kind from sin and misery, and died in the prose cution of his undertaking, it appears to have been in a manner impossible for a Jew (though he believed nothing more concerning it), not to say, that he died a sacrifice for us; so familiar must the figure have been to his mind.

It must also be considered, that the death and crucifixion of Christ were the grand objection to the religion which the apostles preached. It was strongly urged both by Jews and Gentiles. To the former the apostle Paul says it was a stumblingblock; 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 to remove so great an obstacle to the cause in which they were embarked. 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 calculated to strike the Gen tiles, to whom sacrifices were as familiar as to the Jews.

It is something similar to this view of the death of Christ as a sacrifice, that he is called a priest, and a high priest, by the writers of the New Testament, and particularly by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews: ch. i, 3, who, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high."-viii, 25, "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the utmost, that come unto

God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make ins tercession for them;" ix, 11, "But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands; x, 12, "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God;" verse 14, " By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctifred;" verse 21, "And having a high priest over the house of God." But the very circumstance of Christ being represented as both a priest and sacrifice might have been sufficient to give us to understand, that both representations are only figurative. Both of them taken together are hardly consistent, and introduce confusion into our ideas; for certainly a sacrifice and a priest are different things, and had their distinct, appropriate functions in the Jewish law.

In

It should also be remembered, that ordinary Christians have frequently the appellation of priests in the New Testament, and are sometimes represented as performing several parts of the priestly office. this case the figure is obvious; and since the language in both cases is similar, why is not the figure ¡ equally evident in both? 1 Peter ii, 5; “ Ye are a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices;" v. 9, "But ye are a royal priesthood;" Rev. i, 6; v, 10; "And hast made us kings and priests unto God."

Having dwelt so long upon the death of Christ

as a sacrifice, there is little time left to insist upon the other figurative representations of that event, Indeed there is the less occasion for it, as they have never given rise to those corruptions of Chris tianity, of which the other has unfortunately been the cause.

Secondly, Christ in the New Testament is said to have died as a curse for us. Gal. iii, 13; "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us."

Mention is made of several kinds of things accursed under the law; but in general they were things devoted to destruction. Christ, therefore, may in a figurative way of speaking be considered as accursed for us in consequence of his de voting himself to death for us; but that this can be nothing more than a figure is evident, because the resemblance will not hold in any other circumstance, and least of all in those, which were most essen tial to the idea of a curse. For things subject to a curse were always those, which were offensive in the sight of God on account of their connexion with sin, which was the reason why they were doomed to destruction; whereas Christ must have rendered himself peculiarly acceptable to God by his obedience unto death, since it is expressly said, that it was for that reason that he was crowned with glory and honour.

Thirdly, Christ is also compared to the paschal Jamb among the Jews, This was killed in comme

moration of the divine Being passing over and

spar

ing the Israelites, when he killed the first born of the Egyptians at the time of the departure from Egypt; but by the death of Christ we are delivered from a greater evil than that of Egyptian bondage, and our commemoration of it ought to be celebrated with more gratitude and joy; 1 Cor. v, 7, "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." When the legs of Christ were not broken upon the cross, it is said, John xix, 36, "These things were done, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, a bone of him shall not be broken," evidently referring to the same words, Exodus xii, 46.

Fourthly, We have another figurative representa tion of the death of Christ; Heb. ix, 16, "For where a Testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator; for a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."

According to our translation Christ is here represented as a testator, or a person making a testament or will, and bequeathing to mankind the blessings of the Gospel. But the meaning of the apostle is much misrepresented in our translation. He does not appear to allude at all to civil customs or constitutions relative to testaments, but to the manner in which the covenants or dispensations, which God made with Abraham, and afterward with Moses, were ratified. In the 15th verse, he says, " and on this account, he is a mediator of a new covenant

(death happening, or taking place for a release from the transgressions founded on the first covenant) that they, who have been called, might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." In these last words he intends an opposition to the promise of an earthly and temporal inheritance of Canaan made in the covenant granted to Abraham in Gen. xv. He then adds, verse 16; "For where a covenant is, there it is necessary," (i. e. to preserve a conformity to the modes of ratification of God's ancient covenants) "that the death of the covenant victim be offered:"

66

verse 17; For," (as we see in the cases of old) "a covenant is ratified or confirmed upon dead things; since it is not yet in force, while the victim is alive." In this passage the apostle has in view the story recorded in the 15th chapter of Genesis, in the close of which are these words: "In that same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham," and his intention is to show, that, as the former covenants were ratified over dead victims, so it was proper, that the new covenant of the Gospel should be attended with the death of Christ.

I have now finished my explanation of the figurative representations given of the death of Christ in the Scriptures, and have shown, that they are perfectly consistent with what has been mentioned as the grand end of his death, ascertaining and exemplifying the doctrine of a future life, and that to interpret them literally would lead us into gross errours and absurdities. There is no foundation, therefore, in the