(2) in vain."* The language of Isaiah is a commentary on this: "Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread." Can such holy fear, such reverence for the Deity, exist in the heart where the fire of pure devotion does not burn with A STEADY FLAME? Can it ?

The fourth commandment makes provision for a certain season to be devoted to the worship of God and the cultivation of piety in the heart. These four comprise the first table of the law: what duty owing to God is not comprehended in these?

Then, as to the second table, enjoining as it does, all respect and obedience due to parents, a regard to life, to personal purity, to the property and reputation of our neighbour, and the regulation of the very desires of the heart, what is there omitted? Acting on these precepts of the second table, men will invariably do unto others as they would others should do unto them. They will love their neighbour as they love themselves. They will not be found quarrelsome, or insubordinate, or envious, or unkind, or unchaste, or ruled by irregular desires; but will continue in the discharge of all social duties devolving on them, and thus will experience the blessedness of the "undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord."+

But W. S. says, "To the other deficiencies of the decalogue, considered as a moral code, must be added, its omission of all denunciations against vice, or those sins which chiefly affect the transgressor himself." And he denies that this objection lies against the "two great commandments,❞—commandments which do not contain a word of denunciation at all, nor refer to man's duty to himself. And what is his reason for saying this? Why these two commands "involve the principle of holy love;" and when the Christian "receives an unction from the Holy One," he needs not that any should teach him these duties, (I suppose those due to himself,) "but spontaneously perceives and embraces them." But how this shows that the "two great commandments" embrace "denunciations against vice," is a mystery, and perhaps must remain so. If W. S. means that these "two great commands" embrace by implication all possible duties, I grant it. But this is true of the decalogue; obedience to its precepts is universal holiness, love is its

:T

* Jer. ii. 30: vi. 29. This rendering is preferable to that adopted by Stuart and Gesenius, namely, "thou shalt not utter the name of Jehovah upon, or in respect to a falsehood." sometimes has the signification of falsehood; but I have found no instance where it occurs preceded by the preposition? having clearly this sense. Psalm xxvi. 4, may be correctly rendered "who does not vainly lift up himself." must not unfrequently be rendered as a personal pronoun.

+ Can a man obey this law "without possessing moral excellence?"-a law that brands malice and hatred as murder, and the lustful look as adultery?—Matthew v. 21, 22, 27, 28. This commentary on the sixth and seventh commandments is a specimen of the correct interpretation of the law.

very substance; "love is the fulfilling of the law." There can be no obedience without love; and love to God and man includes or implies all duties, even those which a man owes himself. Besides, it is impossible to comply with the individual and specific precepts of the second table, especially the sixth and seventh, while there exists anything like the sinful indulgence of the appetites, or the violation of temperance. There may be a compliance with the letter, but that is all; and that, God has never regarded as obedience. Man may look to the letter; but God looks to the spirit. "Man may look to the outward appear. ance, but God looketh to the heart."

W. S. dwells very much on the "two great commandments," which he "prefers" to the decalogue, and regards as comprehensively including all duties. But what if these two precepts are simply an epitome of the decalogue,-its sum and substance, expressed in a few words? Then, W. S. must acknowledge that the decalogue is not defective, and that it is a summary of the moral law. And yet, in my view, nothing is more obvious,-what can be clearer than the statements of James! "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well." He then adds, that if they have "respect to persons," they were "convicted by the law as transgressors," because this contravened the precept just quoted. But, by what law were they convicted? By the "royal law" just cited; and this is shown to be the same which says, Thou shalt not commit adultery." Take the whole passage together: "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well; but if ye have respect of persons, (which is opposed to the royal law,) ye commit sin, and are convicted by the [same] law as transgressors; for whosoever shall keep the whole law, [surely the same law,] and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all; said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. commit no adultery, yet, if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law."-James ii. 8, 11. Nothing can be plainer than this.

for he that Now, if thou

The identity of the "two great commandments," with the decalogue is apparent also from the 13th of Romans, where Paul asserts that "love is the fulfilling of the law," and every precept of the second table is included in this one, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." The same thing is clear from Gal. v. 14, where we are told the whole law is "fulfilled" in the precept enjoining love to our neighbour. Then as to the moral-moral as opposed to positive character of the whole law, it is plain from this simple declaration: "the law (considered as a whole-óvópos) "is holy, the commandment" (each specific precept) "is holy, and just, and good," (Rom. vii. 12.) That the decalogue is here intended is plain, for it is quoted as saying, "Thou shalt not covet." But if that law were partly ceremonial and positive,

Paul would use very different language respecting it; designating, as he frequently does, the ceremonial institutes of the old economy "weak and beggarly elements."

Further; in proof not only of the moral character of the decalogue precepts, but also of the completeness of the decalogue viewed as a whole, we adduce the fact that the fulfilment of the righteousness of this law is exhibited as the perfection of the Christian character: "What the law was unable to effect, because it was weak through the flesh, God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, effected, and on account of sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled by us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit,” (Rom. viii. 3, 4.) Here one great object of the death of Christ is represented to be the sanctification of believers, and this is expressed by the "righteousness of the law" being " fulfilled in or by them. Righteousness signifies precept, or requirement; compliance with this, even under the present dispensation, is the sanctification of the people of God. Nothing can show more completely that the law of the ten commandments is a perfect rule of moral action, neither "redundant," nor "deficient," but embracing in substance the whole compass of Christian requirement, and Christian duty.

But I proceed now to my third position ;-it is this:

III. That the decalogue is of permanent obligation.

This position I regard as already proved. It is involved in the two preceding positions, and follows from them as a necessary inference. But I state it separately for the sake of noticing some statements of W. S., and adducing a few additional texts of Scripture.

W. S. asserted in a former article that the decalogue had a "beginning and an end." This assertion he reiterates; but now he explains it as referring to the law considered as the "basis of the Mosaic covenant." But this, no one ever denied; moral or ceremonial, it could be the basis of that covenant only, while the covenant itself lasted. But when he says that it is expressly stated in Scripture that it had a "beginning and an end," I am totally at issue with him. No such assertion is made in Scripture. In the third chapter of Galatians, the giving of the law as the basis of the Mosaic covenant, is spoken of as taking place 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant; but that is all; and who ever questioned this? or what is it to the point in hand? Its existence prior to the Mosaic covenant is nowhere denied. Every precept of it, as a matter of fact, was in existence from the beginning; not, I will admit, in the same shape, but it is the substance rather than the shape that must chiefly be regarded.

W. S. however, quotes some texts of Scripture in application to the decalogue which have no reference to it at all. "The law and the

prophets were until John." Here the law denotes all the Old Testament Scriptures, not comprehended in the "prophets;" still the declaration does not surely insinuate that they ceased to exist after John.

Again, he quotes the seventh of Hebrews, where the apostle treats of the priesthood, and the law of the priesthood, and argues, that a change in the former implies a change in the latter, and avers that there is a "setting aside of the preceding commandment" relating to priesthood: he quotes this passage and this reasoning in application to the decalogue; whereas there is not here the most distant reference to it. Priesthood, and the law of priesthood are treated of, and these alone. We should be very careful how we interpret the word of God; to "handle it deceitfully is a serious evil.”

A similar misapplication is made of Eph. ii. 11-18, and Col. ii. 13-15; where the apostle treats of the abolition, not of the decalogue, but of the ceremonial law. That the latter is intended, is as clear as clear can be; it is represented as the "middle wall of partition" between Jews and Gentiles-the cause of the "enmity" between them; and the abolition of it by the cross of Jesus Christ is set forth as the means of effecting a reconciliation of both in "one body," the means of making them " one new man." Now we know the decalogue was not a middle wall of separation between them. There was nothing in its nature to keep them distinct. But the ceremonial law was very different in this respect; it did necessarily keep the Jews a distinct people from all others, and it was a cause of enmity between them; many parts of it seem to have answered no other end than to keep the Jews a distinct people, and prevent them amalgamating with the surrounding nations, and this that they might retain the truth in its simplicity and purity; but when "the grace of God, which bringeth salvation, appeared unto all men," when all nations were invited to participate of the salvation of the Gospel, and Jews and Gentiles, henceforth on an equality, were to form one church, every thing purely national, and serving only to perpetuate national distinctions, was to be abolished. Hence the "middle wall of partition," consisting of ceremonial observances, gave way, to rise no more for ever; it was annihilated by the cross.

In the third chapter of second Corinthians, that which is represented as being abolished (karapyoúμevov) is not the decalogue, but the Sinaic dispensation, which was purely legal, and which is opposed to the permanent (rò μévov) dispensation of grace introduced and established by Jesus Christ.

We rejoice in the glorious truth, that the legal covenant is no more —that in regard to the obtaining of eternal life believers are not under law but under grace,—and that the grand object of the mission of the Son of God was to "redeem them that are under the law" from its

bondage and curse, "that they might receive the adoption of sons." No truths are more precious than these; none ought to be presented to the view of men with greater clearness; but the strictest and most cordial adherence to these, does not, in the least, interfere with the position maintained, that the decalogue precepts are of permanent obligation.

I object to the rendering adopted by W. S. of 1 Tim. i. 5, &c., namely, "the law is excellent, provided a person employs it according to its nature, and perceives its proper application, which is not to a righteous man," &c. "Application" is not the idea conveyed by the verb employed, (Keira.) The correct idea is expressed by Middleton, and adopted by Bloomfield: "Recollecting that neither the Mosaic, nor any other law is directed against the just and good, but only against the lawless and disorderly;" against the righteous man, as against the fruits of righteousness, there is no law: however law may be for the directory of his conduct, and may apply to him as such, it is not against him, it cannot injure him.

I shall now adduce a few texts of Scripture in which the permanency of the decalogic law is either asserted or implied. The first I shall refer to is Matt. v. 17-19: " Suppose not that I am come to annul the law and the prophets; I am not come to annul, but to give effect to them. For truly I say to you, Until heaven and earth shall pass away, one iota, or one tittle, shall by no means pass away from the law, until all shall be accomplished. Whosoever, therefore, shall violate one, even of the least* of these commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called least (shall be of no esteem) in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall perform them and [so] teach, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." That the law here intended is the decalogue, there can, I think, be no question. The subsequent part of the discourse proves this. It is the precepts of this law, our Lord proceeds to explain and exhibit in their full spiritual import. This law he declares he did not come to annul, or put an end to; he came, on the contrary, to give effect and stability to it; for this is obviously the force of Anpwσai as opposed to Karavσa. This beautifully corresponds with the language of Paul, "Do we then abrogate the law by faith? far be it; yea, we establish the law."-(Rom. iii. 31.)

But there is another strong point in our Lord's declaration, quite

* Or, 66 one of these least commandments,”—μιαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν axior@v. This rendering appears the most literal, and if the correct one, the precepts of the decalogue may be called least in reference to the two "great" commandments so designated, as embracing the substance of all the precepts of the decalogue. Following the other rendering, which, I think, must be received, the precepts of the second table are called least, as compared with those of the first table.

N. 8. VOL. VII.

5 M