6 Now, what we wish to be observed, is their utter ineffi. cacy, in themselves, to expiate moral transgression. Which was a figure for the time then present,' says the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.** The conscience of the offerer told of guilt which they could not atone, of pollution which they could not remove, of wrath from which they could not protect. The law being a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices, which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect.' That moral perfection which consists in justification, sanctification, peace with and access to God, they could never effect, from an inhe rent unfitness for such a purpose. 6 FOR IT IS NOT POSSI BLE THAT THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND OF GOATS SHOULD TAKE AWAY SINS.' The reason of this inefficaciousness of the legal sacrifices, was, not simply that they were not appointed by God for the purpose in question. It is true, they were not appointed for such an end. But the inspired apostle carries the reason much higher--they could not have been so appointed by a wise and perfect God, because inherently inadequate to fulfil any such design. It was NOT POSSIBLE that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin. They did not comport with the majesty of Him against whom the sin was committed, the great God of heaven and earth, whom the death of a beast could never appease. They gave no proper expression of the divine displeasure at sin; the holy repugnance of God's nature at iniquity, and his righteous determination to punish it, could not be thus unequivocally announced; if something more had not been required to procure remis. sion, it could never have appeared that sin was exceeding. ly sinful. They gave no adequate exhibition of the invio, lable rectitude and authority of God's moral government or law; for if such was all that was requisite to secure exemption from the penalty annexed to its violation, no inference could be more legitimate than that its require ments were originally too strict, its sanctions originally too severe, and that it might be violated with comparative impunity. They bore no proper relation to the sinner, + Heb. x. 4. * Heb. ix. 9. + Heb. x. 1. either in point of nature or legal obligation; the animals which composed them were in respect of nature greatly inferior to man, and in no sense under that law the breach of which occasioned the guilt. And they possessed no value at all proportioned to the life that had been forfeited, and which required to be redeemed; that was the life of an intelligent, moral, immortal creature, but the sacrifice was only an irrational, perishing beast. For these and similar reasons, the sacrifices of the law could not take away sin. Lebanon was not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a sin-offering and it might well be asked, Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with thousands of rivers of oil? It does not follow from this, that the Jewish sacrifices were useless. Because they did not serve a purpose for which they were never designed, it would be rash surely to infer that they served no purpose at all. They served all the purposes for which they were appointed. They taught the evil of sin and its desert of death. In those sacrifices there was a remembrance made of sins every year.' They were offerings of memorial bringing iniquity to remembrance. And they not only reminded men of their sins, but strikingly intimated that these sins were remembered also by God; that something more was necessary to cover them from the eye of omniscient justice; that something else was requir ed before they could assure themselves that He would no more remember them. They also procured the remission of those temporal penalties which attached to the iniquities of the people of Israel. From the theocratic nature of the constitution, every violation of the laws possessed a double character. As an offence against the statute law, it had a civil character, and exposed to temporal pains; as an offence against the moral law, it had a moral character, and exposed to spiritual pains. The sacrifices seem to have procured a remission of the temporal pains, whatever might be the inward feeling and exercise of the offerer, and to have restored him to his status in the commonwealth. And this is all the use which many conceive the legal offerings to have served. But we presume they served a farther and much higher end-an end connected with the remission of moral guilt. Though inadequate, in themselves, to procure such remission, they were capable of prefiguring that which could. Though unable to atone for a single moral transgression, they could point distinctly forward to that one offering by which Christ was afterwards to perfect for ever them that are sanctified. This was their great and chief use; and, when offered by those whose faith clearly embraced and whose hearts cordially approved this ultimate reference, it is not too much to believe that they were connected with the remission of those spiritual pains to which the contraction of moral guilt exposed the offender. IV. It is, thus, incumbent on us, in the prosecution of our argument, to show that the Jewish sacrifices were designed to prefigure Christ, and were actually fulfilled in him. From this, it is presumed, all their value and efficacy arose. Without such a reference, it is impossible to ac count for their appointment by a wise and beneficent God. To them the remark is equally applicable as to the patriarchal sacrifices, that, excepting on the principle of being prefigurative of Christ, they appear useless and unmeaning, a culpable waste of animal life and valuable pro. perty, and an intolerable yoke of burdensome exaction. This itself affords strong presumptive evidence of their ul. timate design; but the direct proof is neither scanty nor obscure. If we look into the writings of the prophets, we find them speaking of the legal sacrifices, in such connexion with that of the Messiah, as plainly to intimate the fulfilment of the former in the latter. Sacrifice and offering,' sayt David, thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou open. ed: burnt offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea thy law is within my heart."* That this prediction refers to Messiah, is obvious from the use to which it is applied in the epistle to the Hebrews. Wherefore, when He cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering,' &c. It is to the Son of God, in regard of his incarnation, that the inspired writer refers when he speaks of his coming into the world; on which occasion he is represented as having used the language in question. This language could not be used by David or any other member of the Jewish church, of whom sacrifice and offering were peremptorily + Heb. x. 5-7. Psal. xl. 6-8. required; neither is it necessary to suppose that it was employed literally, in so many words, by the Messiah at his advent in the flesh; it is sufficient to understand it as expressive generally of what was then his great design or intention. And what is it that he expresses? The speech consists of four clauses, each of which, according to the poetical structure of the psalm, makes a line of a tetrastich or stanza of four lines, the first corresponding to the third, and the second to the fourth; thus: 'Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; Burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Now, sacrifice and offering,' 'burnt-offering and sin-offering,' must be understood as meaning the whole sacrificial rites of the law. Of these it is affirmed, that God did not desire-did not require' them; which cannot mean absolutely that they were not required, for this is contrary to the whole tenor of the law. Nor can it mean merely that God had no pleasure in these sacrifices when improperly presented, for this does not comport with the scope of the passage. But it plainly enough intimates, that they were not required by God as a real atonement for sin; that for such a purpose they were quite inadequate; that God could take no delight, could feel no satisfaction or compla. cency in them in this view; that, in short for such a purpose they were never appointed, and could not be accepted by the moral governor of the world. But, on the other hand, he says, 'Mine ears hast thou opened' (or 'a body hast thou prepared me '), and ‘Lo, I come, in the volume of the book,' &c. Whichever reading of the former clause we adopt, whether that of the Hebrew text, or that of the Septuagint translation which is adopt. ed by Paul, the meaning is the same; it denotes the entire devotedness of Christ to the will of his Father in offering himself as a proper sacrifice for sin, his full acquiescence in this as the grand purpose of his incarnation. Such also is the import of the corresponding clause, 'In the volume of the book,' &c. The book of the law, the pentateuch, the only volume extant when the psalm was penned, taught in general that a higher sacrifice was requisite to accomplish the will of God, and contained several particu lar and distinct predictions respecting the Messiah himself. A body, or human nature, was provided, in which he might accomplish what the Levitical sacrifices could not effect, might do that which Jehovah willed, and in which he could take full pleasure; and this the personage by whom the language is spoken fulfilled, most readily, cheerfully, and piously, without the least reluctance or aversion. Such is plainly enough the import of this famous passage. In this way it invincibly asserts the prefigurative reference of the sacrifices of the law to that of Christ : and if any shadow of doubt should remain of the correctness of this view, let it be dissipated for ever by the testimony of the inspired writer who thus expounds its meaning :— Above, when he said, sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offering, and offering for sin, thou wouldest not,' &c.—' HE TAKETH AWAY THE FIRST THAT HE MAY ESTABLISH THE SECOND.' That is, he abolishes the legal sacrifices first spoken of, as insufficient for the purpose of a real atonement; and confirms or ratifies the work of Christ, second spoken of, as all-efficacious and perfect.* It is not easy It has been remarked above, that whichever reading we adopt of the second line in the passage now explained, it comes to the same thing. It may be proper to set down in a note, the various methods resorted to for the purpose of reconciling these readings, the one of which occurs in the psalm itself, and the other in the quotation from it in the epistle to the Hebrews. 1. It has been supposed that the clause is unimportant, and has no proper bearing on the object for which the apostle makes the quotation; and that, therefore, quoting, as was then the custom, from the Septuagint, he does not take the trouble to correct, but takes it just as he finds it. But if we are right in our interpretation of the passage, the clause is important, and, independently of this, it is not to be thought that an inspired writer would lend his support to an error, supposing the rendering of the LXX. to be wrong. 2. It has been thought that the apos le merely brings an argumentum ad hominem against the Jews, with whom he is reasoning.They acknowledged the Septuagint translation, and it was enough for his purpose to confute them from what they admitted as authoritative. But it does not comport with the ideas we form of the perfect integrity of an inspired writer, to suppose him bringing forward as scripture what was not so, even although it was so understood by those with whom he is contending. It was not for victory that he contended, but for the purpose of awakening conviction on the ground of truth. At least, if he so argued we should expect him to apprize us of it, which is not done in the case under consideration. 3. It has also been imagined, that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews does not profess to quote literally, but to give the sense of the |