racters of blood. By one of them, (and this law was not abolished till the 244th year of the city), creditors, who were alike obstinate and unrelenting, might legally dismember a debtor's body, and satiate their revenge by this horrid act of barbarity. Does this resemble the morality of Moses, which has been eagerly and fondly transfused into the domestic and social institutions of all Europe, and even of many other parts of the world, and which for upwards of three thousand years, and during every species. of persecution, has commanded the respect and obedience of the most enlightened nations? Must not that which in the eye of reason comes out with unabated lustre from the ordeal of criticism, be incontrovertibly pure? Hath the scepticism of ages been able to invalidate one commandment of the decalogue? Shall the oldest authenticated law upon earth be said to have no claim to veneration, when even the wayward hand of pyrrhonism has not been able, in these days of presumption, to bring it into doubt? With the blessed stamp of universal utility then, with which it is adorned, and firmly supported as it is by a general and unequivocal acquiescence in its truth and natural advantages, what mind can have difficulty in ad Aulus Gellius. 03 † Gibbon. mitting mitting its divine efficacy, even though it should unfortunately doubt of its divine re velation? There is something within us, which goes beyond bare curiosity, and even carries us on to enthusiasm and friendship for those great cha racters, whom we know to have excelled in former ages. We acquire a degree of compla cency in their society; we form an union with them in the sentiments they approve; we are even led to defend them when we think they are injuriously attacked, and to stand by them at all times with a partial affection. Let this then be my apology, I intreat you, on the present occasion. I see, or think I see, in the laws of Moses, that moral light which has guided all our footsteps. Is there a vice which Moses does not condemn? Is there a bad desire, much less a bad action, which he does not make amenable to coercion? In his precepts to the Israelites, besides enforcing equity and justice, honesty, fidelity, and uprightness, does he not encourage also humanity, compassion, and charity, and especially doing unto others as we would wish others to do unto us? In a word, his doctrine was calculated to render man estimable to man, and respectable to himself, and the chief duties of society to consist in the reciprocal promotion of social happiness. It has always been the practice, and probably with good reason, to be loud in the praise of Romulus, Lycurgus, and Solon, for their agrarian laws. But, in their distribution of land, and in the distribution of the conquered countrics by their successors, I own I can perceive nothing like the just and equable division which is to be found in the agrarian ordinances of Moses. Examine them, they are well worthy the perusal. But, for a moment, let us be somewhat more particular on the bearings and outlines of the Israelitish story. What I have to say shall not detain you long. The history of Moses may be divided into two periods; from the creation to his mission; and from his mission to the delivering up his command to Joshua: the first, was written by him in quality of historian; the second, of legislator. And here it may not be unnecessary for you to recollect, that so great was the degeneracy of the Israelites, and so sensible was Moses of the effects of this degeneracy, that he often would willingly have declined the office of their leader and deliverer. He thought their recovery from Egyptian 03 Egyptian superstition to be altogether desperate; and humanly speaking, he did not judge amiss; as may be gathered from their conduct during the extraordinary progress of their deliverance. The whole history of the Jews, is one continued series of infraction of the law, and of natural calamity. Not even all the severe ordinances of Moses, of the judges, and of the kings, were sufficient for their reformation. Until their captivity they always transgressed the law. After that disaster, indeed, they as scrupulously adhered to it, and in that attachment they have continued ever since. It seems a mistake, however, to suppose the Jewish separation, I mean as relative to other nations, to have been effected by divine interposition. That idea was founded in the vain fancy of Jewish pride, that their fathers were selected as the favourites of God, out of his fondness for the race of Abraham. The government established by Moses, you will recollect, was a theocracy: the most singular form, perhaps, that ever entered into the imagination of man. No lawgiver, or founder of religion, ever promised so singular a distinction as he did to the children of Israel. No historian ever dared to record so remarkable a privilege. vilege. Even supposing it not supported by any extraordinary providence, it was the most vigorous and intrepid measure, that ever was adopted for the subjugation of barbarism and depravity. Moses delivered to the Israelites a complete digest of law, and of religion. But, to fit it to the nature of a theocratic government, he gave it perfectly incorporated. To cement the body politic, he employed the medium of religion; for it was evidently his opinion, that whoever would secure civil government, must support it by the means of religion; and whoever would propagate religion, must perpetuate it by the means of civil government. Hence also the rewards promised, and the punishments denounced, through him by heaven, were temporal only; such as, on the one hand, health, long life, peace, plenty, and dominion; and on the other, disease, immature death, war, famine, want, subjection, and captivity. And in no one of his institutes is there the least mention, or intelligible hint, of the rewards and punishments of another life. He observes a profound silence concerning a future state: "As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away; so * Warburton. + Ibid. he |