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

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Nov 15, 1853

THE LAW OF GOD.

By J. H. Waggoner

AN EXAMINATION OF THE TESTIMONY IN BOTH TESTAMENTS.

BY J. H. WAGGONER. (Continued.) IN our examination thus far we have seen first, that the law existed before the Jewish dispensation; hence, it cannot be peculiar to that dispensation; and second, by the relation that we sustain to the promises of God having the law for their basis, or condition, that it comes down unchanged into the present dispensation; and there is a perfect harmony in the writings of the Old and New Testaments on this subject. We will here place some of their testimony side by side:

OLD TESTAMENT.	NEW TESTAMENT.
Deut. viii, 1.—All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live.	Matt. xix, 17.—If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments.
Eccl. xii, 13.—Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.	Rom. vi, 13.—The doers of the law shall be justified.
Ps. xix, 7, 8.—The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul; the statutes of the Lord are right—the commandment of the Lord is pure.	Rom. vii, 12.—Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Ps. cxix, 7.—I delight in thy law; also, verses 16, 24, 35, 47, 77, 92, 127, 143, 174.	Gal. iii, 24.—Our schoolmaster, to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified through faith.
Eze. xx, 19, 20.—Walk in my statutes and keep my judgments, and do them, and hallow my Sabbaths, and they shall be a sign between me and you that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.	Rom. vii, 22.—I delight in the law of God.
Isa. xlii, 21.—The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honorable.	1 John ii, 3.—And hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his commandments.
Eze. xx, 11.—I gave them my statutes and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do he shall even live in them.	Rom. iii, 31.—Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.
Prov. xxviii, 9.—He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.	Rom. vii, 10.—The commandment was ordained to life.
	Matt. xv, 9.—But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Beginning with the Abrahamic Covenant we find a mass of testimony which it is impossible to evade, that the law of God, the ten commandments, are ever binding—that under all dispensations mankind are under the same obligation to observe them, and that they are viewed in the same light by the writers of both Testaments. But the "carnal mind" is particularly manifested in opposition to the fourth precept, and we will further notice some of the reasons why it should be observed, and the objections urged against it.

In Ex. xxxi, 13, the Sabbath is declared to be a sign between God and the children of Israel, that they might know that he was the Lord that sanctified them. An objection has been urged here that this referred to none but the children of Israel, and can have no reference to Christians of Gentile birth. Who, then, are the children of Israel referred to in this scripture? Certainly, not rebellious, unconverted Jews; for they are not sanctified, and, therefore, are not entitled to the sign thereof. Not all the literal descendants of Jacob; for "They are not all Israel which are of Israel." Rom. ix, 6. "Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children." Verse 7. Jacob was the first that was called Israel; but he was not called Israel till he prevailed with God. Gen. xxxii, 28. Then it is evident that they who prevail with God are truly Israel—they are sanctified. Compare Gen. xxi, 12; Rom. ix, 7, with Matt. iii, 9; John viii, 39; Rom. iv, 11; Gal. iii, 7, 9. But it must be evident to every one that the rebellious, "carnal mind," cannot keep the Sabbath "according to the commandment." See Ex. xx, 8; Isa. lviii, 13.

If this sign (the Sabbath) was only given to the Jews, as some claim, then those who live in the present dispensation should not boast over them, as some do, since they enjoyed one privilege or blessing that nothing revealed compensates for the loss of; namely, the possession of a sign, and thereby the certain knowledge of their sanctification. Strike this from existence, and we search the sacred page in vain for its equivalent. How many are "deceiving and being deceived" in this day of strong delusions; and how precious to the humble soul the God-given sign of sanctification! In the light of this fact we could no sooner think that the Sabbath was a Jewish institution, than that sanctification was a Jewish grace, not fitted for the "Christian dispensation." It is, also, urged that the reason given for the observance of the Sabbath was one bearing only on the Jews; viz., deliverance from bondage; [Deut. v, 15;] but it is evident from the reading of the passage that Moses was rehearsing to them matters with which they were already acquainted. Thus in verses 4, 5, he says the Lord talked with them, and he stood between the Lord and them; and in verse 12, he tells them to keep the Sabbath-day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; and that the Sabbath should be observed "that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou." This he urges on them by the consideration that they were servants in the land of Egypt—but this does not argue that the Sabbath was not "made for man," as the obligation to give rest to "thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant," is stated in the command as given by Jehovah. Ex. xx, 10. The Israelites had received the institution of the Passover to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt; [Ex. xii,] and Moses does not, in Deut. v, speak of observing the Sabbath as a memorial of that event. God speaks his law for "all the world," [Rom. iii, 19,] and, therefore, does not mention the deliverance from Egypt in the fourth commandment, but the creation of heaven and earth, and the rest and sanctification of the Sabbath, at the end of the first week of time.

But whatever may be urged against the fourth commandment on the ground of its being Jewish, may also be urged against other commandments, and with equal force. The Sabbath was "made for man" at creation; it was blessed and sanctified at that time; [Gen. ii, 1-3;] its sanctity was declared, and its observance enforced before the other precepts of the law were given from Mount Sinai. Ex. xvi. When spoken there it was called the Sabbath [Rest] of the Lord—not of the Jews—because he rested, before any distinction of Jew and Gentile could be known. Ex. xx, 11. It was made a sign of the knowledge of God, and their sanctification. Ex. xxxi, 13. After the passion of our Saviour is foretold in Isa. liii, and through him the faithfulness and surety of God's promises, [chap. liv,] the invitation is given to every one that thirsteth to come; and "nations that know not thee shall run unto thee;" [chap. lv;] therefore "the son of the stranger" may join himself to the Lord, and be brought to his holy mountain, and made joyful in his house of prayer, by keeping the Sabbath from polluting it, and taking hold of his covenant, for his house shall be called an house of prayer for all people; [chap. lvi;] after their unfaithfulness is reproved, [chap. lvii,] and their hypocrisy, [chap. lviii, 1, 2,] he promises that they shall delight themselves in the Lord, and feed on the heritage of their father Jacob, [Israel,] if they turn away their feet from the Sabbath, from doing their pleasure on his holy day, &c. Verses 13, 14. Thus the Sabbath is brought down, by the prophets, beyond the first Advent of Christ, and to the coming of the nations to him, in the present dispensation. Christ never broke the Sabbath, though often falsely accused by the Jews, of so doing. And it is well worthy of note, that, while the Jews were untiring in their efforts to sustain charges against his disciples, no accusation of Sabbath-breaking was made after the crucifixion.

With this testimony compare the evidence for the fifth commandment. There is only one place, [Gen. ix,] from which even an inference could be drawn that this commandment was known before the Israelites came to Sinai. Here it was given, (as our opponents claim,) not to, or for, the world, but the Jews alone; consequently the motive presented for its observance must be peculiar to the Jews. And as the objection claims that the Sabbath was only for them, as they alone had been delivered from Egypt; so the fifth was only for them, as they alone were brought into the land of Canaan. See Ex. xx, 12. Paul speaks of this in Eph. vi, 2, as the "first commandment with promise;" but no promise is referred to but that given to the Jews on their way to Canaan. Can this be enforced on Gentiles in this dispensation, any more than the fourth commandment? And why need it? If fathers may break, with impunity, the fourth precept in God's holy covenant, may not their children, with equal propriety, break the fifth? See Mal. i, 6; ii, 7. Again, it may as well be claimed that the second commandment is "modified" or "relaxed" under this dispensation, if not entirely "done away."

Idolatry may be manifested in various ways—the first commandment forbids it in general, the second in one particular. Then the argument may be stated thus, in the language of our opponents:—'Those particular forms of prohibition were well enough for the Jewish dispensation, where they, no doubt, served their purpose; but they are altogether unsuitable for the present dispensation. If it is wrong to make and worship graven images now, that fact must be plainly stated in the New Testament. But the declarations of the Apostle forbid such an idea: he plainly declares that 'covetousness is idolatry,' and we do well not to be 'wise above what is written.'' It must be evident that those who endeavor to prove the abolition of God's holy Sabbath, cannot from the scriptures, enforce obedience on the part of their children, or convince the Pagan or Papist of sin. All the arguments generally used against the fourth commandment may also be urged against the first. Then the first, second, fourth and fifth would meet a like fate at the hands of those who, to avoid the observance of God's holy day, strike a death blow at his holy law, and endeavor to detract the justice and judgment which are the habitation of his throne.

Another method of avoiding the fourth precept in God's law, is to say that it was all the law of Moses; and Christ came and died to abolish it, and free us from its yoke. But I am unable to discover that Christ either came or died to abolish any law whatever. Would it not be a truly singular fact that God should give a law as a rule whereby moral agents were to develop their characters, so unfitted to the end for which it was given, that he was obliged to send his Son to die and release us from the obligation to keep it? This is not only making God such an one as themselves, but it is bringing him, unchangeable as he has declared himself to be, far below our sense of right and justice. But there is no such thing found in the Word of God. 'Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.' Sin existed before the Levitical law. To say that Christ died to abolish the law of Moses, is like saying that 'the traveler pursues his journey expressly to pass the mile-stones.' He travels to reach a certain destination, and the mile-stones must necessarily be left behind. That was a system of types and shadows—when the substance is reached we follow the shadow no further. But there must be a substance before a shadow can be cast. Christ was as a lamb 'slain from the foundation of the world.' Rev. xiii, 8. He did not come to die, merely because that system of types was instituted; and needed to be removed; but that was instituted because he was coming to die. The objection reverses the true order of things, by placing the cause for the effect; and must arise from taking a very superficial view of the work of our Saviour. In connection with this, it has been said that the law which governed men under the former dispensation was faulty, and Christ came to take it away and introduce a better. This objection is raised from a perversion of Heb. viii, in making the 'first covenant,' read first law. We have before shown that the term covenant is used in different senses, and the remarks of the Apostle on the two covenants, which may be noticed hereafter, forbid the idea that any candid searcher for truth should be so mistaken. Before his death the Saviour prayed, 'O, my Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me.' But it was not possible. He drank the cup prepared and embittered by our sins. But if our sins were the transgressions of an imperfect, faulty law, all must admit that the law might have been set aside, and the transgressor freed from its yoke, without the death of the Son of God. And indeed it admits of a query, whether the transgression of a faulty, good-for-nothing law is morally wrong.—In such a case the fault need not be reckoned on the part of the transgressor, but on the part of the Law-giver. If God gave man a faulty, imperfect law, which had a curse necessarily attached to it, as some claim, and man failed to develop a perfect, moral character under it, and was thereby lost, where would the blame rest? And would not God, under such circumstances, be unrighteous in taking vengeance? Rom. iii, 8.

That the law of moral precept, the transgression of which produced the death of the Son of God, is distinct from that law of types and shadows, which was instituted in view of his death, is so plainly revealed in the scriptures, that it would seem impossible for any candid Bible student to deny it.—Yet it is denied; and as we have quoted passages to show the perfect agreement of writers and speakers of the two testaments, when referring to God's holy law, it may be profitable to show their different methods of speaking of that and the ceremonial, or Levitical law.

MORAL LAW.	CEREMONIAL LAW.
Ps. xix, 11.—In keeping of them (commandments) there is great reward.	Heb. vii, 18.—For verily there is a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Ps. xix, 7.—The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.	Heb. x, 1.—For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offer year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect.
Matt. v, 19.—Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments and teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do, and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.	Acts xv, 24.—Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, 'Be circumcised and keep the law,' [see verse 5,] to whom we gave no such commandment.
Ps. cxix, 152.—Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them forever. See verse 180.	Heb. ix, 10.—Which stood only in meats and drinks, and carnal ordinances imposed on them till the time of reformation.
Rom. vii, 14.—For we know that the law is spiritual.	Heb. vii, 11.—Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment.

If one and the same law is spoken of in all these passages, then we may well despair of ever arriving at correct conclusions from such contradictory statements. By comparing Matt. v, 19, with Acts xv, 24, it will be seen that if the same law is referred to, the Apostles have deprived themselves of the promised blessing 'in the kingdom of heaven;' but when we consider that the 'law of Moses' was the subject of debate in the Apostolic council, all is plain. See Acts xv, 5-10.

It is plain that Christ did not die to abolish any law; [Matt. v, 17-19;] but to redeem us from the transgression of his Father's law, that the sinner condemned to death, [Rom. vi, 23,] should not perish, but have everlasting life. John iii, 16.—If the next position of the objector is true, viz., that he came to introduce a new and better law, then we may safely say his mission was completely a failure; for no such law is found in the teachings of Christ or his apostles. Here we will venture the assertion that no new principle of morality is taught in the New Testament. Then where is that law better than the perfect one previously given? None of the scriptures pretend that Christ came as a law-giver, but as a Saviour from sin.—Neither can it be true that he altered or relaxed the law of God in any particular. But if that was abolished, what became of the first commandment? The answer to this question, as an opposer gave it to me, was, that only the ceremonial part of the law (the fourth precept) was abolished, and the remainder greatly enlarged—that the principle of the first commandment could be discovered in the writings of the apostles. Then in the former dispensation, it was fully declared in definite terms: in the present, we must endeavor to trace the principle in the writings of the apostles, who do not make any particular mention of it. An enlargement truly from definite to indefinite? Part of a perfect law abolished—other parts obscured, and thus it is incomparably better than it was before! But inasmuch as that is the only moral code ever given, and the New Testament brings to light no new principles of morality, but only ratifies and establishes those taught in the old, [see Matt. v, 17-19; Rom. iii, 31; 2 Tim. iii, 15-17,] can those who say that law was for the Jews only, show that any moral law was ever given to the Gentiles? or prove that the Gentile world was ever designed to be placed under moral restraint? And if the offence of the Jews, as has been shown from the scriptures, was the transgression of that law, what hinders their restoration to the favor of God, if that law is abolished?

But if it could be shown that another law had been given in the New Testament, why should it be called a better law than that given on Mount Sinai? Could it be more just in its nature?—That was perfect. Could it be more replete with moral obligations? That embraced the whole duty of man. Could its observance tend to better results? That was ordained to life. Rom. vii, 10; Lev. xviii, 5; Eze. xx, 11; Matt. xix, 17. Is it contended that that produced the death of the transgressor, [Rom. vi, 23,] insomuch that it is even called death, [2 Cor. iii, 7,] because all have transgressed it? Rom. iii, 23. We would then inquire, Has God ever promised life to the disobedient, even in the New Testament? Does the Gospel justify all, without distinction of character?—They boast of the Gospel of Christ as though it was impossible for the most incorrigible sinner to die, since the ushering in of the present dispensation. But can they show that the law would ever curse those who obeyed it? Or, that the Gospel will save those who disobey it? 2 Thess. i, 7, 8. The light of the Gospel results in the condemnation of those who reject it. John iii, 19. Jesus said, 'If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have a cloak for their sin.' John xv, 22. Could not the Jews, therefore, claim, with equal propriety, that the Gospel of Christ was a curse unto them? Again, Paul says of himself and fellow-laborers in the Gospel, [2 Cor. ii, 15, 16,] that they are unto God a sweet savor of Christ in them that perish—even the savor of death unto death. Why do not our opponents reject the Gospel for all these things? But further, if that law was perfect, embracing in its requirements the whole duty of man, (and so it must have been, or the scriptures are not true,) then every principle of morality that could arise out of our relation to God or our fellow-men must have been embraced in it. To suppose otherwise, were to suppose that God did not require holiness under the past dispensation; but this supposition is contradicted by his Word. Lev. xi, 44. If all the moral duties growing out of our relation to God and our fellow-creatures were included in that, then none remained to be added thereafter; and if that be abolished, and another substituted, the one so substituted must be as extensive in its requirements as that was, or else it would not include the whole duty of man, and hence would be imperfect; but such a law (an imperfect one) will not be contended for. Therefore we will consider it granted that the new law must be as comprehensive as the old one. But it is not possible to even imagine how such a thing can be, unless the two laws are exactly alike? I can no more comprehend the existence of two complete, perfect rules of moral action, both embracing the whole duty of man, yet different, than I can comprehend the existence of two supreme Deities, both essentially holy in their natures, yet not alike.—And we hazard nothing in saying that it is just as impossible for God to create two different, complete rules of moral action, as to create a duplicate of himself. An examination of this declaration is only needed to satisfy any one of its correctness.

The Apostle Peter, exhorting to obedience and holiness, says, [1 Pet. i, 15, 16,] 'But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation. Because it is written; be ye holy, for I am holy.' See Lev. xi, 44; xix, 2; xx, 26. Is not the requirement for holiness the same in both Testaments? We are required to be holy, because God is holy, and we are to be like him. So the Saviour said: 'Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.' Matt. v, 48. And this is not an unreasonable requirement—only equivalent to that of loving God with all the heart. It is an acknowledged law of the human mind that man is assimilated to the object of his worship. If he worships a being of a depraved character, the more he contemplates the character of that being—the more he loves it, the more degraded and depraved he becomes.—Witness the heathen nations, who worship monstrous beings of various kinds, and themselves become monsters of depravity. On the other hand, if the object of his worship is possessed of a pure and lovely character, the more worshipful and devoted he is, the more loving he will become in temper and disposition. An intelligent being, possessed of creative power—in other words, being supreme—must have the right to command the worship of his creatures; and if so, to prescribe also the form of worship; (without which the command would be a nullity;) his own character being an index to the form of worship prescribed.—The character of God is declared in the passages referred to—he is holy; and also in 1 John iv, 8, 'God is love.' These declarations of the character of God, are a sufficient guarantee that a system or form of worship, or rule of action, required by him, would be perfect, holy, like his own character, the embodiment of love. For such a being to require the creature to love and adore him, is only to provide for the creature's own best good—to point out the way whereby the created being may be like his Creator—pure, lovely, holy, and of course, happy. The idea of obedience to right laws tending to the happiness of the moral agent, has been beautifully illustrated by a late writer: 'Happiness depends on the state of our minds, and the feelings which are prevalent there. Now the law of God prescribes exactly that class of affections, and that only, which invariably and necessarily produces enjoyment in the existence and exercise of them—Love. 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; and thy neighbor as thyself.' And so 'love is the fulfilling of the law.' 'Allow the imagination to bring such a state of mind before you as your own; just try the experiment of imagining how you would feel, if every selfish, unlovely emotion, had become utterly extinct, leaving no trace behind, and pure love to all beings animated your breast; the heart filled with holy love and reverence for God, so that you exulted in your relation to him, and delighted in all his will; love to God supremely, and to all his creatures subordinately—why, your cup would be full to overflowing, and you would be ready to shout aloud for joy. Thus admirably is God's law adapted to secure the perfect happiness of every one that observes it. Thanks be to God for such a law!' Dabney, pages 46, 47. That God designed that his creatures should ultimately be holy and happy, none can deny; and that observance to his law was the appointed means for the attainment of this very desirable end, is equally evident from the reasons and scriptures offered above, and other scriptures declaring that righteousness consists in keeping the law. Deut. vi, 25. His law is the transcript of his own divine mind—the revelation of his holy will. The keeping of his law is his own prescribed form of worship; and no worship is acceptable without it.—Therefore he says, 'He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.' Prov. xxviii, 9; see also, Matt. xv, 9. How can any one become like God—holy—without worshiping him? And how can any one worship him and not keep his commandments?—These contain his own prescribed rule, or standard of holiness. But if that law was the rule whereby man might become like God, holy, in the former dispensation, can any other rule be followed in this dispensation, and the agent still develop a holy character? Or in other words, has God's holiness changed in its nature, or is it the same that it was in times past? Thus we see there is a material point at issue. As God requires his creatures to be holy, he must give them a rule whereby they may become holy. But if there are two rules essentially different in the two dispensations, then the holiness attained by the two must be essentially different, as it is impossible to arrive at the same point by going in different directions. Thus it is shown that a change of the moral law of God involves a change of the divine perfections, which is a manifest absurdity. The testimony given to show that God's holy covenant of ten commandments reaches into the New Testament, we consider perfectly conclusive: while there is not the least evidence to show that Christ, in his teachings, referred to any other law than that spoken of by David, Solomon, and the prophets; nor that the apostles referred to any other (moral) law than that spoken of by the Saviour in Matt. v, and other places. As no line of distinction is drawn by any of them, it is evident that no distinction exists. It is spoken of in the same terms, as possessed of the same nature, its observance securing the same blessings, its violation attended with the same fatal consequences. Christ, in his teachings, never referred to any law to be developed in the future, but always spoke of one as then existing. In Matt. v, 17, he said that he came not to destroy the law or the prophets. The minds of the people who heard this sermon, [chap. vii, 28,] must have reverted to the law written in their scriptures, as readily as to the prophets in the same; and the more so as he quotes from the Decalogue, and declares that he who breaks the least of these commandments, shall be least in the kingdom of heaven. (Not the Jewish church or dispensation.)

Some stress has been laid on the word fulfill, as though in fulfilling the law he abolished, or did it away. But he said he came not to destroy it, and I am unable to discover any difference between abolishing a law and destroying it. When a law is abolished what further can be done to destroy it? Then it is supposed, or at least argued, that we are not under obligation to observe any part of the law that was not plainly re-established, or re-enacted since the crucifixion. We have already shown how fatal that would be to other moral precepts beside the fourth commandment. In Matt. vii, 12, the Saviour testifies to the perfect agreement between the law and the Gospel; and, also, in chap. xxii, 37-40, he shows that they are the same in essence—resting on the same fundamental principles. In chap. v, 17, he speaks of the law and the prophets in the same manner: 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.' Then the same conclusion should be drawn in reference to the law and the prophets: if the law is abolished, so also the prophets; and we should no longer quote from the prophecies of the Old Testament, or only so far as they are re-established, in plain terms, in the New Testament. But this our no-law friends will not agree to: they quote as readily from the Old Testament to sustain their theories, as any other class. But the scriptures do not justify the conclusion that in fulfilling the law he did it away, abolished, or made it void; and those who urge an objection on the word fulfill, change the issue when they come to other passages. Thus, when James speaks of the 'royal law,' they deny that it means the Decalogue, but the simple declaration, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Then to bring their two positions together it would read thus: 'If ye abolish the royal law according to the Scriptures, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.' See, also, Matt. iii, 15; Gal. vi, 2; Rom. xiii, 8-10. By an examination of the above scriptures, it will be seen, that any argument that would prove that Christ abolished the law, and released us from the obligation to keep it, by fulfilling it, would also prove a total release from all moral obligation, and that by our own action, independent of the assistance of our Saviour to abolish moral principles for us! The words of our Saviour as recorded in Matt. xxii, 37-40, are often quoted to prove that he discarded the old law of ten precepts or commandments, and substituted a new one of two precepts; but on examination it will be found that his words plainly prove the contrary. Instead of bringing in any new law or principles, he quotes Deut. vi, 5, and Lev. xix, 18, and says, On these hang all the law. He does not say, in this dispensation these are all the law; but that all the law depends on them. [Whiting, Campbell.] Then all the law must, of course, be something more than these.—Our opponents will doubtless admit that the first three, and last six commandments in the Decalogue naturally depend on these two principles. If a man says he loves his poor neighbor, and will yet see him suffer cold or hunger without giving of his abundance the things that his neighbor needs, we can have no confidence in his profession;—if he loved him he would minister to his necessities; [Jas. ii, 14-16;] and if any one of these six precepts is violated, it shows a want of love to our fellow-men; as these commandments grow out of our relation to one another. So it will be acknowledged that if any man breaks the first three commandments, or either of them, he is wanting in love to God, as they depend on this principle. But when the first three are fully observed, the principle of love to God is not yet fulfilled, as developed by the words of the Saviour above quoted. He says not that three-fourths, or nine-tenths of the law depend on these two great commandments, but all the law; and no one can deny that the Sabbath commandment is in the law. Hence, the Sabbath depends on those principles as surely as any other moral precept. And as the observance of the last six manifests our love to our fellow-creatures, growing out of our relation to one another, so the observance of the first four, shows our love to God, because they all grow out of our relation to him, as our Creator, and Supreme Moral Governor; and no one can show that the principle of this first great commandment would not be violated by polluting the Lord's holy Sabbath, as much as by profaning his holy name. [To be continued.]