Tracts on the Sabbath

by Unknown

Ans. Are the ten commandments such a yoke as is not to be borne? Is it a yoke to have no other God but Jehovah, and to abstain from murder, theft, adultery, and the like? For so it must be, if you judge that the whole law is here slighted. But the thing under discussion here is, whether such and such laws are to be kept or not, and the stress that is laid upon the keeping of them, namely, the pressing of them as things without which they could not be saved, as in Acts 15:1; and therefore the Apostle, in answer to this, shows that the Gentiles had received the gospel and did believe, God having given to them the Holy Ghost, and put no difference between them and the Jews, purifying their hearts by faith, (verses 7-9,) and that through the grace of Jesus Christ both Jews and Gentiles should be saved, (verse 11;) and as the Apostle opposeth the keeping of these laws for such a purpose as to be saved thereby, so the bare keeping of them is forbidden. And therefore James saith, (verses 19, 20,) My sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God, but that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, from fornication, from things strangled, and from blood. So that the Apostle's judgment is, that the Gentiles should keep some part of the law. And therefore the question was not, whether any part of the law should be kept; and the reason why they would write no more seems to be in verse 20, For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day. So the apostles and elders write, in verse 24, Forasmuch as we have heard that certain men that went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment. Now can we be so gross as to think, that it is subverting men's souls, and contrary to the commandments of the apostles and elders, to bid them love the Lord their God with all their hearts and with all their strength, and to worship him alone, and not to take his name in vain, and the like? This is to keep the law. But the difference was about other laws as well as circumcision, and they are as really forbidden to keep them, as they are forbidden circumcision; and therefore it cannot be the law of the ten commandments, but the law of shadows, as is manifest by chapter 21. When Paul came to Jerusalem, the brethren told him that it was reported that he taught all the Jews which were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs, (verse 21;) therefore they counseled Paul to purify himself, with some others, that it might be seen that he walked orderly and kept the law. Verse 24. But as touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such things. Verse 25. So that it is very clear, that it is circumcision and the customs that is here called the law of Moses, which the Gentiles were commanded not to keep. But to think that the Gentiles should be forbidden to keep the law of God that was written in their natures is abominable, and contrary both to Scripture and reason.

Obj. 5. But the Scripture saith, Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman; which bond-woman was an allegory of the covenant from Mount Sinai, and therefore to be cast out.

Ans. The Apostle is here showing how impossible it is for works and grace to stand together in point of justification; for this people were seeking to be justified by the works of the law. He shows the difference betwixt the two covenants, one of works gendering to bondage, the righteousness of the law being this, that the man that doeth these things should live in them, (Rom. 10:5;) the other of grace or free promise, without any respect to man's righteousness. He shows that the sons of the covenants are like unto their mothers; the sons of the one covenant are born after the flesh, the sons of the other by promise; and those that are born after the flesh persecute those that are born after the Spirit. Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman; that is, the covenant of works with those that seek to be justified thereby, Christ being the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Rom. 10:4. But if we should understand the ten commandments in themselves to be the bond-woman, then it is impossible for them that keep them to be heirs or children of the promise, but they must be cast out as children of the bond-woman, which is very erroneous, and contrary to the current of the Scriptures. For the doers of the law are justified before God, (Rom. 2:13,) though not for doing. And mark how the Apostle forbids this notion in Romans 3:31—Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! Shall we continue in sin, or transgress the law, that grace may abound? God forbid! Rom. 6:1, 2. Is the law sin? God forbid! Rom. 7:7. Was the law, which was good, made death unto me? God forbid! Verse 13. Shall we transgress the law because we are not under the condemning power of it, (Christ having redeemed us from it?) God forbid! Rom. 6:15. Certainly the Scripture did foresee how apt men would be to slight and make void the law of God under specious pretences, as their being believers, and Gentiles which had not the law given to them, but that they are under grace, and the like. If the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? Rom. 2:26.

Consider these queries—1. If the whole law was done away by the death of Christ, why did the Apostle spend so much time to prove that by the works of the law none could be justified, (Gal. 3,) seeing there was no law to work upon? Would it not have been a nearer way to have told them that the law was abolished?

2. If the whole law was done away at the death of Christ, how can any part of it be now in force? If it be said it is upon a new account, show me any one law that Christ hath once destroyed and again revived, seeing the Apostle saith, if he should build again the things that he destroyed, he should make himself a transgressor. Gal. 2:14.

3. What Scripture proves that we have any one of the ten commandments given out on a new account?

4. If the whole law be done away, what law is there for the punishment of evil-doers, thieves, murderers, and the like?

5. If the ten commandments are to be abolished, how is it that the Lord hath annexed so many great and precious promises to the keeping of them and delighting in them, as in Psalms 1:1-4, and many other places, which do of right belong to such as keep the commandments? Rev. 22:14.

6. How is it that the Apostle saith, the law is good if a man use it lawfully, (1 Tim. 1:8,) if at the same time there be no law?

7. If the law was done away at the death of Christ, when was it given again upon a new account? If it was given before his death, (in the 5th chapter of Matthew,) then how is it that the law that was given on Sinai stood in force till that time? Could they both stand in force at once? If not till after the death of Christ, then when was it given out, seeing that we find not any of the commandments so much as mentioned for a long time after the death of Christ? Can we think the saints and the world were left without a law?