In this solemn and affecting manner was it declared to ages and generations, that "God is the

it was annexed till the coming of that descendant of Abraham to whom all the promises refer, in order to convince the people of Israel of their sins, and to remind them daily of their guilt.

"(ANNOTATION.) It was the design of the Law of Moses to remind the Israelites, that they were guilty of sin and liable to death.

"1. Every Sacrifice was a memorial of this mournful truth. Sin was confessed over the head of the victim, and then it was slain. As it is certain that sin could not be taken away by the blood of bullocks or goats, this solemnity was no other than a memorial to the sinner, that his sin deserved death. On this account the apostle says, 'In the sacrifices-there is a remembrance of sins made again every year.'

"2. The Levitical law denounced the Israelites as unclean, on account of various inevitable circumstances. In particular, a human being could not be born into the world without his mother being thereby rendered unclean. Lev. xii.

"3. At no time were the Israelites allowed to have immediate access to God. Of the common Israelites, no one dared to enter into the most holy place, or even into the holy place. This place where God dwelt,' was closed against them. Their offerings could be accepted by God only when presented through the medium of the priest.

"4. Not all those creatures of God which had been granted for food to Noah, were allowed to be enjoyed by the Israelites. A great part were declared unclean, and the Israelites were therefore obliged to abstain from them.

"5. As the eating of the sacrifice was to be an image of the complete dedication of the sacrifice, and of the propitiation effected by it; and as the expiation was especially the effect of the blood; so the eating of the blood was absolutely prohibited, (Lev. xvii. 11, 12,) in order to indicate that, with all their offerings, a real expiation for their sins had not been made.

"From all this, it is apparent that the law was given to be a declaration of the guilt of sin, and not to take it away. For this reason it is called (2 Cor. iii. 7, 9) 'the ministry which denounceth death,-and condemnation:' and Paul says of it (Rom. iii. 20), ' By the law is the knowledge of sin;' and (v. 20) 'the law entered, that the offence might abound,' i. e. be shown to be so great." Paraphrasis und Anmerkungen über die Br. an die Gal. Eph. u. s. w. p. 26.

righteous Judge, of purer eyes than to behold evil, and who cannot countenance iniquity; that his wrath is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men; that the wages of sin is death; that there is forgiveness with the Lord, and plenteous redemption; but that without the shedding of blood there is no remission." Inseparably associated with a sacrifice were the character and function of the person offering it; whom we call the Priest. It were to be wished that our language had a term answering more correctly to the ancient words used for this purpose, and which denoted a holy person transacting with God on the behalf of others.† In the early times, the father of the family, and by the same reason the head of a clan, performed this duty for himself and on behalf of his dependants. Noah, Abraham, and Jacob were priests to their own households. Afterwards, the extension of the idea of patriarchal authority, and the importance of the office above all others, led it to be combined with the highest social dignity. In the early part of Abraham's life, the king of Salem, in whom we see that the knowledge and worship of the only God were not yet wholly supplanted among the heathen, was Melchisedec, "the priest of the Most High God." This combination of the offices took place also in remote periods of the history of idolatrous nations. In some instances by the constitution of the country, and in

* Ps. vii. 11. Habak. i. 12. Rom. i. 18; vi. 23. Ps. cxxx. 4, 7. Heb. ix. 27.

See the first paragraphs of Discourse II.

others by specific appointment, the same individual was both king and priest. The functions of the office included all religious worship and sacred rites; but the principal of them lay in offering solemn sacrifice to the Deity, whether acknowledged in truth or conceived of under false representations. This is plainly stated in the divine prescriptions concerning the priesthood among the Israelites. While the tribe of Levi generally were to perform numerous services, necessary to the public rites of religion, and therefore were priests in the wider sense of the term, it was but one family of that tribe which was permitted to offer sacrifice, the service of highest distinction; it was only "the seed of Aaron the priest that should come nigh, to present the offerings of the Lord made by fire." It was also an important part of the priest's duty, and which demonstrates the beneficial character of the office, to give religious instruction, and to determine controversies concerning the meaning and application of the divine law : and it may reasonably be supposed that this instruction, among the worshippers of the true God, and where there was a conscientious regard to his will and authority, would include so much as was understood of the moral intentions of sacrificial observances. When the Levitical priest faithfully answered to the design of his institution, "the law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips; he walked with God in peace and uprightness, and converted many from iniquity: for the priest's lips were bound to keep knowledge, and they should seek

C

the law at his mouth; for he was the messenger of Jehovah [the God] of Hosts."*

Thus we have briefly endeavoured to ascertain the design and use of the ancient rite of sacrifice, and the truths which it was suited to inculcate upon the understandings and moral feelings of those who celebrated it.

III, We proceed now to our principal object, the application of these facts and principles to the great work of our Lord Jesus Christ as a suffering Mediator,

offering himself without spot to God." Two subjects of serious attention lie before us: the first, to evince that the ancient sacrifices were designed representations of this work and office of Christ; and the second, to show that what they could only represent and teach, his sacrifice did truly and actually effect.

i. The ancient sacrifices were originally designed as symbols, emblems, and representations of the GREAT WORK for the effecting of which the MESSIAH was promised to fallen man.

1. In support of this proposition, our first article of evidence is deduced from explicit declarations of the Old Testament.

"Sacrifice and offering thou body hast thou prepared for me.

sin-offering thou requirest not.

wouldst not. A Burnt-offering and Then said I, Lo, I

come! In the volume of the book it is written of

me: I delight to do thy will, O God; yea, thy law is within my heart."* The authority of the New Testament decides the application of this passage to the Messiah. The language of rejection applied to the legal offerings can be understood only as a strong denial of any intrinsic value or efficacy in them; for the command to offer those sacrifices was unquestionably binding upon the Hebrew nation, so long as the Levitical convenant continued in force. The leading idea in this distinguished passage manifestly is, that the Messiah should supersede all the sacrificial observances, by actually performing that very requisite, that good pleasure of Jehovah, which they were

*Ps. xl. 6-8. "A body hast thou prepared me." Heb. x. 5, and so read the LXX., and the Old Italic undoubtedly derived from it, the Ethiopic and a MS. of the Syriac at Paris. One in the Bodleian, and the Arabic Version in Walton, combine both readings. can hardly be made to signify to bore. It denotes primarily to dig, a well for instance, or a pit; and derivately it is employed in the sense of acquiring or preparing. Deut. ii. 6; 2 Kings vi. 23 ; Job xl. 30 (English division, xli. 6); Hos. iii. 2. For therefore I venture to read, with Kennicott, and approved by Dr. Randolph,

then a body, conjecturing the present reading to have come from those two words, by the similarity of letters. "The most common interpretation is, that the Psalmist alludes to the custom of boring the ears of a servant; Ex. xxi. 5, 6. But as such allusion is very obscure, and not warranted either by the context or by any good authority, so the Psalmist speaks of ears in the plural, whereas the servant had only one ear bored." Randolph's Citations of the N. T. No. 159.) J. A. H. Tittmann, however, and other good critics, conceive that the same ultimate sense comes out of the common reading, by reducing the figures to their proper signification; and that therefore the apostle put oua as the explanation of wría. Opuscula Theol. pp. 198–204. Leipz. 1803. Such also was the solution of our great countryman, Dr. Owen.