principles which appeal to consciousness; and I am not certain but that
elaborate and metaphysical reasoning on the nature and attributes of God
weakens rather than strengthens the belief in Him, since He is a power
made known by revelation, and received and accepted by the soul at once,
if received at all. Among the earliest noticeable corruptions of the
Church was the introduction of Greek philosophy to harmonize and
reconcile with it the truths of the gospel, which to a certain class
ever have been, and ever will be, foolishness. The speculations and
metaphysics of theologians, I verily believe, have done more harm than
good,--from Athanasius to Jonathan Edwards,--whenever they have brought
the aid of finite reason to support the ultimate truths declared by an
infinite and almighty mind. Moses does not reason, nor speculate, nor
refine; he affirms, and appeals to the law written on the heart,--to the
consciousness of mankind. What he declares to be duties are not even to
be discussed. They are to be obeyed with unhesitating obedience, since
no discussion or argument can make them clearer or more imperative. The
obligation to obey them is seen and felt at once, as soon as they are
declared. What he says in regard to the relations of master and servant;
to injuries inflicted on the body; to the respect due to parents; to the
protection of the widow, the fatherless, and the unfortunate; to
delicacy in the treatment of women; to unjust judgments; to bribery and
corruption; to revenge, hatred, and covetousness; to falsehood and
tale-bearing; to unchastity, theft, murder, and adultery,--can never be
gainsaid, and would have been accepted by Roman jurists as readily as by
modern legislators; yea, they would not be disputed by savages, if they
acknowledged a God at all. The elevated morality of the ethical code of
Moses is its most striking feature, since it appeals to the universal
heart, and does not conflict with some of the ethical teachings of those
great lights of the Pagan world to whose consciousness God has been
revealed. Moses differs from them only in the completion and scope and
elevation of his system, and in its freedom from the puerilities and
superstitions which they blended with their truths, and from which he
was emancipated by inspiration. Brahma and Confucius and Socrates taught
some great truths which Moses would accept, but they taught errors
likewise. He taught no errors, though he permitted some sins which in
the beginning did not exist,--such, for instance, as polygamy. Christ
came not to destroy his law, but to fulfil it and complete it. In two
things especially, how emphatic his teaching and how permanent his
influence!--in respect to the observance of the Sabbath and the
relations of the sexes. To him, more than to any man in the world's
history, do we owe the elevation of woman, and the sanctity and blessing
of a day of rest. In the awful sacredness of the person, and in the
regular resort to the sanctuary of God, we see his immortal authority
and his permanent influence.
The other laws which Moses promulgated are more special and minute, and
seem to be intended to preserve the Jews from idolatry, the peculiar sin
of the surrounding nations; and also, more directly, to keep alive the
recognition of a theocratic government.
Thus the ceremonial or ritualistic law--an important part of the Mosaic
Code--constantly points to Jehovah as the King of the Jews, as well as
their Supreme Deity, for whose worship the rites and ceremonies are
devised with great minuteness, to keep His _personality_ constantly
before their minds. Moreover, all their rites and ceremonies were
typical and emblematical of the promised Saviour who was to arise; in a
more emphatic sense their King, and not merely their own Messiah, but
the Redeemer of the whole race, who should reign finally as King of
kings and Lord of lords. And hence these rites and sacrifices, typical
of Him who should offer Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the
world, are not supposed to be binding on other nations after the great
sacrifice has been made, and the law of Moses has been fulfilled by
Jesus and the new dispensation has been established. We see a
complicated and imposing service, with psalms and hymns, and beautiful
robes, and smoking altars,--all that could inspire awe and reverence. We
behold a blazing tabernacle of gold and silver and precious woods and
gorgeous tapestries, with inner and secret recesses to contain the ark
and the tables of stone, the mysterious rod, the urn of manna, the book
of the covenant, the golden throne over-canopied by cherubs with
outstretched wings, and the mercy-seat for the Shekinah who sat between
the cherubim. The sacred and costly vessels, the candlesticks of pure
and beaten gold, the lamps, the brazen sea, the embroidered vestments of
the priests, the breastplate of precious stones, the golden chains, the
emblematic rings, the ephods and mitres and girdles, the various altars
for sacrifice, the burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, meat-offerings, and
sin-offerings, the consecrated cakes and animals for sacrifice, the
rites for cleansing leprosy and all uncleanliness, the grand atonements
and solemn fasts and festivals,--all were calculated to make a strong
impression on a superstitious people. The rites and ceremonies of the
Jews were so attractive that they made up for all other amusements and
spectacles; they answered the purpose of the Gothic churches and
cathedrals of Europe in the Middle Ages, when these were the chief
attractions of the period. There is nothing absurd in ritualism among
ignorant and superstitious people, who are ever most easily impressed
through their senses and imagination. It was the wisdom of the Middle
Ages,--the device of popes and bishops and abbots to attract and
influence the people. But ritualism--useful in certain ages and
circumstances, certainly in its most imposing forms, if I may say
it--does not seem to be one of the peculiarities of enlightened ages;
even the ritualism of the wilderness lost much of its hold upon the Jews
themselves after their captivity, and still more when Greek and Roman
civilization had penetrated to Jerusalem. The people who listened to
Peter and Paul could no longer be moved by imposing rites, even as the
European nations--under the preaching of Luther, Knox, and Latimer--lost
all relish for the ceremonies of the Middle Ages. What, then, are we to
think of the revival of observances which lost their force three hundred
years ago, unless connected with artistic music? It is music which
vitalizes ritualistic worship in our times, as it did in the times of
David and Solomon. The vitality of the Jewish ritual, when the nation
had emerged from barbarism, was in its connections with a magnificent
psalmody. The Psalms of David appeal to the heart and not to the senses.
The ritualism of the wilderness appealed to the senses and not to the
heart; and this was necessary when the people had scarcely emerged from
barbarism, even as it was deemed necessary amid the turbulence and
ignorance of the tenth century.
In the ritualism which Moses established there was the absence of
everything which would recall the superstitions and rites, or even the
doctrines, of the Egyptians. In view of this, we account partially for
the almost studied reticence in respect to a future state, upon which
hinged many of the peculiarities of Egyptian worship. It would have been
difficult for Moses to have recognized the future state, in the
degrading ignorance and sensualism of the Jews, without associating with
it the tutelary deities of the Egyptians and all the absurdities
connected with the doctrine of metempsychosis, which consigned the
victims of future punishment to enter the forms of disgusting and
hideous animals, thereby blending with the sublime doctrine of a future
state the most degrading superstitions. Bishop Warburton seizes on the
silence of Moses respecting a future state to prove, by a learned yet
sophistical argument, his divine legation, _because_ he ignored what so
essentially entered into the religion of Egypt. But whether Moses
purposely ignored this great truth for fear it would be perverted, or
because it was a part of the Egyptian economy which he wished his people
to forget, still it is also possible that this doctrine of immortality
was so deeply engraved on the minds of the people that there was no need
to recognize it while giving a system of ritualistic observances. The
comparative silence of the Old Testament concerning immortality is one
of its most impressive mysteries. However dimly shadowed by Job and
David and Isaiah, it seems to have been brought to light only by the
gospel. There is more in the writings of Plato and Cicero about
immortality than in the whole of the Old Testament, And this fact is so
remarkable, that some trace to the sages of Greece and Egypt the
doctrine itself, as ordinarily understood; that is, a _necessary_
existence of the soul after death. And they fortify themselves with
those declarations of the apostles which represent a happy immortality
as the special gift of God,--not a necessary existence, but given only
to those who obey his laws. If immortality be not a gift, but a
necessary existence, as Socrates supposed, it seems strange that heathen
philosophers should have speculated more profoundly than the patriarchs
of the East on this mysterious subject. We cannot suppose that Plato was
more profoundly instructed on such a subject than Abraham and Moses. It
is to be noted, however, that God seems to have chosen different
races for various missions in the education of his children. As
Saint Paul puts it, "There are diversities of gifts, but the same
Spirit,... diversities of workings, but the same God who worketh in
all." The Hebrew genius was that of discerning and declaring moral and
spiritual truth; while that of the Greeks was essentially philosophic
and speculative, searching into the reasons and causes of existing
phenomena. And it is possible, after all, that the loftiest of the Greek
philosophers derived their opinions from those who had been admitted to
the secret schools of Egypt, where it is probable that the traditions of
primitive ages were preserved, and only communicated to a chosen few;
for the ancient schools were esoteric and not popular. The great masters
of knowledge believed one thing and the people another. The popular
religion was always held in contempt by the wise in all countries,
although upheld by them in external rites and emblems and sacrifices,
from patriotic purposes. The last act of Socrates was to sacrifice a
cock to Esculapius, with a different meaning from that which was
understood by the people.
The social and civil code of Moses seems to have had primary reference
to the necessary isolation of the Jews, to keep them from the
abominations of other nations, and especially idolatry, and even to make
them repulsive and disagreeable to foreigners, in order to keep them a
peculiar people. The Jew wore an uncouth dress. When he visited
strangers he abstained from their customs, and even meats. When a
stranger visited the Jew he was compelled to submit to Jewish
restraints. So that the Jew ever seems uncourteous, narrow, obstinate,
and grotesque: even as others appeared to him to be pagan and unclean.
Moses lays down laws best calculated to keep the nation separated and
esoteric; but there is marvellous wisdom in those which were directed to
the development of national resources and general prosperity in an
isolated state. The nation was made strong for defence, not for
aggression. It must depend upon its militia, and not on horses and
chariots, which are designed for distant expeditions, for the pomp of
kings, for offensive war, and military aggrandizement. The legislation
of Moses recognized the peaceful virtues rather than the
warlike,--agricultural industry, the network of trades and professions,
manufacturing skill, production, not waste and destruction. He
discouraged commerce, not because it was in itself demoralizing, but
because it brought the Jews too much in contact with corrupt nations.
And he closely defined political power, and divided it among different
magistrates, instituting a wise balance which would do credit to modern
legislation. He gave dignity to the people by making them the ultimate
source of authority, next to the authority of God. He instituted
legislative assemblies to discuss peace and war, and elect the great
officers of state. While he made the Church support the State, and the
State the Church, yet he separated civil power from the religious, as
Calvin did at Geneva. The functions of the priest and the functions of
the magistrate were made forever distinct,--a radical change from the
polity of Egypt, where kings were priests, and priests were civil rulers
as well as a literary class; a predominating power to whom all vital
interests were intrusted. The kingly power among the Jews was checked
and hedged by other powers, so that an overgrown tyranny was difficult
and unusual. But above all kingly and priestly power was the power of
the Invisible King, to whom the judges and monarchs and supreme
magistrates were responsible, as simply His delegates and vicegerents.
Upon Him alone the Jews were to rely in all crises of danger; in Him
alone was help. And it is remarkable that whenever Jewish rulers relied
on chariots and horses and foreign allies, they were delivered into the
hands of their enemies. It was only when they fell back upon the
protecting arms of their Eternal Lord that they were rescued and saved.
The mightiest monarch ruled only with delegated powers from Him; and it
was the memorable loyalty of David to his King which kept him on the
throne, as it was self-reliance--the exhibition of independent
power--which caused the sceptre to depart from Saul.
I cannot dwell on the humanity and wisdom which marked the social
economy of the Jews, as given by Moses,--in the treatment of slaves
(emancipated every fifty years), in the sanctity of human life, in the
liberation of debtors every seven years, in kindness to the poor (who
were allowed to glean the fields), in the education of the people, in
the division of inherited property, in the inalienation of paternal
inheritances, in the discouragement of all luxury and extravagance, in
those regulations which made disproportionate fortunes difficult, the
vast accumulation of which was one of the main causes of the decline of
the Roman Empire, and is now one of the most threatening evils of modern
civilization. All the civil and social laws of the Jewish commonwealth
tended to the elevation of woman and the cultivation of domestic life.
What virtues were gradually developed among those sensual slaves whom
Moses led through the desert! In what ancient nation were seen such
respect to parents, such fidelity to husbands, such charming delights of
home, such beautiful simplicities, such ardent loves, such glorious
friendships, such regard to the happiness of others!
Such, in brief, was the great work which Moses performed, the marvellous
legislation which he gave to the Israelites, involving principles
accepted by the Christian world in every age of its history. Now,
whence had this man this wisdom? Was it the result of his studies and
reflections and experiences, or was it a wisdom supernaturally taught
him by the Almighty? On the solution of this inquiry into the divine
legation of Moses hang momentous issues. It is too grand and important
an inquiry to be disregarded by any one who studies the writings of
Moses; it is too suggestive a subject to be passed over even in a
literary discourse, for this age is grappling with it in most earnest
struggles. No matter whether or not Moses was gifted in a most
extraordinary degree to write his code. Nobody doubts his transcendent
genius; nobody doubts his wonderful preparation. If any uninspired man
could have written it, doubtless it was he. It was the most learned and
accomplished of the apostles who was selected to be the expounder of the
gospel among the Gentiles; so it was the ablest man born among the Jews
who was chosen to give them a national polity. Nor does it detract from
his fame as a man of genius that he did not originate the most profound
of his declarations. It was fame enough to be the oracle and prophet of
Jehovah. I would not dishonor the source of all wisdom, even to magnify
the abilities of a great man, fond as critics are of exalting the wisdom
of Moses as a triumph of human genius. It is natural to worship
strength, human or divine. We adore mind; we glorify oracles. But
neither written history nor philosophy will support the work of Moses as
a wonder of mere human intellect, without ignoring the declarations of
Moses himself and the settled belief of all Christian ages.
It is not my object to make an argument in defence of the divine
legation of Moses; nor is it my design to reply to the learned
criticisms of those who doubt or deny his statements. I would not run
a-tilt against modern science, which may hereafter explain and accept
what it now rejects. Science--whether physical or metaphysical--has its
great truths, and so has Revelation; the realm of each is distinct while
yet their processes are incomplete: and it is the hope and firm belief
of many God-fearing scientists that the patient, reverent searching of
to-day into God's works, of matter and of mind, as it collects the
myriad facts and classifies them into such orderly sequences as indicate
the laws of their being, will confirm to men's reason their faith in the
revealed Word. Certainly this is a consummation devoutly to be wished. I
am not scientist enough to judge of its probability, but it is within my
province to present a few deductions which can be fairly drawn from the
denial of the inspiration of the Mosaic Code. I wish to show to what
conclusions this denial logically leads.
We must remember that Moses himself most distinctly and most
emphatically affirms his own divine legation; for is not almost every
chapter prefaced with these remarkable words, "And the Lord spake unto
Moses"? Jehovah himself, in some incomprehensible way, amid the
lightnings and the wonders of the sacred Mount, communicated His wisdom.
Now, if we disbelieve this direct and impressive affirmation made by
Moses,--that Jehovah directed him what to say to the people he was
called to govern,--why should we believe his other statements, which
involve supernatural agency or influence pertaining to the early history
of the race? Where, then, is his authority? What is it worth? He has
indeed no authority at all, except so far as his statements harmonize
with our own definite knowledge, and perhaps with scientific
speculations. We then make our own reason and knowledge, not the
declarations of Moses, the ultimate authority. As a divine oracle to us,
his voice is silent; ay, his august voice is drowned by the discordant
and contradictory opinions that are ever blended with the speculations
of the schools. He tells us, in language of the most impressive
simplicity and grandeur, that he _was_ directly instructed and
commissioned by Jehovah to communicate moral truths,--truths, we should
remember, which no one before him is known to have uttered, and truths
so important that the prosperity of nations is identified with them, and
will be so identified as long as men shall speculate and dream. If we
deny this testimony, then his narration of other facts, which we accept,
is not to be fully credited; like other ancient histories, it may be and
it may not be true,--but there is no certainty. However we may interpret
his detailed narration of the genesis of our world and our
race,--whether as chronicle or as symbolic poem,--its central theme and
thought, the direct creative agency of Jehovah, which it was his
privilege to announce, stands forth clear and unmistakable. Yet if we
deny the supernaturalism of the code, we may also deny the
supernaturalism of the creation, in so far as both rest on the
authority of Moses.
And, further, if Moses was not inspired directly from God to write his
code, then it follows that he--a man pre-eminent for wisdom, piety, and
knowledge--was an impostor, or at least, like Mohammed and George Fox, a
self-deceived and visionary man, since he himself affirms his divine
legation, and traces to the direct agency of Jehovah not merely his
code, but even the various deliverances of the Israelites. And not only
was Moses mistaken, but the Jewish nation, and Christ and the apostles,
and the greatest lights of the Church from Augustine to Bossuet.
Hence it follows necessarily that all the miracles by which the divine
legation of Moses is supported and credited, have no firm foundation,
and a belief in them is superstitious,--as indeed it is in all other
miracles recorded in the Scriptures, since they rest on testimony no
more firmly believed than that believed by Christ and the apostles
respecting Moses. Sweep away his authority as an inspiration, and you
undermine the whole authority of the Bible; you bring it down to the
level of all other books; you make it valuable only as a thesaurus of
interesting stories and impressive moral truths, which we accept as we
do all other kinds of knowledge, leaving us free to reject what we
cannot understand or appreciate, or even what we dislike.
Then what follows? Is it not the rejection of many of the most precious
revelations of the Bible, to which we _wish_ to cling, and without a
belief in which there would be the old despair of Paganism, the dreary
unsettlement of all religious opinions, even a disbelief in an
intelligent First Cause of the universe, certainly of a personal
God,--and thus a gradual drifting away to the dismal shores of that
godless Epicureanism which Socrates derided, and Paul and Augustine
combated? Do you ask for a confirmation of the truths thus deduced from
the denial of the supernaturalism of the Mosaic Code? I ask you to look
around. I call no names; I invoke no theological hatreds; I seek to
inflame no prejudices. I appeal to facts as incontrovertible as the
phenomena of the heavens. I stand on the platform of truth itself,
which we all seek to know and are proud to confess. Look to the
developments of modern thought, to some of the speculations of modern
science, to the spirit which animates much of our popular literature,
not in our country but in all countries, even in the schools of the
prophets and among men who are "more advanced," as they think, in
learning, and if you do not see a tendency to the revival of an
attractive but exploded philosophy,--the philosophy of Democritus; the
philosophy of Epicurus,--then I am in an error as to the signs of the
times. But if I am correct in this position,--if scepticism, or
rationalism, or pantheism, or even science, in the audacity of its
denials, or all these combined, are in conflict with the supernaturalism
which shines and glows in every book of the Bible, and are bringing back
for our acceptance what our fathers scorned,--then we must be allowed to
show the practical results, the results on life, which of necessity
followed the triumph of the speculative opinions of the popular idols of
the ancient world in the realm of thought. Oh, what a life was that!
what a poor exchange for the certitudes of faith and the simplicities of
patriarchal times! I do not know whether an Epicurean philosophy grows
out of an Epicurean life, or the life from the philosophy; but both are
indissolubly and logically connected. The triumph of one is the triumph
of the other, and the triumph of both is equally pointed out in the
writings of Paul as a degeneracy, a misfortune,--yea, a sin to be wiped
out only by the destruction of nations, or some terrible and unexpected
catastrophe, and the obscuration of all that is glorious and proud among
the works of men.
I make these, as I conceive, necessary digressions, because a discourse
on Moses would be pointless without them; at best only a survey of that
marvellous and favored legislator from the standpoint of secular
history. I would not pull him down from the lofty pedestal whence he has
given laws to all successive generations; a man, indeed, but shrouded in
those awful mysteries which the great soul of Michael Angelo loved to
ponder, and which gave to his creations the power of supernal majesty.
Thus did Moses, instructed by God,--for this is the great fact revealed
in his testimony,--lead the inconstant Israelites through a forty years'
pilgrimage, securing their veneration to the last. Thus did he keep them
from the idolatries for which they hankered, and preserved among them
allegiance to an invisible King. Thus did he impress his own mind and
character upon them, and shape their institutions with matchless wisdom.
Thus did he give them a system of laws--moral, ceremonial, and
civil--which kept them a powerful and peculiar people for more than a
thousand years, and secured a prosperity which culminated in the
glorious reigns of David and Solomon and a political power unsurpassed
in Western Asia, to see which the Queen of Sheba came from the uttermost
part of the earth,--nay, more, which first formulated for that little
corner of the world principles and precepts concerning the relations of
men to God and to one another which have been an inspiration to all
mankind for thousands of years.