Page images
PDF
EPUB

might have dispensed with its assistance altogether. The man who, with an ingenuity like that of I. J., is able to deduce from its bare prohibitions all the virtues which can adorn human nature, must certainly be very independent of its instructions. If, however, as W. S. contends, the decalogue was promulgated, not as an epitome of the moral law, but merely as the basis of the Mosaic covenant, it will be better perhaps to take it as it is, without addition or subtraction; and, in this point of view, the statement that a man may perform all its requirements, and yet fall short of moral excellence, will not appear quite so monstrous, or mysterious, as I. J. seems to suppose. A negative sort of character, deficient in genuine principle, but externally decent and inoffensive, is not only of common occurrence in society, but is often denounced from the Christian pulpit. Such was, in some respects, the character of the apostle Paul before his conversion; for he declares that, -"in reference to the righteousness which is in the law he was blameless," and yet acknowledges that he was at the same time, "the chief of sinners."*-That such is the true nature of the decalogue appears, as before stated, from the language of Christ himself; who, in his sermon on the mountain, does not, as I. J. alleges, expound the decalogue, but improves on it, and, in comparison with the high standard of absolute holiness, which he enforces, designates its precepts as "least commandments," an epithet, which, in whatever way explained, is assuredly somewhat disparaging. His mode of commenting on it is well known :-" Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not murder, . . . . thou shalt not commit adultery, . . . . thou shalt not commit perjury, . . . . thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy, . . . . an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, . . . . . but I say to you," &c.+-Although some of these "least commandments" are not included in the decalogue, they are evidently not opposed by it, since they occur in other parts of the Mosaic law, which cannot of course be inconsistent with itself. For the same reason, neither can polygamy, concubinage, nor an almost unlimited liberty of divorce, be prohibited by that code; and therefore, when Christ reproves such practices, he refers his hearers, not to the decalogue, which would not have answered his purpose, but to the moral law written on the heart, and spontaneously suggested to mankind by the circumstances and relations in which they are placed. On the subject of divorce the Pharisees pleaded the permission of Moses; but Jesus replied," Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you," &c.‡ In like manner, when asked by them, "Which is the first of all the commandments?"-he quoted this

* Philip. iii. 4-6; 1 Tim. i. 12-15; 2 Tim. i. 3.
Matt. xix. 3—9.

+ Matt. v. 17-48.

N. S. VOL. VII.

6 A

and the second great commandment, not from the decalogue, but from another part of the Old Testament;-"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbour as thyself;" and represented them to be, not as suggested by I. J., "an epitome of the decalogue," but its foundation.-"On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."*-It cannot be supposed that the apostles of Christ held a different language in this respect from their Master; and, were space allowed, it would be easy to show, even without again alluding to the fourth commandment, that, in the passages already cited from their epistles, both Paul and James, whilst paying all proper regard to the decalogue, yet assign a higher place to "the royal law of liberty and love," which fulfils the former by going beyond it. W. S. has merely followed with humility in the same track; and perhaps, on further consideration, I. J. himself, who has found so much morality in the decalogue, will penetrate the supposed mystery; and, finding still more in the two great commandments, will acknowledge that a law which deals chiefly in prohibitions is surpassed in value by one which inculcates positive and fundamental precepts, and enjoins every one to love in just proportion his God, his neighbour, and himself, thereby virtually denouncing every kind and degree of profaneness, inhumanity, and vice. Still more valuable, however, than either of them is that influence of the Holy Spirit which, co-operating with the message of the gospel, actually produces in the human heart the living principle of love to God for his own sake, and consequently of proportional love to all that resembles him,-a principle which insures a cordial and universal obedience to his will, in whatever way that will may be announced, and which would therefore re-discover the moral law in the works of nature and providence, even if all its written codes had perished from the earth.

Under his third proposition, that "the decalogue is of permanent obligation,"—as under the two former ones, I. J. makes concessions tending to reduce and simplify the controversy; which, if longer continued, would probably degenerate into a dispute about terms, depending on a confusion of ideas. These are his words :-"W. S. asserted in a former article that the decalogue had a 'beginning and an end.’ This assertion he reiterates; but now he explains it as referring to the law considered as the basis of the Mosaic covenant.' But this no one ever denied. Moral, or ceremonial, it could be the basis of that covenant only while the covenant itself lasted. But when he says that it is expressly stated in Scripture that it had a 'beginning and an end,' I am totally at issue with him. No such assertion is made in Scripture. In the third chapter of Galatians, the giving of the law as

* Matt. xxii. 34-40.

Gal. v. 13, 14; James i. 25; ii. 8—12.

the basis of the Mosaic covenant is spoken of as taking place four hundred and thirty years after the Abrahamic covenant; but that is all. And who ever questioned this? or, what is it to the point in hand? Its existence, prior to the Mosaic covenant, is nowhere denied. Every precept of it, as a matter of fact, was in existence from the beginning; not, I will admit, in the same shape, but it is the substance, rather than the shape, that must chiefly be regarded."-Both parties then agree that the moral law is of supreme and eternal obligation, and that the decalogue was the basis of the Mosaic covenant only, whilst that covenant lasted,—that is, during the period of about fifteen hundred years, from Moses to Christ. The difference between them is, that one party regards the decalogue as a simple and perfect transcript of the moral law; the other, as a partial extract from that law, better adapted by such limitation, and by the addition of a positive precept, -the institution of the Sabbath,-to be the basis of the national covenant made by God with the people of Israel. The proof of the present proposition depends, therefore, as I. J. has remarked, on that of the two preceding ones, with which it must either stand or fall. That all the precepts of the decalogue, as far as they are moral precepts, existed in another form from the beginning of time, and will continue in force till its termination, is fully admitted; but this would have been equally the case had the decalogue never been enacted. Its coincidence to this extent does not amount to an absolute identity with the moral law, the authority and permanence of which depend, not on any written code, or arbitrary appointment, but on the actual constitution of the universe. As including a considerable portion of this law, the decalogue is appropriately quoted in several parts of the New Testament, but almost always, as it appears to W. S., with a distinct recognition of the specific character which he has ascribed to it, namely, as the basis of the Mosaic covenant. The principal reason why it is so often cited and discussed in that portion of the sacred volume, has been already mentioned. Before their conversion to Christianity, the members of almost all the primitive Gentile churches seem to have frequented the synagogues of the Jews, and to have become, to a greater or less extent, proselytes to their religion. Long after embracing the gospel, they still retained a strong attachment to the law; and some of them, more especially those of Galatia, actually proposed to superadd Judaism to their Christianity, a course to which they were continually urged by the Judaising teachers, who abounded at that period. Many Hebrew Christians, also, had very confused notions of the mutual relation of the two covenants; which, therefore, for the common instruction of both parties, the apostle Paul was prompted to explain in a very full and perspicuous manner; although, if one may judge from opinions and practices still prevalent, not sufficiently so to prevent all misconception on the subject.

The Greek and Romish churches have systematically adopted several of the principles of Judaism, and other established churches have more or less followed their example. Hence they make pretensions to priesthood, spiritual influence, and propitiatory sacrifice; and their sacred edifices are furnished with altars, as they are termed, where portraits of Moses and Christ, the one presiding over the decalogue, the other over the Lord's prayer and the Apostles' creed, are placed in juxta-position, as if to intimate that the two covenants are now united. Even protestant nonconformists, residing in countries where such principles prevail, are apt to be infected with similar notions, imbibed when they are young from catechisms, and church or college articles, and sometimes confirmed when they are older, by the practice of speaking or writing in their defence. Under such circumstances an appeal to the Scriptures is of little avail, since almost every one has a propensity to expound them agreeably to his own prejudices and predilections. Thus, on the present occasion, I. J. and W. S. take opposite views of the same texts; and as they cannot be judges in their own cause, their readers must determine for themselves which of the two approaches nearest to the truth. In the mean while each party, unless prepared to prove the contrary, ought to give the other credit for sincerity at least, if not for judgment, on which principle W. S. objects to the admonition offered him by I. J.,-"not to handle the word of God deceitfully,"-since it involves a serious and unfounded imputation, which he trusts his respected opponent will, on further reflection, be disposed to withdraw. Although well aware of his liability to error, W. S. believes that the interpretations which he has proposed are substantially correct, and that the passages which he has quoted really establish the propositions which they are adduced to support. Whilst maintaining on the authority of the apostle Paul that the Gentiles, without a revelation, had by nature sufficient means of knowing the moral law to render their transgression of it inexcusable, and that the people of Israel, with all the advantages of revelation, were not prevented from falling into similar transgression, he nevertheless acknowledges with gratitude the unspeakable value of the Scriptures, as a source of moral and religious instruction; but apprehends that too much importance has in this respect been ascribed to the decalogue, and too little to many other passages, both of the Old and New Testament, which greatly surpass that document in copiousness and force; and not only teach the moral law completely, in all its details, but also recommend it by arguments and motives calculated to render it an object of the highest reverence and affection. An example of this kind is furnished by the concluding paragraph of I. J.'s last communication; where, forgetting apparently the different senses of the term "law," in different parts of Scripture, he applies to his favourite decalogue the well-known and beautiful eulogy on the law of the Lord," contained in the nineteenth psalm,

in which, as well as in the hundred and nineteenth, it is sufficiently evident from the general tenor of these sacred poems, and from the introduction of the terms-" testimonies, precepts, statutes, judgments," &c.—that the allusion is not to the decalogue merely, but to the entire body of laws connected with the covenant made by God through Moses with the people of Israel, and of which the book of Deuteronomy is a most eloquent and effective summary. It needs only a little further discrimination of the same kind to restore the decalogue to its proper place and office in all other respects, and in so doing, to bring the present controversy to a satisfactory and amicable termination. London, November, 1843.

W. S.

THE HYMN OF CLEANTHES, ADDRESSED TO JUPITER.

ATTEMPTED FROM THE GREEK.

DR. DODDRIDGE has the following note in his Family Expositor, on Acts xvii. 28:

[ocr errors]

"These words, For we are his offspring,' (which I choose to put in a poetical order, as best imitating the original,) are well known to be found in Aratus, a poet of Cilicia, Paul's own country, who lived almost 300 years before this time. I wonder so few writers should have added that they are, with the alteration of one letter only, to be found in the Hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter, or the Supreme God, which I willingly mention, as beyond comparison the purest and finest piece of natural religion of its length, which I know in the whole world of pagan antiquity; and which, so far as I can recollect, contains nothing unworthy of a Christian, or I had almost said, of an inspired pen. It is to be found in Hen. Steph. Poes. Philosoph. p. 49, et seq., and with Duport's Latin Translation, in Cudworth's Intellect. System, book i. chap. iv. p. 432, 433; and I am sorry I know not where to refer my reader to a good English version of it. The apostle might perhaps refer to Cleanthes, as well as to his countryman Aratus, when he introduces this quotation as what some of their own poets had said."

GREAT Jove, of all th' immortal gods supreme,
By various names ador'd; be thou my theme.
Thou know'st no change, omnipotent art thou;
Before thy everlasting throne I bow.

Nature itself is under thy control,

Thy hand has form'd, supports, and guides the whole.
Man, blest with vocal pow'rs, is taught to raise

His tuneful voice to celebrate thy praise.

We are thy offspring; we, whose heav'nly birth,
More than from aught that lives and creeps on earth,

Demands a grateful song: for man alone,

Of all earth's tenants, can address thy throne.

« PreviousContinue »