III.
By The Rev. PATRICK FAIRBAIRN.
(Continued from page 63).
THE object of our last Paper was to prove that the Sabbath is a primeval ordinance. There is only another of the same class now existing, viz., marriage, or the union of one man
with one woman. Both derive the reasons of their appointment from the very facts of creation; they were both coeval in their origin with the present constitution of things; and there is a striking resemblance in their respective histories. Though both of the most benevolent character, and designed for the highest welfare of man, they soon came to be overborne by the corruption which spread its infection far and wide from the period of the fall, and which was not long in turning the whole earth into one vast theatre of iniquity and crime. Without entering into particulars, we can easily read the fate of both of them, in the general character of the antediluvian world, as one pre-eminently distinguished for violence, oppression, and blood. The men, who had so little humanity, as to have no regard for each other’s lives, must certainly have been strangers to the gentler and holier feelings, which should have disposed them to respect such merciful and blessed institutions. And yet, there is good reason for thinking, that not only through that dark period of the world’s history, but long afterwards, God’s faithful remnant continued to respect, and with considerable regularity, to observe both of his primeval ordinances. It is certain, at least, in regard to the Sabbath, that while the teeming wickedness of men had gone far to sweep away the remembrance of it from the earth, yet signs and fragments of it survived even the darkest times, and were to be found at a comparatively late period among the most barbarous as well as the most enlightened nations. And when the time arrived for God taking under His immediate control the government and history of the chosen seed, He not only gave to the Sabbath its original place of honour, but, as might have been expected, did so as recognising an existing ordinance, re-enforcing a creation-institute, not as introducing what was properly new and unheard of.
That this was the manner in which God made known His Sabbath to Israel, appears, not only from the words at the close of the Fourth Commandment itself, which distinctly refer to the birth of creation as the period of its original appointment;
but also from the manner in which God first intimated the Sabbath to the Israelites, after their departure from Egypt, by furnishing a double supply of manna on the sixth day, that there might be an unbroken rest from ordinary labour on the seventh. He had now, in extraordinary circumstances, to work immediately for the support of His people, and He did so precisely as He had done at the creation of the world, working six days and resting on the seventh, and that for the purpose, now, as at the first, of making His example the ground and rule of a similar procedure on the part of man. In this observance of the weekly rest in the wilderness, it has been well remarked that no fewer than three miracles or departures from the usual course of things had constantly to be performed—a double portion of manna falling on the sixth day, none on the seventh, and what fell on the sixth day being preserved on the seventh from corruption. What could more strikingly evidence the singular importance which the Lord attached to the due observance of the Sabbath?
It is only in accordance with what might have been expected, that the peculiar and distinguished place, which was thus secured to the Sabbath in the history of God’s providence towards the Israelites, was also given to it in the laws and statutes which he imposed upon them. The command to remember the Sabbath, and keep it entire, as a day of sacred rest to Jehovah, formed one of the ten delivered from Mount Sinai, and along with the other nine possesses three marks or notes of distinction which entirely separate it from the merely judicial and ceremonial statutes given to the Jewish people. 1. It was spoken immediately by the voice of God, amid the most striking manifestations of the Divine presence, and in the hearing of all the people, Exod. xix. All the other laws were revealed only to Moses, and by him communicated to the people. This clearly marked off the Ten Commandments, and among the rest of the laws of the Sabbath, from the other statutes and ordinances given to Israel, as being in some respects of a more fundamental nature and more essentially connected with God’s character and glory than
the rest. 2. It was written in common with the other parts of the Decalogue by the finger of God on one of the two tables of stone, whereas the ceremonial and judicial laws were written by Moses in a book. This difference evidently implied that the one was much more important and stable than the other—was not, like the latter, to be left to inferior hands or committed to wasting parchments, but deserving to be engraved by God’s own pen as in the rock for ever. 3. These Ten Commandments, as one great whole, were preserved, and alone preserved, in the Ark of the Covenant, Deut. x. 2, 5; 1 Kings viii. 9. The book which contained all the other laws and ordinances of God, delivered to Moses, was not placed within, but at the side of the Ark (Deut. xxxi. 26), manifestly implying that in the Jewish economy the things written there held a very inferior place to those written on the two tables, and that the one, as a sort of outward appendage, might be removed and taken out of the way, whereas the other stood among the final and imperishable things of God.
We must look at the Fourth Commandment a little more minutely in this point of view; for, if rightly understood, it manifests the high character and perpetual nature of that Commandment in the most convincing and incontrovertible manner. The ark of the covenant, with its lid as the mercy-seat, and the cherubims at each end with outstretched wings, was the whole furniture properly belonging to the most holy place in the tabernacle; it was the very heart and centre of the Old Testament dispensation out of which all its ceremonial institutions grew, and around which they all in a manner circulated. And why was the ark called the ark of the covenant? Simply because it contained, and was made for the sole purpose of containing, the two tables of stone, which formed what is called the book of the covenant; for the covenant made with the Israelites properly consisted in the Ten Commandments, and not, as is very commonly imagined, in the laws and statutes of ceremonial worship. This is repeatedly affirmed, and in the most express terms. Thus, in Exod. xxxiv. 28, it is said of
God, that He “wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.” And in Deut. iv. 13, ix. 9, 11, 15, the tables are constantly named the tables of the covenant which God made with them in Horeb. For this reason it was, then, that the ark or chest which stood in the most holy place was called the ark of the covenant, being made for the single and express purpose of holding the words or tables of the covenant—the Ten Commandments; and the character which belonged to the ark, in the Old Testament dispensation, belonged to it merely as the sacred repository of these all-important statutes: so that they formed the very innermost point and centre of that former dispensation—the ground and basis on which its entire superstructure of rites and ordinances was reared. And why so singular a place given to these Ten Commandments? No adequate reason can possibly be assigned but this—that together they formed the substance of that duty which God requires of man; they are the brief but comprehensive expression of God’s holiness, as manifested in His government of His creatures on earth; the sum and perfection of all righteous obedience—attained only when there is the exercise of perfect love to God, and perfect love to man.
Who could prevail to keep that summary of complete and faultless obedience? None but the Holy One of Israel; who alone could say, in the language prepared for him by the Psalmist, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” Therefore, till He came, the most holy place, where these Commandments were kept, was a barred region, excepting once a year to the high priest, who typified the person and work of Christ; and the Commandments themselves were covered out of sight beneath the lid of the ark, which was the mercy-seat, and on which the blood of atonement was sprinkled, to testify the guilt of sin committed against these Commandments could indeed be purged away, but only by the blood of Him who was Himself sinless, perfect in all the righteousness of God. Thus was the work of Christ shadowed forth by these outward symbols; the law, or book of the covenant, in the centre of the whole, declaring the perfect
righteousness He had to perform, even unto death, before any sinner could enter the presence of a holy God in peace; the mercy-seat revealing the well-pleased satisfaction with which God should contemplate the work of His Son as that through which He could dispense pardon to the guilty; and the cherubims, with intent eye, looking into the glorious mystery of this great redemption, and ready, as birds on the wing, to “minister to those who should be heirs of salvation.”
Now it is obvious, that the whole meaning and design of this fundamental part of the Old Testament dispensation depends upon the Ten Commandments being that perfect rule and covenant of obedience for the fulfilment of which Christ led His spotless life, and shed His atoning blood. Take out the Fourth, or any other of the Commandments, and you mar the completeness of God’s revealed will, admit that Christ failed to act up to the strict letter of that, or any of the rest, and you represent God as accepting of less than a perfect obedience to His holy law—truth did not meet with mercy, nor righteousness with peace, in the mighty plan of redemption. The law contained in these Ten Commandments is that which Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil. They are one complete whole, and must stand or fall together. There is not one of them repealed, and the rest left standing in their original force. As the covenant through which life was to be attained, they are all abolished; because the covenant has been fulfilled by the obedience and death of Jesus, and eternal life is brought in as God’s free gift in him. In that respect, therefore, the believer has nothing to do with the law, nor the law with him. But have we, then, no concern with the law? Unquestionably we have. We have to do with it in a most important respect, and with every part of it alike; for, being the expression of God’s holiness, it must ever be the rule and pattern of man’s obedience. And when fulfilled by Christ as the bond and condition of the covenant, it was of necessity taken up by Him, and made the law of His kingdom; a law, indeed, in the hand of a Mediator, and issuing from beneath the mercy-seat, not requiring obedience that we
might live, but because we do live—yet still requiring a uniform and complete obedience; abrogated as to none of its demands, and calling to deep humiliation and sorrow of heart as often as we come short of any thing it enjoins. So that, whatever truth there is in the pattern shown to Moses as a representation of spiritual things under the gospel, it proclaims the perpetual obligation of the Fourth, as well as of the other nine Commandments; we have no more ground for considering the law of the Sabbath, than for considering the law of chastity, abolished; not one of the Ten is either cancelled or relaxed, but they continue all as before, though in another relation, binding upon the consciences of God’s people.
The arguments by which it has been sought to evade this view of the matter, and to prove the law of the Sabbath to be a ceremonial or peculiarly Jewish ordinance, are very easily disposed of, and can carry little weight with any one who looks beneath the surface to the real nature and connection of things.
- The Sabbath, it is said, must have been a Jewish ordinance, because taken as a special sign between God and the Jews, as in Exod. xxxiv. 13-17, “Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep; for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.” A sign of what? A sign of the covenant. But a natural duty has no fitness for being thus employed; as an observance common to all nations could not properly be made a sign or token of the covenant formed with one. So they argued—but how much beside the purpose? For though the observance was binding upon all nations, it was not practised by them. Every part of what was properly called the covenant, as we have seen, was of universal obligation, though in every part it was constantly violated throughout the heathen world; the strict and exemplary observance of any one of its commands might be said to form a distinguishing mark between the Jewish nation and the rest of the world; and that the Sabbath was singled out from the rest to be that in particular, so far from sinking it beneath the rest, might rather be said to endow it with double honour—gives
to it a singular place among the signs and manifestations of the people’s holiness. Their observance of the Sabbath was, in the divine reckoning, a thing so important, and should so certainly carry along with it the discharge of what else was required of them, that it might be regarded as the sign of all being right.
-
An objection is also brought from the penalty of death having been affixed to the breach of the Fourth Commandment among the Jews; that the penalty is not now to be enforced is certain, and if that is dropt, must not the Command also have ceased? By no means. Was not adultery punishable with death under the Jewish commonwealth? And even, in certain cases, the breach of the Fifth Commandment? Was not the person who brought in the worship of strange gods, breaking the First Commandment, and he who blasphemed the name of God, breaking the Third, doomed to the punishment of death? But who will say that these portions of the moral law are abrogated, or, in their obligation on all men, relaxed? Such penalties annexed to the Fourth, or any other of the Ten Commandments, only shows, that besides being the terms of the covenant, they were admitted into the civil polity of the commonwealth, formed a part of the judicial laws of the kingdom, but argues nothing against their general nature and permanent obligation, as written on tables of stone.
-
Finally, it is contended, that the observance of the Sabbath was enforced on the Jews by reasons peculiar to themselves, and therefore could not be of universal and perpetual concernment: thus, in Deut. v. 15, their deliverance from the bondage of Egypt is given as the special reason why they were commanded to keep the Sabbath-day. But all the rest of the Ten Commandments, which are confessedly moral and universally obligatory, might be explained away in the same manner. The Fifth, for example, has a special reason of a different kind, inserted along with it into the very tables of stone. And the whole Ten are prefaced by the consideration of God’s having delivered them from the land of Egypt, not certainly because these Commandments were intended only for the Israelites, but because having received such a token of divine mercy and
goodness, they above all men were bound to give them a ready and devoted obedience.
There is nothing, in short, to touch the strength and substance of our argument, and the conclusion is, that he who would pluck the Fourth Commandment, in whole or in part, from the sum of man’s obligations, seeks to dishonour the covenant which Christ sealed with His precious blood, and to render the law a maimed and imperfect representation of the holiness of God.
The Late Mr. James Campbell, Builder, Inverness.
THE subject of this brief sketch, notice of whose death appeared in a recent issue of the Magazine, was born in the parish of Resolis, near the village of Jemimaville, on the 22nd January, 1850. When still an infant his parents, of whom it can truly be said that they brought up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, removed to the parish of Contin, where his father was manager of the farms of Achilty and Kinnahaird. He was educated at the parish school of Contin, and often in after years did he speak with affection and regard of his worthy schoolmaster, the late Mr. MacGlashan, one of whose outstanding characteristics appears to have been punctuality, and no doubt the good example thus set was not lost on the pupil, who, throughout life, displayed a like characteristic.
An incident of his boyhood days in Contin caused him to ponder seriously eternal realities. One day, along with a few companions of his own age, he went to bathe in a pool in the river which flowed near his home. He appears to have gone beyond his depth, and was soon in difficulties. His companions, instead of going to his assistance, became so bewildered that they fled for help. James would, doubtless, have been drowned were it not for the providential arrival of a strong young man who
happened to be passing that way, and went to his rescue. What doubly impressed this incident on his memory was the fact that a short time afterwards his rescuer was drowned at the very same spot. On leaving school he started his apprenticeship with a local mason, and assisted in the building of the many schools which were erected in country districts after the passing of the Education Act of 1872. It was while thus engaged in Strathconon that he first met his future partner in life, who for over fifty years has been a true helpmeet to him, and who still survives to mourn his loss. As a young man in his father’s home, he was privileged to hear from time to time such worthy ministers as the Revs. Dr. Kennedy, Dingwall and Mr. MacDougall, Fodderty, of whom he always spoke with the greatest affection and regard. When his father retired and went to live in Conon, his opportunities of hearing Dr. Kennedy became more frequent.
While following his occupation as a mason he had occasion to go to Alness, where he heard a sermon preached by the Rev. Mr. Fraser, Rosskeen, who, he used to say, was a very godly man. It appears that Mr. Fraser’s preaching in the hands of the Spirit was the means of bringing James Campbell under conviction of sin. In trouble of mind, and in concern for his soul’s salvation, he now visited his uncle in the Black Isle, the godly John Campbell, who proved most helpful to him in his time of distress. While his uncle lived, James was a constant visitor to the Black Isle.
Nearly fifty-five years ago he came to Inverness, and one of the first jobs he was engaged on was the building of the Town Hall for a south country contractor. Shortly after this he went to work at the building of a shooting lodge in a lonely glen in a remote district of the Highlands. While on this job he had as his companion another mason named Simon Campbell, who is still remembered by many as a man of strict principles and outstanding godliness. The remainder of the workmen on this job were evidently very wild characters who had no regard
for the sanctity of the Sabbath. On this day their usual occupation was to climb to the top of the steep hills on each side of the glen and roll huge boulders down into the loch in the valley below. Simon Campbell remonstrated with them regarding this practice, and told them that if they would not cease from their ungodly behaviour some judgment would surely befall them. The night after James Campbell and his companion left the job, Simon Campbell’s words came to pass. During the erection of the new building the men employed on the work were living in the old lodge, which was built of wood, and on the night in question one of their number rose about two or three o’clock in order to catch a boat for home, and before leaving he lit a fire and cooked some food for himself. He was evidently not too particular about the fire he left burning, with the result that the building was soon ablaze, and so quickly did the flames spread that the men had no time to do anything but jump out the windows for their lives, not even having time to take their clothes. The whole of the wooden structure was very soon reduced to ashes, and the men lost everything they possessed, including their clothes, tool-kits, and money. We mention this incident as a suitable warning at the present time when Sabbath desecration is so prevalent.
About the age of 28 he started work on his own account and made his home in Inverness, where he succeeded in establishing a flourishing building contractor’s business. He married shortly afterwards, and the home of Mr. and Mrs. Campbell at 6 Ardross Place, Inverness, has since been an open door for hospitality to friends of the cause throughout the north and elsewhere. He was prominently associated with such worthy men as Alex. Fraser, Angus Clunas, Alex. MacLean and others, who made a stand for the truth in Inverness in 1893. He never wavered from the position then taken up, and in him the Free Presbyterian Church always found a generous and loyal supporter and wise counsellor. As an elder in the Inverness congregation he frequently conducted the services in the absence of the writer, and always with much acceptance. Until recent years he also ably conducted one of the classes in the Sabbath School.
About ten years ago, after retiring from business, he, along with Mrs. Campbell, took a trip to Canada to visit members of their family there. As recently as three years ago, at the age of 79, Mr. Campbell accompanied Rev. R. MacKenzie, Gairloch, to Australia. They went via Canada, where Mr. Campbell’s eldest son, Duncan, joined him. On seeing Mr. MacKenzie safely to his destination, he visited a son in Queensland, and later crossed to New Zealand, where one of his daughters is married. He returned by Ceylon, the Red Sea and Mediterranean, visiting Egypt and Palestine en route. At the latter place he spent some time with Rev. D. Urquhart, the Church’s missionary there. He never tired of telling about his visits to these two places, so famous in sacred and secular history. Possessed of an excellent constitution, Mr. Campbell rarely, if ever, required the services of a medical man, and not until less than a year of the end could one notice signs of the tabernacle of clay beginning to crumble. As is so often the case with those who have scarcely ever experienced illness, when decay sets in, it usually spreads rapidly—so it was with Mr. Campbell. All that medical skill could do on his behalf was done, but the end came peacefully on the early morning of Thursday, 25th February last. He is survived by his widow and family of five sons and five daughters. To every one of them we extend our sincerest sympathy.—E. MacQ.