XI. Sacririfices of the old law. 

(XI v-6)
The beginning of the II chapter, of Liviticus. Last Lords day we took a general view of the old testament sacrifice. and of the connection between that and Chrsit. I propose to day, to take the principal of these offerings and indeed their particular character. always, however with reference to the gospel. without entering too much into the details of them which is given us, and which would not materially assist us in their explination, as in the first of these offerings, which I wish to dwell upon, the meat offering the complete mode of offering it, its uses, &c are all laid down, but need not be dwelt upon. In the first place, the meat offering was presented, as a testimony of three things. First. the gratitude of the offerer, for the blessings bestwoed, on him. Secondly it expressed his consciousness of sin, and thirdly to lay before. God his attachment to his service, by contributing to the support of his priest  Now, in the first place, God has a right. to all that the individual possesses. All, which he has, is the gift of God, and in consequence, part of the offering is burnt upon his altar, as the best mode of expressing his gratitude for the benefits bestowed upon him, for, if he were 

(XI r-7)
merely to declare and acknowledge his dependance and obligation, without testifying his gratitude also, the acknowledgment of his dependancy would, in itself be a reproof, it would in fact be mockery of God. and we must therefore imply that one of the intentions of this sacrifice, was to confess the dependancy of the offerer, and his gratitude for that dependancy being supplied. 
In the second place, an object of this offering was to acknowledge guilt before God, the entire, -and continual- depravity of the offerer. Although there was, in the meat offering, no reality of sacrifice, that is, there was no animal slain, yet the offering was presented with all solemnity and all the forms of sacrifice were gone through, showing that one of the intentions of this offering, was like that of most of the others, to confess guilt before God, and to offer atonement for it
In the third place, the offering was to testify respect for the worship of God, and willingness to support that worship. One part, of the meat offering was to be burnt upon the altar, but the remaining part was to belong to Aaron and his family. And although little would accrue from one of these sacrifices yet when we consider the immense number of the people on every one of whom the obligation to bring an offering was binding, we find that the contribution to the support of Aaron, from these united numbers, must have been considerable. The obligation is binding also on us, to contribute as much as possible to the support of Gods church. These then, we see, were the three principle intentions of the meat offering, but there was one condition necessary to its efficacy, that was, it must have been voluntarily presented. As in the sacrifices which we have spokem before of, influence, or custom were not voluntary will, and without that voluntary will, it was mockery. 
Now, such being the general character, and intention of the old Testament meat offering, we must next follow it up in its connection with 

(XI v-7)
the New Testament dispensation. Now, on our part, there should be no acknowledgment of temporal blessings without, also an acknowledgment of the blessings of grace. We should always keep up the association, between what God is doing for us, with regard to our temporal benefits, and what he is doing for us in heaven with regard to those which are eternal  Wherever we are found alienated from Gods altar, we are acting a part unworthy of the design of Providence, which entends all temporal mercies, however great they may be, as a mere appendage to those, which are spiritual. I think these general ideas will explain the nature & intention of the meat offering, although there are many other particulars, given through out the law of Moses, which however, I think will not afford us any farther elucidation, of the one, general design which we have been considering. 
The next subject to which I wish to direct your attention, is that of the peace offering. The directions concerning this offering, will show, that part was to be burnt upon the altar, part was to be eaten by the priest, and part was to be eaten by the offerer. which denotes, firstly, the general peace and fellowship between the offerer and God, the peace in his own mind, and the peace between him and the rest of mankind, and secondly, its great intention was to shadow forth the future sacrifice or peace offering of Christ. 
1. It denotes. the general peace, and fellowship between the offerer and God. The peace offering was not for any particular sin. if so, it was a sin offering, not a peace-offering. It was the sacrificers consciousness of his own general, and constant depravity, which impelled him to bring his sacrifice, in order to seek pardon from God, not for any particular sin which he was guilty of, but for the sin which was inherent in him, for the sin, the weakness the carnality itself, which was continued and which required continual offering, and not for the sinful actions which proceeded from that carnality- It was, to obtain peace with God, peace with his own soul, which did that he would not & peace with all mankind. 

(XI r-8)
2. It was to shadow forth the future sacrifice of Christ. Now, as we stated before if there were not shadow of this great sacrifice, they were trivial ceremonial forms and unworthy of the being who appointed them. And, also, a much simpler worship might have been allotted to the Israelites, and chich would have drawn forth more and better moral feelings, can we consider that it gave God any pleasure, to see the Israelites coming and offing on his altar, except as it testified submission to his will. or, can we suppose, that that ceremony had any power in itself to take away sin. Or can we suppose, that this was the mode of worship best calculated for the children of Israel. Certainly not. One much simpler, and less abounding in outward ceremony, and show would have been much better adapted to a people in their situation, inasmuch as it would have greatly contributed, to free them from the forms of Pagan worship. to which. they had we know, been so much accustomed. It would almost approaching to irrationality to have allotted such a worship, to such a people without farther design, but [in(?)] the view we have been taking of it, it was the best and most appropriate that could possibly have been allotted to them. I do not wish to say however, that The Jews themselves understood the design of these sacrifices, for this wat necessary We should remember the fact, that it was of far more importance to lay at once the foundation of the church of God, than to instruct clearly a chosen but solitary nation. For when the dispensation of God became universal, it likewise became of very high importance to have its basis laid thus firmly, so that when the Gospel was spreading a the Gentiles they think might have these first, and strongest evidences of the truth of Christianity, which would illustrate to them the sacrifice of Jesus, and show them, that the preparation for the Gospel had been made not only at a very distant period, but among a people who understood not the design of those sacrifices, and offerings, which, although delivered to them merely as a particular form of worship, yet shadowed forth the mighty scheme of universal salvation

(XI v-8)
We shall next direct our attention to the sin offering. Chapter 4. It was, in the first place, an atonement for the sin of the priest and in the second place, for the sins of the people. 
1. It was an atonement for the sin of the priest-. Now, we shall find in this offering some ceremonies not observed in sacrifice generally. It is brought nearer to the holy place, than any of the other sacrifices were, which shows the recognition by God of the dignity and sacred character of the priest, and the aggravation of his guilt in consequence Here required a more awful and complete atonement for his priest which shows us two things. First that there are degrees of guilt in consequence of station  The sin of the priest was more aggravated than the sin of the people and in the same manner amongst us the guilt of him who has been best taught or has had most opportunity of knowing what was right, will be considered as more aggravated than the guilt of the ignorant; and secondly, it shows us the very great jealousy of God, for the purity of his worship. We can apply this to ourselves, for if we assemble in the Lords house, while our thoughts are occupied on the vanities of the world, and let our attention be drawn away, it is of no use to argue that it is un wittingly, that they are drawn away, as it were, through ignorance, or without our consciousness. The sin of the priest was through ignorance. yet it required a very awful atonement and the sacrifice was to be brought near to the vail of the sanctuary, we, therfore, also see with what an aggravated degree of guilt we are chargeable in his sight. If this were constantly remembered, and applied, what a degree of christian instruction might we derive from it. 
11. it was an atonement likewise, for the sin of the whole congregation. Now we find, in the 13 verse of the 4th chapter, that the circumstances connected with the atonement for the sin of the whole congregation, were exactly the same as those attendant upon the atonement for the single sin of the priest showing, that God considered the sin of one of his priests to require as solemn an atonement, as the united sins of the whole congregation. Again we should remember  that the sin was through ignorance, that at the time it was committed, it was not know to be sin, and the sinner only discovered it afterwards, t obe so, perhaps by the intervention of a friend, perhaps by discovering, by rigid self examination, evil motives which had given (unconsciously) rise to an action not evil in itself, or perhaps by the recollection or discovery of some law, which he might at the time have forgotten, when we remember, I say, all this and yet see how severe an expiation was required, we see how dreadfully aggravated the guilt, of those who sin consciously, and wilfully. This will, in the first place, show us the vast importance of constantly watching over ourselves, and searching into the secret motives of our every action, and it [will(?)] in the second place, it will entirely take away from us all supposition that, if we sin through ignorance we are innocent, No, if we commit a sin against God, though it be entirely through ignorance of what is sin, and though it be committed with sincere, and good intention, and when we have not the most distant idea that we are offending God, yet we are, as the Children of Israel, equally guilty in his sight, they had sold their lives to his altar and he requires a victim. 
Some here however, may think that this view requires a justification. Now let us suppose, that the children Israel had considered or that God had told them, that if they sinned in ignorance, they would not be held guilty in his sight, then ignorance would have been their safety, ignorance would have been their safety, ignorance would have their joy, their rock, their shield, their hidingplace, they would have cultivated no information, they would have avoided, all light, in order to avoid punishment and then the whole human race would have been gradually brought into a state of utter darkness, and abandonment, There was therefore nothing unwholesome in the punishment of ignorant sinnor inconsistent either with the Glory of God, or the happiness - of man, 
The last offering which I wish now to consider, is that for the ruler off the people. 22 verse  This also is a sin committed through ignorance and the atonement is still a farther illustration of the same principle, that ignorance can never excuse sin, because we ought always to inquire into what is sin and what is not. And, in the 27 verse, we see that in the offering for one of the common people, there was only a distinction in the manner of atonement, a less solemn form was required, because, the sin of the inferiour was less aggravated, In such a complicated form of worship it would be long before due instruction could be extended to every one of the common people, and it would therefore be almost impossible for them to escape sin. But the atonement was still required, & there was no distinction between the subject and the ruler except in mere form of offering, though their sin was less aggravated yet they were still guilty. There were degrees of guilt and degrees of punishment, but escape was impossible. We might perhaps, be disposed to make a farther allowance, on account of the inability of the common people to acquire instruction, and it might in our case, be - perhaps right. But with God, it is different, He is altogether pure, and he therefore suffereth not, endureth not iniquity. He can yield exemption to none. for all are bound to seek, and inquire, and follow after God, and every offence against his law, will and most be deemed a crime in spite of the ignorance in which it was committed, inasmuch as that ignorance might have been and ought to have been avoided. Now, are we to suppose, that we are under. fewer obligations to fulfil Gods commandments, than were the Israelites of old. Their case was entirely different from ours; we have 

(XI r-10)
no complicated ceremonies to comply with, indeed the only ceremonies of any kind to which we are commanded to perform, are keeping the sabbath holy, partaking of the Lords supper, and the sacrament of baptism. Our sins against these must therefore be infinitely aggravated. And also with what a different of [light(?)] are we endowed, the dayspring from on high hath visited us, we have seen the noon of that day of which they only saw the dawning in the distance, and therefore, let us adhere to those institutions, which are the remembrances and assurances of Christ, as they did to the ceremonies which were only the shadows of him,