་

Whatever might have been the disadvantages attending this remarkable privilege, which was the birthright of every Jew, it is evident that the truth did not suffer by it. On the contrary, it was the best security against arbitrary dogmatism and unsound doctrine. Our Lord's discourses in the synagogues contrasted favourably with those of the scribes, who would gladly have silenced Him if it had been in their power. And when a man like Paul or Apollos was the speaker, he was able mightily to convince the gainsayers that Jesus was the Christ.

Even for the propagation of Jewish theology throughout the world, this education in ready utterance must have been of the greatest value; and all the more because of the prominence given to the Scripture in their services. Had there been long sermons and little Bible reading, and more especially if every mouth had been shut except that of the chief ruler, there would not have been the same security for orthodox teaching; but when the reading and exposition of the Scriptures occupied so large a portion of their time, and when the average intelligence was exercised upon it, and had abundant opportunities of expression, there was little danger of error being allowed to creep in unobserved.

Throughout the world every synagogue would thus become the centre of a healthful influence, illumined by the sublime theology and comparatively pure morality of the Jews. When the speakers were not priests, whose profession it was to be religious, but private individuals who had nothing to gain by the propagation of their faith, their words would have great influence, because they would be regarded as undoubtedly sincere.

The multiplication of these synagogues was of great importance; and it was well that it was both easy and inexpensive. The buildings were small, because a syna

gogue with more than a hundred members would be unworkable, for in that case they could not all take part. In Jerusalem itself we are told that there were between four and five hundred synagogues; so that, making allowance for a large population of Gentiles, Publicans, and such like, we may calculate that, on an average, there could not be more than eighty or a hundred members in each. Unlike the temple, the synagogue worship cost almost nothing, because the exercises were conducted by the members themselves, under the guidance of the elders.

Some might suppose that so much liberty would be dangerous to the purity of the Jewish faith; but evidently the Jews did not think so. If there was danger in these open meetings, there would have been greater danger in their suppression. Twice (apparently) in Corinth did Christianity carry off the chief ruler of the synogogue as a trophy of the power of unassisted truth: whereas, we have every reason to believe that, if the authority of the rulers had been allowed to shut the mouths of the sons of the synagogue, neither Crispus nor Sosthenes would have been baptised.

The cause of truth has more to fear from the exercise of authority, than from open meetings of the Church, or the free ventilation of public opinion either in Church or State. Truth, no doubt, has sometimes its battles to fight, and that may be called a misfortune; but the misfortune would be increased and not diminished, if it were not to be allowed to fight them. It is so in politics and science; and, in regard to them, it is not so long since we learned that, out "from the thorn danger we pluck the flower safety." The great Duke of Wellington prophesied that if the Reform Bill became law, which placed the centre of political gravity down among the people, the country would shoot Niagara; and so it has always been

that those who hold the power, believe that if it were taken out of their hands, the direst consequences would ensue. But if in politics it has always been found that even an ungodly people are the broad base upon which the social edifice can most safely rest, the Jew also believed that, with an open Bible and an open synagogue, they had nothing to fear for the religion of their fathers.

The only other feature of the synagogue system which we have to notice is the limited power of the elders. They possessed no authority or power over the members, except when they did something that was wrong and for which they might be judged. There was no officer higher than the chief ruler, neither was there any higher court to which they could appeal. The Sanhedrim, in Jerusalem, was a national, not an ecclesiastical court, and exercised authority over individuals, not over synagogues, with which it had no normal connection. When Jerusalem was destroyed, the Sanhedrim was dissolved, and was never reorganised.

The resemblance between the constitution of the synagogue and that of any of our modern societies or associations was complete. The elders were the committee chosen by the members to act in their name and by their authority. The chief ruler was the president. They had also a secretary and treasurer, and were, in every respect, autonomous. Like our modern societies, the synagogues had the power of forming connections with other synagogues, but their doing so was entirely optional. In all this the synagogue differed from the temple, in which all power and authority proceeded from above, while in the synagogue, as in our modern societies, they proceeded from below.

CHAPTER II

THE TEMPLE SYSTEM.

THE temple system was the embodiment of the Levitical covenant, which had this peculiarity, that it was both exceptional and temporary. All the other covenants were the spontaneous outflow of God's free grace, laden with promises, and everlasting. Such was the covenant of Eden, and such was the Abrahamic covenant, which incorporated it, and which was confirmed with an oath, and declared to be everlasting. The Levitical covenant, on the contrary, was abnormal and temporary, "being added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made." When He came, therefore, it having fulfilled its purpose, decayed, and at length vanished away, leaving the Abrahamic covenant, in all its original simplicity and spirituality, as if the Levitical covenant had never been.

Neither in the Edenic nor in the Abrahamic covenant was there anything approaching to Ritualism in its worship. Under the Abrahamic covenant the family of Abraham was separated from the rest of the world, and consecrated to God as a holy nation, but beyond that consecration there was no other, and all within that pale were equally holy. There were no canonical men, no canonical places, no canonical things, and (with the exception of the Sabbath, which was pre-Edenic) there were no

canonical times. Ritualism of any kind was unknown under either the Edenic or the Abrahamic covenant. There was no tabernacle or temple, no priesthood, no holy days or seasons, and no canonical ritual, unless we call by that name animal sacrifice. But that was common to all the Old Testament dispensations, having been instituted in Eden to keep in mind the great truth which was then for the first time announced, that without shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin.

We have now to notice the introduction of another covenant, called the Levitical or Sinaitic, which was added to the Abrahamic, and which was altogether different both in its character and purpose, being "added because of transgressions," not one transgression, but many, for had there been no transgressions there would have been no Levitical dispensation and no temple system with its ceremonial law. It was in consequence of these transgressions, whatever they were, that it became necessary to introduce a new method of dealing with the Church, suited to its altered circumstances. Dangers had to be guarded against, and new modes of instruction adopted more suited to their carnal minds than the spiritual simplicity of the Abrahamic covenant. They needed a schoolmaster, strict and exacting as well as wise and condescending, to teach them and prepare them for their coming Lord.

Although the transgressions which necessitated this parenthetical dispensation are not specified, we have no difficulty in recognising them in the patriarchal history. No doubt the incurable perversity of the Israelitish heart which God foreknew, and which afterwards showed itself during the forty years' wanderings in the wilderness may have had something to do with it. But we must rather look for them in the sins already committed, than in those