them, saying, obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people, and walk ye in the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.' Now we think we have sufficiently shewn in our preceding remarks, that at the very period of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, God, through his servant Moses, did speak of burnt-offerings and sacrifices, and of positive institutions, as in the case of the Passover. How then is the credit of the prophet to be secured? as easily as possible; and we think, with great confidence, even in the face of so great an Hebrew scholar as Mr. Nicol. He, indeed, is dead and gone, but we have surely a right to ask his Editors, whether they never heard of that idiom of the ancient language, which "excludes by a general negative in a comparative sense, one of two objects opposed to each other?" If they never heard of it, we may surely be excused for asking them to look at Hosea vi. 6, or Psalm xl. 8, 9, 10; for Mr. Nicol himself never attempts to deny that sacrifice was desired and required of the Lord. We are ready to allow Mr. Nicol the support of Justin Martyr (Dialog. cum Tryph.): and Irenæus, in alleging that God never gave any command to the Jews about sacrifices till after they had defiled themselves with idolatry, by offering sacrifices to the golden calf, because we think it is entirely contradicted by what we said before in regard to the Passover; and because we conceive that the divine origin of sacrifices, admitted by Mr. Nicol, at the least, implies a previous institution.

We can only argue with Mr. Nicol in his own way. He rejects all church, and even all human authority. Scripture and Reason are his tests, and no other. Yet we cannot resist the temptation to cite against him the testimony of a decided rationalist and Socinian-we mean Dr. Priestley; whose comment upon the passage before us is exactly as follows. Jeremiah vii. 23. "He does not mean that no religious rites, such as sacrifices, had been appointed, for the most particular directions are given concerning them in the books of Moses; but, that less stress had always been laid upon every thing of this kind, than upon moral virtue."

All this is extremely correct, as far as it goes; and the only question remaining is, whether Jeremiah meant to refer so particularly as he seems to have done, to the period of the Exodus ? But we conceive this question is answered by the very circumstances of the case. He did not mean to depreciate sacrifices, but to deprecate the abuse of them, and he could not well have fixed upon a period more calculated to shew the superiority of the moral to the ceremonial law, than the very time of the

Exodus, in which the most marked distinction was to be made, between the worshippers of idols, and the worshippers of the true God, whose sacrifices were in every instance to be sacrifices of righteousness; and who were never so well instructed to practice morality in preference to every thing else, than when they were admitted into covenant upon condition that they would obey God's voice, give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes. Exodus xv. 26.

The testimony of Ezekiel, which Mr. N. also adduces in his favour, is by no means so much to his purpose as some readers might apprehend. Dr. Priestley will give us some help here too. It is to the xxth chapter that Mr. N. refers us, a chapter which he considers to be a mere historical record of the establishment of the law, containing "as full an account of the various circumstances of that singular event as the annals of Moses himself." Here, then, indeed, if any where, we might reasonably expect to find a confirmation of Mr. N.'s theory, namely, that the law was given solely in consideration of the idolatry of the Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai, and because they had thereby shewn themselves to be incapable of receiving a more spiritual dispensation. Unfortunately, the particular passage he has fixed upon to prove this, is by no means generally held to refer to the Jewish ceremonial law at all. It is as follows; after the Almighty had been introduced, speaking in great displeasure of the transgressions of the Israelites, in Egypt and in the wilderness, as at ver. 13, "But the House of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them." In the 25th verse he is represented as saying, "Wherefore I gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." Here Mr. N. thinks he discovers the moral and the ceremonial law brought into comparison, and set in immediate opposition to each other by God himself, and the express cause and occasion of instituting the latter, so precisely marked, as not to leave the least room for cavil or dispute. Here, says he, we have the exact distinction drawn between the "righteousness" and the "works" of the law, between those statutes and judgments mentioned in the 11th and 13th verses, "which if a man do, he shall even live in them," and those "weak and beggarly elements," as St. Paul calls them, that "law of carnal commandments," mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews, "that could not make him that did the service perfect." But are we sure there is no Hebrew idiom here as well as in the expressions of Jeremiah? We strongly suspect there is; indeed,

it would seem that it must be so; for though the Almighty might, for a season, subject his people to a dispensation comparatively imperfect, without any imputation on his wisdom or his goodness, yet that he should give to them statutes positively bad, and judgments positively destructive, seems totally inconsistent with his brightest attributes. And, therefore, most commentators have concluded the statutes and judgments of ver. 25, to be so totally different from the statutes and judgments of verses 11, 13, as in no sense to express the institutes of God. And as it is an acknowledged idiom of the Hebrew language, to refer to the immediate agency of God, whatever occurs by the permission of his providence, they have wisely concluded that the true meaning of the passage must be, that in consequence of their continued provocations, he had suffered his people, in pursuance of their own wicked propensities, to fall into idolatrous practices. And among other commentators, Dr. Priestley fully approves this interpretation. "The meaning," says he, "of this is, that he permitted them to fall into idolatrous practices. As whatever takes place in the course of providence is, in the language of Scripture, generally ascribed to the divine agency of God; that the DIVINE BEING gave the Israelites ordinances that he himself did not approve, is a most improbable supposition!"

But indeed the context seems as plainly as possible to fix this meaning, and no other, on ver. 25. The very next verse is strong to this effect," and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that opened the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord." And in verses 23, 24, the punishment they brought upon themselves is thus expressed; "I lifted up my hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them amongst the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; because they had not executed my judgments. And their eyes were after their father's idols." It appears then that Mr. N. has no right to take it for granted, either by the orthodox, or by Socinian commentators, that the ceremonial law of the Jews is at all alluded to in ver. 25, of this celebrated chapter of the prophet Ezekiel; and if it should not be, what becomes of his argument? If he still depend upon Scripture and reason, he ought, in regard to the former, to be sure at least, that he knows what the Scripture says; and as to the latter, Dr. Priestley the Rationalist has surely given a very good reason why the passage cannot mean what Mr. N. has concluded that it does mean. Indeed Dr. Priestley's remark makes Mr. Nicol contradict himself, who, in his first section, speaking

of the Jewish sacrifices as of divine institution, expressly says, "hence, they must have been worthy of the approbation of God, and advantageous to the improvement of man." P. 9.

Having, we hope, said enough to put our readers on their guard, how far they trust a writer of acknowledged reputation, as a scholar, though opposed to the orthodox of all countries, as well as to the very eminent theologian whose name appears in the title page, we shall not say much more of the contents of this section. We should not indeed have dwelt upon it so long, but that we found some difficulty ourselves in apprehending the exact drift of the author's argument, and are therefore anxious to afford some help to those who may be startled to see so much advanced against the orthodox by name, who generally, we believe in all countries, are considered to be the members of the established church, but whose religious opinions, to be really orthodox and sound, should be entirely consonant to Scripture. When brought therefore to this test, some amongst them at least should be prepared to answer the charges that may appear against them. We much doubt, besides, whether the book will ever receive any other answer. We think Dr. Magee may very reasonably deem it unworthy his notice, and that Mr. Wardlaw, another orthodox writer of no small powers, mentioned by Mr. N. as an object of attack, may find himself much better engaged than to enter the lists upon this occasion of challenge and defiance.

We shall now proceed to Mr. N.'s third section, in which he treats of the court and tabernacle of the Jews.

Here we enter at once into the labyrinth of symbols and hieroglyphics; Mr. N., who denies all typical references, and adumbrations of the Christian sacrifices, finds in the tabernacle itself an adumbration of the Christian dispensation, though entirely after his own fashion. He conceives, that the three divisions of the tabernacle, the "court," the "holy place," and the holy of holies," adumbrated, (for that is his own favourite expression), the three different dispensations of revealed religion, the Patriarchal, the Jewish, and the Christian.

66

We must beg to be excused following him through the detail he enters into, of the furniture of the court, the tabernacle, or holy of holies, and of the explanation he gives of the symbolical meaning. As we differ from him in many points, and the interpretation of symbols is but a dreary task, we shall confine our attention merely to such striking points, as may tend to bring the question between us to some sort of issue. The first thing, therefore, we shall notice is, the particular account given us, p. 93, of the Holy of Holies and its contents; and in regard to

the latter, we cannot help offering some observations on the "pot of manna," as illustrated and explained by Mr. Nicol. It adumbrated, Mr. N. thinks, not Jesus Christ himself, but his doctrine.

"It is curious," says Mr. N., " and will be profitable, to observe the analogy which there is between the sign and the thing signified. God delivered the Israelites by Moses from the temporal bondage of Pharaoh; God delivered the Christians by Jesus from the spiritual bondage of sin. The manna descended from heaven to sustain the temporal life of the former, during their journey in the wilderness of Sinai. The doctrine of Christ descended from heaven, to sustain the spiritual life of the latter during their journey through the wilderness of this world." P. 98.

We shall not go through all the comparisons; Mr. Nicol concludes:

"Nothing more, I apprehend, will be necessary to shew the propriety of preserving in that place, which was the symbol of the Gospel dispensation, a portion of that heavenly food which adumbrated the doctrine of Jesus, the bread of life which the Gospel could alone supply." P. 99.

Now this explanation of matters exemplifies, in the fullest manner, what we ventured to observe above, that in appealing, so confidently as Mr. N. does, in many different parts of his book, to Scripture and reason as infallible authorities, and distinct from all human authority, he does in fact only appeal to Scripture speaking through himself, and to his own reason in opposition to the reason of others. For the original Greek of the Evangelist, recording the very words of our Lord himself, tells a totally different story; and what is strange enough, the Jews, who heard our Saviour speak, understood him to mean something entirely different from the construction put upon his words by Mr. Nicol, which we cannot avoid noticing, because Mr. Nicol insists upon it, that we must of necessity believe that the manna was the symbol of our Saviour's DOCTRINE, since it is evident from his own words, as we have them recorded in the vith chapter of John, p. 98. True it is there is a version of the New Testament extant, which agrees with Mr. N., and Mr. N. calls it "an excellent translation;" but we shall take upon us to inform our readers, that after a most diligent examination of it, we have not the least hesitation in declaring that it is the very last version of the Scriptures on which we should think of resting our faith..