cause of the hypocrisy of the Jewish people.

Read the 30th

and 31st verses, and you will soon see this to be manifest :--"For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the Lord they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it. And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." Surely here is a sufficient cause for the rebuke.

Why does God denounce the sacrifices of the Jews in Isaiah, 1st chapter? For the same reason. He says, "Your hands are full of blood." "The faithful city had become an harlot ; and righteousness had given place to deceit and murder." It is worthy of notice that in the same passage, the same denunciation uttered against their sacrifices is also uttered against their prayers. "And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear your hands are full of blood."

When Mr. Barker quoted these passages, he remarked that he durst not give his own views, because they would be rejected; and therefore he gave you the language of the prophets themselves. But he should remember that it is as great a sin to misrepresent the meaning of the Scriptures, though expressed in their own language, as it is to deny it in his own. To pervert the Scriptures is as bad as to reject them.

When sacrifices were offered to God with right affections, they were always acceptable. God himself declared they were a sweet-smelling savour, and well pleasing to him. "Then shall the Lord be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering, and whole burnt offering." My opponent says that Dr. Clarke thinks that this passage does not belong to the 51st Psalm. You would no doubt imagine, from what Mr. Barker stated, that the passage was considered spurious by Dr. Clarke. No such thing. The Doctor merely thought it was a separate Psalm. But the Doctor is wrong in this notion. The passage is in the Hebrew Bible as it stands in ours. It is also in the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Chaldee Paraphrases, and in all the versions. You will, I am sure, receive this information with surprise.

My opponent quoted Psalm xl., 6, where it is written, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire." This passage is connected with a prophecy of the Saviour's sacrifice. Let us read the whole :-"Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire: mine ears hast thou opened." The opening of the ears is a metaphorical expression for obedience; and here it has reference to Christ's obedience. "Mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not requir ed. Then said I," that is Christ-"Lo, I come in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do

thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." The phrase, "Lo, I come," refers to the blessed Saviour; and the object of his coming was to fulfil the design of the ancient sacrifice, by offering up himself. And the text is thus applied by the Apostle to our Lord. Hear the words of the Apostle, quoting this very passage. Heb. x., 4—10:—"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." They were to be merely types, for a time. The efficacy did not consist in them but in the great sacrifice which they represented; and for that reason, God did not desire that they should be perpetuated, and looked upon them with only qualified approbation. "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God." To accomplish his purposes. Above, when he said, Sacrifice and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldst not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first that he may establish the second." Observe! "He taketh away the first that he may establish the second." "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

66

Thus, then, when the Psalmist says, Sacrifices and burnt offerings thou wouldst not, it is not intended that God had never ordained them, or that God did not approve of them, but he would not have them to be perpetually continued: for the Psalmist was speaking in prophetic anticipation of another sacrifice, infinitely better, and compared to which they were as nothing. St. Paul's application of this passage to Christ completely overturns my opponent's argument, and shows, on the Apostle's authority, both the design of the institution of the ancient sacrifices, their immediate reference to Christ, and the true propitiatory object of the Redeemer's death. Those victims wer offered to God, as an atonement, typically; Christ's precious life was offered to God as the real and effectual atonement for the world's transgressions.

My opponent asks me to explain what a type is. I tell him, here is an illustration in the very words of inspiration. And if he require any further information, I refer him to the 8th, 9th, and 10th chapters of the same epistle.

Mr. Barker speaks of the sacrificial institutions as being merely tolerated by God, and belonging only to a barbarous age. How strange, if they were only tolerated by God, that under the Christian economy it should so constantly be shown that they had Christ for their object and end! How strange, if they were only tolerated, that just in proportion to the degree of light which the Apostles had, they should the more clearly

see the reference between the type and the anti-type! How strange, if these sacrifices were only tolerated, that it was when the Apostles were earthly-minded and carnal that they understood not the design of the Mosaic institutions! but it was when their views were the most refined and the most enlarged-it was when they were filled with the Holy Ghost that they spoke the most distinctly and emphatically of the reference between the type and the anti-type. It was under the plenary inspiration of the Spirit-it was when they were most highly qualified and miraculously gifted by God himself to reveal and expound his truth, and unfold the intention of God's dispensations, it was then that we find them using the very terms which had originally been employed under the Levitical institution; calling Christ our poopopa, that is, our Oblation or our Offering; calling him our evoia, that is, the slaughtered Victim; calling him our λυτρον, that is, our Ransom ; calling him our απολύτρωσις, that is, our Redemption; calling him our acμoç, that is, our Propitiation; thus transferring from the type the very terms employed under that economy, and applying them to the Saviour as fulfilled, as accomplished in him, as the great victim for the world's transgressions.

My opponent still refers to Romans iii., 26; and after all the proofs I have advanced to show that the word just means just, he will have it that it means merciful. Although it is as evident as that two and two make four, yet it may be as well to show that, even on his own rendering, the passage still teaches the orthodox doctrine of the atonement, and can have no meaning on any other principle. Let us read it with Mr. Barker's interpretation. Rom. iii., 24-26,-"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath sent forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness (his mercy) for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness (his mercy): that he might be just (merciful) and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." It is manifest that this is a sense that the passage will not bear. But suppose it could, the doctrine of atonement is still there; for it is maintained that God could not be merciful to the sinner, nor exercise that mercy to him, without the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. So then, after all, there was a barrier to man's salvation; and that barrier must exist in the Divine Government: for the sacrifice was offered to God, and not to man. It follows, then, that the atonement is irresistibly maintained in this passage,-adopt which interpretation you. please. At the same time, I will not yield Mr. Barker's interpretation to be correct, for it is a palpable violation of the critical construction and common sense meaning of the passage.

My opponent strove to make the impression that the words dia τns πioTews, through faith, were not genuine; and he quoted

the authority of Griesbach. I can scarcely divest myself of the impression that he knew better. Now how stands the case? Are the words in the received text? Yes. In the Vulgate? Yes. In the Syraic? Yes. In the Ethiopic? Yes. In the Arabic? Yes. In Griesbach ? Yes. And the words are marked by Griesbach as genuine, in his judgment. Schulz examined about 300 additional manuscripts, beyond what his predecessors had done; and he has left the words undisputed. ~ If Mr. Barker desires his cause to succeed, he should not have recourse to such flimsy pretexts or evasions.

My opponent admits that Christ died for us in some sense as a substitute; but seeks to neutralize the admission by stating that we are to lay down our lives for the brethren. True; but never is the laying down of our lives for the brethren spoken of as a “propitiation" for sin. Never is it said that the blood of Paul, or of Stephen, or of James, or of Peter, or the blood of a myriad martyrs, could cleanse us from sin. If he wish to make these cases parallel to Christ, let him show that the Scriptures assign the same efficacy to one as the other, and then his point will be established, but never till then.

My opponent admits that Christ "bears our sins;" but neutralizes that admission, by contending that he bears our sins away, by curing them; just as he bore away bodily diseases. It is true that Christ is a physician to heal: but he is equally our High Priest. Now, it was not the office of the Jewish High Priest to heal, but to atone, by the sacrifice of life. The way in which Christ bears away our sins cannot be mistaken, if we look at the manner in which the typical victims bore away the sins of the guilty. How did the scape-goat bear away sin? By the guilt of the culprit being ceremonially transferred to the innocent victim. The hands of the High Priest being laid upon the victim, the sins of the people were confessed over it, and the animal was driven away to a land uninhabited. Christ is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. How did the Lamb bear away sin? By being slain and offered in sacrifice. So Christ was wounded for our transgressions; and he still appears in the midst of the throne as a Lamb that had been slain. "This is so plain, that no ingenuity of man can explain it away."

My opponent is perpetually confounding the reconciliation of God to man, with the reconciliation of man to God; but both are perfectly distinct in their own nature, and are brought about by different means. The reconciliation of man to God is the subduing of his natural enmity---the enmity of the carnal mind. But this is the work of regeneration, wrought by the Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of the gospel ministry. But the reconciliation of God to man is not the removing of any enmity of disposition from the mind of God; for such does not exist; but the removing of a legal barrier to the exercise of

pardon and this is accomplished by the sacrificial death of the Saviour. Hence the sacrifice of Christ is presented, not to the rebel, but for him; not for the sovereign, but to him, against whom man has rebelled. Christ offered himself to God for us; just as the High Priest offered victims to God to save the life of the transgressor; and just as Aaron put on incense to save the people from death, so Christ, our great High Priest, presented himself on the altar of the cross, and has entered the holy place to make intercession for us. Since, then, the legal obstacle is removed, and God can both be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, the rebel is invited to return to his allegiance---to give up his rebellion---to be reconciled to God--to touch the sceptre of mercy, and live. Hence says the apostle

"Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." But, then, this embassy to man-this entreaty to man to be reconciled to God, is grounded upon the fact that God, through the intervention of the Saviour's death, is ready to be reconciled to man. Hence the very next verse states this as the reason and foundation of the embassy; "For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." I entreat Mr. Barker and his friends to weigh this argument; and instead of taking the suggestions of carnal reason, or vain philosophy, for their guide, to receive in simplicity the declaration of God to man. Without this sacrifice, there could be no reconciliation, and there could be no remission of sin.

My opponent has frequently alleged that none are saved except those who forsake their sins. We need not, surely, be reminded of this. We know full well that men are saved on condition of their repenting of sin, and believing in Christ; but this was stated at the commencement of the discussion. God makes provision for men's welfare in the economy of Providence; but, then, men have to employ their own energies in the use of proper means. Christ has made provision for our salvation; but its blessings are tendered to us on certain conditions-"repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ." He is the Saviour of all men, but especially of them that believe. His death has placed all men in a salvable state, and procured for all the aid of the Holy Spirit; but such only can be actually saved as comply with gospel requirements. Nor does this take off from the efficacy of Christ's death, but simply shows the way in which that death can be made available to Christ has done that for us which we could never have done for ourselves. He has taken away the legal barrier to our pardon, and made it consistent with the claims of God's law, and honourable to God's character, to pardon sin. The Lord i well-pleased for his righteousness' sake, he hath magnified the law and made it honourable. But this plan of mercy is not to

man.