The Mosaic Code not Homogeneous. 349 with the context, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it:" Gal. iv. 9, 10, 11, "But now, after ye have known God, or rather are known of him, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain:" Col. ii. 16 17, "Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or the Sabbath days ( saccara), which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Mr Cox assents to the principle that the term Sabbath in the New Testament never means the Christian but always the Jewish sacred day; this then at once puts out of court the passage in Colossians. The other two are, however, formidable, as seeming to imply that the observance of the Lord's day was optional, nay more, that it was those who were strong in Christ, and Paul among the number, who set it aside; and hence, that to keep it was an indication of weakness. Those who consider these passages to inculcate that all observance of sacred days was abolished by Christ support their position also by bringing forward various texts which appear to imply that the whole Mosaic law, including the decalogue, has been swept away, and that only the precepts given forth by Jesus are binding now. Before bringing any of these forward, it will tend to narrow the limits of controversy on the subject, if it be pointed out how far we are prepared to go in admitting the abrogation of the Mosaic law. If all the Old Testament passages bearing on the subject be brought together, it will be found how frequently the Sinaitic legislation is described, not by a single word, but by several coupled together, as if to suggest that it was not of a homogeneous character. It is described as statutes and commandments, Deut. iv. 40, &c.; or testimonies, statutes, and judgments, Deut. iv. 45, &c.; or commandments, statutes, and judgments, Deut. v. 31, &c.; or charge, statutes, judgments, and commandments, Deut. xi. 1, &c. It is hard to resist the conclusion that the inspired writers meant to convey the idea that the legislation at Sinai might be resolved into several codes. We believe that there were three, all differing in their predestined term of endurance. The ceremonial law is universally admitted to have fulfilled its function when Christ made his atoning sacrifice. The ordinary civil and criminal code of the Jews required to be VOL. XV.-NO. LVI. Ꮓ adapted, like the corresponding laws in other countries, to the exact state of intellectual and moral development which the Hebrew nation had reached at the time of its promulgation, and necessarily became, in some particulars, antiquated whenever they rose above that position. It is only in regard to the moral law, as summed up in the decalogue, that any dispute exists. It in several respects stood on a different footing from the remaining parts of the Mosaic law. While the other precepts were given to the people through the instrumentality of Moses, it was proclaimed from the top of Sinai by the voice of Jehovah himself, amid lightning, and thunder, and tempest, and every accompaniment fitted to inspire awe. While the other precepts were committed to whatever materials were then used for writing on, skins of animals perhaps, and were preserved, no one knows where, the decalogue was traced by the finger of God on two tables of stone, cut doubtless from the enduring granite of the mountain peak, and then laid up in the ark of the covenant in the holiest part of the tabernacle. Any arguments, therefore, brought forward to shew that the Divine Redeemer or the apostles made light of the ceremonial law, or of the civil and criminal code, are irrelevant to the point at issue. When, for example, Jesus condemns the facilities for divorce which existed in his times, and answered a question on the subject by saying, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so," Matt. xix. 8; he virtually enunciates the principle here contended for, in regard to the civil and criminal code. When again the inspired writer of the epistle to the Hebrews argues that the sacrifices offered under the old economy, were in their very nature but shadows of good things to come, and therefore unnecessary after Christ had completed his expiatory offering (chap. x.), he gives warrant for what has been stated regarding the ceremonial law. It is only in respect to the decalogue that any contention arises. Those who regard it as abolished point to such parts of Scripture as John i. 17, Rom. vii. &c., in which it seems to be taught that Jesus virtually superseded the law, substituting grace, or grace and truth, in its stead. They hence say that no distinction being drawn between the moral and the other parts of the Mosaic code, all may be held as abrogated. To our apprehension, the strongest passage that can be adduced by those who look at the subject from the point of view now described, is that in 2 Cor. iii. 7, "But if the ministration of death written and engraven on stones was glorious," and then ver. 11, "For if that which was done away was glorious," &c. Permanent Obligation of the Moral Law. 351 What is formidable in this passage, is a certain concatenation between the two clauses printed in italics, as if that part of the law which was written and engraven in stones-in other words, the decalogue-was done away. If there were no passages bearing on the subject but the two found respectively in Romans and Galatians, apparently contending against the observance of days, and this which seems to teach the abrogation of the ten commandments, we think that those who look at the subject of Sabbath observance from the standpoint now described, would have proved what they allege. But there are texts which seem as decisively to teach the opposite doctrine. In Ephes. vi. 2, 3, these words occur, "Honour thy father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise), that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Which is the, not which was the, first commandment with promise. This looks like a code of law still in force; in short, the argument founded on the tense of the verb is of the same nature as that to which our divine Lord himself lent his sanction in reasoning against the Sadducees (Mat. xxii. 31, 32). But what is still more decisive of the meaning is, that the Ephesians were encouraged to filial obedience by a promise, manifestly that of the fifth commandment, but divested of all that was local or temporary. This last principle, it may be remarked in passing, is analogous to that involved in the change from the seventh to the first day. To the same effect are the words of James, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now, if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law," James ii. 10, 11. Can we suppose all this spoken of an abrogated code? Then, again, it is of importance to note that Jesus seemed to treat the decalogue in a very different way from what he did the rest of the Mosaic regulation. principle was, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," Mat. v. 17, 18. It is difficult to conceive how the moral law could at any future period be fulfilled to such an extent that it might be abolished. In conformity with the principle laid down, he dealt at once with the several parts of the Mosaic code in a different manner. Commenting on the sixth and seventh commandments, he shewed their exceeding breadth (ver. 21-32), while, in speaking of the law of oaths (ver. 33-37), and still more decisively, in treat His ing of that which sanctioned retaliation, he propounded higher rules of conduct (ver. 38-48). Selecting two grand principles, hid amid a multitude of less important precepts in the Mosaic code (Deut. vi. 5 and Lev. xix. 18), and extending the meaning of the latter of them, he gave a summary of the two tables of the decalogue, Mat. xxii. 34-40, Mark xii. 28-31, while he said of the Sabbath itself that it was made for man, (it is to be observed, not for the Jews, but for man). These, then, are two classes of passages which require to be harmonised. If we adopt the view of those against whom we are now contending, we must ignore one series, and confine our attention to the other. But this is not a satisfactory way of solving the difficulty. So far as is possible, force must be given to both classes of statements, and this can be done only by supposing the decalogue still binding, in which case, in Paul's precepts against the observance of days, it must be assumed that he tacitly excepted the sacred day, as already provided for in the fourth commandment, and that the paragraph in 2 Cor. iii., which is partly argumentative, and partly rhetorical, and therefore peculiarly liable to be misinterpreted, does not really imply the abolition of the moral law, but merely asserts that it is written no longer now on tables of stone, but on the fleshly tables of Christian hearts (ver. 3), which is the real scope of the apostle's argument in the chapter from which the words are taken. The balance seems to turn against the view held by the high church and philosophic parties. With the policy of the former, indeed, short work may be made. We entertain the most heartfelt belief in that doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which teaches, "that God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men," &c. If Paul would not be judged with respect to holidays, or new moons, or (the Jewish) Sabbath days, we, after his example, object to have censorious verdicts passed on us in regard to Good Friday, or Christmas, or Ash-Wednesday, or the feast, fast, or vigil of this or that evangelist or saint. And we should feel quite free in regard to Sunday, if it were simply ordained by "the church." The objection to the philosophic view is this, that a day resting merely on utility, would, in our opinion, lose all its binding authority on the conscience. It would be observed when convenient, and only then. While all would do their best to take suitable rest or recreation some time or other, it would be difficult to obtain such concert in regard to the seasons of repose as might leave the greater part of the population free to attend divine worship. The generality of men, we fear, Geology: its Progress and Limits as a Science. 353 would "forsake the assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some is;" and though museums, crystal palaces, scientific lectures, and other schemes designed to benefit the masses-all, so far as they go, teaching truth, and therefore helpful to religion-might tend to diffuse light in regard to the Creator and his works; still the complaint of the prophet might be brought against them all-"They have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly." The barrier they would raise against the inroads of evil, would, we fear, be but feeble; and, despite their influence, irreligion, with its invariable concomitant immorality, would roll like a flood over the land. R. H. ART. VII.-Geology: its Progress and Limits as a Science. The Elements of Geology; or, The Ancient Changes of the Earth and its Inhabitants, as illustrated by Geological Monuments. By Sir CHARLES LYELL, Bart., F.R.S. Sixth Edition. London, 1865. The Student's Manual of Geology. By J. BEETE JUKES, M.A., F.R.S. Edinburgh, 1862. Manual of Geology. By the Rev. SAMUEL HAUGHTON, M.D., F.R.S. London, 1865. The Geological Magazine. Edited by HENRY WOODWARD, F.G.S. London, 1864-65. Reports on the Geology of Canada. By Sir WM. LOGAN. Montreal, 1864. THE working-bee that gathers, as it flits from flower to flower, its burden of pollen and sweet juices, is the same that afterwards, in the hive, elaborates, by its strange and mysterious chemistry, the wax it deposits on the growing walls of the honeycomb. Each worker retains his collected materials until he places them in their proper position as a part of the common home. No master spirit superintends the work, no superior class prepare the collected materials or arrange them according to a settled plan. The raw material is not parted with until its collector places it in its final destination as a part of that wondrously beautiful and mathematically accurate structure which has been an astonishment to man in every age. Civilised man does not thus work. The highest advancement in civilisation is characterised by the greatest division and distribution |