highest heavens; and, what I have just mentioned, the entrance of the high priest into that sanctuary by the blood of those victims, and the entrance of Christ into heaven itself by the efficacy of his own blood; are compared with each other as types and antitypes.

VII. Nothing can be further from the truth, therefore, than what is confidently asserted by Socinus,* that the sacrifice of Christ was not typified by any piacular victims, but those which were sacrificed at stated seasons, and for the whole congregation. For among these very victims whose blood was to be carried into the inner sanctuary, and whose carcasses were to be burned without the camp, were the two bullocks which were to be offered, neither of them at stated seasons, but both as occasional sin offerings, one for the whole congregation, and the other for the high priest alone. The same remark, as I have already stated, may also be applied to the goat which was to be sacrificed as a sin offering for the whole congregation, whenever the people through ignorance forsook the rites of their fathers for those of the heathens. It is a further confirmation of our argument, that when the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews is treating of those very victims which he represents as the most eminent types of the sacrifice of Christ, such as those whose blood was carried into the inner sanctuary, he always joins calves or bulls with goats. But those calves or bulls whose blood was carried into the inner sanctuary were offered, not for the whole congregation, but only for Aaron and his family, as we have before observed. + Levit. iv. 3-21. § Heb. ix. 12, 13. x. 4.

Prælect, c. 22.

Num. xv. 22-24.

But Socinus argues, that as Christ offered himself for all mankind, no piacular victims could so pre'figure his sacrifice, as that the thing typifying 'should correspond to the thing typified, except those 'which were offered for the whole congregation ' of Israel.' As if frivolous subtleties ought to be opposed to the plain language of the scriptures, and that by one who has adduced nothing from them to shew wherein any of the piacular victims were typical of the sacrifice of Christ. But that none may conclude this notion of Socinus to be incapable of refutation, suppose it impossible to have been typified by the sacrifices of individuals, that Christ would die for all mankind; yet his death itself, the place where it was to happen, the piacular efficacy of his death, and his spotless purity, might all be typified by those sacrifices. Indeed all these things were really typified by the piacular victims which were offered for the high priest: and the sacrifice of the bullock, which was offered for the family of Aaron on the day of atonement, was attended with rites, which, as we have already remarked, evidently prefigured Christ's entrance into heaven. Many other things, alike injudicious and unscriptural, might be adduced from Socinus and his followers, respecting the types of the sacrifice of Christ. But it is unnecessary to pursue this argument any further; because those things which conduce to a right understanding of the sacrifice of Christ, which is the design of the remarks contained in this chapter, will nevertheless remain in full force, even though his sacrifice had been typified by none of the Jewish sacrifices, except those which the law required to be offered for the whole congregation, and that, to say nothing of other stated seasons, only on the day of annual atonement.

229

CHAPTER XIX.

Proofs that the Efficacy of all the Sacrifices primarily and properly had respect, not to Men, but to God.

HAVING ascertained which of the sacrifices as types, in a more eminent degree than the rest, prefigured the Sacrifice of Christ as the antitypewhich was the first object of examination proposed in the preceding chapter; we proceed, in the second place, to inquire, what there was in all the Jewish sacrifices, especially in those which more eminently typified the sacrifice of Christ, from which we may learn the proper efficacy, and the true nature and design, of his sacrifice. And these are discovered principally in two things. The first is, that the efficacy of all the victims properly had respect to God. The second is, that vicarious punishment was inflicted on the piacular victims. The first of these things indicates, that the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice prima, rily and properly had respect, not to men, but to God: the second teaches us, that Christ suffered a vicarious punishment for our sins.

Those who have but a slight acquaintance with this subject, know that both these principles are denied by Socinus and his followers. Socinus admits, indeed, that God would not pardon a sinner without an expiatory sacrifice duly offered; as is thus stated by Crellius:*If you affirm, that God was induced

by sacrifices to refrain from punishing sins, only in 'this sense, that he would not remit the punishment, 'but on the performance of this condition; Socinus readily acknowledges the same: for he maintains

* Contra Grot. c. x. p. 10.

6

'that the oblation of victims contained a certain degree, though a small one, of obedience rendered 'to God, which according to the divine promise was 'followed by the forgiveness of some little errors and 'sins.' But all these things appear to be at variance with the scriptures, or to omit that which chiefly required explication. For the language which Crellius here ascribes to Socinus, fully implies, that the obedience of the offerer, consisting in this oblation of the prescribed victim, was the sole condition, which according to the promise of God, was followed by forgiveness of sin. But this is a very But this is a very different representation of the piacular sacrifices, from that which is given in the scriptures: which attribute the expiation of sin, not so much to the obedience of the offerer, though that was not to be overlooked; as to the blood of the sacrificed victim. "For," God himself declares,* "it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." Besides, there are two kinds of obedience due to God, of which one properly has respect to God, such as that which is rendered in solemn prayers; and the other has respect to men, such as the duties which men perform towards each other according to God's command: but Socinus has not stated to which kind of obedience the oblation of victims ought to be referred, though this was most necessary to be determined. For if it belonged to the first kind, and this must be fully admitted, unless it be maintained that in sacrificial oblations men offered their victims one to another; it is manifest, that the efficacy of all the sacrifices, like that of solemn prayers and thanksgivings, had respect to God. And the same judgment must be formed

* Levit, xvii. 11.

of the sacrifice of Christ as of all others, unless it be thought proper to abstract from his sacrifice that which belonged to all the sacrifices by which it was typified, and which is included in the true nature and design of every sacrifice. But this is a digression from the point immediately under consideration, to which we must now return.

II. In asserting the efficacy of all the legal sacrifices to have had respect, primarily and properly, not to men, but to God, I would not be understood as concluding that efficacy to have been such as by its own value or extent to procure the favour of God towards the offerers. Our present inquiry is, not how great the efficacy of the sacrifices was, but, as I have already said, to whom it primarily and properly had respect. And all I now contend for, is, that they clearly had the same object as solemn prayers and thanksgivings addressed to God; which equally have respect to God, whether they obtain from him any great favour, or none at all. And this is so true, that even the prayers of the wicked, which are declared to be an "abomination,"* nevertheless have respect to God, as much as those which are offered by the most pious of men, and are most efficacious at the throne of grace.

III. Having sufficiently explained our first proposition, that the efficacy of all the Jewish sacrifices primarily and properly had respect to God, we must endeavour to prove it. And our first consideration shall be on the nature and design of the place where the law directed the Jewish sacrifices to be offered. That was, first the tabernacle, and afterwards the temple at Jerusalem, which was built with the same design,

*Prov. xxviii. 9.