mode of worship. If such were the circumstances under which the Levitical sacrifices were instituted, this mode of worship is to be considered but as a permission. We can suppose that, in other circumstances of God's people, their law would not even have recognised his acceptance of sacrifices. They seem to have been allowed, as was divorce, for the hardness of their hearts; or, because these Jews were disqualified to exercise, and to maintain a worship, that was without sacrifice. A vicarious sacrifice, or the substitution of the life of another for the life of the guilty, was, then, no part of God's design in the institution of the Jewish worship. Being allowed, however, the best use was made of them which the case admitted. They were made a means of impressing the Jews with the guilt of neglecting, or of violating, the will of the one true God, to whom alone they were required to direct their worship.

Again,

"The design of the tabernacle, and of the temple, evidently was one and the same. Each was designed to be a sacred mansion for the residence of God, as king of the Hebrews, in the midst of his subjects. Between the temple and tabernacle, and the synagogue, there was, however, this remarkable difference. In the synagogue, God was merely worshipped. But in the temple and tabernacle, he was not only worshipped, but he resided there in a remarkable manner. It is worthy of observation also, that God prohibited sacrifices to be offered to him, any where, except in his sanctuary; (Deut. xii. 13, 14.) that is, in the tabernacle, and in the temple.' Ib. pp. 40-44.

NOTE. Whatever were the peculiar manifestations of God in the tabernacle, and in the temple, it is not a little remarkable, that, while we read that our Lord taught in the temple, we do not read that he ever joined in the offering of its sacrifices. And it is worthy of remark too, that the worship of the Christian church is, not that of the tabernacle or temple, but, exclusively, of the synagogue. We know not, with certainty, the origin of the synagogue. But it was, clearly, the model by which the Christian church was formed. Here God is to be worshipped, without a reference to sacrifice, in spirit and in truth. This pure and simple worship, this worship, which is independent of all that was peculiar to the temple,

could not, we have reason to think, have been instituted earlier; that is, before our Lord instituted it. But, had our Lord's death been, as some represent it to have been, a vicarious offering, we have, I think, reason to believe, that something corresponding with the temple worship would have been instituted, as a part of the service of the Christian church.

Is it said, that our Lord, 'by one offering, hath perfected forever them that are sanctified;' and, therefore, that the necessity of sacrifice having ceased, all that was peculiar to the temple is of course abolished? Yet, if it had been intended that our Lord's death should have been considered by us as literally a sacrifice, and as a substitute for the death incured by man, it is hardly conceivable, that a memorial should not have been instituted, of a design so important. We have, indeed, in the Lord's supper, a memorial of the design, that his blood was shed for the remission of sins; that his body was broken, and his blood shed for us. But, besides that our Lord, in instituting this service, made no allusion whatever to the sacrifices of the Jews,-a circumstance which, it would seem, could not have been omitted, had it been the great design of his death to accomplish the supposed intimation of the ancient sacrifices, by dying as our substitute,-not a hint is to be found in any expression which he used, concerning his death, that the sins of man were to be transferred to him, and that he was to suffer the punishment of the sins of man. We are, however, expressly told, that God sent him to bless us, by turning us from our sins; and that he died, to reconcile us to God, and not to reconcile God to us. That Jewish sacrifices were necessary for the Jews, there is no doubt. Some of the circumstances which made them necessary, are stated in the preceding note. And we gratefully admit, and believe, that far more than was hoped for from the Jewish sacrifices, is obtained by the death of our Lord and Saviour. But would there have been no memorial of the temple service in Christian worship, if sacrifice for sin had been necessary in itself; if it had been necessary, in order to appease the wrath of God; or, to satisfy his justice; or, to make him placable towards his guilty creatures?

Again,

'When the ram of consecration was offered, after the sin and the burnt offering, in the consecration of Aaron and his

sons, (Lev. viii. 22 & seq. and Exod. xxix. 19 & seq.) Moses took the blood, and put it on the tip of Aaron's right ear, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the great toe of his right foot. By this ceremony, every priest was admonished, what great attention he was required to give to the study of the law, to the sacred services, and to his ways, a term by which the Hebrews denote the general conduct. The design of all this, says Abarbinel, was to teach every priest, that he ought to apply himself with diligence to the study of the sacred law; that his hands ought to be sedulously employed in the sacred ministry; and that he was to walk in the ways and commandments of God. These ceremonies were performed on the right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the great toe of the right foot, to teach every priest, that his hearing, his actions, and his manners, ought always to have a right tendency; for the right denotes perfection. The same things are remarked by Rabbi Levi Ben Gerson.' Ib. pp. 73, 74.

NOTE. This is a very reasonable interpretation. Query, might not the application of blood in the sin offerings, in the same manner, be designed alone, to indicate to the sinner, that he was thus pledged to the repentance, which he professed in making the offering?

The Jewish religion was full of emblematical teaching. The priests were directed to wash their hands and feet, when entering upon the sacred services. It was profaneness to officiate at the sacred rites, sitting. It was not lawful to enter the sanctuary with shoes on the feet, even when engaged in its ministry. The purification of a priest, though he had been washed with water, was not thought to be complete, till sun

set.

No one, with any blemish of body, was allowed to offer the bread of God. The end of these, and of many other appointments, was, to inspire reverence of God; to indicate the purity which he required in his service; and the perfection, to which he called them by his law. And the end of sacrifices, I suppose, was, in like manner, to impress those who offered them, with a stronger sense of their duties; and to bind them to greater fidelity. The Levites, says Levi Ben Gerson, (p. 90.) were required to shave their bodies, to remind them that, renouncing as far as possible all care of corporeal things, they should wholly devote themselves to the sacred ministry. For similar ends were all the purifications of the law insti

tuted. Nay more, the Levites themselves, having been consecrated by washing, by shaving all their flesh, and by the sin offering, are brought before the tabernacle of the congregation, and before the Lord; and the children of Israel put their hands upon the Levites; and Aaron offered the Levites before the Lord, for an offering of the children of Israel, that they may execute the service of the Lord. (Numb. viii. 5-18.) Thus were they offered for the first born of the children of Israel. Here, then, is an offering of one instead of another, which was intended to remind them of God's mercies to them in past time; an offering of one for another, which utterly excludes the idea of punishment, inflicted upon him who was offered. (Comp. Numb. iii. 15 & 45.)

[Notes on Sacrifice, from the Text of Outram, will be continued in the next Number.]

८

Collections.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-Wetstein, in his short but sensible treatise on the Interpretation of the New Testament, replies under his seventh rule, in somewhat of a digression, to the objections sometimes brought against the Christian Scriptures, on account of the peculiar difficulties inherent both in the topicks and manner of the discourse. The Jewish modes of thinking and writing, the obscurity of the parables, the involution of St. Paul's style, the allusions to Jewish rites and opinions, the number and variety of the miracles, and the mode of reasoning, all so different from modern use, are successively considered, the objections obviated, and the propriety of the mode in which we are made acquainted with the origin and principles of Christianity satisfactorily vindicated. His concluding remarks I have thought worthy of a translation. A. Y.

'Having thus carefully examined all these circumstances, I come to this determination. If at the time when the books of the New Testament were written, a council of the most wise and excellent men had been convened, to decide in what way a religion might be devised, which by its utility and simplicity should recommend itself to the adoption of both Jews and Gentiles, learned and illiterate; which should in the

shortest space of time effect a great and most beneficial revolution throughout the world; which should extirpate idolatry, root and branch, and establish the doctrine that there is but one God, the governour of the universe; which should recall men from a state of barbarism to a state of civilization and mutual benevolence, and present to them the most powerful incitements to the pursuit and love of virtue; no system could have been devised more excellent than that which is contained in the books of the New Testament, taken in all its parts, with all its miracles, and arguments, and parables. This single consideration should operate as some restraint on the bold and discursive geniuses of our time, who, forsooth, are not satisfied with the Christian religion. And why not? Within the seventeen centuries that have elapsed since its promulgation, has any thing better been invented? Have they themselves any thing better to substitute in its place? Is it not unjust and foolish then, to throw away the rose, for fear the thorn may hurt you? to pull down your house, because, perchance, you do not perceive the use of some small window therein? Why do they not leave these places, which they despair of elucidating by their labours, to be explained by more learned, and more successful interpreters? I am much deceived if the native beauty of the Christian religion be not equally marred, whether you add any thing to it, or take any thing away. Many things have indeed been added by the decrees of councils; and what has been the result? Why, the ministers of religion have left the preaching and the practice of virtue, and controversy after controversy has been engendered and propagated. This is seen and acknowledged by those with whom we are now contending. But if they wish to take any thing away, and to separate, with a too critical hand, the principal and essential parts from what they deem accessary and incidental, they should look to it, whether they can retain the one when they have thrown away the other; whether, when they have lopped off the branches, they will leave any thing but a dry and barren stump; whether they will not reduce themselves to the miserable condition of the inexperienced wretch, who, in order to clear his lands, set about with his pruning knife and axe to pare close all his own vines and olive trees, prostrated the beautiful leaves and loaded branches, and tore up by the roots at