the Son of God. As the end to be accomplished by a Saviour's death was of a far higher and nobler nature, than that accomplished by the sacrifices of the Levitical law, so the victim that was to be offered, was of a rank which corresponded to the object to be attained. The redemption of men from everlasting death, (not of the Jews only but also of the Gentitles), was concerned with this sacrifice. Well then might the apostle draw the admirable comparison, which he has drawn in Heb. 9: 13, 14, between the one species of offering and the other. "If," says he, "the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how MUCH MORE shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God." That is: "If the beast which perished forever under the knife of the sacrificing priest, did still, by divine appointment, make atonement for certain offences against the Mosaic law, so that the penalty denounced against them was remitted, and the offender treated as though he were not guilty, how much more shall the holy Saviour, a victim possessed of a nobler nature -of a never-dying spirit-make expiation for the moral turpitude of offences against God as the governor of the world.' If this reasoning of the apostle be admitted, then we can never prove the impossibility of atonement for sin, by alleging that no victim can be adequate to the occasion. For the apostle plainly declares that the sacrifice of Christ was more adequate to the purpose for which it was made, than the death of the victim under the ancient dispensation was, to the occasion which demanded it. Nor can the justice of God be alleged as constituting a ground of impossibility, that an expiatory offering should be admitted for sinners. All men, who hold that there is forgiveness at all with God, must of course concede that his justice is no more impugned by the forgiveness of sin through an atonement, than it would be without any atonement. Consequently no objection of this nature can be urged by such, against the possibility of atonement. Nor are the advocates of propitiatory sacrifice obliged to content themselves with merely showing that it is possible. They may advance farther, and venture to say, that the improbability of such an arrangement under the divine government, can in no valid manner be shown. Will its opponents appeal to the feelings of men in general, and declare that such a sacrifice is naturally revolting to the human mind? How then comes it to pass, that every tribe and nation, from the philosophic Greeks down to the roaming Tartars and the fiend-like race of New Zealand-every part of our degraded race however ignorant or barbarous, that have at all acknowledged the existence of any divinity-have agreed in offering to him propitiatory sacrifices? Does this universal custom of the mere children of nature, look as if the doctrine were revolting to the first principles of the human breast? Or does it look as if the hand of Omnipotence had enstamped on the very elements of our moral constitution, a susceptibility of receiving it, a predisposition to admit it? Who will or can explain the origin and prevalence of vicarious sacrifices, on any other ground that this? I proceed one step further. To me it seems plain, that although reason, unenlightened by revelation, never could have discovered a way of pardon for sin by the expiatory death of the Son of God, yet, when all the attributes of the Deity are brought into full view by the Scriptures, and the character of man is also developed in full, reason may then well give, and to preserve her character must give, her assent to the doctrine of pardon by expiatory sacrifice, if she finds it there revealed. God is just; therefore he will punish sin: and if we read only the book of nature, must we not say too, with Seneca, "therefore he cannot forgive it?" But revelation discloses his attribute of mercy; and mercy consists essentially in remitting the strict claims of justice, either in whole or in part. How then shall God possess these two attributes, and ex ercise them in respect to our guilty rebellious race? A question which " ages and generations" could not answer; a mystery hidden from them. A question which philosophy may seek in vain satisfactorily to solve. But in the cross of Christ-in his expiatory sufferings and death-we may find an answer. Here, “ mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have embraced each other." In the agonies of Christ, a personage of such transcendent dignity and glory, we see the terrors of divine justice displayed in the most affecting manner, and are impressively taught what evil is due to sin. In the pardon purchased by his death, we contemplate the riches of divine mercy. God might have displayed his justice, indeed, in the world of perdition, and called us to contemplate it as written in characters that would make us shudder. His mercy also he might have displayed, by the absolute and unconditional pardon of sinners, provided no atonement had been made. But who could look on the radiance of his simple justice, as exhibited only in such a manner as I have stated, without extinguishing his vision forever? Or who could contemplate undiscriminating and unconditional mercy. only, without being influenced to forget the awful displeasure of God against sin, or being emboldened to continue in it? But in the cross of Jesus, his justice and his mercy are united. Here is the bright spot where the effulgency of the Deity converges and concenters. On this we may gaze with admiration, with calmness, with delight; for here the rays of eternal glory meet and blend, so as to be sweetly attempered to our vision. The bow in the cloud, where the glories of the sun, the brightest image of its Maker in the natural world, meet and mingle, and present to our view the delightful token that the waters of a flood will drown the earth no more, is but a faint emblem of the attempered glory which beams from the cross of Jesus, the token of deliverance from a flood more awful than that of Noah. DISCOURSE II. ISAIAH LIII. 5, 6. HE WAS WOUNDED FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS; HE WAS BRUISED FOR I HAVE endeavoured, in the preceding discourse, to make such explanations as are necessary to a right understanding of our subject; and to prepare the way for the introduction of direct proof from the Scriptures respecting the expiatory sacrifice of Christ. I have endeavoured also to show, that we cannot refer the question, whether an expiatory offering has been made by the Son of God for the sins of men, to the tribunal of philosophy. The impossibility of such an offering, philosophy cannot prove. The fact that substitution in the case of penalties incurred, did for many centuries constitute a distinguishing characteristic in the administration of divine government among the Jews, must be admitted; and the possibility that it may constitute a prominent feature of God's general government, cannot therefore be disproved. I have ventured even to advance a step farther, and undertaken to show that the improbability of an atonement for sin can by no means be made out; inasmuch as the human race at large are deeply impressed with the need of propitiatory sacrifice. Moreover, the attributes of God and the character of man, as revealed in the Scriptures, render the doctrine of pardon for sin through the expiatory offering of Christ, by no means improbable. If I have succeeded in my endeavours to remove obsta cles, which seemed to lie in the way of making an impartial estimate of Scripture testimony in respect to the subject before us, and have also shown that the whole question must be referred for decision solely to the word of God, then we are prepared without embarrassment to pursue the inquiry: What is the testimony of revelation on this subject? Let me here premise a few considerations respecting the kind of appeal which I am about to make to the Scriptures; and then my proof shall be very brief. For nothing can be plainer, than that if "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," then "the mouth of two or three witnesses" is enough to establish the point at which I aim. Of the very numerous texts, therefore, to which I might appeal, I shall select but a few; and for every attentive and intelligent reader of the Bible, these may serve as a clue to all the rest. My first remark is, that every speaker and writer, intending to be understood, employs, and necessarily employs, language in the same sense, in which those whom he addresses use and understand it. None will deny so plain a proposition. Nor can it be deemed less certain, that the sacred writers designed to be understood by those whom they addressed. My second remark is, that all the writers of the Old and New Testament were Jews; and that all the Scriptures, with very little exception, were originally addressed to Jews, or to churches which in part consisted of Jews. If we design, then, to come at the meaning of the sacred writers, we must necessarily construe their language in the same way as the Jews would naturally construe it, who lived in the age of the prophets and apostles. Nothing can be more plain and irrefragable, than this maxim of interpretation. It is no part of the inquiry, what ideas we may affix to the language of Scripture, coming to read it in another tongue, in another region, nurtured in the bosom of speculative philosophy, and desirous of adjusting everything to our own standard. WHAT IDEAS DID THE PROPHETS, APOSTLES, AND EVANGELISTS MEAN TO CONVEY? is the only proper question, for one who |