the New Testament were Jews, educated in a veneration for, and having long lived in the observance of, the institutions of Moses. When, therefore, they were addressing several of their writings to Jews, it was natural for them, when speaking of the death of Christ and it's glorious consequences, to make frequent allusions to those institutions, and the purposes they were designed to serve; and, even to borrow the terms and modes of speech which they found used by Moses and the prophets concerning those matters, and, especially as they wrote in the Greek language, to employ the terms they found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was, at that time, in common use, among a considerable part of the Jewish nation.

The most remarkable of these figurative representations of the death of Christ, which occurs in the New Testament, is that in which he is compared to a sacrifice. Indeed the figure is just and beautiful. In every sacrifice the victim is supposed to die for the good and benefit of the person on whose account it is offered. So Christ, dying in the cause of virtue, and to procure the greatest possible benefit to the human race, is said to have given his life a sacrifice , for us. Moreover, as the proper object of the death of Christ was to open a certain prospect of a future life, and thereby operate as a powerful motive to repentance, by which means sinners reinstate themselves in the favour of God, his death is more especially compared to that species of sacrifice which is

called a sin-offering, because the person or thing for which it was offered was freed from certain impurities, and rendered fit for the service of God.

The resemblance between the death of Christ, according to this account of the nature and object of it, and these sacrifices for sin, appears to me a sufficient foundation for it's being called by that name, and would abundantly justify the metaphor, even without making any allowance for the license in the use of figures, which we expect in writers of the East. Why, then, should we look for more points of resemblance between the death of Christ and a sacrifice for sin, than those mentioned above, when the language of Scripture by no means requires any more? Yet upon this circumstance principally has been built a system of principles totally inconsistent with the plain doctrine of Scripture, respecting the forgiveness of sins.

Hence has arisen the notion of the sacrifices prescribed in the Jewish law being appointed by the divine Being as types of this great, complete, and expiatory sacrifice of the death of Christ, which now supersedes and abrogates them. Hence hath the ever blessed God come to be considered as not naturally propitious to his offending creatures, and as refusing his mercy to penitent offenders, till his justice was satisfied by the death of his innocent son, who is supposed to have sustained the utmost effects of the wrath of God, in the place of men, who by sin had exposed themselves to it. Hence too is

argued the necessity of Christ's being equal to God, equal to his Father, in order to his being able to make atonement for the infinite evil there is supposed to be in the smallest offence committed against an infinite being.

As such important consequences are deduced from this idea of Christ being a sacrifice, it will be proper to consider it a little more attentively.

All the texts in which Christ is represented as a sacrifice, either expressly, or by plain reference, are the following:-John i, 29, " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world." Ephes. v, 2, "Christ also hath loved us, and given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour;" Heb. vii, 27, "Who needeth not daily to offer up sacrifices; first, for his own sins, and then for the people's; for this he did once, when he offered. himself." The same up idea occurs, ch. viii, 3; ix, 12, 26; x, 10, 12, 14, 19; xii, 24; xiii, 12; 1 Pet. i, 2, "Elect unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus;" ver 18" Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, from your vain conversation, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot;" 1 John ii, 2, John ii, 2, " And he is the propitiation (inaouos atonement) for our sins.” iv, 10,-" Herein is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be a propitiation (aoo) for our sins." The two last are the only two texts in the New Testament, in

which the word aouos, constantly used for atone ment in the Greek version of the Old Testament, occurs, Rev. v, 6; "And lo! there stood a lamb as it had been slain ;" v. 9; " For thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood."

In regard to these texts it may be observed in general, that the manner in which this idea is introduced, which is only indirectly and often in the style of a figurative allusion, intimates plainly enough, that a few circumstances of resemblance were deemed a sufficient ground for adopting such language. Had the writers really considered the death of Christ as the antitype of the sacrifices under the law, had this been the great and principal end of his death, it would have been asserted in the fullest and plainest manner, and references to it would have been much more frequent than they are.

It should be remembered, that if it could be proyed, that the death of Christ was a real sacrifice for sin, and that the sacrifices of the law had a reference to it as types, yet that this would not answer the purpose of the advocates for the doctrine of the atonement; since it has been already shown, that these sacrifices were not intended to remove moral guilt, nor had any efficacy for that end, wherefore neither could the death of Christ be designed to do it. But the following reasons may be urged to prove, that the death of Christ is no proper sacrifice for sin, nor the antitype of the Jewish sacrifices, and that the language of Scriptures is sufficiently ac

counted for without it, being perfectly consistent with what has been said before of the one great end of his life and death.

I. Though the death of Christ is frequently mentioned or alluded to by Isaiah and the other prophets, it is never spoken of as a sin offering. Isaiah indeed says, liii, 4, "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows," which some may suppose to refer to his suffering the evils due to us on account of our sins. But Matthew, who, no doubt, understood the prophecy as well as they, applies these words to our Lord's performing some miracles. Matt. 8, 17: He says he did them, "that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses." Now Christ bore the sicknesses of men, not by taking them upon himself and becoming himself diseased in the same manner as they had been, but by removing the disorders they laboured under, that is, by radically curing them. It is said, indeed, by the same prophet, verse 10; "when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin;" but this passage may contain nothing more than a figurative allusion to a sacrifice. The death of Christ might very well be called an offering for sin, because it was the means of inducing men to repent of and forsake their sins, without supposing, that he died as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice; and it is very unaccountable, that so great an event as the death of Christ should be foretold with so many particular circumstances,