The GOSPEL TRUTH

LECTURES ON THE

MORAL GOVERNMENT OF GOD.

 By

 NATHANIEL W. TAYLOR, D. D.,

1859

VOLUME II

 

SECTION III:

THE MORAL GOVERNMENT OF GOD AS REVEALED IN THE SCRIPTURES

 

LECTURE IV:

THE MOSAIC LAW A THEOCRACY.

 

The Mosaic law shown to be a theocracy by its adaptation to a people trained In Egypt, particularly as designed to exhibit, by representation, God's moral government. -- The Israelites accustomed in Egypt to such a system. -- They would naturally infer the new government to be similar.Given from God, it could not but suggest some higher truths. -- Reflection would confirm the suggestion. -- The Hebrew ritual similar to the Egyptian in many particulars. -- A representative system adapted to the great ends which God must have proposed.

 

 

HAVING attempted to show that the Mosaic law was a theocracy, from some of the prominent characteristics of the law itself, I now proceed, as I proposed, to show the same things. From the fact that the character, views, modes of thought, of the Israelites were wholly Egyptian, when they received the law.

 

It seems to be quite undeniable, that the earlier revelations of God were comparatively obscure, and that the light of divine truth, which was by this means to be shed on the world, was, in the wisdom of God, to be progressive. Many of the most important truths were delivered in such a manner as to convey only very general conceptions of their nature, and scarcely to disclose at all the great principles on which they were founded. Witness the law given to our first parents as compared with its subsequent fuller form, the first promise of redemption, the covenant with Abraham, and as illustrating the same thing, the disclosures of our Lord respecting the event of his death and the nature of his kingdom. If such concealment was maintained in these cases; if principles, relations, designs, of highest moment as we might account them, were left to mere inference, why should more be expected on the subject under consideration? In accordance with this fact, the whole system of God's administration by Moses, as presented in the Old Testament, is, we claim to have shown, presented in language and which, in its primary literal meaning, can be applied to nothing but a national or political system of government -- the Jewish theocracy.

 

It becomes then an inquiry of deep interest to the interpreter of the Scriptures, of what importance to us is a very considerable part at least of those ancient Hebrew writings called the Old Testament, especially as teaching religious truth? Or thus; we may inquire, what truths if any, are taught by this national institution respecting that higher and more perfect system of moral government which God administers over the world of moral beings; and how, or in what way or mode, are these truths respecting the latter to be learned from the former? What has been already said is sufficient to show that these truths are not to be ascertained from a large part of the language of the Old Testament, interpreted in its primary and literal import. The few passages in the later prophets, which as revelation progressed are exceptions to our general remark, need not be noticed as qualifying the proposition that the Old Testament interpreted as above stated, to a great extent simply unfolds the facts and principles of the national institution as such. The question then, still recurs, how can we learn, or rather how could the nation of Israel for long centuries learn any thing concerning God's higher system of moral government from the civil government which he administered over that people? I answer in two ways, which in some respects differ, but which it is not perhaps easy, and certainly not necessary in all cases to distinguish; viz., by inference, and by representation.

 

I shall now proceed to a course of remark which will serve to explain and confirm the proposition that the Jewish theocracy was designed to exhibit by inference and representation, God's higher system of moral government over men as moral beings, under an economy of grace.

God then originally revealed himself to the first parents of our race, in the high and immutable relation which necessarily results from his own character, and from the nature and condition of his moral creatures -- that of their perfect moral governor. The moral government thus instituted was one, as we speak, of mere law, of which the rule of action was also a rule of judgment. Its great design was defeated by the apostasy; and immediately after this event, God combined with this institution an economy of grace: in other words, he revealed himself as henceforth administering his moral government over men under an economy of grace. This institution in its present form was afterward more fully revealed to Abraham, being in the language of the apostle, "the Gospel before preached unto Abraham" (Gal. iii. 8). Here then, we have that form of moral government which God has administered since the apostasy, and still administers over this sinful world. This is perpetual, universal, unchangeable. This institution -- ________ -- the Mosaic law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, could not disannul (Gal. iii. 15-17). It remained unchanged and in full force over Israel and over all men, as the one and only form of God's moral government over them as moral beings. The Mosaic law or theocracy was added, not to set it aside, to alter, to ratify or perfect it, in any respect whatever; but "because of transgressions" -- because of its actual failure through the idolatry and wickedness of men, to accomplish the end for which it was designed. To this universal, unchangeable system of moral government over men, "the law," the Jewish theocracy, was wholly subservient, being designed and fitted as a means of preventing its perversion and securing its end. This Mosaic law was, as the apostle describes it, "our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

 

What then, was this Mosaic law -- the Jewish theocracy? It was as we have said, a national or civil government, in which God in addition to that higher relation of a perfect moral governor, which he sustained toward Israel and toward all men as moral beings, assumed the new and comprehensive relation peculiar to that people, of their national king and national God or tutelary deity.

 

The Israelites, by their residence in Egypt through successive generations, had become thoroughly Egyptian in their views, opinions, and modes of reasoning, respecting civil government and religion. Though they had not wholly lost all knowledge of the God of their fathers, they had evidently lost it for all practical purposes. They had no confidence in the success of the mission of Moses to deliver them (Ex. xiv. 12), nor were all the miracles which they witnessed in Egypt, at the Red Sea and Mount Sinai, sufficient to cure them of their idolatry, or to break up their purpose to return to Egypt. That such was their character, such their extreme degradation and perverseness as idolaters, when they left Egypt, with all those practical views in respect to government and religion which were universal under the idolatrous theocracy of that country and other nations, so clearly appears from their history by Moses, that to prove it would be superfluous to any one who reads and believes that history.

 

With these facts before us, the principle of our argument as hereafter to be presented, may be thus stated: that as the Israelites when in Egypt, had in their views, opinions, and modes of reasoning in respect to government and religion, become thoroughly Egyptian, and that as the Egyptian theocracy or national government implied in their view, another and higher system of government administered by their national Divinity, soothe theocracy or national government, instituted by God over this people would naturally, and should according to the prevailing modes of thinking, be in like manner understood to imply another and higher system of government.

 

It would be so understood by a natural conclusion. By this I mean, by one of those conclusions which is given not by formal reflection -- not by a well-considered reasoning process but by that ready and almost unavoidable suggestion, which arises from familiarity with the subject in similar cases.

 

That we may the better estimate the force of this argument, let us advert briefly to the more prominent and familiar facts of the case. God then had formed the design of introducing and preserving the knowledge of himself as the only true God in an idolatrous world. This design was to be accomplished by separating the descendants of Abraham who were now in Egypt, from all other nations, and by establishing over these descendants the same kind of government as that to which they had been accustomed -- a theocracy. They were now groaning under the yoke of oppression, and wholly given to idolatry with the people among whom they dwelt. One of their own brethren was sent to them with a message from God, who was to become under God, their divinely authorized leader and lawgiver. This was no mere pretense of Moses, as was that of other political rulers. He proved his mission to be divine, by such miraculous works and such superior wisdom as no other lawgiver could pretend to. This message, accompanied with signs and wonders and proved to be from the God of their fathers, whose virtues he had promised to reward with distinguished blessings on their posterity, announced their speedy deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and the sure possession of the land of Canaan as the scene of the promised inheritance. The people hearken to the voice of their leader, and are delivered. On the third month after their departure from Egypt, they come to Mount Sinai. Here God first informs them of his great design toward them -- and it is worth while to inquire how his language would be understood by this idolatrous people -- saying, "If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, ye shall be a peculiar treasure to me above all people, for all the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex. xix. 5, 6). The people at once consent, saying, "All that the Lord hath said, will we do." And now God amid thunderings and lightnings, and under the name of the Lord their God, that brought them out of the land of Egypt, delivers the covenant or code of laws by which they were to be governed. This as we have seen, was on the face of it a system of laws given to this people by Jehovah, as their national king and national God.

 

It is to be remembered also, that the notion of tutelary deities, which we find then in Egypt, was universal throughout the Gentile world. This notion was, that the earth was divided by its Creator among a number of subordinate divinities, each of which was employed in the protection and care of his own people, and was the local deity of the country -- its exclusive and rightful possessor. Thus, after God selected Judea for his peculiar residence and dominion, it was called "his land" (Jer. x. 16; Ii. 10). In confirmation of this view, we refer to Deut. xxxii. 8, 9; 1 Kings, xx. 23; 2 Kings, xvii. 23; 2 Chron. xxxii. 19. There was also a sort of inter-community of the gods of one nation with the gods of another; so that when the people of one country removed to another, they were expected to recognize the gods of the country to which they removed, though they did not abandon the worship of their own. Those also who conquered and possessed another country were obliged to maintain in all their accustomed honors, the gods of the conquered country. Whatever gods of their own they might bring with them, they were to render all due service to the local god of the acquired country. Even mere sojourners from a foreign country refusing to sacrifice to the god of the place where they sojourned, were esteemed guilty of impiety. Great benefits were supposed to result from this; so much so, that it became in part the cause of the idolatry of the Israelites who visited foreign countries. (Vide 2 Kings, xvii. 24, sqq.) It was this superstitious reverence for the tutelary gods of Canaan which was one cause of the defections of this people, when Canaan became their own possession.

 

With these things in view, let us now suppose that this people had left Egypt for some other country than Canaan, and under the patronage and direction of some other God than Jehovah-would they not have transferred those views and opinions in which they had been educated concerning their relations to the king and tutelary gods of Egypt, to the king and tutelary deity of the country to which they should go. Especially if he whom they should now acknowledge as their king and their god, should institute a similar form of government with similar rites of worship, would they not regard them as instituted for similar purposes? If they had believed in a future state of rewards and punishments, would they not still believe in it? If they had performed the services, rites, and ceremonies of the Egyptian theocracy, and submitted habitually to the authority of its laws, with the full conviction that it implied or was connected with a higher system of government founded on a future, immortal existence-would they not still retain these views of the subject, and be led to regard their present relations to the system of government as substantially the same? And when the true character of their national king and national God should be, as it was in respect to Israel, more fully unfolded with its new relations, and with the most distinct correction of former false opinions -- would not their views of the higher system be changed and modified accordingly? Would not the natural conclusion still be, that the lower system of a theocracy now was designed to exhibit, even with increased advantages, the higher system of moral government, as well as formerly in Egypt? I mean, would not all this be natural and highly probable?

 

I now remark again, that --

 

1. The same conclusion would result from more formal inference. By this I mean, reflection in formal reasoning.

 

Here it is to be remembered, that the question is not what. inferences or conclusions were actually derived by this people from the premises -- but the question is, at what conclusions had they the means of arriving by due reflection, and without mental perversion on their part? It is also to be specially considered, that we have already shown that man under the mere light of nature, could come to the knowledge of God as administering a perfect moral government over this world under a gracious economy. And still more especially, that God had revealed this system of government from the fall of Adam to the patriarchs, and pre-eminently to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the ancestors of this people, and this in the form of a covenant which it would seem could never be forgotten -- of a covenant from which Paul, as the chief source of his argument with Jews proves the reality and unfolds the nature of God's system of moral government through grace, over both Jews and Gentiles. The question now is, what further means of knowledge and faith on this great subject, was furnished by the Jewish theocracy?

 

Here the first thing to be noticed is the full and formal promulgation of the perfect law of his moral government -- the perfect rule of action -- revealing the sum of all duty on the part of moral beings. Less than this, according to the principles before stated, he could not require as a rule of action, in the relation of a national ruler. This was also a thing too momentous to be left to be decided in any other way than by the most clear and explicit disclosure in such a revelation. In assuming therefore, the relation of a national king, God did not jeopardize the great interests of holiness, or of perfect moral excellence by lowering or obscuring the perfect rule of action or duty. He did not endanger or sacrifice the moral perfection of man by presenting a false standard of moral character. He made a full and formal promulgation of the perfect law of his perfect moral government.

 

I now ask, what was the rational inference from this fact? Was it that God did not administer a perfect moral government over them? Plainly such a fact considered in itself and without opposing evidence, would as we have seen, require according to every principle of just reasoning, the opposite conclusion -- that God is administering a perfect moral government over men.

 

Further, God as national king revealed another rule of action as the rule of judgment, which as we have seen was not, and could not be, any thing less than the same requirement under a perfect moral government through grace -- the requirement of some degree of personal holiness. But was there anything in this fact to impart doubt or uncertainty to our main inference? Not surely the fact that God did not proceed on the strict principles of a merely legal system, for the very system itself as a system of grace, necessarily excluded a merely legal system. God was ever showing himself under the theocracy or lower system, as a national ruler, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin against the civil government, on condition of repentance and making external conduct, more humano, the criterion of judgment. God as an infinitely perfect Being, could require nothing less than some degree of personal holiness -- true spiritual piety -- as the rule of judgment; and as national ruler administering a civil government, he could make nothing the criterion of judgment but external conduct. Who could suppose that God, who always revealed himself as the omniscient searcher of the heart -- who had so clearly revealed his perfect law as the rule of action, and the law of personal holiness in some degree, of spiritual repentance, as the rule of judgment, could ever be satisfied with or receive to actual favor, a subject even under the national system, on the ground of external conduct, merely because, more humano, he on this ground treated him with favor? Could any civil ruler regard with affection a known traitor, merely because through overt action he could not be convicted of treason? Plainly here again, God left no possible ground of mistake even under the national requirement, in respect to the rule of judgment, except by the most palpable and inexcusable perversion. No principle of a perfect moral government is abandoned in the lower system of civil government; but rather every essential principle of the former is preserved and clearly inculcated in the latter, so far as it is possible from the nature of the case; while none is adopted in the latter, which is not manifestly inseparable from its nature. Indeed, the very principle so palpably adopted in the lower or civil system, not merely of requiring perfect holiness as a rule of action, but of requiring imperfect personal holiness as the rule of judgment, though external conduct is the criterion of judgment, sheds a constant and strong light on the fact that personal holiness would, and that nothing else would, render any one even as a mere citizen or subject of civil government, an object of the actual friendship and favor of the moral lawgiver. But if God as national king and tutelary deity, actually promised even by an extraordinary and miraculous providence, and subverted the laws of nature in execution of the promise to confer earthly happiness in effect for merely external conduct, with what higher approbation must he regard, and with what richer gifts would he bless, not merely the sinless obedience of a perfect heart, but the full, actual compliance with the known rule of judgment in a penitent and contrite heart? Be it here remembered, that this people fully believed in a future state of rewards and punishments. Through their Egyptian education, if in no other way, they also believed in a lower system of divine government with pardon; and a higher system of divine government through grace. And with these premises admitted, how could they believe that God should as he did in effect, confer the richest earthly rewards for merely hypocritical service under the one system, and leave sincere, true-hearted compliance with the only revealed or even possible rule of judgment unrewarded under the other? Could any honest, reflective reasoning on the subject, have resulted in a doubt? Difficult as at first sight it would seem to be, I know that the error, the grand error, of the Jew, was that he legalized mere external conformity to the Mosaic law as a rule of action and of judgment, into full compliance with the claims of God upon him, and thus, on principles of law and equity, expected acceptance and favor with God. From what could such an error -- an error under the light of so much truth -- a practical error of such serious, everlasting moment -- result, except from a most palpable and fearful perversion of the mind? Which was the most rational inference from the premises, that because God as a national king, like other national rulers awarded earthly good, in effect, for mere external compliance with the rule of judgment, for the mere show of actual obedience, this was the full claim of God as a moral ruler, or -- in view of the express and unqualified language of requirement as reaching the heart -- that a spiritual obedience would, and such obedience only would secure the higher reward of a future world? No degree of intellect which pertains to a rational being, if unperverted, it would seem, could in such a case fail to adopt the latter conclusion. How too, do the reproofs and denunciations of God for the want of spiritual service -- the homage of the heart on the part of this people, show the manner in which he expected them to reason on this subject, and with what unqualified wrath he regarded them, in every relation, for this failure?

 

I remark again, that --

 

2. What was thus clearly exhibited to the rational and unperverted mind on this subject, in the mode of obvious and palpable inference, was decisively shown in another mode, viz., by representation.

 

Our first argument on this topic may be thus comprehensively presented -- The theocracy or national government of Egypt, was a representative system. Under this government, the Israelites who were delivered from Egypt by Moses, had been born and educated. They had imbibed the strongest attachment to this kind of national government -- not to say, they had no conception of any other. It was difficult to bring them to leave Egypt, and to receive a theocracy from the true God. It is incredible that they ever should be brought to receive and submit to any other than one that, in their view, was a theocracy. When God therefore, had actually established such a government over this people, and when they had consented to receive it, it is reasonable to conclude that they understood and regarded it and that God designed that they should understand and regard it, as a theocracy -- the same kind of government as that to which they had been accustomed in Egypt -- and therefore a representative system, exhibiting in its great and general principles his moral government over them as moral and immortal beings. The very establishment of such a system of government, in view of its known nature and design, involved the proof of its representative character.

 

This argument is much confirmed by considering the particulars included in it.

 

This people as already intimated, were so thoroughly Egyptian in their notions, opinions, and usages -- they were so profoundly degraded by their idolatry, and as a consequence so violently attached to a theocracy, to its shows, its rites, its pompous services, as their subsequent history from its very beginning through long ages proves -- that nothing is more incredible than that they should ever have been brought to acknowledge Jehovah as the only true God, by any other means than by his administration of such a government.

 

Again: a prominent and principal difficulty in restraining them from idolatry shows the same thing. When they came into the possession of the promised land, they expected great blessings from the tutelary gods of the nations which they conquered, as truly as from their own national Deity; and it was this expectation which made it so difficult to secure, not indeed the acknowledgment of Jehovah as their God, but the renunciation of other gods. Thus they persisted in all their accustomed views of a theocracy, and must have regarded it as a representative system. God therefore, in establishing such a government over them, must have intended that they should so regard it. What should lead them, according to the laws of rational belief, to separate from their conception of a theocracy in the hands of God, their conception of every other theocracy, its relation as a representative system? While those laws of belief -- their assumed premises instead of being contradicted, being fully confirmed -- show that they ought not, and their inveterate attachments, that they would not separate these conceptions; the facts of their history down to the abolition of the national system, show that they did not.

 

This leads to another remark -- that the truly righteous among this people must have practically relied on and used this characteristic of the national system, while the wicked grossly perverted and abused it. The truly righteous must have had a sufficient, even a divine warrant for their faith in God as their rewarder in a future state of existence. That a theocracy was a representative system, had become throughout the earth a settled, undoubted truth -- a plain principle as it were of common sense, or rather of divine authority. Now how could any of those idolatrous Israelites who left Egypt, or any of their descendants, placed under a mere theocracy, find in such a system a divine warrant for that faith which looks to another world for its reward? If this system required this principle, did it promise aught but temporal good? If the covenant with Abraham was still not disannulled and in full force, how could they learn its nature or its import from a system of mere national law, which in its primary and obvious character and import, contained not a word either in the explanation or inculcation of that covenant? How then, under this protracted Mosaic dispensation, and by means of it, was the least divine warrant furnished for the prospects or the hopes of a truly religious faith, unless it was divinely constituted and regarded by every true believer as A REPRESENTATIVE system? Otherwise it is plain that the theocracy or national system could afford no authorized instruction respecting God's higher system of law and grace, as. the moral governor of moral beings; his revelation so far as what was taught or revealed by Moses, instead of being as commonly supposed, progressive, was retrogressive; and instead of attesting the righteousness of God without law, it held forth a mere political justification and temporal happiness and not eternal life as its only promised reward. All that is said in the New Testament, of its relation to Christ and salvation through him -- of which we shall speak more fully hereafter -- would be groundless and unwarranted.

 

Here, too, I may appeal also to that "cloud of witnesses," who, under the Mosaic dispensation, "obtained a good report through faith," and ask, what could warrant the faith of these holy men in this dispensation, unless it were justly viewed as representing the Gospel itself, shadowing faintly but still more brightly than before under the patriarchal dispensation, the covenant made with Abraham -- the grand charter of the Christian church and of human hope? And then again how could God through the whole history of this people, with their established views of a theocracy, be constantly presenting himself to them by the wonders of his power, as the Creator of the heaven and the earth -- as the only living and true God -- over both by his goodness and severity, causing all his glory to pass before them in the administration of a national system of law and grace, and yet they fail to see, in a temporal system so glorious, a higher system which "doth exceed in glory." If Abraham, when "receiving Isaac in a figure," saw the day of Christ and was glad, did not "many righteous" also see it with like emotion, through that august economy for Israel, so plainly designed and adapted as a representative system, to reveal that day in still brighter splendors? But on the other hand, not all; for of still greater multitudes, it must be said in the language of the apostle, "their minds were blinded;" for "until this day, when Moses is read, the vail is on their hearts." Here we have the cause of the grand error of this nation finally rejected of God for their unbelief. This error to the last was, that by a gross and palpable perversion of the representative character of their theocracy, instead of distinguishing as they ought, the national from the moral government of God, they so identified the two systems, as to reduce the whole government of God practically to a merely national or political system for both this and a future world. In this view, what the RULE Of judgment under both systems required -- personal religion, true holiness -- was lost sight of, and the CRITERION of judgment under the national system or mere overt action, was substituted in its place. Hence according to the apostle, they attained not to a law of righteousness -- because they sought it not by faith but, as it were, by works of law -- not even by conforming to the requirement -- the true rule of judgment -- of their national law, but as if it were so; by substituting external obedience the criterion of righteousness before a civil tribunal, for that spirit of loyalty, personal holiness, which the national as well as the moral system required, and which would have justified them under the latter. But failing in this, they attained to nothing beyond the more criterion of righteousness under the national system. They thus sought a mere quasi righteousness as citizens, or as subjects of civil government. Of course they attained to nothing more, and utterly failed of attaining to righteousness under the moral government of God. What then pertained to the theocracy, or national government, except its representative character, which could be thus perverted into this grand error of an unbelieving nation? God clearly presented himself to this people as their national king or ruler, making the rule of action and the rule of judgment as plain as language could make them, requiring in his rule of judgment that state of heart -- that spirit of loyalty, with its prescribed expressions in overt action, which was due to him as a being of infinite perfection, even under a gracious economy. This national government as a representative system also, would clearly show, that God as a moral governor reigning through grace, required the same state of mind as a rule of judgment. But now, in the actual administration of his national government, mere overt action necessarily became not the rule but the criterion of judgment, and actually secured the justification of the externally obedient subject. Hence as subjects of civil government, and so it commonly is in like cases, the criterion of judgment was substituted for the rule of judgment, and all their solicitude and aim directed to the criterion of judgment, i.e., to mere external obedience. This, with that want of thorough reflection so common and natural to man, would be regarded as the fulfillment of every claim of God, and so be relied on as a legal righteousness. Such was undeniably the grand error of this people, and such plainly the process by which they fell into it. At least, what else in the theocracy of this people, except its representative character, could be made by their depraved heart and perverted intellect (2 Cor. iii. 14, 15), the occasion of believing that righteousness by works of law was to be attained before God as a moral governor, it seems difficult to imagine. Is it credible that a Jew, or any other man, with a just and full apprehension of the broad and spiritual import of God's perfect law, should persuade himself that he fulfilled its claim, and by so doing bad or could have a righteousness in law? Is it any more credible that he should persuade himself, that any merely external morality or ritual service was all that the law required, in view of its abundant claims on the heart? Is any thing credible in the case, except that he was willfully ignorant of the true spiritual import of the law -- that assuming that the rule of action and of judgment were the same under the national and moral system, be further vainly and falsely assumed, that his exact and scrupulous external conformity to the national law was decisive proof of entire conformity with its demand on the heart; and thus arrived at the conclusion, that he met and satisfied every claim of God as a lawgiver and was therefore righteous in law? Was not this the error of the young ruler, who so vainly supposed that he had kept the whole law -- an error so plainly exposed by the Saviour, when applying the test of true moral principle to the heart? Was it not the error of Paul before the commandment came, and which he so frankly confesses when he says, "as touching the righteousness of the law, blameless" -- an error exposed only by the saying of the law, "thou shalt not covet?" Was it not the error of supposing that the rule of action and of judgment under the national law, with its whole demand sunk to the Mello criterion of judgment under this law, was the rule of action and of judgment under God's moral system -- an error which has ever been, and is now, the grand and fatal obstacle on the part of this people to their reception of the Gospel? Now it would seem, that there must be some characteristic of the national system -- some existing relation of it to the moral System, as the original occasion of this grand Jewish error. Otherwise, an error so flagrant could not possess the semblance of plausibility, even in the most perverted mind. The representative character of the national system affords in the manner described, an obvious and natural account of the origin of this error, when it cannot I think be accounted for in any other way. If this be the true account of it, then was the theocracy of Israel a representative system.

 

Another consideration, which shows that God designed the theocracy of Israel should be, and that therefore it was, a representative system, is that it so far, or in such degree, resembled the Egyptian theocracy. By this I do not mean that there was a resemblance in all the minute details or peculiarities of the two theocracies. Nothing is more remote from the truth. In the Jewish system, every thing was changed and made different from the Egyptian, which was required by the great object or end of the former, viz., to bring the people to renounce idolatry, and to understand and receive the higher or represented system of God's moral government. But I mean such a resemblance in certain general and essential elements as determine each system to be a theocracy. In proof of this I remark, that --

 

3. Both systems, in their primary character, were simply systems of national or political government. In this character, as we have shown, the laws of each respected only the political conduct of their subjects -- inculcated that spirit of loyalty which was due to the exalted character of the supreme national ruler, but only in this relation -- were enforced only by temporal sanctions, and administered only according to the principles of a civil government.

 

Both systems distinctly and prominently recognized the divinity as the national king and tutelary deity, a determining element which greatly modified the political government or theocracy of all nations. Hence,

 

Both systems included the general, comprehensive requirement of obedience to the national king, as sustaining also the relation of tutelary deity in the administration of a particular and an extraordinary providence. From this latter relation, as combined with the former, resulted the laws requiring what may be called political rather than religious worship, since obedience to these was as truly obedience to the national ruler as any other. As such obedience, it was required and rendered only as the appointed means of securing temporal blessings, and averting temporal calamities. Thus, a spirit of loyalty with its overt doings, in what was called in heathen language a life of piety and virtue, or in Jewish language Holiness, as obedience to the divinity in the twofold relation of national king and national God, was inculcated and enforced in both systems. It is not of course, to be pretended that the things meant by this language in the two cases were the same things, especially in view of the difference between the character of a pagan divinity and that of the true God. The terms were used to denote the conceptions, which were formed under widely different standards of piety and virtue. Under one System it may be difficult to say what they did denote, beyond a vague and general notion of obedience as satisfying the divinity.

 

Under the other, they denoted in one relation true spiritual religion, or what was visibly such and properly spoken of as such.

 

Each of the two systems was a system of law and grace combined. That each was a system of law, as including authoritative rules of action, will not be denied; while, as we have seen in the pagan rites, the performance of lustrations which cleansed from guilt, and the offering of sacrifices and incense, to win the favor and avert the wrath of the gods, are not less obvious than the atonements and consequent forgiveness under the Mosaic institution.

 

Further, both systems included a rule of action and a rule of judgment, differing from each other and plainly distinguished. I do not say that the nature and import of these rules were unfolded with equal plainness and precision under the two systems. But that the difference between these rules -- the rule by the transgression of which sin and condemnation begin, and the rule of repentance by which pardon and acceptance are obtained -- was not less real, or less actually distinguished in the Egyptian than in the Hebrew theocracy, is as truly evinced in the lustrations and offerings of the former as in the sin -- offerings and especially in the great annual atonement of the latter.

 

Once more: The most surprising resemblance between the Egyptian and Hebrew theocracies, is in the ritual parts of the two systems. On this part of the subject: I shall only refer again to the learned work of Spencer, De legibus Hebræorum ritualibus et earum rationibus, remarking, with Warburton, "that the RITUAL LAW when thus explained, is seen to be an institution of the most beautiful and sublime contrivance, which, without its causes (nowhere to be found but in the road of this hypothesis), must lie open to the scorn and contempt of libertines and unbelievers." Like this author, "I mean to charge myself with no more of Spencer's opinions than what directly tend to the proof of this part of my proposition, viz., that there is a great and surprising relation and resemblance between the Jewish and Egyptian rites, in circumstances both opposite and similar." Spencer has not only assigned an adequate reason for the resemblance of the Hebrew rites to the Egyptian, in the design of God by their splendor to attract the people and to prevent their return to Egyptian superstition, but has given, as has Warburton also, decisive proofs that the Egyptians did not borrow from the Hebrews, but the Hebrews from the Egyptians.

To form the present argument, we have now to put two things together. The Egyptian theocracy was, and as we claim to have shown, ought to have been considered by the Israelites who were brought out of Egypt, a representative system, exhibiting a higher system of moral government. Between this Egyptian theocracy and the theocracy which God established over the same people, there was, so far as the form or kind of government is concerned, in every substantial respect a resemblances resemblance so complete as to show that the latter system was substantially copied from the former. I now ask, why this resemblance between the theocracy which God established over this people, and that under which they had been educated in Egypt, and for which they had such strong and almost invincible predilections, unless like the latter, God designed that they should regard it as being, and thus that it should be a representative system?

 

This view is further confirmed by the consideration, that no other satisfactory account can be given of his adopting such a system of government, for the great purpose or end proposed. The more direct object of this institution may be said to be, to reclaim them from idolatry to the knowledge of himself as the only living and true God, and thus to true religion. But why should God adopt a mere national or civil polity for such a purpose, which, neither in the language in which it is revealed, nor yet in any authorized way or method could afford increased instruction, or even the least instruction concerning that moral government of God over men, without the knowledge of which true religion on the part of man is utterly hopeless (Heb. xi. 6)? To have left the acquisition of this knowledge to mere inference, sufficient as this would be to the unperverted mind, would have been in vain, as is fully proved by the entire failure of even the higher instruction and stronger light furnished by the covenant with Abraham. Will it then be said, that the design of God in this political government, was according to literal promise simply to make the nation politically great? But such plainly, was not his great and ulterior end, nor an end which, as his great end, was in the lowest degree worthy of himself. This is to suppose that the God of the patriarchs, by this new institution, should throw all his prior revelations into obscurity and darkness in respect to this paganized nation; that he should only confirm them if not in their idolatry, in the utter irreligion and impiety involved in it; that he had forgotten his covenant with the father of the faithful; that the God of eternity, in revealing himself to successive generations of creatures made in his own image, sunk his relation as reigning over them in the glories of a perfect moral dominion, to that of a mere civil ruler of men as the insects of a day (Heb. xi. 16). If these things are incredible, what can we conclude, but that God by the theocracy of Israel designed, in the way of representation, to exhibit in clearer light than he had done before, his perfect moral government over men?

 

Another consideration worthy, of notice is, that this system of government was pre-eminently fitted to the great end proposed, and thus renders the wisdom and goodness of God conspicuous in its adoption. That he could have adopted any other means so well fitted to its end as this, is beyond the power of human reason to show. It is God himself who asks, "What more could have been done in my vineyard, that I have not done in it?" In our ignorance on this question, and therefore without affirmation or denial, and also without aiming to unfold all the particular adaptations of the system to its end, I proceed to say --

 

4. That this system of government with their very existence as a nation, connected the manifestation of the only living and true God, and in the manner already shown, his almost constant worship and service as their tutelary God. How obvious then in this respect, and especially in view of the idolatry and extreme moral degradation of this people, is the fitness of the system to its high and ulterior design? The great, comprehensive requirement of the system, including the perfect rule of action and the rule of judgment considered in their relations as political rules, were presented in terms as plain as language could furnish, so that of these nothing but perverseness could be ignorant. At the same time we may safely say, in view of their subsequent conduct, hat nothing but a theocracy would be regarded by them with respect; nothing but the strong sensible impressions of such a system would furnish the slightest hope of their moral elevation. On the other hand accustomed as they were to such a government, they were prepared to understand the character of that under which they were placed -- the latter scarcely differing from the former except in one great fact, and what it necessarily involved -- a fact which it would seem could not be misunderstood or misapprehended -- that, instead of an Egyptian idol or dead men deified, the God of the nation is Jehovah. Moses also, who under God was their law giver "king in Jeshurun" -- as "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," and under constant divine direction, was signally qualified to give, and especially to administer a theocracy conformed, except in that respect just specified, to that with which this people were familiar. By such conformity, it was in no degree consistent with its high design, fitted to offend their previously cherished attachments and prejudices. It rather coincided with them, and was in many respects, especially by its splendid ritual, fitted to attract their regard and to secure an entire and welcome reception. No innovations are introduced, no new burdens imposed, no prior usages changed, except what every rational mind must approve, when he who alone is God, whose are the heavens and the earth and all that in them is, is their national God instead of heathen idols. Nor was this system of government given and perpetuated without its high authority being established and kept constantly in view, as a system coming from him who is God over all. The whole nation saw the mighty hand and outstretched arm of the Almighty in their miraculous deliverance from Egypt, and at the giving of the law heard his voice amid the awful grandeurs of Sinai, while in blessings and calamities, and by an extraordinary providence, he shook the heavens and the earth throughout their subsequent history. If aught that can allure or terrify -- if aught of kindness and severity -- if aught could avail of sublimity, grandeur, glory, addressed to the sensible apprehension of a people hopeless in respect to all other impressions; when were the majesty and awful love of God in his rightful dominion, in this manner so presented to any people? If now we add to these things, that this national system was fully proved by its own nature, and according to all the laws of reasoning applicable to the case, to be a REPRESENTATIVE system, thus showing God in brighter manifestation than any prior revelation, in his higher relations -- how signal its adaptation to its end -- how conspicuous the condescension of God to this idolatrous and rebellious people! Human ingenuity may be defied to suggest a system of government and a course of providence, so perfectly adapted to the end designed, so illustrative of the wisdom and goodness of its author, in view of the character, the condition, and the necessities of this people.

 

And further, it will be generally admitted that the Mosaic system or law was designed to furnish a most convincing proof of the substantial nature and divine origin of Christianity. In what manner was this design accomplished? Not a word nor sentence, as we have before intimated, can be found in the Mosaic law -- the theocracy, as, such -- which in its primary, literal import, teaches or implies the moral government of God. Indeed, the express and full revelation of this system, as one afterward to be introduced in its fullness and perfection, and to supersede the national system, would doubtless have defeated another design of God, of indispensable accomplishment to his ulterior end -- the design of training them by a long course of discipline under this preparatory dispensation. For had this people this whole nation -- degraded and corrupt as they were, been fully convinced that their law was temporary and to have an end, they would have despised it, and, as they were wont to do with far less inducement have rejected the authority of Moses, before "the fullness of time" had brought into the world "the Desire of all nations." They would not have so prized it, under their burdensome ritual, as to wait for their spiritual deliverer. Hence divine wisdom and goodness conveyed this information with comparative obscurity -- an obscurity not so great but that sincere and honest inquiry would know and understand the higher system, and yet so great that perverseness and willful ignorance could not augment guilt by rejecting a clearer revelation. How was this accomplished by the Mosaic system of national government, unless it was a representative system exhibiting substantially the nature of God's higher system? How can any such correspondence be otherwise traced between the two systems, or any such dependence of one on the other, as shall prove that if one had a divine origin, the other had also -- a correspondence and dependence which show that not man, but God only, could be the author of either, and is therefore the author of both?

Return to MORAL GOVERNMENT Table of Contents