said, (without irreverence,) that as Augustus Cæsar is reported to have declared that, Emperor as he was, he could not introduce a new word among the Romans; so the Author of a dispensation of revealed truth can sooner introduce a new system of religious ideas, than cause it to be expressed by an underived and original frame of language. And it is well it is so; for the more familiar the language, the better it is understood; and an abstract method of expressing truths relating to religion would be an uninteresting jargon, quite foreign from all practicable use or benefit.

Again, according to the supposition we have made, what impression might naturally be felt by these writers and by those to whom they wrote, which it would be necessary to provide against? Surely the following; that although the understanding fully admitted the superior excellence of the new dispensation, yet there was experienced a blank in their feelings, a loss of some of the habitual pleasures and tastes of a religious kind, to which they had been accustomed, and a consequent tendency towards apathy, and alienation of mind from religious pursuits. As this exposed believers to the temptation of going back to Judaism, and was a stumbling-block for those who remained in unbelief, it was highly important to provide against it. And it was natural to take the method of providing against it, which is employed in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The design of which is well described in the following sentence: "The Christian Hebrews had been charged with the want of an altar, a priest and a sacrifice. In answer, the apostle shews that they were in want of none of these."

Let us make one further supposition. Let us suppose that the author and principal person of this new spiritual kingdom, after leading a blameless and holy life, in continual obedience to God, and pursuit of the best interests of man, was persecuted on account of his goodness, and the sub lime objects he had in view, and (rather than give up those objects, and adopt the worldly and wicked schemes of the priests and people of Israel) did voluntarily submit himself to the effects of their rage, and suffer death pon the cross; after which, being

raised far above all principality and power, and no longer subject to their controul, he had power given him from heaven to send forth his apostles upon the ministry of reconciliation to the whole world; delivering from the power of death by the evidence of his resurrection, and from the power of sin by a proclamation of forgiveness for sins past, and a future righteous judgment,- -can it be said to be unnatural, absurd for persons educated in the ancient religion to describe so wonderful, so glorious a series of events, by all the images that had formerly been devoted to express their most sacred, exalted and delightful conceptions? Can we wonder that Christ should be termed a sacrifice, a priest, an altar, a mercyseat; that he should be compared to the high priest entering into the holy of holies; and that his ascending to heaven should be described as an entering within the veil, offering up himself as a sacrifice once for all, now to appear in the presence of God for us, putting away sin by the sacrifice of himself?

Thus we see that both by habit and by design it was natural for the apostles of Jesus Christ to express themselves on this animating and delightful subject with a figurativeness, such as our theory of sacrifices, under the Jewish law, requires.

Nor can we see any harm in their being suffered to follow the natural bent of their feelings and course of their expressions, in this instance. It conciliated without misleading the Jews, who were accustomed to such allusions; and it would neither mislead nor revolt those of the present day, if they duly reflected on the necessary influence of previous circumstances on the minds of the apostles. In the judgment, however, of the amiable and plausible writer lately mentioned, (Wardlaw in loc.,) "This is at once to deprive their language of its meaning, and the rites alluded to, of theirs. It is, besides," says he, to charge the writers with singular folly. No idea could well be simpler, or more easily expressed, than that of a prophet's dying to confirm his testimony, or even to afford, in his own rising from the grave, the evidence and pledge of a future resurrection. Why such language as that which has been quoted should be so constantly used to

express such ideas as these, if these were indeed the ideas intended to be conveyed, is a question," says he, "which can hardly be answered, on any principle consistent with the inspiration, or even the common sense of the writers."

Here we have occasion again to complain (in behalf, not of our own system, but of the reverence and honour due to Holy Scripture) of the very rash and unseemly manner in which men are wont to express the consequence of the rejection of their own interpretations. What! must holy men be charged with singular folly and a total want of common sense, unless they can be shewn to the satisfaction of every polemic to have meant precisely what he thinks they ought to have meant!

If there be any foundation for what we have said respecting the natural and necessary habits, feelings and sentiments of the Christian apostles, it will appear that the simplicity of the doctrine they had to teach was precisely their difficulty; and that they were permitted to represent it in such a manner as might conciliate, but ought not to have misled mankind; and that so far the Almighty was pleased to provide against an objection which was sure to be taken up against Christianity, on account of that very circumstance which was, in fact, the surest proof of its divine origin, its simplicity!

But who can justly demand it of God, that he should have wrought a stupendous and perpetual miracle upon the minds of those whom he chose to the office of providing the written records of the New Testament, for the confirmation of the faith of Christendom, and have compelled them to reject the expressions and images which had a peculiar beauty, force and propriety, when addressed to the Christians of that day, merely that men in all subsequent ages might have no chance of mistaking them? Must Paul throw away his fervent, eloquent and glowing style, and write as if he were penning an act of parliament, or a conveyance of an estate, merely to save posterity the trouble of thought, criticism and reflection?

We are not to expect that we should be able to understand scripture, with

out making due allowance for the situation and circumstances of the writers. Happily, indeed, the New Testament was, for the most part, written by plain men, whose humble rank and want of learning preserved them from the obscurity which arises from the affectation of science, and qualified them for writing works which were intended for the use of all mankind. But that they should be perfectly free from modes of expression peculiar to one country, and derived from the circumstances of their own times, was not to be expected; and if practicable, would probably have been productive of no real benefit; since it would have deprived their works of those features which furnish a powerful argument for their genuineness. We should soon find ourselves involved in the most palpable errors, if we always adopted that which appeared the most obvious and natural interpretation of every passage. The most natural interpretation of the words of Christ, "This is my body," is that which the Roman Catholic gives to them; but we are not for that reason bound to subscribe to the absurd doctrine of Transubstantiation. We must make use of common sense, and consider the general strain and purport of scripture, or we shall make both heresy and nonsense of various parts of it. It is an obvious rule in perusing any work, to interpret that which is obscure consistently with that which is plain, and where language is used which is evidently figurative, that is, borrowed from some other subject, and applied by way of illustration or ornament, to allow a greater latitude of interpretation than where the terms are simple and strictly appropriate to the subject in hand.

To enter upon a particular examination of the texts connected with this subject, would be inconsistent with the limits of this essay. One general observation may be made, which, if properly pursued, will be found to amount to full proof of the figurative intention of all such passages of the New Testament.

That these writers did not intend to represent Christ as a sacrifice in the most literal sense, appears from this; that they have applied the same language to a variety of other subjects,

which they certainly would not have done if they had conceived that Christ was a real sacrifice, and his death the great original of this religious rite. Thus St. Paul exhorts Christians to "present their bodies a living sacrifice:" St. Peter describes them as "a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." We are exhorted in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to offer up the sacrifice of praise continually," to do good and communicate, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." St. Paul says, "If I be offered up on the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy and rejoice in you all." And in the fifteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans he speaks of himself as the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Thus it appears that the writers of the New Testament were in the habit of applying this language to a great variety of subjects, which makes it less likely that, when they applied it to the death of Jesus Christ, they meant that we should understand them literally.

And, on the other hand, although it is under this image of a sacrifice that they frequently speak of the death of Christ, it is by no means the only representation which they give of it. He is described as a good shepherd, laying down his life for his sheep. He speaks of himself as a grain of corn, which, unless it die, abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He is described as a captain, leading his followers to salvation. By a variety of images, he is described as a priest, an altar, a mercy-seat, a high-priest entering within the veil, a sacrifice.

Thus it appears that whatever comparisons are made between the death of Christ and the sacrifices, and other ceremonies of the law, are all capable of being explained in the same way as expressions having great beauty and propriety, when considered as figurative, but destitute of both, if we attempt to explain them by a literal mode of interpretation. What has now been said inay, perhaps, be suffi

cient to shew on what principle the passages in question may be explained consistently with the general sense of scripture; and so as not to contradict our established belief in the wisdom, goodness and mercifulness of God. And shall we despise the riches and long-suffering of God, as displayed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, because the means which he has adopted do not exactly accord with our preconceived opinions? The simplicity of the means employed is surely one of the greatest proofs of the divine origin of the Christian institution. The raising of one from amongst our brethren to be our prince and Saviourthe endowing him with heavenly graces and extraordinary powers, delivering him from the dominion of death, and raising him to an immortal state of glory in the heavens-is surely a more convincing proof of divine goodness, wisdom and power, than if a being of the highest order had been sent invested with authority, to proclaim the tidings of salvation.

When we consider what important things are revealed to us, what more can we desire? We are told of the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body and life eternal; the providence of God ever exercised over us for our protection; the ascension and immortality of Christ; the perpetual love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. What is there incomplete for correction and instruction in righteousness? What is there that could have a happier tendency to inspire us with the most fervent love and veneration of God, and to fill us with the most sincere gratitude towards our Lord Jesus Christ? We look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith-who, having overcome death, is become the author of eternal salvation to all them that believe in him. He that was dead is alive; he is present to intercede for his church, and he will come again to receive his faithful followers to himself. May we earnestly strive to prepare ourselves for his glorious appearance, that we may not be ashamed before him at his coming, but may be received unto glory and honour and praise, through the mercy of God in Christ Jesus our Lord!

With due deference I would beg leave to refer Dr. Jones to his friend Mr. Bellamy's translation of the Hebrew Bible, in which, although by an oversight in the text (pardonable enough, you will say, in the stupendous undertaking of a solitary individual to translate the Bible afresh from the original) the verb is rendered begun, the sense is fully proved in the corresponding note to be the same as in Levit. xxi. 9, and Ezek. xxii. 26, namely to prophane or pollute. Hence, the literal interpretation of the passage under consideration, both according to the vowel points and without them, appears to me to be, "Then he" (sc. Enos) "caused to be prophaned" (or, simply, prophaned) "in calling on the name of Jehovah ;" a sense embracing the worship of idols generally, and not that of deified mortals only, as insinuated by Dr. Jones.

With regard to the Doctor's version of the opening of the sixth chapter of Genesis, he will perhaps also pardon me if I again prefer Mr. Bellamy's translation to his, where both actually differ. It will be seen that the Doctor virtually follows Mr. B. in his version of the phrases, although his adoption of the plural Gods, does not appear to be sanctioned by a single passage in the whole Bible, and notwithstanding Mr. Bellamy's text again exhibits a mistake in the fourth verse, in printing "children of God" for " children of the God;" but I cannot persuade myself that Dr. Jones is fortunate in his choice of the word marauders for D, which Mr. Bellany has rendered apostates, and which in the LXX, is given by yyávτes, i. e. earth-born. As reference only is made to gross idolatry in the preceding verses, and nothing savouring of violence or violent proceedings is intimated therein, (for the Doctor will hardly pretend that because the children of the God admired the daughters of Adam, therefore they made a violent seizure of them, a meaning by the bye which assuredly does not attach to the original np,) I must own, I, for one, feel inclined to side with Mr. Bellamy, whose quotation of different passages, e. g. Micah vii. 8, and 2 Kings xxv. 11, appears conclusive as to the significa tion frequently given to the root

which is that of deserting from, or apostatizing.

Your reverend correspondent lays much stress on the propriety of rendering the word 17 shall remain, in which he is certainly backed by the translations which he quotes; but, even admitting that they and he are correct, which, from the general context and sense, may reasonably be doubted, there does not appear any necessity for the etymological conjectures in which he indulges, since a mere reference to the Hebrew root 17 would have sufficiently warranted his version as far as mere etymology goes. Indeed, if the reader will turn to that old standard of Hebrew literature, the Epitome Thesauri Linguæ Sanctæ Autore Sante Pagnino Lucensi, he will find the following sub "Hinc deducunt quidam

:נדן voce

illud," Gen. vi. 3, "Non erit detentus tanquam in vaginâ spiritus meus ;” but I venture to submit that the sense which Dr. Jones gives to this passage, namely, that the principle of life should not remain in man, but that his days should be shortened to one hundred and twenty years, is not authorized by the narrative. Even supposing that the account of Cain's violent death, prior to the occurrences narrated in the sixth chapter of Genesis, may not bear upon the case, surely the number of deaths detailed in regular course by Moses, in the fifth or preceding chapter of Genesis, cannot warrant that legislator's putting as something new into the mouth of Jehovah the words here quoted. The number of years moreover fixed by Dr. Jones for the days of man, appears at variance with history and experience. Thus in the very same book, in which, according to the Doctor, man's days are limited to a hundred and twenty years, we are afterwards informed that several of the patriarchs of the second order, between Noah and Abraham, lived above four hundred years, and none under one hundred and forty; and whether we consult the average rate of the life of man or the utmost extent of his duration in "our degenerate day," we shall still find ourselves either below or above the Doctor's standard; for in the former case we dare hardly reckon on more than sixty or seventy years, and in