Others again lay much stress on what is found Rom. iii. 24, 25, where we read: "Being justified freely by his (God's) grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." Now, although the precise import of this text, as we have it here, may not be perfectly clear, yet it must be obvious that, were it not for preconceived systems, no one would find proofs here for the popular doctrine of the atonement; for it says not a word about imputed guilt; imputed righteousness; vicarious suffering, or satisfaction made to the Divine Justice. But, besides this, persons skilled in Greek say, that the original word here rendered propitiation, never has that meaning but signifies the mercy-seat which covered the Ark of the Covenant; and that as on that mercy-seat, consecrated annually by the blood of victims, the Deity was supposed in a particular manner to rest, and to reveal His will: so, Christ is here figuratively represented as a mercy-seat, consecrated in his own blood, on which the Deity takes His stand to reveal His gracious purposes to mankind.

But the portion of the New Testament, which is, perhaps, more than any other relied on to prove the popular doctrine, is the epistle to the Hebrews. The writer of that epistle, referring to the sacrifices for sin under the old dispensation, and particularly to that made on the annual day of atonement, compares the death of Christ to it; and hence it is inferred, that the death of Christ is to be viewed as an atonement for sin, according to the present popular acceptation of those terms. But this inference rests, if I mistake not, on a misapprehension of the nature of the atonements mentioned in the Old Testament; of the true signification of the term sin as connected with them; and of the entire meaning of the writer of this epistle. As this point is an important one, I shall consider it somewhat in detail.

The Jews used the term sin, not only to denote moral transgression, but also to denote ceremonial impurity. In proof of this, I would refer the reader particularly to Lev. v. and Numb. xix. That the term sin, as connected with the Jewish atonements, is to be taken in this latter acceptation, will appear abundantly in the sequel.

The Jewish atonements are to be considered, not as intended to make satisfaction for moral transgression; but as arts of ceremonial purification. This will appear clearly, when we inquire into the occasions on which atonements were wont to be made.

In the first place, atonements were made for inanimate objects; which, of course, were incapable of moral transgression.

When a building, an altar, a vessel, &c., were set apart for religious purposes, an atonement was made for them; that is, certain ceremonies, called by that name, were performed, by which they were consecrated to religious uses. See Exodus xxix. 36, 37; Lev. viii. 11. This atonement was annually repeated. See Lev. xvi.

When a house was attacked with a certain species of rot, (with the nature of which we are not acquainted, but by the Jews was called leprosy,) the decay was stopped by certain prescribed means, and then an atonement was made for such house; after which it was again permitted to be inhabited.

See Lev. xiv. 33-53.

In the second place, atonements were made for bodily pollution not caused by moral guilt.

When persons were attacked with leprosy, or certain other disorders, or had been accidentally defiled by certain natural causes, they were considered unclean, and, as such, incapable of joining with the congregation in the public worship of the tabernacle. When they were cured of their disease, or cleansed of their accidental defilement, an atonement was made for them, by which they were restored to their rights as members of the congregation. See Lev. xii. xiv. xv.

In the third place, atonements were made for sins of ignorance, not necessarily connected with moral guilt.

When any person had unknowingly transgressed any of the divine institutions, or had inadvertently defiled himself by touching anything ceremonially impure, he was considered unclean, and, as such, incapable of joining in the public worship of the tabernacle. An atonement was then made for him, by which he was ceremonially purified, and restored to his religious privileges. See Lev. iv. v.

In the fourth place the atonement was the ceremonial rite, by which persons, who had been guilty of moral transgression, were again restored to the privilege of participating in the public worship.

When a person had been guilty of a wilful transgression, he was considered as thereby having rendered himself unclean, and unfit to participate in the public worship. A ceremonial purification, called an atonement, was then made, by which the ceremonial pollutions was done away, and the transgressor restored to his religious privileges. See Lev. vi, 1-7. We find something precisely analagous in many of the

christian churches of the present day, in which a person guilty of flagrant misconduct is deprived of a particapation in the public ordinances of religion, until he has either undergoue some penance, or has made a profession of repentance, and promised reformation; on the making of which he is restored to his former standing in the church.

That the atonement in the last mentioned case, was a ceremonial purification and not a satisfaction made to divine justice for moral guilt, is perfectly evident from the following considerations: First, the name of the rite, and all the essential ceremonies, are the same in all the four cases. Secondly, the atonement made on the annual day of atonement, was an atonement, not only for the people, but also for the sanctuary, the tabernacle and the altar. It must therefore have been a ceremonial purification such as could be common to all, as the latter were clearly incapable of moral pollution. But on this subject the 15th chapter of Numbers is perfectly decisive. There the Jewish law-giver, after directing how atonement is to be made for those who have been guilty of sins of ignorance, forbids the making of atonement for those who should sin presumptuously, or with an high hand; and directs that such 'be cut off utterly from the people.'

Having thus ascertained, what was the true nature of the sacrifices or atonements for sin, made under the old dispensation, we shall now be better prepared to understand the comparison which the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews makes between those sacrifices and the death of Christ.

Who was the writer of that Epistle is not known. Origen, the most learned among the Fathers, and who lived in the early part of the third century, declares that in his day it was not known who was the author; and what was not then known cannot be known now. The common opinion, which ascribes this Epistle to the apostle Paul, is by most of the biblical scholars of the present day believed to be unfounded.* The writer of it, whoever he may have been, was evidently fond of allegorizing; and here, as in other allegorical writings, we must constantly bear in mind, the opinions which were prevalent at that day, and take care not to press every incidental expression, if we would arrive at a correct knowledge of the writer's meaning.

In this Epistle a parallel is drawn between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations, and it is the purpose of the writer to

*Professor Norton, in an excellent and elaborate essay on this subject, published some time ago in the Christian Examiner, has proved almost mathematically, that this epistle is not the production of the Apostle Paul.

shew the great superiority of the latter over the former, and to prove, that the Christian dispensation is intended to supersede and do away with the Mosaic institutions. For this purpose he attempts to prove the following points:

1st. That Christ was superior to Moses, and the Christian superior to the Mosaic dispensation. See chap. iii. and viii. 2nd. That Christ's priesthood is of a higher order than the Aaronic priesthood. See chap. v. and vii.

3rd. That the sacrifices or atonements of the Mosaic dispensation, sanctified the worshipper only, for a time, and hence had to be annually renewed; whereas by the death of Christ we are sanctified or made pure forever. See chap. ix. and x. 4th. That, by the sacrifices of the Mosaic institution, the worshipper was only so far sanctified, as to be admitted to the outer court of the temple, (the high priest alone being permitted to enter the Holy of Holies, where the Deity was supposed to be in a particular manner present, and thus standing constantly between the worshipper and his God;) whereas, by the death of Christ, we are so sanctified, as to have direct access to God. See chap. ix. and x.

The writer closes this last point by the exhortation, that, having now access to the holy of holies, that is, to the imme diate presence of God; we should 'draw near, with a true heart, with full assurance of faith.' See chap. x. 19-22.

From this analysis of the epistle to the Hebrews it appears, that it was the object of its writer to reconcile the Jewish Christians to the abolishment of the Mosaic institutions. It was well calculated to effect that purpose, but certainly not to teach the popular doctrine of a vicarious atonement, of which it does not say one word.

I have thus endeavored to shew, that the proofs brought forward from the New Testament in support of the popular doctrine of the atonement, fail to establish that doctrine; and hence I might well rest this examination here, as that cannot be a doctrine of christianity, which finds no support in the New Testament. But the importance attached to this doctrine requires, that it should be considered in all its bearings, and I shall therefore, in a following number, attempt to shew, that that doctrine is at variance with the express declarations of scripture, and with the clearest dictates of the human mind.

H.

RENUNCIATION.

EXTRACT FROM AN UNFINISHED POEM.

To dream in sluggish sadness on those hours,
Whose memory haunts us like the Eolian lute-
To dote on images of summer flowers,

And see the Autumn bearing us no fruit-
To weep vain tears by night when all is mute,-
And bear through all the cheerful day a pain
Suffered to rankle like a poison-root,

And nursed into a pleasure and a gain-
Such is of stricken hearts the solace and the bane;

Unless they re-create the lost ideal

By living in the present, with the cares.

Of life all thickening around them, instant, real:-
Unless a manly, active Faith be theirs,

In whose broad light the sorrow that ensnares
The groping spirit, is made a golden gift
And a high honor-'till the sufferer wears

His pangs austere as kings their crowns, when swift They hasten to new thrones, and their proud eyes uplift.

C. P. C.

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND UNITARIANISM.

It is natural that Mr. Campbell, having many heresies of his own to answer for, should not wish to take the odium of those of other men, and should be deeply convinced of the truth of the apostolic saying, that "every man must bear his own burden." It is natural, doubtless, that he should dislike to be called a Unitarian; but we cannot hold him to have acted wisely in his late proceedings with the American Biblical Repository. Many things concur indeed at this time, to make him draw in the reins of reform, and grow conservative. He is getting old, and age naturally leans to established opinions. He has founded a large sect, and doubtless thinks the time has nearly come for him and his to be admitted to the fellowship of the orthodox, and take rank among the established denominations of the land. Now, just at this time, VOL. VIII.-17