of the doctrine contained in the above propositions, taken in connection with the principle designated in the italicised sentence just referred to, when analyzed, amounts, in substance, to this:-That Christ did not make atonement by his death on the cross; but is now making atonement in heaven by his intercessions as our great High Priest and Mediator, for such, and such only, as "have believed in Jesus, and shall hereafter believe on him."

As the author of the tract in question arrives at this conclusion by tracing a supposed, and, as he thinks, perfect analogy between the high priest and Christ, regarding the former as the perfect type of the latter, and the special services which he officially performed exclusively on the great day of annual expiation as being typical of the atonement made by Christ, professing to apply the principle or canon designated in the above quotation in the interpretation of this typical ordinance, to this canon we shall first direct our inquiries.

3. To this canon we have this objection-it includes too much— more than the author himself includes in its application to the type on which he grounds his doctrine. For this we do not fault him on our own adopted principles of typical interpretation; while, at the same time, we are unable to perceive his consistency, or how to justify him on his assumed principles. If we do not greatly misjudge respecting this matter, the adoption of the rule or canon, which he considers an 66 acknowledged point," would lead to results most disastrous and fatal to the sober and evangelical interpretation of the typical parts of Scripture; because it is sometimes the fact, in the same type, that some things must be taken comparatively, and others in contrast. In support of this position we adduce the following from writers whose opinions on every subject are entitled to respectful consideration :—

"There is often more in the type than in the antitype. God designed one person or thing in the Old Testament to be a type or shadow of things to come, not in all things, but only in respect to some particular thing or things. Hence we find many things in the type that are inapplicable to the antitype. The use of this canon is shown in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which the ritual and sacrifices of the Old Testament are fairly accommodated to Jesus Christ, the antitype, although there are many things in that priesthood which do not accord. Thus, the priest was to offer sacrifice for his own sins, (Heb. v, 3,) which is in no respect applicable to Christ."* Compare also Lev. xvi, 11, 24, with Heb. vii, 27. In the latter "passage the apostle takes notice of four particulars, which distinguish the sacrifice offered by Christ from the sacrifices offered by the Jewish high priests:-1. He offered no sacrifice for himself, but only for the people. 2. He did not offer that sacrifice annually, but once for all. 3. The sacrifice which he offered for the people was not of calves and goats, but of himself. 4. This sacrifice he offered, not for one people, but for the whole human race; for he tasted death for every man."t "The spiritual meaning of all these rites has been pointed out by the apostle Paul in Heb. ix. As the high priest was a type of Christ, his laying aside those vestments which were made for glory and beauty,' Exod. xxviii, 2, and appearing in his common garments, which he did on

* Horne's Introduc., vol. iv, p. 654. † Clarke and Macknight on the place.

that day, probably signified our Lord's humiliation, when he emptied himself of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, and was made in fashion as a man,' Phil. ii, 6, 7. The expiatory sacrifices offered by the high priest were typical of the true expiation which Christ made for the sins of his people when he gave himself for them, 'that he might redeem them from all iniquity,' Tit. ii, 14; Heb. i, 3; and the priests confessing the sins of the people over them, and putting them upon the head of the scape-goat, (Lev. xvi, 21,) was a lively emblem of the imputation of sin to Christ, who was made sin for us,' 2 Cor. v, 21; for the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all,' Isa. liii, 6. Farther, the goat's 'bearing upon him all the iniquities of the Jews into a land not inhabited,' Lev. xvi, 22, represents the effect of Christ's sacrifice in delivering his people from guilt and punishment; and the priest's entering into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifice, is explained by the apostle to be typi cal of Christ's ascension into heaven itself, and his making intercession for his people in virtue of the sacrifice of his death."*

These quotations are sufficient to show the absurdity of the supposed axiom laid down by the author of the work under examination. This axiom, or canon, seems to constitute the basis of his doctrine, the foundation of his theoretical superstructure, the main pillar of his argument. The removal of this, by maintaining a sober, temperate, equally poised scale of interpretation, is sufficient of itself to overturn this novel scheme; nor is it conceivable that such extravagant notions of this great central doctrine of revealed religion would ever suggest themselves to a discriminating, well-balanced mind, which had not previously fallen into some dereliction from the path of sober, correct Scriptural exegesis. On this rock how many have split! To what more than to this reckless, forced, overreaching method of interpretation, can we attribute the long catalogue of errors and mutilations of Scriptural doctrine which have teemed in almost every age from the apostles to the present time, and by which the purity, symmetry, and perfection of the original system has been so grievously marred and distorted? This will become the more manifest as we progress in this investigation. To the nature of the atonement let us next direct our attention.

4. In his showing on this subject, the bold, adventurous author of this remarkable tract holds the following language:

"The typical atonements were not accomplished by slaying the victim at the door of the tabernacle, but, in a subsequent act, by a particular use of the blood. When every thing was prepared, according to divine direction, the priest took the blood of the victim, and made an atonement with it, by sprinkling it upon and before the mercy-seat. The death of the victim may be regarded as a means of atonement, inasmuch as its blood was necessary to it; but the expiation itself was made by using the blood in the manner prescribed," page 3.

After quoting and referring to a number of texts in both the Old and New Testaments, in which the "blood" of the typical victim, and of Christ, the great antitype, is mentioned, it is added, on page 4,

"These scriptures clearly show that the atonement is not made by the sufferings of Christ alone, but rests on the efficacy of his blood. As in the type the Jewish atonement was not made by slaying the victim, but by sprinkling its blood upon and before the mercy-seat, so Christ makes atonement, not in the character of a suffering victim, but in that of an officiating high priest.”

In these paragraphs, containing all that is said on this point, aside from texts cited and referred to, we have the nature of the atonement in the recondite and inventive author's own words. But has he given a true verdict according to the inspired testimony in the case? This is the great question which remains to be decided a question in which every man has an eternal interest who expects salvation through that system of revealed truth of which this doctrine is the corner stone. On all such questions the only safe appeal is "to the law and to the testimony." How "understandest thou what thou readest?"

· Atonement is supposed to be derived from at and one; importing, literally, according to this etymology, a state in which one is at-onement with another; or the act or means by which this relation is effected—a state of agreement or reconciliation, presupposing a previous state of aversion, hostility, disagreement, or unreconciliation. In other words, "An atonement is any provision introduced into the administration of a government, instead of the infliction of the punishment of an offender-any expedient that will justify a government in suspending the literal execution of the penalty threatened-any consideration that fills the place of punishment, and answers the purpose of government as effectually as the infliction of the penalty on the offender himself would; and thus supplies to government just, safe, and honorable grounds for offering and dispensing pardon to the offender. This definition or description may be more concisely expressed thus:-Atonement is an expedient substituted in the place of the literal infliction of the threatened penalty, so as to supply to the govern ment just and good grounds for dispensing favors to an offender."*

The atonement, then, is that consideration, that expedient, in view of which God, the great moral Governor, has seen fit to offer, and can, consistently, grant pardon and salvation to guilty, helpless man. And granting pardon and salvation through this consideration and expe dient alone, his supreme honor and authority are sustained unimpaired, the permanency of his government secured, and all the infinite per fections of his nature seen perfectly to harmonize in the great transaction; and even new and more conspicuous displays of his moral attributes exhibited to a universe of moral intelligences, than it can be conceived would ever otherwise have been witnessed. This, it is believed, is the Scriptural representation of this subject. Moreover, atonement, expiation, satisfaction, reconciliation, propitiation, and redemption, used in an evangelical and theological sense, are very nearly synonymous. It is true, in their etymology, they admit of various shades of import; yet, in defining them, we are compelled to regard them as synonymes; that is, we cannot define one without the use of another, unless by a periphrasis. They all alike refer to the one great sacrifice made by Christ when he offered himself a

Jenyns.

sacrifice for sin, being at once both officiating priest and atoning victim, in consideration of which offering "God can be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." And that the atonement was made by Christ's death, and is not now being made for repenting sin. ners individually, in heaven, by Christ's intercession, is rendered unquestionable by that class of texts which represent Christ as "laying down his life for the sheep; redeeming us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; being wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace being upon him; being healed by his stripes; the iniquity of us all being laid upon him; his soul (life) being made an offering for sin." Who can doubt that all passages of this import refer to the atonement as consisting in the death of Christ? Who can suppose this shedding the blood of the offering, both of the type and antitype, was only preparatory to the atonement? If this be the fact, as the author of this tract maintains, we are not to understand the language of divine inspiration in the ordinary sense and import of the terms employed. Besides, this would be to make an unauthorized distinction between Christ's death and the atonement-a distinction, as we conceive, nowhere intimated in the Scriptures. They are uniformly represented as being identical, or at least inseparable; the latter made by, and consisting in, the former. See paragraph No. 8.

But how widely different is the doctrine of the atonement under consideration! It is maintained that "an officiating high priest, a suitable victim presented at the door of the tabernacle, confession of sin, by laying the hands upon the head of the victim, and slaying the victim, were only preparatory to atonement,"(!) but that "the atonement itself did not consist in the death of the victim. It is nowhere so represented in Scripture. (!!) So the death of Christ was only preparatory to atonement, yet was necessary; for without shedding of blood is no remission,' Heb. ix, 22," page 2. Again, on page 7, "As the victim, or propitiatory sacrifice, Christ died for ALL; and with the blood of that sacrifice he is prepared to atone for all; yet he does it for none except such as 6 come unto God by him.' Which is true, let the reader determine for himself, by examination, prayer, and meditation.

5. On the third proposition, which indicates the place where the atonement was made, the author of the tract asserts that Christ did not make the atonement on Calvary, but makes it in heaven. This is manifest, both from the types and from the representations of the writers of the New Testament. On the great annual atonement day, in which all the faults of the year were expiated, when every thing was prepared, the high priest took the blood of the victim, and went within the second vail, and there, alone in the holy place, made atonement, by sprinkling it upon and before the mercy-seat," page 4.

A few considerations will enable us to determine as to the Scriptural evidence in favor of this novel doctrine. By this sort of evidence its author seems confidently to believe it is fully sustained. And it should be remembered that the whole is made to rest on the perfect analogy between the official services performed on the day of annual expiation, by the high priest, and Christ's death and intercession. He passes over all special sacrifices and sin-offerings, a catalogue of

which is found in the fifth chapter of Leviticus; such as relate to some five different classes of sins, for which, according to the nature of the offense and the circumstances of the person, sacrifice must be offered through the priest, and atonement made in order to forgiveness; see verse 16. We deem it sufficient to refer the reader to the chapter, and not to swell this article by transcribing. Now, on the ground assumed in the tract under consideration, how could there be an atonement in any one of these five instances? because in no case whatsoever was the blood of the sin-offering sprinkled upon or before the mercy-seat, except on the great day of atonement, and that by the high priest alone. The ordinary priests on all occasions entered or had access into the holy place, "wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the show bread." Into this apartment "went the priests always, accomplishing the service of God." They ventured no farther on pain of death. Therefore, by unavoidable consequence, if the high priest's annual entry into the holy of holies is not only the type of Christ's entrance into heaven itself, but if his sprinkling the blood before and upon the mercy-seat were the special act by which alone atonement was typically made, then all that pertained to shed. ding the blood of the victim, which the priest with his finger put upon the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and which was poured out at the bottom of the altar, (Lev. iv, 30, 31,) was only "preparatory," and in no instance actually made atonement, notwithstanding four instances are given in Lev. iv, and five in Lev. v, in which it is declared atonement shall be made. How the author of this new view of the atonement will meet this consequence of his doctrine, we confess we cannot divine. Or did this necessary consequence of his doctrine never occur to its author? If it did, why did he not furnish us with some key to this insuperable objection? If it did not, it proves that he did not duly make his soundings, nor properly cast his bearings, before he launched forth on the perilous ocean of doctrinal innovation. Had he paused till he had given himself time to perceive the conflicting considerations which must be adjusted before his newly invented theory can be claimed to be either Scriptural or orthodox, he would probably never have had the assurance to give it publicity.

6. That we have not done the author injustice in supposing him so perfectly dazzled, even to blindness, by the brilliancy of that light which seemed to him to shine on the perfect analogy, as he conceived, between the exclusive type of the atonement and the antitype, that other considerations, fatal to his doctrine, were entirely eclipsed; all his perceptive powers being so converged and centred in one single point of analogy, that while he gazed on that with fixed attention, it suddenly rose up into a distinct feature, both entirely new, and no less prominent, giving another character to the nature, time, place, and act in which the atonement consists; a view of the subject, if we may believe the evidences they have left behind them of the light in which they held this cardinal doctrine, that never once entered into the inspired and devout contemplations of the apostles, fathers, or orthodox divines, from the death of Christ down to the present time, until it was conceived by the author of this doctrinal tract. This will be abundantly obvious by referring to the paragraph transcribed above from page 4, where he represents the high priest as taking the blood