Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

mands must be preferred to theirs whenever they happen to interfere. And in the fame manner feveral other apparently fevere injunctions in the Gospel are to be explained and mitigated by others of the fame import, but more perfpicuously and more mildly expressed.

But we are not only enjoined to love Christ and his religion more than our nearest relations, where they happen to interfere, but even more than our own life. "He that taketh not his crofs and followeth after me, is not worthy of me*." This plainly alludes to the custom of perfons who were going to be crucified bearing their own cross; and the literal and primary meaning is, that we should be ready, if called upon, to undergo even that painful and ignominious death, rather than renounce our faith. This indeed is a most severe trial; but it is a trial which it is not only our duty but our intereft to undergo, if reduced to the neceffity either of forfeiting our life, or renouncing our allegiance to Chrift. For we are told here by our Lord himself, that "he who findeth his life, fhall lofe it, and he that lofeth his life for his fake fhall find it †.” That is, whoever to fave his life apoftatizes from his faith, fhall be punished with the lofs of that life which alone deferves the name, life everlasting. But he who facrifices his life to his religion in this world, shall be rewarded with eternal life in the world to come.

* Matth. x. 38. ↑ Ibid. 39

LECTURE X.

MATTHEW xii.

T

HE next chapter which feems more peculiarly to deferve our attention, and to require fome explanation. and illustration, is the 12th chapter of St. Matthew.

It begins thus : "At that time Jefus went on the fabbath-day through the corn, and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. But when the Pharifees faw it, they faid unto him, behold thy difciples do that which is not lawful to do on the fabbath-day. But he said unto them, have ye not read what David did when he was an hungred, and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the fhew-bread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the fabbath-day the priests in the temple profane the fabbath, and are blameless? But I fay unto you, that in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not facrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltlefs; for the Son of man is Lord even of the fabbath-day. And when he was departed thence, he went into the fynagogue. And there was a man which had his hand withered; and they asked him, faying, is it lawful to heal on the fabbath. day? that they might accufe him. And he faid unto them what man shall there be among you that fhall have one fheep, and if it fall into a pit on the fabbath-day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the fabbath-day. Then faith he to the man, ftretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth, and it was restored whole like the other."

[ocr errors]

Although here are two different tranfactions related, that of plucking the ears of corn, and healing the withered hand, yet as they are clofely connected together by the evangelift, and relate to the fame fubject, the obfervation of the fabbath, I have recited the whole paffage compre hending both these incidents at length, that you might have before you at one view all that our Saviour has faid on this important branch of our duty, and that we might fully understand what kind of reft it is that our blessed Lord judged to be neceffary on the Jewish fabbath, and what limitations and exceptions to it he admitted; from whence we may form fome judgment what our own duty is on that holy day which we juftly call THE LORD's Day, and which must be confidered as the Chriftian fabbath.

From this paffage, as well as from many others, it appears, that the Jews had their eyes conftantly fixed on Jefus and his followers, and most anxiously fought out for opportunities of faftening fome guilt upon them. It appears alfo that they were extremely unfortunate in these attempts, and compelled (as in the prefent inftance) to have recourse to the filliest and most trivial charges; and even these turned out to be perfectly unfounded. From whence I think we may fairly draw this inference, that the character and conduct of our Lord and his difciples were perfectly blameless; fince with all the industry of so many fharp-fighted obfervers, fo extremely well difpofed to dif cover guilt or to make it, they could find no real fault in

him.

The pretence on this occafion was, that the difciples, by plucking a few ears of corn and eating them as they paffed through a corn-field on the fabbath day, had violated the rest of that holy day, and thus tranfgreffed the Mofaical law. But to this our Lord replied, that in cafes of extreme neceffity the severity of that law might be difpensed with and relaxed. As a proof of this, he appealed first to the example of David, the man after God's own heart, who (as may be feen in 1 Samuel, xxi. 6.) when he and his men were reduced to great ftreights for want of food, afked and obtained from Ahimelech the

priest a part of the confecrated bread which had been taken from the altar, and which it was not lawful for any but the priests to eat. The other inftance he adduced, was that of the priests themselves, who in the necessary service of the temple on the fabbath-day were obliged to work with their own hands, by lighting the fires, killing the victims, offering up the facrifices, &c. This in any other perfons would have been confidered as profanations of the fabbath; but in the priests who were engaged in the duties. of religion it was not.

These arguments addressed to a Jew were in themselves unanswerable; because they appealed to the practice of perfons whom the Jews held facred, and whose conduct they durft not condemn. But they went ftill further than this; they went to establish this general principle, that there might be obligations of a force fuperior even to the law of Mofes, and to which it ought in certain cafes to give way; as in the first instance to the preffing demands of neceffity, in the other to the fervices of the temple.

If then in thefe cafes the law might be difpenfed with, ftill more might it be overruled by a power paramount to every other power, by him who was far greater and holier than the temple itself, who was Lord even of the fabbath, who was indeed fupreme Lord over all, and might, therefore authorize his difciples, in a cafe of real urgency, to depart a little from the rigor of the fabbatical reft.

It fhould be observed here, that where St. Matthew fays, "the Son of man is Lord even of the fabbathday;" St. Mark, in the parallel place, expreffes himself thus: “The fabbath was made for man, and not man for the fabbath." That is, the fabbath was given to man for his benefit, for the improvement of his foul, as well as for the reft of his body; and the latter, when neceffary, muft be facrificed to the former. For man was not made for the fabbath; was not made to be a slave to it, to be so fervilely bound down to the ftrict pharifaical obfervance of it, as to lose by that rigorous adherence to the letter, opportunities of doing effential fervice to himself and his fellow creatures.

« AnteriorContinuar »