ties, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed:" Again-" he shall bear their iniquities," and "he bare the sin of many." These sayings fall in exactly with "he bare our sins in his own body on the tree;" and the marked reference is further visible, in the apostle's adding, before the end of his sentence, the concluding words of those above quoted from the fifth verse of the chapter of Isaiah: thus showing the concurrence of the prophecy and of the fact.

- Whether the diseases spoken of be those of the body or of the mind-although the sorrows of the latter are here supposed to be the meaning-the Greek verbs and the Hebrew* to which they answer, express a bearing in person.† But why does the evangelist apply the passage to circumstances in which there was no suffering from the consciousness, of sin? For no other reason than that of the general connexion between sin and suffering: as in the instances in which our Saviour tells persons healed by him-" Thy sins are forgiven thee." It is the contemplating of a connexion between the general principle, and a particular circumstance of the subject. Suffering originated in sin: which ceases to have its operation, in proportion as the penaltjes inflicted on it are put an end to.

It is a property of the version under review, that overlooking the circumstances of a passage the most directly pointing to the doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice, it invites attention to some circumstance of less importance in this respect. Thus, interpreting the following passage-" Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his

סבל נשא *

† Parkhurst's Lexicon, under the first of the two Hebrew words, selects the following as instances in which it signifies a vicarious bearing of sin-Exod. xxviii. 38.-Lev. x. 17— xvi. 22. But he says, under the latter of the words, that it implies more labour than the other. The same lexicographer gives authorities for a similar interpretation of the two Greek words.

righteousness, for the remission of sins that are past;"'* the version translates for "propitiation", "mercyseat." But there is put out of view, that whereas this, under the law, was the seat of the divine beneficence, and at the same time, the place to which there was brought the blood of the victim slain in sacrifice; so, under the gospel, its mercy seat, according to the text, and even as it stands in the version, was in the blood of Christ, and in the availing of this for the remission of sin. There can be no doubt, that the Seventy use the Greek wordt to denote the mercy seat. Its verbt signifies "to propitiate" or " to appease." The substantive immediately derived from it§ signifies "propitiation:" not the act of pacifying the offended party, as the version affirms, when commenting on 1 John ii. 2, much less the contemplation of man as the offended party, which is evidently the sense intended to be given. The word signifies, not the act, but the effect of it. From the same Greek verb, flows the substantive now especially under consideration: which the analogy of language would justify the rendering of "a propitiatory," if this were sanctioned by use. There can be no objection to the calling of it "a mercy-seat," on the authority of the Seventy; who, however, must have taken the corresponding word, because its etymology is expressive of the idea of propitiation. According to this representation, the spirit of the original is retained in the common version: for although, as the authors of what is called an improved version say, the precise original word is never translated" propitiation" in the other; yet this is the rendering of a kindred word in two places-1 John ii. 2, and iv. 10. Neither will it be irrelevant to have recourse to external authority, for the establishing of the meaning of the original word. Michaelis quotes a passage from the seventh section of Josephus's book on the Maccabees; wherein there is introduced the

Rom. iii. 25. + Ελατηριον. Il Vol. 1, Part 1. Ch. ii. Sect. 14.

† Γλασκω. Ο Πλασμος.

word in the text, in the unequivocal sense of a vicarious atonement. And the said learned critick quotes Symmachus, a noted enemy of Christianity in the beginning of the fourth century, applying the same Greek word to the covering of Noah's Ark. Now the Seventy use the word, so as to answer to the Hebrew word,* by which a covering of sin, or a making of atonement for it was designated. By their choice of the Greek word, to be a substitute for that which, in the Old Testament, continually presents the idea of atonement, they give evidence of their considering of both the words, as uniting in the conveyance of the same sentiment to the reader. So little reason is there, in the endeavours to get rid of the word in this passage, expressive of propitiatory sacrifice-much less of the subject itself.

It will not be foreign to the point, as it relates to the liberties taken in exhibiting and interpreting the sacred text, to notice concerning the theory on the other side, its having carried its advocates two steps further-and this by a natural operationleading them to affirm, that the said sacrifices were for ceremonial pollution only, having no connexion with departure from moral rectitude; and that they were taken from institutions merely human; animal sacrifices being not founded on divine appoint

ment.

In opposition to the former of the two suggestions, it is but to turn to the fifth chapter of Leviticus, to find sacrifice enjoined because of the concealment of offences, and because of oaths affirmatory or promissory, rashly made; to the sixth chapter, to find the same for fraud, theft, and perjury; and to the twentieth, to find the same for the se duction of a betrothed bond-woman. But further, what are termed sins of ignorance, are not altoge. ther such as are unavoidable, but include what ori

כסה *

PP

ginate in censurable inattention and want of care.. And even in regard to ceremonial pollution; as it is the result of infirmities of human nature entail. ed on it by sin, there may have been in the institution of sacrifice, the design of keeping alive attention to its awful consequences, even in matters which bring no guilt on the consciences of the agents. In the present statement, there is nothing in contrariety to what we read in scripture-" If the blood of bulls and goats sanctifieth to the puri. fying of the flesh:"* and-" It is not possible, that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." Certainly, the only effect of this was legal cleansing. But all along, the anticipation of the sacrifice of Christ was in operation, for the cleans. ing of the conscience; although not independently on the sacrifice of a contrite heart, as recognized in psalm li. 17.

But it is beyond measure surprising, that any professor of faith in revelation, should resolve the origin of animal sacrifice into human contrivance; when one of the first transactions recorded after the expulsion of man from Paradise, was Abel's presenting of such sacrifice" at the end of days:" for this is the strict meaning of the words translated "in process of time;" and is indicative of divine appointment. The sentiment is confirmed by the circumstance of acceptance: whereas it is highly probable, as was noticed in the second section, that the rejection of the sacrifice of Cain was for the want of this. The defect seems designed to have been intimated in what is said-"If thou dost not well, sin lieth at the door." The word translated "Sin," very often denotes a sin-offering; to which Cain is referred, as a type of the great offering for sin, to be made in the fulness of time.

Again, what but divine appointment could have been the ground of its being said-" God smelled Heb, ix. 13. † x. 4.

+ Gen. iv. 7.

חטאת $

the sweet savour of Noah's offering,"* when the world was to be repeopled after the flood? So like. wise, when there was to be made to Abraham the promise, which was the foundation first of the patriarchal and the Jewish covenants, and afterwards of the Christian, it was expressly by divine direction,† that an attendant sacrifice was offered.

Even without the pale of these covenants, the Almighty is found prescribing sacrifice to the three friends of Job. And this venerable person, in the beginning of the book, offers sacrifice undèr the recollection" It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts." Both of these instances sustain the position, of their being a moral relation in the institution of sacrifice.

It was stated in the second section, that the maintainers of the opposite system are driven to the necessity of making a very unnatural construction of all the passages, which speak of reconciliation: this being interpreted by them to signify, the conciliating of men to God. The version does not fail to adopt the scheme; although it lets the following passages stand in contradiction to itself, and not drawn aside from their obvious senses, either by translation or by comment-Matt. v. 24. and Rom. v. 11. But when it reaches Heb. ii. 17.-" to make reconciliation for the sins of the people," there is a reference to the notes, where stands-" to propitiate the sing of the people." The framers were aware of the nonsense which this makes; and therefore they introduce as the probable meaning, the bringing near of sinners: as if such a sentiment were ever expressed by such a phrase. Surely, the sense of the place indicates an ellipsis. But the admission of this idea, is inconsistent with that intended to be sustained -the conciliating of the sinner to God. Parkhurst, in his Greek Lexicon, gives sundry instances in which the verb is thus elliptically used, and should

* Gen. viii, 21. † Gen. xv. 9. xlii. 7. i. 5.