the former had only an image, or a very small degree; especially when there is so great a resemblance between those two things, as between all the Jewish victims and the sacrifice of Christ. VI. There can be no reasonable doubt, however, that those victims, whose carcasses were to be burned without the camp, were types of Christ, and that in a more eminent degree than the rest. For beside those things in which they prefigured Christ in common with the rest, such as their unblemished perfection and death; all these victims were piacular, as was also the sacrifice of Christ. And what deserves peculiar attention, they more eminently typified the sacrifice of Christ by the very circumstance of their being commanded in the law to be burned without the camp. Hear the language of the apostle: "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which << serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, "whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the 66 66 gate."* high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the There would be no force in this argument respecting the place where it was requisite that Christ should suffer death, unless all the victims whose blood was to be carried into the sanctuary had typified his sacrifice. For though those victims were burned without the camp, it could not be necessary on this account that Christ should die without the city of Jerusalem, which was evidently considered as corresponding to the camp in the wilderness, but in order to produce a greater resemblance between those victims and Christ: which however was not at all required * Heb. xiii. 10-12. except between types and antitype. Hence it follows, that all the victims, whose carcasses were burned without the camp, were types of the sacrifice of Christ, and that in a more eminent degree than any other victims, because they prefigured not only his death, but also the place where it was to happen. Some persons suppose that the passage just quoted has an exclusive reference to those victims whose blood was to be carried into the inner sanctuary; but this is a great mistake. For the apostle is speaking of all the piacular victims of which even the priests themselves were not permitted to eat; as is evident from these words: "We have an altar, whereof they "have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.” But this description includes all the victims whose blood was to be carried into either sanctuary. Those victims whose blood was to be carried into the inner sanctuary, and whose carcasses were to be burned without the camp, evidently typified, not only the death of Christ, and the place where it should happen, but also his entrance into heaven. Hence the apostle says: "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and "more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that "is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood "of goats and calves, but by his own blood," differently from the Jewish high priest; "he entered in 66 once into the holy place, having obtained eternal "redemption for us."* In this passage, the Jewish high priest, and Jesus Christ our high priest; the blood of goats and calves, of those certainly which were sacrificed on the annual days of atonement, and the blood of Christ; the inner sanctuary and the Heb. ix. 11, 12. 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. Prælect. c. 22. + Levit. iv. 3-21. Num. xv. 22-24. But Socinus argues, that as Christ offered himself for all mankind, 'no piacular victims could so prefigure 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 primarily 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. |