intended to reprove the Jews for thinking to make up for their neglect of moral righteousness by the abundance of their oblations, &c. For when positive institutions are thus used by way of commutation for moral obedience, they become an abomination in the sight of God:* nay, whenever positive precepts really interfere with those of a moral nature, the preference is always to be given to the latter, as our Lord hath shown in his discourse concerning the Sabbath. Matthew xii. On the other hand, it is equally plain, that legal sacrifices were as much insisted upon in their proper place as any duty of moral obligation, and the people were reproved by the Prophets when they were defective in them. See Isaiah xliii. 22-24. Malachi i. throughout, and chapter iii. 7—10.

12.

Many other things besides the death of Christ are expressly called "sacrifices" by the sacred writers; and if it be universally

The account of Saul's behaviour in the affair of the Amalekites, 1 Samuel xv. and the reproof given him on that occasion, set this matter in a very clear light. "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice; and to hearken, than the fat of rams;" verse 22.

6

allowed that they are so called by way of allusion only, why may not the same be the case with the death of Christ also?"" Theological Repository," vol. i. page 131. “Christ, being called a priest,' can occasion no difficulty, when it is considered that ordinary christians have frequently the same appellation in the New Testament," &c. Ib. page 132.

I have already shown, that such things are spoken of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, as are inconsistent with the metaphorical use of the terms, and that of consequence they belong to our Lord in the proper sense of the words. Where the terms in question are used figuratively, we are obliged to put this construction upon them, either because the texts themselves intimate their figurative meaning, or because other passages of Scripture require it. When the whole Jewish nation is called a kingdom of priests, Exodus xix. 6, we are obliged to look upon this language as figurative, because other Scriptures assure us, that none could be real priests under the Mosaic dispensation but those who were of the family of Levi. And the services of Christians are plainly distinguished from real sacrifices by being called " spiritual sacriliving sacrifices," "sacrifices of

fices,"

praise," &c. 1 Peter ii. 5. Romans xiii. 1. Hebrews xiii. 15; but they are never called "sacrifices for sin;" by which, and other such like epithets, the sacrifice of Christ is distinguished from those things which have the term applied to them merely by way of allusion.

13. "The death of Christ cannot be considered as a proper sacrifice for sin, because many things essential to such a sacrifice were, in fact, wanting in it.-According to the Jewish ceremonial law, (from which we must borrow all our notions of these things,) it was primarily requisite, in every sin-offering, that it should be provided, and presented by the sinner; Christ, therefore, could not die as a proper sacrifice for a sinful world, except the world had provided and presented him to be sacrificed, and also observed a variety of other forms, of which there is no trace in the history of the death of Christ." Ib. page 133.

The sum of this argument is, that nothing is a sacrifice in the proper sense of the word, which is not accompanied with all those ceremonies, which were appointed for the Jews by the law of Moses: but if such are not proper sacrifices, they must only be figurative ones, having that title applied to them in

66

allusion to real sacrifices. Now I would beg leave to ask our Author, of what kind were the sacrifices of the Heathen world? They certainly were not accompanied with all the Jewish ceremonies; and yet I think he will scarcely say they were figurative. He has himself asserted, that "sacrifices" (in the proper sense of the word) were as familiar to the Gentiles as to the Jews." Ib. page 135. and if so, what becomes of this argument against the sacrifice of Christ? The true notion of a "sacrifice for sin," if I rightly understand it, is, that of " something devoted to death as the means of expiating guilt, or removing the obligation to punishment from the offender." The efficacy of this depends entirely upon the appointment of God, and is a distinct consideration.

14. The death and crucifixion of Christ was the grand objection to the religion which the Apostles preached. It was strongly urged both by Jews and Gentiles. To the former it was a stumbling block, and to the latter foolishness. It cannot, therefore, appear surprising, that the Apostles should make use of all the means in their power to lessen the force of so formidable an objection. And what could tend more to this purpose, than

to take every opportunity of speaking of it in terms borrowed from the Jewish ritual? The same method was equally calculated to strike the Gentiles, to whom sacrifices were as familiar as the Jews." Ib. page 135.

When we consider the doctrine of the Socinians, that “Christ taught nothing but the dictates of plain morality, and sober good sense;" *that "there is nothing new in the christian system besides the motives to virtue there exhibited;"† that " the New Testament phraseology, of Christ dying for our offences, bearing our sins,' and the like, imply nothing more than barely suffering in the cause of virtue and mankind;" that "Christ fell a victim to the licentiousness of the nation he belonged to, and the age he lived in ;" and that" cases of this kind are not uncommon in the course of providence:"§ I say, when we consider these things, and suppose that Christianity contains nothing more than these sentences imply; what is there in the death of Christ that should make it a stumbling block to the Jews, or foolishness to the Gen

"Theological Repository," vol. i. page 32.

"Mr. Graham's Letters," page 33.

↑ Ib. page 56.

§ Ib. page 59.