Levitical Sacrifices.

Not expiatory.

allusion to it in the whole discussion. It would not have been known from this book that there ever was such a system. The same is true of all, or nearly all, the publications of the sect, which have come under my eye. The subject appears to have been most carefully avoided. I have found but one instance in which there is even an attempt to meet the difficulty.

In the Universalist Expositor,' for November, 1838, there is an article by S. R. Smith of Albany, on "the Old Testament doctrine of Sacrifice." It is there maintained, (pp. 394, 418, 424,) "that it does not appear that the legal sacrifices had, or were designed to have, any influence upon the Deity, or any bearing upon the credit of his law. They appear rather to have been required as the symbols of the temper of mind— the tokens of the moral feelings of, the offerer." Of the atonement and sin-offerings he says, "Both were palpably designed for man-to remind him of what he owed to his fellow-man, to keep alive the principles of purity and integrity in his own heart, and to cherish the feelings, and direct the spirit, of religion and devotion to God." "The conclusion is forced upon us, that, however proper and useful to man they were, the Deity was never influenced nor affected by them; and that he neither became more gracious for their observance, nor less benignant on account of their omission."

In this manner, he endeavours to show, that these sacrifices had no expiatory meaning. But throughout the article, there is not the least attempt to account for

Requirement of blood.

Mysterious silence.

the fact that" without shedding of blood is no remission." He does not tell us why for so many ages the blood of innocent animals flowed in ceaseless streams, and was demanded by a God of goodness and mercy. Nor could he have shown it, except as Paul has done in the epistle to the Hebrews. And what is even yet more remarkable, in the whole investigation of thirtyfive pages, there is not an allusion, save to the amount of half a page near the close, to that masterly exposition of the ancient sacrifices, and their reference to that of Christ, which is found in the epistle to the Hebrews! Why this silence this apparent unacquaintance with these matters? Have we not in this very fact, a plain confession of the weakness of their system?

But the question will most naturally arise in the reader's mind," In what light do they regard the sufferings of Christ ?" An answer to this will be given in the next chapter.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST NOT PECULIAR.

No peculiarity in the sufferings of Christ—Atonement the work not of Christ, but of the sinner-Christ suffered not as much as many others; and in the same sense as his apostles did-The nature of his sufferings the same with theirsHe saved the world, just as the American revolutionary fathers saved their country-Agreement with Thomas Paine -Christ only saves men from deserving punishment—He is not therefore the Savior of the whole world-Specimens of false reasoning from the fact that Christ died for all.

"Ye brainless wits! ye baptiz'd infidels!

Ye worse for mending! wash'd to fouler stains!
The ransom was paid down; the fund of heav'n,
Heav'ns inexhaustible, exhausted fund

Amazing and amaz'd, pour'd forth the price,
All price beyond."-YOUNG.

THE sufferings and death of the author of Christianity constitute the chief theme of the epistolary remains of his apostles. They spake of his blood, as that, to which they and their brethren owed their whole salvation. We have redemption through his blood; the church which he hath purchased with his own blood; in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins; being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through

Salvation by the blood of Christ.

Christ's sufferings not singular.

him; we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; having, therefore, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus." These forms of expression occur with great frequency in the Christian Scrip

tures.

In what light are these declarations to be regarded? Do they attribute to the sufferings and death of Christ any peculiar efficacy? Such has been the almost uniform opinion of the Christian world until latterly. There are those, who deny that we owe our everlasting happiness to what Christ endured on our account, and who say, that there was no more peculiarity in the sufferings of Jesus than in those of Peter and Paul. Such are our Universalists. They teach that

XIV. THERE WAS NOTHING PECULIAR IN CHRIST'S DEATH.

The Christian reader, who has been accustomed to regard this sect as a branch of the family of Christ, and to rank their ministers among the Christian clergy, will hardly be prepared to see the Redeemer thrust into the common rank of martyrs and confessors, whose blood flowed merely because they were overpowered by their persecutors, and loved their faith more dearly than life. Mr. Ballou finds fault with us, for over-rating these sufferings. "It does not appear," he says, (L. Sermons,' p. 177,)" from the Savior's speech here recited, that his own sufferings were of that kind or degree that has been represented by Christian doctors. They have supposed that the sufferings of Christ were far beyond any possible comparison, even greater

Christ died as a testimony.

6

Christ and his apostles suffered alike.

than we conceive, and that this rendered them efficacious with his Father, to procure our pardon of sin." In the Treatise on Atonement,' he says, (p. 107,) that "God never called for a sacrifice to reconcile himself to man; but loved man so that he was pleased to bruise his Son for our good, to give him to die, in attestation of love to sinners. The belief, that the great Jehovah was offended with his creatures to that degree that nothing but the death of Christ, or the endless misery of mankind, could appease his anger, is an idea that has done more injury to the Christian religion, than the writings of all its opposers for many centu"To believe in any other atonement,” he further adds, (p. 123,)" than the putting off the old man with his deeds, and the putting on of the new man,-is carnal-mindedness and is death."

ries,"

In these passages, he first implies that the sufferings of Christ were not much, if any, greater than others experience, and then states that his death was merely an attestation of God's love to man, that God entertains no such displeasure against sinful men as to make an expiation necessary, and that the only atonement possible is a change of heart.

In Kneeland's Lectures, (p. 74,) we find the following statement: "The apostles considered their sufferings as filling up the measure of the sufferings of Christ; and in as much as they were so, for aught we can know to the contrary, (and Mr. Kneeland was a very learned man, they all said in his day,)" there was the same merit in them. And hence, we are assured,