means, became their Lord, their saviour, the saviour of strangers, and of the whole world; which had not happened but for their plot of destroying him, making him an outcast, and selling him for a slave.

Joseph was an innocent man in prison between two criminals, Jesus on the cross between two thieves: Joseph foretels deliverance to one of his companions, and death to the other, from the same tokens; Jesus Christ saves one and leaves the other, after the same crimes: Joseph could only foretel; Jesus Christ performed what he foretold: Joseph requests the person who should be delivered, to be mindful of him in his glory; the man saved by Jesus Christ, entreats he will remember him when he comes into his kingdom.

Grace is the figure of glory; for it is not the ultimate object. It was prefigured by the law; and it prefigures glory; but so that it is itself the way to arrive at glory.

The Synagogue was not destroyed, because it was the figure of the church: and because it was only the figure, it fell into servitude. The figure subsisted till the arrival of the substance, that the church might always be visible, either in the representation or the reality.

161

XIII.

THAT THE LAW WAS FIGURATIVE.

To establish at once the authority of both Testaments, we have only to observe, whether that which is prophesied in the one, be accomplished in the other.

In order to examine the prophecies, we must first of all understand them. For, supposing them to have but one sense, the Messiah cannot be come; but, supposing them to have two senses, he certainly is come, in the person of Jesus Christ.

All the question, therefore, is, whether they have a double meaning? Whether they are figures or realities; that is to say, whether we ought to seek something more in them than immediately presents itself, or whether we ought to confine ourselves to that construction which offers itself at first view?

If the law and the sacrifices were the substance, they would necessarily be acceptable to God, and not be displeasing to him. If they were only figurative, they would be both pleasing and displeasing to him, in different respects.

Now, throughout the scripture, they both please and displease him; therefore they were only figurative.

To see clearly that the old Dispensation was merely figurative, and that the prophets when they spake of temporal blessings had others in view, we have only to consider, first, that it would be unworthy of God to call men to the enjoyment of nothing but temporal happiness; and secondly, that while the words of the prophets clearly convey a promise of temporal blessings, they yet affirm that their expressions are obscure, that their meaning is not that which appears obvious at first, and that it would only be understood by the issue of events. They therefore knew they were speaking of other sacrifices, another deliverer, &c.

It must also be remarked, that their expressions would contradict and invalidate each other, if by the words law, and sacrifice, only the law and the sacrifices instituted by Moses are to be understood. Nay, there would be a manifest and gross contradiction in their writings, and sometimes even in the same chapter. From whence it follows, that they must have had something further in prospect.

It is said, that the law shall be changed; that the sacrifice shall be changed; that they shall be without kings, without princes, and without sacrifices; that a new covenant shall

be established; that the law shall be renewed; that the commandments they had received not good; that their sacrifices were abominable, and that God had not required them.

were

It is also said, on the other hand, that the law shall abide for ever; that the covenant shall be eternal, the sacrifices perpetual; that the sceptre should never depart' from them, till the everlasting King was come. Do these expressions prove the law to be the substance? No. Do they demonstrate it to be the figure? No. But that it must be either the substance or the figure. Now the former, by excluding the substance, prove it can only be the figure.

All these passages taken together cannot be applied to the substance; but they may be all applied to the figure: therefore, they were spoken of the figure, and not of the sub

stance.

To know whether the law and the sacrifices are real or figurative, we must take notice whether the prophets, in speaking of these things, had their views and their thoughts so entirely fixed on them, as to look no further than the old covenant; or whether they did not discern somewhat else, of which all this was a representation; for in a picture we discover

the thing represented. Now in order to this, we need only examine what they say.

When they say the covenant shall be everlasting, do they mean the same which they affirm shall be changed? And so of the sacrifices, &c.

The prophets have expressly said, that Israel shall always be beloved of God, and that the law shall endure for ever. But they have likewise said, that their meaning was hidden, and would not be understood.

We have a double meaning in a writing in cypher. Suppose we intercept an important letter, in which we are told there is one obvious meaning, and that nevertheless the sense is so obscured, that we shall even see the letter without seeing it, and understand it without understanding it; what are we to judge, but that the cypher has a two-fold meaning? which is moreover apparent from the evident contradictions we meet with in the literal construction of it. How ought we then to esteem those who decypher this writing to us, and make us acquainted with its hidden meaning, especially when they go upon principles perfectly natural and clear. This is what Jesus Christ and his apostles have done: they have opened the seal,