{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_33420/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_33420","id":"gutenberg_33420","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33420","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Exodus -- Commentaries","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Marcia Brooks, Colin Bell, Nigel Blower and\nthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttps://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian\nLibraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  [Transcriber's Note:\n\n  This e-text is intended for users whose text readers cannot display\n  the Unicode (utf-8) version of the file. Greek words have been\n  transliterated and enclosed in equals signs, e.g. =ho logos=.\n\n  _Italic_ words have been similarly enclosed in underscores.\n\n  A few minor typographical errors have been silently corrected.\n\n  The Table of Contents refers to original page numbers.\n\n  All advertising material has been placed at the end of the text.]\n\n\n\n\n                  THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n\n                    EDITED BY THE REV.\n             W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.\n\n               _Editor of \"The Expositor.\"_\n\n\n                   THE BOOK OF EXODUS.\n\n                     BY THE VERY REV.\n                   G. A. CHADWICK, D.D.\n                     _Dean of Armagh_\n\n\n                         London:\n                  HODDER AND STOUGHTON,\n                   27, PATERNOSTER ROW.\n\n                         MDCCCXC.\n\n\n\n\n                           THE\n                      BOOK OF EXODUS.\n\n                     BY THE VERY REV.\n                   G. A. CHADWICK, D.D.\n                     _Dean of Armagh,_\n\n      AUTHOR OF \"CHRIST BEARING WITNESS TO HIMSELF,\"\n   \"AS HE THAT SERVETH,\" \"THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK,\" ETC.\n\n                         London:\n                  HODDER AND STOUGHTON,\n                   27, PATERNOSTER ROW.\n\n                         MDCCCXC.\n\n\n\n\n    Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nMuch is now denied or doubted, within the Church itself, concerning the\nBook of Exodus, which was formerly accepted with confidence by all\nChristians.\n\nBut one thing can neither be doubted nor denied. Jesus Christ did\ncertainly treat this book, taking it as He found it, as possessed of\nspiritual authority, a sacred scripture. He taught His disciples to\nregard it thus, and they did so.\n\nTherefore, however widely His followers may differ about its date and\norigin, they must admit the right of a Christian teacher to treat this\nbook, taking it as he finds it, as a sacred scripture and invested with\nspiritual authority. It is the legitimate subject of exposition in the\nChurch.\n\nSuch work this volume strives, however imperfectly, to perform. Its\nobject is to edify in the first place, and also, but in the second\nplace, to inform. Nor has the author consciously shrunk from saying what\nseemed to him proper to be said because the utterance would be\nunwelcome, either to the latest critical theory, or to the last\nsensational gospel of an hour.\n\nBut since controversy has not been sought, although exposition has not\nbeen suppressed when it carried weapons, by far the greater part of the\nvolume appeals to all who accept their Bible as, in any true sense, a\ngift from God.\n\nNo task is more difficult than to exhibit the Old Testament in the light\nof the New, discovering the permanent in the evanescent, and the\nspiritual in the form and type which it inhabited and illuminated. This\nbook is at least the result of a firm belief that such a connection\nbetween the two Testaments does exist, and of a patient endeavour to\nreceive the edification offered by each Scripture, rather than to force\ninto it, and then extort from it, what the expositor desires to find.\nNor has it been supposed that by allowing the imagination to assume, in\nsacred things, that rank as a guide which reason holds in all other\npractical affairs, any honour would be done to Him Who is called the\nSpirit of knowledge and wisdom, but not of fancy and quaint conceits.\n\nIf such an attempt does, in any degree, prove successful and bear fruit,\nthis fact will be of the nature of a scientific demonstration.\n\nIf this ancient Book of Exodus yields solid results to a sober\ndevotional exposition in the nineteenth Christian century, if it is not\nan idle fancy that its teaching harmonises with the principles and\ntheology of the New Testament, and even demands the New Testament as the\ntrue commentary upon the Old, what follows? How comes it that the oak is\npotentially in the acorn, and the living creature in the egg? No germ is\na manufactured article: it is a part of the system of the universe.\n\n\n\n\nANALYSIS OF CONTENTS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE PROLOGUE, i. 1-6.\n\nBooks linked by conjunction \"And:\" Scripture history a connected whole,\n1.--So is secular history organic: \"Philosophy of history.\" The\nPentateuch being a still closer unity, Exodus rehearses the descent into\nEgypt, 2.--Heredity: the family of Jacob, 3.--Death of Joseph. Influence\nof Egypt on the shepherd race, 4.--A healthy stock: good breeding.\nGoethe's aphorism, 5.--Ourselves and our descendants, 6.\n\nGOD IN HISTORY, i. 7.\n\nIn Exodus, national history replaces biography, 6.--Contrasted\nnarratives of Jacob and Moses. Spiritual progress from Genesis to\nExodus, 7.--St. Paul's view: Law prepares for Gospel, especially by our\nfailures, 8.--This explains other phenomena: failures in various\ncircumstances, of innocence in Eden; of an elect family; now of a race,\na nation, 9.--Israel, failing with all advantages, needs a Messiah.\nFaith justifies, in Old Testament as in New, 10.--Scripture history\nreveals God in this life, in all things, 11.--True spirituality owns God\nin the secular: this is a gospel for our days, 12-13.\n\nTHE OPPRESSION, i. 7-22.\n\nEarly prosperity: its dangers: political supports vain, 13.--Joseph\nforgotten. National responsibilities: despotism, 14.--Nations and their\nchiefs. Our subject races, 15.--The Church and her King: imputation.\nPharaoh precipitates what he fears, 16.--Egypt and her aliens: modern\nparallels, 17.--Tyranny is tyrannous even when cultured, 18.--Our undue\nestrangement from the fallen: Jesus a brother. Toil crushes the spirit,\n19.--Israel idolatrous. Religious dependence, 20. --Direct interposition\nrequired. Bitter oppression, 21.--Pharaoh drops the mask. Defeated by\nthe human heart. The midwives, 22.--Their falsehood. Morality is\nprogressive, 23.--Culture and humanity, 24.--Religion and the child, 25.\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE RESCUE OF MOSES, ii. 1-10.\n\nImportance of the individual, 26.--A man _versus_ \"the Time-spirit,\"\n27.--The parents of Moses, 28.--Their family: their goodly child,\n29.--Emotion helps faith, 30.--The ark in the bulrushes, 31.--Pharaoh's\ndaughter and Miriam, 32.--Guidance for good emotions: the Church for\nhumanity, 33.\n\nTHE CHOICE OF MOSES, ii. 11-15.\n\nGod employs means, 34.--Value of endowment. Moses and his family. \"The\nreproach of Christ,\" 35.--An impulsive act, 36.--Impulses not accidents.\nThe hopes of Moses, 37.--Moses and his brethren. His flight, 38.\n\nMOSES IN MIDIAN, ii. 16-22.\n\nEnergy in disaster, 39.--Disinterested bravery. Parallels with a\nvariation, 40.--The Unseen a refuge. Duty of resisting small wrongs. His\nwife, 41.--A lonely heart, 42.\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE BURNING BUSH, ii. 23-iii.\n\nDeath of Raamses. Misery continues, 43.--The cry of the oppressed,\n44.--Discipline of Moses, 45.--How a crisis comes, 46.--God hitherto\nunmentioned. The Angel of the Lord, 47.--An unconsuming fire,\n48.--Inquiry: reverence. God finds, not man, 49.--\"Take off thy shoe.\"\n\"The God of thy father,\" 50.--Immortality. \"My people,\" not saints only,\n51.--The good land. The commission, 52.--God with him. A strange token,\n53.\n\nA NEW NAME, iii. 14; vi. 2, 3.\n\nWhy Moses asked the name of God: idolatry: pantheism, 54.--A progressive\nrevelation, 55.--Jehovah. The sound corrupted. Similar superstitions\nyet, 56.--What it told the Jews. Reality of being, 57.--Jews not saved\nby ideas. Streams of tendency. The Self-contained. We live in our past,\n58.--And in our future, 59.--Yet Jehovah not the impassive God of\nLucretius, 60.--The Immutable is Love. This is our help, 61.--Human\nwill is not paralysed, 62.--The teaching of St. Paul. All this is\npractical, 63.--This gives stability to all other revelations. Our own\nneeds, 64.\n\nTHE COMMISSION, iii. 10, 16-22.\n\nGod comes where He sends, 65.--The Providential man. Prudence,\n66.--Sincerity of demand for a brief respite, 67.--God has already\nvisited them. By trouble He transplants, 68.--The \"borrowing\" of jewels,\n69.\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nMOSES HESITATES, iv. 1-17.\n\nScripture is impartial: Josephus, 70.--Hindrance from his own people.\nThe rod, 71.--The serpent: the leprosy, 72.--\"I am not eloquent,\"\n73.--God with us. Aaron the Levite, 74.--Responsibility of _not_\nworking. The errors of Moses, 75.--Power of fellowship. Vague fears,\n76.--With his brother, Moses will go. The Church, 77.--This craving met\nby Christ, 78.--Family affection. Examples, 79.\n\nMOSES OBEYS, iv. 18-31.\n\nFidelity to his employer. Reticence, 80.--Resemblance to story of Jesus.\nHe is the Antitype of all experiences, 81.--Counterpoint in history.\n\"Israel is My son,\" 82.--A neglected duty Zipporah. Was she a helpmeet?\n83.--Domestic unhappiness. History _v._ myth, 84.--The failures of the\ngood, 85.--Men of destiny are not irresponsible, 86.--His first\nfollowers: a joyful reception, 87.--Spiritual joy and reaction, 88.\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nPHARAOH REFUSES, v. 1-23.\n\nMoses at court again. Formidable, 89.--Power of convictions but also of\ntyranny and pride. Menephtah: his story, 90.--Was the Pharaoh drowned?\nThe demand of Jehovah, 91.--The refusal, 92.--Is religion idleness?\nHebrews were taskmasters, 93.--Demoralised by slavery. They are beaten,\n94.--Murmurs against Moses. He returns to God. His remonstrance,\n95.--His disappointment. Not really irreverent, 96.--Use of this\nabortive attempt, 97-8.\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE ENCOURAGEMENT OF MOSES, vi. 1-30.\n\nThe word Jehovah known before: its consolations now, 99.--The new truth\nis often implicit in the old, 100.--Discernment more needed than\nrevelation. \"Judgments,\" 101.--My people: your God, 102.--The tie is of\nGod's binding, 103,--Fatherhood and sonship, 104.--Faith becomes\nknowledge. The body hinders the soul, 105.--We are responsible for\nbodies. Israel weighs Moses down, 106.--We may hold back the saints,\n107.--The pedigree, 107-8.--Indications of genuine history, 108-9.--\"As\na god to Pharaoh,\" 110.--We also, 111.\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE HARDENING OF PHARAOH'S HEART, vii. 3-13.\n\nThe assertion offends many, 112.--Was he a free agent? When hardened.\nA.V. incorrect, 113.--He resists five plagues spontaneously. The last\nfive are penal, 114.--Not \"hardened\" in wickedness, but in nerve. A.V.\nconfuses three words: His heart is (_a_) \"hardened,\" 115.--(_b_) it is\nmade \"strong\" (_c_) \"heavy,\" 116.--Other examples of these words,\n117.--The warning implied, 117-19.--Moses returns with the signs,\n119.--The functions of miracle, 120.\n\nTHE PLAGUES, vii. 14.\n\nTheir vast range, 121.--Their relation to Pantheism, Idolatry,\nPhilosophy, 122.--And to the gods of Egypt. Their retributive fitness,\n123.--Their arrangement, 124.--Like our Lord's, not creative, 125.--God\nin common things, 126.--Some we inflict upon ourselves. Yet\nrationalistic analogies fail, 127.--Duration of the conflict, 128.\n\nTHE FIRST PLAGUE, vii, 14-25.\n\nThe probable scene, 129.--Extent of the plague. The magicians. Its\nduration, 131.--Was Israel exempt? Contrast with first miracle of Jesus,\n132.\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE SECOND PLAGUE, viii. 1-15.\n\nSubmission demanded. Severity of plague, 133.--Pharaoh humbles himself,\n134.--\"Glory over me.\" Pharaoh breaks faith, 135.\n\nTHE THIRD PLAGUE, viii. 16-19.\n\nVarious theories. A surprise. Magicians baffled, 136.--What they\nconfess, 137.\n\nTHE FOURTH PLAGUE, viii. 20-32.\n\n\"Rising up early,\" 137.--Bodily pain. Beetles or flies? \"A mixture,\"\n138--Goshen exempt. Pharaoh suffers. He surrenders, 139.--Respite and\ntreachery. Would Moses have returned? 140.\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE FIFTH PLAGUE, ix. 1-7.\n\nFirst attack on life. Animals share our fortunes, 141. The new summons.\nMurrain, 142.--Pharaoh's curiosity, 143.\n\nTHE SIXTH PLAGUE, ix. 8-12.\n\nNo warning, yet Author manifest. Ashes of the furnace, 144.---Suffering\nin the flesh. The magicians again. Pharaoh's heart \"made strong,\"\n145.--Dares not retaliate, 146.\n\nTHE SEVENTH PLAGUE, ix. 13-35.\n\nExpostulation not mockery, 146-7.--God is wronged by slavery,\n147.--Civil liberty is indebted to religion. \"Plagues upon thine heart,\"\n148.--A mis-rendering: why he was not crushed, 149.--An opportunity of\nescape. The storm, 150.--Ruskin upon terrors of thunderstorm,\n151.--Pharaoh confesses sin, 152.--Moses intercedes. The weather in\nhistory. Job's assertion, 153.\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE EIGHTH PLAGUE, x. 1-20.\n\nMoses encouraged, 154.--Deliverances should be remembered. A sterner\nrebuke. Locusts in Egypt, 155.--Their effect. The court interferes. Yet\n\"their hearts hardened\" also, 156--Infatuation of Pharaoh. Parallel of\nNapoleon, 157.--Women and little ones did share in festivals, 158.--A\ngentle wind. Locusts. Another surrender, 159.--Relief. Our broken vows,\n160.\n\nTHE NINTH PLAGUE, x. 21-29.\n\nMenephtah's sun-worship, 161.--Suddenness of the plague. Concentrated\nnarrative, 162.--Darkness represents death, 163.--The Book of Wisdom\nupon this plague, 164-5.--Isaiah's allusions. The Pharaoh's character,\n165.--Altercation with Moses, 166.\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE LAST PLAGUE ANNOUNCED, xi. 1-10.\n\nThis chapter supplements the last. The blow is known to be impending.\nUses of its delay, 167.--Israel shall claim wages. The menace,\n168.--Parallel with St. John, 169-70.\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nTHE PASSOVER, xii. 1-28.\n\nBirthday of a nation. The calendar, 171.--\"The congregation.\" The feast\nis social, 172.--The nation is based upon the family. No Egyptian house\nescapes, 173.--National interdependence. The Passover a sacrifice,\n174.--What does the blood mean? Rationalistic theories. Harvest\nfestivals, 175.--The unbelieving point of view: what theories of\nsacrifice were then current? \"A sacrifice was a meal,\" 176.--Human\nsacrifices. The Passover \"unhistorical.\" Kuenen rejects this view,\n177.--Phenomena irreconcilable with it, 178-9. What is really expressed?\nDanger even to Jews, 179.--Salvation by grace. Not unbought, 180.--The\nlamb a ransom. All firstborn are forfeited. Tribe of Levi, 181.--Cash\npayment. Effect on Hebrew literature, 182.--Its prophetic import,\n183.--The Jew must co-operate with God: must also become His guest,\n184.--Sacred festivals. Lamb or kid. Four days reserved, 185.--Men are\nsheep. Heads of houses originally sacrifice. Transition to Levites in\nprogress under Hezekiah, complete under Josiah, 186.--Unleavened bread.\nThe lamb. Roast, not sodden, 187.--Complete consumption. Judgment upon\ngods of Egypt, 188.--The blood a token unto themselves. On their\nlintels, 189.--The word \"pass-over,\" 190.--Domestic teaching, 191.--Many\nwho ate the feast perished. Aliens might share, 192.\n\nTHE TENTH PLAGUE, xii. 29-36.\n\nThe blow falls. Pharaoh was not \"firstborn\": his son \"sat upon his\nthrone,\" 193.--The scene, 194.--The demands of Israel. St. Augustine's\ninference, 195.\n\nTHE EXODUS, xii. 37-42.\n\nThe route, 195.--Their cattle, a suggested explanation, 196.--\"Four\nhundred and thirty years,\" 197-8.\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nTHE LAW OF THE FIRSTBORN, xiii, 1.\n\nThe consecration of the firstborn, 199.--The Levite. \"They are Mine,\"\n200.--Joy is hopeful. Tradition? 201.--Phylacteries. The ass, 202.--The\nPhilistines. No spiritual miracle, 203.--Education, 204.\n\nTHE BONES OF JOSEPH, xiii. 19.\n\nJoseph influenced Moses, 204.--His faith, 205.--Circumstances overcome\nby soul. God in the cloud, 206.--Hebrew poetry and modern, 207.\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nTHE RED SEA, xiv. 1-31.\n\nStopped on the march, 208.--Pharaoh presumes, 209.--The panic,\n210.--Moses. Prayer and action. \"Self-assertion\"? 211.--The midnight\nmarch, 212.--The lost army, 213.\n\nON THE SHORE, xiv. 30, 31.\n\nImpressions deepened. \"They believed in Jehovah.\" So the faith of the\napostles grew, 214.\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nTHE SONG OF MOSES, xv. 1-22.\n\nA song remembered in heaven. Its structure, 216-17.--The women join.\nInstruments. Dances, 218. God the Deliverer, not Moses. \"My salvation,\"\n219.--Gratitude. Anthropomorphism. \"Ye are gods.\" \"Jehovah is a Man--of\nwar,\" 220-2.--The overthrow, 222.--First mention of Divine holiness,\n223.--An inverted holiness, 224.--\"Thou shalt bring them in,\" 225.\n\nSHUR, xv. 22-27.\n\nDisillusion. Marah, 226.--A universal danger, 227.--Prayer, and the use\nof means, 228.--\"A statute and an ordinance.\" Such compacts often\nrepeated. The offered privilege, 229.--It is still enjoyed, 230.--\"The\nLord for the body.\" Elim, 231.\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nMURMURING FOR FOOD, xvi. 1-14.\n\n_We_ too fear, although Divinely guarded, 232.--They would fain die\nsatiated, 233.--Relief tries them as want does, 234.--The Sabbath. A\nrebuke, 235.--Moses is zealous. His \"meekness,\" 236.--The glory appears,\n237.--Quails and manna, 238.\n\nMANNA, xvi. 15-36.\n\nTheir course of life is changed, 238.--A drug resembles manna, 239.--The\nsupernatural follows nature, 240.--They must gather, prepare, be\nmoderate, 241.--Nothing over and no lack. Socialistic perversion,\n242.--Socialism. Christ in politics, 243-4.\n\nSPIRITUAL MEAT, xvi. 15-36.\n\nManna is a type. When given, 244.--An unearthly sustenance, 245. What is\nspirituality? Christ the true Manna, 246.--Universal, daily, abundant,\n247.--The Sabbath. The pot of manna, 248.\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nMERIBAH, xvii. 1-7.\n\nA greater strain. What if Israel had stood it? 249.--They murmured\nagainst Moses. The position of Aaron. An exaggerated outcry,\n250.--Witnesses to the miracle. The rock in Horeb, 251.--The rod.\nPrivilege is not acceptance, 252.\n\nAMALEK, xvii. 8-16.\n\nA water-raid, 252.--God's sheep must become His warriors. War,\n253-4.--Joshua. The rod of God, 255.--A silent prayer. Aaron and Hur\nmust join in it, 256.--So now. But the army must fight, 257.--\"The Lord\nmy banner.\" Unlike a myth, 258.\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nJETHRO, xviii. 1-27.\n\nGentiles in new aspect. Church may learn from secular wisdom,\n259.--Little is said of Zipporah: Jethro's pleasure, 260.--A Gentile\npriest recognised. Religious festivity, 261.--Jethro's advice: its\nimportance, 262.--Divine help does not supersede human gift, 263.\n\nTHE TYPICAL BEARINGS OF THE HISTORY.\n\nNarrative is also allegory. Danger of arbitrary fancies. Example from\nBunyan. Scriptural teaching, 264.--Some resemblances are planned: others\nare reappearances of same principle, 265.--So that these are evidential\nanalogies, like Butler's, 266.--Others appear forced. \"I called My Son\nout of Egypt\" refers to Israel, 267.--But the condescending phrase\npromised more, and the subsequent coincidence is significant, 268.\nTruths cannot all be proved like Euclid's, 269.\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nAT SINAI, xix. 1-25.\n\nSinai and Pentecost. The place. Ras Sufs\u00e2feh. God speaks in nature,\n270.--Moses is stopped; the people must pledge themselves. Dedication\nservices, 271.--An appeal to gratitude, and a promise, 272.--\"A peculiar\ntreasure.\" \"A kingdom and priests,\" 273.--The individual, and Church\norder. \"On eagles' wings,\" 274.--Israel consents. The Lord in the cloud.\nManifestations are transient, 275.--Precautions. The trumpet, 276. \"The\npriests.\" A pl\u00e9biscite. Contrast between Law and Gospel: Methodius,\n277.--Theophanies, 278.--None like this, 279.\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nTHE LAW, xx. 1-17.\n\nWhat the law did. It could not justify. It reveals obligation, 280.--It\nconvicts, not enables. It is an organic whole. And a challenge,\n281.--The Spirit enables: love is fulfilment of law. Luther's paradox,\n283.--Law and Gospel contrasted. Its spiritual beauty: two noble\nfailures, 283.--The Jewish arrangement of the Commandments. St.\nAugustine's. The Anglican. An equal division, 284-6.\n\nTHE PROLOGUE, xx. 2.\n\nTheir experience of God, 286.--God and the first table. The true object\nof adoration: men must adore. Agnosticism, 287.--God and the second\ntable, 288.--Law appeals to noble motives, 289.\n\nTHE FIRST COMMANDMENT, xx. 3.\n\nMonotheism and a real God, 289.--False creeds attractive. Spiritualism.\nScience indebted to Monotheism, 290.--Unity of nature a religious truth.\nStrength of our experimental argument. 291.--Informal apostacy. Luther's\nposition. Scripture. The Chaldeans, 292.--Animal pleasure, 293.--The\nremedy: \"Thou shalt have ... Me,\" 294.\n\nTHE SECOND COMMANDMENT, xx. 4-6.\n\nImagery not all idolatry. The subtler paganisms, 295. Spiritual worship,\nlike a Gothic building, aspires: images lack expansiveness, 296.--God is\njealous, 297.--The shadow of love, 298. Visiting sins on children, 299,\n300.--Part of vast beneficent law, 300-2.--Gospel in law, 302.\n\nTHE THIRD COMMANDMENT, xx. 7.\n\nMeaning of \"in vain,\" 302.--Jewish superstition. Where swearing is\nwholly forbidden, 303.--Fruitful and free use of God's name, 304-5.\n\nTHE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, xx. 8-11.\n\nLaw of Sabbath unique. Confession of Augsburg. Of Westminster,\n305.--Anglican position. St. Paul, 306.--The first positive precept.\nLove not the abolition of the law, 307.--Property of our friends. The\nword \"remember.\" The story of creation, 305.--The manna. Isaiah,\nJeremiah, Ezekiel, 309.--Christ's freedom was that of a Jew. \"Sabbath\nfor man,\" 310.--Our help, not our fetter. \"My Father worketh,\" 311.\n\nTHE FIFTH COMMANDMENT, xx. 12.\n\nBridge between duty to God and to neighbour, 312.--Father and child,\n313.--\"Whosoever hateth not.\" Christ and His mother. Its sanction, 314.\n\nTHE SIXTH COMMANDMENT, xx. 13.\n\nWho is neighbour? Ethics and religion, 315-16.--Science and morals,\n317.--A Divine creature. Capital punishment, 318.\n\nTHE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT, xx. 14.\n\nJustice forbids act: Christ forbids desire. Sacredness of body,\n319.--Human body connects material and spiritual worlds. Modifies, while\nserves, 320.--Marriage a type, 321.\n\nTHE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT, xx. 15.\n\nAssailed by communism, by Rome. Various specious pleas, 322.--Laws of\ncommunity binding, 323.--None may judge his own case, St. Paul enlarges\nthe precept, 324.\n\nTHE NINTH COMMANDMENT, xx. 16.\n\nImportance of words. Various transgressions, 325.--Slander against\nnations, against the race. Love, 326-7.\n\nTHE TENTH COMMANDMENT, xx. 17.\n\nThe list of properties, 328.--The heart. The law searches, 329.\n\n\nTHE LESSER LAW, xx. 18-xxiii. 33.\n\nA remarkable code. The circumstances, 331.--Moses fears: yet bids them\nfear not, 332-3.--Presumption v. awe. He receives an expanded decalogue,\nan abridged code, 334.--Laws should educate a people; should not outrun\ntheir capabilities, 335-6.--Five subdivisions, 337.\n\nI. THE LAW OF WORSHIP, xx. 22-26.\n\nImages again forbidden, 337.--Splendour and simplicity. An objection,\n338.--Modesty, 339.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI. THE LESSER LAW (_continued_).\n\nII. RIGHTS OF THE PERSON, xxi. 1-32.\n\nThe Hebrew slave. The seventh year. Year of jubilee. His family,\n340.--The ear pierced. St. Paul's \"marks of the Lord.\" Assaults,\n341.--The Gentile slave, 342. The female slave, 342-3.--Murder and\nblood-fiends, 343.--Parents. Kidnappers, 344.--Eye for eye. Mitigations\nof _lex talionis_, 344-5.--Vicious cattle, 346.\n\nIII. RIGHTS OF PROPERTY, xxi. 33-xxii. 15.\n\nNegligence: indirect responsibility: various examples, 346-8.--Theft,\n348.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII. THE LESSER LAW (_continued_).\n\nIV. VARIOUS ENACTMENTS, xxii. 16-xxiii. 19.\n\nDisconnected precepts. No trace of systematic revision. Certain capital\ncrimes, 348-9.\n\nSORCERY, xxii. 18.\n\nAbuses have recoiled against religion, 349.--Sorcerers are impostors,\nbut they existed, and do still, 350.--Moses could not leave them to\nenlightened opinion. Propagated apostacy, 351.--Traitors in a theocracy,\n352.--When shall witchcraft die? 353.\n\nTHE STRANGER, xxii. 21; xxiii. 9.\n\n\"Ye were strangers,\" 354.--A fruitful principle. Morality not\nexpediency, 355.--Cruelty often ignorance: Moses educates, 356.--The\nwidow. The borrower, 357.--Other precepts, 358.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII. THE LESSER LAW (_continued_).\n\nAn enemy's cattle. A false report, 359.--Influence of multitude: the\nworld and the Church, 360-1.--Favour not the poor, 361-2.--Other\nprecepts. \"A kid in his mother's milk,\" 362.\n\nLESSER LAW, V. ITS SANCTIONS xxiii. 20-33.\n\nA bold transition: the Angel in Whom is \"My Name,\" 363.--Not a mere\nmessenger, 364.--Nor the substitute of chap. xxxiii. 2, 3,\n365-6.--Parallel verses, 366-7.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nTHE COVENANT RATIFIED. THE VISION OF GOD, xxiv.\n\nThe code is accepted, written, ratified with blood, 368.--Exclusion and\nadmittance. The elders see God: Moses goes farther. Theophanies of other\ncreeds, 369.--How could they see God? 370.--Moses feels not\nsatisfaction, but desire, 371.--His progress is from vision to shadow\nand a Voice, 372.--We see not each other, 373.--St. Augustine,\n373-4.--The vision suits the period: not post-Exilian, 374-5.--Contrast\nwith revelation in Christ, 375.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nTHE SHRINE AND ITS FURNITURE, xxv. 1-40.\n\nThe God of Sinai will inhabit a tent. His other tabernacles, 376-7.--The\nfurniture is typical. Altar of incense postponed, 377.--The ark\nenshrines His law and its sanctions, 377-8.--The mercy-seat covers it,\n378-81.--Man's homage. The table of shewbread, 382-3.--The golden\ncandlestick (lamp-stand), 383-6.\n\nTHE PATTERN IN THE MOUNT, xxv. 9, 40.\n\nUse in Hebrews. Plato, 386.--Not a model, but an idea. Art,\n387.--Provisional institutions, 387-8.---The ideal in creation, 388.--In\nlife, 389.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nTHE TABERNACLE.\n\n\"Temple\" an ambiguous word, 390.--\"Curtains of the Tabernacle,\"\n391.--Other coverings, 392.--The boards and sockets, 392-3.--The bars.\nThe tent, 393.--Position of veil, 394, and of the front, 395.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nTHE OUTER COURT.\n\nThe altar, 396.--The quadrangle, 397.--General effect, 398-400.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\nTHE HOLY GARMENTS.\n\nTheir import, 401.--The drawers. \"Coat.\" Head-tires. Robe of the ephod.\nEphod. Jewels, 402.--Breastplate. Urim and Thummim. Mitre. Symbolism,\n403.\n\nTHE PRIESTHOOD.\n\nUniversal desire and dread of God, 404.--Delegates, 405. Scripture.\nFirst Moses, 406.--His family passed over. The double consciousness\nexpressed, 407-9.--Messianic priesthood, 409.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\nCONSECRATION SERVICES.\n\nWhy consecrate at all? 410.--Moses officiates. The offerings,\n411.--Ablution, robing, anointing, 412-13.--The sin-offering, 413-14.\n\"Without the camp,\" 414. The burnt-offering, 415.--The peace-offering\n(\"ram of consecration\"), 415.--The wave-offerings, 415-16.--The result,\n416-17.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\nINCENSE, xxx. 1-10.\n\nThe impalpable in nature, 418.--\"The golden altar,\" 419.--Represents\nprayer. Needs cleansing, 420.\n\nA CENSUS, xxx. ii-16.\n\nA census not sinful. David's transgression. The half-shekel. Equality of\nman, 421.--Christ paid it, 422.--Its employment, 423.\n\nTHE LAVER, xxx. 17-21.\n\nBehind the altar. Purity of priests, 423.--Made of the mirrors, 424.\n\nANOINTING OIL AND INCENSE, xxx. 22-38.\n\nTheir ingredients. All the vessels anointed, 424.--Forbidden to secular\nuses, 425.--Modern analogies, 426-7.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI.\n\nBEZALEEL AND AHOLIAB, xxxi. 1-18.\n\nSecular gifts are sacred, 428-30.--The Sabbath. The tables and \"the\nfinger of God,\" 431.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII.\n\nTHE GOLDEN CALF.\n\nSin of the people; of Aaron. God rejects them, 432.--Intercession. The\nChristian antitype, 433-4.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII.\n\nPREVAILING INTERCESSION.\n\nThe first concession. The angel, 435.--\"The Tent of the Meeting,\" 436.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV.\n\nTHE VISION OF GOD.\n\nTo know is to desire to know. A fit season. The greater Name, 438.--The\ncovenant renewed. The tables. The skin of his face shone, 439.--Lessons,\n440.\n\n\nCHAPTERS XXXV.-XL. CONCLUSION.\n\nThe people obey, 441.--The forming of the nation: review, 441-3.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n\n_THE PROLOGUE._\n\nEXODUS i. 1-6.\n\n    \"And these are the names of the children of Israel which came into\n    Egypt.\"\n\nMany books of the Old Testament begin with the conjunction And. This\nfact, it has been often pointed out, is a silent indication of truth,\nthat each author was not recording certain isolated incidents, but parts\nof one great drama, events which joined hands with the past and future,\nlooking before and after.\n\nThus the Book of the Kings took up the tale from Samuel, Samuel from\nJudges, and Judges from Joshua, and all carried the sacred movement\nforward towards a goal as yet unreached. Indeed, it was impossible,\nremembering the first promise that the seed of the woman should bruise\nthe head of the serpent, and the later assurance that in the seed of\nAbraham should be the universal blessing, for a faithful Jew to forget\nthat all the history of his race was the evolution of some grand hope, a\npilgrimage towards some goal unseen. Bearing in mind that there is now\nrevealed to us a world-wide tendency toward the supreme consummation,\nthe bringing all things under the headship of Christ, it is not to be\ndenied that this hope of the ancient Jew is given to all mankind. Each\nnew stage in universal history may be said to open with this same\nconjunction. It links the history of England with that of Julius C\u00e6sar\nand of the Red Indian; nor is the chain composed of accidents: it is\nforged by the hand of the God of providence. Thus, in the conjunction\nwhich binds these Old Testament narratives together, is found the germ\nof that instinctive and elevating phrase, the Philosophy of History. But\nthere is nowhere in Scripture the notion which too often degrades and\nstiffens that Philosophy--the notion that history is urged forward by\nblind forces, amid which the individual man is too puny to assert\nhimself. Without a Moses the Exodus is inconceivable, and God always\nachieves His purpose through the providential man.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Books of the Pentateuch are held together in a yet stronger unity\nthan the rest, being sections of one and the same narrative, and having\nbeen accredited with a common authorship from the earliest mention of\nthem. Accordingly, the Book of Exodus not only begins with this\nconjunction (which assumes the previous narrative), but also rehearses\nthe descent into Egypt. \"And these are the names of the sons of Israel\nwhich came into Egypt,\"--names blotted with many a crime, rarely\nsuggesting any lovable or great association, yet the names of men with a\nmarvellous heritage, as being \"the sons of Israel,\" the Prince who\nprevailed with God. Moreover they are consecrated: their father's dying\nwords had conveyed to every one of them some expectation, some\nmysterious import which the future should disclose. In the issue would\nbe revealed the awful influence of the past upon the future, of the\nfathers upon the children even beyond the third and fourth\ngeneration--an influence which is nearer to destiny, in its stern,\nsubtle and far-reaching strength, than any other recognised by religion.\nDestiny, however, it is not, or how should the name of Dan have faded\nout from the final list of \"every tribe of the children of Israel\" in\nthe Apocalypse (Rev. vii. 5-8), where Manasseh is reckoned separately\nfrom Joseph to complete the twelve?\n\nWe read that with the twelve came their posterity, seventy souls in\ndirect descent from Jacob; but in this number he is himself included,\naccording to that well-known Orientalism which Milton strove to force\nupon our language in the phrase--\n\n    \"The fairest of her daughters Eve.\"\n\nJoseph is also reckoned, although he \"was in Egypt already.\" Now, it\nmust be observed that of these seventy, sixty-eight were males, and\ntherefore the people of the Exodus must not be reckoned to have sprung\nin the interval from seventy, but (remembering polygamy) from more than\ntwice that number, even if we refuse to make any account of the\nhousehold which is mentioned as coming with every man. These households\nwere probably smaller in each case than that of Abraham, and the famine\nin its early stages may have reduced the number of retainers; yet they\naccount for much of what is pronounced incredible in the rapid expansion\nof the clan into a nation.[1] But when all allowance has been made, the\nincrease continues to be, such as the narrator clearly regards it,\nabnormal, well-nigh preternatural, a fitting type of the expansion, amid\nfiercer persecutions, of the later Church of God, the true circumcision,\nwho also sprang from the spiritual parentage of another Seventy and\nanother Twelve.\n\n\"And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.\" Thus\nthe connection with Canaan became a mere tradition, and the powerful\ncourtier who had nursed their interests disappeared. When they\nremembered him, in the bitter time which lay before them, it was only to\nreflect that all mortal help must perish. It is thus in the spiritual\nworld also. Paul reminds the Philippians that they can obey in his\nabsence and not in his presence only, working out their own salvation,\nas no apostle can work it out on their behalf. And the reason is that\nthe one real support is ever present. Work out your own salvation, for\nit is God (not any teacher) Who worketh in you. The Hebrew race was to\nlearn its need of Him, and in Him to recover its freedom. Moreover, the\ninfluences which mould all men's characters, their surroundings and\nmental atmosphere, were completely changed. These wanderers for pasture\nwere now in the presence of a compact and impressive social system, vast\ncities, gorgeous temples, an imposing ritual. They were infected as well\nas educated there, and we find the men of the Exodus not only murmuring\nfor Egyptian comforts, but demanding visible gods to go before them.\n\nYet, with all its drawbacks, the change was a necessary part of their\ndevelopment. They should return from Egypt relying upon no courtly\npatron, no mortal might or wisdom, aware of a name of God more profound\nthan was spoken in the covenant of their fathers, with their narrow\nfamily interests and rivalries and their family traditions expanded into\nnational hopes, national aspirations, a national religion.\n\nPerhaps there is another reason why Scripture has reminded us of the\nvigorous and healthy stock whence came the race that multiplied\nexceedingly. For no book attaches more weight to the truth, so miserably\nperverted that it is discredited by multitudes, but amply vindicated by\nmodern science, that good breeding, in the strictest sense of the word,\nis a powerful factor in the lives of men and nations. To be well born\ndoes not of necessity require aristocratic parentage, nor does such\nparentage involve it: but it implies a virtuous, temperate and pious\nstock. In extreme cases the doctrine of race is palpable; for who can\ndoubt that the sins of dissolute parents are visited upon their puny and\nshort-lived children, and that the posterity of the just inherit not\nonly honour and a welcome in the world, \"an open door,\" but also\nimmunity from many a physical blemish and many a perilous craving? If\nthe Hebrew race, after eighteen centuries of calamity, retains an\nunrivalled vigour and tenacity, be it remembered how its iron sinew has\nbeen twisted, from what a sire it sprang, through what ages of more than\n\"natural selection\" the dross was throughly purged out, and (as Isaiah\nloves to reiterate) a chosen remnant left. Already, in Egypt, in the\nvigorous multiplication of the race, was visible the germ of that\namazing vitality which makes it, even in its overthrow, so powerful an\nelement in the best modern thought and action.\n\nIt is a well-known saying of Goethe that the quality for which God chose\nIsrael was probably toughness. Perhaps the saying would better be\ninverted: it was among the most remarkable endowments, unto which Israel\nwas called, and called by virtue of qualities in which Goethe himself\nwas remarkably deficient.\n\nNow, this principle is in full operation still, and ought to be solemnly\npondered by the young. Self-indulgence, the sowing of wild oats, the\nseeing of life while one is young, the taking one's fling before one\nsettles down, the having one's day (like \"every dog,\" for it is to be\nobserved that no person says, \"every Christian\"), these things seem\nnatural enough. And their unsuspected issues in the next generation,\ndire and subtle and far-reaching, these also are more natural still,\nbeing the operation of the laws of God.\n\nOn the other hand, there is no youth living in obedience alike to the\nhigher and humbler laws of our complex nature, in purity and gentleness\nand healthful occupation, who may not contribute to the stock of\nhappiness in other lives beyond his own, to the future well-being of his\nnative land, and to the day when the sadly polluted stream of human\nexistence shall again flow clear and glad, a pure river of water of\nlife.\n\n\n_GOD IN HISTORY._\n\ni. 7.\n\nWith the seventh verse, the new narrative, the course of events treated\nin the main body of this book, begins.\n\nAnd we are at once conscious of this vital difference between Exodus and\nGenesis,--that we have passed from the story of men and families to the\nhistory of a nation. In the first book the Canaanites and Egyptians\nconcern us only as they affect Abraham or Joseph. In the second book,\neven Moses himself concerns us only for the sake of Israel. He is in\nsome respects a more imposing and august character than any who preceded\nhim; but what we are told is no longer the story of a soul, nor are we\npointed so much to the development of his spiritual life as to the work\nhe did, the tyrant overthrown, the nation moulded, the law and the\nritual imposed on it.\n\nFor Jacob it was a discovery that God was in Bethel as well as in his\nfather's house. But now the Hebrew nation was to learn that He could\nplague the gods of Egypt in their stronghold, that His way was in the\nsea, that Horeb in Arabia was the Mount of God, that He could lead them\nlike a horse through the wilderness.\n\nWhen Jacob in Peniel wrestles with God and prevails, he wins for himself\na new name, expressive of the higher moral elevation which he has\nattained. But when Moses meets God in the bush, it is to receive a\ncommission for the public benefit; and there is no new name for Moses,\nbut a fresh revelation of God for the nation to learn. And in all their\nlater history we feel that the national life which it unfolds was\nnourished and sustained by these glorious early experiences, the most\nunique as well as the most inspiriting on record.\n\nHere, then, a question of great moment is suggested. Beyond the fact\nthat Abraham was the father of the Jewish race, can we discover any\ncloser connection between the lives of the patriarchs and the history of\nIsrael? Is there a truly spiritual coherence between them, or merely a\ngenealogical sequence? For if the Bible can make good its claim to be\nvitalised throughout by the eternal Spirit of God, and leading forward\nsteadily to His final revelation in Christ, then its parts will be\nsymmetrical, proportionate and well designed. If it be a universal\nbook, there must be a better reason for the space devoted to preliminary\nand half secular stories, which is a greater bulk than the whole of the\nNew Testament, than that these histories chance to belong to the nation\nwhence Christ came. If no such reason can be found, the failure may not\nperhaps outweigh the great evidences of the faith, but it will score for\nsomething on the side of infidelity. But if upon examination it becomes\nplain that all has its part in one great movement, and that none can be\nomitted without marring the design, and if moreover this design has\nbecome visible only since the fulness of the time is come, the discovery\nwill go far to establish the claim of Scripture to reveal throughout a\npurpose truly divine, dealing with man for ages, and consummated in the\ngift of Christ.\n\nNow, it is to St. Paul that we turn for light upon the connection\nbetween the Old Testament and the New. And he distinctly lays down two\ngreat principles. The first is that the Old Testament is meant to\neducate men for the New; and especially that the sense of failure,\nimpressed upon men's consciences by the stern demands of the Law, was\nnecessary to make them accept the Gospel.\n\nThe law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ: it entered that sin\nmight abound. And it is worth notice that this effect was actually\nwrought, not only upon the gross transgressor by the menace of its\nbroken precepts, but even more perhaps upon the high-minded and pure, by\nthe creation in their breasts of an ideal, inaccessible in its\nloftiness. He who says, All these things have I kept from my youth up,\nis the same who feels the torturing misgiving, What good thing must I do\nto attain life?... What lack I yet? He who was blameless as touching\nthe righteousness of the law, feels that such superficial innocence is\nworthless, that the law is spiritual and he is carnal, sold under sin.\n\nNow, this principle need by no means be restricted to the Mosaic\ninstitutions. If this were the object of the law, it would probably\nexplain much more. And when we return to the Old Testament with this\nclue, we find every condition in life examined, every social and\npolitical experiment exhausted, a series of demonstrations made with\nscientific precision, to refute the arch-heresy which underlies all\nothers--that in favourable circumstances man might save himself, that\nfor the evil of our lives our evil surroundings are more to be blamed\nthan we.\n\nInnocence in prosperous circumstances, unwarped by evil habit, untainted\nby corruption in the blood, uncompelled by harsh surroundings, simple\ninnocence had its day in Paradise, a brief day with a shameful close.\nGod made man upright, but he sought out many inventions, until the flood\nswept away the descendants of him who was made after the image of God.\n\nNext we have a chosen family, called out from all the perilous\nassociations of its home beyond the river, to begin a new career in a\nnew land, in special covenant with the Most High, and with every\nendowment for the present and every hope for the future which could help\nto retain its loyalty. Yet the third generation reveals the thirst of\nEsau for his brother's blood, the treachery of Jacob, and the\ndistraction and guilt of his fierce and sensual family. It is when\nindividual and family life have thus proved ineffectual amid the\nhappiest circumstances, that the tribe and the nation essay the task.\nLed up from the furnace of affliction, hardened and tempered in the\nstern free life of the desert, impressed by every variety of fortune, by\nslavery and escape, by the pursuit of an irresistible foe and by a\nrescue visibly divine, awed finally by the sublime revelations of Sinai,\nthe nation is ready for the covenant (which is also a challenge)--The\nman that doeth these things shall live by them: if thou diligently\nhearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God ... He shall set thee on high\nabove all nations.\n\nSuch is the connection between this narrative and what went before. And\nthe continuation of the same experiment, and the same failure, can be\ntraced through all the subsequent history. Whether in so loose an\norganisation that every man does what is right in his own eyes, or under\nthe sceptre of a hero or a sage,--whether so hard pressed that\nself-preservation ought to have driven them to their God, or so\nmarvellously delivered that gratitude should have brought them to their\nknees,--whether engulfed a second time in a more hopeless captivity, or\nrestored and ruled by a hierarchy whose authority is entirely\nspiritual,--in every variety of circumstances the same melancholy\nprocess repeats itself; and lawlessness, luxury, idolatry and\nself-righteousness combine to stop every mouth, to make every man guilty\nbefore God, to prove that a greater salvation is still needed, and thus\nto pave the way for the Messiah.\n\nThe second great principle of St. Paul is that faith in a divine help,\nin pardon, blessing and support, was the true spirit of the Old\nTestament as well as of the New. The challenge of the law was meant to\nproduce self-despair, only that men might trust in God. Appeal was made\nespecially to the cases of Abraham and David, the founder of the race\nand of the dynasty, clearly because the justification without works of\nthe patriarch and of the king were precedents to decide the general\nquestion (Rom. iv. 1-8). Now, this is pre-eminently the distinction\nbetween Jewish history and all others, that in it God is everything and\nman is nothing. Every sceptical treatment of the story makes Moses to be\nthe deliverer from Egypt, and shows us the Jewish nation gradually\nfinding out God. But the nation itself believed nothing of the kind. It\nconfessed itself to have been from the beginning vagrant and rebellious\nand unthankful: God had always found out Israel, never Israel God. The\nhistory is an expansion of the parable of the good shepherd. And this\nperfect harmony of a long record with itself and with abstract\nprinciples is both instructive and reassuring.\n\nAs the history of Israel opens before us, a third principle claims\nattention--one which the apostle quietly assumes, but which is forced on\nour consideration by the unhappy state of religious thought in these\ndegenerate days.\n\n\"They are not to be heard,\" says the Seventh Article rightly, \"which\nfeign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises.\" But\ncertainly they also would be unworthy of a hearing who would feign that\nthe early Scriptures do not give a vast, a preponderating weight, to the\nconcerns of our life on earth. Only very slowly, and as the result of\nlong training, does the future begin to reveal its supremacy over the\npresent. It would startle many a devout reader out of his propriety to\ndiscover the small proportion of Old Testament scriptures in which\neternity and its prospects are discussed, to reckon the passages,\nhabitually applied to spiritual thraldom and emancipation, which were\nspoken at first of earthly tyranny and earthly deliverance, and to\nobserve, even in the pious aspirations of the Psalms, how much of the\ngratitude and joy of the righteous comes from the sense that he is made\nwiser than the ancient, and need not fear though a host rose up against\nhim, and can break a bow of steel, and has a table prepared for him, and\nan overflowing cup. Especially is this true of the historical books. God\nis here seen ruling states, judging in the earth, remembering Israel in\nbondage, and setting him free, providing supernatural food and water,\nguiding him by the fiery cloud. There is not a word about regeneration,\nconversion, hell, or heaven. And yet there is a profound sense of God.\nHe is real, active, the most potent factor in the daily lives of men.\nNow, this may teach us a lesson, highly important to us all, and\nespecially to those who must teach others. The difference between\nspirituality and secularity is not the difference between the future\nlife and the present, but between a life that is aware of God and a\ngodless one. Perhaps, when we find our gospel a matter of indifference\nand weariness to men who are absorbed in the bitter monotonous and\ndreary struggle for existence, we ourselves are most to blame. Perhaps,\nif Moses had approached the Hebrew drudges as we approach men equally\nweary and oppressed, they would not have bowed their heads and\nworshipped. And perhaps we should have better success, if we took care\nto speak of God in this world, making life a noble struggle, charging\nwith new significance the dull and seemingly degraded lot of all who\nremember Him, such a God as Jesus revealed when He cleansed the leper,\nand gave sight to the blind, using one and the same word for the\n\"healing\" of diseases and the \"saving\" of souls, and connecting faith\nequally with both. Exodus will have little to teach us, unless we\nbelieve in that God who knoweth that we have need of food and clothing.\nAnd the higher spiritual truths which it expresses will only be found\nthere in dubious and questionable allegory, unless we firmly grasp the\ngreat truth, that God is not the Saviour of souls, or of bodies, but of\nliving men in their entirety, and treats their higher and lower wants\nupon much the same principle, because He is the same God, dealing with\nthe same men, through both.\n\nMoreover, He treats us as the men of other ages. Instead of dealing with\nMoses upon exceptional and strange lines, He made known His ways unto\nMoses, His characteristic and habitual ways. And it is on this account\nthat whatsoever things were written aforetime are true admonition for us\nalso, being not violent interruptions but impressive revelations of the\nsteady silent methods of the judgment and the grace of God.\n\n\n_THE OPPRESSION._\n\ni. 7-22.\n\nAt the beginning of the history of Israel we find a prosperous race. It\nwas indeed their growing importance, and chiefly their vast numerical\nincrease, which excited the jealousy of their rulers, at the very time\nwhen a change of dynasty removed the sense of obligation. It is a sound\nlesson in political as well as personal godliness that prosperity itself\nis dangerous, and needs special protection from on high.\n\nIs it merely by chance again that we find in this first of histories\nexamples of the folly of relying upon political connections? As the\nchief butler remembered not Joseph, nor did he succeed in escaping from\nprison by securing influence at court, so is the influence of Joseph\nhimself now become vain, although he was the father of Pharaoh and lord\nof all his house. His romantic history, his fidelity in temptation, and\nthe services by which he had at once cemented the royal power and saved\nthe people, could not keep his memory alive. The hollow wraith of dying\nfame died wholly. There arose a new king over Egypt who knew not Joseph.\n\nSuch is the value of the highest and purest earthly fame, and such the\ngratitude of the world to its benefactors. The nation which Joseph\nrescued from starvation is passive in Pharaoh's hands, and persecutes\nIsrael at his bidding.\n\nAnd when the actual deliverer arose, his rank and influence were only\nentanglements through which he had to break.\n\nMeanwhile, except among a few women, obedient to the woman's heart, we\nfind no trace of independent action, no revolt of conscience against the\nabsolute behest of the sovereign, until selfishness replaces virtue, and\ndespair wrings the cry from his servants, Knowest thou not yet that\nEgypt is destroyed?\n\nNow, in Genesis we saw the fate of families, blessed in their father\nAbraham, or cursed for the offence of Ham. For a family is a real\nentity, and its members, like those of one body, rejoice and suffer\ntogether. But the same is true of nations, and here we have reached the\nnational stage in the education of the world. Here is exhibited to us,\ntherefore, a nation suffering with its monarch to the uttermost, until\nthe cry of the maidservant behind the mill is as wild and bitter as the\ncry of Pharaoh upon his throne. It is indeed the eternal curse of\ndespotism that unlimited calamity may be drawn down upon millions by the\ncaprice of one most unhappy man, himself blinded and half maddened by\nadulation, by the absence of restraint, by unlimited sensual indulgence\nif his tendencies be low and animal, and by the pride of power if he be\nhigh-spirited and aspiring.\n\nIf we assume, what seems pretty well established, that the Pharaoh from\nwhom Moses fled was Rameses the Great, his spirit was of the nobler\nkind, and he exhibits a terrible example of the unfitness even of\nconquering genius for unbridled and irresponsible power. That lesson has\nhad to be repeated, even down to the days of the Great Napoleon.\n\nNow, if the justice of plaguing a nation for the offence of its head be\nquestioned, let us ask first whether the nation accepts his despotism,\nhonours him, and is content to regard him as its chief and captain.\nAccording to the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, whoever thinks a\ntyrant enviable, has already himself tyrannised with him in his heart.\nDo we ourselves, then, never sympathise with political audacity, bold\nand unscrupulous \"resource,\" success that is bought at the price of\nstrange compliances, and compromises, and wrongs to other men?\n\nThe great national lesson is now to be taught to Israel that the most\nsplendid imperial force will be brought to an account for its treatment\nof the humblest--that there is a God Who judges in the earth. And they\nwere bidden to apply in their own land this experience of their own,\ndealing kindly with the stranger in the midst of them, \"for thou wast a\nstranger in the land of Egypt.\" That lesson we have partly learned, who\nhave broken the chain of our slaves. But how much have we left undone!\nThe subject races were never given into our hands to supplant them, as\nwe have supplanted the Red Indian and the New Zealander, nor to\ndebauch, as men say we are corrupting the African and the Hindoo, but to\nraise, instruct and Christianise. And if the subjects of a despotism are\naccountable for the actions of rulers whom they tolerate, how much more\nare we? What ought we to infer, from this old-world history, of the\nprofound responsibilities of all free citizens?\n\nWe attain a principle which reaches far into the spiritual world, when\nwe reflect that if evil deeds of a ruler can justly draw down vengeance\nupon his people, the converse also must hold good. Reverse the case\nbefore us. Let the kingdom be that of the noblest and purest virtue. Let\nno subject ever be coerced to enter it, nor to remain one hour longer\nthan while his adoring loyalty consents. And shall not these subjects be\nthe better for the virtues of the Monarch whom they love? Is it mere\ncaprice to say that in choosing such a King they do, in a very real\nsense, appropriate the goodness they crown? If it be natural that Egypt\nbe scourged for the sins of Pharaoh, is it palpably incredible that\nChrist is made of God unto His people wisdom and righteousness and\nsanctification and redemption? The doctrine of imputation can easily be\nso stated as to become absurd. But the imputation of which St. Paul\nspeaks much can only be denied when we are prepared to assail the\nprinciple on which all bodies of men are treated, families and nations\nas well as the Church of God.\n\nIt was the jealous cruelty of Pharaoh which drew down upon his country\nthe very perils he laboured to turn away. There was no ground for his\nfear of any league with foreigners against him. Prosperous and\nunambitious, the people would have remained well content beside the\nflesh-pots of Egypt, for which they sighed even when emancipated from\nheavy bondage and eating the bread of heaven. Or else, if they had gone\nforth in peace, from a land whose hospitality had not failed, to their\ninheritance in Canaan, they would have become an allied nation upon the\nside where the heaviest blows were afterwards struck by the Asiatic\npowers. Cruelty and cunning could not retain them, but it could decimate\na population and lose an army in the attempt. And this law prevails in\nthe modern world, England paid twenty millions to set her bondmen free.\nBecause America would not follow her example, she ultimately paid the\nmore terrible ransom of civil war. For the same God was in Jamaica and\nin Florida as in the field of Zoan. Nor was there ever yet a crooked\npolicy which did not recoil either upon its author, or upon his\nsuccessors when he had passed away. In this case it fulfilled the plans\nand the prophecies of God, and the wrath of man was made to praise Him.\n\nThere is independent reason for believing that at this period one-third\nat least of the population of Egypt was of alien blood (Brugsch,\n_History_, ii. 100). A politician might fairly be alarmed, especially if\nthis were the time when the Hittites were threatening the eastern\nfrontier, and had reduced Egypt to stand on the defensive, and erect\nbarrier fortresses. And the circumstances of the country made it very\neasy to enslave the Hebrews. If any stain of Oriental indifference to\nthe rights of the masses had mingled with the God-given insight of\nJoseph, when he made his benefactor the owner of all the soil, the\nEgyptian people were fully avenged upon him now. For this arrangement\nlaid his pastoral race helpless at their oppressor's feet. Forced\nlabour quickly degenerates into slavery, and men who find the story of\ntheir misery hard to credit should consider the state of France before\nthe Revolution, and of the Russian serfs before their emancipation.\nTheir wretchedness was probably as bitter as that of the Hebrews at any\nperiod but the last climax of their oppression. And they owed it to the\nsame cause--the absolute ownership of the land by others, too remote\nfrom them to be sympathetic, to take due account of their feelings, to\nremember that they were their fellow-men. This was enough to slay\ncompassion, even without the aggravation of dealing with an alien and\nsuspected race.\n\nNow, it is instructive to observe these reappearances of wholesale\ncrime. They warn us that the utmost achievements of human wickedness are\nhuman still; not wild and grotesque importations by a fiend, originated\nin the abyss, foreign to the world we live in. Satan finds the material\nfor his master-strokes in the estrangement of class from class, in the\ndrying up of the fountains of reciprocal human feeling, in the failure\nof real, fresh, natural affection in our bosom for those who differ\nwidely from us in rank or circumstances. All cruelties are possible when\na man does not seem to us really a man, nor his woes really woeful. For\nwhen the man has sunk into an animal it is only a step to his\nvivisection.\n\nNor does anything tend to deepen such perilous estrangement, more than\nthe very education, culture and refinement, in which men seek a\nsubstitute for religion and the sense of brotherhood in Christ. It is\nquite conceivable that the tyrant who drowned the Hebrew infants was an\naffectionate father, and pitied his nobles when their children died. But\nhis sympathies could not reach beyond the barriers of a caste. Do _our_\nsympathies really overleap such barriers? Would God that even His Church\nbelieved aright in the reality of a human nature like our own, soiled,\nsorrowful, shamed, despairing, drugged into that apathetical\ninsensibility which lies even below despair, yet aching still, in ten\nthousand bosoms, in every great city of Christendom, every day and every\nnight! Would to God that she understood what Jesus meant, when He called\none lost creature by the tender name which she had not yet forfeited,\nsaying, \"Woman, where are thine accusers?\" and when He asked Simon, who\nscorned such another, \"Seest thou this woman!\" Would God that when she\nprays for the Holy Spirit of Jesus she would really seek a mind like\nHis, not only in piety and prayerfulness, but also in tender and\nheartfelt brotherhood with all, even the vilest of the weary and\nheavy-laden!\n\nMany great works of ancient architecture, the pyramids among the rest,\nwere due to the desire of crushing, by abject toil, the spirit of a\nsubject people. We cannot ascribe to Hebrew labour any of the more\nsplendid piles of Egyptian masonry, but the store cities or arsenals\nwhich they built can be identified. They are composed of such crude\nbrick as the narrative describes; and the absence of straw in the later\nportion of them can still be verified. Rameses was evidently named after\ntheir oppressor, and this strengthens the conviction that we are reading\nof events in the nineteenth dynasty, when the shepherd kings had\nrecently been driven out, leaving the eastern frontier so weak as to\ndemand additional fortresses, and so far depopulated as to give colour\nto the exaggerated assertion of Pharaoh, \"the people are more and\nmightier than we.\" It is by such exaggerations and alarms that all the\nworst crimes of statesmen have been justified to consenting peoples. And\nwe, when we carry what seems to us a rightful object, by inflaming the\nprejudice and misleading the judgment of other men, are moving on the\nsame treacherous and slippery inclines. Probably no evil is committed\nwithout some amount of justification, which the passions exaggerate,\nwhile they ignore the prohibitions of the law.\n\nHow came it to pass that the fierce Hebrew blood, which was yet to boil\nin the veins of the Maccabees, and to give battle, not unworthily, to\nthe Roman conquerors of the world, failed to resent the cruelties of\nPharaoh?\n\nPartly, of course, because the Jewish people was only now becoming aware\nof its national existence; but also because it had forsaken God. Its\nreligion, if not supplanted, was at least adulterated by the influence\nof the mystic pantheism and the stately ritual which surrounded them.\n\nJoshua bade his victorious followers to \"put away the gods whom your\nfathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve ye the Lord\"\n(Josh. xxiv. 14). And in Ezekiel the Lord Himself complains, \"They\nrebelled against Me and would not hearken unto Me; they did not cast\naway the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols\nof Egypt\" (Ezek. xx. 8).\n\nNow, there is nothing which enfeebles the spirit and breaks the courage\nlike religious dependence. A strong priesthood always means a feeble\npeople, most of all when they are of different blood. And Israel was now\ndependent on Egypt alike for the highest and lowest needs--grass for the\ncattle and religion for the soul. And when they had sunk so low, it is\nevident that their emancipation had to be wrought for them entirely\nwithout their help. From first to last they were passive, not only for\nwant of spirit to help themselves, but because the glory of any exploit\nof theirs might have illuminated some false deity whom they adored.\n\nStanding still, they saw the salvation of God, and it was not possible\nto give His glory to another.\n\nFor this cause also, judgment had, first of all, to be wrought upon the\ngods of Egypt.\n\nIn the meantime, without spirit enough to resist, they saw complete\ndestruction drawing nearer to them by successive strides. At first\nPharaoh \"dealt wisely with them,\" and they found themselves entrapped\ninto a hard bondage almost unawares. But a strange power upheld them,\nand the more they were afflicted the more they multiplied and spread\nabroad. In this they ought to have discerned a divine support, and\nremembered the promise to Abraham that God would multiply his seed as\nthe stars of heaven. It may have helped them presently to \"cry unto the\nLord.\" And the Egyptians were not merely \"grieved\" because of them: they\nfelt as the Israelites afterwards felt towards that monotonous diet of\nwhich they used the same word, and said, \"our soul loatheth this light\nbread.\" Here it expresses that fierce and contemptuous attitude which\nthe Californian and Australian are now assuming toward the swarms of\nChinamen whose labour is so indispensable, yet the infusion of whose\nblood into the population is so hateful. Then the Egyptians make their\nservice rigorous, and their lives bitter.\n\nAnd at last that happens which is a part of every downward course: the\nveil is dropped; what men have done by stealth, and as if they would\ndeceive themselves, they soon do consciously, avowing to their\nconscience what at first they could not face. Thus Pharaoh began by\nstriving to check a dangerous population; and ended by committing\nwholesale murder. Thus men become drunkards through conviviality,\nthieves through borrowing what they mean to restore, and hypocrites\nthrough slightly overstating what they really feel. And, since there are\nnice gradations in evil, down to the very last, Pharaoh will not yet\navow publicly the atrocity which he commands a few humble women to\nperpetrate; decency is with him, as it is often, the last substitute for\na conscience.\n\nAmong the agents of God for the shipwreck of all full-grown wrongs, the\nchief is the revolt of human nature, since, fallen though we know\nourselves to be, the image of God is not yet effaced in us. The better\ninstincts of humanity are irrepressible--most so perhaps among the poor.\nIt is by refusing to trust its intuitions that men grow vile; and to the\nvery last that refusal is never absolute, so that no villainy can reckon\nupon its agents, and its agents cannot always reckon upon themselves.\nAbove all, the heart of every woman is in a plot against the wrong; and\nas Pharaoh was afterwards defeated by the ingenuity of a mother and the\nsympathy of his own daughter, so his first scheme was spoiled by the\ndisobedience of the midwives, themselves Hebrews, upon whom he reckoned.\n\nLet us not fear to avow that these women, whom God rewarded, lied to the\nking when he reproached them, since their answer, even if it were not\nunfounded, was palpably a misrepresentation of the facts. The reward was\nnot for their falsehood, but for their humanity. They lived when the\nnotion of martyrdom for an avowal so easy to evade was utterly unknown.\nAbraham lied to Abimelech. Both Samuel and David equivocated with Saul.\nWe have learned better things from the King of truth, Who was born and\ncame into the world to bear witness to the truth. We know that the\nmartyr's bold protest against unrighteousness is the highest vocation of\nthe Church, and is rewarded in the better country. But they knew nothing\nof this, and their service was acceptable according as they had, not\naccording as they had not. As well might we blame the patriarchs for\nhaving been slave-owners, and David for having invoked mischief upon his\nenemies, as these women for having fallen short of the Christian ideal\nof veracity. Let us beware lest we come short of it ourselves. And let\nus remember that the way of the Church through time is the path of the\njust, beset with mist and vapour at the dawn, but shining more and more\nunto the perfect day.\n\nIn the meantime, God acknowledges, and Holy Scripture celebrates, the\nservice of these obscure and lowly heroines. Nothing done for Him goes\nunrewarded. To slaves it was written that \"From the Lord ye shall\nreceive the reward of the inheritance: ye serve the Lord Christ\" (Col.\niii. 24). And what these women saved for others was what was recompensed\nto themselves, domestic happiness, family life and its joys. God made\nthem houses.\n\nThe king is now driven to avow himself in a public command to drown all\nthe male infants of the Hebrews; and the people become his accomplices\nby obeying him. For this they were yet to experience a terrible\nretribution, when there was not a house in Egypt that had not one dead.\n\nThe features of the king to whom these atrocities are pretty certainly\nbrought home are still to be seen in the museum at Boulak. Seti I. is\nthe most beautiful of all the Egyptian monarchs whose faces lie bare to\nthe eyes of modern sightseers; and his refined features, intelligent,\nhigh-bred and cheerful, resemble wonderfully, yet surpass, those of\nRameses II., his successor, from whom Moses fled. This is the builder of\nthe vast and exquisite temple of Amon at Thebes, the grandeur of which\nis amazing even in its ruins; and his culture and artistic gifts are\nvisible, after all these centuries, upon his face. It is a strange\ncomment upon the modern doctrine that culture is to become a sufficient\nsubstitute for religion. And his own record of his exploits is enough to\nshow that the sense of beauty is not that of pity: he is the jackal\nleaping through the land of his enemies, the grim lion, the powerful\nbull with sharpened horns, who has annihilated the peoples.\n\nThere is no greater mistake than to suppose that artistic refinement can\neither inspire morality or replace it. Have we quite forgotten Nero, and\nLucretia Borgia, and Catherine de Medici?\n\nMany civilisations have thought little of infant life. Ancient Rome\nwould have regarded this atrocity as lightly as modern China, as we may\nsee by the absolute silence of its literature concerning the murder of\nthe innocents--an event strangely parallel with this in its nature and\npolitical motives, and in the escape of one mighty Infant.\n\nIs it conceivable that the same indifference should return, if the\nsanctions of religion lose their power? Every one remembers the\ncallousness of Rousseau. Strange things are being written by pessimistic\nunbelief about the bringing of more sufferers into the world. And a\nliving writer in France has advocated the legalising of infanticide, and\ndenounced St. Vincent de Paul because, \"thanks to his odious\nprecautions, this man deferred for years the death of creatures without\nintelligence,\" etc.[2]\n\nIt is to the faith of Jesus, not only revealing by the light of eternity\nthe value of every soul, but also replenishing the fountains of human\ntenderness that had well-nigh become exhausted, that we owe our modern\nlove of children. In the very helplessness which the ancient masters of\nthe world exposed to destruction without a pang, we see the type of what\nwe must ourselves become, if we would enter heaven. But we cannot afford\nto forget either the source or the sanctions of the lesson.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Professor Curtiss quotes a volume of family memoirs which shows that\n5,564 persons are known to be descended from Lieutenant John Hollister,\nwho emigrated to America in the year 1642 (_Expositor_, Nov. 1887, p.\n329). This is probably equal in ratio to the increase of Israel in\nEgypt.\n\n[2] J. K. Huysmans--quoted in _Nineteenth Century_, May 1888, p. 673.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n\n_THE RESCUE OF MOSES._\n\nii. 1-10.\n\nWe have said that the Old Testament history teems with political wisdom,\nlessons of permanent instruction for mankind, on the level of this life,\nyet godly, as all true lessons must be, in a world of which Christ is\nKing. These our religion must learn to recognise and proclaim, if it is\never to win the respect of men of affairs, and \"leaven the whole lump\"\nof human life with sacred influence.\n\nSuch a lesson is the importance of the individual in the history of\nnations. History, as read in Scripture, is indeed a long relation of\nheroic resistance or of base compliance in the presence of influences\nwhich are at work to debase modern peoples as well as those of old. The\nholiness of Samuel, the gallant faith of David, the splendour and wisdom\nof Solomon, the fervid zeal of Elijah, the self-respecting righteousness\nof Nehemiah,--ignore these, and the whole course of affairs becomes\nvague and unintelligible. Most of all this is true of Moses, whose\nappearance is now related.\n\nIn profane history it is the same. Alexander, Mahomet, Luther, William\nthe Silent, Napoleon,--will any one pretend that Europe uninfluenced by\nthese personalities would have become the Europe that we know?\n\nAnd this truth is not at all a speculative, unpractical theory: it is\nvital. For now there is a fashion of speaking about the tendency of the\nage, the time-spirit, as an irresistible force which moulds men like\npotters' clay, crowning those who discern and help it, but grinding to\npowder all who resist its course. In reality there are always a hundred\ntime-spirits and tendencies competing for the mastery--some of them\nviolent, selfish, atheistic, or luxurious (as we see with our own eyes\nto-day)--and the shrewdest judges are continually at fault as to which\nof them is to be victorious, and recognised hereafter as the spirit of\nthe age.\n\nThis modern pretence that men are nothing, and streams of tendency are\nall, is plainly a gospel of capitulations, of falsehood to one's private\nconvictions, and of servile obedience to the majority and the popular\ncry. For, if individual men are nothing, what am I? If we are all\nbubbles floating down a stream, it is folly to strive to breast the\ncurrent. Much practical baseness and servility is due to this base and\nservile creed. And the cure for it is belief in another spirit than that\nof the present age, trust in an inspiring God, who rescued a herd of\nslaves and their fading convictions from the greatest nation upon earth\nby matching one man, shrinking and reluctant yet obedient to his\nmission, against Pharaoh and all the tendencies of the age.\n\nAnd it is always so. God turns the scale of events by the vast weight of\na man, faithful and true, and sufficiently aware of Him to refuse, to\nuniversal clamour, the surrender of his liberty or his religion. In\nsmall matters, as in great, there is no man, faithful to a lonely duty\nor conviction, understanding that to have discerned it is a gift and a\nvocation, but makes the world better and stronger, and works out part\nof the answer to that great prayer \"Thy will be done.\"\n\nWe have seen already that the religion of the Hebrews in Egypt was\ncorrupted and in danger of being lost. To this process, however, there\nmust have been bright exceptions; and the mother of Moses bore witness,\nby her very name, to her fathers' God. The first syllable of Jochebed is\nproof that the name of God, which became the keynote of the new\nrevelation, was not entirely new.\n\nAs yet the parents of Moses are not named; nor is there any allusion to\nthe close relationship which would have forbidden their union at a later\nperiod (chap. vi. 20). And throughout all the story of his youth and\nearly manhood there is no mention whatever of God or of religion.\nElsewhere it is not so. The Epistle to the Hebrews declares that through\nfaith the babe was hidden, and through faith the man refused Egyptian\nrank. Stephen tells us that he expected his brethren to know that God by\nhis hand was giving them deliverance. But the narrative in Exodus is\nwholly untheological. If Moses were the author, we can see why he\navoided reflections which directly tended to glorify himself. But if the\nstory were a subsequent invention, why is the tone so cold, the light so\ncolourless?\n\nNow, it is well that we are invited to look at all these things from\ntheir human side, observing the play of human affection, innocent\nsubtlety, and pity. God commonly works through the heart and brain which\nHe has given us, and we do not glorify Him at all by ignoring these. If\nin this case there were visible a desire to suppress the human agents,\nin favour of the Divine Preserver, we might suppose that a different\nhistorian would have given a less wonderful account of the plagues, the\ncrossing of the Sea, and the revelation from Sinai. But since full\nweight is allowed to second causes in the early life of Moses, the story\nis entitled to the greater credit when it tells of the burning bush and\nthe flaming mountain.\n\nLet us, however, put together the various narratives and their lessons.\nAt the outset we read of a marriage celebrated between kinsfolk, when\nthe storm of persecution was rising. And hence we infer that courage or\nstrong affection made the parents worthy of him through whom God should\nshow mercy unto thousands. The first child was a girl, and therefore\nsafe; but we may suppose, although silence in Scripture proves little,\nthat Aaron, three years before the birth of Moses, had not come into\nequal peril with him. Moses was therefore born just when the last\natrocity was devised, when trouble was at its height.\n\n\"At this time Moses was born,\" said Stephen. Edifying inferences have\nbeen drawn from the statement in Exodus that \"the woman ... hid him.\"\nPerhaps the stronger man quailed, but the maternal instinct was not at\nfault, and it was rewarded abundantly. From which we only learn, in\nreality, not to overstrain the words of Scripture; since the Epistle to\nthe Hebrews distinctly says that he \"was hid three months by his\nparents\"--both of them, while naturally the mother is the active agent.\n\nAll the accounts agree that he was thus hidden, \"because they saw that\nhe was a goodly child\" (Heb. xi. 23). It is a pathetic phrase. We see\nthem, before the crisis, vaguely submitting in theory to an unrealised\natrocity, ignorant how imperiously their nature would forbid the crime,\nnot planning disobedience in advance, nor led to it by any reasoning\nprocess. All is changed when the little one gazes at them with that\nmarvellous appeal in its unconscious eyes, which is known to every\nparent, and helps him to be a better man. There is a great difference\nbetween one's thought about an infant, and one's feeling towards the\nactual baby. He was their child, their beautiful child; and this it was\nthat turned the scale. For him they would now dare anything, \"because\nthey saw he was a goodly child, and they were not afraid of the king's\ncommandment.\" Now, impulse is often a great power for evil, as when\nappetite or fear, suddenly taking visible shape, overwhelms the judgment\nand plunges men into guilt. But good impulses may be the very voice of\nGod, stirring whatever is noble and generous within us. Nor are they\naccidental: loving and brave emotions belong to warm and courageous\nhearts; they come of themselves, like song birds, but they come surely\nwhere sunshine and still groves invite them, not into clamour and foul\nair. Thus arose in their bosoms the sublime thought of God as an active\npower to be reckoned upon. For as certainly as every bad passion that we\nharbour preaches atheism, so does all goodness tend to sustain itself by\nthe consciousness of a supreme Goodness in reserve. God had sent them\ntheir beautiful child, and who was Pharaoh to forbid the gift? And so\nreligion and natural pity joined hands, their supreme convictions and\ntheir yearning for their infant. \"By faith Moses was hid ... because\nthey saw he was a goodly child, and they were not afraid of the king's\ncommandment.\"\n\nSuch, if we desire a real and actual salvation, is always the faith\nwhich saves. Postpone salvation to an indefinite future; make it no more\nthan the escape from vaguely realised penalties for sins which do not\nseem very hateful; and you may suppose that faith in theories can obtain\nthis indulgence; an opinion may weigh against a misgiving. But feel that\nsin is not only likely to entail damnation, but is really and in itself\ndamnable meanwhile, and then there will be no deliverance possible, but\nfrom the hand of a divine Friend, strong to sustain and willing to guide\nthe life. We read that Amram lived a hundred and thirty and seven years,\nand of all that period we only know that he helped to save the deliverer\nof his race, by practical faith which made him not afraid, and did not\nparalyse but stimulate his energies.\n\nWhen the mother could no longer hide the child, she devised the plan\nwhich has made her for ever famous. She placed him in a covered ark, or\ncasket,[3] plaited (after what we know to have been the Egyptian\nfashion) of the papyrus reed, and rendered watertight with bitumen, and\nthis she laid among the rushes--a lower vegetation, which would not,\nlike the tall papyrus, hide her treasure--in the well-known and secluded\nplace where the daughter of Pharaoh used to bathe. Something in the\nknown character of the princess may have inspired this ingenious device\nto move her pity; but it is more likely that the woman's heart, in her\nextremity, prompted a simple appeal to the woman who could help her if\nshe would. For an Egyptian princess was an important personage, with an\nestablishment of her own, and often possessed of much political\ninfluence. The most sanguinary agent of a tyrant would be likely to\nrespect the client of such a patron.\n\nThe heart of every woman was in a plot against the cruelty of Pharaoh.\nOnce already the midwives had defeated him; and now, when his own\ndaughter[4] unexpectedly found, in the water at her very feet, a\nbeautiful child sobbing silently (for she knew not what was there until\nthe ark was opened), her indignation is audible enough in the words,\n\"This is one of the Hebrews' children.\" She means to say \"This is only\none specimen of the outrages that are going on.\"\n\nThis was the chance for his sister, who had been set in ambush, not\nprepared with the exquisite device which follows, but simply \"to know\nwhat would be done to him.\" Clearly the mother had reckoned upon his\nbeing found, and neglected nothing, although unable herself to endure\nthe agony of watching, or less easily hidden in that guarded spot. And\nher prudence had a rich reward. Hitherto Miriam's duty had been to\nremain passive--that hard task so often imposed upon the affection,\nespecially of women, by sick-beds, and also in many a more stirring\nhazard, and many a spiritual crisis, where none can fight his brother's\nbattle. It is a trying time, when love can only hold its breath, and\npray. But let not love suppose that to watch is to do nothing. Often\nthere comes a moment when its word, made wise by the teaching of the\nheart, is the all-important consideration in deciding mighty issues.\n\nThis girl sees the princess at once pitiful and embarrassed, for how can\nshe dispose of her strange charge? Let the moment pass, and the movement\nof her heart subside, and all may be lost; but Miriam is prompt and\nbold, and asks \"Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women,\nthat she may nurse the child for thee?\" It is a daring stroke, for the\nprincess must have understood the position thoroughly, the moment the\neager Hebrew girl stepped forward. The disguise was very thin. And at\nleast the heart which pitied the infant must have known the mother when\nshe saw her face, pale with longing. It is therefore only as a form,\nexacted by circumstances, but well enough though tacitly understood upon\nboth sides, that she bids her nurse the child for her, and promises\nwages. What reward could equal that of clasping her child to her own\nagitated bosom in safety, while the destroyers were around?\n\nThis incident teaches us that good is never to be despaired of, since\nthis kindly woman grew up in the family of the persecutor.\n\nAnd the promptitude and success of Miriam suggest a reflection. Men do\npity, when it is brought home to them, the privation, suffering, and\nwrong, which lie around. Magnificent sums are contributed yearly for\ntheir relief by the generous instincts of the world. The misfortune is\nthat sentiment is evoked only by visible and pathetic griefs, and that\nit will not labour as readily as it will subscribe. It is a harder task\nto investigate, to devise appeals, to invent and work the machinery by\nwhich misery may be relieved. Mere compassion will accomplish little,\nunless painstaking affection supplement it. Who supplies that? Who\nenables common humanity to relieve itself by simply paying \"wages,\" and\nconfiding the wretched to a painstaking, laborious, loving guardian? The\nstreets would never have known Hospital Saturday, but for Hospital\nSunday in the churches. The orphanage is wholly a Christian institution.\nAnd so is the lady nurse. The old-fashioned phrase has almost sunk into\na party cry, but in a large and noble sense it will continue to be true\nto nature as long as bereavement, pain or penitence requires a tender\nbosom and soothing touch, which speaks of Mother Church.\n\nThus did God fulfil His mysterious plans. And according to a sad but\nnoble law, which operates widely, what was best in Egypt worked with Him\nfor the punishment of its own evil race. The daughter of Pharaoh adopted\nthe perilous foundling, and educated him in the wisdom of Egypt.\n\n\n_THE CHOICE OF MOSES._\n\nii. 11-15.\n\nGod works even His miracles by means. As He fed the multitude with\nbarley-loaves, so He would emancipate Israel by human agency. It was\ntherefore necessary to educate one of the trampled race \"in all the\nlearning of Egypt,\" and Moses was planted in the court of Pharaoh, like\nthe German Arminius in Rome. Wonderful legends may be read in Josephus\nof his heroism, his wisdom, and his victories; and these have some\nfoundation in reality, for Stephen tells us that he was mighty in his\nwords and works. Might in words need not mean the fluent utterance which\nhe so earnestly disclaimed (iv. 10), even if forty years' disuse of the\nlanguage were not enough to explain his later diffidence. It may have\nmeant such power of composition as appears in the hymn by the Red Sea,\nand in the magnificent valediction to his people.\n\nThe point is that among a nation originally pastoral, and now sinking\nfast into the degraded animalism of slaves, which afterwards betrayed\nitself in their complaining greed, their sighs for the generous Egyptian\ndietary, and their impure carouse under the mountain, one man should\npossess the culture and mental grasp needed by a leader and lawgiver.\n\"Could not the grace of God have supplied the place of endowment and\nattainment?\" Yes, truly; and it was quite as likely to do this for one\nwho came down from His immediate presence with his face intolerably\nbright, as for the last impudent enthusiast who declaims against the\nneed of education in sentences which at least prove that for him the\nwant has by no substitute been completely met. But the grace of God\nchose to give the qualification, rather than replace it, alike to Moses\nand St. Paul. Nor is there any conspicuous example among the saints of a\nman being thrust into a rank for which he was not previously made fit.\n\nThe painful contrast between his own refined tastes and habits, and the\ncoarser manners of his nation, was no doubt one difficulty of the choice\nof Moses, and a lifelong trial to him afterwards. He is an example not\nonly to those whom wealth and power would entangle, but to any who are\ntoo fastidious and sensitive for the humble company of the people of\nGod.\n\nWhile the intellect of Moses was developing, it is plain that his\nconnection with his family was not entirely broken. Such a tie as often\nbinds a foster-child to its nurse may have been permitted to associate\nhim with his real parents. Some means were evidently found to instruct\nhim in the history and messianic hopes of Israel, for he knew that their\nreproach was that of \"the Christ,\" greater riches than all the treasure\nof Egypt, and fraught with a reward for which he looked in faith (Heb.\nxi. 26). But what is meant by naming as part of his burden their\n\"reproach,\" as distinguished from their sufferings?\n\nWe shall understand, if we reflect, that his open rupture with Egypt was\nunlikely to be the work of a moment. Like all the best workers, he was\nled forward gradually, at first unconscious of his vocation. Many a\nprotest he must have made against the cruel and unjust policy that\nsteeped the land in innocent blood. Many a jealous councillor must have\nknown how to weaken his dangerous influence by some cautious taunt, some\ninsinuated \"reproach\" of his own Hebrew origin. The warnings put by\nJosephus into the lips of the priests in his childhood, were likely\nenough to have been spoken by some one before he was forty years old. At\nlast, when driven to make his choice, he \"refused to be called the son\nof Pharaoh's daughter,\" a phrase, especially in its reference to the\nrejected title as distinguished from \"the pleasures of sin,\" which seems\nto imply a more formal rupture than Exodus records.\n\nWe saw that the piety of his parents was not unhelped by their emotions:\nthey hid him by faith when they saw that he was a goodly child. Such was\nalso the faith by which Moses broke with rank and fortune. He went out\nunto his brethren, and looked on their burdens, and he saw an Egyptian\nsmiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. Twice the word of kinship is\nrepeated; and Stephen tells us that Moses himself used it in rebuking\nthe dissensions of his fellow-countrymen. Filled with yearning and pity\nfor his trampled brethren, and with the shame of generous natures who\nare at ease while others suffer, he saw an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew.\nWith that blended caution and vehemence which belong to his nation\nstill, he looked and saw that there was no man, and slew the Egyptian.\nLike most acts of passion, this was at once an impulse of the moment,\nand an outcome of long gathering forces--just as the lightning flash,\nsudden though it seem, has been prepared by the accumulated electricity\nof weeks.\n\nAnd this is the reason why God allows the issues of a lifetime, perhaps\nof an eternity, to be decided by a sudden word, a hasty blow. Men plead\nthat if time had been given, they would have stifled the impulse which\nruined them. But what gave the impulse such violent and dreadful force\nthat it overwhelmed them before they could reflect? The explosion in the\ncoal-mine is not caused by the sudden spark, without the accumulation of\ndangerous gases, and the absence of such wholesome ventilation as would\ncarry them away. It is so in the breast where evil desires or tempers\nare harboured, unsubdued by grace, until any accident puts them beyond\ncontrol. Thank God that such sudden movements do not belong to evil\nonly! A high soul is surprised into heroism, as often perhaps as a mean\none into theft or falsehood. In the case of Moses there was nothing\nunworthy, but much that was unwarranted and presumptuous. The decision\nit involved was on the right side, but the act was self-willed and\nunwarranted, and it carried heavy penalties. \"The trespass originated\nnot in inveterate cruelty,\" says St. Augustine, \"but in a hasty zeal\nwhich admitted of correction ... resentment against injury was\naccompanied by love for a brother.... Here was evil to be rooted out,\nbut the heart with such capabilities, like good soil, needed only\ncultivation to make it fruitful in virtue.\"\n\nStephen tells us, what is very natural, that Moses expected the people\nto accept him as their heaven-born deliverer. From which it appears that\nhe cherished high expectations for himself, from Israel if not from\nEgypt. When he interfered next day between two Hebrews, his question as\ngiven in Exodus is somewhat magisterial: \"Wherefore smitest thou thy\nfellow?\" In Stephen's version it dictates less, but it lectures a good\ndeal: \"Sirs, ye are brethren, why do ye wrong one to another?\" And it\nwas natural enough that they should dispute his pretensions, for God had\nnot yet given him the rank he claimed. He still needed a discipline\nalmost as sharp as that of Joseph, who, by talking too boastfully of his\ndreams, postponed their fulfilment until he was chastened by slavery and\na dungeon. Even Saul of Tarsus, when converted, needed three years of\nclose seclusion for the transformation of his fiery ardour into divine\nzeal, as iron to be tempered must be chilled as well as heated. The\nprecipitate and violent zeal of Moses entailed upon him forty years of\nexile.\n\nAnd yet his was a noble patriotism. There is a false love of country,\nborn of pride, which blinds one to her faults; and there is a loftier\npassion which will brave estrangement and denunciation to correct them.\nSuch was the patriotism of Moses, and of all whom God has ever truly\ncalled to lead their fellows. Nevertheless he had to suffer for his\nerror.\n\nHis first act had been a kind of manifesto, a claim to lead, which he\nsupposed that they would have understood; and yet, when he found his\ndeed was known, he feared and fled. His false step told against him. One\ncannot but infer also that he was conscious of having already forfeited\ncourt favour--that he had before this not only made his choice, but\nannounced it, and knew that the blow was ready to fall on him at any\nprovocation. We read that he dwelt in the land of Midian, a name which\nwas applied to various tracts according to the nomadic wanderings of the\ntribe, but which plainly included, at this time, some part of the\npeninsula formed by the tongues of the Red Sea. For, as he fed his\nflocks, he came to the Mount of God.\n\n\n_MOSES IN MIDIAN._\n\nii. 16-22\n\nThe interference of Moses on behalf of the daughters of the priest of\nMidian is a pleasant trait, courteous, and expressive of a refined\nnature. With this remark, and reflecting that, like many courtesies, it\nbrought its reward, we are often content to pass it by. And yet it\ndeserves a closer examination.\n\n1. For it expresses great energy of character. He might well have been\nin a state of collapse. He had smitten the Egyptian for Israel's sake:\nhe had appealed to his own people to make common cause, like brethren,\nagainst the common foe; and he had offered himself to them as their\ndestined leader in the struggle. But they had refused him the command,\nand he was rudely awakened to the consciousness that his life was in\ndanger through the garrulous ingratitude of the man he rescued. Now he\nwas a ruined man and an exile, marked for destruction by the greatest of\nearthly monarchs, with the habits and tastes of a great noble, but\nhomeless among wild races.\n\nIt was no common nature which was alert and energetic at such a time.\nThe greatest men have known a period of prostration in calamity: it was\nenough for honour that they should rally and re-collect their forces.\nThinking of Frederick, after Kunersdorf, resigning the command (\"I have\nno resources more, and will not survive the destruction of my country\"),\nand of his subsequent despatch, \"I am now recovered from my illness\";\nand of Napoleon, trembling and weeping on the road to Elba, one turns\nwith fresh admiration to the fallen prince, the baffled liberator,\nsitting exhausted by the well, but as keen on behalf of liberty as when\nPharaoh trampled Israel, though now the oppressors are a group of rude\nherdsmen, and the oppressed are Midianite women, driven from the troughs\nwhich they have toiled to fill. One remembers Another, sitting also\nexhausted by the well, defying social usage on behalf of a despised\nwoman, and thereby inspired and invigorated as with meat to eat which\nHis followers knew not of.\n\n2. Moreover there is disinterested bravery in the act, since he hazards\nthe opposition of the men of the land, among whom he seeks refuge, on\nbehalf of a group from which he can have expected nothing. And here it\nis worth while to notice the characteristic variations in three stories\nwhich have certain points of contact. The servant of Abraham,\nservant-like, was well content that Rebekah should draw for all his\ncamels, while he stood still. The prudent Jacob, anxious to introduce\nhimself to his cousin, rolled away the stone and watered her camels.\nMoses sat by the well, but did not interfere while the troughs were\nbeing filled: it was only the overt wrong which kindled him. But as in\ngreat things, so it is in small: our actions never stand alone; having\nonce befriended them, he will do it thoroughly, \"and moreover he drew\nwater for us, and watered the flock.\" Such details could hardly have\nbeen thought out by a fabricator; a legend would not have allowed Moses\nto be slower in courtesy than Jacob;[5] but the story fits the case\nexactly: his eyes were with his heart, and that was far away, until the\ninjustice of the shepherds roused him.\n\nAnd why was Moses thus energetic, fearless, and chivalrous? Because he\nwas sustained by the presence of the Unseen: he endured as seeing Him\nwho is invisible; and having, despite of panic, by faith forsaken Egypt,\nhe was free from the absorbing anxieties which prevent men from caring\nfor their fellows, free also from the cynical misgivings which suspect\nthat violence is more than justice, that to be righteous over-much is to\ndestroy oneself, and that perhaps, after all, one may see a good deal of\nwrong without being called upon to interfere. It would be a different\nworld to-day, if all who claim to be \"the salt of the earth\" were as\neager to repress injustice in its smaller and meaner forms as to make\nmoney or influential friends. If all petty and cowardly oppression were\nsternly trodden down, we should soon have a state of public opinion in\nwhich gross and large tyranny would be almost impossible. And it is very\ndoubtful whether the flagrant wrongs, which must be comparatively rare,\ncause as much real mental suffering as the frequent small ones. Does\nmankind suffer more from wild beasts than from insects? But how few that\naspire to emancipate oppressed nations would be content, in the hour of\ntheir overthrow, to assert the rights of a handful of women against a\ntrifling fraud, to which indeed they were so well accustomed that its\nomission surprised their father!\n\nIs it only because we are reading a history, and not a biography, that\nwe find no touch of tenderness, like the love of Jacob for Rachel, in\nthe domestic relations of Moses?\n\nJoseph also married in a strange land, yet he called the name of his\nfirst son Manasseh, because God had made him to forget his sorrows: but\nMoses remembered his. Neither wife nor child could charm away his home\nsickness; he called his firstborn Gershom, because he was a sojourner in\na strange land. In truth, his whole life seems to have been a lonely\none. Miriam is called \"the sister of Aaron\" even when joining in the\nsong of Moses (xv. 20), and with Aaron she made common cause against\ntheir greater brother (Num. xii. 1-2). Zipporah endangered his life\nrather than obey the covenant of circumcision; she complied at last with\na taunt (iv. 24-6), and did not again join him until his victory over\nAmalek raised his position to the utmost height (xviii. 2).\n\nHis children are of no account, and his grandson is the founder of a\ndangerous and enduring schism (Judges xviii. 30, R.V.).\n\nThere is much reason to see here the earliest example of the sad rule\nthat a prophet is not without honour save in his own house; that the law\nof compensations reaches farther into life than men suppose; and high\nposition and great powers are too often counterbalanced by the isolation\nof the heart.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[3] The same word is used for Noah's ark, but not elsewhere; not, for\nexample, of the ark in the Temple, the name of which occurs elsewhere in\nScripture only of the \"coffin\" of Joseph, and the \"chest\" for the Temple\nrevenues (Gen. 1. 26; 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11.)\n\n[4] Or his sister, the daughter of a former Pharaoh.\n\n[5] Nor would it have made the women call their deliverer \"an Egyptian,\"\nfor the Hebrew cast of features is very dissimilar. But Moses wore\nEgyptian dress, and the Egyptians worked mines in the peninsula, so that\nhe was naturally taken for one of them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n\n_THE BURNING BUSH._\n\nii. 23-iii.\n\n\"In process of time the king of Egypt died,\" probably the great Raamses,\nno other of whose dynasty had a reign which extended over the indicated\nperiod of time. If so, he had while living every reason to expect an\nimmortal fame, as the greatest among Egyptian kings, a hero, a conqueror\non three continents, a builder of magnificent works. But he has only won\nan immortal notoriety. \"Every stone in his buildings was cemented in\nhuman blood.\" The cause he persecuted has made deathless the banished\nrefugee, and has gibbeted the great monarch as a tyrant, whose\nmisplanned severities wrought the ruin of his successor and his army.\nSuch are the reversals of popular judgment: and such the vanity of fame.\nFor all the contemporary fame was his.\n\n\"The children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they\ncried.\" Another monarch had come at last, a change after sixty-seven\nyears, and yet no change for them! It filled up the measure of their\npatience, and also of the iniquity of Egypt. We are not told that their\ncry was addressed to the Lord; what we read is that it reached Him, Who\nstill overhears and pities many a sob, many a lament, which ought to\nhave been addressed to Him, and is not. Indeed, if His compassion were\nnot to reach men until they had remembered and prayed to Him, who among\nus would ever have learned to pray to Him at all? Moreover He remembered\nHis covenant with their forefathers, for the fulfilment of which the\ntime had now arrived. \"And God saw the children of Israel, and God took\nknowledge of them.\"\n\nThese were not the cries of religious individuals, but of oppressed\nmasses. It is therefore a solemn question to ask How many such appeals\nascend from Christian England? Behold, the hire of labourers ... held\nback by fraud crieth out. The half-paid slaves of our haste to be rich,\nand the victims of our drinking institutions, and of hideous vices which\nentangle and destroy the innocent and unconscious, what cries to heaven\nare theirs! As surely as those which St. James records, these have\nentered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. Of these sufferers every\none is His own by purchase, most of them by a covenant and sacrament\nmore solemn than bound Him to His ancient Israel. Surely He hears their\ngroaning. And all whose hearts are touched with compassion, yet who\nhesitate whether to bestir themselves or to remain inert while evil is\nmasterful and cruel, should remember the anger of God when Moses said,\n\"Send, I pray Thee, by whom Thou wilt send.\" The Lord is not\nindifferent. Much less than other sufferers should those who know God be\nterrified by their afflictions. Cyprian encouraged the Church of his\ntime to endure even unto martyrdom, by the words recorded of ancient\nIsrael, that the more they afflicted them, so much the more they became\ngreater and waxed stronger. And he was right. For all these things\nhappened to them for ensamples, and were written for our admonition.\n\nIt is further to be observed that the people were quite unconscious,\nuntil Moses announced it afterwards, that they were heard by God. Yet\ntheir deliverer had now been prepared by a long process for his work. We\nare not to despair because relief does not immediately appear: though He\ntarry, we are to wait for Him.\n\nWhile this anguish was being endured in Egypt, Moses was maturing for\nhis destiny. Self-reliance, pride of place, hot and impulsive\naggressiveness, were dying in his bosom. To the education of the\ncourtier and scholar was now added that of the shepherd in the wilds,\namid the most solemn and awful scenes of nature, in solitude,\nhumiliation, disappointment, and, as we learn from the Epistle to the\nHebrews, in enduring faith. Wordsworth has a remarkable description of\nthe effect of a similar discipline upon the good Lord Clifford. He\ntells--\n\n    \"How he, long forced in humble paths to go,\n      Was softened into feeling, soothed and tamed.\n\n    \"Love had he found in huts where poor men lie,\n      His daily teachers had been woods and rills,\n    The silence that is in the starry sky,\n      The sleep that is among the lonely hills.\n\n    \"In him the savage virtues of the race,\n      Revenge, and all ferocious thoughts, were dead;\n    Nor did he change, but kept in lofty place\n      The wisdom which adversity had bred.\"\n\nThere was also the education of advancing age, which teaches many\nlessons, and among them two which are essential to leadership,--the\nfolly of a hasty blow, and of impulsive reliance upon the support of\nmobs. Moses the man-slayer became exceeding meek; and he ceased to rely\nupon the perception of his people that God by him would deliver them.\nHis distrust, indeed, became as excessive as his temerity had been, but\nit was an error upon the safer side. \"Behold, they will not believe me,\"\nhe says, \"nor hearken unto my voice.\"\n\nIt is an important truth that in very few lives the decisive moment\ncomes just when it is expected. Men allow themselves to be\nself-indulgent, extravagant and even wicked, often upon the calculation\nthat their present attitude matters little, and they will do very\ndifferently when the crisis arrives, the turning-point in their career\nto nerve them. And they waken up with a start to find their career\nalready decided, their character moulded. As a snare shall the day of\nthe Lord come upon all flesh; and as a snare come all His great\nvisitations meanwhile. When Herod was drinking among bad companions,\nadmiring a shameless dancer, and boasting loudly of his generosity, he\nwas sobered and saddened to discover that he had laughed away the life\nof his only honest adviser. Moses, like David, was \"following the ewes\ngreat with young,\" when summoned by God to rule His people Israel.\nNeither did the call arrive when he was plunged in moody reverie and\nabstraction, sighing over his lost fortunes and his defeated\naspirations, rebelling against his lowly duties. The humblest labour is\na preparation for the brightest revelations, whereas discontent, however\nlofty, is a preparation for nothing. Thus, too, the birth of Jesus was\nfirst announced to shepherds keeping watch over their flock. Yet\nhundreds of third-rate young persons in every city in this land to-day\nneglect their work, and unfit themselves for any insight, or any\nleadership whatever, by chafing against the obscurity of their\nvocation.\n\nWho does not perceive that the career of Moses hitherto was divinely\ndirected? The fact that we feel this, although, until now, God has not\nonce been mentioned in his personal story, is surely a fine lesson for\nthose who have only one notion of what edifies--the dragging of the most\nsacred names and phrases into even the most unsuitable connections. In\ntruth, such a phraseology is much less attractive than a certain tone, a\nrecognition of the unseen, which may at times be more consistent with\nreverential silence than with obtrusive utterance. It is enough to be\nready and fearless when the fitting time comes, which is sure to arrive,\nfor the religious heart as for this narrative--the time for the natural\nutterance of the great word, God.\n\nWe read that the angel of the Lord appeared to him--a remarkable phrase,\nwhich was already used in connection with the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen.\nxxii. 11). How much it implies will better be discussed in the\ntwenty-third chapter, where a fuller statement is made. For the present\nit is enough to note, that this is one pre-eminent angel, indicated by\nthe definite article; that he is clearly the medium of a true divine\nappearance, because neither the voice nor form of any lesser being is\nsupposed to be employed, the appearance being that of fire, and the\nwords being said to be the direct utterance of the Lord, not of any one\nwho says, Thus saith the Lord. We shall see hereafter that the story of\nthe Exodus is unique in this respect, that in training a people tainted\nwith Egyptian superstitions, no 'similitude' is seen, as when there\nwrestled a man with Jacob, or when Ezekiel saw a human form upon the\nsapphire pavement.\n\nMan is the true image of God, and His perfect revelation was in flesh.\nBut now that expression of Himself was perilous, and perhaps unsuitable\nbesides; for He was to be known as the Avenger, and presently as the\nGiver of Law, with its inflexible conditions and its menaces. Therefore\nHe appeared as fire, which is intense and terrible, even when \"the flame\nof the grace of God does not consume, but illuminates.\"\n\nThere is a notion that religion is languid, repressive, and unmanly. But\nsuch is not the scriptural idea. In His presence is the fulness of joy.\nChrist has come that we might have life, and might have it more\nabundantly. They who are shut out from His blessedness are said to be\nasleep and dead. And so Origen quotes this passage among others, with\nthe comment that \"As God is a fire, and His angels a flame of fire, and\nall the saints fervent in spirit, so they who have fallen away from God\nare said to have cooled, or to have become cold\" (_De Princip._, ii. 8).\nA revelation by fire involves intensity.\n\nThere is indeed another explanation of the burning bush, which makes the\nflame express only the afflictions that did not consume the people. But\nthis would be a strange adjunct to a divine appearance for their\ndeliverance, speaking rather of the continuance of suffering than of its\ntermination, for which the extinction of such fire would be a more\nappropriate symbol.\n\nYet there is an element of truth even in this view, since fire is\nconnected with affliction. In His holiness God is light (with which, in\nthe Hebrew, the very word for holiness seems to be connected); in His\njudgments He is fire. \"The Light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his\nHoly One for a flame, and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his\nbriers in one day\" (Isa. x. 17). But God reveals Himself in this thorn\nbush as a fire which does not consume; and such a revelation tells at\nonce Who has brought the people into affliction, and also that they are\nnot abandoned to it.\n\nTo Moses at first there was visible only an extraordinary phenomenon; He\nturned to see a great sight. It is therefore out of the question to find\nhere the truth, so easy to discover elsewhere, that God rewards the\nreligious inquirer--that they who seek after Him shall find Him. Rather\nwe learn the folly of deeming that the intellect and its inquiries are\nat war with religion and its mysteries, that revelation is at strife\nwith mental insight, that he who most stupidly refuses to \"see the great\nsights\" of nature is best entitled to interpret the voice of God. When\nthe man of science gives ear to voices not of earth, and the man of God\nhas eyes and interest for the divine wonders which surround us, many a\ndiscord will be harmonised. With the revival of classical learning came\nthe Reformation.\n\nBut it often happens that the curiosity of the intellect is in danger of\nbecoming irreverent, and obtrusive into mysteries not of the brain, and\nthus the voice of God must speak in solemn warning: \"Moses, Moses, ...\nDraw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place\nwhereon thou standest is holy ground.\"\n\nAfter as prolonged a silence as from the time of Malachi to the Baptist,\nit is God Who reveals Himself once more--not Moses who by searching\nfinds Him out. And this is the established rule. Tidings of the\nIncarnation came from heaven, or man would not have discovered the\nDivine Babe. Jesus asked His two first disciples \"What seek ye?\" and\ntold Simon \"Thou shalt be called Cephas,\" and pronounced the listening\nNathaniel \"an Israelite indeed,\" and bade Zaccheus \"make haste and come\ndown,\" in each case before He was addressed by them.\n\nThe first words of Jehovah teach something more than ceremonial\nreverence. If the dust of common earth on the shoe of Moses may not\nmingle with that sacred soil, how dare we carry into the presence of our\nGod mean passions and selfish cravings? Observe, too, that while Jacob,\nwhen he awoke from his vision, said, \"How dreadful is this place!\" (Gen.\nxxviii. 17), God Himself taught Moses to think rather of the holiness\nthan the dread of His abode. Nevertheless Moses also was afraid to look\nupon God, and hid the face which was thereafter to be veiled, for a\nnobler reason, when it was itself illumined with the divine glory.\nHumility before God is thus the path to the highest honour, and\nreverence, to the closest intercourse.\n\nMeantime the Divine Person has announced Himself: \"I am the God of thy\nfather\" (father is apparently singular with a collective force), \"the\nGod of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.\" It is a\nblessing which every Christian parent should bequeath to his child, to\nbe strengthened and invigorated by thinking of God as his father's God.\n\nIt was with this memorable announcement that Jesus refuted the Sadducees\nand established His doctrine of the resurrection. So, then, the bygone\nages are not forgotten: Moses may be sure that a kindly relation exists\nbetween God and himself, because the kindly relation still exists in all\nits vital force which once bound Him to those who long since appeared to\ndie. It was impossible, therefore, our Lord inferred, that they had\nreally died at all. The argument is a forerunner of that by which St.\nPaul concludes, from the resurrection of Christ, that none who are \"in\nChrist\" have perished. Nay, since our Lord was not disputing about\nimmortality only, but the resurrection of the body, His argument implied\nthat a vital relationship with God involved the imperishability of the\nwhole man, since all was His, and in truth the very seal of the covenant\nwas imprinted upon the flesh. How much stronger is the assurance for us,\nwho know that our very bodies are His temple! Now, if any suspicion\nshould arise that the argument, which is really subtle, is over-refined\nand untrustworthy, let it be observed that no sooner was this\nannouncement made, than God added the proclamation of His own\nimmutability, so that it cannot be said He was, but from age to age His\ntitle is I AM. The inference from the divine permanence to the living\nand permanent vitality of all His relationships is not a verbal quibble,\nit is drawn from the very central truth of this great scripture.\n\nAnd now for the first time God calls Israel My people, adopting a phrase\nalready twice employed by earthly rulers (Gen. xxiii. 11, xli. 40), and\nthus making Himself their king and the champion of their cause. Often\nafterwards it was used in pathetic appeal:--\"Thou hast showed Thy people\nhard things,\"--\"Thou sellest Thy people for nought,\"--\"Behold, look, we\nbeseech Thee; we are all Thy people\" (Ps. lx. 3, xliv. 12; Isa. lxiv.\n9). And often it expressed the returning favour of their king: \"Hear, O\nMy people, and I will speak\"; \"Comfort ye, comfort ye My people\" (Ps. l.\n7; Isa. xl. 1).\n\nIt is used of the nation at large, all of whom were brought into the\ncovenant, although with many of them God was not well pleased. And since\nit does not belong only to saints, but speaks of a grace which might be\nreceived in vain, it is a strong appeal to all Christian people, all who\nare within the New Covenant. Them also the Lord claims and pities, and\nwould gladly emancipate: their sorrows also He knows. \"I have surely\nseen the affliction of My people which are in Egypt, and have heard\ntheir cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; and\nI am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to\nbring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land\nflowing with milk and honey.\" Thus the ways of God exceed the desires of\nmen. Their subsequent complaints are evidence that Egypt had become\ntheir country: gladly would they have shaken off the iron yoke, but a\nsuccessful rebellion is a revolution, not an Exodus. Their destined home\nwas very different: with the widest variety of climate, scenery, and\nsoil, a land which demanded much more regular husbandry, but rewarded\nlabour with exuberant fertility. Secluded from heathenism by deserts on\nthe south and east, by a sublime range of mountains on the north, and by\na sea with few havens on the west, yet planted in the very bosom of all\nthe ancient civilisation which at the last it was to leaven, it was a\nland where a faithful people could have dwelt alone and not been\nreckoned among the nations, yet where the scourge for disobedience was\nnever far away.\n\nNext after the promise of this good land, the commission of Moses is\nannounced. He is to act, because God is already active: \"_I_ am come\ndown to deliver them ... come now, therefore, and I will send _thee_\nunto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth My people.\" And let this\ntruth encourage all who are truly sent of God, to the end of time, that\nHe does not send us to deliver man, until He is Himself prepared to do\nso, that when our fears ask, like Moses, Who am I, that I should go? He\ndoes not answer, Thou art capable, but Certainly I will go with thee.\nSo, wherever the ministry of the word is sent, there is a true purpose\nof grace. There is also the presence of One who claims the right to\nbestow upon us the same encouragement which was given to Moses by\nJehovah, saying, \"Lo, I am with you alway.\" In so saying, Jesus made\nHimself equal with God.\n\nAnd as this ancient revelation of God was to give rest to a weary and\nheavy-laden people, so Christ bound together the assertion of a more\nperfect revelation, made in Him, with the promise of a grander\nemancipation. No man knoweth the Father save by revelation of the Son is\nthe doctrine which introduces the great offer \"Come unto Me, all ye that\nlabour and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest\" (Matt. xi. 27,\n28). The claims of Christ in the New Testament will never be fully\nrecognised until a careful study is made of His treatment of the\nfunctions which in the Old Testament are regarded as Divine. A curious\nexpression follows: \"This shall be a token unto thee that I have sent\nthee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall\nserve God upon this mountain.\" It seems but vague encouragement, to\noffer Moses, hesitating at the moment, a token which could take effect\nonly when his task was wrought. And yet we know how much easier it is to\nbelieve what is thrown into distinct shape and particularised. Our trust\nin good intentions is helped when their expression is detailed and\ncircumstantial, as a candidate for office will reckon all general\nassurances of support much cheaper than a pledge to canvass certain\nelectors within a certain time. Such is the constitution of human\nnature; and its Maker has often deigned to sustain its weakness by going\nthus into particulars. He does the same for us, condescending to embody\nthe most profound of all mysteries in sacramental emblems, clothing his\npromises of our future blessedness in much detail, and in concrete\nfigures which at least symbolise, if they do not literally describe, the\nglories of the Jerusalem which is above.\n\n\n_A NEW NAME._\n\niii. 14. vi. 2, 3.\n\n    \"God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou\n    say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.\"\n\nWe cannot certainly tell why Moses asked for a new name by which to\nannounce to his brethren the appearance of God. He may have felt that\nthe memory of their fathers, and of the dealings of God with them, had\nfaded so far out of mind that merely to indicate their ancestral God\nwould not sufficiently distinguish Him from the idols of Egypt, whose\nworship had infected them.\n\nIf so, he was fully answered by a name which made this God the one\nreality, in a world where all is a phantasm except what derives\nstability from Him.\n\nHe may have desired to know, for himself, whether there was any truth in\nthe dreamy and fascinating pantheism which inspired so much of the\nEgyptian superstition.\n\nIn that case, the answer met his question by declaring that God existed,\nnot as the sum of things or soul of the universe, but in Himself, the\nonly independent Being.\n\nOr he may simply have desired some name to express more of the mystery\nof deity, remembering how a change of name had accompanied new\ndiscoveries of human character and achievement, as of Abraham and\nIsrael; and expecting a new name likewise when God would make to His\npeople new revelations of Himself.\n\nSo natural an expectation was fulfilled not only then, but afterwards.\nWhen Moses prayed \"Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory,\" the answer was \"I\nwill make all My goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name\nof the Lord.\" The proclamation was again Jehovah, but not this alone. It\nwas \"The Lord, the Lord, a God full of compassion and gracious, slow to\nanger, and plenteous in mercy and truth\" (xxxiii. 18, 19, xxxiv. 6,\nR.V.) Thus the life of Moses, like the agelong progress of the Church,\nadvanced towards an ever-deepening knowledge that God is not only the\nIndependent but the Good. All sets toward the final knowledge that His\nhighest name is Love.\n\nMeanwhile, in the development of events, the exact period was come for\nepithets, which were shared with gods many and lords many, to be\nsupplemented by the formal announcement and authoritative adoption of\nHis proper name Jehovah. The infant nation was to learn to think of Him,\nnot only as endowed with attributes of terror and power, by which\nenemies would be crushed, but as possessing a certain well-defined\npersonality, upon which the trust of man could repose. Soon their\nexperience would enable them to receive the formal announcement that He\nwas merciful and gracious. But first they were required to trust His\npromise amid all discouragements; and to this end, stability was the\nattribute first to be insisted upon.\n\nIt is true that the derivation of the word Jehovah is still a problem\nfor critical acumen. It has been sought in more than one language, and\nvarious shades of meaning have been assigned to it, some untenable in\nthe abstract, others hardly, or not at all, to be reconciled with the\nScriptural narrative.\n\nNay, the corruption of the very sound is so notorious, that it is only\nworth mention as illustrating a phase of superstition.\n\nWe smile at the Jews, removing the correct vowels lest so holy a word\nshould be irreverently spoken, placing the sanctity in the cadence,\nhoping that light and flippant allusions may offend God less, so long as\nthey spare at least the vowels of His name, and thus preserve some\nvestige undesecrated, while profaning at once the conception of His\nmajesty and the consonants of the mystic word.\n\nA more abject superstition could scarcely have made void the spirit,\nwhile grovelling before the letter of the commandment.\n\nBut this very superstition is alive in other forms to-day. Whenever one\nrecoils from the sin of coarse blasphemy, yet allows himself the\nenjoyment of a polished literature which profanes holy\nconceptions,--whenever men feel bound to behave with external propriety\nin the house of God, yet bring thither wandering thoughts, vile\nappetites, sensuous imaginations, and all the chamber of imagery which\nis within the unregenerate heart,--there is the same despicable\nsuperstition which strove to escape at least the extreme of blasphemy by\nprudently veiling the Holy Name before profaning it.\n\nBut our present concern is with the practical message conveyed to Israel\nwhen Moses declared that Jehovah, I AM, the God of their fathers, had\nappeared unto him. And if we find in it a message suited for the time,\nand which is the basis, not the superstructure, both of later messages\nand also of the national character, then we shall not fail to observe\nthe bearing of such facts upon an urgent controversy of this time.\n\nSome significance must have been in that Name, not too abstract for a\nservile and degenerate race to apprehend. Nor was it soon to pass away\nand be replaced; it was His memorial throughout all generations; and\ntherefore it has a message for us to-day, to admonish and humble, to\ninvigorate and uphold.\n\nThat God would be the same to them as to their fathers was much. But\nthat it was of the essence of His character to be evermore the same,\nimmutable in heart and mind and reality of being, however their conduct\nmight modify His bearing towards them, this indeed would be a steadying\nand reclaiming consciousness.\n\nAccordingly Moses receives the answer for himself, \"I AM THAT I AM\"; and\nhe is bidden to tell his people \"_I am_ hath sent me unto you,\" and yet\nagain \"JEHOVAH the God of your fathers hath sent me unto you.\" The\nspirit and tenor of these three names may be said to be virtually\ncomprehended in the first; and they all speak of the essential and\nself-existent Being, unchanging and unchangeable.\n\nI AM expresses an intense reality of being. No image in the dark\nrecesses of Egyptian or Syrian temples, grotesque and motionless, can\nwin the adoration of him who has had communion with such a veritable\nexistence, or has heard His authentic message. No dreamful pantheism, on\nits knees to the beneficent principle expressed in one deity, to the\ndestructive in another, or to the reproductive in a third, but all of\nthem dependent upon nature, as the rainbow upon the cataract which it\nspans, can ever again satisfy the soul which is athirst for the living\nGod, the Lord, Who is not personified, but IS.\n\nThis profound sense of a living Person within reach, to be offended, to\npardon, and to bless, was the one force which kept the Hebrew nation\nitself alive, with a vitality unprecedented since the world began. They\ncould crave His pardon, whatever natural retributions they had brought\ndown upon themselves, whatever tendencies of nature they had provoked,\nbecause He was not a dead law without ears or a heart, but their\nmerciful and gracious God.\n\nNot the most exquisite subtleties of innuendo and irony could make good\nfor a day the monstrous paradox that the Hebrew religion, the worship of\nI AM, was really nothing but the adoration of that stream of tendencies\nwhich makes for righteousness.\n\nIsrael did not challenge Pharaoh through having suddenly discovered that\ngoodness ultimately prevails over evil, nor is it any cold calculation\nof the sort which ever inspires a nation or a man with heroic fortitude.\nBut they were nerved by the announcement that they had been remembered\nby a God Who is neither an ideal nor a fancy, but the Reality of\nrealities, beside Whom Pharaoh and his host were but as phantoms.\n\nI AM THAT I AM is the style not only of permanence, but of permanence\nself-contained, and being a distinctive title, it denies such\nself-contained permanence to others.\n\nMan is as the past has moulded him, a compound of attainments and\nfailures, discoveries and disillusions, his eyes dim with forgotten\ntears, his hair grey with surmounted anxieties, his brow furrowed with\nbygone studies, his conscience troubled with old sin. Modern unbelief\nis ignobly frank respecting him. He is the sum of his parents and his\nwet-nurse. He is what he eats. If he drinks beer, he thinks beer. And it\nis the element of truth in these hideous paradoxes which makes them\nrankle, like an unkind construction put upon a questionable action. As\nthe foam is what wind and tide have made of it, so are we the product of\nour circumstances, the resultant of a thousand forces, far indeed from\nbeing self-poised or self-contained, too often false to our best self,\ninsomuch that probably no man is actually what in the depth of\nself-consciousness he feels himself to be, what moreover he should prove\nto be, if only the leaden weight of constraining circumstance were\nlifted off the spring which it flattens down to earth. Moses himself was\nat heart a very different person from the keeper of the sheep of Jethro.\nTherefore man says, Pity and make allowance for me: this is not my true\nself, but only what by compression, by starvation and stripes and\nbribery and error, I have become. Only God says, I AM THAT I AM.\n\nYet in another sense, and quite as deep a one, man is not the coarse\ntissue which past circumstances have woven: he is the seed of the\nfuture, as truly as the fruit of the past. Strange compound that he is\nof memory and hope, while half of the present depends on what is over,\nthe other half is projected into the future; and like a bridge,\nsustained on these two banks, life throws its quivering shadow on each\nmoment that fleets by. It is not attainment, but degradation to live\nupon the level of one's mere attainment, no longer uplifted by any\naspiration, fired by any emulation, goaded by any but carnal fears. If\nwe have been shaped by circumstances, yet we are saved by hope. Do not\njudge me, we are all entitled to plead, by anything that I am doing or\nhave done: He only can appraise a soul a right Who knows what it yearns\nto become, what within itself it hates and prays to be delivered from,\nwhat is the earnestness of its self-loathing, what the passion of its\nappeal to heaven. As the bloom of next April is the true comment upon\nthe dry bulb of September, as you do not value the fountain by the pint\nof water in its basin, but by its inexhaustible capabilities of\nreplenishment, so the present and its joyless facts are not the true\nman; his possibilities, the fears and hopes that control his destiny and\nshall unfold it, these are his real self.\n\nI am not merely what I am: I am very truly that which I long to be. And\nthus, man may plead, I am what I move towards and strive after, my\naspiration is myself. But God says, I AM WHAT I AM. The stream hurries\nforward: the rock abides. And this is the Rock of Ages.\n\nNow, such a conception is at first sight not far removed from that\napathetic and impassive kind of deity which the practical atheism of\nancient materialists could well afford to grant;--\"ever in itself\nenjoying immortality together with supreme repose, far removed and\nwithdrawn from our concerns, since it, exempt from every pain, exempt\nfrom all danger, strong in its own resources and wanting nought from us,\nis neither gained by favour nor moved by wrath.\"\n\nThus Lucretius conceived of the absolute Being as by the necessity of\nits nature entirely outside our system.\n\nBut Moses was taught to trust in Jehovah as intervening, pitying sorrow\nand wrong, coming down to assist His creatures in distress.\n\nHow could this be possible? Clearly the movement towards them must be\nwholly disinterested, and wholly from within; unbought, since no\nexternal influence can modify His condition, no puny sacrifice can\npropitiate Him Who sitteth upon the circle of the earth and the\ninhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers: a movement prompted by no\nirregular emotional impulse, but an abiding law of His nature, incapable\nof change, the movement of a nature, personal indeed, yet as steady, as\nsurely to be reckoned upon in like circumstances, as the operations of\ngravitation are.\n\nThere is no such motive, working in such magnificent regularity for\ngood, save one. The ultimate doctrine of the New Testament, that God is\nLove, is already involved in this early assertion, that being wholly\nindependent of us and our concerns, He is yet not indifferent to them,\nso that Moses could say unto the children of Israel \"I AM hath sent me\nunto you.\"\n\nIt is this unchangeable consistency of Divine action which gives the\nnarrative its intense interest to us. To Moses, and therefore to all who\nreceive any commission from the skies, this title said, Frail creature,\nsport of circumstances and of tyrants, He who commissions thee sits\nabove the waterfloods, and their rage can as little modify or change His\npurpose, now committed to thy charge, as the spray can quench the stars.\nPerplexed creature, whose best self lives only in aspiration and desire,\nnow thou art an instrument in the hand of Him with Whom desire and\nattainment, will and fruition, are eternally the same. None truly fails\nin fighting for Jehovah, for who hath resisted His will?\n\nTo Israel, and to all the oppressed whose minds are open to receive the\ntidings and their faith strong to embrace it, He said, Your life is\nblighted, and your future is in the hand of taskmasters, yet be of good\ncheer, for now your deliverance is undertaken by Him Whose being and\npurpose are one, Who _is_ in perfection of enjoyment all that He _is_ in\ncontemplation and in will. The rescue of Israel by an immutable and\nperfect God is the earnest of the breaking of every yoke.\n\nAnd to the proud and godless world which knows Him not, He says,\nResistance to My will can only show forth all its power, which is not at\nthe mercy of opinion or interest or change: I sit upon the throne, not\nonly supreme but independent, not only victorious but unassailable;\nself-contained, self-poised and self-sufficing, I AM THAT I AM.\n\nHave we now escaped the inert and self-absorbed deity of Lucretius, only\nto fall into the palsying grasp of the tyrannous deity of Calvin? Does\nour own human will shrivel up and become powerless under the compulsion\nof that immutability with which we are strangely brought into contact?\n\nEvidently this is not the teaching of the Book of Exodus. For it is\nhere, in this revelation of the Supreme, that we first hear of a nation\nas being His: \"I have seen the affliction of My people which is in Egypt\n... and I have come down to bring them into a good land.\" They were all\nbaptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Yet their carcases fell\nin the wilderness. And these things were written for our learning. The\nimmutability, which suffers no shock when we enter _into_ the covenant,\nremains unshaken also if we depart from the living God. The sun shines\nalike when we raise the curtain and when we drop it, when our chamber is\nillumined and when it is dark. The immutability of God is not in His\noperations, for sometimes He gave His people into the hand of their\nenemies, and again He turned and helped them. It is in His nature, His\nmind, in the principles which guide His actions. If He had not chastened\nDavid for his sin, then, by acting as before, He would have been other\nat heart than when He rejected Saul for disobedience and chose the son\nof Jesse to fulfil all His word. The wind has veered, if it continues to\npropel the vessel in the same direction, although helm and sails are\nshifted.\n\nSuch is the Pauline doctrine of His immutability. \"If we endure we shall\nalso reign with Him: if we shall deny Him, He also will deny us,\"--and\nsuch is the necessity of His being, for we cannot sway Him with our\nchanges: \"if we are faithless, He abideth faithful, for He cannot deny\nHimself.\" And therefore it is presently added that \"the firm foundation\nof the Lord standeth sure, having\" not only \"this seal, that the Lord\nknoweth those that are His,\"--but also this, \"Let every one that nameth\nthe name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness\" (2 Tim. ii. 12, 13,\n19, R.V.).\n\nThe Lord knew that Israel was His, yet for their unrighteousness He\nsware in His wrath that they should not enter into His rest.\n\nIt follows from all this that the new name of God was no academic\nsubtlety, no metaphysical refinement of the schools, unfitly revealed to\nslaves, but a most practical and inspiring truth, a conviction to warm\ntheir blood, to rouse their courage, to convert their despair into\nconfidence and their alarms into defiance.\n\nThey had the support of a God worthy of trust. And thenceforth every\nanswer in righteousness, every new disclosure of fidelity, tenderness,\nlove, was not an abnormal phenomenon, the uncertain grace of a\ncapricious despot; no, its import was permanent as an observation of the\nstars by an astronomer, ever more to be remembered in calculating the\nmovements of the universe.\n\nIn future troubles they could appeal to Him to awake as in the ancient\ndays, as being He who \"cut Rahab and wounded the Dragon.\" \"I am the\nLord, I change not, therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.\"\n\nAnd as the sublime and beautiful conception of a loving spiritual God\nwas built up slowly, age by age, tier upon tier, this was the foundation\nwhich insured the the stability of all, until the Head Stone of the\nCorner gave completeness to the vast design, until men saw and could\nbelieve in the very Incarnation of all Love, unshaken amid anguish and\ndistress and seeming failure, immovable, victorious, while they heard\nfrom human lips the awful words, \"Before Abraham was, I AM.\" Then they\nlearned to identify all this ancient lesson of trustworthiness with new\nand more pathetic revelations of affection: and the martyr at the stake\ngrew strong as he remembered that the Man of Sorrows was the same\nyesterday and to-day and for ever; and the great apostle, prostrate\nbefore the glory of his Master, was restored by the touch of a human\nhand, and by the voice of Him upon Whose bosom he had leaned, saying,\nFear not, I am the First and the Last and the Living One.\n\nAnd if men are once more fain to rend from humanity that great\nassurance, which for ages, amid all shocks, has made the frail creature\nof the dust to grow strong and firm and fearless, partaker of the Divine\nNature, what will they give us in its stead? Or do they think us too\nstrong of will, too firm of purpose? Looking around us, we see nations\nheaving with internal agitations, armed to the teeth against each\nother, and all things like a ship at sea reeling to and fro, and\nstaggering like a drunken man. There is no stability for us in\nconstitutions or old formul\u00e6--none anywhere, if it be not in the soul of\nman. Well for us, then, that the anchor of the soul is sure and\nsteadfast! well that unnumbered millions take courage from their\nSaviour's word, that the world's worst anguish is the beginning, not of\ndissolution, but of the birth-pangs of a new heaven and earth,--that\nwhen the clouds are blackest because the light of sun and moon is\nquenched, then, then we shall behold the Immutable unveiled, the Son of\nMan, who is brought nigh unto the Ancient of Days, now sitting in the\nclouds of heaven, and coming in the glory of His Father!\n\n\n_THE COMMISSION._\n\niii. 10, 16-22.\n\nWe have already learned from the seventh verse that God commissioned\nMoses, only when He had Himself descended to deliver Israel. He sends\nnone, except with the implied or explicit promise that certainly He will\nbe with them. But the converse is also true. If God sends no man but\nwhen He comes Himself, He never comes without demanding the agency of\nman. The overruled reluctance of Moses, and the inflexible urgency of\nhis commission, may teach us the honour set by God upon humanity. He has\nknit men together in the mutual dependence of nations and of families,\nthat each may be His minister to all; and in every great crisis of\nhistory He has respected His own principle, and has visited the race by\nmeans of the providential man. The gospel was not preached by angels.\nIts first agents found themselves like sheep among wolves: they were an\nexhibition to the world and to angels and men, yet necessity was laid\nupon them, and a woe if they preached it not.\n\nAll the best gifts of heaven come to us by the agency of inventor and\nsage, hero and explorer, organiser and philanthropist, patriot, reformer\nand saint. And the hope which inspires their grandest effort is never\nthat of selfish gain, nor even of fame, though fame is a keen spur,\nwhich perhaps God set before Moses in the noble hope that \"thou shalt\nbring forth the people\" (ver. 12). But the truly impelling force is\nalways the great deed itself, the haunting thought, the importunate\ninspiration, the inward fire; and so God promises Moses neither a\nsceptre, nor share in the good land: He simply proposes to him the work,\nthe rescue of the people; and Moses, for his part, simply objects that\nhe is unable, not that he is solicitous about his reward. Whatever is\ndone for payment can be valued by its cost: all the priceless services\ndone for us by our greatest were, in very deed, unpriced.\n\nMoses, with the new name of God to reveal, and with the assurance that\nHe is about to rescue Israel, is bidden to go to work advisedly and\nwisely. He is not to appeal to the mob, nor yet to confront Pharaoh\nwithout authority from his people to speak for them, nor is he to make\nthe great demand for emancipation abruptly and at once. The mistake of\nforty years ago must not be repeated now. He is to appeal to the elders\nof Israel; and with them, and therefore clearly representing the nation,\nhe is respectfully to crave permission for a three days' journey, to\nsacrifice to Jehovah in the wilderness. The blustering assurance with\nwhich certain fanatics of our own time first assume that they possess a\ndirect commission from the skies, and thereupon that they are freed\nfrom all order, from all recognition of any human authority, and then\nthat no considerations of prudence or of decency should restrain the\nviolence and bad taste which they mistake for zeal, is curiously unlike\nanything in the Old Testament or the New. Was ever a commission more\ndirect than those of Moses and of St. Paul? Yet Moses was to obtain the\nrecognition of the elders of his people; and St. Paul received formal\nordination by the explicit command of God (Acts xiii. 3).\n\nStrangely enough, it is often assumed that this demand for a furlough of\nthree days was insincere. But it would only have been so, if consent\nwere expected, and if the intention were thereupon to abuse the respite\nand refuse to return. There is not the slightest hint of any duplicity\nof the kind. The real motives for the demand are very plain. The\nexcursion which they proposed would have taught the people to move and\nact together, reviving their national spirit, and filling them with a\ndesire for the liberty which they tasted. In the very words which they\nshould speak, \"The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, hath met with us,\"\nthere is a distinct proclamation of nationality, and of its surest and\nstrongest bulwark, a national religion. From such an excursion,\ntherefore, the people would have returned, already well-nigh\nemancipated, and with recognised leaders. Certainly Pharaoh could not\nlisten to any such proposal, unless he were prepared to reverse the\nwhole policy of his dynasty toward Israel.\n\nBut the refusal answered two good ends. In the first place it joined\nissue on the best conceivable ground, for Israel was exhibited making\nthe least possible demand with the greatest possible courtesy--\"Let us\ngo, we pray thee, three days' journey into the wilderness.\" Not even so\nmuch would be granted. The tyrant was palpably in the wrong, and\nthenceforth it was perfectly reasonable to increase the severity of the\nterms after each of his defeats, which proceeding in its turn made\nconcession more and more galling to his pride. In the second place, the\nquarrel was from the first avowedly and undeniably religious: the gods\nof Egypt were matched against Jehovah; and in the successive plagues\nwhich desolated his land Pharaoh gradually learnt Who Jehovah was.\n\nIn the message which Moses should convey to the elders there are two\nsignificant phrases. He was to announce in the name of God, \"I have\nsurely visited you, and seen that which is done unto you in Egypt.\" The\nsilent observation of God before He interposes is very solemn and\ninstructive. So in the Revelation, He walks among the golden\ncandlesticks, and knows the work, the patience, or the unfaithfulness of\neach. So He is not far from any one of us. When a heavy blow falls we\nspeak of it as \"a Visitation of Providence,\" but in reality the\nvisitation has been long before. Neither Israel nor Egypt was conscious\nof the solemn presence. Who knows what soul of man, or what nation, is\nthus visited to-day, for future deliverance or rebuke?\n\nAgain it is said, \"I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt\ninto ... a land flowing with milk and honey.\" Their affliction was the\ndivine method of uprooting them. And so is our affliction the method by\nwhich our hearts are released from love of earth and life, that in due\ntime He may \"surely bring us in\" to a better and an enduring country.\nNow, we wonder that the Israelites clung so fondly to the place of their\ncaptivity. But what of our own hearts? Have they a desire to depart? or\ndo they groan in bondage, and yet recoil from their emancipation?\n\nThe hesitating nation is not plainly told that their affliction will be\nintensified and their lives made burdensome with labour. That is perhaps\nimplied in the certainty that Pharaoh \"will not let you go, no, not by a\nmighty hand.\" But it is with Israel as with us: a general knowledge that\nin the world we shall have tribulation is enough; the catalogue of our\ntrials is not spread out before us in advance. They were assured for\ntheir encouragement that all their long captivity should at last receive\nits wages, for they should not borrow[6] but ask of the Egyptians jewels\nof silver, and gold, and raiment, and they should spoil the Egyptians.\nSo are we taught to have \"respect unto the recompense of the reward.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[6] So much ignorant capital has been made by sceptics out of this\nunfortunate mistranslation, that it is worth while to inquire whether\nthe word \"borrow\" would suit the context in other passages. \"He\n_borrowed_ water and she gave him milk\" (Judges v. 25). \"The Lord said\nunto Solomon, Because thou hast _borrowed_ this thing, and hast not\n_borrowed_ long life for thyself, neither hast _borrowed_ riches for\nthyself, nor hast _borrowed_ the life of thine enemies\" (1 Kings iii.\n11). \"And Elijah said unto Elisha, Thou hast _borrowed_ a hard thing\" (2\nKings ii. 10). The absurdity of the cavil is self-evident.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n\n_MOSES HESITATES._\n\niv. 1-17.\n\nHoly Scripture is impartial, even towards its heroes. The sin of David\nis recorded, and the failure of Peter. And so is the reluctance of Moses\nto accept his commission, even after a miracle had been vouchsafed to\nhim for encouragement. The absolute sinlessness of Jesus is the more\nsignificant because it is found in the records of a creed which knows of\nno idealised humanity.\n\nIn Josephus, the refusal of Moses is softened down. Even the modest\nwords, \"Lord, I am still in doubt how I, a private man and of no\nabilities, should persuade my countrymen or Pharaoh,\" are not spoken\nafter the sign is given. Nor is there any mention of the transfer to\nAaron of a part of his commission, nor of their joint offence at\nMeribah, nor of its penalty, which in Scripture is bewailed so often.\nAnd Josephus is equally tender about the misdeeds of the nation. We hear\nnothing of their murmurs against Moses and Aaron when their burdens are\nincreased, or of their making the golden calf. Whereas it is remarkable\nand natural that the fear of Moses is less anxious about his reception\nby the tyrant than by his own people: \"Behold, they will not believe me,\nnor hearken unto my voice; for they will say, The Lord hath not appeared\nunto thee.\" This is very unlike the invention of a later period,\nglorifying the beginnings of the nation; but it is absolutely true to\nlife. Great men do not fear the wrath of enemies if they can be secured\nagainst the indifference and contempt of friends; and Moses in\nparticular was at last persuaded to undertake his mission by the promise\nof the support of Aaron. His hesitation is therefore the earliest\nexample of what has been so often since observed--the discouragement of\nheroes, reformers and messengers from God, less by fear of the attacks\nof the world than of the contemptuous scepticism of the people of God.\nWe often sigh for the appearing, in our degenerate days, of\n\n    \"A man with heart, head, hand,\n    Like some of the simple great ones gone.\"\n\nYet who shall say that the want of them is not our own fault? The\ncritical apathy and incredulity, not of the world but of the Church, is\nwhat freezes the fountains of Christian daring and the warmth of\nChristian zeal.\n\nFor the help of the faith of his people, Moses is commissioned to work\ntwo miracles; and he is caused to rehearse them, for his own.\n\nStrange tales were told among the later Jews about his wonder-working\nrod. It was cut by Adam before leaving Paradise, was brought by Noah\ninto the ark, passed into Egypt with Joseph, and was recovered by Moses\nwhile he enjoyed the favour of the court. These legends arose from\ndownright moral inability to receive the true lesson of the incident,\nwhich is the confronting of the sceptre of Egypt with the simple staff\nof the shepherd, the choosing of the weak things of earth to confound\nthe strong, the power of God to work His miracles by the most puny and\ninadequate means. Anything was more credible than that He who led His\npeople like sheep did indeed guide them with a common shepherd's crook.\nAnd yet this was precisely the lesson meant for us to learn--the\nglorification of poor resources in the grasp of faith.\n\nBoth miracles were of a menacing kind. First the rod became a serpent,\nto declare that at God's bidding enemies would rise up against the\noppressor, even where all seemed innocuous, as in truth the waters of\nthe river and the dust of the furnace and the winds of heaven conspired\nagainst him. Then, in the grasp of Moses, the serpent from which he fled\nbecame a rod again, to intimate that these avenging forces were subject\nto the servant of Jehovah.\n\nAgain, his hand became leprous in his bosom, and was presently restored\nto health again--a declaration that he carried with him the power of\ndeath, in its most dreadful form; and perhaps a still more solemn\nadmonition to those who remember what leprosy betokens, and how every\napproach of God to man brings first the knowledge of sin, to be followed\nby the assurance that He has cleansed it.[7]\n\nIf the people would not hearken to the voice of the first sign, they\nshould believe the second; but at the worst, and if they were still\nunconvinced, they would believe when they saw the water of the Nile, the\npride and glory of their oppressors, turned into blood before their\neyes. That was an omen which needs no interpretation. What follows is\ncurious. Moses objects that he has not hitherto been eloquent, nor does\nhe experience any improvement \"since Thou hast spoken unto Thy servant\"\n(a graphic touch!), and he seems to suppose that the popular choice\nbetween liberty and slavery would depend less upon the evidence of a\nDivine power than upon sleight of tongue, as if he were in modern\nEngland.\n\nBut let it be observed that the self-consciousness which wears the mask\nof humility while refusing to submit its judgment to that of God, is a\nform of selfishness--self-absorption blinding one to other\nconsiderations beyond himself--as real, though not as hateful, as greed\nand avarice and lust.\n\nHow can Moses call himself slow of speech and of a slow tongue, when\nStephen distinctly declares that he was mighty in word as well as deed?\n(Acts vii. 22). Perhaps it is enough to answer that many years of\nsolitude in a strange land had robbed him of his fluency. Perhaps\nStephen had in mind the words of the Book of Wisdom, that \"Wisdom\nentered into the soul of the servant of the Lord, and withstood dreadful\nkings in wonders and signs.... For Wisdom opened the mouth of the dumb,\nand made the tongues of them that cannot speak eloquent\" (Wisdom x. 16,\n21).\n\nTo his scruple the answer was returned, \"Who hath made man's mouth?...\nHave not I the Lord? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and\nteach thee what thou shalt say.\" The same encouragement belongs to every\none who truly executes a mandate from above: \"Lo, I am with you alway.\"\nFor surely this encouragement _is_ the same. Surely Jesus did not mean\nto offer His own presence as a substitute for that of God, but as being\nin very truth Divine, when He bade His disciples, in reliance upon Him,\nto go forth and convert the world.\n\nAnd this is the true test which divides faith from presumption, and\nunbelief from prudence: do we go because God is with us in Christ, or\nbecause we ourselves are strong and wise? Do we hold back because we are\nnot sure of _His_ commission, or only because we distrust ourselves?\n\"Humility without faith is too timorous; faith without humility is too\nhasty.\" The phrase explains the conduct of Moses both now and forty\nyears before.\n\nMoses, however, still entreats that any one may be chosen rather than\nhimself: \"Send, I pray Thee, by the hand of him whom Thou wilt send.\"\n\nAnd thereupon the anger of the Lord was kindled against him, although at\nthe moment his only visible punishment was the partial granting of his\nprayer--the association with him in his commission of Aaron, who could\nspeak well, the forfeiting of a certain part of his vocation, and with\nit of a certain part of its reward. The words, \"Is not Aaron thy brother\nthe Levite?\" have been used to insinuate that the tribal arrangement was\nnot perfected when they were written, and so to discredit the narrative.\nBut when so interpreted they yield no adequate sense, they do not\nreinforce the argument; while they are perfectly intelligible as\nimplying that Aaron is already the leader of his tribe, and therefore\nsure to obtain the hearing of which Moses despaired. But the arrangement\ninvolved grave consequences sure to be developed in due time: among\nothers, the reliance of Israel upon a feebler will, which could be\nforced by their clamour to make them a calf of gold. Moses was yet to\nlearn that lesson which our century knows nothing of,--that a speaker\nand a leader of nations are not the same. When he cried to Aaron, in the\nbitterness of his soul, \"What did this people to thee, that thou hast\nbrought so great a sin upon them?\" did he remember by whose\nunfaithfulness Aaron had been thrust into the office, the\nresponsibilities of which he had betrayed?\n\nNow, it is the duty of every man, to whom a special vocation presents\nitself, to set opposite each other two considerations. Dare I undertake\nthis task? is a solemn question, but so is this: Dare I let this task go\npast me? Am I prepared for the responsibility of allowing it to drift\ninto weaker hands? These are days when the Church of Christ is calling\nfor the help of every one capable of aiding her, and we ought to hear it\nsaid more often that one is afraid _not_ to teach in Sunday School, and\nanother dares not refuse a proffered district, and a third fears to\nleave charitable tasks undone. To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth\nit not, to him it is sin; and we hear too much about the terrible\nresponsibility of working for God, but too little about the still graver\nresponsibility of refusing to work for Him when called.\n\nMoses indeed attained so much that we are scarcely conscious that he\nmight have been greater still. He had once presumed to go unsent, and\nbrought upon himself the exile of half a lifetime. Again he presumed\nalmost to say, I go not, and well-nigh to incur the guilt of Jonah when\nsent to Nineveh, and in so doing he forfeited the fulness of his\nvocation. But who reaches the level of his possibilities? Who is not\nhaunted by faces, \"each one a murdered self,\" a nobler self, that might\nhave been, and is now impossible for ever? Only Jesus could say \"I have\nfinished the work which Thou gavest Me to do.\" And it is notable that\nwhile Jesus deals, in the parable of the labourers, with the problem of\nequal faithfulness during longer and shorter periods of employment; and\nin the parable of the pounds with that of equal endowment variously\nimproved; and yet again, in the parable of the talents, with the problem\nof various endowments all doubled alike, He always draws a veil over the\ntreatment of five talents which earn but two or three besides.\n\nA more cheerful reflection suggested by this narrative is the strange\npower of human fellowship. Moses knew and was persuaded that God, Whose\npresence was even then miraculously apparent in the bush, and Who had\ninvested him with superhuman powers, would go with him. There is no\ntrace of incredulity in his behaviour, but only of failure to rely, to\ncast his shrinking and reluctant will upon the truth he recognised and\nthe God Whose presence he confessed. He held back, as many a one does,\nwho is honest when he repeats the Creed in church, yet fails to submit\nhis life to the easy yoke of Jesus. Nor is it from physical peril that\nhe recoils: at the bidding of God he has just grasped the serpent from\nwhich he fled; and in confronting a tyrant with armies at his back, he\ncould hope for small assistance from his brother. But highly strung\nspirits, in every great crisis, are aware of vague indefinite\napprehensions that are not cowardly but imaginative. Thus C\u00e6sar, when\ndefying the hosts of Pompey, is said to have been disturbed by an\napparition. It is vain to put these apprehensions into logical form, and\nargue them down: the slowness of speech of Moses was surely refuted by\nthe presence of God, Who makes the mouth and inspires the utterance; but\nsuch fears lie deeper than the reasons they assign, and when argument\nfails, will yet stubbornly repeat their cry: \"Send, I pray Thee, by the\nhand of him whom Thou wilt send.\" Now this shrinking, which is not\ncraven, is dispelled by nothing so effectually as by the touch of a\nhuman hand. It is like the voice of a friend to one beset by ghostly\nterrors: he does not expect his comrade to exorcise a spirit, and yet\nhis apprehensions are dispelled. Thus Moses cannot summon up courage\nfrom the protection of God, but when assured of the companionship of his\nbrother he will not only venture to return to Egypt, but will bring with\nhim his wife and children. Thus, also, He Who knew what was in men's\nhearts sent forth His missionaries, both the Twelve and the Seventy (as\nwe have yet to learn the true economy of sending ours), \"by two and two\"\n(Mark vi. 7; Luke x. 1).\n\nThis is the principle which underlies the institution of the Church of\nChrist, and the conception that Christians are brothers, among whom the\nstrong must help the weak. Such help from their fellow-mortals would\nperhaps decide the choice of many hesitating souls, upon the verge of\nthe divine life, recoiling from its unknown and dread experiences, but\nlonging for a sympathising comrade. Alas for the unkindly and\nunsympathetic religion of men whose faith has never warmed a human\nheart, and of congregations in which emotion is a misdemeanour!\n\nThere is no stronger force, among all that make for the abuses of\npriestcraft, than this same yearning for human help becomes when robbed\nof its proper nourishment, which is the communion of saints, and the\npastoral care of souls. Has it no further nourishment than these? This\ninstinctive craving for a Brother to help as well as a Father to direct\nand govern,--this social instinct, which banished the fears of Moses and\nmade him set out for Egypt long before Aaron came in sight, content when\nassured of Aaron's co-operation,--is there nothing in God Himself to\nrespond to it? He Who is not ashamed to call us brethren has profoundly\nmodified the Church's conception of Jehovah, the Eternal, Absolute and\nUnconditioned. It is because He can be touched with the feeling of our\ninfirmities, that we are bidden to draw near with boldness unto the\nThrone of Grace. There is no heart so lonely that it cannot commune with\nthe lofty and kind humanity of Jesus.\n\nThere is a homelier lesson to be learned. Moses was not only solaced by\nhuman fellowship, but nerved and animated by the thought of his brother,\nand the mention of his tribe. \"Is not Aaron thy brother the Levite?\"\nThey had not met for forty years. Vague rumours of deadly persecution\nwere doubtless all that had reached the fugitive, whose heart had\nburned, in solitary communion with Nature in her sternest forms, as he\nbrooded over the wrongs of his family, of Aaron, and perhaps of Miriam.\n\nAnd now his brother lived. The call which Moses would have put from him\nwas for the emancipation of his own flesh and blood, and for their\ngreatness. In that great hour, domestic affection did much to turn the\nscale wherein the destinies of humanity were trembling. And his was\naffection well returned. It might easily have been otherwise, for Aaron\nhad seen his younger brother called to a dazzling elevation, living in\nenviable magnificence, and earning fame by \"word and deed\"; and then,\nafter a momentary fusion of sympathy and of condition, forty years had\npoured between them a torrent of cares and joys estranging because\nunshared. But it was promised that Aaron, when he saw him, should be\nglad at heart; and the words throw a beam of exquisite light into the\ndepths of the mighty soul which God inspired to emancipate Israel and to\nfound His Church, by thoughts of his brother's joy on meeting him.\n\nLet no man dream of attaining real greatness by stifling his affections.\nThe heart is more important than the intellect; and the brief story of\nthe Exodus has room for the yearning of Jochebed over her infant \"when\nshe saw him that he was a goodly child,\" for the bold inspiration of the\nyoung poetess, who \"stood afar off to know what should be done to him,\"\nand now for the love of Aaron. So the Virgin, in the dread hour of her\nreproach, went in haste to her cousin Elizabeth. So Andrew \"findeth\nfirst his own brother Simon.\" And so the Divine Sufferer, forsaken of\nGod, did not forsake His mother.\n\nThe Bible is full of domestic life. It is the theme of the greater part\nof Genesis, which makes the family the seed-plot of the Church. It is\nwisely recognised again at the moment when the larger pulse of the\nnation begins to beat. For the life-blood in the heart of a nation must\nbe the blood in the hearts of men.\n\n\n_MOSES OBEYS._\n\niv. 18-31.\n\nMoses is now commissioned: he is to go to Egypt, and Aaron is coming\nthence to meet him. Yet he first returns to Midian, to Jethro, who is\nboth his employer and the head of the family, and prays him to sanction\nhis visit to his own people.\n\nThere are duties which no family resistance can possibly cancel, and the\ndirect command of God made it plain that this was one of them. But there\nare two ways of performing even the most imperative obligation, and\nreligious people have done irreparable mischief before now, by rudeness,\ndisregard to natural feeling and the rights of their fellow-men, under\nthe impression that they showed their allegiance to God by outraging\nother ties. It is a theory for which no sanction can be found either in\nHoly Scripture or in common sense.\n\nWhen he asks permission to visit \"his brethren\" we cannot say whether he\never had brothers besides Aaron, or uses the word in the same larger\nnational sense as when we read that, forty years before, he went out\nunto his brethren and saw their burdens. What is to be observed is that\nhe is reticent with respect to his vast expectations and designs.\n\nHe does not argue that, because a Divine promise must needs be\nfulfilled, he need not be discreet, wary and taciturn, any more than St.\nPaul supposed, because the lives of his shipmates were promised to him,\nthat it mattered nothing whether the sailors remained on board.\n\nThe decrees of God have sometimes been used to justify the recklessness\nof man, but never by His chosen followers. They have worked out their\nown salvation the more earnestly because God worked in them. And every\ngood cause calls aloud for human energy and wisdom, all the more because\nits consummation is the will of God, and sooner or later is assured.\nMoses has unlearned his rashness.\n\nWhen the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, \"Go, return unto Egypt, for all\nthe men are dead which sought thy life,\" there is an almost verbal\nresemblance to the words in which the infant Jesus is recalled from\nexile. We shall have to consider the typical aspect of the whole\nnarrative, when a convenient stage is reached for pausing to survey it\nin its completeness. But resemblances like this have been treated with\nso much scorn, they have been so freely perverted into evidence of the\nmythical nature of the later story, that some passing allusion appears\ndesirable. We must beware equally of both extremes. The Old Testament is\ntortured, and genuine prophecies are made no better than coincidences,\nwhen coincidences are exalted to all the dignity of express predictions.\nOne can scarcely venture to speak of the death of Herod when Jesus was\nto return from Egypt, as being deliberately typified in the death of\nthose who sought the life of Moses. But it is quite clear that the words\nin St. Matthew do intentionally point the reader back to this narrative.\nFor, indeed, under both, there are to be recognised the same principles:\nthat God does not thrust His servants into needless or excessive peril;\nand that when the life of a tyrant has really become not only a trial\nbut a barrier, it will be removed by the King of kings. God is prudent\nfor His heroes.\n\nMoreover, we must recognise the lofty fitness of what is very visible in\nthe Gospels--the coming to a head in Christ of the various experiences\nof the people of God; and at the recurrence, in His story, of events\nalready known elsewhere, we need not be disquieted, as if the suspicion\nof a myth were now become difficult to refute; rather should we\nrecognise the fulness of the supreme life, and its points of contact\nwith all lives, which are but portions of its vast completeness. Who\ndoes not feel that in the world's greatest events a certain harmony and\ncorrespondence are as charming as they are in music? There is a sort of\ncounterpoint in history. And to this answering of deep unto deep, this\nresponsiveness of the story of Jesus to all history, our attention is\nsilently beckoned by St. Matthew, when, without asserting any closer\nlink between the incidents, he borrows this phrase so aptly.\n\nA much deeper meaning underlies the profound expression which God now\ncommands Moses to employ; and although it must await consideration at a\nfuture time, the progressive education of Moses himself is meantime to\nbe observed. At first he is taught that the Lord is the God of their\nfathers, in whose descendants He is therefore interested. Then the\npresent Israel is His people, and valued for its own sake. Now he hears,\nand is bidden to repeat to Pharaoh, the amazing phrase, \"Israel is My\nson, even My firstborn: let My son go that he may serve Me; and if thou\nrefuse to let him go, behold I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.\"\nThus it is that infant faith is led from height to height. And assuredly\nthere never was an utterance better fitted than this to prepare human\nminds, in the fulness of time, for a still clearer revelation of the\nnearness of God to man, and for the possibility of an absolute union\nbetween the Creator and His creature.\n\nIt was on his way into Egypt, with his wife and children, that a\nmysterious interposition forced Zipporah reluctantly and tardily to\ncircumcise her son.\n\nThe meaning of this strange episode lies perhaps below the surface, but\nvery near it. Danger in some form, probably that of sickness, pressed\nMoses hard, and he recognised in it the displeasure of his God. The\nform of the narrative leads us to suppose that he had no previous\nconsciousness of guilt, and had now to infer the nature of his offence\nwithout any explicit announcement, just as we infer it from what\nfollows.\n\nIf so, he discerned his transgression when trouble awoke his conscience;\nand so did his wife Zipporah. Yet her resistance to the circumcision of\ntheir younger son was so tenacious, with such difficulty was it overcome\nby her husband's peril or by his command, that her tardy performance of\nthe rite was accompanied by an insulting action and a bitter taunt. As\nshe submitted, the Lord \"let him go\"; but we may perhaps conclude that\nthe grievance continued to rankle, from the repetition of her gibe, \"So\nshe said, A bridegroom of blood art thou because of the circumcision.\"\nThe words mean, \"We are betrothed again in blood,\" and might of\nthemselves admit a gentler, and even a tender significance; as if, in\nthe sacrifice of a strong prejudice for her husband's sake, she felt a\nrevival of \"the kindness of her youth, the love of her espousals.\" For\nnothing removes the film from the surface of a true affection, and makes\nthe heart aware how bright it is, so well as a great sacrifice, frankly\noffered for the sake of love.\n\nBut such a rendering is excluded by the action which went with her\nwords, and they must be explained as meaning, This is the kind of\nhusband I have wedded: these are our espousals. With such an utterance\nshe fades almost entirely out of the story: it does not even tell how\nshe drew back to her father; and thenceforth all we know of her is that\nshe rejoined Moses only when the fame of his victory over Amalek had\ngone abroad.\n\nTheir union seems to have been an ill-assorted or at least an\nunprosperous one. In the tender hour when their firstborn was to be\nnamed, the bitter sense of loneliness had continued to be nearer to the\nheart of Moses than the glad new consciousness of paternity, and he\nsaid, \"I am a stranger in a strange land.\" Different indeed had been the\nexperience of Joseph, who called his \"firstborn Manasseh, for God, said\nhe, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house\" (Gen.\nxli. 51). The home-life of Moses had not made him forget that he was an\nexile. Even the removal of imminent death from her husband could not\nhush these selfish complaints of Zipporah, not because he was a father\nof blood to her little one, but because he was a bridegroom of blood to\nher own shrinking sensibilities. It is Miriam the sister, not Zipporah\nthe wife, who gives lyrical and passionate voice to his triumph, and is\nmourned by the nation when she dies. Both what we read of her and what\nwe do not read goes far to explain the insignificance of their children\nin history, and the more startling fact that the grandson of Moses\nbecame the venal instrument of the Danites in their schismatic worship\n(Judges xviii. 30, R.V.).\n\nDomestic unhappiness is a palliation, but not a justification, for an\nunserviceable life. It is a great advantage to come into action with the\ndew and freshness of affection upon the soul. Yet it is not once nor\ntwice that men have carried the message of God back from the barren\ndesert and the lonely ways of their unhappiness to the not too happy\nrace of man.\n\nNow, who can fail to discern real history in all this? Is it in such a\nway that myth or legend would have dealt with the wife of the great\ndeliverer? Still less conceivable is it that these should have treated\nMoses himself as the narrative hitherto has consistently done. At every\nstep he is made to stumble. His first attempt was homicidal, and brought\nupon him forty years of exile. When the Divine commission came he drew\nback wilfully, as he had formerly pressed forward unsent. There is not\neven any suggestion offered us of Stephen's apology for his violent\ndeed--namely, that he supposed his brethren understood how that God by\nhis hand was giving them deliverance (Acts vii. 25). There is nothing\nthat resembles the eulogium of the Epistle to the Hebrews upon the faith\nwhich glorified his precipitancy, like the rainbow in a torrent, because\nthat rash blow committed him to share the affliction of the people of\nGod, and renounced the rank of a grand son of the Pharaoh (Heb. xi.\n24-5). All this is very natural, if Moses himself be in any degree\nresponsible for the narrative. It is incredible, if the narrative were\nput together after the Captivity, to claim the sanction of so great a\nname for a newly forged hierarchical system. Such a theory could\nscarcely be refuted more completely, if the narrative before us were\ninvented with the deliberate aim to overthrow it.\n\nBut in truth the failures of the good and great are written for our\nadmonition, teaching us how inconsistent are even the best of mortals,\nand how weak the most resolute. Rather than forfeit his own place among\nthe chosen people, Moses had forsaken a palace and become a proscribed\nfugitive; yet he had neglected to claim for his child its rightful share\nin the covenant, its recognition among the sons of Abraham. Perhaps\nprocrastination, perhaps domestic opposition, more potent than a king's\nwrath to shake his purpose, perhaps the insidious notion that one who\nhad sacrificed so much might be at ease about slight negligences,--some\nsuch influence had left the commandment unobserved. And now, when the\ndream of his life was being realised at last, and he found himself the\nchosen instrument of God for the rebuke of one nation and the making of\nanother, how pardonable it must have seemed to leave an unpleasant small\ndomestic duty over until a more convenient season! How natural it still\nseems to merge the petty task in the high vocation, to excuse small\nlapses in pursuit of lofty aims! But this was the very time when God,\nhitherto forbearing, took him sternly to task for his neglect, because\nmen who are especially honoured should be more obedient and reverential\nthan their fellows. Let young men who dream of a vast career, and\nmeanwhile indulge themselves in small obliquities, let all who cast out\ndemons in the name of Christ, and yet work iniquity, reflect upon this\nchosen and long-trained, self-sacrificing and ardent servant of the\nLord, whom Jehovah seeks to kill because he wilfully disobeys even a\npurely ceremonial precept.\n\nMoses was not only religious, but \"a man of destiny,\" one upon whom vast\ninterests depended. Now, such men have often reckoned themselves exempt\nfrom the ordinary laws of conduct.[8]\n\nIt is not a light thing, therefore, to find God's indignant protest\nagainst the faintest shadow of a doctrine so insidious and so deadly,\nset in the forefront of sacred history, at the very point where national\nconcerns and those of religion begin to touch. If our politics are to be\nkept pure and clean, we must learn to exact a higher fidelity, and not a\nrelaxed morality, from those who propose to sway the destinies of\nnations.\n\nAnd now the brothers meet, embrace, and exchange confidences. As Andrew,\nthe first disciple who brought another to Jesus, found first his own\nbrother Simon, so was Aaron the earliest convert to the mission of\nMoses. And that happened which so often puts our faithlessness to shame.\nIt had seemed very hard to break his strange tidings to the people: it\nwas in fact very easy to address one whose love had not grown cold\nduring their severance, who probably retained faith in the Divine\npurpose for which the beautiful child of the family had been so\nstrangely preserved, and who had passed through trial and discipline\nunknown to us in the stern intervening years.\n\nAnd when they told their marvellous story to the elders of the people,\nand displayed the signs, they believed; and when they heard that God had\nvisited them in their affliction, then they bowed their heads and\nworshipped.\n\nThis was their preparation for the wonders that should follow: it\nresembled Christ's appeal, \"Believest thou that I am able to do this?\"\nor Peter's word to the impotent man, \"Look on us.\"\n\nFor the moment the announcement had the desired effect, although too\nsoon the early promise was succeeded by faithlessness and discontent. In\nthis, again, the teaching of the earliest political movement on record\nis as fresh as if it were a tale of yesterday. The offer of emancipation\nstirs all hearts; the romance of liberty is beautiful beside the Nile as\nin the streets of Paris; but the cost has to be gradually learned; the\nlosses displace the gains in the popular attention; the labour, the\nself-denial and the self-control grow wearisome, and Israel murmurs for\nthe flesh-pots of Egypt, much as the modern revolution reverts to a\ndespotism. It is one thing to admire abstract freedom, but a very\ndifferent thing to accept the austere conditions of the life of genuine\nfreemen. And surely the same is true of the soul. The gospel gladdens\nthe young convert: he bows his head and worships; but he little dreams\nof his long discipline, as in the forty desert years, of the solitary\nplaces through which his soul must wander, the drought, the Amalekite,\nthe absent leader, and the temptations of the flesh. In mercy, the long\nfuture is concealed; it is enough that, like the apostles, we should\nconsent to follow; gradually we shall obtain the courage to which the\ntask may be revealed.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[7] Tertullian appealed to the second of these miracles to illustrate\nthe possibility of the resurrection. \"The hand of Moses is changed and\nbecomes like that of the dead, bloodless, colourless, and stiff with\ncold. But on the recovery of heat and restoration of its natural colour,\nit is the same flesh and blood.... So will changes, conversions and\nreformation be needed to bring about the resurrection, yet the substance\nwill be preserved safe.\" (_De Res._, lv.) It is far wiser to be content\nwith the declaration of St. Paul that the identity of the body does not\ndepend on that of its corporeal atoms. \"Thou sowest not that body that\nshall be, but a naked grain.... But God giveth ... to every seed his own\nbody\" (1 Cor. xv. 37-8).\n\n[8] \"I am not an ordinary man,\" Napoleon used to say, \"and the laws of\nmorals and of custom were never made for me.\"--_Memoirs of Madame de\nR\u00e9musat_, i. 91.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n\n_PHARAOH REFUSES._\n\nv. 1-23.\n\nAfter forty years of obscurity and silence, Moses re-enters the\nmagnificent halls where he had formerly turned his back upon so great a\nplace. The rod of a shepherd is in his hand, and a lowly Hebrew by his\nside. Men who recognise him shake their heads, and pity or despise the\nfanatic who had thrown away the most dazzling prospects for a dream. But\nhe has long since made his choice, and whatever misgivings now beset him\nhave regard to his success with Pharaoh or with his brethren, not to the\nwisdom of his decision.\n\nNor had he reason to repent of it. The pomp of an obsequious court was a\npoor thing in the eyes of an ambassador of God, who entered the palace\nto speak such lofty words as never passed the lips of any son of\nPharaoh's daughter. He was presently to become a god unto Pharaoh, with\nAaron for his prophet.\n\nIn itself, his presence there was formidable. The Hebrews had been\nfeared when he was an infant. Now their cause was espoused by a man of\nculture, who had allied himself with their natural leaders, and was\nreturned, with the deep and steady fire of a zeal which forty years of\nsilence could not quench, to assert the rights of Israel as an\nindependent people.\n\nThere is a terrible power in strong convictions, especially when\nsupported by the sanctions of religion. Luther on one side, Loyola on\nthe other, were mightier than kings when armed with this tremendous\nweapon. Yet there are forces upon which patriotism and fanaticism\ntogether break in vain. Tyranny and pride of race have also strong\nimpelling ardours, and carry men far. Pharaoh is in earnest as well as\nMoses, and can act with perilous energy. And this great narrative begins\nthe story of a nation's emancipation with a human demand, boldly made,\nbut defeated by the pride and vigour of a startled tyrant and the\ntameness of a downtrodden people. The limitations of human energy are\nclearly exhibited before the direct interference of God begins. All that\na brave man can do, when nerved by lifelong aspiration and by a sudden\nconviction that the hour of destiny has struck, all therefore upon which\nrationalism can draw, to explain the uprising of Israel, is exhibited in\nthis preliminary attempt, this first demand of Moses.\n\nMenephtah was no doubt the new Pharaoh whom the brothers accosted so\nboldly. What we glean of him elsewhere is highly suggestive of some\ngrave event left unrecorded, exhibiting to us a man of uncontrollable\ntemper yet of broken courage, a ruthless, godless, daunted man. There is\na legend that he once hurled his spear at the Nile when its floods rose\ntoo high, and was punished with ten years of blindness. In the Libyan\nwar, after fixing a time when he should join his vanguard, with the main\narmy, a celestial vision forbade him to keep his word in person, and the\nvictory was gained by his lieutenants. In another war, he boasts of\nhaving slaughtered the people and set fire to them, and netted the\nentire country as men net birds. Forty years then elapse without war\nand without any great buildings; there are seditions and internal\ntroubles, and the dynasty closes with his son.[9] All this is exactly\nwhat we should expect, if a series of tremendous blows had depopulated a\ncountry, abolished an army, and removed two millions of the working\nclasses in one mass.\n\nBut it will be understood that this identification, concerning which\nthere is now a very general consent of competent authorities, implies\nthat the Pharaoh was not himself engulfed with his army. Nothing is on\nthe other side except a poetic assertion in Psalm cxxxvi. 15, which is\nnot that God destroyed, but that He \"shook off\" Pharaoh and his host in\nthe Red Sea, because His mercy endureth for ever.\n\nTo this king, then, whose audacious family had usurped the symbols of\ndeity for its head-dress, and whose father boasted that in battle \"he\nbecame like the god Mentu\" and \"was as Baal,\" the brothers came as yet\nwithout miracle, with no credentials except from slaves, and said, \"Thus\nsaith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Let My people go, that they may hold a\nfeast unto Me in the wilderness.\" The issue was distinctly raised: did\nIsrael belong to Jehovah or to the king? And Pharaoh answered, with\nequal decision, \"Who is Jehovah, that I should hearken unto His voice? I\nknow not Jehovah, and what is more, I will not let Israel go.\"\n\nNow, the ignorance of the king concerning Jehovah was almost or quite\nblameless: the fault was in his practical refusal to inquire. Jehovah\nwas no concern of his: without waiting for information, he at once\ndecided that his grasp on his captives should not relax. And his second\nfault, which led to this, was the same grinding oppression of the\nhelpless which for eighty years already had brought upon his nation the\nguilt of blood. Crowned and national cupidity, the resolution to wring\nfrom their slaves the last effort consistent with existence, such greed\nas took offence at even the momentary pause of hope while Moses pleaded,\nbecause \"the people of the land are many, and ye make them rest from\ntheir burdens,\"--these shut their hearts against reason and religion,\nand therefore God presently hardened those same hearts against natural\nmisgiving and dread and awe-stricken submission to His judgments.\n\nFor it was against religion also that he was unyielding. In his ample\nPantheon there was room at least for the possibility of the entrance of\nthe Hebrew God, and in refusing to the subject people, without\ninvestigation, leisure for any worship, the king outraged not only\nhumanity, but Heaven.\n\nThe brothers proceed to declare that they have themselves met with the\ndeity, and there must have been many in the court who could attest at\nleast the sincerity of Moses; they ask for liberty to spend a day in\njourneying outward and another in returning, with a day between for\ntheir worship, and warn the king of the much greater loss to himself\nwhich may be involved in vengeance upon refusal, either by war or\npestilence. But the contemptuous answer utterly ignores religion:\n\"Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, loose the people from their work? Get\nye unto your burdens.\"\n\nAnd his counter-measures are taken without loss of time: \"that same day\"\nthe order goes out to exact the regular quantity of brick, but supply no\nstraw for binding it together. It is a pitiless mandate, and\nillustrates the fact, very natural though often forgotten, that men as a\nrule cannot lose sight of the religious value of their fellow-men, and\ncontinue to respect or pity them as before. We do not deny that men who\nprofessed religion have perpetrated nameless cruelties, nor that\nunbelievers have been humane, sometimes with a pathetic energy, a\ntenacious grasp on the virtue still possible to those who have no Heaven\nto serve. But it is plain that the average man will despise his brother,\nand his brother's rights, just in proportion as the Divine sanctions of\nthose rights fade away, and nothing remains to be respected but the\nculture, power and affluence which the victim lacks. \"I know not\nIsrael's God\" is a sure prelude to the refusal to let Israel go, and\neven to the cruelty which beats the slave who fails to render impossible\nobedience.\n\n\"They be idle, therefore they cry, saying, Let us go and sacrifice to\nour God.\" And still there are men who hold the same opinion, that time\nspent in devotion is wasted, as regards the duties of real life. In\ntruth, religion means freshness, elasticity and hope: a man will be not\nslothful in business, but fervent in spirit, if he serves the Lord. But\nperhaps immortal hope, and the knowledge that there is One Who shall\nbreak all prison bars and let the oppressed go free, are not the best\nnarcotics to drug down the soul of a man into the monotonous tameness of\na slave.\n\nIn the tenth verse we read that the Egyptian taskmasters and the\nofficers combined to urge the people to their aggravated labours. And by\nthe fourteenth verse we find that the latter officials were Hebrew\nofficers whom Pharaoh's taskmasters had set over them.\n\nSo that we have here one of the surest and worst effects of\nslavery--namely, the demoralisation of the oppressed, the readiness of\naverage men, who can obtain for themselves a little relief, to do so at\ntheir brethren's cost. These officials were scribes, \"writers\": their\nbusiness was to register the amount of labour due, and actually\nrendered. These were doubtless the more comfortable class, of whom we\nread afterwards that they possessed property, for their cattle escaped\nthe murrain and their trees the hail. And they had the means of\nacquiring quite sufficient skill to justify whatever is recorded of the\nworks done in the construction of the tabernacle. The time is long past\nwhen scepticism found support for its incredulity in these details.\n\nOne advantage of the last sharp agony of persecution was that it finally\ndetached this official class from the Egyptian interest, and welded\nIsrael into a homogeneous people, with officers already provided. For,\nwhen the supply of bricks came short, these officials were beaten, and,\nas if no cause of the failure were palpable, they were asked, with a\nmalicious chuckle, \"Wherefore have ye not fulfilled your task both\nyesterday and to-day, as heretofore?\" And when they explain to Pharaoh,\nin words already expressive of their alienation, that the fault is with\n\"thine own people,\" they are repulsed with insult, and made to feel\nthemselves in evil case. For indeed they needed to be chastised for\ntheir forgetfulness of God. How soon would their hearts have turned\nback, how much more bitter yet would have been their complaints in the\ndesert, if it were not for this last experience! But if judgment began\nwith them, what should presently be the fate of their oppressors?\n\nTheir broken spirit shows itself by murmuring, not against Pharaoh, but\nagainst Moses and Aaron, who at least had striven to help them. Here, as\nin the whole story, there is not a trace of either the lofty spirit\nwhich could have evolved the Mosaic law, or the hero-worship of a later\nage.\n\nIt is written that Moses, hearing their reproaches, \"returned unto the\nLord,\" although no visible shrine, no consecrated place of worship, can\nbe thought of.\n\nWhat is involved is the consecration which the heart bestows upon any\nplace of privacy and prayer, where, in shutting out the world, the soul\nis aware of the special nearness of its King. In one sense we never\nleave Him, never return to Him. In another sense, by direct address of\nthe attention and the will, we enter into His presence; we find Him in\nthe midst of us, Who is everywhere. And all ceremonial consecrations do\ntheir office by helping us to realise and act upon the presence of Him\nin Whom, even when He is forgotten, we live and move and have our being.\nTherefore in the deepest sense each man consecrates or desecrates for\nhimself his own place of prayer. There is a city where the Divine\npresence saturates every consciousness with rapture. And the seer beheld\nno temple therein, for the Lord God the Almighty, and the Lamb, are the\ntemple of it.\n\nStartling to our notions of reverence are the words in which Moses\naddresses God. \"Lord, why hast Thou evil entreated this people? Why is\nit that Thou hast sent me? for since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Thy\nname, he hath evil entreated this people; neither hast Thou delivered\nThy people at all.\" It is almost as if his faith had utterly given way,\nlike that of the Psalmist when he saw the wicked in great prosperity,\nwhile waters of a full cup were wrung out by the people of God (Ps.\nlxxiii. 3, 10). And there is always a dangerous moment when the first\nglow of enthusiasm burns down, and we realise how long the process, how\nbitter the disappointments, by which even a scanty measure of success\nmust be obtained. Yet God had expressly warned Moses that Pharaoh would\nnot release them until Egypt had been smitten with all His plagues. But\nthe warning passed unapprehended, as we let many a truth pass\nintellectually accepted it is true, but only as a theorem, a vague and\nabstract formula. As we know that we must die, that worldly pleasures\nare brief and unreal, and that sin draws evil in its train, yet wonder\nwhen these phrases become solid and practical in our experience, so, in\nthe first flush and wonder of the promised emancipation, Moses had\nforgotten the predicted interval of trial.\n\nHis words would have been profane and irreverent indeed but for one\nredeeming quality. They were addressed to God Himself. Whenever the\npeople murmured, Moses turned for help to Him Who reckons the most\nunconventional and daring appeal to Him far better than the most\nceremonious phrases in which men cover their unbelief: \"Lord, wherefore\nhast Thou evil entreated this people?\" is in reality a much more pious\nutterance than \"I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.\"\nWherefore Moses receives large encouragement, although no formal answer\nis vouchsafed to his daring question.\n\nEven so, in our dangers, our torturing illnesses, and many a crisis\nwhich breaks through all the crust of forms and conventionalities, God\nmay perhaps recognise a true appeal to Him, in words which only\nscandalise the orthodoxy of the formal and precise. In the bold\nrejoinder of the Syro-Phoenician woman He recognised great faith. His\ndisciples would simply have sent her away as clamorous.\n\nMoses had again failed, even though Divinely commissioned, in the work\nof emancipating Israel, and thereupon he had cried to the Lord Himself\nto undertake the work. This abortive attempt, however, was far from\nuseless: it taught humility and patience to the leader, and it pressed\nthe nation together, as in a vice, by the weight of a common burden, now\nbecome intolerable. At the same moment, the iniquity of the tyrant was\nfilled up.\n\nBut the Lord did not explain this, in answer to the remonstrance of\nMoses. Many things happen, for which no distinct verbal explanation is\npossible, many things of which the deep spiritual fitness cannot be\nexpressed in words. Experience is the true commentator upon Providence,\nif only because the slow building of character is more to God than\neither the hasting forward of deliverance or the clearing away of\nintellectual mists. And it is only as we take His yoke upon us that we\ntruly learn of Him. Yet much is implied, if not spoken out, in the\nwords, \"Now (because the time is ripe) shalt thou see what I will do to\nPharaoh (I, because others have failed); for by a strong hand shall he\nlet them go, and by a strong hand shall he drive them out of the land.\"\nIt is under the weight of the \"strong hand\" of God Himself that the\ntyrant must either bend or break.\n\nSimilar to this is the explanation of many delays in answering our\nprayer, of the strange raising up of tyrants and demagogues, and of much\nelse that perplexes Christians in history and in their own experience.\nThese events develop human character, for good or evil. And they give\nscope for the revealing of the fulness of the power which rescues. We\nhave no means of measuring the supernatural force which overcomes but by\nthe amount of the resistance offered. And if all good things came to us\neasily and at once, we should not become aware of the horrible pit, our\nrescue from which demands gratitude. The Israelites would not have sung\na hymn of such fervent gratitude when the sea was crossed, if they had\nnot known the weight of slavery and the anguish of suspense. And in\nheaven the redeemed who have come out of great tribulation sing the song\nof Moses and of the Lamb.\n\nFresh air, a balmy wind, a bright blue sky--which of us feels a thrill\nof conscious exultation for these cheap delights? The released prisoner,\nthe restored invalid, feels it:\n\n    \"The common earth, the air, the skies,\n    To him are opening paradise.\"\n\nEven so should Israel be taught to value deliverance. And now the\nprocess could begin.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[9] Robinson, \"The Pharaohs of the Bondage.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n\n_THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF MOSES._\n\nvi. 1-30.\n\nWe have seen that the name Jehovah expresses not a philosophic\nmeditation, but the most bracing and reassuring truth--viz., that an\nimmutable and independent Being sustains His people; and this great\ntitle is therefore reaffirmed with emphasis in the hour of mortal\ndiscouragement. It is added that their fathers knew God by the name of\nGod Almighty, but by His name Jehovah was He not known, or made known,\nunto them. Now, it is quite clear that they were not utterly ignorant of\nthis title, for no such theory as that it was hitherto mentioned by\nanticipation only, can explain the first syllable in the name of the\nmother of Moses himself, nor the assertion that in the time of Seth men\nbegan to call upon the name of Jehovah (Gen. iv. 26), nor the name of\nthe hill of Abraham's sacrifice, Jehovah-jireh (Gen. xxii. 14). Yet the\nstatement cannot be made available for the purposes of any reasonable\nand moderate scepticism, since the sceptical theory demands a belief in\nsuccessive redactions of the work in which an error so gross could not\nhave escaped detection.\n\nAnd the true explanation is that this Name was now, for the first time,\nto be realised as a sustaining power. The patriarchs had known the name;\nhow its fitness should be realised: God should be known by it. They had\ndrawn support and comfort from that simpler view of the Divine\nprotection which said, \"I am the Almighty God: walk before Me and be\nthou perfect\" (Gen. xvii. 1). But thenceforth all the experience of the\npast was to reinforce the energies of the present, and men were to\nremember that their promises came from One who cannot change. Others,\nlike Abraham, had been stronger in faith than Moses. But faith is not\nthe same as insight, and Moses was the greatest of the prophets (Deut.\nxxxiv. 10). To him, therefore, it was given to confirm the courage of\nhis nation by this exalting thought of God. And the Lord proceeds to\nstate what His promises to the patriarchs were, and joins together (as\nwe should do) the assurance of His compassionate heart and of His\ninviolable pledges: \"I have heard the groaning of the children of\nIsrael, ... and I have remembered My covenant.\"\n\nIt has been the same, in turn, with every new revelation of the Divine.\nThe new was implicit in the old, but when enforced, unfolded, reapplied,\nmen found it charged with unsuspected meaning and power, and as full of\nvitality and development as a handful of dry seeds when thrown into\ncongenial soil. So it was pre-eminently with the doctrine of the\nMessiah. It will be the same hereafter with the doctrine of the kingdom\nof peace and the reign of the saints on earth. Some day men will smile\nat our crude theories and ignorant controversies about the Millennium.\nWe, meantime, possess the saving knowledge of Christ amid many\nperplexities and obscurities. And so the patriarchs, who knew God\nAlmighty, but not by His name Jehovah, were not lost for want of the\nknowledge of His name, but saved by faith in Him, in the living Being\nto Whom all these names belong, and Who shall yet write upon the brows\nof His people some new name, hitherto undreamed by the ripest of the\nsaints and the purest of the Churches. Meantime, let us learn the\nlessons of tolerance for other men's ignorance, remembering the\nignorance of the father of the faithful, tolerance for difference of\nviews, remembering how the unusual and rare name of God was really the\nprecursor of a brighter revelation, and yet again, when our hearts are\nfaint with longing for new light, and weary to death of the babbling of\nold words, let us learn a sober and cautious reconsideration, lest\nperhaps the very truth needed for altered circumstance and changing\nproblem may lie, unheeded and dormant, among the dusty old phrases from\nwhich we turn away despairingly. Moreover, since the fathers knew the\nname Jehovah, yet gained from it no special knowledge of God, such as\nthey had from His Almightiness, we are taught that discernment is often\nmore at fault than revelation. To the quick perception and plastic\nimagination of the artist, our world reveals what the boor will never\nsee. And the saint finds, in the homely and familiar words of Scripture,\nrevelations for His soul that are unknown to common men. Receptivity is\nwhat we need far more than revelation.\n\nAgain is Moses bidden to appeal to the faith of his countrymen, by a\nsolemn repetition of the Divine promise. If the tyranny is great, they\nshall be redeemed with a stretched out arm, that is to say, with a\npalpable interposition of the power of God, \"and with great judgments.\"\nIt is the first appearance in Scripture of this phrase, afterwards so\ncommon. Not mere vengeance upon enemies or vindication of subjects is in\nquestion: the thought is that of a deliberate weighing of merits, and\nrendering out of measured penalties. Now, the Egyptian mythology had a\nvery clear and solemn view of judgment after death. If king and people\nhad grown cruel, it was because they failed to realise remote\npunishments, and did not believe in present judgments, here, in this\nlife. But there is a God that judgeth in the earth. Not always, for\nmercy rejoiceth over judgment. We may still pray, \"Enter not into\njudgment with Thy servants, O Lord, for in Thy sight shall no man living\nbe justified.\" But when men resist warnings, then retribution begins\neven here. Sometimes it comes in plague and overthrow, sometimes in the\nworse form of a heart made fat, the decay of sensibilities abused, the\ndying out of spiritual faculty. Pharaoh was to experience both, the\nhardening of his heart and the ruin of his fortunes.\n\nIt is added, \"I will take you to Me for a people, and I will be to you\nfor a God.\" This is the language, not of a mere purpose, a will that has\nresolved to vindicate the right, but of affection. God is about to adopt\nIsrael to Himself, and the same favour which belonged to rare\nindividuals in the old time is now offered to a whole nation. Just as\nthe heart of each man is gradually educated, learning first to love a\nparent and a family, and so led on to national patriotism, and at last\nto a world-wide philanthropy, so was the religious conscience of mankind\nawakened to believe that Abraham might be the friend of God, and then\nthat His oath might be confirmed unto the children, and then that He\ncould take Israel to Himself for a people, and at last that God loved\nthe world.\n\nIt is not religion to think that God condescends merely to save us. He\ncares for us. He takes us to Himself, He gives Himself away to us, in\nreturn, to be our God.\n\nSuch a revelation ought to have been more to Israel than any pledge of\ncertain specified advantages. It was meant to be a silken tie, a golden\nclasp, to draw together the almighty Heart and the hearts of these\ndowntrodden slaves. Something within Him desires their little human\nlove; they shall be to Him for a people. So He said again, \"My son, give\nMe thine heart.\" And so, when He carried to the uttermost these\nunsought, unhoped for, and, alas! unwelcomed overtures of condescension,\nand came among us, He would have gathered, as a hen gathers her chickens\nunder her wings, those who would not. It is not man who conceives, from\ndefinite services received, the wild hope of some spark of real\naffection in the bosom of the Eternal and Mysterious One. It is not man,\namid the lavish joys and splendours of creation, who conceives the\nnotion of a supreme Heart, as the explanation of the universe. It is God\nHimself Who says, \"I will take you to Me for a people, and I will be to\nyou a God.\"\n\nNor is it human conversion that begins the process, but a Divine\ncovenant and pledge, by which God would fain convert us to Himself; even\nas the first disciples did not accost Jesus, but He turned and spoke to\nthem the first question and the first invitation; \"What seek ye?...\nCome, and ye shall see.\"\n\nTo-day, the choice of the civilised world has to be made between a\nmechanical universe and a revealed love, for no third possibility\nsurvives.\n\nThis promise establishes a relationship, which God never afterwards\ncancelled. Human unbelief rejected its benefits, and chilled the mutual\nsympathies which it involved; but the fact always remained, and in their\ndarkest hour they could appeal to God to remember His covenant and the\noath which He sware.\n\nAnd this same assurance belongs to us. We are not to become good, or\ndesirous of goodness, in order that God may requite with affection our\nvirtues or our wistfulness. Rather we are to arise and come to our\nFather, and to call Him Father, although we are not worthy to be called\nHis sons. We are to remember how Jesus said, \"If ye being evil know how\nto give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly\nFather give His Holy Spirit to them that ask Him!\" and to learn that He\nis the Father of those who are evil, and even of those who are still\nunpardoned, as He said again, \"If ye forgive not ... neither will your\nheavenly Father forgive you.\"\n\nMuch controversy about the universal Fatherhood of God would be assuaged\nif men reflected upon the significant distinction which our Saviour drew\nbetween His Fatherhood and our sonship, the one always a reality of the\nDivine affection, the other only a possibility, for human enjoyment or\nrejection: \"Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you,\nthat ye may be sons of your Father Which is in heaven\" (Matt. v. 45).\nThere is no encouragement to presumption in the assertion of the Divine\nFatherhood upon such terms. For it speaks of a love which is real and\ndeep without being feeble and indiscriminate. It appeals to faith\nbecause there is an absolute fact to lean upon, and to energy because\nprivilege is conditional. It reminds us that our relationship is like\nthat of the ancient Israel,--that we are in a covenant, as they were,\nbut that the carcases of many of them fell in the wilderness; although\nGod had taken them for a people, and was to them a God, and said,\n\"Israel is My son, even My firstborn.\"\n\nIt is added that faith shall develop into knowledge. Moses is to assure\nthem now that they \"shall know\" hereafter that the Lord is Jehovah\ntheir God. And this, too, is a universal law, that we shall know if we\nfollow on to know: that the trial of our faith worketh patience, and\npatience experience, and we have so dim and vague an apprehension of\nDivine realities, chiefly because we have made but little trial, and\nhave not tasted and seen that the Lord is gracious.\n\nIn this respect, as in so many more, religion is analogous with nature.\nThe squalor of the savage could be civilised, and the distorted and\nabsurd conceptions of medi\u00e6val science could be corrected, only by\nexperiment, persistently and wisely carried out.\n\nAnd it is so in religion: its true evidence is unknown to these who\nnever bore its yoke; it is open to just such raillery and rejection as\nthey who will not love can pour upon domestic affection and the sacred\nties of family life; but, like these, it vindicates itself, in the rest\nof their souls, to those who will take the yoke and learn. And its best\nwisdom is not of the cunning brain but of the open heart, that wisdom\nfrom above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be\nentreated.\n\nAnd thus, while God leads Israel, they shall know that He is Jehovah,\nand true to His highest revelations of Himself.\n\nAll this they heard, and also, to define their hope and brighten it, the\npromise of Palestine was repeated; but they hearkened not unto Moses for\nanguish of spirit and for cruel bondage. Thus the body often holds the\nspirit down, and kindly allowance is made by Him Who knoweth our frame\nand remembereth that we are dust, and Who, in the hour of His own agony,\nfound the excuse for His unsympathising followers that the spirit was\nwilling although the flesh was weak. So when Elijah made request for\nhimself that he might die, in the utter reaction which followed his\ntriumph on Carmel and his wild race to Jezreel, the good Physician did\nnot dazzle him with new splendours of revelation until after he had\nslept, and eaten miraculous food, and a second time slept and eaten.\n\nBut if the anguish of the body excuses much weakness of the spirit, it\nfollows, on the other hand, that men are responsible to God for that\nheavy weight which is laid upon the spirit by pampered and luxurious\nbodies, incapable of self-sacrifice, rebellious against the lightest of\nHis demands. It is suggestive, that Moses, when sent again to Pharaoh,\nobjected, as at first: \"Behold, the children of Israel have not\nhearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of\nuncircumcised lips?\"\n\nEvery new hope, every great inspiration which calls the heroes of God to\na fresh attack upon the powers of Satan, is checked and hindered more by\nthe coldness of the Church than by the hostility of the world. That\nhostility is expected, and can be defied. But the infidelity of the\nfaithful is appalling indeed.\n\nWe read with wonder the great things which Christ has promised to\nbelieving prayer, and, at the same time, although we know painfully that\nwe have never claimed and dare not claim these promises, we wonder\nequally at the foreboding question, \"When the Son of Man cometh, shall\nHe find the faith (faith in its fulness) on the earth?\" (Luke xviii. 8).\nBut we ought to remember that our own low standard helps to form the\nstandard of attainment for the Church at large--that when one member\nsuffers, all the members suffer with it--that many a large sacrifice\nwould be readily made for Christ, at this hour, if only ease and\npleasure were at stake, which is refused because it is too hard to be\ncalled well-meaning enthusiasts by those who ought to glorify God in\nsuch attainment, as the first brethren did in the zeal and the gifts of\nPaul.\n\nThe vast mountains raise their heads above mountain ranges which\nencompass them; and it is not when the level of the whole Church is low,\nthat giants of faith and of attainment may be hoped for. Nay, Christ\nstipulates for the agreement of two or three, to kindle and make\neffectual the prayers which shall avail.\n\nFor the purification of our cities, for the shaming of our legislation\nuntil it fears God as much as a vested interest, for the reunion of\nthose who worship the same Lord, for the conversion of the world, and\nfirst of all for the conversion of the Church, heroic forces are\ndemanded. But all the tendency of our half-hearted, abject,\nsemi-Christianity is to repress everything that is unconventional,\nabnormal, likely to embroil us with our natural enemy, the world; and\nwho can doubt that, when the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed, we\nshall know of many an aspiring soul, in which the sacred fire had begun\nto burn, which sank back into lethargy and the commonplace, murmuring in\nits despair, \"Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me;\nhow then shall Pharaoh hear me?\"\n\nIt was the last fear which ever shook the great heart of the emancipator\nMoses.\n\nAt the beginning of the grand historical work, of which all this has\nbeen the prelude, there is set the pedigree of Moses and Aaron,\naccording to \"the heads of their fathers' houses,\"--- an epithet which\nindicates a subdivision of the \"family,\" as the family is a subdivision\nof the tribe. Of the sons of Jacob, Reuben and Simeon are mentioned, to\nput Levi in his natural third place. And from Levi to Moses only four\ngenerations are mentioned, favouring somewhat the briefer scheme of\nchronology which makes four centuries cover all the time from Abraham,\nand not the captivity alone. But it is certain that this is a mere\nrecapitulation of the more important links in the genealogy. In Num.\nxxvi. 58, 59, six generations are reckoned instead of four; in 1 Chron.\nii. 3 there are seven generations; and elsewhere in the same book (vi.\n22) there are ten. It is well known that similar omissions of obscure or\nunworthy links occur in St. Matthew's pedigree of our Lord, although\nsome stress is there laid upon the recurrent division into fourteens.\nAnd it is absurd to found any argument against the trustworthiness of\nthe narrative upon a phenomenon so frequent, and so sure to be avoided\nby a forger, or to be corrected by an unscrupulous editor. In point of\nfact, nothing is less likely to have occurred, if the narrative were a\nlate invention.\n\nNeither, in that case, would the birth of the great emancipator be\nascribed to the union of Amram with his father's sister, for such\nmarriages were distinctly forbidden by the law (Lev. xviii. 14).\n\nNor would the names of the children of the founder of the nation be\nomitted, while those of Aaron are recorded, unless we were dealing with\ngenuine history, which knows that the sons of Aaron inherited the lawful\npriesthood, while the descendants of Moses were the jealous founders of\na mischievous schism (Judges xviii. 30, R.V.).\n\nNor again, if this were a religious romance, designed to animate the\nnation in its later struggles, should we read of the hesitation and the\nfears of a leader \"of uncircumcised lips,\" instead of the trumpet-like\ncalls to action of a noble champion.\n\nNor does the broken-spirited meanness of Israel at all resemble the\nconception, popular in every nation, of a virtuous and heroic antiquity,\na golden age. It is indeed impossible to reconcile the motives and the\ndate to which this narrative is ascribed by some, with the plain\nphenomena, with the narrative itself.\n\nNor is it easy to understand why the Lord, Who speaks of bringing out\n\"My hosts, My people, the children of Israel\" (vii. 4, etc.), should\nnever in the Pentateuch be called the Lord of Hosts, if that title were\nin common use when it was written; for no epithet would better suit the\nsong of Miriam or the poetry of the Fifth Book.\n\nWhen Moses complained that he was of uncircumcised lips, the Lord\nannounced that He had already made His servant as a god unto Pharaoh,\nhaving armed him, even then, with the terrors which are soon to shake\nthe tyrant's soul.\n\nIt is suggestive and natural that his very education in a court should\nrender him fastidious, less willing than a rougher man might have been\nto appear before the king after forty years of retirement, and feeling\nalmost physically incapable of speaking what he felt so deeply, in words\nthat would satisfy his own judgment. Yet God had endowed him, even then,\nwith a supernatural power far greater than any facility of expression.\nIn his weakness he would thus be made strong; and the less fit he was to\nassert for himself any ascendency over Pharaoh, the more signal would be\nthe victory of his Lord, when he became \"very great in the land of\nEgypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the\npeople\" (xi. 3).\n\nAs a proof of this mastery he was from the first to speak to the haughty\nking through his brother, as a god through some prophet, being too great\nto reveal himself directly. It is a memorable phrase; and so lofty an\nassertion could never, in the myth of a later period, have been ascribed\nto an origin so lowly as the reluctance of Moses to expose his\ndeficiency in elocution.\n\nTherefore he should henceforth be emboldened by the assurance of\nqualification bestowed already: not only by the hope of help and\nachievement yet to come, but by the certainty of present endowment. And\nso should each of us, in his degree, be bold, who have gifts differing\naccording to the grace given unto us.\n\nIt is certain that every living soul has at least one talent, and is\nbound to improve it. But how many of us remember that this loan implies\na commission from God, as real as that of prophet and deliverer, and\nthat nothing but our own default can prevent it from being, at the last,\nreceived again with usury?\n\nThe same bravery, the same confidence when standing where his Captain\nhas planted him, should inspire the prophet, and him that giveth alms,\nand him that showeth mercy; for all are members in one body, and\ntherefore animated by one invincible Spirit from above (Rom. xii. 4-9).\n\nThe endowment thus given to Moses made him \"as a god\" to Pharaoh.\n\nWe must not take this to mean only that he had a prophet or spokesman,\nor that he was made formidable, but that the peculiar nature of his\nprowess would be felt. It was not his own strength. The supernatural\nwould become visible in him. He who boasted \"I know not Jehovah\" would\ncome to crouch before Him in His agent, and humble himself to the man\nwhom once he contemptuously ordered back to his burdens, with the abject\nprayer, \"Forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and entreat\nJehovah your God that He may take away from me this death only.\"\n\nNow, every consecrated power may bear witness to the Lord: it is\npossible to do all to the glory of God. Not that every separate action\nwill be ascribed to a preternatural source, but the sum total of the\neffect produced by a holy life will be sacred. He who said, \"I have made\nthee a god unto Pharaoh,\" says of all believers, \"I in them, and Thou,\nFather, in Me, that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n\n_THE HARDENING OF PHARAOH'S HEART._\n\nvii. 3-13.\n\nWhen Moses received his commission, at the bush, words were spoken which\nare now repeated with more emphasis, and which have to be considered\ncarefully. For probably no statement of Scripture has excited fiercer\ncriticism, more exultation of enemies and perplexity of friends, than\nthat the Lord said, \"I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he shall not let\nthe people go,\" and that in consequence of this Divine act Pharaoh\nsinned and suffered. Just because the words are startling, it is unjust\nto quote them without careful examination of the context, both in the\nprediction and the fulfilment. When all is weighed, compared, and\nharmonised, it will at last be possible to draw a just conclusion. And\nalthough it may happen long before then, that the objector will charge\nus with special pleading, yet he will be the special pleader himself, if\nhe seeks to hurry us, by prejudice or passion, to give a verdict which\nis based upon less than all the evidence, patiently weighed.\n\nLet us in the first place find out how soon this dreadful process began;\nwhen was it that God fulfilled His threat, and hardened, in any sense\nwhatever, the heart of Pharaoh? Did He step in at the beginning, and\nrender the unhappy king incapable of weighing the remonstrances which He\nthen performed the cruel mockery of addressing to him? Were these as\ninsincere and futile as if one bade the avalanche to pause which his own\nact had started down the icy slopes? Was Pharaoh as little responsible\nfor his pursuit of Israel as his horses were--being, like them, the\nblind agents of a superior force? We do not find it so. In the fifth\nchapter, when a demand is made, without any sustaining miracle, simply\nappealing to the conscience of the ruler, there is no mention of any\nsuch process, despite the insults with which Pharaoh then assails both\nthe messengers and Jehovah Himself, Whom he knows not. In the seventh\nchapter there is clear evidence that the process is yet unaccomplished;\nfor, speaking of an act still future, it declares, \"I will harden\nPharaoh's heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of\nEgypt\" (vii. 3). And this terrible act is not connected with the\nremonstrances and warnings of God, but entirely with the increasing\npressure of the miracles.\n\nThe exact period is marked when the hand of doom closed upon the tyrant.\nIt is not where the Authorised Version places it. When the magicians\nimitated the earlier signs of Moses, \"his heart was strong,\" but the\noriginal does not bear out the assertion that at this time the Lord made\nit so by any judicial act of His (vii. 13). That only comes with the\nsixth plague; and the course of events may be traced, fairly well, by\nthe help of the margin of the Revised Version.\n\nAfter the plague of blood \"Pharaoh's heart was strong\" (\"hardened\"), and\nthis is distinctly ascribed to his own action, because \"he set his heart\neven to this\" (vii. 22, 23).\n\nAfter the second plague, it was still he himself who \"made his heart\nheavy\" (viii. 15).\n\nAfter the third plague the magicians warned him that the very finger of\nsome god was upon him indeed: their rivalry, which hitherto might have\nbeen somewhat of a palliation for his obstinacy, was now ended; but yet\n\"his heart was strong\" (viii. 19).\n\nAgain, after the fourth plague he \"made his heart heavy\"; and it \"was\nheavy\" after the fifth plague, (viii. 32, ix. 7).\n\nOnly thenceforward comes the judicial infatuation upon him who has\nresolutely infatuated himself hitherto.\n\nBut when five warnings and penalties have spent their force in vain,\nwhen personal agony is inflicted in the plague of boils, and the\nmagicians in particular cannot stand before him through their pain,\nwould it have been proof of virtuous contrition if he had yielded then?\nIf he had needed evidence, it was given to him long before. Submission\nnow would have meant prudence, not penitence; and it was against\nprudence, not penitence, that he was hardened. Because he had resisted\nevidence, experience, and even the testimony of his own magicians, he\nwas therefore stiffened against the grudging and unworthy concessions\nwhich must otherwise have been wrested from him, as a wild beast will\nturn and fly from fire. He was henceforth himself to become an evidence\nand a portent; and so \"The Lord made strong the heart of Pharaoh, and he\nhearkened not unto them\" (ix. 12). It was an awful doom, but it is not\nopen to the attacks so often made upon it. It only means that for him\nthe last five plagues were not disciplinary, but wholly penal.\n\nNay, it stops short of asserting even this: they might still have\nappealed to his reason; they were only not allowed to crush him by the\nagency of terror. Not once is it asserted that God hardened his heart\nagainst any nobler impulse than alarm, and desire to evade danger and\ndeath. We see clearly this meaning in the phrase, when it is applied to\nhis army entering the Red Sea: \"I will make strong the hearts of the\nEgyptians, and they shall go in\" (xiv. 17). It needed no greater moral\nturpitude to pursue the Hebrews over the sands than on the shore, but it\ncertainly required more hardihood. But the unpursued departure which the\ngood-will of Egypt refused, their common sense was not allowed to grant.\nCallousness was followed by infatuation, as even the pagans felt that\nwhom God wills to ruin He first drives mad.\n\nThis explanation implies that to harden Pharaoh's heart was to inspire\nhim, not with wickedness, but with nerve.\n\nAnd as far as the original language helps us at all, it decidedly\nsupports this view. Three different expressions have been unhappily\nrendered by the same English word, to harden; but they may be\ndiscriminated throughout the narrative in Exodus, by the margin of the\nRevised Version.\n\nOne word, which commonly appears without any marginal explanation, is\nthe same which is employed elsewhere about \"the cause which is too\n_hard_ for\" minor judges (Deut. i. 17, cf. xv. 18, etc.). Now, this word\nis found (vii. 13) in the second threat that \"I will harden Pharaoh's\nheart,\" and in the account which was to be given to posterity of how\n\"Pharaoh hardened himself to let us go\" (xiii. 15). And it is said\nlikewise of Sihon, king of Heshbon, that he \"would not let us pass by\nhim, for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit and made his heart strong\"\n(Deut. ii. 30). But since it does not occur anywhere in all the\nnarrative of what God actually did with Pharaoh, it is only just to\ninterpret this phrase in the prediction by what we read elsewhere of the\nmanner of its fulfilment.\n\nThe second word is explained in the margin as meaning _to make strong_.\nAlready God had employed it when He said \"I will _make strong_ his\nheart\" (iv. 21), and this is the term used of the first fulfilment of\nthe menace, after the sixth plague (ix. 12). God is not said to\ninterfere again after the seventh, which had few special terrors for\nPharaoh himself; but from henceforth the expression \"to make _strong_\"\nalternates with the phrase \"to make _heavy_.\" \"Go in unto Pharaoh, for I\nhave made heavy his heart and the heart of his servants, that I might\nshow these My signs in the midst of them\" (x. 1).\n\nIt may be safely assumed that these two expressions cover between them\nall that is asserted of the judicial action of God in preventing a\nrecoil of Pharaoh from his calamities. Now, the strengthening of a\nheart, however punitive and disastrous when a man's will is evil (just\nas the strengthening of his arm is disastrous then), has in itself no\nimmorality inherent. It is a thing as often good as bad,--as when Israel\nand Joshua are exhorted to \"Be _strong_ and of a good courage\" (Deut.\nxxxi. 6, 7, 23), and when the angel laid his hand upon Daniel and said,\n\"Be strong, yea, be strong\" (Dan. x. 19). In these passages the phrase\nis identical with that which describes the process by which Pharaoh was\nprevented from cowering under the tremendous blows he had provoked.\n\nThe other expression is to make heavy or dull. Thus \"the eyes of Israel\nwere _heavy_ with age\" (Gen. xlviii. 10), and as we speak of a _weight_\nof honour, equally with the heaviness of a dull man, so we are twice\ncommanded, \"Make heavy (honour) thy father and thy mother\"; and the Lord\ndeclares, \"I will make Myself heavy (get Me honour) upon Pharaoh\" (Deut.\nv. 16, Exod. xx. 12, xiv. 4, 17, 18). In these latter references it will\nbe observed that the making \"strong\" the heart of Pharaoh, and the\nmaking \"Myself heavy\" are so connected as almost to show a design of\nindicating how far is either expression from conveying the notion of\nimmorality, infused into a human heart by God. For one of the two\nphrases which have been thus interpreted is still applied to Pharaoh;\nbut the other (and the more sinister, as we should think, when thus\napplied) is appropriated by God to Himself: He makes Himself heavy.\n\nIt is also a curious and significant coincidence that the same word was\nused of the burdens that were made _heavy_ when first they claimed their\nfreedom, which is now used of the treatment of the heart of their\noppressor (v. 9).\n\nIt appears, then, that the Lord is never said to debauch Pharaoh's\nheart, but only to strengthen it against prudence and to make it dull;\nthat the words used do not express the infusion of evil passion, but the\nanimation of a resolute courage, and the overclouding of a natural\ndiscernment; and, above all, that every one of the three words, to make\nhard, to make strong, and to make heavy, is employed to express\nPharaoh's own treatment of himself, before it is applied to any work of\nGod, as actually taking place already.\n\nNevertheless, there is a solemn warning for all time, in the assertion\nthat what he at first chose, the vengeance of God afterward chose for\nhim. For indeed the same process, working more slowly but on identical\nlines, is constantly seen in the hardening effect of vicious habit. The\ngambler did not mean to stake all his fortune upon one chance, when\nfirst he timidly laid down a paltry stake; nor has he changed his mind\nsince then as to the imprudence of such a hazard. The drunkard, the\nmurderer himself, is a man who at first did evil as far as he dared, and\nafterwards dared to do evil which he would once have shuddered at.\n\nLet no man assume that prudence will always save him from ruinous\nexcess, if respect for righteousness cannot withhold him from those\nfirst compliances which sap the will, destroy the restraint of\nself-respect, wear away the horror of great wickedness by familiarity\nwith the same guilt in its lesser phases, and, above all, forfeit the\nenlightenment and calmness of judgment which come from the Holy Spirit\nof God, Who is the Spirit of wisdom and of counsel, and makes men to be\nof quick understanding in the fear of the Lord.\n\nLet no man think that the fear of damnation will bring him to the\nmercy-seat at last, if the burden and gloom of being \"condemned already\"\ncannot now bend his will. \"Even as they refused to have God in their\nknowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind\" (Rom. i. 28). \"I gave\nthem My statutes and showed them My judgments, which if a man do, he\nshall even live in them.... I gave them statutes that were not good, and\njudgments wherein they should not live\" (Ezek. xx. 11, 25).\n\nThis is the inevitable law, the law of a confused and darkened judgment,\na heart made heavy and ears shut, a conscience seared, an infatuated\nwill kicking against the pricks, and heaping to itself wrath against the\nday of wrath. Wilful sin is always a challenge to God, and it is avenged\nby the obscuring of the lamp of God in the soul. Now, a part of His\nguiding light is prudence; and it is possible that men who will not be\nwarned by the fear of injury to their conscience, such as they suppose\nthat Pharaoh suffered, may be sobered by the danger of such derangement\nof their intellectual efficiency as really befel him.\n\nIn this sense men are, at last, impelled blindly to their fate (and this\nis a judicial act of God, although it comes in the course of nature),\nbut first they launch themselves upon the slope which grows steeper at\nevery downward step, until arrest is impossible.\n\nOn the other hand, every act of obedience helps to release the will from\nits entanglement, and to clear the judgment which has grown dull,\nanointing the eyes with eye-salve that they may see. Not in vain is the\nassertion of the bondage of the sinner and the glorious liberty of the\nchildren of God.\n\nA second time, then, Moses presented himself before Pharaoh with his\ndemands; and, as he had been forewarned, he was now challenged to give a\nsign in proof of his commission from a god.\n\nAnd the demand was treated as reasonable; a sign was given, and a\nmenacing one. The peaceable rod of the shepherd, a fit symbol of the\nmeek man who bore it, became a serpent[10] before the king, as Moses was\nto become destructive to his realm. But when the wise men of Egypt and\nthe enchanters were called, they did likewise; and although a marvel was\nadded which incontestably declared the superior power of the Deity Whom\nAaron represented, yet their rivalry sufficed to make strong the heart\nof Pharaoh, and he would not let the people go. The issue was now knit:\nthe result would be more signal than if the quarrel were decided at one\nblow, and upon all the gods of Egypt the Lord would exercise vengeance.\n\nWhat are we to think of the authentification of a religion by a sign?\nBeyond doubt, Jesus recognised this aspect of His own miracles, when He\nsaid, \"If I had not done among them the works that none other man did,\nthey had not had sin\" (John xv. 24). And yet there is reason in the\nobjection that no amount of marvel ought to deflect by one hair's\nbreadth our judgment of right and wrong, and the true appeal of a\nreligion must be to our moral sense.\n\nNo miracle can prove that immoral teaching is sacred. But it can prove\nthat it is supernatural. And this is precisely what Scripture always\nproclaims. In the New Testament, we are bidden to take heed, because a\nday will come, when false prophets shall work great signs and wonders,\nto deceive, if possible, even the elect (Mark xiii. 22). In the Old\nTestament, a prophet may seduce the people to worship other gods, by\ngiving them a sign or a wonder which shall come to pass, but they must\nsurely stone him: they must believe that his sign is only a temptation;\nand above whatever power enabled him to work it, they must recognise\nJehovah proving them, and know that the supernatural has come to them in\njudgment, not in revelation (Deut. xiii. 1-5).\n\nNow, this is the true function of the miraculous. At the most, it cannot\ncoerce the conscience, but only challenge it to consider and to judge.\n\nA teacher of the purest morality may be only a human teacher still; nor\nis the Christian bound to follow into the desert every clamorous\ninnovator, or to seek in the secret chamber every one who whispers a\nprivate doctrine to a few. We are entitled to expect that one who is\ncommissioned directly from above will bear special credentials with him;\nbut when these are exhibited, we must still judge whether the document\nthey attest is forged. And this may explain to us why the magicians were\nallowed for awhile to perplex the judgment of Pharaoh whether by fraud,\nas we may well suppose, or by infernal help. It was enough that Moses\nshould set his claims upon a level with those which Pharaoh reverenced:\nthe king was then bound to weigh their relative merits in other and\nwholly different scales.\n\n\n_THE PLAGUES._\n\nvii. 14.\n\nThere are many aspects in which the plagues of Egypt may be\ncontemplated.\n\nWe may think of them as ranging through all nature, and asserting the\nmastery of the Lord alike over the river on which depended the\nprosperity of the realm, over the minute pests which can make life more\nwretched than larger and more conspicuous ills (the frogs of the water,\nthe reptiles that disgrace humanity, and the insects that infest the\nair), over the bodies of animals stricken with murrain, and those of man\ntortured with boils, over hail in the cloud and blight in the crop, over\nthe breeze that bears the locust and the sun that grows dark at noon,\nand at last over the secret springs of human life itself.\n\nNo pantheistic creed (and the Egyptian religion struck its roots deep\ninto pantheistic speculation) could thus completely exalt God above\nnature, as a superior and controlling Power, not one with the mighty\nwheels of the universe, of which the height is terrible, but, as Ezekiel\nsaw Him, enthroned above them in the likeness of fire, and yet in the\nlikeness of humanity.\n\nNo idolatrous creed, however powerful be its conception of one god of\nthe hills and another of the valleys, could thus represent a single\ndeity as wielding all the arrows of adverse fortune, able to assail us\nfrom earth and sky and water, formidable alike in the least things and\nin the greatest. And presently the demonstration is completed, when at\nHis bidding the tempest heaps up the sea, and at His frown the waters\nreturn to their strength again.\n\nAnd no philosophic theory condescends to bring the Ideal, the Absolute,\nand the Unconditioned, into such close and intimate connection with the\nfrog-spawn of the ditch and the blain upon the tortured skin.\n\nWe may, with ample warrant from Scripture, make the controversial\napplication still more simple and direct, and think of the plagues as\nwreaking vengeance, for the worship they had usurped and the cruelties\nthey had sanctioned, upon all the gods of Egypt, which are conceived of\nfor the moment as realities, and as humbled, if not in fact, yet in the\nsympathies of priest and worshipper (xii. 12).\n\nThen we shall see the domain of each impostor invaded, and every vaunted\npower to inflict evil or to remove it triumphantly wielded by Him Who\nproves His equal mastery over all, and thus we shall find here the\njustification of that still bolder personification which says, \"Worship\nHim, all ye gods\" (Psalm xcvii. 7).\n\nThe Nile had a sacred name, and was adored as \"Hapee, or Hapee Mu, the\nAbyss, or the Abyss of Waters, or the Hidden,\" and the king was\nfrequently portrayed standing between two images of this god, his throne\nwreathed with water-lilies. The second plague struck at the goddess\nHEKT, whose head was that of a frog. The uncleanness of the third plague\nderanged the whole system of Egyptian worship, with its punctilious and\nelaborate purifications. In every one there is either a presiding\ndivinity attacked, or a blow dealt upon the priesthood or the sacrifice,\nor a sphere invaded which some deity should have protected, until the\nsun himself is darkened, the great god RA, to whom their sacred city was\ndedicated, and whose name is incorporated in the title of his earthly\nrepresentative, the Pharaoh or PH-RA. Then at last, after all these\npremonitions, the deadly blow struck home.\n\nOr we may think of the plagues as retributive, and then we shall\ndiscover a wonderful suitability in them all. It was a direful omen that\nthe first should afflict the nation through the river, into which,\neighty years before, the Hebrew babes had been cast to die, which now\nrolled bloody, and seemed to disclose its dead. It was fit that the\nluxurious homes of the oppressors should become squalid as the huts of\nthe slaves they trampled; that their flesh should suffer torture worse\nthan that of the whips they used so unmercifully; that the loss of crops\nand cattle should bring home to them the hardships of the poor who\ntoiled for their magnificence; that physical darkness should appal them\nwith vague terrors and undefined apprehensions, such as ever haunt the\nbosom of the oppressed, whose life is the sport of a caprice; and at\nlast that the aged should learn by the deathbed of the prop and pride of\ntheir declining feebleness, and the younger feel beside the cradle of\nthe first blossom and fruit of love, all the agony of such bereavement\nas they had wantonly inflicted on the innocent.\n\nAnd since the fear of disadvantage in war had prompted the murder of the\nHebrew children, it was right that the retributive blow should destroy\nfirst their children and then their men of war.\n\nWhen we come to examine the plagues in detail, we discover that it is no\narbitrary fancy which divides them into three triplets, leading up to\nthe appalling tenth. Thus the first, fourth, and seventh, each of which\nbegins a triplet, are introduced by a command to Moses to warn Pharaoh\n\"in the morning\" (vii. 15), or \"early in the morning\" (viii. 20, ix.\n13). The third, sixth and ninth, on the contrary, are inflicted without\nany warning whatever. The story of the third plague closes with the\ndefeat of the magicians, the sixth with their inability to stand before\nthe king, and the ninth with the final rupture, when Moses declares,\n\"Thou shalt see my face no more\" (viii. 19, ix. 11, x. 29).\n\nThe first three are plagues of loathsomeness--blood-stained waters,\nfrogs and lice; the next three bring actual pain and loss with\nthem--stinging flies, murrain which afflicts the beasts, and boils upon\nall the Egyptians; and the third triplet are \"nature-plagues\"--hail,\nlocusts and darkness. It is only after the first three plagues that the\nimmunity of Israel is mentioned; and after the next three, when the hail\nis threatened, instructions are first given by which those Egyptians who\nfear Jehovah may also obtain protection. Thus, in orderly and solemn\nprocession, marched the avengers of God upon the guilty land.\n\nIt has been observed, concerning the miracles of Jesus, that not one of\nthem was creative, and that, whenever it was possible, He wrought by the\nuse of material naturally provided. The waterpots should be filled; the\nfive barley-loaves should be sought out; the nets should be let down for\na draught; and the blind man should have his eyes anointed, and go wash\nin the Pool of Siloam.\n\nAnd it is easily seen that such miracles were a more natural expression\nof His errand, which was to repair and purify the existing system of\nthings, and to remove our moral disease and dearth, than any exercise of\ncreative power would have been, however it might have dazzled the\nspectators.\n\nNow, the same remark applies to the miracles of Moses, to the coming of\nGod in judgment, as to His revelation of Himself in grace; and therefore\nwe need not be surprised to hear that natural phenomena are not unknown\nwhich offer a sort of dim hint or foreshadowing of the terrible ten\nplagues. Either cryptogamic vegetation or the earth borne down from\nupper Africa is still seen to redden the river, usually dark, but not so\nas to destroy the fish. Frogs and vermin and stinging insects are the\npest of modern travellers. Cattle plagues make ravage there, and hideous\ndiseases of the skin are still as common as when the Lord promised to\nreward the obedience of Israel to sanitary law by putting upon them none\nof \"the evil diseases of Egypt\" which they knew (Deut. vii. 15).[11] The\nlocust is still dreaded. But some of the other visitations were more\ndireful because not only their intensity but even their existence was\nalmost unprecedented: hail in Egypt was only not quite unknown; and such\nveiling of the sun as occurs for a few minutes during the storms of sand\nin the desert ought scarcely to be quoted as even a suggestion of the\nprolonged horror of the ninth plague.\n\nNow, this accords exactly with the moral effect which was to be\nproduced. The rescued people were not to think of God as one who strikes\ndown into nature from outside, with strange and unwonted powers,\nsuperseding utterly its familiar forces. They were to think of Him as\nthe Author of all; and of the common troubles of mortality as being\nindeed the effects of sin, yet ever controlled and governed by Him, let\nloose at His will, and capable of mounting to unimagined heights if His\nrestraints be removed from them. By the east wind He brought the\nlocusts, and removed them by the south-west wind. By a storm He divided\nthe sea. The common things of life are in His hands, often for\ntremendous results. And this is one of the chief lessons of the\nnarrative for us. Let the mind range over the list of the nine which\nstop short of absolute destruction, and reflect upon the vital\nimportance of immunities for which we are scarcely grateful.\n\nThe purity of water is now felt to be among the foremost necessities of\nlife. It is one which asks nothing from us except to refrain from\npolluting what comes from heaven so limpid. And yet we are half\nsatisfied to go on habitually inflicting on ourselves a plague more foul\nand noxious than any occasional turning of our rivers into blood. The\ntwo plagues which dealt with minute forms of life may well remind us of\nthe vast part which we are now aware that the smallest organisms play in\nthe economy of life, as the agents of the Creator. Who gives thanks\naright for the cheap blessing of the unstained light of heaven?\n\nBut we are insensible to the every-day teaching of this narrative: we\nturn our rivers into fluid poison; we spread all around us deleterious\ninfluences, which breed by minute forms of parasitical life the germs of\ncruel disease; we load the atmosphere with fumes which slay our cattle\nwith periodical distempers, and are deadlier to vegetation than the\nhail-storm or the locust; we charge it with carbon so dense that\nmultitudes have forgotten that the sky is blue, and on our Metropolis\ncomes down at frequent intervals the darkness of the ninth plague, and\nall the time we fail to see that God, Who enacts and enforces every law\nof nature, does really plague us whenever these outraged laws avenge\nthemselves. The miraculous use of nature in special emergencies is such\nas to show the Hand which regularly wields its powers.\n\nAt the same time there is no more excuse for the rationalism which would\nreduce the calamities of Egypt to a coincidence, than for explaining\naway the manna which fed a nation during its wanderings by the drug\nwhich is gathered, in scanty morsels, upon the acacia tree. The awful\nseverity of the judgments, the series which they formed, their advent\nand removal at the menace and the prayer of Moses, are considerations\nwhich make such a theory absurd. The older scepticism, which supposed\nMoses to have taken advantage of some epidemic, to have learned in the\nwilderness the fords of the Red Sea,[12] to have discovered water, when\nthe caravan was perishing of thirst, by his knowledge of the habits of\nwild beasts, and finally to have dazzled the nation at Horeb with some\nkind of fireworks, is itself almost a miracle in its violation of the\nlaws of mind. The concurrence of countless favourable accidents and\nstrange resources of leadership is like the chance arrangement of a\nprinter's type to make a poem.\n\nThere is a common notion that the ten plagues followed each other with\nbreathless speed, and were completed within a few weeks. But nothing in\nthe narrative asserts or even hints this, and what we do know is in the\nopposite direction. The seventh plague was wrought in February, for the\nbarley was in the ear and the flax in blossom (ix. 31); and the feast of\npassover was kept on the fourteenth day of the month Abib, so that the\ndestruction of the firstborn was in the middle of April, and there was\nan interval of about two months between the last four plagues. Now, the\nsame interval throughout would bring back the first plague to September\nor October. But the natural discoloration of the river, mentioned above,\nis in the middle of the year, when the river begins to rise; and this,\nit may possibly be inferred, is the natural period at which to fix the\nfirst plague. They would then range over a period of about nine months.\nDuring the interval between them, the promises and treacheries of the\nking excited alternate hope and rage in Israel; the scribes of their own\nrace (once the vassals of their tyrants, but already estranged by their\nown oppression) began to take rank as officers among the Jews, and to\nexhibit the rudimentary promise of national order and government; and\nthe growing fears of their enemies fostered that triumphant sense of\nmastery, out of which national hope and pride are born. When the time\ncame for their departure, it was possible to transmit orders throughout\nall their tribes, and they came out of Egypt by their armies, which\nwould have been utterly impossible a few months before. It was with\nthem, as it is with every man that breathes: the delay of God's grace\nwas itself a grace; and the slowly ripening fruit grew mellower than if\nit had been forced into a speedier maturity.\n\n\n_THE FIRST PLAGUE._\n\nvii. 14-25.\n\nIt was perhaps when the Nile was rising, and Pharaoh was coming to the\nbank, in pomp of state, to make official observation of its progress, on\nwhich the welfare of the kingdom depended, and to do homage before its\ndivinity, that the messenger of another Deity confronted him, with a\nformal declaration of war. It was a strange contrast. The wicked was in\ngreat prosperity, neither was he plagued like another man. Upon his\nhead, if this were Menephtah, was the golden symbol of his own divinity.\nAround him was an obsequious court. And yet there was moving in his\nheart some unconfessed sense of awe, when confronted once more by the\naged shepherd and his brother, who had claimed a commission from above,\nand had certainly met his challenge, and made a short end of the rival\nsnakes of his own seers. Once he had asked \"Who is Jehovah?\" and had\nsent His ambassadors to their tasks again with insult. But now he needs\nto harden his heart, in order not to yield to their strange and\npersistent demands. He remembers how they had spoken to him already,\n\"Thus saith the Lord, Israel is My son, My firstborn, and I have said\nunto thee, Let My son go that he may serve Me; and thou hast refused to\nlet him go: behold, I will slay thy son, thy firstborn\" (iv. 22, R.V.).\nDid this awful warning come back to him, when the worn, solemn and\ninflexible face of Moses again met him? Did he divine the connection\nbetween this ultimate penalty and what is now announced--the turning of\nthe pride and refreshment of Egypt into blood? Or was it partly because\neach plague, however dire, seemed to fall short of the tremendous\nthreat, that he hoped to find the power of Moses more limited than his\nwarnings? \"Because sentence against an evil work is not executed\nspeedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to\ndo evil.\"\n\nAnd might he, at the last, be hardened to pursue the people because, by\ntheir own showing, the keenest arrow in their quiver was now sped?\nWhatever his feelings were, it is certain that the brothers come and go,\nand inflict their plagues unrestrained; that no insult or violence is\nattempted, and we can see the truth of the words \"I have made thee as a\ngod unto Pharaoh.\"\n\nIt is in clear allusion to his vaunt, \"I know not Jehovah,\" that Moses\nand Aaron now repeat the demand for release, and say, \"Hitherto thou\nhast not hearkened: behold, in this thou shalt know that I am Jehovah.\"\nWhat follows, when attentively read, makes it plain that the blow falls\nupon \"the waters that are in the river,\" and those that have been drawn\nfrom it into canals for artificial irrigation, into reservoirs like the\nlakes Moeris and Mareotis, and even into vessels for immediate use.\n\nBut we are expressly told that it was possible to obtain water by\ndigging wells. Therefore there is no point whatever in the cavil that\nif Moses turned all the water into blood, none was left for the\noperations of the magicians. But no comparison whatever existed between\ntheir petty performances and the immense and direful work of vengeance\nwhich rolled down a putrid mass of corrupt waters through the land,\nspoiling the great stores of water by which later drought should be\nrelieved, destroying the fish, that important part of the food of the\nnation, for which Israel afterwards lusted, and sowing the seeds of\nother plagues, by the pollution of that balmy air in which so many of\nour own suffering countrymen still find relief, but which was now\ninfected and loathsome. Even Pharaoh must have felt that his gods might\ndo better for him than this, and that it would be much more to the point\njust then to undo his plague than to increase it--to turn back the blood\nto water than contribute a few drops more. If this was their best\neffort, he was already helpless in the hand of his assailant, who, by\nthe uplifting of his rod, and the bold avowal in advance of\nresponsibility for so great a calamity, had formally defied him. But\nPharaoh dared not accept the challenge: it was effort enough for him to\n\"set his heart\" against surrender to the portent, and he sullenly turned\nback into the palace from the spot where Moses met him.\n\nTwo details remain to be observed. The seven days which were fulfilled\ndo not measure the interval between this plague and the next, but the\nperiod of its infliction. And this information is not given us\nconcerning any other, until we come to the three days of darkness.[13]\nIt is important here, because the natural discoloration lasts for three\nweeks, and mythical tendencies would rather exaggerate than shorten the\nterm.\n\nAgain, it is contended that only with the fourth plague did Israel begin\nto enjoy exemption, because then only is their immunity recorded.[14]\nBut it is strange indeed to suppose that they were involved in\npunishments the design of which was their relief; and in fact their\nexemption is implied in the statement that the Egyptians (only) had to\ndig wells. It is to be understood that large stores of water would\neverywhere be laid up, because the Nile water, however delicious,\ncarries much sediment which must be allowed to settle down. They would\nnot be forced, therefore, to fall back upon the polluted common sources\nfor a supply.\n\nAnd now let us contrast this miracle with the first of the New\nTestament. One spoiled the happiness of the guilty; the other rescued\nthe overclouded joy of the friends of Jesus, not turning water into\nblood but into wine; declaring at one stroke all the difference between\nthe law which worketh wrath, and the gospel of the grace of God. The\nfirst was impressive and public, as the revelation upon Sinai; the other\nappealed far more to the heart than to the imagination, and befitted\nwell the kingdom that was not with observation, the King who grew up\nlike a tender plant, and did not strive nor cry, the redeeming influence\nwhich was at first unobtrusive as the least of all seeds, but became a\ntree, and the shelter of the fowls of heaven.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[10] It is true that the word means any large reptile, as when \"God\ncreated great _whales_\"; but doubtless our English version is correct.\nIt was certainly a serpent which he had recently fled from, and then\ntaken by the tail (iv. 4). And unless we suppose the magicians to have\nwrought a genuine miracle, no other creature can be suggested, equally\nconvenient for their sleight of hand.\n\n[11] To this day, amid squalid surroundings for which nominal Christians\nare responsible, the immunity of the Jewish race from such suffering is\nconspicuous, and at least a remarkable coincidence.\n\n[12] But indeed this notion is not yet dead. \"A high wind left the\nshallow sea so low that it became possible to ford it. Moses eagerly\naccepted the suggestion, and made the venture with success,\"\netc.--_Wellhausen_, \"Israel,\" in _Encyc. Brit._\n\n[13] x. 22. The accurate Kalisch is therefore wrong in speaking of \"The\nduration of the first plague, a statement not made with regard to any of\nthe subsequent inflictions.\"--Commentary _in loco_.\n\n[14] _Speaker's Commentary_, i., p. 242; Kalisch on viii. 18; Kiel, i.\n484.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n\n_THE SECOND PLAGUE._\n\nviii. 1-15.\n\nAlthough Pharaoh had warning of the first plague, no appeal was made to\nhim to avert it by submission. But before the plague of frogs he was\ndistinctly commanded, \"Let My people go.\" It is an advancing lesson. He\nhas felt the power of Jehovah: now he is to connect, even more closely,\nhis suffering with his disobedience; and when this is accomplished, the\nthird plague will break upon him unannounced--a loud challenge to his\nconscience to become itself his judge.\n\nThe plague of frogs was far greater than our experience helps us to\nimagine. At least two cases are on record of a people being driven to\nabandon their settlements because they had become intolerable; \"as even\nthe vessels were full of them, the water infested and the food\nuneatable, as they could scarcely set their feet on the ground without\ntreading on heaps of them, and as they were vexed by the smell of the\ngreat multitude that died, they fled from that region.\"\n\nThe Egyptian species known to science as the Rana Mosaica, and still\ncalled by the uncommon epithet here employed, is peculiarly repulsive,\nand peculiarly noisy too. The superstition which adored a frog as the\n\"Queen of the two Worlds,\" and placed it upon the sacred lotus-leaf,\nwould make it impossible for an Egyptian to adopt even such forlorn\nmeasures of self-defence as might suggest themselves. It was an unclean\npest against which he was entirely helpless, and it extended the power\nof his enemy from the river to the land. The range of the grievance is\ndwelt upon in the warning: \"they shall come up and enter into thine\nhouse, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed ... and into thine\novens, and into thy kneading-troughs\" (viii. 3). The most sequestered\nand the dryest spots alike would swarm with them, thrust forward into\nthe most unsuitable places by the multitude behind.\n\nThus Pharaoh himself had to share, far more than in the first plague,\nthe misery of his humblest subjects; and, although again his magicians\nimitated Aaron upon some small prepared plot, and amid circumstances\nwhich made it easier to exhibit frogs than to exclude them, yet there\nwas no comfort in such puerile emulation, and they offered no hope of\nrelieving him. From the gods that were only vanities, he turned to\nJehovah, and abased himself to ask the intercession of Moses: \"Intreat\nJehovah that He take away the frogs from me and from my people; and I\nwill let the people go.\"\n\nThe assurance would have been a hopeful one, if only the sense of\ninconvenience were the same as the sense of sin. But when we wonder at\nthe relapses of men who were penitent upon sick-beds or in adversity, as\nsoon as their trouble is at an end, we are blind to this distinction.\nPain is sometimes obviously due to ourselves, and it is natural to blame\nthe conduct which led to it. But if we blame it only for being\ndisastrous, we cannot hope that the fruits of the Spirit will result\nfrom a sensation of the flesh. It was so with Pharaoh, as doubtless\nMoses expected, since God had not yet exhausted His predicted works of\nretribution. This anticipated fraud is much the simplest explanation of\nthe difficult phrase, \"Have thou this glory over me.\"\n\nIt is sometimes explained as an expression of courtesy--\"I obey thee as\na superior\"; which does not occur elsewhere, because it is not Hebrew\nbut Egyptian. But this suavity is quite alien to the spirit of the\nnarrative, in which Moses, however courteous, represents an offended\nGod. It is more natural to take it as an open declaration that he was\nbeing imposed upon, yet would grant to the king whatever advantage the\nfraud implied. And to make the coming relief more clearly the action of\nthe Lord, to shut out every possibility that magician or priest should\nclaim the honour, he bade the king name an hour at which the plague\nshould cease.\n\nIf the frogs passed away at once, the relief might chance to be a\nnatural one; and Pharaoh doubtless conceived that elaborate and long\nprotracted intercessions were necessary for his deliverance. Accordingly\nhe fixed a future period, yet as near as he perhaps thought possible;\nand Moses, without any express authority, promised him that it should be\nso. Therefore he \"cried unto the Lord,\" and the frogs did not retreat\ninto the river, but suddenly died where they were, and filled the\nunhappy land with a new horror in their decay.\n\nBut \"when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he made his heart heavy\nand hearkened not unto them.\" It is a graphic sentence: it implies\nrather than affirms their indignant remonstrances, and the sullen, dull,\nspiritless obstinacy with which he held his base and unkingly purpose.\n\n\n_THE THIRD PLAGUE._\n\nviii. 16-19.\n\nThere is no sufficient reason for discarding the ordinary opinion of\nthis plague. Gnats have been suggested (with beetles instead of flies\nfor the fourth, since gnats and flies would scarcely make two several\njudgments), but these, which spring from marshy ground, would unfitly be\nconnected with the dust whence Aaron was to evoke the pest. Sir Samuel\nBaker, on the other hand, has said of modern Egypt that \"it seemed as if\nthe very dust were turned into lice\" (quoted in Speaker's Commentary _in\nloco_).\n\nTwo features in this plague deserve attention. It came without any\nwarning whatever. The faithless king who gave his word and broke it\nfound himself involved in fresh miseries without an opportunity of\nhumbling himself again. He was flung back into deep waters, because he\nrefused to fulfil the terms upon which he had been extricated.\n\nIt must be understood that the act of Aaron was a public one, performed\nin the sight of Pharaoh, and instantly followed by the plague. There was\nno doubt about the origin of the pest, and the new and alarming prospect\nwas opened up of calamities yet to come, without a chance to avert them\nby submission.\n\nAgain, it will be observed that the magicians are utterly baffled just\nwhen there is no warning given, and therefore no opportunity for\npre-arranged sleight of hand. And this surely favours the opinion that\nthey had not hitherto succeeded by supernatural assistance, for there is\nno such evident reason why infernal aid should cease at this exact\npoint.\n\nIt is a mistake to suppose that thereupon they confessed the mission of\nthe brothers. In their agitation they admitted that, on their part at\nleast, no divinity had been at work before. But they rather ascribed\nwhat they saw to the action of some vaguely indicated deity, than\nconfessed it to be the work of Jehovah. Again it has to be asked whether\nthis resembles more the vainglorious structure of a myth, or the course\nof a truthful history.\n\nNevertheless, their grudging and insufficient avowal was meant to induce\na surrender. But \"Pharaoh's heart was strong, and he hearkened not unto\nthem.\" To this statement it is not added, \"because the Lord had hardened\nhim,\" for this had not even yet taken place; but only, \"as the Lord had\nspoken.\"\n\n\n_THE FOURTH PLAGUE._\n\nviii. 20-32.\n\nWhen the third plague had died away, when the sense of reaction and\nexhaustion had replaced agitation and distress, and when perhaps the\nfear grew strong that at any moment a new calamity might befal the land\nas abruptly as the last, God orders a solemn and urgent appeal to be\nmade to the oppressor. And the same occurs three times: after each\nplague which arrives unexpectedly the next is introduced by a special\nwarning. On each of these occasions, moreover, the appeal is made in the\nmorning, at the hour when reason ought to be clearest and the passions\nleast agitating; and this circumstance is perhaps alluded to in the\nfavourite phrase of Jeremiah when he would speak of condescending\nearnestness--\"I sent my prophets, rising up early and sending them\"\n(Jer. xxv. 4, xxvi. 5, xxix. 19, and many more; cf. also vii. 13, and 2\nChron. xxxvi. 15). So far is the Scripture from regarding Pharaoh as\npropelled by destiny, as by a machine, down iron grooves to ruin.\n\nWe have now come to the group of plagues which inflict actual bodily\ndamage, and not inconvenience and humiliation only: the dogfly (or\nbeetle); the murrain among beasts, which was a precursor of the crowning\nevil that struck at human life; and the boils. Of the fourth plague the\nprecise nature is uncertain. There is a beetle which gnaws both man and\nbeast, destroys clothes, furniture, and plants, and even now they \"are\noften seen in millions\" (Munk, _Palestine_, p. 120). \"In a few minutes\nthey filled the whole house.... Only after the most laborious exertions,\nand covering the floor of the house with hot coals, they succeeded in\nmastering them. If they make such attacks during the night, the inmates\nare compelled to give up the houses, and little children or sick\npersons, who are unable to rise alone, are then exposed to the greatest\ndanger of life\" (Pratte, _Abyssinia_, p. 143, in Kalisch).\n\nNow, this explanation has one advantage over that of dogflies--that\nspecial mention is made of their afflicting \"the ground whereon they\nare\" (ver. 21), which is less suitable to a plague of flies. But it may\nbe that no one creature is meant. The Hebrew word means \"a mixture.\"\nJewish interpreters have gone so far as to make it mean \"all kinds of\nnoxious animals and serpents and scorpions mixed together,\" and although\nit is palpably absurd to believe that Pharaoh should have survived if\nthese had been upon him and upon his servants, yet the expression \"a\nmixture,\" following after one kind of vermin had tormented the land,\nneed not be narrowed too exactly. With deliberate particularity the\nking was warned that they should come \"upon thee, and upon thy servants,\nand upon thy people, and into thine houses, and the houses of the\nEgyptians shall be full of [them[15]], and also the ground whereon they\nare.\"\n\nIt has been supposed, from the special mention of the exemption of the\nland of Goshen, that this was a new thing. We have seen reason, however,\nto think otherwise, and the emphatic assertion now made is easy to\nunderstand. The plague was especially to be expected in low flat ground:\nthe king may not even have been aware of the previous freedom of Israel;\nand in any case its importance as an evidence had not been pressed upon\nhim. The spirit of the seventy-eighth Psalm, though not perhaps any one\nspecific phrase, contrasts the earlier as well as the later plagues with\nthe protection of His own people, whom He led like sheep (vers. 42-52).\n\nAfter the appointed interval (the same which Pharaoh had indicated for\nthe removal of the frogs) the plague came. We are told that the land was\ncorrupted, but it is significant that more stress is laid upon the\nsuffering of Pharaoh and his court in the event than in the menace. It\ncame home to himself more cruelly than any former plague, and he at once\nattempted to make terms: \"Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the land.\" It\nis a natural speech, at first not asking to be trusted as before by\ngetting relief before the Hebrews actually enjoy their liberty; and yet\nconceding as little as possible, and in hot haste to have that little\ndone and the relief obtained. They may even serve their God on the\nsacred soil, so completely has He already defeated all His rivals. But\nthis was not what was demanded; and Moses repeated the claim of a three\ndays' journey, basing it upon the ground, still more insulting to the\nnational religion, that \"We will sacrifice to Jehovah our God the\nabomination of the Egyptians,\" that is to say, sacred animals, which it\nis horror in their eyes to sacrifice. Any faith in his own creed which\nPharaoh ever had is surrendered when this argument, instead of making\ntheir cause hopeless, forces him to yield--adding, however, like a\nthoroughly weak man who wishes to refuse but dares not, \"only ye shall\nnot go very far away: intreat for me.\" And again Moses concedes the\npoint, with only the courteous remonstrance, \"But let not Pharaoh deal\ndeceitfully any more.\"\n\nIt is necessary to repeat that we have not a shred of evidence that\nMoses would have violated his compact and failed to return: it would\nhave sufficed as a first step to have asserted the nationality of his\npeople and their right to worship their own God: all the rest would\nspeedily have followed. But the terms which were rejected again and\nagain did not continue for ever to bind the victorious party: the story\nof their actual departure makes it plain that both sides understood it\nto be a final exodus; and thence came the murderous pursuit of Pharaoh\n(cf. xv. 9), which in itself would have cancelled any compact which had\nexisted until then.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[15] The Revised Version has \"swarms of flies,\" which is clearly an\nattempt to meet the case. But it is worth notice that in the Psalms the\nexpression was twice rendered \"divers kinds of flies\" (lxxviii. 45, cv.\n31, A.V.) The word occurs only of this plague.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n\n_THE FIFTH PLAGUE._\n\nix. 1-7.\n\nOur Lord when on earth came not to destroy men's lives. And yet it was\nnecessary, for our highest instruction, that we should not think of Him\nas revealing a Divinity wholly devoid of sternness. Twice, therefore, a\ngleam of the fires of justice fell on the eyes which followed\nHim--through the destruction once of a barren tree, and once of a herd\nof swine, which property no Jew should have possessed. So now, when half\nthe gloomy round of the plagues was being completed, it was necessary to\nprove that life itself was staked on this desperate hazard; and this was\ndone first by the very same expedient--the destruction of life which was\nnot human. There is something pathetic, if one thinks of it, in the\nextent to which domestic animals share our fortunes, and suffer through\nthe brutality or the recklessness of their proprietors. If all men were\nhumane, self-controlled, and (as a natural result) prosperous, what a\nweight would be uplifted from the lower levels also of created life, all\nof which groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now! The dumb\nanimal world is partner with humanity, and shares its fate, as each\nanimal is dependent on its individual owner.\n\nWe have already seen the whole life of Egypt stricken, but now the lower\ncreatures are to perish, unless Pharaoh will repent. He is once more\nsummoned in the name of \"Jehovah, God of the Hebrews,\" and warned that\nthe hand of Jehovah, even a very grievous murrain (for so the verse\nappears to say), is \"upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the\nhorses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the herds and upon the\nflocks.\" Here some particulars need observation. Herds and flocks were\neverywhere; but horses were a comparatively late introduction into\nEgypt, where they were as yet chiefly employed for war. Asses, still so\nfamiliar to the traveller, were the usual beasts of burden, and were\nowned in great numbers by the rich, although rash controversialists have\npretended that, as being unclean, they were not tolerated in the land.\n\nCamels, it is said, are not to be found on the monuments, but yet they\nwere certainly known and possessed by Egypt, though there were many\nreasons why they should be held chiefly on the frontiers, and perhaps in\nconnection with the Arabian mines and settlements. Upon all these \"in\nthe field\" the plague should come.\n\nThe murrain still works havoc in the Delta, chiefly at the period,\nbeginning with December, when the floods are down and the cattle are\nturned out into the pastures, which would this year have been signally\nunwholesome. It was not, then, the fact of a cattle plague which was\nmiraculous, but its severity, its coming at an appointed time, its\nassailing beasts of every kind, and its exempting those of Israel. We\nare told that \"all the cattle of Egypt died,\" and yet that afterwards\n\"the hail ... smote both man and beast\" (ix. 6, 25). It is an\ninconsistency very serious in the eyes of people who are too stupid or\ntoo uncandid to observe that, just before, the mischief was limited to\nthose cattle which were \"in the field\" (ver. 3). There were great stalls\nin suitable places, to give them shelter during the inundations; and all\nthat had not yet been driven out to graze are expressly exempted from\nthe plague.\n\nMuch of Pharaoh's own property perished, but he was the last man in the\ncountry who would feel personal inconvenience by the loss, and therefore\nnothing was more natural than that his selfish \"heart was heavy, and he\ndid not let the people go.\" Not even such an effort was needed as in the\nprevious plague, when we read that he made his heart heavy, by a\ndeliberate act.\n\nThere was nothing to indicate that he had now reached a crisis--that God\nHimself in His judgment would henceforth make bold and resolute against\ncrushing adversities the heart which had been obdurate against humanity,\nagainst evidence, against honour and plighted faith. Nothing is easier\nthan to step over the frontier between great nations. And in the moral\nworld also the Rubicon is passed, the destiny of a soul is fixed,\nsometimes without a struggle, unawares.\n\nInstead of spiritual conflict, there was intellectual curiosity.\n\"Pharaoh sent, and behold there was not so much as one of the cattle of\nthe Israelites dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was heavy, and he did not\nlet the people go.\" This inquiry into a phenomenon which was surprising\nindeed, but yet quite unable to affect his action, recalls the spiritual\ncondition of Herod, who was conscience-stricken when first he heard of\nChrist, and said, \"It is John whom I beheaded\" (Mark vi. 16), but\nafterwards felt merely vulgar curiosity and desire to behold a sign of\nHim. In the case of Pharaoh it was the next step to judicial\ninfatuation. When Christ confronted Herod, He, Who had explained Himself\nto Pilate, was absolutely silent. And this warns us not to think that an\ninterest in religious problems is itself of necessity religious. One may\nunderstand all mysteries, and yet it may profit him nothing. And many a\nreprobate soul is controversial, acute, and keenly orthodox.\n\n\n_THE SIXTH PLAGUE._\n\nix. 8-12.\n\nAt the close of the second triplet, as of the first, stands a plague\nwithout a warning, but not without the clearest connection between the\nblow and Him who deals it.\n\nTo the Jews Egypt was a furnace in which they were being\nconsumed--whether literally in human sacrifice, or metaphorically in the\nhard labour which wasted them (Deut. iv. 20). And now the brothers were\ncommanded to fill both hands with ashes of the furnace and throw them\nupon the wind,[16] either to symbolise the suffering which was to be\nspread wide over the land, or because the ashes of human sacrifices were\nthus presented to their evil genius, Typhon. If this were its meaning,\nthe irony was keen, when at the same action a feverish inflammation\nbreaking out in blains spread over all the nation.\n\nBut, apart from any such reference to their cruel idolatry, it was right\nthat they should suffer in the flesh. When the higher nature is dead,\nthere is no appeal so sharp and certain as to the physical sensibility.\nAnd moreover, there are other sins which have their root in the flesh\nbesides sloth and bodily indulgence. Wrath and cruelty and pride are\nstrangely stimulated and excited by self-indulgence. Not in vain does\nSt. Paul describe a \"mind of the flesh,\" and reckon among the fruits of\nthe flesh not only uncleanness and drunkenness, but, just as truly,\nstrife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, heresies (Col. ii. 18;\nGal. v. 19, 20). From such evil tempers, stimulated by evil appetites,\nthe slaves of Egypt had suffered bitterly; and now the avenging rod fell\nupon the bodies of their tyrants.\n\nAnd we may perhaps detect especial suffering, certainly an especial\ntriumph to be commemorated, in the failure of the magicians even to\nstand before the king. It is implied that they had done so until now,\nand this confirms the belief that after the third plague they had not\nacknowledged Jehovah, but merely said in their defeat, \"This is the\nfinger of a god.\" Until now Jannes and Jambres (two, to rival the two\nbrothers) had withstood Moses, but now the contrast between the prophet\nand his victims writhing in their pain was too sharp for prejudice\nitself to overlook: their folly was \"evident unto all men\" (2 Tim. iii.\n8, 9). But it was not destined that Pharaoh should yield even to so\ntremendous a coercion what he refused to moral influences; and as Jesus\nafter His resurrection appeared not unto all the people (hiding this\ncrowning evidence from the eyes which had in vain beheld so much), so\n\"the Lord made strong the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto\nthem, as the Lord had spoken unto Moses.\" In this last expression is the\nexplicit statement that it was now that the prediction attained\nfulfilment, in the manner which we have discussed already.\n\nBut even this strength of heart did not reach the height of attempting\nany reprisals upon the torturers. The sense of the supernatural was\ntheir defence: Moses was as a god unto Pharaoh, and Aaron was his\nprophet.\n\nIn the narrative of this plague there is an expression which deserves\nattention for another reason. The ashes, it says, \"shall become dust.\"\nIs there no controversy, turning upon the too rigid and prosaic\nstraining of a New Testament construction, which might be simplified by\nconsidering the Hebrew use of language, exemplified in such an assertion\nas \"It shall become dust,\" and soon after, \"It is the Lord's passover\"?\nDo these announce transubstantiations? Did two handfuls of ashes\nliterally become the blains upon the bodies of all the Egyptians?\n\n\n_THE SEVENTH PLAGUE._\n\nix. 13-35.\n\nThe hardening of Pharaoh's heart, we have argued, was not the debauching\nof his spirit, but only the strengthening of his will. \"Wait on the Lord\nand _be of good courage_\"; \"_Be strong_, O Zerubbabel, saith the Lord;\nand _be strong_, O Joshua, son of Josadak the high priest; and _be\nstrong_, all ye people\" (Ps. xxvii. 14; Hag. ii. 4), are clear proofs\nthat what was implied in this word was not wickedness, but only that\niron determination which his choice directed in a wicked channel. And\ntherefore it was no mockery, no insincere appeal by one who had provided\nagainst the mischance of its succeeding, when God again addressed\nHimself to the reason, and even to the rational fears of Pharaoh. He\nhad only provided against a terror-stricken submission, as wholly\nimmoral and valueless, as the ceasing to resist of one who has swooned\nthrough fright. Now, to give such an one a stimulant and thus to enable\nhim to exercise his volition, would be different from inciting him to\nrebel.\n\nThe seventh plague, then, is ushered in by an expostulation more\nearnest, resolute and minatory than attended any of the previous ones.\nAnd this is the more necessary because human life is now for the first\ntime at stake. First the king is solemnly reminded that Jehovah, Whom he\nno longer can refuse to know, is the God of the Hebrews, has a claim\nupon their services, and demands them. In oppressing the nation,\ntherefore, Pharaoh usurped what belonged to the Lord. Now, this is the\neternal charter of the rights of all humanity. Whoever encroaches on the\njust sphere of the free action of his neighbour deprives him, to exactly\nthe same extent, of the power to glorify God by a free obedience. The\nheart glorifies God by submission to so hard a lot, but the co-operation\nof the \"whole body and soul and spirit\" does not visibly bear testimony\nto the regulating power of grace. The oppressor may contend (like some\nslave-owners) that he guides his human property better than it would\nguide itself. But one assertion he cannot make: namely, that God is\nreceiving the loyal homage of a life spontaneously devoted; that a man\nand not a machine is glorifying God in this body and spirit which are\nGod's. For the body is but a chattel. This is why the Christian doctrine\nof the religious equality of all men in Christ carries with it the\npolitical assertion of the equal secular rights of the whole human race.\nI must not transfer to myself the solemn duty of my neighbour to offer\nup to God the sacrifice not only of his chastened spirit but also of his\nobedient life.\n\nAnd these words were also a lifelong admonition to every Israelite. He\nheld his liberties from God. He was not free to be violent and wanton,\nand to say \"I am delivered to commit all these abominations.\" The\ndignities of life were bound up with its responsibilities.\n\nWell, it is not otherwise to-day. As truly as Moses, the champions of\nour British liberties were earnest and God-fearing men. Not for leave to\nrevel, to accumulate enormous fortunes, and to excite by their luxuries\nthe envy and rage of neglected brothers, while possessing more enormous\npowers to bless them than ever were entrusted to a class,--not for this\nour heroes bled on the field and on the scaffold. Tyrants rarely deny to\nrich men leave to be self-indulgent. And self-indulgence rarely nerves\nmen to heroic effort. It is for the freedom of the soul that men dare\nall things. And liberty is doomed wherever men forget that the true\nfreeman is the servant of Jehovah. On these terms the first demand for a\nnational emancipation was enforced.\n\nAnd next, Pharaoh is warned that God, who at first threatened to destroy\nhis firstborn, but had hitherto come short of such a deadly stroke, had\nnot, as he might flatter himself, exhausted His power to avenge. Pharaoh\nshould yet experience \"_all_ My plagues.\" And there is a dreadful\nsignificance in the phrase which threatens to put these plagues, with\nregard to others \"upon thy servants and upon thy people,\" but with\nregard to Pharaoh himself \"upon thine heart.\"\n\nThere it was that the true scourge smote. Thence came ruin and defeat.\nHis infatuation was more dreadful than hail in the cloud and locusts on\nthe blast, than the darkness at noon and the midnight wail of a\nbereaved nation. For his infatuation involved all these.\n\nThe next assertion is not what the Authorised Version made it, and what\nnever was fulfilled. It is not, \"Now I will stretch out My hand to smite\nthee and thy people with pestilence, and thou shalt be cut off from the\nearth.\" It says, \"Now I had done this, as far as any restraint for thy\nsake is concerned, but in very deed for this cause have I made thee to\nstand\" (unsmitten), \"for to show thee My power, and that My name may be\ndeclared throughout all the earth\" (vers. 15, 16). The course actually\ntaken was more for the glory of God, and a better warning to others,\nthan a sudden stroke, however crushing.\n\nAnd so we find, many years after all this generation has passed away,\nthat a strangely distorted version of these events is current among the\nPhilistines in Palestine. In the days of Eli, when the ark was brought\ninto the camp, they said, \"Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the\nhand of these mighty gods? These are the gods that smote the Egyptians\nwith all manner of plagues in the wilderness\" (1 Sam. iv. 8). And this,\nalong with the impression which Rahab declared that the Exodus and what\nfollowed it had made, may help us to understand what a mighty influence\nupon the wars of Palestine the scourging of Egypt had, how terror fell\nupon all the inhabitants of the land, and they melted away (Josh. ii. 9,\n10).\n\nAnd perhaps it may save us from the unconscious egoism which always\ndeems that I myself shall not be treated quite as severely as I deserve,\nto mark how the punishment of one affects the interests of all.\n\nAdded to all this is a kind of half-ironical clemency, an opportunity\nof escape if he would humble himself so far as to take warning even to a\nsmall extent. The plague was to be of a kind especially rare in Egypt,\nand of utterly unknown severity--such hail as had not been in Egypt\nsince the day it was founded until now. But he and his people might, if\nthey would, hasten to bring in their cattle and all that they had in the\nfield. Pharaoh, after his sore experience of the threats of Moses, would\nfind it a hard trial in any case, whether to withdraw his property or to\nbrave the stroke. To him it was a kind of challenge. To those of his\nsubjects who had any proper feeling it was a merciful deliverance, and a\nprofoundly skilful education of their faith, which began by an obedience\nprobably hesitating, but had few doubts upon the morrow. We read that he\nwho feared the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and\nhis cattle flee into the houses; and this is the first hint that the\nplagues, viewed as discipline, were not utterly vain. The existence of\nothers who feared Jehovah beside the Jews prepares us for the \"mixed\nmultitude\" who came up along with them (xii. 38), and whose\nill-instructed and probably very selfish adhesion was quite consistent\nwith such sensual discontent as led the whole congregation into sin\n(Num. xi. 4).\n\nTo make the connection between Jehovah and the impending storm more\nobvious still, Moses stretched his rod toward heaven, and there was\nhail, and fire mingled with the hail, such as slew man and beast, and\nsmote the trees, and destroyed all the vegetation which had yet grown\nup. The heavens, the atmosphere, were now enrolled in the conspiracy\nagainst Pharaoh: they too served Jehovah.\n\nIn such a storm, the terror was even greater than the peril. When a\ngreat writer of our own time called attention to the elaborate machinery\nby which God in nature impresses man with the sense of a formidable\npower above, he chose a thunderstorm as the most striking example of his\nmeaning.\n\n\"Nothing appears to me more remarkable than the array of scenic\nmagnificence by which the imagination is appalled, in myriads of\ninstances when the actual danger is comparatively small; so that the\nutmost possible impression of awe shall be produced upon the minds of\nall, though direct suffering is inflicted upon few. Consider, for\ninstance, the moral effect of a single thunderstorm. Perhaps two or\nthree persons may be struck dead within a space of a hundred square\nmiles; and their death, unaccompanied by the scenery of the storm, would\nproduce little more than a momentary sadness in the busy hearts of\nliving men. But the preparation for the judgment, by all that mighty\ngathering of the clouds; by the questioning of the forest leaves, in\ntheir terrified stillness, which way the winds shall go forth; by the\nmurmuring to each other, deep in the distance, of the destroying angels\nbefore they draw their swords of fire; by the march of the funeral\ndarkness in the midst of the noonday, and the rattling of the dome of\nheaven beneath the chariot wheels of death;--on how many minds do not\nthese produce an impression almost as great as the actual witnessing of\nthe fatal issue! and how strangely are the expressions of the\nthreatening elements fitted to the apprehensions of the human soul! The\nlurid colour, the long, irregular, convulsive sound, the ghastly shapes\nof flaming and heaving cloud, are all true and faithful in their appeal\nto our instinct of danger.\"--Ruskin, _Stones of Venice_, III. 197-8.\n\nSuch a tempest, dreadful anywhere, would be most appalling of all in the\nserene atmosphere of Egypt, to unaccustomed spectators, and minds\ntroubled by their guilt. Accordingly we find that Pharaoh was less\nterrified by the absolute mischief done than by the \"voices of God,\"\nwhen, unnerved for the moment, he confessed at least that he had sinned\n\"this time\" (a singularly weak repentance for his long and daring\nresistance, even if we explain it, \"this time I confess that I have\nsinned\"), and went on in his terror to pour out orthodox phrases and\nprofessions with suspicious fluency. The main point was the bargain\nwhich he proposed: \"Intreat the Lord, for there hath been enough of\nmighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay no\nlonger.\"\n\nLooking attentively at all this, we discern in it a sad resemblance to\nsome confessions of these latter days. Men are driven by affliction to\nacknowledge God: they confess the offence which is palpable, and even\nadd that God is righteous and that they are not. If possible, they\nshelter themselves from lonely condemnation by general phrases, such as\nthat all are wicked; just as Pharaoh, although he would have scoffed at\nthe notion of any national volition except his own, said, \"I and my\npeople are sinners.\" Above all, they are much more anxious for the\nremoval of the rod than for the cleansing of the guilt; and if this can\nbe accomplished through the mediation of another, they have as little\ndesire as Pharaoh had for any personal approach to God, Whom they fear,\nand if possible repel.\n\nAnd by these signs, every experienced observer expects that if they are\ndelivered out of trouble they will forget their vows.\n\nMoses was exceedingly meek. And therefore, or else because the message\nof God implied that other plagues were to succeed this, he consented to\nintercede, yet adding the simple and dignified protest, \"As for thee and\nthy people, I know that ye will not yet fear Jehovah God.\"[17] And so it\ncame to pass. The heart of Pharaoh was made heavy, and he would not let\nIsrael go.\n\nLooking back upon this miracle, we are reminded of the mighty part which\natmospheric changes have played in the history of the world. Snowstorms\nsaved Europe from the Turk and from Napoleon: the wind played almost as\nimportant a part in our liberation from James, and again in the defeat\nof the plans of the French Revolution to invade us, as in the\ndestruction of the Armada. And so we read, \"Hast thou entered the\ntreasuries of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasuries of the hail,\nwhich I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of\nbattle and war?\" (Job xxxviii. 22-3).\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[16] The passage in Deuteronomy had not this event specially in mind, or\nit would have used the same term for a furnace. The word for ashes\nimplies what can be blown upon the wind.\n\n[17] Except in one passage (Gen. ii. 4 to iii. 23) these titles of Deity\nare nowhere else combined in the books of Moses.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n\n_THE EIGHTH PLAGUE._\n\nx. 1-20.\n\nThe Lord would not command His servant again to enter the dangerous\npresence of the sullen prince, without a reason which would sustain his\nfaith: \"For I have made heavy his heart.\" The pronoun is emphatic: it\nmeans to say, 'His foolhardiness is My doing and cannot go beyond My\nwill: thou art safe.' And the same encouragement belongs to all who do\nthe sacred will: not a hair of their head shall truly perish, since life\nand death are the servants of their God. Thus, in the storm of human\npassion, as of the winds, He says, \"It is I, be not afraid\"; making the\nwrath of man to praise Him, stilling alike the tumult of the waves and\nthe madness of the people.\n\nIt is possible that even the merciful mitigations of the last plague\nwere used by infatuated hearts to justify their wilfulness: the most\nvaluable crops of all had escaped; so that these judgments, however\ndire, were not quite beyond endurance. Just such a course of reasoning\ndeludes all who forget that the goodness of God leadeth to repentance.\n\nBesides the reasons already given for lengthening out the train of\njudgments, it is added that Israel should teach the story to posterity,\nand both fathers and children should \"know that I am Jehovah.\"\n\nAccordingly it became a favourite title--\"The Lord which brought thee up\nout of the land of Egypt.\" Even the apostates under Sinai would not\nreject so illustrious a memory: their feast was nominally to Jehovah;\nand their idol was an image of \"the gods which brought thee up out of\nthe land of Egypt\" (xxxii. 4, 5).\n\nHas _our_ land no deliverances for which to be thankful? Instead of\nboastful self-assertion, should we not say, \"We have heard with our\nears, O God, and our fathers have declared unto us, the noble works that\nThou didst in their days and in the old time before them?\" Have we\nforgotten that national mercies call aloud for national thanksgiving?\nAnd in the family, and in the secret life of each, are there no rescues,\nno emancipations, no enemies overcome by a hand not our own, which call\nfor reverent acknowledgment? \"These things were our examples, and are\nwritten for our admonition.\"\n\nThe reproof now spoken to Pharaoh is sterner than any previous one.\nThere is no reasoning in it. The demand is peremptory: \"How long wilt\nthou refuse to humble thyself?\" With it is a sharp and short command:\n\"Let My people go, that they may serve Me.\" And with this is a detailed\nand tremendous threat. It is strange, in the face of the knowledge\naccumulated since the objection called for it, to remember that once\nthis narrative was challenged, because locusts, it was said, are unknown\nin Egypt. They are mentioned in the inscriptions. Great misery was\ncaused by them in 1463, and just three hundred years later Niebuhr was\nhimself at Cairo during a plague of them. Equally arbitrary is the\nobjection that Joel predicted locusts \"such as there hath not been ever\nthe like, neither shall be any more after them, even to the years of\nmany generations\" (ii. 2), whereas we read of these that \"before them\nthere were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such\"\n(x. 14). The objection is whimsical in its absurdity, when we remember\nthat Joel spoke distinctly of Zion and the holy mountain (ii. 1), and\nExodus of \"the borders of Egypt\" (x. 14).\n\nBut it is true that locusts are comparatively rare in Egypt; so that\nwhile the meaning of the threat would be appreciated, familiarity would\nnot have steeled them against it. The ravages of the locust are terrible\nindeed, and coming just in time to ruin the crops which had escaped the\nhail, would complete the misery of the land.\n\nOne speaks of the sudden change of colour by the disappearance of\nverdure where they alight as being like the rolling up of a carpet; and\nhere we read \"they shall cover the eye of the earth,\"--a phrase peculiar\nto the Pentateuch (ver. 15; Num. xxii. 5, 11); \"and they shall eat the\nresidue of that which has escaped, ... and they shall fill thy houses,\nand the ... houses of all the Egyptians, which neither thy fathers nor\nthy fathers' fathers have seen.\"\n\nAfter uttering the appointed warning, Moses abruptly left, awaiting no\nnegociations, plainly regarding them as vain.\n\nBut now, for the first time, the servants of Pharaoh interfered,\ndeclared the country to be ruined, and pressed him to surrender. And yet\nit was now first that we read (ver. 1) that their hearts were hardened\nas well as his. For that is a hard heart that does not remonstrate\nagainst wrong, however plainly God reveals His displeasure, until new\ntroubles are at hand, and which even then has no regard for the wrongs\nof Israel, but only for the woes of Egypt. It is a hard heart,\ntherefore, which intends to repent upon its deathbed; for its motives\nare identical with these.\n\nPharaoh's behaviour is that of a spoiled child, who is indeed the tyrant\nmost familiar to us. He feels that he must yield, or else why should the\nbrothers be recalled? And yet, when it comes to the point, he tries to\nplay the master still, by dictating the terms for his own surrender; and\nbreaks off the negociation rather than do frankly what he must feel that\nit is necessary to do. Moses laid his finger accurately upon the disease\nwhen he reproached him for refusing to humble himself. And if his\nbehaviour seem unnatural, it is worth observation that Napoleon, the\ngreatest modern example of proud, intellectual, godless infatuation,\nallowed himself to be crushed at Leipsic through just the same\nreluctance to do thoroughly and without self-deception what he found it\nnecessary to consent to do. \"Napoleon,\" says his apologist, Thiers, \"at\nlength determined to retreat--a resolution humbling to his pride.\nUnfortunately, instead of a retreat frankly admitted ... he determined\non one which from its imposing character should not be a real retreat at\nall, and should be accomplished in open day.\" And this perversity, which\nruined him, is traced back to \"the illusions of pride.\"\n\nWell, it was quite as hard for the Pharaoh to surrender at discretion,\nas for the Corsican to stoop to a nocturnal retreat. Accordingly, he\nasks, \"Who are ye that shall go?\" and when Moses very explicitly and\nresolutely declares that they will all go, with all their property, his\npassion overcomes him, he feels that to consent is to lose them for\never, and he exclaims, \"So be Jehovah with you as I will let you go and\nyour little ones: look to it, for evil is before you\"--that is to say,\nYour intentions are bad. \"Go ye that are men, and serve the Lord, for\nthat is what ye desire,\"--no more than that is implied in your demand,\nunless it is a mere pretence, under which more lurks than it avows.\n\nBut he and they have long been in a state of war: menaces, submissions,\nand treacheries have followed each other fast, and he has no reason to\ncomplain if their demands are raised. Moreover, his own nation\ncelebrated religious festivals in company with their wives and children,\nso that his rejoinder is an empty outburst of rage. And of a Jewish\nfeast it was said, a little later, \"Thou shalt rejoice before the Lord\nthy God, thou and thy son and thy daughter, and thy manservant and thy\nmaidservant ... and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow\"\n(Deut. xvi. 11). There was no insincerity in the demand; and although\nthe suspicions of the king were naturally excited by the exultant and\never-rising hopes of the Hebrews, and the defiant attitude of Moses, yet\neven now there is as little reason to suspect bad faith as to suppose\nthat Israel, once released, could ever have resumed the same abject\nattitude toward Egypt as before. They would have come back victorious,\nand therefore ready to formulate new demands; already half emancipated,\nand therefore prepared for the perfecting of the work.\n\nAnd now, at a second command as explicit as that which bade him utter\nthe warning, Moses, anxiously watched by many, stretched out his hand\nover the devoted realm. At the gesture, the spectators felt that a fiat\nhad gone forth. But the result was strangely different from that which\nfollowed his invocation, both of the previous and the following plague,\nwhen we may believe that as he raised his hand, the hail-storm burst in\nthunder, and the curtain fell upon the sky. Now there only arose a\ngentle east wind (unlike the \"exceeding strong west wind\" that\nfollowed), but it blew steadily all that day and all the following\nnight. The forebodings of Egypt would understand it well: the prolonged\nperiod during which the curse was being steadily wafted toward them was\nan awful measure of the wide regions over which the power of Jehovah\nreached; and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts,\nthat dreadful curse which Joel has compared to a disciplined and\ndevastating invader, \"the army of the Lord,\" and the first woe that\nheralds the Day of the Lord in the Apocalypse (Joel ii. 1-11; Rev. ix.\n1-11).\n\nThe completeness of the ruin brought a swift surrender, but it has been\nwell said that folly is the wisdom which is only wise too late, and, let\nus add, too fitfully. If Pharaoh had only submitted before the plague\ninstead of after it![18] If he had only respected himself enough to be\nfaithful, instead of being too vain really to yield!\n\nIt is an interesting coincidence that, since he had this time defied the\nremonstrances of his advisers, his confession of sin is entirely\npersonal: it is no longer, \"I and my people are sinners,\" but \"I have\nsinned against the Lord your God, and against you.\" This last clause was\nbitter to his lips, but the need for their intercession was urgent:\nlife and death were at stake upon the removal of this dense cloud of\ncreatures which penetrated everywhere, leaving everywhere an evil odour,\nand of which a later sufferer complains, \"We could not eat, but we bit a\nlocust; nor open our mouths, but locusts filled them.\"\n\nTherefore he went on to entreat volubly, \"Forgive, I pray thee, my sin\nonly this once, and intreat Jehovah your God that He may take away from\nme this death only.\"\n\nAnd at the prayer of Moses, the Lord caused the breeze to veer and rise\ninto a hurricane: \"The Lord turned an exceeding strong west wind.\" Now,\nthe locust can float very well upon an easy breeze, and so it had been\nwafted over the Red Sea; but it is at once beaten down by a storm, and\nwhen it touches the water it is destroyed. Thus simply was the plague\nremoved.\n\n\"But the Lord made strong Pharaoh's heart,\" and so, his fears being\nconquered, his own rebellious will went on upon its evil way. He would\nnot let Israel go.\n\nThis narrative throws light upon a thousand vows made upon sick beds,\nbut broken when the sufferer recovers; and a thousand prayers for\namendment, breathed in all the sincerity of panic, and forgotten with\nall the levity of security. It shows also, in the hesitating and\nabortive half-submission of the tyrant, the greater folly of many\nprofessing Christians, who will, for Christ's sake, surrender all their\nsins except one or two, and make any confession except that which really\nbrings low their pride.\n\nThoroughness, decision, depth, and self-surrender, needed by Pharaoh,\nare needed by every soul of man.\n\n\nTHE NINTH PLAGUE.\n\nx. 21-29.\n\nWe have taken it as settled that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was\nMenephtah, the Beloved of the God Ptah. If so, his devotion to the gods\nthrows a curious light upon his first scorn of Jehovah, and his long\ncontinued resistance; and also upon the threat of vengeance to be\nexecuted upon the gods of Egypt, as if they were a resisting power. But\nthere is a special significance in the ninth plague, when we connect it\nwith Menephtah.\n\nIn the Tombs of the Kings at Thebes there is to be seen, fresh and\nlifelike, the admirably sculptured effigy of this king--a weak and cruel\nface, with the receding forehead of his race, but also their nose like a\nbeak, and their sharp chin. Over his head is the inscription--\n\n    \"Lord of the Two Lands, Beloved of the God Amen;\n    Lord of Diadems, Beloved of the God Ptah:\n    Crowned by Amen with dominion of the world:\n    Cherished by the Sun in the great abode.\"\n\nThis formidable personage is delineated by the court sculptor with his\nhand stretched out in worship, and under it is written \"He adores the\nSun: he worships Hor of the solar horizons.\"\n\nThe worship, thus chosen as the most characteristic of this king, either\nby himself or by some consummate artist, was to be tested now.\n\nCould the sun help him? or was it, like so many minor forces of earth\nand air, at the mercy of the God of Israel?\n\nThere is a terrible abruptness about the coming of the ninth plague.\nLike the third and sixth, it is inflicted unannounced; and the\nparleying, the driving of a bargain and then breaking it, by which the\neighth was attended, is quite enough to account for this. Moreover, the\nexperience of every man teaches him that each method has its own\nimpressiveness: the announcement of punishment awes, and a surprise\nalarms, and when they are alternated, every possible door of access to\nthe conscience is approached. If the heart of Pharaoh was now beyond\nhope, it does not follow that all his people were equally hardened. What\nan effect was produced upon those courtiers who so earnestly supported\nthe recent demand of Moses, when this new plague fell upon them\nunawares!\n\nBut not only is there no announcement: the narrative is so concentrated\nand brief as to give a graphic rendering of the surprise and terror of\nthe time. Not a word is wasted:--\n\n\"The Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that\nthere may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness that may be\nfelt. And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a\nthick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days: they saw not one\nanother, neither rose any from his place three days; but all the\nchildren of Israel had light in their dwellings\" (vers. 21-3). We are\nnot told anything of the emotions of the king, as the prophet strides\ninto his presence, and before the cowering court, silently raises his\nhand and quenches the day. We may infer his temper, if we please, from\nthe frantic outbreak of menace and rage in which he presently warns the\nman whose coming is the same thing as calamity to see his face no more.\nNothing is said, again, about the evil angels by which, according to\nlater narratives, that long night was haunted.[19] And after all it is\nmore impressive to think of the blank, utter paralysis of dread in which\na nation held its breath, benumbed and motionless, until vitality was\nalmost exhausted, and even Pharaoh chose rather to surrender than to\ndie.\n\nAs the people lay cowering in their fear, there was plenty to occupy\ntheir minds. They would remember the first dreadful threat, not yet\naccomplished, to slay their firstborn; and the later assertion that if\npestilence had not destroyed them, it was because God would plague them\nwith all His plagues. They would reflect upon all their defeated duties,\nand how the sun himself was now withdrawn at the waving of the prophet's\nhand. And then a ghastly foreboding would complete their dread. What was\nit that darkness typified, in every Oriental nation--nay, in all the\nworld? Death! Job speaks of\n\n    \"The land of darkness and of the shadow of death;\n    A land of thick darkness, as darkness itself;\n    A land of the shadow of death without any order,\n    And where the light is as darkness\" (x. 21, 22).\n\nWith us, a mortal sentence is given in a black cap; in the East, far\nmore expressively, the head of the culprit was covered, and the darkness\nwhich thus came upon him expressed his doom. Thus \"they covered Haman's\nface\" (Esther vii. 8). Thus to destroy \"the face of the covering that is\ncast over all peoples and the veil that is spread over all nations,\" is\nthe same thing as to \"swallow up death,\" being the visible destruction\nof the embodied death-sentence (Isa. xxv. 7, 8). And now this veil was\nspread over all the radiant land of Egypt. Chill, and hungry, and afraid\nto move, the worst horror of all that prolonged midnight was the mental\nagony of dire anticipation.\n\nIn other respects there had been far worse calamities, but through its\neffect upon the imagination this dreadful plague was a fit prelude to\nthe tenth, which it hinted and premonished.\n\nIn the Apocryphal Book of Wisdom there is a remarkable study of this\nplague, regarded as retribution in kind. It avenges the oppression of\nIsrael. \"For when unrighteous men thought to oppress the holy nation,\nthey being shut up in their houses, the prisoners of darkness, and\nfettered with the bonds of a long night, lay exiled from the eternal\nProvidence\" (xvii. 2). It expresses in the physical realm their\nspiritual misery: \"For while they supposed to lie hid in their secret\nsins, they were scattered under a thick veil of forgetfulness\" (ver. 3).\nIt retorted on them the illusions of their sorcerers: \"as for the\nillusions of art magick, they were put down.... For they, that promised\nto drive away terrors and troubles from a sick soul, were sick\nthemselves of fear, worthy to be laughed at\" (vers. 7, 8). In another\nplace the Egyptians are declared to be worse than the men of Sodom,\nbecause they brought into bondage friends and not strangers, and\ngrievously afflicted those whom they had received with feasting;\n\"therefore even with blindness were these stricken, as those were at the\ndoors of the righteous man.\" (xix. 14-17). And we may well believe that\nthe long night was haunted with special terrors, if we add this wise\nexplanation: \"For wickedness, condemned by her own witness, is very\ntimorous, and being pressed by conscience, always forecasteth grievous\nthings. For\"--and this is a sentence of transcendent merit--\"fear is\nnothing else than a betrayal of the succours that reason offereth\"\n(xvii. 11, 12). Therefore it is concluded that their own hearts were\ntheir worst tormentors, alarmed by whistling winds, or melodious song of\nbirds, or pleasing fall of waters, \"for the whole world shined with\nclear light, and none were hindered in their labour: over them only was\nspread a heavy night, an image of that darkness which should afterward\nreceive them: yet were they unto themselves more grievous than the\ndarkness\" (vers. 20, 21).\n\nIsaiah, too, who is full of allusions to the early history of his\npeople, finds in this plague of darkness an image of all mental distress\nand spiritual gloom. \"We look for light, but behold darkness; for\nbrightness, but we walk in obscurity: we grope for the wall like the\nblind, yea, we grope as those that have no eyes: we stumble at noonday\nas in the twilight\" (lix. 10). Here the sinful nation is reduced to the\nmisery of Egypt. But if she were obedient she would enjoy all the\nimmunities of her forefathers amid Egyptian gloom: \"Then shall thy light\nrise in darkness and thy obscurity as the noonday\" (lviii. 10);\n\"Darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people, but the\nLord shall arise upon thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee\" (lx.\n2).\n\nAnd, indeed, in the spiritual light which is sown for the righteous, and\nthe obscuration of the judgment of the impure, this miracle is ever\nreproduced.\n\nThe history of Menephtah is that of a mean and cowardly prince. Dreams\nforbade him to share the perils of his army; a prophecy induced him to\nsubmit to exile, until his firstborn was of age to recover his dominions\nfor him; and all we know of him is admirably suited to the character\nrepresented in this narrative. He will now submit once more, and this\ntime every one shall go; yet he cannot make a frank concession: the\nflocks and herds (most valuable after the ravages of the murrain and the\nhail) must remain as a hostage for their return. But Moses is\ninflexible: not a hoof shall be left behind; and then the frenzy of a\nbaffled autocrat breaks out into wild menaces; \"Get thee from me; take\nheed to thyself; see my face no more; for in the day thou seest my face\nthou shalt die.\" The assent of Moses was grim: the rupture was complete.\nAnd when they once more met, it was the king that had changed his\npurpose, and on his face, not that of Moses, was the pallor of impending\ndeath.\n\nIn the conduct of the prophet, all through these stormy scenes, we see\nthe difference between a meek spirit and a craven one. He was always\nready to intercede; he never \"reviles the ruler,\" nor transgresses the\nlimits of courtesy toward his superior in rank; and yet he never\nfalters, nor compromises, nor fails to represent worthily the awful\nPower he represents.\n\nIn the series of sharp contrasts, all the true dignity is with the\nservant of God, all the meanness and the shame with the proud king, who\nbegins by insulting him, goes on to impose on him, and ends by the most\nignominious of surrenders, crowned with the most abortive of treacheries\nand the most abject of defeats.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[18] Oddly enough, the same historian already quoted, relating the story\nof the same day at Leipsic, says of Napoleon's dialogue with M. de\nMerfeld, that he \"used an expression which, if uttered at the Congress\nof Prague, would have changed his lot and ours. Unfortunately, it was\nnow too late.\"\n\n[19] Such is probably not the meaning in Ps. lxxviii. 49 (see R.V.),\nthough from it the tradition may have sprung.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n\n_THE LAST PLAGUE ANNOUNCED._\n\nxi. 1-10.\n\nThe eleventh chapter is, strictly speaking, a supplement to the tenth:\nthe first verses speak, as if in parenthesis, of a revelation made\nbefore the ninth plague, but held over to be mentioned in connection\nwith the last, which it now announces; and the conversation with Pharaoh\nis a continuation of the same in which they mutually resolved to see\neach other's face no more. To account for the confidence of Moses, we\nare now told that God had revealed to him the close approach of the\nfinal blow, so long foreseen. In spite of seeming delays, the hour of\nthe promise had arrived; in spite of his long reluctance, the king\nshould even thrust them out; and then the order and discipline of their\nretreat would exhibit the advantages gained by expectation, by promises\nofttimes disappointed, but always, like a false alarm which tries the\nreadiness of a garrison, exhibiting the weak points in their\norganisation, and carrying their preparations farther.\n\nThe command given already to the women (iii. 22) is now extended to them\nall--that they should ask of the terror-stricken people such portable\nthings as, however precious, poorly requited their generations of unpaid\nand cruel toil. (It has been already shown that the word absurdly\nrendered \"borrow\" means to ask; and is the same as when Sisera _asked_\nwater and Jael gave him milk, and when Solomon _asked_ wisdom, and did\nnot _ask_ long life, neither _asked_ riches, neither _asked_ the life of\nhis enemies.) They were now to claim such wages as they could carry off,\nand thus the pride of Egypt was presently dedicated to construct and\nbeautify the tabernacle of Jehovah. We read that the people found favour\nwith the Egyptians, who were doubtless overjoyed to come to any sort of\nterms with them; \"moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of\nEgypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the\npeople.\" This is no unbecoming vaunt: it speaks only of the high place\nhe held, as God's deputy and herald; and this tone of keen appreciation\nof the rank conceded him, compared with the utter absence of any\ninsistence upon any action of his own, is evidence much rather of the\nauthenticity of the work than the reverse.\n\nBy these demands expectation and faith were intensified; while the\ntidings of such confidence on one side, and such tame submission on the\nother, goes far to explain the suspicions and the rage of Pharaoh.\n\nWith this the narrative is resumed. Moses had said, \"Thou shalt see my\nface no more.\" Now he adds, \"Thus saith Jehovah, About midnight\" (but\nnot on that same night, since four days of preparation for the passover\nwere yet to come) \"I will go out into the midst of Egypt.\" This, then,\nwas the meaning of his ready consent to be seen no more: Jehovah\nHimself, Who had dealt so dreadfully with them through other hands, was\nnow Himself to come. \"And all the firstborn of Egypt shall die,\" from\nthe firstborn and viceroy of the king to the firstborn of the meanest of\nwomen, and even of the cattle in their stalls. (It is surely a\nremarkable coincidence that Menephtah's heroic son did actually sit\nupon his throne, that inscriptions engraven during his life exhibit his\nname in the royal cartouche, but that he perished early, and long before\nhis father.) And the wail of demonstrative Oriental agony should be such\nas never was heard before. But the children of Israel should be\ndistinguished and protected by their God. And all these courtiers should\ncome and bow down before Moses (who even then has the good feeling not\nto include the king himself in this abasement), and instead of Pharaoh's\ninsulting \"Get thee from me--see my face no more,\" they should pray him\nsaying, \"Go hence, thou and thy people that follow thee.\" And\nremembering the abject entreaties, the infatuated treacheries, and now\nthis crowning insult, he went out from Pharaoh in hot anger. He was\nangry and sinned not.\n\nThe ninth and tenth verses are a kind of summary: the appeals to Pharaoh\nare all over, and henceforth we shall find Moses preparing his own\nfollowers for their exodus. \"And the Lord (had) said unto Moses, Pharaoh\nwill not hearken unto you, that My wonders may be multiplied in the land\nof Egypt. And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh; and\nthe Lord made strong Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of\nIsrael go out of his land.\"\n\nIn the Gospel of St. John there comes just such a period. The record of\nmiracle and controversy is at an end, and Jesus withdraws into the bosom\nof His intimate circle. It is scarcely possible that the evangelist was\nunconscious of the influence of this passage when he wrote: \"But though\nHe had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on Him,\nthat the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled which he spoke,\nLord, who hath believed our report?... For this cause they could not\nbelieve, because that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes and\nhardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes and perceive\nwith their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them\" (John xii.\n37-40).\n\nThis is the tragedy of Egypt repeated in Israel; and the fact that the\nchosen seed is now the reprobate suffices, if any doubt remain, to prove\nthat reprobation itself was not caprice, but retribution.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n\n_THE PASSOVER._\n\nxii. 1-28.\n\nWe have now reached the birthday of the great Hebrew nation, and with it\nthe first national institution, the feast of passover, which is also the\nfirst sacrifice of directly Divine institution, the earliest precept of\nthe Hebrew legislation, and the only one given in Egypt.\n\nThe Jews had by this time learned to feel that they were a nation, if it\nwere only through the struggle between their champion and the head of\nthe greatest nation in the world. And the first aspect in which the\nfeast of passover presents itself is that of a national commemoration.\n\nThis day was to be unto them the beginning of months; and in the change\nof their calendar to celebrate their emancipation, the device was\nanticipated by which France endeavoured to glorify the Revolution. All\ntheir reckoning was to look back to this signal event. \"And this day\nshall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it for a feast unto\nthe Lord; throughout your generations ye shall keep it a feast by an\nordinance for ever\" (xii. 14). \"It shall be for a sign unto thee upon\nthine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the law of the\nLord may be in thy mouth, for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought\nthee out of Egypt. Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in its\nseason from year to year\" (xiii. 9, 10).\n\nNow for the first time we read of \"the congregation of Israel\" (xii. 3,\n6), which was an assembly of the people represented by their elders (as\nmay be seen by comparing the third verse with the twenty-first); and\nthus we discover that the \"heads of houses\" have been drawn into a\nlarger unity. The clans are knit together into a nation.\n\nAccordingly, the feast might not be celebrated by any solitary man.\nCompanionship was vital to it. At every table one animal, complete and\nundissevered, should give to the feast a unity of sentiment; and as many\nshould gather around as were likely to leave none of it uneaten. Neither\nmight any of it be reserved to supply a hasty ration amid the confusion\nof the predicted march. The feast was to be one complete event, whole\nand perfect as the unity which it expressed. The very notion of a people\nis that of \"community\" in responsibilities, joys, and labours; and the\nsolemn law by virtue of which, at this same hour, one blow will fall\nupon all Egypt, must now be accepted by Israel. Therefore loneliness at\nthe feast of Passover is by the law, as well as in idea, impossible to\nany Jew. Every one can see the connection between this festival of unity\nand another, of which it is written, \"We, being many, are one body, one\nloaf, for we are all partakers of that one loaf.\"\n\nNow, the sentiment of nationality may so assert itself, like all\nexaggerated sentiments, as to assail others equally precious. In this\ncentury we have seen a revival of the Spartan theories which sacrificed\nthe family to the state. Socialism and the _phalanst\u00e8re_ have proposed\nto do by public organisation, with the force of law, what natural\ninstinct teaches us to leave to domestic influences. It is therefore\nworthy of notice that, as the chosen nation is carefully traced by\nrevelation back to a holy family, so the national festival did not\nignore the family tie, but consecrated it. The feast was to be eaten\n\"according to their fathers' houses\"; if a family were too small, it was\nto the \"neighbour next unto his house\" that each should turn for\nco-operation; and the patriotic celebration was to live on from age to\nage by the instruction which parents should carefully give their\nchildren (xii. 3, 26, xiii. 8).\n\nThe first ordinance of the Jewish religion was a domestic service. And\nthis arrangement is divinely wise. Never was a nation truly prosperous\nor permanently strong which did not cherish the sanctities of home.\nAncient Rome failed to resist the barbarians, not because her discipline\nhad degenerated, but because evil habits in the home had ruined her\npopulation. The same is notoriously true of at least one great nation\nto-day. History is the sieve of God, in which He continually severs the\nchaff from the grain of nations, preserving what is temperate and pure\nand calm, and therefore valorous and wise.\n\nIn studying the institution of the Passover, with its profound typical\nanalogies, we must not overlook the simple and obvious fact that God\nbuilt His nation upon families, and bade their great national\ninstitution draw the members of each home together.\n\nThe national character of the feast is shown further because no Egyptian\nfamily escaped the blow. Opportunities had been given to them to evade\nsome of the previous plagues. When the hail was announced, \"he that\nfeared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh made his\nservants and his cattle flee into the house\"; and this renders the\nnational solidarity, the partnership even of the innocent in the\npenalties of a people's guilt, the 'community' of a nation, more\napparent now. There was not a house where there was not one dead. The\nmixed multitude which came up with Israel came not because they had\nshared his exemptions, but because they dared not stay. It was an\nobject-lesson given to Israel, which might have warned all his\ngenerations.\n\nAnd if there is hideous vice in our own land to-day, or if the contrasts\nof poverty and wealth are so extreme that humanity is shocked by so much\nluxury insulting so much squalor,--if in any respect we feel that our\nown land, considering its supreme advantages, merits the wrath of God\nfor its unworthiness,--then we have to fear and strive, not through\npublic spirit alone, but as knowing that the chastisement of nations\nfalls upon the corporate whole, upon us and upon our children.\n\nBut if the feast of the Passover was a commemoration, it also claims to\nbe a sacrifice, and the first sacrifice which was Divinely founded and\ndirected.\n\nThis brings us face to face with the great question, What is the\ndoctrine which lies at the heart of the great institution of sacrifice?\n\nWe are not free to confine its meaning altogether to that which was\nvisible at the time. This would contradict the whole doctrine of\ndevelopment, the intention of God that Christianity should blossom from\nthe bud of Judaism, and the explicit assertion that the prophets were\nmade aware that the full meaning and the date of what they uttered was\nreserved for the instruction of a later period (1 Peter i. 12).\n\nBut neither may we overlook the first palpable significance of any\ninstitution. Sacrifices never could have been devised to be a blind and\nempty pantomime to whole generations, for the benefit of their\nsuccessors. Still less can one who believes in a genuine revelation to\nMoses suppose that their primary meaning was a false one, given in order\nthat some truth might afterwards develop out of it.\n\nWhat, then, might a pious and well-instructed Israelite discern beneath\nthe surface of this institution?\n\nTo this question there have been many discordant answers, and the\nvariance is by no means confined to unbelieving critics. Thus, a\ndistinguished living expositor says in connection with the Paschal\ninstitution, \"We speak not of blood as it is commonly understood, but of\nblood as the life, the love, the heart,--the whole quality of Deity.\"\nBut it must be answered that Deity is the last suggestion which blood\nwould convey to a Jewish mind: distinctly it is creature-life that it\nexpresses; and the New Testament commentators make it plain that no\nother notion had even then evolved itself: they think of the offering of\nthe Body of Jesus Christ, not of His Deity.[20] Neither of this feast,\nnor of that which the gospel of Jesus has evolved from it, can we find\nthe solution by forgetting that the elements of the problem are, not\ndeity, but a Body and Blood.\n\nBut when we approach the theories of rationalistic thinkers, we find a\nperfect chaos of rival speculations.\n\nWe are told that the Hebrew feasts were really agricultural--\"Harvest\nfestivals,\" and that the epithet Passover had its origin in the passage\nof the sun into Aries. But this great festival had a very secondary and\nsubordinate connection with harvest (only the waving of a sheaf upon the\nsecond day) while the older calendar which was displaced to do it honour\nwas truly agricultural, as may still be seen by the phrase, \"The feast\nof ingathering _at the end of the year_, when thou gatherest in thy\nlabours out of the field\" (Exod. xxiii. 16).\n\nIn dealing with unbelief we must look at things from the unbelieving\nangle of vision. No sceptical theory has any right to invoke for its\nhelp a special and differentiating quality in Hebrew thought. Reject the\nsupernatural, and the Jewish religion is only one among a number of\nsimilar creations of the mind of man \"moving about in worlds\nunrecognised.\" And therefore we must ask, What notions of sacrifice were\nentertained, all around, when the Hebrew creed was forming itself?\n\nNow, we read that \"in the early days ... a sacrifice was a meal.... Year\nafter year, the return of vintage, corn-harvest, and sheep-shearing\nbrought together the members of the household to eat and drink in the\npresence of Jehovah.... When an honoured guest arrives there is\nslaughtered for him a calf, not without an offering of the blood and fat\nto the Deity\" (Wellhausen, _Israel_, p. 76). Of the sense of sin and\npropitiation \"the ancient sacrifices present few traces.... An\nunderlying reference of sacrifice to sin, speaking generally, was\nentirely absent. The ancient sacrifices were wholly of a joyous\nnature--a merry-making before Jehovah with music\" (_ibid._, p. 81).\n\nWe are at once confronted by the question, Where did the Jewish nation\ncome by such a friendly conception of their deity? They had come out of\nEgypt, where human sacrifices were not rare. They had settled in\nPalestine, where such idyllic notions must have been as strange as in\nmodern Ashantee. And we are told that human sacrifices (such as that of\nIsaac and of Jephthah's daughter) belong to this older period (p. 69).\nAre _they_ joyous and festive? are they not an endeavour, by the\noffering up of something precious, to reconcile a Being Who is\nestranged? With our knowledge of what existed in Israel in the period\nconfessed to be historical, and of the meaning of sacrifices all around\nin the period supposed to be mythical, and with the admission that human\nsacrifices must be taken into account, it is startling to be asked to\nbelieve that Hebrew sacrifices, with all their solemn import and all\ntheir freight of Christian symbolism, were originally no more than a\ngift to the Deity of a part of some happy banquet.\n\nIt is quite plain that no such theory can be reconciled with the story\nof the first passover. And accordingly this is declared to be\nnon-historical, and to have originated in the time of the later kings.\nThe offering of the firstborn is only \"the expression of thankfulness to\nthe Deity for fruitful flocks and herds. If claim is also laid to the\nhuman firstborn, this is merely a later generalisation\" (Wellhausen, p.\n88).[21]\n\nBut this claim is by no means the only stumbling-block in the way of the\ntheory, serious a stumbling-block though it be. How came the bright\nfestival to be spoiled by bitter herbs and \"bread of affliction\"? Is it\nnatural that a merry feast should grow more austere as time elapses? Do\nwe not find it hard enough to prevent the most sacred festivals from\nreversing the supposed process, and degenerating into revels? And is not\nthis the universal experience, from San Francisco to Bombay? Why was the\nmandate given to sprinkle the door of every house with blood, if the\nstory originated after the feast had been centralised in Jerusalem,\nwhen, in fact, this precept had to be set aside as impracticable, their\nhomes being at a distance? Why, again, were they bidden to slaughter the\nlamb \"between the two evenings\" (Exod. xii. 6)--that is to say, between\nsunset and the fading out of the light--unless the story was written\nlong before such numbers had to be dealt with that the priests began to\nslaughter early in the afternoon, and continued until night? Why did the\nnarrative set forth that every man might slaughter for his own house (a\ncustom which still existed in the time of Hezekiah, when the Levites\nonly slaughtered \"the passovers\" for those who were not ceremonially\nclean, 2 Chron. xxx. 17), if there were no stout and strong historical\nfoundation for the older method?\n\nStranger still, why was the original command invented, that the lamb\nshould be chosen and separated four days before the feast? There is no\ntrace of any intention that this precept should apply to the first\npassover alone. It is somewhat unexpected there, interrupting the hurry\nand movement of the narrative with an interval of quiet expectation, not\notherwise hinted at, which we comprehend and value when discovered,\nrather than anticipate in advance. It is the very last circumstance\nwhich the Priestly Code would have invented, when the time which could\nbe conveniently spent upon a pilgrimage was too brief to suffer the\ncustom to be perpetuated. The selection of the lamb upon the tenth day,\nthe slaying of it at home, the striking of the blood upon the door, and\nthe use of hyssop, as in other sacrifices, with which to sprinkle it,\nwhether upon door or altar; the eating of the feast standing, with staff\nin hand and girded loins; the application only to one day of the precept\nto eat no leavened bread, and the sharing in the feast by all, without\nregard to ceremonial defilement,--all these are cardinal differences\nbetween the first passover and later ones. Can we be blind to their\nsignificance? Even a drastic revision of the story, such as some have\nfancied, would certainly have expunged every divergence upon points so\ncapital as these. Nor could any evidence of the antiquity of the\ninstitution be clearer than its existence in a form, the details of\nwhich have had to be so boldly modified under the pressure of the\nexigencies of the later time.\n\nTaking, then, the narrative as it stands, we place ourselves by an\neffort of the historical imagination among those to whom Moses gave his\ninstructions, and ask what emotions are excited as we listen.\n\nCertainly no light and joyous feeling that we are going to celebrate a\nfeast, and share our good things with our deity. Nay, but an alarmed\nsurprise. Hitherto, among the admonitory and preliminary plagues of\nEgypt, Israel had enjoyed a painless and unbought exemption. The murrain\nhad not slain their cattle, nor the locusts devoured their land, nor the\ndarkness obscured their dwellings. Such admonitions they needed not. But\nnow the judgment itself is impending, and they learn that they, like\nthe Egyptians whom they have begun to despise, are in danger from the\ndestroying angel. The first paschal feast was eaten by no man with a\nlight heart. Each listened for the rustling of awful wings, and grew\ncold, as under the eyes of the death which was, even then, scrutinising\nhis lintels and his doorposts.\n\nAnd this would set him thinking that even a gracious God, Who had \"come\ndown\" to save him from his tyrants, discerned in him grave reasons for\ndispleasure, since his acceptance, while others died, was not of course.\nHis own conscience would then quickly tell him what some at least of\nthose reasons were.\n\nBut he would also learn that the exemption which he did not possess by\nright (although a son of Abraham) he might obtain through grace. The\ngoodness of God did not pronounce him safe, but it pointed out to him a\nway of salvation. He would scarcely observe, so entirely was it a matter\nof course, that this way must be of God's appointment and not of his own\ninvention--that if he devised much more costly, elaborate and imposing\nceremonies to replace those which Moses taught him, he would perish like\nany Egyptian who devised nothing, but simply cowered under the shadow of\nthe impending doom.\n\nNor was the salvation without price. It was not a prayer nor a fast\nwhich bought it, but a life. The conviction that a redemption was\nnecessary if God should be at once just and a justifier of the ungodly\nsprang neither from a later hairsplitting logic, nor from a methodising\ntheological science; it really lay upon the very surface of this and\nevery offering for sin, as distinguished from those offerings which\nexpressed the gratitude of the accepted.\n\nWe have not far to search for evidence that the lamb was really regarded\nas a substitute and ransom. The assertion is part and parcel of the\nnarrative itself. For, in commemoration of this deliverance, every\nfirstborn of Israel, whether of man or beast, was set apart unto the\nLord. The words are, \"Thou shall cause to PASS OVER unto the Lord all\nthat openeth the womb, and every firstling which thou hast that cometh\nof a beast; the males shall be the Lord's\" (xiii. 12). What, then,\nshould be done with the firstborn of a creature unfit for sacrifice? It\nshould be replaced by a clean offering, and then it was said to be\nredeemed. Substitution or death was the inexorable rule. \"Every\nfirstborn of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb, and if thou wilt not\nredeem it, then thou shalt break its neck.\" The meaning of this\ninjunction is unmistakable. But it applies also to man: \"All thy\nfirstborn of man among thy sons thou shalt redeem.\" And when their sons\nshould ask \"What meaneth this?\" they were to explain that when Pharaoh\nhardened himself against letting them go from Egypt, \"the Lord slew all\nthe firstborn in the land; ... therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all\nthat openeth the womb being males; but all the firstborn of my sons I\nredeem\" (xiii. 12-15).\n\nWords could not more plainly assert that the lives of the firstborn of\nIsrael were forfeited, that they were bought back by the substitution of\nanother creature, which died instead, and that the transaction answered\nto the Passover (\"thou shalt cause to pass over unto the Lord\").\nPresently the tribe of Levi was taken \"instead of all the firstborn of\nthe children of Israel.\" But since there were two hundred and\nseventy-three of such firstborn children over and above the number of\nthe Levites, it became necessary to \"redeem\" these; and this was\nactually done by a cash payment of five shekels apiece. Of this payment\nthe same phrase is used: it is \"redemption-money\"--the money wherewith\nthe odd number of them is redeemed (Num. iii. 44-51).\n\nThe question at present is not whether modern taste approves of all\nthis, or resents it: we are simply inquiring whether an ancient Jew was\ntaught to think of the lamb as offered in his stead.\n\nAnd now let it be observed that this idea has sunk deep into all the\nliterature of Palestine. The Jews are not so much the beloved of Jehovah\nas His redeemed--\"Thy people whom Thou hast redeemed\" (1 Chron. xvii.\n21). In fresh troubles the prayer is, \"Redeem Israel, O Lord\" (Ps. xxv.\n22), and the same word is often used where we have ignored the allusion\nand rendered it \"_Deliver_ me because of mine enemies ... _deliver_ me\nfrom the oppression of men\" (Ps. lxix. 18, cxix. 134). And the future\ntroubles are to end in a deliverance of the same kind: \"The _ransomed_\nof the Lord shall return and come with singing unto Zion\" (Isa. xxxv.\n10, li. 11); and at the last \"I will _ransom_ them from the power of the\ngrave\" (Hos. xiii. 14). In all these places, the word is the same as in\nthis narrative.\n\nIt is not too much to say that if modern theology were not affected by\nthis ancient problem, if we regarded the creed of the Hebrews simply as\nwe look at the mythologies of other peoples, there would be no more\ndoubt that the early Jews believed in propitiatory sacrifice than that\nPhoenicians did. We should simply admire the purity, the absence of\ncruel and degrading accessories, with which this most perilous and yet\nhumbling and admonitory doctrine was held in Israel.\n\nThe Christian applications of this doctrine must be considered along\nwith the whole question of the typical character of the history. But it\nis not now premature to add, that even in the Old Testament there is\nabundant evidence that the types were semi-transparent, and behind them\nsomething greater was discerned, so that after it was written \"Bring no\nmore vain oblations,\" Isaiah could exclaim, \"The Lord hath laid on Him\nthe iniquity of us all. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter. When Thou\nshalt make His soul a trespass-offering He shall see His seed\" (Isa. i.\n13, liii. 6, 7, 10). And the full power of this last verse will only be\nfelt when we remember the statement made elsewhere of the principle\nwhich underlay the sacrifices: \"the life (_or_ soul) of the flesh is in\nthe blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement\nfor your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of\nthe life\" (_or_ \"soul\"--Lev. xvii. 11, R.V.) It is even startling to\nread the two verses together: \"Thou shalt make His soul a\ntrespass-offering;\" \"The blood maketh atonement by reason of the soul\n... the soul of the flesh is in the blood.\"[22]\n\nIt is still more impressive to remember that a Servant of Jehovah has\nactually arisen in Whom this doctrine has assumed a form acceptable to\nthe best and holiest intellects and consciences of ages and\ncivilisations widely remote from that in which it was conceived.\n\nAnother doctrine preached by the passover to every Jew was that he must\nbe a worker together with God, must himself use what the Lord pointed\nout, and his own lintels and doorposts must openly exhibit the fact that\nhe laid claim to the benefit of the institution of the Lord Jehovah's\npassover. With what strange feelings, upon the morrow, did the orphaned\npeople of Egypt discover the stain of blood on the forsaken houses of\nall their emancipated slaves!\n\nThe lamb having been offered up to God, a new stage in the symbolism is\nentered upon. The body of the sacrifice, as well as the blood, is His:\n\"Ye shall eat it in haste, it is the Lord's passover\" (ver. 11). Instead\nof being a feast of theirs, which they share with Him, it is an offering\nof which, when the blood has been sprinkled on the doors, He permits His\npeople, now accepted and favoured, to partake. They are His guests; and\ntherefore He prescribes all the manner of their eating, the attitude so\nexpressive of haste, and the unleavened \"bread of affliction\" and bitter\nherbs, which told that the object of this feast was not the indulgence\nof the flesh but the edification of the spirit, \"a feast unto the Lord.\"\n\nAnd in the strength of this meat they are launched upon their new\ncareer, freemen, pilgrims of God, from Egyptian bondage to a Promised\nLand.\n\nIt is now time to examine the chapter in more detail, and gather up such\npoints as the preceding discussion has not reached.\n\n(Ver. 1.) The opening words, \"Jehovah spake unto Moses and Aaron in the\nland of Egypt,\" have all the appearance of opening a separate document,\nand suggest, with certain other evidence, the notion of a fragment\nwritten very shortly after the event, and afterwards incorporated into\nthe present narrative. And they are, in the same degree, favourable to\nthe authenticity of the book.\n\n(Ver. 2.) The commandment to link their emancipation with a festival,\nand with the calendar, is the earliest example and the sufficient\nvindication of sacred festivals, which, even yet, some persons consider\nto be superstitious and judaical. But it is a strange doctrine that the\nPassover deserved honour better than Easter does, or that there is\nanything more servile and unchristian in celebrating the birth of all\nthe hopes of all mankind than in commemorating one's own birth.\n\n(Ver. 5.) The selection of a lamb for a sacrifice so quickly became\nuniversal, that there is no trace anywhere of the use of a kid in place\nof it. The alternative is therefore an indication of antiquity, while\nthe qualities required--innocent youth and the absence of blemish, were\nsure to suggest a typical significance. For, if they were merely to\nenhance its value, why not choose a costlier animal?\n\nVarious meanings have been discovered in the four days during which it\nwas reserved; but perhaps the true object was to give time for\ndeliberation, for the solemnity and import of the institution to fill\nthe minds of the people; time also for preparation, since the night\nitself was one of extreme haste, and prompt action can only be obtained\nby leisurely anticipation. We have Scriptural authority for applying it\nto the Antitype, Who also was foredoomed, \"the Lamb slain from the\nfoundation of the world\" (Rev. xiii. 8).\n\nBut now it has to be observed that throughout the poetic literature the\npeople is taught to think of itself as a flock of sheep. \"Thou leddest\nThy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron\" (Ps. lxxvii.\n20); \"We are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture\" (Ps. lxxix. 13);\n\"All we like sheep have gone astray\" (Isa. liii. 6); \"Ye, O My sheep,\nthe sheep of My pasture, are men\" (Ezek. xxxiv. 31); \"The Lord of hosts\nhath visited His flock\" (Zech. x. 3). All such language would make more\neasy the conception that what replaced the forfeited life was in some\nsense, figuratively, in the religious idea, a kindred victim. One who\noffered a lamb as his substitute sang \"The Lord is my shepherd.\" \"I have\ngone astray like a lost sheep\" (Ps. xxiii. 1, cxix. 176).\n\n(Ver. 3, 6.) Very instructive it is that this first sacrifice of Judaism\ncould be offered by all the heads of houses. We have seen that the\nLevites were presently put into the place of the eldest son, but also\nthat this function was exercised down to the time of Hezekiah by all who\nwere ceremonially clean, whereas the opposite holds good, immediately\nafterwards, in the great passover of Josiah (2 Chron. xxx. 17, xxxv.\n11).\n\nIt is impossible that this incongruity could be devised, for the sake of\nplausibility, in a narrative which rested on no solid basis. It goes far\nto establish what has been so anxiously denied--the reality of the\ncentralised worship in the time of Hezekiah. And it also establishes the\ngreat doctrine that priesthood was held not by a superior caste, but on\nbehalf of the whole nation, in whom it was theoretically vested, and for\nwhom the priest acted, so that they were \"a nation of priests.\"\n\n(Ver. 8.) The use of unleavened bread is distinctly said to be in\ncommemoration of their haste--\"for thou camest out of Egypt in haste\"\n(Deut. xvi. 3)--but it does not follow that they were forced by haste to\neat their bread unleavened at the first. It was quite as easy to prepare\nleavened bread as to provide the paschal lamb four days previously.\n\nWe may therefore seek for some further explanation, and this we find in\nthe same verse in Deuteronomy, in the expression \"bread of affliction.\"\nThey were to receive the meat of passover with a reproachful sense of\ntheir unworthiness: humbly, with bread of affliction and with bitter\nherbs.\n\nMoreover, we learn from St. Paul that unleavened bread represents\nsimplicity and truth; and our Lord spoke of the leaven of the Pharisees\nand of Herod (Mark viii. 15). And this is not only because leaven was\nsupposed to be of the same nature as corruption. We ourselves always\nmean something unworthy when we speak of _mixed_ motives, possible\nthough it be to act from two motives, both of them high-minded. Now,\nleaven represents mixture in its most subtle and penetrating form.\n\nThe paschal feast did not express any such luxurious and sentimental\nreligionism as finds in the story of the cross an easy joy, or even a\ndelicate and pleasing stimulus for the softer emotions, \"a very lovely\nsong of one that hath a pleasant voice, and playeth well on an\ninstrument.\" No, it has vigour and nourishment for those who truly\nhunger, but its bread is unfermented, and it must be eaten with bitter\nherbs.\n\n(Ver. 9.) Many Jewish sacrifices were \"sodden,\" but this had to be roast\nwith fire. It may have been to represent suffering that this was\nenjoined. But it comes to us along with a command to consume all the\nflesh, reserving none and rejecting none. Now, though boiling does not\nmutilate, it dissipates; a certain amount of tissue is lost, more is\nrelaxed, and its cohesion rendered feeble; and so the duty of its\ncomplete reception is accentuated by the words \"not sodden at all with\nwater.\" Nor should it be a barbarous feast, such as many idolatries\nencouraged: true religion civilises; \"eat not of it at all raw.\"\n\n(Ver. 10.) Nor should any of it be left until the morning. At the first\ncelebration, with a hasty exodus impending, this would have involved\nexposure to profanation. In later times it might have involved\nsuperstitious abuses. And therefore the same rule is laid down which the\nChurch of England has carried on for the same reasons into the Communion\nfeast--that all must be consumed. Nor can we fail to see an ideal\nfitness in the precept. Of the gift of God we may not select what\ngratifies our taste or commends itself to our desires; all is good; all\nmust be accepted; a partial reception of His grace is no valid reception\nat all.\n\n(Ver. 12.) In describing the coming wrath, we understand the inclusion\nequally of innocent and guilty men, because it is thus that all national\nvengeance operates; and we receive the benefits of corporate life at the\ncost, often heavy, of its penalties. The animal world also has to suffer\nwith us; the whole creation groaneth together now, and all expects\ntogether the benefit of our adoption hereafter. But what were the\njudgments against the idols of Egypt, which this verse predicts, and\nanother (Num. xxxiii. 4) declares to be accomplished? They doubtless\nconsisted chiefly in the destruction of sacred animals, from the beetle\nand the frog to the holy ox of Apis--from the cat, the monkey, and the\ndog, to the lion, the hippopotamus, and the crocodile. In their\noverthrow a blow was dealt which shook the whole system to its\nfoundation; for how could the same confidence be felt in sacred images\nwhen all the sacred beasts had once been slain by a rival invisible\nSpiritual Being! And more is implied than that they should share the\ncommon desolation: the text says plainly, of men and beasts the\nfirstborn must die, but all of these. The difference in the phrase is\nobvious and indisputable; and in its fulfilment all Egypt saw the act of\na hostile and victorious deity.\n\n(Ver. 13.) \"And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses\nwhere ye are.\" That it was a token to the destroying angel we see\nplainly; but why _to them?_ Is it enough to explain the assertion, with\nsome, as meaning, upon their behalf? Rather let us say that the\npublicity, the exhibition upon their doorposts of the sacrifice offered\nwithin, was not to inform and guide the angel, but to edify the people.\nThey should perform an open act of faith. Their houses should be visibly\nset apart. \"With the mouth confession\" (of faith) \"is made unto\nsalvation,\" unto that deliverance from a hundred evasions and\nequivocations, and as many inward doubts and hesitations, which comes\nwhen any decisive act is done, when the die is cast and the Rubicon\ncrossed. A similar effect upon the mind, calming and steadying it, was\nproduced when the Israelite carried out the blood of the lamb, and by\nsprinkling it upon the doorpost formally claimed his exemption, and\nreturned with the consciousness that between him and the imminent death\na visible barrier interposed itself.\n\nWill any one deny that a similar help is offered to us of the later\nChurch in our many opportunities of avowing a fixed and personal belief?\nWhoever refuses to comply with an unholy custom because he belongs to\nChrist, whoever joins heartily in worship at the cost of making himself\nremarkable, whoever nerves himself to kneel at the Holy Table although\nhe feels himself unworthy, that man has broken through many snares; he\nhas gained assurance that his choice of God is a reality: he has shown\nhis flag; and this public avowal is not only a sign to others, but also\na token to himself.\n\nBut this is only half the doctrine of this action. What he should thus\nopenly avow was his trust (as we have shown) in atoning blood.\n\nAnd in the day of our peril what shall be our reliance? That our doors\nare trodden by orthodox visitants only? that the lintels are clean, and\nthe inhabitants temperate and pure? or that the Blood of Christ has\ncleansed our conscience?\n\nTherefore (ver. 22) the blood was sprinkled with hyssop, of which the\nlight and elastic sprays were admirably suited for such use, but which\nwas reserved in the Law for those sacrifices which expiated sin (Lev.\nxiv. 49; Num. xix. 18, 19). And therefore also none should go forth out\nof his house until the morning, for we are not to content ourselves with\nhaving once invoked the shelter of God: we are to abide under its\nprotection while danger lasts.\n\nAnd (ver. 23) upon the condition of this marking of their doorposts the\nLord should _pass over_ their houses. The phrase is noteworthy, because\nit recurs throughout the narrative, being employed nine times in this\nchapter; and because the same word is found in Isaiah, again in contrast\nwith the ruin of others, and with an interesting and beautiful\nexpansion of the hovering poised notion which belongs to the word.[23]\n\nRepeated commandments are given to parents to teach the meaning of this\ninstitution to their children, (xii. 26, xiii. 8). And there is\nsomething almost cynical in the notion of a later mythologist devising\nthis appeal to a tradition which had no existence at all; enrolling, in\nsupport of his new institutions, the testimony (which had never been\nborne) of fathers who had never taught any story of the kind.\n\nOn the other hand, there is something idyllic and beautiful in the\nminute instruction given to the heads of families to teach their\nchildren, and in the simple words put into their mouths, \"It is because\nof that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt.\" It\ncarries us forward to these weary days when children scarcely see the\nface of one who goes out to labour before they are awake, and returns\nexhausted when their day is over, and who himself too often needs the\nmost elementary instruction, these heartless days when the teaching of\nreligion devolves, in thousands of families, upon the stranger who\ninstructs, for one hour in the week, a class in Sunday-school. The\ncontrast is not reassuring.\n\nWhen all these instructions were given to Israel, the people bowed their\nheads and worshipped. The bones of most of them were doomed to whiten in\nthe wilderness. They perished by serpents and by \"the destroyer\"; they\nfell in one day three-and-twenty thousand, because they were\ndiscontented and rebellious and unholy. And yet they could adore the\ngracious Giver of promises and Slayer of foes. They would not obey, but\nthey were quite ready to accept benefits, to experience deliverance, to\nbecome the favourites of heaven, to march to Palestine. So are too many\nfain to be made happy, to find peace, to taste the good word of God and\nthe powers of the age to come, to go to heaven. But they will not take\nup a cross. They will murmur if the well is bitter, if they have no\nflesh but only angels' food, if the goodly land is defended by powerful\nenemies.\n\nOn these terms, they cannot be Christ's disciples.\n\nIt is apparently the mention of a mixed multitude, who came with Israel\nout of Egypt, which suggests the insertion, in a separate and dislocated\nparagraph, of the law of the passover concerning strangers (vers. 38,\n43-49).\n\nAn alien was not to eat thereof: it belonged especially to the covenant\npeople. But who was a stranger? A slave should be circumcised and eat\nthereof; for it was one of the benignant provisions of the law that\nthere should not be added, to the many severities of his condition, any\nreligious disabilities. The time would come when all nations should be\nblessed in the seed of Abraham. In that day the poor would receive a\nspecial beatitude; and in the meantime, as the first indication of\ncatholicity beneath the surface of an exclusive ritual, it was\nannounced, foremost among those who should be welcomed within the fold,\nthat a slave should be circumcised and eat the passover.\n\nAnd if a sojourner desired to eat thereof, he should be mindful of his\ndomestic obligations: all his males should be circumcised along with\nhim, and then his disabilities were at an end. Surely we can see in\nthese provisions the germ of the broader and more generous welcome which\nChrist offers to the world. Let it be added that this admission of\nstrangers had been already implied at verse 19; while every form of\ncoercion was prohibited by the words \"a sojourner and a hired servant\nshall not eat of it,\" in verse 45.\n\n\n_THE TENTH PLAGUE._\n\nxii. 29-36.\n\nAnd now the blow fell. Infants grew cold in their mothers' arms; ripe\nstatesmen and crafty priests lost breath as they reposed: the wisest,\nthe strongest and the most hopeful of the nation were blotted out at\nonce, for the firstborn of a population is its flower.\n\nPharaoh Menephtah had only reached the throne by the death of two elder\nbrethren, and therefore history confirms the assertion that he \"rose\nup,\" when the firstborn were dead; but it also justifies the statement\nthat his firstborn died, for the gallant and promising youth who had\nreconquered for him his lost territories, and who actually shared his\nrule and \"sat upon the throne,\" Menephtah Seti, is now shown to have\ndied early, and never to have held an independent sceptre.\n\nWe can imagine the scene. Suspense and terror must have been wide\nspread; for the former plagues had given authority to the more dreadful\nthreat, the fulfilment of which was now to be expected, since all\nnegotiations between Moses and Pharaoh had been formally broken off.\n\nStrange and confident movements and doubtless menacing expressions\namong the Hebrews would also make this night a fearful one, and there\nwas little rest for \"those who feared the Lord among the servants of\nPharaoh.\" These, knowing where the danger lay, would watch their\nfirstborn well, and when the ashy change came suddenly upon a blooming\nface, and they raised the wild cry of Eastern bereavement, then others\nawoke to the same misery. From remote villages and lonely hamlets the\nclamour of great populations was echoed back; and when, under midnight\nskies in which the strong wind of the morrow was already moaning, the\nawestruck people rushed into their temples, there the corpses of their\nanimal deities glared at them with glassy eyes.\n\nThus the cup which they had made their slaves to drink was put in larger\nmeasure to their own lips at last, and not infants only were snatched\naway, but sons around whom years of tenderness had woven stronger ties;\nand the loss of their bondsmen, from which they feared so much national\nweakness, had to be endured along with a far deadlier drain of their own\nlife-blood. The universal wail was bitter, and hopeless, and full of\nterror even more than woe; for they said, \"We be all dead men.\" Without\nthe consolation of ministering by sick beds, or the romance and gallant\nexcitement of war, \"there was not a house where there was not one dead,\"\nand this is said to give sharpness to the statement that there was a\ngreat cry in Egypt.\n\nThen came such a moment as the Hebrew temperament keenly enjoyed, when\n\"the sons of them that oppressed them came bending unto them, and all\nthey that despised them bowed themselves down at the soles of their\nfeet.\" Pharaoh sent at midnight to surrender everything that could\npossibly be demanded, and in his abject fear added, \"and bless me\nalso\"; and the Egyptians were urgent on them to begone, and when they\ndemanded the portable wealth of the land,--a poor ransom from a\nvanquished enemy, and a still poorer payment for generations of forced\nlabour,--\"the Lord gave them favour\" (is there not a saturnine irony in\nthe phrase?) \"in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have\nwhat they asked. And they spoiled the Egyptians.\"\n\nBy this analogy St. Augustine defended the use of heathen learning in\ndefence of Christian truth. Clogged by superstitions, he said, it\ncontained also liberal instruction, and truths even concerning\nGod--\"gold and silver which they did not themselves create, but dug out\nof the mines of God's providence, and misapplied. These we should\nreclaim, and apply to Christian use\" (_De Doct. Chr._, 60, 61).\n\nAnd the main lesson of the story lies so plainly upon the surface that\none scarcely needs to state it. What God requires _must_ ultimately be\ndone; and human resistance, however stubborn and protracted, will only\nmake the result more painful and more signal at the last.\n\nNow, every concern of our obscure daily lives comes under this law as\nsurely as the actions of a Pharaoh.\n\n\n_THE EXODUS._\n\nxii. 37-42.\n\nThe children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. Already, at\nthe outset of their journey, controversy has had much to say about their\nroute. Much ingenuity has been expended upon the theory which brought\ntheir early journey along the Mediterranean coast, and made the\noverthrow of the Egyptians take place in \"that Serbonian bog where\narmies whole have sunk.\" But it may fairly be assumed that this view was\nrefuted even before the recent identification of the sites of Rameses\nand Pi-hahiroth rendered it untenable.\n\nHow came these trampled slaves, who could not call their lives their\nown, to possess the cattle which we read of as having escaped the\nmurrain, and the number of which is here said to have been very great?\n\nJust before Moses returned, and when the Pharaoh of the Exodus appears\nupon the scene, we are told that \"their cry came up unto God, ... and\nGod heard their groaning, and God remembered His covenant ... and God\nsaw the children of Israel, and God took knowledge of them\" (ii. 23).\n\nMay not this verse point to something unrecorded, some event before\ntheir final deliverance? The conjecture is a happy one that it refers to\ntheir share in the revolt of subject races which drove Menephtah for\ntwelve years out of his northern territories. If so, there was time for\na considerable return of prosperity; and the retention or forfeiture of\ntheir chattels when they were reconquered would depend very greatly upon\ncircumstances unknown to us. At all events, this revolt is evidence,\nwhich is amply corroborated by history and the inscriptions, of the\nexistence of just such a discontented and servile element in the\npopulation as the \"mixed multitude\" which came out with them repeatedly\nproved itself to be.\n\nBut here we come upon a problem of another kind. How long was Israel in\nthe house of bondage? Can we rely upon the present Hebrew text, which\nsays that \"their sojourning which they sojourned in Egypt, was four\nhundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of the four\nhundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that\nall the hosts of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt\" (xii. 40, 41).\n\nCertain ancient versions have departed from this text. The Septuagint\nreads, \"The sojourning of the children of Israel which they sojourned in\nEgypt and _in the land of Canaan_, was four hundred and thirty years\";\nand the Samaritan agrees with this, except that it has \"the sojourning\nof the children of Israel and _of their fathers_.\" The question is,\nwhich reading is correct? Must we date the four hundred and thirty years\nfrom Abraham's arrival in Canaan, or from Jacob's descent into Egypt?\n\nFor the shorter period there are two strong arguments. The genealogies\nin the Pentateuch range from four persons to six between Jacob and the\nExodus, which number is quite unable to reach over four centuries. And\nSt. Paul says of the covenant with Abraham that \"the law which came four\nhundred and thirty years after\" (_i.e._ after the time of Abraham)\n\"could not disannul it\" (Gal. iii. 17).\n\nThis reference by St. Paul is not so decisive as it may appear, because\nhe habitually quotes the Septuagint, even where he must have known that\nit deviates from the Hebrew, provided that the deviation does not\ncompromise the matter in hand. Here, he was in nowise concerned with the\nchronology, and had no reason to perplex a Gentile church by correcting\nit. But it was a different matter with St. Stephen, arguing his case\nbefore the Hebrew council. And he quotes plainly and confidently the\nprediction that the seed of Abraham should be four hundred years in\nbondage, and that one nation should entreat them evil four hundred\nyears (Acts vii. 6). Again, this is the clear intention of the words in\nGenesis (xv. 13). And as to the genealogies, we know them to have been\ncut down, so that seven names are omitted from that of Ezra, and three\nat least from that of our Lord Himself. Certainly when we consider the\ngreat population implied in an army of six hundred thousand adult men,\nwe must admit that the longer period is inherently the more probable of\nthe two. But we can only assert with confidence that just when their\ndeliverance was due it was accomplished, and they who had come down a\nhandful, and whom cruel oppression had striven to decimate, came forth,\nno undisciplined mob, but armies moving in organised and regulated\ndetachments: \"the Lord did bring the children of Israel forth by their\nhosts\" (ver. 51). \"And the children of Israel went up armed out of the\nland of Egypt\" (xiii. 18).\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[20] Though of course the Person Whose Body was thus offered is Divine\n(Acts xx. 28), and this gives inestimable value to the offering.\n\n[21] Here the sceptical theorists are widely divided among themselves.\nKuenen has discussed this whole theory, and rejected it as\n\"irreconcilable with what the Old Testament itself asserts in\njustification of this sacrifice.\" And he is driven to connect it with\nthe notion of atonement. \"Jahveh appears as a severe being who must be\npropitiated with sacrifices.\" He has therefore to introduce the notion\nof human sacrifice, in order to get rid of the connection with the penal\ndeath of the Egyptians, and of the miraculous, which this example would\nestablish. (_Religion of Israel_, Eng. Trans., i., 239, 240.)\n\n[22] The astonishing significance of this declaration would only be\ndeepened if we accepted the theories now so fashionable, and believed\nthat the later passage in Isaiah was the fruit of a period when the\nfull-blown Priestly Code was in process of development out of \"the small\nbody of legislation contained in Lev. xvii.--xxvi.\" What a strange time\nfor such a spiritual application of sacrificial language!\n\n[23] So that it is used equally of the slow action of the lame, and of\nthe lingering movements of the false prophets when there was none to\nanswer (2 Sam. iv. 4; 1 Kings xviii. 26). \"The Lord of Hosts shall come\ndown to fight upon Mount Zion.... As birds flying, so will the Lord of\nHosts protect Jerusalem; He will PASS OVER and preserve it\" (Isa. xxxi.\n4, 5).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n\n_THE LAW OF THE FIRSTBORN._\n\nxiii. 1.\n\nMuch that was said in the twelfth chapter is repeated in the thirteenth.\nAnd this repetition is clearly due to a formal rehearsal, made when all\n\"their hosts\" had mustered in Succoth after their first march; for Moses\nsays, \"Remember this day, in which ye came out\" (ver. 3). Already it had\nbeen spoken of as a day much to be remembered, and for its perpetuation\nthe ordinance of the Passover had been founded.\n\nBut now this charge is given as a fit prologue for the remarkable\ninstitution which follows--the consecration to God of all unblemished\nmales who are the firstborn of their mothers--for such is the full\nstatement of what is claimed.\n\nIn speaking to Moses the Lord says, \"Sanctify unto Me all the firstborn\n... it is Mine.\" But Moses addressing the people advances gradually, and\nalmost diplomatically. First he reminds them of their deliverance, and\nin so doing he employs a phrase which could only have been used at the\nexact stage when they were emancipated and yet upon Egyptian soil: \"By\nstrength of hand the Lord brought you out _from this place_\" (ver. 3).\nThen he charges them not to forget their rescue, in the dangerous time\nof their prosperity, when the Lord shall have brought them into the\nland which He swore to give them; and he repeats the ordinance of\nunleavened bread. And it is only then that he proceeds to announce the\npermanent consecration of all their firstborn--the abiding doctrine that\nthese, who naturally represent the nation, are for its unworthiness\nforfeited, and yet by the grace of God redeemed.\n\nGod, Who gave all and pardons all, demands a return, not as a tax which\nis levied for its own sake, but as a confession of dependence, and like\nthe silk flag presented to the sovereign, on the anniversaries of the\ntwo greatest of English victories, by the descendants of the conquerors,\nwho hold their estates upon that tenure. The firstborn, thus dedicated,\nshould have formed a sacred class, a powerful element in Hebrew life\nenlisted on the side of God.\n\nFor these, as we have already seen, the Levites were afterwards\nsubstituted (Num. iii. 44), and there is perhaps some allusion to this\nchange in the direction that \"all the firstborn of man thou shalt\nredeem\" (ver. 13). But yet the demand is stated too broadly and\nimperatively to belong to that later modification: it suits exactly the\ntime to which it is attributed, before the tribe of Levi was substituted\nfor the firstborn of all.\n\n\"They are Mine,\" said Jehovah, Who needed not, that night, to remind\nthem what He had wrought the night before. It is for precisely the same\nreason, that St. Paul claims all souls for God: \"Ye are not your own, ye\nare bought with a price; therefore glorify God with your bodies and with\nyour spirits, which are God's.\"\n\nAnd besides the general claim upon us all, each of us should feel, like\nthe firstborn, that every special mercy is a call to special gratitude,\nto more earnest dedication. \"I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that\nye present your bodies a living sacrifice\" (Rom. xii. 1).\n\nThere is a tone of exultant confidence in the words of Moses, very\ninteresting and curious. He and his nation are breathing the free air at\nlast. The deliverance that has been given makes all the promise that\nremains secure. As one who feels his pardon will surely not despair of\nheaven, so Moses twice over instructs the people what to do when God\nshall have kept the oath which He swore, and brought them into Canaan,\ninto the land flowing with milk and honey. Then they must observe His\npassover. Then they must consecrate their firstborn.\n\nAnd twice over this emancipator and lawgiver, in the first flush of his\nsuccess, impresses upon them the homely duty of teaching their\nhouseholds what God had done for them (vers. 8, 14; cf. xii. 26).\n\nThis, accordingly, the Psalmist learned, and in his turn transmitted. He\nheard with his ears and his fathers told him what God did in their days,\nin the days of old. And he told the generation to come the praises of\nJehovah, and His strength, and His wondrous works (Ps. xliv. 1, lxxviii.\n4).\n\nBut it is absurd to treat these verses, as Kuenen does, as evidence that\nthe story is mere legend: \"transmitted from mouth to mouth, it gradually\nlost its accuracy and precision, and adopted all sorts of foreign\nelements.\" To prove which, we are gravely referred to passages like\nthis. (_Religion of Israel_, i. 22, Eng. Vers.) The duty of oral\ninstruction is still acknowledged, but this does not prove that the\nnarrative is still unwritten.\n\nFrom the emphatic language in which Moses urged this double duty, too\nmuch forgotten still, of remembering and showing forth the goodness of\nGod, sprang the curious custom of the wearing of phylacteries. But the\nJews were not bidden to wear signs and frontlets: they were bidden to\nlet hallowed memories be unto them in the place of such charms as they\nhad seen the Egyptians wear, \"for a sign unto thee, upon thine hand, and\nfor a frontlet between thine eyes, that the law of the Lord may be in\nthy mouth\" (ver. 9). Such language is frequent in the Old Testament,\nwhere mercy and truth should be bound around their necks; their fathers'\ncommandments should be tied around their necks, bound on their fingers,\nwritten on their hearts; and Sion should clothe herself with her\nconverts as an ornament, and gird them upon her as a bride doth (Prov.\niii. 3, vi. 21, vii. 3; Isa. xlix. 18).\n\nBut human nature still finds the letter of many a commandment easier\nthan the spirit, a ceremony than an obedient heart, penance than\npenitence, ashes on the forehead than a contrite spirit, and a\nphylactery than the gratitude and acknowledgment which ought to be unto\nus for a sign on the hand and a frontlet between the eyes.\n\nWe have already observed the connection between the thirteenth verse and\nthe events of the previous night. But there is an interesting touch of\nnature in the words \"the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a\nlamb.\" It was afterwards rightly perceived that all unclean animals\nshould follow the same rule; but why was only the ass mentioned? Plainly\nbecause those humble journeyers had no other beast of burden. Horses\npursued them presently, but even the Egyptians of that period used them\nonly in war. The trampled Hebrews would not possess camels. And thus\nagain, in the tenth commandment, when the stateliest of their cattle is\nspecified, no beast of burden is named with it but the ass: \"Thou shalt\nnot covet ... his ox nor his ass.\" It is an undesigned coincidence of\nreal value; a phrase which would never have been devised by legislators\nof a later date; a frank and unconscious evidence of the genuineness of\nthe story.\n\nSome time before this, a new and fierce race, whose name declared them\nto be \"emigrants,\" had thrust itself in among the tribes of Canaan--a\nrace which was long to wage equal war with Israel, and not seldom to see\nhis back turned in battle. They now held all the south of Palestine,\nfrom the brook of Egypt to Ekron (Josh. xv. 4, 47). And if Moses in the\nflush of his success had pushed on by the straight and easy route into\nthe promised land, the first shock of combat with them would have been\nfelt in a few weeks. But \"God led them not by the way of the\nPhilistines, though that was near, for God said, Lest peradventure the\npeople repent them when they see war, and they return to Egypt\" (ver.\n17).\n\nFrom this we learn two lessons. Why did not He, Who presently made\nstrong the hearts of the Egyptians to plunge into the bed of the sea,\nmake the hearts of His own people strong to defy the Philistines? The\nanswer is a striking and solemn one. Neither God in the Old Testament,\nnor God manifested in the flesh, is ever recorded to have wrought any\nmiracle of spiritual advancement or overthrow. Thus the Egyptians were\nbut confirmed in their own choice: their decision was carried further.\nAnd even Saul of Tarsus was illuminated, not coerced: he might have\ndisobeyed the heavenly vision. He was not an insincere man suddenly\ncoerced into earnestness, nor a coward suddenly made brave. In the moral\nworld, adequate means are always employed for the securing of desired\neffects. Love, gratitude, the sense of danger and of grace, are the\npowers which elevate characters. And persons who live in sensuality,\nfraud, or falsehood, hoping to be saved some day by a sort of miracle of\ngrace, ought to ponder this truth, which may not be the gospel now\nfashionable, but is unquestionably the statement of a Scriptural fact:\n_in the moral sphere, God works by means and not by miracle_.\n\nA free life, the desert air, the rejection of the unfit by many\nvisitations, and the growth of a new generation amid thrilling events,\nin a soul-stirring region, and under the pure influences of the\nlaw,--these were necessary before Israel could cross steel with the\nwarlike children of the Philistines; and even then, it was not with them\nthat he should begin.\n\nThe other lesson we learn is the tender fidelity of God, Who will not\nsuffer us to be tempted above that we are able to bear. He led them\naside into the desert, whither He still in mercy leads very many who\nthink it a heavy judgment to be there.\n\n\n_THE BONES OF JOSEPH._\n\nxiii. 19.\n\nIt is certain that Moses, in the days of his greatness, must often have\nmused by the sepulchre of the one Israelite before himself who held high\nrank in Egypt. The knowledge that Joseph's elevation was providential\nmust have helped him at that time, now many years ago, to think rightly\nof his own. And now we read that Moses took the bones of Joseph with\nhim. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 22) it is recorded as the most\ncharacteristic example of the faith of the patriarch, that instead of\ndesiring to be carried, like his father, at once to Canaan, he made\nmention of the departure of the children of Israel, and gave commandment\nconcerning his bones. To him Egypt was no longer an alien land. There\nonly he had known honour without envy, and happiness without betrayal.\nThere his bones could rest in quiet; but not for ever. Personal\nelevation, which had not rent the cord between him and his unworthy\nfamily, could still less sever the bands between him and the sacred\nrace. Let him sleep in Egypt while his grave there was honoured: let the\nremembrance of him be kept fresh, to protect awhile his kindred; and\nwhen the predicted days of evil came, let his ashes share the neglect\nand dishonour of his people, if only they would remember his remains\nwhen the Lord would lead them forth. This confidence in their\nemancipation was his faith--which meant, here as always, not a clear\nview of truth, but an assuring grasp of it. He had straitly sworn the\nchildren of Israel saying, \"God will surely visit you; and ye shall\ncarry up my bones away hence with you.\"\n\nMany a Christian might well envy a confidence so practical, so\nthoroughly realised, entering so naturally into the tissue of his\nthoughts and calculations. And their actual remembrance of him goes to\nshow that the tradition of his faith had never completely died out, but\nwas among the influences which kept alive the nation's hope.\n\nAnd as the people bore his honoured ashes through the desert, these\nbeing dead spoke of bygone times, they linked the present and the past\ntogether, they deepened the national consciousness that Israel was a\nfavoured people, called to no common destiny, sustained by no common\npromises, pressing toward no common goal.\n\nIf Israel had been wise, they would have thought of him, the Israelite\nin heart, though glittering in the splendours of Egypt; and would have\nconsidered well that as little as men detected his secret life from his\nappearance, so little could theirs be judged. To the eye, they were free\nfrom the foreign trammels in which he was seemingly entangled, yet many\nof them in heart turned back to all which strove in vain to bind his\naffections down. The lesson holds good to-day. Many a modern religionist\nlooks askance at the \"worldliness\" of high office and rank and state;\nlittle dreaming that the \"world\" he censures is strong in his own\nambitious and self-asserting spirit, and is overcome by the gentle and\ntranquil spirit of hundreds of those whom he condemns.\n\nBearing this hallowed burden, which might easily have become an object\nof superstitious regard, the nation moved from Succoth to Etham on the\nedge of the wilderness. And with them a Presence moved which rebuked all\nothers, however venerable. The Lord went before them. It has already\nbeen pointed out that throughout the early history of this nation, just\ncome out of an idolatrous land, and too ready to lapse back into\nsuperstition, God never reveals Himself except in fire. To Abraham and\nto Jacob He appeared in human form, and again to Joshua; but in the\ninterval, never. So now they see Him by day in a pillar of cloud to\nguide them on the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them\nlight. The glory of the nation was that manifested Presence, lacking\nwhich, Moses besought Him to carry them up no farther. Nothing in the\nExodus is more impressive, and it sank deep into the national heart.\nMany centuries afterwards, the ideal of a golden age was that the Lord\nshould \"create over the whole habitation of Mount Zion, and over her\nassemblies, a cloud of smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire\nby night\" (Isa. iv. 5).\n\nBut it has been well observed that, amid the various allusions to it in\nHebrew poetry, not one treats it as modern literature has done, with an\neye to its marvellous sublimity and picturesque effects:\n\n    \"By day, along the astonished lands\n      The cloudy pillar glided slow:\n    By night, Arabia's crimsoned sands\n      Returned the fiery column's glow.\"\n\nThe Hebrew poetry is vivid and passionate, but all its concerns are\nhuman or divine--God, and the life of man. It is not artistic, but\ninspired. \"The modern poet is delighting in the scenic effect; the\nancient chronicler was wholly occupied with the overshadowing power of\nGod.\"[24]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[24] Hutton's _Essays_, Vol. ii., _Literary: The Poetry of the Old\nTest._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n\n_THE RED SEA._\n\nxiv. 1-31.\n\nIt would seem that the Israelites recoiled before a frontier fortress of\nEgypt at Khetam (Etham). This is probable, whatever theory of the route\nof the Exodus one may adopt; and it is still open to every reader to\nadopt almost any theory he pleases, provided that two facts are borne in\nmind: viz., first, that the narrative certainly means to describe a\nmiraculous interference, not superseding the forces of nature, but\nwielding them in a fashion impossible to man; and second, that the\nphrase translated \"Red Sea\"[25] (xiii. 18, xv. 4) is the same which is\nconfessed by all persons to have that meaning in chap. xxiii. 31, and in\nNumbers xxi. 4 and xxxiii. 10.\n\nChecked, without loss or with it, they were bidden to \"turn back,\" and\nencamp at Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea. And since Migdol is\nsimply a watch-tower (there were several in the Holy Land, including\nthat which gave her name to Mary Magdal-ene), we are to infer that from\nthence their inexplicable movements were signalled back to Pharaoh. It\nwas the natural signal for all the wild passions of a baffled and\nhalf-ruined tyrant to leap into flame. We are scarcely able to imagine\nthe mental condition of men who conceived that a God Who had dealt out\ndeath and destruction might be far from invincible from another side.\nBut ages after this, a campaign was planned upon the ingenious theory\nthat \"Jehovah is a god of the hills but He is not a god of the valleys\"\n(1 Kings xx. 28); and plenty of people who would scorn this simple\nnotion are still of opinion that He is a God of eternity and can save\nthem from hell, but a little falsehood and knavery are much better able\nto save them from want in the meanwhile. Nay, there are many excellent\npersons who are not at all of opinion that the prince of this world has\nbeen dethroned.\n\nTherefore, when his enemies recoiled from his fortresses and wandered\naway into the wilderness of Egypt, entangling themselves hopelessly\nbetween the sea, the mountains, and his own strongholds, it might well\nappear to Pharaoh that Jehovah was not a warlike deity, that he himself\nhad now found out the weak point of his enemies, and could pursue and\novertake and satisfy his lust upon them. There is a significant emphasis\nin the song of Miriam's triumph--\"Jehovah is a man of war.\" At all\nevents, it was through an imperfect sense of the universal and practical\nimportance of Jehovah as a factor not to be neglected in his\ncalculations, through exactly the same error which misleads every man\nwho postpones religion, or limits the range of its influence in his\ndaily life,--it was thus, and not through any rarer infatuation, that\nPharaoh made ready six hundred chosen chariots and all the chariots of\nEgypt, and captains over all of them. And his court was of the same\nmind, saying, \"What is this that we have done, that we have let Israel\ngo from serving us?\"\n\nThese words are hard to reconcile with the strange notion that until now\na return after three days was expected, despite the torrent of blood\nwhich rolled between them, and the demands by which the Israelitish\nwomen had spoiled the Egyptians. Upon this theory it is not their own\nerror, but the bad faith of their servants, which they should have cried\nout against.\n\nAt the sight of the army, a panic seized the servile hearts of the\nfugitives. First they cried out unto the Lord. But how possible it is,\nwithout any real faith, to address to Heaven the mere clamours of our\nalarm, and to mistake natural agitation for earnestness in prayer, we\nlearn by the reproaches with which, after thus crying to the Lord, they\nassailed His servant. Were there no graves in that land of superb\nsepulchres--that land, now, of universal mourning? Would God that they\nhad perished with the firstborn! Why had they been treated thus? Had\nthey not urged Moses to let them alone, that they might serve the\nEgyptians?\n\nAnd yet these men had lately, for the very promise of so much\nemancipation as they now enjoyed, bowed their heads in adoring\nthankfulness. As it was their fear which now took the form of\nsupplication, so then it was their hope which took the form of praise.\nAnd we, how shall we know whether that in us which seems to be religious\ngladness and religious grief, is mere emotion, or is truly sacred? By\nwatching whether worship and love continue, when emotion has spent its\nforce, or has gone round, like the wind, to another quarter.\n\nHow did Moses feel when this outcry told him of the unworthiness and\ncowardice of the nation of his heart? Much as we feel, perhaps, when we\nsee the frailties and failures of converts in the mission-field, and the\nlapse of the intemperate who have seemed to be reclaimed for ever. We\nthought that perfection was to be reached at a bound. Now we think that\nthe whole work was unreal. Both extremes are wrong: we have much to\nlearn from the failures of that ancient church, in which was the germ of\nhero, psalmist, and prophet, which was indeed the church in the\nwilderness, and whose many relapses were so tenderly borne with by God\nand His messenger.\n\nThe settled faith of Moses, and the assurances which he could give the\nagitated people,[26] contrast nobly with their alarm. But his confidence\nalso had its secret springs in prayer, for the Lord said to him,\n\"Wherefore criest thou unto Me? speak unto the children of Israel that\nthey go forward.\"\n\nThe words are remarkable on two accounts. Can prayer ever be out of\nplace? Not if we mean a prayerful dependent mental attitude toward God.\nBut certainly, yes, if God has already revealed that for which we still\nimportune Him, and we are secretly disquieted lest His promise should\nfail. It is misplaced if our own duty has to be done, and we pass the\ngolden moments in inactivity, however pious. Christ spoke of men who\nshould leave their gift before the altar, unpresented, because of a\nneglected duty which should be discharged. And perhaps there are men who\npray for the conversion of the heathen, or of friends at home, to whom\nGod says, Wherefore criest thou unto Me? because their money and their\nfaithful efforts must be given, as Moses must arouse himself to lead the\npeople forward, and to stretch his wand over the sea.\n\nAnd again the forces of nature are on the side of God: the strong wind\nmakes the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over. History\nhas no scene more picturesque than this wild night march, in the roar of\ntempest, amid the flying foam which \"baptized\" them unto Moses,[27]\nwhile the glimmering waters stood up like a rampart to protect their\nflanks; the full moon of passover above them, shown and hidden as the\nswift clouds raced before the storm, while high and steadfast overhead,\nunshaken by the fiercest blast, illumined by a mysterious splendour,\n\"stood\" the vast cloud which veiled like a curtain their whole host from\nthe pursuer. This it was, and the experience of such protection that the\nEgyptians, overawed, came not near them, which gave them courage to\nenter the bed of the sea; and as they trod the strange road they found\nthat not only were the waters driven off the surface, but the sands were\nleft firm to traverse.\n\nBut when the blind fury of Pharaoh, \"hardened\" against everything but\nthe sense that his prey was escaping, sent his army along the same\ntrack, and this after long delay, at a crisis when every moment was\npriceless, then a new element of terrible sublimity was added. Through\nthe pillar of cloud and fire Jehovah looked forth on the Egyptian host,\nas they pressed on behind, unable to penetrate the supernatural gloom,\ncold fear creeping into every heart, while the chariot wheels laboured\nheavily in the wet sand. In that direful vision at last the question was\nanswered, \"Who is Jehovah, that I should let His people go?\" Now it was\nthe turn of those who said \"Israel is entangled in the land, the\nwilderness hath shut them in,\" themselves to be taken in a worse net.\nFor at that awful gaze the iron curb of military discipline gave way;\ntheir labouring chariots, the pride and defence of the nation, were\nforsaken; and a wild cry broke out, \"Let us fly from the face of Israel,\nfor Jehovah\"--He who plagued us--\"fighteth for them against the\nEgyptians.\" But their humiliation came too late,--for in the morning\nwatch, at a natural time for atmospheric changes, but in obedience to\nthe rod of Moses, the furious wind veered or fell, and the sea returned\nto its accustomed limits; and first, as the sands beneath became\nsaturated, the chariots were overturned and the mail-clad charioteers\nwent down \"like lead,\" and then the hissing line of foam raced forward\nand closed around and over the shrieking mob which was the pride and\nstrength of Egypt only an hour before.\n\nBut, as the story repeats twice over, with a very natural and glad\nreiteration, \"the children of Israel walked on dry land in the midst of\nthe sea, and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and\non their left\" (ver. 29, cf. 22).\n\n\n_ON THE SHORE._\n\nxiv. 30, 31.\n\nAfter the haste and agitation of their marvellous deliverance the\nchildren of Israel seem to have halted for awhile at the only spot in\nthe neighbourhood where there is water, known as the Ayoun Musa or\nsprings of Moses to this day. There they doubtless brought into some\npermanent shape their rudimentary organisation. There, too, their\nimpressions were given time to deepen. They \"saw the Egyptians dead on\nthe sea-shore,\" and realised that their oppression was indeed at an end,\ntheir chains broken, themselves introduced into a new life,--\"baptized\nunto Moses.\" They reflected upon the difference between all other\ndeities and the God of their fathers, Who, in that deadly crisis, had\nlooked upon them and their tyrants out of the fiery pillar. \"They feared\nJehovah, and they believed in Jehovah and in His servant Moses.\"\n\n\"They believed in Jehovah.\" This expression is noteworthy, because they\nhad all believed in Him already. \"By faith 'they' forsook Egypt. By\nfaith 'they' kept the passover and the sprinkling of blood. By faith\n'they' passed through the Red Sea.\" But their former trust was poor and\nwavering compared with that which filled their bosoms now. So the\ndisciples followed Jesus because they believed on Him; yet when His\nfirst miracle manifested forth His glory, \"His disciples believed on Him\nthere.\" And again they said, \"By this we believe that Thou camest forth\nfrom God.\" And after the resurrection He said, \"Because thou hast seen\nMe thou hast believed\" (John ii. 11, xvi. 30, xx. 29). Faith needs to be\nedified by successive experiences, as the enthusiasm of a recruit is\nconverted into the disciplined valour of the veteran. From each new\ncrisis of the spiritual life the soul should obtain new powers. And that\nis a shallow and unstable religion which is content with the level of\nits initial act of faith (however genuine and however important), and\nseeks not to go from strength to strength.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[25] The Sea of Zuph, or reeds, the word being used of the reeds in\nwhich Moses was laid by his mother and found by Pharaoh's daughter (ii.\n3, 5), rendered \"flags\" in the Revised Version.\n\n[26] But his assurance is, \"The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall\nhold your peace.\" When Wellhausen would summarise the work of Moses, he\ntells us that \"he taught them to regard self-assertion against the\nEgyptians as an article of religion\" (_History_, p. 430). It would be\nimpossible, within the compass of so many words, more completely to miss\nthe remarkable characteristic which differentiates this whole narrative\nfrom all other revolutionary movements. Expectancy and dependence here\ntake the place of \"self-assertion.\"\n\n[27] Not the adults only; nor yet by immersion, whether in the\nrain-cloud or the surf.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n\n_THE SONG OF MOSES._\n\nxv. 1-22.\n\nDuring this halt they prepared that great song of triumph which St. John\nheard sung by them who had been victorious over the beast, standing by\nthe sea of glass, having the harps of God. For by that calmer sea,\ntriumphant over a deadlier persecution, they still found their adoration\nand joy expressed in this earliest chant of sacred victory. Because all\nholy hearts give like thanks to Him Who sitteth upon the throne,\ntherefore \"deep answers unto deep,\" and every great crisis in the\nhistory of the Church has legacies for all time and for eternity; and\ntherefore the triumphant song of Moses the servant of God enriches the\nworship of heaven, as the penitence and hope and joy of David enrich the\nworship of the Church on earth (Rev. xv. 3).\n\nLike all great poetry, this song is best enjoyed when it is neither\ncommented upon nor paraphrased, but carefully read and warmly felt.\nThere are circumstances and lines of thought which it is desirable to\npoint out, but only as a preparation, not a substitute, for the\nsubmission of a docile mind to the influence of the inspired poem\nitself. It is unquestionably archaic. The parallelism of Hebrew verse is\nalready here, but the structure is more free and unartificial than that\nof later poetry; and many ancient words, and words of Egyptian\nderivation, authenticate its origin. So does the description of Miriam,\nin the fifteenth verse, as \"the prophetess, the sister of Aaron.\" In\nwhat later time would she not rather have been called the sister of\nMoses? But from the lonely youth who found Aaron and Miriam together as\noften as he stole from the palace to his real home--the lonely man who\nregained both together when he returned from forty years of exile, and\nwho sometimes found them united in opposition to his authority (Num.\nxii. 1, 2)--from Moses alone the epithet is entirely natural.\n\nIt is also noteworthy that Philistia is mentioned first among the foes\nwho shall be terrified (ver. 14, R.V.), because Moses still expected the\ninvasion to break first on them. But the unbelieving fears of Israel\nchanged the route, so that no later poet would have set them in the\nforefront of his song. Thus also the terror of the Edomites is\nanticipated, although in fact they sturdily refused a passage to Israel\nthrough their land (Num. xx. 20). All this authenticates the song, which\nthereupon establishes the miraculous deliverance that inspired it.\n\nThe song is divided into two parts. Up to the end of the twelfth verse\nit is historical: the remainder expresses the high hopes inspired by\nthis great experience. Nothing now seems impossible: the fiercest tribes\nof Palestine and the desert may be despised, for their own terror will\nsuffice to \"melt\" them; and Israel may already reckon itself to be\nguided into the holy habitation (ver. 13).\n\nThe former part is again subdivided, by a noble and instinctive art,\ninto two very unequal sections. With amplitude of triumphant adoration,\nthe first ten verses tell the same story which the eleventh and twelfth\ncompress into epigrammatical vigour and terseness. To appreciate the\npower of the composition, one should read the fourth, fifth, and sixth\nverses, and turn immediately to the twelfth.\n\nEach of these three divisions closes in praise, and as in the \"Israel in\nEgypt,\" it was probably at these points that the voices of Miriam and\nthe women broke in, repeating the first verse of the ode as a refrain\n(vers. 1 and 21). It is the earliest recognition of the place of women\nin public worship. And it leads us to remark that the whole service was\nresponsive. Moses and the men are answered by Miriam and the women,\nbearing timbrels in their hands; for although instrumental music had\nbeen sorely misused in Egypt, that was no reason why it should be\nexcluded now. Those who condemn the use of instruments in Christian\nworship virtually contend that Jesus has, in this respect, narrowed the\nliberty of the Church, and that a potent method of expression, known to\nman, must not be consecrated to the honour of God. And they make the\npresent time unlike the past, and also unlike what is revealed of the\nfuture state.\n\nMoreover there was movement, as in very many ancient religious services,\nwithin and without the pale of revelation.[28] Such dances were\ngenerally slow and graceful; yet the motion and the clang of metal, and\nthe vast multitudes congregated, must be taken into account, if we would\nrealise the strange enthusiasm of the emancipated host, looking over the\nblue sea to Egypt, defeated and twice bereaved, and forward to the\ndesert wilds of freedom.\n\nThe poem is steeped in a sense of gratitude. In the great deliverance\nman has borne no part. It is Jehovah Who has triumphed gloriously, and\ncast the horse and charioteer--there was no \"rider\"--into the sea. And\nthis is repeated again and again by the women as their response, in the\ndeepening passion of the ode. \"With the breath of His nostrils the\nwaters were piled up.... He blew with His wind and the sea covered\nthem.\" And such is indeed the only possible explanation of the Exodus,\nso that whoever rejects the miracle is beset with countless\ndifficulties. One of these is the fact that Moses, their immortal\nleader, has no martial renown whatever. Hebrew poetry is well able to\ncombine gratitude to God with honour to the men of Zebulun who\njeopardised their lives unto the death, to Jael who put her hand to the\nnail, to Saul and Jonathan who were swifter than eagles and stronger\nthan lions. Joshua and David can win fame without dishonour to God. Why\nis it that here alone no mention is made of human agency, except that,\nin fact, at the outset of their national existence, they were shown,\nonce for all, the direct interposition of their God?\n\nFrom gratitude springs trust: the great lesson is learned that man has\nan interest in the Divine power. \"My strength and song is Jah,\" says the\nsecond verse, using that abbreviated form of the covenant name Jehovah,\nwhich David also frequently associated with his victories. \"And He is\nbecome my salvation.\" It is the same word as when, a little while ago,\nthe trembling people were bidden to stand still and see the salvation of\nGod. They have seen it now. Now they give the word Salvation for the\nfirst time to the Lord as an appellation, and as such it is destined to\nendure. The Psalmist learns to call Him so, not only when he reproduces\nthis verse word for word (Ps. cxviii. 14), but also when he says, \"He\nonly is my rock and my salvation\" (lxii. 2), and prays, \"Before Ephraim,\nBenjamin, and Manasseh, come for salvation to us\" (lxxx. 2).\n\nAnd the same title is known also to Isaiah, who says, \"Behold God is my\nsalvation,\" and \"Be Thou their arm every morning, our salvation also in\nthe time of trouble\" (Isa. xii. 2, xxxiii. 2).\n\nThe progress is natural from experience of goodness to appropriation: He\nhas helped me: He gives Himself to me; and from that again to love and\ntrust, for He has always been the same: \"my father,\" not my ancestors in\ngeneral, but he whom I knew best and remember most tenderly, found Him\nthe same Helper. And then love prompts to some return. My goodness\nextendeth not to Him, yet my voice can honour Him; I will praise Him, I\nwill exalt His name. Now, this is the very spirit of evangelical\nobedience, the life-blood of the new dispensation racing in the veins of\nthe old.\n\nWhere praise and exaltation are a spontaneous instinct, there is loyal\nservice and every good work, not rendered by a hireling but a child. Had\nHe not said, \"Israel is My son\"?\n\nFrom exultant gratitude and trust, what is next to spring? That which is\nreproachfully called anthropomorphism, something which indeed easily\ndegenerates into unworthy notions of a God limited by such restraints or\nwarped by such passions as our own, yet which is after all a great\nadvance towards true and holy thoughts of Him Who made man after His\nimage and in His likeness.\n\nHuman affection cannot go forth to God without believing that like\naffection meets and responds to it. If He is indeed the best and purest,\nwe must think of Him as sharing all that is best and purest in our\nsouls, all that we owe to His inspiring Spirit.\n\n    \"So through the thunder comes a human voice,\n    Saying 'O heart I made, a heart beats here.'\"\n\nIf ever any religion was sternly jealous of the Divine prerogatives,\nprofoundly conscious of the incommunicable dignity of the Lord our God\nWho is one Lord, it was the Jewish religion. Yet when Jesus was charged\nwith making Himself God, He could appeal to the doctrine of their own\nScripture--that the judges of the people exercised so divine a function,\nand could claim such divine support, that God Himself spoke through\nthem, and found representatives in them. \"Is it not written in your law,\nI said Ye are gods?\" (John x. 34). Not in vain did He appeal to such\nscriptures--and there are many such--to vindicate His doctrine. For man\nis never lifted above himself, but God in the same degree stoops towards\nus, and identifies Himself with us and our concerns. Who then shall\nlimit His condescension? What ground in reason or revelation can be\ntaken up for denying that it may be perfect, that it may develop into a\npermanent union of God with the creature whom He inspired with His own\nbreath? It is by such steps that the Old Testament prepared Israel for\nthe Incarnation. Since the Incarnation we have actually needed help from\nthe other side, to prevent us from humanising our conceptions over-much.\nAnd this has been provided in the ever-expanding views of His creation\ngiven to us by science, which tell us that if He draws nigh to us it is\nfrom heights formerly undreamed of. Now, such a step as we have been\nconsidering is taken unawares in the bold phrase \"Jehovah is a man of\nwar.\" For in the original, as in the English, this includes the\nassertion \"Jehovah is a man.\" Of course it is only a bold figure. But\nsuch a figure prepares the mind for new light, suggesting more than it\nlogically asserts.\n\nThe phrase is more striking when we remember that remarkable peculiarity\nof the Exodus and its revelations which has been already pointed out.\nElsewhere God appears in human likeness. To Abraham it was so, just\nbefore, and to Manoah soon afterwards. Ezekiel saw upon the likeness of\nthe throne the likeness of the appearance of a man (Ezek. i. 26). But\nIsrael saw no similitude, only he heard a voice. This was obviously a\nsafeguard against idolatry. And it makes the words more noteworthy,\n\"Jehovah is a man of war,\" marching with us, our champion, into the\nbattle. And we know Him as our fathers knew Him not,--\"Jehovah is His\nname.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe poem next describes the overthrow of the enemy: the heavy plunge of\nmen in armour into the deeps, the arm of the Lord dashing them in\npieces, His \"fire\" consuming them, while the blast of His nostrils is\nthe storm which \"piles up\" the waters, solid as a wall of ice,\n\"congealed in the heart of the sea.\" Then the singers exultantly\nrehearse the short panting eager phrases, full of greedy expectation, of\nthe enemy breathless in pursuit--a passage well remembered by Deborah,\nwhen her triumphant song closed by an insulting repetition of the vain\ncalculations of the mother of Sisera and \"her wise ladies.\"\n\nThe eleventh verse is remarkable as being the first announcement of the\nholiness of God. \"Who is like unto Thee, glorious in holiness?\" And\nwhat does holiness mean? The Hebrew word is apparently suggestive of\n\"brightness,\" and the two ideas are coupled by Isaiah (x. 17): \"The\nLight of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame.\"\nThere is indeed something in the purity of light, in its absolute\nimmunity from stain--no passive cleanness, as of the sand upon the\nshore, but intense and vital--and in its remoteness from the conditions\nof common material substances, that well expresses and typifies the\nlofty and awful quality which separates holiness from mere virtue. \"God\nis called the Holy One because He is altogether pure, the clear and\nspotless Light; so that in the idea of the holiness of God there are\nembodied the absolute moral purity and perfection of the Divine nature,\nand His unclouded glory\" (Keil, _Pent._, ii. 99). In this thought there\nis already involved separation, a lofty remoteness.\n\nAnd when holiness is attributed to man, it never means innocence, nor\neven virtue, merely as such. It is always a derived attribute: it is\nreflected upon us, like light upon our planet; and like consecration, it\nspeaks not of man in himself, but in his relation to God. It expresses a\nkind of separation to God, and thus it can reach to lifeless things\nwhich bear a true relation to the Divine. The seventh day is thus\n\"hallowed.\" It is the very name of the \"Holy Place,\" the \"Sanctuary.\"\nAnd the ground where Moses was to stand unshod beside the burning bush\nwas pronounced \"holy,\" not by any concession to human weakness, but by\nthe direct teaching of God. Very inseparable from all true holiness is\nseparation from what is common and unclean. Holy men may be involved in\nthe duties of active life; but only on condition that in their bosom\nshall be some inner shrine, whither the din of worldliness never\npenetrates, and where the lamp of God does not go out.\n\nIt is a solemn truth that a kind of inverted holiness is known to\nScripture. Men \"sanctify themselves\" (it is this very word), \"and purify\nthemselves to go into the gardens, ... eating swine's flesh and the\nabomination and the mouse\" (Isa. lxvi. 17). The same word is also used\nto declare that the whole fruit of a vineyard sown with two kinds of\nfruit shall be _forfeited_ (Deut. xxii. 9), although the notion there is\nof something unnatural and therefore interdicted, which notion is\ncarried to the utmost extreme in another derivative from the same root,\nexpressing the most depraved of human beings.\n\nJust so, the Greek word \"anathema\" means both \"consecrated\" and \"marked\nout for wrath\" (Luke xxi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 22: the difference in form is\ninsignificant.) And so again our own tongue calls the saints \"devoted,\"\nand speaks of the \"devoted\" head of the doomed sinner, being aware that\nthere is a \"separation\" in sin as really as in purity. The gods of the\nheathen, like Jehovah, claimed an appropriate \"holiness,\" sometimes\nunspeakably degraded. They too were separated, and it was through long\nlines of sphinxes, and many successive chambers, that the Egyptian\nworshipper attained the shrine of some contemptible or hateful deity.\nThe religion which does not elevate depresses. But the holiness of\nJehovah is noble as that of light, incapable of defilement. \"Who among\nthe gods is like Thee ... glorious in holiness?\" And Israel soon learned\nthat the worshipper must become assimilated to his Ideal: \"Ye shall be\nholy men unto Me\" (xxii. 31). It is so with us. Jesus is separated from\nsinners. And we are to go forth unto Him out of the camp, bearing His\nreproach (Heb. vii. 26, xiii. 13).\n\nThe remainder of the song is remarkable chiefly for the confidence with\nwhich the future is inferred from the past. And the same argument runs\nthrough all Scripture. As Moses sang, \"Thou shalt bring them in and\nplant them in the mountain of Thine inheritance,\" because \"Thou\nstretchedst out Thy right hand, the earth[29] swallowed\" their enemies,\nso David was sure that goodness and mercy should follow him all the days\nof his life, because God was already leading him in green pastures and\nbeside still waters. And so St. Paul, knowing in Whom he had believed,\nwas persuaded that He was able to keep his deposit until that day (2\nTim. i. 12).\n\nSo should pardon and Scripture and the means of grace reassure every\ndoubting heart; for \"if the Lord were pleased to kill us, He would not\nhave ... showed us all these things\" (Judg. xiii. 23). And in theory,\nand in good hours, we confess that this is so. But after our song of\ntriumph, if we come upon bitter waters we murmur; and if our bread fail,\nwe expect only to die in the wilderness.\n\n\n_SHUR._\n\nxv. 22-7.\n\nFrom the Red Sea the Israelites marched into the wilderness of Shur--a\ngeneral name, of Egyptian origin, for the district between Egypt and\nPalestine, of which Etham, given as their route in Numbers (xxxiii. 8),\nis a subdivision. The rugged way led over stone and sand, with little\nvegetation and no water. And the \"three days' journey\" to Marah, a\ndistance of thirty-three miles, was their first experience of absolute\nhardship, for not even the curtain of miraculous cloud could prevent\nthem from suffering keenly by heat and thirst.\n\nIt was a period of disillusion. Fond dreams of ease and triumphant\nprogress, with every trouble miraculously smoothed away, had naturally\nbeen excited by their late adventure. Their song had exulted in the\nprospect that their enemies should melt away, and be as still as a\nstone. But their difficulties did not melt away. The road was weary.\nThey found no water. They were still too much impressed by the miracle\nat the Red Sea, and by the mysterious Presence overhead, for open\ncomplaining to be heard along the route; but we may be sure that\nreaction had set in, and there was many a sinking heart, as the dreary\nroute stretched on and on, and they realised that, however romantic the\nmain plan of their journey, the details might still be prosaic and\nexacting. They sang praises unto Him. They soon forgat His works. Aching\nwith such disappointments, at last they reached the waters of Marah, and\nthey could not drink, for they were bitter.\n\nAnd if Marah be indeed Huwara, as seems to be agreed, the waters are\nstill the worst in all the district. It was when the relief, so\nconfidently expected, failed, and the term of their sufferings appeared\nto be indefinitely prolonged, that their self-control gave way, and they\n\"murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink?\" And we may be\nsure that wherever discontent and unbelief are working secret mischief\nto the soul, some event, some disappointment or temptation, will find\nthe weak point, and the favourable moment of attack, just as the seeds\nof disease find out the morbid constitution, and assail it.\n\nNow, all this is profoundly instructive, because it is true to the\nuniversal facts of human nature. When a man is promoted to unexpected\nrank, or suddenly becomes rich, or reaches any other unlooked-for\nelevation, he is apt to forget that life cannot, in any position, be a\nromance throughout, a long thrill, a whole song at the top note of the\nvoice. Affection itself has a dangerous moment, when two united lives\nbegin to realise that even their union cannot banish aches and\nanxieties, weariness and business cares. Well for them if they are\ncontent with the power of love to sweeten what it cannot remove, as\nloyal soldiers gladly sacrifice all things for the cause, and as Israel\nshould have been proud to endure forced marches under the cloudy banner\nof its emancipating God.\n\nAs neither rank nor affection exempts men from the dust and tedium of\nlife, or from its disappointments, so neither does religion. When one is\n\"made happy\" he expects life to be only a triumphal procession towards\nParadise, and he is startled when \"now for a season, if need be, he is\nin heaviness through manifold temptations.\" Yet Christ prayed not that\nwe should be taken out of the world. We are bidden to endure hardness as\ngood soldiers, and to run with patience the race which is set before us;\nand these phrases indicate our need of the very qualities wherein Israel\nfailed. As yet the people murmured not ostensibly against God, but only\nagainst Moses. But the estrangement of their hearts is plain, since they\nmade no appeal to God for relief, but assailed His agent and\nrepresentative. Yet they had not because they asked not, and relief was\nfound when Moses cried unto the Lord. Their leader was \"faithful in all\nhis house\"; and instead of upbraiding his followers with their\ningratitude, or bewailing the hard lot of all leaders of the multitude,\nwhose popularity neither merit nor service can long preserve unclouded,\nhe was content to look for sympathy and help where we too may find it.\n\nWe read that the Lord showed him a tree, which when he had cast into the\nwaters, the waters were made sweet. In this we discern the same union of\nDivine grace with human energy and use of means, as in all medicine, and\nindeed all uses of the divinely enlightened intellect of man. It would\nhave been easy to argue that the waters could only be healed by miracle,\nand if God wrought a miracle what need was there of human labour? There\nwas need of obedience, and of the co-operation of the human will with\nthe divine. We shall see, in the case of the artificers of the\ntabernacle, that God inspires even handicraftsmen as well as\ntheologians--being indeed the universal Light, the Giver of all good,\nnot only of Bibles, but of rain and fruitful seasons. But the artisan\nmust labour, and the farmer improve the soil.\n\nShall we say with the fathers that the tree cast into the waters\nrepresents the cross of Christ? At least it is a type of the sweetening\nand assuaging influences of religion--a new element, entering life, and\nas well fitted to combine with it as medicinal bark with water, making\nall wholesome and refreshing to the disappointed wayfarer, who found it\nso bitter hitherto.\n\nThe Lord was not content with removing the grievance of the hour; He\ndrew closer the bonds between His people and Himself, to guard them\nagainst another transgression of the kind: \"there He made for them a\nstatute and an ordinance, and there He proved them.\" It is pure\nassumption to pretend that this refers to another account of the giving\nof the Jewish law, inconsistent with that in the twentieth chapter, and\nplaced at Marah instead of Sinai.[30] It is a transaction which\nresembles much rather the promises given (and at various times, although\nconfusion and repetition cannot be inferred) to Abraham and Jacob (Gen.\nxii. 1-3, xv. 1, 18-21, xvii. 1-14, xxii. 15-18, xxviii. 13-15, xxxv.\n10-12). He said, \"If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the\nLord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in His eyes, and wilt give\near to His commandments, and wilt keep all His statutes, I will put none\nof the diseases upon thee which I have put upon the Egyptians, for I am\nthe Lord which healeth thee.\" It is a compact of obedient trust on one\nside, and protection on the other. If they felt their own sinfulness, it\nasserted that He who had just healed the waters could also heal their\nhearts. From the connection between these is perhaps derived the\ncomparison between human hearts and a fountain of sweet water or bitter\n(Jas. iii. 11).\n\nBut certainly the promised protection takes an unexpected shape. What in\ntheir circumstances leads to this specific offer of exemption from\ncertain foul diseases--\"the boil of Egypt, and the emerods, and the\nscurvy, and the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed\" (Deut. xxviii.\n27)? How does this meet the case? Doubtless by reminding them that there\nare better exemptions than from hardship, and worse evils than\nprivations. If they do not realise this at the spiritual level, at least\nthey can appreciate the threat that \"He will bring upon thee again all\nthe diseases of Egypt which thou wast afraid of\" (Deut. xxviii. 60). To\nbe even a luxurious and imperial race, but infected by repulsive and\nhopeless ailments, is not a desirable alternative. Now, such evils,\nthough certainly not in each individual, yet in a race, are the\npunishments of non-natural conditions of life, such as make the blood\nrun slowly and unhealthily, and charge it with impure deposits. It was\nGod who put them upon the Egyptians.\n\nIf Israel would follow His guidance, and accept a somewhat austere\ndestiny, then the desert air and exercise, and even its privations,\nwould become the efficacious means for their exemption from the scourges\nof indulgence. A time arrived when they looked back with remorse upon\ncrimes which forfeited their immunity, when the Lord said, \"I have sent\namong you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt; your young men have\nI slain with the sword\" (Amos iv. 10).\n\nBut it is a significant fact that at this day, after eighteen hundred\nyears of oppression, hardship, and persecution, of the ghetto and the\nold-clothes trade, the Hebrew race is proverbially exempt from repulsive\nand contagious disease. They also \"certainly do enjoy immunity from the\nravages of cholera, fever and smallpox in a remarkable degree. Their\nblood seems to be in a different condition from that of other people....\nThey seem less receptive of disease caused by blood poisoning than\nothers\" (_Journal of Victoria Institute_, xxi. 307). Imperfect as was\ntheir obedience, this covenant at least has been literally fulfilled to\nthem.\n\nIt is by such means that God is wont to reward His children. Most\ncommonly the seal of blessing from the skies is not rich fare, but bread\nand fish by the lake side with the blessing of Christ upon them; not\nremoval from the desert, but a closer sense of the protection and\nacceptance of Heaven, the nearness of a loving God, and with this, an\nelevation and purification of the life, and of the body as well as of\nthe soul. Not in vain has St. Paul written \"The Lord for the body.\" Nor\nwas there ever yet a race of men who accepted the covenant of God, and\nlived in soberness, temperance and chastity, without a signal\nimprovement of the national physique, no longer unduly stimulated by\npassion, jaded by indulgence, or relaxed by the satiety which resembles\nbut is not repose.\n\nFrom Marah and its agitations there was a journey of but a few hours to\nElim, with its twelve fountains and seventy palm trees--a fair oasis, by\nwhich they encamped and rested, while their flocks spread far and wide\nover a grassy and luxuriant valley.\n\nThe picture is still true to the Christian life, with the Palace\nBeautiful just beyond the lions, and the Delectable Mountains next after\nDoubting Castle.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[28] There is no warrant in the use of Scripture for Stanley's assertion\nthat the word translated \"dances\" should be rendered \"guitars.\" (Smith's\n_Dict. of Bible_, Article _Miriam_.)\n\n[29] This is to be taken literally; it does not mean the waves, but the\nquicksands in which they \"drave heavily,\" and which, when steeped in the\nreturning waters, engulfed them.\n\n[30] Wellhausen, _Israel_, p. 439.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n\n_MURMURING FOR FOOD._\n\nxvi. 1-14.\n\nThe Israelites were now led farther away from all the associations of\ntheir accustomed life. From the waters and the palms of Elim they\nmarched deeper into the savage recesses of the desert, haunted by fierce\nand hostile tribes, such as presently hung upon their rear-guard and cut\noff their stragglers (Deut. xxv. 18). Nor had they quite emerged from\nthe shadow of their old oppressions, since Egyptian garrisons were\nscattered, though sparsely, through this district, in which gems and\ncopper were obtained. Here, cut off from all natural modes of\nsustenance, the hearts of the people failed them. Such is the frequent\nexperience of renewed souls, when privilege and joy are followed by\ntrouble from without or from within, and the peace of God is broken by\nthe strife of tongues, by mental perplexities, by temptations, by\nphysical pain. It is quite as wonderful that paltry disturbances should\nmar for us the life divine, when once that life has become a realised\nexperience, as that men who moved under the shadow of the marvellous\ncloud could be agitated by fear for their supplies. And of this our\nexperience, what befel Israel is not a mere type or symbol, it is a case\nin point, a parallel example. For it also meant the breaking-in of the\nflesh upon the spirit, the refusal of fallen nature to rise above\nearthly wants and cravings even in the light of trust and acceptance,\nthe self-assertion of the baser instincts, and the sacrifice to them of\nthe higher life. We recognise the herd of slaves, from whence it must\nperplex the unbeliever to remember that the seed of immortal heroism and\nprophetic insight and apostolic service was yet to ripen, in their poor\ndesire, if they must perish, to perish well fed rather than emancipated\n(ver. 3). Most people, we may fear, would choose to live enslaved rather\nthan to die free men. But there is a special meanness in their regret,\nsince die they must, that they had not died satiated, like the firstborn\nwhom God had slain: \"Would that we had died by the hand of Jehovah in\nthe land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh-pots and when we ate bread\nto the full, for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness to kill\nthis whole assembly with hunger.\" And to-day, among those who scorn\nthem, how many are far less ambitious of dying holy and pure than rich,\nfamous or powerful, having glutted their vanity if not their appetite.\nIn the sight of angels this is not a much loftier aim; and the apostle\nreckoned among the works of the flesh, emulation as well as drunkenness\n(Gal. v. 19-21).\n\nTertullian draws a striking contrast between Israel, just now baptized\ninto Moses, but caring more for appetite than for God, and Christ, after\nHis baptism, also in the desert, fasting forty days. \"The Lord\nfiguratively retorted upon Israel His reproach\" (_Baptism_, xx.)\n\nWe are not to suppose that but for their complaining God would have\nsuffered them to hunger, although Moses declared that the reason why\nflesh should be given to them in the evening, and in the morning bread\nto the full, is \"for that the Lord heareth your murmurings.\" But there\nwould have been some difference in the time of the grant, to ripen their\nfaith, some more direct manifestation of His grace, to reward their\npatience, if unbelief had not precipitated His design. Thus the\ndisciples, when they awakened Jesus in the storm, received the rescue\nfor which they clamoured, but forfeited some higher experience which\nwould have crowned a serener confidence: \"Wherefore did ye doubt?\"\nIsrael receives what is best in the circumstances, rather than the ideal\nbest, now made unsuitable by their impatience and infidelity. But while\nthe Lord discontinued the test of need and penury, which had proved to\nbe too severe a discipline, He substituted the test of fulness. For we\nread that the removal of their suspense and anxiety by the gift of manna\nfrom heaven was \"to prove them whether they will walk in My laws or no\"\n(ver. 4). And in so doing it was seen that worldly and unthankful\nnatures are not to be satisfied; that the disloyal at heart will\ncomplain, however favoured. For \"the children of Israel wept again and\nsaid, Who will give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish which we did\neat in Egypt for nought, the cucumbers and the melons and the leeks and\nthe onions and the garlick: but now our soul is dried away; there is\nnothing at all: we have nought save this manna to look to\" (Num. xi.\n4-6). Onions and garlick were more satisfactory to gross appetites than\nangels' food.\n\nAt this point we learn that what is called prosperity may indeed be a\nresult of spiritual failure; that God may sometimes abstain from strong\nmeasures with a soul because what ought to mould would only crush; and\nmay grant them their hearts' lust, yet send leanness withal into their\nsouls. Perhaps we are allowed to be comfortable because we are unfit to\nbe heroic.\n\nAnd we also learn, when prosperous, to remember that plenty, equally\nwith want, has its moral aspect. The Lord tries fortunate men, whether\nthey will be grateful and obedient, trusting in Him and not in uncertain\nriches, or whether they will forget Him who has done so great things for\nthem, and so perish in calm weather--\n\n    \"Like ships that have gone down at sea\n    When heaven was all tranquillity.\"\n\nThere is an experiment being tried upon the soul, curious, slow,\nlittle-suspected, but incessant, in the giving of daily bread.\n\nIn promising relief, God required of them obedience and self-control.\nThey were to respect the Sabbath, and make provision in advance for its\nrequirements. And this direction, given before the Mount of the Lord was\nreached, has an important bearing upon the question whether the Fourth\nCommandment was the first institution of a holy day--whether, except as\na Church ordinance, the duty of sabbath-keeping has no support beyond\nthe ceremonial law. \"For that the Lord hath (already) given you the\nSabbath, therefore He giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days\"\n(ver. 29).\n\nWhile conveying the promise of relief, Moses and Aaron rebuked the\npeople, whose murmurs against them were in reality murmurs against God,\nsince they were but His agents, and He had been visibly their Leader.\nAnd the same rebuke applies, for exactly the same reason, to many a\nmodern complaint against the weather, against what people call their\n\"luck,\" against a thousand provoking things in which the only possible\nprovocation must come directly from heaven. It is because our religion\nis so shallow, and our consciousness of God in His world so dim and\nrudimentary, that we utter such complaints idly, to relieve our\nfeelings, and hear them spoken without a shock.\n\nSuch dulness is not to be removed by sounder views of doctrine, but by a\nmore vivid realisation of God. The Israelites knew by what hand they\nshould have fallen if they had died in Egypt; yet in fact they forgot\ntheir true Captain, and upbraided their mortal leaders. So do we confess\nthat afflictions arise not out of the ground, yet lose the impress of\ndivinity upon our daily lives, while we ought, like Moses, to \"endure as\nseeing Him who is invisible.\"\n\nAs our Lord was in the habit of asking for some confession, or demanding\nsome small co-operation from those He was about to bless, so the smoking\nflax of Hebrew faith is tended: it is a promise, and not the actual\nrelief, which calms them. There is a curious difference in the manner of\nthe communications now made to the people. First of all the two brothers\nunite their energies to hush their outcries: \"At evening ye shall know\nthat Jehovah is your leader from Egypt, and in the morning ye shall\nbehold His glory; and what are we, that ye murmur against us?\" Then\nMoses affirms, with all the energy of his chieftainship, that in the\nevening they shall eat flesh, and in the morning bread to the full.\nAgain he asks them \"What are we?\" and more sternly and directly charges\nthem with murmuring against Jehovah. And this is a good example of the\ntrue meaning of his \"meekness.\" He is fiery enough, but not for his own\ngreatness; rather because he feels his littleness, and that the offence\nis entirely against God, does he resent their conduct; absence of\nself-assertion is his \"meekness,\" and thus we read of it when Miriam and\nAaron spake against him, declaring that they were commissioned as well\nas he (Num. xii. 3). Finally, when order was restored, and some\nmysterious manifestation was at hand, he resumed the solemn and formal\nusage of conveying his orders through his brother, and in cold, compact,\nimpressive words, said unto Aaron, \"Say unto all the congregation of the\nchildren of Israel, Come near before the Lord, for He hath heard your\nmurmurings.\" All this is very dignified and natural. And so is--what\nafter ages could scarcely have invented--the impressive reticence of\nwhat follows. \"They looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory\nof the Lord appeared in the cloud.\"\n\nWere they not then intended to \"come near\"? and was it as they turned\ntheir faces to draw nigh that the Vision revealed itself and stopped\nthem? And what was the untold sight which they beheld? The narrative\nbelongs to a primitive age; it is quite unlike the elaborate symbolisms\nof Ezekiel and Daniel, or even of Isaiah, but yet this undescribed,\nmystic and solitary glory is not less sublime than the train which\ncovered the Temple-floor, while, hovering above it, reverent seraphim\nveiled their faces and their feet, or the terrible crystal and the\nwheels of dreadful height, or the throne of flame whence issued a fiery\nstream, and before which thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads\nstood (Isa. vi. 2; Ezek. i. 22, 18; Dan. vii. 9, 10). But the point to\nobserve is that it is different, more primitive, an undefined and lonely\nvision of awe well fitted for the desert wilds and for the gaze of men\nwhose hearts must not be misled by the likeness of anything in heaven or\nearth; the glory of the Lord appearing in the cloud (most probably, but\nnot of necessity, the cloud which guided them), and in the direction\nwhence they were so fain to turn away.\n\nNo later inventor would have known how to say so little, much less to\nmake that little harmonise so exactly with the lessons meant to be\nsuggested by the wild and solemn solitudes into which they were now\nplunged.\n\nAnd now the Lord Himself repeats the promise of relief, but first\nsolemnly announces that He is not heedless of their ill-behaviour while\nHe tolerates it. The question is suggested, although not asked, How long\nwill His forbearance last?\n\nWell for them if they learn the lesson, and \"know that I am Jehovah your\nGod,\" mindful of their needs, entitled to their fealty. In the evening,\ntherefore, came a flight of quails; and in the morning they found a\nsmall round thing, small as the hoar-frost, upon the ground.\n\n\n_MANNA._\n\nxvi. 15-36.\n\nThe manna which miraculously supplied the wants of Israel was to them an\nutterly strange food, the use of which they had to learn. Thus it was\nanother means of severing their habitual course of life and association\nof ideas from their degraded past. And while we may not press too far\nthe assertion that it was the \"corn of heaven\" and \"angels' food\"\n(_i.e._ \"the bread of the mighty\"--Psalm lxxviii. 24-5, R.V.), yet the\nnarrative shows, even without help from later scriptures, that it was\ncalculated to sustain their energies and yet to leave their appetites\nunstimulated and unpampered. For they were now called to purer joys\nthan those of the senses--to liberty, a divine vocation, the presence of\nGod, the revelation of His law and the unfolding of His purposes.\nFailing to rise to these heights, they fell far, murmured again, and\nperished by the destroyer, not merely to avenge the petulance of an\nhour, but for all that it betrayed, for treason to their vocation and\nradical inability to even comprehend its meaning. In the language of\nmodern science, it answered to Nature's rejection of the unfit.\n\nTheir calling was thus, though under very different forms, that which\nthe apostles found so hard, yet did not quite refuse: it was to mind the\nthings of God and not the things of men.\n\nIt is well known that the manna of the Israelites bore some resemblance\nto a natural product of the wilderness, still exuded by certain plants\nduring the coolness of the night, and formerly more plentiful than now,\nwhen all vegetation has been ruthlessly swept away by the Bedouin. But\nthe differences are much greater than the resemblance. The natural\nproduct is a drug, and not a food; it is gathered only during some weeks\nof summer; it is not liable to speedy corruption, nor could there be any\nreason for preserving a specimen of this common product in the ark; it\ncould not have sufficed, however aided by their herds and flocks, to\nfeed one in a hundred of the Hebrew multitudes, even during the season\nof its production; nor could it have ceased on the same day when they\nate the first ripe corn of Canaan.\n\nAnd yet the resemblance is suggestive. Unbelievers find, in the links\nwhich connect most of our Scripture miracles with nature, in the\nundefined and gradual transition from one to the other, as from a\ntemperate day to night, an excuse for denying that they are miraculous\nat all. But the instructed believer finds a confirmation of his faith.\nHe reflects that when Fancy begins to toy with the supernatural, she\nspurns nature from her: the trammels under which she has long chafed are\nhateful to her, and she flies from them to the utmost extreme.\n\nIt could not be thus with Him by whom the system of the world was\nframed. He will not wantonly interfere with His own plan. He will regard\nnature as an elastic band to stretch, rather than as a chain to break.\nIf He will multiply food, in the New Testament, that is no reason why\nHis disciples should fare more delicately than Providence intended for\nthem: they shall still eat barley loaves and fish. And so the winds help\nto overthrow Pharaoh and to bring the quails; and when a new thing has\nto be created, it approaches in its general idea to one of the few\nnatural products of that inhospitable region.\n\nNow let it be supposed for a moment that the supply of manna had never\nceased, so that until this day men could every morning gather a day's\nration off the ground. Such continuance of the provision would not make\nit any the less a gift; but only a more lavish boon. And yet it would\nclearly cease to be regarded as miraculous, an exception to the course\nof nature, miscalled her \"laws,\" since men do strive to subvert the\nmiracle by representing that such manna, however scantily, may still be\nfound. And this may expose the folly of a wish, probably sometimes felt\nby all men, that some miracle had actually been perpetuated, so that we\ncould strengthen our faith at pleasure by looking upon an exhibition of\ndivine power. In truth, no marvel could excel that which annually\nmultiplies the corn beneath the clod, and by the process of decay in\nspringtime feeds the world in autumn. Only its steady recurrence throws\na veil over our eyes; and it is a vain conceit that the same web would\nnot be woven by use between man and the Worker of any other marvel that\nwas perpetuated. Already the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord,\nfor all who have eyes to see.\n\nIt is also to be observed that the manna was not given to teach the\npeople sloth. They were obliged to gather it early, before the sun was\nhot. They had still to endure weary marches, and the care of their\nflocks and herds.\n\nAnd, in curious harmony with the manner of all the gifts of nature, the\nmanna sent from heaven had yet to be prepared by man: \"bake that which\nye will bake, and seethe that which ye will seethe.\" Thus God, by\nnatural means and by the sweat of our brow, gives us our daily bread;\nand all knowledge, art and culture are His gifts, although elaborated by\nthe brain and heart of generations whom He taught.\n\nMoreover, there was a protest against the grasping, unbelieving temper\nwhich cannot trust God with to-morrow, but longs to have much goods laid\nup. That is the temper which forfeits the smile of God, and grinds the\nfaces of the poor, to make an ignoble \"provision\" for the future. How\noften, since the time of Moses, has the unblessed accumulation become\nhateful! How often, since the time of St. James, the rust of such\npossession has eaten the flesh like fire! Men would be far more\ngenerous, the difference between wealth and poverty would be less\nportentous, and the resources of religion and charity less crippled, if\nwe lived in the spirit of the Lord's prayer, desirous of the advance of\nthe kingdom, but not asking to be given to-morrow's bread until\nto-morrow. That lesson was taught by the manner of the dispensation of\nthe manna, but the covetousness of Israel would not learn it. The people\nactually strove to be dishonest in their enjoyment of a miracle. It is\nno wonder that Moses was wroth with them.\n\nAmong the strange properties of their supernatural food not the least\ncurious was this: that when they came to measure what they had\ncollected, and compare it with what Moses had bidden,[31] the most eager\nand able-bodied had nothing over, and the feeblest had no lack. Every\nreal worker was supplied, and none was glutted. This result is\napparently miraculous. St. Paul's use of it does not, as some have\nsupposed, represent it as a result of Hebrew benevolence, sharing with\nthe weak the more abundant supplies of the strong: the miracle is not\ncited as an example of charity, but of that practical equality, divinely\napproved, which Christian charity should reproduce; the Christian Church\nis bidden to do voluntarily what was done by miracle in the wilderness:\n\"your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that\ntheir abundance also may become a supply for your want, that there may\nbe equality; as it is written, He that gathered much had nothing over,\nand he that gathered little had no lack\" (2 Cor. viii. 15).\n\nIt is quite in vain to appeal to this passage in favour of socialistic\ntheories. In the first place it applies only to the necessities of\nexistence; and even granting that the state should enforce the\nprinciple to which it points, the duty would not extend beyond a liberal\npoor rate. When contributions were afterwards demanded for the\nsanctuary, there is no trace of a dead level in their resources: the\nrulers gave the gems and spices and oil, some brought gold, with some\nwere found blue and linen and skins, and others had acacia-wood to offer\n(xxxv. 22-4).\n\nIn the second place, this arrangement was only temporary; and while the\nsoil of Canaan was distinctly claimed for the Lord, the enjoyment of it\nby individuals was secured, and perpetuated in their families, by\nstringent legislation. Now, land is the kind of property which\nsocialists most vehemently assail; but persons who appeal to Exodus must\nsubmit to the authority of Judges.\n\nSocialism, therefore, and its coercive measures, find no more real\nsanction here than in the Church of Jerusalem, where the property of\nAnanias was his own, and the price of it in his own power. But yet it is\nhighly significant that in both Testaments, as the Church of God starts\nupon its career, an example should be given of the effacing of\ninequalities, in the one case by miracle, in the other by such a\nvoluntary movement as best becomes the gospel. Is not such a movement,\nlarge and free, the true remedy for our modern social distractions and\ncalamities? Would it not be wise and Christ-like for the rich to give,\nas St. Paul taught the Corinthians to give, what the law could never\nwisely exact from them? Would not self-denial, on a scale to imply real\nsacrifice, and fulfilling in spirit rather than letter the apostle's\naspiration for \"equality,\" secure in return the enthusiastic adhesion to\nthe rights of property of all that is best and noblest among the poor?\n\nWhen will the world, or even the Church, awaken to the great truth that\nour politics also need to be steeped in Christian feeling--that humanity\nrequires not a revolution but a pentecost--that a millennium cannot be\nenacted, but will dawn whenever human bosoms are emptied of selfishness\nand lust, and filled with brotherly kindness and compassion? Such, and\nno more, was the socialism which St. Paul deduced from the equality in\nthe supply of manna.\n\n\n_SPIRITUAL MEAT._\n\nxvi. 15-36.\n\nSince the journey of Israel is throughout full of sacred meaning, no one\ncan fail to discern a mystery in the silent ceaseless daily miracle of\nbread-giving. But we are not left to our conjectures. St. Paul calls\nmanna \"spiritual meat,\" not because it nourished the higher life (for\nthe eaters of it murmured for flesh, and were not estranged from their\nlust), but because it answered to realities of the spiritual world (1\nCor. x. 3). And Christ Himself said, \"It was not Moses that gave you the\nbread out of heaven, but My Father giveth you the true Bread from\nheaven,\" making manna the type of sustenance which the soul needs in the\nwilderness, and which only God can give (John vi. 32).\n\nWe note the time of its bestowal. The soul has come forth out of its\nbondage. Perhaps it imagines that emancipation is enough: all is won\nwhen its chains are broken: there is to be no interval between the Egypt\nof sin and the Promised Land of milk and honey and repose. Instead of\nthis serene attainment, it finds that the soul requires to be fed, and\nno food is to be seen, but only a wilderness of scorching heat, dry\nsand, vacancy, and hunger. Old things have passed away, but it is not\nyet realised that all things have become new. Religion threatens to\nbecome a vast system for the removal of accustomed indulgences and\nenjoyments, but where is the recompense for all that it forbids? The\nsoul cries out for food: well for it if the cry be not faithless, nor\nspoken to earthly chiefs alone!\n\nThere is a noteworthy distinction between the gift of manna and every\nother recorded miracle of sustenance. In Eden the fruit of immortality\nwas ripening upon an earthly tree. The widow of Zarephath was fed from\nher own stores. The ravens bore to Elijah ordinary bread and flesh; and\nif an angel fed him, it was with a cake baken upon coals. Christ Himself\nwas content to multiply common bread and fish, and even after His\nresurrection gave His apostles the fare to which they were accustomed.\nThus they learned that the divine life must be led amid the ordinary\nconditions of mortality. Even the incarnation of Deity was wrought in\nthe likeness of sinful flesh. But yet the incarnation was the bringing\nof a new life, a strange and unknown energy, to man.\n\nAnd here, almost at the beginning of revelation, is typified, not the\nhomely conditions of the inner life, but its unearthly nature and\nessence. Here is no multiplication of their own stores, no gift, like\nthe quails, of such meat as they were wont to gather. They asked \"What\nis it?\" And this teaches the Christian that his sustenance is not of\nthis world. They were fed \"with manna which they knew not ... to make\nthem know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that\nproceedeth out of the mouth of God doth man live\" (Deut. viii. 3). The\nroot of worldliness is not in this indulgence or that, in gay clothing\nor an active career; but in the soul's endeavour to draw its nourishment\nfrom things below. And spirituality belongs not to an uncouth\nvocabulary, nor to the robes of any confraternity, to rigid rules or\naustere deportment; it is the blessedness of a life nourished upon the\nbread of heaven, and doomed to starve if that bread be not bestowed. Let\nnot the wealthy find an insuperable bar to spirituality in his\ncondition, nor the poor suppose that indigence cannot have its treasure\nupon earth; but let each man ask whence come his most real and practical\nimpulses and energies upon life's journey. If these flow from even the\npurest earthly source--love of wife or child, anything else than\ncommunion with the Father of spirits, this is not the bread of life, and\ncan no more nourish a pilgrim towards eternity than the husks which\nswine eat.\n\nThere is no mistaking the doctrine of the New Testament as to what this\nbread may be. By prayer and faith, by ordinances and sacraments rightly\nused, the manna may be gathered; but Jesus Himself is the Bread of life,\nHis Flesh is meat indeed and His Blood is drink indeed, and He gives His\nFlesh for the life of the world. Christ is the Vine, and we are the\nbranches, fruitful only by the sap which flows from Him. As there are\ndiseases which cannot be overcome by powerful drugs, but by a generous\nand wholesome dietary, so is it with the diseases of the soul--pride,\nanger, selfishness, falsehood, lust. As the curse of sin is removed by\nthe faith which appropriates pardon, so its power is broken by the\nsteady personal acceptance of Christ; and our Bread and Wine are His new\nhumanity, given to us, until He becomes the second Father of the race,\nwhich is begotten again in Him. An easy temper is not Christian\nmeekness; dislike to witness pain is not Christian love. All our\ngoodness must strike root deeper than in the sensibilities, must be\nnourished by the communication to us of the mind which was in Christ\nJesus.\n\nAnd this food is universally given, and universally suitable. The strong\nand the weak, the aged chieftain and little children, ate and were\nnourished. No stern decree excluded any member of the visible Church in\nthe wilderness from sharing the bread from heaven: they did eat the same\nspiritual meat, provided only that they gathered it. Their part was to\nbe in earnest in accepting, and so is ours; but if we fail, whom shall\nwe blame except ourselves? In the mystery of its origin, in the silent\nand secret mode of its descent from above, in the constancy of its\nbestowal, and in its suitability for all the camp, for Moses and the\nyoungest child, the manna prefigured Christ.\n\nEvery day a fresh supply had to be laid up, and nothing could be held\nover from the largest hoard. So it is with us: we must give ourselves to\nChrist for ever, but we must ask Him daily to give Himself to us. The\nrichest experience, the purest aspiration, the humblest self-abandonment\nthat was ever felt, could not reach forward to supply the morrow. Past\ngraces will become loathsome if used instead of present supplies from\nheaven. And the secret of many a scandalous fall is that the unhappy\nsoul grew self-confident: unlike St. Paul, he reckoned that he had\nalready attained; and thereupon the graces in which he trusted became\ncorrupt and vile.\n\nThe constant supply was not more needful than it was abundant. The manna\nlay all around the camp: the Bread of Life is He who stands at our door\nand knocks. Alas for those who murmur for grosser indulgences! Israel\ndemanded and obtained them; but while the flesh was in their nostrils\nthe angel of the Lord went forth and smote them. Is there no plague any\nlonger for the perverse? What are the discords that convulse families,\nthe uncurbed passions to which nothing is sacred, the jaded appetite and\nweary discontent which hates the world even as it hates itself? what but\nthe judgment of God upon those who despise His provision, and must needs\ngratify themselves? Be it our happiness, as it is our duty, to trust Him\nto prepare our table before us, while He leads us to His Holy Land.\n\nThe Lord of the Sabbath already taught His people to respect His day.\nUpon it no manna fell; and we shall hereafter see the bearing of this\nincident upon the question whether the Sabbath is only an ordinance of\nJudaism. Meanwhile they who went out to gather had a sharp lesson in the\ndifference between faith, which expects what God has promised, and\npresumption, which hopes not to lose much by disobeying Him.\n\nLastly, an omer of manna was to be kept throughout all generations,\nbefore the Testimony. Grateful remembrance of past mercies, temporal as\nwell as spiritual, was to connect itself with the deepest and most awful\nmysteries of religion. So let it be with us. The bitter proverb that\neaten bread is soon forgotten must never be true of the Christian. He is\nto remember all the way that the Lord his God hath led him. He is bidden\nto \"forget not all His benefits, Who forgiveth all thine iniquities, Who\nhealeth all thy diseases ... Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things.\"\nSo foolish is the slander that religion is too transcendental for the\ncommon life of man.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[31] The \"omer\" of this passage is not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture:\nit is known to have been the one-hundredth part of the homer with which\ncareless readers sometimes confuse it, and its capacity is variously\nestimated, from somewhat under half a gallon to somewhat above\nthree-quarters.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\n\n_MERIBAH._\n\nxvii. 1-7.\n\nThe people, miraculously fed, are therefore called to exhibit more\nconfidence in God than hitherto, because much is required of him to whom\nmuch is given. They have now to plunge deeper into the wilderness; and\nafter two stages which Exodus omits (Num. xxxiii. 12, 13), and just as\nthey approach the mount of God, they find themselves without water. Even\nthe Son of Man Himself was led into the wilderness next after the\ndescent of the Spirit, and the avowal by the voice of God; nor is any\ntrue Christian to marvel if his seasons of special privilege are\nsucceeded by special demands upon his firmness.\n\nOne finds himself conjecturing, very often, what nobler history, what\ngrander analogies between type and antitype, what more gracious and\nlavish interpositions might have instructed us, if only the type had\nbeen less woefully imperfect--if Israel had been trustful as Moses was,\nand the crude material had not marred the design.\n\nIt would be more practical and edifying to reflect how often we\nourselves, like Israel, might have learned and exemplified deep things\nof the grace of God, when all we really exhibited was the well-worn\nlesson of human frailty and divine forbearance.\n\nIn the story of our Lord, it has been observed that before the Pharisees\ndirectly assailed Himself, they found fault with His disciples who\nfasted not, or accosted them concerning Him Who ate with sinners. And so\nhere the people really tempted God, but openly \"strove with Moses,\" and\nwith Aaron too, for the verb is a plural one: \"Give _ye_ water\" (ver.\n2).\n\nBut as Aaron is merely an agent and spokesman, the chief value of this\ntacit allusion to him, besides proving his fidelity, is to refute the\nnotion that he sinks into comparative obscurity only after the sin of\nthe golden calf. Already his position is one to be indicated rather than\nexpressed; and Moses said, \"Why do ye quarrel with me? wherefore do ye\ntry the Lord?\"\n\nBut the frenzy rose higher: it was he, and not a higher One, who had\nbrought them out of Egypt; the upshot of it would only be \"to kill us,\nand our children, and our cattle, with thirst.\"\n\nLook closely at this expression, and a curious significance discloses\nitself. Was it mere covetousness, the spirit of the Jew Shylock\nlamenting in one breath his daughter and his ducats, which introduced\nthe cattle along with the children into this complaint of dying men?\nShylock himself, when death actually looked him in the face, readily\nsacrificed his fortune. Nor is it credible that a large number of\npeople, really believing that a horrible death was imminent, would have\nspent any complaints upon their property. The language is exactly that\nof angry exaggeration. They have come through straits quite as\ndesperate, and they know it well. It is not the fear of death, but the\npainful delay of rescue, the discomfort and misery of their condition in\nthe meanwhile, the contrast between their sufferings and their own\nconception of the rights of the favourites of heaven, which is audible\nin this complaint. And thus their \"Trial\" and \"Quarrel\" are admirably\nepitomised in the phrase \"Is Jehovah among us or not?\" a phrase which\nhas often since been in the heart, if not upon the lips, of men who had\nsupposed the life divine to be one long holiday, the pilgrimage an\nexcursion, when without are fightings and within fears, when they have\ngreat sorrow and heaviness in their hearts.\n\nBecause God is not a Judge, but a Father, the murmurs of Israel do not\nprevent Him from showing mercy. Accordingly, when Moses prays, he is\nbidden to go on before the people, bringing certain of their elders\nalong with him for witnesses of the marvel that was to follow. Such is\nthe Divine method. As soon as unbelief and discontent estranged the Jews\nof the New Testament from Christ, He would not vulgarise His miracles,\nnor do many mighty works among the unbelieving. After His resurrection\nHe appeared not unto all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before.\nAnd as the Jews were chosen to bear witness to Him among the nations, so\nwere these elders now to bear witness among the Jews, who might without\ntheir testimony have fallen into some such rationalising theory as that\nof Tacitus, who says that Moses discovered a fountain by examining a\nspot where wild asses lay.\n\nWith these witnesses, he is bidden to go to a rock in Horeb (so nearly\nhad these murmurers approached the scene of the most awful of all\nmanifestations of Him whose presence they debated), and there God was to\nstand before them upon the rock, making His universal presence a\nlocalised consciousness in their experience.\n\nA true religion is progressive: every stage of it leans on the past and\nsustains the future; and so Moses must bring with him \"the rod,\nwherewith thou smotest the river.\" The dullest can see the fitness of\nthis allusion. Among all the wonders which the shepherd's wand had\nwrought, the mastery over the Nile, the plague which inflicted an\nunwonted thirst upon the inhabitants of that well-watered field of Zoan,\nwas most to the purpose now. To kill and to make alive are the functions\nof the same Being, and He Who spoiled the Egyptian river will now\nrefresh His heritage that is weary. At the touch of the prophetic wand\nthe waters poured forth which thenceforth supplied them through all\ntheir desert wanderings.\n\nReserving the symbolic meaning of this event for a future study, we have\nto remember meanwhile the warning which the apostle here discovered. All\nthe people drank of the rock, yet with many of them God was not pleased.\nPrivilege is one thing--acceptance is quite another; and it shall be\nmore tolerable at last for Sodom and Gomorrah than for nations, churches\nand men, who were content to resemble soil that drinketh in the rain\nthat cometh upon it oft, and yet to remain unfruitful. Already the\nconduct of Israel was such that the place was named from human\nworthlessness rather than Divine beneficence. Too often, it is the more\nconspicuous part of the story of the relations of God and man.\n\n\n_AMALEK._\n\nxvii. 8-16.\n\nNothing can be more natural, to those who remember the value of a\nfountain in the East, than that Amalek should swoop down from his own\nterritories upon Israel, as soon as this abundant river tempted his\ncupidity. This unprovoked attack of a kindred nation leads to another\nadvance in the education of the people.\n\nThey had hitherto been the sheep of God: now they must become His\nwarriors. At the Red Sea it was said to them, \"Stand still, and see the\nsalvation of the Lord ... the Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall\nhold your peace\" (xiv. 13). But it is not so now. Just as the function\nof every true miracle is to lead to a state of faith in which miracles\nare not required; just as a mother reaches her hand to a tottering\ninfant, that presently the boy may go alone, so the Lord fought for\nIsrael, that Israel might learn to fight for the Lord. The herd of\nslaves who came out of Egypt could not be trusted to stand fast in\nbattle; and what a defeat would have done with them we may judge by\ntheir outcries at the very sight of Pharaoh. But now they had experience\nof Divine succour, and had drawn the inspiring breath of freedom. And so\nit was reasonable to expect that some chosen men of them at least will\nbe able to endure the shock of battle. And if so, it was a matter of the\nlast importance to develop and render conscious the national spirit, a\nspirit so noble in its unselfish readiness to die, and in its scorn of\nsuch material ills as anguish and mutilation compared with baseness and\ndishonour, that the re-kindling of it in seasons of peril and conflict\nis more than half a compensation for the horrors of a battle-field.\n\nWe do not now inquire what causes avail to justify the infliction and\nendurance of those horrors. Probably they will vary from age to age; and\nas the ties grow strong which bind mankind together, the rupture of them\nwill be regarded with an ever-deepening shudder,--just as England\nto-day would certainly refuse to make war upon our American kinsmen for\na provocation which (rightly or wrongly) she would not endure from\nRussians. But the point to be observed is that war cannot be inherently\nimmoral, since God instructed in war the first nation that He ever\ntrained, not using its experience of His immediate interpositions to\nsupersede all need of human strife, but to make valiant soldiers, and\nadding some of the most precious lessons of all their later experience\non the battle-field and by the sword. Now, it assuredly cannot be shown\nthat anything in itself immoral is fostered and encouraged by the Old\nTestament. Slavery and divorce, which it was not yet possible to\nextirpate, were hampered, restricted, and reduced to a minimum, being\n\"suffered\" \"because of the hardness of 'their' hearts\" (Matt. xix. 8).\nThe wildest assailant of the Pentateuch will scarcely pretend that it\nfosters and incites either divorce or slavery, as, beyond all question,\nit encourages the martial ardour of the Jews.\n\nAnd yet war, though permissible, and in certain circumstances necessary,\nis only necessary as the lesser of two evils; it is not in itself good.\nSolomon, not David, could build the temple of the Lord; and Isaiah\nsharply contrasts the Messiah with even that providentially appointed\nconqueror, the only pagan who is called by God \"My anointed,\" in that\nthe one comes upon rulers as upon mortar, and as the potter treadeth\nclay, but the Other breaks not a bruised reed, nor quenches the smoking\nflax (Isa. xli. 25, xlii. 3, xlv. 1). The ideal of humanity is peace,\nand also it is happiness, but war may not yet have ceased to be a\nnecessity of life, sometimes as ruinous to evade as any other form of\nsuffering.\n\nAnother necessity of national development is the advancement of capable\nmen. The empire of Napoleon would assuredly have withered, if only\nbecause its chief was as jealous of commanding genius as he was ready to\nadvance and patronise capacity of the second order. It is a maxim that\ntrue greatness finds worthy colleagues and successors, and rejoices in\nthem. And while the guidance of Jehovah is to be assumed throughout, it\nis significant that the first mention of the splendid commander and\ngodly judge, during all whose days and the days of his contemporaries\nIsrael served Jehovah, comes not in any express revelation or\ncommandment of God; but the narrative relates that Moses said unto\nJoshua, \"Choose out men for us and go out, fight with Amalek: to-morrow\nI will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.\"\nThey are the words of one who had noted him already as \"a man in whom is\nthe Spirit\" (Num. xxvii. 18), of one also who had unlearned, in the\nexperience now of eighty years, the desire of glittering achievement and\nmartial fame, who knew that the deepest fountains of real power are\nhidden, and was content that another should lead the headlong and\nvictorious charge, if only it were his to hold, upon the top of the\nhill, the rod of God.\n\nOnce it was his own rod: with it the exiled shepherd controlled the\nsheep of his master; that it should be the medium of the miraculous had\nappeared to be an additional miracle, but now it was the very rod of\nGod, nor was any cry to heaven more eloquent and better grounded than\nsimply the reaching toward the skies, in long, steady, mute appeal, of\nthat symbol of all His dealings with them--the plaguing of Egypt, the\nrecession of the tide and its wild return, the bringing of water from\nthe rock. Was all to be in vain? Should the wild boar waste the vine\njust brought out of Egypt before ever it reached the appointed vineyard?\nAnd we also should be able to plead with God the noble works that He\nhath done in our time. For us also there ought to be such experience as\nworketh hope. As long as the exertion was possible even to the heroic\nforce which age had not abated, Moses thus prayed for his people; for\nthe gesture was a prayer, and a grand one, and must not be criticised\notherwise than as the act of a poetic and primitive genius, whose\ninstitutions throughout are full of spiritual import. While he did this,\nIsrael prevailed; but the slow progress of the victory reminds us of\nthese dreary centuries during which we are just able to discern some\ngradual advance of the kingdom of Christ on earth, but no rout, no\ncollapse of evil. And why was this? Because the sustaining and permanent\nenergy was not to flow from the prayers of one, however holy and however\neminent; three men were together in the mountain, and the co-operation\nof them all was demanded; so that only when Aaron and Hur supported the\nsinking hand of their chief was the decisive victory given.\n\nNow, the lesson from all this does not concern the High-priestly\nintercession of our Lord, for the office of Moses is consistently\ndistinguished from the priesthood. Nor can the notion be tolerated that\nif our Lord requires mortal co-operation before asking and being given\nthe heathen for His heritage, which is obviously the case, the reason\ncan be at all expressed by that weakness which needed support.\n\nNo, the Lord our Priest is also Himself the dispenser of victory. To Him\nall power is given on earth, and to Him it is our duty to appeal for\nthe triumph of His own cause. And here and there, doubtless, a\nChristian heart is fervent and faithful in its intercessions. To these,\nunknown, unsuspected by the combatants in the heat of battle,--to humble\nsaints, some of them bed-ridden, ignorant, poverty-stricken, despised,\nholy souls who have no controversial skill, no missionary calling, but\nwho possess the grace habitually to convert their wishes into\nprayers,--to such, perhaps, it is due that the idols of India and China\nare now bowing down. And when they cease to be a minority in so doing,\nwhen those who now criticise learn to sustain their flagging energies,\nwe shall see a day of the Lord.\n\nObserve, however, that as the active exertion of the host does not\ndisplace the silence of intercession, neither is it displaced itself:\nJoshua really bore his part in the discomfiture of Amalek and his host.\nAnd so it is always. The development of human energy to the uttermost is\na part of the design of Him Who gave a task even to unfallen man. Let\nnone suppose that to labour is (sufficiently and by itself) to pray; but\nalso let none idly persuade himself that while energies and\nresponsibilities are his, to pray is sufficiently to labour.\n\nThus it came to pass that Israel won its first victory in battle.\nAnother step was taken toward the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham\nto make of him a great nation; and also toward the gradual transference\nof the national faith from a passive reliance in Divine interposition to\nan abiding confidence in Divine help. Let it be clearly understood that\nthis latter is the nobler and the more mature faith.\n\nWith martial ardour, God took care to inculcate the sense of national\nresponsibility, without which warriors become no more than brigands. So\nit was with Amalek: he had not been attacked or even menaced; he had\nmarched out from his own territories to assail an innocent and kindred\nrace (\"then _came_ Amalek\" ver. 8), and his attack had been cruel and\ncowardly, he smote the hindmost, all that were feeble and in the rear,\nwhen they were faint and weary, and he feared not God (Deut. xxv. 18).\nAgainst all such tactics the wrath of God was denounced when, because of\nthem, Amalek was doomed to total extirpation.\n\nMoses now built an altar, to imprint on the mind of the people this new\nlesson. And he called it, \"The Lord is my Banner,\" a title which called\nthe nation at once to valour and to obedience, which asserted that they\nwere an army, but a consecrated one.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow let us ask whether this simple story is at all the kind of thing\nwhich legend or myth would have created, for the first martial exploit\nof Israel. The obscure part played by Moses is not what we would expect;\nnor, even as a mediator, is the position of one whose arms must be held\nup a very romantic conception. If the object is to inspire the Jews for\nlater struggles with more formidable foes, the story is ill-contrived,\nfor we read of no surprising force of Amalek, and no inspiriting exploit\nof Joshua. Everything is as prosaic as the real course of events in this\npoor world is wont to be. And on that account it is all the more useful\nto us who live prosaic lives, and need the help of God among prosaic\ncircumstances.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\n\n_JETHRO._\n\nxviii. 1-27.\n\nThe defeat of Amalek is followed by the visit of Jethro; the opposite\npole of the relation between Israel and the nations, the coming of the\nGentiles to his brightness. And already that is true which repeats\nitself all through the history of the Church, that much secular wisdom,\nthe art of organisation, the structure and discipline of societies, may\nbe drawn from the experience and wisdom of the world.\n\nMoses was under the special guidance of God, as really as any modern\nenthusiast can claim to be. When he turned for aid or direction to\nheaven, he was always answered. And yet he did not think scorn of the\ncounsel of his kinsman. And although eighty years had not dimmed the\nfire of his eyes, nor wasted his strength, he neglected not the warning\nwhich taught him to economise his force; not to waste on every paltry\ndispute the attention and wisdom which could govern the new-born state.\n\nJethro is the kinsman, and probably the brother-in-law of Moses; for if\nhe were the father-in-law, and the same as Reuel in the second chapter,\nwhy should a new name be introduced without any mark of identification?\nWhen he hears of the emancipation of Israel from Egypt, he brings back\nto Moses his two sons and Zipporah, who had been sent away, after the\nangry scene at the circumcision of the younger, and before he entered\nEgypt with his life in his hand. Now he was a great personage, the\nleader of a new nation, and the conqueror of the proudest monarch in the\nworld. With what feelings would the wife and husband meet? We are told\nnothing of their interview, nor have we any reason to qualify the\nunfavourable impression produced by the circumstances of their parting,\nby the schismatic worship founded by their grandchildren, and by the\nloneliness implied in the very names of Gershom and\nEliezer--\"A-stranger-there,\" and \"God-a-Help.\"\n\nBut the relations between Moses and Jethro are charming, whether we look\nat the obeisance rendered to the official minister of God by him whom\nGod had honoured so specially, by the prosperous man to the friend of\nhis adversity, or at the interest felt by the priest of Midian in all\nthe details of the great deliverance of which he had heard already, or\nhis joy in a Divine manifestation, probably not in all respects\naccording to the prejudices of his race, or his praise of Jehovah as\n\"greater than all gods, yea, in the thing wherein they dealt proudly\nagainst them\" (ver. 11, R.V.). The meaning of this phrase is either that\nthe gods were plagued in their own domains, or that Jehovah had finally\nvanquished the Egyptians by the very element in which they were most\noppressive, as when Moses himself had been exposed to drown.\n\nThere is another expression, in the first verse, which deserves to be\nremarked. How do the friends of a successful man think of the scenes in\nwhich he has borne a memorable part? They chiefly think of them in\nconnection with their own hero. And amid all the story of the Exodus, in\nwhich so little honour is given to the human actor, the one trace of\npersonal exultation is where it is most natural and becoming; it is in\nthe heart of his relative: \"When Jethro ... heard of all that the Lord\nhad done _for Moses_ and for Israel.\"\n\nWe are told, with marked emphasis, that this Midianite, a priest, and\naccustomed to act as such with Moses in his family, \"took a\nburnt-offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came, and all the\nelders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before God.\"\nNor can we doubt that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who laid\nsuch stress upon the subordination of Abraham to Melchizedek, would have\ndiscerned in the relative position of Jethro and Aaron another evidence\nthat the ascendency of the Aaronic priesthood was only temporary. We\nshall hereafter see that priesthood is a function of redeemed humanity,\nand that all limitations upon it were for a season, and due to human\nshortcoming. But for this very reason (if there were no other) the chief\npriest could only be He Who represents and embodies all humanity, in\nWhom is neither Jew nor Greek, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free,\nbecause He is all and in all.\n\nIn the meantime, here is recognised, in the history of Israel, a Gentile\npriesthood.\n\nAnd, as at the passover, so now, the sacrifice to God is partaken of by\nHis people, who are conscious of acceptance by Him. Happy was the union\nof innocent festivity with a sacramental recognition of God. It is the\nsame sentiment which was aimed at by the primitive Christian Church in\nher feasts of love, genuine meals in the house of God, until licence and\nappetite spoiled them, and the apostle asked \"Have ye not houses to eat\nand drink in?\" (1 Cor. xi. 22). Shall there never come a time when the\nvictorious and pure Church of the latter days shall regain what we have\nforfeited, when the doctrine of the consecration of what is called\n\"secular life\" shall be embodied again in forms like these? It speaks to\nus meanwhile in a form which is easily ridiculed (as in Lamb's\nwell-known essay), and yet singularly touching and edifying if rightly\nconsidered, in the asking for a blessing upon our meals.\n\nOn the morrow, Jethro saw Moses, all day long, deciding the small\nmatters and great which needed already to be adjudicated for the nation.\nHe who had striven, without a commission, himself to smite the Egyptian\nand lead out Israel, is the same self-reliant, heroic, not too discreet\nperson still.\n\nBut the true statesman and administrator is he who employs to the utmost\nall the capabilities and energies of his subordinates. And Jethro made a\ndeep mark in history when he taught Moses the distinction between the\nlawgiver and the judge, between him who sought from God and proclaimed\nto the people the principles of justice and their form, and him who\napplied the law to each problem as it arose.\n\n\"It is supposed, and with probability,\" writes Kalisch (_in loco_),\n\"that Alfred the Great, who was well versed in the Bible, based his own\nSaxon constitution of sheriffs in counties, etc., on the example of the\nMosaic division (comp. _Bacon on English Government_, i. 70).\" And thus\nit may be that our own nation owes its free institutions almost directly\nto the generous interest in the well-being of his relative, felt by an\nArabian priest, who cherished, amid the growth of idolatries all around\nhim, the primitive belief in God, and who rightly held that the first\nqualifications of a capable judge were ability, and the fear of God,\ntruthfulness and hatred of unjust gain.\n\nWe learn from Deuteronomy (i. 9-15), that Moses allowed the people\nthemselves to elect these officials, who became not only their judges\nbut their captains.\n\nFrom the whole of this narrative we see clearly that the intervention of\nGod for Israel is no more to be regarded as superseding the exercise of\nhuman prudence and common-sense, than as dispensing with valour in the\nrepulse of Amalek, and with patience in journeying through the\nwilderness.\n\n\nTHE TYPICAL BEARINGS OF THE HISTORY.\n\n\nWe are now about to pass from history to legislation. And this is a\nconvenient stage at which to pause, and ask how it comes to pass that\nall this narrative is also, in some sense, an allegory. It is a\ndiscussion full of pitfalls. Countless volumes of arbitrary and fanciful\ninterpretation have done their worst to discredit every attempt, however\ncautious and sober, at finding more than the primary signification in\nany narrative.[32] And whoever considers the reckless, violent and\ninconsistent methods of the mystical commentators may be forgiven if he\nrecoils from occupying the ground which they have wasted, and contents\nhimself with simply drawing the lessons which the story directly\nsuggests.\n\nBut the New Testament does not warrant such a surrender. It tells us\nthat leaven answers to malice, and unleavened bread to sincerity; that\nat the Red Sea the people were baptized; that the tabernacle and the\naltar, the sacrifice and the priest, the mercy-seat and the manna, were\nall types and shadows of abiding Christian realities.\n\nIt is more surprising to find the return of the infant Jesus connected\nwith the words \"When Israel was a child then I loved him, and I called\nMy son out of Egypt,\"--for it is impossible to doubt that the prophet\nwas here speaking of the Exodus, and had in mind the phrase \"Israel is\nMy son, My firstborn: let My son go, that he may serve Me\" (Matt. i. 15;\nHos. xi. 1; Exod. iv. 22).\n\nHow are such passages to be explained? Surely not by finding a\nsuperficial resemblance between two things, and thereupon transferring\nto one of them whatever is true of the other. No thought can attain\naccuracy except by taking care not to confuse in this way things which\nsuperficially resemble each other.\n\nBut no thought can be fertilising and suggestive which neglects real and\ndeep resemblances, resemblances of principle as well as incident,\nresemblances which are due to the mind of God or the character of man.\n\nIn the structure and furniture of the tabernacle, and the order of its\nservices, there are analogies deliberately planned, and such as every\none would expect, between religious truth shadowed forth in Judaism, and\nthe same truth spoken in these latter days unto us in the Son.\n\nBut in the emancipation, the progress, and alas! the sins and\nchastisements of Israel, there are analogies of another kind, since here\nit is history which resembles theology, and chiefly secular things which\nare compared with spiritual. But the analogies are not capricious; they\nare based upon the obvious fact that the same God Who pitied Israel in\nbondage sees, with the same tender heart, a worse tyranny. For it is not\na figure of speech to say that sin is slavery. Sin does outrage the\nwill, and degrade and spoil the life. The sinner does obey a hard and\nmerciless master. If his true home is in the kingdom of God, he is,\nlike Israel, not only a slave but an exile. Is God the God of the Jew\nonly? for otherwise He must, being immutable, deal with us and our\ntyrant as He dealt with Israel and Pharaoh. If He did not, by an\nexertion of omnipotence, transplant them from Egypt to their inheritance\nat one stroke, but required of them obedience, co-operation, patient\ndiscipline, and a gradual advance, why should we expect the whole work\nand process of grace to be summed up in the one experience which we call\nconversion? Yet if He did, promptly and completely, break their chains\nand consummate their emancipation, then the fact that grace is a\nprogressive and gradual experience does not forbid us to reckon\nourselves dead unto sin. If the region through which they were led,\nduring their time of discipline, was very unlike the land of milk and\nhoney which awaited the close of their pilgrimage, it is not unlikely\nthat the same God will educate his later Church by the same means,\nleading us also by a way that we know not, to humble and prove us, that\nHe may do us good at the latter end.\n\nAnd if He marks, by a solemn institution, the period when we enter into\ncovenant relations with Himself, and renounce the kingdom and tyranny of\nHis foe, is it marvellous that the apostle found an analogy for this in\nthe great event by which God punctuated the emancipation of Israel,\nleading them out of Egypt through the sea depths and beneath the\nprotecting cloud?\n\nIf privilege, and adoption, and the Divine good-will, did not shelter\nthem from the consequences of ingratitude and rebellion, if He spared\nnot the natural branches, we should take heed lest He spare not us.\n\nSuch analogies are really arguments, as solid as those of Bishop\nButler.\n\nBut the same cannot be maintained so easily of some others. When that is\nquoted of our Lord upon the cross which was written of the paschal lamb,\n\"a bone shall not be broken\" (Exod. xii. 46, John xix. 36), we feel that\nthe citation needs to be justified upon different grounds. But such\ngrounds are available. He was the true Lamb of God. For His sake the\navenger passes over all His followers. His flesh is meat indeed. And\ntherefore, although no analogy can be absolutely perfect, and the type\nhas nothing to declare that His blood is drink indeed, yet there is an\nadmirable fitness, worthy of inspired record, in the consummating and\nfulfilment in Him, and in Him alone of three sufferers, of the precept\n\"A bone of Him shall not be broken.\" It may not be an express prophecy\nwhich is brought to pass, but it is a beautiful and appropriate\ncorrespondence, wrought out by Providence, not available for the\ncoercion of sceptics, but good for the edifying of believers.\n\nAnd so it is with the calling of the Son out of Egypt. Unquestionably\nHosea spoke of Israel. But unquestionably too the phrase \"My Son, My\nFirstborn\" is a startling one. Here is already a suggestive difference\nbetween the monotheism of the Old Testament and the austere jealous\nlogical orthodoxy of the Koran, which protests \"It is not meet for God\nto have any Son, God forbid\" (Sura xix. 36). Jesus argued that such a\nrigid and lifeless orthodoxy as that of later Judaism, ought to have\nbeen scandalised, long before it came to consider His claims, by the\nancient and recognised inspiration which gave the name of gods to men\nwho sat in judgment as the representatives of Heaven. He claimed the\nright to carry still further the same principle--namely, that deity is\nnot selfish and incommunicable, but practically gives itself away, in\ntransferring the exercise of its functions. From such condescension\neverything may be expected, for God does not halt in the middle of a\npath He has begun to tread.\n\nBut if this argument of Jesus were a valid one (and the more it is\nexamined the more profound it will be seen to be), how significant will\nthen appear the term \"My Son,\" as applied to Israel!\n\nIn condescending so far, God almost pledged Himself to the Incarnation,\nbeing no dealer in half measures, nor likely to assume rhetorically a\nrelation to mankind to which in fact He would not stoop.\n\nEvery Christian feels, moreover, that it is by virtue of the grand and\nfinal condescension that all the preliminary steps are possible. Because\nAbraham's seed was one, that is Christ, therefore ye (all) if ye are\nChrist's, are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise (Gal. iii. 16,\n29).\n\nBut when this great harmony comes to be devoutly recognised, a hundred\nminor and incidental points of contact are invested with a sacred\ninterest.\n\nNo doctrinal injury would have resulted, if the Child Jesus had never\nleft the Holy Land. No infidel could have served his cause by quoting\nthe words of Hosea. Nor can we now cite them against infidels as a\nprophecy fulfilled. But when He does return from Egypt our devotions,\nnot our polemics, hail and rejoice in the coincidence. It reminds us,\nalthough it does not demonstrate, that He who is thus called out of\nEgypt is indeed the Son.\n\nThe sober historian cannot prove anything, logically and to\ndemonstration, by the reiterated interventions in history of atmospheric\nphenomena. And yet no devout thinker can fail to recognise that God has\nreserved the hail against the time of trouble and war.\n\nIn short, it is absurd and hopeless to bid us limit our contemplation,\nin a divine narrative, to what can be demonstrated like the propositions\nof Euclid. We laugh at the French for trying to make colonies and\nconstitutions according to abstract principles, and proposing, as they\nonce did, to reform Europe \"after the Chinese manner.\" Well, religion\nalso is not a theory: it is the true history of the past of humanity,\nand it is the formative principle in the history of the present and the\nfuture.\n\nAnd hence it follows that we may dwell with interest and edification\nupon analogies, as every great thinker confesses the existence of\ntruths, \"which never can be proved.\"\n\nIn the meantime it is easy to recognise the much simpler fact, that\nthese things happened unto them by way of example, and they were written\nfor our admonition.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[32] Take as an example the assertion of Bunyan that the sea in the\nRevelation is a sea of glass, because the laver in the tabernacle was\nmade of the brazen looking-glasses of the women. (_Solomon's Temple_,\nxxxvi. 1.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\n\n_AT SINAI._\n\nxix. 1-25.\n\nIn the third month from the Exodus, and on the selfsame day (which\naddition fixes the date precisely), the people reached the wilderness of\nSinai. This answers fairly to the date of Pentecost, which was\nafterwards connected by tradition with the giving of the law. And\ntherefore Pentecost was the right time for the gift of the Holy Ghost,\nbringing with Him the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and\nthat freedom from servile Jewish obedience which is not attained by\nviolating law, but by being imbued in its spirit, by the love which is\nthe fulfilling of the law.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere is among the solemn solitudes of Sinai a wide amphitheatre,\nreached by two converging valleys, and confronted by an enormous\nperpendicular cliff, the Ras Sufs\u00e2feh--a \"natural altar,\" before which\nthe nation had room to congregate, awed by the stern magnificence of the\napproach, and by the intense loneliness and desolation of the\nsurrounding scene, and thus prepared for the unparalleled revelation\nwhich awaited them.\n\nIt is the manner of God to speak through nature and the senses to the\nsoul. We cannot imagine the youth of the Baptist spent in Nazareth, nor\nof Jesus in the desert. Elijah, too, was led into the wilderness to\nreceive the vision of God, and the agony of Jesus was endured at night,\nand secluded by the olives from the paschal moon. It is by another\napplication of the same principle that the settled Jewish worship was\nbright with music and splendid with gold and purple; and the notion that\nthe sublime and beautiful in nature and art cannot awaken the feelings\nto which religion appeals, is as shallow as the notion that when these\nfeelings are awakened all is won.\n\nWhat happens next is a protest against this latter extreme. Awe is one\nthing: the submission of the will is another. And therefore Moses was\nstopped when about to ascend the mountain, there to keep the solemn\nappointment that was made when God said, \"This shall be the token unto\nthee that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out\nof Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain\" (iii. 12). His own\nsense of the greatness of the crisis perhaps needed to be deepened.\nCertainly the nation had to be pledged, induced to make a deliberate\nchoice, now first, as often again, under Joshua and Samuel, and when\nElijah invoked Jehovah upon Carmel. (Josh. xxiv. 24; 1 Sam. xii. 14; 1\nKings xviii. 21, 39.)\n\nIt is easy to speak of pledges and formal declarations lightly, but they\nhave their warrant in many such Scriptural analogies, nor should we\neasily find a church, careful to deal with souls, which has not employed\nthem in some form, whether after the Anglican and Lutheran fashion, by\nconfirmation, or in the less formal methods of other Protestant\ncommunions, or even by delaying baptism itself until it becomes, for the\nadult in Christian lands, what it is to the convert from false creeds.\n\nTherefore the Lord called to Moses as he climbed the steep, and offered\nthrough him a formal covenant to the people.\n\n\"Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob,[33] and tell the children of\nIsrael: Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you\non eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself.\"\n\nThe appeal is to their personal experience and their gratitude: will\nthis be enough? will they accept His yoke, as every convert must, not\nknowing what it may involve, not yet having His demands specified and\nHis commandments before their eyes, content to believe that whatever is\nrequired of them will be good, because the requirement is from God? Thus\ndid Abraham, who went forth, not knowing whither, but knowing that he\nwas divinely guided. \"Now, therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed\nand keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me from\namong all peoples; for all the earth is Mine, and ye shall be unto Me a\nkingdom of priests and a holy nation.\"\n\nThus God conveys to them, more explicitly than hitherto, the fact that\nHe is the universal Lord, not ruling one land or nation only, nor, as\nthe Pentateuch is charged with teaching, their tutelary deity among many\nothers. Thus also the seeds are sown in them of a wholesome and rational\nself-respect, such as the Psalmist felt, who asked \"What is man, that\nThou art mindful of him?\" yet realised that such mindfulness gave to\nman a real dignity, made him but little lower than the angels, and\ncrowned him with glory and honour.\n\nAbolish religion, and mankind will divide into two classes,--one in\nwhich vanity, unchecked by any spiritual superior, will obey no\nrestraints of law, and another of which the conscious pettiness will\naspire to no dignity of holiness, and shrink from no dishonour of sin.\nIt is only the presence of a loving God which can unite in us the sense\nof humility and greatness, as having nothing and yet possessing all\nthings, and valued by God as His \"peculiar treasure.\"[34]\n\nAnd with a reasonable self-respect should come a noble and yet sober\ndignity--\"Ye shall be a kingdom of priests,\" a dynasty (for such is the\nmeaning) of persons invested with royal and also with priestly rank.\nThis was spoken just before the law gave the priesthood into the hands\nof one tribe; and thus we learn that Levi and Aaron were not to supplant\nthe nation, but to represent it.\n\nNow, this double rank is the property of redeemed humanity: we are \"a\nkingdom and priests unto God.\" Yet the laity of the Corinthian Church\nwere rebuked for a self-asserting and mutinous enjoyment of their rank:\n\"Ye have reigned as kings without us\"; and others there were in this\nChristian dispensation who \"perished in the gainsaying of Korah\" (1 Cor.\niv. 8; Jude 11).\n\nIf the words \"He hath made us a kingdom and priests\" furnish any\nargument against the existence of an ordained ministry now, then there\nshould have been no Jewish priesthood, for the same words are here. And\nis it supposed that this assertion only began to be true when the\napostles died? Certainly there is a kind of self-assertion in the\nministry which they condemn. But if they are opposed to its existence,\nalas for the Pastoral Epistles! It was because the function belonged to\nall, that no man might arrogate it who was not commissioned to act on\nbehalf of all.\n\nBut while the individual may not assert himself to the unsettling of\nchurch order, the privilege is still common property. All believers have\nboldness to enter into the holiest place of all. All are called upon to\nrule for God \"over a few things,\" to establish a kingdom of God within,\nand thus to receive a crown of life, and to sit with Jesus upon His\nthrone. The very honours by which Israel was drawn to God are offered to\nus all, as it is written, \"We are the circumcision,\" \"We are Abraham's\nseed and heirs according to the promise\" (Phil. iii. 3; Gal. iii. 29).\n\nTo this appeal the nation responded gladly. They could feel that indeed\nthey had been sustained by God as the eagle bears her young--not\ngrasping them in her claws, like other birds, but as if enthroned\nbetween her wings, and sheltered by her body, which interposed between\nthe young and any arrow of the hunter. Thus, say the Rabbinical\ninterpreters, did the pillar of cloud intervene between Israel and the\nEgyptians. If the image were to be pressed so far, we could now find a\nmuch closer analogy for the eagle \"preferring itself to be pierced\nrather than to witness the death of its young\" (Kalisch). But far more\ntender, and very touching in its domestic homeliness, is the metaphor\nof Him Whose discourses teem with allusions to the Old Testament, yet\nWho preferred to compare Himself to a hen gathering her chickens under\nher wing.\n\nWith the adhesion of Israel to the covenant, Moses returned to God. And\nthe Lord said, \"Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people\nmay hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee for ever.\"\n\nThe design was to deepen their reverence for the Lawgiver Whose law they\nshould now receive; to express by lessons, not more dreadful than the\nplagues of Egypt, but more vivid and sublime, the tremendous grandeur of\nHim Who was making a covenant with them, Who had borne them on His wings\nand called them His firstborn Son, Whom therefore they might be tempted\nto approach with undue familiarity, were it not for the mountain that\nburned up to heaven, the voice of the trumpet waxing louder and louder,\nand the Appearance so fearful that Moses said, \"I exceedingly fear and\nquake\" (=to phantazomenon=--Heb. xii. 21).\n\nWhen thus the Deity became terrible, the envoy would be honoured also.\n\nBut it is important to observe that these terrible manifestations were\nto cease. Like the impressions produced by sickness, by sudden deaths,\nby our own imminent danger, the emotion would subside, but the\nconviction should remain: they should believe Moses for ever. Emotions\nare like the swellings of the Nile: they subside again; but they ought\nto leave a fertilising deposit behind.\n\nThat the impression might not be altogether passive, and therefore\nephemeral, the people were bidden to \"sanctify themselves\"; all that is\ncommon and secular must be suspended for awhile; and it is worth notice\nthat, as when the family of Jacob put away their strange gods, so now\nthe Israelites must wash their clothes (cf. Gen. xxxv. 2). For one's\nvestment is a kind of outer self, and has been with the man in the old\noccupations from which he desires to purify himself. It was therefore\nthat when Jehu was made king, and when Jesus entered Jerusalem in\ntriumph, men put their garments under their chief to express their own\nsubjection (2 Kings ix. 13; Matt. xxi. 7). Much of the philosophy of\nCarlyle is latent in these ancient laws and usages.\n\nMoreover, the mountain was to be fenced from the risk of profanation by\nany sudden impulsive movement of the crowd, and even a beast that\ntouched it should be slain by such weapons as men could hurl without\nthemselves pursuing it. Only when the trumpet blew a long summons might\nthe appointed ones come up to the mount (ver. 13).\n\nOn the third day, after a soul-searching interval, there were thunders\nand lightnings, and a cloud, and the trumpet blast; and while all the\npeople trembled, Moses led them forth to meet with God. Again the\nnarrative reverts to the terrible phenomena--the fire like the smoke of\na furnace (called by an Egyptian name which only occurs in the\nPentateuch), and the whole mountain quaking. Then, since his commission\nwas now to be established, Moses spake, and the Lord answered him with a\nvoice. And when he again climbed the mountain, it became necessary to\nsend him back with yet another warning, whether his example was in\ndanger of emboldening others to exercise their newly given priesthood,\nor the very excess of terror exercised its well-known fascinating power,\nas men in a burning ship have been seen to leap into the flames.\n\nAnd the priests also, who come near to God, should sanctify themselves.\nIt has been asked who these were, since the Levitical institutions were\nstill non-existent (ver. 22, cf. 24). But it is certain that the heads\nof houses exercised priestly functions; and it is not impossible that\nthe elders of Israel who came to eat before God with Jethro (xviii. 12)\nhad begun to perform religious functions for the people. Is it supposed\nthat the nation had gone without religious services for three months?\n\nIt has been remarked by many that the law of Moses appealed for\nacceptance to popular and even democratic sanctions. The covenant was\nratified by a pl\u00e9biscite. The tremendous evidence was offered equally to\nall. For, said St. Augustine, \"as it was fit that the law which was\ngiven, not to one man or a few enlightened people, but to the whole of a\npopulous nation, should be accompanied by awe-inspiring signs, great\nmarvels were wrought ... before the people\" (_De Civ. Dei_, x. 13).\n\nWe have also to observe the contrast between the appearance of God on\nSinai and His manifestation in Jesus. And this also was strongly wrought\nout by an ancient father, who represented the Virgin Mary, in the act of\ngiving Jesus into the hands of Simeon, as saying, \"The blast of the\ntrumpet does not now terrify those who approach, nor a second time does\nthe mountain, all on fire, cause terror to those who come nigh, nor does\nthe law punish relentlessly those who would boldly touch. What is\npresent here speaks of love to man; what is apparent, of the Divine\ncompassion.\" (Methodius _De Sym. et Anna_, vii.)\n\nBut we must remember that the Epistle to the Hebrews regards the second\nmanifestation as the more solemn of the two, for this very reason: that\nwe have not come to a burning mountain, or to mortal penalties for\ncarnal irreverence, but to the spiritual mountain Zion, to countless\nangels, to God the Judge, to the spirits of just men made perfect, and\nto Jesus Christ. If they escaped not, when they refused Him Who warned\non earth, much more we, who turn away from Him Who warneth from heaven\n(Heb. xii. 18-25).\n\nThere is a question, lying far behind all these, which demands\nattention.\n\nIt is said that legends of wonderful appearances of the gods are common\nto all religions; that there is no reason for giving credit to this one\nand rejecting all the rest; and, more than this, that God absolutely\ncould not reveal Himself by sensuous appearances, being Himself a\nSpirit. In what sense and to what extent God can be said to have really\nrevealed Himself, we shall examine hereafter. At present it is enough to\nask whether human love and hatred, joy and sorrow, homage and scorn can\nmanifest themselves by looks and tones, by the open palm and the\nclenched fist, by laughter and tears, by a bent neck and by a curled\nlip. For if what is most immaterial in our own soul can find sensuous\nexpression, it is somewhat bold to deny that a majesty and power beyond\nanything human may at least be conceived as finding utterance, through a\nmountain burning to the summit and reeling to the base, and the blast of\na trumpet which the people could not hear and live.\n\nBut when it is argued that wondrous theophanies are common to all\nfaiths, two replies present themselves. If all the races of mankind\nagree in believing that there is a God, and that He manifests Himself\nwonderfully, does that really prove that there is no God, or even that\nHe never manifested Himself wondrously? We should certainly be derided\nif we insisted that such a universal belief proved the truth of the\nstory of Mount Sinai, and perhaps we should deserve our fate. But it is\nmore absurd by far to pretend that this instinct, this intuition, this\nuniversal expectation that God would some day, somewhere, rend the veil\nwhich hides Him, does actually refute the narrative.\n\nWe have also to ask for the production of those other narratives,\nsublime in their conception and in the vast audience which they\nchallenged, sublimely pure alike from taint of idolatrous superstition\nand of moral evil, profound and far-reaching in their practical effect\nupon humanity, which deserve to be so closely associated with the giving\nof the Mosaic law that in their collapse it also must be destroyed, as\nthe fall of one tree sometimes breaks the next. But this narrative\nstands out so far in the open, and lifts its head so high, that no other\neven touches a bough of it when overturned.\n\nIs it seriously meant to compare the alleged disappearance of Romulus,\nor the secret interviews of Numa with his Egeria, to a history like\nthis? Surely one similar story should be produced, before it is asserted\nthat such stories are everywhere.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[33] This phrase is not found elsewhere in the Pentateuch. Is it fancy\nwhich detects in it a desire to remind them of their connection with the\nleast worthy rather than the noblest of the Patriarchs? One would not\nexpect, for instance, to read, Fear not, thou worm Abraham, or even\nIsrael; but the name of Jacob at once calls up humble associations.\n\n[34] This word is the same which occurs in the verse so beautifully but\nerroneously rendered \"They shall be Mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in\nthe day when I make up My jewels\" (Mal. iii. 17, A.V.). \"They shall be\nMine ... in the day that I do make, even a peculiar treasure\" (R.V.).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\n\n_THE LAW._\n\nxx. 1-17.\n\nWe have now reached that great event, one of the most momentous in all\nhistory, the giving of the Ten Commandments. And it is necessary to\nconsider what was the meaning of this event, what part were they\ndesigned to play in the religious development of mankind.\n\n1. St. Paul tells us plainly what they did _not_ effect. By the works of\nthe law could no flesh be justified: to the father of the Hebrew race\nfaith was reckoned instead of righteousness; the first of their royal\nline coveted the blessedness not of the obedient but of the pardoned;\nand Habakkuk declared that the just should live by his faith, while the\nlaw is not of faith, and offers life only to the man that doeth these\nthings (Rom. iv. 3, 6; Gal. iii. 12). In the doctrinal scheme of St.\nPaul there was no room for a compromise between salvation by faith and\nreliance upon our own performance of any works, even those simple and\nobvious duties which are of world-wide obligation.\n\n2. But he never meant to teach that a Christian is free from the\nobligation of the moral law. If it is not true that we can keep it and\nso earn heaven, it is equally false that we may break it without penalty\nor remorse. What he insisted upon was this: that obligation is one\nthing, and energy is another; the law is good, but it has not the gift\nof pardon or of inspiration; by itself it will only reveal the\nfeebleness of him who endeavours to perform it, only force into direst\ncontrast the spiritual beauty of the pure ideal and the wretchedness of\nthe sinner, carnal, sold under sin. In this respect, indeed, the law was\nits own witness. For if, among all the millions of its children, one had\nlived by obedience, how could he have shared in its elaborate\nsacrificial apparatus, in the hallowing of the altar from pollution by\nthe national uncleanness, in the sprinkling of the blood of the offering\nfor sin? Take the case of the highest official. A sinless high priest\nunder the law would have been paralysed by his virtue, for his duty on\nthe greatest day of all the year was to make atonement first for his own\nsins.\n\n3. The law being an authorised statement of what innocence means, and\ntherefore of the only terms upon which a man might hope to live by\nworks, is an organic whole, and we either keep it as a whole or break\nit. Such is the meaning of the words, he that offendeth in one point is\nguilty of all; because He who gave the seventh commandment gave also the\nsixth--so that if one commit no adultery, yet kill, he has become a\ntransgressor of the law in its integrity (James ii. 11). The challenge\nof God to human self-righteousness is not one which can be half met. If\nwe have not thoroughly kept it, we have thoroughly failed.\n\n4. But this failure of man does not involve any failure, in the law, to\naccomplish its intended work. It is, as has been said, a challenge. The\nsense of our inability to meet it is the best introduction to Him Who\ncame not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance, and thus the\nlaw became a tutor to bring men to Christ. It awoke the conscience,\nbrought home the sense of guilt, and entered, that sin might abound in\nus, whose ignorance had not known sin without it. It was strictly that\nwhich Moses most frequently calls it--the Testimony.\n\n5. Finally, however, the teaching of Scripture is not that Christians\nare condemned to live always in a condition of baffled striving,\nhopeless longing, conscious transgression of a code which testifies\nagainst them. The old and carnal nature gravitates downward, to\nselfishness and sin, as surely as by a law of the physical universe. But\nthe law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus emancipates us from that\nlaw of sin and death--the higher nature doing, by the very quality of\nits life, what the lower nature cannot be driven to do, by dread of hell\nor by desire of heaven. The creature of earth becomes a creature of air,\nand is at home in a new sphere, poised on its wings upon the breeze.\nLove is the fulfilling of the law. And the Christian is free from its\ndictation, as affectionate men are free from any control of the laws\nwhich command the maintenance of wife and child, not because they may\ndefy the statutes, but because their volition and the statutes coincide.\nLiberty is not lawlessness--it is the reciprocal harmony of law and the\nwill.\n\nAnd thus the grand paradox of Luther is entirely true: \"Unless faith be\nwithout any, even the smallest works, it does not justify, nay, it is\nnot faith. And yet it is impossible for faith to be without\nworks--earnest, many and great.\" We are justified by faith without the\nworks of the law, and yet we do not make void the law by faith--nay, we\nestablish the law.\n\nAll this agrees exactly with the contrast, so often urged, between the\ngiving of the Law and the utterance of the Sermon on the Mount. The\nformer echoes across wild heights, and through savage ravines; the\nlatter is heard on the grassy slopes of the hillside which overlooks the\nsmiling Lake of Galilee. The one is spoken in thunder and graven upon\nstone: the other comes from the lips, into which grace is poured, of Him\nWho was fairer than the children of men. The former repeats again and\nagain the stern warning, \"Thou shalt not!\" The latter crowns a sevenfold\ndescription of a blessedness, which is deeper than joy, though pensive\nand even weeping, by adding to these abstract descriptions an eighth,\nwhich applies them, and assumes them to be realised in His\nhearers--\"Blessed are _ye_.\" If so much as a beast touched the mountain\nit should be stoned. But Simeon took the Divine Infant in his arms.\n\nAnd this is not because God has become gentler, or man worthier: it is\nbecause God the Lawgiver upon His throne has come down to be God the\nHelper. But the beatitudes could never have been spoken, if the law had\nnot been imposed: the blessedness of a hunger and thirst for\nrighteousness was created by the majestic and spiritual beauty of the\nunattained commandment.\n\nYes, it had a spiritual beauty. For, however formal, external, and even\nshallow, the commandments may appear to flippant modern babblers, St.\nPaul bewailed the contrast between the law, which was spiritual, and his\nown carnal heart. And he, who had kept all the letter from his youth,\nwas only the more vexed and haunted by the fleeting consciousness of a\nhigher \"good thing\" unattained. Did not one table say \"Thou shalt not\ncovet,\" and the other promise mercy to thousands of those that love?\n\nThis leads us to consider the structure and arrangement of the\nDecalogue. Scripture itself tells us that there were \"ten words\" or\nprecepts, written upon both sides of two tables. But various answers\nhave been given at different times, to the question, How shall we divide\nthe ten?\n\nThe Jews of a later period made a first commandment of the words, \"I am\nthe Lord thy God,\" which is not a commandment at all. And they restored\nthe proper number, thus exceeded, by uniting in one the prohibition of\nother gods and of idolatry; although the worship of the golden calf,\nalmost immediately after the law was given, suffices to establish the\ndistinction. For then, as well as under Gideon, Micah and Jeroboam, the\nsin of idolatry fell short of apostasy to a wholly different god (Judg.\nviii. 23, 27, xvii. 3, 5; 1 Kings xii. 28). The worship of images\ndishonours God, even if it be His semblance that they claim. In this\narrangement, the tables were allotted five commandments each.\n\nAnother curious arrangement was devised, apparently by St. Augustine;\nand the weight of his authority imposed it upon Western Christianity\nuntil the Reformation, and upon the Latin and Lutheran churches unto\nthis day. Like the former, it adds the second commandment to the first,\nbut it divides the tenth. And it gives to the first table three\ncommandments, \"since the number of commandments which concern God seem\nto hint at the Trinity to careful students,\" while the seven\ncommandments of the second table suggest the Sabbath. Such mystical\nreferences are no longer weighty arguments. And the proposed division\nof the tenth commandment seems quite precluded by the fact that in\nExodus we read, \"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house nor his\nwife,\" while in Deuteronomy the order is reversed; so that its advocates\nare divided among themselves as to whether the coveting of a house or a\nwife is to attain the dignity of separate mention.\n\nThe ordinary English arrangement assigns to the tables four commandments\nand six respectively. And the noble catechism of the Church of England\nappears to sanction this arrangement by including among \"my duties to my\nneighbour\" that of loving, honouring and succouring my father and\nmother. There are several objections to this arrangement. It is\nunsymmetrical. There seems to be something more sacred and divine about\nmy relationship with my father and mother than those which connect me\nwith my neighbour. The first table begins with the gravest offence, and\nsteadily declines to the lowest; sin against the unique personality of\nGod being followed by sin against His spirituality of nature, His name,\nand His holy day. If now the sin against His earthly representative, the\nvery fountain and sanction of all law to childhood, be added to the\nfirst table, the same order will pervade those of the second--namely,\nsin against my neighbour's life, his family, his property, his\nreputation, and lastly, his interest in my inner self, in the wishes\nthat are unspoken, the thoughts and feelings which\n\n    \"I wad nae tell to nae man.\"\n\nWe thus obtain both the simplest division and the clearest arrangement.\nIn Romans xiii. 9 the fifth commandment is not enumerated when\nrehearsing the actions which transgress the second table. In the Hebrew\ntext of Deuteronomy all the later commandments are joined with the sixth\nby the copulative (represented along with the negative fairly enough in\nour English by \"Neither\"), which seems to indicate that these five were\nunited together in the author's mind. But the fifth stands alone, like\nall those of the first table. Now, it is clear that such an arrangement\ngives great sanction and weight to the sacred institution of the family.\n\nFinally, the comprehensiveness and spirituality of the law may be\nobserved in this; that the first table forbids sin against God in\nthought, word and deed; and the second table forbids sin against man in\ndeed, word and thought.\n\n\n_THE PROLOGUE._\n\nxx. 2.\n\nThe Decalogue is introduced by the words \"I am the Lord thy God, which\nbrought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.\"\n\nHere, and in the previous chapter, is already a great advance upon the\ntime when it was said to them \"The God of thy fathers, the God of\nAbraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, hath appeared.\" Now they are expected\nto remember what He has done for themselves. For, although religion must\nbegin with testimony, it ought always to grow up into an experience.\nThus it was that many of the Samaritans believed on Jesus because of the\nword of the woman; but presently they said, \"Now we believe, not because\nof thy speaking, for we have heard Him ourselves, and know.\" And thus\nthe disciples who heard John the Baptist speak, and so followed Jesus,\nhaving come and seen where He abode, could say, \"We have found the\nMessiah.\"\n\nThis prologue is vitally connected with both tables of the law. In\nrelation to the first, it recognises the instinct of worship in the\nhuman heart. In vain shall we say Do not worship idols, until the true\nobject of adoration is supplied, for the heart must and will prostrate\nitself at some shrine. A leader of modern science confesses \"the\nimmovable basis of the religious sentiment in the nature of man,\" adding\nthat \"to yield this sentiment reasonable satisfaction is the problem of\nproblems at the present hour.\"[35] It is indeed a problem for the\nunbelief which, because it professes to be scientific, cannot shut its\neyes to the fact that men whose faith in Christ has suffered shipwreck\nare everywhere seen to be clinging to strange planks--spiritualism,\nesoteric Buddhism, and other superstitions,--which prove that man must\nand will reverence something more than streams of tendencies, or\nbeneficial results to the greatest numbers. The Law of Moses abolishes\nsuperstition by no mere negation, but by the proclamation of a true God.\n\nMoreover, it declares that this God is knowable, which flatly\ncontradicts the brave assertion of modern agnostics that the notion of a\nGod is not even \"thinkable.\" That assertion is a bald and barren\nplatitude in the only sense in which it is not contrary to the\nexperience of all mankind. As we cannot form a complete and perfect, nor\neven an adequate notion of God, so no man ever yet conceived a complete\nand adequate notion of his neighbour, nor indeed of himself. But as we\ncan form a notion of one another, dim and fragmentary indeed, yet more\nor less accurate and fit to guide our actions, so has every nation and\nevery man formed some notion of deity. Nor could even the agnostic\ndeclare that God is unthinkable, unless the word God, of which he makes\nthis assertion, conveyed to him _some_ idea, some thought, more or less\nworthy of the thinking. The ancient Jew never dreamed that he could\nsearch out the Almighty to perfection, yet God was known to him by His\nactions (the only means by which we know our fellow-men); and the\ncombined terror and loving-kindness of these at once warned him against\nrevolt, and appealed to his loyalty for obedience.\n\nIn relation to the second table, the prologue was both an argument and\nan appeal. Why should a man hope to prosper by estranging his best\nFriend, his Emancipator and Guide? And even if disobedience could obtain\nsome paltry advantage, how base would he be who snatched at it, when\nforbidden by the God Who broke his chains, and brought him out of the\nhouse of bondage--a Benefactor not ungenial and remote, but One Who\nenters into closest relations with him, calling Himself \"Thy God\"!\n\nNow, a greater emancipation and a closer personal relationship belong to\nthe Church of Christ. When a Christian hears that God is unthinkable, he\nought to be able to answer, 'God is my God, and He has brought my soul\nout of its house of bondage.'\n\nMoreover, his emancipation by Christ from many sins and inner slaveries\nought to be a fact plain enough to constitute the sorest of problems to\nthe observing world.\n\nIt must be observed, besides, that the Law, which was the centre of\nJudaism, does not appeal chiefly to the meaner side of human nature.\nHell is not yet known, for the depths of eternity could not be uncovered\nbefore the clouds had rolled away from its heights of love and\ncondescension; or else the sanity and balance of human nature would have\nbeen overthrown. But even temporal judgments are not set in the foremost\nplace. As St. Paul, who knew the terrors of the Lord, more commonly and\nurgently besought men by the mercies of God, so were the ancient Jews,\nunder the burning mountain, reminded rather of what God had bestowed\nupon them, than of what He might inflict if they provoked Him. And our\ngratitude, like theirs, should be excited by His temporal as well as His\nspiritual gifts to us.\n\n\n_THE FIRST COMMANDMENT._\n\n\"Thou shalt have none other gods before Me.\"--xx. 3.\n\nWhen these words fell upon the ears of Israel, they conveyed, as their\nprimary thought, a prohibition of the formal worship of rival deities,\nEgyptian or Sidonian gods. Following immediately upon the proclamation\nof Jehovah, their own God, they declared His intolerance of rivalry, and\nenjoined a strict and jealous monotheism. For God was a reality. Races\nwho worshipped idealisations or personifications might easily make room\nfor other poetic embodiments of human thought and feeling; but Jehovah\nwould vindicate His rights. He had proved himself very real in Egypt.\nOther gods would not displace Him: He would observe them: they would be\n\"before Me.\"[36] God does not quit the scene when man forgets Him.\n\nNow, it is hard for us to realise the charm which the worship of false\ngods possessed for ancient Israel. To comprehend it we must reflect upon\nthe universal ignorance which made every phenomenon of nature a\nportentous manifestation of mysterious and varied power, which they\ncould by no means trace back to a common origin, while the crash and\ndiscord of the results appeared to indicate opposing wills behind. We\nmust reflect how closely akin is awe to worship, and how blind and\nunintelligent was the awe which storm and earthquake and pestilence then\nexcited. We must remember the pressure upon them of surrounding\nsuperstitions armed with all the civilisation and art of their world.\nAbove all, we must consider that the gods which seduced them were not of\nnecessity supreme: homage to them was very fairly consistent with a\nreservation of the highest place for another; so that false worship in\nits early stages need not have been much more startling than belief in\nwitchcraft, or in the paltry and unimaginative \"spirits\" which, in our\nown day, are reputed to play the banjo in a dark room, and to untie\nknots in a cabinet. Is it for us to deride them?\n\nTo oppose all such tendencies, the Lord appealed not to philosophy and\nsound reason. These are not the parents of monotheism: they are the\nfruit of it. And so is our modern science. Its fundamental principle is\nfaith in the unity of nature, and in the extent to which the same laws\nwhich govern our little world reach through the vast universe. And that\nfaith is directly traceable to the conviction that all the universe is\nthe work of the same Hand.\n\n\"One God, one law, one element;\"--the preaching of the first was sure to\nsuggest the other two. Nor could any race which believed in a multitude\nof gods labour earnestly to reduce various phenomena to one cause.\nMonotheism is therefore the parent of correct thinking, and could not\ndraw its sanctions thence. No: the law appeals to the historical\nexperience of Israel; it is content to stand and fall by that; if they\nacknowledged the claim of God upon their loyalty, all the rest followed.\nTheir own story made good this claim. And so does the whole story of the\nChurch, and the whole inner life of every man who knows anything of\nhimself, bear witness to the religion of Jesus.\n\nNever let us weary of repeating that while we have ample controversial\nresource, while no missile can pierce the chain-armour of the Christian\nevidences, connected and interwoven into a great whole, and while the\ninfidelity which is called scientific is really infidel only so far as\nit begs its case (which is an unscientific thing to do), nevertheless\nthe strength of our position is experimental. If the experience which\ntestifies to Jesus were historical alone, I might refuse to give it\ncredit: if it were only personal, I might ascribe it to enthusiasm. But\nas long as a great cloud of living witnesses, and all the history of the\nChurch, declare the reality of His salvation, while I myself feel the\nsufficiency of what He offers (or else the bitter need of it), so long\nthe question is not between conflicting theories, but between theories\nand facts. To have another god is to place him beside One Whom we\nalready have, and Who has wrought for us the great emancipation. It is\nnot an error in theological science: it is ingratitude and treason.\n\nBut it very soon became evident that men could apostatise from God\notherwise than in formal worship, chant and sacrifice and prostration:\n\"This people honoureth me with their mouths, but their hearts are far\nfrom Me.\" God asks for love and trust, and our litanies should express\nand cultivate these. Whatever steals away these from the Lord is really\nHis rival, and another god. \"What is it to have a God? or what is God?\"\nLuther asks. And he answers, \"He is God, and is so called, from Whose\ngoodness and power thou dost confidently promise all good things to\nthyself, and to Whom thou dost fly from all adverse affairs and pressing\nperils. So that to have a God is nothing else than to trust Him and\nbelieve in Him with all the heart, even as I have often alleged that the\nreliance of the heart constitutes alike one's God and one's idol.... In\nwhat thing soever thou hast thy mind's reliance and thine heart fixed,\nthat is beyond doubt thy God\" (_Larger Catechism_).\n\nAnd again: \"What sort of religion is this, to bow not the knees to\nriches and honour, but to offer them the noblest part of you, the heart\nand mind? It is to worship the true God outwardly and in the flesh, but\nthe creature inwardly and in spirit\" (_X. Pr\u00e6cepta Witt. Pr\u00e6dicata_).\n\nIt was on this ground that he included charms and spells among the sins\nagainst this commandment, because, though \"they seem foolish rather than\nwicked, yet do they lead to this too grave result, that men learn to\nrely upon the creature in trifles, and so fail in great things to rely\nupon God\" (_Ibid._)\n\nThis view of false worship is frequent in Scripture itself. The\nChaldeans were idolaters of an elaborate and imposing ritual, but their\ntrue deities were not to be found in temples. They adored what they\nreally trusted upon, and that was their military prowess--the god of the\nmodern commander, who said that Providence sided with the big\nbattalions. The Chaldean is \"he whose might is his god,\" whereas the\nsacred warrior has the Lord for his strength and shield and very present\nhelp in battle. Nay, regarding men \"as the fishes of the sea,\" and his\nown vast armaments as the fisher's apparatus to sweep them away, the\nChaldean, it is said, \"sacrificeth unto his net, and burneth incense\nunto his drag; because by them his portion is fat and his meat\nplenteous\" (Hab. i. 11, 14-16). Multitudes of humbler people practise a\nsimilar idolatry. They say to God \"Give us this day our daily bread\";\nbut they really ascribe their maintenance to their profession or their\ntrade; and so this is the true object of their homage. They, too, burn\nincense to their drag.\n\nOthers had no thought of a higher blessedness than animal enjoyment.\nTheir god was their belly. They set the excitement of wine in the place\nof the fulness of the Spirit, or preferred some depraved union upon\nearth to the honour of being one spirit with the Lord (Phil. iii. 19;\nEph. v. 18; 1 Cor. vi. 16, 17). And some tried to combine the world and\nrighteousness; not to lose heaven while grasping wealth, and receiving\nhere not only good things, but the only good things they\nacknowledged--_their_ good things (Luke xvi. 25). As the Samaritans\nfeared the Lord and served graven images, so these were fain to serve\nGod and mammon (2 Kings xvii. 41; Matt. vi. 24).\n\nNow, these departures from the true Centre of all love and Source of all\nlight were really a homage to His great rival, \"the god of this world.\"\nWhenever men seek to obtain any prize by departing from God, they do\nreverence to him who falsely said of all the kingdoms of the earth, and\ntheir glory, \"These things are delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I\nwill I give them.\" They deny Him to Whom indeed all power is committed\nin heaven and earth.\n\nWhat is the remedy, then, for all such formal or virtual apostasies? It\nis to \"have\" the true God--which means, not only to know and confess,\nbut to be in real relationship with Him.\n\nDespite His so-called self-sufficiency, man is not very self-sufficing,\nafter all. The vast endowments of Julius C\u00e6sar did not prevent him from\nchafing because, at the age when he was still obscure, Alexander had\nconquered the world. To be Julius C\u00e6sar was not enough for him. Nor is\nany man able to stand alone. In the Old Testament Joshua said, \"If it\nseem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will\nserve,\"--implying that they must obey some one and will do better to\nchoose a service than to drift into one (Josh. xxiv. 15). And in the New\nTestament Jesus declared that no man can serve two masters; but added\nthat he would not break with both and go free, he was sure to love and\ncleave to one of them. Now, he only is proof against apostasy, who has\nrealised the wants of the soul within him, and the powerlessness of all\ncreatures to satisfy or save, and then, turning to the cross of Christ,\nhas found his sufficiency in Him. \"Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast\nthe words of everlasting life.\" Marvellous it is to think that\nunderneath the stern words \"Thou shalt have none other,\" lies all the\ncondescension of the privilege \"Thou shalt have ... Me.\"\n\n\n_THE SECOND COMMANDMENT._\n\n    \"Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, ... thou shalt not\n    bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them.\"--xx. 4-6.\n\nHow far does the second of these clauses modify the first? Men there are\nwho maintain the severe independence of the former, so that it forbids\nthe presence of any image or likeness in the house of God, even for\ninnocent purposes of adornment. But the Decalogue is not a liturgical\ndirectory: what it forbids in church it forbids anywhere; and on this\ntheory the statues in Parliament Square would be idolatrous, as well as\nthose in Westminster Abbey. And such Christians are more Judaical than\nthe Jews, who were taught to place in the very Holy of Holies golden\ncherubim overshadowing the mercy-seat, and to represent them again upon\nits curtains.\n\nIt is therefore plain that the precept never forbade imagery, but\nidolatry, which is the making of images to satisfy the craving of men's\nhearts for a sensuous worship--the making of them \"unto thee.\" The\nsecond clause qualifies and elucidates the first. And what the\ncommandment prohibits is any attempt to help our worship by representing\nthe object of adoration to the senses.\n\nThe higher and more subtle idolatries do not conceive that wood or gold\nis actually transformed into their deities; but only that the deities\nare locally present in the images, which express their attributes--power\nin a hundred hands, beneficence in a hundred breasts. But in thus\nexpressing, they degrade and cramp the conception.\n\nThey may perhaps evade the reproach of Isaiah that they warm themselves\nwith a portion of timber, and roast meat with another portion, and make\nthe remainder a god (Isa. xliv. 15-17), by urging that the timber is not\nthe god, but an abode which he chooses because it expresses his specific\nqualities. But they cannot evade the reproach of St. Paul, that being\nourselves the offspring of God, we ought not to compare Him to the\nworkmanship of our hands, graven with art and man's device (Acts xvii.\n29).\n\nA truly spiritual worship is intellectually as well as morally the most\nelevating exercise of the soul, which it leads onward and upward, making\nof all that it knows and thinks a vestibule, beyond which lie higher\nknowledge and deeper feeling as yet unattained.\n\nWhy is Gothic architecture better adapted for religious buildings than\nany Grecian or Oriental style? Because its long aisles, vaulted roofs\nand pointed arches, leading the vision up to the unseen, tell of\nmystery, and draw the mind away beyond the visible and concrete to\nsomething greater which it hints; while rounded arches and definite\nproportions shut in at once the vision and the mind. The difference is\nthe same as between poetry and logic.\n\nAnd so it is with worship. We fetter and cramp our thoughts of deity\nwhen we bind them to even the loftiest conceptions which have ever been\nshut up in marble or upon canvas. The best image that ever took shape is\ninferior to the poorest spiritual conception of God, in this respect if\nin no other--that it has no expansiveness, it cannot grow. And in\nconnecting our prayers with it, we virtually say, 'This satisfies my\nconception of God.'\n\nIt is not to be condemned merely as inadequate, for so are all our\nhighest thoughts of deity; nor only because average humanity (which is\nsupposed to stand most in need of the help and suggestion of art) will\nnever learn the fine distinctions by which subtle intellects withhold\nfrom the image itself the worship which it evokes, and which goes out in\nits direction. It is still more mischievous because, even for the\ntrained theologian, it is the petrifaction of what is meant to develop\nand expand, the solidification of the inadequate, the accepting of what\nis human as our idea of the divine.\n\nNor will it long continue to be merely inadequate. Experience proves\nthat ideas, like air and water, cannot be confined without stagnating.\nIdolatries not only fail to develop, they degenerate; and systems,\nhowever orthodox they may appear at starting, which connect worship with\npalpable imagery, are doomed to sink into superstition.\n\nTo this precept there is added a startling and painful caution--\"For I\nthe Lord thy God am a jealous God.\" That a man should be jealous is no\npassport to our friendship: we think of unreasonable estrangements,\nexaggerated demands, implacable and cruel resentments. It would not\nenter the average mind to doubt that one is highly praised when another\nsays of him, 'I never traced in his words or actions the slightest stain\nof jealousy.' And yet we are to think of God Himself as the jealous God.\n\nUpon reflection, however, we must admit that a man is not condemned as\njealous-minded because he is capable of jealousy, but because he has an\nunjust and unreasonable tendency towards it. It is a narrowing and\nsuspicious quality when it operates without due cause, a vindictive and\ncruel one when it operates in excessive measure. But what should we\nthink of a parent who felt no jealousy if the heart of his child were\nstolen from him by intriguing servants or by frivolous comrades? Now,\nGod has called Israel His son, even His firstborn. The truth is that\nwith us jealousy is dangerous and frequently perverted, because we are\nbad judges of the measure of our own rights, especially when our\naffections are involved. But some measure of jealousy is the necessary\npain of love neglected, love wronged or slighted by those upon whom it\nhas a claim. Jealousy is the shadow thrown where the sunshine of love is\nintercepted, and it is strong in proportion to the strength of the\nlight. It operates in the heart exactly like the sense of justice in the\nreason. Justice expects a recompense where it has given service, and\njealousy asks for love where it has given affection.\n\nAnd therefore, when God tells us that He is jealous, He implies that He\ncondescends to love us, to look for a return, to desire more from us\nthan outward service. We cannot be jealous concerning things which are\nindifferent to us. Even the jealousy of rival competitors for business\nor for place may be measured by the desire of each for that which the\nother would engross. The politician is not jealous of the millionaire,\nnor the capitalist of the prime minister.\n\nNow, if God is jealous when the enemies of our soul would steal away our\nloyalty, it surely follows that we shall not be left to contend with\nthose enemies alone: He values us; He is upon our side; He will help us\nto overcome them.\n\nAnd now we begin to see why this attribute is connected with the second\ncommandment and not the first. The apostate who betakes himself to\nanother god is almost beyond the reach of this tender and intimate\nemotion: he is still loved, for God loves all men; but yet perhaps the\nchord is unstrung which trembles responsive to this plaintive note.\n\nWhen a man who confesses God begins to weary of spiritual intercourse\nwith the Lord of spirits, when he can no longer worship One whose actual\npresence is realised because His voice is heard within, when the\nlikeness of man or brute, or brightness of morning, or marvel of life or\nits reproductiveness, contents him as a representation of God the\ninvisible, then his heart is beginning to go after the creature, to\ncontent itself with artistic loveliness or majesty, to let go the grasp\nas upon a living hand, by which alone the soul may be sustained when it\nstumbles, or guided when it would err.\n\nTo those who are within His covenant--to us, therefore, as to His\nancient Israel--He says, \"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.\" Because\nI am \"thy God.\"\n\nThe assertion of a Divine jealousy is but one difficulty of this\nremarkable verse. The Lord goes on to describe Himself as \"visiting the\niniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth\ngeneration of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands of\nthem that love Me and keep My commandments.\" And is this reasonable? To\npunish the child, to be avenged upon the children's children, for sins\nwhich are not their own? We know how often the sceptic has made gain out\nof this representation--which is but his own unauthorised gloss, since\nin reality God has said nothing about punishing the righteous with the\nwicked. It is not true that all sad and disastrous consequences are\npenal; many are disciplinary, and even to the people of God some are\nsurgical, cutting away what would lead to disease and death. Are no\nevil consequences probable, if men brought up amid scenes dishonouring\nto God were treated exactly like those who have since childhood felt as\nit were the hand of a Father upon their head? For themselves it is best\nand kindest that so deep a loss could come home to their consciousness\nin pain.\n\nAt all events, the assertion so early made in Scripture is confirmed in\nall the experience of the race. Insanity, idiocy, scrofula, consumption,\nare too often, though not always, the hereditary results of guilt. Sins\nof the flesh are visited upon the bodily system. Sins of the temper,\nsuch as pride, cynicism and frivolity, are felt in the mental structure\nof the race. And the sins which offend directly against God, do they\nbring no results with them? Ask of the investigators of the new science\nof heredity and transmitted peculiarities, whether it stops short of the\nhighest and holiest parts of human nature. Or consider the ravages which\nvictory and consequent wealth have made, again and again, in the\ncharacter of whole nations.\n\nThere is no doctrine impugned in Scripture, which men have less prospect\nof shaking off, even if they close their Bibles for ever, than this. If\nit were not there, we should be perplexed at a want of conformity\nbetween the ways of God in nature and what is asserted of Him in His\nBook.\n\nBut it is either slander or blindness to represent this law, viewed in\nits entirety, as other than benevolent. The transmission of the result\nof evil is only a part of the vast law which has bound men together in\nnations and families, as partners and members with each other. It is\nclear that distinctive advantages cannot be bestowed upon the children\nof the good, as such, unless the same advantages be withheld from the\nevil race beside them. If the prizes of a university are won by\nknowledge, the result is that ignorance is \"visited,\" in the withholding\nof them. And if, in the vaster university of life, health, affluence,\ngood repute and a clear intellect are the transmitted results of virtue,\nthen disease, poverty, neglect and incompetence become the dire bequest\nof the unrighteous.\n\nThere is no choice, therefore, except either to carry out this law, or\nelse to bid every man in the world begin life, not as \"the heir of all\nthe ages,\" but absolutely destitute of all that has been acquired by his\nfellow-men.\n\nSometimes a hint is given us of what this would be. There is brought\noccasionally into civilised communities, from the depths of forests, a\ncreature without language or decency or intellect, with low forehead and\nbrutal appetites, who in his early childhood had wandered away and been\nlost,--brought up, men say, by the strange compassion of some lower\ncreature, and now sunken well-nigh to its level. To this degradation we\nshould all come, if it were not for the transmitted inheritance of our\nfathers. And so vast is the upward force of this grand law, that it is\nsteadily though slowly upheaving the whole mass; and the lowest of\nto-day, visited for ancestral failings by sinking to the bottom, is\nhigher than if he had been left absolutely alone.\n\nThis over-weight of good is clearly seen by comparing the clauses, for\nthe sins of the fathers are visited upon the children to the third and\nfourth generation, but mercy is shown in them that love God upon a\nwholly different scale. Even \"unto thousands\" would enormously\ncounterbalance three generations. But the Revised Version rightly\nsuggests \"a thousand generations\" in the margin, and supports it by one\nof its very rare references. It is plainly stated in Deuteronomy vii. 9,\nthat He \"keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His\ncommandments unto a thousand generations.\"\n\nLastly, it is to be observed that in all this passage the gospel is\nshining through the law. It is not a question of just dealing, but of\nemotion. God is not a master exacting taskwork, but a Father, jealous if\nwe refuse our hearts. He visits sin upon the posterity \"of them that\nhate,\" not only of them that disobey Him. And when our hearts sink, we\nwho are responsible for generations yet to be, as we reflect upon our\nfrailty, our ignorance and our sins, upon the awful consequences which\nmay result from one heedless act--nay, from a gesture or a look--He\nreminds us that He does not requite those who serve Him only with a\nmeasured wage, but shows \"mercy\" upon those who love Him unto a thousand\ngenerations.\n\n\n_THE THIRD COMMANDMENT._\n\n    \"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.\"--xx. 7.\n\nWhat is the precise force of this prohibition? The word used is\nambiguous: sometimes it must be rendered as here, as in the verses\n\"_Vain_ is the help of man,\" and \"Except the Lord build the house, their\nlabour is but _vain_ that build it\" (Psalm cviii. 12, cxxvii. 1). But\nsometimes it clearly means false, as in the texts \"Thou shalt not raise\na _false_ report,\" and \"swearing _falsely_ in making a covenant\" (Exod.\nxxiii. 1; Hos. x. 4). Yet again, it hangs midway between the two ideas,\nas when we read of \"_lying_ vanities,\" and again, \"trusting in vanity\nand speaking _lies_\" (Psalm xxxi. 6; Isa. lix. 4).\n\nIn favour of the rendering \"falsely\" it is urged that our Lord quotes it\nas \"said to them of old time 'Thou shalt not forswear thyself'\" (Matt.\nv. 33). But it is by no means clear that He quotes this text: the\ncitation is closer to the phraseology of Lev. xix. 12, and it is found\nin a section of the Sermon which does not confine its citations to the\nDecalogue (cf. ver. 38).\n\nThe Authorised rendering seems the more natural when we remember that\ncivic duty had not yet come upon the stage. When we have learned to\nhonour only one God, and not to degrade nor materialise our conception\nof Him, the next step is to inculcate, not yet veracity toward men when\nGod has been invoked, but reverence, in treating the sacred name.\n\nWe have already seen the miserable superstitions by which the Jews\nendeavoured to satisfy the letter while outraging the spirit of this\nprecept. In modern times some have conceived that all invocation of the\nDivine Name is unlawful, although St. Paul called God for a witness upon\nhis soul, and the strong angel shall yet swear \"by Him Who liveth for\never and ever\" (2 Cor. i. 23; Rev. x. 6).\n\nAs it is not a temple but a desert which no foot ever treads, so the\nsacred name is not honoured by being unspoken, but by being spoken\naright.\n\nSwearing is indeed forbidden, where it has actually disappeared, namely,\nin the mutual intercourse of Christian people, whose affirmation should\nsuffice their brethren, while the need of stronger sanctions \"cometh of\nevil,\" even of the consciousness of a tendency to untruthfulness, which\nrequires the stronger barrier of an oath. But our Lord Himself, when\nadjured by the living God, responded to the solemn authority of that\nadjuration, although His death was the result.\n\nThe name of God is not taken in vain when men who are conscious of His\nnearness, and act with habitual reference to His will, mention Him more\nfrequently and familiarly than formalists approve. It is abused when the\ninsincere and hollow professor joins in the most solemn act of worship,\nhonours Him with the lips while the heart is far from Him--nay, when one\nstrives to curb Satan, and reclaim his fellow-sinner, by the use of good\nand holy phrases, in which his own belief is merely theoretical; and\nfares like the sons of Sceva, who repeated an orthodox adjuration, but\nfled away overpowered and wounded. Or if the truth unworthily spoken\nassert its inherent power, that will not justify the hollowness of his\nprofession, and in vain will he plead at last, \"Lord, Lord, have we not\nin Thy name cast out devils, and in Thy name done many marvellous acts?\"\n\nThe only safe rule is to be sure that our conception of God is high and\nreal and intimate; to be habitually humble and trustful in our attitude\ntoward Him; and then to speak sincerely and frankly, as then we shall\nnot fail to do. The words which rise naturally to the lips of men who\nthink thus cannot fail to do Him honour, for out of the fulness of the\nheart the mouth speaketh.\n\nAnd the prevalent notion that God should be mentioned seldom and with\nbated breath is rather an evidence of men's failure habitually to think\nof Him aright, than of filial and loving reverence. There is a large and\npowerful school of religion in our own day, whose disciples talk much\nmore of their own emotions and their own souls than St. Paul did, and\nmuch less about God and Christ. Some day the proportions will be\nrestored. In the great Church of the future men will not morbidly shrink\nfrom confessing their inner life, but neither will it be the centre of\ntheir contemplation and their discourse: they will be filled with the\nfulness of God; out of the abundance of their hearts their mouths will\nspeak; His name shall be continually in their mouth, and yet they shall\nnot take the name of the Lord their God in vain.\n\n\n_THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT._\n\nxx. 8-11.\n\nIt cannot be denied that the commandment to honour the Sabbath day\noccupies a unique place among the ten. It is, at least apparently, a\nformal precept embedded in the heart of a moral code, and good men have\nthought very differently indeed about its obligation upon the Christian\nChurch.\n\nThe great Continental reformers, Lutheran and Calvinistic alike, who\nsubscribed the Confession of Augsburg, there affirmed that \"Scripture\nhath abolished the Sabbath by teaching that all Mosaic ceremonies may be\nomitted since the gospel has been revealed\" (II. vii. 28). The Scotch\nreformers, on the other hand, declared that God \"in His Word, by a\npositive moral and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages,\nhath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept\nholy unto Him\" (_Westminster Confess._, XXI. vii.). They are even so\nbold as to declare that this day \"from the beginning of the world to the\nresurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the\nresurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week\"; but\nthis proposition would be as hard to prove as the contrary assertion,\nstill maintained by some obscure religionists, that the change of day,\nfor however sufficient and sublime a reason, was beyond the capacity of\nthe Church of Christ to enact.\n\nAmid these conflicting opinions the doctrinal formularies of the Church\nof England are characteristically guarded and prudent; but her\nworshippers are bidden to seek mercy from the Lord for past violations\nof this law, and an inclination of heart to keep it in the future; and\nwhen the Ten have been recited, they pray that \"all these Thy laws\" may\nbe written upon their hearts. There is no doubt, therefore, about the\nopinion of our own Reformers concerning the divine obligation of the\ncommandment.\n\nIn examining the problem thus presented to us, our chief light must be\nthat of Scripture itself. Is the Sabbath what the Lutheran confession\ncalled it, a mere \"Mosaic ceremony,\" or does it rest upon sanctions\nwhich began earlier and lasted longer than the precept to abstain from\nshell-fish, or to sanctify the firstborn of cattle?\n\nDoes its presence in the Decalogue disfigure that great code, as the\nintrusion of these other precepts would do? When we find a Gentile\nchurch reminded that the next precept to this \"is the first commandment\nwith promise\" (Eph. vi. 2), can we suppose that the tables to which St.\nPaul appealed, and the promise which he cited at full length, were both\ncancelled; that in so far as a moral element existed in them, that\nportion of course survived their repeal, but the code itself was gone?\nIf so, the temporal promise went with it, and its quotation by St. Paul\nis strange. Strange also, upon this supposition, was the stress which\nhe habitually laid upon the law as a convicting power, and as being only\nrepealed in the letter so far as it was fulfilled by the spontaneous\ninstinct of love, which was the fulfilling of the law.\n\nThe position of the commandment among a number of moral and universal\nduties cannot but weigh heavily in its favour. It prompts us to ask\nwhether our duty to God is purely negative, to be fulfilled by a policy\nof non-intervention, not worshipping idols, nor blaspheming. Something\nmore was already intimated in the promise of mercy to them \"that love\nMe.\" For love is chiefly the source of active obedience: while fear is\nsatisfied by the absence of provocation, love wants not only to abstain\nfrom evil but to do good. And how may it satisfy this instinct when its\nobject is the eternal God, Who, if He were hungry, would not tell us? It\nfinds the necessary outlet in worship, in adoring communion, in the\nexclusion for awhile of worldly cares, in the devotion of time and\nthought to Him. Now, the foundation upon which all the institutions of\nreligion may be securely built, is the day of rest. Call it external,\nformal, unspiritual if you will; say that it is a carnal ordinance, and\nthat he who keeps it in spirit is free from the obligation of the\nletter. But then, what about the eighth commandment? Are we absolved\nalso from the precept \"Thou shalt not steal,\" because it too is\nconcerned with external actions, because \"this ... thou shalt not steal\n... and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in\nthis one saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself\"? Do we say,\nthe spirit has abolished the letter: love is the rescinding of the law?\nSt. Paul said the very opposite: love is the fulfilling of the law, not\nits destruction; and thus he re-echoed the words of Jesus, \"I am not\ncome to destroy the law, but to fulfil.\"\n\nAll men know that the formal regulations which defend property are\nrelaxed as the ties of love and mutual understanding are made strong;\nthat to enter unannounced is not a trespass, that the same action which\nwill be prosecuted as a theft by a stranger, and resented as a liberty\nby an acquaintance, is welcomed as a graceful freedom, almost as an\nendearment, by a friend. And yet the commandment and the rights of\nproperty hold good: they are not compromised, but glorified, by being\nspiritualised. As it is between man and his brother, so should it be\nbetween us and our Divine Father. We have learned to know Him very\ndifferently from those who shuddered under Sinai: the whole law is not\nnow written upon tables of stone, but upon fleshly tables of the heart.\nBut among the precepts which are thus etherialised and yet established,\nwhy should not the fourth commandment retain its place? Why should it be\nsupposed that it must vanish from the Decalogue, unless the gathering of\nsticks deserves stoning? The institution, and the ceremonial application\nof it to Jewish life, are entirely different things; just as respect for\nproperty is a fixed obligation, while the laws of succession vary.\n\nBearing this distinction in mind, we come to the question, Was the\nSabbath an ordinance born of Mosaism, or not? Grant that the word\n\"Remember,\" if it stood alone, might conceivably express the emphasis of\na new precept, and not the recapitulation of an existing one. Grant also\nthat the mention in Genesis of the Divine rest might be made by\nanticipation, to be read with an eye to the institution which would be\nmentioned later. But what is to be made of the fact that on the seventh\nday manna was withheld from the camp, before they had arrived at Horeb,\nand therefore before the commandment had been written by the finger of\nGod upon the stone? Was this also done by anticipation? Upon any\nsupposition, it aimed at teaching the nation that the obligation of the\nday was not based upon the positive precept, but the precept embodied an\nolder and more fundamental obligation.\n\nHow is the Sabbath spoken of in those prophecies which set least value\nupon the merely ceremonial law?\n\nIsaiah speaks of mere ritual as slightly as St. Paul. To fast and\nafflict one's soul is nothing, if in the day of fasting one smites with\nthe fist and oppresses his labourers. To loose the bonds of wickedness,\nto free the oppressed, to share one's bread with the hungry, this is the\nfast which God has chosen, and for him who fasts after this fashion the\nlight shall break forth like sunrise, and his bones shall be strong, and\nhe himself like an unfailing water-spring. Now, it is the same chapter\nwhich thus waives aside mere ceremonial in contempt, which lavishes the\nmost ample promises on him who turns away his foot from the Sabbath, and\ncalls the Sabbath a delight, and the holy of the Lord, honourable, and\nhonours it (Isa. lviii. 5-11, 13-14).\n\nThere is no such promise in Jeremiah, for the observance of any merely\nceremonial law, as that which bids the people to honour the Sabbath day,\nthat there may enter into their gates kings and princes riding in\nchariots and upon horses, and that the city may remain for ever (Jer.\nxvii. 24, 25).\n\nAnd Ezekiel declares that in the day when God made Himself known to His\npeople in the land of Egypt, He gave them statutes and judgments and His\nsabbaths (Ezek. xx. 11, 12). Now, this phrase is a clear allusion to\nthe word of God in Jeremiah, that \"I spake not unto their fathers in the\nday when I brought them out of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or\nsacrifices, but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto My\nvoice,\" etc. (Jer. vii. 23). And it sharply contrasts the sacredness of\nGod's abiding ordinances with the temporary institutions of the\nsanctuary. But it reckons the Sabbath among the former.\n\nIt is objected that our Lord Himself treated the Sabbath lightly, as a\nworn-out ordinance. But He was \"a minister of the circumcision,\" and\nalways discussed the lawfulness of His Sabbath miracles as a Jew with\nJews. Thus He argued that men, admittedly under the law, baked the\nshewbread, circumcised children, and even rescued cattle from jeopardy\nupon the seventh day. He appealed to the example of David, who met a\nsufficiently urgent necessity by eating the consecrated bread, \"which\nwas not lawful for him to eat\" (Matt. xii. 4).\n\nHe did not hint that the law of the sabbath had disappeared, but\ninsisted that it was meant to serve man and not to oppress him: that\n\"the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath\" (Mark ii.\n27).\n\nNow, there is not in the life of Christ an assertion, so broad and\nstrong as that the Sabbath was made for the human race, which can be\nnarrowed down to a discussion of any merely local and temporary\ninstitution. He Who stood highest, and saw the widest horizons, declared\nthat the Sabbath was intended for humanity, and not for a section or a\nsect of it. Not because He was the King of the Jews, but because He was\nthe Son of Man, the ripe fruit and the leader of the world-wide race\nwhich it was given to bless, therefore He was also its Lord.\n\nAnd in Him, so are we. Like all things present and things to come, it is\nour help, we are not its slaves.\n\nThere is something abject in the notion of a Christian freeman, who has\nbeen for a long week imprisoned in some gloomy and ill-ventilated\nworkshop, whose lungs would be purified, and therefore his spirits\nuplifted, and therefore his reason and his affections invigorated, and\ntherefore his worship rendered more fresh, warm and reasonable, by the\nbreathing of a purer air, yet whose conception of a day of rest is so\nslavish that he dares not \"rest\" from the pollution of an infected\natmosphere, and from the closeness of a London court, because he\nconceives it imperative to \"rest\" only from that bodily exercise, to\nenjoy which would be to him the most real and the most delightful repose\nof all.\n\nBut there are other things more abject still; and one of them is the\nmiserable insincerity of the affluent and luxurious, using the\nexceptional case of him whose week-days are thus oppressed, to excuse\ntheir own wanton neglect of religious ordinances, accepting at the hands\nof Christianity the sacred holiday, but ignoring utterly the fact that\nthe Lord sanctified and hallowed it, that it is to be called the holy of\nthe Lord, and to be honoured, and that we are free from the letter of\nthe precept only in so far as we rise to the spirit of it, in loving and\ntrue communion with the Father of spirits.\n\nAnother utterance of Jesus throws a strong light upon the nature and the\nlimits of our obligation. \"My Father worketh even until now, and I work\"\n(John v. 17) is an appeal to the fact that in the long sabbath of God\nHis world is not deserted; creation may be suspended, but the bounties\nof Providence go on; and therefore Christ also felt that His day of\nrest was not one of torpor, that in healing the impotent man upon the\nSabbath He was but following the example of Him by whose rest the day\nwas sanctified. All works of beneficent love, all that ministers to\nhuman recovery from anguish, and carries out the Divine purposes of\ngrace for body or soul, rescue from danger, healing of disease,\nreformation of guilt, are sanctioned by this defence of Christ.\n\nThey need not plead that the commandment is abrogated, but that Jesus of\nNazareth, of the seed of David, found nothing in such liberties\ninconsistent with the duties of a devout Hebrew.\n\n\n_THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT._\n\n    \"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon\n    the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.\"--xx. 12.\n\nThis commandment forms a kind of bridge between the first table and the\nsecond. Obedience to parents is not merely a neighbourly virtue; we do\nnot honour them simply as our fellow-men: they are the vicegerents of\nGod to our childhood; through them He supplies our necessities, defends\nour feebleness, and pours in light and wisdom upon our ignorance; by\nthem our earliest knowledge of right and wrong is imparted, and upon the\nsanction of their voice it long depends.\n\nIt is clear that parental authority cannot be undermined, nor filial\ndisobedience and irreverence gain ground, without shaking the\nfoundations of our religious life, even more perhaps than of our social\nconduct.\n\nAccordingly this commandment stands before the sixth, not because\nmurder is a less offence against society, but because it is more\nemphatically against our neighbour, and less directly against God.\n\nThe human infant is dependent and helpless for a longer period, and more\nutterly, than the young of any other animal. Its growth, which is to\nreach so much higher, is slower, and it is feebler during the process.\nAnd the reason of this is plain to every thoughtful observer. God has\nwilled that the race of man should be bound together in the closest\nrelationships, both spiritual and secular; and family affection prepares\nthe heart for membership alike of the nation and the Church. With this\ninner circle the wider ones are concentric. The pathetic dependence of\nthe child nourishes equally the strong love which protects, and the\ngrateful love which clings. And from our early knowledge of human\ngenerosity, human care and goodness, there is born the capacity for\nbelief in the heart of the great Father, from Whom every family in\nheaven and earth derived its Greek name of Fatherhood (Eph. iii. 15).\n\nWoe to the father whose cruelty, selfishness, or evil passions make it\nhard for his child to understand the Archetype, because the type is\nspoiled! or whose tyranny and self-will suggest rather the stern God of\nreprobation, or of servile, slavish subjection, than the tender Father\nof freeborn sons, who are no more under tutors and governors, but are\ncalled unto freedom.\n\nBut how much sorer woe to the son who dishonours his earthly parent, and\nin so doing slays within himself the very principle of obedience to the\nFather of spirits!\n\nNo earthly tie is perfect, and therefore no earthly obedience can be\nabsolute. Some crisis comes in every life when the most innocent and\npraiseworthy affection becomes a snare--when the counsel we most relied\nupon would fain mislead our conscience--when a man, to be Christ's\ndisciple, must \"hate father and mother,\" as Christ Himself heard the\ntemptation of the evil one speaking through chosen and beloved lips, and\nsaid \"Get thee behind Me, Satan.\" Even then we shall respect them, and\npray as Christ prayed for His failing apostle, and when the storm has\nspent itself they shall resume their due place in the loving heart of\ntheir Christian offspring.\n\nSo Jesus, when Mary would interrupt His teaching, said \"Who is My\nmother?\" But imminent death could not prevent Him from pitying her\nsorrow, and committing her to His beloved disciple as to a son.\n\nFrom the letter of this commandment streams out a loving influence to\nsanctify all the rest of our relationships. As the love of God implies\nthat of our brother also, so does the honour of parents involve the\nrecognition of all our domestic ties.\n\nAnd even unassisted nature will tend to make long the days of the loving\nand obedient child; for life and health depend far less upon affluence\nand luxury than upon a well-regulated disposition, a loving heart, a\ntemper which can obey without chafing, and a conscience which respects\nlaw. All these are being learned in disciplined and dutiful households,\nwhich are therefore the nurseries of happy and righteous children, and\nso of long-lived families in the next generation also. Exceptions there\nmust be. But the rule is clear, that violent and curbless lives will\nspend themselves faster than the lives of the gentle, the loving, the\nlaw-abiding and the innocent.\n\n\n_THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT._\n\n    \"Thou shalt do no murder.\"--xx. 13.\n\nWe have now clearly passed to the consideration of man's duty to his\nfellow-man, as a part of his duty to his Maker. It is no longer as\nholding a divinely appointed relation to us, but simply as he is a man,\nthat we are bidden to respect his person, his family, his property, and\nhis fair fame.\n\nAnd the influence of the teaching of our Lord is felt in the very name\nwhich we all give to the second table of the law. We call it \"our duty\nto our neighbour.\" But we do not mean to imply that there lives on the\nsurface of the globe one whom we are free to assault or to pillage. The\nobligation is universal, and the name we give it echoes the teaching of\nHim who said that no man can enter the sphere of our possible influence,\neven as a wounded creature in a swoon whom we may help, but he should\nthereupon become our neighbour. Or rather, we should become his; for\nwhile the question asked of Him was \"Who is my neighbour?\" (whom should\nI love?) Jesus reversed the problem when He asked in turn not To whom\nwas the wounded man a neighbour? but Who was a neighbour unto him? (who\nloved him?)\n\nSocial ethics, then, have a religious sanction. It is the constant duty\nand effort of the Church of God to saturate the whole life of man, all\nhis conduct and his thought, with a sense of sacredness; and as the\nworld is for ever desecrating what is holy, so is religion for ever\nconsecrating what is secular.\n\nIn these latter days men have thought it a proof of grace to separate\nreligion from daily life. The Antinomian, who maintains that his\northodox beliefs or feelings absolve him from the obligations of\nmorality, joins hands with the Italian brigand who hopes to be forgiven\nfor cutting throats because he subsidises a priest. The enthusiast who\ninsists that all sins, past and future, were forgiven him when he\nbelieved, approaches far nearer than he supposes to the fanatic of\nanother creed, who thinks a formal confession and an external absolution\nsufficient to wash away sin. All of them hold the grand heresy that one\nmay escape the penalties without being freed from the power of evil;\nthat a life may be saved by grace without being penetrated by religion,\nand that it is not exactly accurate to say that Jesus saves His people\nfrom their sins.\n\nIt is scarcely wonderful, when some men thus refuse to morality the\nsanctions of religion, that others propose to teach morality how she may\ngo without them. In spite of the experience of ages, which proves that\nhuman passions are only too ready to defy at once the penalties of both\nworlds, it is imagined that the microscope and the scalpel may supersede\nthe Gospel as teachers of virtue; that the self-interest of a creature\ndoomed to perish in a few years may prove more effectual to restrain\nthan eternal hopes and fears; and that a scientific prudence may supply\nthe place of holiness. It has never been so in the past. Not only Jud\u00e6a,\nbut Egypt, Greece, and Rome, were strong as long as they were righteous,\nand righteous as long as their morality was bound up in their religion.\nWhen they ceased to worship they ceased to be self-controlled, nor could\nthe most urgent and manifest self-interest, nor all the resources of\nlofty philosophy, withhold them from the ruin which always accompanies\nor follows vice.\n\nIs it certain that modern science will fare any better? So far from\ndeepening our respect for human nature and for law, she is discovering\nvile origins for our most sacred institutions and our deepest instincts,\nand whispering strange means by which crime may work without detection\nand vice without penalty. Never was there a time when educated thought\nwas more suggestive of contempt for one's self and for one's fellow-man,\nand of a prudent, sturdy, remorseless pursuit of self-interest, which\nmay be very far indeed from virtuous. The next generation will eat the\nfruit of this teaching, as we reap what our fathers sowed. The theorist\nmay be as pure as Epicurus. But the disciples will be as the Epicureans.\n\nIs there anything in the modern conception of a man which bids me spare\nhim, if his existence dooms me to poverty and I can quietly push him\nover a precipice? It is quite conceivable that I can prove, and very\nlikely indeed that I can persuade myself, that the shortening of the\nlife of one hard and grasping man may brighten the lives of hundreds.\nAnd my passions will simply laugh at the attempt to restrain me by\narguing that great advantages result from the respect for human life\nupon the whole. Appetites, greeds, resentments do not regard their\nobjects in this broad and colourless way; they grant the general\nproposition, but add that every rule has its exceptions. Something more\nis needed: something which can never be obtained except from a universal\nlaw, from the sanctity of all human lives as bearing eternal issues in\ntheir bosom, and from the certainty that He who gave the mandate will\nenforce it.\n\nIt is when we see in our fellow-man a divine creature of the Divine,\nmade by God in His own image, marred and defaced by sin, but not beyond\nrecovery, when his actions are regarded as wrought in the sight of a\nJudge Whose presence supersedes utterly the slightness, heat and\ninadequacy of our judgment and our vengeance, when his pure affections\ntell us of the love of God which passeth knowledge, when his errors\naffright us as dire and melancholy apostacies from a mighty calling, and\nwhen his death is solemn as the unveiling of unknown and unending\ndestinies, then it is that we discern the sacredness of life, and the\nawful presumption of the deed which quenches it. It is when we realise\nthat he is our brother, holding his place in the universe by the same\ntenure by which we hold our own, and dear to the same Father, that we\nunderstand how stern is the duty of repressing the first resentful\nmovements within our breast which would even wish to crush him, because\nthey are a rebellion against the Divine ordinance and against the Divine\nbenevolence.\n\nIs it asked, how can all this be reconciled with the lawfulness of\ncapital punishment? The death penalty is frequent in the Mosaic code.\nBut Scripture regards the judge as the minister and agent of God. The\nstern monotheism of the Old Testament \"said, Ye are Gods,\" to those who\nthus pronounced the behest of Heaven; and private vengeance becomes only\nmore culpable when we reflect upon the high sanction and authority by\nwhich alone public justice presumes to act.\n\nNow, all these considerations vanish together, when religion ceases to\nconsecrate morality. The judgment of law differs from my own merely as I\nlike it better, and as I am a party (perhaps unwillingly) to the general\nconsent which creates it; he whom I would assail is doomed in any case\nto speedy and complete extinction; his longer life is possibly\nburdensome to himself and to society; and there exists no higher Being\nto resent my interference, or to measure out the existence which I think\ntoo protracted. It is clear that such a view of human life must prove\nfatal to its sacredness; and that its results would make themselves\nincreasingly felt, as the awe wore away which old associations now\ninspire.\n\n\n_THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT._\n\n    \"Thou shalt not commit adultery.\"--xx. 14.\n\nThis commandment follows very obviously from even the rudest principle\nof justice to our neighbour. It is among those that St. Paul enumerates\nas \"briefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbour\nas thyself.\"\n\nAnd therefore nothing need here be said about the open sin by which one\nman wrongs another. Wild and evil theories may be abroad, new schemes of\nsocial order may be recklessly invented and discussed; yet, when the\ninstitution of the permanent family is assailed, every thoughtful man\nknows full well that all our interests are at stake in its defence, and\nthe nation could no more survive its overthrow than the Church.\n\nBut when our Lord declared that to excite desire through the eyes is\nactually this sin, already ripe, He appealed to some deeper and more\nspiritual consideration than that of social order. What He pointed to is\nthe sacredness of the human body--so holy a thing that impurity, and\neven the silent excitement of passion, is a wrong done to our nature,\nand a dishonour to the temple of the Holy Ghost.\n\nNow, this is a subject upon which it is all the more necessary to write,\nbecause it is hard to speak about.\n\nWhat is the human body, in the view of the Christian? It is the one\nbond, as far as we know in all the universe, between the material and\nthe spiritual worlds, one of which slopes thence down to inert\nmolecules, and the other upward to the throne of God.\n\nOur brain is the engine-room and laboratory whereby thought, aspiration,\nworship express themselves and become potent, and even communicate\nthemselves to others.\n\nBut it is a solemn truth that the body not only interprets passively,\nbut also influences and modifies the higher nature. The mind is helped\nby proper diet and exercise, and hindered by impure air and by excess or\nlack of food. The influence of music upon the soul has been observed at\nleast since the time of Saul. And hereafter the Christian body, redeemed\nfrom the contagion of the fall, and promoted to a spiritual\nimpressibility and receptiveness which it has never yet known, is meant\nto share in the heavenly joys of the immortal spirit before God. This is\nthe meaning of the assertion that it is sown a natural (= _soulish_)\nbody, but shall be raised a spiritual body. In the meantime it must\nlearn its true function. Whatever stimulates and excites the animal at\nthe cost of the immortal within, will in the same degree cloud and\nobscure the perception that a man's life consisteth not in his\npleasures, and will keep up the illusion that the senses are the true\nministers of bliss. The soul is attacked through the appetites at a\npoint far short of their physical indulgence. And when lawless wishes\nare deliberately toyed with, it is clear that lawless acts are not\nhated, but only avoided through fear of consequences. The reins which\ngovern the life are no longer in the hands of the spirit, nor is it the\nwill which now refuses to sin. How, then, can the soul be alert and\npure? It is drugged and stupified: the offices of religion are a dull\nform, and its truths are hollow unrealities, assented to but unfelt,\nbecause unholy impulses have set on fire the course of nature, in what\nshould have been the temple of the Holy Ghost.\n\nMoreover, the Christian life is not one of mere submission to authority;\nits true law is that of ceaseless upward aspiration. And since the union\nof husband and wife is consecrated to be the truest and deepest and most\nfar-reaching of all types of the mystical union between Christ and His\nChurch, it demands an ever closer approach to that perfect ideal of\nmutual love and service.\n\nAnd whatever impairs the sacred, mysterious, all-pervading unity of a\nperfect wedlock is either the greatest of misfortunes or of crimes.\n\nIf it be frailty of temper, failure of common sympathies, an\nirretrievable error recognised too late, it is a calamity which may yet\nstrengthen the character by evoking such pity and helpfulness as Christ\nthe Bridegroom showed for the Church when lost. But if estrangement,\neven of heart, come through the secret indulgence of lawless reverie and\ndesire, it is treason, and criminal although the traitor has not struck\na blow, but only whispered sedition under his breath in a darkened room.\n\n\n_THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT._\n\n    \"Thou shalt not steal.\"--xx. 15.\n\nThere is no commandment against which human ingenuity has brought more\nevasions to bear than this. Property itself is theft, says the\ncommunist. \"It is no grave sin,\" says the Roman text-book, \"to steal in\nmoderation\"; and this is defined to be, \"from a pauper less than a\nfranc, from a daily labourer less than two or three, from a person in\ncomfortable circumstances anything under four or five francs, or from a\nvery rich man ten or twelve francs. And a servant whom force or\nnecessity compels to accept an unjust payment, may secretly compensate\nhimself, because the workman is worthy of his hire.\"[37] A moment's\nreflection discovers this to be the most naked rationalism, choosing\nsome of the commandments of God for honour, and some for contempt as\n\"not very grave\" and wholly ignoring the principle that whoever attacks\nthe code at any one point \"is guilty of all,\" because he has despised it\nas a code, as an organic system.\n\nNothing is easier than to confuse one's conscience about the ethics of\nproperty. For the arrangements of various nations differ: it is a\ngeographical line which defines the right of the elder son against his\nbrothers, of sons against daughters, and of children against a wife; and\nthe demand is still more capricious which the state asserts against them\nall, under the name of succession duty, and which it makes upon other\nproperty in the form of a multitude of imposts and taxes. Can all these\ndifferent arrangements be alike binding? Add to this variability the\nimmense national revenues, which are apparently so little affected by\nindividual contributions, and it is no wonder if men fail to see that\nhonesty to the public is a duty as immutable and stern as any other duty\nto their neighbour. Unfortunately the evil spreads. The same\nconsiderations which make it seem pardonable to rob the nation apply\nalso to the millionaire; and they tempt many a poor man to ask whether\nhe need respect the wealth of a usurer, or may not adjust the scales of\nMine and Thine, which law causes to hang unfairly.\n\nIt is forgotten that a nation has at least the same authority as a club\nto regulate its own affairs, to fix the relative position and the\nsubscription of its members. Common honesty teaches me that I must\nconform to these rules or leave the club; and this duty is not at all\naffected by the fact that other associations have different rules. In\nthree such societies God Himself has placed us all--the family, the\nChurch, and the nation; and therefore I am directly responsible to God\nfor due respect to their laws. It is not true that the statute-book is\ninspired, any more than that the regulations of a household are divinely\ngiven. Yet a Divine sanction, such as rests upon the parental rule of\nfallible human creatures, hallows also national law. I may advocate a\nchange in laws of which I disapprove, but I am bound in the meantime to\nobey the conditions upon which I receive protection from foreign foes\nand domestic fraud, and which cannot be subjected to the judgment of\nevery individual, except at the cost of a dissolution of society, and a\nstate of anarchy compared with which the worst of laws would be\ndesirable.\n\nThis revolt of the individual is especially tempting when selfishness\ndeems itself wronged, as by the laws of property. And the eighth\ncommandment is necessary to protect society not merely against the\nviolence of the burglar and the craft of the impostor, but also against\nthe deceitfulness of our own hearts, asking What harm is in the evasion\nof an impost? What right has a successful speculator to his millions?\nWhy should I not do justice to myself when law refuses it?\n\nThere is always the simple answer, Who made me a judge in my own case?\n\nBut when we regard the matter thus, it becomes clear that honesty is not\nmere abstinence from pillage. The community has larger claims than this\nupon us, and is wronged if we fail to discharge them.\n\nThe rich man robs the poor if he does not play his part in the great\norganisation by which he is served so well: every one robs the community\nwho takes its benefits and returns none; and in this sense the bold\nsaying is true, that every man lives by one of two methods--by labour or\nby theft.\n\nSt. Paul does not exhort men to refrain from theft merely in order to be\nharmless, but to do good. That is the alternative contemplated when he\nsays, \"Let the thief steal no more, but rather let him labour, working\nwith his hands the thing that is good, that he may have whereof to give\nto him that hath need\" (Eph. iv. 28).\n\n\n_THE NINTH COMMANDMENT._\n\n    \"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.\"--xx. 16.\n\nSt. James called the tongue a world of iniquity. And against its\nlawlessness, which inflames the whole course of nature, each table of\nthe law contains a warning. For it is equally ready to profane the name\nof God, and to rob our neighbour of his fair fame.\n\nJesus Christ regarded verbal professions as a very poor thing, and\nasked, \"Why call ye Me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I command\nyou?\" He aimed a parable at the hollowness of merely saying, \"I go,\nsir.\" But, worthless though such phrases be, the act which substitutes\nprofessions for actual service is no trifle; and our Lord felt the\nimportance of words, empty or sincere, so profoundly as to stake upon\nthis one test the eternal destinies of His people: \"By thy words thou\nshalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.\" Now, the\ntongue is thus important because it is so prompt and willing a servant\nof the mind within. We scarcely think of it as a servant at all: our\nwords do not seem to be more than \"expressions,\" manifestations of what\nis within us.\n\nBut a thought, once expressed, is transformed and energetic as a bullet\nwhen the charge is fired; it modifies other minds, and the word which we\ntook to be far less potent than a deed becomes the mover of the fateful\ndeeds of many men. And thus, being at once powerful and unsuspected, it\nis the most treacherous and subtle of all the forces which we wield.\n\nAnd the ninth commandment does not undertake to bridle it by merely\nforbidding us in a court of justice to wrong our fellow-man by perjury.\n\nWe transgress it whenever we conceive a strong suspicion and repeat it\nas a thing we know; when we allow the temptation of a biting epigram to\nbetray us into an unkind expression not quite warranted by the facts;\nwhen we vindicate ourselves against a charge by throwing blame where it\nprobably but not certainly ought to lie; or when we are not content to\nvindicate ourselves without bringing a countercharge which it would\nperplex us to be asked to prove; when we give way to that most shallow\nand meanest of all attempts at cleverness which claims credit for\npenetration because it can discover base motives for innocent actions,\nso that high-mindedness becomes pride, and charity withers up into love\nof patronising, and forbearance shrivels into lack of spirit. The\npattern and ideal of such cleverness is the east wind, which makes all\nthat is fair and sensitive to shut itself up, forbids the bud to expand\ninto a blossom, and puts back the coming of the springtime and of the\nsinging bird.\n\nThere are very gifted persons who have never found out that a kindly and\nwinning phrase may have as much literary merit as a stinging one, and it\nis quite as fine a thing to be like the dew on Hermon on as to shoot out\narrows, even bitter words.\n\nIt is a pity that our harsh judgments always speak more loudly and\nconfidently than our kindly ones, but the reason is plain: angry passion\nprompts the former, and its voice is loud; while the calm reflection\nwhich tones down and sweetens the judgment softens also the expression\nof it.\n\nIt has to be remembered, also, that false witness can reach to nations,\norganisations, political movements as well as individuals. The habit of\nputting the worst construction upon the intentions of foreign powers is\nwhat feeds the mutual jealousies that ultimately blaze out in war. The\nhabit of thinking of rival politicians as deliberately false and\ntreasonable is what lowers the standard of the noblest of secular\npursuits, until each party, not to be undone, protests too much, raises\nits voice to a falsetto to scream its rival down, and relaxes its\nstandard of righteousness lest it should be outdone by the\nunscrupulousness of its rival.\n\nAnd there is yet another neighbour, against whom false witness is\nwoefully rife, both in the Church and in society. That neighbour is\nmankind at large. There is a prevalent theory of human sinfulness which\nunconsciously scoffs at the appeals of the gospel, striving indeed to\ninfluence me by love, gratitude, admiration for the Perfect One, and\ndesire to be like Him, by the hope of holiness and the shame of\nvileness, but telling me at the same time that I have no sympathies\nwhatever except with evil. The observation of every day shows that man's\nnature is corrupt, but it also shows that he is not a fiend--that he has\nfallen indeed, but remembers yet in what image he was made. But the\nworld cannot upbraid the Church for these exaggerations, since they are\nbut the echo of its own.\n\n                                  \"I do believe,\n    Though I have found them not, that there may be\n    Words which are things, hopes which will not deceive,\n    And virtues which are merciful, nor weave\n    Snares for the failing; I would also deem\n    O'er others' griefs that some sincerely grieve;\n    That two, or one, are almost what they seem,\n    That goodness is no name, and happiness no dream.\"\n\n    _Childe Harold_, III., cxiv.\n\nCynicism is false witness; and if it does not greatly wrong any one of\nour fellow-men, it injures both society and the cynic. If he is of a\ncoarse fibre, it excuses him to himself in becoming the hard and\nunloving creature which he fancies that all men are. If he is too proud\nor too self-respecting to yield to this temptation, it isolates him, it\nchills and withers his sympathies for people quite as good as himself,\nwhom he thinks of as the herd.\n\nAs for the more flagrant sins, so for this, the remedy is love. Love\nsympathises, makes allowance for frailty, discovers the germs of good,\nhopeth all things, taketh not account of evil.\n\n\n_THE TENTH COMMANDMENT._\n\n    \"Thou shalt not covet ... anything that is his.\"--xx. 17.\n\nIt will be remembered that the order of the catalogue of objects of\ndesire is different in Exodus and in Deuteronomy. In the latter \"thy\nneighbour's wife\" is first, as of supreme importance; and therefore it\nhas been thought possible to convert it into a separate commandment.\n\nBut this the order in Exodus forbids, by placing the house first, and\nthen the various living possessions which the householder gathers around\nhim. What is thought of is the gradual process of acquisition, and the\nright of him who wins first a house, then a wife, servants, and cattle,\nto be secure in the possession of them all. Now, between foes, we saw\nthat the evil temper is what leads to the evil deed, and the man who\nnurses hatred is a murderer at heart. Just so the householder is not\nrendered safe, and certainly not happy in the enjoyment of his rights,\nby the seventh commandment and the eighth, unless care be taken to\nprevent the accumulation of those forces which will some day break\nthrough them both. To secure cities against explosion, we forbid the\nstorage of gunpowder and dynamite, and not only the firing of magazines.\n\nBut the moral law is not given to any man for his neighbour's sake\nchiefly. It is for me: statutes whereby I myself may live. And as the\nPsalmist pondered on them, they expanded strangely for his perception.\n\"I have kept Thy testimonies,\" he says; but presently asks to be\nquickened,--\"So shall I _observe_ the testimony of Thy mouth,\"--and\nprays, \"Give me understanding, that I may _know_ Thy testimonies.\" And\nat the last, he confesses that he has \"gone astray like a lost sheep\"\n(Ps. cxix. 22, 88, 125, 176). Starting with a literal innocence, he\ncomes to feel a deep inward need, need of vitality to obey, and even of\npower to understand aright. If the sacrifices of God are a broken\nspirit, it follows that they are a spirit, and inward loyalty is the\nnecessary condition upon which external obedience can be accepted. The\ncheers of a traitor, the flattery of one who scorns, the ritual of a\nhypocrite, these are quite as valuable, as indications of what is\nwithin, as a reluctant relinquishment to my neighbour of what is his. I\nmust not covet. Plainly this is the sharpest and most searching precept\nof all; and accordingly St. Paul asserts that without this he would not\nhave suffered the deep internal discontent, the consciousness of\nsomething wrong, which tortured him, even although no mortal could\nreproach him, even though, touching the righteousness of the law, he was\nblameless. He had not known coveting, except the law had said \"Thou\nshalt not covet.\"\n\nHere, then, we perceive with the utmost clearness what St. Paul so\nclearly discerned--the true meaning of the Law, its convicting power,\nits design to work not righteousness, but self-despair as the prelude of\nself-surrender. For who can, by resolving, govern his desires? Who can\nabstain not only from the usurping deed, but from the aggressive\nemotion? Who will not despair when he learns that God desireth truth in\nthe inward parts? But this despair is the way to that better hope which\nadds, \"In the hidden part Thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me\nwith hyssop, and I shall be clean.\"\n\nAnd as a strong interest or affection has power to destroy in the soul\nmany weaker ones, so the love of God and our neighbour is the appointed\nway to overcome the desire of taking from our neighbour what God has\ngiven to him, refusing it to us.\n\n\nTHE LESSER LAW.\n\nxx. 18-xxiii. 33.\n\nWith the close of the Decalogue and its universal obligations, we\napproach a brief code of laws, purely Hebrew, but of the deepest moral\ninterest, confessed by hostile criticism to bear every mark of a remote\nantiquity, and distinctly severed from what precedes and follows by a\nmarked difference in the circumstances.\n\nThis is evidently the book of the Covenant to which the nation gave its\nformal assent (xxiv. 7), and is therefore the germ and the centre of the\nsystem afterwards so much expanded.\n\nAnd since the adhesion of the people was required, and the final\ncovenant was ratified as soon as it was given, before any of the more\nformal details were elaborated, and before the tabernacle and the\npriesthood were established, it may fairly claim the highest and most\nunique position among the component parts of the Pentateuch, excepting\nonly the Ten Commandments.\n\nBefore examining it in detail, the impressive circumstances of its\nutterance have to be observed.\n\nIt is written that when the law was given, the voice of the trumpet\nwaxed louder and louder still. And as the multitude became aware that in\nthis tempestuous and growing crash there was a living centre, and a\nvoice of intelligible words, their awe became insufferable: and instead\nof needing the barriers which excluded them from the mountain, they\nrecoiled from their appointed place, trembling and standing afar off.\n\"And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us and we will hear, but let\nnot God speak with us lest we die.\" It is the same instinct that we have\nalready so often recognised, the dread of holiness in the hearts of the\nimpure, the sense of unworthiness, which makes a prophet cry, \"Woe is\nme, for I am undone!\" and an apostle, \"Depart from me, for I am a sinful\nman.\"\n\nNow, the New Testament quotes a confession of Moses himself, well-nigh\noverwhelmed, \"I do exceedingly fear and quake\" (Heb. xii. 21). And yet\nwe read that he \"said unto the people, Fear not, for God is come to\nprove you, and that His fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not\"\n(xx. 20). Thus we have the double paradox,--that he exceedingly feared,\nyet bade them fear not, and yet again declared that the very object of\nGod was that they might fear Him.\n\nLike every paradox, which is not a mere contradiction, this is\ninstructive.\n\nThere is an abject fear, the dread of cowards and of the guilty, which\nmasters and destroys the will--the fear which shrank away from the mount\nand cried out to Moses for relief. Such fear has torment, and none ought\nto admit it who understands that God wishes him well and is merciful.\n\nThere is also a natural agitation, at times inevitable though not\nunconquerable, and often strongest in the highest natures because they\nare the most finely strung. We are sometimes taught that there is sin in\nthat instinctive recoil from death, and from whatever brings it close,\nwhich indeed is implanted by God to prevent foolhardiness, and to\npreserve the race. Our duty, however, does not require the absence of\nsensitive nerves, but only their subjugation and control. Marshal Saxe\nwas truly brave when he looked at his own trembling frame, as the cannon\nopened fire, and said, \"Aha! tremblest thou? thou wouldest tremble much\nmore if thou knewest whither I mean to carry thee to-day.\" Despite his\nfever-shaken nerves, he was perfectly entitled to say to any waverer,\n\"Fear not.\"\n\nAnd so Moses, while he himself quaked, was entitled to encourage his\npeople, because he could encourage them, because he saw and announced\nthe kindly meaning of that tremendous scene, because he dared presently\nto draw near unto the thick darkness where God was.\n\nAnd therefore the day would come when, with his noble heart aflame for a\nyet more splendid vision, he would cry, \"O Lord, I beseech Thee show me\nThy glory\"--some purer and clearer irradiation, which would neither\nbaffle the moral sense, nor conceal itself in cloud.\n\nMeanwhile, there was a fear which should endure, and which God desires:\nnot panic, but awe; not the terror which stood afar off, but the\nreverence which dares not to transgress. \"Fear not, for God is come to\nprove you\" (to see whether the nobler emotion or the baser will\nsurvive), \"and that His fear may be before your faces\" (so as to guide\nyou, instead of pressing upon you to crush), \"that ye sin not.\"\n\nHow needful was the lesson, may be seen by what followed when they were\ntaken at their word, and the pressure of physical dread was lifted off\nthem. \"They soon forgat God their Saviour ... they made a calf in\nHoreb, and worshipped the work of their own hands.\" Perhaps other\npressures which we feel and lament to-day, the uncertainties and fears\nof modern life, are equally required to prevent us from forgetting God.\n\nOf the nobler fear, which is a safeguard of the soul and not a danger,\nit is a serious question whether enough is alive among us.\n\nMuch sensational teaching, many popular books and hymns, suggest rather\nan irreverent use of the Holy Name, which is profanation, than a filial\napproach to a Father equally revered and loved. It is true that we are\nbidden to come with boldness to the throne of Grace. Yet the same\nEpistle teaches us again that our approach is even more solemn and awful\nthan to the Mount which might be touched, and the profaning of which was\ndeath; and it exhorts us to have grace whereby we may offer service\nwell-pleasing to God with reverence and awe, \"for our God is a consuming\nfire\" (Heb. iv. 16, xii. 28). That is the very last grace which some\nChristians ever seem to seek.\n\nWhen the people recoiled, and Moses, trusting in God, was brave and\nentered the cloud, they ceased to have direct communion, and he was\nbrought nearer to Jehovah than before.\n\nWhat is now conveyed to Israel through him is an expansion and\napplication of the Decalogue, and in turn it becomes the nucleus of the\ndeveloped law. Its great antiquity is admitted by the severest critics;\nand it is a wonderful example of spirituality and searching depth, and\nalso of such germinal and fruitful principles as cannot rest in\nthemselves, literally applied, but must lead the obedient student on to\nstill better things.\n\nIt is not the function of law to inspire men to obey it; this is\nprecisely what the law could not do, being weak through the flesh. But\nit could arrest the attention and educate the conscience. Simple though\nit was in the letter, David could meditate upon it day and night. In the\nNew Testament we know of two persons who had scrupulously respected its\nprecepts, but they both, far from being satisfied, were filled with a\ndivine discontent. One had kept all these things from his youth, yet\nfelt the need of doing some good thing, and anxiously demanded what it\nwas that he lacked yet. The other, as touching the righteousness of the\nlaw, was blameless, yet when the law entered, sin revived and slew him.\nFor the law was spiritual, and reached beyond itself, while he was\ncarnal, and thwarted by the flesh, sold under sin, even while externally\nbeyond reproach.\n\nThis subtle characteristic of all noble law will be very apparent in\nstudying the kernel of the law, the code within the code, which now lies\nbefore us.\n\nMen sometimes judge the Hebrew legislation harshly, thinking that they\nare testing it, as a Divine institution, by the light of this century.\nThey are really doing nothing of the sort. If there are two principles\nof legislation dearer than all others to modern Englishmen, they are the\ntwo which these flippant judgments most ignore, and by which they are\nmost perfectly refuted.\n\nOne is that institutions educate communities. It is not too much to say\nthat we have staked the future of our nation, and therefore the hopes of\nhumanity, upon our conviction that men can be elevated by ennobling\ninstitutions,--that the franchise, for example, is an education as well\nas a trust.\n\nThe other, which seems to contradict the first, and does actually modify\nit, is that legislation must not move too far in advance of public\nopinion. Laws may be highly desirable in the abstract, for which\ncommunities are not yet ripe. A constitution like our own would be\nsimply ruinous in Hindostan. Many good friends of temperance are the\nreluctant opponents of legislation which they desire in theory but which\nwould only be trampled upon in practice, because public opinion would\nrebel against the law. Legislation is indeed educational, but the danger\nis that the practical outcome of such legislation would be disobedience\nand anarchy.\n\nNow, these principles are the ample justification of all that startles\nus in the Pentateuch.\n\nSlavery and polygamy, for instance, are not abolished. To forbid them\nutterly would have substituted far worse evils, as the Jews then were.\nBut laws were introduced which vastly ameliorated the condition of the\nslave, and elevated the status of woman--laws which were far in advance\nof the best Gentile culture, and which so educated and softened the\nJewish character, that men soon came to feel the letter of these very\nlaws too harsh.\n\nThat is a nobler vindication of the Mosaic legislation than if this\ncentury agreed with every letter of it. To be vital and progressive is a\nbetter thing than to be correct. The law waged a far more effectual war\nupon certain evils than by formal prohibition, sound in theory but\npremature by centuries. Other good things besides liberty are not for\nthe nursery or the school. And \"we also, when we were children, were\nheld in bondage\" (Gal. iv. 3).\n\nIt is pretty well agreed that this code may be divided into five parts.\nTo the end of the twentieth chapter it deals directly with the worship\nof God. Then follow thirty-two verses treating of the personal rights\nof man as distinguished from his rights of property. From the\nthirty-third verse of the twenty-first chapter to the fifteenth verse of\nthe twenty-second, the rights of property are protected. Thence to the\nnineteenth verse of the twenty-third chapter is a miscellaneous group of\nlaws, chiefly moral, but deeply connected with the civil organisation of\nthe state. And thence to the end of the chapter is an earnest\nexhortation from God, introduced by a clearer statement than before of\nthe manner in which He means to lead them, even by that mysterious Angel\nin Whom \"is My Name.\"\n\n\nPART I.--THE LAW OF WORSHIP.\n\nxx. 22-26.\n\nIt is no vain repetition that this code begins by reasserting the\nsupremacy of the one God. That principle underlies all the law, and must\nbe carried into every part of it. And it is now enforced by a new\nsanction,--\"Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from\nheaven: ye shall not make _other gods_ with Me; gods of silver or gods\nof gold ye shall not make unto you\" (vers. 22, 23). The costliest\nmaterial of this low world should be utterly contemned in rivalry with\nthat spiritual Presence revealing Himself out of a wholly different\nsphere; and in so far as they remembered Him, and the Voice which had\nthrilled their nature to its core, in so far would they be free from the\ndesire for any carnal and materialised divinity to go before them.\n\nImpressed with such views of God, their service of Him would be moulded\naccordingly (24, 25). It is true that nothing could be too splendid for\nHis sanctuary, and Bezaleel was presently to be inspired, that the work\nof the tabernacle might be worthy of its destination. Spirituality is\nnot meanness, nor is art without a consecration of its own. But it must\nnot intrude too closely upon the solemn act wherein the soul seeks the\npardon of the Creator. The altar should not be a proud structure, richly\nsculptured and adorned, and offering in itself, if not an object of\nadoration, yet a satisfying centre of attention for the worshipper. It\nshould be simply a heap of sods. And if they must needs go further, and\nerect a more durable pile, it must still be of materials crude,\ninartistic, such as the earth itself affords, of unhewn stone. A golden\ncasket is fit to convey the freedom of some historic city to a prince,\nbut the noblest offering of man to God is too humble to deserve an\nostentatious altar.\n\n\"If thou lift up a tool upon it thou hast polluted it:\" it has lost its\nvirginal simplicity; it no longer suits a spontaneous offering of the\nheart, it has become artificial, sophisticated, self-conscious,\npolluted.\n\nIt is vehemently urged that these verses sanction a plurality of altars\n(so that one might be of earth and another of stone), and recognise the\nlawfulness of worship in other places than at a central appointed\nshrine. And it is concluded that early Judaism knew nothing of the\nexclusive sanctity of the tabernacle and the temple.\n\nThis argument forgets the circumstances. The Jews had been led to Horeb,\nthe mount of God. They were soon to wander away thence through the\nwilderness. Altars had to be set up in many places, and might be of\ndifferent materials. It was an important announcement that in every\nplace where God would record His name He would come unto them and bless\nthem. But certainly the inference leans rather toward than against the\nbelief that it was for Him to select every place which should be sacred.\n\nThe last direction given with regard to worship is a homely one. It\ncommands that the altar must not be approached with steps, lest the\nclothes of the priest should be disturbed and his limbs uncovered.\nAlready we feel that we have to reckon with the temper as well as the\nletter of the precept. It is divinely unlike the frantic indecencies of\nmany pagan rituals. It protests against all infractions of propriety,\neven the slightest, such as even now discredit many a zealous movement,\nand bear fruit in many a scandal. It rebukes all misdemeanour, all\nforgetfulness in look and gesture of the Sacred Presence, in every\nworshipper, at every shrine.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[35] Prof. Tyndall, _Belfast Address_, p. 60. What progress has\nscientific unbelief made since 1874 in solving this \"question of\nquestions for the present hour\"? It has perfected the phonograph, but it\nhas not devised a creed.\n\n[36] \"Or _beside Me_\" (R.V.) The preposition is so vague that either of\nour English words may suggest quite too definite a meaning, as when\n\"before Me\" is made to mean \"in My angry eyes,\" or \"beside Me\" is taken\nto hint at resentment for intrusion upon the same throne.\n\n[37] Gury, Compend., i., secs. 607, 623.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\n_THE LESSER LAW (continued)._\n\n\nPART II.--RIGHTS OF THE PERSON.\n\nxxi. 1-32.\n\nThe first words of God from Sinai had declared that He was Jehovah Who\nbrought them out of slavery. And in this remarkable code, the first\nperson whose rights are dealt with is the slave. We saw that a\ndenunciation of all slavery would have been premature, and therefore\nunwise; but assuredly the germs of emancipation were already planted by\nthis giving of the foremost place to the rights of the least of all and\nthe servant of all.\n\nAs regards the Hebrew slave, the effect was to reduce his utmost bondage\nto a comparatively mild apprenticeship. At the worst he should go free\nin the seventh year; and if the year of jubilee intervened, it brought a\nstill speedier emancipation. If his debt or misconduct had involved a\nfamily in his disgrace, they should also share his emancipation, but if\nwhile in bondage his master had provided for his marriage with a slave,\nthen his family must await their own appointed period of release. It\nfollowed that if he had contracted a degrading alliance with a foreign\nslave, his freedom would inflict upon him the pang of final severance\nfrom his dear ones. He might, indeed, escape this pain, but only by a\ndeliberate and humiliating act, by formally renouncing before the judges\nhis liberty, the birthright of his nation (\"they are My servants, whom I\nbrought forth out of Egypt, they shall not be sold as\nbondservants\"--Lev. xxv. 42), and submitting to have his ear pierced, at\nthe doorpost of his master's house, as if, like that, his body were\nbecome his master's property. It is uncertain, after this decisive step,\nwhether even the year of jubilee brought him release; and the contrary\nseems to be implied in his always bearing about in his body an indelible\nand degrading mark. It will be remembered that St. Paul rejoiced to\nthink that his choice of Christ was practically beyond recall, for the\nscars on his body marked the tenacity of his decision (Gal. vi. 17). He\nwrote this to Gentiles, and used the Gentile phrase for the branding of\na slave. But beyond question this Hebrew of Hebrews remembered, as he\nwrote, that one of his race could incur lifelong subjection only by a\nvoluntary wound, endured because he loved his master, such as he had\nreceived for love of Jesus.\n\nWhen the law came to deal with assaults it was impossible to place the\nslave upon quite the same level as the freeman. But Moses excelled the\nlegislators of Greece and Rome, by making an assault or chastisement\nwhich killed him upon the spot as worthy of death as if a freeman had\nbeen slain. It was only the victim who lingered that died comparatively\nunavenged (20, 21). After all, chastisement was a natural right of the\nmaster, because he owned him (\"he is his money\"); and it would be hard\nto treat an excess of what was permissible, inflicted perhaps under\nprovocation which made some punishment necessary, on the same lines with\nan assault that was entirely lawless. But there was this grave restraint\nupon bad temper,--that the loss of any member, and even of the tooth of\na slave, involved his instant manumission. And this carried with it the\nprinciple of moral responsibility for every hurt (26, 27).\n\nIt was not quite plain that these enactments extended to the Gentile\nslave. But in accordance with the assertion that the whole spirit of the\nstatutes was elevating, the conclusion arrived at by the later\nauthorities was the generous one.\n\nWhen it is added that man-stealing (upon which all our modern systems of\nslavery were founded) was a capital offence, without power of\ncommutation for a fine (xxi. 16), it becomes clear that the advocates of\nslavery appeal to Moses against the outraged conscience of humanity\nwithout any shadow of warrant either from the letter or the spirit of\nthe code.\n\nThere remains to be considered a remarkable and melancholy sub-section\nof the law of slavery.\n\nIn every age degraded beings have made gain of the attractions of their\ndaughters. With them, the law attempted nothing of moral influence. But\nit protected their children, and brought pressure to bear upon the\ntempter, by a series of firm provisions, as bold as the age could bear,\nand much in advance of the conscience of too many among ourselves\nto-day.\n\nThe seduction of any unbetrothed maiden involved marriage, or the\npayment of a dowry. And thus one door to evil was firmly closed (xxii.\n16).\n\nBut when a man purchased a female slave, with the intention of making\nher an inferior wife, whether for himself or for his son (such only are\nthe purchases here dealt with, and an ordinary female slave was treated\nupon the same principles as a man), she was far from being the sport of\nhis caprice. If indeed he repented at once, he might send her back, or\ntransfer her to another of her countrymen upon the same terms, but when\nonce they were united she was protected against his fickleness. He might\nnot treat her as a servant or domestic, but must, even if he married\nanother and probably a chief wife, continue to her all the rights and\nprivileges of a wife. Nor was her position a temporary one, to her\ndamage, as that of an ordinary slave was, to his benefit.\n\nAnd if there was any failure to observe these honourable terms, she\ncould return with unblemished reputation to her father's home, without\nforfeiture of the money which had been paid for her (xxi. 7-11).\n\nDoes any one seriously believe that a system like the African slave\ntrade could have existed in such a humane and genial atmosphere as these\nenactments breathed? Does any one who knows the plague spot and disgrace\nof our modern civilisation suppose for a moment that more could have\nbeen attempted, in that age, for the great cause of purity? Would to God\nthat the spirit of these enactments were even now respected! They would\nmake of us, as they have made of the Hebrew nation unto this day, models\nof domestic tenderness, and of the blessings in health and physical\nvigour which an untainted life bestows upon communities.\n\nBy such checks upon the degradation of slavery, the Jew began to learn\nthe great lesson of the sanctity of manhood. The next step was to teach\nhim the value of life, not only in the avenging of murder, but also in\nthe mitigation of such revenge. The blood-feud was too old, too natural\na practice to be suppressed at once; but it was so controlled and\nregulated as to become little more than a part of the machinery of\njustice.\n\nA premeditated murder was inexpiable, not to be ransomed; the murderer\nmust surely die. Even if he fled to the altar of God, intending to\nescape thence to a city of refuge when the avenger ceased to watch, he\nshould be torn from that holy place: to shelter him would not be an\nhonour, but a desecration to the shrine (xxi. 12, 14). According to this\nprovision Joab and Adonijah suffered. For the slayer by accident or in\nhasty quarrel, \"a place whither he shall flee\" would be provided, and\nthe vague phrase indicates the antiquity of the edict (ver. 13). This\narrangement at once respected his life, which did not merit forfeiture,\nand provided a penalty for his rashness or his passion.\n\nIt is because the question in hand is the sanctity of man, that the\ncapital punishment of a son who strikes or curses a parent, the\nvicegerent of God, and of a kidnapper, is interposed between these\nprovisions and minor offences against the person (15-17).\n\nOf these latter, the first is when lingering illness results from a blow\nreceived in a quarrel. This was not a case for the stern rule, eye for\neye and tooth for tooth,--for how could that rule be applied to it?--but\nthe violent man should pay for his victim's loss of time, and for\nmedical treatment until he was thoroughly recovered (18, 19).\n\nBut what is to be said to the general law of retribution in kind? Our\nLord has forbidden a Christian, in his own case, to exact it. But it\ndoes not follow that it was unjust, since Christ plainly means to\ninstruct private persons not to exact their rights, whereas the\nmagistrate continues to be \"a revenger to execute justice.\" And, as St.\nAugustine argued shrewdly, \"this command was not given for exciting the\nfires of hatred, but to restrain them. For who would easily be satisfied\nwith repaying as much injury as he received? Do we not see men slightly\nhurt athirst for slaughter and blood?... Upon this immoderate and unjust\nvengeance, the law imposed a just limit, not that what was quenched\nmight be kindled, but that what was burning might not spread.\" (Cont.\nFaust, xix. 25.)\n\nIt is also to be observed that by no other precept were the Jews more\nclearly led to a morality still higher than it prescribed. Their\nattention was first drawn to the fact that a compensation in money was\nnowhere forbidden, as in the case of murder (Num. xxxv. 31). Then they\nwent on to argue that such compensation must have been intended, because\nits literal observance teemed with difficulties. If an eye were injured\nbut not destroyed, who would undertake to inflict an equivalent hurt?\nWhat if a blind man destroyed an eye? Would it be reasonable to quench\nutterly the sight of a one-eyed man who had only destroyed one-half of\nthe vision of his neighbour? Should the right hand of a painter, by\nwhich he maintains his family, be forfeited for that of a singer who\nlives by his voice? Would not the cold and premeditated operation\ninflict far greater mental and even physical suffering than a sudden\nwound received in a moment of excitement? By all these considerations,\ndrawn from the very principle which underlay the precept, they learned\nto relax its pressure in actual life. The law was already their\nschoolmaster, to lead them beyond itself (_vide_ Kalisch _in loco_).\n\nLastly, there is the question of injury to the person, wrought by\ncattle.\n\nIt is clearly to deepen the sense of reverence for human life, that not\nonly must the ox which kills a man be slain, but his flesh may not be\neaten; thus carrying further the early aphorism \"at the hand of every\nbeast will I require ... your blood\" (Gen. ix. 5). This motive, however,\ndoes not betray the lawgiver into injustice: \"the owner of the ox shall\nbe quit\"; the loss of his beast is his sufficient penalty.\n\nBut if its evil temper has been previously observed, and he has been\nwarned, then his recklessness amounts to blood-guiltiness, and he must\ndie, or else pay whatever ransom is laid upon him. This last clause\nrecognises the distinction between his guilt and that of a deliberate\nman-slayer, for whose crime the law distinctly prohibited a composition\n(Num. xxxv. 31).\n\nAnd it is expressly provided, according to the honourable position of\nwoman in the Hebrew state, that the penalty for a daughter's life shall\nbe the same as for that of a son.\n\nAs a slave was exposed to especial risk, and his position was an ignoble\none, a fixed composition was appointed, and the amount was memorable.\nThe ransom of a common slave, killed by the horns of the wild oxen, was\nthirty pieces of silver, the goodly price that Messiah was prized at of\nthem (Zech. xi. 13).\n\n\nPART III.--RIGHTS OF PROPERTY.\n\nxxi. 33-xxii. 15.\n\nThe vital and quickening principle in this section is the stress it lays\nupon man's responsibility for negligence, and the indirect consequences\nof his deed. All sin is selfish, and all selfishness ignores the right\nof others. Am I my brother's keeper? Let him guard his own property or\npay the forfeit. But this sentiment would quickly prove a disintegrating\nforce in the community, able to overthrow a state. It is the ignoble\nnegative of public spirit; patriotism, all by which nations prosper. And\nthis early legislation is well devised to check it in detail. If an ox\nfall into a pit or cistern, from which I have removed the cover, I must\npay the value of the beast, and take the carcase for what it may be\nworth. I ought to have considered the public interest (xxi. 33). If I\nlet my cattle stray into my neighbour's field or vineyard, there must be\nno wrangling about the quality of what he has consumed: I must forfeit\nan equal quantity of the best of my own field or vineyard (xxii. 5). If\na fire of my kindling burn his grain, standing or piled, I must make\nrestitution: I had no right to kindle it where he was brought into\nhazard (xxii. 6). This is the same principle which had already\npronounced it murder to let a vicious ox go loose. And it has to do with\ngraver things than oxen and fires,--with the teachers of principles\nrightly called incendiary, the ingenious theorists who let loose\nabstract speculations pernicious when put into practice, the\nwell-behaved questioners of morality, and the law-abiding assailants of\nthe foundations which uphold law.\n\nIt is quite in the same spirit that I am accountable for what I borrow\nor hire, and even for its accidental death (since for the time being it\nwas mine, and so should the loss be); but if I hired the owner with his\nbeast, it clearly continued to be in his charge (14, 15). But again, my\nresponsibility may not be pressed too far. If I have not borrowed\nproperty, but consented to keep it for the owner, the risk is fairly\nhis, and if it be stolen, the presumption is not against my integrity,\nalthough I may be required to clear myself on oath before the judges (7,\n8). But I am accountable in such a case for cattle, because it was\ncertainly understood that I should watch them; and if a wild beast have\ntorn any, I must prove my courage and vigilance by rescuing the carcase\nand producing it (10-13).\n\nBut I must not be plunged into litigation without a compensating hazard\non the other side: he whom God shall condemn shall pay double unto his\nneighbour (9).\n\nIt only remains to be observed, with regard to theft, that when cattle\nwas recovered yet alive, the thief restored double, but when his act was\nconsummated by slaughtering what he had taken, then he restored a sheep\nfourfold, and for an ox five oxen, because his villainy was more\nhigh-handed. And we still retain the law which allows the blood of a\nrobber at night to be shed, but forbids it in the day, when help can\nmore easily be had.\n\nAll this is reasonable and enlightened law; founded, like all good\nlegislation, upon clear and satisfactory principles, and well calculated\nto elevate the tone of the public feeling, to be not only so many\nspecific enactments, but also the germinant seeds of good.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\n_THE LESSER LAW (continued)._\n\n\nPART IV.\n\nxxii. 16-xxiii. 19.\n\nThe Fourth section of this law within the law consists of enactments,\ncuriously disconnected, many of them without a penalty, varying greatly\nin importance, but all of a moral nature, and connected with the\nwell-being of the state. It is hard to conceive how the systematic\nrevision of which we hear so much could have left them in the condition\nin which they stand.\n\nIt is enacted that a seducer must marry the woman he has betrayed, and\nif her father refuse to give her to him, then he must pay the same dower\nas a bridegroom would have done (xxii. 16, 17). And presently the\nsentence of death is launched against a blacker sensual crime (19). But\nbetween the two is interposed the celebrated mandate which doomed the\nsorceress to death, remarkable as the first mention of witchcraft in\nScripture, and the only passage in all the Bible where the word is in\nthe feminine form--a witch, or sorceress; remarkable also for a far\ngraver reason, which makes it necessary to linger over the subject at\nsome length.\n\n\nSORCERY.\n\n    \"Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.\"--xxii. 18.\n\nThe world knows only too well what sad and shameful inferences have been\ndrawn from these words. Unspeakable terrors, estrangement of natural\nsympathy, tortures and cruel deaths, have been inflicted on many\nthousands of the most forlorn creatures upon earth (creatures who were\nsustained in their sufferings by no high ardour of conviction or\nfanaticism, not being martyrs but simply victims), because it was held\nthat Moses, in declaring that witches should not live, affirmed the\nreality of witchcraft. No sooner did the argument cease to be dangerous\nto old women than it became formidable to religion; for now it was urged\nthat, since Moses was in error about the reality of witchcraft, his\nlegislation could not have been inspired.\n\nWhat are we to say to this?\n\nIn the first place it must be observed that the existence of a sorcerer\nis one thing, and the reality of his powers is quite another. What was\nmost sad and shameful in the medi\u00e6val frenzy was the burning to ashes of\nmultitudes who made no pretensions to traffic with the invisible world,\nwho frequently held fast their innocence while enduring the agonies of\ntorture, who were only aged and ugly and alone. Upon any theory, the\nprohibition of sorcery by the Pentateuch was no more answerable for\nthese iniquities than its other prohibitions for the lynch law of the\nbackwoods.\n\nOn the other hand, there were real professors of the black art: men did\npretend to hold intercourse with spirits, and extorted great sums from\ntheir dupes in return for bringing them also into communion with\nsuperhuman beings. These it is reasonable to call sorcerers, whether we\naccept their professions or not, just as we speak of thought-readers and\nof mediums without being understood to commit ourselves to the\npretensions of either one or other. In point of fact, the existence, in\nthis nineteenth century after Christ, of sorcerers calling themselves\nmediums, is much more surprising than the existence of other sorcerers\nin the time of Moses or of Saul; and it bears startling witness to the\ndepth in human nature of that craving for traffic with invisible powers\nwhich the law prohibited so sternly, but the roots of which neither\nreligion nor education nor scepticism has been able wholly to pluck up.\n\nAgain, from the point of view which Moses occupied, it is plain that\nsuch professors should be punished. They are virtually punished still,\nwhenever they obtain money under pretence of granting interviews with\nthe departed. If we now rely chiefly upon educated public opinion to\nstamp out such impositions, that is because we have decided that a\nstruggle between truth and falsehood upon equal terms will be\nadvantageous to the former. It is a subdivision of the debate between\nintolerance and free thought. Our theory works well, but not universally\nwell, even under modern conditions and in Christian lands. And assuredly\nMoses could not proclaim freedom of opinion, among uneducated slaves,\namid the pressure of splendid and of seductive idolatries, and before\nthe Holy Ghost was given. To complain of Moses for proscribing false\nreligions would be to denounce the use of glass for seedlings because\nthe full-grown plant flourishes in the open air.\n\nNow, it would have been preposterous to proscribe false religions and\nyet to tolerate the sorcerer and the sorceress. For these were the\nactive practitioners of another worship than that of God. They might not\nprofess idolatry; but they offered help and guidance from sources which\nJehovah frowned upon, rival sources of defence or knowledge.\n\nThe holy people was meant to grow up under the most elevating of all\ninfluences, reliance upon a protecting God, Who had bidden His children\nto subdue the world as well as to replenish it, and of Whom one of their\nown poets sang that He had put all things under the feet of man. Their\ntrue heritage was not bounded by the strip of land which Joshua and his\nfollowers slowly conquered; to them belonged all the resources of nature\nwhich science, ever since, has wrested from the Philistine hands of\nbarbarism and ignorance. And this nobler conquest depended upon the\ndepth and sincerity of man's feeling that the world is well-ordered and\nstable and the heritage of man, not a chaos of various and capricious\npowers, where Pallas inspires Diomed to hunt Venus bleeding off the\nfield, or where the incantations of Canidia may disturb the orderly\nmovements of the skies. Who could hope to discover by inductive science\nthe secrets of such a world as this?\n\nThe devices of magic cut the links between cause and effect, between\nstudious labour and the fruits which sorcery bade men to steal rather\nthan to cultivate. What gambling was to commerce, that was witchcraft to\nphilosophy, and the mischief no more depended on the validity of its\nmethods than upon the soundness of the last device for breaking the bank\nat Monte Carlo.\n\nIf one could actually extort their secrets from the dead, or win for\nluxury and sloth a longer life than is bestowed upon temperance and\nlabour, he would succeed in his revolt against the God of nature. But\nthe revolt was the endeavour; and the sorcerer, however falsely,\nprofessed to have succeeded; and preached the same revolt to others. In\nreligion he was therefore an apostate, and in the theocracy a traitor\nagainst the King, one whose life was forfeited if it was prudent to\nexact the penalty.\n\nAnd when we consider the fascination wielded by such pretensions, even\nin ages when the stability of nature is an axiom, the dread which false\nreligions all around and their terrible rituals must have inspired, the\nsuperstitious tendencies of the people and their readiness to be misled,\nwe shall see ample reasons for treading out the first sparks of so\ndangerous a fire.\n\nBeyond this it is vain to pretend that the law of Moses goes. It was\nright in declaring the sorcerer and the sorceress to be real and\ndangerous phenomena. It never declared their pretensions to be valid\nthough illegitimate. And in one noteworthy passage it proclaims that a\nreal sign or a wonder could only proceed from God, and when it\naccompanied false teaching was still a sign, though an ominous one,\nimplying that the Lord would prove them (Deut. xiii. 1-3). This does not\nlook very like an admission of the existence of rival powers, inferior\nthough they might be, who could interfere with the order of His world.\n\nSorcery in all its forms will die when men realise indeed that the world\nis His, that there is no short or crooked way to the prizes which He\noffers to wisdom and to labour, that these rewards are infinitely richer\nand more splendid than the wildest dreams of magic, and that it is\nliterally true that all power, in earth as well as heaven, is committed\ninto the Hands which were pierced for us. In such a conception of the\nuniverse, incantations give place to prayers, and prayer does not seek\nto disturb, but to carry forward and to consummate, the orderly rule of\nLove.\n\nThe denunciation of witchcraft is quite naturally followed, as we now\nperceive, by the reiteration of the command that no sacrifice may be\noffered to any god except Jehovah (20). Strange and hateful offerings\nwere an integral part of witchcraft, long before the hags of Macbeth\nbrewed their charm, or the child in Horace famished to yield a spell.\n\n\nTHE STRANGER.\n\nxxii. 21, xxiii. 9.\n\nImmediately after this, a ray of sunlight falls upon the sombre page.\n\nWe read an exhortation rather than a statute, which is repeated almost\nliterally in the next chapter, and in both is supported by a beautiful\nand touching reason. \"A stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shall ye\noppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.\" \"A stranger\nshall ye not oppress, for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye\nwere strangers in the land of Egypt\" (xxii. 21, xxiii. 9).\n\nThe \"stranger\" of these verses is probably the settler among them, as\ndistinguished from the traveller passing through the land. His want of\nfriends and ignorance of their social order would place him at a\ndisadvantage, of which they are forbidden to avail themselves, either by\nlegal process (for the first passage is connected with jurisprudence),\nor in the affairs of common life. But the spirit of the commandment\ncould not fail to influence their treatment of all foreigners; and\nsimple and commonplace though it appear to us, it would have startled\nmany of the wisest and greatest peoples of antiquity, and would have\nfallen as strangely upon the ears of the Greeks of Pericles, as of the\nmodern Bedouin, with whom Israel had kinship. A foreigner, as such, was\na foe: to wrong him was a paradox, because he had no rights: kinship, or\nelse alliance or treaty was required to entitle the weaker to any better\ntreatment than it suited the stronger to allow.\n\nYet we find a precept reiterated in this Jewish code which involves, in\nits inevitable though slow development, the abolition of negro slavery,\nthe respect by powerful and civilised nations of the rights of\nindigenous tribes, the most boundless advance of philanthropy, through\nthe most generous recognition of the fraternity of man.\n\nHowever sternly the sword of Joshua might fall, it struck not at the\nforeigner, as such, but at those tribes, guilty and therefore accursed\nof God, the cup of whose iniquity was full. And yet there was enough of\ncarnage to prove that so gracious a commandment as this could not have\nrisen spontaneously in the heart of early Judaism. Does it seem to be\nmade more natural, by any proposed shifting of the date?\n\nThe reason of the precept is beautifully human. It rests upon no\nabstract basis of common rights, nor prudential consideration of mutual\nadvantage.\n\nIn our time it is sometimes proposed to build all morality upon such\nfoundations; and strange consequences have already been deduced in cases\nwhere the proposed sanction has not seemed to apply. But, in fact, no\nadvance in virtue has ever been traced to self-interest, although,\nafter the advance took place, self-interest has always found its account\nin it. A progressive community is made of good men, and the motive to\nwhich Moses appeals is compassion fed by memory: \"For ye were strangers\nin the land of Egypt\" (xxii. 21); \"For ye know the heart of a stranger,\nseeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt\" (xxiii. 9).\n\nThe point is not that they may again be carried into captivity: it is\nthat they have felt its bitterness, and ought to recoil from inflicting\nwhat they writhed under.\n\nNow, this appeal is a master-stroke of wisdom. Much cruelty, and almost\nall the cruelty of the young, springs from ignorance, and that slowness\nof the imagination which cannot realise that the pains of others are\nlike our own. Feeling them to be so, the charities of the poor toward\none another frequently rise almost to sublimity. And thus, when\nsuffering does not ulcerate the heart and make it savage, it is the most\nsoftening of all influences. In one of the most threadbare lines in the\nclassics, the queen of Carthage boasts that\n\n      \"I, not ignorant of woe,\n    To pity the distressful know.\"\n\nAnd the boldest assertion in Scripture of the natural development of our\nSaviour's human powers, is that which declares that \"In that He Himself\nhath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succour them that are\ntempted\" (Heb. ii. 18).\n\nTo this principle, then, Moses appeals, and by the appeal he educates\nthe heart. He bids the people reflect on their own cruel hardships, on\nthe hateful character of their tyrants, on their own greater hatefulness\nif they follow the vile example, after such bitter experience of its\ncharacter. He does not yet rise to the grand level of the New Testament\nmorality, Do all to thy neighbour which it is not servile and dependent\nto will that he should do for thee. But he attains to the level of that\nprecept of Confucius and Zoroaster which has been so unworthily compared\nwith it: Do not unto thy neighbour what thou wouldest not that he should\ndo to thee--a precept which mere indifference obeys. Nay, he excels it;\nfor the mental and spiritual attitude of one who respects his helpless\nneighbour because he so much resembles himself, will surely not be\ncontent without relieving the griefs that have so closely touched him.\nThus again the legislation of Moses looks beyond itself.\n\nNow, if the Jew should be merciful because he had himself known\ncalamity, what implicit confidence may we repose upon the Man of sorrows\nand acquainted with grief?\n\nIn the same spirit they are warned against afflicting the widow or the\norphan. And the threat which is added joins hand with the exhortation\nwhich preceded. They should not oppress the stranger, because they had\nbeen strangers and oppressed. Now the argument advances. The same God\nWho then heard their cry will hear the cry of the forlorn, and avenge\nthem, according to the judicial fate which He had just announced, in\nkind, by bringing their own wives to widowhood and their children to\norphanage (xxii. 22-4).\n\nTo their brethren they should not lend money upon usury; but loans are\nno more recommended than afterwards by Solomon: the words are \"if thou\nlend\" (ver. 25). And if the raiment of the borrower were taken for a\npledge, it must be returned for him to use at night, or else God will\nhear his cry, because, it is added very significantly and briefly, \"I\nam gracious\" (ver. 27). It is the most exalting of all motives: Be\nmerciful, for I am merciful: ye shall be the children of your Father.\n\nAgain is to be observed the influence reaching beyond the\nprescription--the motive which cannot be felt without many other and\nlarger consequences than the restoration of pledges at sunset.\n\nHow comes this precept to be followed by the words, \"Thou shalt not\ncurse God nor blaspheme a ruler\" (ver. 28)? and is not this again\nsomewhat strangely followed by the order not to delay to offer the\nfirstfruits of the soil, to consecrate the firstborn son, and to devote\nthe firstborn of cattle at the same age when a son ought to be\ncircumcised? (vers. 29, 30).\n\nIf any link can be discovered, it is in the sense of communion with God,\nsuggested by the recent appeal to His character as a motive that should\nweigh with man. Therefore they must not blaspheme Him, either directly\nor through His agents, nor tardily yield Him what He claims. Therefore\nit is added, \"Ye shall be holy men unto Me,\" and from the sense of\ndignity which religion thus inspires, a homely corollary is deduced--\"Ye\nshall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field\" (ver. 31).\nThe bondmen of Egypt must learn a high-minded self-respect.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\n_THE LESSER LAW (continued)._\n\n\nxxiii. 1-19.\n\nThe twenty-third chapter begins with a series of commands bearing upon\nthe course of justice; but among these there is interjected very\ncuriously a command to bring back the stray ox or ass of an enemy, and\nto help under a burden the over-weighted ass of him that hateth thee,\neven \"if thou wouldest forbear to help him.\" It is just possible that\nthe lawgiver, urging justice in the bearing of testimony, interrupts\nhimself to speak of a very different manner in which the action may be\nwarped by prejudice, but in which (unlike the other) it is lawful to\nshow not only impartiality but kindness. The help of the cattle of one's\nenemy shows that in the bearing of testimony we should not merely\nabstain from downright wrong. And it is a fine example of the spirit of\nthe New Testament, in the Old.\n\n\"Thou shalt not take up a false report\" (ver. 1) is a precept which\nreaches far. How many heedless whispers, conjectures lightly spoken\nbecause they were amusing, yet influencing the course of lives, and\ninferences uncharitably drawn, would have been still-born if this had\nbeen remembered!\n\nBut when the scandal is already abroad, the temptation to aid its\nprogress is still greater. Therefore it is added, \"Put not thine hand\nwith the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.\" Whatever be the menace or\nthe bribe, however the course of opinion seem to be decided, and the\nassent of an individual to be harmless because the result is sure, or\nblameless because the responsibility lies elsewhere, still each man is a\nunit, not an \"item,\" and must act for himself, as hereafter he must give\naccount. Hence it results inevitably that \"Thou shalt not follow a\nmultitude to do evil, neither shalt thou speak in a cause to turn aside\nafter a multitude to wrest judgment\" (ver. 2). The blind impulses of a\nmultitude are often as misleading as the solicitations of the bad, and\nto aspiring temperaments much more seductive. There is indeed a strange\nmagnetism in the voice of the public. Every orator knows that a great\nassembly acts upon the speaker as really as he acts upon it: its\nemotions are like a rush of waters to sweep him away, beyond his\nintentions or his ordinary powers. Yet he is the strongest individual\nthere; no other has at all the same opportunity for self-assertion, and\ntherefore its power over others must be more complete than over him.\n\nThis is one reason for the institution of public worship. Men neglect\nthe house of God because they can pray as well at home, and encourage\nwanton subdivisions of the Church because they think there is no very\npalpable difference between competing denominations, or even because\ncompetition may be as useful in religion as in trade, as if our\ncompetition with the world and the devil for souls would not\nsufficiently animate us, without competing with one another. But in\nacting thus they weaken the effect for good of one of the mightiest\ninfluences which work evil among us, the influence of association. Men\nare always persuading themselves that they need not be better than their\nneighbours, nor ashamed of doing what every one does. And yet no voice\njoins in a cry without deepening it: every one who rushes with a crowd\nmakes its impulse more difficult to stem; his individuality is not lost\nby its partnership with a thousand more; and he is accountable for what\nhe contributes to the result. He has parted with his self-control, but\nnot with the inner forces which he ought to have controlled.\n\nAgainst this dangerous influence of the world, Christ has set the\ncontagion of godliness within His Church, and every avoidable\nsubdivision enfeebles this salutary counter-influence.\n\nMoses warns us, therefore, of the danger of being drawn away by a\nmultitude to do evil; but he is thinking especially of the peril of\nbeing tempted to \"speak\" amiss. Who does not know it? From the statesman\nwho outruns his convictions rather than break with his party, and who\ncannot, amid deafening cheers, any longer hear his conscience speak,\ndown to the humblest who fails to confess Christ before hostile men, and\ntherefore by-and-by denies Him, there is not one whose speech and\nsilence have never been in danger of being set to the sympathies of his\nown little public like a song to music.\n\nThat Moses was really thinking of this tendency to court popularity, is\nplain from the next clause--\"Neither shalt thou favour a poor man in his\ncause\" (ver. 3).\n\nIt is an admirable caution. Men there are who would scorn the opposite\ninjustice, and from whom no rich man could buy a wrongful decision with\ngold or favour, but who are habitually unjust, because they load the\nother scale. The beam ought to hang straight. When justice is concerned,\nthe poor man's friend is almost as contemptible as his foe, and he has\ntaken a bribe, if not in the mean enjoyment of democratic popularity,\nyet in his own pride--the fancy that he has done a magnanimous act, the\nattitude in which he poses.\n\nAs in law so in literature. There once was a tendency to describe\nmagnanimous persons of quality, and repulsive clodhoppers and villagers.\nTimes have changed, and now we think it much more ingenious and\nhigh-toned to be quite as partial and disingenuous, reversing the cases.\nNeither is true, and therefore neither is artistic. No class in society\nis deficient in noble qualities, or in base ones. Nor is the man of\nletters at all more independent, who flatters the democracy in a\ndemocratic age, than he who flattered the aristocracy when they had all\nthe prizes to bestow.\n\nOther precepts forbid bribery, command that the soil shall rest in the\nseventh year, when its spontaneous produce shall be for the poor, and\nfurther recognise and consecrate relaxation, by instituting (or more\nprobably adopting into the code) the three feasts of Passover,\nPentecost, and Tabernacles. The section closes with the words \"Thou\nshalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk\" (ver. 19). Upon this clause\nmuch ingenuity has been expended. It makes occult reference to some\nsuperstitious rite. It is the name for some unduly stimulating compound.\nBut when we remember that, just before, the sabbatical fruit which the\npoor left ungleaned was expressly reserved for the beasts of the field,\nthat men were bidden to help the overladen ass of their enemies, and\nthat care is taken elsewhere that the ox should not be muzzled when\ntreading out grain, that the birdnester should not take the dam with the\nyoung, and that neither cow nor ewe should be slain on the same day with\nits young (Deut. xxv. 4, xxii. 6; Lev. xxii. 28), the simplest meaning\nseems also the most probable. Men, who have been taught respect for\ntheir fellow-men, are also to learn a fine sensibility even in respect\nto the inferior animals. Throughout all this code there is an exquisite\ntendency to form a considerate, humane, delicate and high-minded nation.\n\nIt remained, to stamp upon the human conscience a deep sense of\nresponsibility.\n\n\nPART V.--ITS SANCTIONS.\n\nxxiii. 20-33.\n\nThis summary of Judaism being now complete, the people have to learn\nwhat mighty issues are at stake upon their obedience. And the transition\nis very striking from the simplest duty to the loftiest privilege: \"Thou\nshalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. Behold, I send an Angel\nbefore thee.... Beware of him: for My Name is in him\" (19-21).\n\nWe have now to ask how much this mysterious phrase involves; who was the\nAngel of whom it speaks?\n\nThe question is not, How much did Israel at that moment comprehend? For\nwe are distinctly told that prophets were conscious of speaking more\nthan they understood, and searched diligently but in vain what the\nspirit that was in them did signify (1 Peter i. 11).\n\nIt would, in fact, be absurd to seek the New Testament doctrine of the\nLogos full-blown in the Pentateuch. But it is mere prejudice,\nunphilosophical and presumptuous, to shut one's eyes against any\nevidence which may be forthcoming that the earliest books of Scripture\nwere tending towards the last conclusions of theology; that the slender\noverture to the Divine oratorio indicates already the same theme which\nthunders from all the chorus at the close.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to refute the position that a mere \"messenger\"\nis intended, because angels have not yet \"appeared as personal agents\nseparate from God.\" Kalisch himself has amply refuted his own theory.\nFor, he says, \"we are compelled ... to refer it to Moses and his\nsuccessor Joshua\" (_in loco_). So then He Who will not forgive their\ntransgressions is he who prayed that if God would not pardon them, his\nown name might be blotted from the book of life. He, to whom afterwards\nGod said \"I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee\" (xxxiii.\n19), is the same of Whom God said \"My name is in Him.\" This position\nneeds no examination; but the perplexities of those who reject the\ndeeper interpretation is a strong confirmation of its soundness. We have\nstill to choose between the promise of a created angel, and some\nmanifestation and interposition of God, distinguished from Jehovah and\nyet one with Him. This latter view is an evident preparation for clearer\nknowledge yet to come. It is enough to stamp the dispensation which puts\nit forth as but provisional, and therefore bears witness to that other\ndispensation which has the key to it. And it is exactly what a Christian\nwould expect to find somewhere in this summary of the law.\n\nWhat, then, do we read elsewhere about the Angel of Jehovah? What do we\nfind, especially, in these early books?\n\nA difficulty has to be met at the very outset. The issue would be\ndecided offhand, if it could be shown that the Angel of this verse is\nthe same who is offered, as a poor substitute for their Divine\nprotector, in the thirty-third chapter. But no contrast can be clearer\nthan between the encouraging promise before us, and the sharp menace\nwhich then plunged Israel into mourning. Here is an Angel who must not\nbe provoked, who will not pardon you, because \"My Name is in Him.\" There\nis an angel who will be sent because God will not go up, ... lest He\nconsume them (vers. 2, 3). He is not the Angel of God's presence, but of\nHis absence. When the intercession of Moses won from God a reversal of\nthe sentence, He then said \"My Presence (My Face) shall go with thee,\nand I will give thee rest,\"[38] but Moses answers, not yet reassured,\n\"If Thy Presence (Thy Face) go not up with us, carry us not up hence.\nFor wherein shall it be known that I have found grace in Thy sight?...\nIs it not that Thou goest with us? And the Lord said, I will do this\nthing also that thou hast spoken\" (14-17).\n\nMoreover, Isaiah, speaking of this time, says that \"In all their\naffliction He was afflicted, and the Angel of His Presence (His Face)\nsaved them\" (Isa. lxiii. 9).\n\nThus we find that some angel is to be sent because God will not go up:\nthat thereupon the nation mourns, although in this twenty-third chapter\nthey had received as a gladdening promise, the assurance of an Angel\nescort in Whom is the name of God; that in response to prayer God\npromises that His Face shall accompany them, so that it may be known\nthat He Himself goes with them; and finally that His Face in Exodus is\nthe Angel of His Face in Isaiah. The prophet at least had no doubt\nwhether the gracious promise in the twenty-third chapter answered, in\nthe thirty-third chapter, to the third verse or the fourteenth--to the\nmenace, or to the restored favour.\n\nThis difficulty being now converted into an evidence, we turn back to\nexamine other passages.\n\nWhen the Angel of the Lord spoke to Hagar, \"she called the name of\nJehovah that spake unto her El Roi\" (Gen. xvi. 11, 13). When God tempted\nAbraham, \"the Angel of Jehovah called unto him out of heaven, and said,\n... I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son\n... from Me\" (Gen. xxii. 11, 12). When a man wrestled with Jacob, he\nthereupon claimed to have seen God face to face, and called the place\nPeniel, the Face (Presence) of God (Gen. xxxii. 4, 30). But Hosea tells\nus that \"He had power with God: yea, he had power over the Angel, ...\nand there He spake with us, even Jehovah, the God of hosts\" (Hos. xii.\n3, 5). Even earlier, in his exile, the Angel of the Lord had appeared\nunto him and said, \"I am the God of Bethel ... where thou vowedst a vow\nunto Me.\" But the vow was distinctly made to God Himself: \"I will surely\ngive the tenth to Thee\" (xxxi. 11, 13; xxviii. 20, 22). Is it any wonder\nthat when this patriarch blessed Joseph, he said, \"The God before whom\nmy fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which hath fed me all my\nlife long unto this day, the Angel which hath redeemed me from all\nevil, (may He) bless the lads\" (xlviii. 15, 16)?\n\nIn Exodus iii. 2 the Angel of the Lord appeared out of the bush. But\npresently He changes into Jehovah Himself, and announces Himself to be\nJehovah the God of their fathers (iii. 2, 4, 15). In Exodus xiii. 21\nJehovah went before Israel, but the next chapter tells how \"the Angel of\nthe Lord which went before Israel removed and went behind\" (xiv. 19);\nwhile Numbers (xx. 16) says expressly that \"He sent an Angel and brought\nus out of Egypt.\"\n\nBy the comparison of these and many later passages (which is nothing but\nthe scientific process of induction, leaning not on the weight of any\nsingle verse, but on the drift and tendency of all the phenomena) we\nlearn that God was already revealing Himself through a Medium, a\ndistinct personality whom He could send, yet not so distinct but that\nHis name was in Him, and He Himself was the Author of what He did.\n\nIf Israel obeyed Him, He would bring them into the promised land (ver.\n23); and if there they continued unseduced by false worships, He would\nbless their provisions, their bodily frame, their children; He would\nbring terror and a hornet against their foes; He would clear the land\nbefore them as fast as their population could enjoy it; He would extend\ntheir boundaries yet farther, from the Red Sea, where Solomon held Ezion\nGeber (1 Kings ix. 26), to the Mediterranean, and from the desert where\nthey stood to the Euphrates, where Solomon actually possessed Palmyra\nand Thiphsah (2 Chron. viii. 4; 1 Kings iv. 24).\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[38] Even if the rendering were accepted, \"Must My Presence (My Face) go\nwith thee?\" (Can I not be trusted without a direct Presence?) the\nargument would not be affected, because Moses presses for the favour and\nobtains it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\n\n_THE COVENANT RATIFIED. THE VISION OF GOD._\n\nxxiv.\n\nThe opening words of this chapter (\"Come up unto the Lord\") imply,\nwithout explicitly asserting, that Moses was first sent down to convey\nto Israel the laws which had just been enacted.\n\nThis code they unanimously accepted, and he wrote it down. It is a\nmemorable statement, recording the origin of the first portion of Holy\nScripture that ever existed as such, whatever earlier writings may now\nor afterwards have been incorporated in the Pentateuch. He then built an\naltar for God, and twelve pillars for the tribes, and sacrificed\nburnt-offerings and peace-offerings unto the Lord. Sin-offerings, it\nwill be observed, were not yet instituted; and neither was the\npriesthood, so that young men slew the offerings. Half of the blood was\npoured upon the altar, because God had perfected His share in the\ncovenant. The remainder was not used until the law had been read aloud,\nand the people had answered with one voice, \"All that the Lord hath\ncommanded will we do, and will be obedient.\" Thereupon they too were\nsprinkled with the blood, and the solemn words were spoken, \"Behold the\nblood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all\nthese words.\" The people were now finally bound: no later covenant of\nthe same kind will be found in the Old Testament.\n\nAnd now the principle began to work which was afterwards embodied in the\npriesthood. That principle, stated broadly, was exclusion from the\npresence of God, relieved and made hopeful by the admission of\nrepresentatives. The people were still forbidden to approach, under pain\nof death. But Moses and Aaron were no longer the only ones to cross the\nappointed boundaries. With them came the two sons of Aaron, (afterwards,\ndespite their privilege, to meet a dreadful doom,) and also seventy\nrepresentatives of all the newly covenanted people. Joshua, too, as the\nservant of Moses, was free to come, although unspecified in the summons\n(vers. 1, 13).\n\n\"They saw the God of Israel,\" and under His feet the blueness of the sky\nlike intense sapphire. And they were secure: they beheld God, and ate\nand drank.\n\nBut in privilege itself there are degrees: Moses was called up still\nhigher, and left Aaron and Hur to govern the people while he communed\nwith his God. For six days the nation saw the flanks of the mountain\nswathed in cloud, and its summit crowned with the glory of Jehovah like\ndevouring fire. Then Moses entered the cloud, and during forty days they\nknew not what had become of him. Was it time lost? Say rather that all\ntime is wasted except what is spent in communion, direct or indirect,\nwith the Eternal.\n\nThe narrative is at once simple and sublime. We are sometimes told that\nother religions besides our own rely for sanction upon their\nsupernatural origin. \"Zarathustra, S\u00e2kya-Mooni and Mahomed pass among\ntheir followers for envoys of the Godhead; and in the estimation of the\nBrahmin the Vedas and the laws of Manou are holy, divine books\" (Kuenen,\n_Religion of Israel_, i. 6). This is true. But there is a wide\ndifference between nations which assert that God privately appeared to\ntheir teachers, and a nation which asserts that God appeared to the\npublic. It is not upon the word of Moses that Israel is said to have\nbelieved; and even those who reject the narrative are not entitled to\nconfound it with narratives utterly dissimilar. There is not to be found\nanywhere a parallel for this majestic story.\n\nBut what are we to think of the assertion that God was seen to stand\nupon a burning mountain?\n\nHe it is Whom no man hath seen or can see, and in His presence the\nseraphim veil their faces.\n\nIt will not suffice to answer that Moses \"endured as seeing Him that is\ninvisible\" (Heb. xi. 27), for the paraphrase is many centuries later,\nand hostile critics will rule it out of court as an after-thought. At\nleast, however, it proves that the problem was faced long ago, and tells\nus what solution satisfied the early Church.\n\nWith this clue before us, we ask what notion did the narrative really\nconvey to its ancient readers? If our defence is to be thoroughly\nsatisfactory, it must show an escape from heretical and carnal notions\nof deity, not only for ourselves, but also for careful readers from the\nvery first.\n\nNow it is certain that no such reader could for one moment think of a\nmanifestation thorough, exhaustive, such as the eye receives of colour\nand of form. Because the effect produced is not satisfaction, but\ndesire. Each new vision deepens the sense of the unseen. Thus we read\nfirst that Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and the seventy elders, saw\nGod, from which revelation the people felt and knew themselves to be\nexcluded. And yet the multitude also had a vision according to its power\nto see; and indeed it was more satisfying to them than was the most\nprofound insight enjoyed by Moses. To see God is to sail to the horizon:\nwhen you arrive, the horizon is as far in front as ever; but you have\ngained a new consciousness of infinitude. \"The appearance of the glory\nof the Lord was seen like devouring fire in the eyes of the children of\nIsrael\" (ver. 17). But Moses was aware of a glory far greater and more\nspiritual than any material splendour. When theophanies had done their\nutmost, his longing was still unslaked, and he cried out, \"Show me, I\npray Thee, Thy glory\" (xxxiii. 18). To his consciousness that glory was\nstill veiled, which the multitude sufficiently beheld in the flaming\nmountain. And the answer which he received ought to put the question at\nrest for ever, since, along with the promise \"All My goodness shall pass\nbefore thee,\" came the assertion \"Thou shalt not see My face, for no man\nshall see Me and live.\"\n\nSo, then, it is not our modern theology, but this noble book of Exodus\nitself, which tells us that Moses did not and could not adequately see\nGod, however great and sacred the vision which he beheld. From this book\nwe learn that, side by side with the most intimate communion and the\nclearest possible unveiling of God, grew up the profound consciousness\nthat only some attributes and not the essence of deity had been\ndisplayed.\n\nIt is very instructive also to observe the steps by which Moses is led\nupward. From the burning bush to the fiery cloud, and thence to the\nblazing mountain, there was an ever-deepening lesson of majesty and awe.\nBut in answer to the prayer that he might really see the very glory of\nhis Lord, his mind is led away upon entirely another pathway: it is \"All\nMy goodness\" which is now to \"pass before\" him, and the proclamation is\nof \"a God full of compassion and gracious,\" yet retaining His moral\nfirmness, so that He \"will by no means clear the guilty.\"\n\nWhat can cloud and fire avail, toward the manifesting of a God Whose\nessence is His love? It is from the Old Testament narrative that the New\nTestament inferred that Moses endured as seeing indeed, yet as seeing\nHim Who is inevitably and for ever invisible to eyes of flesh: he\nlearned most, not when he beheld some form of awe, standing on a paved\nwork of sapphire stone and as it were the very heaven for clearness, but\nwhen hidden in a cleft of the rock and covered by the hand of God while\nHe passed by.\n\nOn one hand the people saw the glory of God: on the other hand it was\nthe best lesson taught by a far closer access, still to pray and yearn\nto see that glory. The seventy beheld the God of Israel: for their\nleader was reserved the more exalting knowledge, that beyond all vision\nis the mystic overshadowing of the Divine, and a voice which says \"No\nman shall see Me and live.\" The difference in heart is well typified in\nthis difference in their conduct, that they saw God and ate and drank,\nbut he, for forty days, ate not. Satisfaction and assurance are a poor\nideal compared with rapt aspiration and desire.\n\nThus we see that no conflict exists between this declaration and our\nbelief in the spirituality of God.\n\nWe have still to ask what is the real force of the assertion that God\nwas in some lesser sense seen of Israel, and again, more especially, of\nits leaders.\n\nWhat do we mean even by saying that we see each other?--that, observing\nkeenly, we see upon one face cunning, upon another sorrow, upon a third\nthe peace of God? Are not these emotions immaterial and invisible as the\nessence of God Himself? Nay, so invisible is the reality within each\nbosom, that some day all that eye hath seen shall fall away from us, and\nyet the true man shall remain intact.\n\nMan has never seen more than a hint, an outcome, a partial\nself-revelation or self-betrayal of his fellow-man.\n\n    \"Yes, in the sea of life in-isled,\n      With echoing straits between us thrown,\n      Dotting the shoreless watery wild,\n      We mortal millions live _alone_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n      God bade betwixt 'our' shores to be\n      The unplumb'd, salt, estranging sea.\"\n\nAnd yet, incredible as the paradox would seem, if it were not too common\nto be strange, the play of muscles and rush of blood, visible through\nthe skin, do reveal the most spiritual and immaterial changes. Even so\nthe heavens declare that very glory of God which baffled the undimmed\neyes of Moses. So it was, also, that when rended rocks and burning skies\nrevealed a more immanent action of Him Who moves through all nature\nalways, when convulsions hitherto undreamed of by those dwellers in\nEgyptian plains overwhelmed them with a new sense of their own smallness\nand a supreme Presence, God was manifested there.\n\nNot unlike this is the explanation of St. Augustine, \"We need not be\nsurprised that God, invisible as He is, appeared visibly to the\npatriarchs. For, as the sound which communicates the thought conceived\nin the silence of the mind is not the thought itself, so the form by\nwhich God, invisible in His own nature, became visible, was not God\nHimself. Nevertheless it was He Himself Who was seen under that form, as\nthe thought itself is heard in the sound of the voice; and the\npatriarchs recognised that, although the bodily form was not God, they\nsaw the invisible God. For, though Moses was conversing with God, yet he\nsaid, 'If I have found grace in Thy sight, show me Thyself'\" (_De Civ.\nDei_, x. 13). And again: \"He knew that he saw corporeally, but he sought\nthe true vision of God spiritually\" (_De Trin._, ii. 27).\n\nIt has still to be added that His manifestation is exactly suited to the\nstage now reached in the education of Israel. Their fathers had already\n\"seen God\" in the likeness of man: Abraham had entertained Him; Jacob\nhad wrestled with Him. And so Joshua before Ai, and Manoah by the rock\nat Zorah, and Ezekiel by the river Chebar, should see the likeness of a\nman. We who believe the doctrine of a real Incarnation can well perceive\nthat in these passing and mysterious glimpses God was not only revealing\nHimself in the way which would best prepare humanity for His future\ncoming in actual manhood, but also in the way by which, meanwhile, the\ntruest and deepest light could be thrown upon His nature, a nature which\ncould hereafter perfectly manifest itself in flesh. Why, then, do not\nthe records of the Exodus hint at a human likeness? Why did they \"behold\nno similitude\"? Clearly because the masses of Israel were utterly\nunprepared to receive rightly such a vision. To them the likeness of\nman would have meant no more than the likeness of a flying eagle or a\ncalf. Idolatry would have followed, but no sense of sympathy, no\nconsciousness of the grandeur and responsibility of being made in the\nlikeness of God. Anthropomorphism is a heresy, although the Incarnation\nis the crowning doctrine of the faith.\n\nBut it is hard to see why the human likeness of God should exist in\nGenesis and Joshua, but not in the history of the Exodus, if that story\nbe a post-Exilian forgery.\n\nThis is not all. The revelations of God in the desert were connected\nwith threats and prohibitions: the law was given by Moses; grace and\ntruth came by Jesus Christ. And with the different tone of the message a\ndifferent aspect of the speaker was to be expected. From the blazing\ncrags of Sinai, fenced around, the voice of a trumpet waxing louder and\nlouder, said \"Thou shalt not!\" On the green hill by the Galil\u00e6an lake\nJesus sat down, and His disciples came unto Him, and He opened His mouth\nand said \"Blessed.\"\n\nNow, the conscience of every sinner knows that the God of the\ncommandments is dreadful. It is of Him, not of hell, that Isaiah said\n\"The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling hath surprised the godless\nones. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us\nshall dwell with everlasting burnings?\" (Isa. xxxiii. 14).\n\nFor him who rejects the light yoke of the Lord of Love, the fires of\nSinai are still the truest revelation of deity; and we must not deny\nSinai because we know Bethlehem. We must choose between the two.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\n\n_THE SHRINE AND ITS FURNITURE._\n\nxxv. 1-40.\n\nThe first direction given to Moses on the mountain is to prepare for the\nmaking of a tabernacle wherein God may dwell with man. For this he must\ninvite offerings of various kinds, metals and gems, skins and fabrics,\noil and spices; and the humblest man whose heart is willing may\ncontribute toward an abode for Him Whom the heaven of heavens cannot\ncontain.\n\nStrange indeed is the contrast between the mountain burning up to\nheaven, and the lowly structure of the wood of the desert, which was now\nto be erected by subscription.\n\nAnd yet the change marks not a lower conception of deity, but an\nadvance, just as the quiet and serene communion of a saint with God is\nloftier than the most agitating experience of the convert.\n\nThis is the first announcement of a fixed abiding presence of God in the\nmidst of men, and it is therefore the precursor of much. St. John\ncertainly alluded to this earliest dwelling of God on earth when he\nwrote, \"The Word was made flesh, and tabernacled among us\" (John i. 14).\nA little later it was said, \"Ye also are builded together for an\nhabitation of God\" (Eph. ii. 22); and again the very words used at first\nof the tabernacle are applied to faithful souls: \"We are a temple of\nthe living God, as God said, I will dwell in them and walk in them\" (2\nCor. vi. 16; Lev. xxvi. 11). For God dwelt on earth in the Messiah\nhidden by the veil, that is to say His flesh (Heb. x. 20), and also in\nthe hearts of all the faithful. And a yet fuller communion is to come,\nof which the tabernacle in the wilderness was a type, even the descent\nof the Holy City, when the true tabernacle of God shall be with men, and\nHe shall tabernacle with them (Rev. xxi. 3).\n\nIt may seem strange that after the commandment \"Let them make Me a\nsanctuary\" the whole chapter is devoted to instructions, not for the\ntabernacle but for its furniture. But indeed the four articles\nenumerated in this chapter present a wonderfully graphic picture of the\nnature and terms of the intercourse of God with man. On one side is His\nrevelation of righteousness, but righteousness propitiated and become\ngracious, and this is symbolised by the ark of the testimony and the\nmercy-seat. On the other side the consecration both of secular and\nsacred life is typified by the table with bread and wine, and by the\ngolden candlestick. Except thus, no tabernacle could have been the\ndwelling of the Lord, nor ever shall be.\n\nAnd this is the true reason why the altar of incense is not even\nmentioned until a later chapter (xxx.). We do homage to God because He\nis present: it is rather the consequence than the condition of His abode\nwith us.\n\nThe first step towards the preparation of a shrine for God on earth is\nthe enshrining of His will: Moses should therefore make first of all an\nark, wherein to treasure up \"the testimony which I shall give thee,\" the\ntwo tables of the law (xxv. 16). In it were also the pot of manna and\nAaron's rod which budded (Heb. ix. 4), and beside it was laid the whole\nbook of the law, for a testimony, alas! against them (Deut. xxxi. 26).\n\nThus the ark was to treasure up the expression of the will of God, and\nthe relics which told by what mercies and deliverances He claimed\nobedience. It was a precious thing, but not the most precious, as we\nshall presently learn; and therefore it was not made of pure gold, but\noverlaid with it. That it might be reverently carried, four rings were\ncast and fastened to it at the lower corners, and in these four staves,\nalso overlaid with gold, were permanently inserted.\n\nThe next article mentioned is the most important of all.\n\nIt would be a great mistake to suppose that the mercy-seat was a mere\nlid, an ordinary portion of the ark itself. It was made of a different\nand more costly material, of pure gold, with which the ark was only\noverlaid. There is separate mention that Bezaleel \"made the ark, ... and\nhe made the mercy-seat\" (xxxvii. 1, 6), and the special presence of God\nin the Most Holy Place is connected much more intimately with the\nmercy-seat than with the remainder of the structure. Thus He promises to\n\"appear in the cloud above the mercy-seat\" (Lev. xvi. 2). And when it is\nwritten that \"Moses heard the Voice speaking unto him from above the\nmercy-seat which is upon the ark of the testimony\" (Num. vii. 89), it\nwould have been more natural to say directly \"from above the ark\" unless\nsome stress were to be laid upon the interposing slab of gold. In\nreality no distinction could be sharper than between the ark and its\ncover, from whence to hear the voice of God. And so thoroughly did all\nthe symbolism of the Most Holy Place gather around this supreme object,\nthat in one place it is actually called \"the house of the mercy-seat\" (1\nChron. xxviii. 11).\n\nLet us, then, put ourselves into the place of an ancient worshipper.\nExcluded though he is from the Holy Place, and conscious that even the\npriests are shut out from the inner shrine, yet the high priest who\nenters is his brother: he goes on his behalf: the barrier is a curtain,\nnot a wall.\n\nBut while the Israelite mused upon what was beyond, the ark, as we have\nseen, suggests the depth of his obligation; for there is the rod of his\ndeliverance and the bread from heaven which fed him; and there also are\nthe commandments which he ought to have kept. And his conscience tells\nhim of ingratitude, and a broken covenant; by the law is the knowledge\nof sin.\n\nIt is therefore a sinister and menacing thought that immediately above\nthis ark of the violated covenant burns the visible manifestation of\nGod, his injured Benefactor.\n\nAnd hence arises the golden value of that which interposes, beneath\nwhich the accusing law is buried, by means of which God \"hides His face\nfrom our sins.\"\n\nThe worshipper knows this cover to be provided by a separate ordinance\nof God, after the ark and its contents had been arranged for, and finds\nin it a vivid concrete representation of the idea \"Thou hast cast all my\nsins behind Thy back\" (Isa. xxxviii. 17). That this was its true\nintention becomes more evident when we ascertain exactly the meaning of\nthe term which we have, not too precisely, rendered \"mercy-seat.\"\n\nThe word \"seat\" has no part in the original; and we are not to think of\nGod as reposing on it, but as revealing Himself above. The erroneous\nnotion has probably transferred itself to the type from the heavenly\nantitype, which is \"the throne of grace,\" but it has no countenance\neither in the Greek or the Hebrew name of the Mosaic institution. Nor is\nthe notion expressed that of gratuitous and unbought \"mercy.\" When\nJehovah showeth mercy unto thousands, the word is different. It is true\nthat the root means \"to cover,\" and is once employed in Scripture in\nthat sense (Gen. vi. 14); but its ethical use is generally connected\nwith sacrifice; and when we read of a \"sin-offering for _atonement_,\" of\nthe half-shekel being an \"_atonement_-money,\" and of \"the day of\n_atonement_,\" the word is a simple and very similar development from the\nsame root with this which we render _mercy-seat_ (Exod. xxx. 10, 16;\nLev. xxiii. 27, etc.).\n\nThe Greek word is found twice in the New Testament: once when the\ncherubim of glory overshadow the _mercy-seat_, and again when God hath\nset forth Christ to be a _propitiation_ (Heb. ix. 5; Rom. iii. 25). The\nmercy-seat is therefore to be thought of in connection with sin, but sin\nexpiated and thus covered and put away.\n\nWe know mysteries which the Israelite could not guess of the means by\nwhich this was brought to pass. But as he watched the high priest\ndisappearing into that awful solitude, with God, as he listened to the\nchime of bells, swung by his movements, and announcing that still he\nlived, two conditions stood out broadly before his mind. One was the\nbringing in of incense: \"Thou shalt bring a censer full of burning coals\nof fire from before the altar, that the cloud of the incense may cover\nthe mercy-seat\" (Lev. xvi. 13). Now, the connection between prayer and\nincense was quite familiar to the Jew; and he could not but understand\nthat the blessing of atonement was to be sought and won by intense and\nburning supplication. And the other was that invariable demand, the\noffering of a victim's blood. All the sacrifices of Judaism culminated\nin the great act when the high priest, standing in the most holy and the\nmost occult spot in all the world, sprinkled \"blood upon the mercy-seat\neastwards, and before the mercy-seat sprinkled of the blood with his\nfinger seven times\" (Lev. xvi. 14).\n\nThus the crowning height of the Jewish ritual was attained when the\nblood of the great national sacrifice was offered not only before God,\nbut, with special reference to the covering up of the broken and\naccusing law, before the mercy-seat.\n\nNo wonder that on either side of it, and moulded of the same mass of\nmetal, were the cherubim in an attitude of adoration, their outspread\nwings covering it, their faces bent, not only as bowing in reverence\nbefore the Divine presence, but, as we expressly read, \"toward the\nmercy-seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.\" For the meaning of this\ngreat symbol was among the things which \"the angels desire to look\ninto.\"\n\nWe now understand how much was gained when God said \"There will I meet\nthee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat\" (ver. 22).\nIt was an assurance, not only of the love which desires obedience, but\nof the mercy which passes over failure.[39]\n\nThus far, there has been symbolised the mind of God, His righteousness\nand His grace.\n\nThe next articles have to do with man, his homage to God and his witness\nfor Him.\n\nThere is first the table of the shewbread (vers. 23-30), overlaid with\npure gold, surrounded, like the ark, with \"a crown\" or moulding of gold,\nfor ornament and the greater security of the loaves, and strengthened by\na border of pure gold carried around the base, which was also ornamented\nwith a crown, or moulding. Close to this border were rings for staves,\nlike those by which the ark was borne. The table was furnished with\ndishes upon which, every Sabbath day, new shewbread might be conveyed\ninto the tabernacle, and the old might be removed for the priests to\neat. There were spoons also, by which to place frankincense upon each\npile of bread; and \"flagons and bowls to pour out withal.\" What was thus\nto be poured we do not read, but there is no doubt that it was wine,\nsecond only to bread as a requisite of Jewish life, and forming, like\nthe frankincense, a link between this weekly presentation and the\nmeal-offerings. But all these were subordinate to the twelve loaves, one\nfor each tribe, which were laid in two piles upon the table. It is clear\nthat their presentation was the essence of the rite, and not their\nconsumption by the priests, which was possibly little more than a\nsafeguard against irreverent treatment. For the word shewbread is\nliterally bread of the face or presence, which word is used of the\npresence of God, in the famous prayer \"If Thy presence go not with me,\ncarry us not up hence\" (xxxiii. 15). And of whom, other than God, can it\nhere be reasonably understood? Now Jacob, long before, had vowed \"Of all\nthat Thou givest me, I will surely give the tenth to Thee\" (Gen.\nxxviii. 22). And it was an edifying ordinance that a regular offering\nshould be made to God of the staple necessaries of existence, as a\nconfession that all came from Him, and an appeal, clearly expressed by\ncovering it with frankincense, which typified prayer (Lev. xxiv. 7) that\nHe would continue to supply their need.\n\nNor is it overstrained to add, that when this bread was given to their\npriestly representatives to eat, with all reverence and in a holy place,\nGod responded, and gave back to His people that which represented the\nnecessary maintenance of the tribes. Thus it was, \"on the behalf of the\nchildren of Israel, an everlasting covenant\" (Lev. xxiv. 8).\n\nThe form has perished. But as long as we confess in the Lord's Prayer\nthat the wealthiest does not possess one day's bread ungiven--as long,\nalso, as Christian families connect every meal with a due acknowledgment\nof dependence and of gratitude--so long will the Church of Christ\ncontinue to make the same confession and appeal which were offered in\nthe shewbread upon the table.\n\nThe next article of furniture was the golden candlestick (vers. 31-40).\nAnd this presents the curious phenomenon that it is extremely clear in\nits typical import, and in its material outline; but the details of the\ndescription are most obscure, and impossible to be gathered from the\nAuthorised Version. Strictly speaking, it was not a lamp, but only a\ngorgeous lamp-stand, with one perpendicular shaft, and six branches,\nthree springing, one above another, from each side of the shaft, and all\ncurving up to the same height. Upon these were laid the seven lamps,\nwhich were altogether separate in their construction (ver. 37). It was\nof pure gold, the base and the main shaft being of one piece of beaten\nmetal. Each of the six branches was ornamented with three cups, made\nlike almond blossoms; above these a \"knop,\" variously compared by Jewish\nwriters to an apple and a pomegranate, and still higher, a flower or\nbud. It is believed that there was a fruit and flower above each of the\ncups, making nine ornaments on each branch. The \"candlestick\" in ver. 34\ncan only mean the central shaft, and upon this there were \"four cups\nwith their knops and flowers\" instead of three. With the lamp were\ntongs, and snuff-dishes in which to remove the charred wick from the\ntemple.\n\nAs we are told that when the Lord called the child Samuel, \"the lamp of\nGod was not yet gone out\" (1 Sam. iii. 3), it follows that the lights\nwere kept burning only during the night.\n\nWe have now to ascertain the spiritual meaning of this stately symbol.\nThere are two other passages in Scripture which take up the figure and\ncarry it forward. In Zechariah (iv. 2-12) we are taught that the\nseparation of the lamps is a mere incident; they are to be conceived of\nas organically one, and moreover as fed by secret ducts with oil from no\nlimited supply, but from living olive trees, vital, rooted in the system\nof the universe. Whatever obscurity may veil those \"two sons of oil\"\n(and this is not the place to discuss the subject), we are distinctly\ntold that the main lesson is that of lustre derived from supernatural,\ninvisible sources. Zerubbabel is confronted by a great mountain of\nhindrance, but it shall become a plain before him, because the lesson of\nthe vision of the candlestick is this--\"Not by might, nor by power, but\nby My Spirit, saith the Lord.\" A lamp gives light not because the gold\nshines, but because the oil burns; and yet the oil is the one thing\nwhich the eye sees not. And so the Church is a witness for her Lord, a\nlight shining in a dark place, not because of its learning or culture,\nits noble ritual, its stately buildings or its ample revenues. All these\nthings her children, having the power, ought to dedicate. The ancient\nsymbol put art and preciousness in an honourable place, worthily\nupholding the lamp itself; and in the New Testament the seven lamps of\nthe Apocalypse were still of gold. But the true function of a lamp is to\nbe luminous, and for this the Church depends wholly upon its supply of\ngrace from God the Holy Ghost. It is \"not by might, nor by power, but by\nMy Spirit, saith the Lord.\"\n\nAgain, in the Revelation, we find the New Testament Churches described\nas lamps, among which their Lord habitually walks. And no sooner have\nthe seven churches on earth been warned and cheered, than we are shown\nbefore the throne of God seven torches (burning by their own\nincandescence--_vide_ Trench, _N. T. Synonyms_, p. 162), which are the\nseven spirits of God, answering to His seven light-bearers upon the\nearth (Rev. iv. 5).\n\nLastly, the perfect and mystic number, seven, declares that the light of\nthe Church, shining in a dark place, ought to be full and clear, no\nimperfect presentation of the truth: \"they shall light the lamps, to\ngive light over against it.\"\n\nBecause this lamp shines with the light of the Church, exhibiting the\ngraces of her Lord, therefore a special command is addressed to the\npeople, besides the call for contributions to the work in general, that\nthey shall bring pure olive oil, not obtained by heat and pressure, but\nsimply beaten, and therefore of the best quality, to feed its flame.\n\nIt is to burn, as the Church ought to shine in all darkness of the\nconscience or the heart of man, from evening to morning for ever. And\nthe care of the ministers of God is to be the continual tending of this\nblessed and sacred flame.\n\n\n_THE PATTERN IN THE MOUNT._\n\nxxv. 9, 40.\n\nTwice over (vers. 9, 40, and cf. xxvi. 30, xxvii. 8, etc.) Moses was\nreminded to be careful to make all things after the pattern shown him in\nthe mount. And these words have sometimes been so strained as to convey\nthe meaning that there really exists in heaven a tabernacle and its\nfurniture, the grand original from which the Mosaic copy was derived.\n\nThat is plainly not what the Epistle to the Hebrews understands (Heb.\nviii. 5). For it urges this admonition as a proof that the old\ndispensation was a shadow of ours, in which Christ enters into heaven\nitself, and our consciences are cleansed from dead works to serve the\nliving God. The citation is bound indissolubly with all the\ndemonstration which follows it.\n\nWe are not, then, to think of a heavenly tabernacle, exhibited to the\nmaterial senses of Moses, with which all the details of his own work\nmust be identical.\n\nRather we are to conceive of an inspiration, an ideal, a vision of\nspiritual truths, to which all this work in gold and acacia-wood should\ncorrespond. It was thus that Socrates told Glaucon, incredulous of his\nrepublic, that in heaven there is laid up a pattern, for him that wishes\nto behold it. Nothing short of this would satisfy the inspired\napplication of the words in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the\nreaders, who were Jewish converts, are asked to recognise in this verse\nevidence that the light of the new dispensation illuminated the\ninstitutions of the old.\n\nWithout this pervading sentiment, the most elaborate specifications of\nweight and measurement, of cup and pomegranate and flower, could never\nhave produced the required effect. An ideal there was, a divinely\ndesigned suggestiveness, which must be always present to his\nsuperintending vigilance, as once it shone upon his soul in sacred\nvision or trance; a suggestiveness which might possibly be lost amid\ncorrect elaborations, like the soul of a poem or a song, evaporating\nthrough a rendering which is correct enough, yet in which the spirit,\neven if that alone, has been forgotten.\n\nIt is surely a striking thing to find this need of a pervading sentiment\nimpressed upon the author of the first piece of religious art that ever\nwas recognised by heaven.\n\nFor it is the mysterious all-pervading charm of such a dominant\nsentiment which marks the impassable difference between the lowliest\nwork of art, and the highest piece of art-manufacture which is only a\nmanufactured article.\n\nAnd assuredly the recognition of this principle among a people whose\nancient history shows but little interest in art, calls for some\nattention from those who regard the tabernacle itself as a fiction, and\nits details as elaborated in Babylonia, in the priestly interest.\n(Kuenen, _Relig. of Israel_, ii. 148).\n\nThe problem of problems for all who deny the divinity of the Old\nTestament is to explain the curious position which its institutions are\nconsistent in accepting. They rest on the authority of heaven, and yet\nthey are not definitive, but provisional. They are always looking\nforward to another prophet like their founder, a new covenant better\nthan the present one, a high priest after the order of a Canaanite\nenthroned at the right hand of Jehovah, a consecration for every pot in\nthe city like that of the vessels in the temple (Deut. xviii. 15; Jer.\nxxxi. 31; Ps. cx. 1, 4; Zech. xiv. 20). And here, \"in the priestly\ninterest,\" is an avowal that the Divine habitation which they boast of\nis but the likeness and shadow of some Divine reality concealed. And\nthese strange expectations have proved to be the most fruitful and\nenergetic principles in their religion.\n\nThis very presence of the ideal is what will for ever make the highest\nnatures quite certain that the visible universe is no mere resultant of\nclashing forces without a soul, but the genuine work of a Creator. The\nuniverse is charged throughout with the most powerful appeals to all\nthat is artistic and vital within us; so that a cataract is more than\nwater falling noisily, and the silence of midnight more than the absence\nof disturbance, and a snow mountain more than a storehouse to feed the\ntorrents in summer, being also poems, appeals, revelations, whispers\nfrom a spirit, heard in the depth of ours.\n\nDoes any one, listening to Beethoven's funeral march, doubt the\nutterance of a soul, as distinct from clanging metal and vibrating\nchords? And the world has in it this mysterious witness to something\nmore than heat and cold, moisture and drought: something which makes the\ndifference between a well-filled granary and a field of grain rippling\ngolden in the breeze. This is not a coercive argument for the hostile\nlogic-monger: it is an appeal for the open heart. \"He that hath ears to\nhear, let him hear.\"\n\nTo fill the tabernacle of Moses with spiritual meaning, the ideal\ntabernacle was revealed to him in the Mount of God.\n\nLet us apply the same principle to human life. There also harmony and\nunity, a pervading sense of beauty and of soul, are not to be won by\nmere obedience to a mandate here and a prohibition there. Like Moses, it\nis not by labour according to specification that we may erect a shrine\nfor deity. Those parables which tell of obedient toil would be sadly\ndefective, therefore, without those which speak of love and joy, a\nsupper, a Shepherd bearing home His sheep, a prodigal whose dull\nexpectation of hired service is changed for investiture with the best\nrobe and the gold ring, and welcome of dance and music.\n\nHow shall our lives be made thus harmonious, a spiritual poem and not a\ntask, a chord vibrating under the musician's hand? How shall thought and\nword, desire and deed, become like the blended voices of river and wind\nand wood, a witness for the divine? Not by mere elaboration of detail\n(though correctness is a condition of all true art), but by a vision\nbefore us of the divine life, the Ideal, the pattern shown to all, and\nequally to be imitated (strange though it may seem) by peasant and\nprince, by woman and sage and child.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[39] This investigation offers a fine example of the folly of that kind\nof interpretation which looks about for some sort of external and\narbitrary resemblance, and fastens upon that as the true meaning.\nNothing is more common among these expounders than to declare that the\nwood and gold of the ark are types of the human and Divine natures of\nour Lord. If either ark or mercy-seat should be compared to Him, it is\nobviously the latter, which speaks of mercy. But this was of pure gold.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\n\n_THE TABERNACLE._\n\nxxvi.\n\nWe now come to examine the structure of the tabernacle for which the\nmost essential furniture has been prepared.\n\nSome confusion of thought exists, even among educated laymen, with\nregard to the arrangements of the temple; and this has led to similar\nconfusion (to a less extent) concerning the corresponding parts of the\ntabernacle. \"The temple\" in which the Child Jesus was found, and into\nwhich Peter and John went up to pray, ought not to be confounded with\nthat inner shrine, \"the temple,\" in which it was the lot of the priest\nZacharias to burn incense, and into which Judas, forgetful of all its\nsacredness in his anguish, hurled his money to the priests (Luke ii. 46;\nActs iii. 3; Luke i. 9; Matt. xxvii. 5). Now, the former of these\ncorresponded to \"the court of the tabernacle,\" an enclosure open to the\nskies, and containing two important articles, the altar of burnt\nsacrifices and the laver. This was accessible to the nation, so that the\nsinner could lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and the priests\ncould purify themselves before entering their own sacred place, the\ntabernacle proper, the shrine. But when we come to the structure itself,\nsome attention is still necessary, in order to derive any clear notion\nfrom the description; nor can this easily be done by an English reader\nwithout substituting the Revised Version for the Authorised. He will\nthen discover that we have a description, first of the \"curtains of the\ntabernacle\" (vers. 1-6), and then of other curtains which are not\nconsidered to belong to the tabernacle proper, but to \"the tent over the\ntabernacle\" (7-13), being no part of the rich ornamental interior, but\nonly a protection spread above it; and over this again were two further\nscreens from the weather (14), and finally, inside all, are \"the boards\nof the tabernacle\"--of which boards the two actual apartments were\nconstructed (15-30)--and the veil which divided the Holy from the Most\nHoly Place (31-3).\n\n\"The curtains of the tabernacle\" were ten, made of linen, of which every\nthread consisted of fine strands twisted together, \"and blue and purple\nand scarlet,\" with cherubim not embroidered but woven into the fabric\n(1).\n\nThese curtains were sewn together, five and five, so as to make two\ngreat curtains, each slightly larger than forty-two feet by thirty,\nbeing twenty-eight cubits long by five times four cubits broad (2, 3).\nFinally these two were linked together, each having fifty loops for that\npurpose at corresponding places at the edge, which loops were bound\ntogether by fifty golden clasps (4-6). Thus, when the nation was about\nto march, they could easily be divided in the middle and then folded in\nthe seams.\n\nThis costly fabric was regarded as part of the true tabernacle: why,\nthen, do we find the outer curtains mentioned before the rest of the\ntabernacle proper is described?\n\nCertainly because these rich curtains lie immediately underneath the\ncoarser ones, and are to be considered along with \"the tent\" which\ncovered all (7). This consisted of curtains of goats' hair, of the same\nsize, and arranged in all respects like the others, except that their\nclasps were only bronze, and that the curtains were eleven in number,\ninstead of ten, so that half a curtain was available to hang down over\nthe back, and half was to be doubled back upon itself at the front of\n\"the tabernacle,\" that is to say, the richer curtains underneath. The\nobject of this is obvious: it was to bring the centre of the goatskin\ncurtains over the edge of the linen ones, as tiles overlap each other,\nto shut out the rain at the joints. But this implies, what has been said\nalready, that the curtains of the tabernacle should lie close to the\ncurtains of the tent.\n\nOver these again was an outer covering of rams' skins dyed red, and a\ncovering of sealskins above all (14). This last, it is generally agreed,\nran only along the top, like a ridge tile, to protect the vulnerable\npart of the roof. And now it has to be remembered that we are speaking\nof a real tent with sloping sides, not a flat cover laid upon the flat\ninner structure of boards, and certain to admit the rain. By calling\nattention to this fact, Mr. Fergusson succeeded in solving all the\nproblems connected with the measurements of the tabernacle, and bringing\norder into what was little more than chaos before (_Smith's Bible\nDict._, \"Temple\").\n\nThe inner tabernacle was of acacia wood, which was the only timber of\nthe sanctuary. Each board stood ten cubits high, and was fitted by\ntenons into two silver sockets, which probably formed a continuous base.\nEach of these contained a talent of silver, and was therefore more than\neighty pounds weight; and they were probably to some extent sunk into\nthe ground for a foundation (xxxviii. 27). There were twenty boards on\neach side; and as they were a cubit and a half broad, the length of the\ntabernacle was about forty-five feet (16-18). At the west end there were\nsix boards (22), which, with the breadth of the two posts or boards for\nthe corners (23-4) just gives ten cubits, or fifteen feet, for the width\nof it. Thus the length of the tabernacle was three times its breadth;\nand we know that in the Temple (where all the proportions were the same,\nthe figures being doubled throughout) the subdividing veil was so hung\nas to make the inner shrine a perfect square, leaving the holy place\ntwice as long as it was broad.\n\nThe posts were held in their places by wooden bars, which were overlaid\nwith gold (as the boards also were, ver. 29) and fitted into golden\nrings. Four such bars, or bolts, ran along a portion of each side, and\nthere was a fifth great bar which stretched along the whole forty-five\nfeet from end to end. Thus the edifice was firmly held together; and the\nwealth of the material makes it likely that they were fixed on the\ninside, and formed a part of the ornament of the edifice (26-9).\n\nWhen the two curtains were fastened together with clasps, they gave a\nlength of sixty feet. But we have seen that the length of the boards\nwhen jointed together was only forty-five feet. This gives a projection\nof seven feet and a half (five cubits) for the front and rear of the\ntent beyond the tabernacle of boards; and when the great curtains were\ndrawn tight, sloping from the ridge-pole fourteen cubits on each side,\nit has been shown (assuming a right-angle at the top) that they reached\nwithin five cubits of the ground, and extended five cubits beyond the\nsides, the same distance as at the front and rear. The next\ninstructions concern the veil which divided the two chambers of the\nsanctuary. This was in all respects like \"the curtain of the\ntabernacle,\" and similarly woven with cherubim. It was hung upon four\npillars; and the even number seems to prove that there was no higher one\nin the centre, reaching to the roof--which seems to imply that there was\na triangular opening above the veil, between the Holy and the Most Holy\nPlace (31, 32).\n\nBut here a difficult question arises. There is no specific measurement\nof the point at which this subdividing veil was to stretch across the\ntent. The analogy of the Temple inclines us to believe that the Most\nHoly Place was a perfect cube, and the Holy Place twice as long as it\nwas broad and high. There is evident allusion to this final shape of the\nMost Holy Place in the description of the New Jerusalem, of which the\nlength and breadth and height were equal. And yet there is strong reason\nto suspect that this arrangement was not the primitive one. For Moses\nwas ordered to stretch the veil underneath the golden clasps which bound\ntogether the two great curtains of the tabernacle (ver. 33). But these\nwere certainly in the middle. How, then, could the veil make an unequal\ndivision below? Possibly fifteen feet square would have been too mean a\nspace for the dimensions of the Most Holy Place, although the perfect\ncube became desirable, when the size was doubled.\n\nA screen of the same rich material, but apparently not embroidered with\ncherubim, was to stretch across the door of the tent; but this was\nsupported on five pillars instead of four, clearly that the central one\nmight support the ridge-bar of the roof. And their sockets were of brass\n(vers. 36, 37).\n\nThe tabernacle, like the Temple, had its entrance on the east (ver. 22);\nand in the case of the Temple this was the more remarkable, because the\ncity lay at the other side, and the worshippers had to pass round the\nshrine before they reached the front of it. The object was apparently to\ncatch the warmth of the sun. For a somewhat similar reason, every pagan\ntemple in the ancient world, with a few well-defined exceptions which\nare easily explained, also faced the east; and the worshippers, with\ntheir backs to the dawn, saw the first beams of the sun kindling their\nidol's face. The orientation of Christian churches is due to the custom\nwhich made the neophyte, standing at first in his familiar position\nwestward, renounce the devil and all his works, and then, turning his\nback upon his idols, recite the creed with his face eastward.\n\nWhat ideas would be suggested by this edifice to the worshipper will\nbetter be examined when we have examined also the external court.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\n\n_THE OUTER COURT._\n\nxxvii.\n\nBefore describing the tabernacle, its furniture was specified. And so,\nwhen giving instructions for the court of the tabernacle, the altar has\nto be described: \"Thou shalt make the altar of acacia wood.\" The\ndefinite article either implies that an altar was taken for granted, a\nthing of course; or else it points back to chap. xx. 24, which said \"An\naltar of earth shalt thou make.\" Nor is the acacia wood of this altar at\nall inconsistent with that precept, it being really not an altar but an\naltar-case, and \"hollow\" (ver. 8)--an arrangement for holding the earth\ntogether, and preventing the feet of the priests from desecrating it. At\neach corner was a horn, of one piece with the framework, typical of the\npower which was there invoked, and practically useful, both to bind the\nsacrifice with cords, and also for the grasp of the fugitive, seeking\nsanctuary (Ps. cxviii. 27; 1 Kings i. 50). This arrangement is said to\nhave been peculiar to Judaism. And as the altar was outside the\ntabernacle, and both symbolism and art prescribed simpler materials, it\nwas overlaid with brass (vers. 1, 2). Of the same material were the\nvessels necessary for the treatment of the fire and blood (ver. 3). A\nnetwork of brass protected the lower part of the altar; and at half the\nheight a ledge projected, supported by this network, and probably wide\nenough to allow the priests to stand upon it when they ministered (vers.\n4, 5). Hence we read that Aaron \"came down from offering\" (Lev. ix. 22).\nLastly, there was the same arrangement of rings and staves to carry it\nas for the ark and the table (vers. 6, 7).\n\nIt will be noticed that the laver in this court, like the altar of\nincense within, is reserved for mention in a later chapter (xxx. 18) as\nbeing a subordinate feature in the arrangements.\n\nThe enclosure was a quadrangle of one hundred cubits by fifty; it was\nfive cubits high, and each cubit may be taken as a foot and a half. The\nlinen which enclosed it was upheld by pillars with sockets of brass; and\none of the few additional facts to be gleaned from the detailed\nstatement that all these directions were accurately carried out is that\nthe heads of all the pillars were overlaid with silver (xxxviii. 17).\nThe pillars were connected by rods (fillets) of silver, and a hanging of\nfine-twined linen was stretched by means of silver hooks (9-13). The\nentrance was twenty cubits wide, corresponding accurately to the width,\nnot of the tabernacle, but of \"the tent\" as it has been described\n(reaching out five cubits farther on each side than the tabernacle), and\nit was closed by an embroidered curtain (14-17). This fence was drawn\nfirmly into position and held there by brazen tent-pins; and we here\nincidentally learn that so was the tent itself (19).\n\n    [FOR VERSES 20, 21, see page 423.]\n\nWe are now in a position to ask what sentiment all these arrangements\nwould inspire in the mind of the simple and somewhat superstitious\nworshippers.\n\nApproaching it from outside, the linen enclosure (being seven feet and a\nhalf high) would conceal everything but the great roof of the tent, one\nuniform red, except for the sealskin covering along the summit. A gloomy\nand menacing prospect, broken possibly by some gleams, if the curtain of\nthe gable were drawn back, from the gold with which every portion of the\nshrine within was plated.\n\nSo does the world outside look askance upon the Church, discerning a\nmysterious suggestion everywhere of sternness and awe, yet with flashes\nof strange splendour and affluence underneath the gloom.\n\nIn this place God is known to be: it is a tent, not really \"of the\ncongregation,\" but \"of meeting\" between Jehovah and His people: \"the\ntent of meeting before the Lord, where I will meet with you, ... and\nthere I will meet with the children of Israel\" (xxix. 42-3). And so the\nIsraelite, though troubled by sin and fear, is attracted to the gate,\nand enters. Right in front stands the altar: this obtrudes itself before\nall else upon his attention: he must learn its lesson first of all.\nEspecially will he feel that this is so if a sacrifice is now to be\noffered, since the official must go farther into the court to wash at\nthe laver, and then return; so that a loss of graduated arrangement has\nbeen accepted in order to force the altar to the front. And he will soon\nlearn that not only must every approach to the sacred things within be\nheralded by sacrifice upon this altar, but the blood of the victim must\nbe carried as a passport into the shrine. Surely he remembers how the\nblood of the lamb saved his own life when the firstborn of Egypt died:\nhe knows that it is written \"The life (or soul) of the flesh is in the\nblood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for\nyour souls (or lives): for it is the blood that maketh atonement by\nreason of the life (or soul)\" (Lev. xvii. 11).\n\nNo Hebrew could watch his fellow-sinner lay his hand on a victim's head,\nand confess his sin before the blow fell on it, without feeling that sin\nwas being, in some mysterious sense, \"borne\" for him. The intricacies of\nour modern theology would not disturb him, but this is the sentiment by\nwhich the institutions of the tabernacle assuredly ministered comfort\nand hope to him. Strong would be his hope as he remembered that the\nservice and its solace were not of human devising, that God had \"given\nit to him upon the altar to make atonement for his soul.\"\n\nTaking courage, therefore, the worshipper dares to lift up his eyes. And\nbeyond the altar he sees a vision of dazzling magnificence. The inner\nroof, most unlike the sullen red of the exterior, is blazing with\nvarious colours, and embroidered with emblems of the mysterious\ncreatures of the sky, winged, yet not utterly afar from human in their\nsuggestiveness. Encompassed and looked down into by these is the\ntabernacle, all of gold. If the curtain is raised he sees a chamber\nwhich tells what the earth should be--a place of consecrated energies\nand resources, and of sacred illumination, the oil of God burning in the\nsevenfold vessel of the Church. Is this blessed place for him, and may\nhe enter? Ah, no! and surely his heart would grow heavy with\nconsciousness that reconciliation was not yet made perfect, when he\nlearned that he must never approach the place where God had promised to\nmeet with him.\n\nMuch less might he penetrate the awful chamber within, the true home of\ndeity. There, he knows, is the record of the mind of God, the\nconcentrated expression of what is comparatively easy to obey in act,\nbut difficult beyond hope to love, to accept and to be conformed to.\nThat record is therefore at once the revelation of God and the\ncondemnation of His creature. Yet over this, he knows well, there is\npoised no dead image such as were then adored in Babylonian and Egyptian\nfanes, but a spiritual Presence, the glory of the invisible God. Nor was\nHe to be thought of as in solitude, loveless, or else needing human\nlove: above Him were the woven seraphim of the curtain, and on either\nside a seraph of beaten gold--types, it may be, of all the created life\nwhich He inhabits, or else pictures of His sinless creatures of the\nupper world. And yet this pure Being, to Whom the companionship of\nsinful man is so little needed, is there to meet with man; and is\npleased not to look upon His violated law, but to command that a slab,\ninestimably precious, shall interpose between it and its Avenger. By\nwhom, then, shall this most holy floor be trodden? By the official\nrepresentative of him who gazes, and longs, and is excluded. He enters\nnot without blood, which he is careful to sprinkle upon all the\nfurniture, but chiefly and seven times upon the mercy-seat.\n\nThus every worshipper carries away a profound consciousness that he is\nutterly unworthy, and yet that his unworthiness has been expiated; that\nhe is excluded, and yet that his priest, his representative, has been\nadmitted, and therefore that he may hope. The Holy Ghost did not declare\nby sign that no way into the Holiest existed, but only that it was not\nyet made manifest. Not yet.\n\nThis leads us to think of the priest.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII\n\n\n_\"THE HOLY GARMENTS.\"_\n\nxxviii.\n\nThe tabernacle being complete, the priesthood has to be provided for.\nIts dignity is intimated by the command to Moses to bring his brother\nAaron and his sons near to himself (clearly in rank, because the object\nis defined, \"that he may minister unto Me\"), and also by the direction\nto make \"holy garments for glory and for beauty.\" But just as the\nfurniture is treated before the shrine, and again before the courtyard,\nso the vestments are provided before the priesthood is itself discussed.\n\nThe holiness of the raiment implies that separation to office can be\nexpressed by official robes in the Church as well as in the state; and\ntheir glory and beauty show that God, Who has clothed His creation with\nsplendour and with loveliness, does not dissever religious feeling from\nartistic expression.\n\nAll that are wise-hearted in such work, being inspired by God as really,\nthough not as profoundly, as if their task were to foretell the advent\nof Messiah, are to unite their labours upon these garments.\n\nThe order in the twenty-eighth chapter is perhaps that of their visible\nimportance. But it will be clearer to describe them in the order in\nwhich they were put on.\n\nNext the flesh all the priests were clad from the loins to the thighs in\nclose-fitting linen: the indecency of many pagan rituals must be far\nfrom them, and this was a perpetual ordinance, \"that they bear not\niniquity and die\" (xxviii. 42-3).\n\nOver this was a tight-fitting \"coat\" (a shirt rather) of fine linen,\nwhite, but woven in a chequered pattern, without seam, like the robe of\nJesus, and bound together with a girdle (39-43).\n\nThese garments were common to all the priests; but their \"head-tires\"\ndiffered from the impressive mitre of the high priest. The rest of the\nvestments in this chapter belong to him alone.\n\nOver the \"coat\" he wore the flowing \"robe of the ephod,\" all blue,\nlittle seen from the waist up, but uncovered thence to the feet, and\nsurrounded at the hem with golden pomegranates, the emblem of\nfruitfulness, and with bells to enable the worshippers outside to follow\nthe movements of their representative. He should die if this expression\nof his vicarious function were neglected (31-35).\n\nAbove this robe was the ephod itself--a kind of gorgeous jacket, made in\ntwo pieces which were joined at the shoulders, and bound together at the\nwaist by a cunningly woven band, which was of the same piece. This\nephod, like the curtains of the tabernacle, was of blue and purple and\nscarlet and fine-twined linen; but added to these were threads of gold,\nand we read, as if this were a novelty which needed to be explained,\nthat they beat the gold into thin plates and then cut it into threads\n(xxxix. 3, xxviii. 6-8).\n\nUpon the shoulders were two stones, rightly perhaps called onyx, and set\nin \"ouches\"--of filagree work, as the word seems to say. Upon them were\nengraven the names of the twelve tribes, the burden of whose sins and\nsorrows he should bear into the presence of his God, \"for a memorial\"\n(9-12).\n\nUpon the ephod was the breastplate, fastened to it by rings and chains\nof twisted gold, made to fold over into a square, a span in measurement,\nand blazing with twelve gems, upon which were engraved, as upon the\nonyxes on the shoulders, the names of the twelve tribes. All attempts to\nderive edification from the nature of these jewels must be governed by\nthe commonplace reflection that we cannot identify them; and many of the\npresent names are incorrect. It is almost certain that neither topaz,\nsapphire nor diamond could have been engraved, as these stones were,\nwith the name of one of the twelve tribes (13-30).\n\n\"In the breastplate\" (that is, evidently, between the folds as it was\ndoubled), were placed those mysterious means of ascertaining the will of\nGod, the Urim and the Thummim, the Lights and the Perfections; but of\ntheir nature, or of the manner in which they became significant, nothing\ncan be said that is not pure conjecture (30).\n\nLastly, there was a mitre of white linen, and upon it was laced with\nblue cords a gold plate bearing the inscription \"HOLY TO JEHOVAH\" (36,\n37).\n\nNo mention is made of shoes or sandals; and both from the commandment to\nMoses at the burning bush, and from history, it is certain that the\npriests officiated with their feet bare.\n\nThe picture thus completed has the clearest ethical significance. There\nis modesty, reverence, purity, innocence typified by whiteness, the\ngrandeur of the office of intercession displayed in the rich colours and\nprecious jewels by which that whiteness was relieved, sympathy\nexpressed by the names of the people in the breastplate that heaved with\nevery throb of his heart, responsibility confessed by the same names\nupon the shoulder, where the government was said to press like a load\n(Isa. ix. 6); and over all, at once the condition and the explanation of\nthe rest, upon the seat of intelligence itself, the golden inscription\non the forehead, \"Holy to Jehovah.\"\n\nSuch was the import of the raiment of the high priest: let us see how it\nagrees with the nature of his office.\n\n\n_THE PRIESTHOOD._\n\nWhat, then, are the central ideas connected with the institution of a\npriesthood?\n\nRegarding it in the broadest way, and as a purely human institution, we\nmay trace it back to the eternal conflict in the breast of man between\ntwo mighty tendencies--the thirst for God and the dread of Him, a strong\ninstinct of approach and a repelling sense of unworthiness.\n\nIn every age and climate, man prays. If any curious inquirer into savage\nhabits can point to the doubtful exception of a tribe seemingly without\na ritual, he will not really show that religion is one with\nsuperstition; for they who are said to have escaped its grasp are never\nthe most advanced and civilised among their fellows upon that\naccount,--they are the most savage and debased, they are to humanity\nwhat the only people which has formally renounced God is fast becoming\namong the European races.\n\nCertainly history cannot exhibit one community, progressive, energetic\nand civilised, which did not feel that more was needful and might be had\nthan its own resources could supply, and stretch aloft to a Supreme\nBeing the hands which were so deft to handle the weapon and the tool.\nCertainly all experience proves that the foundations of national\ngreatness are laid in national piety, so that the practical result of\nworship, and of the belief that God responds, has not been to dull the\nenergies of man, but to inspire him with the self-respect befitting a\nconfidant of deity, and to brace him for labours worthy of one who\ndraws, from the sense of Divine favour, the hope of an infinite advance.\n\nAnd yet, side by side with this spiritual gravitation, there has always\nbeen recoil and dread, such as was expressed when Moses hid his face\nbecause he was afraid to look upon God.\n\nNow, it is not this apprehension, taken alone, which proves man to be a\nfallen creature: it is the combination of the dread of God with the\ndesire of Him. Why should we shrink from our supreme Good, except as a\nsick man turns away from his natural food? He is in an unnatural and\nmorbid state of body, and we of soul.\n\nThus divided between fear and attraction, man has fallen upon the device\nof commissioning some one to represent him before God. The priest on\nearth has come by the same road with so many other mediators--angel and\ndemigod, saint and virgin.\n\nAt first it has been the secular chief of the family, tribe or nation,\nwho has seemed least unworthy to negotiate as well with heaven as with\ncentres of interest upon earth. But by degrees the duty has everywhere\nbeen transferred into professional hands, patriarch and king recoiling,\nfeeling the inconsistency of his earthly duties with these sacred ones,\nfinding his hands to be too soiled and his heart too heavily weighted\nwith sin for the tremendous Presence into which the family or the tribe\nwould press him. And yet the union of the two functions might be the\nideal; and the sigh of all truly enlightened hearts might be for a\npriest sitting upon his throne, a priest after the order of Melchizedek.\nBut thus it came to pass that an official, a clique, perhaps a family,\nwas chosen from among men in things pertaining to God, and the\ninstitution of the priesthood was perfected.\n\nNow, this is the very process which is recognised in Scripture; for\nthese two conflicting forces were altogether sound and right. Man ought\nto desire God, for Whom he was created, and Whose voice in the garden\nwas once so welcome: but also he ought to shrink back from Him, afraid\nnow, because he is conscious of his own nakedness, because he has eaten\nof the forbidden fruit.\n\nAccordingly, as the nation is led out from Egypt, we find that its\nintercourse with heaven is at once real and indirect. The leader is\nvirtually the priest as well, at whose intercession Amalek is vanquished\nand the sin of the golden calf is pardoned, who entered the presence of\nGod and received the law upon their behalf, when they feared to hear His\nvoice lest they should die, and by whose hand the blood of the covenant\nwas sprinkled upon the people, when they had sworn to obey all that the\nLord had said (xvii. 11, xxxii. 30, xx. 19, xxiv. 8).\n\nSoon, however, the express command of God provided for an orthodox and\nedifying transfer of the priestly function from Moses to his brother\nAaron. Some such division of duties between the secular chief and the\nreligious priest would no doubt have come, in Israel as elsewhere, as\nsoon as Moses disappeared; but it might have come after a very different\nfashion, associated with heresy and schism. Especially would it have\nbeen demanded why the family of Moses, if the chieftainship must pass\naway from it, could not retain the religious leadership. We know how\ncogent such a plea would have appeared; for, although the transfer was\nmade publicly and by his own act, yet no sooner did the nation begin to\nsplit into tribal subdivisions, amid the confused efforts of each to\nconquer its own share of the inheritance, than we find the grandson of\nMoses securely establishing himself and his posterity in the apostate\nand semi-idolatrous worship of Shechem (Judg. xviii. 30, R.V.).\n\nAnd why should not this illustrious family have been chosen?\n\nPerhaps because it was so illustrious. A priesthood of that great line\nmight seem to have earned its office, and to claim special access to\nGod, like the heathen priests, by virtue of some special desert.\nTherefore the honour was transferred to the far less eminent line of\nAaron, and that in the very hour when he was lending his help to the\nfirst great apostacy, the type of the many idolatries into which Israel\nwas yet to fall. So, too, the whole tribe of Levi was in some sense\nconsecrated, not for its merit, but because, through the sin of its\nfounder, it lacked a place and share among its brethren, being divided\nin Jacob and scattered in Israel by reason of the massacre of Shechem\n(Gen. xlix. 7).\n\nThus the nation, conscious of its failure to enjoy intercourse with\nheaven, found an authorised expression for its various and conflicting\nemotions. It was not worthy to commune with God, and yet it could not\nrest without Him. Therefore a spokesman, a representative, an\nambassador, was given to it. But he was chosen after such a fashion as\nto shut out any suspicion that the merit of Levi had prevailed where\nthat of Israel at large had failed. It was not because Levi executed\nvengeance on the idolaters that he was chosen, for the choice was\nalready made, and made in the person of Aaron, who was so far from\nblameless in that offence.\n\nAnd perhaps this is the distinguishing peculiarity of the Jewish priest\namong others: that he was chosen from among his brethren, and simply as\none of them; so that while his office was a proof of their exclusion, it\nwas also a kind of sacrament of their future admission, because he was\ntheir brother and their envoy, and entered not as outshining but as\nrepresenting them, their forerunner for them entering. The almond rod of\nAaron was dry and barren as the rest, until the miraculous power of God\ninvested it with blossoms and fruit.\n\nThroughout the ritual, the utmost care was taken to inculcate this\ndouble lesson of the ministry. Into the Holy Place, whence the people\nwere excluded, a whole family could enter. But there was an inner\nshrine, whither only the high priest might penetrate, thus reducing the\nfamily to a level with the nation; \"the Holy Ghost this signifying, that\nthe way into the Holy Place hath not yet been made manifest, while as\nthe first tabernacle (the outer shrine--ver. 6) was yet standing\" (Heb.\nix. 8).\n\nThus the people felt a deeper awe, a broader separation. And yet, when\nthe sole and only representative who was left to them entered that\n\"shrine, remote, occult, untrod,\" they saw that the way was not wholly\nbarred against human footsteps: the lesson suggested was far from being\nthat of absolute despair,--it was, as the Epistle to the Hebrews said,\n\"Not yet.\" The prophet Zechariah foresaw a time when the bells of the\nhorses should bear the same consecrating legend that shone upon the\nforehead of the priest: HOLY UNTO THE LORD (Zech. xiv. 20).\n\nIt is important to observe that the only book of the New Testament in\nwhich the priesthood is discussed dwells quite as largely upon the\ndifference as upon the likeness between the Aaronic and the Messianic\npriest. The latter offered but one Sacrifice for sins, the former\noffered for himself before doing so for the people (Heb. x. 12). The\nlatter was a royal Priest, and of the order of a Canaanite (Heb. vii.\n1-4), thus breaking down all the old system at one long-predicted\nblow--for if He were on earth He could not so much as be a priest at all\n(Heb. viii. 4)--and with it all the old racial monopolies, all class\ndistinctions, being Himself of a tribe as to which Moses spake nothing\nconcerning priests (Heb. vii. 14). Every priest standeth, but this\npriest hath for ever sat down, and even at the right hand of God (Heb.\nx. 11, 12).\n\nIn one sense this priesthood belongs to Christ alone. In another sense\nit belongs to all who are made one with Him, and therefore a kingly\npriesthood unto God. But nowhere in the New Testament is the name by\nwhich He is designated bestowed upon any earthly minister by virtue of\nhis office. The presbyter is never called _sacerdos_. And perhaps the\nheaviest blow ever dealt to popular theology was the misapplying of the\nNew Testament epithet (elder, presbyter or priest) to designate the\nsacerdotal functions of the Old Testament, and those of Christ which\nthey foreshadowed. It is not the word \"priest\" that is at fault, but\nsome other word for the Old Testament official which is lacking, and\ncannot now be supplied.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\n\n_THE CONSECRATION SERVICES._\n\nxxix.\n\nThe priest being now selected, and his raiment so provided as that it\nshall speak of his office and its glory, there remains his consecration.\n\nIn our day there is a disposition to make light of the formal setting\napart of men and things for sacred uses. If God, we are asked, has\ncalled one to special service, is not that enough? What more can earth\ndo to commission the chosen of the sky? But the plain answer which we\nought to have the courage to return is that this is not at all enough.\nFor God Himself had already called Paul and Barnabas when He said to\nsuch folk as Simeon Niger and Lucius of Cyrene and Manaen, \"Separate Me\nBarnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them\" (Acts xiii.\n1-4). And these obscure people not only laid their hands upon the great\napostle, but actually sent him forth. Now, if he was not exempted from\nthe need of an orderly commission by the marvellous circumstances of his\ncall, by his apostleship not of man, by the explicit announcement that\nhe was a chosen vessel to bear the sacred name before kings and peoples,\nit is startling to be told of some shallow modern evangelist, who works\nfor no Church and submits to no discipline, that he can dispense with\nthe sanction of human ordination because he is so clearly sent of\nheaven.\n\nThe example of the Old Testament will no doubt be brushed aside as if\nthe religion which Jesus learned and honoured were a mere human\nsuperstition. Or else it would be natural to ask, Is it because the\noffices and functions of Judaism were more formal, more perfunctory than\nours, that a greater spiritual grace went with their appointments than\nwith the laying on of hands in the Christian Church, a rite so clearly\nsanctioned in the New Testament?\n\nIt is written of Joshua that Moses was to lay his hands upon him,\nbecause already the Spirit was in him; and of Timothy that he had\nunfeigned faith, and that prophecies went before concerning him (Num.\nxxvii. 18; 1 Tim. i. 18; 2 Tim. i. 5). But in neither dispensation did\nspecial grace fail to accompany the official separation to sacred\noffice: Joshua was full of the Spirit of Wisdom, for Moses had laid his\nhands upon him; and Timothy was bidden to stir into flame that gift of\nGod which was in him through the laying on of the Apostle's hands (Deut\nxxxiv. 9; 2 Tim. i. 6).\n\nAccordingly there is great stress laid upon the orderly institution of\nthe priest. And yet, to make it plain that his authority is only \"for\nhis brethren,\" Moses, the chief of the nation, is to officiate\nthroughout the ceremony of consecration. He it is who shall offer the\nsacrifices upon the altar, and sprinkle the blood, not upon the first\nday only, but throughout the ceremonies of the week.\n\nIn the first place certain victims must be held in readiness--a bullock\nand two rams; and with these must be brought in one basket unleavened\nbread, and unleavened cakes made with oil, and unleavened wafers on\nwhich oil is poured. Then, at the door of the tent of the meeting of man\nwith God, a ceremonial washing must follow, in a laver yet to be\nprovided. Here the assertion that purity is needed, and that it is not\ninherent, is too plain to be dwelt upon.\n\nBut such details as the assuming of the existence of a laver, for which\nno directions have yet been given (and presently also of the anointing\noil, the composition of which is still untold), deserve notice. They are\nmuch more in the manner of one who is working out a plan, seen already\nby his mental vision, but of which only the salient and essential parts\nhave been as yet stated, than of any priest of the latter days, who\nwould first have completed his catalogue of the furniture, and only then\nhave described the ceremonies in which he was accustomed to see all this\napparatus take its appointed place.\n\nWhat we actually find is quite natural to a creative imagination,\nstriking out the broad design of the work and its uses first, and then\nfilling in the outlines. It is not natural at a time when freshness and\ninspiration have departed, and squared timber, as we are told, has taken\nthe place of the living tree.\n\nThe priest, when cleansed, was next to be clad in his robes of office,\nwith the mitre on his head, and upon the mitre the golden plate, with\nits inscription, which is here called, as the culminating object in all\nhis rich array, \"the holy crown\" (ver. 6).\n\nAnd then he was to be anointed. Now, the use of oil, in the ceremony of\ninvestiture to office, is peculiar to revealed religion. And whether we\nsuppose it to refer to the oil in a lamp, invisible, yet the secret\nsource of all its illuminating power, or to that refreshment and\nrenovated strength bestowed upon a weary traveller when his head is\nanointed with oil, in either case it expresses the grand doctrine of\nrevealed religion--that no office may be filled in one's own strength,\nbut that the inspiring help of God is offered, as surely as\nresponsibilities are imposed. \"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,\nbecause He hath anointed Me.\"\n\nWith these three ceremonies--ablution, robing and anointing--the first\nand most personal section of the ritual ended. And now began a course of\nsacrifices to God, advancing from the humblest expression of sin, and\nappeal to heaven to overlook the unworthiness of its servant, to that\nwhich best exhibited conscious acceptance, enjoyment of privilege,\nadmission to a feast with God. The bullock was a sin-offering: the word\nis literally _sin_, and occurs more than once in the double sense: \"let\nhim offer for his _sin_ which he hath _sinned_ a young bullock ... for a\n_sin(-offering)_\" (Lev. iv. 3, v. 6, etc.). And this is the explanation\nof the verse which has perplexed so many: \"He made Him to be sin for us,\nWho knew no sin\" (2 Cor. v. 21). The doctrine that pardon comes not by a\ncheap and painless overlooking of transgression, as a thing indifferent,\nbut by the transfer of its consequences to a victim divinely chosen,\ncould not easily find clearer expression than in this word. And it was\nsurely a sobering experience, and a wholesome one, when Aaron, in his\nglorious robes, sparkling with gems, and bearing on his forehead the\nlegend of his holy calling, laid his hand, beside those of his children\nand successors, upon the doomed creature which was made sin for him. The\ngesture meant confession, acceptance of the appointed expiation,\nsubmission to be freed from guilt by a method so humiliating and\nadmonitory. There was no undue exaltation in the mind of any priest\nwhose heart went with this \"remembrance of sins.\"\n\nThe bullock was immediately slain at the door of \"the tent of meeting\";\nand to show that the shedding of his blood was an essential part of the\nrite, part of it was put with the finger on the horns of the altar, and\nthe remainder was poured out at the base. Only then might the fat and\nthe kidney be burned upon the altar; but it is never said of any\nsin-offering, as presently of the burnt-offering and the\npeace-offerings, that it is \"a sweet savour before Jehovah\" (vers. 18,\n25)--a phrase which is only once extended to a trespass-offering for a\npurely unconscious lapse (Lev. iv. 31). The sin-offering is, at the\nbest, a deplorable necessity. And therefore the notion of a gift,\nwelcome to Jehovah, is carefully shut out: no portion of such an\noffering may go to maintain the priests: all must be burned \"with fire\nwithout the camp; it is a sin-offering\" (ver. 14). Rightly does the\nEpistle to the Hebrews emphasize this fact: \"The bodies of those beasts\nwhose blood is brought into the Holy Place ... as an offering for sin\"\nare burned without the camp. The bodies of other sacrifices were not\nreckoned unfit for food.[40] And so there is a striking example of\nhumility, as well as an instructive coincidence, in the fact that Jesus\nsuffered without the gate, being the true Sin-offering, \"that He might\nsanctify the people through His own blood\" (Heb. xiii. 11, 12).\n\nThus, by sacrifice for sin, the priest is rendered fit to offer up to\nGod the symbol of a devoted life. Again, therefore, the hands of Aaron\nand his sons are laid upon the head of the ram, because they come to\noffer what represents themselves in another sense than that of\nexpiation--a sweet savour now, an offering made by fire unto Jehovah\n(ver. 18). And to show that it is perfectly acceptable to Him, the whole\nram shall be burnt upon the altar, and not now without the camp: \"it is\na burnt-offering unto the Lord.\" Such is the appointed way of God with\nman--first expiation, then devotion.\n\nThe third animal was a \"peace-offering\" (ver. 28). This is wrongly\nexplained to mean an offering by which peace is made, for then there\ncould be no meaning in what went before. It is the offering of one who\nis now in a state of peace with God, and who is therefore himself, in\nmany cases, allowed to partake of what he brings. But on this occasion\nsome quite peculiar ceremonies were introduced, and the ram is called by\na strange name--\"the ram of consecration.\" When Aaron and his sons have\nagain declared their connection with the animal by laying their hands\nupon it, it is slain. And then the blood is applied to the tip of their\nright ear, the thumb of their right hand, and the great toe of their\nright foot, that the ear may hearken, and the best energies obey, and\ntheir life become as that of the consecrated animal, their bodies being\npresented, a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God. Then the same\nblood, with the oil which spoke of heavenly anointing, was sprinkled\nupon them and upon their official robes, and all were hallowed. Then the\nfattest and richest parts of the animal were taken, with a loaf, a cake,\nand a wafer from the basket, and placed in the hands of Aaron and his\nsons. This was their formal investiture with official rights; although\nnot yet performing service, it was as priests that they received these;\nand their hands, swayed by those of Moses, solemnly waved them before\nthe Lord in formal presentation, after which the pieces were consumed by\nfire. The breast was likewise waved, and became the perpetual property\nof Aaron and his sons--although on this occasion it passed from their\nhands to be the portion of Moses, who officiated. The remainder of the\nflesh, seethed in a holy place, belonged to Aaron and his sons. No\nstranger (of another family) might eat it, and what was left until\nmorning should be consumed by fire, that is to say, destroyed in a\nmanner absolutely clean, seeing no corruption.\n\nFor seven days this rite of consecration was repeated; and every day the\naltar also was cleansed, rendering it most holy, so that whatever\ntouched it was holy.\n\nThus the people saw their representative and chief purified, accepted\nand devoted. Thenceforward, when they too brought their offerings, and\nbeheld them presented (in person or through his subordinates) by the\nhigh priest with holiness emblazoned upon his brow, they gained hope,\nand even assurance, since one so consecrated was bidden to present their\nintercession; and sometimes they saw him pass into secret places of\nmysterious sanctity, bearing their tribal name on his shoulder and his\nbosom, while the chime of golden bells announced his movements,\nministering there for them.\n\nBut the nation as a whole, with which this historical book is chiefly\ninterested, saw in the high priest the means of continually rendering to\nGod the service of its loyalty. Every day began and closed with the\nburnt-offering of a lamb of the first year, along with a meal-offering\nof fine flour and oil, and a drink-offering of wine. This would be a\nsweet savour unto God, not after the carnal fashion in which sceptics\nhave interpreted the words, but in the same sense in which the wicked\nare a smoke in His nostrils from a continually burning fire.\n\nAnd where this offering was made, the Omnipresent would meet with them.\nThere He would convey His mind to His priest. There also He would meet\nwith all the people--not occasionally, as amid the more impressive but\nless tolerable splendours of Sinai, but to dwell among them and be their\nGod. And they should know that all this was true, and also that for this\nHe led them out of Egypt: \"I am Jehovah their God.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[40] Neither, it must be added, were the bodies of certain sin-offerings\nof the lower grade, and in which the priest was not personally concerned\n(Lev. x. 17, etc.).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\n\n_INCENSE._\n\nxxx. 1-10.\n\nThe altar of incense was not mentioned when the tent of meeting was\nbeing prepared and furnished. But when, in the Divine idea, this is\ndone, when all is ready for the intercourse of God and man, and the\npriest and the daily victims are provided for, something more than this\nformal routine of offerings might yet be sought for. This material\nworship of the senses, this round of splendour and of tragedy, this\nblaze of gold and gold-encrusted timber, these curtains embroidered in\nbright colours, and ministers glowing with gems, this blood and fire\nupon the altar, this worldly sanctuary,--was it all? Or should it not do\nas nature ever does, which seems to stretch its hands out into the\nimpalpable, and to grow all but spiritual while we gaze; so that the\nmountain folds itself in vapour, and the ocean in mist and foam, and the\nrugged stem of the tree is arrayed in fineness of quivering frondage,\nand it may be of tinted blossom, and around it breathes a subtle\nfragrance, the most impalpable existence known to sense? Fragrance\nindeed is matter passing into the immaterial, it is the sigh of the\nsensuous for the spiritual state of being, it is an aspiration.\n\nAnd therefore an altar, smaller than that of burnt-offering, but much\nmore precious, being plated all around and on the top with gold (a\n\"golden altar\") (xxxix. 38), is now to be prepared, on which incense of\nsweet spices should be burned whenever a burnt-offering spoke of human\ndevotion, and especially when the daily lamb was offered, every morning\nand every night.\n\nThis altar occupied a significant position. Of necessity, it was without\nthe Most Holy Place, or else it would have been practically\ninaccessible; and yet it was spiritually in the closest connection with\nthe presence of God within. The Epistle to the Hebrews reckons it among\nthe furniture of the inner shrine[41] (Heb. ix. 4), close to the veil of\nwhich it stood, and within which its burning odours made their sweetness\npalpable. In the temple of Solomon it was \"the altar that belonged to\nthe oracle\" (1 Kings vi. 22). In Leviticus (xvi. 12) incense was\nconnected especially with that spot in the Most Holy Place which best\nexpressed the grace that it appealed to, and \"the cloud of incense\" was\nto \"cover the mercy-seat.\" Therefore Moses was bidden to put this altar\n\"before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the\nmercy-seat\" (ver. 6).\n\nIt can never have been difficult to see the meaning of the rite for\nwhich this altar was provided. When Zacharias burned incense the\nmultitude stood without, praying. The incense in the vial of the angel\nof the Apocalypse was the prayers of the saints (Luke i. 10; Rev. viii.\n3). And, long before, when the Psalmist thought of the priest\napproaching the veil which concealed the Supreme Presence, and there\nkindling precious spices until their aromatic breath became a silent\nplea within, it seemed to him that his own heart was even such an altar,\nwhence the perfumed flame of holy longings might be wafted into the\npresence of his God, and he whispered, \"Let my prayer be set forth\nbefore Thee as incense\" (Ps. cxli. 2).\n\nSuch being the import of the type, we need not wonder that it was a\nperpetual ordinance in their generations, nor yet that no strange\nperfume might be offered, but only what was prescribed by God. The\nadmixture with prayer of any human, self-asserting, intrusive element,\nis this unlawful fragrance. It is rhetoric in the leader of extempore\nprayer; studied inflexions in the conductor of liturgical service;\nanimal excitement, or sentimental pensiveness, or assent which is merely\nvocal, among the worshippers. It is whatever professes to be prayer, and\nis not that but a substitute. And formalism is an empty censer.\n\nBut, however earnest and pure may seem to be the breathing of the soul\nto God, something unworthy mingles with what is best in man. The very\naltar of incense needs to have an atonement made for it once in the year\nthroughout their generations with the blood of the sin-offering of\natonement. The prayer of every heart which knows its own secret will be\nthis:\n\n    \"Forgive what seemed my sin in me,\n      What seemed my worth since I began;\n      For merit lives from man to man\n    And not from man, O Lord, to Thee.\"\n\n\n_THE CENSUS._\n\nxxx. 11-16.\n\nMoses by Divine command was soon to number Israel, and thus to lay the\nfoundation for its organisation upon the march. A census was not,\ntherefore, supposed to be presumptuous or sinful in itself; it was the\nvain-glory of David's census which was culpable.\n\nBut the honour of being numbered among the people of God should awaken a\nsense of unworthiness. Men had reason to fear lest the enrolment of such\nas they were in the host of God should produce a pestilence to sweep out\nthe unclean from among the righteous. At least they must make some\npractical admission of their demerit. And therefore every man of twenty\nyears who passed over unto them that were numbered (it is a picturesque\nglimpse that is here given into the method of enrolment) should offer\nfor his soul a ransom of half a shekel after the shekel of the\nsanctuary. And because it was a ransom, the tribute was the same for\nall; the poor might not bring less, nor the rich more. Here was a grand\nassertion of the equality of all souls in the eyes of God--a seed which\nlong ages might overlook, but which was sure to fructify in its\nappointed time.\n\nFor indeed the madness of modern levelling systems is only their attempt\nto level down instead of up, their dream that absolute equality can be\nobtained, or being obtained can be made a blessing, by the envious\ndemolition of all that is lofty, and not by all together claiming the\nsupreme elevation, the measure of the stature of manhood in Jesus\nChrist.\n\nIt is not in any _phalanst\u00e8re_ of Fourier or Harmony Hall of Owen, that\nmankind will ever learn to break a common bread and drink of a common\ncup; it is at the table of a common Lord.\n\nAnd so this first assertion of the equality of man was given to those\nwho all ate the same spiritual meat and drank the same spiritual drink.\n\nThis half-shekel gradually became an annual impost, levied for the great\nexpenses of the Temple. \"Thus Joash made a proclamation throughout Judah\nand Jerusalem, to bring in for the Lord the tax that Moses, the servant\nof God, laid upon Israel in the wilderness\" (2 Chron. xxiv. 9).\n\nAnd it was the claim for this impost, too rashly conceded by Peter with\nregard to his Master, which led Jesus to distinguish clearly between His\nown relation to God and that of others, even of the chosen race.\n\nHe paid no ransom for His soul. He was a Son, in a sense in which no\nother, even of the Jews, could claim to be so. Now, the kings of the\nearth did not levy tribute from their sons; so that, if Christ paid, it\nwas not to fulfil a duty, but to avoid being an offence. And God Himself\nwould provide, directly and miraculously, what He did not demand from\nJesus. Therefore it was that, on this one occasion and no other, Christ\nWho sought figs when hungry, and when athirst asked water at alien\nhands, met His own personal requirement by a miracle, as if to protest\nin deed, as in word, against any burden from such an obligation as\nPeter's rashness had conceded.\n\nAnd yet, with that marvellous condescension which shone most brightly\nwhen He most asserted His prerogative, He admitted Peter also to a share\nin this miraculous redemption-money, as He admits us all to a share in\nHis glory in the skies. Is it not He only Who can redeem His brother,\nand give to God a ransom for him?\n\nIt is the silver thus levied which was used in the construction of the\nsanctuary. All the other materials were free-will offerings; but even as\nthe entire tabernacle was based upon the ponderous sockets into which\nthe boards were fitted, made of the silver of this tax, so do all our\nglad and willing services depend upon this fundamental truth, that we\nare unworthy even to be reckoned His, that we owe before we can bestow,\nthat we are only allowed to offer any gift because He is so merciful in\nHis demand. Israel gladly brought much more than was needed of all\nthings precious. But first, as an absolutely imperative ransom, God\ndemanded from each soul the half of three shillings and sevenpence.\n\n\n_THE LAVER._\n\nxxx. 17-21.\n\nFor the cleansing of various sacrifices, but especially for the\nceremonial washing of the priests, a laver of brass was to be made, and\nplaced upon a separate base, the more easily to be emptied and\nreplenished.\n\nWe have seen already that although its actual use preceded that of the\naltar, yet the other stood in front of it, as if to assert, to the very\neyes of all men, that sacrifice precedes purification. But the use of\nthe laver was not by the man as man, but by the priest as mediator. In\nhis office he represented the absolute purity of Christ. And therefore\nit was a capital offence to enter the tabernacle or to burn a sacrifice\nwithout first having washed the hands and feet. At his inauguration, the\nwhole person of the priest was bathed, and thenceforth he needed not\nsave to remove the stains of contact with the world.\n\nWhen the laver was actually made, an interesting fact was recorded about\nits materials: \"He made the laver of brass, and the base of it of brass,\nof the mirrors of the serving-women which served at the door of the tent\nof meeting\" (xxxviii. 8). Thus their instruments of personal adornment\nwere applied to further a personal preparation of a more solemn kind,\nlike the ointment with which a penitent woman anointed the feet of\nJesus. There is a fitness which ought to be considered in the direction\nof our gifts, not as a matter of duty, but of good taste and charm. And\nthus also they continually saw the monument of their self-sacrifice.\nThere is an innocent satisfaction, far indeed from vanity, when one\nlooks at his own work for God.\n\n\n_THE ANOINTING OIL AND THE INCENSE._\n\nxxx. 22-38.\n\nWe have already seen the meaning of the anointing oil and of the\nincense.\n\nBut we have further to remark that their ingredients were accurately\nprescribed, that they were to be the best and rarest of their kind, and\nthat special skill was demanded in their preparation.\n\nSuch was the natural dictate of reverence in preparing the symbols of\nGod's grace to man, and of man's appeal to God.\n\nWith the type of grace should be anointed the tent and the ark, and the\ntable of shewbread and the candlestick, with all their implements, and\nthe altar of incense, and the altar of burnt sacrifice and the laver.\nAll the import of every portion of the Temple worship could be realized\nonly by the outpouring of the Spirit of grace.\n\nIt was added that this should be a holy anointing oil, not to be made,\nmuch less used, for common purposes, on pain of death. The same was\nenacted of the incense which should burn before Jehovah: \"according to\nthe composition thereof ye shall not make for yourselves; it shall be\nunto thee holy for the Lord: whosoever shall make like unto that, to\nsmell thereto, he shall be cut off from his people.\"\n\nAnd this was meant to teach reverence. One might urge that the spices\nand frankincense and salt were not in themselves sacred: there was no\nconsecrating efficacy in their combination, no charm or spell in the\nunion of these, more than of any other drugs. Why, then, should they be\ndenied to culture? Why should her resources be thus restricted? Does any\none suppose that such arguments belong peculiarly to the New Testament\nspirit, or that the saints of the older dispensation had any\nsuperstitious views about these ingredients? If it was through such\nnotions that they abstained from vulgarising its use, then they were on\nthe way to paganism, through a materialised worship.\n\nBut in truth they knew as well as we that gums were only gums, just as\nthey knew that the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands.\nAnd yet they were bidden to reverence both the shrine and the apparatus\nof His worship, for their own sakes, for the solemnity and sobriety of\ntheir feelings, not because God would be a loser if they did otherwise.\nAnd we may well ask ourselves, in these latter days, whether the\nconstant proposal to secularise religious buildings, revenues,\nendowments and seasons does really indicate greater religious freedom,\nor only greater freedom from religious control.\n\nAnd we may be sure that a light treatment of sacred subjects and sacred\nwords is a very dangerous symptom: it is not the words and subjects\nalone that are being secularised, but also our own souls.\n\nThere is in our time a curious tendency among men of letters to use holy\nthings for a mere perfume, that literature may \"smell thereto.\"\n\nA novelist has chosen for the title of a story \"Just as I am.\" An\ninnocent and graceful poet has seen a smile,--\n\n              \"'Twas such a smile,\n    Aaron's twelve jewels seemed to mix\n    With the lamps of the golden candlesticks.\"\n\nAnother is bolder, and sings of the war of love,--\n\n    \"In the great battle when the hosts are met\n    On Armageddon's plain, with spears beset.\"\n\nAnother thinks of Mazzini as the\n\n    \"Dear lord and leader, at whose hand\n    The first days and the last days stand,\"\n\nand again as he who\n\n    \"Said, when all Time's sea was foam,\n    'Let there be Rome,' and there was Rome.\"\n\nAnd Victor Hugo did not shrink from describing, and that with a strange\nand scandalous ignorance of the original incidents, the crucifixion by\nLouis Napoleon of the Christ of nations.\n\nNow, Scripture is literature, besides being a great deal more; and, as\nsuch, it is absurd to object to all allusions to it in other\nliterature. Yet the tendency of which these extracts are examples is not\nmerely toward allusion, but desecration of solemn and sacred thoughts:\nit is the conversion of incense into perfumery.\n\nThere is another development of the same tendency, by no means modern,\nnoted by the prophet when he complains that the message of God has\nbecome as the \"very lovely song of one who hath a pleasant voice and\nplayeth well on an instrument.\" Wherever divine service is only\nappreciated in so far as it is \"well rendered,\" as rich music or stately\nenunciation charm the ear, and the surroundings are \u00e6sthetic,--wherever\nthe gospel is heard with enjoyment only of the eloquence or\ncontroversial skill of its rendering, wherever religion is reduced by\nthe cultivated to a thrill or to a solace, or by the Salvationist to a\nriot or a romp, wherever Isaiah and the Psalms are only admired as\npoetry, and heaven is only thought of as a languid and sentimental\nsolace amid wearying cares,--there again is a making of the sacred balms\nto smell thereto.\n\nAnd as often as a minister of God finds in his holy office a mere outlet\nfor his natural gifts of rhetoric or of administration, he also is\ntempted to commit this crime.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[41] For it is incredible that, in a catalogue of furniture which\nincluded Aaron's rod and the pot of manna, this altar should be omitted,\nand \"a golden censer,\" elsewhere unheard of, substituted. The gloss is\ntoo evidently an endeavour to get rid of a difficulty. But in idea and\nsuggestion this altar belonged to the Most Holy. That shrine \"had\" it,\nthough it actually stood outside.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI.\n\n\n_BEZALEEL AND AHOLIAB._\n\nxxxi. 1-18.\n\nNext after this marking off so sharply of the holy from the profane,\nthis consecration of men to special service, this protection of sacred\nunguents and sacred gums from secular use, we come upon a passage\ncuriously contrasted, yet not really antagonistic to the last, of\nmarvellous practical wisdom, and well calculated to make a nation wise\nand great.\n\nThe Lord announces that He has called by name Bezaleel, the son of Uri,\nand has filled him with the Spirit of God. To what sacred office, then,\nis he called? Simply to be a supreme craftsman, the rarest of artisans.\nThis also is a divine gift. \"I have filled him with the Spirit of God in\nwisdom and in understanding and in knowledge and in all manner of\nworkmanship, to devise cunning works, to work in gold and in silver and\nin brass and in cutting of stones for setting, and in carving of wood,\nto work in all manner of workmanship,\"--that is to say, of manual\ndexterity. With him God had appointed Aholiab; \"and in the hearts of all\nthe wise-hearted I have put wisdom.\" Thus should be fitly made the\ntabernacle and its furniture, and the finely wrought garments, and the\nanointing oil and the incense.\n\nSo then it appears that the Holy Spirit of God is to be recognised in\nthe work of the carpenter and the jeweller, the apothecary and the\ntailor. Probably we object to such a statement, so baldly put. But\ninspiration does not object. Moses told the children of Israel that\nJehovah had filled Bezaleel with the Spirit of God, and also Aholiab,\nfor the work \"of the engraver ... and of the embroiderer ... and of the\nweaver\" (xxxv. 31, 35).\n\nIt is quite clear that we must cease to think of the Divine Spirit as\ninspiring only prayers and hymns and sermons. All that is good and\nbeautiful and wise in human art is the gift of God. We feel that the\nsupreme Artist is audible in the wind among the pines; but is man left\nto himself when he marshals into more sublime significance the voices of\nthe wind among the organ tubes? At sunrise and sunset we feel that\n\n    \"On the beautiful mountains the pictures of God are hung\";\n\nbut is there no revelation of glory and of freshness in other pictures?\nOnce the assertion that a great masterpiece was \"inspired\" was a clear\nrecognition of the central fire at which all genius lights its lamp:\nnow, alas! it has become little more than a sceptical assumption that\nIsaiah and Milton are much upon a level. But the doctrine of this\npassage is the divinity of all endowment; it is quite another thing to\nclaim Divine authority for a given product sprung from the free human\nbeing who is so richly crowned and gifted.\n\nThus far we have smoothed our way by speaking only of poetry, painting,\nmusic--things which really compete with nature in their spiritual\nsuggestiveness. But Moses spoke of the robe-maker, the embroiderer, the\nweaver, and the perfumer.\n\nNevertheless, the one is carried with the other. Where shall we draw the\nline, for example, in architecture or in ironwork? And there is another\nconsideration which must not be overlooked. God is assuredly in the\ngrowth of humanity, in the progress of true civilisation--in all, the\nrecognition of which makes history philosophical. It is not only the\nsaints who feel themselves to be the instruments of a Greater than they.\nCromwell and Bismarck, Columbus, Raleigh and Drake, William the Silent\nand William the Third, felt it. Mr. Stanley has told us how the\nconsciousness that he was being used grew up in him, not through\nfanaticism but by slow experience, groping his way through the gloom of\nCentral Africa.\n\nBut none will deny that one of the greatest factors in modern history is\nits industrial development. Is there, then, no sacredness here?\n\nThe doctrine of Scripture is not that man is a tool, but that he is\nresponsible for vast gifts, which come directly from heaven--that every\ngood gift is from above, that it was God Himself Who planted in Paradise\nthe tree of knowledge.\n\nNor would anything do more to restrain the passions, to calm the\nimpulses and to elevate the self-respect of modern life, to call back\nits energies from the base competition for gold, and make our industries\nwhat dreamers persuade themselves that the medi\u00e6val industries were,\nthan a quick and general perception of what is meant when faculty goes\nby such names as talent, endowment, gift--of the glory of its use, the\ntragedy of its defilement. Many persons, indeed, reject this doctrine\nbecause they cannot believe that man has power to abase so high a thing\nso sadly. But what, then, do they think of the human body?\n\nWhat connection is there between all this and the reiteration of the law\nof the Sabbath? Not merely that the moral law is now made a civic\nstatute as well, for this had been done already (xxiii. 12). But, as our\nLord has taught us that a Jew on the Sabbath was free to perform works\nof mercy, it might easily be supposed lawful, and even meritorious, to\nhasten forward the construction of the place where God would meet His\npeople. But He who said \"I will have mercy and not sacrifice\" said also\nthat to obey was better than sacrifice. Accordingly this caution closes\nthe long story of plans and preparations. And when Moses called the\npeople to the work, his first words were to repeat it (xxxv. 2).\n\nFinally, there was given to Moses the deposit for which so noble a\nshrine was planned--the two tables of the law, miraculously produced.\n\nIf any one, without supposing that they were literally written with a\nliteral finger, conceives that this was the meaning conveyed to a Hebrew\nby the expression \"written with the finger of God,\" he entirely misses\nthe Hebrew mode of thought, which habitually connects the Lord with an\narm, with a chariot, with a bow made naked, with a tent and curtains,\nwithout the slightest taint of materialism in its conception. Did not\nthe magicians, failing to imitate the third plague, say \"This is the\nfinger of a God\"? Did not Jesus Himself \"cast out devils by the finger\nof God\"? (Ex. viii. 19; Luke xi. 20).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII.\n\n\n_THE GOLDEN CALF._\n\nxxxii.\n\nWhile God was thus providing for Israel, what had Israel done with God?\nThey had grown weary of waiting: had despaired of and slighted their\nheroic leader, (\"this Moses, the man that brought us up,\") had demanded\ngods, or a god, at the hand of Aaron, and had so far carried him with\nthem or coerced him that he thought it a stroke of policy to save them\nfrom breaking the first commandment by joining them in a breach of the\nsecond, and by infecting \"a feast to Jehovah\" with the licentious \"play\"\nof paganism. At the beginning, the only fitness attributed to Aaron was\nthat \"he can speak well.\" But the plastic and impressible temperament of\na gifted speaker does not favour tenacity of will in danger. Demosthenes\nand Cicero, and Savonarola, the most eloquent of the reformers,\nillustrate the tendency of such genius to be daunted by visible perils.\n\nGod now rejects them because the covenant is violated. As Jesus spoke no\nlonger of \"My Father's house,\" but \"your house, left unto you desolate,\"\nso the Lord said to Moses, \"thy people which thou broughtest up.\"\n\nBut what are we to think of the proposal to destroy them, and to make of\nMoses a great nation?\n\nWe are to learn from it the solemn reality of intercession, the power of\nman with God, Who says not that He will destroy them, but that He will\ndestroy them if left alone. Who can tell, at any moment, what calamities\nthe intercession of the Church is averting from the world or from the\nnation?\n\nThe first prayer of Moses is brief and intense; there is passionate\nappeal, care for the Divine honour, remembrance of the saintly dead for\nwhose sake the living might yet be spared, and absolute forgetfulness of\nself. Already the family of Aaron had been preferred to his, but the\nprospect of monopolising the Divine predestination has no charm for this\nfaithful and patriotic heart. No sooner has the immediate destruction\nbeen arrested than he hastens to check the apostates, makes them exhibit\nthe madness of their idolatry by drinking the water in which the dust of\ntheir pulverised god was strewn; receives the abject apology of Aaron,\nthoroughly spirit-broken and demoralised; and finding the sons of Levi\nfaithful, sends them to the slaughter of three thousand men. Yet this is\nhe who said \"O Lord, why is Thy wrath hot against Thy people?\" He\nhimself felt it needful to cut deep, in mercy, and doubtless in wrath as\nwell, for true affection is not limp and nerveless: it is like the ocean\nin its depth, and also in its tempests. And the stern action of the\nLevites appeared to him almost an omen; it was their \"consecration,\" the\nbeginning of their priestly service.\n\nAgain he returns to intercede; and if his prayer must fail, then his own\npart in life is over: let him too perish among the rest. For this is\nevidently what he means and says: he has not quite anticipated the\nspirit of Christ in Paul willing to be anathema for his brethren (Rom.\nix. 3), nor has the idea of a vicarious human sacrifice been suggested\nto him by the institutions of the sanctuary. Yet how gladly would he\nhave died for his people, who made request that he might die among them!\n\nHow nobly he foreshadows, not indeed the Christian doctrine, but the\nlove of Christ Who died for man, Who from the Mount of Transfiguration,\nas Moses from Sinai, came down (while Peter would have lingered) to bear\nthe sins of His brethren! How superior He is to the Christian hymn which\npronounces nothing worth a thought, except how to make my own election\nsure.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII.\n\n\n_PREVAILING INTERCESSION._\n\nxxxiii.\n\nAt this stage the first concession is announced: Moses shall lead the\npeople to their rest, and God will send an angel with him.\n\nWe have seen that the original promise of a great Angel in whom was the\nDivine Presence was full of encouragement and privilege (xxiii. 20). No\nunbiassed reader can suppose that it is the sending of this same Angel\nof the Presence which now expresses the absence of God, or that He Who\nthen would not pardon their transgression \"because My Name is in Him\" is\nnow sent because God, if He were in the midst of them for a moment,\nwould consume them. Nor, when Moses passionately pleads against this\ndegradation, and is heard in this thing also, can the answer \"My\nPresence shall go with thee\" be merely the repetition of those evil\ntidings. Yet it was the Angel of His Presence Who saved them. All this\nhas been already treated, and what we are now to learn is that the\nfaithful and sublime urgency of Moses did really save Israel from\ndegradation and a lower covenant.\n\nIt was during the progress of this mediation that Moses distracted by a\ndouble anxiety--afraid to absent himself from his wayward followers,\nequally afraid to be so long withdrawn from the presence of God as the\ndescending of Sinai and returning thither would involve--made a noble\nadventure of faith. Inspired by the conception of the tabernacle, he\ntook a tent, \"his tent,\" and pitched it outside the camp, to express the\nestrangement of the people, and this he called the Tent of the Meeting\n(with God), but in the Hebrew it is never called the Tabernacle. And God\ndid condescend to meet him there. The mystic cloud guarded the door\nagainst presumptuous intrusion, and all the people, who previously wist\nnot what had become of him, had now to confess the majesty of his\ncommunion, and they worshipped every man at his tent door.\n\nIt would seem that the anxious vigilance of Moses caused him to pass to\nand fro between the tent and the camp, \"but his minister, Joshua the son\nof Nun, departed not out of the tent.\"\n\nThe dread crisis in the history of the nation was now almost over. God\nhad said, \"My Presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee\nrest,\"--a phrase which the lowly Jesus thought it no presumption to\nappropriate, saying, \"_I_ will give you rest,\" as He also appropriated\nthe office of the Shepherd, the benevolence of the Physician, the\ntenderness of the Bridegroom, and the glory of the King and the Judge,\nall of which belonged to God.\n\nBut Moses is not content merely to be secure, for it is natural that he\nwho best loves man should also best love God. Therefore he pleads\nagainst the least withdrawal of the Presence: he cannot rest until\nrepeatedly assured that God will indeed go with him; he speaks as if\nthere were no \"grace\" but that. There are many people now who think it\na better proof of being religious to feel either anxious or comforted\nabout their own salvation, their election, and their going to heaven.\nAnd these would do wisely to consider how it comes to pass that the\nBible first taught men to love and to follow God, and afterwards\nrevealed to them the mysteries of the inner life and of eternity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV.\n\n\n_THE VISION OF GOD._\n\nxxxiv.\n\nIt was when God had most graciously assured Moses of His affection, that\nhe ventured, in so brief a cry that it is almost a gasp of longing, to\nask, \"Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory\" (xxxiii. 18).\n\nWe have seen how nobly this petition and the answer condemn all\nanthropomorphic misunderstandings of what had already been revealed; and\nalso how it exemplifies the great law, that they who see most of God,\nknow best how much is still unrevealed. The elders saw the God of Israel\nand did eat and drink: Moses was led from the bush to the flaming top of\nSinai, and thence to the tent where the pillar of cloud was as a\nsentinel; but the secret remained unseen, the longing unsatisfied, and\nthe nearest approach to the Beatific Vision reached by him with whom God\nspake face to face as with a friend, was to be hidden in a cleft of the\nrock, to be aware of an awful Shadow, and to hear the Voice of the\nUnseen.\n\nIt was a fit time for the proclamation which was then made. When the\npeople had been righteously punished and yet graciously forgiven, the\nname of the Self-Existent expanded and grew clearer,--\"Jehovah, Jehovah,\na God full of compassion and gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in\nmercy and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and\ntransgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty,\nvisiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and upon the\nchildren's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.\" And\nas Moses made haste and bowed himself, it is affecting to hear him again\npleading for that beloved Presence which even yet he can scarce believe\nto be restored, and instead of claiming any separation through his\nfidelity and his honours, praying \"Pardon our iniquity and our sin, and\ntake us for Thine inheritance\" (xxxiv. 10).\n\nThereupon the covenant is given, as if newly, but without requiring its\nactual re-enactment; and certain of the former precepts are rehearsed,\nchiefly such as would guard against a relapse into idolatry when they\nentered the good land where God would bestow on them prosperity and\nconquest.\n\nAs Moses had broken the former tablets, the task was imposed on him of\nhewing out the slabs on which God renewed His awful sanction of the\nDecalogue, the fundamental statutes of the nation. And they who had\nfailed to endure his former absence, were required to be patient while\nhe tarried again upon the mountain, forty days and nights.\n\nWith his return a strange incident is connected. Unknown by himself, the\n\"skin of his face shone by reason of His speaking with him,\" and Aaron\nand the people recoiled until he called to them. And thenceforth he\nlived a strange and isolated life. At each new interview the glory of\nhis countenance was renewed, and when he conveyed his revelation to the\npeople, they beheld the lofty sanction, the light of God upon his face.\nThen he veiled his face until next he approached his God, so that none\nmight see what changes came there, and whether--as St. Paul seems to\nteach us--the lustre gradually waned.\n\nHis revelation, the apostle argues, was like this occasional and fading\ngleam, while the moral glory of the Christian system has no\nconcealments: it uses great frankness; there is nothing withdrawn, no\nveil upon the face. Nor is it given to one alone to behold as in a\nmirror the glory of the Lord, and to share its lustre. We all, with face\nunveiled, share this experience of the deliverer (2 Cor. iii. 12, 18).\n\nBut the incident itself is most instructive. Since he had already spent\nan equal time with God, yet no such results had followed, it seems that\nwe receive what we are adapted to receive, not straitened in Him but in\nour own capabilities; and as Moses, after his vehemence of intercession,\nhis sublimity of self-negation, and his knowledge of the greater name of\nGod, received new lustre from the unchangeable Fountain of light, so\ndoes all true service and earnest aspiration, while it approaches God,\nelevate and glorify humanity.\n\nWe learn also something of the exaltation of which matter is capable. We\nwho have seen coarse bulb and soil and rain transmuted by the sunshine\ninto radiance of bloom and subtlety of perfume, who have seen plain\nfaces illuminated from within until they were almost angelic,--may we\nnot hope for something great and rare for ourselves, and the beloved who\nare gone, as we muse upon the profound word, \"It is raised a spiritual\nbody\"?\n\nAnd again we learn that the best religious attainment is the least\nself-conscious: Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTERS XXXV-XL.\n\n_THE CONCLUSION._\n\n\nThe remainder of the narrative sets forth in terms almost identical with\nthe directions already given, the manner in which the Divine injunctions\nwere obeyed. The people, purified in heart by danger, chastisement and\nshame, brought much more than was required. A quarter of a million would\npoorly represent the value of the shrine in which, at the last, Moses\nand Aaron approached their God, while the cloud covered the tent and the\nglory filled the tabernacle, and Moses failed to overcome his awe and\nenter.\n\nThenceforth the cloud was the guide of their halting and their march.\nMany a time they grieved their God in the wilderness, yet the cloud was\non the tabernacle by day, and there was fire therein by night,\nthroughout all their journeyings.\n\nThat cloud is seen no longer; but One has said, \"Lo, I am with you all\nthe days.\" If the presence is less material, it is because we ought to\nbe more spiritual.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLooking back upon the story, we can discern more clearly what was\nasserted when we began--the forming and training of a nation.\n\nThey are called from shameful servitude by the devotion of a patriot and\na hero, who has learned in failure and exile the difference between\nself-confidence and faith. The new name of God, and His remembrance of\ntheir fathers, inspire them at the same time with awe and hope and\nnationality. They see the hollowness of earthly force, and of\nsuperstitious worships, in the abasement and ruin of Egypt. They are\ntaught by the Paschal sacrifice to confess that the Divine favour is a\ngift and not a right, that their lives also are justly forfeited. The\noverthrow of Pharaoh's army and the passage of the Sea brings them into\na new and utterly strange life, in an atmosphere and amid scenes well\ncalculated to expand and deepen their emotions, to develop their sense\nof freedom and self-respect, and yet to oblige them to depend wholly on\ntheir God. Privation at Marah chastens them. The attack of Amalek\nintroduces them to war, and forbids their dependence to sink into abject\nsoftness. The awful scene of Horeb burns and brands his littleness into\nman. The covenant shows them that, however little in themselves, they\nmay enter into communion with the Eternal. It also crushes out what is\nselfish and individualising, by making them feel the superiority of what\nthey all share over anything that is peculiar to one of them. The\nDecalogue reveals a holiness at once simple and profound, and forms a\ntype of character such as will make any nation great. The sacrificial\nsystem tells them at once of the pardon and the heinousness of sin.\nReligion is both exalted above the world and infused into it, so that\nall is consecrated. The priesthood and the shrine tell them of sin and\npardon, exclusion and hope; but that hope is a common heritage, which\nnone may appropriate without his brother.\n\nThe especial sanctity of a sacred calling is balanced by an immediate\nassertion of the sacredness of toil, and the Divine Spirit is recognised\neven in the gift of handicraft.\n\nA tragic and shameful failure teaches them, more painfully than any\nsymbolic system of curtains and secret chambers, how little fitted they\nare for the immediate intercourse of heaven. And yet the ever-present\ncloud, and the shrine in the heart of their encampment, assure them that\nGod is with them of a truth.\n\nCould any better system be imagined by which to convert a slavish and\nsuperstitious multitude into a nation at once humble and pure and\ngallant--a nation of brothers and of worshippers, chastened by a genuine\nsense of ill desert and of responsibility, and yet braced and fired by\nthe conviction of an exalted destiny?\n\nTo do this, and also to lead mankind to liberty, to rescue them from\nsensuous worship, and prepare them for a system yet more spiritual, to\nteach the human race that life is not repose but warfare, pilgrimage and\naspiration, and to sow the seeds of beliefs and expectations which only\nan atoning Mediator and an Incarnate God could satisfy, this was the\nmeaning of the Exodus.\n\n\n\n\nTHE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n\n    1889-90.\n\n    _Crown 8vo. Cloth. Price 7s. 6d. each._\n\n    JUDGES AND RUTH. By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A.\n\n    THE PROPHECIES OF JEREMIAH. By the Rev. C. J.\n    BALL, M.A., Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn.\n\n    THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH. Vol. II. Completing the\n    Work. By the Rev. GEORGE ADAM SMITH, M.A.\n\n    THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. By the Rev. J. MONRO\n    GIBSON, D.D., London, Author of \"The Mosaic Era,\" etc.\n\n    THE BOOK OF EXODUS. By the Very Rev. G. A. CHADWICK,\n    D.D., Dean of Armagh.\n\n    THE BOOK OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. By the\n    Rev. G. T. STOKES, D.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History in\n    the University of Dublin.\n\n\n    1888-89.\n\n    _Crown 8vo. Cloth. Price 7s. 6d. each._\n\n    THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. By the Rev. Professor\n    G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., Headingley College, Leeds.\n\n    THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. Chap. I. to XXXIX. By the Rev.\n    GEORGE ADAM SMITH, M.A., Aberdeen.\n\n    THE PASTORAL EPISTLES By the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER,\n    D.D., Master of University College, Durham.\n\n    THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. By the\n    Rev. Professor MARCUS DODS, D.D. Second Edition.\n\n    THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. By the Rev. Professor\n    W. MILLIGAN, D.D., of the University of Aberdeen.\n\n    THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. By the Right Rev. W.\n    ALEXANDER, D.D., D.C.L., Lord Bishop of Derry and Raphoe.\n\n\n    1887-88.\n\n    _Crown 8vo. Cloth. Price 7s. 6d. each._\n\n    THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. By ALEXANDER\n    MACLAREN, D.D., of Manchester. Fourth Edition.\n\n    THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. By the Rev.\n    Prebendary G. A. CHADWICK, D.D., Dean of Armagh.\n\n    THE BOOK OF GENESIS. By the Rev. Professor MARCUS\n    DODS, D.D. Fourth Edition.\n\n    THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. By the Rev. Professor\n    W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.\n\n    THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. By the same Author.\n\n    THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. By the Rev. Principal\n    T. C. EDWARDS, M.A.\n\n\n\n\n_BY THE SAME AUTHOR._\n\n\nThird Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d.\n\nTHE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.\n\n    Academy.--\"Dr. Chadwick has performed his task admirably. He keeps\n    close to his subject, avoiding irrelevant and lengthy comment. He is\n    thoughtful and penetrating in his criticism, and yet concise and\n    epigrammatic when he wishes.\"\n\n    Scotsman.--\"It is at once scholarly, popular, and orthodox, and\n    written in clear, vigorous English.\"\n\n    Record.--\"Dr. Chadwick's style is characteristic, thoughtful, clear,\n    and vigorous. He is never commonplace or trivial.\"\n\n    English Churchman.--\"A valuable, interesting, and delightful work,\n    almost every page of which contains something worthy of quotation.\"\n\n    Christian.--\"If the volumes to come be like the one before us they\n    may be sure of a warm welcome. Dr. Chadwick has caught something of\n    the vividness of style and onward rush which characterise the writer\n    he expounds. Sober in judgment, markedly Scriptural in tone, well\n    acquainted with exegetical lore, and qualified by patient\n    investigations to give an individual opinion on disputed points, he\n    makes good his claim to help and instruct students of Mark's\n    Gospel.\"\n\n    Methodist Recorder.--\"We are glad to say that the beginning of a\n    very promising series is, in our opinion, distinctly good, and that\n    Dean Chadwick has hit the mark specially aimed at exceedingly well.\n    We have found ourselves many sparkling and memorable sentences in\n    his pages. We hope the 'Expositor's Bible' has many other volumes in\n    store as instructive as the first instalment.\"\n\n    Expositor.--\"Dean Chadwick's readers, even in the first pages,\n    become aware that they are in the company of a thoroughly original\n    writer, who repeats nothing, echoes nothing, imitates no one. It is\n    with a feeling of thankfulness his readers follow him from passage\n    to passage of the Gospel, finding new truth in familiar words and\n    incidents, and, unable to confine themselves to the limits they had\n    set for their day's reading, are lured on to trespass on to-morrow's\n    portion. There is every quality here that is desirable in an\n    expositor--reverence for his text, sufficient information about it,\n    sympathetic insight, and keen observation of men and manners.\n    Equally successful in opening up the significance of the text and in\n    applying it to present conditions of life, Dean Chadwick has given\n    us an admirable specimen of what an expositor's Bible should be.\"\n\n    London Quarterly Review.--\"Dr. Chadwick's exposition is thoughtful\n    and penetrating; his sentences are sharp and crisp.... Often bright\n    aphoristic sayings occur which are likely to print themselves on the\n    memory of the reader. The expositor would almost seem to resemble\n    his subject in the practical and condensed, yet graphic, style in\n    which he has done his expository work.\"\n\n    Rock.--\"The style of the commentary is, like its subject, forcible\n    and terse.\"\n\n    Church Bells.--\"We have never yet read any commentary which we liked\n    so well. The preacher will find it full of materials for sermons,\n    fresh and vigorous, and yet calm and well-weighed.\"\n\n\nLONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.\n\n\n\n\n_SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT._\n\nTHE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\nEdited by W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D., Editor of _The Expositor_.\n\nTHIRD YEAR'S ISSUE.\n\n_Price 7s. 6d. each Volume._\n\n_Judges and Ruth._\n\n    By the Rev. R. A. WATSON, M.A., Author of \"Gospels of Yesterday.\"\n                                                            [_Ready._\n\n_The Prophecies of Jeremiah._\n\n    WITH A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE AND TIMES.\n\n    By the Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A., Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn; Contributor\n    to Bishop Ellicott's \"Commentary,\" \"The Speaker's Commentary,\" etc.\n                                                            [_Ready._\n\n_The Book of Exodus._\n\n    By the Very Rev. G. A. CHADWICK, D.D., Dean of Armagh, Author of\n    \"The Gospel of St. Mark,\" etc.                          [_Ready._\n\n_The Gospel of St. Matthew._\n\n    By the Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D., London, Author of \"The Ages\n    before Moses,\" \"The Mosaic Era,\" etc.\n\n_The Prophecies of Isaiah, Vol. II._\n\n    Completing the work.\n\n    By the Rev. GEORGE ADAM SMITH, M.A.\n\n_The Acts of the Apostles._\n\n    By the Rev. G. T. STOKES, D.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History\n    in the University of Dublin.\n\n\n\n\nTHE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\nFIRST SERIES.\n\n_Price 7s. 6d. each Volume._\n\nFourth Edition.\n\nThe Book of Genesis.\n\nBy Rev. Professor MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n    \"The style of this book is so simple, the march of the thought so\n    strong and unencumbered, and there is in the ripe result such a\n    perfect assimilation of varied erudition, that none but\n    fellow-craftsmen will realise the amount of study, industry, and\n    many-sided ability that was requisite to produce it.\"--_Professor\n    Elmslie, D.D._\n\nThird Edition.\n\nThe First Book of Samuel.\n\nBy the Rev. Professor W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.\n\n    \"There can be no doubt of the care and thoroughness with which Dr.\n    Blaikie has executed his task. From his own point of view he has\n    produced a solid and able piece of work.\"--_Academy._\n\nThird Edition.\n\nThe Second Book of Samuel.\n\nBy the Rev. Professor W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.\n\n    \"Of the utmost value to preachers and teachers, being very full of\n    suggestive thoughts.\"--_English Churchman._\n\nThird Edition.\n\nThe Gospel according to St. Mark.\n\nBy the Very Rev. G. A. CHADWICK, D.D., Dean of Armagh.\n\n    \"Dr. Chadwick has performed his task admirably. He keeps close to\n    his subject, avoiding irrelevant and lengthy comment. He is\n    thoughtful and penetrating in his criticism, and yet concise and\n    epigrammatic when he wishes.\"--_Academy._\n\n    \"It is at once scholarly, popular, and orthodox, and written in\n    clear, vigorous English.\"--_Scotsman._\n\nFourth Edition.\n\nThe Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon.\n\nBy the Rev. ALEXANDER MACLAREN, D.D.\n\n    \"In nothing Dr. Maclaren has written is there more of beauty, of\n    spiritual insight, or of brilliant elucidation of Scripture. Indeed,\n    Dr. Maclaren is here at his best.\"--_Expositor._\n\n    \"The book is pre-eminently one for ministers, but there is nothing\n    in the exposition which may not prove a boon to any diligent student\n    of the Word of God. It contains a wealth of thought for\n    preachers.\"--_Rock._\n\nThird Edition.\n\nThe Epistle to the Hebrews.\n\nBy Rev. Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D., Author of \"A Commentary on the\nFirst Epistle to the Corinthians.\"\n\n    \"He has entered into the spirit and purport of what truly he calls\n    'one of the greatest and most difficult books of the New Testament'\n    with a systematic thoroughness and fairness which cannot be too\n    highly commended. Henceforth English students of this portion of the\n    New Testament will have only themselves to blame if they cannot\n    trace the connection of thought and final purport of this\n    epistle.\"--_Academy._\n\n\n\n\nTHE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\nSECOND SERIES.\n\n_Price 7s. 6d, each Volume._\n\nFifth Edition.\n\nThe Book of Isaiah. Vol. I. Chapters I.-XXXIX.\n\nBy the Rev. GEORGE ADAM SMITH, M.A., Aberdeen. With Map.\n\n    \"This is a very attractive book. Mr. George Adam Smith has evidently\n    such a mastery of the scholarship of his subject that it would be a\n    sheer impertinence for most scholars, even though tolerable\n    Hebraists, to criticise his translations; and certainly it is not\n    the intention of the present reviewer to attempt anything of the\n    kind, to do which he is absolutely incompetent. All we desire is to\n    let English readers know how very lucid, impressive, and, indeed,\n    how vivid a study of Isaiah is within their reach--the fault of the\n    book, if it has a fault, being rather that it finds too many points\n    of connection between Isaiah and our modern world, than that it\n    finds too few. In other words, no one can say that the book is not\n    full of life.\"--_Spectator._\n\nSecond Edition.\n\nThe First Epistle to the Corinthians.\n\nBy the Rev. Professor MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n    \"A clear, close, unaffected, unostentatious exposition, not verse by\n    verse, but thought after thought of this most interesting, perhaps,\n    and certainly most various, of all the Apostle's writings.\"--_London\n    Quarterly Review._\n\nSecond Edition.\n\nThe Epistle to the Galatians.\n\nBy the Rev. Professor G. G. FINDLAY, B.A., Headingley College, Leeds.\n\n    \"Professor G.G. Findlay discloses a minute acquaintance with his\n    subject, an earnest desire to penetrate its inmost meaning, and a\n    marked capacity of illustrating and enforcing the text.\"--_Record._\n\nSecond Edition.\n\nThe Pastoral Epistles.\n\nBy the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., Master of University College, Durham.\n\n    \"It is an admirable example of what popular theology ought to\n    be--presuming a somewhat high level of education and interest in its\n    readers, and built throughout upon sound erudition and sensible,\n    devout, and well-disciplined reflection.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\nThe Epistles of St. John.\n\nBy WILLIAM ALEXANDER, D.D., D.C.L., Brasenose College, Oxford, Lord\nBishop of Derry and Raphoe.\n\n    \"Full of felicities of exegesis.... Brilliant and\n    valuable.\"--_Literary Churchman._\n\n    \"The discourses are eloquent and impressive, and show a thorough\n    knowledge of the subject.\"--_Scotsman._\n\nThe Revelation of St. John.\n\nBy Rev. Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D., of the University of Aberdeen.\n\n    \"The most delightful work on the Apocalypse that we have read. The\n    practical and spiritual teaching even of the most recondite and\n    mysterious passages is made plain.\"--_Methodist Recorder._\n\n\n\n\nTHE THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR.\n\n_Price 2s. 6d. each Volume. Fcap. 8vo._\n\n\nThe Language of the New Testament.\n\nBy Rev. WILLIAM HENRY SIMCOX, M.A., Rector of Harlaxton.\n\n    \"The distinctive peculiarities of New Testament Greek are defined\n    with exactness, the gradations by which one grammatical usage passes\n    into another are clearly traced, the frontier between grammar and\n    exegesis marked with unusual sense and discrimination. In a word,\n    this is the most living grammar of the New Testament we\n    have.\"--_Expositor._\n\nOutlines of Christian Doctrine.\n\nBy the Rev. H. C. G. MOULE, M.A., Principal of Ridley Hall, Cambridge.\nFifth Thousand.\n\n    \"Marked throughout by the most careful and critical knowledge of\n    Scripture, more particularly of the New Testament, and the most\n    patient weighing and comparison of parallel texts.... It forms an\n    admirable introduction to the subject, and seems in intellectual\n    power to even surpass any other of Mr. Moule's published\n    writings.\"--_Record._\n\nAn Introduction to the New Testament.\n\nBy Rev. Professor MARCUS DODS, D.D. Now Ready. Fourth Edition.\n\n    \"The authenticity, authorship, history, object, and general\n    character of each book are discussed with admirable condensation and\n    lucidity, and with ample critical knowledge.\"--_Scotsman._\n\nA Manual of Christian Evidences.\n\nBy the Rev. C. A. ROW, M.A., Prebendary of St. Paul's. Fifth Thousand.\n\n    \"A veritable _multum in parvo_, clear, cogent, and concise, without\n    being sketchy or superficial.\"--_Saturday Review._\n\nAn Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.\n\nBy the Rev. Professor B. B. WARFIELD, D.D. Third Thousand.\n\nA Hebrew Grammar.\n\nBy the Rev. W. H. LOWE, M.A., Joint Author of \"A Commentary on the\nPsalms,\" etc., etc.; Hebrew Lecturer, Christ's College, Cambridge.\nSecond Thousand.\n\nAn Exposition of the Apostles' Creed.\n\nBy the Rev. J. E. YONGE, M.A., Late Fellow of King's College, Cambridge,\nand Assistant-Master in Eton College.\n\nA Manual of the Book of Common Prayer.\n\n_Showing its History and Contents._\n\nBy the Rev. CHARLES HOLE, B.A., King's College, London.\n\nA Manual of Church History.\n\nBy the Rev. A. C. JENNINGS, M.A. In Two Vols.\n\n    Vol. I.--From the First to the Tenth Century.\n    Vol. II.--From the Eleventh to the Nineteenth Century.\n\n\n\n\n_COMPLETION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT._\n\n\nTHE SERMON BIBLE.\n\nEach Volume contains upwards of Five Hundred Sermon Outlines and Several\nThousand References. Strongly bound in half buckram.\n\n_Price 7s. 6d. each._\n\nVOLUME I.\n\nGenesis to 2 Samuel.\n\n    \"A very complete guide to the sermon literature of the present\n    day.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n    \"We do not hesitate to pronounce this the most practically useful\n    work of its kind at present extant. It is not a commentary, but a\n    _Thesaurus_ of sermons on texts arranged consecutively, chapter\n    after chapter and book after book.... We are bound to say that the\n    object announced by the compilers is on the way to be realised, and\n    here will be given the essence of the best homiletic literature of\n    this generation.\"--_Literary Churchman._\n\nVOLUME II.\n\n1 Kings to Psalm LXXVI.\n\n    \"Preachers anxious to discover the best books out of which they may\n    discover golden thoughts on any particular text, for use in their\n    sermons, will doubtless be glad of the volume before us, which aims\n    at being a guide-book, pointing out where sermons and articles on\n    those texts may be found. In addition to this, extracts from sermons\n    are given in the book itself.\"--_English Churchman._\n\n    \"A hearty word of commendation can be said of the selected and\n    condensed outlines of sermons in this volume, most of which are by\n    well-known preachers. They will be of considerable\n    service.\"--_Nonconformist._\n\nVOLUME III.\n\nPsalm LXXVII. to The Song of Solomon.\n\n    \"Like its two predecessors, the third volume is distinguished by the\n    perfect catholicity of the selections, the admirable condensation of\n    the sermons and expositions that are quoted, and the fulness of the\n    references to the best sermon literature on each of the texts. It is\n    beyond question the richest treasury of modern homiletics which has\n    ever issued from the press.\"--_Christian Leader._\n\nVOLUME IV.\n\nIsaiah to Malachi.\n\n    \"A marvellous amount of information is here presented in compact and\n    readable form at a very moderate price.\"--_Methodist Recorder._\n\n    \"A great number of the best contemporary sermons are here rendered\n    generally available in a very convenient form, and at a very low\n    price indeed.\"--_Literary Churchman._\n\n\nLONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.","title":"The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Exodus","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":132463}