six; the whole being ten; and that the first series was summed up in the well-known command of the love of God, and the second of the love of our neighbour. Now if our Lord and his apostles recognize the perpetual authority of the whole moral law as a matter taken for granted; if they refer to it as known by the collective name or names which we have noticed; if they divide it into the two great commanding precepts of the love of God and man; if they refer to some of them in a manner which proves that the order of the ten commands was the same as when promulgated from Mount Sinai; if they declare that the gospel abrogated none of the precepts, but enlarged their scope and enforced their authority; and if, finally, they denounced their displeasure against those who should teach any relaxation of the least of these enactments;-then the whole ten commandments, the fourth included, are of plenary force under the gospel. And need I remind you that when one came to Christ and said, "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ?" our Lord at once replied, as a matter perfectly familiar, "Thou knowest THE COMMANDMENTS"-" if thou wilt enter into life, keep THE COMMANDMENTS," and when the inquirer demanded which, Jesus recapitulated five; thus expressly recognizing the whole code? Need I tell you, that on another occasion, he summed up the two tables, as Moses so frequently had done in the Pentateuch, into THE LOVE OF GOD and THE LOVE OF OUR NEIGHBOUR, adding, as if to strengthen his recognition of them-" On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets ?" 2 Need I tell you that at another time he reproached the Pharisees with having made the COMMANDMENT of God of none effect by their tradition ?" Need I remind you, above all, that he declared in one of his most solemn discourses-that on the Mount-that he " came 1 Matt. xix. 16; Mark x. 17; Luke xviii. 18. not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil”— that "till heaven and earth should pass, one jot or one tittle should in no wise pass from THE LAW till all be fulfilled"-that "whosoever should break one of the least of these COMMANDMENTS, and should teach men so, should be called least in the kingdom of heaven"-and that "unless the righteousness of his disciples should exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, they should in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven ?" Can any thing be more express upon our argument than such declarations; especially as our Saviour leaves us in no doubt of what he meant by the law, but proceeds to explain several of the TEN COMMANDMENTS ?1 2 And why should I detain you with going over the same ground as to the apostles? Do they not every where acknowledge, without addition or diminution, the same decalogue? Does not St. Paul say, "He that loveth another, hath fulfilled THE LAW?" and then, after enumerating five commands, does he not add, “And if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself?" And though he quote not separately, any more than our Lord, the particular precepts of the first table, yet can any one suppose, that when he sums up the second table, as we have seen, in the love of our neighbour, he meant to exclude the first table or any precept of it, any more than our Lord meant to exclude it, who actually quotes the Mosaic summary of that first table? But I need not dwell on so clear a point. I need not enumerate the passages where St. Paul and his brother apostles cite or refer to the moral law, as of divine and perpetual authority under the gospel. What indeed is sin "but the transgression of THE LAW ?" 3 What is the Christian's whole state of duty, but "the being under THE LAW to Christ ?" And how would the apostle have "known sin, except THE LAW had said, 1 Matt. v. vi. vii. 3 1 John iii. 4. 2 Rom. xiii. 8. 4 1 Cor. ix. 21. thou shalt not covet ?" 1 I add, therefore only, that St. Paul, when writing to the Ephesians, a Gentile church, assumes their acquaintance with the very order of the precepts of the decalogue, as well as their authority, when he states concerning filial obedience, that it is "the first commandment with promise ;"-thus recognizing the usual arrangement of the decalogue, and proving that no commandment had been changed or dispossessed of its place. Now this carries the whole question. If Christ and his apostles came not to relax, or abrogate, or destroy the moral law, but to vindicate, explain, and enforce it, then the ten commandments in every one of their number-and the fourth equally with the rest—is established and recognized-the law of the Sabbath is as authoritative as the law against theft, murder, or adultery. The code is one entire, inseparable body of moral precepts. "Whosoever," says St. James, in language which implies all we are contending for, "shall keep THE WHOLE LAW, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all; for he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of THE LAW. "2 After the argument of the preceding discourses, it seems only trifling to object that our Lord has not expressly quoted the fourth commandment. The mere silence of Scripture will not surely be again alleged. And we are to remember that several other of the precepts of the decalogue are equally omitted-and that as the fault of the Jews with regard to the Sabbath, was not in defect, but excess-as they considered the fourth commandment as surpassing every other in dignity—as they boasted of a most minute and punctilious observance of it-and loaded it with innumerable traditions; our Lord had only to restore it to its original simplicity, and set it forth by his doctrine and example in its native loveliness. And this is precisely what he did. The neglect into which the original law had fallen before the Mosaical dispensation, was supplied by exactly what was then required, an express promulgation-a strong, direct, detailed command inserted amongst the other moral precepts. The excess which had been generated by the superstition and formality of the Jews before the gospel economy, was corrected by exactly what was required, the gracious conduct of our Lord. For, II. WE VENTURE TO ASSERT THAT CHRIST HONOURED THE SABBATH ON ALL OCCASIONS, AND NEVER VIOLATED ITS SANCTITY, according to the true import of the moral and ceremonial enactments of Moses; but merely brought it back to its genuine spirit and design, from the uncommanded austerities of the Jewish doctors-a conduct which the apostles also perfectly understood and imitated in their own practice. Here I beg a particular attention. This is the only point where any reasonable doubt can be entertained. The conduct of our Lord affords a plausible ground of objection-let us calmly consider it. On eleven occasions is our Lord's doctrine and spirit with regard to the Sabbath recorded. These are distributed over his ministry. Between the first and second passover we have three: the sermon at Nazareth;' his teaching at Capernaum,2 and his healing Peter's wife's mother. We have four between the second and third passover the miracle at the pool of Bethesda; the plucking the ears of corn; his restoring the withered hand; and his second teaching at Nazareth. The remaining occasions occur between the third and fourth passover the last of his ministry: his defence of the miracle at the pool of Bethesda; his healing of the man blind from his birth; of the woman eighteen years infirm 10-and the man afflicted with the dropsy." 8 Now, if on calmly examining all these narratives, we should find, 1. That our Lord always honoured and kept 1 Luke iv. 16-22. 2 Luke iv. 31-37. 4 John v. 5, ad fin. 5 Luke vi. 1—5. 7 Mark vi. 1—6. 10 Luke xiii. 10-17. 8 John vii. 21, ad fin. 3 Luke iv. 38-41. 6 Matt. xii. 9—21. 9 John ix. 1, ad fin. 11 Luke xiv. 1-6. the Sabbath; 2. That he performed miracles of healing upon it, only when important occasions arose and in order to confirm his doctrine, and ensure faith in his messiahship; 3. That these acts were never in violation, but entirely in accordance with the Mosaic law; 4. That they were especially designed to relieve the institution from the oppressive traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees; 5. That no objections were taken against them at first, and that the cavils afterwards raised were only pretences to cover their hatred to his divine mission; 6. That our Lord's defences of himself and his disciples proceeded on what had ever been the real import of the fourth commandment, though misunderstood; and assumed that the Sabbath itself was of perpetual obligation; 7. That all this is confirmed by our Lord's caution concerning the flight of his disciples at the destruction of Jerusalem; and 8. by the conduct and doctrines of his inspired apostles at the first promulgation of the gospel-then it will be admitted that our Saviour, so far from relaxing the fourth commandment, or abrogating the essential law of the Sabbath, vindicated it, established it, and left it in more than its original authority and glory. We begin with the three incidents occurring before the second passover. On the very first of these we are told that our Lord "went, AS HIS CUSTOM WAS, into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to "read." This marks a habit a habit acted upon in his own city, "where he had been brought up." The divine discourse cited from the prophet Isaiah followed; and thus the highest honour is put upon his Father's institution. Capernaum is the next scene presented to us. He taught the people on the Sabbath-days," is the record; betokening again a custom, a course of instruction. But a dæmoniac is present, and crying out to the disturbance of the worshippers, the devil is rebuked with a word, quits the possessed sufferer, bears unwilling testimony to our Saviour's mes 66 1 Luke iv. 16-22 2 Luke iv. 31-37. |