Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

(3.) The observance of it is now impossible. For many of its rites were tied to the temple, which being now destroyed, these rites must cease along with it.

2. The judicial law ought not of necessity to be received in any commonwealth. This is evident (1.) from the nature of this law. These precepts were given to the Jews as they were a society of men, to whom God, by a special command, gave authority to drive out and destroy a wicked race of people, and to possess their land; which was subsequently divided among them by lot, each share descending by inheritance in the same family. The laws, therefore, given with this particular view, cannot be applied to other constitutions, in which men have not their inheritance as a grant from heaven, nor are put by any appointment of God, all upon an equality.a

(2.) It is abrogated by the Apostles. The decisions which the Apostles made in this matter are so clear, and so plainly expressed in the Epistles to the Galatians and Hebrews, that no doubt can remain concerning it with any man that reads them.

It is objected by the Jews, against the authority of the New Testament, that it acknowledges

We are commanded "to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake." (1 Pet. ii. 13.) This could not be done, unless all obligation to obey the law of Moses was removed.

the Old to be from God, and yet repeals the far greater part of the laws enacted in it, though these laws are often said to be "statutes for ever." Now, if both are of God, it seems that the one cannot make void that which was formerly declared by the other in his name, since they have both precisely the same authority.

To this, it may be answered, (1.) The phrase “for ever," was used in opposition to such laws as were merely transient. Some of their laws were only to be observed while they marched through the wilderness or upon particular occasions: whereas, such as were constantly and generally to be obeyed, were to them perpetual.

(2.) The lawgiver always retains an authority to alter his laws. As in human laws, the words of enacting them for all future times, only make them to be perpetually binding on the subjects, but do not at all limit the legislative power, which is as much at liberty to abrogate or alter them, as if no such words had been expressed: so also in this case the people had no power over the ritual law to repeal or change it, but that im

Thus the law of going without the camp evidently respects their journey in the wilderness. (Deut. xxxi. 12.) See Grotius de ver. rel. Ch. L. 5. c. 7.

b Further, this phrase does not imply perpetuity. Thus, in 1 Sam. i. 22, it is said, "Samuel shall abide before the Lord for

posed no limitation on the lawgiver himself, who might alter his own constitutions as he pleased.

(3.) This change is implied in the Old Testament. Many plain intimations are given of a time and state in which the knowledge of God was to be spread over all the earth, and that he was every were to be worshiped. Now this could not be done without a change in the law and rituals, since the whole world could not go up to Jerusalem thrice a year, or be served by priests of the Aaronical family.

3. The Article asserts that no man is free from the obligation of the moral law.

On this subject, we shall consider, (1.) The principles of morality. A moral law is that which has an antecedent foundation in the nature of things, that arises from eternal reason, is suitable to the powers of our souls, and is necessary for maintaining human society. The two sources out of which all the notions of morality flow,a are first the consideration of ourselves as individuals, and secondly, the consideration of man as he is a member of human society. There are also two orders of moral precepts; some relate to things that are of their own nature inflexibly good or evil, such as truth and falsehood;

This is analogous to the devision of the Decalogue into the first table containing our duty to God, and the second, our duty to our neighbours.

whereas others relate to things, the moral nature of which depends on a variety of extrinsic circumstances. Thus, there is no obstacle arising from the nature of things to married persons separating at pleasure, and marrying a second time. This plainly might be done, and still no immediate violation of any law take place. But if it were permitted, several consequences would instantly result from such a practice, which would transgress all moral propriety. Thus, the children would be neglected, and left to indulge in vicious pleasures; the female sex would be exposed to the tyranny of their husbands, and bad temper would be unrestrained, when the parties knew they could abandon each other's society. These consequences evidently violate the first principles of morality, and therefore, to prevent such violation, the cause of them is a fit subject for a moral precept. The necessity of this distinction will appear, when we consider the Ten Commandments, which are so many heads of morality, exemplified in the highest acts of the kind, to which all the subordinate acts of that kind are likewise to be reduced.

(2.) As to the Commandments of the Decalogue.

The foundation of morality is religion. The acknowledgment of the existence of God,

[ocr errors]

See Bishop Mant's Paraphrase on the Book of Common Prayer, p. 329.

and that he is a rewarder and punisher, is the foundation of religion. Now, this must be supposed antecedent to his laws, since we obey these from our innate persuasion of the Being and Justice of God. The two first commandments, therefore, are directed against two different kinds of idolatry. With respect to the first, no one can question, that it is immoral to worship a false God, since it is robbing the great God of the honour that is due to him, and exalting another thing to a rank that cannot belong to it. With respect to the second, it is no less immoral to propose the true God to be worshiped under appearances that are derogatory to his nature, and that tend to give us low thoughts of him. The reasons, too, on which the prohibition is fonnded in Scripture, are taken from the nature of things, and therefore show that it is a moral precept. Thus, it is said, " to whom will ye liken me." (Is. lx. 18.) And in this very com

a

This distinction into two kinds of idolatry, is warranted by Scripture. Thus, when Aaron made the Golden Calf, he calls it,

thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt." (Ex. xxxii. 4, 5.) Hence, it is plain that the Jews did not then intend to worship any false God, but merely the true God under an image. Now this is confessedly the practice of the Papists; yet it is expressly called "idolatry.” (1 Cor. x. 7.) Compare also Deut. iv. 25 and 28, where the grosser idolatry of worshiping a false Deity, is inflicted as a punishment on the less heinous kind of image wor

« ÎnapoiContinuă »