ON THE NARRATIVES AND SYMBOLS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN RELATION TO THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

In the Scriptures of the New Testament, composed directly or indirectly by the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the death of Christ occupies a prominent place, as the common centre or foundation of the entire system of evangelical truth therein delivered. Hence, if the explanation of the event which has now been offered is correct, it may be expected to elucidate and confirm all the representations given of it in that portion of the sacred volume, whether in the form of narratives and symbols by which the fact is described, or in that of doctrines and precepts by which it is applied to important purposes.

The four gospels are brief but graphic memoirs of the life of Christ on earth. Those of Matthew and John were composed by the apostles whose names they bear, those of Mark and Luke by eminent disciples under the superintendence of apostles, particularly Peter and Paul. They are all, however, similar in their origin, and equal in their authority, consisting of reports furnished by eye-witnesses and attendants of Christ, selected by himself as his ambassadors to the world, qualified for their office by the extraordinary influence of the Holy Spirit, and accredited by their personal character, their successful ministry, and their miraculous powers. All the gospels were published within a few years after the ascension of Christ, whilst the events which they commemorate were still recent, and the greater part of them well known to the inhabitants of the country where they occurred. The genuineness of these narratives was attested by the contemporary churches to whose care they were committed; and, with the exception of slight and immaterial variations, unavoidable when manuscripts are repeatedly copied, they have been transmitted unaltered to the present day. The earliest gospel was probably that of Luke, addressed to converted Greeks; the second that of Matthew, addressed to converted Jews. The third, that of Mark, is chiefly a harmonized epitome of the two preceding ones, omitting the preliminary transactions, and most of the longer discourses; and the last, that of John, is a supplemental gospel, furnishing many interesting particulars concerning the opposition made to Christ by the Jewish rulers and people, which could not have been conveniently related at an earlier period, and which this apostle was peculiarly qualified to describe.

In the narratives of the four evangelists, more especially when harmonized and combined, the outward circumstances connected with the sufferings of Christ are so admirably depicted, that by their aid the attentive reader is, after the lapse of eighteen centuries, rendered almost a spectator of the scene. Whilst, however, the inspired writers faithfully record all that was seen and heard on the occasion, it is not probable that they understood, and it is certain that they do not explain the immediate cause of the Saviour's death. On the contrary, their accounts of it, although bearing all the marks of fidelity, appear at first sight so strange and mysterious, that some persons have deemed them incredible. Yet, when carefully examined, they are found to be perfectly natural and consistent, and whilst excluding every other interpretation, actually suggest that which has been so often repeated, and may now be regarded as demonstrated. The satisfactory solution which it affords of every difficulty, and its critical accordance with four independent reports, neither entirely similar, nor equally complete, are interesting facts, which strongly confirm the truth both of the narratives and of the explanation. After celebrating the paschal supper, and instituting his own, the evangelists state that Christ devoted a considerable time to the instruction and consolation of his apostles, and concluded the sacred engagement by a prayer to God, remarkable for its ardent and elevated piety. In reference to his human nature, he was now in the flower of his age, full of health and vigour, and perfect in body and mind; yet, on retiring width his disciples from the upper chamber in Jerusalem to the garden of Gethsemane, they represent him as suddenly falling into a state of consternation and distress so intense that, had he not been relieved by divine interposition, it would probably within the short space of an hour have terminated his life. Having, however, prayed to him who had power to save him from death, he received supernatural aid, which enabled him to subdue the dreadful emotions by which he had been at first almost overwhelmed. Matthew and Mark express these emotions with corresponding emphasis, employing for the purpose the strongest terms which the Greek language could supply. They describe him as saying, — "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death;" — and having thrown himself on the ground, as praying that, if possible, the hour might pass from him. Luke alone mentions that an angel was sent to strengthen him; on which, says the sacred historian, — "falling into an agony he prayed most earnestly, and his sweat became as it were clots of blood dropping to the ground." — John, the latest of the evangelists, takes no notice of the sufferings of Christ at Gethsemane, evidently implying by his silence that the account given of them by his predecessors was accurate and complete. At the conclusion of this fearful hour, the Saviour resumed with astonishing rapidity his accustomed energy and composure. Although perfectly aware of all that was to befall him, he intrepidly went forth to meet the formidable party who were advancing to apprehend him; and before surrendering himself into their hands showed them that, had it been compatible with the object of his mission, he could easily have delivered himself from their power. He asked them whom they sought: they answered, Jesus of Nazareth; and, on his replying — "I am he, they drew backwards, and fell to the ground."¹ — From that moment he maintained the same firm and dignified demeanour throughout the harassing scenes of his trials by the Sanhedrim, and by Pilate, as well as during the first three hours of his crucifixion; proving that there was nothing in the ordinary sufferings connected with that punishment which he could not have borne with fortitude. But another astonishing change now took place. At the moment of noon the peculiar sufferings of Gethsemane were renewed, although, conformably to the difference of circumstances, with less of outward manifestation than before. During three additional hours he hung on the cross in silent agony, aptly represented by the supernatural darkness which simultaneously covered the land. At the end of that time, Matthew and Mark relate that he complained of divine abandonment; John states that he declared all to be accomplished; and Luke that he commended his spirit to the care of his heavenly Father. All the evangelists describe his death as happening suddenly, and much earlier than could have been expected, whilst uttering in a remarkably loud voice these solemn and devout exclamations. Mark alone mentions the surprise of the Roman governor on hearing of so unexampled an occurrence; and John that, an hour or two later, one of the soldiers sent to despatch the crucified persons found him dead; but from anxiety, as may justly be presumed, to make sure of the fact which he might otherwise have reasonably doubted, pierced the side of Christ with a spear, on which there immediately flowed out blood and water.

Now it is evident that each of these accounts is marvellous, and the combination of them all still more so. Yet, the latter alone furnishes the materials of the solution above given, the only one which perfectly agrees with each of the evangelical narratives taken separately, and with the whole united, but which none of them singly supply. For the extreme consternation of Jesus on entering the garden of Gethsemane, as particularly described by Matthew and Mark, an adequate cause is assigned by his then experiencing for the first time the terrors of divine abandonment, which occasioned him to fall prostrate on the ground, and almost destroyed him by the simple exhaustion of vital power. His agony and bloody sweat, mentioned by Luke alone, who as a physician was more likely than others to notice the occurrence, implied renovated strength, which the same evangelist accordingly ascribes to angelic agency. This enabled him to sustain a severe conflict between two opposite, but equally virtuous emotions; the desire of recovering his habitual communion with God, in which his happiness consisted, and the desire, by resigning that communion, of making an atonement for the sins of the world, which could by no other means have been accomplished. Of such a conflict, excessive action of the heart and bloody sweat were the natural consequences and exponents. The subsequent return of his ordinary firmness and tranquillity is satisfactorily accounted for by the temporary suspension, as predicted by himself a little before, of this peculiar mode of suffering; and the horror and distress which characterized the last three hours of his crucifixion by its renewal; although, owing to its having been previously experienced, it was now attended with less consternation than at first. The cause of this distress was plainly avowed by himself in the affecting words recorded by Matthew and Mark, — "My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?" — The thirst mentioned by John, and the loud exclamations described by all the evangelists, as well as by the apostle Paul, are the usual concomitants of over-action of the heart; and the sudden death of Christ in the midst of these exclamations is fully explained by the final rupture of that organ. To render the demonstration complete, John alone, who by standing near the cross had superior opportunities of observation, notices the subsequent piercing of his side with a spear by one of the soldiers, an act immediately followed by an effusion of blood and water, the necessary result of previous rupture of the heart, but which could not have occurred under any other circumstances. The critical accordance of the four gospels on this and other occasions with singular and complex realities, capable of being independently verified, but which there is every reason to believe the authors themselves did not at the time thoroughly comprehend, affords a striking proof that they were written from actual observation, and under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, who thus as it were affixed his seal to the evangelical narrative. That the death of Christ was the death of an atoning victim, and his blood that of the new covenant, is sufficiently demonstrated by the types, prophecies, and narratives of Scripture already adduced; but on account of the immense importance of the subject, and the necessity of impressing it in the strongest possible manner on the human mind, it pleased God to provide two significant symbols, as additional testimonies to the fact, the former on his own part, the latter on that of Christian churches. These were the rending of the veil in the temple, and the Lord's supper. Whatever view might have been taken of the death of Christ either by his enemies or his friends, it was between himself and his heavenly Father a transaction of the most sublime and momentous character. Through the eternal Spirit he offered himself a spotless sacrifice to God, by whom the atonement was accepted as perfectly satisfactory, and available to all the purposes for which it was designed. Of the divine acceptance it was most desirable that there should be at the time a direct and decisive proof; and this was furnished by the supernatural rending of the veil in the temple, a remarkable occurrence, which had been in some degree intimated by one of the later prophets of the Old Testament. The second temple at Jerusalem, erected by the comparatively small and feeble body of Israelites, who at the termination of the Babylonish captivity returned to their native land, and were there reorganized as the chosen people of God, was, as might have been expected, very inferior in beauty and magnificence to its celebrated predecessor, the temple of Solomon; and hence, at its foundation, whilst the younger part of the assembly shouted for joy, the aged men who had seen the first temple wept aloud. The fact is thus reported by Ezra the priest, an eye-witness of the scene. — "When the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord, [the high-priest and his attendants] set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise the Lord, after the ordinance of David, king of Israel. And they sang together by course, in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord, because [he is] good, for his mercy [endureth] for ever towards Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout when they praised the Lord, because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid. But many of the priests, and Levites, and chief of the fathers, [who w^ere] ancient men that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice, and many shouted aloud for joy, so that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people; for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard afar off."² — This interesting circumstance was noticed by the Deity himself, and through the medium of the prophet Haggai made the subject of the following comment. — "Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high-priest, and to the residue of the people, saying, — Who [is] left amongst you that saw this house in her first glory? And how do ye see it now? [Is it] not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing? Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel! saith the Lord, and be strong, O Joshua son of Josedech, the high-priest! and be strong, all ye people of the land! saith the Lord, and work, for I [am] with you, saith the Lord of hosts. [According to] the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among you. Fear ye not; for thus saith the Lord of hosts, Yet once it [is] a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry [land;] and I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts. The silver [is] mine, and the gold [is] mine, saith the Lord of hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than [that] of the former, saith the Lord of hosts, and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord of hosts." — The frequent repetition of the epithet, — "the Lord of hosts," — seems designed to suggest that, however great might be the effect to be produced, or the difficulties to be overcome, he who made the promise was able to accomplish it. The substance of this remarkable prediction is concentrated in the last verse, which was partially fulfilled a few years before the Christian era, when, as related by Josephus, the temple was taken down to its foundation, and rebuilt with the utmost splendour by the first Herod.

Of its extraordinary magnificence some notion may be obtained from the descriptions of the Jewish historian, who flourished during its most perfect state, and as a priest must have been intimately acquainted with every part of the edifice. After giving an account of the massy foundations by which the mount of the temple was covered and inclosed, he proceeds: — "Now, for the works that were above, . . . . . . these were not unworthy of such foundations, for all the cloisters [or colonnades] were double, and the pillars to them belonging were twenty-five cubits in height, and supported the cloisters. These pillars were of one entire stone each of them, and that stone was white marble, and the roofs were adorned with cedar curiously graven. The natural magnificence and excellent polish, and the harmony of the joints in these cloisters, afforded a prospect that was very remarkable. The cloisters [of the outmost court] were in breadth thirty cubits, whilst the entire compass of it was by measure six furlongs, including the tower of Antonia." — After stating that the wall of the inner court or sanctuary, which was four square, had ten gates, he observes, — "Nine of these gates were on every side covered over with gold and silver, as were the jambs of their doors and their lintels; but there was one gate, that was without the [inward court of the] holy house, which was of Corinthian brass, and greatly excelled those that were only covered over with silver and gold. Each gate had two doors, whose height was severally thirty cubits, and their breadth fifteen." — Of the temple itself, properly so called, the same historian writes, — "Now, the outward face of the temple, in its front, wanted nothing that was likely to surprise either men's minds, or their eyes; for it was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight, and at the first rising of the sun reflected back a very fiery splendour, and made those who forced themselves to look upon it to turn their eyes away, just as they would have done at the sun's own rays. But this temple appeared to strangers, when they were coming to it at a distance, like a mountain covered with snow; for as to those parts of it that were not gilt, they were exceedingly white." — Thus literally and completely was the ancient prophecy fulfilled: — "The silver [is] mine, and the gold [is] mine, saith the Lord of hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than [that] of the former, saith the Lord of hosts; and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord of hosts." — And it was most suitable and wise that when the great atoning sacrifice, which the temple had been divinely appointed to typify and attest, was about to be offered, it should thus recover all its primitive magnificence, so as to attract universal attention; and that, when after the lapse of about eighty years this important purpose had been fully accomplished, it should be finally destroyed.³

Herod was, it is true, unworthy of sustaining such an office, but the sanctity of the renovated building was nevertheless acknowledged by Christ at his coming; for although he came to establish a pure and spiritual religion, independent of forms and ceremonies, yet, as a faithful member of the Mosaic covenant, he always paid the strictest attention, as did likewise his apostles, to its ritual, as well as its moral requirements. It was in the temple thus restored to its original opulence and beauty that, when an infant, he was solemnly presented to God, as the long-promised seed of the woman, the first-born son of a virgin mother, and the illustrious heir of the house of David. There, when about twelve years of age, he was found conversing on religious subjects with the doctors of the law; and, when gently reproved by Joseph and Mary for leaving them without stating whither he was going, replied — "Knew ye not that I must be in my Father's house?"⁴ — Twice after wards, at the beginning and the end of his public ministry, he expelled from its outer courts the dealers in victims, and the money-changers, who there pursued a profane and extortionate trade; saying to^ them, — "Make not my Father's house a place of merchandize." — On the last of these occasions, a little before the passover, he further honoured the temple by performing there several miraculous cures; and, although generally slighted by its older inhabitants, was, agreeably to an ancient prediction, welcomed by their children with shouts of — "Hosanna to the Son of David! "— At the same time he may be supposed to have mentally devoted himself, on the very day appointed by the law of Moses, to his sacrificial office, as the true paschal lamb by whose blood, just about to be shed, his faithful followers were to obtain eternal redemption.⁵ Several other declarations of the later prophets were thus realized, particularly that of Malachi, — "Behold! I will send, my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in. Behold! he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts;" — and that of Zechariah — "Behold! the man whose name [is] the Branch, he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord, even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." — In conformity with this statement, Christ on his first official visit to Jerusalem referred to his body as the true temple; and in reply to the demand of his antagonists for a sign, said — "Destroy this temple, and within three days I will raise it up." — In a similar sense, the Christian church universal is in the New Testament represented as a holy temple, — "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone;" — and in the heavenly world there will be no temple, — "for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple thereof."⁶

But the prediction of Haggai was destined to receive a still closer and more important accomplishment, for the proper understanding of which it is necessary to revert to some of the ceremonial arrangements of the Mosaic dispensation. The temple at Jerusalem, like the tabernacle in the wilderness, was designed to represent the residence of the Deity in the midst of the Israelitish nation, as their sovereign and protector. Independently of the portico or entrance, which was closed by a veil, it consisted of two apartments, whereof the larger and exterior, called the sanctuary, was as it were the antechamber, and the inner, termed the most holy place, was the presence chamber of the great king. Between the two was a door-way, closed by a second veil which completely concealed the interior from view. Into the sanctuary the priests only, as the chosen ministers of God, were daily admitted, and there performed their sacred functions, whilst the people worshipped in the outer court. Into the most holy place none was allowed to enter but the high-priest, and that only once a year, on the day of atonement, when he there presented the blood of victims, together with a censer of incense, which having been kindled at the brazen altar without the sanctuary, was laid on the golden altar within. The whole was intended to show in a lively and impressive manner, that the Deity can neither hold communion with sinful men, nor receive their worship, except through the medium of an interceding priest, and an atoning sacrifice, both provided by himself. In his omniscient view, Christ was from the beginning the great high-priest consecrated for ever after the order of Melchisedec, and the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world; but during the preparatory period of the Levitical economy that priesthood and sacrifice were prefigured by various types, which, although intrinsically of no value, effectively represented the future reality. At length, however, the shadows gave place to the substance, and the important transition was announced by a suitable symbolical attestation. Immediately before he expired on the cross, Christ proclaimed with a loud voice, — "[All] is accomplished;" — and, in accordance with this declaration, at the very moment of his death, the mysterious veil, which for so many ages had hung before the most holy place, was supernaturally rent asunder from the top to the bottom, affording a plain intimation that God had now received that long-predicted and perfect atonement, by means of which all who are willing to embrace the covenant thus ratified have free access to his presence, and are restored to his friendship and favour. This explanation is ably illustrated in Rambach's treatise on the sufferings of Christ. — "In the temple" — says this judicious author, — "were two veils, one of which hung before the door leading into the sanctuary, and the other before the door or opening into the holy of holies; and these were made of azure, purple, and scarlet silk threads, curiously interwoven, and embroidered with the most beautiful flowers and cherubims. But the latter only of these veils is here spoken of. If one considers that, according to the testimony even of the Jews themselves, this veil was of a most curious and strong texture like tapestry, and was thirty ells in length, and four fingers thick, that it was no old tattered curtain, but a masterly piece of art lately woven, (for a new veil was made and hung up in the temple every year,) and lastly, that this strong veil hung in a place where it could not be damaged by the weather, the hand of God must necessarily be acknowledged to have been concerned in the rending of it. What a terror must this sudden and unexpected rent have struck into the priests, who probably were performing the service in the sanctuary, lighting the lamps of the golden candlestick, and burning incense; for it was about the time of evening sacrifice! . . . . . . But to the faithful this rending of the veil is a joyful type, representing that an entrance was then opened to them into the sanctuary which is not made with hands. Hitherto the flesh of Jesus Christ, by the imputation of our sins to him, had hung before it as a veil; but when this veil was rent at the separation of his soul and body by death, and Jesus Christ the true high-priest had himself with his own blood entered into the holy place, i. e. into heaven, the way to the throne of grace is cleared of all obstacles, heaven is laid open, and the covering which hung before the mysteries of the Levitical worship is removed." — This exposition rests, however, on a better foundation than any merely human opinion; for the apostle Paul expressly declares in his epistle to the Hebrews, that the inner veil of the temple signified the body of Christ, and that by the rending of that body, and the effusion of his blood as an atoning sacrifice, he entered as mediator of the new covenant, and high-priest of future blessings, into the heavenly sanctuary, whereof the most holy place in the Jewish temple was but a type, having thus obtained eternal salvation for all his faithful followers.⁷ The symbolical attestation of this event, by the supernatural rending of the veil in the temple at the very moment of his death, was therefore most appropriate and significant; since it certified by divine authority the nature of the transaction, as well as the true character and mutual relation of the Mosaic and the Christian covenants. The agreement of this testimony with the explanation which has now been given of the Saviour's death is complete. The two circumstances peculiar to that explanation, namely, the sudden rupture of his heart, and the effusion of his life's blood, were thus actually pointed out in the most striking manner by the Deity himself, as the essential conditions of the great atonement which he had provided, and which could in no other way have been properly accomplished or represented. Thus were fulfilled the ancient prophecy, that in the second temple God would give peace, and the apostolical declaration that Christ made peace by the blood of his cross.

This miraculous occurrence may be regarded as the second of the three principal testimonies, — the water, the blood, and the Spirit, — which, as stated by the apostle John, God gave to his Son; namely, at his baptism, when he entered on his prophetical office; at his death, when as the high-priest of his church he completed the atonement; and at the subsequent feast of pentecost, when, having commenced his kingdom, he sent forth his apostles to preach the gospel to the world at large. The passage has long been disfigured, as is well known, by interpolations, apart from which it reads as follows: — "Who is he that overcometh the world but he who believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he who came with water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ, not with water only, but with water and blood, and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth; for there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God which he hath given concerning his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the testimony in himself; he that believeth not God hath made him a liar, because he believeth not the testimony which God hath given concerning his Son: and the testimony is this, that God hath given to us eternal life, and [that] this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." — That the doctrine of the Trinity is involved in this passage is true, but not in the direct manner commonly supposed. The three sacred persons repeatedly concurred in bearing witness to Christ, not however in heaven, where such testimony would have been superfluous, but on earth, where it was strongly required. The first of these testimonies occurred at the baptism of Christ, when the Holy Spirit descended on him in visible form like a dove, and a voice from heaven proclaimed — "Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased."⁸ — The third took place on the memorable day of pentecost, when the apostles were endued with those miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, which at once stamped their mission with divine authority, and qualified them for its effective discharge. On that occasion Peter, speaking of Christ, said to the multitude, — "This man, having been delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye took, [and] by the hands of wicked men crucified and slew . . . . . . This Jesus God raised [from the dead,] whereof we all are witnesses. Having therefore been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promised [gift] of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth that which ye now see and hear." — The second testimony was that now under consideration, given at the crucifixion of Christ, when he poured forth his life's blood unto death, and through the eternal Spirit offered himself as a spotless victim to God; and when by the earthquake, the revival of many pious persons long deceased, and above all by the rending of the veil in the temple, the Father publicly signified his acceptance of the atoning sacrifice thus accomplished.⁹

Of the two symbols connected with the gospel dispensation, the first was therefore a testimony respecting the nature and design of the death of Christ rendered by the Deity; the second was a similar testimony rendered by Christians in their collective capacity, as religious societies or churches. The Lord's supper, instituted by the Saviour himself, is a simple but significant rite, whereby he directed that his atoning death should be commemorated, and in a certain sense represented, as the foundation and bond of the new covenant. It was probably in reference to this rite that the apostle Paul, in his epistle to the Galatians, reminds them that Jesus Christ, who suffered the death of malediction, had been visibly exhibited to them as a crucified victim. Until his death actually took place, the Christian covenant, which had been virtually introduced immediately after the fall, and a second time at the call of Abraham, was neither ratified, nor fully developed; for, as the same apostle remarks, — "A covenant has no force whilst the covenant-victim remains alive." — In this point of view, although really prior, it was apparently posterior to the Mosaic covenant; on which account, and with regard more especially to the Israelitish nation, as the depositaries of revelation and the peculiar people of God, it is termed in both volumes of Scripture — "the new covenant."¹⁰ — Thus, in his epistle to the Hebrews, Paul quotes a remarkable passage from the book of Jeremiah v^here it is thus described. Christ, oberves the apostle, — "hath obtained a more exalted ministry [than that of Aaron,] inasmuch as he is [the] mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if the first [covenant] had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second. Nevertheless, when rebuking [the people,] it is said [in the Scripture,] Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they forsook my covenant, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord; for this [is] the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their minds, and will write them on their hearts, and will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people, and they shall not teach every one his neighbour, and every one his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest; for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins and transgressions I will remember no more." — With similar views, Peter congratulates the Jewish Christians of Asia Minor on having actually made this happy transition; — "Ye [are] a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a favoured people, and should therefore show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; who formerly [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God, who [had] not obtained mercy, but now [have] obtained mercy,"¹¹ — At the ratification of the first covenant, says Paul, — "when every commandment of the law had been recited to all the people by Moses, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying. This [is] the blood of the covenant which God hath appointed for you."— At the institution of the Lord's supper, which immediately followed the last passover celebrated by Christ with his apostles, it is stated that, — "as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after offering thanks brake, and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In like manner also, after offering thanks, he gave them the cup after supper saying, Drink ye all of it. And they did so. And he said to them. This cup [is] the new covenant by my blood, which [is] shed for you [and] for many for the discharge of sins. Do this, whenever ye drink [of it,] in remembrance of me. I tell you that I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, till the day when I shall drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."¹² — The meaning and design of this rite, as well as of the supernatural rending of the veil in the temple, are strongly illustrated by the explanation here given, which in its turn is confirmed and dignified by the association. This symbol, like the former one, overlooks the minor circumstances of the crucifixion; and singling out the two essential conditions which proved it to be an atoning sacrifice, namely, the rending of the Saviour's body, — in other words, the rupture of his heart, and the consequent effusion of his life's blood, — assigns to them that prominence and importance in the plan of redemption, to which they are justly entitled. By these symbols the seal of divine authority was affixed to the transaction now explained; since with all the weight of that authority they demand attention to two cardinal facts in the death of Christ, which admit of no other interpretation. In this manner only could his body have been broken, or his life's blood poured out, as an atonement for the sins of mankind. By these symbols, therefore, the two parties to the new covenant, the Deity on the one side, and Christian churches on the other, appropriately signified their concurrence in the mediatorial sacrifice by which alone that covenant could have been ratified.

Nor was this their only use; for they also powerfully contributed to mark the important distinction between the two covenants, which by many persons, more especially at the commencement of the gospel dispensation, were apt to be confounded. In reference to religion, the whole human race was at that time divided into four classes of very unequal extent; namely. Christian Jews, Christian Gentiles, and those who, whether Jews or Gentiles, had not embraced the gospel. For acceptance with God unbelieving Jews relied on the old covenant, Christians of both sections on the new, and unbelieving Gentiles, who had no covenant at all, on their self-imposed and idolatrous worship. In repudiating open idolatry Christians and unbelieving Jews were agreed, but respecting the nature and import of the two covenants they widely differed. Both covenants were in fact of divine origin, but the Mosaic was merely a national and external covenant, introductory to the Christian, which it typified and predicted. During the apostolical period of nearly forty years both dispensations were coexistent; and, whilst Christian Gentiles had no connection with the old covenant, and unbelieving Israelites rejected the new. Christian Jews were consistent members of both. To prevent as far as possible the confusion which was liable to arise from so extraordinary a state of things, it pleased God to ordain that Christianity, like Judaism, should have its initiatory and commemorative rites, whereby the true relation, as well as distinction between the two covenants might be clearly displayed. The initiatory rite of Judaism intimated that impurity of conduct was incompatible with a divine alliance; that of Christianity represented the special influence of the Holy Spirit, which purifies and consecrates the heart. The commemorative rite of Judaism intimated that an adequate atoning sacrifice was necessary for salvation; that of Christianity represented this sacrifice as actually accomplished. By observing the Christian rites, both Jews and Gentiles professed that they sought the favour of God, not through the works of the law, but through faith in Christ. Both parties, however, evinced a proper reverence for the Mosaic institution which, although temporary and subordinate, was nevertheless divinely appointed, and highly important; the former by a cheerful compliance with all its requirements, until by the interposition of its supreme author it was finally abolished; the latter by abstaining from blood as an article of food, so long as by its sacrificial employment at the temple in Jerusalem it typified the blood of Christ. Nothing could be better adapted than these symbols to show that, although both religions came from God, Judaism was merely the scaffolding, and Christianity the finished edifice. By adopting them, the Jewish convert publicly professed that he renounced all dependence on the old covenant for the salvation of the soul; and, in common with the Gentile convert, sought reconciliation with God exclusively from the new. By refusing them, the unconverted Jew made it manifest that he preferred the shadow to the substance, rejected the counsel of God against himself; and, in his idolatry of the temple and its ceremonies, was guilty, like the unconverted Gentile, of worshipping the creature more than the Creator.¹³

The distinctive character and mutual relation of the two covenants were, however, chiefly intimated by their commemorative rites. In order to make a powerful and vivid impression on the human mind during the many ages which preceded the coming of Christ, it was expedient that his sacrificial death should be represented by that of animals. The rupture of his heart owing to mental agony could not indeed be thus expressed; but the effusion of his life's blood was plainly foreshown by the manner in which victims were slain, namely, by the rapid division of the large vessels of the neck, which necessarily occasioned a copious and fatal discharge of blood, derived almost directly from the heart. Yet, from the intrinsic worthlessness of these sacrifices, and from their perpetual repetition, as well as from the continued suspension of the veil before the inner sanctuary of the tabernacle, or temple, notwithstanding their oblation, it might reasonably have been inferred that they were merely outward and temporary signs of some great future reality. The same conclusion might have been deduced from the circumstance, that the semblance of atonement which they displayed was palpably, and it may be said designedly imperfect. On some occasions, it is true, they presented, in accordance with the common feelings and usages of mankind, the aspect of a friendly repast, wherein the parties to the covenant solemnly united; the blood and fat of the victims, accompanied with flour, unleavened bread, wine, oil, and especially with salt, the emblem of friendship, being offered on the altar, whilst their flesh was eaten by the worshippers and the priests. Yet, even on these occasions, the incomplete and shadowy character of the transaction was strongly marked; for the use of blood and fat as articles of food was universally prohibited on pain of death, as was likewise the flesh of all victims peculiarly significant of propitiation, such as those offered on the day of atonement; which, as if really defiled by imputed sin, were commanded, after being slaughtered in the usual manner, to be wholly consumed by fire without the walls of the city.¹⁴ The commemorative rite of Christianity testified, on the contrary, that, by means of a propitiatory sacrifice of infinite value recently offered, the types and shadows of the preceding institution had been realized, and a full reconciliation with God procured for all who are willing to embrace it. The perfection of the sacrifice was denoted by the breaking of bread, and the pouring out of wine, representing the rupture of the Saviour's heart, and the effusion of his blood, the two essential conditions of his atoning death on the cross, which proved that the malediction due to human depravity had been actually sustained and exhausted. The completeness, of the reconciliation was denoted by Christians partaking together of the bread and wine, thus broken and poured out, in token of their being voluntarily identified with that atoning sacrifice of which the Deity himself had' publicly signified his acceptance, and of their consequent restoration to his favour and communion. In reference to the solemn import of the sign, the apostle Paul puts the question to the Corinthians, — "The cup of blessing [over] which we give thanks, is it not a participation of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation of the body of Christ? For we, [however] many, are one bread, [that is] one body, because we all partake of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh. Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers with the altar?" — In conformity with this view, the apostle subsequently declares, — "Whosoever shall eat the bread, or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of [an offence against] the body and blood of the Lord; therefore let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup." — In reference to the importance of the spiritual reality thereby signified, Christ himself assured the Jews, — '* Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his, blood, ye have no life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I [abide] in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, even so he that eateth me shall live by me. This is the bread that came clown from heaven; not as your fathers ate the manna and are dead, he that eateth this bread shall live for ever." — As if for the express purpose of preventing the misapplication of these figurative terms in a literal sense, which has since so lamentably prevailed, he afterwards added, — "Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend where he was before? It is the Spirit which giveth life: the flesh availeth nothing. The words which I speak to you are spirit and life." — Yet, although such expressions cannot prove, what is evidently impossible, the presence of the Saviour's body and blood in the sacramental elements, they most undoubtedly imply the rupture of his heart, and the effusion of his blood, as the consummation of his atoning sacrifice on the cross; in reference to which they are not stronger than the nature of the subject requires, but would otherwise be extravagant, or unmeaning.¹⁵ To express by suitable ceremonies the participation of human beings in such a sacrifice, and its resulting benefits, two methods were appointed in Scripture, the one connected with the exterior of the body, the other with its interior. Thus, under the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, dedication to the service of God was represented by pouring oil or water on the head; worshippers partook in certain cases of the flesh of victims, or walked between their severed halves, and the first parents of mankind were even clothed in their skins. These two modes were equally adopted in the Christian rites of baptism and the Lord's supper; the former denoting the purifying influence of the Holy Spirit, descending on converts like dew from heaven, and consecrating them to the divine service; the latter the efficacy of the body and blood of Christ symbolically eaten and drunk, in other words, of his atoning sacrifice cordially embraced by them, as the source of their spiritual life and energy, and the pledge of their friendship with God. The rites thus attached to both dispensations exhibited, like the dispensations themselves, characteristic features of similitude and diversity. The Mosaic rites represented the objects in view, as was desirable before the reality had taken place, in a more lively and expressive manner, but at the same time in a manner less suited for general and permanent use. The blood of victims was daily poured out at the foot of the altar. Their flesh was sometimes eaten by the worshippers, but on the most solemn occasions was wholly consumed by fire without the camp; and the baptismal water was mingled either with their ashes, or their blood. The Christian rites, more simple and more easily practised, were thereby better adapted to a spiritual and universal dispensation, following instead of preceding the reality, and accompanied with a larger measure of scriptural instruction. Under this dispensation the baptismal water was pure and clean, and the sacred repast, open to all sincere converts, consisted of unleavened bread and red wine. The apostle Paul accordingly invites such converts to approach the throne of grace, having their hearts purified by sprinkling from an evil conscience, and their bodies washed with pure water. As the Lord's supper was originally instituted during the paschal festival, the bread used in it on that occasion was necessarily unleavened; and, as pointed allusions to red wine occur in several parts of Scripture, and much of the wine made in Palestine was, and still is of that colour, it may reasonably be presumed that the wine employed to typify the blood of Christ was red.¹⁶ That these changes in the sacramental ordinances were predicted in some passages of the Old Testament may the more confidently be inferred, because language precisely similar is applied to corresponding evangelical subjects in the New. Thus, after inquiring, — "What shall I render unto the Lord [for] all his benefits towards me?" — the psalmist replies, — "I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord;" — and, in a remarkable prophecy of Ezekiel concerning the future restoration and conversion of the people of Israel, a passage strikingly analogous to that previously quoted from the book of Jeremiah, God is represented as saying, — "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh: and I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do [them."]

The simultaneous observance by divine authority both of the Jewish and the Christian rites, during the apostolical age, served to distinguish the shadow from the substance, the type from the antitype; and to show that, valuable as was the Mosaic covenant for many external and national objects, personal reconciliation and friendship with God are attainable by that covenant only which, although instituted from the beginning, is in a relative sense, and in reference to its actual ratification, termed new. Whilst, therefore, the explanation of the death of Christ now given strongly illustrates the import and design of the two symbols connected with it, the divine appointment of those symbols implies and confirms the explanation.¹⁷

1) Matt. chap. 26, v. 36 -39; — Mark, chap. 14, v. 32-36; — Luke, chap. 22, v. 39-44; — John, chap. 18, v. 1-6.

2) Ezra, chap. 3, v. 8-13.

3) Whiston's Josephus, vol. ii. pp. 369-376; vol. iv. pp. 141-148; — Haggai, chap. 2, v. 1-9.

4) Οὐκ ᾔδειτε ὅτι ἓν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ εἶναι με; — Luke, chap. 2, v. 49.

5) Exodus, chap. 12, v. 1-13; — Matt. chap. 21, v. 12-16; — Mark, chap, 11, v. 11-17; — Luke, chap. 2. v. 21-38; chap. 19, v. 45, 46; — John, chap. 2, v. 13-17; — 1 Corinth, chap. 5, v. 6-8; — Heb. chap. 9, v. 11, 12.

6) Zechar. chap. 6, v. 9-13; — Malachi, chap. 3, v. 1; — John, chap. 2, v. 18-21;— Ephes. chap. 2, v. 19-22; — 1 Peter, chap. 2, v. 4-6; — Revel, chap. 21, v. 22.

7) Rambach, On the Sufferings of Christ, vol. iii. pp. 236-240; — Whiston's Josephus, vol. i. pp. 126, 127; vol. iv. pp. 144, 145; — Heb, chap. 6, v. 16-20; chap. 9, v. 1-14; chap. 10, v. 19-22.

8) Matt. chap. 3, v. 16, 17; — Mark, chap. 1, v. 9-11; — Luke, chap. 3, v. 21-23; — John, chap. 1, v. 29-34; — 1 John, chap. 5, v. 5-12.

9) Matt. chap. 27, v. 50-54; — Mark, chap. 15, v. 37-39; — Luke, chap. 23, v. 44-47; — Acts, chap. 2, v. 1-4, 22-24, 32-36.

10) Διαθήκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαἱα, ,ἐπεὶ μή ποτε ἰσχύει ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμενος· Heb. chap. 9, v. 15-17; chap. 11, v. 4"; — Rom. chap. 4, v. 9-13; — 1 Corinth, chap. 11, v 23-26; — 2 Corinth, chap. 3, v. 5, 6; — Galat. chap. 3, v. 1-9.

11) Jerem. chap. 31, v. 31-34; — Heb. chap. 8, passim; — 1 Peter, chap. 2, v. 9, 10.

12) Exod. chap. 24, v. 4-8; —Matt. chap. 26, v. 26-29; — Mark, chap. 14, v. 22-25; — Luke, chap. 22, v. 17-20; — 1 Corinth, chap. 11, v. 23-26; — Heb. chap. 9, v. 16-23. By the hook, in the latter passage, is meant the book or roll of that national covenant, in its more detailed or extended form, which God made with the Israelitish people at Mount Sinai.

13) This charge seems to be preferred by the apostle Paul against unbelieving Jews, in Philipp. chap. 3, v. 2, 3; — Heb. chap. 8, v. 3-5; chap. 9, v. 11-14; and chap. 13, v. 10; as against unbelieving Gentiles in Rom. chap. 1, v. 21-25. See also John, chap. 4, v. 19-24; —Acts, chap. 15, v. 19, 20, 28, 29; chap. 21, v. 17-26.

14) Levit. chap. 2; chap. 3, v. 16-19; chap. 6, v. 14-30; chap. 7, v. 22-27; chap. 16; chap. 17, v. 10-14; — Numb. chap. 15, v. 1-12; chap. 18, v. 19; chaps. 28, 29; — Deut. chap. 12, v. 15, 16, 23-27; — 2 Chron. chap. 13, v. 4, 5; — Ezra, chap. 6, v. 8-10.

15) John, chap. 6, v. 53-63; — 1 Corinth, chap. 10, v. 15-18; chap, 11, v. 27, 28.

16) Exod. chap. 24, v. 3-8; — Levit. chap. 14; — Numb. chap. 19; — Psalm 75, v. 8; Psalm 133; — Prov. chap. 23, v. 31; — Isa. chap. 27, v. 2; chap. 63, v. 1-3; — 1 Corinth, chap. 5, v. 6-8: — Heb. chap. 9, v. 8-14, 18-24; chap. 10, v. 19-22; — Rev. chap. 14, v. 17-20; chap. 19, v. 11-15.

17) Psalm 16, v. 4, 5; Psalm 116, v. 12, 13; — Isa. chap. 52, v. 13-15; — Jer. chap. 31, v. 31-34; — Ezek. chap. 36, v. 22-28; — Acts, chap. 9, v. 13, 14, 20, 21; chap. 22, v. 16; — Rom. chap. 10, v. 4-13; — 1 Corinth, chap. 1, v. 1, 2; chap. 10, v. 15-21; — 2 Tim. chap. 2, v. 22; — Heb. chap. 8, v. 6-13; chap. 10, v. 15-22; — 1 Peter, chap. 1, v. 1, 2.