A WORD WITH THOSE WHO BELIEVE THE LAW ABOLISHED.*
By M. Hull
THOSE who believe the law is abolished, seem to have a very faint idea of the work that devolves upon them. Many of them think that there is nothing for them to do, but to object to our positions; hence they fire in at us from every quarter. At one time they will discharge at us the idea that the law was abolished by John the Baptist; but when the smoke of that shot has cleared away, they find us sailing on, "clothed and in our right mind," as though there was nobody under heaven who dared to "make war with the remnant of the woman's seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus." Next you will find them under full sail bound for the next point from which to assail the law of God. Soon you will see them standing upon the supposed rock, teaching that Christ raised his arm against the law of God by breaking the least of these "commandments, and teaching men so." But soon they discern that their supposed rock is nothing but "rolling sand," and finding that the law of God is yet unhurt—that the commandment-keepers yet have a sure foundation, they make haste to the death of Christ, hoping to be able to fire from thence and kill the law. But alas! when they get there they find that that event above all others, vindicates God's holy law. They can stand here but a moment; for the voice of inspiration salutes their ears, much to their discomfiture, declaring the work of Christ to be, to "magnify the law, and make it honorable." Isa. xliii, 21. Finding their craft certain to founder here, they resolve to make for some other point; but what can they do? They must either make for that dangerous headland, that "the law was abolished by the apostles," or get upon the rock inscribed, "Here are they that keep the commandments of God and faith of Jesus." The latter they have resolved not to do. So they set sail for the apostolic council [Acts xv], hoping to find a weapon there with which to wound commandment-keepers. But when they get there they find not a weapon whose handle is not in the hands of those who keep the commandments of God. Hence, all they can do is to seize the blade, and thus wound themselves. Since those who would "make void the law through (pretended) faith," find us fortified on every side; since they find that the commandments are in the ark, which is in the Sanctuary in heaven; that although they have the disposition, their hands cannot tear them thence; we entreat them to cease to drink of that turbid stream which flows from under the dragon's throne, which intoxicates them with the baleful idea, that those who pray, "Let me not wander from thy commandments [Ps. cxix, 10], whose daily prayer is, "Make me to go in the way of thy commandments, for therein do I delight [vs. 35], whose watch-word is, "I will delight myself in thy commandments which I have loved," [vs. 47], who make haste and delay not to keep all the commandments [vs. 60], whose daily prayer is, Give me understanding that I may learn thy commandments [vs. 73], who say to the fighters of God's law, "Depart from me, ye evil doers, for I will keep the commandments of my God" [vs. 115], who love the commandments more than fine gold [vs. 127], who affirm that the commandments are truth [vs. 151]; that they are all "sure and stand fast for ever and ever" [Ps. cxi, 7], that God through his commandments makes his children wise [v. 98];—that all such have fallen from grace. We say, Cease to drink of this filthy stream. Ground the weapons of your rebellion. Desert the sinking ship. Break the four-fold cord of prejudice, ignorance, bigotry and popularity, which binds you to your position. Keep the commandments of God, "and enter in through the gates into the city." But if you are bound to persist in the warfare upon God's law, we will give you something to do. We ask you who believe that the ten commandments are abolished to answer a few questions: 1. If the moral principles which God gave for the government of the universe, have been overthrown, there is a reason why it has been done; and that reason must be found in a necessity for the abolition of the law. Can you show a necessity for it? Why was it necessary for God to abolish the ten commandments? Is not human nature the same everywhere and under every dispensation? and is not God the same in every age? See Mal. iii, 6. If human nature and God are the same, then do they not sustain the same relation to each other that they ever did? If they do, how can that law which regulates that relation be changed? 2. If the perfect law [Ps. xix, 7] which embraces man's whole duty [Eccl. xii, 13] has been abolished, and another perfect law embracing man's whole duty, instituted, where are the points of dissimilarity in the two laws? 3. Was not holiness required of men in the former dispensation? Lev. xix, 2. And was there not enough in the ten commandments, (if strictly obeyed) to render a person holy? Ex. xix, 5, 6. Is not holiness required of men in this dispensation? 1 Pet. i, 15, 16. If principles of holiness were ever contained in the ten commandments, are they not now? If they are, when those ten commandments were abolished, were not the principles by which God designed to develop a holy people abolished? If so, and God saves men in this dispensation, does he not save unholy men? But if God saves one unholy man, will he not save another? If so, Universalism is true; hence the controversy is between those who delight in the law of God, and Universalists. 4. But if the ten commandments are abolished, why does Paul quote [Eph. vi, 2] the fifth commandment, by virtue of its original authority, holding out the original promise as an inducement to obedience? Did205Paul quote from an obsolete law, and then hold out a dead promise as the reward of obedience? Is it possible that Paul commanded obedience to a dead commandment? If he enjoins obedience to one dead commandment, why not to all, and thus have the whole law binding notwithstanding its death? 5. "Oh," say our opponents, "we have a law of liberty." But is the boasted "law of liberty" of this dispensation, liberty to have other gods? to make and worship graven images? to take the name of God in vain? break the Sabbath? dishonor parents? kill? commit adultery? steal? bear false witness, and covet your neighbor's goods? Is this the result of the great sacrifice which God made in giving up his Son? Is it possible that the superior light and privileges of the Christian dispensation are based upon, or consist in, the destruction of God's ten words, all that is dear and valuable to man? Has God overthrown the moral government of the universe for the sake of bringing man out from under bondage? Friends, the above is the legitimate result of your teaching; and I venture the assertion that a worse system of morals cannot be found anywhere. But says the objector, "The apostles have given us a new code, embracing nine of the ten commandments." But if that position be true, are there not twelve law-givers in the Christian dispensation, instead of one? Jas. iv, 12. But if the twelve apostles are law-givers, who is the mediator between the twelve law-givers and the criminal who has broken their laws? Why did not Paul preach repentance towards the apostles [Acts xx, 21] and not towards God? But if the ten commandments are abolished, why have the apostles never enumerated one of them among the ordinances which perished at the cross? To save further questions which are resting upon my mind, I will ask, If God has abolished his ten commandments, why has he not placed the matter beyond dispute, by giving us as clear and unquestionable evidence of their repeal, as he gave of their first enactment on Sinai? Is it just to give a law in such a solemn and public manner, and then leave us to infer its repeal from a few obscure and doubtful sentences which are much more applicable to something else, and do not necessarily include one of the ten commandments? Again, would not the same kind of evidence which proves the re-enactment of nine of the ten commandments prove the re-enactment of the fourth also? If the mere mention of them proves their re-enactment, will not the mention of the fourth prove the same for it? Reader, I have thrown out these few thoughts for your benefit. Time and space would fail me to write all the questions which might be put to those who believe the law is abolished; but if the above can be answered, any amount of such can, and then what becomes of the ark?