." Chap. iv, 15; v, 13. As we are moral agents, required to develop a holy character, the law by which we develop that character must be a moral and holy law. Moral law is defined by Webster: "A law which prescribes to men their religious and social duties, in other words, their duties to God and to each other. The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, or ten commandments, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on mount Sinai. Ex. xx."

In view of the scriptures above quoted, we may know that in whatever age of the world, we find sin, wickedness and transgression, recognized, there was a binding law there by which this sin and wickedness were made manifest. And it is a fact, as any one may see by reading, that the Bible does recognize and denounce sin, from the transgression of Adam, downward. It is certain therefore, that during all that time, God had a law to which he held mankind amenable.

Our readers may here be led to inquire why we thus go back to prove the existence of a law from the beginning; for certainly, they may add with some surprise, it cannot be that Eld. Miller claims that God, during any period of this world's existence, had no law for its government? We reply, He does! and this has led us to these remarks.

We notice first, because it dates farthest back, his bold and sweeping assertion, that till the time of Moses there was "no general law." For proof of this he appeals to a passage which we beg leave to affirm proves exactly reverse; namely, Rom. v, 13. "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." The Apostle's argument here we conceive to be this: 1. Sin was in the world until the law; (the giving of the law in its written form on Mt. Sinai;) but, 2. There is no sin unless there is law, therefore; 3. The law was in force from Adam to Moses. On the other hand Eld. M. assumes that there was no law from Adam to Moses; but as no sin can be imputed when there is no law, he is driven to the conclusion that from Adam to Moses no sin was imputed.

His position is briefly this: That all the law God had till Moses were some personal requirements; as, for instance, to Noah to build an ark, to Abraham to offer up his son, to Moses to lead Israel from Egypt, &c.; that as there was no general law, no sin was imputed; that some actions are of themselves good or bad; that mankind were at liberty to form just such characters as they pleased; that those who went down into the grave, not being good having transgressed no law, will for ever remain there; for, exclaimed the speaker, "if they are to be raised, pray tell me by what law they are to be judged!"

We should have been loth, in our charity, to attribute such views as these to any rational being, had we not heard them from the speaker's own lips. The ground taken is actually this: That God created a race of beings, and forgot to give them a law, and thus placed them entirely beyond his reach or control; that they were at liberty to go on just as they pleased, and God could not call them to account, because he had no law for them to obey; that he could not punish them, however flagitious their acts might be, because they committed no sin against him; for sin is not imputed where there is no law. Thus God is audaciously represented as a weak and impotent being, who either could not, or did not, exercise any control over his subjects; and thus his character and government are directly libeled.

We have noticed and proved from scripture that no character can be developed, and no actions shown to be good or bad, without some standard of right; the idea therefore that some acts are of themselves good or bad, independent of all law, is manifestly absurd. But while M. claims that the wicked of the first ages, will never be raised, there being no law by which to judge them, he contends that the good will have a resurrection to eternal life. We thus inquire, by what law they are shown to be good and worthy of eternal life; and it must be evident to any one, that whatever shows one class to be good, and worthy of life, will show the other class to be personal transgressors and demand their resurrection and punishment.

But further: We are plainly taught that as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Cor. xv, 22. Now when a person is made alive from the natural death which he dies in Adam, all must see that he will remain alive unless there is some law which he has transgressed, which still has a claim upon him. If then God had no law to be transgressed before the time of Moses, when the individuals who then lived, are made alive, will they not remain so? Certainly, if there is no law which has any claims upon them. Thus Eld. M. in spite of all his assertions to the contrary, becomes a downright Universalist till the time of Moses.

We will mention one point more. If there was no law before Moses, the people of those times incurred no guilt by their actions. They could not be wicked; for there was nothing for them to transgress to make them so. We ask then by what right God brought a flood of waters to destroy the world? We read that God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth. Gen. vi, 5. How did he see this? Was it because there was no law, and therefore no sin could be imputed? And if they are not to be raised because there would be no law to judge them by after they are raised, pray tell us by what law they were then judged guilty and destroyed by water. According to M.'s theory they were not wicked; for no sin could be imputed them. But God saw that they were wicked, and destroyed them accordingly; and hence, Eld. Miller's whole theory on this point, very justly meets the same fate as those Godless antediluvians, and perishes beneath the flood.

The discourse now under review claimed that the expression, "the commandments of God," embraces all the requirements which God has ever given to any individuals in any age, and violently denounced as uncalled for, and unscriptural, any distinction between moral and ceremonial laws. But that God has a series of requirements which are called by way of eminence, The Commandments, and that there are moral laws growing out of our relations to God and one another, which God calls his law in plain distinction from those laws which regulated particular ceremonies under a particular dispensation must, we think, be evident to every candid Bible student.

Says Justin Edwards, D. D.,

"Under the Jewish dispensation were incorporated two kinds of laws. One was founded on obligations growing out of the nature of men, and their relations to God and one another; obligations binding before they were written, and which will continue to be binding upon all who shall know them, to the end of time. Such are the laws which were written by the finger of God on the tables of stone, and are called moral laws. The other kind, called ceremonial laws, related to various outward observances, which were not obligatory till they were commanded, and then were binding only on the Jews till the death of Christ.

"There were also two kinds of Sabbaths, or days of rest. One was a day of weekly rest; and the command to keep it holy was placed by the Lawgiver in the midst of the moral laws. It was called by way of eminence, 'THE SABBATH.' The command to keep the other Sabbaths was placed by the Lawgiver among the ceremonial laws, because it was like them, as the command to keep the weekly Sabbath was like the laws with which it was associated. One class were fundamental, permanent universal moral laws: the other class were local, temporary ceremonial laws. One had their origin in the nature and relations of man; the other in the peculiar circumstance in which, for a time, a peculiar people were placed. One would be binding in all ages, upon all who should know them; and the other would be binding only upon the Jews till the death of the Messiah."

Pres. Edwards has here set the subject forth in its true light. God has ever had a moral law for the government of the world. It has existed from the beginning. It holds a rank high above all those minor distinctions which have had their origin in later times. The different circumstances in which men have been placed, the peculiarities of different dispensations, are but under-currents of events affecting not in the least that rule of morality by which we regulate our conduct towards our Maker. We behold it in all ages casting the same divine lusture over the world, making manifest the deeds of men whether good or evil, and claiming in all time from all people an equal obedience to its just requirements. When God made a peculiar people, under Moses, the guardians of revealed religion, he signified in an especial manner the pre-eminence of his moral law, by writing it with his own finger in two tables of stone. To make no distinction between this and the laws which regulated the Jewish ceremonies, to blend it with those distinctive regulations which were to expire by their own limitation, and say that it ceased with them, is to introduce the wildest confusion into the teachings of Scripture, and take long strides towards the darkness of infidelity.

The language in which the Bible recognizes this distinction is found in such passages as the following: "Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, and good statutes and commandments." Neh. ix, 13. "Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my Sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols; wherefore I gave them the statutes that were not good and judgments whereby they should not live." Eze. xx, 24, 25. Nehemiah says that God gave them good statutes. Among these was included the Sabbath; for it was because they had despised his statutes and polluted his Sabbaths, that God says by Ezekiel, that he gave them the statutes that were not good. What the good statutes were none can fail to see: they were what God spoke with his own voice. Neh. ix, 13. Says Moses, These words (the ten commandments) the Lord spake unto all your assembly . . . and he added no more; and he wrote them in two tables of stone. Deut v, 22. It is as clear also what those statutes were which were not good: they were the ceremonial laws given by the hand of Moses, which stood only in carnal ordinances imposed on them till the times of reformation. This Peter also calls a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. Acts xv, 5, 10. Is there then no distinction recognized between the moral and ceremonial? Does inspiration call the same statutes in one place good, and in another place not good; saying at one time that they should live by them, and at another, that they should not live by them? If there is no distinction of laws, this is so; and if this is so, the Bible contradicts itself, and infidelity has triumphed.

Again: Says David, "The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul." Ps. xix, 7. But Paul says "For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." Heb. vii, 18. Can any one suppose that the same law is here spoken of? Would inspiration denominate a law in one place perfect, and in another weak and unprofitable? That which is weak and unprofitable, is not certainly perfect. It must be evident therefore that David speaks of the moral law, and Paul the ceremonial. But Paul in other places speaks of the same perfect law which David dwells upon. For instance, "What shall we say

then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said 'Thou shalt not covet.'" What law says this? The moral law, the ten commandments. Therefore he continues, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." Rom. vii, 7, 12.

We read in the Psalms again: "All his commandments are sure. They stand fast forever and ever." Ps. cxi. But Paul speaks of a law of commandments contained in ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation, which Christ then abolished. Eph. ii, 15; Col. ii, 14; Heb. ix, 10. Eld. Miller here tries to make a point on the use of the term forever. As the term is applied to some ordinances which were to last only till the death of Christ, [See Lev. vi, 18; xvi, 34, &c.,] he asserts that it signifies no longer duration when applied to the ten commandments. But he knows better than to give this word the same limitation in every instance. A rule for its signification when applied to objects, is given us by Dr. Clarke, as follows: that it signifies only as long as a thing considering the surrounding circumstances, can exist. When applied therefore to the moral law, which is in its very nature, unchangeable and eternal, it cannot be limited; but when applied to the ceremonial law, it can only signify that time during which it was to exist. Doubtless Eld. M. is pleased to use word in this very sense when he is discussing the life-and-death theme. For him to use it therefore when applied to the law as he will not when applied to other things, betrays a great want of fairness in the investigation of this question.

M. says that none were to keep the commandments but Israel; that they were given to them alone. But we read that when the Lord would bring Israel to Canaan, he instructed them not to do after the abominations of the nations which he would drive out before them. Lev. xviii, 3. One of these abominations was profaning the name of the Lord. Verse 21. This was a violation of the third commandment; but if these nations living in the land of Canaan before the law was given to Israel, were ignorant of the principle of that commandment, this was not in them an abomination; and how then shall God be justified in taking vengeance on them as he did. So with other points. see Lev. xx, 23; Deut. ix, 4, 5; xviii, 12.

Thus at whatever point we look, we find evidences springing up on every hand, that God's perfect law has existed from the beginning, and that he has held all men in all past time, amenable to its requirements. How vain and frivolous then is the idea that this can be affected by mundane events! How ignoble the attempt to make men believe that it is dependent for existence on a particular dispensation, and that it perishes with that dispensation! As though the one Lawgiver [Jas. iv, 12] had different rules in different ages of the world by each of which mankind were required to develop a perfect moral character; and as though he would have different standards by which to judge the world at the last day!

(Concluded next week.)