power of intercession with God, which, however, he did not actually possess, and which the Apostle attributes to no other than Jesus; just as the statue suggests those attributes of mind, which, in the living man, are united to that external form, or visible appearance, to which it bears a resemblance. In like manner, he alludes to the animal sacrificed, as a person might allude to the wings of the cherubim which overshadowed the mercy-seat, in order to remind us of the swiftness with which the angels of God attend his bidding, and fulfil his pleasure; for, as it will more fully appear in the farther prosecution of our subject, he accounts the animal slain at the altar to be significant merely of that property to take away sin which he ascribes to Jesus; just as the wings of the cherubim could denote only the celerity of angels. In allowing such allusions then to be purely rhetorical, or figurative illustrations merely, we should overlook the specific purpose of the Apostle in making them; for, if this be matter of attention, we cannot but perceive that they are explanatory references to the institution of sacrifice-to the priest officiating at the ceremony, and the animals offered on the altar-references made with the intention of turning our reflections to

the significance of that institution, and the ulterior purpose for which the Almighty had appointed it.

We repeat, it is not the particular design of the Apostle, in making the allusions in question, to illustrate the sacrifice of Christ by suggesting a property belonging to it in common with the offerings under the law. It must be useless then to allege any circumstances of resemblance between them, with the view of maintaining the purely figurative character of such allusions. It must be useless to argue that there was a property in the Mosaic offerings, analogous in its nature, however inferior in degree, to a property in the sacrifice of Christ; namely, that of removing a legal or ceremonial defilement from the individual who offered it.* It must be equally

*"The sacrifices of the law, considered merely as the performance of a ceremonial duty, could operate only to the reversal of a ceremonial forfeiture, or the remission of a temporal punishment; that is, they could propitiate God only in his temporal relation to his chosen people as their Sovereign; and for this plain reason, because, the ostensible performance of the rite being but an act of external submission and homage, when not accompanied with an internal submission of mind and a sincere repentance, it could acquit the offender only in reference to the external law, which exacted obedience to God as a civil prince.'

unavailing to adduce any particulars relative to the animal that was offered in sacrifice, as illustrative of the character of Christ; the circumstance, for example, of its being "without blemish and without spot." These, and other circumstances of resemblance, are assumed on all hands, and their existence admits of no question. Indeed, if the design of the Apostle be to show that the rite of sacrifice was a symbol and prophecy of the sacrifice of Christ, it must be perfectly obvious that such circumstances are of essential importance. The argument which we are insisting upon, and offering to the examination of our opponents, is, that the main purpose for which he brings the rite of sacrifice into a comparison with the sacrifice of Christ, by means of certain features of resemblance or conformity existing between them, is not to set forth their agreement in the possession of a common property, but to fix our attention upon an essential difference in the one from the other; and, consequently, that he

Magee, Vol. I. p. 323. We may add, that when "the ostensible performance of the rite" was " accompanied by an internal submission of mind," there was no inherent virtue in the sacrifice itself to procure the acquittal of the offender; for the Apostle assures us that "the law . . . . . can never, with those sacrifices which they offered, year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect.” (Heb. x. 1.)

cannot, in such a comparison, be employing metaphors merely, or similes, or any other figures of speech. He is urging an argument, one which exhibits the unvarying purpose of God towards our species, while it establishes on the firmest basis our hopes of life eternal. Assuming—we shall presently observe with what propriety assuming that the rite of sacrifice was symbolical of a vicarious agency, an expiatory virtue-to whomsoever pertaining, or wheresoever existing-in the pardon of sin, he argues, from the nature of things, that no such virtue could reside in irrational, involuntary victims; and, consequently, that it existed elsewhere-existed in that real and effectual sacrifice for sin, which, having been fixed in the divine appointment, Christ had virtually offered as the atonement for past as well as future transgressions. His aim is to assure us, on the authority of an Apostle, that the whole ceremony of the Jewish sacrifice was nothing more than a gorgeous symbol, a majestic shadow; incapable of existence without the substance from which it was derived_ the offered body of Christ.

We have said that he assumes the rite of sacrifice to have been symbolical of a vicarious transaction, or the substitution of an inno

cent being in the place of the guilty; for it is observable that he does not appear to have supposed that any doubt existed on that point --that any question could be raised as to the fact, that the rite of sacrifice was adapted to signify the imputation of the guilt of the offender to another and an innocent being; whether to the animal itself which was sacrificed, or some other being whom the animal represented. Indeed, the peculiar manner in which the rite was performed, and the very terms in which that manner was prescribed, appear to have placed this conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt. For example, on the great day of annual atonement, when a sacrifice was offered for the whole congregation, the high-priest, it will be remembered, was commanded to offer a bullock and a goat; the former for his own sins, and the latter for the sins of the people and after having sprinkled the blood, in the form prescribed, before the mercy-seat, he was farther directed to lead forth a live goat, as a part and continuation of the same ceremony, which was then to

* For a particular explanation of this and all the Jewish sacrifices, see "Outram on Sacrifices."

Magee, Vol. I. p. 66.