without the substitution of a victim in his room; God cannot be appeased without the shedding of blood, nor can sin be expiated without the suffering of punishment.

The objections which Volkelius and others, oppose to this reasoning, do not, in the least, weaken its force. They object:-1. "That the propitiatory sacrifices, did not all prefigure the sacrifice of Christ; but the annual sacrifice only, which was offered upon the great day of expiation, and which contained no satisfaction; as a satisfaction could flow neither from the victims offered up, nor from the person of the chief priest."

The apostle Paul, on whose judgment more dependence is to be placed than on that of our opponents, opposes not one propitiatory sacrifice only, but all the sacrifices to that of Christ, and hence he infers their annulment.* Neither the perpetual sacrifice offered up daily, nor the other propitiatory offerings of lambs, which were of a private, not of a public nature, could refer to any thing else, but to the oblation of the immaculate lamb of God for us. It is no objection to this view of the subject, that they were offered for individuals, and not for all in common; for, as the sacrifices which were offered for the whole congregation of Israel, signified that Christ was to make a propitiation for the sins of all his people, so those, which were offered for each individual, were designed to shew, that every individual of Christ's people laden with sin, should seek and obtain reconciliation through the offering of Christ. Farther, although those sacrifices did not, in the sight of God, contain a satisfaction, properly so called; because the soul of man is of too exalted a value to be purchased with the blood of bulls or of goats, yet a typical, ceremonial satisfaction, pertaining to the purity of the flesh, was made by themt-a satisfaction, which by the appointment of God was to be attributed, neither to the victims, nor to the officiating priest separately, but jointly to both.

* Heb. vii. 27. and x. 4, 5. 11.

† Heb. ix. 13.

Another objection offered is that:-"an expiation is only an entire deliverance from the dominion of sin, which deliverance cannot be in the way of merit, attributed to the death of Christ, but only in the way of example, and declaratively." In this objection, the cause is confounded with the effect. The office of the judge, who releases the prisoner, is confounded with the office of the surety who pays the ransom. The judge sets the prisoner at liberty, while the prisoner, or some one in his place, pays the price of his redemption. Hence it follows that the purging of guilt, and the removal of the accusation are effected by the suffering of punishment either in the person of the accused, or in that of another. If all the end answered by the death of Christ, was to declare that an expiation was to be made, it effected nothing more than the victims under the law, which might, nay did attest the same thing; yet the apostle Paul expressly declares, that they could not make expiation for sin. If there were any propriety in this objection, the expiation might be attributed no less to Christ's resurrection than to his death, which the scripture nowhere does. Besides, declaration respects men, expiation God; that belongs rather to his prophetical office, this to his priestly. Though the work of expiation may sometimes be attributed to God the Father,* who never makes satisfaction, yet we cannot justly infer that this expiation is of the same nature with that of Christ; because, according to the different nature of the subjects to whom the expiation is attributed, it is to be differently understood. In respect of God the Father, to expiate, is to accept of an expiation made by a priest, and is made by pardon and acceptance. But in relation to a priest and a victim, to expiate, is to effect an expiation meritoriously by the shedding of blood, and by vicarious suffering.

It is farther objected that:-"sacrifices were only offered up for smaller offences, such as were committed through ignorance or error; that for more aggravated, wilful transgressions, there were no sacrifices instituted; but that Christ

* Deut. xxi. 8.

died for all sins without distinction." This objection is grounded on an assumption, which we do not admit. It is indeed expressly contrary to scripture. On the great day of annual atonement, the goat is said to bear all the iniquities of the children of Israel. Sacrifices are elsewhere said to be offered up not for those sins only, which are committed through error, but for those which are committed willing

and פעל חמא אשם פשע ly, and which are expressed by

similar words.* And though the priest is said to have suffered for the errors (ayvonμatav) of the people, yet it does not follow that wilful sins are excluded; for the word ayvonua which signifies properly an error of the mind, is used to denote every kind of sin, because every sin proceeds from an error of the mind. Hence wicked men are called fools avonto. The Septuagint renders yw and Dwg by the Greek word ayvola, and these Hebrew words signify wickedness and rebellion. For some aggravated crimes, such as murder, idolatry, adultery, &c. we do not read of any sacrifices having been particularly instituted; God determined to punish them by the sword of the civil magistrate, with capital punishment; and those who sinned thus had no need of this remedy, as their death was a satisfaction to the public. Yet we are no where told that the priests, when offering up sacrifices for the rest of the people, might not pray for the pardon of the sins of those very persons who were condemned to death. In no other way could sacrifices be offered up for them, for as they were to die immediately, they could not be made partakers of that ceremonial purity which entitled the Jewish worshipper to approach the altar.

Again, we argue for the doctrine of the atonement, from our reconciliation with God, which Christ by his death has procured for us. Since that reconciliation supposes the making up of the breach, which sin had produced between God and his creatures, this could not be effected without the removal of a twofold barrier, by a satisfaction. On the part of God, his justice must be satisfied, and on the part of man, the Lev. xvi. 21, 22. † Heb. ix. 6, 7.

guilt of sin must be removed by suffering the punishment due to it. The apostle Paul, every where, teaches us that Christ procured for us such a reconciliation.*

The substance of the objections which our opponents offer against this argument is, that "this reconciliation is effected by our conversion to God, and not at all by appeasing the divine wrath, because God is not said to be reconciled to us, but we to God; nay, that he is said to procure for us this reconciliation, which is not the part of an enemy but of a friend." This capital error of our opponents is refuted by many powerful arguments. 1. The scriptures speak of a double enmity and reconciliation, not only on the part of man who by sin is become a hater of God,† an enemy in his mind by wicked works but also on the part of God, by his wrath which is revealed from heaven against all iniquity. Hence men are by nature children of wrath.|| God is said to be of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.¶ " He hates all workers of iniquity.** Now as there is an alienation on both sides, so there must be on each side a reconciliationon the part of God, by a turning away of his wrath-on the part of man, by a conversion to God, all which the apostle clearly teaches, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. In consequence of God's reconciling us to himself, through Christ, Paul shews that the apostles in the name of Christ exhorted sinners to be reconciled to God. 2. If reconciliation were nothing else, but conversion, then it should rather be said to proceed from Christ's holy life, than from his bloody death. On this ground no reason can be offered why the apostle should propose sanctification as the end of our reconciliation,†† for nothing can be the medium and end of itself. This would be to say that the end of reconciliation was reconciliation. 3. It is such a reconciliation as is effected by not imputing to us our sins, on account of their having been imputed to Christ, who was made sin for us,‡‡ a reconciliation effect

ed by the substitution of Christ in our place, that he might die for us; as we collect from the comparison instituted between him, and the man who would dare to die for a good man,* which evinces a proper satisfaction, not a simple conversion. 4. This reconciliation is effected, “by making peace through the blood of his cross," and by an atoning sacrifice pos. All these denote not mere conversion; but primarily, the appeasing of the divine wrath, which was effected by the death of a victim.

Though the scriptures commonly speak of our being reconciled to God, rather than of God's being reconciled to us, because those who offend have need to be reconciled to him who is offended; yet this, so far from excluding the reconciliation of God to us, includes it; because there can be no offence, unless justice is injured, and this injury must be repaired before God can reconcile men to himself, and admit them to hold communion with him. God's procuring this reconciliation for us, is no evidence that he has not been angry with us, or that he was at peace and in a state of friendship with us. It only proves that God moved towards us, with a love of benevolence, decreed to procure for us a reconciliation, with which he was well pleased, and through which he was reconcileable to us, while at the same time he could not but be offended with our sins, and with us as sinners, and could have no communion with us.

In vain it is plead by our opponents that," Christ is said to be our propitiation, and expiatory sacrifice; not that he may reconcile an angry God to us, but that he may testify that God is already well pleased, and by no means angry with us." The blood of Christ was not shed to prove the remission of sin, but to obtain it, as was the case in the propitiatory sacrifices under the Old Testament dispensation; otherwise, there was no need that Christ should die, and shed his blood, when the truth of the remission could be as well attested by his life and doctrine. Nor because the covering of the ark is improperly and declaratively called