says, v. 9, if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," meaning thereby, that if we confess our sins to God, he will forgive them, and regard us as purified from every thing, that would unfit us for conversing with him.

I have insisted at considerable length upon this subject, because I think the observations now made will serve to explain the design of the apostle John, in the text, which has been considered as the strongest language in favour of the common doctrine of the atonement of any passage in the New Testament: "If any man sin," says the apostle, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous, and he is the propitiation, or (as the word might properly be rendered) atonement for our sins, but not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world, i. e. according to the interpretation of the advocates for this doctrine, be not concerned about the guilt you have contracted by your sins; for Jesus Christ, having suffered the penalties, of the law upon the cross, and hereby made atonement for you, now intercedes with God for your forgiveness-an intercession, which cannot fail to be successful, since he only asks for that, which is already due to him by previous compact, for he suffered death upon the cross upon condition, that his sufferings should be accepted in lieu of those of transgressors.

But the observations just made will enable us to explain this passage, without having recourse to the

doctrine of vicarious punishment, which is so incon sistent with every principle of equity. The apostle still alludes to the atonements made under the Mo saic law by the high priest for those, who were admitted to worship God in the tabernacle, and shows, that Christ performed the same service for Christians, that the high priest of the Jews could do for them. We have no occasion now to be afraid, that our sins should exclude us from the worship of God, "for

if

any one sin," says he, "we have an advocate," or (more properly) a comforter (wagaxler, a person, who affords us consolation in regard to our offences) "with the Father," one who is in the presence of God (as the Jewish high priest was in the presence of God in the tabernacle), who has performed for us by his Gospel all that that minister performed for the Jews;

and he is the propitiation or atonement for our sins," he has by his Gospel assured us of pardon for our of fences, and procured us free access to God, and hereby answered the purpose of an atonement; “but not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," he has answered the purposes of an atonement not to us Jews only, (for John was one of that nation) but to all mankind, who will accept of the privilege, for all are now permitted to worship God without the intervention of the ceremonies of the Mosaic law. In this manner this passage may be explained, in perfect consistence with the primary or subordinate ends, which Christ is said to have answered by his death. Similar language is used by

explained in

this apostle, ch. iv, 10, and may be the same way,. "herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation, or atonement for our sins," i. e. by means of his death to publish to us all the glad tidings of remission of sins upon repentance, and hereby to answer the ends of the atonements of the law, by admitting us all into one society with himself and with his church, in the same manner as the high priest admitted those, who laboured under ceremonial uncleannesses, into the congregation of Israel in the tabernacle, after he had made atonement for them. These two passages are the only passages in the New Testament, where Christ is called an atonement or propitiation; and it now appears, that he is only called so by way of allusion to the atonements of the law as answering a similar purpose.

*

There are, however, other passages of Scripture, which, although they do not directly assert, that Christ was a sacrifice for sin and made atonement, yet, as is asserted, perfectly correspond with that idea, and agree with no other view of the death of Christ. These I shall now consider in general, without examining each particular passage. Thus, first, Christ is said to have died for us, for his sheep, for all, for many, for our offences, for the ungodly, to give himself for us, to have suffered for us, to shed his blood for many, to die for the people, for the weak brother, for the church, to taste death for every man, to suffer for sin, for the unjust. It is

evident, that the meaning of these passages must depend upon the sense given to the particle for, which is ambiguous; for it may mean instead of, in lieu of, or only on account of, for the good of. When therefore Christ is said to have died for, or laid down his life for, or shed his blood for us, for many, &c., it may be perfectly consistent with the account already given of the great design of the death of Christ, that it was to exemplify the doctrine of a resurrection ; -for these expressions may very well be understood to - signify for our good, a purpose, which he must certainly have had in view, if he died with the design just mentioned. In general, then, this language may be interpreted of his dying on our account, or for our benefit. How easy is it upon this supposition to explain such passages as the following; John x, 11, "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep;" ch. xv, 13, "greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends;" 1 Peter iii, 18, "Christ hath once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God;" John xi, 50, "It is expedient for us, that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.”

A shepherd, in risking his life for his sheep, evidently gives his life for theirs, in a proper sense ; 'because if he had not thrown himself in the way of the wild beasts, that were rushing upon his sheep, they must have died. But here was no compact between the beasts and the shepherd: the blood of

the sheep was not due to them; nor did they accept of the shepherd in it's stead. This case is, therefore, no proper parallel to the death of Christ on the principle of the doctrine of the atonement, although

it

may serve the purpose of a simile to illustrate the benevolence of Christ in dying for the benefit of man-: kind, in whatever manner we suppose their welfare to be promoted by his death.

Secondly, Christ is said to have given his life a ransom for us, that is, according to some, he paid an equivalent price to the justice of God for the release of sinful men from those penalties, to which they were become obnoxious by transgressing his law, in the same manner as a person may pay a price in money for the release of a captive, a slave, or criminal; Mat. xx, 28, "Even as the son of: man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many;" Mark x, : 45, where the same words are repeated. These are the only two passages in which the word algo is applied to the death of Christ, and it would have been better rendered a release or deliverance for many; for it does not appear that Christ had in his mind; any idea of a price paid in money, or in any other form. He was cautioning his disciples not to affect external dignity and authority among themselves, but exhorts them rather to aspire to that superiority, which arises from greater humility and usefulness, and proposes his own example, "even as the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,'