Such arguments as Warburton's, however ingc. nious, and in given instances valuable in combating objections, are apt to cramp the subject before us. The conclusion sought to be maintained, that the Mosaic sanctions are only of a temporal nature, is undeniable enough to become a truism, when confined within the narrow limits of the specific question ; for national legislation, as such, can (obviously) do no more than propose rewards and punishments for the present life. But this is not the enthe case. The theocratic laws were designed not only for teaching political duty, but for connecting man with God in a perpetual rou tine of social, moral, and religious life, of which it would indeed be a violence to reason to suppose they would not infallibly suggest to the devout Israelite the assurance of an eternal happiness pro vided by his Divine King, as the sequel of his tem poral obedience. No doubt the law, which so strictly guarded him, would be equally sure to suggest another train of reflections. His own sin ful nature and propensities would become painfully evident in the light of a revelation, which drew a contrast between Jehovah's holiness and the unholiness of even his highest theocratic servants. The catalogue of disqualifications, through unclean ness of priest and people alike, derived its parti culars from all stages and conditions of life ; and not so much from wilfulness as from inadvertencies, involuntary acts, and even inevitable blemishes and natural conditions of the person. In harmony with such reflections would be those deductions which the thoughtful Israelite must needs have drawn from the inflexible rigour of the moral law, contrasted with his 07e121 departures from it. These thoughts would not only create a longing for deli verance, hut would impress on the mind a new view of the significance of sacrifice to his Divine King. His Leviticus, read in the light of his Deut eronomy, and the still clearer comments of the prophets, would be an infallible gospel to him. We cannot mistake the influence of the law on personal piety, when we read such earnest eulogies of it as are contained, for instance, in Josh. i. S and in Ps. cxix. And how effectually it pre pared its loyal adherents for the coming of Messiah, we gather from some glimpses into private life given to us in the gospels. Two instances occur on the very threshold : They were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless' (Luke i. 6; see other instances mentioned above in JESUS CHRIST [vol. ii. p. 546]).* Nor on public life was the law without its signal influence. From the nature of the case the 0. T. dwells much on the delinquencies and ultimate apostasy of the Jewish nation, even thus illustrating the import ance of that law whose breach brought ruin upon the chosen people (see 2 Kings xvii. 15-23). But we need not rely on negative illustration. The nation's delinquencies were often followed by repentance, and a restoration of national pros perity ; and in every instance the revival of bless ing was brought about by reverting to the law of Moses. Moreover, we have some bright periods in the history of Israel, during which the law was honoured, with the happiest results to the people. The most instructive contrasts also occur through out the history, all enforcing the excellence of the theocratic code as the very means of life and pros perity to its subjects (comp. Josh. i. with Judg. ii. ; also 2 Chron. xxxiii. 7-9). The brevity of the sacred history has left us uninformed as to the regular main tenance of the Mosaic institutions by the Israelites after their occupation of Canaan ; and this silence has led to the conjecture that some of them fell into desuetude, or, at best, uncertainty of administra tion. It seems, however, to us fairer, and more in accordance with the nature of things, to con clude. that, except in specified instances of the contrary, these institutions were duly observed, according to the intention of the lawgiver. In deed the frequent formula which eulogises the piety of the kings of Judah, ' He did that which was right in the sight of Jehovah,' may well be construed in this sense of loyalty in administering God's theocratic laws. One fact we uniformly find, that whenever the circumstances and even the government of the nation underwent any modification, the law was carefully preserved from change and neglect. The two critical epochs which bore most resemblance to revolutionary dis ruptions, were the secession of the ten tribes and the captivity. But the law not only survived these changes, it even acquired fresh hold on the heart of the loyal part of the nation. The effect was doubly evident. Israel, though the stronger of the two kingdoms in material resources, never recovered from the shock which Jeroboam's rejec tion of the law gave it ; while Judah, which re tained the theocratic principle, long survived her rival, and only fell• at last from neglect of the very law which had proved to be the defence of her pious kings. (For the salient instances of Jehosha phat, Joash Jehoiada's regency], Hezekiah, and Josiah, and the prominence of the law in their ad ministrations, see 2 Chron. xvii. 9 ; xxiii. i8 ; xxix. and xxx. ; xxxiv. 14–xxxv. 19.) The same recur rence to the law is observable on the return of the exiles. Nehemiah and Ezra prefaced their great work of reforming the morals of their countrymen by public reading and exposition of ' the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had commanded to Israel' (Neh. viii.) We have seen how the royal and the prophetic offices were products of the law. Kings and prophets with great propriety, therefore, were in duty bound to devote their authority to the observance of its precepts. But kings and prophets passed away, the first having forfeited their mission, the second having fulfilled it ; yet the law survived in unbroken, perhaps in creased, strength. The living seer was no longer present with rebuke and exhortation ; but his written word was at hand, the last injunction of which would again and again come back upon men's memories—` Remember ye the law of Moses, my servant, which Icommanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and the judgments' (Mal. iv. 4). Post-biblical history tells how this valedictory charge animated the lofty patriotism of the Maccabees (1 Maccab. chap. ii.), but on this we must not enlarge.
When sacred writ resumes her record, it is to reveal the melancholy fact that the wayward nation has forgotten the prophetic charge. Proud of a divine treasure of which no other race could boast, the Jewish people exulted selfishly over their ad vantage, which contained within itself, however, the germ of a fatal reaction. 'They were exposed to the subtle temptation of substituting formulas for life ; hence arose the necessary reactions of [Pharisaic] dogmatism and [Sadducean] scepticism : hope strengthened into affirmation, doubt descend ing to denial. Meanwhile the fresh joy of life was sinking under the pressure of superstition ; and, as the saddest symbol of the direction in which they were turning, the people of God shrank from nam ing him [Jehovah] who was their strength,' and (we must add) hastened to reject their Messiah, who was restoring and fulfilling their divine law, and bringing their glorious theocracy to its ultimate exaltation .(Westcott, Introduct. to the Study of the Gospels, p. 54). We have already noticed our Lord's grand vindication of the law; amidst the universal failure he fulfilled his Messianic mission magnified the law, and made it honourable' (Is. xlii. 21). We are thus brought face to face with another paradox in the circumstances of the law. Christ rescued it from the dishonour which the infirmity and the wilfulness of Israel put upon it, by a life which satisfied the demands of its precepts, and a death which exhausted the signifi cance of its types. But this very fulfilment of the law was in truth its supersession. All its purpose was effected ; and it survives in the gospel, no longer, indeed, as an obligatory covenant, demand ing obedience and revealing the weakness of man, but as a monument of the wisdom and goodness of God, illustrating in its sacrificial details the one efficacious offering made once for all (Heb. ix. 26 ; r Pet. iii. 18), and in its moral precepts furnishing an unchangeable rule of conduct to the Christian, who has here a transcript of that holiness of God which ever has been proposed as the standard of human perfection, equally to the primeval patriarch (Gen. vi. 9, comp. with xvii. 1), the Mosaic Israel
ite (Lev. xi. 44 ; xix. 2 ; xx. 7 ; Deut. xviii. r3), and the disciple of Christ (Matt. V. 48 ; Col. 28 ; r Pet. i. 15, 16).
The Law in its Human Aspect; its alleged EgyP tian Origin.—Many writers on jurisprudence have illustrated the code of Moses by comparing its enactments with the laws of other nations ; none more fully or ably than Michaelis, in his Alosaisches Recht [Smith's translation, Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, in 4 vols.] From his work most of the following instances are taken ; they go to show that the provisions of the Mosaic law were not only superior to the institutions of the primitive nations among whom civilisation had made but little progress, but bear favourable comparison with those of an advanced state of society, and that on points of the highest juridical importance. Our instances must be few, but they shall be charac teristic. a. One of the most widely-spread insti tutions of the ancient world was that which pro tected society by the avenging. of blood. Not only in Hebrew Scriptures and Arab talcs is this usage found, but the most polished Athenian literature is full of allusions to it ; the Eumenides of tEschylus, notably, is based upon it aliiller's Dissertations pp. S9-97 [edit. 2]). But nowhere can we discover any legislation like that of Moses (Num. xxxv. 31), which, by a just and wise enactment, represses the wild irregularity to which the practice of blood-revenge was naturally exposed (Michaelis, ii. 225 ; Muller, Dissertations, p. 95). [KINSMAN,] b. In like manner the Mosaic roles of wa,:jare are humane in contrast with the customs of Egypt and Assyria, and even Greece (comp. Deut. xxi. to-14 with the Homeric treatment of female captives— cruel and heartless as it was ; see Michaelis, i. 463, 464). The harshness of war was also softened by other beautiful provisions of the law of Moses ; e.g., by the considerate precept of Deut. xx. 19, 20, and by the prohibition of forced service, so common in the East. On this point, how striking the contrast between the law of Deut. xx. 5-9 and the brutal oppression of Xerxes, as narrated by Herodotus 210 1 c. The clemency and kindly character of the Mosaic legislation further appear in its provisions with respect to the poor (Dent. xv. 7-I t [ALms]), and to the stranger (Lev. xix. 33, 34 ; Dent. x. 18, 19) ; and d. where at first sight it seems to be harsh, as in the power of the Father over the Son (Exod. xxi. 17; Lev. xx. 9), further inquiry reveals a security against all abuse of this power by careful judicial process (Dent. xxi. IS-21), in which re spect the statute of Moses presents, as usual, a happy contrast to the unchecked power of the Ro man father (Michaelis, i. 443). e. The mildness of the Mosaic laws of debt are again in notable opposition to the oppressive enactments of the Roman law (Michaelis, ii. 294). We are not shocked with the barbarity of the torture and im prisonment of the unhappy debtor, such penalties being unknown in the laws of Israel (Michaelis, ii. 311-314). Indeed, the _prison seems to have been absolutely discountenanced by the Jewish lawgiver, except as a temporary ward (Lev. xxiv. 12), al though in later times imprisonment came into use (Jer. xxxviii. 6 ; Ezra vii. 26), but not from Moses (Michaelis, iii. 444). f. Humanity was charac teristic of his laws on other objects than man. Prohibition against 'cruelty to animals' is a happy feature of some modern codes ; but we do not yet outstrip Moses, as the following beautiful instances attest—instances meant to civilize man no less than protect brutes, by subduing that coarseness of feel ing which is sure to accompany maltreatment of animals :—When a man saw even his enemy's beast lying under the weight of his burden, he must help him up (Exod. xxiii. 5) ; no ox must be muzzled while treading out the corn (Dent. xxv. 4); nor must any youngling of bullock, sheep, or goat, be parted from its dam for seven days after its birth, even for an offering to the Lord (Lev. xxii. 27) ; nor must the parent animal be killed with her young both in one day (ver. 28) ; nor must a kid be dressed in its mother's milk (a thrice-repeated precept, Exod. xxiii. 19; xxxiv. 26; Dent. xiv. 21); nor must the dam be taken with her young from their nest (Dent. xxii. 6, 7). Moses further en joined that cattle should enjoy the rest of the Sab bath-day (Exod. xx. to; Dent. v. 14), and that even game was to have a jubilee on the Sabbatical year, and be allowed to feed in the fallow-fields unmolested (Lev. xxv. 7). g. Nor did this exqui site consideration stop with men and cattle; it was extended to the trees of the field! For three years their fruit was not to be eaten, that their strength might be reserved for later growth (Lev. xix. 23) ; let the fourth year's fruit be 'holy to praise the Lord withal,' and afterwards let the tree thus strengthened and thus consecrated yield its pro duce without stint to its owner. But to return to human objects of legislation. The Mosaic code has been censured for its toleration of slavery and polygamy and its well-known levirate statute. These subjects will be found elsewhere treated in full—we mention them here in extenuation of the censure. Moses found all these institutions in full activity amongst his people. Their roots were too deep in the social soil to be extirpated. Like a wise legislator, as he was, Moses had no alterna tive but to tolerate these customs ; but he meant to improve them, and in nothing does his code show greater prudence than in these modifications. h. Respecting the last-mentioned statute, we must refer to the article MARRIAGE, and to Michaelis, who traces the custom and ils inconveniences, and the important modifications introduced by Moses (vol. ii., pp. 28-33). i. In his treatment of Poly gamy we have a still clearer instance of the law giver's wisdom. The evil was too inveterate to be eradicated at once ; he therefore would reduce its prevalence by every discouragement. His prohi bition of eunuchs was one of these ; and the law of Lev. xv. IS, by its inconvenience to the husband of many wives, could not have failed to be another. The domestic troubles arising from parental caprice and injustice incidental to this perversion of connu bial life would be, moreover, greatly mitigated by the equitable statute of Dent. xxi. 15-17 (Michaelis, ii. 7-12). k. Of slavery, an evil which the efforts of Christianity have not yet effaced from society, we shall speak more fully elsewhere [SLAVERY]. We are here only concerned to notice what mitigations Moses provided to soften its rigour. Strictly speak ing, Moses allowed no Hebrew to be reduced to the servile state : the serfs of the Bible are foreigners (Lev. xxv. 44-46). Those Hebrews whose poverty sometimes reduced them to temporary service, re gained their freedom and a handsome reward at the Sabbatical year and the year of jubilee (Exod. xxi. 2 ; Deut. xv. 12-I5 ; Lev. xxv. 39-43). But, besides these statutes against the perpetuity of ser vitude, there were others which checked oppression and counselled humanity even during the limited period of service. These merciful enactments are in admirable contrast to the laws of Greece and Rome, and even to the theories of their most high minded philosophers. In Greece and Rome the slave took no part in the public worship of the state : at some of the holier rites his presence would have beets a pollution. But the Hebrew law made its slaves members of the congregation of Jehovah; so that at all the festivals, including the very greatest—the Passover—and the rest of the Sabbath-day and the initiatory rite of Circumcision (that sacrament of man's equality before God) the Hebrew servants, and even the foreign bondmen, mingled with their masters and their masters' families in the great duties and privileges of religion. In all cases of merciful prescription for the slave, the law appeals to the Israelite to remember his own bondage in the land of Egypt (Deut. xvi. 10-17)— an affectingsanction, which must have spoken home to men's hearts, and which is one only of a multi tude of signs of the law's consideration for its sub jects. The superiority of the Mosaic code to all other legislation in ancient and modern times in the treatment of the slave is illustrated in a masterly neighbour as thyself 1p:P (Lev.