It cannot justly be argued, that the judicial law is binding on Chriftians, because it was revealed by the only wife God, and must therefore be the best that can be devised. For it was a fyftem adapted to the particular fituation of Ifrael as under a theocracy, and to the typical character of that people in other refpects. All that can therefore be juftly inferred from its being given by God, is, that it was the best system which could be devised for that people in their peculiar fituation. Such precepts of the judicial law as neceffarily flow from the law of nature are ftill obligatory; because the law of nature ought to be the foundation of all national laws. But the formal reafon of this obligation does not confift in their being embodied in the judicial law, but in their being taught by the law of nature.

The temporal punishments inflicted by the inftrumentality of typical rulers, on account of tranfgreffions in matters of religion, were themselves typical, either of the spiritual cenfures inflicted by the New-Teftament Church, or of the eternal punishment of unbelievers, if not of both. It has been afferted by fome learned writers, that the denunciation, fo frequently repeated in the law, "That foul fhall be cut off from his people," properly denotes the fentence of excomunication, as inflicted under that difpenfation. They have fuppofed, that it folely refpects a judgment to be immediately inflicted by God, in the cafe of tranfgreffions of the law, of which there was no external evidence. But it is unquestionable, that in

fome paffages it must be understood of temporal punishment, to be inflicted by the hand of man. Thus, with respect to the Sabbath, it is faid, "Every one that defileth it, fhall furely be put "to death: for whofoever doth any work there"in, that foul fhall be cut off from among his peo"ple "." The latter claufe cannot be viewed as containing a reafon for what is declared in the former; unless it be supposed, that in every inftance in which the fentence of excommunication was pronounced, it was to be fucceeded by a violent death and this would prove, no less than the other interpretation, that, according to the Mofaic law, temporal punishment was inflicted, in various inftances, where the tranfgreffion was properly in matters of religion. The meaning of this language evidently is, that the Sabbath-breaker fhould be cut off from among his people, by being put to death by the hands of men. For the fecond expreffion is merely expletive of the first.

It seems abundantly clear that this phrafe did not refer to any ecclefiaftical cenfure; but fignified that the tranfgreffor fhould be punished with death, either by the power of the magiftrate, when the crime was known; or if the crime was hid from others, or overlooked by civil rulers, by the immediate judgment of God. This, indeed, is virtually admitted even by thofe who underftand the expreffion as denoting excommunication. For it is faid that this excifion, in extraordinary cafes, and particularly when men neglect

u Exod. xxxi. 14.

ed

ed to punish the offender, was the work of God, according to the threatening; "If the people "of the land hide their eyes from the man, when "he giveth of his feed unto Molech, and kill him "not: then I will fet my face against that man, "and against his family; and will cut him off w.” It is unreasonable to fuppofe that the very fame phrafe, when used to denote the judgment of God, fhould bear a sense so very different from that which belongs to it, as expreffing what was required of man; that in the one cafe it fhould fignify nothing lefs than excifion from the land of the living, and in the other merely excifion from church membership. This is contrary to all the rules of found criticifm. The very paffage quoted fhows the falfity of the idea. For the expreffion, cut him off, in the fecond claufe, is equivalent to kill him in the firft. And in the fame fense must the phrase be interpreted elsewhere; unless it can be proved that, when God is fpoken of as the agent, it neceffarily denotes a punishment entirely different from that which is meant when it expreffes what he required of man.

This very phrafe is used to denote the punishment of the greatest tranfgreffions, as the worship of Molech, and crimes against nature. "For who"foever fhall commit any of these abominations, 66 even the fouls that commit them fhall be cut "off from among their people ." From the more full declaration of the law with refpect to one of these

v Lev. xx. 4. 5.

₹ Lev, xviii, 21,—23. 29.

Y 4

w Gillespies's Aaron's Rod, p. 44, 45.

66

thefe crimes, the horrid worship of Molech, wę have a clear proof that cutting off a foul from his people denoted, either the work of the civil magiftrate, or, in cafe of his negligence, that of God himfelf: "Whofoever he be of the chil"dren of Ifrael, or of the ftrangers that fojourn "in Ifrael, that giveth any of his feed to Molech; he fhall furely be put to death; the people of the land fhall ftone him with ftones. "And I will fet my face againft that man, and "will cut him off from among his people: because "he hath given of his feed unto Molech, to defile my fanctuary, and to profane my holy name. "And if the people of the land do any ways "hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth "of his feed unto Molech, and kill him not: "then I will fet my face against that man, and

66

against his family, and will cut him off, and all "that go a-whoring after him, to commit whore"dom with Molech, from among their people v."? Death was ftill the punishment, whether God or man was the immediate agent. I do not reafon from the particular nature of the crime: for in a civil point of view, as implying murder, it must ftill have merited temporal death. The argument is founded on the explanation of the language, by which the punishment is expreffed. For, if in this inftance it denoted death, it must be extremely difficult to prove that, as ufed with refpect to tranfgreffions of a lefs heinous nature, it bore a fenfe totally different.

Lev. xx. 1.-5.

The

The fame expreffion denotes the punishment of fome tranfgreffions that immediately refpected the ceremonial worship; and is ufed in fuch connexion as to fhew that temporal death is meant. This law was given to Ifrael; "What man foever there be of the house of Ifrael, that killeth "an ox, or lamb, or goat in the camp; or that "killeth it out of the camp, and bringeth it not "to the door of the tabernacle of the congrega

66

66

tion, to offer an offering unto the LORD before "the tabernacle of the LORD; blood fhall be im"puted unto that man, he hath fhed blood; and "that man fhall be cut off from among his people." This tranfgreffion is represented in the light of murder, and was to be punished in the fame manner; because the blood shed, although not that of a man, was notwithstanding blood devoted to an holy ufe. To this law it is thought there is an allufion in the language of the prophet; "He that killeth an ox, is as if he flew a

The following feems to be the most plausible objection that has been made to this view of the phrafe under confideration: "He that in his un"cleannefs did eat of an unholy [1. holy] thing, was to be cut off; yet for fuch a one was ap

66

66

pointed confeffion of fin, and a trespass-offering, by which he was reconciled and atonement made "for him, as Mr Ainsworth himfelf tells us on Lev. v. 2., whence I infer, that the cutting off fuch a one was not by death inflicted, either " from

66

z Lev. xvii. 3. 4.

a Ifa. lxvi. 3.

b Lev. vii. 20, 21.