eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" The argument on which this inference proceeds is, that the efficacy which was found only in a figure, or in a very small degree in the type, is possessed in reality, and in a far superior degree in the antitype. This is more expressly announced in a subsequent passage, which declares "the patterns of things in the heavens" to have been " purified with" the sacrifices that were offered among the Jews, "but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices," Heb. ix. 23. Hence, as the shadow is opposed to the substance, or the representation of a thing to the thing itself, so the law of Moses, which enjoined many typical rites, is opposed to the gospel of Christ, which contains the things prefigured by those types. Thus, when it is said, "The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John i. 17.), the substance of the things themselves exhibited in the gospel is opposed to the typical shadows of the law. This principle is asserted in another place (Col. ii. 16, 17.): "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come: but the body is of Christ." On this passage St. Jerome remarks: "There is therefore no judgment in this which is a shadow and ceased on the coming of the substance, because where the truth is present there is no need of a figure." And Photius: "The body is of Christ, that is the truth." This may be confirmed by what the apostle had said just before: "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily;" for Augustine has well explained this substantial inhabitation of the fulness of the godhead, as opposed to the figurative manner in which it dwelt in the Jewish temple.

III. But though every type is formed and designed by God to prefigure something in its antitype, yet there is no reason why a thing which is clearly typical should not also have some other ends; for one and the same thing may have various ends, not at all inconsistent with each other, though relating to different objects. Suppose, therefore, as Christian fathers and Jewish rabbis have united in maintaining, that one end for which sacrifices were enjoined upon the Hebrews after their departure from Egypt, was, that, by being indulged with rites to which they had been previously accustomed, they might be more easily induced, and more firmly attached, to the worship of the true God; yet, nevertheless, another design of God in that economy may have been, that those sacrifices should, as types, prefigure the sacrifice of Christ; especially as the sacrifices to which the people had been accustomed in Egypt, might be corrected and amended by some new rites and laws, so as to be much better adapted for this purpose. And this I apprehend was actually done, at least in those expiatory victims, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary, and whose bodies were burned without the camp. My reason for this opinion it is not necessary to state in this place. From what has been already said, however, it follows, that all those sacrifices, which were commanded in the law, and contained any thing designed to prefigure another thing in the sacrifice

of Christ, were types of his sacrifice; notwithstanding, those same sacrifices might also have been commanded, in order that the people, thenceforward transferring to the true God the rites to which they had long been accustomed, might, by this means, be the more easily confined to his worship.

IV. It appears to me, therefore, that all the Jewish sacrifices may justly be regarded as types of the sacrifice of Christ. For as the death of every victim was adapted to prefigure the death of Christ, so the perfect purity of Christ," who offered himself without spot to God" (Heb. ix. 14.), was aptly represented by the unblemished perfection of body required in every victim; and that, even though the law which demanded this perfection were likewise designed to indicate the perfect purity of him to whom only pure victims were to be offered, and to inculcate the sanctity necessary in those who offered them.

66

The apostle seems tacitly to compare all the different kinds of victims with the one sacrifice of Christ, as types with their antitype: "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of thy book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (which are offered by the law); then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all," Heb. x. 5-10. The apostle certainly means, and the clause, " He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second," ascertains it beyond all doubt, that the sacrifice of Christ succeeded in the room of all the sacrifices which were" offered by the law:" and hence it was, that when his sacrifice was accomplished, they all ceased. As the sacrifice of Christ, therefore, succeeded in the room of all the victims that were to be offered according to the law, and removed them all from their place, and as it far excelled them all, it seems reasonable to consider them all as types of this sacrifice, and this one sacrifice as the antitype of them all. For the mutual relation of type and antitype is sufficiently conspicuous in any two things, of which the latter succeeds by divine appointment in the room of the former, possessing moreover that efficacy of which the former had only an image, or a very small degree; especially when there is so great a resemblance between those two things, as between all the Jewish victims and the sacrifice of Christ.

V. There can be no reasonable doubt, however, that those victims, whose carcasses were to be burned without the camp, were types of Christ, and that in a more eminent degree than the rest. For beside those things in which they prefigured Christ in common with the rest, such as their unblemished perfection and death; all these victims were piacular, as was also the sacrifice of Christ. And what deserves peculiar attention, they more eminently typified the sacrifice of Christ

by the very circumstance of, their being commanded in the law to be burned without the camp. Hear the language of the apostle: "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate," Heb. xiii. 10-12. There would be no force in this argument respecting the place where it was requisite that Christ should suffer death, unless all the victims whose blood was to be carried into the sanctuary had typified his sacrifice. For though those victims were burned without the camp, it could not be necessary on this account that Christ should die without the city of Jerusalem, which was evidently considered as corresponding to the camp in the wilderness; but in order to produce a greater resemblance between those victims and Christ: which, however, was not at all required except between types and antitype. Hence it follows, that all the victims, whose carcasses were burned without the camp, were types of the sacrifice of Christ, and that in a more eminent degree than any other victims, because they prefigured not only his death, but also the place where it was to happen.

Some persons suppose that the passage just quoted has an exclusive reference to those victims whose blood was to be carried into the inner sanctuary; but this is a great mistake. For the apostle is speaking of all the piacular victims of which even the priests themselves were not permitted to eat, as is evident from these words: "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." But this description includes all the victims whose blood was to be carried into either sanctuary.

Those victims whose blood was to be carried into the inner sanctuary, and whose carcasses were to be burned without the camp, evidently typified, not only the death of Christ, and the place where it should happen, but also his entrance into heaven. Hence the apostle says: "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood," differently from the Jewish high priest; "he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us," Heb. ix. 11, 12. In this passage, the Jewish high priest, and Jesus Christ our high priest; the blood of goats and calves, of those certainly which were sacrificed on the annual days of atonement, and the blood of Christ; the inner sanctuary and the highest heavens; and, what I have just mentioned, the entrance of the high priest into that sanctuary by the blood of those victims, and the entrance of Christ into heaven itself by the efficacy of his own blood; are compared with each other as types and antitypes.

VI. Nothing can be further from the truth, therefore, than what is confidently asserted by Socinus, (Prælect. c. 22.) that the sacrifice of Christ was not typified by any piacular victims, but those which were

sacrificed at stated seasons, and for the whole congregation. For among these very victims, whose blood was to be carried into the inner sanctuary, and whose carcasses were to be burned without the camp, were the two bullocks which were to be offered, neither of them at stated seasons, but both as occasional sin offerings, one for the whole congregation, and the other for the high priest alone, Lev. iv. 3—21. The same remark, as I have already stated, may also be applied to the goat which was to be sacrificed as a sin offering for the whole congregation, whenever the people through ignorance forsook the rites of their fathers for those of the heathen, Numb. xv. 22-24. It is a further confirmation of our argument, that when the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is treating of those very victims which he represents as the most eminent types of the sacrifice of Christ, such as those whose blood was carried into the inner sanctuary, he always joins calves or bulls with goats, Heb. ix. 12, 13; ch. x. 4. But those calves or bulls whose blood was carried into the inner sanctuary were offered, not for the whole congregation, but only for Aaron and his family.

THE INSPIRATION OF SOLOMON'S SONG.

To the Editor of the Scripture Magazine.

SIR-The Divine authority or inspiration of the book commonly called the Song of Solomon, is a subject on which I some time ago had it in view to suggest to your readers (by your suffrage) a few observations; but was willing to wait the event of the " Notice" which, in its proper course, appeared in your last number, to see if any of my ideas would be therein anticipated. The opinion expressed, however, in conclusion of this notice, is of an opposite character to that of my own, which, from the liberal and impartial plan of your Magazine, you will, I presume, allow me to submit to the candid consideration of those who peruse and enrich your pages.

It is true that the majority, both of critics and common readers, are on that side of the question which you have taken; but it must be admitted, that the greater part of the latter have no other ground of conclusion than that of its being always found in our authorised version with the other books;1 while the former have no other proof to advance

1 Had the Apocryphal books received the same licence, without any hint of their non-inspiration, the vulgar would have given them equal reception. I cannot help remarking, however, that some of these books possess more intrinsic indica

in favour of its inspiration than that which you have adduced and decided upon; which, as collateral with others of an internal kind, would be of some assistance; but in the absence of these, to my mind, they appear to have not the least weight in the scale of argument. I am, therefore, unshaken in the opinion, that this book, although composed by Solomon, is a merely human composition; and will endeavour to shew that, in itself, it possesses no characteristic criteria by which it ought to be placed under the authority of the canonical books, nor any property which can interest us in common with them, except its poetical form.

In the first place, there is not the least intimation in the book of a pretension or claim to that amount ;-no " Thus saith the Lord," nor any authoritative tone of expression by which some heavenly communication is made some prediction uttered-some judgment threatened -some remonstrance, reproof, or expostulation pronounced-some lesson of wisdom dictated-or some moral precept enforced, as, more or less, is the case in the inspired writings. Surely a production so destitute of the solemn and serious indications usual in the writings of Divine authority, cannot be urged on our attention as having its origin above the ordinary impulses of human intellect. Only turn to the two other books ascribed to this same penman, and we shall find that, in these respects, it is the contrast of the one in question; and as, from the chronology, they were composed subsequently to the latter, it is reasonable to infer, that some of the severe strictures they contain on the vanities, follies, levities, and sinfulness of human conduct, are designed to apply, in some degree, to this poetic celebration of the transitory pleasures of earthly attachments. This leads me to consider

Secondly, That the subject matter of it is of such a class as to exhibit nothing from which the necessity of a supernatural intervention might be argued. On examining the other writings of our Bible, it is easy to discover, that inspiration must needs have been employed to make them what they are to us; for they either convey some intelligence of the nature, will, and purpose of their author, which could not have been learnt from human sources alone; or else they are such documents as contain certain historical, circumstantial, and personal minutiæ, more or less subservient to and connected with the display of God's glory in man's salvation; the faithful record of which was not to be trusted to the treacherous memory and fallible powers of man, without some unerring controul. In vain, however, do we look for any heavenly

tions of inspiration than the one in question, although I believe they are not to be esteemed as of Divine authority.

1 Although your correspondent, tres stellæ, has so ingeniously argued against the inspiration of the historical parts of the gospels, yet I will venture to affirm, that they contain all the internal proofs of which I have pointed out the total deficiency in this book; and were there but a minor portion of them so obvious in the latter as in the former, I would readily concede its inspiration. I am pleased with W. B.'s reply to him.