Christ to do so! Heresiarchs would then be no longer able, as in the days of the famous Horsley, to base false doctrine on dishonest Greek criticisms: the broad light which Moses throws forward on his illustrious antitype would rebuke at once their wickedness and their folly."-(pp. xvii―xix.)

Many proofs, as Mr. T. justly observes, of the truth of these statements, occur in the course of the exposition. He thus sums up the argument, and lays it in brief before the mind of the reader.

"Three leading features," he remarks, "stand out from the others, and arrest our attention, when we carefully examine the tabernacle of Moses and the worship carried on within it. The first is the immeasurable distance which it established between the Creator and the creature. Upon the ark, between the cherubim and within the vail, there was placed the throne of Deity-the inalienable seat of the Supreme. Israel was often privileged with angel-visitants, but Gabriel himself never presumed to intrude into that seat of honour. The high-priest, the most favoured of the sons of Israel, was permitted to stand before it once a-year;' but no other Israelite, not even the best and holiest, set foot, from infancy to grey hairs, even within the sanctuary which contained it. The second thing which arrests our attention, is, that he who dwelt between the cherubim, might be approached only through the slain sacrifice and the cleansing water; and the brazen altar and brazen laver stood continually for these purposes in the outer court. And there was yet a third remarkable feature in the worship enjoined by Moses. A ministry headed up in the high priest, mediated with God on Israel's behalf; and it was an essential requisite of these ministers, that they should be compassed with the infirmities of the people. Now these Mosaic ordinances, as St. Paul expressly declares (viii. 5), were an example and shadow of heavenly things.' And faith discovers in the light of this precious epistle, a throne set in heaven'-the antitype of that which was of old between the cherubim. It discovers moreover Two PERSONS sitting on that throne; for it hears ONE invite ANOTHER to come up, and sit beside him (i. 13), and sees the invitation accepted (i. 3; vii. 2.) ́ He who gives this invitation is the Eternal Father (i. 1, 2, 5, 13); he who accepts it is Jesus Christ, the Saviour and High Priest of the Church (viii. 1, 10, 12). A THIRD PERSON is also spoken of, viz. the Holy Ghost. He is referred to as the Instructor of mankind (iii. 7), and the inditer of holy scripture (ix. 8; x. 15). Faith discovers besides this, a sacrifice and blood presented on high (ix. 11, 12), and hears the Saviour who presents it, promising the true cleansing water, even the Spirit of Grace, to wash his people's hearts from wickedness, and to bind them to the service of God (viii. 10, 11). It sees that Saviour mediating within the holiest, on their behalf (ix. 24); it is told that he is qualified for this office of mercy on the one hand, because he took their nature and was compassed with their infirmities (iv. 14, 15); it is assured that his mediation is effectual on the other, because his one offering has rent the veil. It can even hear his gracious voice inviting us within the sanctuary-bidding us come with our consciences pacified in his blood, and our hearts cleansed by his Holy Spirit (x. 21, 22.")-(pp. xix, xx.)

Our author next examines, "by the aid of this heavenly light, every form of false doctrine which troubles the Church now, or has troubled her in ages past, and also every variety of theological sentiment," observing, that "we have only to keep closely to the pattern, to discern the precious from the vile." Unitarianism and Popery; the heresies of the Sabellians, Tritheists, Nestorians,

Eutychians, and Apollinarians; the errors of the Antinomian, Arminian, and High-Calvinist, are then briefly exposed in the light of this discriminating and comprehensive epistle: and having shown that there is an abuse of the institutions of Moses as well as a reverent use of them, the author proceeds to direct the attention of the reader to the doctrines contained in these lectures, setting them also in the searching light which shines from the Jewish tabernacle, and dwelling particularly on such as may require further elucidation. The doctrinal points passed in review, are the Trinity, the Divinity and Humanity of Christ, his sacrifice and priesthood, together with the remission of sin, and grace of the Holy Ghost which they secure; and, finally, his yet future coming and kingdom. On all these points, there is much original and instructive remark. We regret that we can indulge our readers with but a few brief specimens. The following are of immediate interest.

"POPERY," Mr. T. observes, "is the other grand perversion of the Christian faith, with which modern times have to do; and it also stands exposed and condemned in the light of the tabernacle of Moses. For it appoints the continual repetition of propitiatory offerings for the sins of quick and dead. Now St. Paul declares expressly that the repetition of sacrifices under the Mosaic economy demonstrated their inefficacy; that if they had accomplished the object of sacrifice, they would have ceased to be offered (x. 2). As the necessary consequence, he further tells us, of a state of things which required the repetition of propitiatory offerings, the veil was unrent, i. e. God was unpropitiated (ix. 7, 8), and the conscience of the worshipper was unpacified and troubled (ix. 9: x. 1, 3). What then shall be said of the continual sacrifices of popery, when the light of the tabernacle is brought to bear on them? Their repetition demonstrates their inefficacy,-demonstrates that they are unable to propitiate the Most High. But that which is offered, is the body and blood of Christ. This only makes the matter worse,-infinitely worse. The Jew was aware that his propitiatory offerings were inefficacious; but he looked for a sacrifice to come. We Christians have no such cheering prospect: 'there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin,' than the body and blood of Christ; and if even that offering requires repetition-if even that offering is inefficacious, God never can be propitiated sin never can be atoned for. And popery therefore, in this her leading ordinance, assails THE VERY VITALS of redemption. This argument is well worthy of the consideration of those who, though standing aloof in some respects from that antichristian system, are yet found maintaining as a doctrine of first-rate importance,' that there are truly and properly in the Christian Church altars, sacrifices, and priests. We are forcibly reminded of the nervous language of St. Paul-' Ye who desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?' Ye who maintain such views, do ye know to what they necessarily lead? When you shall have demonstrated them to be sound and true, the Christian Church will be indebted to you for having proved to her that sin is unatoned for, and NEVER CAN BE ATONED FOR-that God is unpropitiated, and NEVER CAN BE PROPITIATED-that she and her children are now, and MUST REMAIN FOR EVER under the curse of the broken law. It is impossible for the ablest advocate of these sentiments to rebut this irresistible conclusion. For if the ordinances of Moses be the example and shadow of heavenly things,' CONTINUED SACRIFICE and A PROPITIATED GOD are utterly and for ever irreconcileable."-(pp. xxi. xxii.)

Again, touching Tractarianism

"There is an abuse of the institutions of Moses, as well as a reverent use of them. To return to them in the letter-to copy their pattern, is a gross and most heinous abuse. Figurative and symbolical teaching suited the shadowy character of the Mosaic dispensation. The form of the tabernacle, the architecture of the temple, the robes of the priesthood, were therefore all figures. Moses had a pattern in the mount, after which he copied; King David had a pattern by the Spirit,' of all the courts and chambers of the 'house of the Lord' (1 Chron. xxviii. 11--19). But neither Moses nor David were permitted to add to this pattern; Jehovah speaking out of the fire, had sternly forbidden any of the sons of Israel to make any likeness of any thing in heaven above (Exod. xx. 4). This prohibition is as fresh as if uttered yesterday, and forbids to us as it forbade to them, all figurative and symbolical teaching of heavenly mysteries, unless special Divine warrant can be pleaded. It is superfluous to say that we have no such warrant. What suited the external and shadowy dispensation of Moses, is for that very reason unsuited to a dispensation of spiritual realities, and is therefore nowhere in the New Testament commanded by the Lord. Nothing indeed can be more striking than the difference in this respect between the two dispensations. Every work of God is perfect at the beginning; let the reader therefore compare for himself the fortieth of Exodus and the second of Acts. The dispensation of Moses commenced with a gorgeous tabernacle, and a priesthood glittering in gold and gems; when that costly edifice was reared up and provided with its costly furniture, God descended into it filled with his glory. The Christian dispensation commenced in an upper room-such an apartment as poor fishermen, whose best robe was the fisherman's coat, were able to hire for their use; upon these humble men, assembled in this humble retreat, the Holy Ghost descended in cloven tongues of fire. This is indeed no argu ment for God's people assembling now in upper rooms to worship him, or for his ministers conducting that worship without seemly attire; we are in circumstances to provide otherwise, and reverence for divine things requires us to do so. But it proves most emphatically that clerical robes and ecclesiastical architecture form no part of the Christian dispensation; they are decencies indeed for the eyes of men, but no higher character can be claimed for them; they are not matters of religion, nor have they any value in the eyes of the Lord. The tendency of the present day, however, is to invest them with this character. It is indeed already assigned to architecture. We are told that every part of a church is instinct with doctrine,' that each architectural feature conveys religious instruction,' that a church-architect' should make his profession a matter of devotion and prayer,' and seek to be filled from above with the spirit of wisdom!' The Church of Rome, consistent throughout, has long attached it both to architecture and vestments. She acts on the Latin adage that, instructions heard with the ear' segnius affectunt animos quamquæ oculis subjecta fidelibus,' and therefore teaches her congregations to see in their minister's attire, a representation of Christ the Minister of the Church Universal. To attach it to either, is distinct Judaism. And being, as we are, without the warrant which the Jew could plead, we are guilty in doing so, of a systematic violation of that precept which forbids us to make likenesses of things in heaven above. It is in vain for the advocates of this Christian symbolism to appeal to the Old Testament in its support. They ought to know that it is emphatically declared in the New Testament, that symbolism died when reality was introduced. It is equally vain to appeal to the history of the Church, as if the antiquity of symbolical architecture and of holy vestments stamped a divine character upon them. Those who say so, ought to know in the first place, that while these things were among the Jews the original injunction of God, they were among Christians the after-thought of man. And they ought to know, in the second place,

6

that the mystery of iniquity, i. e. the grafting of Judaism and Heathenism on Christianity, had begun to work even in the days of St. Paul (2 Thess. ii. 7). Their appeals to reason forcibly remind us of the reply of the Jewish prophet to the disobedient Jewish king,- Hath the Lord as great delight,' he said, "in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? behold to obey is better than sacrifice' (1 Sam. xv. 22). This is a sufficient answer to every argument for the utility of symbolic representations of heavenly mysteries. GOD HAS FORBIDDEN THEM. For it is not correct to say that he has forbidden the adoration merely; the words of the commandment are, thou shalt not make to thee.... any likeness.... Thou shalt not bow down to them. And the latter of these clauses does not gather into itself the meaning of the former; both the making and the adoration are forbidden. May God grant therefore, in his infinite mercy, that our beloved Church be not carried away by this dangerous and insidious system. But, alas! if it be so, she will bring down on herself the sanction of the precept which will thus be violated, the curse of a jealous God.”—(pp. xxiv—xxvii.)

From the body of the notes, some of which are of great value, as well as from the exposition itself, we might select various instructive passages, as we had intended,-but our limits forbid. We shall, therefore, content ourselves with a single specimen from the Exposition. The following is part of Mr. Tait's Lecture on Heb. x. 19, 20,-the connecting link of the epistle in its doctrinal and practical divisions.

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,'

"Before we enter, my dear brethren, on the consideration of this glorious scripture, we must look back for a moment to the preceding parts of the epistle, that we may understand the point at which we have now arrived. I would remind you that this epistle consists of four parts, and that the verses which we have just read, form the commencement of the fourth. Those to whom St. Paul addressed it, had been accustomed to a dispensation which had been ordained by angels-of which Moses was the mediator-under which a regular succession of priests were the appointed channels of intercourse between heaven and earth. The apostle's object in addressing them was to commend the Christian dispensation to their regard, as one infinitely superior. He has therefore proved to them in the first and second parts of it, as we have seen, that Christ the Minister and Mediator of the Gospel, is the Lord of angels, and the Divine Master whom their illustrious Moses served. He has also proved to them in the third part-which we have just been considering that Christ is the eternal High-Priest, of whose efficacious sacrifice and prevalent intercession the sacrifices and incense of the sons of Aaron were only feeble types. And having proved these things, he now proceeds to admonish, to encourage, and to warn them. We have finished, therefore, in our brief review the special consideration of apostolic doctrine, and are now, I trust, prepared to receive apostolic exhortation.

"The character of the verses which we have now read, is peculiarly admonition and encouragement; they contain not a word of terror. I need not remark, that their language is almost wholly typical, and that it would necessarily convey a fulness of meaning to those to whom it was addressed, which it does not convey to us. Let us endeavour in the first place, to discover this, to ascertain the sense in which a Hebrew would understand the words before us. And let us, assisted by this discovery, consider them in the second place, for our own edification and comfort."

Omitting the former head-the substance of which has been given in a previous extract-the lecturer, under the second head, thus proceeds. The extract may be considered as a fair specimen of his style, and of the spirit of the work.

"Let us now," he adds, " in the light of these remarks, inquire into the text for our instruction. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest.'

"We are apt to suppose that to any but Hebrew readers this typical language is a disadvantage. If we are acquainted, however, as we ought to be, with the Mosaic law, we shall find that the very reverse is the truth. Typical language expresses the shades of meaning, in a way in which common language has not the power to do it. The words before us are a very striking proof of this. St. Paul evidently means to tell us that we have liberty of approach to God. But if he had expressed his meaning in these words, we should have been left in comparative ignorance of it. For there are very different degrees of nearness of approach to God, and we should not have known what degree was permitted to us. But by using tabernacle-language, he makes this abundantly plain. For there were three compartments in the tabernacle of Moses, and three degrees of nearness of approach to him who dwelt therein. The man who stood within the outer court, approached the God of Israel: the priest who stood within the holy place, the ante-chamber of His presence, approached Him a step nearer: whilst the high-priest, who, once in every year, stood within the holiest, and confronted the glory of Jehovah throned between the cherubim, approached him so near that nearer was impossible. This at once explains to us the meaning of the text, and explains it in a manner equally beautiful and satisfactory. Boldness to enter into the holiest,' is not merely liberty to approach the Lord; it is liberty to approach so near, that to come nearer is impossible. And it is not difficult to ascertain what this nearness is, for human things, in this instance, explain and illustrate divine. You may approach a man as his domestic servant, going in and out before him, and listening to his commands, that you may obey him. If, however, you know him as your friend, if you share with him in his joys, his sorrows, and his pleasures, your intercourse is necessarily of a much more endearing kind. And there is an intercourse between human beings, which is more intimate and endearing still. Let me set it before you by picturing a domestic scene. The friend, we shall suppose, is sitting at table with his friend and the servant is respectfully standing waiting on his master and on his master's guest. The door is opened suddenly, the little child runs in, finds his way at once to the father's bosom, and puts his arms about the father's neck. This, I need not say, is the nearest approach to a human being: to come nearer is impossible. And it is even so with the Divine Being. God might have permitted us to come to him as servants. Even this would have been kindness far beyond our deserts: the holy angels have no higher standing before him. He might have permitted us to come to him as friends. This would have been condescension unspeakable; the faithful Abraham had no higher standing, no more honoured name. But God's kindness to the angels of light, and his condescension to the saints who lived under the former covenant, are both thrown quite into the shade by the riches of his grace to us. For he permits us to come to him as children. This is the liberty spoken of in the text; and it is indeed approaching so near to Him, that to come nearer is impossible. For He who lay in His bosom from everlasting said no more-could say no more, than Abba, Father!

"It is a most striking and beautiful confirmation of the view just given, that the radical meaning of the word which is translated boldness,' is liberty of speaking without restraint,-the liberty of the child in the presence of the fond parent. We may take this liberty with the holy and pure Jehovah. He