Page images

to teach by these sacrificial terms and allusions. They punishments inflicted upon the disobedient and unfaithare, themselves, utterly silent as to this, and the vary- ful Israelites in the wilderness were types written ing theories of those who reject the doctrine of atone- for our admonition," it is only to be explained by consiment, in fact, confess that their writings afford no solu- dering the history of that people as designedly and by tion of the difficulty. If, therefore, it is blasphemous appointment typical. These things happened for types; to suppose, on the one hand, that inspired men should and that, by types, the apostle means much more than write on purpose to mislead; so, on the other, is it ut- a general admonitory correspondence between disobeterly inconceivable that, had they only been ordinary dience and punishment, which may other circumwriters, they should construct a figurative language stances might just as well have affyrded, he adds, that out of' terms which had a definite and established sense, “they were written for our admonition, upon whom the without giving any intimation at all that they employed ends of the world are come,” that is, for the admoni. them otherwise than in their received meaning, or tell- tion of Christians who had entered into the obligations ing us why they adopted them at all, and more espe- of the new dispensation. For this purpose they were cially when they knew that they must be interpreted, recorded; by this act of God they were made types in both by Jews and Greeks, in a sense which, if the So- the highest sense; and could not become types in the cinians are right, was in direct opposition to that which sense of mere figurative illustration, which would they intended to convey.

have been contingent upon this rhetorical use being This will, however, appear with additional evidence, made of them by some subsequent writer. This is when the typical, as well as the expiatory character of farther confirmed also by the preceding verses, in the legal sacrifices is considered. In strict argument, which the apostle calls the manna“ spiritual meal," the latter does not depend upon the former, and if the which can only be understood of it as being a type of oblations of the Mosaic institute had not been inten- the bread which came down from heaven, even Christ, tionally adumbrative of the one oblation of Christ, the who, in allusion to the same fact, so designates himargument, from their vicarious and expiatory charac- self. The “rock,” too, is called the spiritual rock, ter, would still have been valid. For if the legal sacri- and that rock, adds the apostle, “was Christ ;" but in fices were offered in place of the offender, blood for what conceivable meaning, except. as it was an apblood, life for life, and if the death of Christ is repre- pointed type of him? sented to be, in as true a sense, a sacrifice and expiation, This is St. Paul's general description of the typical then is the doctrine of the New Testament writers, as character of "the church in the wilderness.” In the to the expiatory character of the death of our Lord, ex- other passages quoted, he adduces, in particular, the plicitly established.

Levitical services. He calls the ceremonial of the law That the Levitical sacrifices were also TYPES is an- "a shadow" (okia); in the Epistle to the Colossians, other argument, and accumulates the already prepon- he opposes this shadow to" the body," in that to the derating evidence

Hebrews, to "the very image ;” by which he obviously A type, in the theological sense, is defined by system- means the reality of the good things” adumbrated, or atic writers to be a sign or example, prepared and de- their essential form or substance. Now, whether we signed by God to prefigure some future thing. It is take the word okia for the shadow of the body of man, required that it should represent (though the degree of or for a faint delineation, or sketch, to be succeeded by clearness may be very different in different instances) a finished picture, it is clear, that whatever the law this future object, either by something which it has in was, it was by Divine appointment; and as there is a comrnon with it, or in being the symbol of some pro- relation between the shadow and the body which property which it possesses ;-that it should be prepared dnces it, and the sketch or outline and the finished and designed by God thus to represent its antitype, picture, so if, by Divine appointment, the law was this which circumstance distinguishes it from a simile, and shadow of good things to come, which is what the apostrom hieroglyphic:—that it should give place to the an- tle asserts, then there was an intended relation or one to titype so soon as the latter appears ;-and that the effi- the other, quite independent of the figurative and rhecacy of the antitype should exist in the type in appear. torical use which might be made of a mere accidental ance oniy, or in a lower degree.(1) These may be con- comparison. If the apostle speaks figuratively only, sidered as the general properties of a type.

then the law is to be supposed to have no appointed of this kind are the views given us, in the sacred relation to the Gospel, as a shadow or sketch of good Scriptures of the New Testament, of the Levitical dis- things to come, and this relation is one of imagination pensation, and of many events and examples of the only; if the relation was a designed and an appointed Mosaic history. Thus St. Paul calls the meats and one, then the resolution of the apostle's words into figudrinks, the holy days, new moons, and Sabbaths of the rative allusion cannot be maintained. But, farther, the Jews, including in them the services performed in the apostle grounds an argument upon these types; an arcelebration of these festivals “a shadow of things to gument, too, of the most serious kind; an argument coine;" the body' of wbich shadow, whose form the for renouncing the law and embracing the Gospel, upon shadow generally and faintly exhibited, " is Christ.” the penalty of eternal danger to the soul: no absurdAgain, when speaking of the things which happened ity can, therefore, be greater than to suppose him to to the Israelites, in the wilderness, he calls them "en- argue so weighty and important a question upon a resamples" (TUROI) types," written for our admonition, lation of one thing to another existing only in the imaupon whoin the ends of the world are come.” In He- gination, and not appointed by God; and if the relabrews x. 1, the same apostle, when he discourses ex- tion was so appointed, it is of that instituted and adumpressly on the “ sacritices” of the tabernacle, calls brative kind which constitutes a type in its special ihem the shadow of good things to come,” and places and theological sense. them in contrast with "the very image of the things,” Of this appointment and designation of the taberthat is, the good things” just before mentioned ; and, nacle service to be a shadow of good things to come, in the preceding chapter, he tells us that the services the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews afperformed in the tabernacle prefigured what was after- fords several direct and unequivocal declarations. So ward to be transacted in the heavenly sanctuary, verses 7 and 8, “But into the second went the high These instances are sufficient for the argument, and, in priest alone, once every year, not without blood, which examining them, we may observe, that if the things he offered for himself, and for the errors of the peohere alluded to are not allowed to be types, then they ple; the Holy Ghost signifying this (showing, deare used as mere illustrative rhetorical illustrations, claring by this type), that the way into the holiest of and in their original institution had no more reference all was not yet made manifest.” Here we have the to the facts and doctrines of the Christian system than , declaration of a doctrine by type, which is surely very the sacrificial services of Pagan temples, which might, different to the figurative use of a fact employed to in some particulars, upon this hypothesis, just as well embellish and enforce an argument by a subsequent have served the apostle's purpose. But if, upon exa- writer, and this is also referred to the design and inmination, this notion of their being used merely as tention of the “Holy Ghost” himself, at the time when rhetorical illustrations be contradicted by the passages the Levitical ritual was prescribed, and this typical de. themselves, then the true typical character of these claration was to continue until the new dispensation events and ceremonies may be considered as fairly es- should be introduced. In verse 9, the tabernacle itself tablished.

is called a figure, or parable; “ Which was a figure With respect to the declaration of St. Paul, that the (rapa Boln) for the time then present." It was a para.

ble by which the evangelical and spiritual doctrines (1) Vide OUTRAM De Sacrificiis

were taught; it was an appointed parable, because


limited to a certain time," for the time then present,” , of the world;" and that “whoso eateth my flesh and that is, until the bringing in of the things signified, to drinketh my blood hath eternal life; for my flesh is which it had this designed relation. Again, verse 23, meat INDEED, and my blood is drink INDEED;" that is, " the things under the law” are called "patterns(re- it is in truth and reality what the fiesh and blood of the presentations) of things in the heavens ;" and in verse Jewish victims were in type. 24, the holy places made with hands are denominated The instances of this use of sacrificial terms are, “the figures” (antityres) “ of the true.". Were they indeed, almost innumerable, and enough, I trust, has then representations and antitypes only in St. Paul's been said to show that they could not be employed in a imagination, or in reality and by appointment ? Read merely figurative sense; nevertheless there are two or his argument; "it was necessary that the patterns of three passages in which they occur as the basis of an things in the heavens should be purified with these; argument which depends upon taking them in the rebut the heavenly things themselves with better sacri- ceived sense, with a brief consideration of which we fices than these." On the hypothesis that sacrificial may conclude this part of the subject. terms and allusions are employed figuratively only by When St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, says, the apostle, what kind of argument, we may ask, is this? “ for he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no On what does the common necessity of purification, sin,” or “him who knew no sir, he hath made to be both of the earthly and the heavenly tabernacle, by sa- sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of crifices, though different in their degree of value and God in him;" he concludes a discourse upon our reconefficacy, rest? Could the apostle say that this was ne- ciliation to God, and lays this down as the general cessary to afford him a figurative embellishment in principle upon which that reconciliation of which he writing his episile? The necessity is clearly grounded has been speaking is to be explained and enforced. upon the relation instituted by the Author of the Levi- Here, then, the question is, in what sense Christ was tical economy himself; the heavenly places were not MADE sin for us. Not, certainly, as to the guilt of it; co be entered by sinners, but through the blood of "bet- for it is expressly said, that he knew no sin ;' but as ter sacrifices;" and to teach this doctrine early to man- to the expiation of it, by his personal sufferings, by kind, it was “ necessaryto purify the earthly taberna- which he delivers the guilty from punishment. For cle, and thus give the people access to it only by the the phrase is manifestly taken from the sin-offerings blood of the inferior sacrifices, that both they and the of the Old Testament, which are there sometimes tabernacle might be the types of evangelical and hea- called "sins," as being offerings for sin, and because venly things, and that they might be taught the only the animals sacrificed represented the sinners themmeans of obiaining access to the tabernacle in heaven. selves. Thus, Lev. iv. 21, the heifer to be ofrded is There was, therefore, in setting up these patterns," called, in our translation, more agreeable to our idiom, an intentioned adumbration of these future things, and a sin-offering for the congregation;" but in the LXX. hence the word used is utodelypa, the import of which it is denominated “ THE SIN of the congregation." So, is shown in chap. viii. 5, where it is associated with also, in verse 29, as to the red heiser which was to be the term, the shadow of heavenly things,-“who serve offered for the sin of private persons, the person ofunto the example and shadow of heavenly things,” or fending was “to lay his hand upon the head of the sin" these” priests "perform the service with a representa- offering,” as we rightly interpret it; but in the LXX. tion and shadow of the heavenly things.".

upon the head of his sin," agreeably to the Hebrew The sacrificial ceremonies, then, of ihe Levitical in- word, which signifies indifferently either sin or the ofstitute are clearly established to be typical, and have fering for it. Thus, again, in Lev. vi. 25," This is the all the characters which constitute a type in the re- law of the sin-offering,” in the Greek, “This is the ceived theological sense. They are represented by St. law of sin ;" which also has, “ they shall slay the Paul, in the passages which have been under consider sins before the Lord,” for the sin-offerings. The ation, as adumbrative; as designed and appointed to Greek of the apostle Paul is thus easily explained by be so by God; as having respect to things future, to that of the LXX., and affords a natural exposition of Christ and to his sacerdotal ministry; as being infe- the passage-" Him who knew no sin, God hath made rior in efficacy to the antitypes which correspond to sin for us," as the sin-offerings of the law were made them, the “better sacrifices" of which he speaks; and sins for offenders, the death of innocent creatures exthey were all displaced by the antitype, the Levitical empting from death those who were really criminal.(2) ceremony being repealed by the death and ascension of This allusion to the Levitical sin-offerings is also esour Lord.

tablished by the connexion of Christ's sin-offering with Since, then, both the expiatory and typical charac- our reconciliation. Such was the effect of the sinters of the Jewish sacrifices were so clearly held by offerings among the Jews, and such, St. Paul tells us, the writers of the New Testament, there can be no is the effect of Christ being made a sin-offering for us; rational doubt as to the sense in which they apply sa a sufficient proof that he does not use the term figuracrificial terms and allusions, to describe the nature and tively, nor speak of the indirect but of the direct effect effect of the death of Christ. As the offering of the of the death of Christ in reconciling us to Gon. animal sacrifice took away sin, that is, obtained remis. Again, in Ephes. v. 2, “ Christ loved us, and gave sion for offences against the law, we can be at no loss himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God, for a to know what the Baptist means, when, pointing to sweet-smelling savour." Here, also, he uses the very Christ, he exclaims, “Behold the Lamb of God, which terms applied to the Jewish sacrifices. How, then, taketh away the sin of the world.” As there was a could a Jew, or even a Gentile, understand him? transfer of suffering and death, from th> offender to Would an inspired man use sacrificial language withthe legally clean and sound victim, so Christ died," the out a sacrificial sense, and merely amuse his readers just for the unjust;" as the animal sacrifice was ex- with the sound of words without meaning, or employ piating, so Christ is our idaquos, propitiation, or expia- them without notice being given, in a meaning which tion; as by the Levitical oblations men were reconciled the readers were not accustomed to affix to them? to Gol, so “we, when enemies, were reconciled to The argument forbids this, as well as the reason and God by the death of his Son;" as, under the law, honesty of the case. His object was to impress the " without shedding of blood there was no remission," Ephesians with the deepest sense of the love of Christ; so, as to Christ, we are “justified by his blood,” and and he says, " Christ LOVED us; and gave up himself have “ redemption through his blood, the remission of for us;" and then explains the mode in which he thus sins;" as by the blood of the appointed sacrifices the gave himself up for us, that is, in our room and stead, holy places made with hands were made accessible to an OFFERING and SACRIFICE to God, for a sweetthe Jewish worshippers, that blood being carried into smelling savour ;" by which his readers could only unthem, and sprinkled by the high priest, so “ Christ en- derstand, that Christ gave himself up a sacrifice for tered once, with his own blood into the holy place, hav- them, as other sacrifices had been given up for them, ing obtained eternal redemption for us,” and has thus in the way of expiation, to obtain for them the mercy opened for us a “new and living way" into the celes- and favour of God." The cavil of Crellius and his tial sanctuary; as the blood of the Mosaic oblations followers on this passage is easily answered. He was the blood of the Old Testament, so he himself says, that the phrase "a sweet-smelling savour," is says, “this is my blood of the New Testament, shed scarcely ever used of sin-offerings or expiatory sucrifor the remission of sins;" as it was a part of the sa- fices; but of burnt-offerings, and peace offerings, by crificial solemnity, in some instances, to feast upon the which expiation was not made. But here are two mis victim, so, with direct reference to this, our Lord also declares that he would give his own flesh for the life (2) Vide CHAPMAY'S Eusebius, chap. iv.

[ocr errors]

takes. The first lies in assuming that burnt-offerings, now to appear in the presence of God for us." To were not expiatory, whereas they are said “to make enter into the meaning of this passage, we are to conatonement," and were so considered by the Jews, sider that God dwelt personally among the Israelites; thuugh sometimes also they were eucharistic. The se- that the sanctuary and tabernacle are represented as cond mistake is, that the phrase, “a sweet-smelling polluted by their sius, and even corporal impurities, savour,” is by some peculiar fitness applied to one class the penalty of which was death, unless atoned for, or of offerings alone. It is a gross conception, that it re expiated according to law, and that all unclean persons lates principally to the odour of sacrifices burned with were debarred access to the tabernacle and the service fire; whereas it signifies the acceptableness of sacri- of God, until expiation was made, and purification fices to God; and is so explained in Phil. iv. 18, where thereby effected. It was under these views that the the apostle calls the bounty of the Philippians, “an sin-offerings were made on the day of expiation, to odour of sweet smell," and adds, exegetically, “a sacri- which the apostle alludes in the above passage. Then fice acceptable and well pleasing to God". The phrase the high-priest entered into the holy of holies, with is, probably, taken from the incensing which accompa- the blood of sacrifices, to make atonement both for nied the sacrificial services.

himself and the whole people. He first offered for himTo these instances must be added the whole argu- self and for his house a bullock, and sprinkled the ment of St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Hebrews. To blood of it upon and before the mercy-seat within the what purpose does he prove that Christ had a superior | veil. Afterward he killed a goat for a sin-offering for priesthood to Aaron, if Christ were only metaphori- the people, and sprinkled the blood in like manner. cally a priest? what end is answered by proving that This was called atoning for, or hallowing and reconhis offering of himself had greater efficacy than the ciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the con: oblations of the tabernacle, in taking away sin, if sin gregation, “because of the uncleanness of the children was not taken away in the same sense, that is, by ex- of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all piation? Why does he lay so mighty a stress upon the their sins.” The effect of all this was the remission death of our Lord, as being “a better sacrifice, if, ac- of sins, which is represented by the scape-goat, who cording to the received sense, it was no sacrifice at all ? carried away the sins which had been confessed over His argument, it is manifest, would go for nothin and him, with imposition of hands; and the purification be no better than an unworthy trifling with his readers, of the priests and people, so that their holy places were and especially with the Hebrews 10 whom he writes made accessible to them, and they were allowed, withthe epistle, beneath not only an inspired but an ordi- out fear of the death which had been threatened, to nary writer. Fully to unfold the argument, we might “draw near” to God. travel through the greater part of the epistle; but one We have already shown that here the holy places or two passages may suffice. In chap. vii. 27, speak- made with hands, and the “true holy places," of which ing of Christ as our high priest, he says, “Who they were the figures, were purified and opened, each needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sa- in the same way, by the sprinkling of the blood of the crifices, first for his own sins, and then for the people's, victims-the patterns or emblems of things in the for this (latter) he did once, when he offered up him heavens, by the blood of animals, the heavenly places self.” The circumstance of his offering sacrifice not themselves by “better sacrifices," and that the argudaily, but "once for all," marks the superior value and ment of the apostle forbids us to suppose that he is efficacy of his sacrifice'; his offering up this sacrifice speaking figuratively. Let us, then, merely mark the of himself” for the sins of the people, as the Jewish correspondence of the type and antitype in this case, high priest offered his animal sacrifices for the sins of as exhibited by the apostle. He compares the legal sathe people, marks the similarity of the act; in both crifices and that of Christ in a similar purification of cases atonement was made, but with differení degrees the respective Ayla or sanctuaries to which each had of efficacy; but unless atonement for sin was in real relation. The Jewish sanctuary on earth was purified, ity made by his thus offering up “himself,” the vir- that is, opened and made accessible by the one; the cetue and efficacy of Christ's saerifice would be inferior lestial sanctuary, the true and everlasting seal of God's to that of the Aaronical priesthood, contrary to the de- presence, by the other. Accordingly, in other passages, clared design and argument of the epistle. Let us, he pursues the parallel still farther, representing Christ also, refer to chap. ix. 13, 14, " For if the blood of bulls as procuring for men, by bis death, a happy admission and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the into heaven, as the sin-offerings of the law obtained unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh,” so as for the Jews a safe entrance into the tabernacle on to fit the offender for joining in the service of the tahor- earth. “Having, therefore, brethren, boldness to enter nacle, “how much more shall the blood of Christ, who into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot living way, which he hath consecrated for us through to God, purge your consciences from dead works, to the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a high serve the living God." The comparison here lies in priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a this, that the Levitical sacrifices expiated legal punish- true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts ments; but did not in themselves acquit the people sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies absolutely in respect to God, as the Governor and Judge washed with pure water.” Thus, also, he tells us that of mankind; but that the blood of Christ extends its "we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Christ virtue to the conscience, and eases it of all guilty ter- Jesus," and that as the bodies of those animals whose ror of the wrath to come on account of “dead works,” | blood was carried into the holy of holies by the high or works which deserve death under the universal priest, to inake an atonement for sin, were burnt moral law. The ground of this comparison, however, * without the camp,” so also Jesus suffered without lies in the real efficacy of each of these expiations. the gate, “that he might sanctify the people with his Each“purifies," each delivers from guilt, but the latter own blood." only as “ pertaining to the conscience," and the mode The notion that sacrificial terms are applied to the in each case is by expiation. But to interpret the purg- death of Christ by rhetorical figure is, then, sufficiently ing of the conscience, as the Socinians, of mere dis- refuted by the foregoing considerations. But it has suasion from dead works to come, or as descriptive of been argued, that as there is, in many respects, a want the power of Christ to acquit men, upon their repent- of literal conformity between the death of Christ and ance, declaratively destroys all just similitude between the sacrifices of the law, a considerable license of figuthe blood of Christ and that of the animal sacrifices, rative interpretation must be allowed. Great confusion and the argument amounts to nothing:

of ideas, on this subject, has resulted from not observ. We conclude with a passage to which we have be- ing a very obvious distinction which exists between tore adverted, which institutes a comparison between gurative and analogical language. It by no means the Levitical purification of the holy places made with follows, that when language cannot be interpreted litehands, and the purification of the heavenly places by rally it must be taken figuratively, or by way of rhetothe blood of Christ. “And almost all things are by rical allusion. This distinction is well made by a late the law purged with blood, and without shedding of writer.(3) blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary “ Figurative language,” he observes, “ does not arise that the patterns of things in the heavens should be from the real nature of the thing to which it is transpurified with these; but the heavenly things them- ferred, but only from the imagination of him who selves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is transfers it. So, a man of courage is figuratively not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are figures of the true, but into heaven itsell,

(3) VEYSIES's Bampion Lectures.

common name.

called a lion, not because the real nature of a lion be- legal sacrifices had any efficacy, per se; but, in another longs to him, but because one quality which charac- and a higher view, the sacrifice of Christ was the only terizes this animal belongs to him in an eminent de- true sacrifice, and the Levitical ones were but the apgree, and the imagination conceives of them as par- pointed types of that. If, therefore, in this argument, takers of a common nature, and applies to them one we may refer to the Mosaic sacrifices, to fix the sense

But there is a species of language, in which the New Testainent uses the sacrificial terms usually called analogical, which, though not strictly in which it speaks of the death of Christ, against au proper, is far from being merely figurative, the terms objector; yet, in fact, the sacrifices of the law are to being transferred from one thing to another, not be be interpreted by the sacrifice of Christ, and not the cause the things are similar, but because they are in latter by them. They are rather analogical with it, similar relations. The term thus transferred is as than it with them. There was a previous ordination truly significant of the real nature of the thing, in the of pardon through the appointed sacrifice of the Lamb relation in which it stands, as it could be, were it the of God," slain from the foundation of the world,” to primitive and proper word. Thus the term foot pro- which they all, in different degrees, referred, and perly signifies the lower extremity of an animal, or of which they were but the visible and sensible monithat on which it stands; but, because the lower extre- tors“ for the time present.” mity or base of a mountain is to the mountain what As to the objection, that the Jewish sacrifices had no the foot is to the animal, it is therefore called the same reference to the expiation of moral transgressions, we name, and the term thus applied is significant of some observe, thing real, something which, if not a foot in strict 1. That a distinction is to be made between sacrifice propriety of speech, is, nevertheless, truly so, con- as a part of the theo-political law of the Jews, and sasidered with respect to the circumstance upon which crifice as a consuetudinary rite, practised by their the analogy is founded. But this mode of expression fathers, and by them also previous to the giving of the is more common with respect to our mental and intel- law from Mount Sinai, and taken up into the Mosaic lectual faculties and operations, which we are wont to institute. This was continued partly on its original denominate by words borrowed from similar functions ground, and partly, and with additions, as a branch of of the bodily organs and corresponding attributes of the polity under which the Jews were placed. With material things. Thus to see, is properly to acquire this rite they were familiar before the law, and even impressions of sensible objects by the organs of sight; before the exodus from Egypt. “Let us go," says but to the mind is also attributed an eye, with which Moses to Pharaoh,“ we pray thee, three days' journey we are, analogically, said to see objects intellectual. into the desert, and sacrifice to the Lord our God, lest In like manner, great and little, equal and unequal, he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword.” smooth and rough, sweet and sour, are properly attri- Here sacrifice is spoken of, and that with reference to butes of material substances; but they are analogically expiation, or the averting of the Divine displeasure. ascribed to such as are immaterial; for without intend- There is in this, too, an acknowledgment of offences, ing a figure, we speak of a great mind and a little as the reason of sacrificing; but these offences could mind; and the natural temper of one man is said to be not be against the forms and ceremonies of an institute equal, smooth, and sweet, while that of another is which did not then exist, and must, therefore, have called unequal, rough, and sour. And if we thus ex- been moral offences. We may add to this, that in the press such intellectual things as fall more immediately books of Leviticus and Exodus, Moses speaks of sacriunder our observation, we cannot wonder that things fices as a previous practice, and, in some cases, so far spiritual and divine, which are more removed from our from prescribing the act, does no more than regulate direct inspection, should be exhibited to our apprehen- the mode. “If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the sion in the same manner. The conceptions which we herd, let him offer a male. Had their sacrifices, therethus form may be imperfect and inadequate; but they fore, reference only to cases of ceremonial offence, are, nevertheless, just and true; consequently the lan- then it would follow that they had been deprived of the guage in which they are expressed, although borrowed, worship of their ancestors, which respected the obtainis not merely figurative, but is significant of something ing of the Divine favour in the forgiveness of moral real in the things concerned."

offences, and that they obtained, as a substitute, a kind To apply this to the case before us, the blood or life of worship which respected only ceremonial cleans. of Christ is called our ransom and the price of our re- ings and a ceremonial reconciliation. They had this, demption. Now, admitting that these expressions are manifestly, as the type of something higher; and they not to be understood literally, does it follow that they had also the patriarchal rites with renewed sanctions contain mere figure and allusion? By no means. and under new regulations; and thus there was a real They contain truth and reality. Christ came to re- advance in the spirituality of their worship, while deem us from the power of sin and Satan, by paying it became, at the same time, more ceremonial and for our deliverance no less a price than his own blood. exact. “In him we have redemption, through his blood.” 2. That the offerings which were formerly prescribed “ The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for under the law had reference to moral transgressions, many;" and we are taught, by this representation, that as well as to external aberrations from the purity and the blood of Christ, in the deliverance of sinful man, exactness of the Levitical ritual. corresponds to a price or ransom in the deliverance of “ Atonement” is said to be made“ for sins committed a captive, and consequently is a price or ransom, if not against any of the commandments of the Lord.” It literally, at least really and truly.

appears, also, that sins of “ignorance” included all sins When Christ is called “our passover,” the same ana- which were not ranked in the class of“ presumptuous logical use of terms is manifest, and in several other sins," or those to which death was inevitably annexed passages which will be familiar to the reader; but we by the civil law, and, therefore, must have included hesitate to apply the same rule of interpretation through many cases of moral transgression. For some specific out, and to say with the author just quoted, and Arch- instances of this kind sin-offerings were enjoined, such bishop Magee, who refers to him on this point with ap- as lying, theft, fraud, extortion, and perjury:(4) probation, that Christ is called a “sin-offering” and a 3. That if all the sin-offerings of the Levitical insti

sacrifice" analogically. These terms, on the con- tnte had respected legal atonement and ceremonial putrary, are used properly, and must be understood lite- rification, nothing could have been collected from that rally. For what was an expiatory sacrifice under the circumstance to invalidate the true sacrifice of Christ. law, but the offering of the life of an innocent creature It is of the nature of a type to be inferior in etficacy to in the place of the guilty, and that, in order to obtain the antitype; and the apostle Paul himself argues, his exemption from death? The death of Christ is as from the invalidity of Levitical sacrifices to take away literally an offering of himself, “the just for the un- guilt from the conscience, the superior efficacy of the just,” to exempt the latter from death. The legal sin- sacrifice of Christ. It follows, then, that as truly as offerings cleansed the body and qualified for the cere- they were legal atonements, so truly was Christ's monial worship prescribed by the law; and the blood death a moral atonement; as truly as they purified tho of Christ as truly purifies the conscience and conse- flesh, so truly did this sacrifice purify the conscience. crates to the spiritual service required by the Gospel. The circumstances differ, but the things themselves (4) Vide OUTRAM De Sac.; HALLET's Notes and Disare not so much analogical as identical in their nature, courses; HAMMOND and RosenMILLER in Heb. ix.; though differing in circumstances, that is, so far as the Richie's Pec. Doctrine.


make atonement for your souls; for it is the BLOOD

(or LIFE) that maketh atonement for the soul.” The REDEMPTION.-PRIMITIVE SACRIFICES.

great reason, then, of the prohibition of blood is, that it To the rite of sacrifice before the law, practised in is the LIFE: and what follows respecting atonement is the patriarchal ages, up to the first family, it may be exegetical of this reason; the life is in the blood, and proper to give some consideration, both for the farther the blood or life is given as an atonement. Now, by elucidation of some of the topics above stated, and for turning to the original prohibition in Genesis, we find the purpose of exhibiting the harmony of those dispen- that precisely the same reason is given. “But the sations of religion which were made to fallen man in flesh with the blood, which is the life thereof, shall ye different ages of the world. That the ante-Mosaic sa- not eat." The reason, then, being the same, the quescritices were expiatory, is the first point which it is ne- tion is, whether the exegesis added by Moses must not cessary to establish. It is not, mdeed, at all essential necessarily be understood in the general reason given to the argunent, to ascend higher than the sacrifices of for the restraint to Noah. Blood is prohibited for this the law, which we have already proved to be of that reason, that it is the life; and Moses adds, that it is character, and by which the expiatory efficacy of the " the blood,” or life," which makes atonement." Let death of Christ is represented in the New Testament. any one attempt to discover any reason for the prohibiThis, however, was also the character of the more an- tion of blood to Noah, in the mere circumstance that it cient rites of the patriarchal church ; and thus we see is “ the life," and he will find it impossible. It is no the same principles of moral government, which dis- reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was tinguish the Christian and Mosaic dispensations, car- ! life substituted for life, the lite of the animal in sacriried still higher as to antiquity, even to the family office for the life of man, and that it had a sacred apthe first man, the first transgressor; “ without shed- propriation. The manner, too, in which Moses introding of blood there was no remission.”

duces the subject is indicative, that, though he was reThe proofs that sacrifices of atonement made a part newing a prohibition, he was not publishing a “ new of the religious system of the patriarchs who lived be- doctrine;" he does not teach his people that God had fore the law, are, first, the distribution of beasts into then given, or appointed, blood to make atonement ; but clean and unclean, which we find prior to the flood of he prohibits them from eating it, because he had made Noah. This is a singular distinction, and one which this appointment, without reference to time, and as a could not then have reference to food, since animal subject with which they were familiar. Because the food was not allowed to man prior to the deluge; and blood was the life, it was sprinkled upon, and poured as we know of no other ground for the distinction, ex- out at the altar: and we have in the sacrifice of the cept that of sacrifice, it must, therefore, have had re- paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, a sufii. ference to the selection of victims to be solemnly offered cient proof, that before the giving of the law, not only to God, as a part of worship, and as the means of draw. was blood not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred ing near to him by expiatory rites for the forgiveness sacrificial purpose. Nor was this confined to the Jews; of sins.

Some, it is true, have regarded this distinc- it was customary with the Romans and Greeks, who, tion of clean and unclean beasts as used by Moses by in like mamer, poured out and sprinkled the blood of way of prolepsis, or anticipation, a notion which, if it victims at their altars; a rite derived, probably, from could not be refuted by the context, would be perfectly the Egyptians, as they derived it, not from Moses, but arbitrary. But not only are the beasts which Noah from the sons of Noah. The notion, indeed, that the was to receive into the ark spoken of as clean and un

blood of the victims was peculiarly sacred to the gods, clean ; but in the command to take them into the ark, is impressed upon all ancient pagan mythology. a difference is made in the number to be preserved, Thirdly, the sacrifices of the patriarchs were those of the former being to be received by sevens, and the lat- animal victims, and their use was to avert the displeater by two of a kind. This shows that this distinction sure of God from sinning men. Thus in the case of among beasts had been established in the time of Noah, Job, who, if it could be proved that he did not live beand thus the assumption of a prolepsis is refuted. In fore the law, was, at least, not under the law, and in the law of Moses a similar distinction is made: but the whose country the true patriarchal theology was in only reasons given for it are two: in this manner, those force, the prescribed burnt-offering was for the averting victims which God would allow to be used for piacu- of the“ wrath” of God, which was kindled against Elilar purposes, were marked out; and by this distinction plaz and his two friends, “ lest,” it is added, “ I deal those animals were designated which were permitted with you after your folly.” The doctrine of expiation for food. The former only can, therefore, be considered could not, therefore, be more explicitly declared. The as the ground of this distinction among the antedilu- burnt-offerings of Noah, also, after he left the ark, vians; for the critical attempts which have been made served to avert the “ cursing of the ground any more to show that animals were allowed to man for food, for man's sake,” that is, for man's sin, and the “smiting previous to the fiood, have wholly failed.

any more every thing living.” In like manner, the end A second argument is furnished by the prohibition of of Abel's offering was pardon and acceptance of Gon, blood for food, after animals had been granted to man and by it these were attained, for " he obtained witness for his sustenance along with the “ herb of the field.” that he was righteous.". But as this is the first sacrifice This prohibition is repeated by Moses to the Israelites, which we have on record, and has given rise to some conwith this explanation, “ I have given it upon the altar, troversy, it may be considered more largely : at present, to make an atonement for your souls." From this however the only question is its expiatory character. " additional reason," as it has been called, it has been As to the matter of he sacrifice, it was an animal argued that the doctrine of the atoning power of blood offering: “ Cain brought of the fruit of the ground," was new, and was then, for the first time, announced " and Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, by Moses, or the same reason for the prohibition would and of the fat thereof;" or, more literally, " the fat of have been given to Noah. To this we may reply, them,” that is, according to the Hebrew idiom, the fat1. That unless the same reason be supposed as the test or best of his flock. Le Clerc and Grotius would mground for the prohibition of blood to Noah, as that derstand Abel to have offered the wool and inilk of his given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be tiock, which interpretation, if no critical difficulty opconceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite posed it, would be rendered violently improbable by of mankind from Noah to Moses; and yet we have a

the circumstance that neither wool nor milk is ever prohibition of a most solemn kind, which in itself mentioned in Scripture as fit oblations to God.

But to couid have no reason enjoined, without any external | translate the word rendered firstling's, by best and reason being either given or conceivable. 2. That it is finest, and then to suppose an ellipsis and supply it a mistake to suppose, that the declaration of Moses to with wool, is wholly arbitrary, and contradicted by the the Jews, that God had “ given them the blood for an import of the word itself. But, as Dr. Kennicott reatonement,” is an additional reason for the interdict, marks, the matter is set at rest by the context; “ for, not to be found in the original prohibition to Noan. if it be allowed by all, that Cain's bringing of the fruit The whole passage in Lev. xvii. is, “And thou shalt of the ground means his bringing the fruit (itsell) of the say to them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of ground, then Abel's bringing of the firstlings of his Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that Hock must, likewise, mean his bringing the firstlings eateth any manner of blood, I will even set my face of his flock” (themselves).(5) against that soul that eateth blood, and I will cut him This is farther supporied by the import of the phrase off from among his people, FOR THE LIFE of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it upon the altar, to (5) Two Dissertations. See also MAGEE's Discourses.

« PreviousContinue »