LECTURE VIII.

THE HEBREW MORALITY.

T now becomes an interesting inquiry, What was

IT

the origin of the Hebrew morality? We have inquired into the origin of the morality of the different nations of the earth, and have seen that their morality arose out of their nature that God so made and constituted man that the system of morality which was presented to us was a necessity; that a being, constituted as man is, must follow the course which he has, must be guided by the actions which have characterized him. Can we say the same of the Hebrew morality? Was it also a development and a necessity? or was it a command given from heaven? The Ten Commandments are the summary of that morality. What is their origin?

It is hardly necessary to say that all the commands of the Decalogue were in operation from the beginning. In the two thousand years which preceded the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, the morality which is given from Sinai was the morality which was the guide and standard. It was not an

original publication of the moral law. It was not now, in the twenty-first century of the history of the world, for the first time learned that it was a command of God, that man should not kill, nor steal, nor lie, nor commit adultery. These vices were vices in all the ages back to the beginning, back to the time when Cain slew his brother Abel. The publication of the commandments from Sinai was intended to convey no such impression. Those who were assembled around the mountain, as it was covered with clouds and darkness, did not suppose that from that day they were under obligations which they had not been under before. They could only have understood that God was making a covenant with them in which there were two lines of obligation, one with respect to the duties which. they owed to God, and the other with respect to the duties which they owed to man. The two tables contained the conditions of a covenant, on the fulfilment of which, God promised to be a God unto them. Those duties were plainly laid down which were to guide them and which were to rule their life.

Before, however, we compare the Hebrew morality with that which existed from the beginning, let us observe the structure of the system, and see how it was developed, and made applicable to the persons and wants of the Hebrew people. When they went down into Egypt with their father Jacob, they num

bered seventy souls (Gen. xlvi. 27). When they had crossed the Red Sea, and in "the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt," there were more than six hundred thousand fighting-men (Num. i. 45, 46). Of course, such a multitude could not exist without organization. In their progress towards the promised land, Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, gave advice (Exod. xviii. 12-27) which was immediately put into practice, which was an organization of the people and a division of the people in the administration of justice. Already principles and rules existed; and when these failed, an appeal was made to Moses. But it is very evident that this people, which appeared as an unorganized multitude, had been subject to government, and to the administration of justice. But they were now entering on a new career, and were to take their place as one of the nations of the world. And they were entering on this condition under very peculiar circumstances. They had, in our modern phraseology, a mission. They were chosen of God for a peculiar purpose, and were to carry into operation a great principle. They were brought out of their bondage by a divine intervention, and they were to stand in intimate relations to God and His purposes. The moral and religious life was one which we expect to see them cultivate, and to cultivate it under the most favorable circumstances. What religion could

The relation

do for morality, it was to do for them. which redemption and grace were to hold to the moral life, that relation they were to hold to them. We expect, therefore, on the principles which must have existed from their entrance on a separate and independent life, that they would develop and apply to their circumstances and condition a morality which was more lofty and pure, and more suited to the nature of man, than had yet existed, and would exist, until, in future ages, there was a greater development of the revelation of God, and when the Christian grace and faith should come to exert its influence, and to leaven society.

The Hebrew commonwealth is called a theocracy because it was under the immediate divine government. The constitution of the commonwealth is the Decalogue, — the ten divine words, which were uttered by God Himself, and which were recorded for the future guidance of His people. They were to exist as a nation on this basis. It was this that gave them being, and a name, and a place in the history of the world. God proclaimed the divine and moral law, and wrote it on two tables of stone; and He said no more. In all the rest, Moses was His minister, and God spake through him. The rest was a development and an application of the fundamental principles, or forms and modes for carrying those principles into operation.

If you look at the Decalogue in the light of a constitution, or as an expression of fundamental principles, you will find that the second table, or the moral precepts, are like the fundamental or cardinal virtues. It has been shown that the first conceptions of morality in any nation were the general conceptions, as expressed in the cardinal virtues. They were generic conceptions. The progress of a nation, its progress in civilization and culture and refinement, required the specific application of these generic principles. The cardinal virtue was applied in numerous cases. The right of property was a general and vague conception in the beginning, but in the progress of society it was necessary to apply it to numerous cases. This made the growth of law in a nation. This was the growth of Roman law in the Roman Empire. The same took place in the Hebrew commonwealth. These commands embraced fundamental principles. They expressed great and broad truths, which would be applied to numerous cases, and would be developed and applied as the nation grew and progressed, and attained a history. There was at the same time a historical application of the moral conceptions to the transactions of society, to the divisions of labor in society, and to the grades of society in a nation.

If we examine the Decalogue, we shall find that the moral precepts contain the same truths as the