these things be?" we want to be able to | dience most put to the proof? not sureexplain the doctrine, and thus to find ly as to the thing criminal even without grounds for our belief, over and above a commandment: but as to the thing inthe simple word of the Lord. But un- different till there was a commandment. doubtedly it is a higher, and must be a God might have made it the test of more acceptable, exercise of faith, when Adam's obedience that he should not we receive a truth, because revealed, kill Eve-a crime from which he would than when, because, besides being re- have instinctively revolted: but it was vealed, we can so arrange it that it com- a much greater trial that he should not mends itself to our reason. eat of a particular fruit; for eating it was no crime till he was told not to eat it. It is the same with commandments. God enjoins a certain thing: but we can hardly bring ourselves to obey, simply because He has enjoined it. We have our inquiries to urge-why has He enjoined it? if it be an indifferent thing, we want to know why He should have made it the subject of a law? why not have let it alone? Why not? Because, we may venture to reply, He wishes to test the principle of obedience: He wishes to see whether his will and his word are sufficient for us. In order to this, He must legislate upon things which in themselves are indifferent, neither morally good nor morally bad: He must not confine laws to such matters as robbing a neighbor's house, on which conscience is urgent; He must extend them to such matters as taking a bird's nest, on which conscience is silent. It is the same as with a child. He is walking in a stranger's garden, and you forbid his picking fruit: he knows that the fruit is not his, and therefore feels a reason for the prohibition. But he is walking on a common, and you forbid his picking wild flowers: he knows that no one has property in these flowers, and therefore he cannot see any reason for your prohibition. Suppose him however to obey in both cases, abstaining alike from the flowers and the fruit, in which case does he show most of the principle of obedience, most of respect for your authority and of submission to your will? Surely, when he does not touch the flowers, which he sees no reason for not touching, rather than when he does not gather the fruit, which he feels that he can have no right to gather. It is exactly the same with God and ourselves. He may forbid things which we should have felt to be wrong, even had they not been forbidden: He may forbid things which we should not have felt wrong, nay, which would not have been wrong, unless He had forbidden them. But in which case is our obe And we may justly believe that, in constructing the Jewish code, God interspersed laws for which there was no apparent reason with others for which there was palpable, on purpose that He might see whether his people would obey his word, simply because it was his word; whether they would wait to know why He commanded, or be satisfied with ascertaining what He commanded. But upon this, which is manifestly the correct view of obedience, it is to inconsiderable precepts, precepts as to inconsiderable things, rather than to those which have to do with felt and undeniable duties, that we might expect to find annexed a promise of reward. The obedience which shows most of the readiness to obey, must be the obedience which God most approves and if there be shown more of readiness to obey, where the thing done would have been indifferent, than where it would have been criminal without express command, we can have no difficulty in settling that the recompense of long life was even more to be looked for when the precept had to do with a trifle than when with the mightiest obligation. Look at the Jewish law-"Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless," a noble commandment, to whose fitness every heart responds. "If a bird's nest chance to be before thee, thou shalt not take the dam with the young,"-a trivial comandment, for which it is perhaps hard to assign any reason. Yet it is to the latter, the trivial, and not to the former, the noble, that the words are added, "That it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days." Do ye wonder at this? Nay, it is not that it is a better thing in itself to let the parent bird go, than to minister justice to the stranger and the fatherless : but that it is often harder to obey in There are other commandments in the law, for which it might be hard to assign any sufficient reason, save and except that it was God's pleasure to ordain them. There may have been some figurative, or symbolical, meaning; but perhaps it is as well to suppose and confess that God merely sought to put obedience to the proof, when He said, Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together;" or, Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself." 66 which, had it not been thus detained, such a matter as a bird's nest. But our text has yet to be considered Yet, admitting that there are such things as commandments about trifles, admitting also that the commandment before us may be reckoned in the number, is there any cause for wonder that such a blessing as long life should be promised by way of recompense to obedience? My brethren, there is a greater trial of obedience, iu a commandment of which we cannot see the reasons, than in another of which we can. In the former case, we do, or forbear, a thing, simply because God hath enjoined, or forbidden, it; in the latter, we are not moved purely by the divinity of the precept, we are actuated also by a sense of its propriety. A commandment which forbids murder, is a commandment syllabled by conscience, as well as delivered by God: he who lifts his hand to slay another, does as much violence to an irrepressible dictate from within, as to an indelible record from without. But a commandment which forbids the seizing a bird whilst sitting on the nest, is a commandment which takes its force purely from being a commandment : you might have done the thing innocently, had there been no express prohibition; and, therefore, it is only there being a prohibition which makes the doing it wrong. And surely, it may be a greater effort of obedience, to obey in some little thing, where there is no other reason but that God hath required it, than to obey in some great thing, where our own sense of what is right urges to compliance. The tendency of our minds is to the asking a reason for every thing. It is so with doctrines. God reveals to us a truth: but we are not content to take it on the authority of revelation; we are for asking with Nicodemus, 66 How can these things be?" we want to be able to | dience most put to the proof? not sureexplain the doctrine, and thus to find ly as to the thing criminal even without grounds for our belief, over and above a commandment: but as to the thing inthe simple word of the Lord. But un- different till there was a commandment. doubtedly it is a higher, and must be a God might have made it the test of more acceptable, exercise of faith, when Adam's obedience that he should not we receive a truth, because revealed, kill Eve—a crime from which he would than when, because, besides being re- have instinctively revolted: but it was vealed, we can so arrange it that it com- a much greater trial that he should not mends itself to our reason. eat of a particular fruit; for eating it was no crime till he was told not to eat it. It is the same with commandments. God enjoins a certain thing: but we can hardly bring ourselves to obey, simply because He has enjoined it. We have our inquiries to urge-why has He enjoined it? if it be an indifferent thing, we want to know why He should have made it the subject of a law? why not have let it alone? Why not? Because, we may venture to reply, He wishes to test the principle of obedience: He wishes to see whether his will and his word are sufficient for us. In order to this, He must legislate upon things which in themselves are indifferent, neither morally good nor morally bad: He must not confine laws to such matters as robbing a neighbor's house, on which conscience is urgent; He must extend them to such matters as taking a bird's nest, on which conscience is silent. It is the same as with a child. He is walking in a stranger's garden, and you forbid his picking fruit: he knows that the fruit is not his, and therefore feels a reason for the prohibition. But he is walking on a common, and you forbid his picking wild flowers: he knows that no one has property in these flowers, and therefore he cannot see any reason for your prohibition. Suppose him however to obey in both cases, abstaining alike from the flowers and the fruit, in which case does he show most of the principle of obedience, most of respect for your authority and of submission to your will? Surely, when he does not touch the flowers, which he sees no reason for not touching, rather than when he does not gather the fruit, which he feels that he can have no right to gather. It is exactly the same with God and ourselves. He may forbid things which we should have felt to be wrong, even had they not been forbidden: He may forbid things which we should not have felt wrong, nay, which would not have been wrong, unless He had forbidden them. But in which case is our obe And we may justly believe that, in constructing the Jewish code, God interspersed laws for which there was no apparent reason with others for which there was palpable, on purpose that He might see whether his people would obey his word, simply because it was his word; whether they would wait to know why He commanded, or be satisfied with ascertaining what He commanded. But upon this, which is manifestly the correct view of obedience, it is to inconsiderable precepts, precepts as to inconsiderable things, rather than to those which have to do with felt and undeniable duties, that we might expect to find annexed a promise of reward. The obedience which shows most of the readiness to obey, must be the obedience which God most approves and if there be shown more of readiness to obey, where the thing done would have been indifferent, than where it would have been criminal without express command, we can have no difficulty in settling that the recompense of long life was even more to be looked for when the precept had to do with a trifle than when with the mightiest obligation. Look at the Jewish law-" Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless,"―a noble commandment, to whose fitness every heart responds. If a bird's nest chance to be before thee, thou shalt not take the dam with the young," a trivial comandment, for which it is perhaps hard to assign any reason. Yet it is to the latter, the trivial, and not to the former, the noble, that the words are added, "That it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days." Do ye wonder at this? Nay, it is not that it is a better thing in itself to let the parent bird go, than to minister justice to the stranger and the fatherless: but that it is often harder to obey in trifles, where we looked to have been left at liberty, than in great things, as to whose fitness there has never been a doubt. mising at the first, and you fancied that By such laws, with such sanctions, God may be said to have consecrated trifles; to have taught us that trifles may be the best tests of principles; that our religion may be better proved by the habitual giving up of our own wills in common and every-day things, than by occasional and opulent sacrifices; that it is a greater effort of piety, mark-verse should comprehend so much, sining more the depth of our reverence for gle sayings being as mines of truth, the word of the Almighty, to make con- into which if you patiently dig, you find science of little duties which are made stores of instruction and yet leave more duties only by that word, than to give than you find! ourselves to high tasks, to which we are Be very careful in reading Scripture, summoned by the wants of the world whether the Old Testament or the New, and the voice of the Church. It may that you pass not over parts, as though be easier, it may require less of that they might be unimportant. Neither simple, unquestioning obedience in be always content with the primary which God delights, to attack supersti- meaning, and the obvious application. tion on its throne, than to let the bird Scripture has a hidden sense as well as fly from its nest. Be careful, then, in an open; and to them who search for religion how you make trifles of trifles. it with prayer, many a beautiful import Stay not to find out why God has for- is disclosed, which would never be susbidden this or that indulgence, why He pected by the careless or cursory obwill not let you do what seems unim- server. A verse is often like the nest portant, why He prescribes rules where on which the parent bird broods: when He might, as it appears, have safely left the parent bird is let go, there are young you to yourselves. Obey because there birds within, each of which has only to is a command, ay, though it be only the be cherished and watched, and it will be faintest expression of the Divinest will; "covered with silver wings, and her Abraham was to slay Isaac, because feathers like gold." God commanded it; you are to let go the bird, because God commands it. This is the obedience which God ap-ness of Scripture. Read the Bible yourproves; this is the obedience which God selves, and teach your children to read will recompense; obedience, not with- it, as a book that should be pondered, out a reason, but with no reason except not hurried over; a book, so to speak, the Divine bidding. Oh! you have only that may be better read by lines than by more and more to show me that it was chapters. Ay, your children-one's really unimportant, whether or not the home is as a nest; Job, when all was old bird were taken with the young, that smiling around him, reports of himself, there could have been no harm in secur-"Then I said, I shall die in my nest." ing both at once, and you more and It is a nest, a nest exposed to many rude more explain why a promise of prosper-invasions. The parent bird cannot ality should be annexed to the command- ways tarry with the young; but, when ment, Thou shalt not take the dam dismissed to wing its own flight upwith the young; thou shalt in any wise wards, that parent bird may leave its take the young to thee, and let the dam little ones to a better guardianship, and go." anticipate a day when they too shall There is neither space nor need for soar to brighter regions, and find a restmany concluding observations. Our sub-ing-place in that tree of life which is ject perhaps looked to you unpro- Christ Himself. With other lessons, then, carry away this as to the depth and comprehensive SERMON IX. ANGELS OUR GUARDIANS IN TRIFLES. "They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone."-PSALM Xci. 12. The preceding verse is, "For He their choicest comfort to prove that it shall give his angels charge over thee, belonged exclusively to the Head. If to keep thee in all thy ways." You Satan gained nothing by applying the will remember that, when Satan had Psalm to Christ, he would have gained placed our blessed Lord on the pinnacle much if it were thence to be concluded of the Temple, it was with these two that it applied to none else. verses that he backed his temptation But we wish also, as a preliminary that He should cast Himself down, and matter, to make one or two observations obtain, through a useless and ostentatious on the translation adopted in the authormiracle, the homage of the crowd as-ized version of our text. The verb sembled for worship. But the devil misquoted the verses. He left out the words" in all thy ways; thus representing the angelic guardianship as having no limitation; whereas the promise was evidently meant to apply only whilst there was adherence to the ways of duty-those alone being the ways which could be called "thy ways," whether the passage were applied individually to the Messiah, or generally to the Church. It has been inferred from this application of the passage by Satan, that the words were prophetic of Christ, and should be interpreted especially, if not exclusively, of a care or protection of which our Savior was the object. This inference, however, can hardly be sustained as the devil could misquote, he could also misapply; and though it may be that, in its highest significance, this ninety-first Psalm has respect to the Messiah, there is nothing in its tone to give reason why it may not be taken to himself, by every true believer in "the Lord our righteousness." which is used conveys the idea of something very violent, "lest thou dash thy foot against a stone." But it does not seem as if the original required us to suppose any thing very violent. The Hebrew word may be interpreted merely of such contact with a stone as would make you stumble, or put you in danger of falling; whereas dashing your foot implies extreme force, as though you were the subject of some unusual disaster or accident. You see that it makes a great difference in the passage, regarded as a promise to the righteous, which of the two turns we give it: we are always in danger of tripping over a stone; we are not always in danger of dashing the foot against a stone: so that you may be said to take the promise out of every-day life, and to confine it to extraordinary emergencies, when it is made to imply such violent collision as is not likely to occur in our common walks. When the devil, indeed, used the text in the endeavor to persuade Christ to throw Himself headlong from the We shall assume throughout our dis-pinnacle of the Temple, it was literally course, that the Psalm is the property, the dashing the foot against a stone so to speak, generally of the Church: it which might have been expected to were to rob the members of some of occur: accordingly the word "dash" is |