ALMOST every day we are receiving articles, tracts, pamphlets, or books, written against the ten commandments. Sometimes the writers start out with a tirade against the Seventh-day Adventists; but they never go far before indulging in invectives against the ten commandments. They sometimes say very bitter things about us,—things that are often so uncharitable and untruthful that they prove that the depth of their Christianity is not as great as the strength of their profession. But if we feel compelled to point out their injustice, we do not feel the least spirit of complaint, well knowing that the ten commandments are the sole object of their maledictions, and not ourselves. When Saul of Tarsus went to Damascus "breathing out threatenings and slaughter," he did not care a whit, personally, for those whom he was going to arrest. It was Jesus whom he was persecuting. If those individuals had renounced their faith in Jesus, he would not have harmed so much as a hair of their heads. Even so, when prejudice and ill-will lead our opposers to utter bitter things of us, we well understand that though they speak of us, their animosity is not against us, but it is against the commandments of God, which we are endeavoring to keep.
These thoughts were suggested to us a few days since upon our receiving a little pamphlet, a tirade against the ten commandments, written and printed in California. This State has been quite prolific of these effusions. Mr. Benson, formerly editor of the California Christian Advocate, published a small book, which, as we pointed out at the time, taught that the ten commandments were a Jewish code. And a Mr. Woodworth labored even a little harder to show that the words spoken by Jehovah at Sinai were for the Jews alone, and that Christ annulled them early in his ministry. He and Dr. Benson are both Methodists; and though their books directly contradicted the standards of the Methodist Church, and their teachings were condemned by the words of such men as John Wesley, Dr. Clarke, and Bishop E. O. Haven, yet they were recommended by the Advocate, and by Dr. Stratton, President of their University, on the principle, we suppose, that anything is lawful that leads to success! "anything to beat"—the Seventh-day Adventists. And later a Dr. Nisbet, of the Baptists, published a work which was highly indorsed by Prof. Leconte and others, teaching the same thing, namely, that the ten commandments are not the moral law, but a temporary code given to, and designed for, the Jews alone. Other representative Baptists on the coast have taken the same position, though that position is as contrary to the faith of the Baptists as it is to that of the Methodists. But, "anything to beat" the Seventh-day Adventists.
But these works seem to meet Paul's description of certain ones in 2 Tim. 3; they "wax worse and worse." The last is the most loosely written of all; it talks more foolishly and wickedly of the ten commandments, and of all the laws of the Old Testament. Of course he speaks more bitterly and more untruthfully against the Seventh-day Adventists. The author did not tell us to what denomination he belongs, if he belongs to any; but he did a very proper thing: he put his picture in his little pamphlet, the appearance of which seems to prepare the reader for the opposition to the law of God which the book reveals.
But it is not for lack of this class of "light literature" that we put "wanted" at the head of this71article.
We are overrun with these documents against the ten commandments. Each writer in turn, though he contradicts all the others in material points, proves conclusively that the ten commandments are not in force. Among them, they have abolished, demolished, and scattered to the four winds, that law spoken by Jehovah himself. If half they say of it is true, it is a wonder that the Lord ever made himself responsible for its existence! But the work of destroying that law is much like that of "upsetting Moses." The operation needs to be repeated very often; the work does not endure. Each can see clearly that his predecessor has failed, and therefore he starts out on a new and opposite track. And each in turn lays down his pen with the same self-satisfied air, convinced that he has squelched the ten commandments as effectually as ever Ingersoll "upset Moses."
But what we "want" is to see some of these reformers of the Government of God, who boast that they have overthrown the ten commandments by "unanswerable arguments," come forward and publicly declare that they are in the habit of disobeying and breaking the ten commandments! As far as we have seen their wondrous efforts, they have utterly failed in this respect. Why do they not make this avowal? If they have taught the truth, if the ten commandments are abolished, if they are unworthy the regard of the inhabitants of Heaven and earth, why not tell us at once that they do not keep the ten commandments? We once heard a minister in Maine say that that law was a yoke of bondage, so heavy on the necks of the human race that God sent his Son into the world for the express purpose of abolishing it! And if the first part of his theory is true, it certainly devolved upon God to do something for the relief of the poor race; for he alone was responsible for their deplorable state. He was the sole author of the ten commandments, and enforced them against the will of mankind. If they were what their enemies say,—no, we will not follow out their presumption. We will not, even to enforce an argument, place ourselves on the side of such blasphemy. We say that the theory, the statement, is a blasphemous reflection on the wisdom and goodness of God. We say that the law is holy, and just, and good; it is spiritual. Rom. 7: 12, 14. But man, in the pride and wickedness of his heart, trampled it under foot, and God mercifully sent his Son to redeem the race from iniquity (lawlessness), and to restore them to love and obedience.
Another minister in Indiana, a man standing very high in his denomination, said in our hearing that the ten commandments were abolished in order that our allegiance might be transferred from God to Christ! There is one merit in this statement—it is logical. It recognizes the fact that the ten commandments are a test and evidence of our allegiance to God. Whosoever sets aside the ten commandments thereby refuses allegiance to God. This is truth. Paul says that "the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God." Rom. 8: 7. But this doctrine of the transfer of allegiance from God to Christ is a shameful, or shameless, perversion of the gospel plan. The doctrine of the New Testament is, that Christ is "head over all things to the church;" but the Father gave him to be that head. He is Lord and Christ; but the Father "made him" such. He is expecting till his foes be put under his feet; but the Father will put them under him, or make them his footstool. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. The gift of God is eternal life through Christ. Christ is a mediator between God and man—not between man and himself! The Father sends the Spirit in answer to the prayer of
Christ. The doctrines of Christ are not his own, but his who sent him. Christ came not to do his own will, but the will of his Father. And finally, Christ will bid them depart from him who say to him, Lord, Lord, and do not the will of his Father. In that day he will be only an object of pity who has transferred his "allegiance from God."
But ultra as are the statements of these ministers in Maine and Indiana, we do not believe that either of them would be willing to publicly avow that he does not keep the ten commandments. Such an avowal logically leads to some unpleasant results. It is told of one of the English reformers that a man once sought an interview with him, and wished to lay before him his theory of the gospel, that the ten commandments were not binding. The sturdy preacher said to his servant: "John, show this man out, and keep your eye on him till he gets off the premises; for he does not believe in the ten commandments!" And he was right. When a man's "allegiance" is "transferred from God" and his law, we need some safeguard above his profession.
We have reason to believe they would not be willing to declare that they were in the habit of breaking the ten commandments; we have tested some on this point. We were once invited to discuss the subject of the perpetuity of the law with an Elder V. He applied Col. 2: 14 to the law of ten commandments, and affirmed that it was this law "that was against us," "was contrary to us," which was "taken out of the way," and nailed to the cross. Of course we affirmed that this was the law of ceremonies, or of types of the work and priesthood of Christ. See verse 17. To test the matter, we used the following language:—
“And I will leave it to the reader if ‘blotting out’ is not a figure more suitably applied to that which Moses wrote in a book, than to that which God wrote on tables of stone. And whether ‘nailing to his cross,’ and ‘taking out of the way,’ are not more fully referred to types of the cross and to positive institutions, than to such precepts as these, ‘Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal.’ For whose benefit, or in what interest, were these ‘taken out of the way’? In whose way did these precepts stand? or what class of men would rejoice to be assured that these were ‘blotted out,’ and left on no ‘tangible’ footing of ‘direct enforcement’? Elder V. reiterates this position in his last article, saying that not the Sabbath alone ‘was against us and contrary to us.’ This we have seen to be true of the entire decalogue. Is it possible that the ‘entire decalogue,’ if ‘directly enforced’ even in the most ‘positive manner,’ would be ‘against’ Elder V., and ‘contrary to’ him? Is he willing to admit that the precepts ‘Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery,’ would be in his way if they were yet of ‘direct enforcement’? Are they ‘contrary’ to him, and to the ‘liberty’ which he desires? Or if he would not admit the conclusion of his argument as applied to himself, I ask again, Out of whose way were they taken? In what interest were they abolished? This antinomian heresy is nothing new. It has been deprecated by the thoughtfully pious of all ages. And happy will it be for the world if the advocates of such a theory never fall altogether to the level of their own teachings.”
We were pleased for his own sake, that, in his reply to our remarks and queries, he resented them as being insulting to him! But we do not so regard the matter. If the whole decalogue is in the way of an individual, why is it? You cannot put the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," against any one but a thief. The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," never was in the way of any man who had not murder in his heart, and never could be brought against any one who was not a murderer actually. Deny this, ye who can. Let those who fight the ten commandments understand the position in which they place themselves.
Our invitation is not an unreasonable one. We ask those who teach the abolition of the law to come out consistently, and avow that they do not keep the ten commandments! If they fear the consequences of such avowal, let them know that they cannot evade the responsibility of their teachings. Not only breaking the commandments is condemned by our Saviour, but teaching men so. And against such the law will rise up in the day of Judgment. Eccl. 12: 13, 14; Rom. 2: 12, 16.
Jurisdiction of the Law.
By E. J. W.
WE have already anticipated this division of the subject, and have shown, by the extent of the gospel commission, that the law of God has been known and transgressed by men in every part of the world; that as the gospel is to be preached in all the world until the coming of Christ, sin will exist just as extensively and just as long; and that, consequently, the law, of which sin is the transgression, will be binding in all the world till the end of time. We wish, however, to carry the subject a little further.
The apostle says that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself," and that he has committed the carrying on of this work to his ambassadors—the ministers of the gospel—who, in Christ's stead, pray the world to be reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5:19, 20. Now, reconciliation implies a previous condition of enmity; and if the world needed reconciling to God, it was because the world was at enmity with him. And since the work of reconciling is still being carried on, it follows that the rebellion, or enmity, still exists. Then the question arises, In what does that enmity consist? The same apostle tells us: "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom. 8:7. Men are rebels, because they are in opposition to God's law. And this is the same truth that had been uttered, centuries before, by the inspired prophet: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come forever and ever; that this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord." Isa. 30:8, 9.
This brings out again the fact previously stated, that the gospel announces, and carries on its forefront, the law. It was the transgression of the law that made it necessary for Christ to come to reconcile men to God. And as men, by continued sin, lost their sense of its heinousness, and of their obligation to God, it became more and more necessary that the gospel, in announcing to men the way of pardon and reconciliation, should make known their need of such reconciliation and pardon by setting forth, in plain terms, the law which they had transgressed. This is what is plainly stated by Peter, when, after quoting Isaiah's tribute to the enduring nature of the law, "For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away; but the word of the Lord endureth forever," he adds, "And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." 1 Peter 1:24, 25.8
The quotations made from John Wesley and Bishop Simpson are in harmony with this conclusion. Indeed, the conclusion is so nearly self-evident that it must be reached by all thoughtful, candid minds. The very fact that a pardon is granted, attests the authority of the law; and before a pardon can be granted, the individual must know and acknowledge his guilt. If a man thinks himself righteous, he will indignantly spurn any offer of pardon, even though he may really stand in need of it. Human nature would leave such to the fate which their own blindness and stubbornness deserve; but God loves the world, and desires that all men shall accept his pardon, and thus be reconciled to him; and therefore he takes pains to bring men to a sense of their sinful condition, so that the pardon which he offers may be accepted. The same messenger who is commissioned to announce the pardon, proclaims the law of God, which awakens the self-confident sinner, so that he may appreciate his lost condition.
Let us look still further into the matter of the extent of the law's jurisdiction. Read Rom. 3:19: "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." The law speaks only to those who are within the bounds of its jurisdiction; it cannot condemn any who may walk contrary to its provisions, if they are outside of its limits. For example, a man in Russia may commit an act which is forbidden by the laws of the United States; yet he cannot on that account be declared guilty, simply because the United States law has no jurisdiction in his case. He is not amenable to it. But as a consequence of what the law of God says, all the world are found guilty before him. This, again, shows conclusively that all the world are in duty bound to keep God's law.
There are no exceptions to this fact. We have before learned that "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4), and that "where no law is, there is no transgression" (Rom. 4:15); and therefore we know that wherever we find sin, there must also be the law. To whomsoever sin is imputed, upon him the law has claims; for "sin is not imputed when there is no law." Rom. 5:13. Now we find these statements in the third of Romans: "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise; for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one;" "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Verses 9, 10, 23. Here the apostle descends to particulars, and shows that not to the Jews alone, but to Gentiles as well, is sin imputed, thus proving beyond all controversy that the Gentiles as well as the Jews are under the jurisdiction of the law of God, and have violated it.
Our investigation of the law began with the time when it was given on Mount Sinai; and we must therefore now examine to see if that was the first of its existence. And here, as in all our study of the law, we find help from our knowledge of the fact that the law is "the righteousness of God." Then it must necessarily have been in existence before the exode. Since it is a transcript of God's character, it necessarily follows that its existence is coeval with the existence of God.
"But," it may be objected, "the law, as a manifestation of God's righteousness, might exist, without being transcribed for the government of mankind." So it might, if there were no creatures to whom it could be made known; or if there was any time after creatures had been brought into existence when God did not exercise government over them. But it is not for us to speculate on the state of affairs when God dwelt alone, inhabiting his own eternity, before the existence even of the "sons of God" that shouted for joy at the creation of this earth; and there certainly has never been a time since intelligent creatures were formed, either in Heaven or on earth, when God was not supreme ruler. No created beings have ever been independent of his control. But if God has always been ruler, he must have had some rule of government, and that could be nothing else than his righteousness—his law. The ten commandments are righteousness; they are perfect, holy, just, and good, and therefore exactly fitted to be the rule of a righteous and just government. Then, from the very nature of the law we would conclude that it was binding on men before it was spoken from Mount Sinai. We shall shortly recur to the argument broached in this paragraph; but first we wish to show from positive evidence that the law of ten commandments was known by men, and was binding on them, before the giving of it on Sinai.
In Rom. 5:12, we read that "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Here the apostle shows that death is a consequence of sin; death came into the world because there was sin in the world. If there had been no sin, there would have been no death, and wherever death is found, it is positive evidence that sin exists. With this passage we may well place 1 Cor. 15:56: "The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law." Here death is represented as a cruel monster that has brought many people into its power. It has poisonous fangs with which it strikes its victims, and these fangs, this sting, is sin. Let the fangs be drawn,—let sin be obliterated,—and death's power would be gone. But "the strength of sin is the law." "Sin is the transgression of the law," and it is the violated law which provides death with its powerful sting. Were it not for the law, death would have no sting, that is, it would be powerless to destroy. So here, again, we have proof that wherever death is, there is the law also.
We read on: "For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." Rom. 5:13, 14. Here we have the statement that until the law, that is, until the time of Moses, when it was spoken from Sinai, sin and death were in the world; therefore we know that the law was in the world. And hereby we know that the expression, "until the law," does not indicate that the time so specified was the first existence of the law; for both sin and death were in the world before that time, and neither can exist without the law, and the law violated.
Let us go still further into particulars. "Sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4), and "sin is not imputed when there is no law." Rom. 5:13. But sin was imputed to Cain (Gen. 4:7, 8), and consequently the law was there to condemn. Turn to the commandments, and you will find that the sixth commandment was the one especially transgressed.
Again we read that "the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly." Gen. 13:13. "Sin is not imputed when there is no law," and consequently we know that God judged the Sodomites by his law. If he judged them by his law, of course they knew of the existence of that law; otherwise their punishment would not have been just; but we may be sure that the "Judge of all the earth" will do right.
Take the case of the sons of Noah (Gen. 9:22-26). Here we have direct evidence that the fifth commandment was known; that it was violated by Ham, the younger son of Noah, and kept by the other two; and that the one was cursed for his sin, while the others were blessed for their observance of the commandment. These things show the existence of that commandment, a knowledge of its existence, and also a knowledge that it was in full force to condemn the guilty and to acquit the innocent.
We find also the violation of the eighth commandment mentioned in Gen. 31:30. It is not necessary to particularize concerning each of the commandments, but we will notice one more. In Gen. 15:15, 16, we read these words of the Lord to Abraham: "And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they [his seed] shall come hither again; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." This shows that in the days of Abraham, the inhabitants of Canaan, the Gentiles, were guilty of iniquity. Iniquity is sin, and "sin is the transgression of the law;" so, therefore, the Amorites had the law of God. Turn now to 1 Kings 21:25, 26, and you will learn of what the Amorites were guilty:—
"But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up. And he did very abominably in following idols, according to all things as did the Amorites, whom the Lord cast out before the children of Israel."
Here we find that the Amorites were cast out of Canaan because of idolatry,—idolatry, which, in its rites, involved the violation of not only the first and second commandments, but of all the ten. So we find that all the commandments were known and violated hundreds of years before the Jews came to Mount Sinai, and before there ever was a Jew. The point has now been proved, both from the nature of the law and by actual illustrations of the fact.
(To be continued.)
"The Abiding Sabbath."
By Editor
SABBATH OF THE LAW.
IN further notice of "The Abiding Sabbath," we propose to give some extracts from the author's discussion of the fourth commandment, showing the universal and everlasting obligation of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. He says:—
"The giving of the law at Sinai is the loftiest landmark in the history of Israel. It is the beginning of their civil and religious polity. From that moment Israel became the nation of Jehovah, the nation of the law, the leader among the nations of the earth in the search after a positive righteousness. That the Sabbath is a part of that code, has therefore a meaning not for the Hebrew alone, but for the whole race of mankind.
"Everywhere in the sacred writings of the Hebrews they are reminded that they are the people peculiarly guided by Providence. Historian, psalmist, and prophet never tire in recounting the marvelous interpositions of Jehovah in behalf of his chosen people. And this thought is the key-note to the decalogue. 'I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage' (Ex. 20:2), is the introduction to the law. When therefore the Sabbath is introduced into the decalogue, while its old significance as a testimony of creation is not lost, but especially recalled, it becomes, besides, a monument of the divine Providence whose particular manifestations Israel, among the nations, has most largely experienced. The Sabbath of the law is the Sabbath of Providence.
"The declaration on Sinai is perhaps the strongest attestation which the Sabbath ordinance has received. It is henceforth based upon an express command of God himself, is given in circumstances of the most impressive solemnity; and has received the awful sanction of embodiment in the moral law, against which 'the soul that sinneth, it shall die.' Eze. 18:4. God has spoken, and his creatures must obey or perish.
"We commonly speak of the decalogue as the 'ten commandments.' A more precise rendering of the Hebrew terms would be the 'ten words,' Ex. 34:28, margin; Deut. 4:13; 10:2, 4, margin, an exact equivalent of which we have taken from the Greek, in the word 'decalogue.' These statutes are therefore not simply commands or precepts of God, for God may give commandments which have only a transient and local effect; they are in a distinctive sense the word of God, an essential part of that word which 'abideth.' In the decalogue we get a glimpse of that inner movement of the divine will which is the permanent foundation for all temporary ordinances. It is not contended that this use of language is rigidly uniform, but only that by the phrase, 'the ten words,' as well as in the general scope of Hebrew legislation, the moral law is fully distinguished from the civil and ceremonial law. The first is an abiding statement of the divine will; the last consists of transient ordinances having but a temporary and local meaning and force. The decalogue is also called, the 'testimony' (Ex. 25:1, 6 and in many other places), that73is, the witness of the divine will; also 'the words of the covenant' (Ex. 34:28), and 'his [i. e., Jehovah's] covenant' (Deut. 4:13), upon obedience to which his favor was in a special manner conditioned. The names given to this code declare its unchanging moral authority.
"The manner in which this law was given attests its special sanctity and high authority. Before its announcement, the people of Israel, by solemn rites, sanctified themselves, while the holy mountain was girded with the death-line which no mortal could pass and live. When the appointed day came, to the sublime accompaniment of pealing thunders and flashing lightnings, the loud shrilling of angel-blown trumpets, the smoking mountain, and the quaking earth, from the lips of Jehovah himself sounded forth 'with a great voice' the awful sentences of this divine law, to which in the same way 'he added no more.' Deut. 5:22. Not by the mouth of angel or prophet came this sublimest code of morals, but the words were formed in air by the power of the Eternal himself. And when it was to be recorded, no human scribe took down the sacred utterances; they were engraved by no angel hand; but with his own finger he inscribed on tables of stone, whose preparation, in the first instance, was 'the work of God,' the words of his will. Ex. 31:18; 32:16; 34:1, 4, 28.
"The law declared by his own mouth and indited by his own hand was finally placed in the ark of the covenant, underneath the mercy-seat, where sprinkled blood might atone for its violation; . . . and beneath the flaming manifestation of the very presence of the Almighty, the glory of the Shekinah, circumstances signifying forever the divine source of this law and the divine solicitude that it should be obeyed. This superior solemnity and majesty of announcement and conservation distinguish the decalogue above all other laws given to man, and separate it widely from the civil polity and ritual afterwards given by the hand of Moses. These latter are written by no almighty finger and spoken to the people by no divine voice; for these it is sufficient that Moses hear and record them.
"Of the law thus impressively given, the fourth commandment forms a part. Amid the same cloud of glory, the same thunders and lightnings, uttered by the same dread voice of the Infinite One, and graven by his finger, came forth these words as well: 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' It is impossible, in view of these facts, to class the Sabbath with the ceremonial institutions of Israel. By the sacred seal of the divine lip and finger, it has been raised far above those perishing rites. In other words, it belongs to that moral law which Paul calls 'holy, and just, and good' (Rom. 7:12), and not that ritual law of which Peter declares, 'Neither our fathers nor we were able to bear' it. Acts 15:10.
"Nothing can be found in the form of words in which the fourth commandment is expressed which indicates that it is less universal in its obligation or less absolute in its authority than the other nine with which it is associated. . . . But it is sometimes claimed that this is simply a Mosaic institute, and therefore of transient force; that this has not, like the others, an inward reason which appeals to the conscience; that it is, in short, a positive precept. . . .
"The proof which would exclude this commandment from the throne of moral authority on which the others are seated should amount to demonstration. . . . The distinction cannot be maintained between this commandment and the remainder of the decalogue. The prohibition of image-worship is not deemed essential by either Roman or Greek Christianity; but the more spiritual mind of Protestantism can see that this law is absolutely necessary to guard a truly spiritual conception of Deity. So, many excellent Christians have failed to discern the moral necessity of the Sabbath. Clearer insight will reveal that all the laws of the first table are guarded by this institution, as all in the second table are enforced by the tenth, 'Thou shalt not covet.'
"The moral authority of the decalogue did not begin with its announcement on Sinai. Its precepts had been known and practiced through all the patriarchal ages. Murder was condemned in Cain, and dishonor of parents in Ham. To Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had come the knowledge of one God, and the last had exhorted his children against image-worship. Gen. 35:2. Theft, falsehood, and adultery are all denounced by the record of pre-Mosaic times. As a declaration of the eternal and unchanging moral law, its binding force did not begin with the announcement at Horeb, but dated from the beginning of things, and for the same reason will endure until the consummation of all things. Nor was it given to Israel alone. The Gentiles 'show the work of the law written in their hearts.' Rom. 2:14, 15.
"Jesus Christ has confirmed its obligation: 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' Matt. 19:17. His great generalization of the whole law into the double duty of love to God and man is further confirmation of the persistence of its ethical force. James writes: 'Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.' James 2:10, 11. It is impossible to suppose that the apostle has not in mind the whole decalogue, and that he does not equally affirm the profaner of the Sabbath to be a violator of the law. In a statement of such gravity he must have specified the exception if any existed. It is worthy of our notice that he bases the sanctity of each command on the fact that each was spoken by the one God. But the law of the Sabbath was as surely uttered by the voice of Jehovah as any other precept of the ten. If the 'ten words' of Sinai live to-day, imposing an unrelaxed obligation upon all mankind, as is testified both by the nature of the legislation and by the authority of Jesus and his apostles, the Sabbath shares their perpetuity, both of existence and obligation.
"In the law spoken by the mouth of God himself and written by his own finger, the transcript of his will, the reasons assigned for the institution of the Sabbath are such as appeal, not to Israel alone, but to man as man. The Sabbath recalls a fact of universal interest, the creation of the world, and is based on a process in the nature of God, who in some ineffable way 'rested on the seventh day.' The ideas connected with the Sabbath of the fourth commandment are thus of the most permanent and universal meaning. The institution, in the light of reasons assigned, is as wide as the creation and as eternal as the Creator.
"Instituted at the creation by the example of the Creator, its obligation extends to every creature. It is inconceivable, on any theory of inspiration, that any narrower interpretation is to be given to this command. If language is to have any meaning at all, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is not simply an Israelitish, but a human institution. As it answers a universal need, so is it enforced by a universal reason, being supported by the only state of facts that could create a perpetual institute,—the law of the beginning.
"These considerations cannot be treated with too much gravity. Long should pause the erring hand of man before it dares to chip away with the chisel of human reasonings one single word graven on the enduring tables by the hand of the Infinite God. What is proposed? To make an erasure in a Heaven-born code; to expunge one article from the recorded will of the Eternal! Is the eternal tablet of his law to be defaced by a creature's hand? He who proposes such an act should fortify himself by reasons as holy as God and as mighty as his power. None but consecrated hands could touch the ark of God; thrice holy should be the hands which would dare alter the testimony which lay within the ark.
"By the lasting authority of the whole decalogue, with which the fourth commandment is inseparably connected, which is the embodiment of immutable moral law, and by the very words used in framing the command, the Sabbath is shown to be an institution of absolute, universal, and unchanging obligation.
"Here may properly be inserted that prayer which the Anglican Church prescribes as a response to the recitation of each of the ten commandments: 'Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.'"
Amen! say we. We know that our readers, after reading these quotations, will be most curious to know how in the world their author, in the face of them, is going to get the first day of the week into the fourth commandment, and the law of the beginning, as "The Abiding Sabbath." Next week, if the Lord will, we shall set forth some of the ways in which he tries to do it. A. T. J.