Rom. vii. 12, but were given for a time only, and "because of the hardness of" the people's "hearts"-(as, for instance, that relating to the putting away of their wives,) as our Lord told them in the Gospel? Again, what is the meaning of the emphasis with which we are told (Deut. v. 22,) that when the Lord spake all the words of the decalogue, even ten words, in the ears of all the people, ont of the midst of the fire, &c. with a great voice," HE ADDED NO MORE?" Or again, what are we to conclude from this address of Moses to the children of his people, "And now, O Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee but to fear the Lord thy God?" &c. Again, does not Samuel put a distinction where there was a difference, when, addressing a superstitious and hypocritical king, he demanded, "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?" See also, as speaking the same language, and inculcating the same principle, the expressions of David in the 50th and 51st Psalms; upon which same wide and all-important distinction, Isaiah grounds those rebukes and charges of hypocrisy which he brings against his nation, in chap. i. and Iviii. and lxvi. 3, as do all the prophets see Amos v. 23, &c. and Micah vi. 8. There is a passage in Jer. vii. 21, 22, 23, to which I would particularly refer the reader, which seems, as strongly as language can give it, to make the difference which God has everywhere in his word made between moral and ceremonial observances, and by how much more highly the former are to be esteemed and commended than the latter.

And now, to the New Testament. What may be gathered from our Lord's manner of handling the law in his sermon on the Mount? Does that make no distinction among laws? or, does it not set works of justice, and of duty in children towards their parents, above all "corban" offerings whatsoever? and works of pure mercy and benevolence even above them?-(See Matt. v. 44-48.) And when the Scribe (in Mark xii.) had heard our Lord's reply to the question he had proposed, and had observed upon it, "that to love God with all the heart," &c. and "his neighbour as himself," was "more than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices," did not the Lord, "perceiving" that he had spoken "discreetly," (vovvex@s, like a man of sense,) add, that he was "not far from the kingdom of God?". But it is useless to multiply quotations to the same effect, such as might be found in Romans ii. &c. &c. I will only add one more: it is that where St. Paul tells Timothy that "the law is not made for (ov KEITα, lies not upon, or is not objected against,) a righteous man, but for the lawless and profane," &c. Now, what law is this which St. Paul, writing to Timothy, the bishop of the church at Ephesus-a Gentile church, observe-declares, is not made for a just man, but for the unjust, &c.? It cannot be that of circumcision, or of Jewish ceremonies; for from any obligation to it, as was determined by the council at Jerusalem, (Acts xv.) the Gentiles were altogether free. What was the law then, which was made for, and still was in force against, the unholy, and disobedient, and lawless (avoμioic) at Ephesus, and everywhere else among the Gentile churches? It was the moral law-the decalogue-and nothing else. It is then an untrue assertion that "in the Scriptures no distinction whatever is made between the moral and ceremonial law." In the matter of justification (or the acceptance of our persons as sinners before God), and also in the matter of our emancipation from the thraldom of sin (or sanctification)-here, I say as loudly and determinedly as any man, that there is no such distinction to be made, or allowed to be made, for the whole "letter" (or dia@nên

ypapμaros) "killeth," and above all, that part of it which was engraven upon the two tables of stone, 2 Cor. iii. 7; but, as touching the means of our conviction of sin, and also our practice, there is the greatest difference possible. I, a Gentile, am a sinner before God, because I come short of loving Him always with as perfect a love as that where with I am loved of Him; and also because I have not attained to love my neighbour equally with inyself: but I am not a sinner before God, because I am of the uncircumcision, or because I do not observe the obsolete distinctions between meats clean and unclean, &c.

The decalogue, then, shows me what is good, and what the Lord doth require of me; and, giving me the knowledge of myself as a sinner, (which philosophy could not do, however it might recommend it,) shuts me up unto the faith, whereby I am made Christ's freeman, and an heir of God whereas, with respect to meat and drink, and new moons, and Jewish sabbaths and holidays, I am as free in outward practice as in inward dependance, and am to be judged, as walking disorderly, by no man, (Col. ii. 16.)

I trust that enough of evidence from Scripture has been here advanced, to satisfy all right minded inquirers, that there is an important distinction to be marked between the everlasting Torah, or rule of right and wrong, which the just and holy Creator originally implanted in the moral constitution of man, whom he formed in his own image and likeness, and which was only republished when the law was given, and those ordinances respecting meats and drinks, and diverse washings, and other carnal things, which, in the apostolic age, had grown old, and when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written, (A. D. 64,) were all ready, like morning clouds, to flee away and disappear.

D.

ON THE RETURN OF THE JEWS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-Your having admitted my first letter on the return of the Jews, encourages me to solicit a like favour for the present one.

:

My pretensions, as an interpreter of prophecy, are very humble; and, therefore, my attempts are rather directed to bring into question the conclusions of others, than to establish any of my own, except so far as the absence of motion implies rest. I observed in my former latter, that one ground on which the return of the Jews was expected, was the disproportion between the prophetic language used to announce their return, and any event which has as yet taken place; and in answer, I endeavoured to show that the strongest language was employed, where the event in contemplation was literally the return of the Jews from Babylon and produced some examples to that effect. In addition to what I there produced, I beg leave to refer your readers to Jeremiah xxiv. The prophet's words have an exclusive reference to the Jews in Babylon, as distinguished from those who were still remaining in the land of Canaan; and, therefore, the accomplishment must be personal as it regards them. How does the pas sage run? "I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land; and I will build them, and not pull them down ; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up. And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the Lord: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, for they shall return unto me with their whole heart."

6, 7. Here is, first, a return to their land-then a building up, and not pulling down, a planting, and not plucking up-and all this accompanied with spiritual promises. They should return to Jehovah "with their whole heart," and he was to give them "an heart to know him :" yet all this had respect to those who were in captivity at Babylon, and to no others. It seems hardly necessary to mention, that the argument is not affected by its being the children of the actual individuals then in captivity, who were to benefitby the promises.

I shall now proceed to notice an argument which I find has considerable weight in deciding the judgment of some in favour of a future return of the Jews to the land of their fathers. It is alleged that the promise that Christ should sit upon the throne of David for ever, is incompatible with the supposition of the Jews not re-occupying the promised land. The whole value of this argument must depend upon what we understand by "the throne of David." Are we to understand by "the throne of David," the kingly office as exercised by David? If we are, then must we understand the priestly office exercised by Christ, as the same in kind exercised by the Levites; for the promise is, not only that David should not want a son to sit upon his throne, but that the "priests the Levites" should not want a man "to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do saerifice continually." But the Apostle expressly says, "If he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts ac cording to the laws." And we may add, I think, on the same principle, If he were on earth, he would not be a king, seeing there would be a lawful heir to the throne of David, in the literal sense. In other words, Christ's royal and sacerdotal offices had respect, not to Israel after the flesh, but to Israel after the Spirit. This matter seems to be placed in its true light by the Apostle Peter, in Acts, second chapter, "Men and brethren," he says, "let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore, he being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne, he seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ. Therefore, (he concludes,) let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." In the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, then, we have the true accomplishment of the promise to David: events which have no exclusive reference whatsoever to the Jewish people, when "the kingdom" was taken from the Jewish nation, the literal throne of David ceased to exist.. To consider Christ as occupying the throne of David in any but a mystical sense, seems to me to be confounding two things which are carefully distinguished by the sacred writers. It is to put Israel after the flesh in the place of, "The Israel of God;" and to speak of what Paul calls the concision," as if it were really" the circumcision." Nothing, I should conceive, can be less tenable than the position, that, because Christ is to sit upon the throne of David for ever, the Jews must regain possession of the promised land. The only ground upon which such a conclusion would be justifiable, would be a necessity which does not at all seem to be proved; namely, that of a literal interpretation of the words. So far, indeed, is such a necessity from being established, that the inconvenience arising from the literal interpretation, as involving the confusion above referred to, must, I should think, be manifest to any unprejudiced person. Only admit, what cannot indeed be fairly questioned, that "the Israel of God" means a mystical community, and you eventually subvert the "literal throne of David."

Admit "the circumcision" to mean not a particular nation, but, an assemblage composed of individuals collected from all nations, and you establish a principle, the consistent application of which demands, I think, the mode of interpretation for which I am contending. So, at least, it appears to me.

I shall occupy the rest of this letter in considering the argument for the return of the Jews, arising out of the concluding chapters of Ezekiel. In those chapters, we have an elaborate description of a temple, as to dimensions and costliness, far exceeding, as is asserted, any thing that was realized after the return of the Jews from Babylon. To the opinion, that Ezekiel's plan was intended to guide and to limit the operations of some future architect, in the construction of a national temple, a serious and obvious objection seems to exist, namely, that such an opinion, if just, would involve the restoration of the Levitical institutions. To any one, therefore, who is not prepared to admit such a consequence, it is quite enough to remind him that such a consequence is unavoidable; a point requiring, I take for granted, no proof. Our business, therefore, is with those, who, admitting the consequence, are prepared to defend it. For my own part, I do not see, that any other proof that the Levitical code cannot be restored, except as an act of rebellion against the God of Israel, is necessary, than the simple consideration of its virtual abolition by the death of Christ. "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." Ephes. ii. 14. And again, (Col. ii. 14,)" Blotting out the hand writing of ordinances, that was against us, which was contrary to us; and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." After reading and meditating upon these passages, and reflecting upon the whole design of the Epistle to the Hebrews, will any one seriously maintain that the Levitical institutions can ever be revived with the approbation of God? Such a supposition, I consider, as just within the bounds of possibility.

66

But the question may be asked, What are we to make of the description and plan of the temple drawn by Ezekiel? I may, perhaps, be taking a superficial view of the subject, and consequently, not be aware of difficulties which profounder critics than I am see, to the answer that I should be disposed to give to this question. To me it does appear, that the plan of Ezekiel was intended for the guidance of the people then in captivity, on their return to their land. It was in the twenty-fifth year of the captivity, Ezekiel tells us, (xl. 1,) that the vision of the temple was presented to him; and he was expressly desired to Ideclare all that he saw to the house of Israel." xl. 4. And again, chap. xliii. 10, "Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities, and let them measure the pattern. And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof; and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them." What can be more personal in its application than this? And can we reasonably suppose, that after such express intimations as these, the Jews did not, on their return to their land, take Ezekiel's plan as the model for their temple? I may be mistaken, but I should answer in the negative.

An objection may, perhaps, be raised to this view, founded upon a passage in Ezra, and another in Haggai. In Ezra we are told that the old men who had seen the former temple, wept when they saw the foundation

of the new one laid. In Haggai the people are addressed in the following words, "Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? Is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing ?" ii. 3. It is obvious that the comparison in these places is between the temple built by Solomon in its perfect state, and the second temple, while yet in its very rudiments. For my part, I see no reason for supposing that the second temple did not exceed that of Solomon, in magnitude, and in architectural beauty. In the eighth and ninth verses, there seems to be a strong intimation that, in these respects, the comparison would not be to the disadvantage of that building, the foundations of which were the only part then in existence. " The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of Hosts." For what purpose was this assertion made, but that the builders, who were beginning the work under such disadvantages, and with so many discouragements, might prosecute their labours under the impression that nothing should be wanting to render the building such as would make it a suitable successor to that one which had once been the ornament of their city, and the pride of their nation.

I conclude as I began, professing my pretensions in the capacity of an interpreter of prophecy as very humble. I hope, however, I have avoided going beyond my depth. I am, Sir, very truly yours,

T. K.

MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS.

CONTRAST OF HINDO0 EAST INDIAN, WITH BRITISH WEST INDIAN SLAVERY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-I find in Number Sixty-seven of your Magazine, viz.-that for January, 1831-an Article headed "Slavery in East India," (pages 2429,) with a supplemental communication, (page 51,) signed by "James Stuart, LL.D." who is senior proprietor and editor of the Belfast Guardian newspaper.

It may, perhaps, be necessary to say a few words as to what led to the publication of this article by Dr. Stuart. As Editor of the Belfast Guardian, he had inserted an editorial article of a nearly similar kind, in that newspaper, about the month of September last year. A gentleman with whom I have since had the privilege of forming a highly interesting acquaintance, addressed him a letter on that article, charging it with misquoting some of the documents referred to, and bringing proofs that he had mistaken and misrepresented several matters. These remarks, Dr. Stuart inserted in his paper of December 24th, acknowledging that he had not quoted some things correctly, as it appeared by the original documents, to which he had, in consequence of this accusation, referred; but stating that he had made these quotations at second hand, from a book by a Mr. Saintsbury on the subject, and thus throwing the blame on him to this article, however, Dr. Stuart appended a series of notes, endeavouring to prove that his first statements were substantially correct.