sin, often means a sin-offering: and so does the Greek word, into which it was translated by the Septuagint.

In addition to the texts already quoted from the New Testament, the senses of which, it is thought, can be explained only by the effect of the Levitical sacrifices, it may establish the point more fully, to recite others which have a more immediate reference to the same institutions.

It had been said by the Psalmist-"Burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin hast thou not required;" [meaning on their own account.] "Then said I, lo, I come. In the volume of the book it is written of me, that I should fulfil thy will, O my God." In the epistle to the Hebrews, this passage is distinctly applied, as prophetick of the sacrifice of Christ: and therefore, when it is said in another place-" Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in nowise pass from the law till all be fulfilled;" it must be construed to unfold the sacrifice of the cross, as the antetype prefigured in the sacrifices which had gone before.

When John the Baptist saw Jesus coming to him, he said "Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Here is a parallel drawn between the sin-offering under the law, and the better sacrifice, which was to take away sin in the strict sense of the word; and not in figure, as had been done before.

Reference to the same typical sacrifices is alike clear, where St. Peter instructs those to whom he writes, that they were "redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." In the opposite theory, there are no supposed truths, but what might have been intimated without such references to transactions, between which and them there is no analogy.

The same correspondency is forcibly expressed by the same apostle in another form, in the next chapter;

* Αμαρτία. § John i. 29

† Ps. xl. 9, 10.

1.i. 19.

Matt, v. 18

where he says of the Saviour-"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree:"* Here the bearing of our sins must be in the same sense, in which they were borne in some of the sacrifices of old.

But there is no book of scripture, in which it was so much to the purpose of the writer to unfold the present truth, in all its various points of view, as in the Fpistle to the Hebrews. Accordingly in the seventh chapter, after a parallel drawn, first between the priesthood of Melchisedeck and that of Christ, and then between the priests under the law and the same great antitype; it is said of the latter-" who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the people's; for this he did once, when he offered up himself." So in the ninth chapter, "If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God " Again, in the same chapter, after its being laid down in the reasoning of the apostle: "Almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission;" the apostle adds-" It was therefore necessary, that the patterns of things in the heavens" [or the heavenly economy under the gospel] "should be purified with these, but the heavenly things them. selves with better sacrifices than these." And then he goes on to apply the subject to Christ; who had "appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."¶And to name but one passage more, the apostle, having supported his analogy throughout his epistle, when, in the last chapter of it, he has reached the conclusion of his subject,** finds the circumstance of Christ's suffering without the gate, under ejection from the Jewish Church

Verse 24. † Verse 27. | Verse 23. Verse 26.

Verse 13, 14. § Verse 22. ** Verse 11, 19.

and delivery into the hands of the Roman governour, prefigured in the burning of the bodies of the animals sacrificed as sin-offerings, without the camp.

These records of the Levitical sacrifices, and the references to them in the New Testament, show in a strong point of view the little weight of the criticism, that when reconciliation is spoken of, it means of man to God. For there could have been no use in sacrifices, with a view to that end; and as if the alienation were merely the result of man's being offended with his Creator: which is not true of sinners generally; whatever offence may be entertained by them against his laws. Even this does not apply universally; since many a sinner "delights in the law of God after the inward man," as the apostle says;* while, as is added, he finds a law in his members, warring against the law in his mind."+

But the word "reconcile" is used very differently from what is thus alleged. In 1 Sam. xxix. 4— "Wherewith shall he reconcile himself to his master?" evidently relates to an anticipation of David's being restored to the favour of Saul. In like manner, in Ezekiel lxvi. 20, where we read-" So shall ye reconcile the house;" this inanimate object could not have been contemplated. And in the book of Daniel, ix. 24, "the making of reconciliation for iniquity," must have respect not to the doer, but to the Great Being against whom it had been done. When in Lev. vi. 30, the blood of the sin-offering brought into the tabernacle, is said to "reconcile;" It cannot mean the offerer, and must therefore signify the mean of his reconciliation.

In the New Testament, the following passages are strongly to the point here sustained. 2 Cor. v. 19; "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself:" That it was the restoration of the world to the favour of God, and not of God to the favour of the world, appears from the words added-" not imputing their trespasses unto them." Again, Heb. ii. 17-"To

make reconciliation for the sins of the people:" what occasion was there for that, if man were the only party to be appeased?-And again where it is said" By whom we have now received the atonement;"* if instead of "atonement," we say "reconciliation," which is a stricter translation; it is difficult to show how we receive reconciliation, if we and not God are the party to be reconciled.

The above are some of the many authorities which might be produced; and are interpreted on the other side as meaning no more, than that the death of Christ was in attestation of the truth of his mission and of his doctrine; but according to the estimation of the Church throughout the world and in all ages, teach a propitiatory sacrifice for sin, in the strict sense of the terms. And as to the alleged inconsistency of the doctrine with the essential goodness of the divine nature; the same argument, if it were correct, would hold equally well against what we read concerning the mediation and the intercession of the Redeemer. And yet these find a place in the opposing theory; while the rationality of it is supposed to be too sublimated, to admit the doctrine here pleaded for. Between this, however, and the mediation and the intercession of the Redeemer, there is such an alliance, that all the texts in favour of these might have been produced in favour of the other. But the less is said of scriptural evidence in this place, as it will be again necessary to refer to that point under the fourth section.

As on the kindred subject of the Divinity, it will be to the purpose to refer to the sense of some of the ear. liest writers of the Church, in evidence of the doctrine here maintained; because this, like the other, is branded as a corruption of Christianity, engrafted on the system after a considerable lapse of time.

The same Clement who was quoted in the first section, considers Rahabt as professing faith" that by the blood of our Lord, there should be redemption to all that believe and hope in God."

The epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas, is admitted by the best criticks to have been his, and is cited by some of the fathers, who were judges of its traditionary reputation in their times. That companion of the twelve apostles, and bearing the name of an apostle himself in the New Testament, expresses himself at considerable length concerning the offering of Isaac and the appointment of the he-goat, which he considers as types of Jesus, who was to suffer for us.

St. Ignatius, in the superscription of his Epistle to the Ephesians, addresses that Church as "united and chosen through the true passion, according to the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ our God." And in the superscription of his Epistle to the Trallians, he ac knowledges them as "having peace through the flesh and blood and passion of Jesus Christ our hope."

Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue,* says of the sacrifice of Christ-"This oblation was made for all who should be willing to be partakers of it by penitence:" And this is said, after the Father's speaking of the same oblation, as prefigured in that of the he-goat. In another place,+ he holds out as the true expiation for sin, the blood of Christ; in contradistinction to the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of an heifer, which he considers as prefiguring the other. In the Apology of this martyr, there are passages to the same effect.

Tertulliant refers to the same subject of the two goats, affirming the latter of them to be a representation of the passion of the Lord.

There is no need to descend to later times; because the deniers of the doctrine suppose it to have been introduced before the end of the second century..

* Page 219, Thirlby. ↑ Page 160. Adv. Marcion, lib. 3