80. Whether you turn your attention to the general features of nature, in all its varied character of hill and valley, moor and mountain, or examine the minutest parts which make up its grand whole, dwelling with fond intensity on the way-side flower,' or chasing the bright-winged butterfly, you cannot fail to derive delight and instruction from the pursuit. If we might recommend the preferable pursuit, we would say, Study botany. It would be difficult, perhaps, to give reasons for the intense ardour with which every botanist regards his favourite pursuit. In one thing, however, we have always felt its superiority as a science for the amateur over the one, some of the facts of which we have been tracing. Its pursuit entails no pain. The entomologist, in furnishing his collection with specimens, and pursuing his observations, must deprive many of his victims of life. We plead guilty to it ourselves, but we do not defend the practice. As we stood beneath the porch at Abbotsford one bright September morning, a beautiful and rather rare butterfly flitted in its innocent enjoyment across the lawn. Our companion, an insect collector, heedless of our remonstrances, immediately gave chase. It was not without inward satisfaction we watched his vain attempt, and saw the pretty creature float away to enjoy its short existence. Our own pocket-book contains a sprig of common heath, plucked from among the woods around that interesting mansion, and sure we are its value, from association, is equal to us what that of the butterfly, had he caught it, would have been to him, with this thought in addition,, that our pleasure cost none of God's creatures pain. The famous orientalist, Sir William Jones, was once urged to make a collection of insects, which his position in India gave him great facilities for doing. His reply was, that in his hands such a collection would advance no scientific end, and he would not, for the mere pleasure of possessing what would have been a most valuable collection, be the means of uselessly destroying innocent life. We admire the sentiment, and therefore we turn with affection to our flowers, to their emblems, to their morals, to their associations. though we would prefer your walking with us, we shall not regret your choosing any of nature's other paths, certain as we are, that all, if rightly pursued, will lead to good. Only let the spirit in which you seek to unravel their mazes, be that described in these stanzas which have recently appeared, and are dedicated to the memory of the late Professor Butler : 'Not vague to him the great Laudate still Stirring the strong ones of the water flood, On hearts made temples by the Incarnate Son. But LINES. CHILD of the aching heart and troubled brow- What mean thy moanings?-what of earth hath power And with those soaring thoughts that scorn the bounds MAY, That circle round the throne; and there, still there, When far eternity is rolling on, There shalt thou be as Christ himself-secure In life that dies not; light that never fades; Is it for thee, thou child of royal name HOW WAS THE MORAL LAW GIVEN FROM SINAI? THE Law, as was to be expected, holds an essential place in the more signal transactions into which God has entered in reference to the destinies of man. Honour was put upon it in the covenant which was originally formed with Adam, inasmuch as obedience to the Law was made the condition of eternal life. Although salvation must be attributed to the Son of God, it was introduced by his subjecting himself to the Law, in a manner which greatly magnified it; and the Law continues to be the rule of our conduct. The Law was also prominently exhibited in the Sinaitic dispensation-this has never been denied. But while orthodox divines agree regarding the place which it held in the covenant of works, and the place which it holds in our own economy, they have differed as to the ends intended in the revelation of it at Sinai. The difficulty which meets us here will not appear surprising, if we consider that the church, at the Sinaitic period, was in an intermediate state; certainly not under the covenant of works, still not as yet put fully in possession of the privilege of the covenant of grace, so that the Law presented a strange aspect; retaining a frown of the violated covenant, and yet proceeding from a Redeemer; associated with grace, and yet not exhibited exactly in the same relative positions to that grace as under the gospel. But, instead of insisting upon vague general statements, we shall investigate this subject more particularly. The Decalogue, given from Sinai, was only a reduction to set phraseology of the Law which is naturally written upon the heart. It was a summary of the unchangeable duties which result (so far as the essence of the commandments is concerned) from the very relationship subsisting between God and man, and between man and his fellow-creatures. It was a summary of the same Law which had been the conditionary rule of the covenant of works, and, we may add, which had been the rule of life to patriarchal believers. And, although some have denied the statement, it was the same Law which continues to be binding as a rule of life, without addition or diminution, in the christian church. We do not propose, therefore, to enter into proof that the Decalogue must be distinguished from the other laws of a merely dispensational kind, which were published along with it. That seems proved by the simple fact that it was announced directly by divine voice from the mount, and not given, as the other laws were, by intermediation of Moses. 6 Though the Moral Law was previously in existence, it had never till now been summed up in ten commandments; and this is the first peculiarity to be attended to, in the manner in which it was revealed from Sinai. Paul, speaking of the Old Testament, calls it a ministration of the letter. How the letter killeth,' we may point out afterwards; but we apprehend the apostle, in using the expression, suggests, besides, that any privilege which was then enjoyed, as regarded the Law, lay greatly in circumstances connected with the outward exhibition of it. This now under consideration was one of these-the Law was cast into an outward shape in the Decalogue. In lieu of the inscription upon natural conscience, which had faded upon the fall, and grown more and more dim in the progress of human degeneracy, there was now a transcription of the Law, only, however, upon tables of stone; and its authority was reinforced likewise by this new deliverance of it. There was now an outward Law, which had its response indeed in the inner conscience, but was binding, moreover, by positive revelation, and which was to be the supreme standard of reference from that time forward; for, where there is any contrariety between its injunctions and man's judgments regarding duty, we must cleave to the Decalogue, as an infallible deliverance, and distrust the natural judgments of man, which are subject to error. We are apt to overlook the boon which was conferred upon the church, (and we include the church under the New Testament) in the giving of the Decalogue. Nothing is there stated but finds its echo in the natural conscience; yet infinite wisdom only could have drawn it up. Had any number of learned persons been employed to epitomise the whole duties of man, they would have run into endless confusion, or presented us with a document of interminable extent, while it would have wanted the seal of paramount authority. For the reason already mentioned, however, it may appear that this boon was properly communicated to the church under the economy which ministered the letter. The chief design of this paper is to show what, on the one hand, was comfortable to Israel in the manner in which the Law was given from Sinai, and on the other, what was defective and gendered to bondage. Let us begin by examining the preface to the commandments. God is declared in his covenant character, and as their redeemer, which unquestionably imparts a gracious aspect to the Law. But, looking at the preface more narrowly, we see a great want. He speaks as their redeemer; but, from what? From their bondage in the land of Egypt. Thus, the Law was not given to the Jews as it is given to us, with a plain forerunning declaration, to the effect that redemption had been introduced from all the evils of the fall, (and from its own curse and covenant claim amongst the rest,) in which case, they would have clearly apprehended it to be given forth only as a rule of life. The fact of redemption from the curse of the Law was set before them only under this dark figure, and immediately followed up by the decisive commandment, which, on this account, was well nigh a ministry of condemnation. While the work of Christ, from which all our com How fort flows, is thus feebly and figuratively represented in the preface, not a word is said in it of the Spirit, who alone can enable us to obey the Law, even as a rule of life. The great secret of the defect in the old covenant lies in the link between the preface and the Law. are they connected? Do we read-'I am the Lord thy God—I will write my Law upon thy heart?' No!-'I am the Lord thy God-thou shalt have no other gods before me,' &c. The commandment is palpable, the promise of the Spirit is hidden. This is declared by God himself to have been the fault of the first covenant: 'Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers; for this is the covenant that I will make: after those days, I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts.' We shall now advert to another circumstance which leads us to the same conclusion regarding the privilege which Israel enjoyed in receiving the Law-we mean its being given forth by the Son of God. That the Law was published from Sinai by the Son of God, admits of strong proof. 'This is that Moses,' said Stephen, 'that was in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sina, and with our fathers.' Moses and the seventy elders saw the God of Israel with a paved work of sapphire stone under his feet; and we know that the assumption of human form was peculiar to the Son. In the announcement of the judicial laws, indeed, we find it said, 'Behold, I send an angel before thee to keep thee,' &c., where Christ, being the person spoken of, might seem not to be the speaker; but we must remember that Christ speaks throughout as messenger of the covenant, and therefore not in his own name, but in the name of the whole Godhead. This explains, also, how in announcing the commandments he could say, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' In short, the whole laws came from Mount Sinai substantially in the same order as the gospel was issued-authoritatively from God the Father, ministratively by Christ. If the Decalogue was given to Israel by the Son of God, it plainly came under a gracious character; but upon this point also we must notice the circumstantial defect which existed. The Israelites had a very obscure intimation of the fact to which we have adverted; nor was the Law given by the Son of God incarnate. Accordingly the apostle, writing to the Hebrews, represents it as one thing in which our economy contrasts with the former, that 'in these last days God hath spoken to us by his Son?' This language is not intended to be absolute; the assertions of the apostle in reference to the whole subject of the economies, although absolutely expressed for emphasis sake, are comparative. He does not deny that God spake to Israel by his Son, but that Israel had the fulness of this privilege. In the particular case before us, it is true that Moses was not interposed, as in the giving of the judicial and ceremonial laws; the Son of God himself announced the Law by immediate voice from heaven; but should any affirm that this made the privilege of Israel equivalent to our own, he would overlook important circumstances. The manner of his speaking was not such as when he appeared incarnate, for at that period men |