eyes of the people. Upon which, they say, Moses's face shone like the sun, Joshua's like the moon. But they should have observed, that Moses is ordered to put some of his glory or honour upon Joshua; which cannot be understood, with any propriety, of that miraculous lustre which Moses had no power to impart, but may very naturally be interpreted of the honour resulting from his authority and post in the government, in which Joshua was now to be joined with him.

We further observe, to this purpose, that when Jethro suggested to Moses, that, for his ease in the government, he should appoint a number of inferior officers under him, he (being doubtless informed by Moses of the extraordinary constitution of the Hebrew state) did not propose he should do it without a special order from Jehovah, but that he should consult the oracle: "If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure," &c.; Exod. xviii. 23. And thus, likewise, when any doubt arose about the meaning of any law which God had already given; or when any case occurred which the law had not expressly provided for, Jehovah himself must be consulted about it. As in the case of those who were defiled by a dead body, and therefore could not keep the passover on the day appointed, Numb. ix. 6-10; in the case of the sabbath-breaker, Numb. xv. 34, 35; and of Zelophehad's daughters, about the right of inheritance; Numb. xxvii. 5-7. From which instances it plainly appears, that God stood in the peculiar relation to the Israelites, of their king as well as their God. When, therefore, they afterwards desired a king "to judge them, like the other nations," God says, they had " rejected him, that he should not reign over them;" 1 Sam. viii. 7. And Samuel upbraids them with this their rebellion: "Ye said, a king shall reign over us, when the Lord your God was your king," 1 Sam. xii. 12; that is, in the same sense in which the kings of other nations are their kings; otherwise, the desiring an earthly king would not have been inconsistent with the sovereignty of Jehovah, and their allegiance to him.

Since, then, Jehovah himself was the king, as well as the God, of Israel, it follows, that the priests and Levites, who were the more immediate and stated attendants on his presence, in the royal tent or palace, as the tabernacle or temple

may be styled, and to whom the execution of the law was in many cases committed, were properly ministers of state and of civil government, as well as of religion. Thus, to them it belonged to declare who were clean and who were unclean; who should be shut out of the congregation, and who should be admitted into it. The people were to inquire of the law from their mouth, and that in respect to civil as well as religious matters; and they were appointed to teach Jacob God's judgments and Israel his laws, "even all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses;" Lev. x. 11; that is, the forensic laws, as well as the moral and ceremonial precepts.

Hence we are naturally led to conceive of a double use of the sacrifices which were offered by the priests in behalf, and at the charge of the people; of which they had a share, as the perquisites of their office: I mean, that, besides their typical and religious use, they were also intended for the support of the state and civil government; inasmuch as these ministers of state were chiefly maintained by them. So that the allotments to the priests, out of the sacrifices, may be considered as designed, like the civil-list money in other nations, for the immediate support of the crown and the officers of state.

On these principles we are enabled to account for Paul sacrificing, as we are informed he did, after the commencement of the Christian dispensation, Acts xxi. 26; an action which has been severely censured by some, as the greatest error of his life. Hereby he not only gave, say they, too much countenance to the Jews, in their superstitious adherence to the law of Moses, after it was abrogated by Christ; but his offering these typical sacrifices, after the antitype of them was accomplished in the sacrifice of Christ, was a virtual denial of Christ, and of the virtue of his sacrifice, which superseded all others. Paul's long trouble, which began immediately after this affair, some have looked upon as a judgment of God upon him for this great offence. But if this action was really so criminal as some suppose, one cannot enough wonder, that so good and so wise a man as Paul was should be guilty of it; and that the apostle James, and the other Christian elders, should all advise him to it; ver. 18. 23, 24. It is likewise strange, that we find no censure ever passed on this action by

C

any of the sacred writers; not even by Paul himself, who appears so ready, on other occasions, to acknowledge and humble himself for his errors and failings. On the contrary, he reflects with comfort on his having complied with the customs of the Jews, in order to remove their prejudice against him and his ministry, and against the gospel which he preached, and to win them over to embrace it: "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; and this I do for the gospel's sake;" 1 Cor. ix. 20. 23.

To elucidate this point, we are to consider, that there was a political as well as typical use of sacrifices; and that though the typical ceased upon the sacrifice of Christ, yet the political continued, till God in his providence broke up the Jewish state and polity, about forty years after our Saviour's death. Till that time, it was not merely lawful, but matter of duty, for good subjects to pay the dues which were appointed by law for the support of the government and magistracy. Now of this kind was the sacrifice which Paul offered; and in this view they were paid by Christians, dwelling in Judea, as well as by those who still adhered to the Jewish religion. So that, upon the whole, this action, for which Paul has been so much censured, probably amounts to nothing more than paying the tribute due to the magistrate by law; which the apostle enjoins upon all other Christians in all other nations; Rom. xiii. 6.

From this account of the Theocracy, and of the peculiar relations in which God stood to the Hebrew nation, we may also perceive, in what sense, and how far, the Levitical sacrifices could make atonement for sin. This they are often said to do; and yet it is asserted in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. x. 4," that it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins;" that is, sins against God as our Creator and the Lord of conscience. But, besides the typical reference which the Jewish sacrifices had to the great atonement by the sacrifice of Christ, they may be supposed to make a proper and equitable atonement for transgressions of the peculiar law of the Theocracy, or for sins committed against God, merely as king of the Jews. It is enacted in the law of Moses, Lev. v. 15, 16, that if a person "had committed a trespass, and sinned through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord

(that is, by applying to his own private use what should have been paid to God as king, or to the priests his ministers), he should make amends to the full value in money; adding to it a fifth part more, and a ram for a trespass-offering; with which the priest should make atonement for him, and it should be forgiven him." Now, in the case of a sin of ignorance, this might well be deemed an equitable and full compensation, and so a proper atonement for the sin, or trespass. But if this, or any other trespass, was committed presumptuously, that is, wilfully and audaciously, in contempt of the divine Majesty and his authority, that circumstance rendered it a sin against God, as the Lord of conscience; for which therefore no brutal sacrifices could atone; but it is said, “That soul shall be cut off from among his people;" Numb. xv. 30.

We have only further to observe, upon this form of government, which was peculiar to the Hebrews, that as God himself was their king, so Moses was his viceroy, in whom the supreme ecclesiastical as well as civil power, under God, was lodged. By him Aaron and his sons were put into the priesthood; the royal palace, or tabernacle, was built by his direction; by him it was consecrated; he gave the nation the whole body of their laws; he was commander-in-chief of all their forces. All this did Moses by commission from God, or rather God did it by Moses. So that though the servant of God, yet, as chief among men, he is called king in Jeshurun; Deut. xxxiii. 5. For though government by kings, properly so called, was not set up till the days of Saul; yet the title was more ancient, and given to persons of high rank and great authority, though they were never crowned, never attended with royal pomp, nor invested with the regalia: in particular it was applied to the Judges. When Abimelech was made judge in Shechem, it is said, they made him king, Judges ix. 6; and when there was no judge in Israel, it is said, " there was no king;" Judges xvii. 6. Thus, in after ages, the Roman dictators likewise, to whom Godwin compares the Hebrew judges, are sometimes called kings, both by the Latin and Greek historians. It is not, therefore, difficult to account for Moses's being called king, though he was only God's lieutenant or viceroy.

But it is not so easy to account for Israel's being called Jeshurun. Some derive the word from w jashar, rectus, just or

righteous, and so make it to signify a righteous people. Montanus renders it rectitudo, and so does the Samaritan version. But it seems a considerable objection against this sense, that Israel is called Jeshurun at the very time that they are upbraided with their sins and their rebellion: “Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked," &c. Deut. xxxii. 15. It is replied, Jeshurun is the diminutive of jashar (for nomen auctum in fine est nomen diminutivum), and so imports, that though, in general and on the whole, they were a righteous people, yet they were not without great faults.

Perhaps Cocceius has given as probable an interpretation as any. He derives the word from shur, which signifies to see, behold, or discover; from whence, in the future tense plural, comes jashuru, which, with the addition of Nun paragogicum, makes Jeshurun; that is, the people who had the vision of God.* This makes the name Jeshurun to be properly applied to Israel, not only when Moses is called their king, but when they are upbraided with their rebellion against God; since the peculiar manifestation which God had made of himself to them, was a great aggravation of their ingratitude and rebellion. We now proceed to the

Second period of the Hebrew history; which commences with their entrance into Canaan under the command of Joshua, and expires at the long captivity.

Joshua, the successor of Moses, and captain-general of Israel, was of the tribe of Ephraim. His original name was yu

Hosheang, Numb. xiii. 8. It was changed by Moses, no doubt by God's command, into yw Jehoshuang, ver. 16. Now since both these names signify the same, namely, a Saviour, from y jashang, salvavit, he hath saved; it is inquired, for what reason his name was thus changed? To account for this, two conjectures are offered.

First, that it was in order to put an honour upon him, by adding one of the letters of the name of Jehovah to his name; as God changed Abram's name into Das Abraham; adding

to it, from his own name, say the Jews; Gen. xvii. 5. Thus www Jehoshuang may signify salvator Dei; and he was made even in his name a more eminent type of Christ, who bore

Ultima Mosis, sect. 973.