*

the dictates of reason, and the real interests of society. In one country we see theft allowed, if perpetrated with address : in others, piracy and rapine honoured, † if conducted with intrepidity. Sometimes we perceive adultery permitted, ‡ the most unnatural crimes committed without remorse or shame ;§ nay, every species of impurity enjoined and consecrated, as a part of divine worship. In others, we find revenge honoured as spirit-and death inflicted at its impulse, with ferocious triumph. Again, we see every feeling of nature outraged, and parents || exposing their helpless children to perish, for deformity of body or weakness of mind, or, what is still more dreadful, from mercenary or political views; and this inhuman practice familiarized by custom, and authorized by law. And, to close the horrid catalogue, we see false religions leading their deluded votaries to heap the altars of their idols with human victims: ¶ the master butchers his slave, the conqueror his captive; nay, dreadful to relate, the parent sacrifices his children, and, while they shriek amidst the tortures of the flames, or in the agonies of death, he drowns their cries by the clangor of cymbals and the yells of fanatacism. Yet these abominations, separate or combined, have disgraced ages and nations which we are accustomed to admire and celebrate as civilized and enlightenedBabylon and Egypt, Phoenicia and Carthage, Greece and Rome. Many of these crimes legislators have enjoined, or philosophers * Vide Universal Hist. B. I. ch. xix. Vol. I. p. 564; and Plutarch in Lycurgus.

† Thucyd. Lib. 1. sect. v.

Universal Hist. Vol. I. 562; and Plutarch, in his Life of Lycurgus. The proofs of this melancholy fact are unhappily too numerous. The second Eclogue of the correct Virgil is instar omnium. Vide also Plutarch in Lycurgus, compared with Xenophon's Vindication, acknowledging that such guilt was authorized in many places, by the public Laws. Vide Leland's Advantage of Revelation, Part I. ch. vii. and Part II. ch. iii.

Vide Plutarch in Lycurgus, who made it a Law, that the father was obliged to submit his child to the inspection of certain judges, to determine whether it should be preserved, or cast into a deep cavern to perish. Plutarch passes no censure on it. Vide also, the Self-Tormentor of Terence, Act iii. scene 4. Plato and Aristotle approve this cruel violation of natural duty and affection. Vide Plato de Republica, Lib. V. pp. 25 and 28; and Aristotle Politic. Lib. VII. cap. xvi.; and Cicero de Legibus, Lib. III. cap. viii. by which it appears, this practice was enjoined by a law of the Twelve Tables at Rome.

¶ Vide the authorities quoted in the last Lecture, note, pp. 193, 194, and 195, &c.; and Dr. Ryan's useful Work on the Effects of Religion, Vol. I. p. 57, and seq.

defended. What indeed could be hoped from legislators and philosophers, when we recollect the institutions of Lycurgus, especially as to purity of manners, * and the regulations of Plato on the same subject, in his model of a perfect republic; when we consider the sensuality of the Epicureans, and immodesty of the Cynics; when we find suicide + applauded by the Stoics, and the murderous combats of gladiators defended by Cicero, and exhibited by Trajan? Such variation and inconstancy in the rule and practice of moral duty, as established by the feeble or fluctuating authority of human opinion, demonstrates the utility of a clear divine interposition, to impress these important prohibitions; and it is difficult for any sagacity to calculate, how far such an interposition was necessary, and what effect it may have produced by influencing human opinions and regulating human conduct, when we recollect that the Mosaic code was probably the first written law ever delivered to any nation; and that it must have been generally known in those eastern countries, from which the most ancient and celebrated legislators and sages derived the models of their laws and the principles of their philosophy.

Such is the substance, and such the importance, of the Decalogue. Shall we then censure and despise the Jewish law, as a system of mere external and useless ceremonies; when it evidently places this great summary of moral duty at the head of all its institutions; and, in the very mode of its promulgation, stamps it with a sacredness and authority suited to its natural pre-eminence? For let it be remembered, that the

* Vide Plutarch in Lycurgus; and Plato de Republica, Lib. V. This last exhibits the melancholy and humiliating spectacle, of the most enlightened of heathen philosophers coolly adopting, and recommending as the perfection of public morals, a system of more brutalizing turpitude and unnatural cruelty, than ever in fact disgraced human nature in its most depraved state, or polluted the pages of the most licentious writer. Vide Vol. VII. from p. 17 to 28, Editio Bipontina. Alas! how striking a proof of the importance of Revelation!

† Vide Cicero de Finibus, Lib. III. cap. xviii; Leland, Part. II. ch. xi. How strongly is this expressed in the language of some East Indians, to the English!" If you send us a missionary, send us one who has learned your Ten Commandments." Vide Dr. Buchanan's Essay on the Establishment of an Episcopal Church in India, p. 61. a most interesting and important Work. Vide in the same Work, the cruel and immoral practices sanctioned by the Hindoo superstition, which supply an additional proof of the necessity of Revelation, to rectify the errors, and regulate the conduct of Man.

Decalogue alone was promulgated to the Jews, not by the inter-. mediate ministry of their legislator, but directly to the assembled nation by the voice of God, issuing from the glory on the top of Sinai. Thus does the Jewish legislator appeal to his nation in attestation of this fact: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judg"ments which I speak in your ears this day. The Lord our "God made a covenant in Horeb: the Lord made not this 66 covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all "of us alive unto this day. The Lord talked with you face to "face, out of the midst of the fire, saying, I am the Lord your "God." Moses then repeats the Ten Commandments, and adds, "These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in "the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of "the thick darkness, with a great voice, and he added no more; "and he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them "unto me."

Thus awful was the promulgation of the divine Law, enjoining these great principles of duty both towards God and man; first, to the Jews, and through them, we may truly assert, to all the nations of the earth. And was not this an occasion worthy of the direct interposition of the Deity? May we not, without derogating from the wisdom and beneficence of the Divinity, ascribe to him such a law, so promulgated?

But the Jewish religion promoted the interests of moral virtue, not merely by the positive injunctions of the Decalogue;› it also inculcated clearly and authoritatively the two great. principles on which all piety and virtue depend, and which our blessed Lord recognized as the commandments on which hang the Law and the Prophets;-the principles of LOVE TO GOD and LOVE TO OUR NEIGHBOUR. The LOVE OF GOD is every where enjoined in the Mosaic Law, as the ruling disposition of the heart, from which all obedience should spring, and in which it ought to terminate. With what solemnity does the Jewish Lawgiver impress it, at the commencement of his recapitulation of the divine Law; "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one "Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy "soul, with all thine heart, and with all thy might."* And again, "And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require "of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his * Deut. v. 1, &c. + Deut. vi. 4 and 5.

"ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God, with "all thy heart and with all thy soul ?” *

Nor is the love of our neighbour less explicitly enforced: "Thou shalt not," says the Law, "avenge, nor bear any grudge "against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy "neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord."+ The operation of this benevolence thus solemnly required, was not to be confined to their own countrymen; it was to extend to the stranger, who, having renounced idolatry, was permitted to live amongst them, worshipping the true God, though without submitting to circumcision or the other ceremonial parts of the Mosaic Law. "If a stranger," says the law, "sojourn with thee in your "land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth "with you, shall be unto you as one born amongst you, and "thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the "land of Egypt: I am the Lord thy God."‡

66

Nay further, the Jewish Law recognized that exalted principle, of loving our enemies, and doing good to them that hate us; where it commanded, "If thou meet thine enemy's ox or "his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. And if thou see the ass of him that hateth thee, lying "under his burthen, and wouldest forbear to help him; thou "shalt surely help with him."§ It may however be questioned, from the nature of the good offices here enjoined, as well as from the corresponding passages, which speak of a brother or fellow Jew in this case, whether this injunction could be understood to imply more, than that no private enmity between one Jew and another should interrupt that intercourse of good offices, which ought to subsist between the professors of the same religion, and members of the same community. But even thus, the Jewish religion introduced and inculcated that great principle of benevolence, as far as it was possible to practise it under the circumstances in which the Hebrew people were placed, and the design for which it was selected. All the surrounding nations were idolaters, any intimate society with' whom they were commanded to avoid; and no strangers could be permitted to dwell amongst them, until they had renounced idolatry; for such permission would have exposed the Jews to Levit. xix. 33 and 34.

* Deut. x. 12.

+ Lev. xix. 18.

Exod. xxiii. 4 and 5.

temptations too powerful for them to resist, as subsequent experience clearly proved. Hence the Law particularizes the children of their people, and the stranger who dwelt among them having renounced idolatry, as the objects of their benevolence, lest it should be conceived to contradict those injunctions of the same Law, which prohibited all connexion with their idolatrous neighbours, and all tolerance of idolaters within their own community; for it cannot be doubted, that had the Jews been expressly commanded to love their neighbours, though idolatrous, they would have mistaken the precept as a permission to tolerate their worship, and to partake their festivities. So incapable was this gross people of understanding refined distinctions, or receiving that sublime doctrine of universal benevolence, which pervades the Gospel of Christ. All however, that was possible to do, was done. The principle, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," was clearly laid down, and its operation was, by direct command, extended to all with whom a Jew was permitted to hold any permanent or close connexion; so that so far as it could serve to subdue selfish feelings, and train the mind to benevolence, by a perpetual series of benevolent actions, it was fully operative. A more universal precept, a more refined and exalted theory, would probably have led that dull and obstinate race into errors and transgressions, subversive of all the designs for which Divine Providence established the Jewish economy: It was reserved for HIM to PREPARE THE WAY, FOR WHOM that economy was designed; the EXPECTED MESSIAH, the GOD OF LOVE AND of MERCY, to extend and enforce the principle of benevolence; to teach men to regard all human beings requiring their aid, as friends and brethren, however different their country, however opposite their faith; to teach them to love their enemies, to return blessing for cursing, and good for evil; to imitate the example of their Redeemer, who laid down his life for his friends, and in the agonies of death prayed for his persecutors. Thus it was strictly true, that the commandment of our Lord, "To love another, even as He loved us," was NEW.* New in the universality of its application, new in the all-perfect example by which it was illustrated, and new in the sanction by which it was enforced, and the pre-eminence which it obtained

* John, xiii. 34.