friendship. No man of character would accept approach on such an assumption, however friendly the man might be. How much less is the God of all grace willing to receive into friendship and life everlasting those who do not understand the principle of His whole procedure toward man the exaltation of God and the subjection of man.

The details of the preparation of the ashes of the red heifer for the purification of death-tainted Israelites, are full of light on the question. The colour (red) tells us of sin-effects of some sort: and these were suffered by the Lord in being born of a condemned woman, and inheriting her weak and dying nature: its physical perfection ("without spot or blemish ") foreshadowed the spotless character of the Lord without which, the deliverance to be wrought could not have been granted:" Upon which never came yoke," tells us of the Lord's total dedication to what, even at twelve years of age, he termed “ My Father's business." The beast was to be given to the high priest for offering, but another was to slay it (Num. xix. 3). Who was the antitypical high priest, we know: "Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, offered up himself" (Heb. ix. 11, 14). But the killing was done by the Romans as the instruments of the Jews. The high priest was to "sprinkle the blood directly before the tabernacle of the congregation seven times," which was fulfilled in the case of the "greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building," into which he entered by or with his own blood: "into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (Heb. ix. 11, 24), and as for "seven times": perfection: one sacrifice for sins for ever (Heb. x. 12). The body of the beast, with the addition of cedar wood, the "sweet smelling savour of righteousness hyssop, cleansing power for others and scarlet, the sins of his people laid upon him: was burnt in change into spirit nature. The ashes (that which is left) were to be gathered for purification, and stored in a clean place outside the camp. Christ raised, transformed, and taken away, was preserved in the testimony of these things, which was stored outside the Mosaic economy in the Church of the living God, for purification from death of all who believe.

66

A man that was clean was to gather up the ashes: the testimony concerning Christ was promulgated by Peter and his fellow-apostles, to whom Jesus said, "Ye are clean through the word that I have spoken unto you." That is, justified men: it was not godless men who were used in the preaching of the gospel. Yet, notwithstanding the qualifying cleanness, the man gathering the ashes was to be "unclean until the even "-which is the state of all the servants of Christ, until the end of this defiled and Gentile day. They will wash and be clean on

the change to the incorruptible. Because the whole operation was intended to purify from the taint of death (as any one may see in reading the whole of Num. xix.), on the principle of taking away death by death-therefore uncleanness attached to everything accessory to the process until the process was complete. The high priest himself partook of the uncleanness (see verse 7), as well as the man who should gather up the ashes (verse 10).

Now these things were shadows, of which we see the perfect object projecting them when we see Christ as a partaker of condemned human nature for its emancipation and purification on the principles and with the objects already fully indicated. Away from this, all is confusion.

The Mosaic imputation of uncleanness to any one touching a grave or a dead man, may enable us to understand why Jesus, having lain in the grave nearly three days, forbad Mary to touch him, because of his non-cleansing as yet (Jno. xx. 17). Though the Lord's death had freed him from the law, Mary was still in subjection to it, and therefore it became him who " magnified the law and made it honourable," to recognise its ordinances on the actions of those on whom it still had claims.

The object of the various ordinances for cleansing in the cases of defilement is thus stated in Lev. xv. 31: "Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness that they die not in their uncleanness when they defile my tabernacle that is among them." This is calculated to convey, and was doubtless intended to convey (as one of the schoolmaster lessons of the law of Moses), an extreme sense of holiness of God, and of His condescension in stooping to have any dealings with unclean man, and His kindness in providing conditions under which He would consent to accept human approaches. It is a solemn and imperative truth forced home upon us in many ways in the course of the divine revelation--from the fixing of the engraved plate "HOLINESS to the LORD " on Aaron's forehead, to the Apocalyptic declaration that there shall not enter into the holy city anything that defileth. How constant the declaration in the law, "I, the Lord your God, am holy" (Lev. xx. 26): how impressive the covering of the faces and feet of the seraphim in the presence of His glory. How emphatic the teaching of the appointments before us, that there would be death to those who defile the divine holiness.

How much needed is the lesson in a day like ours, when men are drifting further and further away from all reverences in divine directions. How much needed even among many who have been called to holiness, but of whom few seem adequately to realise the holiness of

the calling to which they have been called. Paul gives the matter a pointed practical application in 1 Cor. iii. 17: "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy, for the temple of God is holy." He had said "Ye are the temple of God," and again : "which temple ye are. It is this that gives point to the statement. And again: "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's" (1 Cor. vi. 19-20). And again: "Ye are the temple of the living God, as God hath said, I will dwell in them and walk in them" (2 Cor. vi. 16).

The lesson of the Mosaic shadow is plain in this bearing. Unholiness of body or spirit will evoke death: but the antitypical sacrifice brought in the hands in daily prayer, will ensure forgiveness if holiness is followed: "without which no man shall see the Lord " (Heb. xii. 14). How far removed from the righteousness of God, and acceptability with Him, the unbelieving and disobedient world, of all hues and complexions, who practice unholiness and irreverence with fearlessness and even with presumptuous hope that they will be saved without any reference to God's appointments.

CHAPTER XXIX.-MEATS.

'N view of the detestation in which death was legally held by the entire institution of the law of Moses, it is not wonderful that the Israelites should have been forbidden to eat "that which died of itself or that which was torn with beasts (Lev. xvii. 15), or that the same imputation of uncleanness should arise in such a case, and the same necessity exist for purification. To eat that which had died of itself was contact with death in a more intimate form than by touching a dead body or entering a death-defiled tent.

It might be supposed that eating flesh-meat in any case would be the contracting of this defilement, seeing that creatures must be dead before they can be eaten. It would have been so if the law of Moses had been a merely hygienic system like vegetarianism, or any other attempt to found human feeding on the natural effects of certain foods on the human system. But the law of Moses was not a hygienic system, though all its principles were in harmony with the best hygienic principles it was a system of spiritual significances adapted to serve the double purpose of physical well-being and spiritual education. Therefore, while forbidding the eating of the flesh of animals that had died a natural death or been slain by other animals, it could consistently allow the eating of flesh properly killed; because although the physical state of the flesh might be the same in both cases, the allegorical bearings were not the same.

:

Flesh dying of itself would be flesh diseased, and flesh rent for the sustenance of beasts of prey would be flesh dying in animal wantonness or in accident--neither of which could prefigure the sinless Lamb of God laying down his life in obedience to the commandment of the Father. So far as physical considerations were concerned, the meat in question was fit enough to be eaten. Hence, the Israelites were at liberty to "give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates that he may eat it or sell it unto an alien" (Deut. xiv. 21). As for themselves, they were "an holy people unto the Lord thy God," and therefore bound by all that was involved in the law given to them.

But we come now to another class of eating, or rather to other rules affecting the eating of the children of Israel. They were not only to abstain from "that which dieth of itself or is torn of beasts," but they were to abstain from the flesh of particular creatures

even if properly slain; and this is not on the principle of "liking" them or not liking them, but on the principle of certain peculiarities characterising the creatures: " Every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, that shall ye eat. These shall

ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales. in the waters, in the seas and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be abomination unto you. Ye shall not eat of their flesh. All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be abomination to you. Every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you. Whatsoever goeth upon the belly and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat, for they are an abomination (Lev. xi. and Deut. xiv.).

In accordance with these principles of classification, lists were drawn out of creatures that might be eaten, and creatures that might not be eaten. Among the former were the ox, the sheep, the goat, the hart, the roebuck, the fallow deer, the wild goat, the pygarg, the wild ox and the chamois. Among the latter,the camel, the coney, the hare, the pig, and many kinds of birds that could not be brought into the classification.

That these distinctions were what might be called artificial, is evident from Paul's remarks on meats, in Rom. xiv. : "I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." The words of Jesus were to the same effect: "Not that which goeth into a man, but that which cometh out of a man (evil thoughts, adulteries, &c.) that defileth the man.”

Yet for the time being, while the law was in force, the distinctions between clean meats and defiling meats was real, and constituted part of the "righteousness which is of the law," touching which Paul was blameless. The question which the mind is concerned to probe is, what spiritual principle was allegorically involved in the distinction made between clean and unclean beasts? We are aided somewhat in this quest by the vision which was thrice shown to Peter to prepare him for a divinely-purposed message apparently inconsistent with the previous commandment of the law to stand apart from the Gentiles. By this vision, we see the unclean beasts stood for persons. The features of the vision are familiar to all who are familiar with the Scriptures. Still, they seem to need repeating in this connection :