clearly point to this conclusion; if the principles of their laws, and the predictions of their prophets alike designate the same final purpose; if their national prosperity and adversity be made altogether subservient to the developement of this plan; then, is every thing contained in our argument which can be reasonably demanded. It connects the peculiar purposes of the Jewish Law with the general purposes of the Universal Promise.

All that I would beg of my reader, is to lay aside the influence of preconceived opinions. Our appeal is "to the word and to the testimony;" not to the systems of artificial theology. "Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra." Some, whilst admitting in theory the doctrine of universal redemption, have confined its benefits to the members of the Christian church;others, in their zeal for missionary undertakings, have first admitted the abstract principle, and then have denied its practical application. Some, from the apprehension of infidel indifference; others, from the feelings of ecclesiastical privilege,

have shut the gates of mercy on mankind; but, whatever be the party or prepossessions of my reader, let him now grant his Bible a free and unbiassed hearing.

If this argument be valid, the covenant of God in Christ was not given to Adam, to Noah, or to Abraham, as individuals; it was not given exclusively to the members of the Jewish or the Christian church; but it was given to these on behalf of all mankind. As the trusteeship of the promise, before its fulfilment, was confided to patriarchs and to the members of the Jewish church; so now, since its fulfilment, it is confided to Christians. the promise, in its nature and effects, is still Catholic or universal, and it belongs to all the families of the earth.'

+66

But

"The Jewish separation," says Warburton, "was made for the sake of the rest of mankind in general, though one people became the honoured instrument, in reward of their forefathers' virtues." Div. Leg. book v. sect. i. P.

136.

SECTION XX.

Moses and Jethro.-B. C. 1490.

ABOUT two hundred years after Joseph's decease, Moses was born, and as the Egyptians then began to feel jealous and uneasy at the rapid increase of the Israelites, they tried, by every kind of cruelty, to keep down their numbers. Moses had been providentially preserved by Pharaoh's daughter; but, on a dispute arising between an Egyptian and an Israelite, Moses slew the Egyptian aggressor, and made his escape into the land of Midian. There, he formed an alliance with Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro, priest of Midian, a fact which seems to intimate that the patriarchal religion was not yet extinct in those regions.

When the Israelites quitted Egypt, Jethro, for some time, detained his daughter; but, at length, he became convinced, that God had miraculously interposed to rescue Moses and the Israelites

from their Egyptian bondage. Accordingly, he followed them into the wilderness, and brought Zipporah and her two sons with him. Moses received him with

the utmost respect. And Jethro said, "Blessed be the Lord God who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians; and now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods. And Jethro took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God. And Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses's father-inlaw." Exod. xviii. 1—12. Jethro then gave Moses some advice respecting the administration of justice amongst the people; and afterwards he departed and went his into his own land. ver. 27.

way

The inference which hence arises, is clearly in favour of our general argument for the salvability of Gentile nations. Jethro, it is probable, was neither better nor worse than many other Midianitish priests; but, such as he was, he appears to have publicly officiated in his sacerdotal character in the midst of the Israelitish camp.

This fact is important, since it is in direct opposition to those who imagine, that, because the Divine Being was pleased to be called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in his tutelary relation to the Israelites, he had cast off his care and love for the other nations of the earth.

Here also is an example of a Gentile sacrifice which was acceptable unto God, and which appears to have been offered after the institution of the Passover. I do not wish to press this fact beyond what it will naturally bear; but it seems to intimate, that a sacrificial offering would not always be rejected because it was not offered up by the tribe of Levi. Though heathen sacrifices had no express and acknowledged reference to the Redeemer, yet, if they served "as a remembrance of sin," and were offered up with penitential feelings; I think, we may infer, they were accepted by Him who "will not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed."

With respect to the origin of sacrifice, it is my firm conviction, that it was of