These are the main provisions of Jlosaism as dis- tinguislied from the dispensation that immediately preceded it, and to these all the particulars of miracle and vision, and angelic and political machinery, were subordinate. While it possessed these advantages, it yet exhibited the following marked deficiencies as com- pared with the more perfect a-ra that was to follow.
II. Mosaism an Introduction to Christianity. — The apostle Paul, who was pre-eminently (jualified to judge of this relation, in a single term cmi>hatically charac- terizes it as that of a pirdayogne (-aiSaywyoQ, not "schoolmaster" or tutor, but the servant who took the children to schooH, to lead us to Christ ((Jal. iii. 24). This was, indeed, the legitimate function of Mosaism, as the same apostle makes clear in numerous other pas- sages (see especially Horn, x, 4; Heb. x, 9). The first and most necessary inference from this fact, of course, is the comparative imperfection of the earlier as com- pared with the later dispensation. But before we pro-
MOSAISM
669
MOSAISM
ceed to detail the defects which called for this super- sedure, we invite attention to another inference not so frequently noted, but equally significant. It is this, that as Judaism contained the germ of Christianity, it was essentially identical with it in at least the rudi- mentary principles. Indeed, true religion everywhere and in all ages is substantially the same, however it may diifer in its manifestation and development. It consists in earnest devotion to God, and is more or less pure according to the direction and intensity which circumstances give to the sincere worshipper. All else is accessory or subordinate. Hence the Psalms have retained under Christianity their place as a manual of religious experience which they held under Judaism ; and the Christian Church has adopted all the deeper and more central elements of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Lord's Sermon on the Mount is an admirable com- mentary on this point, showing how the Gospel is but an extension and refinement of the Law; and on more than one other occasion he summarized the latter as but a crystallization around the core of love (Matt, xix, 19; xxii, 37), an exposition which his apostles univer- sally followed (Kom. xiii, 9 ; Gal. v, 14 ; James ii, 8 ; 1 John iv, 21).
A writer in the Christian Review for January, 1874, in noticing Paul's view of Mosaism as compared with Christianity, reduces the characteristics of the former to the following points :
"1. Governmental authority expressed iu statute.
2. The authority so expressed a rule of life.
3. Penalty following infraction.
4. Its entire force is from without. It seeks to accom- plish nothiiii;: by establishing a principle within.
5. It is utterly inflexible, and knows no mercy.
G. Its righteousness is perfect obedience to the things which are written."
The writer " does not claim for this analysis that it is exhaustive, or that the points are so well put as they might have been." It would be easy, we think, to criticise them. But we give them with the general remark, that while they are in the main correct, they relate to Mcsaism simply as a scheme of law. This is doubtless the most important aspect of that dispensa- tion ; but it has other traits, especially in its practical workings, and as modified or supplemented by the pro- phetical teachings (comp. I Sam. xv, 22 ; Prov. xxi, 3 ; Isa. Iviii, 3-6 ; Hos. vi, 6, etc.). To some of these we may recur; but under this head we propose to take a view of certain marked features in which it resembled while j'Ct it differed from Christianity. This will par- ticularly illustrate the mission of Jesus as a prophet like Moses (Deut. xviii, 18).
I. Doctriiially. — We need not here recapitulate the tenets of Mosaism in detail; it will be sufficient to note the salient points of its belief, especially those in which Christianity is most conspicuously an advance upon it.
(1.) The Trinity. — This is perhaps the greatest doc- trinal stumbling-block iu the way of the reception of the Gospel among the Jews from the earliest times (John viii, 58, 69 ; x, 33 ; Matt, xxvi, 65) to the present day. Yet not a few hints, at least, of the plurality of persons in the Godhead are afforded in the Old Testament. Not to dwell upon the doubtful sense of the plural form of Elohim [see God], or the conferences in the divine con- sessiis implied in the frequent use of the plural we by the Deity (Gen. i, 26 ; iii, 22 ; xi, 7, etc.), we may fairly cite in evidence of our position the plain allusions not seldom made to the divinely eternal and omnitic Spirit (Gen. i, 2 ; vi, 3, etc.), and to the still more palpable theophanies of the Logos, common under the older dis- pensation, as the angel Jehovah (Gen. xviii, 17 sq. ; xix, 16; xxii, 15, 16; xxxii, 24 sq.; Josh.v, 15; Judg. xiii, 15 sq. ; Dan. iii, 25, etc.). We have not space to develop at length this important distinction between the Jewish and the Christian creeds, but the above facts will suggest its fundamental and undeviating import.
(2.) Mediation. — This under the Mosaic system was effected only by the intervention of a human priesthood,