probable that God would employ a vicarious sacrifice for the benefit of man, but that such a proceeding can in no way detract from the perfection and righteousness of his administration.

I. In speaking on the subject of typical arrangement, your mind will at once be directed to the prevalence of animal sacrifices from the earliest periods of the history of man. That these were in one way or other analogous to Christ, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews abundantly assures us. Besides his testimony, there is a remarkable fact which renders us certain not only of the analogy, but that there was some peculiarity in the work of Christ which rendered the continuance of sacrifices unnecessary, and even improper. I mean the universal concurrence of all who believe any portion of the Bible to abandon the rite. That Christ should accomplish this great religious revolution, the prophet Daniel foretold; (Dan. ix. 27;) and it must, therefore, have been distinctly determined in the divine counsels even before the absolute destruction of the Jewish nation and polity. God, by a strange and dreadful providence, fulfilled this

prediction; and among all the effects of the famine during the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman armies, it is likely that few were more startling than the ceasing of the daily oblation.

It should be remarked, that sacrifices were no accidents of the Jewish system of religion. They were not partially required by it, but appear to enter into its very essence and heart. They were exceedingly numerous, and constantly repeated. The neglect of them was associated with the most severe penalties, and no duty was more pointedly stated or more urgently enforced. At once God ordains that they shall cease-that the whole system shall be swept away for ever. The most splendid temple in the world; the most venerable priesthood; the most complicated and costly system of sacrifice; all are suddenly blotted out from under heaven, never more to be restored; and it is worthy of remark, that the hand of God was as remarkably distinct in the destruction of the religious polity of the Jews, as his commandment in its origin. Nay, more; all the sacrificial obligations under which the Jews were laid, are as fully

destroyed as the splendid structure under which they were recognised and discharged; and these obligations, it is universally admitted, are never to be restored.

Whatever may have been the reason for this amazing alteration in the religious aspect of the world, it is at least certain, that it was in one way or other immediately connected with the work of Christ. The question then naturally arises, what has Christ done that the whole of the Jewish religion should be thus at once abrogated? The only reply that can be offered is, that he has effected all that the sacrifices of the law were designed to effect. He has done that at once which they were for many ages employed to do. He has so effectually accomplished his work, that no priesthood, no animal offering, no shedding of blood, will ever again be necessary. Were we, therefore, capable of doubting that text of Scripture to which we have before referred, historical facts would be distinctly demonstrative of the analogy.

You will perceive at once that this analogy is between the death of Christ and that of animal victims. There is no other circum

stance upon which we can fix that admits of any rational comparison. And here we are naturally led to ask the rejecter of the atonement, whether the shedding of the blood of animals is one of those modes of worship which reason dictates. If he says, "Yes," he convicts himself of irrationality, because he has abandoned it; but if he says, 66 No," then he must for ever give up his reason as a test of religious truth, since he admits of a divine appointment, which reason does not teach or ordain. And if he allows that it was wise in God to appoint a series of sacrifices, although his reason would never have suggested this mode of divine worship, there is hope that he may ultimately be led to admit the same reasoning in the case of the atonement, and to grant that God might, with the most perfect wisdom and goodness, have ordained that Christ should be a vicarious sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of mankind.

If the foregoing reasoning be at all conclusive, you will admit that any theory upon the subject of ancient sacrifices which divests them of their analogical character, must be incorrect. And on the other hand, equally must

those opinions be erroneous which represent the death of Christ as offering no analogy to those sacrifices which it superseded. If, for example, it is affirmed that the sacrifices of patriarchal and Mosaical times were only expressions of gratitude, it is certain, since the sufferings of Christ cannot be regarded in this light, that such an assertion is substantially untrue. And if it be said, that the death of Christ was merely in attestation of the truths he taught, it is plain, since the sacrifices in question have no such character, that this opinion also is without foundation.

Besides, if animal sacrifices were merely designed as expressions of gratitude, there is no reason for their discontinuance, since the duty of testifying our sense of the divine goodness belongs to all time. Say that they are abrogated by the command of God, and you admit either that the purpose for which they were instituted is accomplished, or that they are unsuitable modes of eucharistic acknowledgment. The latter opinion will hardly be avowed, since it reflects upon the divine wisdom in their institution. It must, therefore, be admitted that they were but