lious and undutiful son was, in certain cases of peculiar aggravation, to be stoned to death. He who slew another by accident, not through enmity, was to flee to a city of refuge, not bring an offering to the priest (Num. xxxv. 15). The law regarding the false witness, is contained in Deut. xix. 16-21. In the case of an unknown murder, a ceremonial service was prescribed, because the guilty person could not be found (Deut. xxi).

In all these cases, and more that might be enumerated, of moral offences, there is not the whisper of a sacrifice being prescribed as an Atonement for moral guilt. And in perhaps the most comprehensive and striking class of cases that could occur (Lev. xxvi. 40, &c.), God forgives, not in consideration of an atonement, but on the ground of simple repentance: "If they confess their iniquity, and their heart be humbled, then God will remember the ancient covenant and restore them." It is fact, then, not speculation, that, in the law of Moses, moral offence was not expiated by sin-offering, but by reformation, or restitution, or penalty endured. And this conclusion is in entire harmony with the noblest conceptions of sacrifice which the ancient Scriptures contain. "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me, saith Jehovah, I am full of burnt-offerings; bring no more vain oblations, incense is an abomination unto me. Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings; cease to do evil, learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow." (Isaiah i.) The spirit of this noble passage teaches, that repentance and reformation are the true sacrifice, the accepted offering; in room of which no ritual ordinance is of any avail, or was ever enjoined.

The third decisive fact to which we refer, is found in one or two ambiguous instances, where ritual sacrifice is connected with moral offence, at the same time that reparation is also enjoined. The strongest, if not the solitary instance of this kind, is found in Lev. vi. 2-7; and, as much consequence has been attached to this instance, with a view to show that the Mosaic offerings contemplated moral sins as well as ritual, we shall perhaps be allowed to produce it at length, and estimate its force: "If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against Jehovah,

and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour, or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it and sweareth falsely; in any of all those that a man doeth, sinning therein. Then shall it be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which was found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely, he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth in the day of his trespass-offering (verse 7), and the priest shall make an atonement for him before Jehovah, and it shall be forgiven him for anything of all that he hath done in trespassing therein." What are the facts of this case? There is a moral offence of injury to property. On what condition is it forgiven? Through a trespass-offering alone? So we have been told from an orthodox pulpit; and this example has been vaunted and quoted to show, that ritual offering was not limited to ritual sins only. Never was a more unfortunate appeal made. The sin is not forgiven merely through an offering presented by a priest, but restitution is first commanded to be made for the whole; and not only so, but a fifth part is to be added; and then follows a trespass-offering. This is no exception, then, to the general principle, that "there is not one instance in the whole law of Moses, in which a sin or trespass-offering can be clearly shown to have been prescribed, as an atonement for a moral offence; but, on the contrary, in almost every instance, it is unequivocally evident, that they were prescribed in order to atone for ritual offences." We have here restitution and sin-offering, not a sin-offering by itself. How do these facts support the notion, that moral offences, without restitution, were ever expiated by sacrifice alone? To support this, we should have found examples, not few nor dubious, of moral sin expiated by sin-offering, without any reparation or other penalty. Are there instances? let them be produced. Is it in the law of Moses that we find theft, violence, falsehood, murder, expiated by ceremonial offerings? All this may

be found in the rites of heathenism, not in the theology of Moses. If even a few doubtful cases might be brought together, this would not avail to overthrow the general principle of Judaism, that ceremonial offerings removed only ceremonial sins. Exceptions are not commonly considered to overturn general rules. But the case we have considered is no exception. Whatever else it may prove, it proves this, that it was not enough to bring an offering to obtain remission of moral sin; an essential part of the transaction, was restitution for the whole, with an added portion to be given to the injured party.

This whole argument, and much more to the same purpose, is to be found in the tract entitled "The Sacrifice of Christ," &c.; and, if well founded, it suggests a powerful argument in defence of that interpretation of certain portions of the New Testament which is opposed to the received one. If sacrifice, with the people among whom it was customary and the requirement of their law, was not enjoined as a reparation and atonement for moral offences, does not this tell powerfully against the received ideas respecting the death of Christ? It has always been deemed a stronghold of those who defend the idea of Christ's death as a vicarious sacrifice for the moral offences of mankind, that the same language is applied to this and to the ancient sacrifices. Let this be granted; but the hold is no longer strong, if it can be shown, that Judaism provided for moral guilt no other atonement than reparation, penalty, or repentance. The Apostles and Evangelists, as Jews, were familiar with the ideas of sacrifice and sin-offering; and much of what seems, to us moderns, obscure and needing explanation, was to them forcible and intelligible. The Apostles have applied sacrificial language to the death of Christ. But their minds were not familiar with the idea of any sacrifice or atonement for moral guilt-a notion abhorrent to the law of Moses. In the application of similar language to the death of Messiah, they could not therefore have contemplated that death as an expiation of moral guilt.

The consequences of this are important, in the controversy between the Unitarian and the Orthodox sects. It also shows the unity of religion in every age and under every dispensation. There was no commutation for

moral offence. The one and invariable condition of divine approval, is, and ever has been, moral righteousness -a heart right before God. In every variety of phrase has this been described, but the idea has always been one and the same. It has been represented as faith in God; having reliance upon the Almighty Father; believing in Christ; obedience to the faith; doing the commandments; fearing God, and working righteousness;-still, the one leading idea prominent in all, is a heart right before God, mental rectitude or integrity. There is not one mode of acceptance with God under Judaism, and another under Christianity, and another under heathenism; but in every dispensation the principle is the same -fidelity to truth, to God, and to conscience. The Jew could not rely upon his sin-offering, but upon "clean hands and a pure heart." The Christian may not presume on the rightness of his faith-otherwise called orthodoxy far less on the possession of truth, should it be held in unrighteousness; but the truth must be obeyed, loved, and followed. And he who stands without the pale of Christianity, will be estimated by Him who knoweth our frame and assigned our talents.

And this view of sacrifice points to that great lesson, which men are so slow to learn, that improved character -the soul's purification, sanctification, or holiness-is the great blessing of Christianity, and the one great object to which all our efforts should be directed. Everything is trivial and unimportant compared with this-the right state of the inward man, a mind devoted to love, truth, and holiness. The character of virtue is the condition of present happiness and hope; and it is the very essential idea of the heaven of Christianity, the love, or "charity that never faileth."

A. M.

PENITENTIAL HYMN.

O thou Great Being! ever near,
Who searchest all that live,

In mercy hear my suppliant prayer,
And when thou hear'st, forgive!

Oh teach me, 'mid temptation's hour,
For ever to rely

Upon thine all-protecting power,
And bless thee-though I die.

In life, whate'er thou hast ordain'd
Of joy or grief for me,

Still let me bless, with heart unfeign'd,
The inscrutable decree.

And, O my God! when death appears,
And life with time hath striven,
In that dark hour dispel my fears,
And raise my soul to Heaven!

Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

E. W. G.

SERMONS OF AN ISRAELITE.

(Continued from page 31.)

We

THIRDLY,-The morality of Judaism, as expounded by the coevals of our Saviour, taught its professors to love those of their own nation, and none others. admit that the Old Testament enjoins the duty, “ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," but we contend, that the Jews understood this precept to inculcate nothing more than affection to those of their own nation and of their own creed. Such an exposition of the command seems almost to be sanctioned by the phraseology of their sacred books. In the 19th chapter of Leviticus, at the 16th verse, it is said, "Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand up against the blood of thy neighbour," "thy people," the Jews, and "thy neighbour," are here synonymous. In verse 17, we read, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt in anywise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer violence upon him;"-" thy brother,"_a Jew, and " thy neighbour," are here synonymous. In verse 10, it is written, "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;"_"the children of thy people," the Jews, and "thy neighbour," are here a third time synonymous. The Rabbi SALOMON here also