Rom. v, 9. Thus, "God for Christ's sake (says St. Paul) hath forgiven you," Eph. iv, 32.

3. The benefit of the sin-offering was appropriated by the person for whom an atonement was to be made, by his confession of his sin, and his acknowledgment of the sacrifice as offered for him. Just so to appropriate the benefit of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, it is necessary that men should confess their sin with a penitent heart, and depend on the propitiation which he has made. He that thus appropriates the benefit of his sacrifice obtains mercy. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all un. righteousness," 1 John i, 9. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God: being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ: whom God hath set forth a propitiatory through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus," Rom. vi, 23, 26.

Thus we find that between the Levitical sacrifices and the great Christian sacrifice the resemblance is exact and striking, and that the latter answers to the former as the antitype to its typical representative. Whatever there is of difference between them consists chiefly in the superiority of the Christian atonement, the consideration of which will greatly confirm the truths which have been stated.

The Jewish sacrifices were but "a shadow of good things to come:" the Christian sacrifice is the "substance.' Those were offered for mere ceremonial or civil purposes: this for moral guilt and pollution. Those were mere animals: Christ "offered up himself." It was impossible that "the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins;" but Jesus has "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," Heb. x, 4; ix, 26. The former "could not make him that did the service perfect as per. taining to the conscience," Heb. ix, 9: but "the blood of Christ, who by the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, can purge our conscience from dead works to serve the living God," Heb. ix, 14. "The blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, could only sanctify to the purifying of the

66

having our hearts "have boldness

flesh," Heb. ix, 13, and therefore only gained admission into the visible tabernacle; but we, sprinkled from an evil conscience," to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus," Heb. x,

66

19, 22. Every (Levitical) priest stood daily in the temple, offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God; for by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." And, therefore, where remission of sins is (such as he has obtained) there is no more offering for sins," Heb. x, 11, 12, 14, 18.

To this statement Mr. G. finds many objections, against which we must vindicate it.

1. "The term priest is applied to Christians in general," (vol. ii, p. 146,) who are said to offer themselves or other gifts as sacrifices. (Vol. ii, p. 149.) "If (these terms) prove an atonement, then the atonement is in part effected by all Christians." (Vol. ii, p. 146.)

The short answer is, that "Christians in general" are not denominated high priests, nor their sacrifices propitiatory, or sacrifices for sin. Their sacrifices are eucharistic sacrifices, or thank-offerings. "I beseech you by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice," Rom. xii, 1. Again: "Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name," Heb. xiii, 15. In offering these sacrifices, "Christians in general" act as priests. "Ye also (are) a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices," 1 Pet. ii, 5. The priesthood of "Christians in general" is however subordinate, and acceptable only through the peculiar and peerless priesthood of Jesus Christ. "By him," says the apostle, "let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God," Heb. xiii, 15. And again : Our spiritual sacrifices are acceptable to God (only) by Jesus Christ," 1 Pet ii, 5. We have therefore but one great High Priest, the Son of God; and "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin," since "by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

66

2. But Jesus Christ is said to have been made a curse for us." "A curse (says Mr. G.) and an acceptable sacrifice are totally inconsistent. For to render a

sacrifice acceptable, it was absolutely requisite that it should be pure." (Vol. ii, pp. 150, 152.)

Mr. G. has only taken for granted, that to be "made a curse," and to be impure, are identically the same. Does he mean to assert that Jesus Christ's "hanging on a tree" was a "blemish" on his moral character?

3. "Again: Christ was a priest, a victim, and the mercy seat. How are these things to be reconciled, if all are to be taken literally?" (Vol. ii, p. 153.)

He was both the priest and the victim by "offering up himself." But the word thaornpiov (Rom. iii, 25) is not properly "a mercy seat," but a propitiatory. The "mercy seat" was called hornpiov, a propitiatory, because there the blood of atonement was sprinkled, in consequence of which God, who was supposed to sit on the mercy seat, was propitious. Through the atoning blood of Christ God is propitious to us; and therefore Christ also may be called thаornpiov, a propitiatory. "God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their trespasses."

Before this subject is dismissed, a train of important reflections, arising out of the preceding observations, demand the reader's most serious attention. The immolation of victims for the expiation of sin is justly supposed to have been originally of divine institution. When God taught our first parents to clothe themselves with the skins of beasts, he undoubtedly taught them first to slay those beasts that were to be flayed, certainly not for food, and therefore most probably in sacrifice. The proof that Abel offered a sacrifice to God is, however, much more clear and positive; and the respect which God had to his offering makes it nearly certain that it was presented according to a previous divine appointment. Abel could not know that the life of an unoffending animal would be an acceptable offering, so as to offer it, as it is said he did, by faith, unless he had first received some intimation of it from above for "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," Rom. x, 17. In the days of Noah, it is still more obvious from the distinction then observed between clean and unclean animals, the more ample provision which was made of the former, the offering which he made of them, and the grateful acceptance of that offer

ing-that sacrifice made an important part of the institution of religious worship. (Gen. vii and viii.) The sacrifices which Abram offered were, we are assured, of divine appointment. (Gen. xv, 9.) When the wrath of God was kindled against the friends of Job, God said, "Take unto you seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for him will I accept, lest I deal with you after your folly," Job xlii, 1.* These divine institutions were, under the Levitical dispensation, made, by the same authority, the basis of a more extended and particular sacrificial institution, which agreed in every respect with that which preceded, both as to the quality of the sacrifices to be offered, and the manner of offering them. This agreement is a confirmation of the divine authority of the former. The extension of the law of sacrifice, we learn from the inspired writers, was intended to be a more perfect figure of good things to come. No human invention, no common transaction of mankind with each other, was sufficient to elucidate the method of salvation by Jesus Christ. The relations of mankind to each other differ widely from the relations which exist between God and his creatures. Nothing, therefore, but transactions between God and men, can properly illustrate transactions between God and men. Hence He, who alone was acquainted with "the mystery of his will which he had purposed in himself," adapted all the circumstances of these institutions to this one great purpose. Hence the apostles, when treating on the grand topic of their ministry, "Christ crucified," derive their principal ideas and phrases from this preceding economy, and make the institutions of the patriarchal and Mosaic ages a key to the new dispensation. The sacrifices for sin, which were offered from the primitive times according to the divine appointment, and were regulated by the wisdom of Him who knew the end from the beginning, are the volume from which they derive their most luminous lessons of instruction. And what shall we infer from this, but that God has intended, by the whole sacrificial code, to give to mankind the most just and the most appropriate ideas of

*A most important illustration of the design of sacrifices, as well as of their divine institution.

the sacrifice and propitiation of "the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world;"-that his own previous institutions are an infallible guide to our understanding; and that every allusion which is made to mere human affairs is very imperfect, and neither can be, nor ought to be applied in the same unqualified manner, for the illustration of the objects of the death of Christ..

The divine Author of revelation has, however, been pleased, for our instruction on this most important subject, to introduce allusions to the ordinary transactions of man. kind with each other. Among these the terms of emancipation, as redemption, ransom, with others of the same class, hold a conspicuous place.

With the Socinians it is a common practice to insist that scriptural terms be always interpreted in the same sense; and, while they themselves are often completely at a loss to affix to a word such a meaning as will admit of a universal application, they are perpetually bawling for consistency. They have, however, prudence enough not to try whether the meaning which they prefer will bear them out in their imaginary consistency, without leading them into the most glaring absurdities.

That the terms already alluded to are sometimes used by the sacred writers improperly, we do not deny. To redeem, or to ransom, is, as Mr. G. says, "to buy again." (Vol. ii, p. 136.) Now the proper mean of redemption is a price, and that price is a ransom. But the Scriptures sometimes speak of a thing being "bought without money, and without price;" and of a people being "redeemed without money.' Thus God paid no price for the redemption of Israel out of Egypt. Every man of common sense sees that this is what rhetoricians call, in their technical sense, an impropriety in speech; and that the impropriety is marked by the terms " without price." Mr. G. takes for granted that the same terms must always be used in the same improper sense. If it should appear, however, that the Scriptures often make specific mention of the price by which redemption is accomplished, it will be obvious that the terms in question are often used properly and if this proper way of speaking be found to be applied to our redemption by Jesus Christ, it will follow that the scriptural idea of our

: