their Shepherd as that Shepherd knew the Father. Would we understand how He knew the Father, let us turn to the Book of Psalms :"The sorrows of death compassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid; in my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried unto my God." "Plead, Lord," he said in that hour of darkness, “with them that plead with me, fight against those that fight against me." “The enemy crieth so, and the ungodly cometh on so fast; for they are minded to do me some mischief, so maliciously are they set against me." Jesus himself tells us what He found the Father then—“ my rock, my fortress, my deliverer, my God, my strength, in whom I trust." Thus we must know Him, our Light in darkness, our Comforter in sorrow, our Guide in perplexity, our Refuge and Shield in danger. He is all to us now that the Father was once to Him. the living Father hath sent me, and I eateth me even he shall live by me." we look, He is our example in looking. Israel; our example is "the Lamb of God."

"As

live by the Father, so he that And thus, though it is to Him We look to the Shepherd of

But Jesus knew that He should not look in vain. The love which had been His before the worlds were, could never, even in moments of deepest darkness, be absent from His thoughts; He was the beloved Son in whom the Father was well pleased; He knew Himself the heir of God. How very different is it in all respects with us! We are of yesterday, and gone to-morrow. And we are as sinful and polluted as we are short-lived and frail. We may look, and there be none to regard us; we may cry and there be none to answer to our cry. No, "the good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep." That Shepherd's blood is our boldness to enter the holiest; sin is put away, and is a hindrance in our path no more. And the love which gave itself to

put it away, and now lives on high to bless, has an eye ever observant, an ear ever open; it cannot forget, it can never, never forsake us. Let us, then, who are His people and the sheep of His pasture, follow our great Exemplar, and in every sorrow, distress, and extremity, lift up our eyes to heaven. We have the good Shepherd's warrant, "I am known of mine as I know the Father."*

JEPHTHAH AND HIS DAUGHTER.

Another question of some difficulty grows out of the case of Jephthah and his daughter. When Jephthah went forth against the Ammonites, he made a vow unto the Lord, that if he was enabled to triumph over them, and was returned to his house in peace, whatsoever should first come forth from his doors to meet him should be the Lord's, and he would offer it up for a burnt-offering. So when he returned, the first one to come forth to greet him was his daughter, his only child; and it is said that he did to her according to his vow. The question now is, Did he offer her up for a burnt sacrifice? and could he be justified in so doing? Our opinion is, that he did not make a sacrifice of her, and for the following reasons:-1. The language of Jephthah's vow, * From Mr Tait's Bible-Class Papers.

interpreted as it well may be, does not imply so much as this. The little Hebrew letter vau, commonly translated and, is in some instances translated or, and may be so translated here. And thus rendered, the vow would read: "Whatsoever cometh forth first to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, or I will offer it up for a burnt-offering." The meaning is, If the creature first coming forth is suitable for a burnt-offering, it shall be offered up, but if not, it shall be perpetually consecrated and devoted to the Lord. Now, his daughter was not suitable for a burnt-offering. He could not so dispose of her, in consistency with the law of Moses, or with the spirit of his religion. What then does his vow bind him to do? To consecrate and devote her to the Lord, to be in a peculiar sense His, so that she shall never be given in marriage to any man. She must belong to the Lord, and to no one else. This seems to us to be the purport of the vow. And now, we remark, 2dly, that what is said of her afterwards is consistent with this interpretation, and with no other. What did her companions bewail in regard to her? Not her death, but her perpetual virginity. And when her father had done to her according to his vow, it is said of her that "she knew no man.” In other words, she remained a virgin—a thing quite superfluous to be said on supposition of her death.-The Theological and Literary Journal, edited by Mr Lord.

REV. xxi. 2.

"I John saw the holy city."

เ "He will shew you things to come,” said Christ to His disciples, when about to depart out of the world and obtain for them the gift of the Holy Spirit. And now we have the testimony of credible eye-witnesses, not only with regard to transactions that have taken place, but with regard to events that are yet in the future. The Spirit of God searcheth the deep things of God, even the things of the distant future; and the beloved disciple, in the Spirit, was permitted to behold, in anticipation, that marvellous scene, which, when it actually occurs, will light up the whole universe with a new splendour. If we receive the testimony of John concerning the water and the blood which flowed from the wounded side of the crucified Christ, we may equally receive it when he speaks of what was shewn to him by that risen Saviour who had power to loose the seven seals. We may confidently say, "We seek a city which hath foundations." No visionary city, no castle in the air; but a city that has been seen by our representative, John, and which will be revealed in its time. The people of God upon the earth are called "saints; " compared with what they once were, and with the world around them, they are holy; but compared with Christ, how far from holy! When He shall appear, they shall be like Him; for they shall see Him as He is. John saw (in vision) the Church in her perfected state, without spot, or blemish, or any such thing; we by faith behold the same, and are careful, accordingly, to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord.-Bombay Guardian.

Reviews.

Notes on the Book of Leviticus. London: Morrish.

WE regret to say that the author of this volume takes the Socinian view of most of the sacrifices. He thus writes of the burnt-offering :"The burnt-offering does not foreshadow Christ on the cross bearing sin, but Christ on the cross accomplishing the will of God!" (P. 11.) Thus propitiation is struck out of the burnt-offering; and this great sacrifice of bloodshedding is made to indicate nothing more than what Priestley in the last century, and Maurice in the present, contend for ! The arguments made use of in defence of this view would strike propitiation out of all sacrifice, and subvert the cross of Christ. Bloodshedding, but no atonement in the blood! Yet the author is not Frederick Maurice!

Again, he thus writes of the meat-offering:—“The meat-offering is not the type of Christ as a sin-bearer. It foreshadows him in his perfect life, no doubt, but not as a sin-bearer, not as a substitute," &c. (P. 38.) Thus propitiation and substitution are struck out of the meatoffering. Though it is called "an offering made by fire," yet the author affirms that this implies "no thought of suffering for sin, no thought of suffering the wrath of God on account of sin, no thought of suffering at the hand of infinite justice, as the sinner's substitute." (P. 55.) This is precisely what the Socinians affirm. Proof from Scripture is not attempted in these "Notes." But as fire means wrath, we feel ourselves compelled to believe that whatever has fire connected with it has wrath connected it; and if wrath, then there must be sin, either personal or imputed. The author's affirmation (for no Scripture-proof is attempted) that "the two ideas of sweet savour and suffering for sin are wholly incompatible" (p. 55) seems to us a denial of all atonement. Again, he thus writes of the peace-offering :the peace-offering:-"In the peace-offering we have the shedding and sprinkling of blood, yet sin-bearing is not the thought." (P. 73.) This again strikes propitiation out of bloodshedding, and we do not suppose that any Socinian would go further. This would satisfy him. No propitiation in the blood of the peaceoffering! But we need not go through the book, a large part of which is spent in illustrating these Socinian interpretations of the sacrifices. The author has spared the sin-offering, so that Leviticus has still something of atonement in it, though not much. Yet in reference to the sin-offering there is a mysterious statement which we do not quite apprehend :-"The type introduces Christ, not as the voluntary accomplisher of the will of God, but as the bearer of the terrible thing called sin. The word voluntary would not harmonise with the object of the Spirit in the sin-offering." (P. 104.) We are not willing to suppose that the author could mean that Christ was an involuntary or unwilling

sin-bearer; yet that seems the drift of the statement.

We may say

this at least, that the above sentence contains either an unfortunate obscurity or a pernicious error. Both, possibly; for, in connexion with the above obscurity, he introduces the scene in Gethsemane, and the cry, "Let this cup pass. Not my will," &c. Does the author imply that the utterance in the garden proves that the Lord was an unwilling sin-bearer? If he does not mean this, we hardly know how to understand him.

We observe that the author holds what he calls "the heavenly humanity" of Christ, in opposition to the scriptural and orthodox view that Christ's body was truly of the substance of the Virgin.* In this he is but reviving the old Valentinian heresy.

We are bound to warn our readers against these "Notes on Leviticus." They contain most serious error, and are in many places just what a Socinian and Valentinian could wish. The author, we doubt not, abhors Socinianism, but he has written a volume for much of which Martineau might thank him. Maurice, certainly, will approve.

The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets in the Catholic Apostolic Church. London: Bosworth and Harrison. 1861.

WE may probably return to this volume, and examine fully this history and defence of "Irvingism." In casting our eye over the work, we noticed a statement which struck us at p. 89, that "the Macdonalds were grieved, and yet unmoved, by Mr Baxter's fall." This attempt to draw upon these good Port Glasgow men for a testimony in favour of Irvingism is not fair. The extract given, dated May 1832, is so far in favour of Mr Irving and his church. But it would have been more straightforward to let the reader know how changed the opinions of these brethren were in 1834. The following extracts will give our readers some idea of the real truth :

"For the very same reason which you give in your letter, we have been led to reject unhesitatingly their claims to the office of apostleship, and all the other ordinations which have followed from this. Scripture teaches us to look for very different testimonials for the proof of apostleship, than merely the testimony in the mouth of any person, even although that person may have at other times spoken by the Holy Ghost. The Lord confirmed the apostles' word with signs following at first; and doubtless will do so again, when He is pleased to call men into this high honour. But while we agree with you in rejecting so much of what is doing among them, we do not see that the whole work in London is at all based upon the apostleship; we see this rather as a snare which the devil has laid for those among whom the Lord was really working, to undo and bring confusion on the whole.

"At its commencement, the work bore every scriptural mark which could be desired, as far as we knew, and the Spirit of God among ourselves bore abundant testimony to their having really received the Holy Ghost amongst

* See Dodds on the Incarnation; Pearson on the Creed. Owen, after (On the Work of the Spirit, B. II., chap. iii.) quoting several passages, adds, "Which were neither to the purpose nor true, if He were not made of the substance or flesh of the blessed Virgin."

them. We dare not, therefore, turn away from them altogether, as being wholly under the power of delusion; but while we cannot but mourn for their very great blindness, we are all persuaded that the Lord was with them of a truth, and trust that He will in His own good time and way so bring round His purposes as to separate the chaff from the wheat amongst them."— (Memoirs of the Macdonalds, pp. 211, 212.)

"As I know whatever concerns the church here is to you a matter of no common interest, and feeling much for your connexion with the brethren from London, desiring that you may be led towards them in a way that shall be for the glory of God, I write to give you our reasons for standing apart from them; that these, in so far as you are enabled to see them to be according to the Word of God, may, through His blessing, be helpful to establish you in a right path. It is a matter far too solemn to be hastily judged ; but the same reason makes it but the more imperative to walk with steadfastness, divested as much as possible of any feelings that might bias the mind either to the right hand or to the left. You will no doubt have heard of the visit of and -; we felt obliged to refuse them the use of the chapel; this I am sure was not from any personal feeling; most gladly would we have received them, and as far as possible been helpful to them, if we could have seen them to be what they profess they are; but this we do not. You are well acquainted with our fears respecting them, both in points of doctrine and in all their ordinations; and although our information was not all correct, we find now with grief that it was so in all that is essential. We had much conversation with them; but there wants, in all they say, something on which the soul can rest, in a matter of such moment, with a complete and satisfied surrender, and without the possibility of being deceived; and that is Scripture proof, that as Paul they say none other things than those which Moses and the prophets did say should come. I hope I need not prove that this was always the way in which the church was led forward; that our Lord himself constantly appealed to the written word, declaring that He came for the very end of fulfilling the law and the prophets; the apostles also followed Him in this; indeed it must be so; as God's purpose is one from all eternity, and His way and manner of bringing it to pass has been revealed for the keeping and strength of His people in all ages. Whatever He does in the church must be an unfolding and establishing of what is written; this we do not find to be the case with them at present; their work is altogether of a different character from what was in any former period of the church. When they speak of first building the form of a temple, and then waiting till the Lord shall fill it with His glory, this seems to us to subvert the nature of the present dispensation, seeing the time has come when the true worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth, and this can only be as the covenant is fulfilled, 'I will dwell in them, and walk in them,' &c., and when this is, the lively stones are knit together by the unity of the one Spirit, and the temple as it rises is seen filled with the glory of God: We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord;' (the gifts of the Spirit are never spoken of as the glory of God; these are but a means for accomplishing this end; He himself is the all-glorious One, and manifested glory must be not His work but His image.) And therefore to speak of a temple first built and then enlightened, seems to us like speaking of a body growing up to maturity and then receiving life; the one is just as reasonable as the other. It is on this principle that we reject the apostles; believing the kingdom of God is not in word but in power. We expect to see apostles, if not with the same full measure of strength, at least with something of the same tokens which marked them in former times. The proofs which Paul gave when he was questioned, we do not consider as accidental and brought out by circum