fore they are to be treated as infignificant allu fions, I apprehend you will not perfuade many to believe. Men will hardly be brought to imagine that Chrift fhould pour the Spirit of Truth upon his Difciples at Pentecoft, that they might be able to write metaphorical blunders ; for their defcriptions of the defign and effects of Chrift's death, are no better, if we are to understand no more by his death than, "that he fealed by his Blood the New Covenant, and established his character, and the truth of the Gospel." The beft method to arrive at just conclufions concerning the main intention and effects of the Death of Chrift, will be,

Firft, To fhew what was the proper defign and efficacy of the Jewish Sacrifices.

Secondly, What relation there is between them and the death of Chrift.

Thirdly, Then we shall be able to judge how we are to interpret the immenfe body of texts, which appear to us to represent the death of Chrift as fulfilling other ends, befides fealing the truth of his miffion, &c.

You fay, that Jewish Sacrifices "were never confidered as "ftanding in the place of finners, as "victims to appease the justice of God;†" yet

*Page 77. + Ibid 81.

66

you are obliged to allow, that "the Jew, on pro "perly presenting his offering, had his fin or "uncleannefs removed.*" And again, " Offer"ings were brought to remove ritual tranfgreffions." You admit, then, that facrifice was fo far neceffary for forgiveness, that if it had not been offered, forgiveness could not have been obtained. What then did the cifender do in bringing a Lamb to the Pricft to be facrificed for him, and in what light is the facrifice to be confidered? You fay, that the advantage of such sacrifice being offered, “consisted folely in the offender's obeying

the will of God in these appointments;" and therefore, the facrifice is not to be confidered as offered for the exprefs and appropriate purpose of expiating the tranfgreffion. But what say the Scriptures? "The Priest shall make an atonement for him, for his fin which he hath finned," &c. Lev. v, 10. Here we read that the victim was offered to make atonement for fin; and in Lev. xvii, 11, it is faid, that "the blood of the victim, maketh atonement for the foul:" and an Apoftle declares, "that without fhedding of blood there is no remiffion." I affirm then, that the Jewish Sacrifice was by Divine appointment, that which was to purge from defilement, con

*Page 81. Ibid. Ibid.

tracted by fin committed against the Mofaic difpenfation; it was endowed with a propitiatory efficacy, and was to be offered, not only because it was commanded to be offered, but also under the view of its being an atonement for fin. This conclufion cannot be avoided, unless you choose to say, that atonement is there a figurative term; and then how is it figurative, except, as it was typical of the atonement of the death of Christ; an interpretation which you will hardly be difpofed to adopt. Of this, however, it was typical. For,

Secondly, my next propofition is, that what the expiatory victim was appointed by God to effect in atoning for ceremonial pollutions, the death of Jefus Chrift was intended to effect in atoning for moral defilements. Any man who will study the Epiftles to the Hebrews will fee, that the Ceremonies, the Sacrifices, the HighPrieft and the Temple, were fhadows, sketches, delineations of good things to come. Now that which typifies, and fhadows forth another inftitution, is a lefs and fubordinate thing, ftanding in relation to a greater in which it terminates. -The Type is lefs than the Antitype, yet fimilar to and illuftrative of it. The blood of bulls and of goats could not take away moral guilt, being only invefted with a power to atone for ritual tranfgreffion, and restore

men to the service of God in the fanctuary. But the Blood of Chrift, who "through the eternal Spirit offered himself to God, can purge the confcience from the guilt contracted by dead works, fo as that the finner can serve the living God." It appears then that facrifices under the law were expiatory of fin committed against that difpenfation, and that they typified the death of Chrift, "who was to appear to put away Sin by the facrifice of himself."* When therefore fuch expreffions as Chrift "was facrificed for us," "bore our fins in his own body on the tree," &c. are used, it is improper to reduce them to infignificant figurative allufions to Jewish Sacrifices; and, because they seem to have respect to those ceremonies, to refuse their being admitted in proof, that Chrift's death is an atonement for fin. For this reference to the type is adopted for the very purpose of establishing the contrary. The Sacrifice, as an atonement, could only be typical of the death of Chrift as it is an atonement; for it is not a type except it prefigure the end as well as the means. It would be ridiculous to speak of the death of Chrift as a more efficacious facrifice for fin than the facrifices under the law, if it was not a facrifice at all. It would be ridicu

*Heb. ix. 26.
C

lous to represent Chrift as having undertaken "better Priesthood than the Levitical, to offer gifts and facrifices for fin," if he be not a High Priest at all, and if he "have not entered once "into the holy place above by his own blood.”

Again, let us try a few paffages relating to Chrift's death by the rule of interpretation, laid down refpecting figurative expreffions,* and we shall fee how infignificant and vapid they are, upon your plan of making Christ's death only a feal of the new covenant, of the truth of his miffion, &c. "He fuffered for fin, the juft for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." I apprehend, that an innocent perfon is here reprefented as fuffering for the fin of a guilty perfon, and by that fuffering bringing the guilty to God. No, you fay, it all means nothing higher, than that Chrift died to feal the new covenant, and establish his charac"The blood of Chrift his Son cleanseth from all fin." Here we have fcripture authority for believing that the death of Chrift was the efficacious caufe of fin being forgiven and guilt removed. How different this from your idea of the fubject; for you hold that it cleanses not, nor can it have any relation to cleansing,

ter.

* Page 5.

+ Peter iii. 18. ‡ 1 John i. 7.