SO faint and imperfect resemblance of them notwithstanding: they were sacrifices, as well as the sacrifice of Christ; and as they were offered for sin, as he was; they actually procured the remission of it, as he did; though not in near so extensive a manner, as it was procured by him, (No. 148.) But the foundation of this reasoning (which supposes, that the levitical sacrifices, as such, took away sin) may, perhaps, seem to be destroyed by what you are pleased to suggest (immediately after the words just taken notice of) from Heb. x. 4, 'For it was not possible that the shedding of the blood of bulls and goats, as a " mere political institution, should, in this 'sense, take away sins.' But (not to take notice of the groundlessness of what is here supposed, that those sacrifices, considered apart from the Abrahamic covenant, were mere political institutions ;) these words, I apprehend, will not be found upon examination to be near so good a proof of what they are quoted for, as at first sight they may be thought to be. For if we consider the context; we shall find, that the apostle's design here is; not to prove, that the blood of bulls and goats did not (in your sense, or any other) take away sins at all; but only, that they did not, and indeed could not, according to the constitution of the law, take them away perfectly; or in such a manner, as that the offerers should not need any farther sacrifices for their sins.* * That this is the design of the apostle in the place before us, will, I presume, appear to every one that will read, with attention, from the 24th verse of the ninth chapter to the 15th verse of the tenth that the apostle does not mean here, that the levitical sacrifices did not, or could not, take away sins at all, is plain from this; that those sacrifices did actually, in some sense, take them away. That they did so, will, I suppose, not be disputed: however, so much is evidently implied (to go no farther) when he tells us in the foregoing chapter, that without shedding of blood there is no remission; i.e. according to the law. We may therefore conclude, that the apostle means no more by the words under consideration, than to deny, with regard to those sacrifices (which likewise he does ver. 1, and 11,) what he asserts ver. 14, (see also ver. 12, and 18,) that by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified; that is, that those sacrifices, though they sanctified, cleansed, or procured remission for the offerers, in some respects, or in some degree, yet did not, like the sacrifice of Christ, perfect them for ever; or procure remission for them, in such a manner, as not to need to have them repeated. See Whitby on ver. 1, and Pierce on ver. 2. As to the words, it is not possible, though I am not affected by them, in whatever consistent sense we understand them; yet, I apprehend the apostle means no more by them, In short, the apostle's view in this place, so far as I can judge, is to prove, and from the same principle too, what you are pleased to observe, No. 123, namely, that 'no 'sacrifice, nor any number of sacrifices, was any foundation of a general pardon 'then (when they were offered) and at all < times, upon repentance; or were no gen'eral assurance, that God would hereafter forgive, without a repetition of such sa'crifices. Because he appointed them to 'be repeated daily, yearly, and in every than that it was not possible, according to the Mosaic constitution, that the blood of bulls and of goats should per fectly take away sins. Nor should we render the words, αδυνατον γαρ αιμα, &c. in a way at all foreign to the real sense, though, perhaps, somewhat different from the most regular way of construing them ; if we should render them thus, for the blood of bulls and goats was incapable, (i.e. according to the legal constitution) of taking away sins. (See Acts xiv. 8. Rom. viii. 3, and xv. 1, in the Greek.) However, no one, I presume, can imagine, that the apostle intended here to assert, that it was strictly, and in the nature of the thing, impossible, that the blood of bulls, &c. should, in any sense, take away sins the sacred writers seem to have been strangers to so rigorous use and application of such terms. Not to observe, that such an assertion would not have been consistent with reason, or fact: I say reason; because God may, if he pleases, appoint something of less value than the life of such animals, to be the ground of his granting remission in some degree. : particular instance of transgression, where' in a sacrifice was admitted at all.' But then, though the blood of bulls and goats did not take away sins, so as to be a general and perpetual foundation of pardon to true penitents, as the blood of Jesus has done; yet it does not follow from thence, that it did not take them away at all it might really take them away in some respects, though it did not in all: and this, so far as I can see, it actually did; and that, independently of every other dispensation of religion. And we shall see, I imagine, the less reason to doubt it, if we consider, that He (to whose will and appointment the efficacy of our Saviour's sacrifice was owing; (154.) for there is no necessary or natural connexion between the sufferings of the most excellent person, and the forgiveness of others upon his account) might, if he pleased, appoint even the blood of bulls and of goats to be the ground of his shewing mercy and favour, or of his granting forgiveness, in a less degree, to those, for whose sake it was appointed to be shed. But after all; you will, perhaps, say, sir, that your words did not imply, that the W blood of those animals did not take away sins at all; but only, that it did not take them away so as to free the conscience from guilt, &c. and that you intended to intimate no more by them. It may be so; but then I would beg leave to observe, that upon that supposition, Heb. x. 4, is not to your purpose: because if you allow, that the blood of bulls and goats did, in some sense, take away sins; it cannot be proved from that place, that it did not take them away, so as to free the conscience from guilt, &c. it not being the design of the apostle there to shew, that it did not take them away in any sense, or even in your sense; but only, that it did it not in such a sense, as not to need to be repeated: he might very well say, that it did not, and could not take them away in this last sense, without being understood to deny, that it did it in any other.* To what has been said here, I am sensible, it may be objected, that the apostle tells us, chap. ix. 9, that the gifts and sacrifices offered under the law could not make τον λατρευονία the worshipper perfect as pertaining to the conscience. But, does it appear from these words, that the apostle's sentiment was, that those sacrifices did not at all reach the conscience, or free it from guilt, in any degree, in the sight of God? Might he not justly |