of the victim, and going "within the second vail, and then alone, in the holy place"-these are his words" making atonement, by sprinkling it upon and before the mercy-seat." and before the mercy-seat." But is it not a fact most unquestionable that the mercy-seat was in the holy of holies, and not in the holy place? Moreover, there is a manifest inconsistency in supposing the high priest passed the "second vail" in enter. ing the holy place. The vail called the second vail was the partition separating the holy from the most holy place; the vail which might be called the first vail answering as a partition between the open court of the tabernacle, containing the brazen altar, on which the sacrifices were offered, and the holy place. Now, this manifest con. fusion and discordancy may have been a mere oversight; but how could it escape the author's attention, having Lev. xvi, 15, 17, immediately before his eye, transcribing the whole passage in proof of his doctrine? And although the distinction may not, perhaps, be so clearly made in this particular passage, yet as the mercy-seat was most unquestionably in the second apartment of the sanctuary, called the holy of holies, this kept in mind when speaking on this subject, especially when founding a doctrine upon the act of sprinkling the blood upon and before it by the high priest, as the author of the tract has done, would naturally secure one against the inaccuracy betrayed in the above statement. But this is not all.

The singular doctrine set forth in the tract under review militates as much against the efficacy of all the atoning sacrifices offered by the patriarchs during the period of some two thousand five hundred years, that is, from Abel to Aaron, the first high priest, as it does against the efficacy of all the sin-offerings under the legal dispensation, which were not offered by the high priest, and their blood sprinkled upon and before the mercy-seat, during a period of fifteenhundred years. In these typical sin-offerings the efficacy of the sacri fice to make atonement, and procure acceptance for the offerer, unquestionably consisted in shedding the blood of the victim, without which there was no remission. Doubtless this was the reason why Abel's offering was accepted, and Cain's rejected. In the latter no blood was shed; consequently, nothing in it expiatory. To deny that their efficacy consisted in shedding the blood, or in taking the life of the victim, would be to divest all those sacrifices of all their efficacy, and to make them only preparatory to atonement; unless it can be shown that the blood of those victims was sprinkled upon and before the mercy-seat, and that too, it should be remembered, before any such place was instituted. These considerations, therefore, cannot but prove fatal to this new-fangled system.

7. Again, if atonement is made by Christ's intercession alone, and for actual sinners only, who have believed, do, and shall believe, then infants, idiots, and heathen, if saved at all, are saved without the atonement. And if, as the writer indicates, they are interested in Christ's intercessions in their behalf, there must be a distinction between those intercessions which are of atoning efficacy and such as are not. Where in Scripture is such a distinction intimated? first part of this objection was anticipated, to which it is replied, "that atonement for sin has reference only to actual transgression. The infant has not become an actual transgressor, yet its salvation

The

results from the intercession of Christ;" note on page 10. But the question again returns, On what is the efficacy of Christ's intercession predicated, if not upon his atoning merits? It strikes us one consideration alone will set aside this notion of infant salvation without the atonement:-it destroys the parallel introduced by the apostle, Rom. v, 15, between the first and second Adam. Examine this passage with reference to this single point. The two things com. pared, in which the two federal persons represent the human family, were the "offense" of one, and the "righteousness," not the intercession, of the other. By what rule of interpretation we can deduce intercession from righteousness, or make them identical, we confess ourselves unable to conceive. "The righteousness of Christ denotes his obedience unto death-his suffering the penalty of the law in our stead."* And what is Christ's intercession but his advocacy in our behalf as our day's-man, or "Mediator between God and man?" This admitted, there can probably be no valid objection to the statement that the "infant has not become an actual transgressor;" that "it possesses a bias to sin, which must be removed;" that "this is done by the direct agency of the Spirit ;" and that "when it is saved, it is sanctified, but not pardoned :" that Christ's intercessions are also involved in the accomplishment of this result may also be admitted. But to say infants have no interest in the atonement, seems to us to build a superstructure without a foundation. On what ground are they saved from original sin if Christ's death did not make atonement? To say the Holy Spirit is the sanctifying agent, does not, to our satisfaction, answer the question. It must remain unanswered.

8. Another consideration to which reference was made at the conclusion of No. 4, as being an unanswerable objection to the doctrine of the tract is, that while it makes the death of Christ only "preparatory" to the atonement, it of necessity destroys the vicarious and propitiatory nature and design of his sufferings and death. This consequence is undeniable. This would be to neutralize and render unmeaning all that class of scriptures above referred to, which represent Christ as having died "for us. Take one text as an example: "For he hath made him to be sin," aμaprav, a sin-offering, an expia. tory victim, "for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," 2 Cor. v, 21. That to assert the sub. stitution of Christ in our stead was the object of the apostle in this declaration cannot for a moment be doubted by any who have not some favorite system to sustain, or some indirect object to gain by the denial. And though the writer of the tract, in page 6, quotes Professor Stuart in support of his doctrine, we strongly suspect that such an application of his remarks never entered Professor Stuart's thoughts when he penned the quotation in question. Doubtless, were he speaking expressly in reference to this question, he would convey a sentiment very different from what he is made to advocate by the author of the tract. His construction of Mr. Stuart's language, it is presumed, is altogether gratuitous. We judge this to be the fac, first, because nothing appears in his commentary on Hebrews, as far as we have discovered, which favors this doctrine; secondly, he adyances a sentiment directly the opposite. Thus in Excursus xviii, pages

Watson's Bib. Dict., p. 823.

585-6, on Ala avevμatos alwviov, Heb. ix, 14, he says, "But although the offering of Christ might be rendered of the highest value, on ac. count of the dignity of his person, and in consequence of the higher nature which dwelt in him, yet the sacred writers represent him as having made atonement in his human nature, not in his divine; Heb. ii, 14, 17, 18; and x, 5, 10; Col. i, 21, 22; Phil. ii, 6–8; 1 Pet. ii, 24." Again, on page 587, "There is no difficulty, then, in supposing the writer to assert here that Jesus offered himself a spotless victim to God through and with a divine influence, and an influence not of a tempo. rary and fleeting nature, but of eternal efficacy. The efficacy of the blood of goats and bullocks, and of the water of purification, was only temporary, and needed to be continually renewed. The vεvua by which Christ was filled, and filled ov ek μerpov, (John iii, 34,) in the first place rendered him perfectly holy, and so a spotless (auwμov) victim; and, secondly, this influence was perpetual, (auwviov,) i. e., it 1 never ceased, and its efficacy, therefore, in preparing an appropriate victim for the great sacrifice was such as made the sacrifice adequate, when once offered, (compare verse 12,) to the accomplishment of all that was needed." Not to urge the palpable unfairness of applying the words of a writer or commentator, in support of some special, unestablished point, which he manifestly spoke only in reference to another and a different point, we leave the reader to judge whether Professor Stuart, from this evidence, can be understood to sustain the writer of the tract. And if we would not array Professor S. against Professor S., we have only to remember that, as an exegetical critic, he has reference to different questions, both in the place referred to in the tract, and in the above quotation, from the one under consider. ation. One more remark, and we hasten to the conclusion.

9. In making out his new theory on the atonement the writer manifestly finds it necessary to call some things by new names, confounding, at the same time, some things which have been generally understood to be separate and distinct in their natures. This he does by

us."

making atonement and pardon identical. Thus in page 2, speaking of "confession" by laying the hands on the head of the victim as being preparatory to atonement, he says, "As the antitype of this act was preparatory to the expiation of our sins, we are required to confess them, and trust in the blood of Christ in order that he may atone for What, we ask, is this but pardon? What can the writer mean, with any consistency, as the result of confession, but pardon? To obtain this, it is true, that confession, or, in other words, repentance and faith, are indispensable. Pardon flows from the atonement. Whether we consider atonement in a typical or evangelical point of view, the distinction is obvious. Atonement is the consideration on which pardon, an act of God, is conferred on him who embraces the atonement. In proof that this distinction must be kept in view, we have the example of Job i, 3, who offered burnt-offerings for his chil. dren, to make atonement for them as a condition of pardon for any thing they might have committed ignorantly or rashly during their birth-day festival. The same principle appears in chapter xlii, 8, where Eliphaz and his two friends are commanded to offer up a burnt-offering; "and," said God, my servant Job shall pray for you :—for him will I accept; lest I deal with you after your folly, in

that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my ser. vant Job." Here Job acted as priest in offering up the burnt-offering in which the atonement consisted, but not in sprinkling the blood of the victim; at least this is not indicated; and yet without this, through his intercession, they were pardoned or "accepted." In farther attestation that confession was not always a prerequisite to atonement or 66 acceptance," please to refer to Lev. v, 15, 16, where provision is made for atoning for sins of "ignorance." These, of course, could not be confessed; yet through the prescribed atonement pardon might be obtained. Again, on page 7, this confounding of things again occurs-it is, in fact, a part of the system-in making pardon identical with redemption. In describing the "effects" of the atonement, the writer says, “When atonement is made, the pardon of those for whom it is made invariably and immediately follows." "This doctrine is confirmed by the language of various passages in the New Testament. The word redemption means pardon; Col. i, 14, In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.'" In the radical and proper meaning of these terms, this is not correct. Redemption means to buy back; pardon, the remission or forgiveness of a crime. This difference is as marked in the defini. tion of the original words rendered in the text redemption, aπоhʊтpwov, and forgiveness, apɛow, as in the common version. This assertion, therefore, is much too strong: it is true, if at all, only in a remote and qualified sense; a sense of exoneration from guilt and liability to punishment on account of sin. In this sense the consequence of both, when both are obtained, is the same. But this is a very different thing from saying the words mean the same thing. This forced construction of words, and confusion of things, can be accounted for from the fact, that it was necessary to make out the system. It shows into what inconsistency men will rush, and what sacrifices they will make, in support of a favorite doctrinal theory.

This

10. Let us next examine the "effects" of the atonement on this author's hypothesis. He names two results-pardon of sin, as being identical with redemption, to which we have already referred. effect we have seen he confounds with redemption. The second is the agency of the Holy Spirit." " "This," says he, "is the main. spring of the whole system. For, notwithstanding that man possesses all the faculties which are necessary to come to Christ, yet, without the convincing and persuading influences of the Spirit, no man would be induced to come to Christ for salvation." "Jesus Christ having passed into heaven, intercedes, that is, prays the Father, through the merits of his blood, that the Spirit may be sent into the world. And he is sent forth," page 9. Again, in page 10, he says, "In behalf of the impenitent he intercedes, not for the pardon of their sins, but that the Holy Spirit may be sent to convince them of their sins, and to incline them to come to him for salvation." And in the "Summary,” page 11, he observes, "The Holy Spirit is sent forth into the world in consequence of the intercessions of Christ," (why not say atonement?) "and becomes the efficient agent, through the instrumentality of divine truth, in convicting sinners, and persuading them to come to repentance, and trust in the blood of Christ for pardon;" (from the system we would say, atonement.)

The first thing to which we shall call the reader's attention is, the distinction here made between the "merits of Christ's blood" and the atonement. If they are not identical, it requires the nicest discrimination to distinguish between them. We had supposed the eternal efficacy of the atonement to flow from Christ's blood, until the author of this improved doctrine of the atonement gave us new light on the subject;-that is, they are as inseparable as the stream and the fountain from which it flows. While the fountain continues the same, so must the stream. Or, without figure, while the merit of Christ's blood remains unchanged in its meritorious efficacy, and while he "ever lives to make intercession for us," as our great High Priest, the sufficiency and completeness of the atonement remain unabated. But as this question essentially involves the nature of the atonement, it must stand or fall with that doctrine. This has been examined above.

Secondly: It appears from the showing of the writer, 1. That atonement is made by the intercession of Christ, with his own blood in heaven, and nowhere else," consisting not in his death, but in the act of sprinkling his blood upon and before the mercy-seat, as our interceding High Priest; and yet, 2, he tells us that one of the "effects" of the atonement is, that Christ intercedes that the Holy Spirit may "convince" and "persuade" the sinner to come to Christ for atonement ! Observe, the atonement is not made for sinners by Christ's death, nor will it be made until "they come to God by him;" when "this he does (i. e., atones) by sprinkling his blood upon the true mercy-seat, that is, by pleading his merits in their behalf before the throne of God;" page 11. Yet, as the "effect" of the atonement, not yet made, they are "persuaded" by the Spirit to believe, in order that the atonement may be made for them! If this does not make the "effect" precede the cause, we must acknowledge we are sadly imposed upon by our faculties of perception and discrimination. The reader will pardon the tautology. At the same time that Christ makes atonement by his intercessions, as the "effect" of this atonement, not yet made, he intercedes that the sinner, through the persuasive influences of the Spirit, may believe on him for this very purpose! To our minds the contradiction is undeniable, unless it can be explained by supposing that, in the writer's mind, interces. sion appeared to be made for different objects, to wit: 1. To atone. 2. As the effect of the atonement, presupposed, but not yet made, to bring the sinner to Christ for atonement. Reconcile this who canwe cannot. View it as we will, shadows, clouds, and darkness rest upon it."

Thirdly Unless we totally misapprehend the import of the above declaration, viz., "that men possess all the faculties necessary to come to Christ," it rests on one of the main pillars of that system of modern theology which endows the sinner with "natural ability," without divine influence, to "change his own heart." This natural ability, however, according to that system, is counterbalanced, or rather overbalanced, by a fatal "moral inability" or disinclination to do this required, and supposed to be, from the premises, "reasonable service,' without some foreign persuasive influence. To exert this, in the manner we have seen, the system under review furnishes the Holy