and the new earth do not appear; and Israel is not yet gathered "from the land of the north, and from all the lands;" and "Jerusalem" is not yet "a rejoicing," nor "her people a joy."

But, first, it does not follow, that the observances of the old institutions are to last till the new be practically in force; and the old institutions are not now, and cannot be, practically in force-while far from the land of promise, without priests, without sacrifice, &c.,-in reality, the old institutions in their full integrity, have ceased, and all we want to prove is-what cannot be denied that the old institutions will not be resumed, but superseded by others.

and my

saith the

Secondly, we affirm, that the ACT of the new creation, and of the final EXODUS from among all nations, on the part of God, is already accomplished in the incarnation of the Son of Godin his atoning death, resurrection, and ascension, and the giving of the Holy Ghost. What remains to be done is, on the part of man; to repent,-to look on him "whom they have pierced" (Zech. xii. 10); to "seek the Lord their God and David their king" (Hos. iii. 5); to have the "clean water" sprinkled upon them (Ezek. xxxvi. 25); "To-day if ye will hear his voice" (Ps. xcv. 7); and anon, "ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands......for my salvation is near to come, righteousness to be revealed" (Is. lv. 12; lvi. 1), Lord; "I the Lord will hasten it in his time." And this being the case, while with the eye of faith we can already see the glory which is to be revealed, "old things are passed away; behold all things are become new;" (2 Cor. v. 17)— then we are now already bound by the institutions of the " new covenant”—and no longer by those of the old; even as the Jews, while they were yet in the wilderness, had already to observe that covenant which had a reference chiefly, if not solely, to the land of Canaan. (See Deut. xxvi. 1, &c.) The Jews, and in a manner Christians too, may even now be in a wilderness-active slavery having ceased-even "the wilderness of the people." (Ezek. xx. 35.) The Jews in the wilderness did, indeed, not, and could not, observe all things pertaining to their then new covenant; nor do we, nor can we, as Christians,

(lx. 22.)

yet observe all things, which we may have to observe when "the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts iii. 21), will have come, (as Is. lxvi. 23. Zech. xiv., &c.) In no case, however, can we have anything more to do with the letter of the institutions of the old covenant; but are bound, altogether and alone, by the new covenant, in all it teaches us to do and to observe for the time being. It is remarkable, that of the latter part of the Prophet Ezekiel, the ancient Jewish rabbies record, that they cannot be understood till Elijah shall come and expound them.*

VIII. It remains then, we have nothing more to do with what was to "vanish away," which "neither our fathers, nor we were able to bear," and "which have not profited them that have been occupied therein."

IX. But some attempt to make a distinction between the observances of the law of Moses, and want Jewish Christians at least to observe some of them: but on what authority is that distinction made? When the Gospel speaks of the inappli cability and insufficiency of the law as a rule of life for the Christian, it speaks of the law as a whole, not even excepting what is usually termed the "moral law." Thus our blessed Lord, in his "sermon on the Mount," "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, . . . . but I say unto you," &c., &c. So St. Paul," Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly compre hended in this saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Rom. xiii. 8, 9; see also 1 Tim. i. 4—11.) And let it be remembered, that to "love one another" is the " mandment" of "the Mediator of a better covenant" (John xiii. 34), dressed in a garment, breathed in an atmosphere, which makes it altogether "new." Still will some make a difference; with circumcision, for instance, because it is said of it, that it is "of

new com

(.18 .on Ezek. xlv) רד"ק פרשה זו עתיד אליהו לדרשה כלומר שאין אנו יודעין לדרשה

And this saying is older than our division of chapters: hence the word here, cannot be restricted to the one chapter on which this is declared.

the fathers:" but our blessed Lord says at the same time, "Moses... gave you circumcision" (John vii. 22.); because although it was before, it was subsequently included in that covenant which God gave us by Moses, on which account alone the practice of it continued; and whenever the other observances enjoined by Moses cease, in their literal sense, this must cease also.

X. Let us, however, consider circumcision. Isaiah (lii. 1) exclaims, "Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come unto thee the uncircumcised, and the unclean." Now this can in no case exclude Jewish Christians, converted in riper years, as they have all been "circumcised the eighth day;" but their uncircumcised children it might exclude, if the word "uncircumcised" is to be understood literally. But what would then become of Gentile Christians? Ezekiel (xliv. 9) plainly declares, "No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel." If the uncircumcised children of Jews be excluded, then are all Gentile Christians equally excluded; if the former must be circumcised, then must the latter also. So that in no case can a difference be put between believers; and the rule in the law remains also here again the rule of the Gospel, "One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you." (Numb. xv. 16.) But Gentiles are not excluded, neither from "the holy city" nor from the "sanctuary." The prophets declare, "My house shall be called an house of prayer for all people;" and still the apostle declares to Gentiles, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Gal. v. 3, 4.) If there be any difficulty here, it is one for Gentile Christians, without in any way countenancing a difference between believers. And that there be here some difficulty of this kind may be admitted. While both the prophets and the Gospel, however, admit Gentiles to a full participation in the promises, and the inheritance of Israel; and while circumcision is nowhere made the condition in the former, and is absolutely interdicted in the latter; and while we believe that "the Old Testament is not contrary to the New," and that we may not "so expound one place of Scripture that it

*

be repugnant to another," we may conclude that, notwithstanding the plainness of the words, the passage (Ezek. xliv. 9) is not to be understood literally; and to this we have many clues. First it is parallel with ver. 7, where the Jews are reproved for having admitted into the temple "strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh," at the time when the literal circumcision was obligatory; the same words (in Hebrew) may therefore here (ver. 9) be used to imply no more than this, that persons, standing in the same relation to the chosen people under the new covenant, as the literally uncircumcised stranger stood to the Jews under the old covenant, shall not be permitted to "enter into" the "sanctuary." In Isaiah (lii. 1) it is only said, "the uncircumcised and the unclean," "flesh," &c., not being mentioned at all: and the word " uncircumcised" is fully adopted in the New Testament as synonymous with unconverted, unregenerate. Elsewhere (xxxv. 8) Isaiah describes those who are excluded from

"

66

The Rabbinical tradition on this passage (Ezek. xliv. 7, 9) is remarkable, explaining the word "stranger," not of a person who is not a Jew, but a "Jewish stranger;" "uncircumcised in heart" is explained, idolaters;" and " uncircumcised in flesh," "a priest whose brothers died of circumcision" (and therefore was himself withheld from circumcision). They add, “ And although we do not find this (rule) in the law of Moses, it was a tradition in the oral law.” I indeed incline to think, that the tradition alluded to has been mutilated, but originally may have conveyed the true interpretation. I conclude this from the monosyllabic style, and the interpolated parenthesis, in which this concession is made, that "stranger" does not mean a Gentile, an admission which rabbies are never inclined to; but it is worth notice, that they do not understand the words literally; and thus themselves give us license to interpret the whole spiritually. (See both, and in loco.) But we need not Rabbinical license; the Prophet Ezekiel himself, in another chapter, absolutely forces upon us an interpretation precisely similar to the one we here adopt. Chap. xx. ver. 25, he says, " Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;" but in the very same chapter he declares of "judgments” and “statutes," which if a man do he shall even live in them" (see vers. 11. 13. 21); but it is obvious that the "statutes” and “ judgments” in the preceding verses mean commandments and precepts, which are holy, just, and good, by which a man might indeed live; while the “statutes” and “judgments" in the twenty-fifth verse mean denouncements and threatenings, as in Zechariah i. 6. But the same terms are made use of to make the antithesis stronger; there is in fact a strong irony implied, as in the address of the prophet to the typical Tyre, now-a-days so strongly exemplified. Isaiah xxiii. 15-18.

66

"the way of holiness" simply by the sole description of "the unclean." The Prophet Nahum (i. 15) describes them as "the wicked." Secondly, the prophet mentions the condition on which the "sons of the stranger" shall be brought unto the "holy mountain,” and made "joyful" in the Lord's "house of prayer;' but circumcision is not one of the conditions. He only says, "Also the sons of the stranger that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants (see Isa. lxv. 13, 14); every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant." (Isa. lvi. 6, 7.) What the "covenant" here mentioned means, the Christian need not be told; and the Sabbath shall (D. v.) be treated of at the end. Jeremiah (xii. 16) mentions also the condition of the admission of Gentiles, saying, "If they will diligently learn the ways of my people (as they did of the apostles), to swear by my name, The Lord liveth, as they taught my people to swear by Baal, then shall they be built in the midst of my people." Ezekiel (xlvii. 22) expressly provides, that "strangers," Gentiles, "shall have an inheritance with ... the tribes of Israel," without mentioning any condition; and to this the other prophets agree.

XI. Now a word for the Jew, who plumes himself on his circumcision, though his is not the old Mosaic circumcision, but that of the rabbies, adding to the simple rite, as commanded by God, a second part, in violation of the Word of God (Deut. iv. 2), and presumptuously declaring, that he who is circumcised as God commanded, but left out the Rabbinical part of it, is as if he had not

We cannot (מל ולא פרע כאלו לא מל) .been circumcised at all

here enter into the controversy at large, and must cut it short; and therefore simply leave the circumcision the choice, whether to believe that Messiah has come-and then the next event in our national history must be his second advent in glory, and our final restoration, and joy for evermore,—or else, that the Messiah be not yet come; and then the next event to be expected must be some kind of restoration, to build the temple into which Messiah must come (Dan. ix. 25, 26; Mal. iii. 1, &c.); then the Messiah die; then "the city and the sanctuary" be once more destroyed, and-dreadful alternative !-the children of Israel once more go into a long dreary captivity! Now we prefer the former proposition-believing Messiah is already come; that Jesus is