grand outlines here mentioned. The paschal lamb, the flesh of which was roasted and eaten ; and the bodies of the sin-offerings for the congregation, which were burned without the camp, form the principal exceptions: but these variations serve to illustrate the several parts of that great subject, which all the sacrifices were intended to exhibit. Even the thank-offerings and peaceofferings, though evidently typical of the believer's spiritual worship, and communion with God and with the saints, were attended with the shedding and sprinkling of the blood, and the burning of the fat, of the sacrifice on which the people feasted. Nay, the very purifications with water, (the emblem of sanctification,) the re-admission of a leper into the congregation, the consecration of a priest, and the performance of a Nazarite's vow, were, in different ways, connected with the same observances. "Almost all things were purged with "blood, and without shedding of blood there was "no remission:" so that this ran through the whole ritual law, and was interwoven with every part of the worship performed by the ancient church of God. We need not be surprised, that they who overlook the typical import of the ritual law, or doubt of the atonement of Christ, should either consider these institutions as an overgrown mass of trivial ' ceremonies;' or attempt to account for them from the policy of Moses, or to trace them to the customs of the surrounding nations. But indeed the Israelites were expressly forbidden to imitate the gentiles several institutions in the law were intended to keep them at a distance from their superstitions if any agreement be found in other respects, it is far more reasonable to suppose that the gentiles borrowed their usages from the Israelites, than that the Israelites were encouraged or required to copy the worship of idolaters; and the Epistle to the Hebrews sufficiently proves, to all who read it as the word of God, that these ceremonies were shadows or types of the redemption by Jesus Christ, as made by him, and as received by the believer. Indeed some persons, of great eminence in their line, would persuade us that the writers of the New Testament accommodated their language on this subject to the usages of the Jews; and rather wrote agreeably to vulgar notions and prejudices, than according to the true nature of the subject. This must mean (if it mean more than at any rate to evade an argument which cannot be answered,) that the apostles were mistaken, or that they wilfully misled mankind. We may therefore safely infer from this method of reasoning on such a subject, that the divine inspiration of the New Testament in general, of the Epistles in particular, and especially of that to the Hebrews, must be given up by all who persist in denying the real atonement of Christ, whenever this argument is used against them with energy, by some able and zealous controversialist: or, at least, that they must necessarily have recourse to evasion, and other ingenious ways of losing sight of the precise point contested with them. As every one of the grand divisions of holy scripture carries along with it the evidence of its own divine original, so it may not be unseasonable to observe, that this is particularly the case with the books of Moses, which some have lately affected to speak of as a respectable ancient composition, yet with very plain intimations that they are not to be regarded as of divine inspiration. But are not the prophecies contained in these books fulfilling even at this day, in the state of the Jewish nation, and of the posterity of Ham, and in many other instances? Did not our Lord quote them as the unerring word of God, and not merely as the words of Moses? And can any man truly believe in Christ, who speaks of those books as a human composition, which he quoted, and by quoting authenticated, as "the oracles of God?" But it is most to our present purpose to observe, that the astonishing coincidence between the types of the law, and the language used concerning Christ by his apostles, establishes the authority of the books of Moses, inseparably from that of the New Testament, as well as teaches us the real meaning of them. If attempts to lessen our regard to this part of scripture be not the covert attacks of infidelity, most certainly they are well calculated to subserve its cause. "Known unto God are all his works from the "beginning of the world."2 What man of common sense, therefore, if not warped by prejudice, can suppose, that the Lord, having appointed a number of ceremonies, without any reference to a future dispensation, and not suited to give man 1 Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10. xxii. 31, 32. Luke, xxiv. 27, 44. kind any just views of it, but the contrary; should afterwards so arrange that dispensation, or at least leave his servants so to speak of it, as to lead men to form notions more conformed to those antiquated rites, than to its real nature? Who can conceive that this new revelation should be made in such language, as must give believers erroneous views of it; unless they are extremely careful how they understand it, make large allowances for the prejudices of education in those who first propagated it, and employ much ingenious labour to discover the truth, by divesting it of the numerous metaphors under which it lies concealed or obscured? Surely, if we allow the scriptures to be the word of the unerring, unchangeable, and all-wise God, we can scarcely speak of such a method of interpretation, without failing of that reverence which we owe to his divine Majesty! Does an architect, when about to erect a magnificent edifice, purposely arrange his plan to suit some inconvenient scaffolding, which happens to be upon the spot, having been raised on another occasion? If he build according to a scaffolding previously made by his directions, is he ever supposed to form the plan of his structure for the sake of the scaffolding? Or does any one doubt, that the scaffolding was raised to suit the plan which he had already drawn for his intended building? and is it not almost infinitely more rational to suppose, that the Mosaic law was arranged with a reference to the future revelation of the gospel, than that the gospel was obscured, and even mistated, that it might be made apparently to accord to the abrogated ceremonies of the law? Though, "without shedding of blood there was "no remission" of sins under the old dispensation, yet" it was not possible that the blood of bulls and "of goats should take away sins.”1 If the question should be proposed to a Socinian, why this was "not possible?" he might perhaps find it not very easy to give a direct and satisfactory answer. But if we allow (according to the idea of "no remission "without the shedding of blood,") that the necessity of an atonement, in order to forgiveness, originates from the infinite holiness and justice of God, and the intrinsic evil and desert of sin; and the consequent impossibility that he could pass by sin, without shewing his abhorrence of it, and determination to punish it according to its demerit; we shall readily perceive that nothing could render it consistent with the divine glory to pardon and save sinners, which did not exhibit God's justice and holiness in as clear a light in shewing them mercy, as these attributes would have appeared in had he executed the threatened vengeance. And, if this were the case, however it might suit the design of infinite wisdom to appoint the sacrifices of lambs, bulls, and goats, as types and shadows, means of grace, or conditions of temporal remission; yet they could not possibly take away the guilt of sin, because they were not adequate exhibitions of the infinite justice and holiness of God. For what proportion could the death of an animal bear to the remission of that guilt, which merited the eternal punishment of an immortal soul? Or how could rational creatures behold, in such an observance, God's holy hatred of sin and love of 1 Heb. ix. 22. x. 4. |