tion of the will of God to mankind at large, occupying a certain place in the education of the world as a whole, so far its declarations remam lor our guidance, though their coercion and their penalties may be no longer need- ed. It is in their general principle, of course, that they remain, not in their outward form ; and our Lord lias taught us, in the Sermon on the Mount, that these prin- ciples should be accepted by us in a more extended and spiritual development than they could receive in the time of IMoses.
To apply this principle practically there is need of study and discretion, in order to distinguish what is lo- cal and temporary from Avhat is universal, and what is mere external form from what is the essence of an ordi- nance. The moral law undoubtedly must be most per- manent in its influence, because it is based on the nature of man generally, although at the same time it is modi- fied by the greater prominence of love in the Christian system. Yet the political law, in the main principles which it lays down as to the sacredness and responsil il- ity of all authorities, and the rights which belong to each individual, and which neither slavery nor even gtdit can quite eradicate, has its permanent value. Even tlie ceremonial law, by its enforcement of the purity and jicr- fection needed in any service offered, and in its disregard of mere costliness on such service, and limitation of it strictly to the prescribed will of God, is still in many respects our best guide. In special cases (as, for exam- ple, that of the sabbatic law and the prohibition of marriage iwithin the degrees) the question of its author- ity must depend on the further inquiry whether the ba- sis of such laws is one common to all human nature, or one peculiar to the Jewish people. This inquiry may oc- casionally be diflacult, especially in the distinction of the essence from the form ; but by it alone can the original question be thoroughly and satisfactorily answered.
(2.) A plain distinction of this kind seems to lie on the face of the subject, as to the main question at issue. The ceremonial or ritual department of the Mosaic laws, Avhich stood in meats, and drinks, and canial ordinances (Heb. ix, 10) ; which were of a typical character, and a mere shadow of good things to come, was abolished by the introduction of the Gospel; for then they ceased to have any pertinence, the reality having come of which they were the figures. But the kernel of the law, properly speaking, the moral law, which is a transcript of the divme mind, is eternal and unchangeable in its obligations and sanctions. It was fuljilled rather than abrogated by the Gospel. It was confirmed by Christ, and explained in its infinite comprehension and spiritu- ality b}' him and his apostles throughout the New Tes- tanient (Matt, v, 17, 18 ; Luke x, 26-28 ; Pom. v, 15-viii, o9). Hence, when, in Kom. vi, 14; vii, 1-G; Gal. ii, 19; V, 18, the moral law is spoken of as not being the mere rule of life for persons who rely on the grace of God, <and who are authorized to expect a salvation not to be purchased by their works, it is so depreciated simply because in that aspect it is regarded as a law according to which rewards and punishments should be adjudged in so rigid and inexorable a manner as to exclude aU grace, and all reliance on grace (Eom. iv, 12-14 ; Gal. ii, 31 ; iii, 10-12). In short, it is abrogated as a justifying ground of salvation bj' good works, because none can keep it perfectly to that end. Yet it is not abolished as an external criterion of virtue and pict}', and as the final test before the assembled universe. See Antinojiians.
(3.) Another very important fact in this discussion is that all the moral precepts of the Decalogue have been re-enacted by our Lord and his apostles, not only in principle, but in explicit terms (JMark x, 19 ; Kom. xiii, 9). It is true Jesus sums up the spirit of the wliole ten commandments in the two of love to God and man (IMatt. xxii, 37-40), and St. Paid (Rom. xiii, 10), as well as St. John (1 John iii, 11), substantialh' do the same. But this is not done with a view to derogate from the ]irecise form of the Mosaic commands, much less to abol- isli them ; but rather with a view to re-enforce them by
LAW OF MOSES
294
LAW
educing their peniianeiit and universal principle of obli- gation. Cliristianity has therefore in all ages justly recognised the paramount and unvarying force of the moral law as promulgated on Mount Sinai.
The only exception to the above remark of the direct renewal of all these commandments by Christ and his r.postles is that relating to the Sabbath, which is never ([uoted among the rest, but is noticeably omitted, and lias even been held to be intentionally discarded, by ]irecept, inference, and example, by them. The excep- tion, however, is only apparent, and is due to the pecul- iar nature of this observance. It really rests upon an earlier than the Mosaic institute, for it dates from the creation, and was therefore appropriately introduced at Sinai by the allusion, " Remember the Sabbath day." ^Moreover, the Jews of our Lord's day were in no need of being reminded of this institution; they were slav- ishly and superstitiously observant of it. Fmally, as the day of its observance was changed by the very first Christians, there would have been an obvious impropri- ety in their referring to the institution itself umler that mime. That the obligation to occupy in religious rest one day in seven was scrupulously recognised by them the historical fact of the ''Lord's day" abundantly at- tests. See Sabbath.