Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

the word of God, and obeyed his commands, not only the common privileges of the Jewish nation, but those higher blessings which, from their nature, must be strictly personal, the favour and approbation of God, purity and peace of mind, and eternal life. From the epistle to the Hebrews we learn that Abraham understood the promises of God, to include those spiritual and everlasting blessings which are clearly revealed in the Gospel of Christ, or as in some way justifying their expectation. "He looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Heb. xi. 10. But these higher blessings could only be understood as promised conditionally. They were promised to the circumcised, if they trusted to the Lord and obeyed him. Circumcision never could be a sign of the possession of those blessings, but only of the fact that the person circumcised might obtain them. But this was not a privilege peculiar to the circumcised. It cannot by any be supposed, that the general declarations of the compassion and mercy of God, of his kind providence and government; that the general invitations to seek his favour, and the general promises of all good things to those who sought them uprightly, which abound in the Old Testament, are to be restricted to the circumcised. It is impossible. Circumcision was indeed a sign of all the promises of the covenant; but as those which respect the favour and approbation of God and the salvation of the soul, did not ensure these blessings to any because they were circumcised: so neither were any excluded from them because they were uncircumcised. In respect to civil advantages, circumcision was a sign that these were possessed, for they were both universal and peculiar to Jews. In respect to religious advantages, it was also a sign that these were possessed, for they were universal, though not peculiar to the Jews. But in respect to the favour of God and the salvation of the soul, circumcision was only a sign that these were promised to those who trusted and served God.

By this mark the Jews were distinguished from other nations, as the peculiar people of God. The existence of such a mark tended to preserve them in that state of separation, which, owing to their imperfection, was necessary to secure them from adopting the idolatrous notions and practices of other people. It also served to remind them of their religious advantages, and to keep alive a sense of their consequent responsibility. They bore the mark of God upon their persons, that they might never forget his promises, nor their obligation to keep his commandments. The performance of this rite on children, besides its physical and political uses, was obviously fitted to answer important moral ends. The child was rendered more precious to the parent, when this rite had indicated the provision which God had made for its spiritual as well as its bodily welfare. It grew up with the consciousness that it had been marked as one of the people of God, and that it could never lose this mark, or the responsibility resulting from the religious

privileges which were associated with it. The parents who were not pious, would be by this rite reminded, that as their children belonged to God, it was their duty to instruct them in his word, and to teach them to fear and love him, and obey his precepts. And they who were pious would by this ordinance be encouraged in the remembrance of the promises of God, to labour and pray for the good of their children, with the hope that they also would seek and serve the Lord their God, and find in his favour a portion better than flocks and vineyards; and obtain with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, a possession, not in Canaan, but in "a better country, that is a heavenly."

Thirdly. That circumcision was an emblem of spiritual purity, of the separation from the mind of all that might cause moral defilement, appears from the nature of the rite, and the phraseology of Scripture; and it is generally admitted. The figurative language of both the Old and New Testaments can only be explained on the supposition that it was thus regarded. The following passages sufficiently prove this point:"If then their uncircumcised (i. e. unpurified) hearts be humbled.”Lev. xxvi. 41. "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, (i.e.remove all impurity from your mind,) and be no more stiffnecked" or rebellious.-Deut. x. 16. "And the Lord thy God will circumcise (i. e. purify) thy heart and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God."-Deut. xxx. 6. "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskin of your heart," (i. e. purify yourselves for the Lord, and remove all uncleanness or sin from your mind.)-Jer. iv. 4. "For he is not a Jew who is one externally, nor is that circumcision which is apparent in the body. But he is a Jew who is one internally, and circumcision is of the affections, spiritual and not literal, whose commendation is not from men, but from God."-Rom. ii. 28, 29. "Ye are circumcised by a circumcision not effected with the hand, by the removal of all sinful propensities."-Col. ii. 11.

It appears, therefore, that the rite of the old dispensation, which agrees with Christian baptism in these two points, that it denoted purity of mind, and brought into external and visible connexion with the people of God, was not the sign of conversion, being administered to children; nor the sign of the special blessings enjoyed by the children of the pious, since it was conferred on all. It was not the means of effecting any spiritual change, no such effect being ever promised or in any way attributed to it; nor of conferring any important religious privileges, these being open to all people. Circumcision was a token of the promises made by God to Abraham, and a mark of separation between the Jews and other nations. It was the sign of all the privileges which were universally enjoyed by the Jews, whether peculiar to them or not. And it was an emblem of the spiritual purity required of the people of God, without which none could be approved by him. That, as an emblem of spiritual purity, as a sign of external connexion

with the people of God, and participation in their privileges, and as a memorial of the promises and commandments of God, it was of great importance, will be doubted by none who have considered the influence which such symbols have on the minds of all, but especially of uncultivated men.

III. A few remarks on the sacrifices of the Mosaic law may serve to show more clearly the nature of Jewish rites in general. Sacrifices were enjoined for two classes of transgressions; the one consisting of inadvertent, or involuntary violations of the ceremonial rules; and the other, of acts of deceit, or dishonesty, in regard to men. Now although, doubtless, it was right that these sacrifices should be presented with certain appropriate feelings and resolutions, the possession of these was not a necessary or required condition to their performance. He who acted improperly, or unjustly, on certain occasions, was commanded to offer sacrifice, whether he had suitable sentiments or not. To be destitute of these sentiments was a wrong, of a moral kind; to omit the sacrifice was a wrong, of a legal kind, added to the former, and not justified by it. The obligation to offer sacrifice was altogether independent of the obligation to possess a right state of mind. They rested on quite different foundations, the basis of one being a ceremonial rule, that of the other, a moral principle. The sacrifice could not, therefore, be a sign, that the offerer possessed views, feelings, and purposes, appropriate to the service in which he engaged, or that he professed to have them, or that his profession was credited. It could only be a sign that he had broken the law, and desired to escape the legal penalty affixed to his trangression. "And if a soul sin and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, concerning his ignorance, wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him. It is a trespass offering; he hath certainly trespassed against the Lord. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour; or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein; then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass

offering. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish, out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest. And the priest shall make an atonement for him, before the Lord; and it shall be forgiven him, for any thing of all that he hath done, in trespassing therein.”—Lev. v. 17.

That the forgiveness obtained by these sacrifices was merely a release from the legal penalty which might be exacted of the transgressor, appears from many considerations. As the law did not require sacrifices for all sins, nor promise pardon to all, while it did require sacrifice for many things which were not morally sins, it is evident that the sacrifice was intended to relieve only from the legal penalty, and not from the moral. It delivered from the punishment which man was commissioned to inflict, and not from that which God had reserved to himself. Throughout the Bible, the forgiveness of sin by God, is described as dependant on repentance. But there is no requirement of repentance in the law of sacrifices. The man who performed what the law required, whatever might be his feelings, was released from its penalties. Of the correctness of his performance in respect to the sacrifice, the priest was a competent judge. The state of his heart could be known only to God. It was not necessary to offer sacrifice for what were simply moral offences, though these might be far the most heinous, because the punishment thereby incurred, was only removed from those who were truly penitent, and was removed from them by God alone. Thus the Psalmist speaks: "Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li. 16. The kind of efficacy belonging to these sacrifices is described in the epistle to the Hebrews, where it is said, that "the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer, purifying the unclean, made holy in respect to outward purity." (TÙY TĤS σaρKòs Kaðapórnтa.) Heb. ix. 13. "For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin." Chap. x. 4.

But those rites which were the means of removing only temporal and civil disadvantages, were undoubtedly emblematical of spiritual and moral truths of the highest importance. The sinfulness and demerit of man, and the purity and mercifulness of God, were thus set forth and a shadow was given of that great sacrifice by which these truths are far more clearly and impressively exhibited; which is effectual to the complete forgiveness and purification of all those who "Behold the Lamb of God who beareth the sin of the world." John i. 29. "The blood of Jesus Christ his son purifies us from all sin." 1 John i. 7. The remarks made in reference to the baptisms, and the circumcision of the Jews, may be repeated in respect to their sacrifices. In regard to what is moral and spiritual, they

believe.

were not signs of particular facts, nor instruments of preternatural effects, but emblems of general truths.

From what is stated in the Bible in regard to Jewish baptism, circumcision, and sacrifice, we learn that it is neither useless, unreasonable, nor unscriptural, that religious rites should be performed on those who are incapable, or destitute of religion;-that ceremonies significant of spiritual privileges to be enjoyed, should be administered to those who cannot yet participate in them, or who have failed to profit by them; that the emblems of spiritual purity should be put on the persons of those who are not spiritually pure. These are not things for ridicule and contempt, or hasty rejection. Such services were of old appointed by God, and may still be in accordance with his will. Inasmuch as Jewish rites in general, and more especially, those Jewish rites which most resemble Christian baptism, were only signs of the promises of God and of external connexion with his people; and means of improvement simply as emblems of general truth, and memorials of privileges and duties, it is not improbable that this is the nature of Christian baptism. We do not now assert that it certainly is so. Our argument as yet will not warrant this conclusion. But we may assert confidently, that unless from the statements of the New Testament it shall appear, that the circumstances under which the Christian rite was observed, and the design of its observance, and the effects thereby produced, are very different from the circumstances, design, and effects of the Jewish rites, it will be unreasonable to adopt for the Christian rite a different mode of observance, or to claim for it any higher kind of efficacy. Men accustomed to Jewish rites as were the first converts to Christianity, would certainly regard a Christian rite as possessing the same nature. And they would certainly be informed, if they were wrong in regarding it as merely a token of the promises of Christ, a sign of external connexion with his people, and an emblem of the purity of soul which he imparts to those who trust to him.

RECOVERY OF THE LOST PORTRAIT OF DR. JOHN OWEN.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.

AMONGST the many interesting circumstances connected with the erection of the New Independent College at Manchester, I am sure many of your readers will not deem it the least, that its library is to be adorned with a noble portrait of Dr. John Owen, painted by Ryley, a pupil of Vandyke, and one of the first artists of his age.

There are only three portraits of our great theologian known. One, the earliest painting, once in the possession of Dr. Gifford, is now in the library of the Baptist Academy, Bristol, where, if my memory does not deceive me, it was confided, with several other rare portraits,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »