doth so easily beset, and run with patience the race set before them, looking to Jesus the author and finisher [Greek, the chief leader and perfecter] of faith, being the first who lived up to the true faith, and first obtained its end. This is the decree of which I spoke before; That God did decree in direct and absolute terms, not to be reversed, to send a deliverer to redeem mankind from their fall. But when he came in this lovely character, they hated him without cause; for the sake of God who dwelt in him, and whose holiness burnt against their evil nature, so that the reproaches of them that reproached God fell on him; therefore they took him and with wicked hands crucified and slew him.

The foreknowledge of God no doubt comprehended what would be the result of his being thus set forth; but that was no reason why God should not do that which was necessary to be done for man's recovery and God's good pleasure and glory, seeing the Son of God was also willing to come, saying: "Lo, I come, in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is written in my heart. I have preached righteousness in the great congregation lo, I have not refrained my lips, O Lord thou knowest it.” (Psa. xl. 17, 18, 19.) Thus he was delivered, or set forth to view, according to the Greek text, and thus evilly was he entreated when he came.

This subject is farther illustrated by the parable of the householder, who planted a vineyard and let it out to husbandmen, and sent his servants in vain, who at two different times were some of them killed, and the rest stoned or beaten; "But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son they said among themselves, This is the heir; Come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him and cast him out and slew him." (Matt. xxi. 33, &c.) This parable Jesus applied to the Jews, concerning himself as the stone which the builders rejected, and yet it is made the head of the corner.

The following words also will no doubt be considered as favouring the doctrine of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, where the people are said to be gathered against Christ; "For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” (Acts iv. 28.) The argument is, that God determined that he should suffer these things as our substitute or surety; for there was no cause in him to expose him to such sufferings, being holy and harmless. But as no mention is made of any imputation of our sins to him, or of his righteousness to us, it would be forced and unnatural to infer the one or the other from these words. Not denying that God saw it necessary that Christ should die; as it is written: "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" according to what we have before spoken of the necessity of his death. The force of this text appears to be, that the things had come to pass according to what the Spirit of God by the prophet had foretold; his counsel had seen and his hand had described by the hand-writing of the prophet in whom his counsel was. And this is the primary sense of the word poop [pro-orizo] the Greek word here used, according to its explanation by prius definio, to define or determine beforehand. "Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage and

the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ. For, of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel [by the said David] determined before to be done." And precisely in this manner the apostle Peter hath expounded the same event, on a former occasion; "But those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled." (Acts iii. 18.)

CHAPTER IX.

THE SUBJECT CONTINUED, IN RELATION то THE LEGAL SACRIFICES AND OTHER MATTERS.

BUT other arguments are used in defence of being justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ. One is, that the sacrifices under the law were typical of Christ; and hence it is concluded, that Christ is our substitute, and that our sins were imputed to him. But this argument is founded in error, common as it is, and long as it has been sanctioned by tradition. Where do we read in the holy Scriptures, that those sacrifices typified Jesus Christ, any more than other men? Or what was to be seen in that service peculiarly applicable to him?

That the law was typical, as having a shadow of good things to come, is taught clearly enough. And that the high priest was typical of Christ, is not to be doubted; "For the law maketh men high priests who have infirmities; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." (Heb. vii. 28, and other places.) Also that the most holy place, into which the high priest went once every year, not without blood, was typical of the kingdom of heaven where Christ reigns, will be granted; "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." (Heb. ix. 24.) In many other respects the law was typical of things in the Gospel kingdom. But all these will not prove that the sacrifices were typical of Christ, or represented him. As Aaron the high priest was typical of Christ, it may not be improper to conclude that the sacrifice which he offered was typical of Christ, in a secondary view, when "He gave himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour," and when "through the eternal Spirit he offered himself without spot to God." (Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 14.) What I mean by this sacrifice being typical of Christ in a secondary view is, that it was immediately the offering of the priest as the leader of the people, as

Christ offered himself once, as the leader of his people. For the law made no provision for the priests, more than for others, to offer themselves to God, holy and living sacrifices; it remained for Jesus Christ to consecrate the new and living way. And it is worthy of notice that he is never said to have offered himself to God, as a sacrifice for sin, or a sin-offering, but an offering and a sacrifice for a sweet smelling savour, a living sacrifice in obedience to God's will, as our example and forerunner. Thus, "When he said, sacrifice and offering and burnt-offerings and offering for sin, thou wouldst not, neither hadst pleasure therein; [which are offered by the law ;] then said he, Lo, I come [for what? to be made a sin-offering to God? Nay; but] to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, [the sacrifices and offerings of the law,] that he might establish the second, [the doing of the will of God and walking in it after Christ, to God's acceptance.] By the which will we [who belong to the true body of Christ] are sanctified, [in doing as he did,] through the offering of the body of Christ once." (Heb. x. 8, 9, 10.)

The translators have here added the words for all, which are not in the Greek text, and are an unnecessary supplement; for though he offered himself for all as the head and forerunner of the body, the offering of the body of Christ includes the offering of all the members, who have all to offer themselves to God once for everlasting. "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service." (Rom. xii. 1.) But if the phrase, once for all, be understood as relating to the sufficiency of the one offering instead of the many offerings under the law, that acceptation is correct, and the meaning of the text remains unimpaired. For in this we see the perfection and pre-eminence of his offering above those under the law, that whereas they were continued because incapable of effecting salvation; his one offering was sufficient. "For such an high priest became us who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." (Heb. vii. 26, 27.)

These Scriptures, but especially that including the quotation from the fortieth Psalm, proves pointedly what Christ established, as the ground of our acceptance with God, first and last-Doing the will of God. "He that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven, shall enter into the kingdom. The sacrifices therefore under the law, did not typify Christ as a sin-offering to God as being our substitute, but rather the sacrifices of service in obedience to God, which the people have to offer to God in the Gospel Church, that spiritual house to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ: no imputation of our sins or guilt to him, neither of his righteousness to us. Now the phrase, to God, in the above quotation from the epistle to the Hebrews, (ix. 14,) hath not respect to the giving of the offering, as being offered to God, but to the quality or character of the person or thing offered. Not, he offered himself to God, without spot; but, he offered himself without spot to God, that is without spot before God, or in his sight. The phrase is in the same construction

in the Greek text as that by which Stephen described Moses, which the translators have rendered, exceeding fair; in the Greek, fair to God. (Acts vii. 20.) These things are plain to the candid among the learned.

Now let us inquire how the sacrifices under the law would apply to Christ, as representing him. "Here is a transgressor; he brings a lamb to the altar; he lays his hand upon its head and confesses his sins; he must then with his own hands slay it and have it burnt on the altar before his eyes." (Levit. i. 4, 5, and v. 5, &c. See also B W. Stone's Letters on Atonement, page 30.) Observe; the transgressor had to lay his hand on the head of the beast in the presence of the ministering priest, (not immediately the high priest,) and there confess his sins, and then with his own hand kill the sacrifice, flay it and cut it in pieces, ready to be laid on the altar and burnt. This was the common and regular order of that ritual. If, then, this sacrifice represented or typified Christ, when a sinner believes in him, he is to lay his hand on his head, confess his sins, kill and crucify him, before the priest. (Who the priest is I need not say.) Now who will suppose that this is the work of a returning penitent, to crucify the Son of God afresh? But we have pursued the subject far enough to see that these things will not apply.

Let us now inquire how these sacrifices will apply to those which men have to offer when they believe the Gospel. In the presence of the Gospel priest, or minister of Christ, he lays his hand on the head of the beast to be sacrificed, which is his own carnal nature, and there confesses his sins, kills the beast that it may be burnt on the altar of God; that is, having confessed his sins, he sets himself, soul and body, to resist the practice and nature of evil, and thus to crucify the carnal mind that it may die forever. "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts.” Thus denying himself and taking up his cross, he follows Christ, not doing his own will, but the will of his Father in heaven. Thus the man gives himself up wholly a living sacrifice for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved. There must be a whole surrender, without reserve or dishonesty, as the sacrifices under the law must be whole and without blemish. And as under the law Aaron offered the first offering himself, and afterwards the people offered through him; so Christ made the first offering; and whereas he had no sins to confess, and none of which to repent, after having entered into the way, by the door of confession and repentance which was opened for the people, the baptism of John, saying, Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness, he publicly offered himself a sacrifice and an offering to God, for a sweet smelling savour, for the destruction of the nature of the flesh which he had assumed. "And though he was a son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him." "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." (Heb. v. 8, 9, and viii. 3.) Every man has also to find his own sacrifice and not the high priest in his stead, nor God by any special gift, either to the man or in qualifying and commissioning the high priest; but every man had to furnish an offering for himself out of

his lawful substance, and bring it to the high priest and there offer it to God through him.

These sacrifices then were not types of Christ bearing the iniquities of the people by imputation, but rather types or symbols of the people dying each one for his own sin, or each one giving himself in sacrifice to God for the destruction of the flesh, or fleshly nature, (which is the life of the natural man,) that the spirit may be saved. And seeing the man could not both die and live, according to that carnal dispensation, the beast died in his room, and his life was spared; so in the Gospel the beast, which is the carnal mind or nature, is put to death, and the spirit is saved.

It is not improbable that some who have not a correct understanding of the Gospel, may not feel reconciled with this exposition of the nature of the sacrifices; but let such prove the matter and see if they can discover any application of them to the Gospel, (as they were confessedly shadows of something,) which is, on a deliberate and impartial view, attended with fewer difficulties. The law is good if a man use it lawfully; and no doubt but the whole work of God in the Gospel was prefigured by the law in some respect, and all the ceremonies of the law had respect to the Gospel; but the light of the Gospel only can unfold these things, with their proper application. For without the light of the Gospel, no man had ever understood one of the legal ceremonies; and for the want of this light, by mingling the law and the Gospel together, (which yet help to illustrate one another, each one being kept in its proper place,) or by seeking to the dead for the living, and to the darkness for light, men have such improper views of both the law and the Gospel. But the light of the Gospel will sufficiently unfold the use of the law, and no doubt the design of many ceremonies of which worldly professors have no understanding. "Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech; and not as Moses who put a vail over his face that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: but their minds were blinded; for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away." (2 Cor. iii. 12-16.) When therefore men become acquainted with Christ by the Gospel, they have a clear understanding.

The opinion therefore that the Jews in offering their sacrifices, had respect to the blood of Christ, afterwards to be shed for them, and believed in it for their justification, is entirely without foundation. It was evidently not understood that he would be put to death, even by those who believed in him after he came, often as he had told them, until the fact proved it. Had those sacrifices then all typified Christ, (as no doubt they did point to him and concentrate in him, inasmuch as he was the leader, and the first who ever offered a perfectly acceptable sacrifice to God, after whom all others pattern,) the Jews did not know it; and neither did they know the substance to which they did relate, for they could not see the end of those things which were to be abolished. The partial, or ceremonial justification theréfore which they found in those things, which were a figure serving for the time then present, was on the principle of their obedience to