works was abolished by Christ in its federal consideration. 1st, As to its rigour, which required of man himself an obedience in every part and degree perfect, as the condition of justification, and that without any promise of the Spirit and of sanctifying grace. 2dly, As to the curse, which it threatens against all who deviate from it in the least. And in this sense Paul says, that we are not under the law, but under grace' (Rom. vi. 14), though as to its normal relation, or as it is the rule of life and manners, it was not even for a moment abrogated or abolished by Christ. I Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid, yea we establish the law' (Rom. iii. 31). In that respect, Christians are no less under the Decalogue than the Jews were formerly; and that not only because the precepts of it are just and holy, but also because they are commandments which were formerly promulgated with so much majesty and pomp; or, which is almost the very same thing, not only on account of the doctrine they contain, but also of the authority of the supreme governor." (§§ 27-34, 36-38.)

The principle, that moral duties are to be performed, not only because they are agreeable to reason, but in obedience to the Divine will, is fully admitted by those who reject the notion that the Decalogue ever bound any but the Jews: the law of nature, partly included in the Decalogue, is, in their estimation, as clearly the law of God to all men, as the Decalogue was to his chosen people. If God had declared to the Jew, as Witsius represents him to have done, "that this or that duty was incumbent on him as a rational creature," all must have admitted that the ground would have been strengthened for this writer's opinion, that "if any of the Gentiles came to have any knowledge of the giving of this law, they were to believe that the precepts of it were spoken to them no less than they were to Israel;”—though still the important question would have remained, Whether such Gentiles were bound to bestow upon the evidence of the origin of the Decalogue that careful investigation without which they could never get a rational belief that it was the law of God? But in fact there is nothing in the law itself to the effect that any part of it, more than another, obliged the Jews "as rational creatures;" and if it be said that the Gentile was enabled by the light of his reason and conscience to distinguish laws binding all men from those peculiar to the members of the Jewish commonwealth, the reply is obvious,—that since the Gentile is here supposed to recognise by nature the law of God written in the human constitution, he has the same inducement to obey it, as to obey corresponding precepts in the Decalogue. "Instead of determining, by an appeal to the law of nature, what precepts of the Jewish law are moral, and then obeying them because they agree with the law of nature, we shall find it a shorter and equally effective proceeding to obey the law of nature itself, without en⚫ cumbering ourselves with intermediate rules, which were never prescribed to any but the Jews. The circuitous process which some think essential, is like setting a steam-engine to turn a mill

by pumping water on the buckets of its wheel, instead of dispensing with the wheel altogether, and connecting the moving power directly with the grinding machinery." (Sabbath Laws, p. 223.) Doubtless, as this writer allows (Id. p. 196), and as Luther long since taught, much instruction is to be gained from judicious study of the law of Moses,-a law wisely adapted to the peculiar circumstances of the people to whom it was given, but also requiring from them, as members of the human race, moral conduct as high as "the hardness of their hearts" allowed the legislator to demand. But we who live in very different times,-who for the most part have little knowledge of oriental usages and circumstances, and are apt to forget the peculiarities of the Jewish people, -ought to be careful lest we misapply to mankind at large what was never meant to serve even as an example to the Gentiles, but on the contrary might be designed to keep up the separation between the Jews and them. The error of supposing that the Mosaic law against taking interest for money was binding on the modern Gentiles prevailed till the seventeenth century; the burning of witches was thought by our forefathers at the same period to be a Christian duty; and Knox himself maintained, on the ground of the Mosaic law, that the civil governors of Scotland, and their subjects in case of neglect, were bound to extirpate the opinions and worship of the Roman Catholics, and even to massacre the members of that Church-man, woman, and child. (Edin. Rev. xxvii. 166; and M'Crie's Life of Knox, Period viii., p. 278 of 6th ed.) The duty of paying tithes is in like manner held by some even now, to be incumbent not only on the Jews, among whom the priestly tribe of Levi had no share of the land, but for ever on the Gentile Christians, among whom no such arrangement exists, and whose clergy are not priests at all. Yet it is remarkable that some other portions of the Mosaic law, which, whether they bind the Christian or not, may at least suggest to us excellent rules of conduct, have in general been overlooked by the spiritual instructors of the people. In Deut. xxiii. 12-14, for example, we find an injunction to remove filth out of sight and smell; which precept, it has been said, "there is very great need for inculcating in Scotland, but on which, notwithstanding the reverence of our clergy for the Jewish law, I do not remember to have heard or seen a single sermon." It is but fair to add, however, that of late the clergy of both England and Scotland have begun to direct their attention with very good effect to this and kindred subjects. (See especially The Observance of the Sanitary Laws, divinely appointed in the Old Testament Scriptures, sufficient to ward of preventable Diseases from Christians as well as Israelites: A Sermon preached in the Cathedral, Manchester, on Sunday Morning, April 30th, 1854, by the Rev. Charles Richson, M.A. With Notes by John Sutherland, M.D., of the General Board of Health. London: Charles Knight. 1854. 8vo. Pp. 35. Also, What Christianity Teaches respecting the Body: A Sermon preached in the Parish VOL. II.

G

Church, Crathie, 11th Oct. 1857, by Robert Lee, D.D. Edinburgh : Cowan & Co. 1857. 8vo. Pp. 31.) Mr Richson thinks, that," due regard being had to the mere connection of the Mosaic sanitary regulations with ceremonials now abolished, or with typical indications of the Saviour's offices, and to the adaptation of such regulations to the peculiarities of climate, there is nothing in the Gospel dispensation which abrogates the sanitary system prescribed in the Mosaic institutions; but that, proceeding, like the moral law, from God himself, it is so far binding upon the Christian as upon the Jew, that neither the moral nor the sanitary law can be neglected without offence to Almighty God." (P. 27.) This conclusion may be readily assented to, even by those who consider the moral and sanitary laws to bind the Gentiles only as natural or as Christian laws, and in no manner or degree because they were delivered by Moses.

It is urged by Witsius, in the passage above quoted, that "what Paul wrote to the Romans is no less binding on us than it was on them; because the obligation is founded on the manifestation or discovery of the Divine will and pleasure." But even if this be granted, does it follow, that because the duties which Paul as an apostle of Christ inculcated on a Christian church are binding on Christians at large, the duties which Moses prescribed to the Jews are more or less binding on the Gentiles? Again, the interpretation which Witsius gives of Rom. xi. 17, is by no means borne out by the conduct of the apostle himself, who, so far from inculcating obedience to the law of Moses by the Gentile converts, was in fact a strenuous opponent of the Judaizing Christians. Neither Paul nor the other apostles drew a distinction between different portions of the law; and nothing could be more natural, than that, in writing to Jewish Christians, they should often impress their admonitions by referring to the moral precepts of that law which was still regarded as binding on the house of Israel. But it remains to be considered, whether they have ever appealed to the Jewish law as anywise binding on the Gentile Christians; for unless this question can be affirmatively answered, nothing to the purpose is determined in favour of the Puritan view, or even of the narrower doctrine of Witsius. This subject is fully and ably discussed by the Rev. Baden Powell, in his Christianity without Judaism, Essay III., On the Law and the Gospel. See also above, i. 79, 201, 244; ii. 30, 36; and Dr Wardlaw's Discourses on the Sabbath, Disc. II.

The distinction made by Witsius between the Decalogue and the rest of the Mosaic law, in regard to its binding power over Christians, is repudiated by Hengstenberg in his treatise on The Lord's Day (p. 89 of Martin's translation). He regards the spiritual

element" of the whole law as obligatory on all men; but not its temporal form,"-to which, " only that can belong, which can be proved from the nature of the theocracy to refer especially to it." And certainly it does not seem to follow as a necessary conse

quence from the peculiar solemnity with which the ten commandments were delivered, that they were to be either more extensively or for a longer period binding, than the rest of the law.

The fallacy of the argument of Witsius on this subject, as amplified in Dwight's Theology, Serm. 105, has been illustrated thus: "Suppose that William the Conqueror, after establishing his dominion in England, had signalized by an unparalleled blast of trumpets, and by huge bonfires on fifty hills, the promulgation of his first, and (let us say) most important edict to the English people; and had moreover distinguished it from all his future ordinances by engraving it with his royal hand upon brass; would it be 'clear beyond every rational debate,' that this edict, because of such distinction, must have been more permanently or extensively binding than his other English laws, written on parchment by a scribe, and promulgated in the usual way? Would his subjects in Normandy have thought it incredible' that he should mark in so solemn a manner this command, unless he intended that all to whom it should come, that is, all his subjects who should afterward read' this law, should hold it as being universally obligatory throughout his dominions, and consequently binding on the Normans, to whom it was not promulgated, equally with the English to whom it was? And if any one had told them that the trumpet-blowing, fire-kindling, and engraving on brass, must be the result of contrivance and design,' which design could be no other than that Normandy as well as England should be subject to this law, would they not have laughed in the face of their instructor, and told him, that although doubtless the king had some design in these proceedings, yet, if he had really intended to impose his law upon Normandy as well as England, he would unquestionably have proclaimed it to his Norman subjects; as a law to be obeyed by them; and as for the uncommon solemnity of the English promulgation, that was sufficiently accounted for by the obvious utility of arresting, in some such forcible manner, the attention of the English at the commencement of his legislative proceedings, and of fixing as firmly as possible in their memory what was not only the earliest, but the most important ordinance of his reign?"

194. WALLIS, JOHN, D.D. (see No. 190).-A Defence of the Christian Sabbath. Part the Second. Being a Rejoinder to Mr Bampfield's Reply to Dr Wallis's Discourse concerning the Christian Sabbath. Oxford, 1694. 4to. Pp. 131.

"There is not," says he, "the least footstep in history, sacred or profane (that I can find), that any nation, much less all nations, did worship the sun upon Sunday more than on any other day, or that any nation before Israel's coming out of Egypt had any weeks

at all; nor any after that time but the Jews only, before the times of Christianity; or that the names of Saturday, Sunday, Monday, &c., were so much as known before that time. And if any of the heathens had any weeks before that time, how shall we know that they were in an uninterrupted circulation from the first creation ? So that all this is not so much a tradition, but mere fancy." (P. 55.) "Whether or no they (the Patriarchs) did then reckon by weeks, is the point in question. That they did then reckon by days, months, and years, we may learn from Gen. i. 14 (which are plainly distinguished by the motions of the sun and moon); but no mention of weeks there nor anywhere else (that I can find) earlier than Exod. xvi., after their coming out of Egypt."* (P. 111.)

He is the earliest writer in whom I have met the observation that "the Sabbath" in the authorized English version of Exod. xvi. 23 and 26, ought to be "a Sabbath." (P. 113.) See above, i. 8, note. Mr Godfrey Higgins is the only other by whom, as far as I know, these mistranslations have been pointed out. (Hora Sabbatica, Part II., § 10.) Wallis states also that "the Sabbath,” in the English version of the Fourth Commandment, both in Exod. xx. 10 and Deut. v. 14, ought to be "a Sabbath;" Shabbat, not Hashabbat, being the Hebrew word. (P. 114.)

Though willing to believe that the Sabbath was observed before Moses, he is inclined to think that it was not, or it was not necessary for us to know it. (P. 115.)

He finds in Matt. xxiv. 20, and Acts xiii. 42, express evidence for the Christian Sabbath: "the next Sabbath," in the latter place, he understands to be the next day after the Jewish Sabbath, (Pp. 79-82.)

Bampfield had at first argued, as others have often done, that because the word caßßara (the plural), meaning literally "Sabbaths," is used in Col. ii. 16, the weekly Sabbath cannot be there meant. Wallis, after noticing his subsequent concession that reßßara is "sometimes" used for one Sabbath-day, proceeds to prove from numerous passages of Scripture that "it is not once or twice, but most frequently, so used by the Septuagints (in their Greek translation of the Old Testament, especially of the five books of Moses), whose language the New Testament doth use to follow. In all the five books of Moses we shall hardly meet with ráßßatov in the singular number, but σάββατα in the plural. And in the New Testament, though the Sabbath be sometimes called cáßßarov, it is very often σάββατα, and ἡ ἡμέρα των σαββάτων ; and so I take it to be here meant, Col. ii. 16, ἤ σαββάτων, or of the Sabbath."" (Pp. 101, 102.)

195. SMITH, JOHN.-The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Lord's Day, or Sunday- Sab

He has overlooked Gen. xxix. 27; to which some add Gen. vii, 10; viii. 10, 12.