sion to Jewish sacrifices.

The author of the epistle to the He

brews, however, it has long since been observed, gives a very different account of the matter. He assures us, that the Mosaic phraseology was founded on the Levitical sacrifices being types, or prefigurations, of the sacrifice of Christ: The law was a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things. The priests, that offer gifts according to the law, serve under the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the tabernacle. The Levitical priesthood was a shadow of the priesthood of Christ, in like manner as the tabernacle, made by Moses, was according to that showed him in the mount.

The doctrine of this epistle, saith Butler, and after him M'Knight, plainly is, that the legal sacrifices were allusions to the great and final atonement, to be made by the blood of Christ; and not that this was in allusion to those. To support which, the following passages are pertinently cited: It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin. Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering, i. e. such as were made under the law, thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. Lo, I come, I delight to do thy will, O God. By which will, we are sanctified, by the offering of the blood of Jesus once for all.

III. Though the death of Christ is called a sacrifice, other things, which are not literally so, it may be observed, are mentioned under that name. Good works are called sacrifices; and Christians are required to present themselves, as living sacrifices to God. But these are never represented as sacrifices for sin; nor are they ever mentioned in a manner which has the least tendency to lead men to regard them in this manner.

We are sometimes reminded of this passage, found in Colossians 1:24: I fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body's sake, which is the church. By the afflictions of Christ, here mentioned, what must we understand? Surely not the sufferings which Christ endured; that were impossible. Evidently then, those sufferings in the

cause of Christ, are meant, which were reserved for the apostle. These he was ready, cheerfully and bravely to encounter, for the sake of the church. It is by no means denied, that a man may die for the religion, or for the church, of Christ. This was actually done by St. Stephen. But it is not said of Stephen, or of any other merely human being, that he died for the sins of the world; that he was made a sin-offering; that he appeared to take away sin, by the sacrifice of himself; that he bore our sins in his own body. It is not said, that on Stephen, the Lord has laid the iniquities of us all; nor has any apostle thus judged, If St. Stephen died for all, then were all dead.

Though Christ is represented, in a great number of places, as a sacrifice for sin, the whole Scripture evidence of his atonement is far from depending on such representation. In many of the passages quoted, no allusion to the sacrifices of the Mosaic law is recognized. They would have an important meaning, and afford strong proof of the doctrine in question, even if the Mosaic ritual had never existed. The expressions are extremely various, but the ideas conveyed are the same, viz. that in consequence of the sufferings of Christ, the sins of all, who repent, are remitted.

IV. Some persons may tell us, that the reason why the Scriptures speak so often of our being saved by the death of Christ, is, that his death was incurred in discharging the duties of a ministry, undertaken for the promotion of present virtue, and future happiness. I answer, that the same may be said of Stephen, Paul, or of any of the christian martyrs. Yet it is not said of them, that they have washed us from our sins, in their own blood.

Lastly. You may imagine, perhaps, that the reason why so close a connexion is said, in Scripture, to exist between human salvation and the death of Christ, is, that by that event, his doctrines, all which are of a salutary tendency, have been confirmed. The reply, which has just been made to another remark, is applicable to this; for the martyrs as much confirmed their doctrines by suffering, as did our Saviour. Both, in the

same way, evinced their integrity, their full belief in what they taught. But with regard to Christ, his death was, far less than his resurrection, a proof of his doctrines. The former proved his own belief; the latter proved that they received the Father's approbation. If either event, therefore, were on this account suitable to be mentioned very frequently, and very distinctly, as procuring the remission of sins, it was, beyond controversy, that of the resurrection. The fact is, not only that the language of Scripture is favorable to the doctrine of atonement; but will not without great violence admit a different explanation.

LECTURE XXX V.

ATONEMENT.

WHATEVER Wisdom there is in any constitution of government, such constitution may be liable to plausible objections. The number and speciousness of these objections may be greater in proportion, as those who make them are ignorant of all the ends, with reference to which the constitution was framed. A transient observer is not surprised, if in a complicated machine he sees some parts, the utility of which is not obvious. If he has confidence in the skill of the architect, it will not much perplex him, should he even observe some parts, or appendages, which have the appearance of retarding the great object for which the machine was constructed. But suppose that object were unknown to him, any objections which might occur against particular parts, would be of still less importance, perhaps even of none. And if this object is but partially understood, the force of his objections will be proportionally diminished.

I now proceed to notice some of those arguments, which are brought with most confidence against the doctrine of atone

ment.

1. If Christ, who was himself innocent, died to procure impunity for sinners, it is said to manifest an indifference to right and wrong. It is taking punishment from those who deserved it, and placing it on him who did not.

I answer, that whether the doctrine in question is true or

false, facts, of the nature here mentioned, are daily occurring before our eyes. Men often suffer in consequence of actions in which they took no part, and to which they were not accessory. If a son, by disorderly living, involve himself in debt, his friends, to procure his relief, consent to make many sacrifices and endure many privations. If his extravagance has produced diseases which threaten death, they sedulously interpose their good offices to alleviate his pains, or to prevent dissolution. In these cases, we perceive nothing which is difficult to be reconciled with the justice of divine government. Because a parent chooses to intervene between his child and those sufferings or that infamy, to which the latter, by indiscretions or crimes has exposed himself, no person is ever led to suspect that the Sovereign of the universe is indifferent to right and wrong. In like manner, if an angel should choose to submit to some privations or positive pain with a view to alleviate the temporal sufferings of men, or meliorate the present condition of human society, it would enter the mind of no person, that the existence of such a fact was, in the smallest degree, discordant with divine impartiality and justice. But even were this matter attended with much difficulty, whatever mode of proceeding is adopted in one part of divine government, may doubtless be admitted into another. If, in that part of the divine economy which is known to us, the innocent endure anxiety and labor to relieve the guilty, we can by no means be sure, that the same does not take place in those parts which are unknown. It is perfectly absurd to say, that such a thing cannot be true, because it is inconsistent with the character of God, if there are other things in his government of a like nature. If, therefore, it is an obvious fact, that the sufferings of the rash and dissolute are relieved, or that such persons have health and comfort restored to them by the intervention of those who took no part in their crimes, how can a reasonable man deny that the salvation of sinners may be procured by the labors or sufferings of Messiah?

If this most benevolent and exalted being chose to divest