This is a passage which is appealed to as proof that the decalogne has been abolished; but it can be readily shown that it proves just the reverse. Let us read it:—
"For he is our peace who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace."
Notice a few facts: There was a certain law here, called a "middle wall of partition," which kept the Jews and Gentiles separate. This wall was broken down by Christ. Was this the moral law or the law of ordinances? Every candid person must admit that it was the latter. The law of circumcision, the one regulating clean and unclean things, and their innumerable washings, carnal ordinances and ceremonies was instituted for the purpose of keeping the Jews a distinct and separate people till the Messiah should come. This was the great object of that law. Hence it was peculiar to the Jews. It never applied to the Gentiles. But the precepts of the moral law were just as applicable to the Gentiles as to the Jews. Was not the law against idolatry, profanity, murder, theft, &c., as applicable to the Gentiles as to the Jews? Of course. Here they are on common ground. This erected no wall between them, but the law of ordinances did. To this Paul refers. He says, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments." If Paul had stopped here, as he certainly ought to have done if there had been only one law, and it had all been abolished as our opponents teach, then there would be some show for that position; but he puts on a qualifying phrase which shows beyond question that he knew there were two laws of a very different kind, one which had been abolished and one which had not. Notice how carefully he states this, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in299ordinances." What law is abolished? Answer, That one contained in ordinances. Was there a law relating simply to ordinances and to nothing else? Certainly, for so Paul declares in Heb. 9 : 10: "Which stood only in meats and drinks and diverse washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." That this relates to the ceremonial law of the Jews no one can fail to see.
The very fact that Paul when he states that the law was abolished, carefully qualifies this statement by saying that it is the law contained in ordinances, shows that he knew that there was another law not contained in ordinances, which was not abolished. To illustrate: A physician says to his servant, Go to my office and bring me an ounce of medicine contained in the black bottle. This is virtually saying that there is other medicine contained in other bottles. If there was only one kind of medicine he would simply say, Go to my office and bring me an ounce of medicine.
So in this case: when Paul says the law is abolished, he specifies which one, namely, the one contained in ordinances, thus virtually saying that that which was not contained in ordinances was not abolished. The ceremonial law related wholly to ordinances. If the apostles taught the abolition of the decalogue, is it not remarkable that they make no reference to any of these commandments when speaking of the abolition of the law? On the other hand, every reference they make is always to the law of ordinances.
Contrast this passage a moment with the language of the same apostle in Rom. 3 : 31: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we estalish the law." The words "make void," in this text are from the Greek word katargeo which is the very word rendered "abolished" in Eph. 2 : 15. Hence in Rom. 3 : 31, Paul emphatically declares that the law is not abolished. But in Eph. 2 : 15, he positively says it is abolished. How can these two statements be reconciled? It is utterly impossible for Paul in both places to be speaking of the same law. But if we understand him to speak in one place of the moral law, and in the other of the ceremonial law, his meaning is plain, and there is no contradiction. The mistake that our opponents make is in applying to the moral law what the apostle says of the ceremonial law.
Col. 2 : 14-17 is another passage furnishing strong proof on the two law position. It reads thus: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ."
I believe it can be clearly shown that there is not one reference in all this to the decalogue, or seventh-day Sabbath. On this, Dr. Adam Clarke says: "By the handwriting of ordinances, the apostle most evidently means the ceremonial law." Comment on verse 14. Look at the figures used. "Blotting out." That which was written on parchment in books, as was the ceremonial law, could be blotted out with a wet sponge. See Num. 5 : 23. But it would be improper and absurd to talk of blotting out what was engraved in stones, as was the decalogue. "Handwriting." The ceremonial law was the handwriting of Moses, but the decalogue was written by the finger of God. Ex. 31 : 18. "Of ordinances." Here is further proof that it is the law of ceremonial ordinances which is meant. Compare with Heb. 9 : 10: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and diverse washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Then there was a law which stood only in these carnal ordinances of meats, drinks, &c., the very things of which the apostle speaks in Colossians. Mark that these were imposed on them as a burden. So in Eph. 2 : 15: "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances."
Here, too, we have the law of ordinances, the enmity abolished. "That was against us, which was contrary to us." The ceremonial law with all its innumerable rites and ordinances, which must be carefully regarded in the smallest affairs of every-day life was indeed a burden, a yoke, and against them, imposed upon them to keep a separate people till Christ came. But which of the ten commandments is against us? Look them over. Is it against us, 1. To have no other gods? 2. Not to make or worship an image? 3. Not to swear? 5. To honor our parents? 6. Not to kill? 7. Nor commit adultery? 8. Nor steal? 9. Nor lie? 10. Nor covet? Are not these commandments good, and for our best interest? But perhaps the fourth precept, the Sabbath, is against us? No, indeed; for Christ himself said, "The Sabbath was made for man." Mark 2 : 27. That which is for man cannot be against him.
"Nailing it to his cross." It would be proper to speak of nailing to the cross a parchment, or laws written on paper, but entirely improper if the reference is to the tables of stone. They could not be nailed up. Notice now the items which the apostle mentions, not one of which is in the decalogue, but all of which are in the ceremonial law. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat." Anything in the ten commandments about meat? Not a word. "Or in drink." Anything there about drink? Nothing. "Or in respect of an holy day." The original word here rendered holy day, is heortee, which means a feast day. Thus Greenfield defines it: "A solemn feast, public festival, holy day." It occurs twenty-seven times in the New Testament, and is, except in this place, every time rendered "feast," or "feast day."
The complete use of heortee in the N. T. as given in the Englishman's Greek Concordance is as follows:—
Matt. 26 : 5. they said, Not on the feast (day).
" 27 : 15. at (that) feast the governor was.
Mark 14 : 2. they said, Not on the feast (day).
" 15 : 6. Now at (that) feast he released unto
Luke 2 : 41. at the feast of the passover.
" 2 : 42. after the custom of the feast.
" 22 : 1. the feast of unleaven bread.
" 23 : 17. release one unto them at the feast.
John 2 : 23. at the passover in the feast (day).
" 4 : 45. at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast.
" 5 : 1. there was a feast of the Jews;
" 6 : 4. a feast of the Jews was nigh.
" 7 : 2. the Jew's feast of the tabernacles was
" 7 : 8. Go ye up unto this feast : I go not up yet unto this feast.
" 7 : 10. went he also up unto the feast.
" 7 : 11. Jews sought him at the feast.
" 7 : 14. About the midst of the feast.
" 7 : 37. that great (day) of the feast.
" 11 : 57. he will not come to the feast?
" 12 : 12. were come to the feast.
" 12 : 20. to worship at the feast :
" 13 : 1. before the feast of the passover.
" 13 : 29. need of against the feast;
Acts 18 : 21. by all means keep this feast.
Col. 2 : 16. or in respect of a holy day.
By this it will readily be seen that heortee always means a feast day, and should have been so rendered here.
The Diaglott renders it thus: "Let no one, therefore, rule you in food, or in drink, or in respect of a festival." There were many festival heortee days in the ceremonial law, but not one in the decalogue. See the yearly festivals enumerated in Lev. 23 : 2, 4, 6, 34, 37, 39, 41, &c., where the original word rendered festival is this the word which Paul uses in Col. 2 : 16, thus carefully pointing out those old yearly festivals of the ceremonial law. No such festival is mentioned in the ten commandments; hence he has no reference to them.
"Or of the new moon." Anything about new moons in the ten commandments? Not a thing. Hence this can have no reference to that law. Was there a law touching the celebration of new moons? Yes, the ceremonial law. See Num. 10 : 10; 28 : 11; Ps. 81 : 3, 4. Thus far we have not found the slightest reference to the ten commandments, but every item mentioned is found in the ceremonial law outside of the decalogue.
"Or of the sabbath days." Here our opponents are in high glee thinking that the seventh-day Sabbath is surely meant by this; but we are as confident that it is not, and will give our reasons for it. Many of the ablest commentators agree with us in this. Dr. Clarke says on this: "The apostle speaks here in reference to some particulars of the handwriting of ordinances, which had been taken away, viz., the distinction of meats and drinks, what was clean and unclean, according to the law; and the necessity of observing certain holidays or festivals, such as the new moons and particular sabbaths. There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away or that its moral use was superseded by the introduction of Christianity. I have shown elsewhere, that remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, is a command of perpetual obligation."
The American Tract Society comments thus on this passage: "A holy day—sabbaths; in the original, a festival—sabbaths. The days referred to are those required to be observed in meats, drinks, and new moons. The passage does not refer to the Sabbath of the moral law associated with the commands forbidding murder, theft, and adultery."
The following are some of the reasons why this does not apply to the weekly Sabbath:—
1. If it does, then it leaves us no weekly Sabbath day at all; for no exception is made. It sets aside the first-day Sabbath as well as the seventh-day. Let no man judge you in respect to the sabbath days. If one man is not to be judged for disregarding one day, then another is not to be judged for disregarding another day, and so we need keep no day.
2. This interpretation contradicts the many plain and direct texts which assert that, the law which includes the Sabbath, is still in force and must be kept, even to the smallest point. Rom. 3 : 31; Matt. 5 : 17-19; Jas. 2 : 8-12.
3. If this proves the Sabbath nailed to the cross, then the other commandments went with it, and so the law against murder, adultery, theft, &c., has been abolished.
4. Not a single expression in the whole passage, unless it be this one touching the sabbath days, is applicable to the law of God engraven in stones, as we have seen.
5. Every item in the context, enumerated by the apostle, viz., meats, drinks, festivals, and new moons, is found, not in the decalogue, but in the ceremonial law. This is a strong indication that he is simply talking of the institutions of that ceremonial law, and has no reference to the moral law.
6. But were there any sabbath days in the ceremonial law? Yes; several yearly Sabbaths, distinct from the Lord's Sabbath which was the only weekly Sabbath. They are described at length in Lev. 23. We will notice a few of them:—
Verse 24: "In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work therein." This sabbath was on the first day of the seventh month, which could only come once a year as all can see.
Verses 27-32: "Also on the tenth day this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement. It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls; in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath." The Greek word here rendered sabbath, is sabbaton, the same that is used by Paul in Col. 2 : 16. This sabbath was on the tenth day of the seventh month, and so could only come once a year. The first and tenth days of the month were sabbaths, which shows that they are not weekly sabbaths; for they are ten days apart—rather a long week!
Verse 39: "Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord seven days; on the first day [of the feast, hence the fifteenth day of the month] shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath." Here we have two more yearly sabbaths. These are not weekly sabbaths is farther proved by the fact that the tenth and the fifteenth days of the month were sabbaths—a week only five days long! Further the Lord says these are to be kept besides his Sabbath.
Verses 37, 38: "These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings everything upon his day; besides the Sabbaths of the Lord."
Thus we have the fact plainly before us that there were several yearly sabbaths connected with meats, drinks, new moons, feasts, &c. All these were besides God's Sabbath, and this is the very list which Paul names in Col. 2 as nailed to the cross and blotted out.
7. Paul is very careful to designate which sabbath days were done away. He says, "the days which are a shadow of things to come." Verse 17. This is true of the ceremonial sabbaths, but not of the seventh-day Sabbath. It pointed back to creation, not forward to the cross; hence it is not what the apostle meant.
But, says one, days is a supplied word in Col. 2 : 16. So the original would read, "Or of the Sabbath," singular number, hence the Sabbath, the seventh day, and not the sabbath days, the yearly sabbaths, plural. I answer, It is true that "days" is not in the original but sabbaton is in the plural; hence if we do not render it sabbath days, we must render it sabbaths, plural, which is the same in substance. So our opponents have not even a single hook upon which to hang their theory in this passage, but we have strong proof here of our position on the two laws.
D. M. CANRIGHT.
Gilroy, Cal., July 12.
The Pleasure of Doing Good
THERE is a pleasure in contemplating good; there is greater pleasure in receiving good; but the greatest pleasure of all is in doing good, which comprehends the rest.
Too Near the World.
ARE not many professing Christians living very near to the world? It does seem so, from the signs of the times. "Be not conformed to this world," says St. Paul. "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world," says St. John; and he goes on: "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever." For this it is manifest that a professing Christian who lives near to the world cannot do the will of God, and therefore cannot abide forever, in the sense of this passage.
It is truly sad to think how near many professed Christians come to the world in great numbers of their doings. In popular amusements there are hundreds of thousands in all the Christian churches who live as the world lives. They go to operas, and circuses, and theatres, and to dancing parties; and no one can tell which is the worldling, or which is the Christian in such places. In their social entertainments, a great many professedly Christian people are just like the people of the world. If one should step out of the house where the church-member gives his party, and into the place where the worldly man gives his, what difference could he see? Very little, if any at all.
Wine-drinking, dancing, jewels, and gold, over-loaded tables, costing a great deal of money that could be better used in feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, and all the accompaniments of a gay and frivolous worldly scene, he would behold.
In the plans used for raising money for benevolent purposes, professed Christians come very near to the world; indeed, they sometimes follow its example fully. We too often, hear of juvenile operas; and at fairs, lotteries, and other arrangements by which money is to be realized for God's work, a genteel work of gambling is indulged in. Quaint and ridiculous customs and manners to match, are often assumed by professedly Christian young men and women, while the elder members look on with approving smiles and words, glad to hear that a vast amount of money has been taken in their silly shows; but never thinking, alas! of the number of souls taken in the meshes of sin in the midst of such scenes, or of the lowering of the standard of purity and faith in those who are trained to regard these methods as legitimate in helping forward Christian work.—Golden Censer.
Take Jesus with You.
By Baptist Union
THIS is the season for excursions, visiting, rest. It is delightful to take a trip to the forest, to the wild scenes of nature, to the residence of dear friends; and peculiarly so if we take Jesus with us. He is very ready to go, if we desire him; he will be our traveling companion, our visiting friend, and if we give him room and are pure in word and deed, he will not hinder joys and pleasures, but increase them. He will make hearts bound with gladness, eyes sparkle with cheer, faces glow with delight, and keep them secure from poison, Satan's darts, and thorns of sin. Take Jesus with you, friends; he is the sweetest, most cheery, sunny of companions; he will make your journeyings and visitings a continual flow of bliss.—Baptist Union.
Obscured by Fog.
MR. JAY relates that a man from the country once said to him: "I was exceedingly alarmed this morning, sir. It was early and very foggy. I was on a lonely road, and thought I saw a strange monster. It seemed to move, but I could not discern its form. The more I looked the more I became alarmed. As I approached it I saw it was a man; and as I came close to him I saw it was my brother John." Ah, could we get out of the fogs and darkness, how often would we discover that the strange monster about us, the "nondescripts" of our imagination, are our own Christian brethren!—Selected.
Seven Years.
By J. N. Loughborough
Nor the seven years of plenty, or the seven years of famine, that followed in Egypt in the days of Joseph. Gen. 41. Nor the seven years (times, Dan. 4) that Nebuchadnezzar ate grass as the oxen ; in which time his nails grew out as bird's claws, and his hair like eagle's feathers." Not the seven years twice told that Jacob served with Laban. Gen. 29. Nor the seven years which completed the period of one jubilee with the Israelites, and found every man in the possession of his estate, from which he might previously have been separated. Ex. 21. No, it is none of these to which we refer in the caption to this article, but to something nearer our own time, and to events with which the writer is more personally connected.
There is something peculiar in the Scripture use of the number seven. It originated first with God's example in the measurement of time, in creating the heavens and the earth. "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Here was one complete period of time—a week. For this reason, it is supposed, the number seven among the ancients came to signify "completeness, or the whole" of that to which the term was applied. So we find the term used by New Testament writers. "The seven spirits of God," Rev. 3 : 1, meaning all the manifestations of that "one Spirit." Eph. 4. "The seven churches," Rev. 2, 3, meaning all the church of the gospel period. "The seven last plagues," Rev. 16, meaning all that series of God's judgments inflicted upon the people.
As the number seven is a complete period, so at its close, either in the week or the close of seven years, it is a good time to reflect upon God's mercies and blessings, received by us in that time.
Seven years. How short they seem when passed. Seven years ago to-day the writer and Eld. Bourdeau first stepped from the steamer "Golden City" upon the soil of California. Landing July 18, 1868, in San Francisco, with our new sixty-foot tent, to enter upon the work of proclaiming the great theme of Christ's second coming and a preparation to meet him. When we contrast to-day with that day we see reason to take courage and to rejoice in the mercies of God. Then we had no church here. Scarcely an individual who had even heard of us or our mission. Now there are not far from 700 up and down this coast, in California, Oregon, and Washington Territory, whose hearts are in full sympathy with the work. Then upon this coast there were no churches, or companies of Sabbath-keepers with whom to meet ; now there are some twenty churches and smaller bands of seventh-day keepers who meet for worship upon God's holy Sabbath, besides scattered individuals who revere God and his holy law.
Then our operations here were carried on by the contributions of our liberal brethren in the East, as we received the first year less than $50 from those who had espoused the cause here ; now there is systematically raised upon this coast for the support of the message, between four and five thousand dollars each year, besides many private donations for the same purpose.
Then all our papers came from the East by way of the Isthmus, we not receiving them until five weeks after they left the press in Battle Creek, and letters required some two or three weeks for their transit, as the overland railroad was then incomplete. Now we read our Eastern periodicals and letters about six days from the time they are mailed. This, and the interest our old brethren and sisters have manifested in the work here, makes it seem as though two thousand miles, at least, had dropped out of the distance between us.
Then we had no T. and M. Society to come in as a right hand man in this work, to assist in scattering the seeds of truth ; now we have our well organized State society with its efficient corps of officers and workers, doing efficient labor in scattering tracts and periodicals. Already can they point to many cases of souls, who, by their agency, have been brought to the truth. Here also is our State Conference, permanently organized, and our Pacific S. D. A. Publishing Association with its $28,000 subscribed capital stock, its publishing house in process of erection in Oakland. And not by any means least in the catalogue of agencies, is the SIGNS OF THE TIMES published in the interests of this cause, making its weekly visits to near four thousand subscribers, and at least ten thousand readers.
Although this paper has but just completed the first year of its existence, it has proved itself to be a great power in connection with this cause. Not only is this the case in its furnishing a medium of communication for our brethren and sisters, more handy of access than the Review, bringing quicker reports of our own labor in this home field, thus giving fresh life to the cause here ; but scores have already reported, not only in California, but in other States, that they had commenced to be Christians and to observe God's Sabbath, from reading the SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
While we make these contrasts, and mark progress, and recount these, so evident tokens of God's hand in the work, we have reason to praise the Lord. We cannot sit down complacently as though our work was done. Not by any means. We see work ahead, and opportunities for earnest labor, with which, in comparison, the past is only child's play. What may not be done if preachers, writers, publishers, T. and M. workers, and all take hold in the spirit and earnestness which our cause demands, and its relation to the times and events around us demand.
Our heart exults in God our Saviour to-day for what he has done for us in seven years, and more especially for what he has done for his own precious cause, not simply here on the Pacific Coast, but all over the world. It is not that we have not had trials, afflictions, bereavements, and hours of sadness, that we thus rejoice, but God's hand has been set to the work, his grace has sustained hitherto, he lives and reigns, and he will speed on his cause to certain victory, whether we stand faithful or not. He could do without us, but we cannot do without the truth, nor without God, if so, we would have "no hope in the world." To continue in the living vine, seeking still to be a fruitful branch, shall be our earnest labor.
If the theory be true, that all the essential particles of the body are changed once in seven years, then the writer must be set down from this date as a Californian, for seven years to a day have we been nourished from the productions of her golden soil. For all this we have not lost our love for the dear saints of God with whom we were wont to meet in past years, and we rejoice in their prosperity as well as that of California. God's cause is one, our message is to the world. His servants should be "God's free men" ready to go as "ambassadors for Christ" wherever the providence of God may indicate. As we enter upon a new cycle of time, we resolve, with God's grace, to devote our life to his service wherever our lot may be. Brethren pray for us.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
Bloomfield, Cal., July 18, 1875.
The Terror of the Lord.
By R. F. Cottrell
SOME complain of the preaching of terror; and others think it a virtue to avoid giving alarm. One minister remarked in my hearing, "I am not an alarmist." Still I believe the apostle Paul was sound in faith, and that he preached the gospel with the Spirit sent down from God. He taught that "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." 2 Cor. 5 : 10, 11.
The terror of the Lord is not in the gospel. The gospel is good news; there is no terror in good news or glad tidings. The terror consisted in the fact that men are to be brought to Judgment; that they will be judged by the law of God; and that those who fail to avail themselves of the joyful provisions of pardon and salvation, offered in the gospel, will finally be judged and condemned to perdition by the law. "As many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; * In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." See Rom. 2 : 12, 16. No. The terror of the Lord is not in the gospel; but the apostle knowing the terror of the Lord persuaded men to embrace the gospel as their only hope of escape from the fearful judgment and condemnation of the law.
Those who teach that the gospel has superceded the moral law and abolished it, have no terror in their preaching. It is all peace and safety and no terror of the Lord. But their gospel is not the same that Paul preached. The pardon of transgression and the abolition of the law transgressed are distinctly two things, though some seem to fail to see it. A sermon recently published in the American Christian Review has the following language :—
"But if, as Sabbatizers and Judaizers contend, the moral law, or decalogue, is, as a system, still of force and binding upon all people,"
"WHO WILL EVER BE SAVED?"
"Is it not this very law that all are condemned by? Who has lived up to all the requirements of this law? Who, therefore, can be saved by it? But I am answered, 'Christ has died for us.' So he has, and when Christ comes in for justification by faith in him, does not that break up the binding force of the law that was against us on account of our transgressions? Judged by the moral law, 'the whole world becomes guilty before God, and so long as the law remains in force, the whole world will remain guilty before God. Christ came to fulfill the law and did fulfill it in the sense of performing what was required by it, and accomplishing its end or intention, and took it out of the way; so that we who believe in him 'are not under the law but under grace.' The Sabbatizers, who, to bind on Christians the old Sabbath law of Moses, fall back upon the decalogue and contend that they who are still under that as a law, 'are falling from grace.'"
What confusion of ideas is here! To sift it out as thoroughly as possible, the teaching is, that the law is not of force upon the believers in Christ only. Unbelievers are not under grace; therefore the law is in force against them. Our faith in Christ breaks up the binding force of the law. Why then speak of holding the law as being "still in force," and as though Christ "took it out of the way," by something which he did? If the faith of believers breaks up the binding force of the law, then it was broken up in the times of Abraham and David, who were believers in Christ. If being justified by faith breaks up the binding force of the law of ten commandments, then it was broken up in the days of Abraham, for he was justified by faith; and therefore no change in this respect was effected when Christ was nailed to the cross. If faith in the sacrifice of Christ can now release the believer from obligation to keep the precepts of the decalogue, especially the fourth commandment, it would do the same thing for Abraham. He believed, but he did something else. The promise to Abraham was renewed to Isaac, "Because," said God, "that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Gen. 26 : 5.
But, says our writer, if the "moral law or decalogue," is "still of force and binding upon all people, who will ever be saved?" We are "condemned by it," he argues; "who, therefore, can be saved by it?" "No one," is the implied answer to the last question, and we freely respond, No transgressor ever was or ever was to be saved by the law he has transgressed; for it condemns and it cannot both condemn and save him from condemnation. But if it be impossible, as he implies, for any to be saved, if this law is "still of force and binding," how can any be saved who were so unfortunate as to live when it was binding? If the ancients who lived when the decalogue was of force could be saved by faith in Christ, cannot we, though it yet remain unabolished? Is it universal damnation to all upon whom the moral law was, and universal salvation to all who live since it was abolished? Since the death of Christ, are all the world under grace? He does not claim it. The believer only is under grace. But believers were under grace before Christ died; and therefore no change in this respect was effected by his death. The ancients could be saved by faith, though bound to keep the ten commandments; so can we.
But it is not claimed that it is wrong to keep any one of the ten commandments, except the fourth. We may keep all but that and not fall from grace. The Sabbath was binding upon the Jews. This, then, must be the reason they all fell from grace, and none of that nation can be saved!
But to return to the subject. Paul knew the "terror of the Lord." The terror is in the law, by which all will be judged; "for there is no difference." He persuaded men to believe and obey the gospel and escape the terror. We preach the same gospel, and for the same reason. By it ancients and moderns will be saved—all who "keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." All have the offer of pardon through Christ; but pardon of transgression and the abolition of the law transgressed are two things; they cannot exist together. There is only one mode of salvation, and that is by "repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." The good news of salvation has been proclaimed to all, ancients and moderns. But while we have the glad tidings of offered salvation through Christ, the terror of the Lord has not been abolished. The Judgment is between us and the kingdom of God; and all who have neglected repentance toward God, and faith toward Jesus Christ will find themselves given over to the law they have transgressed, and by it consigned to perdition. "Sin is the transgression of the law;" and "the wages of sin is death." "But the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord." Thank God for the gift!
R. F. COTTRELL.