Imagens das páginas

tion came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said: To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord; bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over, lay up for you to be kept until the morning." Now, in reading these words, we must beware of the error into which Paley has fallen, whether from inadvertence or (for we are unwilling to attribute it to anything approaching disingenuousness) from the secret and almost unconscious influence of preconceived views. When Moses observes, "This is that which the Lord hath said," he evidently points back to the communication which God had made to him respecting the double-gathering of the sixth day (the circumstance now reported) ; and what follow, are his own terms of direction, in which he announces the bearing of this event upon the duties and obligations of the morrow. Paley, from the mode in which he has put the quotation (and others, as Hengstenberg, adopt the same method), would have us to understand, that the words, " To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord," were God's words. But this seems a false and unwarrantable construction of the passage; for we do not find that He had anywhere spoken thus, or that He had spoken of the Sabbath at all, in the previous communication which he had made to his servant. Moses is not, so far as we see, announcing a new statute, with a " thus saith the Lord," as this writer would insinuate; but simply recording a fact, ancient and established, and setting forth the mode in which the copious supply of manna should be made available, so as to secure the undisturbed repose of the sacred day. It may not be very easy to determine with what idea the rulers addressed Moses on this occasion; norindeed is it, probably, of much importance to investigate this matter, while we have so much, besides, to guide us in our conclusions upon the specific question. It is impossible to suppose that, if any sabbath law had been recently announced for the first time, they, holding such a responsible position, could have been ignorant of the fact. The explanation of their conduct may be found, in all likelihood, in the course of preceding events. It does not appear that Moses had extended his instructions beyond the ordinary rule of gathering an omer each, for daily consumption, no part of which was to be left "till the morning." All further direction was reserved for the fitting occasion. To imagine that more was supplied at this time, is to go beyond the record, which we have no right to do, either for the construction or support of a theory. But now, on the sixth day, something extraordinary had occurred. The people had not been, at any time, careful as to the quantity of manna they collected. They "gathered some more, some less; and when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack." This was the ordinary state of things. But here is something new and unexpected,— a double supply, — two omers, instead of one. We cannot think the people had purposely gathered this twofold quantity, all combining to act in entire opposition to the only direction they had, as yet, received on the subject. Nor can we think, with some (however it would appear to favor our views), that this was done deliberately and systematically and in concert, in prospect of the approaching Sabbath, supposing it to have been known to them, as we believe it was. This seems a gratuitous assumption; and, while it is needless in the argument, it attributes to the people, at large, a measure of piety which their history in the wilderness will not authenticate. The thing cannot be explained, we think, without resorting to the supernatural. Whatever may be alleged about the manna having been a natural production of Arabia, it is clear, if from nothing else, at least from the fact of its not falling on the seventh day, that the Divine hand so controlled and governed the entire phenomenon, as to bring it, to all intents and purposes, within the class and category of miraculous events. And the very manner in which God made known to Moses the fact, now realized, and now reported by the rulers, strengthens our conviction that the result was, on the part of the people, undesigned and unanticipated. They were to "prepare" that which they brought in on the sixth day, and it would be "twice as much as they gathered daily." This seems to have been the statement of a fact, not the utterance of an edict. Had it been an edict, how could we justify Moses in withholding it from the people, as he did, if we take the record for our guide?The Most High had commanded the people to gather a certain rate daily, without then fixing the rate. Subsequently, Moses, doubtless underdivine direction, had assigned the exact quantity, one omer, not so much to be gathered, as to be kept for use. But while, as yet, no direction had been issued respecting the sixth day, the people find, when they have prepared and measured what they have brought in on that day, that it amounts to two omers; and this is the case throughout the entire camp of Israel. Here, then, is the finger of God; and the rulers seek an explanation from their leader. That explanation is at hand, and this is the opportune period for making it known. The whole has fallen out according to the Divine declaration; and all this is preparatory to the sabbatic rest. Long had the Sabbath law fallen into desuetude, partly from criminal neglect, and partly from the enslaved and oppressed condition of the people in Egypt. It was fitting that God should revive its observance in a manner that would signalize its importance; and nothing could do this more effectually among a people in their condition, than the stupendous miracle that had now spread itself through every household in the camp of Israel. We can easily imagine with what peculiar force the voice of Moses would be now heard, saying: "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." But while all this is most intelligible, if his object was simply to reinstate a neglected ordinance in its original glory and to invest it with its rightful authority, it is impossible to regard this as actually the first announcement and proclamation of the Sabbath law. And if it originated in the wilderness, this is its first announcement and proclamation; for here, for the first time, do we find any mention of the Sabbath. Even should any one still prefer to regard these as the words of God, still it is incredible that He should, in the first instance, proclaim in this cursory manner a law of this order, affecting as it does, so materially, all the arrangements of life, and entering, so deeply and vitally, into the entire scheme and economy of religion. In reality, however, it does not come before us as the proclamation of a law, but as the statement of a fact: " To-morrow is the rest, "etc. And we cannot look upon it in any other light than as a solemn declaration, upon the part of Moses, under divine guidance, of a well known, established, but greatly neglected ordinance. And how else can we understand the words that follow: "Six days ye shall gather it (i. e. the manna); but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none ?" And this is the place to make the close and important connection between the commencement and close of this interesting but much contested narrative. Before any thing whatever had been announced respecting the Sabbath in any form, the Most High, speaking of the gathering of the manna, had said," that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law or no" (verse 4). And now we read in the sequel that, notwithstanding the prohibition of Moses," there went out of the people on the seventh day for to gather and they found none. And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" (verses 27 and 28). The experiment, so to speak, was made, and here is the result. We cannot fail to identify the language of the 28th, with that of the 4th verse. And should any one be inclined to suppose that, when God had spoken of his "law" (verse 4), he referred to some statute about to be enacted, and not to one already in existence, the idea is set aside by the very manner in which He now addresses Moses. For what force or propriety could attach to the words " how long" in such a connection, if the law had been originated only the day, or, at the very farthest, the week before? We put it to the candid inquirer, anxious to know the truth upon this question, Is this the language in which God would refer to the violation of a statute (if statute it could be called), so recently issued as, on the supposition, to have had hardly time to circulate among the people thus severely rebuked for their violation of it? We submit that the whole transaction is in perfect keeping with the process of resuscitating an ancient and well known, but not with the establishment of a new institution. Admit this, and all is clear and intelligible; but if this be denied, then the whole appears to sink into hopeless obscurity, and we are compelled to feel that it finds no parallel in the entire history of God's dealings with his people either before or afterwards. Paley, as we have seen, adduces two passages of Scripture, one from Ezekiel, the other from Nehemiah, as corroborative of his views. In the former, God is represented as giving his Sabbaths to the Israelites in the wilderness; and our author considers this equivalent to the statement, that they were then " first instituted." But, in the very same passage, God is represented as giving to them his statutes; yet, surely, no one will assert that these were "first instituted" in the wilderness. The ceremonial might be so described, but the more important branch of the divine statutes, the moral, were in one form or other taught from the beginning. The truth, however, is that Paley has strangely overlooked the real spirit and tenor of the prophet's language. It is not said that God gave his Sabbaths, but that he gave them " to be a sign" between himself and the people. And this no more implies that they were now for the first time established, than Genesis 9: 13 implies that the bow was never seen in the clouds, before it became a sign or token of the covenant which God then made with Noah. Elsewhere, this writer remarks: "It does not seem easy to understand how the Sabbath could be a sign between God and the people of Israel, unless the observance of it was peculiar to that people and designed to be so." But for a thing to become " a sign," it is not necessary that it should be either novel or exclusive. The reference made to the covenant with Noah in part proves this. And in Deut . 6: 8, it is written, in regard to the precepts of the decalogue: "Thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes;" yet, even if for the sake of argument we omitted the fourth commandment,

« AnteriorContinuar »