MOSES, LAW OF. ( I.) The legislative system of the Hebrew nation is frequently called, both in 0. T. and N. T., after the name of the great HUMAN legislator. In the most ancient book of Scripture, next to the Pentateuch itself, `the law of Moses' (ren 11171; LXX. 6 vbp.os Mceikrij; Vulg.
Lex Illoysi) is repeatedly mentioned ; Josh. viii. 31, 32 ; xxiii. 6. In Josh. viii. 34, LXX. has vbuos also, but the Hebrew simply rninn. The same designation occurs in later books ; see Kings ii. 3 ; 2 Kings xiv. 6 ; xxiii. 25 ; 2 Chron. xxiii. 18 ; xxx. 16 [where LXX. has evroX Moy ilaij]; Ezra iii. 2 ; vii. 6 ; Neh. viii. i ; Dan. ix. I I 13 • and (in the very last precept of the 0. T.) Malachi iv. 4. In the Christian Scriptures the designation reappears ; see Luke ii. 22 ; xxiv. 44; John vii. 23; Acts xiii. 39 ; xv. 5 ; xxviii. 23; Cor. ix. 9 ; Heb. x. 28 ; in all which passages, according to the best reading, the phrase is invari ably written 6 v6/.4or Mcoilo-6.07, which form of the proper name also occurs in four places of the Sep tuagint. (2.) Another general designation of the Hebrew code, of still more frequent occurrence in 0. T., refers to the DIVINE author thereof, min the Law of the Lord' (i Chron. xvi. 40, and passim), and the Law of God' (Josh. xxiv. 26, and passim). This appellation occurs but sparingly in N. T. (see the v6p.os Kvplou of Luke ii. 23, 24, 39), where the absolute term 6 v6,uos usually designates the law of Moses.
main purport of this article is to give a digest of the Mosaic legislation, by re viewing the structure of the code itself; and it will contribute much to the elucidation of our subject if we detail, as briefly as may be, the circumstances under which the law was first promulgated, and ultimately revised and settled. This sketch, how ever, must itself be preceded by a passing notice of the place which is occupied by the Mosaic economy in the order of the Divine dispensations. It is im possible not to assign to it a step in these dispensa tions. But whether its place be a principal or a supplemental one has been much disputed. Much stress in support of the latter view has been laid on St. Paul's expressions (the of Gal. iii. 19, and the 7rapetcriP -Ey of Rom. v. zo). ' The Law proper was supperaddea' and came in by the way, helping on indeed most powerfully the great con summation, but doing so indirectly, and often by seeming antagonism, working rather on the nega tive than on the positive side' (Perowne, Coherence of O. and N. T., p. 84 ; Faber, On the three Dis pensations, vol. ii. p. 135 ; Wordsworth, Gr. Test. on Rom. v. 20). It seems, however, contrary to the general teaching of the N. T., and of St. Paul in particular, to reduce the law to the secondary rank of a collateral or merely by-dispensation. As a preliminary to the gospel, it is co-ordinate with the other providential stages whereby God pre pared for the mission of his Son. In its MORAL enactments it recapitulated and gave precision to natural religion, for sin, which had entered at the fall, became transgression under the specific dictates of the law. In this respect the law
holds a distinct place in advance of any pre ceding KaAp6s or dispensation ; and this is further seen if we consider some other results of its operation. It exercises over the sinner in its highest activity a critical power, but not a me diatorial or reconciling one (see Nitzsch, Chris tian Doctrine [Clark], p. 224) ; for it upholds the inviolability of God's will without emancipating the natural will of man from his sinful bias (Rom. viii. 3) ; by its inflexible purport it begets the know ledge of sin (Rom. iii. 20 ; vii. 7, 8), and although it excites an admiration of good (Rom. vii. 22), it forces upon man the conviction of his own impo tence to attain it (Rom. vii. 24 ; viii. 3), and so creates a longing for deliverance, and ultimately leads to him in whom it is provided (Gal. iii. But ' this propwdeutic office' (Dean Alford on Gal. iii. 19-24) the Law effects mainly by its RITUAL ordinances. Whatever may be thought of the parenthetic character of the Mosaic legislation in its moral aspect, it will hardly be denied that in its ritualism it is an advance towards the Gospel upon every preceding worship of which we have an account. Holy Scripture gives us scattered hints of patriarchal worship from the earliest times (e. g., that of Cain and Abel, Gen. iv. 3, 4 • and Heb. xi. 4 ; Noah's, Gen. viii. 20, 21 ; Abraham's, Gen. xiii. i8 ; xxii. 12, 13 ; and Heb. xi. 17-19 ; • Isaac's, Gen. xxvi. 25 ; Jacob's, xxxiii. 20), and beyond the limits of the chosen people we have instances of similar worship in the histories of Melchizedek, Job, Laban, Jethro, and Balaam. A great detail of particulars in the sacrificial adoration of the hea then nations is collected in Dollinger's The Gentile and the Yew, etc. [by Darnell], vols. i. and ii. pas sim; and in Freeman's Principles of Divine Service, vol. ii., part ii., pp. 73-89 (see also Smith's Diet. of G. and R. Antiq., s. V. SACRIFICIUM) ; and that this was a real, though debased, emanation from the primitive purity of patriarchal worship is ably contended for by Mr. Gladstone in the section of his Studies on Homer, on the traditive element of the Homeric Theo-mythology,' which theo-my thology' he had in the preceding section shown to be a true theology corrupted (see vol. ii., pp. 1-171). A careful review of the varied rites of this early worship informs us of the extent to which human invention had gone in perverting the patriarchal simplicity of religion ; and illustrates the real Value of the Mosaic revelation, which both restored that simplicity and superadded such precision of symbol and type as pointed more plainly than ever to the ultimate provisions of the gospel. Thus the law of Moses was an actual progress in the series of dispensations.