xxii. 40). Nor only so, but, as already noticed, in the Sermon on the Mount he has himself given us an insight into the wide reach and deep spiritual meaning of the ten commandments, clearing them from the false and superficial glosses of the carnal Pharisees. That this is the true character and design of that portion of our Lord's discourse, that it was intended to bring distinctly out the full import of the old, and not to introduce any new and higher legislation, is now generally admitted by the sounder portion at least of exegetical writers.1 And, to mention no more, the apostle Paul, referring to the law of the ten commandments, calls it "spiritual,” “holy, just, and good,”-represents it as the grand instrument in the hands of the Spirit for convincing of sin,-and declares the only fulfilment of it to be perfect love (Rom. vii. 7-14; xiii. 10).

In conclusion, we trust we have established the claim of the law of the ten commandments, to be regarded in the light in which it has commonly been viewed by evangelical divines of this country, as a brief but comprehensive summary of all religious and moral duty. And as a necessary consequence, the two grand rules with which they have been wont to enter on the exposition of the decalogue, are fully justified. These rules are, 1. That the same precept which forbids the external acts of sin, forbids likewise the inward desires and motions of sin in the heart,-as also, that the precept which commands the external acts of duty, requires at the same time the inward feelings and principles of holiness, of which the external acts should only be the fitting expression. 2. That the negative commands include in them the injunction of the contrary duties, and the positive commands the prohibition of the contrary sins, so that in each there is something required as well as forbidden. Nor is the language too strong, if rightly understood, which has often been applied to this law, that it is a kind of transcript of God's own pure and righteous character; i. e. a faithful and exact representation of that spiritual excellence which eternally belongs to himself, and which he must eternally require

1 Tholuck, indeed, as usual on such points, holds a sort of middle opinion here in his Comm. on the Sermon on the Mount, although he is substantially of the opinion expressed above, and opposed to the view of Catholic, Socinian, and Arminian writers. See, however, Baumgarten, Doc. Christi de Lege Mosaica in Oratione Mon., with whom also Hengstenberg concurs, loc. cit.

of his accountable creatures. The idea which such language conveys is undoubtedly correct, if understood in reference to the great principles of truth and holiness embodied in the precepts, though but very imperfectly true in regard to the formal acts in which those principles were to find their prescribed manifestation. For the actual operation of the principles had of necessity to be ordered in suitable adaptation to men's condition upon earth, to which, as there belong relations, so also relative duties, not only different from anything with which God himself has properly to do, but different even from what his people shall have to discharge in a coming eternity. There such precepts as the fifth, the sixth, the seventh, or the eighth, as to the formal acts they prohibit or require, shall manifestly have lost their adaptation. And of the whole law we may affirm, that the precise form it has assumed, or the mould into which it has been cast, is such as fitly suits it only to the circumstances of the present life. But the love to God and man, which constitutes its all-pervading element, and for which the several precepts only indicate the particular ways and channels it is outwardly to take, this love man is perpetually bound in all times and circumstances to cherish in his heart, and manifest in his conduct. For the God, in whom he lives, and moves, and has his being, is love; and as the duty and perfection of the creature is to bear the image of the Creator, so to love as he loves-Himself first and supremely, and his offspring in him and for him, must ever be the bounden obligation and highest end of those whom he calls his children.

SECTION II

THE LAW CONTINUED APPARENT EXCEPTIONS TO ITS PERFECTION AND COMPLETENESS AS THE PERMANENT AND UNIVERSAL STANDARD OF RELIGIOUS AND MORAL OBLIGATION-ITS REFERENCES TO THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISRAELITES, AND REPRESENTATION OF GOD AS JEALOUS.

Ir is necessary to pause here for a little, and enter into some examination of the objections which have been raised out of the ten commandments themselves, against the character of perfection and completeness which we have sought to establish for them. For if any doubt should remain on this point, it will most materially interfere with and mar the line of argument we mean afterwards to pursue, and the views we have to propound in connection with this revelation of law to Israel.

By a certain class of writers, we are met at the very threshold with a species of objection, which they seem to regard as perfectly conclusive against its general completeness and universal obligation. For it contains special and distinct references to the Israelites as a people. The whole is prefaced with the declaration, "I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt," while the fifth commandment embodies in it the promise of the land of Canaan as their peculiar inheritance. And this, we are told, makes it clear as noon-day, that the decalogue was not given as a revelation of God's will to mankind at large, but was simply and exclusively intended for the Israelites-binding indeed, on them, so long as the peculiar polity lasted, under which they were placed, but also ceasing as an obligatory rule of conduct when that was abolished.1 But, on this ground, the Gospel itself will

1 Bialloblotzky, de Legis Mos. abrogatione, p. 131; Archb. Whately also repeats the same objection, in his Essay on the abolition of the law, p. 186 (Second Series of Essays). The view of both these authors, which is radically the same, regarding the abolition of

be found scarcely less imperfect, and we might almost at every step question the fitness or obligation of its precepts in respect to men in general. For it carries throughout a reference to existing circumstances, and by much the fullest developement of its principles and duties, that contained in the Epistles, was given directly and avowedly to particular persons and churches, with the primary design of instructing them in the will of God. So that if the specialties found in the law of the two tables were sufficient to exempt men now from its obligation, or to deprive it at any time of an oecumenical value, most of the revelations of the Gospel might, for the same reason, be shorn of their virtue, and in both alike, men would be entitled to pick and choose for themselves, what they were to regard as of universal moment and perpetual obligation.

But what egregious trifling is this? The objection overlooks one of the most distinctive features, and, indeed, one of the greatest excellencies of God's revelation, which at no period was given in the form of abstract delineations of truth and duty, but has ever developed itself in immediate connection with the circumstances of individuals and the leadings of Providence. From first to last it comes forth entwined with the characters and events of history. Not a little of it is written in the transactions themselves of past time, which are expressly declared to have been "written for our learning." And it is equally true of the law and the Gospel, that the historical lines, with which they are interwoven, while serving to increase their interest and enhance their instructive value, by no means detract from their general bearing, or interfere with their binding obligation. The ground of this lies in the unchangeableness of God's character, which may be said to generalize all that is particular in his revelation, and impart a lasting efficacy to what was but occasional in its origin. Without variableness

the law under the Christian economy, we shall have occasion to notice afterwards. The affirmation of the Archbishop, at p. 191, that "the Gospel requires a morality in many respects higher and more perfect in itself than the law, and places morality on higher grounds," has already been met in the preceding section. We admit, of course, that the Gospel contains far higher exhibitions of the morality enjoined in the law, than is to be found in the Old Testament, and presents far higher motives for exercising it; but that is a different thing from maintaining that this morality itself is higher or essentially more perfect.

or shadow of turning in himself, he cannot have a word for one, and a different word for another. And unless the things spoken and required were so manifestly peculiar as to be applicable only to the individuals to whom they were first addressed, or from their very nature possessed a merely temporary significance, we must hold them to be the revelation of God's mind and will for all persons and all times.

That the Lord uttered this law to Israel in the character of their Redeemer, and imposed it on them as the heirs of his inheritance, made no alteration in its own inherent nature; neither contracted nor enlarged the range of its obligation; only established its claim on their observance, by considerations peculiarly fitted to move and influence their minds. Christ's enforcing upon his disciples the lesson of humility, by his own condescension in stooping to wash their feet, or St Paul's entreating his Gentile converts to walk worthy of their vocation, by the thought of his being, for their sakes, the prisoner of the Lord, are not materially different. The special considerations, coupled in either case alike with the precept enjoined, leave perfectly untouched the ground of the obligation or the rule of duty. Their proper and legitimate effect was only to win obedience, or, failing that, to aggravate transgression. And when the things required are such as those enjoined in the ten commandments-things growing out of the settled relations in which men stand to God and to each other, the obligation to obey is universal and permanent, whether or not there be any considerations of the kind in question tending to render obedience more imperative, or transgression more heinous.

But what if some of the considerations employed to enforce the observance of the duties enjoined, involve views of the divine character and government partial and defective, at variance with the principles of the Gospel, and repulsive even to enlightened reason? Can that really have been meant to be of standing force and efficacy as a revelation of duty, which embodies in it such elements of imperfection? Such is the form the objection takes in the hands of another large class of objectors, who think they find matter of the kind referred to in the declarations attached to the second commandment. The view there given of God as a jealous being, and of the manner in which his jealousy was to