sions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made, Gal. iii, 19.*

The reference made in some of the above quotations to "the stranger," is worthy of more distinct consideration. A true judgment of this point will divest Judaism of much of its exclusiveness, and exhibit the benevolence of Christianity in its incipient stages. And we may affirm that had the Jews properly appreciated their law of love, and applied the injunctions of benevolence-as they were bound to do -the world would not have mourned over so dire a specimen of bigotry and intolerance as is furnished by the history of that fallen people. Nothing can be more clear and unequivocal than the laws which admitted the stranger to a participation of the privileges and ordinances of the Levitical ritual. As to the exclusion of the Gentiles generally, and the election of the Jews, it is remarked by Watson, "that the distinction, as far as it was a religious one, between the Jew and the Gentile, was one created by the Gentiles themselves, and was not the act of God." They (the Gentiles) had become very generally corrupt and idolatrous, and though the vices of the descendants of Abraham were sufficiently prominent, they were not so fallen and degraded as their neighbors, and there was, therefore, a moral reason for the choice of the Jews, as the conservators of religion. But mark the

"It is true there were many unobliterated traces of God to be found in creation, but these related chiefly to his natural greatness: his moral perfections could only be deduced from his own supernatural disclosures; and these as they existed among the Jews were intentionally imperfect. Truths the most vital wore the form of enigmas; the church was local and limited; the moral law was oppressed and borne down by the ceremonial; the sensible was appealed to more than the intellectual; sight more than faith; sin was only ceremonially atoned for; the eternal future was but dimly seen, and the divine perfections only hinted at. Theirs was an economy which professed not to be day, but only the dawn and promise of day."-Harris's Great Teacher, Am. ed., pp. 134, 135.

+ Some days after the writer had completed this article, and was about to transmit it to the editor, while investigating another theological question, he had occasion to refer to Dr. Leland's View of Deistical Writers, an elaborate work, first published in 1754. As any thing connected with the Jews, almost naturally as well as instantly, arrests our attention, on finding in the index to that work an allusion to some of the topics embraced in this discussion, we secured the opportunity of comparing the views we had entertained and expressed with those of Dr. Leland, particularly in reference to the election of the Jews, and the consecration of Canaan. The writer would not attempt to conceal his satisfaction on perceiving a striking coincidence of thought on these topics. They are introduced by Dr. Leland to prove the consistency and propriety of the Mosaic economy, in opposition to the misrepresentations and absurdities contained in the writings of Mr. Chubb and Lord Bolingbroke. They are introduced in this paper to show that these circumstances were 86 part and parcel" of that introductory dispensation, and, therefore, inconsistent with the genius of the Christian religion. After this explanation, which may serve to screen us from the shafts and quivers of criticism, no apology will be offered for the introduction of a few confirmatory extracts from the work to which reference has just been made :

"As to God's choosing the people of Israel, they not only proceeded from ancestors eminent for piety and virtue, and pure adorers of the Deity, but may be justly supposed at the time of God's erecting that sacred polity among them to have been, notwithstanding all their faults, more free from idolatry and other

great goodness of "the Father of the spirits of all flesh," who" willeth not the death of the sinner." "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as one that is born in the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is home-born and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." As there is such a drawback to the exclusive religious nationality of the Jews in the Mosaic institute, it is a little marvelous that many Christians should coalesce with the Jews in speaking and writing in such a tone as conveys the idea of imperious ostentation, not only intentionally existing in years that are past, in connection with the religious ordinances of the latter people, but to be in a measure renewed and perpetuated by the restoration of the Jews, and their literal return to their own land. It may be remarked, also, that those strangers who conformed to the law were to all intents and purposes a part of the Israel of God. They received the sign of circumcision, a token of their abandonment of idolatry, and of their belief in the divinity of the appointed means of pardon. This was strictly a "presentiment of Christianity." And to the mind of an enlightened and consistent Israelite, nothing could be more delightful or give him a more direct proof of the unity of the Deity, and the excellence of his religion, than to see a poor degenerate Gentile, who had every temptation by birth and education to cleave to idols, voluntarily rejecting them: and when he wished to receive the truth in the love of it, and enter into covenant engagements, there was no objection thereto; but every preparation for the accomplishment of so desirable a consummation. Even at this early stage of the developments of divine benevolence, it might with propriety be affirm. atively asked, "Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God vices than any of the neighboring nations. They seem to have been much better than the people of Egypt, from whence they were delivered; or than the Canaanites, whose land was given them, and who appear to have been a most wicked and abandoned race of men, universally guilty, not only of the grossest idolatries, but of the most monstrous vices and abominations of all kinds."-Eng. ed., P. 165.

"If we compare the history of the Jews with that of the heathen nations we shall find a very remarkable difference between them. Notwithstanding all the faults and defections of the former, and though they too often fell into idolatries and vicious practices, in conformity to the customs of the neighboring countries, they again recovered from them, and returned to the acknowledgment and adoration of the one true God, and him only, and often continued for a considerable number of years together in the profession and practice of the true religion, free from idolatry, of which there are many proofs in all the ages of their nation, from the days of Moses to the Babylonish captivity; during the times of their judges, kings, &c., as every one knows that is at all acquainted with their history. This was owing to the revelation they enjoyed; they still had recourse to their law, and by that reformed themselves, and returned to the pure worship of God, according to that law; to which after the Babylonish captivity, in which they had suffered so much for their defections and revolts, they adhered more closely than ever. But among the heathen nations, even those of them that were most learned and civilized, such as the Grecians and Romans, all was one continued course of polytheism and the most absurd idolatries; nor can we name any period of their history in which they laid aside the public polytheism, and returned to the acknowledgment and adoration of the one true God, and of him only."-P. 422.

of the Gentiles also? Yes, of the Gentiles also." Here then we perceive a gracious adumbration of Christianity, nor can we question the identity of the source from which both dispensations proceed.

But these spiritual laws and gracious purposes are essential to Christianity; so they are essential to Judaism, and the divine Being was never more grieved than when his ancient people, by the bewitching power of sense, were captivated by external appearances, outward ceremonies, and national observances, forgetting the spiritual purposes of their call, and neglecting the promotion of personal holiness and national morality. This was the law of the house, investing Judaism with a moral and spiritual character. The temporal appen. dages of the system were intended to attract rather than repel "the stranger" seeking after truth, while at the same time they were calculated to throw a guard around the sanctuary to prevent the wayward Israelites from breaking away from their engagements, and subverting the first principles of their theology. The decalogue alone, accompanied as it was by fearful exhibitions of Deity, should have sufficed to prevent idolatry and immorality, but the ceremonial law was added, rendered necessary by the everlasting propensity of the Jews to seek "a similitude." Thus we see there was a moral purpose in the entire economy, which ever occupied a prominent place in the mind of the Jewish legislator. To accomplish this was the leading idea of the system, and all the external grandeur which decorated the framework of the building, was purposely subservient to the promotion of holiness.

The comparative insignificance of all that was worldly and local in Judaism will farther appear from the conduct of Moses himself with reference to it. He intimates the temporary duration of his system, and the introduction of another which should supersede it. Indeed, to a reflecting mind, it must have been clear that such an elaboration of rites and ceremonies was unsuited to general and universal application. Besides, the confinement of any system of religion to so small a portion of the world as Judea was strikingly inconsistent with the unlimited benignity of the God of truth. Yet, in order to the success of the Mosaic economy in any degree, it was necessary that this depreciation of a system should not be held forth with great precision. But yet it was held fortb, and Moses assured his brethren that God would raise up another prophet, like unto himself, to whom the people should hearken. Overwhelming splendor and terrific majesty had accompanied the giving of the law, and the people said, "Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not." The prediction of a succeeding prophet is an answer to their request, and the promise is distinct, that the teaching of the antitype of Moses should be unaccompanied by any external terror. But as the accompaniments of the law given in Horeb were only a part of the whole scheme of peculiarities, this was an indication of the fact of its abrogation. Besides, had the teaching of Moses been free from defect, and his system of worship and morals absolutely perfect, the appointment of another teacher would have been unnecessary.* And yet so little is there in the moral part of the Le

* See Shuttleworth's Consistency of Revelation.-Am. ed., pp., 95-97.

vitical institute that the teaching of Christ amends, that we feel assured the defect consists in its local restrictions and general inadaptation. All this could not be as clear to the mind of a son of Abraham at the time as it is to us who have the gospel as a key to the Old Testament writings; but that our position is not mere conjecture, is farther proved from the insufficiency of the ceremonial law to restrain the rebellious Israelites under the most favorable circumstances. Let it be remembered, this fact was foretold by Moses: "I know," said he, "thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck; behold, while I am yet alive with you this day ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death?" "I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you." These humiliating announcements were made after "the book of the law" had been put in the side of the ark of the covenant" "for a witness against them." What then does this solemn act teach us, but the insufficiency of the entire legal system to subdue the obstinacy of the people, notwithstanding the extraordinary character it possessed? Yet its moral purpose as embodied in its laws and institutions was always clear and distinct, and disobedience, though predicted, was culpable and punishable. Then as the blood of bulls and of goats could not take away sin, for the law made nothing perfect, and as the consecration of the land of Judea was inadequate to accomplish the design of the Abrahamic covenant itself, anothe prophet must arise, another atonement be substituted, and the field o the divine operations occupy a wider range. Such were the inertia of the system, and the precedence of moral to ceremonial considerations, that, as it was in the days of Samuel, so from the beginning it might be asked, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams," 1 Sam. xv, 22. Moses and the prophets never attached so much importance either to their country, their people, or their laws, as modern systems of prophetic interpretation imply. Thus we are led to our former conclusion that the spirit of Judaism was the establishment of universal holiness, while all its institutions were to be directly subservient to this divine object.

It is universally admitted that the Jewish dispensation was merely provisional and precursory. But if it be so, we might look for inti mations of it in other writings besides those of Moses. It is even reasonable to suppose that as the period approached when the old covenant should be done away, those who wrote and spoke of divine things by inspiration would be led carefully to avoid giving utterance to any sentiment which should exalt the existing system to an unwonted degree. It would not be surprising should we find them depre ciating the system, even more than Moses or Samuel had done. We are furnished with the hints which distinguish this paragraph in the admirable work of Dr. Shuttleworth above referred to, who considers the prophetic dispensation intermediate and preparatory. There are, therefore, interspersed throughout the prophetic writings sentiments and declarations which are obviously intended, and certainly calcu lated, to wean the affections of the Israelites from the formalities of their religion, and lead them to the conviction that the incense of

grateful hearts and holy lives was more pleasing and acceptable to God than the most costly sacrifices or odorous perfumes: "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices, or thy burnt-offerings, for they have been continually before me. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goat out of thy field," &c. "Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High, and call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorify me," Psa. I. "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O God, yea, thy law is within my heart," Psa. xl. Then in Psalm xxii, where there are allusive hints to the expiatory saerifice of Christ, its universal extension is distinctly predicted. "All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the king. dom is the Lord's, and he is the governor among the nations." Turning from the Psalms to the writings of the prophets we shall find this derogation from the ritual law more distinct. "To what purpose is the multitude of sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats," Isa. i, 11; et. seq. "To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me," Jer. vi, 20. "I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burntofferings," Hosea vi, 6-8, 13; ix, 4. "I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not dwell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me your burnt-offerings, and your meat-offerings, I will not accept them, neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts,” Amos v, 21, 22; Micah vi, 6-8. These several quotations are in point, and could not but prove to those for whose benefit they were delivered the inutility of external observances, without spirituality of mind; and would certainly impress every spiritual Jew with the imperfection of their religious institutions. While these declarations were intended to detract from the merits of the ritual law, and were very likely to produce that effect, the same prophets foreshow the introduction of a system which should not pass away. Now the very notion of a perpetual covenant to be introduced must have suggested the idea of the temporary duration of the one in existence, and when the denunciations quoted above are brought into view and made a part of the same course of instruction and ministration, we are irresistibly led to the conclusion, that this was a part of that gradual development of the great plan of redemption which the gospel should perfect, and which, as a system, should, like Aaron's rod, swallow up all the rest. The Jews had an inveterate attachment to their forms, and were gradually losing sight of their devotional object. Yea, and so dead was the deadness of their formality, that, in the later periods of prophecy, they were content to bring the refuse of their property as an offering to the Lord. Such a state of things could not long exist. "The Lord must arise, and have mercy upon Zion." That mercy unfolds itself in denunciations of mere formal religion, in cautions against losing the spirit in the letter, the substance in the shade, and in clearer promises of a De