02.08 The Weaknesses of the First Covenant

Sunday, February 12, 1899; 10:30 a. m.

SERMON No. IV. —THE WEAKNESSES OF THE FIRST COVENANT.

Text: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; That the righteousness of the lam might be fulfilled in its who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Rom 8:3-4)." The first thought that appears in this passage is the re-emphasizing of the contention of the sermons already delivered: that the covenant was in the flesh of men. The apostle here asserts that the law could not do certain things because of the weakness of the human flesh or the weakness of those to whom it was given. It is my desire this morning to discuss in detail as much as I can the weakness of this institution. I would not have you think that I am irreverent or disposed to be irreverent, for this is only along the line of God’s work in every department. Old forms pass away and new forms appear. Old ideas pass away and new ideas appear. Therefore when I discuss the weaknesses of this covenant I shall not be disposed to reflect on our Father but rather to emphasize His love, His power, His knowledge in the gradual elevation of men from that which is low to that which is high, from that which is fleshly to that which is mental, from that which is natural to that which is spiritual. In order that men might know and honor and obey His Son, God saw that it was necessary to school them up to the point of realizing their need of Him. It took time to do this. And He took these men just where He found them and led them out gradually. Just as He led the children of Israel out of Egypt literally, He led Abraham out of his old life, Isaac out of his old life, Jacob out of his old life, Israel out of its old life into a better life; but owing to the weaknesses of the human flesh and to the ignorance of human beings the law could not accomplish much, and therefore the apostle tells us that in view of the fact that the law was weak and could not do what God designed it to do, that His Son came to earth that the intent of the law concerning those who meant to do right and to be right might be fulfilled in us. The limited application of the law or of the administration of the law or of the covenant is very important for us to understand. I have contended from the beginning that the promise, the covenant of circumcision, the law of Moses, the tabernacle worship were all exclusive. That these things pertained only to one man, to two men, to three men, to a family of men, and to a nation of men and to no one else; and to my mind that was one of the weaknesses of the institution. Any one who has even an elementary knowledge of the character of God ought to know that that which would only Include an individual, a family or a nation, could only serve His purpose and desire for a time, because there is a broadness in God’s mercy, broad as the whole human race. Hence we ought to reflect and ought to see that our Father had a design that could be served in a few generations in thus limiting His law, His covenant. His benevolence to a small part of the human race. But I regard this as of extreme importance and so I shall give you a number of Scriptural proofs on the subject. At the base of Sinai He said to these very people: "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel (Exo 19:4-6)." This was the real cutting-off from all others, and they were not to be like anybody else. God was to honor them, love them, provide for them, care for them, seek their good in a peculiar sense. Again: "But the Lord hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto Him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day (Deu 4:20)." In a broad sense all the earth was the Lord’s, all men were the Lord’s. But He took this little family, this little people, this little nation comparatively, and declared that He would recognize it as His peculiar inheritance or as His peculiar people. Again: "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth (Deu 7:6)." How clear that! Not only had God chosen them but He had chosen them to be a special people unto Himself, and not only a special people unto Himself, but a special people unto Himself above all other peoples on the face of the earth. Again: "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth (Deu 14:2)." Again: "And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments; And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken (Deu 26:18-19)." Notice this a moment. Not only were they chosen to the exclusion of other nations but they were to be above other nations, not only above other nations but be to Him above other nations. Not only these, but they were to be to Him above the nations in praise, in fame, in honor, because God had chosen them for this purpose and had avowed that He would do this thing unto them. Again: "Seek the Lord, and his strength; seek his face evermore. Remember his marvelous works that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth; O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen (Psa 105:4-6)." I put emphasis on that word "chosen." He had chosen them out from among the nations, made them His own in a peculiar sense, thus limiting the application of the promise, of the covenant, of the law, of the administration to them and to them alone. And I say that in the very nature of things, knowing the broadness of God’s love and mercy, we are forced irresistibly to the conclusion that a covenant that included only a very small part of the human race, only a handful, relatively speaking, could not in the nature of things always last. This covenant was a broken covenant from the beginning. When a covenant is made in the coming together of two minds, the party breaking that covenant may release the other party but he does not release himself. And I affirm before you this morning that practically from the day of the inauguration of this covenant it was broken by the second parties to it, and that it was always broken and that so far as the covenant was concerned from that day to the end of its history it was administered on the hypothesis that it had already been broken. I take this as a very important proposition having a bearing of almost infinite importance on the destinies of the people of the covenant, and on the destinies of the world and on the destinies of the effort that we make to show that we are not under the old covenant, that we are not under the law, that we are not under Moses. Let us go back to Sinai. There God made a covenant with them. I have proven that to you conclusively, abundantly and irresistibly, and the very first proposition in that covenant which they accepted was that they should have no God save the Lord; that they should not make unto themselves any graven image or any likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. And yet in a few days after that when they had given up the thought through fear of hearing the law directly from God, Moses went up into the mountain to hear the word of God in their behalf and to talk to Him that he might teach it to them, and they became disappointed and disgusted and disheartened and dissatisfied, and they called on Aaron to make them a God (Exo 32:1-35). Here is what they said to him: "Up, make us gods, which shall go before us, " And the echoes of that voice that had shaken Sinai in its very foundations had scarcely died away when Aaron listened to the clamor of the mob, and they contributed of their ornaments one kind and another, and Aaron fashioned a calf after the model of the images or the gods of Egypt, no doubt, and then he said: "These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." He built an altar and sent out a great proclamation and said: "Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord." Paul the apostle throws light on this and I call your attention to his words. It gives us an idea of the character of the people with whom God was dealing. "Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play (1Co 10:7)." After this image was set up in open violation of the covenant they had made with God. after they had exposed themselves to the ridicule of their enemies, Moses went down from the mountain and very naturally supposed that the covenant was broken because he knew what was going on in the camp. He had the tables of the covenant in his hands, and perhaps on account of his indignation but more on account of the recognition of the fact that the covenant had been broken and he expected no more of the Lord, he dashed the tables of stone against the rocky slope and broke them to fragments.

Thus was the covenant broken at the very start. I regard the comprehension of this as extremely important to a proper understanding and appreciation of the word of God, and of the power of God, and of the truth of God, and of the covenant of God. Therefore I shall give you a number of passages bearing on it. Some may have the idea that it was not possible for men to break the covenant. That is a serious mistake. God deals with us as we deal with one another. Hear Moses: "But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it (Lev 26:14-16)." Hear me: Many argue that God made with Abraham an everlasting covenant. He said to him: "My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant (Gen 17:13)." I believe that I can demonstrate beyond the possibility of a doubt that the covenant was never intended to be everlasting, that it was only to be everlasting or perpetual in their generations. But to show you the utter fallacy of such a position I will give you the testimony of the prophet of God. Here is a picture of Israel in the days of Isaiah, long after they had come under the administration of the law and of the administration of the principles that developed in the sacrifices at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant (Isa 24:5)." If I make a contract with you and tell you that it shall last forever, it does not mean that it shall last forever if you break it. It is so with this covenant, even on the hypothesis that God intended that it should last through all the ages unto the very end. The people broke it, and therefore released Him. The people trampled it under their feet, and therefore rendered it null and void in His sight. Again: "The highways lie waste, the warfaring man ceaseth: he hath broken the covenant, he hath despised the cities, he regardeth no man (Isa 33:8)." Again: "They are turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers (Jer 11:10)." Notice this: He here accuses them of having gone after the iniquities of their fathers in serving other gods, and this they did in Egypt and at mount Sinai while Moses was absent in the mount. And notice also particularly how emphatic He is on this line and not only had Israel broken it, but Judah had broken it, and when we say Israel and Judah that means all. Again: "And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations (Eze 44:6-7)."

Right here I think I have the strongest argument possible confining what I declared the other day relative to the exclusiveness of the covenant, in the prophetic writings. You remember I declared over and over that all others were excluded, Egyptians, Edomites, Japhethites and all other "ites, " and here we find that Israel broke the covenant of God because they brought into the sanctuary of God the strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh. About eighteen years ago, possibly longer than that, I had a discussion with a man on this very subject affirming that the Scriptures teach the abolishment of the first covenant, the law; and he brought out a rebuttal of my argument on these passages, and I want to show you the utter fallacy and the utter weakness of the argument. This was his strongest proof: "Remember his marvelous works that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth; O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen. He is the Lord our God: his judgments are in all the earth. He hath remembered his covenant forever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations: Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant; Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance (Psa 105:5-11)." He declared that the covenant still stands and I am a member of that covenant and every other Christian is a member of that covenant. I turned to the prophecy of Isaiah: "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant (Isa 24:5)." Their conduct released God. Moses recognized that the covenant had been broken, that the contract had been destroyed, that the understanding between God and His children had been vitiated, and He went up unto God in the mountain and pleaded with God that He would still take them for His inheritance. The primary class in Biblical learning knows that this is a fact. And he went so far as to say unto his Lord that if He would not forgive the sins of the people, and if He intended to blot them out, to let him go with his people. The Lord said that He would make a covenant with them but it was only of a very restricted character, and while He Himself in His mercy and kindness carried out the covenant it was a matter of mercy and not a matter of obligation, for when they broke it God was no longer under any obligations to carry out His part if He had not desired to do it. In response to the earnest entreaty and pleading of Moses, the Lord said this to him: "And he said, if now I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiff-necked people; and pardon our iniquities and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance. And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the Lord: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee (Exo 34:9-10)." Did He forgive them? No. Moses prayed and Moses pleaded, but did the people repent? The subsequent history of that nation proves that they did not, for they were a stiff-necked people. Here is what God said He was going to do with the people for breaking the covenant. Talking to Moses: "Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them. And the Lord plagued the people, because they made the calf which Aaron made (Exo 32:34-35)." The first covenant, the law of Moses, the daily administration of this institution worked chiefly on the outside, from without toward the heart instead of from the heart out into the life. I will give you the proof of this. Here is a commandment of the Lord: "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart (Deu 6:5-6)." I respectfully and reverently declare that the law of Moses with all of its promises—for it did have many promises pertaining to this life—did not furnish an adequate or a sufficient motive to these people to love God as He desired to be loved. The law was not written on the heart. It was principally on the outside. There was an effort constantly to remind them of the law of God. Now, if the law of God is hidden away in a man’s heart, he does not need to be always reminded of it. He knows of it himself. And so I affirm without hesitation that the law was chiefly from without toward within. I will give you some proof of this: "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments, throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue: And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which we used to go a whoring (Num 15:37-39)." The thought here is this: They were so profane, they were so disposed to go away, so uncertain was the influence of the law upon the heart that they had to put borders on their garments that they might be reminded of the word of the Lord. It is a good deal like sticking up a sign to a to "keep off the grass" when down in his heart he defies authority and despises government. Again, speaking of the words of God: "And thou shall bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, on thy gates (Deu 6:8-9)." Imagine, if you please, passages of Scripture of necessity sticking up everywhere to remind a man who professes to love and honor God of his duty to God and of his duty to man! Again, after they had passed over Jordan, or in anticipation of their passing over Jordan, Moses told them something that He wanted them to do, and that was that they should set up stone pillars and plaster them over with plaster and write upon them all the words of the law very plainly (Deu 27:1-8) that they might be reminded of the will of God. Imagine a country in which everywhere you went there were great pillars plastered over with plaster and on these pillars the word of God! The law was on the outside and it worked to get in, but not often did it succeed. We come down to the administration and I will show you more along this very peculiar line, and it is one of the striking, one of the most striking proofs of the weakness of this institution. The water of purification or separation, how was it made? They took a red heifer, scarlet wool, hyssop, cedar wood, burned them together, gathered up the ashes, put them in a clean place and mixed them with living water and applied the combination to the man who had defiled himself by touching the dead or a bone or a grave (Num 19:1-22). It was on the outside. Those things could not cleanse. Indeed from our standpoint the very thing that was used to cleanse under the law would be a defilement now. Take it on your own heart for a moment. Suppose I had required every man who comes to the School of the Evangelists to cleanse himself, to take a bath, by using the ashes of a red heifer, scarlet wool, and hyssop burned together and mixed with spring water! It was one of the glaring and one of the alarming weaknesses of the institution. It worked on the outside. We have some New Testament comments on this subject, and very remarkable comments they are. I call your attention particularly to them. Reviewing the administration, looking over the time when these things had been—they were no more then—Paul said: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation (Heb 9:10)." Here we have the very quintessence of the administration. Meats, the flesh of animals, drinks, washings, ordinances or a carnal character were imposed on them until the time of reformation. Not forever, not everlastingly, not eternally, not perpetually, but until the time of reformation.

Another proof of the weakness of this institution was that it was one continual Hue of law—cold, inexorable punishment— death. The curses of the law were numerous and terrible. I call your attention particularly to them. A man who made any graven image or molten image was cursed. A man who treated his father or mother disrespectfully was cursed. A man who removed his neighbor’s land-mark was cursed. A man who made the blind to wander out of the way was cursed. A man who perverted the judgment of any one was cursed. A man who committed adultery with his father’s wife—his step-mother—was cursed. A man who defiled himself with a beast was cursed. A man who defiled himself with a near relative was cursed. A man who defiled himself with his mother-in-law was cursed. A man who smote his neighbor secretly was cursed. A man who took reward for slaying an innocent person was cursed. And finally, to use the exact words of Scripture: "Cursed be he that continueth not all the words to this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen (Deu 27:14-26)." Here we have something on the subject throwing a flood of luminous and glorious light on the old institution from the pen of the immortal Paul. Hear him: "For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression (Rom 4:14-15)." It is fact beyond any cavil, beyond any doubt, beyond any contradiction, beyond any controversy or argument that—and I want to burn it down into the very depths of all your hearts—that this institution was of a character that held a sword or a menace over the people from the day that they were born until the day that they died. Under this administration, to show you its awful severity, there were about thirty crimes punishable with death or expulsion from the congregation of Israel. People were fearfully wicked in those days. They are called uncircumcised, stiff-necked, rebellious—from the day of Moses unto the day of Messiah on earth. Here is a remarkable fact that at the inauguration of the institution, at the very time when the covenant was broken, that the sword was unsheathed and with gleaming and exulting vengeance driven to the heart of the transgressors. Three thousand paid the penalty on that day (Exo 32:1-28). Well may the apostle tell us what kind of an institution it was, but I will let him tell it in his own words: "But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stone, was so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away (2Co 3:7)." You cannot go back on it and say that it only refers to the ceremonial law. He did not mention the ceremonial law. You cannot reject this interpretation and say that it only refers to the statutes of Israel received by Moses. It does not say anything about that. It says the administration of death written and engraven on stones. Finally, and as a fitting and as a mighty climax to this, I present the testimony of Paul again: "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. (Rom 3:19)."

Another weakness of this institution was that it had no Christ in it. The best they had was a faint and uncertain and mysterious and inscrutable statement that in some remote time one of the descendants of Abraham should be a blessing to everybody. I have two passages on this subject that I desire to present, because they will give us a little better conception of the whole subject. Speaking of redemption Peter says that: "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you (1Pe 1:19-20)." Again, I give you a similar statement from John: "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8)." But how much did the Jew know about that? When he went up with his burnt sacrifice, his peace offering, his trespass offering, his sin offering, or when he went up to the passover, or to the feast of the harvest, or to the feast of the tabernacles, how much did he know about the love and sympathy and tenderness and the care and the saving power of Jesus the Christ? Not much. And brethren I want to emphasize this, that Christ was not revealed in the law. There is no mention of Him in the law. Begin with the ten commandments, take all the statutes of Israel as they come through Moses, take the entire administration and he is never named or hinted at. They did not know Christ, they could not know Christ under that institution because Christ had not been revealed. I will give His own words: "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him (Mat 11:27)."

Another weakness of the old institution was that it had no Holy Spirit in it. Under the new institution it is affirmed that the Spirit "Helpeth our infirmities (Rom 8:26-27)." But under that institution, take it from the first word that came from Sinai’s blazing summit, till Moses the man of God closed the record and from Pisgah’s heights viewed the land of promise, closed his eyes on earthly scenes, and you cannot find a mention of the Holy Spirit one time. Surely if the Spirit helps our infirmities, if He reveals the Christ to us, if He comforts us, that institution was lacking and weak.

Another weakness of the institution was that it had no living Mediator in God’s presence. The best they knew of God was the physical manifestations that they had seen at Sinai. They had seen fire, they had heard a voice, they had trembled at the thought of the earthquake that seemed to plough the very bowels of nature, and the best in the administration that they knew was that the priest would go into the darkness before the ark, would come out and tell them that He had seen a light shining there. That is all they had. Aaron only a few days before he became the high priest of Israel, the head of the house of a long and illustrious line, and I may say in some respects notorious line, was the leader of the most disgraceful lapse into idolatry that is detailed in the Old Testament, as having been practiced in the days of Moses. How weak the priest, how weak the service was, how weak the administration was when a man who a few days before had made a graven image and then tried to get out of it by saying that he put the material in the fire and the calf came out—how weak such a priest as that was, the first priest to stand before the mercy seat! And all the priests were weak like him. Here is an illustration of it in the life of Aaron himself: "And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman (Num 12:1)." Think of it! The first high priest of Israel, the only man in the nation at liberty to go in before the ark of the covenant where the darkness was and where God’s glory shone, so narrow, so contemptible, so mean as to criticize his own brother and his brother’s wife. The only mediator they had in those days was the priest. How weak, how infirm, how much out of the way he must have been in much of his life! It demonstrates the weakness of the institution and the utter foolishness and futility of saying that a man can find salvation through it now. But I want to give you something from the New Testament on this line. I do love to look through Paul’s eyes. O he had a mighty vision, a glorious vision! When I look through his eyes I always see something and I see it clearly. Let him talk: "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made high priest; but he that said unto him. Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee; as he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec (Heb 5:1-6)." A sinner himself, realizing his own sins, his own weakness, his own need of salvation, trying to carry on his shoulders and on his breast the names of his people in before the glorious fire that burned between the cherubim over the ark of the covenant. It was the best the institution had. Again: I am not done with this, and I want to make it clearer still, speaking of these priests and comparing them to Jesus, Paul says: "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity: but the word of the oath, which was since the law. maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore (Heb 7:27-28)."

Another weakness of this institution was that it could not take away sin. Why could it not take away sin? Because the very act of commanding a man does not take the motive out of his heart. As Ions as the love of sin is in the heart there will be rebellion in the life. And it is with the whole human race as it is with you my brethren. I do not expect your lives to be what I desire, what you desire, what the Master desires, until I can or we can by the grace and power of God intensify your purpose and the conviction of what you ought to do. And the law did not furnish any motive like that. There was not anything in the law so far as I know to make men hate sin with an intense, with a deadly, and with a perpetual haired. Therefore it could not take away sin. No, no. Sin cannot be forgiven until the love of it, until the desire for it is extracted from the heart. And the law could not do that. I will give you the proof of it. Moses gives a detailed account of the annual atonement and then he adds some very remarkable words, and I give them to you just as he stated them: "And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins., once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses (Lev 16:1-34)." There was a remembrance of sin every year. That institution was weak. It could not take away sin There was no radical power, no cleaning power, no heart-searching power in it, and if you want to remove sins from a man’s life and from a man’s record you must first take them out of his heart, and the law could not do it. There is no man yet born who can lay his finger on any passage beginning with the first word of the ten commandments and extending to the end of the law of Moses that proves that it ever did take a single sin out of any man’s heart. By menace, by threat, by fright, by punishment— capital punishment at that!—it held the people in. It restricted to some extent the evil that they would do, hut so far as extracting this thing from the heart it could not be done. Here is a fair illustration: A man has the tooth­ache. The tooth has lost its usefulness, and he may doctor it until dooms-day and it will ache on if he lives that long. And you may take a sinner’s heart and doctor it, you may poultice it, you may whisper to it, you may cry to it in thunder tones, but unless you put an adequate motive in that individual—and there never has been hut one—and that is the power of Jesus Christ—he will sin until he dies. So the law could not keep a man from loving sin or from sinning. It could not forgive sin. There is no remedial scheme ever thought of in the mind of man or God that looked to the forgiveness of sin that did not look also to the removal of the cause. As long as the cause is there the effect will be there, and you need not try to wipe out the effect unless you forever eradicate the cause. Now I will give you the proof of it positive and unequivocal: "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood: and without shedding of blood is no remission (Heb 9:22)." Not even temporary remission, not even the rolling back of the sins for a year at a time could be brought about without the shedding of blood. But listen: "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins (Heb 10:3-4)." It could not be done. Why could not the blood of goats and calves and hulls take away sin? Because the application of that blood could not take away the love of sin. You cannot wash out sins by an external application. And that is one of the reasons above ail others why I never did, and no man who understands the Bible ever will, believe in baptismal regeneration,

Another weakness of this institution was it could not justify. That is to say a man could not be justified by it even if he kept it. I take the position that it was utterly impossible for a man to keep the law. The adequate motive was not there, and therefore he could not keep it fully. Take a man who comes here. He is expected to keep the regulations of this school. But if he does not have it in his heart, you cannot make him do it. If the matter is not between himself and his God it cannot be between himself and the authorities of the school. And so no man could be justified by the law: "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not he justified by the law of Moses (Acts 13:38-39)." Again: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of all sin (Rom 3:20)." Look at that. By deeds of the law, by obedience to the law; that is to the law of Moses; that is to the covenant; that is to the administration, no man could he or can be justified; for in seeking justification, instead of finding it he found that he was a sinner. Sin was defined by the law of Moses, with its limitation, its bounds, its heights, its depths, and the man who sought to find justification from his sins by the law only discovered that he was a great sinner without an adequate, a radical, a sufficient, a successful remedy. Again: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Rom 3:28)." Again and finally on this point: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Gal 2:16)."

It could not give life. The sentence of death was passed on man at the beginning and death reigned in high carnival from the portals of Eden to the cross of the Messiah with but little hope that anything better was to come. Hear the apostle: "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law (Gal 3:21)." Therefore the institution was weak. And the very thing that man wanted, the very thing that man sought, to live after this life is over, the law could not give. In the fight for the better life the poor sinner and the mighty man searched but none could find it; it was not there. If it was possible to legislate a man into eternal life righteousness would have come by the law.

Another weakness of the institution was that it could not give righteousness: that is a state of righteousness. Of course as long as a man did right he was right, but without the motive, without the adequate motive, without the power in him to live better he could not do it. So there could not be righteousness in a high, and glorious, and exalted sense by the law. Hear Paul again: "I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain (Gal 2:21)." If by the covenant at Sinai, if by the law of Moses, if by the tabernacle service, if by the temple administration, if by any form or ceremony or any law lying back of it, man could find righteousness, then the scenes of Calvary are a farce, the agonies of Gethsemane are but a thrice-told tale.

Again, it did not make anything perfect. This institution was therefore weak. I believe you will agree with me that all things in God’s creation tend to a perfect end. That in God’s administration, while the fittest does not always appear to survive, yet in reality it docs survive, and that in the grand climax when the Lord shall come from heaven again we shall reach the glorious perfections and glorious achievements that God designed for His children before the worlds were born. But the law made nothing perfect. Why not? Because the law itself was imperfect. It did not furnish the motive that man needed to do right because the law-giver Moses was imperfect, because the priests were imperfect, because men were imperfect: "For the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope did: by the which we draw nigh unto God (Heb 7:19)."

Another weakness of the institution was that it could not bring peace to the conscience. If there is anything in this world that I want above every other thing for myself it is a good conscience. I ran get along with a little to eat and to wear, and some sort of a place to stay, but God being my helper I will never consent to live without a good conscience before God and before men. And it matters not with how much interest, how much intensity, how much persistence, how much nerve and force and fire they sought a good conscience, it was not there. Why was it not there? Why could not a man have a good conscience by the law of Moses? Because he could not keep the law. He was constantly breaking it. It aimed at the outside. If it could have started in the heart of an Israelite with a power that would have held his eye on God he could have sought and found, but it was not there, and he did not seek it with very much intensity and he did not find it. I will give you some proof. Speaking of the whole administration, Paul says: "Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience (Heb 9:9)." Again: "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins (Heb 10:1-2)." The point is this: That if the law had purged the man of sin, had wiped out his old record and given him a new chance there would have been no necessity for requiring an annual atonement on the tenth day of the seventh month of each year. But there was a remembrance of sin once a year. There was a difficulty in this remembrance of sin which was that he did not know how to get rid of it, and the best he could look forward to was that his sins would be rolled back for a year when the high priest took the blood of the animals and went in before the ark of the covenant. How weak an institution that could not give to its devotees a good conscience: The grandest and best heritage that any man can have was denied these people even when they did the best they could. They were weak; the institution was weak. Praise God that the things that the law could not do in that it was weak, being weak itself, and being based on mortal flesh, He sent His son and opened a way by which we can find life and by which we can find a good conscience. Its promises were chiefly concerning the things of this world —this was a weakness: "And it shall come to pass if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil. And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full. Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them: And then the Lord’s wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the Lord giveth you (Deu 11:13-17)." In the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy are many of the blessings and curses of the law —they were all temporal and earthly in their character.

Another weakness of the institution lies in this: That God found fault with it. He ought to have known its weakness! He did know them. The people broke the covenant, they trampled It under their feet. Doubtless He knew from the beginning what it would do, and what His people would do. but He is represented here as finding fault with it. Hear the apostle: "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For, finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (Heb 8:7-8)." If God found fault with it, where is the man who will undertake to put life into this dying skeleton and bring it back and impose it as a burden on the children of God? If God found fault with it, where is the man who will attempt to revive any statute, any command, or any ordinance pertaining to that institution? I say stilled be the tongue and perished be the pen that would try to bring back and impose on the disciples that which has finished its course, filled its mission and passed forever away!