Christians, but we want the essence of Christianity.

These observations, though they apply, in their full extent, only to those who reduce Christianity to a system purely rational, yet are, in a certain degree, applicable to the description of Christians, whose notion of redemption we now come to consider. For what but a preconceived theory, to which Scripture had been compelled to yield its obvious and genuine signification, could ever have led to the opinion, that, in the death of Christ, there was no expiation for sin; that the word sacrifice has been used by the writers of the New Testament merely in a figurative sense; and that the whole doctrine of the Redemption amounts but to this" that God, willing to pardon repentant sinners, and at the same time willing to do it only in that way which would best promote the cause of virtue, appointed that Jesus Christ should come into the world; and that He, having taught the pure doctrines of the Gospel, having passed a life of exemplary virtue, having endured many sufferings, and finally death itself, to prove his truth, and perfect his obedience; and having risen again, to manifest the certainty of a future state; has, not only by his example, proposed to mankind a pattern for imitation; but has, by the merits of his obedience, obtained, through his intercession, as a reward, a kingdom or government over the world, whereby he is enabled to bestow pardon, and final happiness upon all who will accept them, on the terms of sincere repentance?" (No. XVI.) That is, in other words, we receive salvation through a Mediator: the mediation conducted through intercession: and that intercession successful, in recompense of the meritorious obedience of our Redeemer.

Here, indeed, we find the notion of redemption admitted: but in setting up, for this purpose, the doctrine of pure intercession in opposition to that of atonement, we shall perhaps discover, when properly examined, some small tincture of that mode of reasoning, which, as we have seen, has led the modern Socinian to contend against the idea of Redemption at large; and the Deist, against that of Revelation itself.

For the present, let us confine our attention to the objections which the patrons of this new system bring against the principle of atonement, as set forth in the doctrines of that Church to which we more immediately belong. As for those which are founded in views of general reason, a little reflection will convince us, that there is not any, which can be alleged against the latter, that may not be urged, with equal force, against the former: not a single difficulty, with which it is attempted to encumber the one, that does not equally embarrass the other. This having been

evinced, we shall then see how little reason there was for relinquishing the plain and natural meaning of Scripture; and for opening the door to a latitude of interpretation, in which it is but too much the fashion to indulge at the present day, and which, if persevered in, must render the word of God a nullity.

The first and most important of the objections we have now to consider, is that which represents the doctrine of atonement as founded on the divine implacability—in as much as it supposes, that, to appease the rigid justice of God, it was requisite that punishment should be inflicted; and that, consequently, the sinner could not by any means have been released had not Christ suffered in his stead, (No. XVII.) Were this a faithful statement of the doctrine of atonement, there had, indeed, been just ground for the objection. But that this is not the fair representation of candid truth, let the objector feel, by the application of the same mode of reasoning to the system which he upholds. If it was necessary to the forgiveness of man, that Christ should suffer; and through the merits of his obedience, and as the fruit of his intercession, obtain the power of granting that forgiveness; does it not follow, that, had not Christ thus suffered, and interceded, we could not have been forgiven? And has he not then, as it were, taken us out of the hands of a severe and strict Judge; and is it not to him alone that we owe our pardon? Here the argument is exactly parallel, and the objection of implacability equally applies. Now what is the answer? "That although it is through the merits and intercession of Christ, that we are forgiven; yet these were not the procuring cause, but the means by which God, originally disposed to forgive, thought it right to bestow his pardon." Let then the word intercession be changed for sacrifice, and see whether the answer be not equally conclusive.

The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed by any, who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement, to have made God placable; but merely viewed as the means, appointed by divine wisdom, through which to bestow forgiveness. And agreeably to this, do we not find this sacrifice every where spoken of, as ordained by God himself? "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," (John, iii. 16;) and, "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins," (1 John, iv. 10. ;) and again we are told, that

we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot-who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world,” (1 Pet. 1. 18-20;) and again, that Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,"

not, like man's displeasure, a resentment or passion, but a judicial disapprobation; which if we abstract from our notion of God, we must cease to view him as the moral governor of the world. And it is from the want of this distinction, which is so highly necessary, and the consequent fear of degrading the Deity, by attributing to him what might appear to be the weakness of passion, that they, who trust to reason more than to Scripture, have been withheld from admitting any principle that implied displeasure on the part of God. Had they attended but a little to the plain language of Scripture, they might have rectified their mistake. They would there have found the wrath of God against the disobedient spoken of in almost every page, (No. XXII.) They would have found also a case, which is exactly in point to the main argument before us; in which there is described, not only the wrath of God, but, the turning away of his displeasure by the mode of sacrifice. The case is that of the three friends of Job,- in which God expressly says that his "wrath is kindled against the friends of Job, because they had not spoken of him the thing that was right," (Job, xlii. 7;) and at the same time directs them to offer up a sacrifice, as the way of averting his anger, (No. XXIII.)

But then it is urged, that God is every where spoken of as a Being of infinite love. True; and the whole difficulty arises from building on partial texts. When men perpetually talk of God's justice as being necessarily modified by his goodness, (No. XXIV,) they seem to forget that it is no less the language of Scripture, and of reason, that his goodness should be modified by his justice. Our error on this subject proceeds from our own narrow views, which compel us to consider the attributes of the Supreme Being as so many distinct qualities; when we should conceive of them as inseparably blended together, and his whole nature as one great impulse to what is best.

As to God's displeasure against sinners, there can be then, upon the whole, no reasonable ground of doubt. And against the doctrine of atonement, no difficulty can arise from the Scripture phrase, of men being reconciled to God; since, as we have seen, that directly implies the turning away the displeasure of God, so as to be again restored to his favour and protection.

But, though all this must be admitted by those who will not shut their eyes against reason and Scripture, yet still it is contended, that the death of Christ cannot be considered as a propitiatory sacrifice. Now, when we find him described as "the Lamb (No. XXV.) of God, which taketh away the sins of the world," (John, i. 29;) when we are told, that "Christ hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God," (Ephes. v. 2;) and that he "needed not, like the High Priests

under the law, to offer up sacrifice daily, first for his own sins, and then for the people's; for that this he did once, when he offered up himself," (Hebrews, vii. 27 ;) when he is expressly asserted to be the "propitiation for our sins," (1 John, ii. 2 ;) and God is said to have "loved us, and to have sent his Son to be the propitiation (No. XXVI.) for our sins," (1 John, iv. 10 ;) when Isaiah, (liii. 10) describes "his soul as made an offering for sin," (No. XXVII.); when it is said that "God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all," (Rom. viii. 32;) and that "by him we have received the (No. XXVIII.) atonement," (Rom. v. 11;) when these and many other such passages, are to be found; when every expression, referring to the death of Christ, evidently indicates the notion of a sacrifice of atonement and propitiation; when this sacrifice is particularly represented as of the nature of a sin offering, which was a species of (No. XXIX.) sacrifice "prescribed to be offered upon the commission of an offence, after which the offending person was considered as if he had never sinned:" - it may well appear surprising on what ground it can be questioned that the death of Christ is pronounced in Scripture to have been a sacrifice of atonement and expiation for the sins of men.

It is asserted that the several passages which seem to speak this language contain nothing more than figurative allusions; that all that is intended is, that Christ laid down his life for, that is, on account of, mankind, (No. XXX.); and that there being circumstances of resemblance between this event and the sacrifices of the law, terms were borrowed from the latter, to express the former in a manner more lively and impressive. And as a proof that the application of these terms is but figurative, (No. XXXI.) it is contended, (No. XXXII.) ist, That the death of Christ did not correspond literally, and exactly, to the ceremonies of the Mosaic sacrifice: 2dly, That being, in different places, compared to different kinds of sacrifices, to all of which it could not possibly correspond, it cannot be considered as exactly of the nature of any and lastly, That there was no such thing as a sacrifice of propitiation or expiation of sin, under the Mosaic dispensation at all, this notion having been entirely of heathen origin, (No. XXXIII.)

As to the two first arguments, they deserve but little consideration. The want of an exact similitude to the precise form of the Mosaic sacrifice is but a slender objection. It might as well be said, that because Christ was not of the species of animal which had usually been offered up; or because he was not slain in the same manner; or because he was not offered by the High Priest, there could have been no sacrifice, (No. XXXIV.) But this is manifest trifling. If the formal notion of a sacrifice for sin, that is, a life offered up in

expiation, be adhered to, nothing more can be required to constitute it a sacrifice, except by those who mean to cavil, not to discover truth. Again, as to the second argument, which, from the comparison of Christ's death to the different kinds of sacrifices, would infer that it was not of the nature of any, it may be replied, that it will more reasonably follow that it was of the nature of all. Resembling that of the Passover, (No. XXXV.) inasmuch as by it we were delivered from an evil yet greater than that of Egyptian bondage; partaking the nature of the Sin offering, as being accepted in expiation of transgression; and similar to the institution of the Scape-goat, as bearing the accumulated sins of all; may we not reasonably suppose that this one great sacrifice contained the full import and completion of the whole sacrificial system; and that so far from being spoken of in figure, as bearing some resemblance to the sacrifices of the Law, they were, on the contrary, as the apostle expressly tells us, (Hebrews, x. 1,) but figures, or faint and partial representations, of this stupendous sacrifice, which had been ordained from the beginning? And, besides, it is to be remarked in general, with respect to the figurative application of the sacrificial terms to the death of Christ, that the striking resemblance between that and the sacrifices of the law, which is assigned as the reason of such application, would have produced just the contrary effect upon the sacred writers; since they must have been aware that the constant use of such expressions, aided by the strength of the resemblance, must have laid a foundation for error in that which constitutes the main doctrine of the Christian faith. Being addressed to a people whose religion was entirely sacrificial, in what, but the obvious and literal sense, could the sacrificial representations of the death of Christ have been understood?

We come now to the third and principal objection, which is built upon the assertion, that no sacrifices of atonement (in the sense in which we apply this term to the death of Christ) had existence under the Mosaic Law; such as were called by that name having had an entirely different import, (No. XXXVI.) Now, that certain offerings under this denomination related to things, and were employed for the purpose of purification, so as to render them fit instruments of the ceremonial worship, must undoubtedly be admitted. That others were again appointed to relieve persons from ceremonial incapacities, so as to restore them to the privilege of joining in the services of the temple, is equally true. But that there were others of a nature strictly propitiatory, and ordained to avert the displeasure of God from the transgressor not only of the ceremonial, but, in some cases, even of the moral law, (No. XXXVII.) will appear manifest upon a very slight examination. Thus, we

find it decreed, that "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 have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely, then, because he hath sinned in this, he shall not only make restitution to his neighbour — but he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock; and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord, and it shall be forgiven him," (Levit. vi. 2-7.) And again, in a case of criminal connection with a bond-maid who was betrothed, the offender is ordered to bring his trespass-offering, and the priest is to make atonement for him with the trespassoffering, for the sin which he hath done; and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him," (Levit. xix. 20-22.) And in the case of all offences which fell not under the description of presumptuous, it is manifest, from the slightest inspection of the book of Leviticus, that the atonement prescribed was appointed as the means whereby God might be propitiated, or reconciled to the offender. Again, as to the vicarious (No. XXXVIII.) import of the Mosaic sacrifice, or, in other words, its expressing an acknowledgment of what the sinner had deserved; this not only seems directly set forth in the account of the first offering in Leviticus, where it is said of the person who brought a free-will offering, "he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, (No. XXXIX.) and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him," (Levit. i. 4 ;) but the ceremony of the scapegoat on the day of expiation appears to place this matter beyond doubt. On this head, however, as not being necessary to my argument, (No. XL.) I shall not at present enlarge.

That expiatory sacrifice (in the strict and proper sense of the word) was a part of the Mosaic institution, there remains then, I trust, no sufficient reason to deny. That it existed in like manner amongst the Arabians, (No. LIX.) in the time of Job, we have already seen. And that its universal prevalence in the Heathen world, though corrupted and disfigured by idolatrous practices, was the result of an original divine appointment, every candid inquirer will find little reason to doubt, (No. XLI.) But, be this as it may, it must be admitted, that propitiatory sacrifices not only existed throughout the whole Gentile world, but had place under the law of Moses. The argument, then, which, from the non-exist ence of such sacrifices amongst the Jews, would deny the term when applied to the death of Christ to indicate such sacrifice, necessarily falls to the ground, (No. XLII.)

But, in fact, they who deny the sacrifice of Christ to be a real and proper sacrifice for sin, must, if they are consistent, deny that any such sacrifice ever did exist, by divine appointment.

For on what principle do they deny the former, but this? - that the sufferings and death of Christ, for the sins and salvation of men, can make no change in God; cannot render him more ready to forgive, more benevolent, than he is in his own nature; and, consequently, can have no power to avert from the offender the punishment of his transgression. Now, on the same principle, every sacrifice for the expiation of sin must be impossible. And this explains the true cause why these persons will not admit the language of the New Testament, clear and express as it is, to signify a real and proper sacrifice for sin; and why they feel it necessary to explain away the equally clear and express description of that species of sacrifice in the Old, (No. XLIII.) Setting out with a preconceived, erroneous notion of its nature, and one which involves a manifest contradiction, they hold themselves justified in rejecting every acceptation of Scripture which supports it. But, had they more accurately examined the true import of the term in Scripture use, they would have perceived no such contradiction, nor would they have found themselves compelled to refine away, by strained and unnatural interpretations, the clear and obvious meaning of the sacred text. They would have seen that a sacrifice for sin, in Scripture language, implies solely this," a sacrifice wisely and graciously appointed by God, the moral governor of the world, to expiate the guilt of sin in such a manner as to avert the punishment of it from the offender," (No. XLIV.) To ask why God should have appointed this particular mode, or in what way it can avert the punishment of sin; is to take us back to the general point at issue with the Deist, which has been already discussed. With the Christian, who admits redemption under any modification, such matters cannot be subject of inquiry.

But, even to our imperfect apprehension, some circumstances of natural connection and fitness may be pointed out. The whole may be considered as a sensible and striking representation of a punishment, which the sinner was conscious he deserved from God's justice: and then, on the part of God, it becomes a public declaration of his holy displeasure against sin, and of his merciful compassion for the sinner; and on the part of the offender, when offered by or for him, it implies a sincere confession of guilt, and a hearty desire of obtaining pardon and upon the due performance of this service, the sinner is pardoned, and escapes the penalty of his trangression.

This we shall find agreeable to the nature of a sacrifice for sin, as laid down in the Old Testament. Now, is there any thing in this degrading to the honour of God, or in the smallest degree inconsistent with the dictates of natural reason? And, in this view, what is there in the death of Christ, as a sacrifice

for the sins of mankind, that may not, in a certain degree, be embraced by our natural notions? For, according to the explanation just given, is it not a declaration to the whole world, of the greatness of their sins; and of the proportionate mercy and compassion of God, who had ordained this method, whereby, in a manner consistent with his attributes, his fallen creatures might be again taken into his favour, on their making themselves parties in this great sacrifice; that is, on their complying with those conditions, which, on the received notion of sacrifice, would render them parties in this; namely, an adequate conviction of guilt, a proportionate sense of God's love, and a firm determination, with an humble faith in the sufficiency of this sacrifice, to endeavour after a life of amendment and obedience? Thus much falls within the reach of our comprehension on this mysterious subject. Whether, in the expanded range of God's moral government, some other end may not be held in view, in the death of his only begotten Son, it is not for us to inquire; nor does it in any degree concern us. What God has been pleased to reveal, it is alone our duty to believe.

One remarkable circumstance, indeed, there is, in which the sacrifice of Christ differs from all those sacrifices which were offered under the law. Our blessed Lord was not only the subject of the offering, but the priest who offered it. Therefore he has become not only a sacrifice, but an intercessor; his intercession being founded upon this voluntary act of benevolence, by which "he offered himself without spot to God." We are not only, then, in virtue of the sacrifice, forgiven; but, in virtue of the intercession, admitted to favour and grace. And thus the Scripture notion of the sacrifice of Christ includes every advantage, which the advocates for the pure intercession seek from their scheme of redemption. But it also contains others, which they necessarily lose by the rejection of that notion. It contains the great advantage (No. XLV.) of impressing mankind with a due sense of their guilt, by compelling a comparison with the immensity of the sacrifice made to redeem them from its effects. It contains that, in short, which is the soul and substance of all Christian virtue

HUMILITY. And the fact is plainly this, that, in every attempt to get rid of the Scripture doctrine of atonement, we find feelings of a description opposite to this evangelic quality, more or less, to prevail: we find a fondness for the opinion of man's own sufficiency, and an unwillingness to submit, with devout and implicit reverence, to the sacred word of Revelation.

If, now, upon the whole, it has appeared, that natural reason is unable to evince the efficacy of repentance; if it has appeared, that, for the purpose of forgiveness, the idea of a