The permanent sanction of the Moral Law.
James Dodson
PART III.
The permanent sanction of the moral Law.
IT is very observable that in all the dispensations of Providence, and grace, the young and helpless are preserved and defended. Among the animal tribes, the operations of providential kindness to this effect, are very conspicuous. By the storgeal [natural] affection and parental instinct their indigent and imbecile young are nourished, with unwearied kindness, and defended some times by fraud, sometimes by force, with astonishing skill, and courage. The weak seem to say, I am strong; and the timid who have recourse to no defence for themselves, but flight, will, when guarding their young, place themselves in belligerent attitude, against the fiercest assailant, and most rapacious destroyer.
To this interesting phenomenon, God’s care of his people, and children, is often compared. In the period of Israel’s redemption, and the subsequent Sinaic legislation, God’s care for the seed of Israel, and the children of his people, is remarkable.
The Egyptian policy, worse than savage cruelty, contemplated the diminution of Israel’s strength.—Every male infant, for this purpose, must be put to death. But no, the matrons of Israel are strong, and the midwives of Egypt are tender. The children are spared; the more they are oppressed, the more they grow—they come out not one weak among all their tribes. The Egyptians are caught in their own net—their prime youth are cut off—the Lord of hosts saves one and rears him up in the Egyptian palace, who is to deliver Israel’s sons. “The children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob.” Those who were saved from the waters of the river, sing an epinikion [victory ode] over their enemies immersed in the depths of the sea.
In that deliverance the future good of the infants of Abraham’s posterity, is particularly consulted. The adults thus redeemed, with the exception of two, fall in the wilderness.
When he brought this ransomed family out of the iron furnace, he would not lead them through the populous region which lay along the shore of the Mediterranean, but led them through the devious wilds of Arabia Petrea. This he did, partly because he knew their hearts were tender, they might be afraid of military force by the way; partly that he might teach them, in early life, the knowledge of his covenant and law. They were, as a nation, just in early infancy; unfit yet to act for themselves, yet were they very obviously regarded by God’s covenant, and so must be matriculated in his school, that they might be educated, as those who were heirs of a heavenly Canaan, and candidates of an incorruptible inheritance. “And God said moreover unto Moses: Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel. The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” He will be known by a name expressive of his relation to this patriarch and his seed forever. Of his gracious kindness according to his covenant, to the posterity of Abraham, he will preserve a memorial to all generations of men.
That this legislative transaction should disannul the covenant of promise is very unlikely. That it should, there can hardly be supposed anything more absurd, unless it should be, that the anti-typical redemption did. “Is the law then against the promise of God? God forbid; for if there had been a law which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” Gal. iii. 21.
It is not only upon the principles of priority, which in all courts is a strong claim, but also because both of these events were contemplated in this ancient covenant. We have seen that the redemption from Egypt was effected by the Lord, because he remembered his covenant with their fathers, and it is equally evident that the New Testament redemption of his people out of all nations, wherein they have been servants of sin and slaves to Satan, is contemplated in the very terms of the Abrahamic dispensation of the covenant of grace. Gal. iii. 8. “And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached the gospel before unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. v. 17. And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law that was 430 years after, cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none effect.” It is true, if the law should be considered as a covenant of works, and obedience to it be the supposed condition of life and happiness, then it would have this effect, to abrogate the previous dispensation of grace. But this was not the case. v. 13. “For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by premise. The moral law however was and still is useful. By this sinners are led to the knowledge of sin, and believers are directed to duty. It is a rule of life in the hands of a Mediator to believers.
The ceremonial law was a veiled gospel, or as the scripture expresses it, a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. So far from Christ’s coming to destroy the ancient covenant of promise, that the promises were in him, all yea and amen. They were fulfilled and ratified in Jesus Christ. In the giving of the law and the redemption of that period, he is known by the name Jehovah, immutable in his character, and faithful to his promises of salvation. Then might Israel say, “The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king, he will save us.” The intelligent would at once see that the law was holy, and just, and good.
It is evident too, that whatever were the manifestations of propitious providence and benign grace to adults; the same, if not greater, were made to the children. They, as well as the adults, “are baptised in the cloud and in the sea.” God carries them as on eagles wings—he spreads his cloudy presence over them, to correct the fervid heat of day, and chilling damps of night. To all of them in the preface of this law, he most graciously says. “I am the Lord your God.” The form of this preface, as well as its place in relation to the law, will abundantly satisfy all who know anything about grace, that there was grace in this legation, and, so long as grace shall last, this law must of course be considered as having a gracious sanction. “Because God is the Lord and our God and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments.”
It is true the trumpet of the Almighty sounded long and strong: in peals of hoarse thunder the Eternal gave his voice ; but still it was the voice of the everlasting Father inculcating salutary precepts and maxims upon his children. He claims them all as his. Ex. xiii. 1, 2. “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Sanctify unto me all the first born;” and as the Apostle reasons, “If the first fruits be holy, the lump is also holy, if the root be holy, so are the branches.” Particular provision was made for the education of youth in this code. v. 8th. “And thou shalt show thy son in that day, saying; This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me, when I came forth out of Egypt. v. 9. And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes; that the Lord’s law may be in thy mouth, for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt.” v. 14. And it shall be, when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage.” There was gospel mystery in all these rites and in the events which they commemorated, and therefore the parents must be careful to instruct their children in their allusion and signification. They were charged not only to answer the questions, which juvenile curiosity might propound, and which parental piety will always feel a peculiar pleasure to gratify; but they were to make the gospel of their time and of that dispensation the great topic of discourse!
Children were embraced and contemplated in the body of the decalogue or ten commandments. Thus in the second, parents are charged by all the solicitude they would naturally have for their children, to worship God in no other way than in that of divine institution. They must make to themselves no similitude or imitation for their posed help or imaginary gratification in worship. They must receive, observe and keep pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his word. Why? “For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.” See haw abundant he is in mercy and grace even in legislation.
Again, in the fourth precept of the decalogue; where he enjoins the sanctification of one whole day in seven, he enacts that all the holy man’s household shall partake of this rest. The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, &c. The same character who is before called their God, in reference to covenant relation, is here said to be the Lord that made heaven and earth ; wherefore its evident, that if any have another God than the God of Abraham, and of Israel as their God, he is not the Lord that made all things. In the fifth commandment too, the covenant relation of God to his people in all successive generations is very obvious. “Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” This commandment is quoted in the New Testament, as a part of a code, by which it is evident the whole of that code is sanctioned.
Would any intelligent lawyer quote from a volume of laws which had been publicly repealed? It is evident therefore, that when the Apostle said, Eph. vi. 2. “Honor thy father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise) it was not known that this law was repealed. It does not appear indeed that any, who believed the scriptures, doubted the sanction of the Moral Law.
As the blessing of God was to be upon their basket and their store in their observation of those laws, it is evident that every successive generation were profited by that law, if they kept it, and no law is accountable for the inconveniences which accrue from its violation. Indeed the more, there are, the stronger its authority. If this law was good for one generation, it would be good for all generations, so long as mankind continue the same, and in so far as circumstances are similar. The influence of example is great upon society, when that is good it must be very beneficial. The example, which the observance of this law would exhibit, would, from generation, to generation, be salutary and beneficent.
In the re-exhibition of the law given in the book of Deuteronomy, which signifies the second law, or second edition of the law, the same principle of gracious attention to children is still observed. This second promulgation of the law took place about forty years after the first; for although the distance is but about 200 miles from Horeb to Kadesh they spent about 40 years in travelling it. Their lust, their unbelieving fears caused this long delay in the wilderness. When they were rightly in their senses, they acknowledged that the system of rule given to them from Moses, was, wholesome and good. Deut. i. 14. “And he answered and said, the thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.” They had anticipated great danger, but contrary to their unbelieving fears, their children were introduced safe under the auspices of their heavenly Father, gracious Protector and divine Redeemer. v. 39. “Moreover your little ones which ye said should be a prey, and your children which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.”
The history of the renovation of this covenant is given in the xxix chap. “These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. v. 10, Ye stand all of you before the Lord your God, your captains of your tribes, your elders and your officers. v. 11. Your little ones!” Not only those who were there born, but also those who were not born were considered by representation present. v. “That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day; that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God as he said unto thee, and as he hath swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; but with him that standeth with us this day before the Lord out God, and also with him that is not here this day. v. 29. Those things which are revealed, belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the works of this law.”
From all these facts respecting the utility of the law in its nature and tendency, and from its durability in its very form, it must be evident, that, if these moral and salutary precepts be abrogated, their abrogation must be very explicit, and must be done by competent authority.
It sometimes happens that people through prejudice, pride, and superstition, are attached to systems which they had better renounce; but it is also true, that a great deal depends upon the attachment of a people to a system, whether it shall be salutary to them or not. To this we may, with safety add, that it is very improbable, to say the least of it, that a people would be too much attached to the laws of their God. Were the children of Israel ever blamed for this? No. They are blamed for the very contrary. They made void the law of God through their traditions. Whatever therefore Christ and his Apostles say against the Pharisees, Scribes, and Law givers of that period, must be understood against their traditionary expositions, and superstitious observances of human appendages; not against the law itself. It is true they might put too much dependence on the literal observance of the law. The law is only good when lawfully used, and Doctors of law have still an adage, “Summum jus est summa injuria.” The height of the law is the height of injustice. They abused the law very much, by taking those precepts which were designed to regulate the decisions of the judge upon the bench, in times when greatest rigour was necessary, these they took to be common maxims of ordinary life. By this means they justified their relentless cruelty and revengeful disposition. The law was not to blame for this; nor is Christ to be considered as speaking against the law of retaliation in every case when he reproves this its abuse. Neither will the reproof which he administers to profane swearers be considered, by any but ignorant enthusiasts or designing knaves, to be a repeal of the law respecting testimony upon oath. “An oath for confirmation is still an ordinance of God to put an end to strife.”
Judicious and tender Christians may, and still do, testify against cruelties perpetrated by individuals and communities under the pretext of laws even divine. They may, and still do, testify against the profane forms, and profane frequency of oaths. They, notwithstanding, constantly plead that individuals, Churches and nations should avouch God to be their God—that they should walk in his statutes, keep his ordinances, and in case of sufficient importance and difficulty swear by his great and dreadful name.
If this be considered digression, we are not to blame, but our opponents, who have dragged it into the controversy. If they are forced to take refuge in an antinomian plea, it cannot be against the law or cause of this controversy to plead for the permanent sanction of the Moral Law. I know some of the baptist brethren will say, We do not affirm that Christ came to destroy the law. We do say with the Apostle—“The law is holy and just and good. We wish they would all say so. When they do, we shall in our negotiations with them, desist from long discussions of a controversial nature on this point. It is extremely difficult at present for their want of union among themselves to know, in what manner to meet them on their views of the law. They have encompasssed the camp of truth; not in regular battalions marching in rank and file, but in skulking parties, like companies of Indians, hordes of Vandals, or legions of Gog and Magog. Some say there are ten commandments; some say there are eleven; some say there are six; some four; some two; some one; some none. Some say there are ten, but like the Papists who, erasing the second, because it does not well comport with their hosts and images, make two of the tenth. So some of the modern Reformers take away the fourth and supply the law of love in its room. Love, to be sure is of great moment, both in morals and religion, but it is also very evident that it is rather a compound or summary of the whole law than a distinct precept of itself. Love is the fulfilling of the law. All the law, i.e. of relative duty, is comprehended in this:—“ thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; this is the first and great commandment, and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two hang all the law and the prophets.” In the degraded state of morals which prevailed in the time of Christ, when relative and religious duties were made to consist in hollow forms, there was an obvious propriety of enforcing, with special emphasis, the great moral and spiritual essence of the law, which is love.
In the New Testament there was no need to give a formal code of law. That was already done in the ancient legislation. To this system our great Lord, Judge and Lawgiver constantly referred. When the young man in a legal spirit asked, saying, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life, Matthew xix. 11. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good ; there is none good but one, that is God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Would not every right hearted Israelite have understood the whole, but wishing perhaps for ostentation, he saith unto him, Which Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother; and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Here we have only five enumerated. But does that prove that the first table, containing the rules of our duty to God, are all abolished. Certainly that would be bold deduction, far, rather than fair inference. If moreover, because the first table of the law is not here formally expressed, the conclusion must be, that the four commandments of it are repealed; why should not the tenth upon the same account be considered as no mere: The Apostle, however, it appears, found the tenth not rescinded, but still in the list. This he did too, when he was studying the law, not in the superficial and superstitious way of a Pharisee, but when he was spiritually and deeply exercised in religion. He obtained from the law, by the assistance and gracious operation of the spirit of God, the knowledge of sin. “I had not known lust, unless the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Paul certainly did not know that all the commandments not mentioned in the foregoing list were abrogated. If he had, he would not have troubled his conscience about covetousness, for it appears that his mind, with all the moral and religious culture which it had received, could not, or did not, without the law, discern, or count much upon, heart sins.
It is equally evident and certain, that this relation of his own experience was designed for general edification; of course, he did not allow us to take the former enumeration of the commandments as entire and complete. But we need not have left the passage itself to shew that the tenth, and the four of the first table, containing most formally our duty to God are not excluded. He mentions a few of the commandments, in order to direct him to the moral code for the rule of his obedience. There is great wisdom manifested however in the selection. They are commandments which respect overt conduct ; as if he had said, “Live peaceably, chastely, honestly, truly, dutifully.” But does he say this is a perfect summary of moral and religious duties: It had been strange, if he had so mutilated his own law and neglected altogether the fear of God, which old testament teachers of eminent rank, by the spirit of God, pronounce to be the beginning of wisdom.
Solomon, when in old age and having made many observations on religious and moral, as well as on natural things, says, “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” Does the Saviour then relax this law, and say that a man who observed only a part of it would be perfect? No. “If thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast and give to the poor.” Lo! Now his conscience feels the painful twitches of the tenth commandment. He had great possessions. Although the Lord of all, who for our sakes became poor that we through his poverty might be rich, gave commandment and example, he could not obey. “He went away sorrowing.” For what was he sorry—that he found the divine teacher, whom he had already called “Good Master,” so strict a casuist, that he enforced, as he thought, with such severity, the duties of the moral law. He had perhaps never before thought of the rights of the poor any farther than the caprice of the rich will grant. His goods were now by the Lord of all transferred to the poor. He coveted, notwithstanding, and kept them. ‘How hardly shall a rich man enter into the kingdom of heaven How hardly shall they who trust in uncertain riches be saved?’ Men must be content in any state which the Lord of all is pleased to order them, and with another frame of mind they cannot be his disciples. It seems then we may add one, viz. the tenth to the previous enumeration and so we shall have at least six.
But what is to be done with the four of the first table: Are they all irretrievably gone by the omission of them in this colloquy? No; they are all included in the command, “take up the cross and follow me.” To follow Jesus no doubt implies that we should avouch him to be our God by faith in his name, “Ye believe in God, believe also in me.” This he commands to all his followers. By this faith in the Son, all believers obtain possession of the Father. They receive the true God as their own and only God. “He that hath the Son hath the Father.”—Though two persons they are but one God. “I and my Father are one.” “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are ONE.” He was then evidently commanded in order to be perfect according to the law, to have the true God for his God. He must renounce his god of gold—he must have the right object of worship, the only true God—he must also worship and glorify him accordingly. This is the first commandment—“Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” He must also be correct in the means of worship, for as there is but one God, so there is but one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. There is no image allowable in worship; there is but one that can exhibit the Father, viz. the Son. He and not the gilded statue, or irradiated painting, is the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person. He is God manifested in the flesh. “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” They, then, who will follow this, God manifested in the flesh, or in the person of the Son incarnate, must not conform to fashionable and safe modes of worship, as some Judaizers did who had their proselytes circumcised, and so being accounted Jews, the offence of the cross ceased. While the Jews worshipped the true God correctly, the Romans persecuted them. When they rejected the holy One of Israel, the just Jesus, their persecuting cruelty was turned upon the Christians. This man is therefore evidently commanded by the great teacher to take up divine institutions at all peril. He must receive, observe, keep pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his word. He must worship exclusively by means of the spirit and essence of divine appointment. This is the second commandment. Nor can any follow Jesus and fail to learn obedience to the third precept of the decalogue. The name of God indeed is put upon the Mediator, and we never reverence the name of God aright, until we believe in the name of him whom he hath sent. His name is a strong tower, to which the righteous run and are safe. So long as we stand aloof from the fortress, we defy the prowess and shew despite to the puissant [powerful] majesty of the Lord of hosts. In believing and following Jesus, we respect the word of God, which he has exalted above all his name. We humbly and reverently take shelter in the promises of the rock of our salvation. We also respect all those ordinances whereby he makes himself known, reverently use sacraments and prayer, for the honor of his majesty, as well as our own edification. In all, therefore, which respects the mode of worship or the principle of the third commandment, the followers of Jesus will learn reverence. Christ taught his disciples to say in confidence, “Our Father.”—He also taught them that he was not a Father on earth, but a Father in heaven. Through him, as the great high priest, we may draw near, in the full assurance of faith; but we must also have our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water. “Having a kingdom which cannot be moved, we must have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably in reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire. If therefore we do not fear and reverence the great and dreadful name of the Lord our God, he will make our plagues wonderful.
It will be then only the fourth commandment that can be any way doubtful, and even that we expect to shew is yet obligatory on the followers of Jesus. It is not doubted that there are some naughty children who would rather have a play day, than a holy day. It may be also that there are some who say they have experienced religion, and so have made a profession, who yet would reckon the strict sanctification of the sabbath a weariness. Such will very readily argue that Christ has relieved us from all the burdens of a legal dispensation.
Sure however I am, that no fair candidate for the rest which remains for the people of God, no good apprentice for the employment of heaven, would reckon himself more free, if he had no day in seven exclusively allowed and appointed for religious duties and holy exercises. The best, it is true, fail in this duty of sabbath sanctification as in all others. “When I would do good,” says Paul, “evil is present with me.” What more? Is it, O wretched law, who shall deliver me from thy burdensome precepts! No—“But O wretched man, who shall deliver me from the body of this death I thank God through Jesus Christ. So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God.” This he would not say if he had a heart hatred of the fourth commandment. The fourth commandment not only occupies a central place in the body, but also in the spirit of the law or ten commandments. It is prefaced in such a manner as to shew, in concurrence with the ancient history of its institution, that it was of a date long prior to the legation of Moses. The word “Remember” however shews how ready we are to forget it, and how permanently important it is, that we should hold it in constant remembrance.
Men of the most noted science, in law and religion, have decided, from experience and observation in favor of what this preface implies. Judge Hale remarked that even in his worldly concerns he always found it disadvantageous not to remember, with great strictness, the Sabbath day. What was still more evincible of his christian spirit, he wished that it might always be so. Thousands of observing christians have no doubt observed the same thing, in the dispensations of Providence towards themselves and others. Where is there a neighborhood that cannot relate numerous anecdotes of divine judgment evidently executed upon the violators of the laws of the Sabbath? Is it likely then that Providence would so uniformly sanction the observation of a law which is abrogated? The arrangements of the system of nature clearly point out the propriety of observing about a seventh part of our time. The phases of the moon vary about every seventh day. This indication like all the intimations of nature, is to be sure comparatively dark. What then? Why evidently, that we should attend to the clear light of supernatural revelation.
If heathen nations count time by months and weeks, and of their weeks keep particularly one day holy, should not we who have better instruction and greater encouragement Almost all Christian societies observe one day in seven, or profess to do so. Have they divine authority for this or is it will worship? They do it. Is not this an acknowledgement that this commandment is salutary? Can we then suppose that the Saviour came to abolish a salutary statute—That the Redeemer, who came to deliver us from the bondage of sin and secular care, would abrogate a precept so eminently desirable and useful for that express purpose? Is it likely that he, who not only taught men himself, but also appointed a permanent order of men to communicate publicly religious instruction to others would leave them for this purpose no time ?Would the God of order leave it to every one’s option when that sanctified precious time should be? Would it not produce confusion and destroy sabbatic order and the order of society, if one should keep the first, another the fourth, and a third the last day of the week? Is it probable that he who came to give direction and instruction to his ransomed children concerning the kingdom of heaven, that he would leave it go, that of this rest they would have no pledge, no earnest, that they would have no stated time to prepare for eternity? There may be some, who, for purposes of their own, may think all these things probable ; there cannot be many such who, think at all upon them. But still it will be objected, First, That the fourth commandment appoints the seventh day. Second, That the observation of a seventh part of time is not moral in its nature, nor particularly commanded in the New Testament. Third, That in the New Testament dispensation all times and places are alike, i.e. there is no time or place holy.
To the first we reply; that the fourth commandment does contain a circumstantial allusion to the original reason of keeping the seventh day. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” But it must also be observed that in the solemn formal appointment, and special consecration and benediction, he only mentions the seventh part of time as the sabbath day. It is not, ‘Remember the seventh day’; but “remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, i.e. Remember to observe such set times as God appoints in his word for holy rest. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath. This is just as much and as punctually observed by the industrious and pious christian who labors six days to provide for himself and his own household, and who rests one, viz. the first, to attend with his family on private and public acts of religion, as it was by the obedient Jew. In rendering the reason too of this observance it is not said, “God blessed the seventh day and hallowed or consecrated it, but “God blessed the sabbath day,” &c. not saying particularly what day it should be, Was this chance, or was it design? If it was chance it was evidently an ill chance, for those who plead either for the seventh day sabbath, or for the abolition of the fourth commandment.
Whatever the superstitious and censorious Pharisee might think of the disciples, because they plucked the ears of corn, and refreshed their hungry and fatigued bodies, as they were going to meeting, it is evident from our Saviour’s allowing and vindicating it, that works of obvious necessity, mercy and piety, were not forbidden upon this day.
It is equally evident that the command to labor six days, was only in order that all their secular, ordinary and servile labor might be done upon these, because while the commandment was, by all considered obligatory, there were many days appointed for religious and ceremonial services.
These facts then shew that the fourth commandment in sanctioning the observation of the first day Sabbath, does not hinder or forbid the occasional observation of other days in religious services, nor yet the performance of necessary and merciful works on the Lord’s day. If it did either, then it was inconsistent with the by laws of Old Testament times, as well as with ecclesiastical enactments, & Christian usage in the New.
The Old Testament writers by prophetic vision saw the change of the order of the days. In perfect consistency with their fullest belief of the permanent sanction of the Moral Law, and the standing authority of the fourth commandment they wrote of the change from the seventh to the first day. Beyond all question, when speaking prophetically of our times, they contemplate the continuance of Sabbatic institutions. Without this indeed they would have considered the dispensation inferior to their own, and would not have wished to see such a time. Thus the prophet and psalmist David, in the cxviii Psalm, after having sung the sufferings of Christ, he sings also his following glory:—“The stone which the builders rejected the same is become the head of the corner.” When did this take place? The gospel will tell you that it was the day in which he rose from the dead, or first day of the week. It was there; he was declared to be the Son of God with power, by his resurrection from the dead.
But the same eminent type of our Lord, in allusion to the same time, says, “This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” It is evident that this day must be considered as somehow peculiarly made. He has made all, the days, in a certain sense, for he teaches the planets to revolve, whereby day and night, and seasons of the year are measured. All these vicissitudes are regulated by the great, Jehovah. What then is particular upon this day mentioned by the prophet David Every christian can readily answer this. It was on this day his SON, “the sun of righteousness arose.” He will therefore be particularly glad in it. This is the day in which God hath made evangelical light to shine out of great darkness, and so should be a day in which hosannas should be sung, and salvation declared in Sion. On this day should the souls and the bodies of the redeemed he affectionately bound to the altar of instituted worship, that they may be offered living sacrifices, how and acceptable to God. On this day, Christians will rejoice to receive blessings from the Church or house of the Lord. In holy elation of mind they will give thanks to God in remembrance of his grace and mercy, which continues forever in the appointment and continuance of means and times of administering salvation.
Such is the view which the psalmist took of our privileged times. Alas! that so many who enjoy the advantages of these times should professionally or practically obscure their glory. Isaiah, the evangelical prophet, who like David speaks of the sufferings and glory of Christ, rather in the language of history than of prophecy, saw the continued observation of the Sabbath as a Christian duty and a Christian privilege. In the fifty-sixth chapter, where he prophecies of the accession of all people to the Church or house of the Lord, he says in the name of the Lord, “keep ye judgment, and do justice, for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it, that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from any evil.” The poor eunuch was not only a dry tree in the state, but also was excluded from dwelling in the temple, performing its service, or enjoying its privilege. But not so in the dispensation of which he prophecies. He and the Gentile stranger are to have their place in this more liberal dispensation of the covenant of grace. Still however they are not to neglect the Sabbath. This would be the lazy, licentious liberty of the profligate reprobate, not the glorious liberty of the sons and children of God. “For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls, a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger that join themselves unto the Lord to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant, even them will I bring to my holy mountain and make them joyful in my house of prayer. These sacrifices shall be acceptable, for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.”
Can anything be more obvious than that the prophet had a gospel scene before him, and yet he saw a sabbath? It is true he beheld sacrifices also; but have we no sacrifices? Yes, certainly. The sacrifices of a broken and contrite heart—of doing good and communicating—of offering our souls and bodies were always pleasing sacrifices in his sight, and still are a reasonable service. The time then of which the prophet speaks, must synchronise with the time of which Christ says–“Neither in mount Gerizim nor yet in Jerusalem shall men worship the Father, that is exclusively, but everywhere men shall call on the Lord, and be accepted.” And when did this take place? After the advent of Messiah, or in New Testament times; and yet according to the prophet, there is a sabbath to be kept from polluting it. Ezekiel also, xiii. Chapter, 27th verse prophecies of the same time and of the change and observation of the sabbath day. “And it shall be, when those days are expired, that upon the eighth day and so forward, the priest shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings, and I will accept you, saith the Lord God.”
Our Christian sabbath is upon the eighth day from creation, and so forward. Upon that day spiritual sacrifices are accepted. By this change, if you just consider that mournful day in which the disciples had no rest, because they thought their Master was gone, never more to return, blotted out of the calendar of christians, the first day sabbath just comes in its room—a day in which their troubled minds were comforted and restored to rest, in the manifestations of their risen Redeemer. At any rate, it is very evident, count as you will, that the fourth commandment was always practicable. There never was a week without a sabbath; there never was a week with two. Although the day was changed from the seventh to the first, or as the Prophet expresses it, “on the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall offer your burnt offerings, &c. and I will accept you, still it was the sabbath of the Lord God, as we will more fully shew.
Second objection. That the observance of a seventh part of time is not a duty of nature, and not particularly commanded in the New Testament.
Answer. We have already proved with relation to the tenth commandment, that it is not necessary that a law, which shall be accounted moral and permanent, should be obvious to our natural understanding and unrenewed conscience. It is enough that the observance of it be found permanently to be of practical utility. We are not to conclude neither that nothing is discoverable which we have not discovered. Nature teaches us as a theorem, that there is a God, and as a problem or practical maxim, that he is to be worshipped. I cannot see why it is not as evident, that he is to be worshipped on some fixed or appointed time, as that he should be worshipped at all. We may not be able perhaps to shew by the light of nature, that the seventh part is more proper than the sixth or eighth part. I presume, not withstanding, that none but cavilers will say, that there is therefore no more propriety in the one an arrangement than there would be in the other.
It is clear, that in all ages, social man has observed the seventh part of time, and counted days by weeks. It is from this circumstance that we have the epithet Sunday, as the name of the first day of the week. None can be at any loss to know from whence it received that name. On the first day light was made. Although this light was not regularly organized or incorporated into the body of the sun, or into distinct and various luminous bodies, as it afterwards was on the fourth day; yet it is evident, that it was so conglomerated and the revolutions of the earth so ordered, that there was evening and morning or alternate darkness and light. That day then, on which it was first seen to rise, not from a previous circuit on another hemisphere, but from the hand of the Father of lights, has very naturally been called Sunday.
We do not plead for the propriety of that unscriptural and heathen name of the Lord’s day or Christian sabbath. Some of the Fathers, who wished to be understood by Grecian and Roman readers, gave it that title. But it certainly is worthy of remark, that the Sun of Righteousness, the Sun of the world of grace, rose upon the same day as did the sun of nature. In both cases, it is evident the darkness must have been before the light. The evening or dark time, and the morning or light time, was the first day. It is clear on the least reflection that the first day did not, could not, begin nor end with sunset ; and it is equally evident, that the first day, upon which Christ rose, did not begin with sun-set, nor end. Very early in the morning, while it was yet dark, the women came to the sepulchre: In the evening of the same day, when the disciples were assembled and the doors shut, Christ met with them. John xx. 1, 19. Whatever therefore may be the practice of the Jews, and some congregational churches, who begin the Sabbath from sun-set of Saturday, and end it at sun-set of Sabbath, it does not appear that from the beginning either of the world of nature, or of the world of grace that it was so. The practice of the reforming ruler Nehemiah has been quoted as authority for this practice. I do not see, however, what end it answers to those who cite it. It seems indeed rather against them. He first testified against the profane merchants of Judah themselves, who brought their wares into market on that day. Reproof he knew would be cast away upon the Tyrian hucksters who brought fish into Jerusalem. He reproved the police nobles, however, because they tolerated such trade on the Sabbath. In the third place he ordered the gate to be shut. When? Why when it began to be dark before the Sabbath, and in the fourth place, when they would yet profane the sabbath by lying about the walls, to be in early after the sabbath was over, he threatened, if they persisted in this, that he would lay hands on them. This is a true statement of the matter, and what is there in it that favours the beginning and ending of the Sabbath with sun-set That you may have it before you in studying the matter, recite the passage as it stands. Neh. xiii. 15. “In those days I saw in Judah some treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses: as also wine, grapes and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day; and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto the children of Judah and in Jerusalem. Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did not your God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath. And it came to pass that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath; and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should be no burden brought in on the sabbath day. So the merchants and sellers of all kinds of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against them, and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall; if ye do so again I will lay hands on you. From that time forth came they no more on the sabbath.”
We readily grant that this conduct was influenced by the spirit of true religion, and left upon record with divine approbation, to be a copy for imitation to all Christian magistrates that would study the welfare of the people, over whom they rule; but how it proves the propriety of commencing and terminating the sabbath with the going down of the sun, I have yet to learn. Indeed this way appears to me contrary to the nature of things and contrary to the nature of man. According to this plan, there would be no sabbath in some parts, for a considerable time. Again, weeks, yea, months, all sabbath. In polar regions, the sun is about six months above, and about six months below the horizon. How are these people to measure their weeks? Are they to make their weeks weeks of years, and their sabbath, when it occurs, from equinox to equinox? Abrupt transitions, should men all live in low latitudes, are very inconvenient. Sometimes in foggy weather too, we do not exactly know when the sun sets.
The sabbath ought, and does begin and terminate in the still hour of midnight.
There is no necessity of being scrupulous about the same absolute time, in which others may be engaged in worship and sabbath keeping. To this mode of calculating there would be no end of distinction. However proper it may be to shut gates and put a stop to the hurry of business on the evening before the sabbath, this does not begin the sabbath, but is preparatory for it. Even should it be proved, that the Jewish sabbath did begin with sun-set, that will not prove that our’ ought, any more than it will prove, that our sabbath should be the seventh day of the week, as their’s was. We can easily see how Christ was, part of three days in the grave, whether we begin the day with sun-set or midnight. The way, it appears, that the Jews computed time, was this: They counted the night by watches or periods of three hours each, and the day by hours. The first watch of the night was from sun-set or six o’clock to nine—the second watch from nine to twelve, or midnight—the third, from twelve to three in the morning—the fourth, or morning watch from three to six. Their day again was computed from six or sun-rise. From the sixth to the seventh, according to the Roman computation, or as we would say, from six to seven, they called the first hour of the day—from seven to eight, the second, from eight to nine the third, &c. It appears too that about such an hour signifies, in their style, when that hour had nearly expired. Thus about the sixth hour seems to intimate that it was about noon, at which time the sixth hour of their day transpired. At the third hour or nine o’clock A.M. Christ was nailed upon the cross. Mark xv. 25. About the sixth, hour or noon, the darkness commenced, and continued till the ninth hour or three P. M. Math. xxvii. 45. Luke xxiii. 44. About this time nature was all convulsed—the vail rent—the graves opened—the earth quaked. The centurion confessed—“He glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man. And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts and returned.” All seemed to have been moved with horror or sympathy but the rotten hearted pharisees. They were insensible to all feeling but that of envy and hate. They pretended however to zeal and strictness. John xix. 31. The Jews therefore because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath was an high day) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, &c.
The Ecclesiastics of that time would never have effected the nefarious deeds they did, had they not affected great piety. The dead bodies must therefore be interred before the sabbath. The necessity of fracturing the limbs, however, of the Saviour, was superceded by his previous decease. His agony of mind in bearing our sins, his scourging by Pilate, and perhaps his voluntary surrender of his soul to the Father, when his work was finished, rendered this act unnecessary. The executioners when they came to him found his body dead; they pierced his heart with a spear, but broke not his bones that the scripture might be fulfilled, “A bone of him shall not be broken.” Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, both men of eminence in the Church 2nd Commonwealth of Israel, bestowed pains and cost upon his funeral. While alive, they were under strong convictions that he was the Messiah of promise, but they did not publicly confess him. Now when his own disciples fled, forsook and denied him, they acknowledge him—Joseph gives, him his new tomb. Nicodemus brings a copious and costly preparation of spices and aromatic drugs to perfume his lacerated body—they wrap it in linen clothes with the spices, as the Jews’ custom is to bury. By this, time it must have been about evening. Still, however, it is the preparation, and the sabbath only drew on. Luke xxiii. 54. The women visited the sepulchre, returned, prepared spices also before it was necessary to rest on the sabbath, according to the scriptures. Had they considered the sabbath over too at sun-set, why should they not have visited the tomb that evening rather than early on the first day of the week, while it was yet dark? But admitting the Jews did count their days, as Persians and some Eastern nations do, Christ was laid in the tomb on the afternoon of the sixth day. That, according to Jewish computation, is counted one. He continues in the tomb all the seventh, that is two, a part of the first, that is the third day, in which he rose. But if you begin the first day from sunset, you cannot possibly make out a part of three days in which he continued in the grave. However then the fact be about the Jewish sabbath, the christian sabbath cannot, with any propriety, begin earlier than midnight, nor can it end earlier, unless you would say that it began before the Saviour rose, and you might as well begin the era of his birth before he was born, or the commemoration of his resurrection before he rose. Of this again, in relation to the second part of the exception, we would remark, that we have no express commandment in the New Testament to keep this or any other day as a sabbath. The commandment we have seen was not repealed. All that was necessary was that we should see an example whereby we would know what day it was that the commandment now respected. This we have clearly set before us, in the example of the Apostles, who, during the forty days of our Saviour’s abode upon earth, after the resurrection, had an opportunity to receive directions concerning the affairs of the Church or kingdom of heaven. It is clear that their first interview with him after his death, was upon this memorable day: Again, it is said, eight days after. There certainly may be something learned from this chronological relation: It was written, no doubt, for this purpose. The second Lord’s day they were all met. Although Thomas had his unbelieving doubts, yet he met that day and had his doubts removed. Upon this first day also the Holy Spirit, with which they were to be endowed for their great work, descended. The passover that year we have already seen happened upon a Jewish sabbath. Seven of these will bring us to the forty-ninth day, for they counted from the passover. Their Pentecost or feast which happened on the fiftieth day after the passover, would, of course, be upon a first day of the week. On the day of Pentecost however you know the Spirit descended; therefore it is evident he descended upon the first day of the week or Lord’s day. The disciples were there assembled upon that day.
Seven weeks had now transpired since his resurrection. On the first day, the same in which he arose, a little better than a week after our Lord’s ascension the Promised Comforter vouchsafed his presence, his remarkable presence among the disciples and assembled Jews. We shall see afterwards, that the Spirit from on high did not teach them nor us to desist from the sanctification of the first day of the week as the Christian sabbath. Nay, if He had not designed to countenance it, He would not have appeared on that day, for it is evident, they were already habituated to the practice. The Apostles were influenced in a very immediate manner by their divine Teacher in planting the Churches, and is it not most clear, that they were, in the habit of keeping the first day of the week as a Sabbath? It can easily be made to appear that the Apostolic Churches were wont to assemble on that day for religious worship, such as prayer, praise, charitable contributions and communion. Acts xx. 7th, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, may, with many other passages of scripture, be adduced as proof. There is one thing to be observed from the first of these places just now cited, that I do not remember of ever seeing noticed, viz. that although the Apostle continued his speech till midnight, he seems to have considered it still the first day of the week. “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, and continued his speech until midnight.” It appears, that these ancient primitive christians and their preacher had not yet learned, that the sabbath or first day of the week, ended till that time. Luke too, the writer of the book, considered that the second day had not yet commenced, for he states that Paul was ready to depart on the morrow.
It cannot be admitted that the precept in 1 Cor. xvi. 1, was either local or temporary. Hm the very face of it, it bears the evident mark of a catholic and abiding commandment. I am sorry, however, that with a part of it, the societies under my charge do not comply. “ Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given commandment to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him.” From this canon, it is evident that the Apostle calculated, that whatever occasional meetings the Churches might have, that they would have constant and stated meetings on the first day, or Christian sabbath—that their thanksgiving services on the Lord’s day should have something practical—that they should make a collection and so raise a fund for charitable and religious purposes. The saints at Jerusalem had a very primary and particular claim upon the Churches’ charity. Many in that place had sold their possessions and goods, and laid them at the feet of the Apostles. By this means the wants of the indigent exiles abroad had been supplied, and missionaries had been supported in conveying good news to distant regions, before the Churches were so organized as to make provision for the support of the gospel ministers. The saints in Jerusalem, by the terrible calamities which preceded the entire destruction of that metropolis, had been reduced to want and indigence themselves. On principles, therefore, of reciprocity, as well as on principles of charity, other Churches, less affected by these revolutionary tribulations, felt themselves bound to make contribution to their necessities and reimbursements of their former kindness. The first day of the week, was the day on which this deed of charity was to be done. And so long as there are poor with us, it would be well to observe this injunction.
It was an ancient practice among the Jews, and had divine sanction, that none was to come before God with his hands empty. Our Saviour approves of the woman’s contribution of her last mite into the Lord’s treasury. He assures us that we have the poor always with us. It is sanctioned by the almost universal practice of all christians; it is congruous with the principles of our nature, that when the charities of our hearts are enlivened by the doctrines and spirit of true religion, our hands should be opened to acts of charity and religious bounty.
As to the third objection, we just say that it does not very well comport with the practice of Congregational and Baptist Churches, who consecrate or dedicate their meeting-houses.
I do not know, however, that place or time could ever be said to be holy in themselves only on account of the services to be performed in them, or on account of what they symbolised. The temple and its furniture were holy, as types of Christ. He is come to the great antitypical temple. Destroy, says he, pointing to his body, this temple, and I will rear it up in three days, speaking of the temple of his body. To that personal temple we must still look in presenting our services, wherever we reside, by the banks of the Chebar or of the Connecticut. He will hear in heaven, who dwells bodily in Immanuel. Now there is no need, of course, that Jews and Samaritans should dispute about hills, such as Gerizim and Sion, or Jews and Christians about new moon Sabbaths, or Papists and Protestants about Christmas and other holy days, as those call the days they have dedicated to saints. But it would require more than the ipse dixits [unproven dogmatic statements] of disputants to prove, that one day in seven according to the last of the fourth commandment, is not as holy as it ever was. If it is not, what have we in its room? We have seen what we have in lieu of the consecrated temple. What have we in lieu of the sabbath? Christ says plainly, that there should be a sabbath after the establishment of Christianity or of the new Testament administration. Math. xxiv. 20. “But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, or on the Sabbath day.” He is here speaking of the flight of Christians from the smoking ruins of Jerusalem. The destruction of this once famous city took place many years after the ascension of our Lord. Let the objector then tell what the object was, that would be gained by the answer of this prayer. His argument admits that the Jewish sabbath was no more.
What legal or moral impediments then would be in the way of flight : The Jewish laws could not be operative in Palestine, when Jerusalem was about to be devoured by Romish torches. The Romans would not hinder them to fly upon that day. There might be natural obstacles and difficulties peculiar in the winter. But if there was no holy time, or Christian sabbath, what was the moral difficulty to be averted by this prayer, that their flight might not be on the sabbath day. Every intelligent Christian sees the object at once. He knows that flight from an enemy is a work of necessity, but he is piously solicitous that such necessity might not be imposed. All such therefore would devoutly pray, that they might not be forced to forego the privileges of one day of holy rest, because every true christian highly prizes this time and reckons, with the man after God’s own heart, a day in God's courts better than a thousand; he reckons all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ. He wishes to enjoy repose from worldly fears as well as cares, that he may must upon the mysteries and achievements of the Redeemer, the Lord of that day he wishes to wait without distraction upon the administration of the gospel, which he knows God is pleased to make the power of God and the wisdom of God unto salvation. He therefore prays that his flight be not on the Christian sabbath day.
The Apostle reasons strongly in proof of the continuance of a sabbath for Christians. Heb. iv. 9. “ There remaineth yet a rest (or as it is in the original, a sabbatism or keeping of a sabbath) for the people of God,” “for” says he, “He that hath entered into his rest, hath ceased from his works as God did from his.” How was that? How did God cease from his works? This is well known to all who are acquainted with the sacred history of the origin of things. God ceased from his works of creation on the seventh day, and hallowed it for a Sabbath, a holy rest. If then the Son, who laboured in the work of redemption during the toilsome week of his sublunary travel, has imitated this example of God the Father, he has also consecrated the first day of the week, as a christian Sabbath of holy and spiritual rest for all the inhabitants of the new world, and subjects of the new creation of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle had before proved, that the antitype of the seventh day rest, or Jewish sabbath, was not the land of Canaan into which Jesus or Joshua, which is the same name, only the former Greek, the latter Hebrew, had introduced them. He proves this from what David, so long after this introduction said. In the xcv. psalm, David, speaking in the name and by the Spirit of his Master, says v. 19. “Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said it is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known may ways, v. 14. Unto whom I swear in my wrath that they should net enter into my rest.” The Apostle quotes from the Septuagint, and says “If they shall enter into my rest,” i.e. such characters shall not.
We readily admit, that this may refer to the privileges of a gospel state, as Dr. [John] Owen understands it, and to the eternal rest of heaven, as [Richard] Baxter and others explain it. But neither the profound Owen, nor the fervent Baxter, nor their explanations would oppose this inference. Nay, the fact that it does respect these things is in favour of our argument and against the objector. Is the gospel state a Sabbatism, and yet the fourth commandment in its spirit, as well as form, repealed? No sabbath day among Christians travelling to the Canaan of heavenly rest!!!
Finally, in answer to this objection, hear what John calls the Christian sabbath. Rev. i. 10. “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day.” Does not this clearly express the peculiar holiness of this time? If not, why called his? Is not the Lord’s supper a holy supper?—the Lord’s table a holy table—the Lord’s people a holy people? Why then should not the Lord’s day be counted really, properly, and exclusively a HOLY DAY?
From these details of argument then, it must appear, that the moral law continues in all its integrity, in all its utility, and in all its sanction.
The very circumstance that Christ did not give a new law, will be to the judicious and candid pretty strong evidence, that he did not destroy the integrity of the old. That the law did exist, when he came in the flesh, was a fact too well known to be overlooked;—too practically important to be neglected and no improvement be made of it. If then something must be done with the law by the great Legislator when upon earth, we cannot conceive of his disposing of that law otherwise than one of these three ways. He must either, First—Disannul it altogether and totally, or, Second—Abrogate a part, and ratify a part, or, Third–Ratify and sanction the whole. Had he intended to do the first, he must have proceeded in the business of abrogation in a style which could net be misunderstood. The Truth could not equivocate about, or deny any object of his mission. It is true, in some instances he eluded the snares of his adversaries, who thought to entangle him in his speech. The Pharisees and Herodians differed in their views of politics. The former were professedly zealous for the ancient rights of the Israelitish constitution and divine charter. The latter were temporizers and professed to admire the administration of Herod. They thought to improve this dispute by preferring a case to Christ, which would force him either to speak what the Pharisees would make treason against God, or the Herodians against Cæsar. They ask therefore—Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar or not? He eluded this ensnaring question, about which he knew they had their minds already made up, by saying, Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s, and to God the things which are God’s.
On another time they thought to make him speak what they would construe blasphemy. “By what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee this authority? He asks them about the baptism of John, whether it was from heaven or from men. They found themselves perplexed and embarrassed. If they said from heaven, they knew he would say, Why hear ye not him? If they said of men, they feared the people, for they all held John as a prophet. They therefore say, We cannot tell. He says, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. In such cases as these it is clear that instruction was neither candidly sought, nor professedly given. But did he ever conceal his design from his disciples, or speak obscurely to his followers about what he came to teach? Or did he ever hint to them that he came to destroy the law? Had he done so it must have been accounted for. His disciples were not the licentious rabble that false teachers usually pick up, and easily proselyte to any loose system. They were sober men, taught in the religion of their times, and especially taught and accustomed to revere the law. If then the law was to be abrogated, there must be a full and satisfactory discussion of this matter. Where is this discussion to be found? Rather, where is the contrary not to be found?
If any such thing could be found, it certainly would have been easy in that state of society to have condemned him, without suborning false and inconstant witnesses in order to establish a libel against Jesus. If nothing such can be found, is it not strange that such an improbable thing can be now surmised against Christ? It cannot be said that he designed to lay aside the law; but suppressed his design for fear of popular rage. Than this suggestion there can be nothing more absurd and horrid. It is absurd and contradictory. It says he did, and did not lay it aside. How is his design to this effect known, seeing through fear and policy he suppressed it? But how could he be influenced by either of these base passions? His professed design was to die—he came to lay down his life a ransom for many. What then could one that had death as a part of his plan fear? He sought not, nay he refused, promotion from the people. “I receive not honour from men.” “My kingdom is not of this world.” He raised no bustle of ambitious striving for mastery in the streets of civil polity—he only came to bear witness for the truth and suffer for his people’s salvation who had violated the law. In doing so it was necessary he should fulfil all righteousness.
Did this look like abrogating the whole law? We sometimes learn the nature of a teacher’s doctrine from the conduct of his scholars. If he came to disannul the law, we would certainly see some evidence of it in the conduct of his disciples and followers. Did they manifest a lawless and licentious disposition? The very reverse. It must here be remembered that the law is in every respect contrary to the corrupt inclinations of men. Of course, if its restraints were removed we would immediately see the effects. Do we see them in the conduct of Christ’s followers? No, but the very contrary. Their conduct is tried by severe scrutiny in the hands of a censorious world, and still the conduct of Christians, deficient as they are, is better than that of any other society of men that ever appeared in the world. This is not the award and decision of the Church herself respecting her own members, but is the opinion of the candid; and an inference which may be drawn from the judgment of the malicious. In most cases, among men, more dependence will be put upon the man who is supposed to be influenced by Christian principles, than upon one destitute of the fear of God. Why so: if Christ came to lay the law aside, and the tendency of his doctrine be Antimonian? The censorious always criticise more rigidly up on the morals of Christians than upon any others. Why so? Because more is expected from them. But why is more expected from them? Because their principles are more strict and their conduct generally more correct. And does this intimate that their Master came to destroy the whole law? Certainly met; but the reverse, that he came to establish it. These reflections certainly more than prove that he did not come to repeal the whole law. Let us next see a little further; if he came to repeal a part of it.
It must here be remembered that He is speaking of the moral law, summarily comprehended in the decalogue or ten commandments. If He had done this, it is clear he must have been explicit in declaring what He ratified and what he repealed. Where then is the place in the history of his transactions, where this is done? There is no such place. It cannot be done by any other. The law is a complete system: you cannot break upon it, without destroying it entirely. He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. We do not say, with the stoics that all sins are equal—that it is as great a sin to steal a cabbage plant out of a neighbor’s garden, as to kill a father. But we do say that every sin is an insult of the majesty and authority of the law; that he who breaks one, or offends in one point, is, in this respect, guilty of all. So far then from there being any evidence, that he has repealed some, there is all evidence against it, and this if possible is more absurd than the former, viz. that the has repealed the whole. There remains therefore no conclusion, but that he has ratified the whole. Whose therefore breaketh one of the least of these commandments, and teacheth men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. I came not to destroy the law but to fulfil it. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but one iota or tittle of the law shall not pass till all be fulfilled.
In the next place we infer, the utility of the law of God. The law of God is useful in showing us what we are; what we ought to be; and what we ought to do. One of the wise sayings of Grecian philosophy was—“Gnothi seauton,” know thyself. A famous English apothegm is analogous to this. “The proper knowledge of mankind is man.” When we examine any person or anything we must have some rule by which to conduct the investigation. The law is the rule of personal self-examination. When we examine ourselves by others, we are apt to be proud, and say with the Pharisee, “I thank thee that I am not as other men are.” There are two reasons for this. In the first place, were the persons and their characters compared alike; we are partial to ourselves. In the second place, we are partial to those features of character and items of morality, in which we excel. Do we measure ourselves by ourselves, and compare ourselves with ourselves? If we do, we are not wise. Who would not smile at the man who would measure a bushel by itself, to see if it held as much as it held? Would we not think the man deranged who would compare a crooked stick with a crooked stick to see if it was straight? Equally ludicrous and mad is the conduct of the man who makes, from his own mind, the standard of character and morality, and then proceeds to examine himself by this capricious model. We may deceive ourselves when we have the law, but we must deceive ourselves if we proceed in this business without the law. We may deceive ourselves by reckoning that speculative notions are true faith. This is a mistake even should these notions be correct. Fallen spirits may have a correct creed. “Devils believe and tremble.” It is very possible to hold the truth in unrighteousness; “For the heart to be without knowledge is not good,” says the wisest of men, and yet, in perfect consistency with this inspired adage the Apostle intimates that a man may have all knowledge and yet want charity.
We are liable to self-deception too about feeling and experience. The command is very peremptory and emphatical—“Son, give me thine heart.” The same authority commands—“Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.” When we consider our relation to our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, what can be more reasonable than a compliance with the former precept When we consider our relation to our brethren by natural and religious ties, our mutual dependence and reciprocal interests, can the propriety of the latter injunction be doubted But the difficulty is, we call that a compliance which is not. How many are there that think they are loving God and their neighbours, when they are loving themselves? See that gay lady weeping at the tragic tale related on the stage; she thinks her heart is tender, and she prides herself in her sympathetic feelings; but although she can give a dollar for her ticket to the box of the theatre, she grudges half a dollar to the poor box in the Church.—She sobs and cries very affectionately over artificial distress depicted by the base actor, but spurns real sorrow from her door with a bosom cold as Greenland snow, and a heart hard as the northern steel.
True christians are represented in scripture as sighing and crying for the abominations of the land; they are commanded to pray always. “Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.” But still, what are we to think of that morose old man, who would never be suspected of christianity but for his long face, long prayers and long relation of experience. If you talk with him, about the state of society, his heart is ready to break that the world is so wicked; but what did he ever do to improve it? His notions of religion are narrow and incorrect; the God he worships is as far from being the true God of the scriptures as Baal or Moloch, and yet he thinks himself, and is thought by many, to be a very eminent Christian. His opinion about religion is the oracle of truth to a neighborhood. How useful is the law of God to keep us from such deception! It inculcates active piety—“If ye love me keep my commandments.”—“I shall not be ashamed when I have respect to all thy statutes”—‘Whatsoever things I have commanded observe and do’—“By the law, then, is the knowledge of sin.” This law, however, must not be mutilated in some part, and magnified in others, or it will not answer the end. It is practical Atheism to reckon, that it exacts nothing more than to make me a passable citizen. If there were no God who is the righteous judge of all the earth, no tribunal of eternal justice, it would do well enough; but if there be both, where will many even of our justices and judges appear? The Pharisees and scribes made egregious mistakes even with the law in their hands and large inscriptions of it upon their dress. By fasting, preying and tithing they supposed they were perfect, sinlessly perfect, but the great Lawgiver taught them better, that they neglected the weightier matters of the law, judgment, righteousness and the love of God. These ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone.
According to this incorrect way of expounding the law, Saul of Tarsus was blameless, when, but for his ignorance, he had committed the unpardonable sin in maliciously opposing the truth. When he became better versed in the true spirit of the law, he pronounces it holy and just and good, but says, I am carnal sold under sin. When the law came in its convictions and demands, menaces and terror, Sin revived, says he, and I died. We do not know how lively and strong sin is, until the law come with its just claims. Happy is it, however, for those who know something of the strength of sin, while they are near a stronger Saviour: happy they who die indeed unto sin, that they may live unto God. Having despaired in themselves, they are induced to hope in God, putting no confidence in the flesh. They see, with great astonishment, the love of God, in giving his Son for poor self-destroyed sinners. “When we were without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly”—“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sent forth his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” They will then reason with the Apostle, “If one died for all, then were all dead, that they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Christ that died for them and rose again.”
Thus—“The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. Psalm xix. 7, 8.
The law of God is useful in shewing us what we ought to be, holy in heart and in life. “Be ye holy,” says God in the law, “for I am holy.” The necessity, propriety and utility of this requisition would never have been doubted, had we not by the fall become depraved as well as guilty. We were originally made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness and true holiness. The law of God would to us, continuing in that state, have been pleasant, natural and agreeable. In our fallen state it is not so. “The carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” To the regenerate, however, it is a glass in which they see genuine character and conduct reflected, and that every regenerate man will say, with the Apostle, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man.” The gospel calls sinners, not righteous and holy men; but it does not call them to continuance in sin, but to repentance—we are called, not to sin, but to holiness. “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. Whereunto he called you by our gospel to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Thes. ii. 13, 14. “ Follow peace with all men and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” This is the object of God the Father in our election, of God the Son in our redemption, and of God the Spirit in our sanctification. Eph. 1. 4. “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love.” 1 Pet. 1, 18. “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” This redemption Jesus wrought, that he might present us faultless, without spot of pollution, or wrinkle. of the old nature, and for this purpose he gives us of his holy spirit to take of the things that are his, and shew them unto us. This Holy Spirit sanctifies the redeemed of the Lord by the truth of the Lord. “Sanctify them through the truth: thy word is truth.” John xvii. 17. Their high thoughts are brought low; every imagination is brought into the obedience of faith, an obedience which the first commandment clearly requires. They are cleansed in their whole character, for that faith, by which they live, works by love, and purifies their heart. 1 Pet. 1, 22. “Seeing ye have purified your souls, in obeying the truth, through the Spirit, unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently.” Contemplating these facts and principles, the believer will imitate the Apostle and say—“Not as though I had attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that, for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus, Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting the things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark, for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” Phil. iii. 12, 13, 14. The law is so exceeding broad and spiritual, that, whatever be a man’s previous attainments, he will, when he compares himself with this model, seem to have attained nothing. The Christian will therefore be humble and yet not despair. Encompassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, he will lay aside every weight and the sin which doth most easily beset him and he will run, with patience, the race set before him. He will look to Jesus the Author and finisher of his faith. He will make mention of his righteousness, lean upon his strength and hope in his salvation; so will he run that he may obtain. He will not, however, run at random—he will not fight as those that beat the air. He will have the law of the Lord in his heart and in his hand, as the guide of his conduct. In perusing this, and seeking the illumination of the Spirit, he will be constantly saying, Lord what wouldst thou have me to do While faithful ministers preach to such characters, they will confute all the calumnies of the adversaries, who charge gospel ministers with saying, “Let us continue in sin that grace may abound.” They will shew in their doctrine, and in the practice of their people, that they do not make void the law through faith, but that they establish the law. What ' shall we continue in sin? Nay, how shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein This law will be a delightful manual in their christian journey. It will point out the duty of every relation and every station of life. Understanding it, and by grace, walking according to it, they will have as much comfort as if God was, in bodily shape, walking with them, and showing them the road; or saying in an audible voice, “This is the way walk ye in it.” Shall they not then, in keeping his commandments, have a great reward? Hear what he says to his disciples and through them to all faithful ministers. Matth. xxviii. 19, 20, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, ever, unto the end of the world. Amen.”
The law not only continues in its sanction, but is in many respects, now in gospel times, more strict, and the violation of it more severely punished than in former times.
God requires of men obedience according to the opportunities they have of knowing his law. Thus “in times of ignorance, God winked at those things, but will now have all men everywhere to repent.” “The servant, that transgresseth, not knowing his masters will, shall be beaten with few stripes; but he that knoweth, and yet doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. Sin is the transgression of the law. Were man then, so circumstanced, that he could know nothing about it, neither by natural or supernatural revelation, he would then be clear. “Where there is no law, there is no transgression: When the law is exhibited in its spirit, as well as in its letter in the gospel dispensation, the transgression of the law becomes far more criminal, and its sanction will be far, more terrible.
Has Nineveh been judged for the sins of its inhabitants, when we can hardly find its site?
Have Tyre and Sidon, those wealthy mercantile cities, been punished, when fishermen dry their nets upon the rocks where once they stood.
Have Sodom Gomorrah and the cities of the plain been judged, when they were consumed by fire from heaven, and are now submersed with the noisome waters of the Dead sea? Far more terrible judgments, however, await the cities of those nations who have enjoyed, and yet not obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ. He will pour his fury upon the nations and upon the families that call not on his name. He will turn all nations into hell that forget God. Jer. x. 25. Psalm ix. 17. “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we let them slip; for if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward, how shall we escape? Heb. ii. 1, 2, 3. Has not the law received in the sufferings of Christ the most awful sanction? Though he was personally innocent and immaculately pure, see hew the sword of justice smote Him when standing our surety. If the Almighty supporter of all things groaned beneath the pressure of the law’s curse, when he stood the substitute of all believers, where would that curse crush feeble reptiles? If such things were done on the green tree, what will become of the dry? Verily those who fall even upon the Rock of Salvation shall be broken, but those upon whom he falls in terrible vengeance, he will grind them to powder. Did the law thunder in its promulgation at Sinai?—how terrible must its sanction be when it shall be executed in all its terrors upon sinners at the last day : This will be peculiarly terrible to those who have known, or had a gospel opportunity to know its principles. Hebrews x. 26: “If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law, died without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God,” &c. To cast light upon the sanction of the law, the heavens and the earth shall yet burn in awful blaze, when the wrathful torch shall be put to the funeral pile of nature. 2 Pet. iii. 7. “For the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly men: v. 10. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up. v. 11. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness? v. 12. Looking for and hastening unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved,” &c. Yes, let us hasten for he comes to every one of us quickly. Rev. xxii. 12. “Behold I come quickly ; and my reward is with me, to give to every man according as his work shall be. Then shall we see this saying verified. v. 14. “BLESSED ARE THEY THAT DO HIS COMMANDMENTS, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in, through the gates, into the city.”