In order to understand these, and other texts to the fame purpose, it is neceffary to confider the design of the legal facrifices, and the relation they bore to the Jewish people. Befides being a figure for the time then present of the great facrifice, which was to be offered for the fins of the world, they were appointed to remove the effect of thofe various ceremonial uncleanneffes, which prevented those who were defiled by them from all accefs to God in his public ordinances :* But they could not remove the guilt of any moral offence, confidered as fuch, or free the offender from being obnoxious to the final judgment of God. They fanctified to the purifying of the flesh, but could not make him that did the Service perfect, as pertaining to the confcience. Heb. ix. 9, 13. They were inftituted likewife as means of freeing the perfons who offered them, in the manner prescribed, from the punishment of thofe civil offences for which the divine lawgiver had not ordained certain death.

They

were

* These uncleanneffes, however involuntary and void of moral turpitude, were breaches of the ceremonial law, and required an expiatory facrifice to make atonement, or remove the obligation to punishment from the offender. If a foul touch any unclean thing,—and it be hidden from him; he alfo fhall be unclean, and guilty.-And he shall bring his trefpafs-offering, &c. Lev. v. 2, 6. The most ordinary punishment in these cafes was exclufion from the public ordinances of God's worship. See Lev. xii, &c.

+ God entered into a particular covenant with the people of Ifrael at Mount Sinai, and there gave them a body

of

were undoubtedly always fufficient for those purposes for which they were inftituted; and, therefore, when their infufficiency is taken notice of, it is in fuch cases only as their efficacy was not defigned to be extended to; either the removal of moral guilt, or deliverance from death in capital offences. When David was lamenting his adultery and murder, he fays, Thou defireft not facrifice, elfe would I give it thee; thou delighteft not in burnt-offering: The facrifices of God are a broken fpirit, &c. Pfal. li. 16, 17. God did defire facrifice in every cafe for which he had appointed it, as is plain even from the words immediately following of laws for their government as a nation. This confifted of the moral law or ten commandments, together with a variety of ceremonial rites, and political injunctions. Temporal bleffings and curfes were the fanction by which this covenant was guarded. For fome offences certain death was appointed; for others pardon was granted upon the offering of the appointed facrifice, for without hedding of blood there was no remiffion. The efficacy of thefe facrifices extended no farther than to the averting of those temporal evils, which the tranfgreffors of the law of Mofes were exposed to. The Jews, therefore, were under the moral law in two respects: 1ft, As being God's general law, which extends to all mankind; and 2dly, As being part of that particular law which God inftituted for that people, of whom he was, in a peculiar fenfe, the king and law-giver. Hence a tranfgreffion of the moral law by a Jew might be confidered in a twofold view. It might be an unpardonable offence against the Sinai-covenant, and confequently expofe the offender to capital punishment; yet might be forgiven by God as his final judge upon his true repentance, and faith in the Meffiah as then revealed. On the contrary, it might be a pardonable crime, and be actually forgiven through the offering of the appointed facrifice; and yet expofe the finner, if impenitent, to the final judgment of God.

this

this quotation, but this was not fuch a cafe, and therefore the Pfalmift acknowledges its infufficiency. It is true, he only mentions the facrifice of a broken spirit, and a contrite heart as acceptable to God in this instance ; but if he understood his own writings as his inspired commentator, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, did, he had fome respect to that Prieft after the order of Melchizedec of whom he elsewhere speaks.

Those paffages in the Old Testament which speak with seeming contempt of facrifices, and other pofitive inftitutions, were plainly intended to reprove the Jews for thinking to make up for their neglect of moral righteoufnefs by the abundance of their oblations, &c. For when pofitive inftitutions are thus ufed by way of commutation for moral obedience, they become an abomination in the fight of God: Nay, whenever pofitive precepts really interfere with thofe of a moral nature, the preference is always to be given to the latter, as

* Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion; build thou the walls of Jerufalem: Then halt thou be pleased with the facrifices of righteousness; with burnt-offering, and whole burntoffering: then ball they offer bullocks upon thine altar. Ver. 18, 19.

+ The account of Saul's behaviour in the affair of the Amalekites, 1 Sam. xv. and the reproof given him on that occafion, fet this matter in a very clear light. Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and facrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than facrifice; and to hearken than the fat of rams. Ver. 22.

our

our Lord hath fhewn in his difcourfe concerning the fabbath. Matt. xii. On the other hand, it is equally plain, that legal facrifices were as much infifted upon in their proper place as any duty of moral obligation, and the people were reproved by the prophets when they were defective in them. See Ifaiah xliii. 22-24. Malachi i. throughout, and chap. iii. 7-10.

12.

66

Many other things befides the death "of Christ are exprefsly called facrifices by "the facred writers; and if it be univerfally "allowed that they are fo called by way of "allufion only, why may not the fame be "the cafe with the death of Chrift alfo." Theological Repofitory, vol. I. p. 131. " Chrift, being called a priest can occafion no difficulty, when it is confidered, that ordinary "christians have frequently the fame appella"tion in the New Teftament," &c. Ib. P. 132.

66

I have already fhewn, that fuch things are spoken of the priesthood and facrifice of Chrift, as are inconfiftent with the metaphorical use of the terms, and that of confequence they belong to our Lord in the proper sense of the words. Where the terms in queftion are ufed figuratively, we are obliged to put this conftruction upon them, either because the texts themselves intimate their figurative meaning, or because other paffages of fcripture require

༽

quire it. When the whole Jewish nation is called a kingdom of priests, Exod. xix. 6. wę are obliged to look upon this language as figurative, because other fcriptures affure us, that none could be real priefts under the Mofaic dispensation but those who were of the family of Levi. And the fervices of Christians are plainly distinguished from real facrifices by being called SPIRITUAL facrifices, LIVING facrifices, facrifices OF PRAISE, &c. 1 Pet. ii. 5. Rom. xiii. 1. Heb. xiii. 15; but they are never called facrifices FOR SIN, by which, and other fuch like e thets, the facrifice of Christ is distinguished f. m those things which have the term applied to them merely by way of allufion.

13. "The death of Chrift cannot be con"fidered as a proper facrifice for fin, because many things effential to fuch a facrifice "were, in fact, wanting in it.-According "to the Jewish ceremonial law (from which "we must borrow all our notions of these "things) it was primarily requifite, in every

fin-offering, that it should be provided, "and presented by the finner; Chrift, there"fore, could not die as a proper facrifice for a "finful world, except the world had provided " and presented him to be facrificed, and also "observed a variety of other forms, of which "there is no trace in the hiftory of the death " of Chrift." Ib. p. 133.

The