Page images

any one of these occasions leave out of the list of its precepts the sixth, which says, “Thou shalt not kill ?'

Is the abolitionist resolved on hazarding his cause on an imaginary analogy betwixt the fourth and sixth precepts of the moral law of God? Does not such an analogy, which supposes, or rather assumes, the abrogation of the benign institution of the Sabbath, involve him in putting asunder what the divine Legislator has joined together? Does it not subject his reasoning to the heavy charge of separating the two divinely conjoined tables of the moral law, and that too, point blank, against our Lord's every allusion to that question ? And where have we a single hint, or allusion of any kind, to the abrogation of the Sabbath ? Surely the intellectual, the reflecting abolitionist, will not voluntarily forfeit his reputation as a debater by confounding the change of the day for observing the Sabbath with the abrogation of the Sabbath itself ? Notwithstanding the change of the day, which the pre-eminent glory of the new and spiritual creation rationally demands, the institution of the Sabbath itself remains in more than its pristine lustre, while its observance is enforced by stronger and sweeter motives, and its special exercise allies more to that of the ransomed, who have entered on the enjoyment of the eternal Sabbath in heavenly glory.

But we would appeal to the abolitionist himself to say, whether he would hold it sound reasoning to shift from the sixth precept of the moral law, which respects the question of capital punishment for murder, and about which the whole volume of inspiration drops not a single hint, of any kind or degree, of change, and take

up his position upon what is declared of a change of the day for observing the fourth precept of the same law? Is such a mode of reasoning candid and fair, or according to the rules of literary warfare, especially when the conflict is for the standard of morals? When the abolitionist shall have succeeded in discovering any intimation of a change of any

a kind in regard to the underlying, cardinal, and permeating principle of the sixth precept of the decalogue, we shall feel our obligation calmly to consider his discovery. In the meantime, however, he cannot and will not expect that we would buckle on our armour to combat a myth, and a myth which his imagination has conjured up from the deeps, not of his judgment, but of his perverted feelings.

By the above remarks we are in no way prevented from conceding, and that too because of the peculiar glory of our spiritual economy, that the Mosaic dispensation, in all its essential elements, in all that was ecclesiastically ceremonial, and in all that was politically judicial, was necessarily and mercifully abrogated by the death of the glorious Antitype. And, instead of reverting to, or, for medieval ornamentation, exhuming these honourably sepulchred beggarly elements, it is our duty and privilege to take most liberal advantage of the inspired exclamation, 'For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. But what has all which this concession contains, to do with the question of the capital punishment of the murderer? Was the extreme penalty of the divine law, affixed to the perpetration of this bloody crime, of a typical character? If this penalty was typical, of what was it, and of what could it possibly be, a type? In what conceivable sense was it, or could it be, accomplished by Christ's work? And where throughout the wide range of inspiration have we the retaliative law of blood for blood' represented, or hinted at, as typical, or ceremonial, or restrictedly Mosaic and Jewish? Are those of the abolitionists, then, who desire to be held as reasoning the question, prepared to answer in the affirmative the above queries, and to prove their affirmation by facts and reasoning founded on Scripture? Or are they resolved on abandoning Scripture as the legitimate and the only field of discussing this question ? For if they have made up their minds to risk their painfully popular cause on the dangerously equivocal mutterings of the oracle of sentimentalism, then we have to combat with not only abolitionists, but with abolitionists under the guise of reverence for a law which both their theory and their practice contradict.

II. The perfection of the moral law warrants the inference that it is accurately and comprehensively directive of every duty of its moral subject. From his natural and necessary dependence on the Creator, every man, and in his every relation, is responsible for the exercise of his every mental power, and for his every overt act. This comprehensive character of the moral law, indicating the extent and character of the subject's responsibility, is expounded by our Lord in His reply to the captious question of a certain lawyer : • And Jesus answering, said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thyself. From all such phraseology, which is of frequent occurrence in Scripture, we are taught that the divine law is not only political,

as directive of external conduct, but is also and specially spiritual, as exercising authoritative control over every principle of the inner man. And this it is that explains the proved efficiency of the divine law, in not only putting into the mouth of the mere animal nature of man the bit and bridle of restraint, but also of revolutionizing his depraved nature by regeneration. "For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.'

Whereas mere political law, how accurately soever framed, and how wisely and righteously soever administered, can alone operate on the lower, the grosser, and less morally influential part of our composite nature; so it necessarily fails to purify the fountains of depraved humanity, and to secure the healthy exercise of those deeper and more regnant principles which conserve the higher interests of society, whether social or political. And in the light of this natural dictum, a child can understand the inspired maxim, that ‘Righteousness exalteth a nation, whereas sin is a reproach to any people.' And thus the moral law lays its salutary and arrestive authority upon the ruled, whether children, servants, or civil subjects; while it speaks, and with equal authority, to those who are vested with governmental functions among men, whether parents, masters, or princes. Let


« PreviousContinue »