of Paul to the Corinthians relative to meats offered to idols, (1 Cor. x. 25-29,) were written A. D. 56, four years afterwards. There is no discrepancy between them, because they relate to different subjects. The sacrifices to idols were so numerous, that the flesh of the animals, not burned on the altar, and not eaten at the idolatrous feast, was sold in the markets, and brought a large revenue to the priests. Of such meats Paul writes, "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no questions for conscience' sake. But if any man say unto you, 'This is offered in sacrifice to idols ;' eat not, for his sake that showed it."-But the Council of the Apostles, in commanding to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols, or from pollutions of idols, obvi, ously refer to eating those meats, in an idol's temple at the idolatrous feast which followed the sacrifice, and in connection with the abominations then and there practised: conduct which would palpably countenance the worship of the idol. This must be sinful under all circumstances; and the command prohibit ing it could not be a ceremonial prohibition.* ̧

Many commentators on this passage, (Acts xv. 5—29,) appear to us to have made for themselves and their readers, by the very course which they have pursued, most of the difficulties in which they have been involved:-particularly by their comments on the two phrases in verses 20 and 29, relating to sacrifices to idols. The phrase, in versè 20, is, in the Greek, tãv åd¡tynμάtwv räv eidáλwv, from the pollutions of idols; and that, in verse 29, rã, eidwλobútwv, things, or meats, sacrificed to idols. They have regarded the latter phrase merely as explanatory of the former; whereas the former is as truly explanatory of the latter. The phrase, τά ἀλισγήματα τῶν εἰδώλων, denotes literally the abominations, or pollutions, of idols, and is certainly a strong expression of reprobation. Now we take upon ourselves to say, and without fear of contradiction, that when Paul (1 Cor. x. 2529) told the Corinthians to eat such meats as were sold in the market,

4. Had the three preceding commands been ceremonial; yet that prohibiting fornication would not have been of this character. If we take the word in its most limited sense, it surely needs no argument to prove, that a law, forbidding immoral intercourse among the unmarried, is not a ceremonial, but in the strictest sense a moral, law.

Hence no evidence can be derived from the decision of this Council, either directly, or by way of inference, that the Levitical Law, forbidding unlawful sexual intercourse, and particularly the Law of incest, was ceremonial. What, let me ask, are immoralities, if for nication, rape, sodomy, and bestiality are not-Besides; the Decision of the Council continues this very law in full force under the Christian Dispensation: and were we even to admit it to be ceremonial, it is still binding.*

without asking whether they had been sacrificed to idols or not, and even, if they found that they had been, to eat them, unless a brother was offended, he would never have called those meats, thus sold in the markets, Ta

ἀλισγήματα τῶν εἰδωλων, the abominations of idols. As he declares the eating of them a matter of perfect indifference, he could not have used this reprobatory language concerning them. Paul had no duplicity: he spake the same language at Corinth, and in Asia.-Should it be said that the latter phrase, that in verse 29, is the phrase, and the only phrase, used in the Letters of the Council; we admit it; but those Letters were carried by the hands of Barnabas and Paul, who were members of the Council, and of course were present with the churches, at the time of their delivery, to explain the full import of the Decree.

The

* This account of this passage, (Acts xv. 5—29,) relieves it, (if we mistake not,) from the difficulties, which have so generally been thought to attend it. The whole truth of the case seems to be this. Apostles and Elders were consulted on the question, Whether Circumcision and the Ceremonial Law were obligatory on the Gentiles. The Apostles, being aware that the Gentiles were generally accustomed to the use of blood for food, and to eat it at their sacrifices, to regard things strangled as dainties, to partake of idolatrous feasts in the temples of idols, and to practise every species of unlawful sexual intercourse, in

Among what description of offences, Incest is to be classed, will be seen further on. These remarks will be sufficient to satisfy the reader, that he, who attempts to class it among the offences of the Ceremonial Law, does so without argument or evidence.

II. The fact, that the Law of incest was a part of the Civil or Municipal Law of Israel, furnishes no evidence that it is not now in force.

Very vague and incorrect. notions have been extensively entertained, with regard to the obligations of the Civil Law of Israel. Because the Law of God, as summed up in the Two GREAT COMMANDMENTS,* and as somewhat enlarged in the TEN COMMANDMENTS, has been so generally entitled THE MORAL LAW; many persons seem to have taken it for granted, that the Civil Law of Israel had nothing in it of a moral nature; and that the offences, which it forbad, were not immoralities. Nothing, however, can be more absolutely erro

neous.

The CIVIL LAW OF ISRAEL was the CONSTITUTION OF THE ISRAELITISH STATE: establishing the Form of the Government with its Mode of Administration, and the Rights and Duties of rulers and subjects. The

the most open and shameless manner, in the very temples of their gods, and in immediate connection with their idolatrous worship; (See Tholuck's Influence of Heathenism, Bib. Repos. July, 1832, pp. 441— 464;) and knowing that the Gentile Converts would be in imminent danger, from long habit, and from the force of example, of continuing these sinful practices; took the occasion offered by the formal reference of this dispute to them, while they exempted the Gentile Converts from the observance of Circumcision and of the whole Ceremonial Law, solemnly to charge them to abstain from the sinful practices here enumerated. Nothing obviously could have been more wise, or more appropriate.

* To avoid a frequent repetition of circumlocutions, we shall call this law the Duologue.

form of government actually established was a THEOCRACY; in which JEHOVAH was as truly the acknowledged LORD, or SUPREME RULER, as, by the Ceremonial Law, he was the acknowledged GOD, or OBJECT OF SUPREME WORSHIP. From the time of the Exodus to the Coronation of Saul, about four hundred years, the administration of the Government was committed to a succession of Shophetim or Judges, (the same as the Suffetes of Carthage,) summoned individually to fill the office by a Divine call ; and from that Coronation to the overthrow of the state, about four hundred and eighty years, to a line of Monarchs, begun by his appointment, and continued by hereditary succession. The Judges and Kings were chief magistrates, acting under, and in the name of, the SUPREME RULER, professedly acknowledging his authority, and bound by the Constitution and the Laws which he had established.

The Civil or Municipal Law of Israel embraced Two Classes of Statutes: Local Statutes, and General Statutes.

First. LOCAL STATUTES.

The Local Statutes of Israel were all of a positive nature, were adapted to their peculiar circumstances as a nation, and grew, extensively, out of the great purpose or design of God, which they were appointed to accomplish. From the Exodus to the Commencement of the Christian Dispensation, nearly fifteen hundred years, they were the chosen People of God, set apart to preserve the worship of Jehovah on the Earth, and to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah the Saviour of the world, and for the calling or gathering to that worship of all the other Nations of the Earth. The Messiah was to come not only out of Israel, but

out of the family or tribe of Judah. It was necessary, therefore, that the Twelve Tribes should be kept distinct, until the coming of the Messiah; and in accordance with this design many statutes or ordinances of a strictly positive, local and temporary, character were established, to secure its accomplishment. I will mention some of them:

The Territory of each tribe was fixed by exact geographical boundaries, which the other tribes could, under no circumstances, transgress;

The Families or Clans of each tribe had their assigned estates in land, within that Territory.

Marriages could be contracted only in the tribe of the party contracting.

Estates could not descend to any one out of the tribe of the intestate.

The Genealogies of the various tribes, and of the various families in each tribe, were to be kept distinct in public records, each in an appointed place.

Estates, that were sold, or mortgaged for their full value, reverted to the owner or his family, on the return of the year of Jubilee, or of every fiftieth year.

Many other statutes of a local nature, not immediately and obviouly connected with the accomplishment of this great design, grew out of the peculiar circumstances and relations of the Israelites as a people. Among these may be mentioned the following:

The statutes establishing the various courts, and the various executive and judicial officers.

The statutes relating to leprosy, to jealousy, to the cities of refuge, to the interest of money loaned to an Israelite, to the order of the tribes in war, and to the division of the spoils.

The statute authorizing the enslaving of captives in