lation is as much under obligation to give implicit credit to the prophets, as to the evangelists. His inference, however, is, that the precise measure of information yielded by the historian, must of necessity be possessed by the student of prophecy; than which nothing is more absurd and untenable. To reason in this manner is, in the first place, to forget the prodigious disparity in point of perspicuity betwixt the respective sources of information; and, secondly, in opposition to the decisive and repeated testimonies of inspiration, to presume that good men have uniformly exerted the ardour, impartiality, and diligence, in the pursuit of truth, to which it is justly entitled. Besides, when it is asserted that the prophetic page "as boldly appeals to faith, as the details of evangelical history," an ambiguity lurks in the word appeal, as well suited to the purposes of sophistry, as it is unfavourable to the enunciation of truth. It may either mean that it demands the same credit with historical details, or that it imposes an obligation to believe the same facts, and to penetrate the same mysteries. In the former sense the assertion is true, but foreign to the purpose; in the latter it is palpably false; at once repugnant to the nature of things as well as to the plainest fact. Many of the most important predictions were involved in a total obscurity; others were designed to excite a vague but elevated expectation, without ascertaining the features of a future event; none were designed to make that clear and determinate impression

upon the spirit, which is effected by their accomplishment. From the necessary obscurity of prophecy, combined with the ignorance and prejudice. which obstruct its operation, it is impossible, in any case, by appealing to a prediction to ascertain the sentiments entertained even by good men antecedently to its fulfilment. The only clew to conduct us in this inquiry, is derived from the assertions of the evangelists, which as clearly confute the vain surmises and conjectures of this writer as if they had been recorded for that purpose.

The word faith, to the illiterate reader, is almost sure to suggest all the sentiments and ideas with which the gospel has made him familiar; and when we attempt to limit its objects by an impartial appeal to the actual state of religious knowledge before the coming of Christ, he feels himself confounded and amazed. His exclusive acquaintance with the present disqualifies him for transporting himself into past ages, and conceiving the ideas and sentiments prevalent in a situation so dissimilar. To do justice to the author of the Plea, it must be acknowledged, he has shewn no inconsiderable skill in availing himself of this prejudice.

What were the precise views entertained by the true Israel, of the offices of the Messiah, and of the work of redemption, previously to the christian æra, is one of the most curious and intricate questions of theology. Without attempting its solution, the writer of these lines may be permitted

to remark that the Jewish belief was probably much more defective, and differed much farther from the christian, than has usually been suspected. The ignorance of the apostles, till after the resurrection, is a fundamental fact, a datum, which should never be lost sight of in this inquiry. It is not necessary, however, to assume it as a standard by which to regulate our estimate of every preceding degree of information. For when we recollect the long suspension of prophetic gifts in the Jewish church, the withdrawment of the Urim and Thummim, the extinction, in its sensible effects at least, of the theocracy, the intermixture of Jews and Gentiles, inseparable from the introduction of a pagan government, the influence of oriental philosophy, the division of the people into sects, and the extreme profligacy and corruption of manners prevalent at the time of our Lord's nativity, it will probably appear to have been the darkest period the church had experienced-resembling that portion of the natural day which immediately precedes the dawn, when the nocturnal light is extinguished, and the reflection of a brighter luminary not commenced.

But with all the consideration due to these circumstances, (and probably much is due,) there is still reason to suspect that the average degree of knowledge which divines have been accustomed to ascribe to Jewish believers, has been overrated. From the typical institution of piacular sacrifices, pointing to the great propitiation, it has been

confidently concluded, that in them believers distinctly recognised the mystery of atonement, by the blood of Christ. But supposing such to have been the fact, how shall we account for that doctrine occupying so small a portion of the succeeding prophecies; or for its so completely vanishing from the national creed, that the crucifixion of Christ afterwards became a stumbling block to the Jews, not less than foolishness to the Gentiles? A doctrine so congenial to the feelings of penitent devotion, involving the primary basis of hope, had it once been embraced, would undoubtedly have been inculcated with the utmost care, and transmitted to the posterity of the faithful in uninterrupted succession, instead of being suffered to fall into such oblivion that at the time of the Saviour's advent, every trace of it had disappeared. While christianity subsists, we entertain no apprehension of this great doctrine falling into neglect; its intrinsic evidence and importance will perpetuate it, unquestionably, amidst all the fluctuations of systems and opinions; and by parity of reason, its clear enunciation to the Jewish church, must have been productive of similar effects.

If we read the ancient prophecies with attention, we shall perceive, that the atonement made by the Saviour is scarcely exhibited in a single passage, except in the fifty-third of Isaiah, with respect to which the Ethiopian eunuch was at a loss to determine whether the "prophet spoke of himself, or of some other man:" we shall perceive that in

the practical and devotional books, such as the Psalms, the promise of pardon to the penitent, and of favour to the righteous, are expressly and repeatedly propounded, though with respect to the medium of acceptance, a profound silence is maintained. But how this is consistent with the supposed knowledge of that medium, it is not easy to discover. The habitual reserve on this subject maintained by the writers of the Old Testament, compared to its constant inculcation in the New, forms the grand distinction betwixt these respective portions of revelation; clearly evincing the truth of the apostle's assertion, that "the way into the holiest was not made manifest" while the ancient sanctuary subsisted.

It will perhaps be replied-Are we then to renounce the notion of the typical nature of sacrificial rites, and, in contradiction to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to assert that they bore no reference to the great propitiation? Nothing is more foreign from the purpose of these remarks.

That the ceremonial law was a prefiguration of good things to come, and owed its validity and efficacy entirely to the analogy which it bore to the true sacrifice, is placed beyond all reasonable controversy. All that is contended for is, that the reference which it bore was not understood, during the subsistence of that economy; that it is not to be considered as an interpretation of the doctrine of the atonement, so much as a sort of temporary