those dogmas which have been, and are still, so sedulously inculcated, it could not have been more appropriate. The doctrines of the sinfulness of our Lord's human nature, of universal pardon, and of the identity of the faith of the Gospel with an assurance of personal salvation, are certainly "divers and strange doctrines;" and the duty of Christians in general in reference to them, is very distinctly stated in the passage before us. They are not to be "carried about" by them; they are not to be tossed to and fro with these words of doctrine. They will "not profit those who occupy themselves therewith."

It is a fact as honourable to Christianity as disgraceful to human nature, that the difficulty with which that religion has hitherto made its way in our world has been owing, not to its faults, but to its excellences; and that those qualities which chiefly recommend it to the admiration of the higher and uncorrupted orders of intelligent beings, as "the manifold wisdom of God," are the very qualities which have excited the contempt and loathing, the neglect and opposition of mankind, and led the great majority of those in every age to whom its claims have been addressed, to consider it as absolute foolishness. Purity, simplicity, and spirituality are the leading features of Christianity; and it is because it is pure, and simple, and spiritual that it is so much admired in heaven, and so much despised on earththat holy angels "desire to look into" it, and that depraved men "make light of it."

The fondness of man for what is material in religion, and his disrelish of what is spiritual, is strikingly illustrated in the extreme difficulty which was experienced by the primitive teachers of Christianity in weaning the Jews, even such of them as by profession had embraced the Gospel, from their excessive attachment to a system which had so much in it to strike the senses as Judaism. The manner in which these inspired men laboured to attain this end, discovers "the wisdom from above" by which they were guided. They showed the Jews, whether converted or unconverted, that everything that was excellent under the former economy had a counterpart under the new order of things still more excellent; that the spiritual reality was far better than the material shadow; and that what was glorious had now no glory, "by reason of the glory that excelleth." They showed them, that if we Christians have no visible,

material manifestation of the divine glory on earth, towards which we bodily draw near when we worship, we have the spiritual Divinity in heaven, to whom in spirit we approach, in exercises which employ our highest faculties, and interest our best affections; that, if we have no splendid temple like that of Jerusalem, within whose sacred precincts acceptable homage can be presented to Jehovah, we have access to the omnipresent God at all times, and in all circumstances; that, if we have no order of priests like that of Aaron to transact our business with God, we have, in the person of the incarnate Son of God, "a great High Priest," who has by the sacrifice of Himself expiated our sins, and who "ever lives to make intercession for us."

In the passage which comes now before us for explication, we find the Apostle applying this mode of reasoning to the subject of sacred meats, on which the Jews seem to have valued themselves. Of many of the offerings which were laid on the altar of Jehovah part only was consumed, and the rest reserved as food, either for the priests, or for the offerer and his guests. This food was considered as peculiarly sacred, and the eating of it viewed as an important religious privilege. In the verse which immediately precedes the passage for exposition, the Apostle, in reference to these sacred meats, had said in effect, The grace of God-the free favour of God to sinners, manifested in the Gospel-understood and believed, will do the heart more good than the use of any kind of food, however sacred.' And in the paragraph, on the illustration of which I am about to enter, he shows that Christians had a species of spiritual sacred food, far more holy than any which the Jewish people, or even the Aaronical priesthood, were permitted to taste.

Vers. 10-12. "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burnt without the camp. Wherefore Jesus. also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate." I shall endeavour first to explain the meaning of these words, and then illustrate the general sentiment which they express.

Before doing this, however, I shall quote Tholuck's beautiful sketch of the Apostle's train of thought :-"The asyndeton gives greater emphasis to the thought. The reference to what precedes

is this: 'If ye would indeed hold by Bpóμara, or meats, ye have surely far more excellent Spóμara, or meats, in Christianity than in Judaism. The thought contained in the image that Christians have a higher altar, leads first of all to the idea, that Jesus, as the great sacrifice of atonement, is the true ẞpapa, or meat, of the faithful. The sacrifice of Christ naturally suggests the idea of His sufferings. Then comes the thought, we should be the companions of His sufferings, and even for His sake go out of the city, the emblem of this earthly existence, and endure a death like His, of pain and shame. And then comes the additional thought, that as Christ is the true sacrifice, all our sacrifices are of a figurative and spiritual kind,—no longer sin-offerings and expiatory sacrifices, but simply sacrifices of praise; and these are not to consist merely in words, but also in good works. Such is the brilliant chain of thought from ver. 10 to ver. 16.”

It is quite plain that the language in the 10th verse is elliptical. Nor is it difficult to supply the ellipsis: "We"-i.e., we Christians as opposed to Jews-" we have an altar, of which we have a right to eat, but of which they who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat." By "the altar" we are either to understand the sacrifice laid on the altar, or, what comes to the same thing, the phrase, "to eat of," or from, "the altar," is to be understood as meaning, to eat of the sacred food which had been offered on the altar. "Those who serve the tabernacle," or rather, those who minister in the tabernacle,' are, I apprehend, the Levitical priesthood. There were, as we have already remarked, certain sacrifices of which the offerer and his friends were allowed to eat a part; and of by far the greater number of sacrifices a considerable portion was assigned to the priests. But there was a class of offerings of which the priest was not allowed to appropriate the smallest part to himself: the animal was considered as entirely devoted to God, and was wholly burnt with fire, either on the altar, or in a clean place without the camp, while Israel was in the wilderness, and without the city, after the erection of the temple at Jerusalem.2

Now it appears to me that the Apostle says, 'We Christians are allowed to feast-spiritually, of course-on a sacrifice belong1 Lev. vi. 26; Num. xviii. 9, 10; Lev. vii. 34; Num. vi. 19; Lev. vii. 15, xix. 6.

Lev. xvi. 14-16, 27; iv. 3-12.

ing to that class of which not only no ordinary Israelite, but no priest, was under the law allowed to taste.' The sacrifice referred to is plainly the sacrifice which our Lord, as our great High Priest, offered up once for all, even the sacrifice of Himself. Of the class of sacrifices to which the Apostle refers, and which was not a large class, the sacrifice for the sins of the people on the great day of atonement was the most remarkable; and I think there can be no doubt that this sacrifice was directly in his view when he made the statement which we are considering. That sacrifice was not to be used as food: the blood was to be brought into the holy place, which is here equivalent to the holy of holies; and after certain portions had been burnt on the altar, all the rest was to be taken without the camp, or without the city, and there burnt to ashes. Instead of being allowed to be eaten, it was considered as entirely a devoted thing; and he that touched it was not permitted to mingle with the congregation of Israel till he had submitted to certain lustratory rites. Now the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus belongs to this class. When He suffered, it was that by the shedding of His blood "He might sanctify the people;" i.e., expiate the sins of the spiritual Israel of God, and fit them for acceptable spiritual intercourse with God. His sacrifice was a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of all His people, answering to the sacrifice for the sins of all Israel on the great day of atonement. And that our Lord's sacrifice was of this character, was marked by His suffering death without the gates of Jerusalem, as the bodies of the victims offered for the sins of the Israelitish people were consumed without the camp, or without the city. Maimonides says, What originally was not lawful to be done in the camp, it was afterwards unlawful to do in the city.

The sacrifice of Christ plainly, then, belongs to that class of sacrifices of which not only the Israelites generally, but the priests, ay, even the high priest, were forbidden to participate. We Christians are permitted spiritually to feast on this sacrifice to eat the flesh and to drink the blood of the Son of man." We are allowed to feed on the sacrifice offered up for our sins, and not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole people of God. And we thus have a far higher privilege in reference to sacred food, not merely than the Israelites, but even than the priests themselves enjoyed. Such seems to me the

general meaning of the passage. The meaning of the Apostle does not seem to be, as some have supposed, 'We Christians have an altar-meaning the Lord's table-' to which no Jew, continuing to practise the rites of Judaism, can be admitted;' nor, We have a sacrifice on which we spiritually feed, but of which no Jew, continuing to practise the rites of Judaism, can participate; but, We Christians are allowed to feed on the propitiatory sacrifice for our own sins, the sins of the people of God, which even the priests under the Old Testament economy were not permitted to do.'

Thus it appears that these words contain a statement, and a proof of that statement. The statement is, 'We Christians, with regard to sacred food, have higher privileges, not only than the Jews, but even than the Jewish priests. We are allowed to feast on a sacrifice of the highest and holiest kind, which they were not.' The proof is, 'The highest and holiest kind of sacrifice was that which was offered on the great day of atonement for the sins of the people of God. Of that sacrifice even the priests were not permitted to eat. The blood was brought into the holy place, and what was not burnt on the altar was consumed without the camp, or without the city. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ was a sacrifice of this highest and holiest kind. It was a sacrifice for sin-it was a sacrifice for the sins of the whole spiritual people of God; and to mark it as the antitype of the sacrifice for sin on the great day of atonement, He suffered without the gates of Jerusalem. On this sacrifice we Christians are permitted to feed. We eat the flesh and we drink the blood of the Son of man, offered in sacrifice for our sins.' The conclusion is direct and inevitable: 'We Christians have higher privileges in reference to sacred food, not merely than the Jews, but than the Jewish priests. We have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle.'

Having thus endeavoured to ascertain the meaning of the Apostle's words, let us proceed to illustrate the sentiment which they contain. Fully to perceive the meaning and design of this statement, thus most satisfactorily proved, it will be necessary to inquire into the nature and value of the privilege of the Jews and the Jewish priests in feeding on sacrifices; then to inquire into the nature and value of the privilege of Christians in feeding spiritually on the sacrifice of Christ; and then, by a