The Mosaic law shown to be a theocracy from the prevalence In early ages of representative language and symbolic actions -- as also from the nature of the ewe. -- From examples in the Scriptures: Gen. iii. 15; xxii. 2; xii. and xvii.; Psalms 2, 22, 47, 67, 72. -- From the prophets. -- From Christ's manner of teaching, confirmed by his striking declarations in Matt. v. 17; John, xviii. 88; Luke, xxiv. 44, 45.

 

That the Mosaic law was a theocracy, I shall now further attempt to show --

 

 

III. In the third place, from a common use of language in the early ages of the world, in which one thing is spoken of chiefly to denote another.

 

This use of language, which is frequent in both the Old Testament and the New, is of various species or kinds; and is distinguished in these respects by the various epithets of figurative, parabolic, allegorical, typical, &c. It consists, generally speaking, in so using language as to direct thought first to one thing either real or imaginary, for the purpose of representing another thing, and turning the thoughts to it as the main or principal thing intended to be thought of in the case.

 

I am not now approaching the question whether the language referred to, or any other language, has a double sense; nor shall I attempt formally to discuss this question, until at least the sense of the phrase double sense itself is accurately determined, and so distinguished from the variety of other senses in which the language has been used by the parties in controversy. Nor shall I now enter particularly into an inquiry concerning types, allegories, fables, parables, &c. I only take the more general ground, that truths of the highest moment were revealed to men under the Old Testament dispensation, in what I shall call the representative mode.

 

Nor can I, within my prescribed limits, pretend to do any thing like justice to this subject. I shall rather state my own views of some parts of it, and refer you to authors who have treated it more largely than is possible in the present discussion.

 

And here, the propriety and reasonableness of this mode of revelation demand consideration, as well as the fact.

 

The object of all that can be called language, whether significant things or arbitrary sounds, is to convey some ideas or conceptions from one mind to another. This is its principal object or end. These ideas or conceptions constitute at least its principal meaning -- a meaning always designed, and without which the language would not be used. There is only one kind of language, since language has been so greatly improved and perfected by culture, which is fitted to express this one meaning and nothing more. This is true not only of scientific language, but of all ordinary literal language when properly used and interpreted in its logical connection. That such language, in the present improved state of it -- by which I mean literal language, language which expresses one meaning and nothing more -- should, to a vast extent, even for the ordinary purposes of life, be used, is of the highest importance not to say of absolute necessity. It is so, because it is the best language for its purposes, and because, since the degree of culture which language has received, any other kind substituted for this would occasion in many cases great perplexity, if not absolute uncertainty, in respect to its principal meaning, or what is to be understood.

 

But while all this is readily admitted, it does not follow either that this kind of language was, in any high degree of perfection, the language of the earliest ages of this world. Nor can it be shown that the very earliest language did not consist of significant things -- either actions, sounds, or other things -- nor that the earliest records were not made in the language of picture; nor that this was not followed by or connected with the language of representation; nor that whatever progress or improvement had been given to language by the introduction of arbitrary signs, in the time of Moses or earlier, the language of representation had not then more or less prevalence in the Hebrew nation. Nothing is more obvious in respect to language, than that it was at first formed not for scientific purposes, but with almost no true or exact knowledge of things; formed with almost no reflection, and for the more direct and limited purposes of practical life; formed from mere sensible appearances, and that therefore it expressed, to a vast extent, only hasty, and hence false conceptions of things. This language of appearance, we know on reflection, is false in its actual meaning. For example, it is false in the actual meaning of the common language of life, that the sun rises and sets, that the sugar is sweet, that the ice is cold, that the kite flies, that the body moves, &c., &c. This language has become proper by usage, and answering the common purposes of practical life, the only thing which gives to such language its value or importance, it is of no consequence whether it be true or false. If the sun will be at a given time in a given point of space in relation to the earth, and this is all that we have occasion for common purposes to express, it is wholly immaterial whether we predicate self-motion of the body or not. Accordingly, the language of appearance ever has been used, and ever will be to the end of time.

 

And now why should there not be from the beginning, a language of representation, common and sanctioned by usage, as well as a language of appearance? Moreover if there are -- and we expect to show that there are -- important ends, even those of divine wisdom and mercy, to be answered by its use; and if in many instances all uncertainty in its use may be avoided as effectually as in the use of any other language; or if in others it involves a peculiar but useful degree of obscurity, then instead of any valid objections against its use there are decisive reasons for it. In short, if in all cases of its use there was no other kind of language which would as well answer the same useful purpose, then its use has an ample vindication. This is what is now to be maintained, and particularly on the subject under consideration. If, for example, of the two great dispensations of God by Moses and by Christ -- , the former was representative of the latter, it is easy to see what an overwhelming proof is furnished of God's revelation to the world; the two dispensations in this way affording the most decisive confirmation of the divine origin of both. Nor is this all. In view of the supposed fact that the theocracy or God's national government over Israel, represented, and was known to represent, in all substantial respects, his moral government over men, language as applied to the former, must, to every unperverted mind, convey corresponding conceptions of the latter. Thus all perplexity and uncertainty in respect to the great object or end of the writer or speaker would be prevented, and his language might be interpreted with as much Precision and accuracy, according to the laws of usage in the case, as in any other case; and on the same general principle, viz., the object of the writer or speaker manifested in his language and manner of using it. When the use of the language of representation is common, has become conventional, and is familiarly employed in the communication of thought, it may be as easily distinguished from other language, by the nature of the subject and the logical connection, as language which has a metaphorical and a literal meaning.

 

I now come to the FACT that such a mode of imparting knowledge was adopted as I have described. And here I may say, that it was. not only adopted extensively by the writers of the Old Testament, but war, the principal mode of conveying that knowledge of the great truths of God's moral government under the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, which in more direct language is conveyed under the Christian dispensation.

 

Of the FACT now specified, the proof seems to me to be so obvious and abundant, that it can scarcely be necessary to attempt any full exhibition of it to the readers of the sacred writings. I propose therefore, only to give some illustrations of it, and to make some references which I think will be satisfactory.

 

The first instance is --

 

1. (Gen. iii. 15.) "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [He] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

 

I do not here propose to enter into any consideration of the many questions which have been raised respecting this text. I only say, on the authority of Jewish usage, it contains the great. promise of a Redeemer. The proof, to say nothing of the allegorical structure of the language, is decisive, in the distinct allusions to it as such by Paul and John. (Vide Rom. xvi. 20; Col. ii. 15; Heb. ii. 14-15; 1 John, iii. 8.) This passage should also be viewed in its accordance with Gen. xxii. 18; xxvi. 4; xxviii. 14; Gal. iii. 8; and with Isa. vii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 22; Mic. v. 3; Matt. i. 23; Rev. xx. 1-3, and xii. 9. Now, whether the language of this passage be interpreted in one specific meaning or another given by different commentators, it says nothing in its primary literal import respecting the Redeemer of the world. How then, according to Jewish usage, should it be understood as a promise of this Redeemer in its principal, and according to subsequent allusions to it, in its only meaning, unless it were regarded as the language of representation -- language used at least chiefly to describe one thing by describing in its primary, import another?

 

3. (Gen. xxii. 2.) "Take now thy, son, thine only son Isaac," &c.

 

In the purport and object of this command, I agree with Warburton so nearly, that I shall state my own view of the passage nearly, in his words. The language of this command, in my view, directs to an action which represents the great sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of mankind. This view of the passage is shown from the words of Christ (John viii. 56); nor less clearly in Heb. xi. 19, where the apostle tells us that Abraham offered up Isaac, accounting that God was able to raise him from the dead, whence also he received him in a figure (__ ________). The question put by the Jews to Christ, "Hast thou seen Abraham?" shows that they inferred this from what Christ had said of Abraham's seeing his day. But Warburton has, with so much ingenuity and truth, shown that the offering up of Isaac was an action which represented the sacrifice of Christ, that I shall refer you to what he has said on the subject, with the single remark, that if this was so, then the language used to describe the sacrifice of Isaac is the language of representation -- language which, while it primarily describes one thing, is employed chiefly for the purpose of denoting another.

 

4. (Gen. xii. and xvii.) The covenant made with Abraham. Compare Gal. iii.; Heb. xi. 16; also verses 8, 9, 10.

 

In respect to this covenant it may be said, that the apostle evidently considered some part of the language, viz., "I will be a God to thee," &c., as literal, and thus including the promise of the heavenly country. But I ask, in reply, is there any thing in the language of this covenant in its primary import, beyond the promise of great temporal blessings from God as a tutelary deity? Would Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or even Paul, aside from the language of representation, and adhering strictly to the usus loquendi, have justly understood the language, "I will be a God to thee," as promising the heavenly inheritance? Why must the mere promise, so far as words are concerned, of an earthly country, and limited, as in Gen. xii. 1, and xvii. 7, to great earthly blessings, be understood to mean even by implication, more than the terms of the covenant express, even of an inheritance in heaven? And further, if this were so in the literal import of the language, how was it that the Sadducees denied a future state with such decisive proof, as they argued; and especially, that the Pharisees, so anxious to find the proof of a future state, in their controversy with the Sadducees, entirely overlooked one so obvious and so prominent? Is not the evidence decisive, that both these Jewish sects, through their false views of justification before God on the ground of political obedience, and through their national pride, had been led to consider the promise as simply one of national greatness; and thus perversely blind to that higher spiritual system of grace clearly but representatively revealed in the Abrahamic covenant, were entirely ignorant of what both Christ and the apostle, with just views of its representative character, understood this covenant to teach?

 

A similar objection to the view now taken of this covenant may be supposed to arise from the language of this apostle in Gal. iii. 16: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds as of many," &c. My view of this passage, without here giving a critical exposition of it, is, that the apostle means to say -- not that the covenant with Abraham included no promise to numerous natural descendants of Abraham, which cannot indeed be supposed -- but that THE promise of which he is speaking, the promise of justification before God by faith, was not made to his natural descendants as such; for though the word seed in the covenant is broad enough to admit, and did even require a promises or some promise, viz., that of an earthly country, to Abraham's natural descendants, yet, according to the well-known principle of representing one thing by another, the higher promise was made only to Christ, as the following context clearly shows, viz., to Christ, including as one in him the believing seed of Abraham. And to prevent all evasion of this conclusion, the apostle, proceeding on the true mode of interpreting the covenant, is careful to say, there is nothing in the wording of the covenant that confines this higher promise of justification, taught only by representation or inference, to any other import.

 

5. (Psalms 2d, 22d, 47th, 67th, 72d.) The predictions in these psalms evidently respect chiefly the coming and reign of the Messiah, and the admission of the Gentiles into the church of God. And yet the language is wholly theocratic, without a word, which in its primary and literal meaning, carries the thoughts beyond the temporal prosperity and extension of the national kingdom.

 

To instances of the use of this kind of language already mentioned, I might add many others in which it is employed by the prophets. I refer only to Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones (chap. xxxvii.), and to one in Isa. xix. 18, sqq., remarking, that the predictions of the prophets, in which they foretell the future greatness and glory of the kingdom of Christ in language merely theocratic (Isa. lvi. 7), thus describing one thing by another, are so numerous, that to transcribe them would be tedious and unnecessary. (Isa. xx.; Jer. xiii.; Ezek. iv. v. vii. xii. and xxiv. are instances to our purpose). I only add, that of the three great festivals -- the Passover, the feast of Pentecost, and the feast of Tabernacles while the two first commemorated Israel's deliverance from Egypt and the promulgation of the law, so were they clearly representative of the sacrifice of Christ, and that miraculous effusion of the Holy Spirit by which the Gospel was disseminated over the world; while the feast of Tabernacles, as commemorative of their dwelling in booths, and on the eighth day returning to their houses (Lev. xxiii. 34-36, and 42, 43), seems not less clearly to represent the future conversion of the Jews, if not their return to their own land.

 

From these examples, the reader of the Old Testament must see, I think, that the revelation of the Redeemer and his work, or of God's moral government over this sinful world through grace, has, since the first apostasy, to a great extent been made in the language of representation. How undeniably true this is in respect to the language of the Abrahamic covenant -- that revelation of God's system of moral government so full and so complete that the apostle calls it "the Gospel, before preached unto Abraham I" If such symbolic language was employed to unfold the import of this covenant promulgated before Abraham's descendants entered the promised land, why should not similar language be employed in exhibiting God's national government over them when about to take, and after they had actually taken possession of this promised inheritance? Why are we not constrained to admit the fact, especially when we reflect that it would greatly increase the fullness of the revelation of the higher system; while, if such were not the fact, God, in a series of revelations through many centuries, did not in any other mode reveal himself in that highest and most august relation to men, in subservience to which he made and governs the world?

 

I might dwell on the present topic at much greater length were it necessary. Antiquity is full of examples, which show, as Livy tells us, that "this was the ancient mode of teaching." It prevailed among all the eastern and western nations long before the time of Christ. Especially was it used by the Jews. Some examples among the Jews are Judg. ix. 7; 2 Sam. xii. 1; 2 Kings, xiv. 9; 2 Chron. xxv. 18; Jer. v. 6; Ezek. xvii. 3. Others still might be cited.

 

I now propose to show the same thing from the New Testament, and particularly to show to what an extent the language of the Mosaic law, as well as other language of the Old Testament is recognized and reasoned from by Paul, as being the language of representation. So far as the teachings of Christ are concerned, it cannot be necessary to say that he spoke many things in parables, and in other forms of figurative language. One obvious reason for adopting this use of language, at least in many cases, was, that his hearers could not so readily apprehend his instructions, nor so easily retain them when in the form of simple didactic discourse, as by means of similitude and examples derived from other things, whether real or imaginary. In what other manner than the story of the prodigal son, is it conceivable that our Lord could have so clearly and impressively imparted the instruction which is contained in this justly admired parable? How could that great problem with philosophers -- that crux theologorum -- the existence of moral evil in the world, have been so clearly explained, not merely to the philosopher according to true philosophical principles, but to every husbandman, to all the people, even those of the most humble life, as by the parable of the householder and that of the fisherman? (Vide Matt. xiii. 24,sqq.; xiii. 47.) And now could no light concerning God's moral government over men as moral beings, be added to his prior revelation on the subject, by the Mosaic law or Jewish theocracy as a system of national government representing or symbolizing his system of moral government? Let the former be supposed to be, what I claim it to be, a representative system; and can the ingenuity of man devise another method so adapted to impart and to impress instruction respecting God's moral government on the idolatrous and besotted mind of the people of Israel? Say not that it was for a long time and to a fearful degree, ineffective in respect to its supposed design. This proves nothing but a palpable counteraction of what must be admitted to be the means to an end, and divinely fitted to accomplish that end. Say not that far more salutary effects would have been produced on the minds of this people by the earlier introduction of Christianity into the world. How they treated Christianity when it was introduced into the world is told by the crucifixion of its author, and also in the destruction of their temple and their city and their dispersion over the earth for their unbelief. Far be it then from the pride and presumption of human judgment, to pronounce that God could have done more for the eternal salvation of this people at any period of their history. than he actually did by that national law and national providence which he administered over them. Let critics wrangle as they may about double sense, the theocracy of Israel as a representative system stands forth through many centuries a memorial dispensation of God, eminently designed and fitted to save a nation and a world lost in sin. And if the teaching of the Great Teacher the Light of the world -- was to such an extent, by parable, and similitudes derived chiefly from things imaginary, why is it incredible that substantially the same mode of instruction, derived from a reality of knowledge constantly experienced, should have been adopted and relied on in the previous history of the same people?

 

But my object is not merely to vindicate the use of this kind of language, but to show from the New Testament, that it was in fact used in giving the Mosaic law to Israel. For any direct and full statement of this fact however as involving the temporary character and approaching termination of the Jewish theocracy, we are not to look in the early teachings of Christ. The Mosaic law was not as yet abolished; nor did Christ unnecessarily awaken Jewish prejudice and hostility against himself and his instructions, by asserting its speedy destruction. The time had not come for revealing to the Jews a fact so unwelcome and so incredible to them; nor did it come except in some intimation or obscure prediction, made necessary by circumstances, until after his crucifixion -- that great fact which was to furnish the decisive evidence of the abolition of the Mosaic law, and to render it even plausible or in the lowest degree credible to Jewish pride and prejudice. I shall only refer to some two or three declarations of Christ, in which, by intimations more or less distinct, he recognized the Mosaic law as a representative system, whose design or end was to be fully accomplished by his mission, and which, as a national system, was to be done away when its design should be thus accomplished. (Matt. v. 17, 18.) "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 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" (___ __ _____ _______). By "the law," must here be meant the Pentateuch, in which are included the covenant with Abraham and the Mosaic law. The meaning of the whole passage must be that which is applicable to the law of which he speaks, as well as to the prophets. So far as "the law" is concerned his meaning, in my view, is, that he came not to loosen, slacken, impair (_________), the law spoken of, i.e., the Pentateuch in relation to its object or end either as a preceptive or sacrificial system; but (________), to fill it out or to complete it in this respect, and that not one iota shall pass from the law till all is done which is necessary for this purpose. i.e., to accomplish the end of his mission. This last clause faintly implies that when all these things are done (_____ _______), something may, if not shall, pass from the law, i.e., when the ulterior end of the law shall be fully accomplished or the law in this respect be filled out -- some change may or will take place in it. Now in respect to the Abrahamic covenant, all that remained to be done by Christ to give it completeness was, that He, the promised seed in whom all nations shall be blessed, should come, and teach, and do, and suffer, and die, as he did. What then did he do in respect to the complex system now called "the law?" He fully unfolded the nature of its two great requirements, the one as a rule of action, the other as a rule of judgment, and both in their high spiritual import: thus showing that as such requirements, whether viewed as pertaining to God's moral government over men as moral beings, or to his national government over Israel as citizens of the State, they were so far the same, that there was no true obedience to either short of spiritual obedience; and that no Pharisaic righteousness, no external conduct, being at best the mere criterion of political obedience and favor, could without the obedience of the heart, secure God's acceptance and favor as a moral governor. By thus fully unfolding the spiritual nature of the requirement of "the law" of which he speaks, he so far filled it out -- gave it its completeness while by correcting the grand Jewish error in respect to external doings, he gave still further completeness to the law in respect to its great object and end. But this is by no means all the things which should be accomplished -- _____ _______ -- by the mission and work of Christ, in order to fill out, or give completeness to "the law." Christ by his great sacrifice for the sin of the world, was yet to supersede and cause to pass from the law spoken of -- the revelation of God as contained in the Pentateuch -- the Levitical offerings and sacrifices `for the weaknesses and unprofitableness thereof.' `For the law in these things made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigh to God.' With the Levitical atonements must of course pass away the temporal sanctions of the national law, and with its sanctions also the national law itself, i.e., all the peculiar political or civil relations of God's revelation contained in the Pentateuch. Not one of these comparatively unimportant things -- nor even "one jot or tittle," was to pass from this part of revelation till this part itself was filled out, or completed, by the work of Christ. But when all that was essential to "the law" spoken of in respect to its great object and end, should be thus fully accomplished, then the theocracy, i.e., the national law, meaning only the national or civil institution of the Pentateuch -- a mere appendage introduced four hundred and thirty years after the only true substantial reality, to represent this reality as the shadow does the substance, would pass away leaving the substance unobscured, complete, perfect, even effulgent in its own light. Thus Christ does not deny, but rather by his guarded and qualified language intimates, that such will be the issue of the work which he came to do.

7. (John, xviii. 33.) "Art thou the King of the Jews," &c. From this record of the interview between our Lord and Pilate (v. 28, sqq.), it appears that Jesus was accused by the Jews, and understood by Pilate to be accused as a malefactor against the civil law (v. 30, 31). When charged by Pilate on the ground of the representations made to him by the Jews, with claiming to be the King of the Jews, the important question I now raise is, what was our Lord's answer? He did not say in unqualified terms, `I am the King of the Jews;' for this, according to the import of the question, would have been saying that he was the national King of the Jews, which was not true. Nor yet does he deny but rather implies, that in some sense or respect he was the King of the Jews. "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world" &c.; thus clearly implying that he had a kingdom and was in some respect a king. This implication led Pilate to ask again, "Art thou a king, then?" -- if thou art not as thou sayest a temporal prince or king, in what sense art thou a king? Jesus now answers explicitly and positively, that he was born and came into the world that he should bear witness to the truth, and all who are of the truth are his obedient subjects. He does not in express terms assert the abrogation of the Mosaic law as the design and effect of his mission. But he denies that he is the national King of the Jews, or of any other people (v. 36). And yet he most explicitly asserts his moral dominion over all men, Jews and Gentiles; and that in this respect therefore, he is the King of the Jews. Can it be supposable that Christ should thus declare, that for this end he was born, and for this cause he came into the world, to assume this absolute moral dominion over the Jewish nation as also over every other nation, without the fullest conviction and most distinct recognition in his own mind that the Jewish theocracy -- the Mosaic law -- was soon to pass away? Did not Christ know that when his work as a teacher of truth, or rather the whole work of his mission should be finished, as it was in his sacrifice on the cross, that the national government given to Israel by Moses would come to its endits consummation -- and he himself should reign king in Zion, the sole King of Israel? And further still, did not the instructions which he gave to the Jews concerning himself as their Messiah, so disclose the design of his mission and the nature of his work as the sum and consummation of all God's previous revelations, and especially as superseding the Mosaic law, that denial or doubt was possible only to willful ignorance and perverseness?

 

8. (Luke, xxiv. 44,45.) "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understandings, that they might understand the Scriptures." In verse 27, we read, "And beginning at Moses," &c., "he explained unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." We learn from Acts, i. 3, that in this conversation our Lord spoke to his apostles "of the things concerning the kingdom of God." In the passage now cited we learn that he told them as he had done before, that all things written in the Pentateuch or law of Moses, as well as in the other Scriptures, concerning him, must be fulfilled; and that he explained what was written to their just apprehension. Of course, he must have taught them substantially, all which was written concerning him in the Pentateuch or law of Moses. He must have explained the first great promise of redemption (Gen. iii. 15), the nature and design of Abel's acceptable sacrifice, and of the sacrifices offered by Noah, and especially that of Abraham in offering Isaac; he must have unfolded the Abrahamic covenant with its promise to Abraham, `in thy seed shall all nations be blessed,' together with that prediction concerning Shiloh (Gen. xlix. 10), so exactly and wonderfully accomplished in the final issue of intervening centuries with all their revolutions and changes. (Compare Deut. xviii. 8, and John, v. 46.) What is more directly to our present purpose, he must have developed with equal fullness the Jewish theocracy or national government of Israel -- the law given by Moses, in its nature, design, and end -- in all its prominent relations and characteristics, and of course, in accordance with the more explicit and full developments made by his apostles in their subsequent writings. The resurrection of Christ seems to have removed all their lingering doubts of his Messiahship, and to have resulted in that docility of spirit, which with all the means that we have seen, they possessed as Jews, of understanding the grand, ulterior, though indirect design of their national government, would render them apt scholars under his present instructions. Nor can it be reasonably doubted, that in the conversations which he had with them during the forty days between his resurrection and ascension, in which he so instructed them from their own Scriptures, he gave to them some just and adequate comprehension of the import of these writings. It was evidently from this source that he drew his instructions as we may say, exclusively, "speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts, i. 3), and saying when opening their understandings, that they might understand the Scriptures, "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer" (Luke, xxiv. 45, 46). They seem indeed, probably from his direction to them not to depart from Jerusalem but to wait for the promise (in John, xvi. 8), to have inferred that the entire Jewish nation would receive him as their Messiah, shake off the Roman yoke, and perhaps suddenly rise to universal dominion. To their inquiry on this subject, our Lord's answer (v. 7) clearly intimates that substantially but not circumstantially, what they spoke of should come to pass -- even a kingdom for Israel. It was not indeed, to come to pass immediately, nor for them to know the times and seasons which the Father had reserved to himself for the accomplishment of his great design, to give them as he had said, the kingdom. But this was to be accomplished in a way suited to its own nature, not as a temporal but as a moral or spiritual kingdom; for be assured them that they were to receive power in respect to the setting up and establishment of this kingdom, after the Holy Ghost should qualify them for their work, as witnesses for him, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. How strikingly adapted was this answer to correct their circumstantial and imaginary mistakes, and to exhibit to their minds just views of the symbolical and evanescent characteristic of their national law, and of the spiritual nature as well as of the permanent and universal extension of the kingdom of their Messiah! Compare Luke, ii.30 sqq.; Luke, xxiii. 43; John, iv. 25, as showing that, to a limited extent, just views on this subject actually existed; and also Luke, xvii. 20, 21, and John, xviii. 36-38, showing that Christ actually approved and justified these views.

 

I only add on this particular part of the subject, that Christ in his personal instructions, not only never taught that the national law of the Jews was in any respect a moral institution, or sustained any moral relation to that people whatsoever; but, on the contrary, always implied, in what he said of it, that it was not a moral, but a merely positive institution. Proceeding on this assumption, he ever distinguished it from, and contrasted it with God's moral system; and thus as a teacher of true religious ethics, he ever presented himself as inculcating spiritual morality -- the religion of the heart. In proof of this, it is quite sufficient to read the severe and even terrible rebukes which he administered to the scribes and Pharisees: while conceding without qualification, that they outwardly appeared righteous to men, he at the same time charged them with being full of hypocrisy and iniquity. If he spoke of the obligation to tithe mint, anise, and cummin, or of the external acts of judgment, mercy, and faith, it was not of the moral obligation, as implying their moral quality, but merely their fitness or rightness to the particular ends of such action. Or if he reproved for the omission or commission of external doings, it was not for their moral quality, but simply as proof of the morally wrong or the want of the morally right state of the heart. (Vide Matt. xxiii. 1-33.) He never approved or commended in a moral regard, any subordinate action as such, nor only as a complex act involving morally right principle; nor disapproved or condemned subordinate action as such nor only as a complex act involving morally wrong principle. He always, and in all things, inculcated morally right principle, and condemned the want of it as involving the morally wrong principle. How remote was such a standard of morals from that of the scribes and Pharisees, and of the people generally, whom he instructed! How fitted to show them that unless their righteousness consisted of something more than the mere criterion of obedience to their national law, they could in no case meet with God's acceptance as a moral governor; that through the perversion of their national law, they defeated its ulterior and grand design in their moral reformation, and hence it was important and probable that the national system thus perverted and abused, was to be displaced by that spiritual kingdom or reign of God, which he as their Messiah so plainly taught, that he came into the world to establish!