who are styled the uncircumcision (Rom. iii. 1. 30. iv. 12. Gal. ii. 7-9. Eph. ii. 11. Phil. iii. 5.); the abstract being put for the concrete. Thus, our Saviour is called the minister of circumcision; and therefore St. Paul says, that whoever is circumcised, is bound to keep the whole law. (Gal. v. 3.) For the same reason Jesus Christ was circumcised, that he might be made under the law, to fulfil the promise of the Messiah, and redeem those who were under the law. (Gal. iv. 4.) Secondly, as only circumcised persons were deemed to be visible members of the Jewish church, so none but these were permitted to celebrate the great festivals, particularly the passover. On this account it was that Joshua commanded all the Israelites, who having been born in the wilderness remained uncircumcised, to undergo the rite of circumcision, previously to their entering the land of Canaan (Josh. v. 4. 6. 9.); on which occasion God told them that he had removed or rolled away the reproach of Egypt from them; in other words, that they should thenceforth be regarded as his peculiar people, and no longer as the slaves of Egypt. The knowledge of this circumstance beautifully illustrates Eph. ii. 11-13.; where St. Paul, describing the wretched state of the Gentiles before their conversion, represents them as aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and consequently excluded from all its privileges and blessings. Thirdly, circumcision was an open profession of the worship of the true God, and consequently an abjuration of idolatry; on this account we are told that during the persecution of Antiochus the heathen put to death those Jewish women who had caused their children to be circumcised; and such Jews as apostatised to heathenism took away as much as possible every vestige of circumcision. As this rite was an open profession of the Jewish religion, some zealous converts from that faith to Christianity strenuously urged its continuance, especially among those who were of Jewish origin; but this was expressly prohibited by St. Paul. (1 Cor. vii. 18.)

Lastly, circumcision was appointed for mystical and moral reasons: it was, as baptism is with us, an external sign of inward purity and holiness: hence these expressions of "circumcising the foreskin of the heart," the "circumcision of the heart," the "circumcision made without hands," the "uncircumcised in heart," &c. so often occurring in the Scriptures.

1 1 Macc. i. 63. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xii. c. 7.

2 See Lev. xxvi. 41, 42. Deut. x. 16. xxx. 6. Jer. iv. 4. ix. 25, 26. Rom. ii. 2529. Col. ii. 11. Acts vii. 51. Circumcision was that rite of the law by which the Israelites were taken into God's covenant; and (in the spirit of it) was the same as baptism among Christians. For as the form of baptism expresses the putting away of sin, eircumcision was another form to the same effect. The Scripture speaks of a "circumcision made without hands," of which that made with hands was no more than an outward sign, which denoted "the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," (Col. ii. 11.) and becoming a new creature; which is the sense of our baptism. Of this inward and spiritual grace of circumcision the apostle speaks expressly in another place; "He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is "that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." (Rom. ii. 28.) Some may suppose that this spiritual application of circumcision,

The sacrament of circumcision was enjoined to be observed on the eighth day (Gen. xvii. 12.), including the day when the child was born, and that on which it was performed; and so scrupulous were the Jews in obeying the letter of the law, that they never neglected it, even though it happened on the sabbath day. (John vii. 22, 23.) This they termed "driving away the sabbath." If they were obliged to perform circumcision, either sooner or later, it was considered as a misfortune, and the circumcision so administered, though valid, was not deemed equally good with that done on the eighth day and when this ceremony was deferred, it was never used to drive away the sabbath. It was for this reason that St. Paul accounted it no small privilege to have been circumcised on the eighth day. Accordingly John the Baptist (Luke i. 59.) and Jesus Christ (Luke ii. 21.) were circumcised exactly on that day. There was a peculiar fitness in the circumcision of Jesus Christ: for, as the Jews reckoned it dishonourable to associate with uncircumcised persons (Acts xi. 3.), it was necessary that he should be circumcised in order to qualify him for conversing familiarly with them, and also for discharging the other duties of his ministry. Besides, as the Messiah was to be descended from Abraham, whose posterity were distinguished from the rest of mankind by this rite, he received the seal of circumcision to show that he was rightly descended from that patriarch: and as every person that was circumcised was "a debtor to the whole law" (Gal. v. 3.), it was further necessary that Jesus Christ the true Messiah should be circumcised; because, being thus subjected to the law of Moses, he was put in a condition to fulfil all righteousness, and redeem those who were under the law.1 (Gal. iv. 4, 5.)

At the same time that the child was circumcised, we learn from the Gospel, that it was usual for the father, or some near relation, to give him a name. Thus John the Baptist and Jesus Christ both received their names on that day. (Luke i. 59. ii. 21.) It appears, however, that the Jews had several names during the period comprised in the evangelical history. Thus it was customary with them, when travelling into foreign countries, or familiarly conversing with as a sacrament, was invented after the preaching of the Gospel, when the veil was taken from the law; but this doctrine was only enforced to those who had it before, and had departed from the sense of their own law; for thus did Moses instruct the Jews, that there is a "foreskin of the heart" which was to be "circumcised" in a moral or spiritual way, before they could be accepted as the servants of God; and again, that the Lord would "circumcise their heart, to love him with all their "heart, and with all their soul” (Deut. x. 16. and xxx. 6.); which was the same as to say, that he would give them what circumcision signified, making them Jews inwardly, and giving them the inward grace with the outward sign; without which the letter of baptism avails no more now than the letter of circumcision did then: and we may say of the one as is said of the other, "He is not a Christian which is one "outwardly, and baptism is not the putting away the filth of the flesh by washing "with water, but the answer of a good conscience towards God." (1 Pet. iii. 21.) Rev. W. Jones on the Figurative Language of Scripture. (Works, vol. iii. pp. 77, 78.) On this subject Dr. Graves has some excellent remarks, in his Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. i. pp. 241-250. See also an excellent discourse of Bishop Beveridge, entitled "The New Creature in Christianity." Works, vol. ii. Serm. xix, pp. 417. et seq. 8vo. edit.

1 Macknight and Whitby on Luke ii. 21.

the Greeks and Romans, to assume a Greek or Latin name of great affinity, and sometimes of the very same signification with that of their own country, by which name they were usually called among the Gentiles. So Thomas was called Didymus (John xi. 16.); the one a Syriac and the other a Greek word, but both signifying a twin. (See Acts i. 23. xii. 12. 2 Pet. i. 1. Col. iv. 11., &c.) Sometimes the name was added from their country, as Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot (Matt. x. 4.); but more frequently from their assuming a new and different name upon particular occurrences in life. (See 2 Chron. xxxvi. 4. 2 Kings xxiv. 17. John i. 42.) The same practice obtains in the East to this day.1

However necessary circumcision was while the ceremonial law remained in force, it became equally indifferent and unnecessary on the abrogation of that law by the destruction of the temple. Until that time the apostles allowed it to be performed on the Jewish converts to Christianity; but they expressly prohibited the imposition of such a yoke on the necks of the Gentile converts: and therefore St. Paul, who has fully proved how unprofitable and unnecessary it is (1 Cor. vii. 19.), thought it proper to have Timothy circumcised, because his mother was of Jewish extraction (Acts xvi. 1-3.); though he would not, on the other hand, allow this ceremony to be performed on Titus, because he was a Greek (Gal. ii. 3.) :-thus giving to the church in all ages a most excellent pattern, either of condescension or resolution, in insisting upon or omitting things indifferent according to the difference of times and circumstances.2

IX. In the initiation of proselytes to the Jewish religion, according to the rabbinical writers, the three following observances were appointed, namely, circumcision, baptism, and the offering of sacrifice.

1. Circumcision was the seal of the covenant into which the proselyte entered with God, and of the solemn profession which he made to observe the entire law of Moses: and if the proselyte were a Samaritan, or of any other nation that used that rite, blood was to be drawn afresh from the part circumcised.

2. The second ceremony was washing or baptism; which must be performed in the presence of at least three Jews of distinction. At the time of its performance the proselyte declared his abhorrence of his past life, and that no secular motives, but a sincere love for the law of Moses, induced him to be baptised; and he was then instructed in the most essential parts of the law. He promised, at the same time, to lead a holy life, to worship the true God, and to keep his commandments.

1 See Harmer's Observations, vol. iv. pp. 431-433.

2 Beausobre and L'Enfant's Introd. to the New Test. (Bishop Watson's Coll. of Tracts, vol. iii. pp. 205, 206.) Schulzii, Archeol. Hebr. pp. 159-166. Ikenii Antiq. pp. 343-347. Stosch. Compend. Archæol. Economica Nov. Test. § 3236. Edwards on the Authority, &c. of Scripture, vol. ii. pp. 313-330. Mr. Allen has given an interesting account of the mode of circumcision that obtains among the Jews of the present time, in his "Modern Judaism," pp. 283

261

3. The third ceremony to be performed was that of offering sacrifice. All these rites, except circumcision, were performed by the women, as well as the men, who became proselytes: and it was a common notion among the Jews, that every person who had duly performed them all was to be considered as a new-born infant. Thus Maimonides expressly says:-" A Gentile who is become a proselyte, and a slave who is set at liberty, are both as it were new-born babes; which is the reason why those who before were their parents, are now no longer so."

SECTION II.

ON THE MINISTERS OF THE TEMPLE, AND OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL OR SACRED PERSONS.

I. Of the Levites.-II. The Priests, their functions, maintenance, and privileges.-III. The High Priest.-Succession to the pontifical dignity. His qualifications, functions, dress, and privileges. -IV. Officers of the Synagogue.-V. The Nazarites; nature of their vows.-VI. The Rechabites.-VII. The Prophets.

THE Jews, on the establishment of their republic, had no king but Jehovah himself; and the place appointed for their sacrifices and prayers was at the same time both the temple of their God and the palace of their sovereign. This circumstance will account for the pomp and splendour of their worship, as well as the number, variety, and gradations in rank of their ministers; which were first established by Moses, and afterwards renewed by David, with increased splendour, for the service of the temple. To this service the tribe of Levi was especially devoted, instead of the first-born of the tribes of Israel, and was disengaged from all secular labours. priesthood, however, was reserved to the family of Aaron alone, the The honour of the rest of the tribe being employed in the inferior offices of the temple :

1 Some learned men have supposed that our Lord alluded to this rabbinical tradition when he reproached Nicodemus with being a master in Israel (John iii. 10.), and yet being at the same time ignorant how a man could be born a second time. But it is most probable that Jesus Christ referred to that spiritual meaning of circumcision above noticed (see p. 258. and note 2 supra); because there are no traces of Jewish proselyte-baptism earlier than the middle of the second century. Consequently it is more likely that the Jews took the hint of proselyte-baptism from the Christians, after our Saviour's time, than that he borrowed his baptism from theirs; which, whenever it came into practice, was one of those additions to the law of God so severely censured by him. (Matt. xv. 9.) The arguments on the much disputed question, Whether baptism was in use, or not, before the time of our Saviour, are reviewed by Carpzov in his Apparatus Antiquitatum Sacrarum, p. 49, and by Dr. Jennings in his Jewish Antiquities, book i. c. 3. also Dr. Whitby's Paraphrase and Notes on John iii. 4, 5, 6. It may not be irrelevant PP. 65-68. See to remark that the learned Dr. Campbell refers our Lord's censure of Nicodemus, not to the rabbinical notion above mentioned, but rather to his entire ignorance of that effusion of the Spirit which would take place under the Messiah, and which had been so clearly foretold by the prophets. Translation of the Four Gospels. vol ii. pp. 515. 3d edit.

so that all the priests were Levites, but all the Levites were not priests.

:

I. Originally, the tribe of Levi was divided into the three families and orders of Gershonites, Kohathites, and Merarites (1 Chron. vi. 16., &c.), but afterwards they were divided by David (1 Chron. xxiii.) into four classes. Their principal office was to wait upon the priests, and be assisting to them in the service of the tabernacle and temple; so that they were properly the ministers and servants of the priests, and obliged to obey their orders. (Numb. iii. 9. 1 Chron. xxiii. 28.) But the particular duties incumbent upon them were different in the time of Moses, while the Israelites were in the wilderness, from those which they had to discharge afterwards, in the days of David and Solomon. In the wilderness the tabernacle was always in a moveable condition as well as the Israelites and at that time the chief business of the Levites was, when the Israelites journeyed, to take down the tabernacle, to carry it about as the host removed, to take care of all the instruments and sacred vessels belonging to it, and when the army pitched their tents to set them up again. Aaron, indeed, together with his sons the priests, were to take the ark of the covenant, the table of show-bread, the candlestick, the altar of incense, and the altar of burnt-offerings, with all the utensils belonging thereto, and to cover them up severally with decency and care, in the manner as described in Numb. iv. 5-15. But all these things were to be borne and carried by the Levites, in the doing of which the priests were to appoint every one of the Levites to his service and his burden. (ver. 19.) In order that we may the better understand this precept, it should be observed, that the Israelitish camp was never to move until the cloud (which was the token of the divine presence) was taken up and removed from off the tabernacle (Exod. xl. 36, 37. Numb. x. 11.); so that when the cloud rested upon the tabernacle, and the glory of the Lord filled the house, none but Aaron might enter into the most holy place, where the ark was, and that but one day in the year. But in their journeyings the glory of the Lord, which made that place so holy, being for the present removed in the cloud, when it was taken up from the tabernacle, not only Aaron, but also his sons the priests, might go into the most holy place without any irreverence, and cover the ark according to the directions given by God.

For the more regular performance of the several duties belonging to the tabernacle, the whole business was divided between the Kohathites, the Gershonites, and the Merarites. The first were principally concerned in carrying the ark and sacred vessels belonging to the tabernacle under the conduct of Eleazar the priest (Numb. iv. 16.), which being the most honourable employment, was given to them, most probably out of respect to Moses, who was descended from this family. The Gershonites and Merarites, under the direction of Ithamar, had the burden and charge of every thing else belonging to the tabernacle, as the coverings, hangings, woodwork, cords, pins, &c. (ver. 24-34.) Now when the Israelites were en