3. They are expressly said to have prefigured Christ and his work. These things, Paul says, “area shadow of things..to,.come*but. the -body~is"of Christ”? (Col. ii. 17). The law had ‘a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things ””(Hebe-x 1). The tabernacle and its services were “‘ patterns of things in the heavens,” and ficures—antetypes—of the true tabernacle into which Christ has now entered for us (Heb. ix. 23, 24). “For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the 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 gate” (Heb. xiii. 11, 12). In this case, as in the case of the unbroken bones of the pascal lamb, the antetype must conform to the type. The argument of the apostle, in Heb. ix. 13, 14, necessarily involves the assumption of this identity of principle between the type and the antetype: “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an _ heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh : HOW MUCH MORE shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” If the one can avail to effect the lower end on the same principle, how much more shall the infinitely better avail to effect the higher end ? Young attempts, in the first place, to prove that the Mosaic sacrifices signified nothing more than an expres- sion of the subjective exercises of the sinner, and then that these sacrifices are not typical of the greater and
SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 137
better sacrifice of Christ. But the correspondences carrer which the apostles point out cannot be understood in ‘" the vague and general sense which Young prefers. They not only declare that there is, in some sense, an analogy between the sacrifices of the law and the sacrifice of Christ, but they affirm that the former were patterns, types, shadows, of the latter. He points out, in particular, wherein the analogy consists and wherein it fails. They show that it holds in all the essential particulars of ‘ bearing sin,” Christ being “ made sin” (that is, nxn, sym-offering), of bela) vicarious (v7ep nuov), of “giving his life as a ransom,” of “ redeeming us by his blood,” of expiating sin, of eae ge God, of securing pardon (Matt. xx. 28; Rom. mi. 25; 2 Cor. weeks Héb, it..L7).
4, And lastly, the Scriptures habitually assert, in the tThescrip- plainest and most direct terms that language admits of, ae
sert that
that Christ accomplishes for the man who comes to God Christ
by him just what we have shown that the Mosaic sacri- people by fices accomplished for the man who approached God by eae them, and that he accomplishes it in the same manner: *“!#° “He that knew no sin was made a sin-offering for us”
(2 Cor. v. 21). “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse
of the law, being made a curse for us” (Gal. i. 13). He
says of himself: “The Son of man came to give his life
a ransom for many” (Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45). Tile
blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin’
(1 John i. 7). “‘ He e propitiation(tAacmuos) for our
sins; and not on ours ent bat dio for en sins of the
abole world ”.(1. John i. 2), ‘“ Herein is love, not that
we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be
the propitiation (‘(Aacpos) for our sins” (1 John iv. 10).
This making propitiation, the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews declares, Christ effects as our “‘ High Priest”’
(Heb. it. 17). Paul says, “Being justified freely by his
CHAPTER ViiItl.
138 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.