sight, your meaning being, in accordance with the fact, that they were not permitted to eat of this sacrifice; viz., of the sacrifice mentioned in Leviticus vi. 30, as distinct from other sacrifices mentioned Leviticus vi. 26. These latter sin offerings were to be eaten by the Priest in the Holy Place,—but he was not permitted to eat of the other sacrifices (mentioned at ver. 30) "whereof the blood was brought into the tabernacle of the Congregation to reconcile withal in the Holy Place." And of this sacrifice we have a special instance on each Great Day of Atonement, as in Leviticus xvi. 27. Now, I maintain that it is to this class of sacrifices that the Apostle refers in Heb. xiii. 10 and 11, as plainly indicated in that 11th verse; for the insertion of which verse I can see no reason, if we are to apply the 10th verse to some Christian privilege. You say that to understand the Apostle as referring to a Jewish sacrifice in the way this interpretation supposes, makes him to identify himself with Jewish superstitions. But, surely, this does not follow. He again and again refers to the divinely appointed Jewish Ordinances in illustrating his arguments; and here, also, he seems to mention a particular sacrifice, not as recommending its continuance, but, as I presently wish to suggest, for the purpose of enforcing an important lesson which he was teaching in the context to the Hebrew converts.

Also, you say, that the interpretation for which I contend violates the well-known canon, that "where a simple interpretation will suffice, that which is furthest from the text and context is generally the worst; the obvious meaning is the best." This, of course, is no bad Canon; but the question is, which interpretation violates it? Do those who understand the passage as referring to Christian privileges find such an interpretation simple and obvious? Do they agree as to the meaning of the "altar" here mentioned, or as to the meaning of the expression, "they which serve the Tabernacle"? or in their plan for harmonizing these two verses with the context? They do not. The Romanist and Ritualist seize upon the word "altar" greedily, as a forlorn text to support their sacrificial doctrine of the Eucharist; and sound Protestants, also, whilst rejecting this most gratuitous assumption that there is here any reference to the Lord's Supper, are nevertheless at a loss to say what "altar" does mean; some saying, as the excellent Bishop of Carlisle, that it means our Lord Himself; others, (as Dean Alford,) the cross on which He offered Himself; and there are other sug gestions besides, as noticed by Dean Alford, in loco. And besides, all such interpreters are obliged to depart entirely from the simple and obvious meaning of the words, "who serve the Tabernacle," and allegorize these words into a metaphor for Judaizing Christians, &c. Now, I venture to affirm, that this determinate, and, so to say, technical phrase, "they who serve the Tabernacle," is enough in itself to establish the interpretation which I am here advocating. In two other passages in this Epistle the Apostle uses kindred expressions to describe the actual Levitical Priests officiating at the Jewish altars. At Chap. viii. 5, he describes the Priests offering gifts according to the law, as those of λarpevovo; and again,

chap. ix. 6, with the expression, oï iepeïç raç λarpeiaç éñireλoûνTEG. Why, then, are we to suppose that now, by the like terms, he means no longer the Jewish Priests and Levites, but certain legalizing Christians, who are never so designated in any other passage? But if οἳ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες means, according to the simple and obvious interpretation, "Jewish Priests," then this seems to determine the altar in the former clause to be a Jewish altar also; and then the 11th verse points out the particular altar and sacrifice referred to, as already stated. And now observe how completely such a reference to this particular sacrifice harmonizes with the context. At verse 9, the Apostle warns his Hebrew converts against certain mistaken Teachers, (call them, if you like, Judaizing Teachers, but do not, therefore, go on with this idea to misinterpret verse 10). These Teachers had a notion that they were to get spiritual benefit somehow or another by meats, ßpparir, whatever that may mean. In opposition to this error, the Apostle instructs them that the heart was to be "established by grace, not by meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein." The will and affections were to be spiritually strengthened by God's grace, not by eating only of "clean" meats, or partaking of sacrifices; and this, he seems to me to go on to say, making himself "a Jew unto the Jews,"-You and I as Hebrews ought always to have known, for we have (there is legitimate conciliation in the exouer) amongst our own ancient rites one most important sacrifice, conferring great benefits, and yet those benefits come not by eating; no, not even by the eating of the officiating Priests, for you know that the sacrifice to which I allude, that on the day of Atonement, when the blood is brought into the Tabernacle to reconcile in the Holy Place, is not eaten, but burnt without the camp; and this was a special type of our Lord, who was crucified without the City. So, whatever reproach it may bring upon you from Judaizing Teachers, beware of carnal legal notions; and if you would gain spiritual good for your heart, offer up (verses 15, 16) spiritual sacrifices, the "sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name; and to do good and to communicate, forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." Surely, this is a natural and fair paraphrase of the whole passage, and gives an obvious and connected sense, enforcing the primary lesson, that the heart should be established xáρiri, not ẞpúμaoir, the Christian having to do only with spiritual sacrifices.

I need not point out how this interpretation, if it be, as I firmly believe, the true one, entirely cuts away the poor little straw by which Ritualists and Romanists endeavour to hang their false doctrine on the Eucharist; and not only so, but teaches a lesson directly opposite to the very essence of their false sacramental theory. I think it also may teach a sounder school, that their views of our Lord's everlasting, all-sufficient, and only priesthood, as stated so admirably and faithfully by the excellent Bishop of Carlisle, are not to be based on this text, though they are firmly founded on many another strong foundation-word of God's blessed book.-I remain, respectfully your's,

EDMUND D. WICKHAM, Incumbent of Holmwood.

HEBREWS XIII. 9-15.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

DEAR SIR,-I have for some years been persuaded, that the explanation of this passage, which Mr. Wickham has given in your July Number, is the true one. It may be as satisfactory to him, as it is to me, to learn that a second person has arrived, by a somewhat different process, at the same conclusion.

Romanists interpret the words, "we have an altar," of what we call the Lord's Table, and infer from it the oft-repeated sacrifice of the Mass. The objection to this interpretation lies on the surface. It contradicts all that St. Paul says in this Epistle concerning the one sacrifice of Christ.

Protestants interpret the word "altar" of the Cross, or Christ Himself. This is open to the objection-I think the fatal objection -that a figurative interpretation of one word is foisted into a passage, every other word of which is literal. To both the above interpretations I venture to object, that they imply an antithesis which does not exist in the original; and further, that neither has any connection with the context.

The passage is generally read thus:- "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat, which serve the Tabernacle." If a Greek scholar, unacquainted (if such a supposition can be allowed) with the original, in this place were asked to render the above into Greek, I cannot help thinking he wouldturn itthus:ἡμεῖς ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὗ ἐκεῖνοι, οἳ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύουσιν, φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν. But what is the Greek here ? ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες. Observe, ἡμεῖς is not there; and we have only the simple pronoun of reference and the general description οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες; with φαγεῖν also in the emphatic place of its clause. Surely, then, the English should be read, "We have an altar from which they who serve the Tabernacle have no right (or liberty) to eat."

oi

Further, I venture to observe, that the words, "who serve the Ta bernacle," describe the Jewish Priests, not the Jewish people; and that, therefore, there can scarcely be an antithesis intended here between Christians and Jews. For although I do not doubt that St. Paul, as well as St. Peter and St. John, recognized the priestly character of Christians; yet he could not surely have intended a contrast here between Christian Priests and Jewish Priests, when he has said nothing directly of Christians being Priests.

In confirmation of the opinion that exouer means here nothing more than "there is," I would just remark, that Paul, and those to whom he wrote, were not less Hebrews because they were Christians; and that, when he wrote, the Temple was still standing, the Jewish Priesthood still existing, the sacrifices still being offered.

Lastly, the interpretation given by Mr. Wickham and myself exactly coheres with the context, whereas both the others do violence to it.

one.

It is right, however, to mention one objection, and that a strong The words, as we explain them, mean this:-" Even under the Mosaic dispensation there is one altar, the sacrifice brought

from which may not be eaten even by the Priests, much less by any other person. That sacrifice is the Sin-offering, which was burnt without the camp. Even so Christ suffered without the gate of the City (or of the court of the Temple), being the Great Sin-offering." The objection to this is, (and I cannot deny that there is considerable weight in it,) that the language seems to imply that there was more than one altar. Perhaps the peculiarity of the paraphrasis may answer the objection. I must also acknowledge that Ignatius applies the word Ovσiaorpior to the Lord's table, though not in an explanation of this passage.-Yours faithfully, SYDNEY GEDdge.

"DOES GOD NOW ENJOIN ANY ONE FORM OF ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY ON HIS CHURCH ?"

To the Editor of the Christain Observer.

Ar a Clerical Meeting where this question was discussed, it was argued as follows :

1. If He have been pleased to enjoin any one form, He has doubtless done so, in order to its exclusive adoption.

2. It cannot, since He enjoins it, be in itself impracticable.

3. In the case supposed, His will in the matter is sufficiently declared to all whom it concerns; and

4. He will have given a pattern of the prescribed form, which otherwise could only be the subject of conjecture and controversy.

From these premises, it was inferred by their propounder, that voluntary non-compliance or deviation from the form enjoined, must be an act of rebellion against the Divine Lawgiver, and, persisted in, must exclude from His favour, now and ever.

At the meeting alluded to, no exception was taken to the reasoning here recorded. There may be a flaw in it nevertheless; and if there be, possibly some of your readers may point it out.

Romanism, receiving the propositions just stated as true, and persuaded, however falsely, that its own Ecclesiastical Polity is that enjoined, is consistent, when teaching that there is no salvation out of the Romish pale. Are they equally so, who, holding the exclusive jus divinum of Diocesan Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, or Congregationalism, yet shrink from drawing a similar conclusion in behalf of their respective communities? And again, is there such a thing as that uncovenanted mercy, to which those are professedly left who are not one with them in external form as well as in the Holy Spirit? These queries are not unimportant, in days like ours especially, and are becoming hourly of greater importance.

J. C.

NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.

British Mosses: their Homes, Aspects, Structure, and Uses. With a figure of each species etched from nature. By F. E. Tripp. Ldon: Bell and Daldy. 1868.-A more beautiful volume than this has not lately issued from the press. It is evidently meant to ornament the table of the drawing-room; and such works deserve to be encouraged. It is, with great propriety, dedicated to the parents of the author in the following concise and well expressed form:"From my earliest years, my father and mother have taught me to love and to search out the works of God; and to them this result of their teaching is gratefully dedicated." It is not so many years since works handsomely got up, as a species of elegant furniture for the drawing-room, contained at the best nothing better than some middling poetry, now long since forgotten. Here is a work, however,

of sterling value: it treats upon a subject of which in those days little was known,-British Mosses. It is a scientific work, and yet rendered attractive by the style in which Mr. Tripp illustrates his subject. We cannot resist the temptation to quote a part, and should be glad, if we could, to quote the whole of the fifth section, on "the use of mosses,' to which is prefixed this appropriate motto from the writings of our friend the Rev. J. C. Ryle :-"Nothing is use less in creation. The tiniest insects, the smallest mosses, have their uses" :

"The ends," says the author, "for which mosses are designed, are precisely those which their structure is best calculated to fulfil. They need depth, thickness, and warmth; these are obtained by their multitude of stems crossing and recrossing each other; softness gained by their infinity of little leaves; flexibility and toughness, which we find in their stems; power to make their way anywhere, which is given by the minuteness of their seeds; ability to maintain life, and hardihood of constitution, wherewith they are endowed through their cellular texture and atmospheric nourishment. In the order of the universe, we find that the use of mosses is primarily to other and more organized plants. They are spread at the roots of trees, and by their depth keep the warmth about them in winter, and the moisture in summer, which are necessary to their growth. But when they grow on their trunks and branches, mosses injure trees, by clogging their breathing pores. We next find that mosses are useful to the insect tribe; countless numbers of which find homes among their branches, and roam about in their shades as in mighty forests, and look with their thousand eyes upon the wonders of the ganzy leaves, and sun their wings of purple and gold, and burnish their shining armour upon the polished columns of their arms. Over her nest the carderbee constructs a dome of moss; and ascending higher yet, we find the birds' nests, built of wool and hay and moss.' Like loves like,' and mosses and birds are formed to be together, for every mossy bank is full of mimic bird'snests, with little brown heads peeping up from amid the feathers; with moss the squirrel lines his nest; and in its depths the dormouse curls himself round and sleeps the winter through.

But more important uses are fulfilled by mosses in forming soil for larger plants. A lichen is the first vegetable production to appear on the surface of a rock. By its decay, this forms sufficient soil for the lodgment of the spores of a moss; and when in its turn the moss dies, the soil is deepened yet more, and prepared for the nourishment of other plants. For man's direct needs