and metaphorical expression of St. Paul. In his Epistle to the Corintians,* he alludes to various events in the Jewish history, by way of admonition to the new converts from, Judaism to Christianity. In several of which the resemblances are much too general and feeble to deserve the character of being typical, as defined above. He compares the passing of their fathers under a cloud, and through the sea, to the ordinance of baptism. He terms the manna in the wilderness spiritual meat, and the water flowing from the rock, spiritual drink; this rock, he says, is Christ. He reminds them that three and twenty thousand of the Israelites fell in one day, for committing fornication; referring to their having commerce with the daughters of Moab, in Shittim, and sacrificing to their gods; that when they murmured against God and his servant Moses, they were bitten by fiery serpents. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples, or types. But could these events have happened, that they might be either promissory and predictive? St. Paul points out to the Galatians, a resemblance between the two sons of Abraham,—the one born of a bonds-woman; after the flesh, the other of the free woman according to promise, and the two covenants, the covenant of works and that of grace, but are we to consider these circumstances in any other light, than as comparisons? Were they ordained in order to furnish our apostle with an allegory? and yet they were as typical of events relative to the Christian dispensation, as the sacrifices under the law. Will our theologians suspend a doctrine which they deem so weighty in itself, upon so slender a fila * 1 Cor. x, ment? Was this the manner in which St. Paul established the divine mission of Jesus, the doctrines of his meritorious death, triumphant resurrection, and the forgiveness of sins through faith in his name? In ancient days, when the multitude were grossly ignorant and illiterate, impressions could only be made upon their minds, by signs and tokens. Rude pillars of stone were erected, instead of monumental inscriptions. The slaughter of the pascal lamb, and placing it at the postern of the door; was commanded to the Hebrews, and by the observance of this command, the Deity engaged not to inflict upon them the calamity which impended upon the unbelieving Egyptians. The feast of unleavened bread, and subsequently the feast of tabernacles, were instituted as commemorative of the peculiar interposition and protection of providence. We are informed, that the brasen serpent was erected in the wilderness, and those who looked up to it were cured of their wounds. This might have been appointed, the more effectually to convince them of a miraculous interposition in their favour. The confession of the sins of the people upon the head of the scape goat, and afterwards letting it loose in the wilderness, was a most impressive token, a full assurance, that the Israelites were absolved from every act of disobedience and rebellion, of which they had been guilty in the earlier stages of their political existence. These were acts very remote from every idea of an atoning sacrifice. The pascal lamb was slain without any of those rituals which were required in an acceptable sacrifice for sin. The brazen serpent was neither slain nor crucified; and yet there were points of resemblance which attracted the notice, the one of our Saviour, and the other of St. Paul. The most striking emblem of the divine forgiveness, upon record under the first dispensation, was the injunction respecting the scape goat, which was conveyed away to be for ever lost in the wilderness; but this was not sacrificed. The goat that was sacrificed was a striking emblem of their demerit; that which escaped, was a striking token of the most perfect reconciliation; an assurance that the Lord had pardoned their iniquities, transgressions, and sins. The modern ideas of atonement are manifestly founded upon misconceptions, respecting the particular object of the sacrifices under the law. They were undoubted acts of atonement, according to the primitive and genuine signification of the term; for they were the appointed mediums of reconciliation. The right performance of these sacrifices was the established condition of pardon, respecting the particular offence, for which they were ordained. As we have already observed, the intrinsic value, and the peculiar solemnities to be observed, were diversified by the law, according to the degrees of moral turpitude in the offence committed. Thus, while each sacrifice was an indication of demerit, it was also a lesson of refined morality. May we not suspect that the idea of literally appeasing the divine wrath, is of a Pagan origin? It is in perfect unison with the ideas which the Pagans had formed concerning their deities, as possessing human passions, and human appetites. These induced them to imagine that they could compensate for their crimes, by bringing acceptable gifts to the altars of their gods. The modern ideas affixed to an atonement, were neither expressed nor intimated by Moses, when he instituted the Jewish rituals, nor is there any evidence that they were entertained by the pious among the Jews. But at the corrupted periods of Judaism, particularly among the ten revolted tribes, a depraved race attempted to worship Jehovah, by an intermixture of Pagan superstitions. They imbibed many of their erroneous principles, deeming them of intrinsic efficacy; and ultimately, they imagined, like the Pagans, that their sacrifices and oblations, their observances of fasts, sabbaths, &c. would not only compensate for every crime they were determined to commit, but become a substitute for reformation. This perverse disposition was severely rebuked by their prophets. "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? saith the Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts, &c. &c. When ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea when ye make many prayers I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. Wash ye, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from mine eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do well,"* &c. &c. These remarks evince, that no other efficacy has been ascribed to the sacrifices under the law, when they were observed with the greatest purity, than as they were tokens of conscious demerit and of penitence. In this case they were considered as atonements; that is, accepted as the mediums of reconciliation. * Isaiah i, 11. passim. In order to prevent the Israelites from intermixing any conceits and devices of their own, or adopting any of the pagan ceremonies, particular rules were minutely laid down, the strict observance of which was necessary to render their sacrifices acceptable. The Priest alone was permitted to officiate. The animal appointed by the law was to be sacrificed in a particular place, and in a particular manner, or the whole transaction was deemed criminal. "What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or a goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord, before the tabernacle of the Lord, blood shall be imputed to that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people, &c. The Priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord,"* &c. Can such accurate laws and solemn injunctions, typically represent the death of Christ, who was murdered by wicked men? The ancient sacrifices were offered by the express appointment of God; Jesus was sacrificed from a principle of hatred and resentment; a principle the most opposite to a devout confession of sins. The deed was so atrocious, that the whole Jewish nation was punished for it, and their posterity will remain in disgrace, until they disavow this crime of their ancestors. Thus we perceive that there is no solid foundation in * See Levit. xvii. M m |