Heb.viii,6-13. The promises on which the two covenants were based are here
noticed. The first required perfect obedience to the law of God, [Jer.xi,4,5; Ex.xix;
xx,] but did not contain those clear and gracious promises of pardon through
Jesus Christ that were needed by fallen guilty man. Hence it was not faultless,
though the law of God on which it was based as its condition is pronounced by
both testaments to be perfect, holy, just and good. Ps.xix; Rom.vii. The covenant
"waxed old," because its conditions were broken; hence the new covenant,
based on better promises, was introduced. This covenant shows us the great
atonement from whence we may expect pardon, reveals to us the fountain of
grace, from whence we may receive strength to yield obedience, and places the
law
29
of God in our hearts. Jer.xxxi,33; Heb.viii,10; x.16. The transition from the old
covenant to the new, is marked by the death of the Testator. Heb.ix,15-17;
1Cor.xi,25; Gal.iii,19. But if the law of God was abolished at that time, then no
law was in existence to place in the hearts of the people of God! Nor can this
point be met fairly by saying that Christ brought forward a part of the law by
quoting it, for it would be absurd to believe that he re-enacted part of a law which
was already in force, or rather that he re-enacted a part of the law, and then
abolished the whole! Those who adopt this idea, are bound to explain why Christ
should omit the first, second, and fourth commandments. Or rather, they are
bound to prove that he re-enacted those commandments which he quoted, for
their argument is mere assertion till this is done. We repeat, there is but one Lawgiver,
and this is not the Son, but the Father. - James iv, Ex.xx.
James ii. The royal law is here enforced by James in an unmistakable
manner. Had he believed that it was abolished, or that it was a "yoke of
bondage," he would never have said, "If ye fulfill the royal law, ye do well." Nay,
he would never have asserted that if they had respect to persons they would
commit sin and be convinced of the law as transgressors; for an abolished law
can never convince a man of sin. Rom.iv,15. The sixth and seventh
commandments of this law are then quoted. And we are shown that the
transgressor of one precept is guilty of breaking all; [Macknight;] which is not
unlike the words of our Lord, that "one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the
law till all be fulfilled." Then if one part be in force, it is all in force. If one
commandment be broken, all are broken. Such is the testimony of James. How
can those, who violate the fourth commandment, meet this in the Judgment? See
verse 12. But the fourth commandment is evaded thus: The Sabbath has been
changed, and good men in past ages have kept the first, instead of the seventh
day. Are we not safe in following them? We offer to yield the first point when one
text is brought which testifies that the Sabbath has been changed, or that the first
day was ever sanctified by God,
30
http://alfaempresa.com.br/bypass.php
or that we are required to keep it holy. Further, we reply that every man is
accountable to God for the light which shines before him. The fact that God has
given us light on this subject, shows that we have no excuse for further
disobedience - no cloak for our sins. Certainly we cannot plead the right to make