from the blood of the Lamb. We must live upon Christ in close and constant connection with the blood of the Lamb. While the Israelite was eating the lamb in the houses in Egypt (see Exod. xii.) the blood was on the lintel and side posts of the houses. The moment you separate your communion with God from the blood of the Lamb you are on wrong and dangerous ground. They are, and must be, inseparable. God will not have the one without the other. Reader, never forget this.

View this portion of our subject in a further light. We cannot live on past experiences. It must be a Christ enjoyed to-day. The sacrifice and the eating must go together. I must enjoy Christ afresh to-day. Yesterday's experience of Christ will never satisfy my soul. May we never forget this!

And yet there seemed to be a difference even in this respect; "but if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten. the same day that he offereth his sacrifice, and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten" (ver. 16). It was only in the case of a "Vow or "voluntary" offering that eating on the second day was allowed. If it were offered for “thanksgiving" (see ver. 12), it must be 'eaten the same day" that it is offered (ver. 16). The meaning of this is that there is a difference between "thanksgiving for all spiritual blessings which we receive in union with Christ, and thanksgiving for some special mercy received from the Lord over and above the other. This latter is called a "vow" or "voluntary" offering, because the soul has an additional

sense of obligation to God, and goes forth "voluntarily" in a fresh act of praise over and above its praise for the blessings by union with Christ. In this case faith is regarded as being most vigorous, more so than at other times, and can be longer trusted. Thus it can eat the flesh of the sacrifice on the first and the second day. The praise in this case will be of a more enduring character.

But here the matter ended: "But the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire. And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity" (verses 17, 18). Mark, reader, nothing is precious or acceptable to God which is in any degree separated from the sacrifice of Christ. The eating on the third day was an "abomination." The eating of the third day was separated from the sacrifice of the first day. True, only one day intervened; but that was enough. Separate anything, in however small a degree, or for however short a space of time from Christ, and it is to God an "abomination:" "it shall not be accepted:" "the soul shall bear his iniquity." How solemn are these words! Your offering may have much in it that is beautiful; your service be the admiration of the church; your works bring down the applause of the world-it is all abomination if separate from Christ-from His precious blood, from His merits which can alone counteract the "leaven" in it.

Oh, remember this! Lord Jesus, may all our works be "begun, continued, and ended in Thee!" Then only will they be acceptable to God; then only will Jesus be a "living, bright reality" in the experience of our souls. Reader, is Christ this to you? If not, you may have a name to live but you are dead.

CHAPTER VI.

THE SIN OFFERING.

LEVITICUS iv. ; v. 1-14.

"THIS is the most important of all sacrifices. It made atonement for the person of the offender, whereas the trespass offering only atoned for one special offence. Hence sin offerings were brought on festive occasions for the whole people, but never trespass offerings. (See Numbers xxviii., xxix.) In fact, the trespass offering may be regarded as representing ransom for a special wrong, while the sin offering symbolized general redemption. Both sacrifices applied only to sins 'through ignorance,' in opposition to those done 'presumptuously' (or 'with a high hand'). For the latter, the law provided no atonement, but held out 'a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation.'

"By sins through ignorance,' however, we are to understand, not only such as were committed strictly through want of knowledge, but also those which had been unintentional, or through weakness, or where the offender at the time realized not his guilt.

"The fundamental difference between the two sacrifices appears also in this-that sin offerings,

having a retrospective effect on the worshippers, were brought at the various festivals, and also for purification in such defilements of the body as symbolically pointed to the sinfulness of our nature.

"On the other hand, the animal brought for a trespass offering was to be always male (generally a ram, which was never used as a sin offering); nor was it lawful, as in the sin offering, to make substitution of something else in case of poverty. These two particulars indicate that the trespass offering contemplated chiefly a wrong, for which decided satisfaction was to be made by offering a male animal, and for which a definite, unvarying ransom was to be given.

"All sin offerings were either public or private (congregational or individual). The former were always males, the latter always females, except the bullock for the high priest's sin of ignorance, and the kid for the same offence of a 'ruler.' They were further divided into fixed, which were the same in the case of rich and poor, and varying, which 'ascended and descended' according to the circumstances of the offerer. 'Fixed' sacrifices were all those for sins 'through ignorance' against any of the prohibitory commands; or else for such which, if they had been high-handed, would have carried the Divine punishment of being 'cut off.'

"The 'varying' sacrifices were those for lepers; for women after childbirth (of which concession to poverty Mary, the Mother of Jesus, availed herself); for having concealed a 'thing known;' for having unwittingly sworn falsely; and for having either un