FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50  
51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   >>  
(or fleshly table of the heart,) as they were when deposited in the Ark thirty-three hundred years ago. Therefore we think that here is clear proof that he has kept up the distinction between the "handwriting of ordinances" (meaning Moses' own handwriting in his book,) and the "ten commandments writen by the finger of God." Let us now turn to the Epistle of James, said to be written more than twenty-five years after the law of ceremonies was nailed to the cross, and see if he does not teach us distinctly, that we are bound to keep the commandments given on tables of stone. He says, "the man that shall be a DOER of the _perfect law_ of liberty shall be blessed in his deed." i: 25. "If ye fulfill the royal _law_ according to the scripture, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well." Why? Because the Saviour in quoting from the commandments, in answer to the Ruler, what he should do to inherit eternal life, taught the same doctrine. Matt. xix: 19. Further: "For whosoever shall keep the whole _law_ and yet offend in one point, shall be guilty of _all_." In the next verse he quotes from the ten commandments again, namely, Adultery and Murder (what the Saviour in the fifth chapter of Matt. calls the [27]least, that is the smallest commandment,) and says if we commit them we become transgressors of the _law_. Of what _law_? Next verse says the _law_ of _liberty_ by which we are to be "judged." ii: 8, 11. Now will it not be admitted by every reasonable person that James has included the whole of the ten commandments, by calling them the perfect law of liberty. 2d, "The royal _law_ according to the scripture," and 3d, "the _law of liberty_ by which we are to be judged." (Royal relates to imperial and kingly.) Perfect means COMPLETE, _entire_, the WHOLE. Then I understand James thus: This _law_ emenated from the king, the Supreme Ruler of the universe, and to be perfect must be just what it was when it came from his hand, and that no _change_ had, or could take place, (and remember now, this is more than twenty-five years since the ceremonies with the Jewish Sabbaths were nailed to the cross,) for the very best of reasons, until the Judgment, because he shows we are to be judged by _that law_. Then I ask by what parity of reasoning any one can make the law of the ten commandments perfect, while they at the same time assert that the fourth one is abolished? and that on no better evidence than calling it the Jewish Sab
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50  
51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   >>  



Top keywords:
commandments
 

perfect

 

liberty

 

judged

 

twenty

 

ceremonies

 

nailed

 
calling
 

Saviour

 

scripture


handwriting

 

Jewish

 

person

 

reasonable

 

admitted

 
relates
 

included

 
commit
 
evidence
 

commandment


smallest

 

transgressors

 

imperial

 

assert

 

fourth

 

abolished

 

COMPLETE

 
reasons
 
change
 
chapter

remember

 

Sabbaths

 

universe

 
Supreme
 

reasoning

 

parity

 
entire
 
Perfect
 

emenated

 

Judgment


understand

 

kingly

 
doctrine
 

Epistle

 

fleshly

 

written

 

finger

 

tables

 

distinctly

 

writen