love to God and our neighbour,) with the body of carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. We should also confound those precepts and examples of the New Testament which arise from the relations we stand in to God and to one another, with positive institutions which arise merely from the sovereign will of the Lawgiver, and could never have been known bad he not expressly enjoined them. Concerning the former, an inspired writer does not scruple to refer the primitive Christians to that sense of right and wrong which is implanted in the minds of men in general; saying, Whatsoever things are TRUE, whatsoever things are HONEST, whatsoever things are JUST, whatsoever things are PURE, whatsoever things are LOVELY, whatsoever things are of GOOD REPORT; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. But concerning the latter, he directs their whole attention to Christ, and to those who acted under his authority. Be ye followers of me as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ORDINANCES as I delivered them to you. The one is commanded because it is right; the other is right because it is com. manded. The great principles of the first are of perpetual obligation, and know no other variety than that which arises from the varying of relations and conditions: but those of the last may be binding at one period of time, and utterly abolished at another. We can clearly perceive that it were inconsistent with the perfections of God not to have required us to love him and one another, or to have allowed of the contrary. Children also must needs be required to obey their parents; for this IS RIGHT. But it is not thus in positive institutions. Whatever wisdom there may be in them, and whatever discernment in us, we could not have known them had they not been expressly revealed; nor are they ever enforced as being right in themselves, but merely as being of divine appointment. Of them we may say, Had it pleased God, he might in various instances have enjoined the opposites : but of the other we are not allowed to suppose it possible, or consistent with righteousness, to require any thing different from that which is required. The design of moral obligation is to preserve order in the creation; that of positive institutions, among other things, to prove us, whether, like Abraham in offering up his son, we will yield implicit obedience to God's commandments, or whether we will hesitate till we perceive the reason of them. The obligation of man to love and obey his Creator was coeval with his existence but it was not till God had planted a garden in Eden, and there put the man whom he had formed, and expressly prohibited the fruit of one of the trees on pain of death, that he came under a positive law. The former would approve itself to his conscience as according with the nature of things: the latter as being commanded by his Creator. Having briefly stated our views of the subject, we proceed to point out the uses to which it is applicable in the exercise of Christian obedience. Far be it from us to amuse the churches we represent with useless distincctions, or speculations which apply not to the great purposes of practical godliness. If we mistake not, brethren, a clear view of the subject, as stated above, will furnish you with much important instruction. We need only remind you of the use of this distinction in reducing to a narrow compass the babtismal controversy. Your ablest writers have shown from hence the fallacy of all reasonings in favour of infant baptism from the Abrahamic covenant, from circumcision, or from any ground of mere analogy and not your writers only for the principle is conceded by a considerable number of our most learned opponents. In instituted worship, we have only to understand the will of our divine Lawgiver in relation to the subject in question, and to obey it. : But this is not the sole, nor perhaps the principal use to be made of the distinction. We are not only taught by it to look for express precept or example, in things positive, but not to look for them in things moral. In obedience of the latter description there is not that need of minute rules or examples, as in the former ; but merely of general principles, which naturally lead to all the articulars comprehended in them. To require express precept See Booth's Pædobaptism Examined, Vol. I. Chap. I. or example, or to adhere in all cases to the literal sense of those precepts which are given us, in things of a moral nature, would lead to very injurious consequences. We may, by a disregard of that for which there is no express precept or precedent, omit what is manifestly right; and by an adherence to the letter of scriptural precepts, overlook the spirit of them, and do that which is manifestly wrong. If we do nothing without express precept or precedent, we must build no places for Christian worship, form no societies for visiting and relieving the afflicted poor, establish no school, endow no hospitals, nor contribute any thing towards them, nor any thing towards printing or circulating the Holy Scriptures. Whether any person pretending to serious religion would deny these things to be the duty of Christians, we cannot tell some, however, on no better ground, have thought themselves at liberty to lay aside family-worship, and the sanctification of the Lord's day. There is no express precept or precedent for either, that we recollect, in the New Testament. But the worship of God, being of moral obligation, extends to the various relations and situations in life. In duties of this description, it is not God's usual, at least not his universal method, to furnish us with minute precepts, but rather with general principles which will naturally lead us to the practice of them. We have no account of any particular injunction given to Abraham respecting the order of his family. God had said to him in general, Walk before me, and be thou perfect; and this was sufficient. I know Abraham, said the Lord, that HE WILL command his children, and his household after him, that they shall keep the way of the Lord, and do justice and judgment. And with respect to the sanctification of the Lord's day, so far as it relates to its being the day appointed for Christian worship, rather than the seventh, that is to say, so far as it is positive; though we have no express precept for it, yet there are not wanting precedents, which amount to the same thing. As to the keeping of the day holy unto the Lord, this is moral, and not positive, and is therefore left to be inferred from general principles. If God be publicly worshipped, there must be a time for it; and that time requires to be devoted to him. Whatever was moral in the set ting apart of the seventh day for divine worship (and that something was so, may be presumed from its being one of the ten commandments) applies to any day that shall be appointed for the like purpose. Positive institutions have all something moral pertaining to them, as it respects the holy manner in which they are to be observed. It was on this principle that Paul censured as immoral the manner in which the Corinthians attended to a positive institute. His reasoning on that subject applies to the Lord's day. He argued from the ordinance of breaking bread being the Lord's supper, that eating their own supper while attending to it was rendering it null and void. soning, it follows, from the first day of the day, that to do our own work, find our own pleasure, or speak our own words on that day, is to render it null and void. Of the first the apostle declared THIS IS NOT TO EAT THE Lord's Supper; and of the last he would, on the same principle, have declared, THIS IS NOT TO KEEP THE LORD'S DAY. After all, it is surprising if any who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity can feel this to be a burden. Why, even of your own selves, judge ye not what is right? And by a parity of reaweek being the Lord's If, on the other hand, we do every thing according to the letter of moral precepts, we shall often overlook the true intent of them, and do that which is manifestly wrong. Our Lord's pre. cepts in his sermon on the mount, if so understood, would contain a prohibition of all public prayers, and public contributions, and require such an acquiescence in injuries as he himself, when smit❤ ten before Pilate, did not exemplify. The right band, in certain cases, must be cut off, and the right eye plucked out. If God prosper our lawful undertakings, we must not only avoid all increase of property, but must retain no part of what we have. No beggar, or borrower that asks assistance, whether he need it or not, must, on any consideration, be refused. We believe self-love will be a sufficient preservative against such expositions being reduced to practice: but if the principle be retained, it will be at work in some other form, diverting the attention from weightier matters, and reducing religion to ceremony and litigious trifling. It was not the Lord's design, in these precepts, to regulate external actions so much as motives. Many of his precepts, it is true, mention the act, and the act only; but their aim is at the principle. It was the spirit of ostentation in prayer and almsgiving, of selfish resentment in cases of injury, and of the love of the world in cases of accumulating and retaining property, that he meant to censure. Neither is it by attending to a ceremony which the country and climate ordinarily render unnecessary, that we comply with our Lord's precept, Ye ought to wash one another's feet; but by love serving one another. We may wash the saints' feet, and neglect to dry their clothes, or administer necessary comfort to them when cold and weary. We may give a disciple a cup of cold water, and keep back what is more valuable for our own use. If we be taught of God to love one another, we shall find little difficulty in understanding and practising these precepts. By confounding moral and positive obedience, some have reasoned thus: "You agree to take your children to family and public worship, teach them to read the Bible with seriousness and attention, instruct them in catechisms, &c. and why do you not take them to the Lord's supper?" We answer, The former are moral obligations; but the latter is not. Those are binding on all mankind, and therefore ought to be inculcated from the earliest dawn of knowledge, even though we had never been told to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; but this is the immediate duty of believers only. Others, on the same principle, have argued thus, or to this effect: "You withhold the unconverted from joining at the Lord's table, and why not also from joining in family and public prayer?" Our answer is the same. The Lord's supper is the immediate duty of belièvers only; but prayer is binding on men in general, however far they may be from performing it in an acceptable manner. To join with unbelievers in what is not their immediate duty, is to become partakers of their sin but to allow them to join with us in what is the duty of every one, is not so. We ought to pray for such things as both we and they stand in need of, and if they unite : |