personally or in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in the displays of vindictive majesty before this happy period arrives. Those emphatically called "Millennarians," contend that the Lord will come in person before there is any radical and extensive improvement of society; and as we all believe and hope for the personal coming of the Lord some time before or after the Millennium, we now institute the inquiry, When will the Lord come? Our method of prosecuting this inquiry shall be as follows:

1st. What events are to be immediately attendant on the Lord's coming.

2d. Inquire what events are clearly and unequivocally to occur before he comes.

3d. What events are immediately to succeed his coming.

These points scripturally ascertained, and if we are not able to state the day or the hour, we may be able to say whether that event is im mediately to be expected, or whether it is to be the antecedent or the consequent of a millennial dispensation.

Let us, then, prayerfully and diligently, and with all mental impartiality, set ourselves to the examination of this great subject. If the Lord is to come personally in 1843 or 1847, we ought to know it as well as others, and from the same documents, and we ought to arrange our business and make our calculations accordingly. May the Lord give us understanding in all things necessary to our holiness and happiness! A. C.

ATONEMENT-No. IV.

Brother Campbell-I WILL preface the following remarks with an extract from my "Address," 2d edition, 1821.

"In God's dealing thus with Israel, he is to be viewed as their temporal king, or political head. 1 Sam. viii. 6, 7, and xii. 17, 19. In this relation, although he granted no pardon to presumptuous sinners according to law; yet as a spiritual Saviour and Redeemer, he did show mercy, and grant pardon to those offenders who repented, believed in, and plead his gracious promise or covenant. In other words, they were justified by faith in the gospel preached to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the law, and which was continued to be preached to the Israelites, and by which, without the deeds of the law, all the children of Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile, have been in every age justified. Lev. xxvi. 42. Deut. xxx. 31. Num. xiv. 19, 20. Gal. iii. 8. Heb. iv. 1." page 38.

I am glad to find that we agree in the leading principle of legal

sacrifices, that their virtue only extended to temporal blessings, and to the averting of temporal curses-that they could not purify the conscience nor justify the sinner in the sight of God, so as to free him from the future judgment of God, and from future punishment in an. other world, and to give him a place among the sanctified in heaven. For this doctrine I have been an advocate for many years. Though we agree in this, yet we differ in two points. You contend that the benefit of sacrifice was granted to transgressors of every class, but one-"This is the man who presumptuously despised Moses and renounced his dispensation." I contend that there are many unpardonable transgressors of the law, to whom the benefit of sacrifice was not granted, nor pardon obtained by them. They must die without mercy. These characters are the idolators, the blasphemers, the Sabbathbreakers, the disobedient children to parents, the murderers, adulterers, and many similar characters named in the law-all of these are worthy of death, and must surely be put to death. Let us have the general law, Deut. xvii. 6. "At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is worthy of death be put to death." What can be more explicit than Numbers xxxv. 31. "Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction (kaphar, atonement) for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death." So of the other characters mentioned above. See and read attentively the following texts:-Gen. ix. 6. Deut. xvii. 2, 13; vi. 13; xii. 18. Exod. xxi. 14, 17. Lev. xxiv. 16; Exod. xxxi. 15. xxxv. 2. Lev. xx. 10, 11. Deut ix. 16. Exod. xxii. 20. Num. xv. 30, &c. Are any of these characters directed in the law to take a lamb, or any other victim, and offer it for their sins in order to forgiveness? Not a hint do we find in the law.

You admit that "one of us may be mistaken in this case." Yes, my brother, one of us is certainly mistaken, unless you in the class of presumptuous despisers of Moses, include idolators, blasphemers, murderers, and all those characters mentioned above. But you confine the presumptuous despisers of Moses to those "who renounce his dispensation." Such are apostates from his laws and government.These we acknowledge are presumptuous despisers of Moses; but are not idolators, murderers, and all those classes named above, also presumptuous despisers of Moses? To the law we appeal-Num. xv. 30. "But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously the same reproacheth the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from among his people, because he hath despised the word of the Lord and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off." 2 Sam. xii. 9, 10, the Lord says, "Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord to do evil in his sight? Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite, and hast

taken his wife to be thy wife. Now, therefore, the sword shall never depart from thy house, because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." Here we are plainly taught that the Lord and Moses are despised, presumptuously despised, when their commandments are presumptuously broken to do evil Moses in the chapter just quoted, Num. xv., very plainly arranges sins into two classes-sins of errors or ignorance, and presumptuous sins, ver. 22. "If ye have erred, and not observed all these commandments, then it shall be, if aught be committed by ignorance, without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer a young bullock-and the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation-and it shall be forgiven; for it is ignorance."Verse 27. "And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a sin-offering, and the priest shall make an atonement for that soul that sinneth ignorantly, and it shall be forgiven him." Verse 30. "But that soul that doeth aught presumptuously shall be cut off." Is this soul directed as those are who erred or sinned ignorantly, to bring a sin-offering and obtain pardon? No: they must be cut off-utterly cut off. The reason why those who erred and sinned ignorantly had the privilege of sacrifice and pardon, is plainly stated—because it was ignorance; evidently showing that none but such transgressors had this privilege granted them. Verse 31. But who are those that sin presumptuously? Those that despise the word of the Lord, and hath willingly broken his commandments. Compare Deut. i. 43. Exod. xxii. 14. Deut. xvii. 12, 13.

One, or both of us, may have been mistaken, because of inattention to the proper import of errors, sins of ignorance, presumptuous or wilful sins. Moses has explained errors, sins of ignorance; to be the same thing, and contrasts or sets them in opposition to presumptuous or wilful sins. Num. xv, 22-29. Now a sin of ignorance is, according to the Septuagint translation, a sin committed unwillingly or reluctantly. As far as I have examined, they invariably use the word okousioos when expressing what we call a sin of ignorance. Now the learned well know that this word signifies unwillingly, not with full consent of the mind. See Lev. iv. 2.; v. 15.; Num. xv. 22-29. In this sense Paul uses the same word without the privative a, Heb. x. 26. "For if we sin wilfully [ekousions, willingly,] after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." The same word is used also, Phile. 14. and 1 Pet. v. 2. In these verses the word is translated willingly. It is no where else found in the New Testament. Presumptuous or wilful sin is that which is committed knowingly and willingly, with the full consent of the mind.

That many saints lived from Adam to Christ is evident-that their sins were pardoned, and pardoned through faith, and not by the deeds of the law, is true as far as we are informed; but that they were justified by the blood of law sacrifices, looking through them by faith to the blood of the great antitype to be shed in future, I must reject for reasons stated in my first number on Atonement. If they were pardoned and purified from sin by the blood of Christ, it could not have been by faith in the blood, or from any knowledge they had of it. It could therefore have no direct influence or effect on them to reconcile them to God, or lead them to repentance-that whole virtue, influence, and effect of his blood, must have been directly on, or in God himself; who by it was so affected that he was pacified, propitiated, or reconciled, and the honor of his law and government so well sustained that he granted pardon and favor to sinners. Of all this we have no account in the scriptures.

My dear brother, are you not inconsistent when you state that "the legal institution of sacrifice is but a national dispensation of a previously existing sacrificial system;" that this institution extended no farther than to temporal life and blessings; and yet that the old saints in the patriarchal age, as Abel, Shem, Noah, &c. received spiritual pardon and spiritual blessings through their sacrifices? The reason you assign is because they may have had views superior to the legal economy. May have had is no argument that they really had superior views, so that they through their sacrifices saw the blood of Christ to be shed in future, when the Israelites under the law could not see it. How do you know whether Abel's offering was a sin-offering, or a thank-offering? Why was Abel's offering accepted and Cain's rejected? Not because Abel's was a sacrifice of blood, and Cain's was not; but because Abel offered in faith. Faith in what? In the blood of Christ to be shed 4000 years after! Of this you, my dear brother, are as ignorant as myself. Do read the 11th chapter of the Hebrews, and understand the faith by which the elders obtained a good report. In all the instances of faith there recorded, do you find one that had the blood of Christ as its object? Do read again the last chapter of Job, and see whether the sin pardoned there was not wholly an error, or sin of ignorance; and this pardon not by faith in the blood of Christ. You think David, in the case of Uriah, was pardoned by sacrifice. Once more read this case in Psalm li., and you will see your mistake. David says, "For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it." This shows that he had not given it, because his sin admitted not of sacrifice. As to God smelling r sweet savor from the sacrifice of Noah and others, nothing more is intended than that God was pleased with his obedience and piety. But of this more fully hereafter.

Your broad assertion that no sin of any description was ever pardoned but by shedding of blood, is very doubtful. Was it by blood of any description that pardon was granted to those, Num. xiv. 19, 20? How were the Israelites pardoned in Babylon for seventy years? Not by blood of victims; for their temple, altar, and all were in ruins, and sacrifices must be slain at the temple. How were those pardoned who were not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary? 2 Chron. xxx. 18, 19. How were those pardoned who were led captive into foreign lands? Read 2 Chron, vi. 34, 20. Is there one instance on record, from Adam to Moses, of one person being justified by faith in the blood of Christ? Not one. Is there one case of such justification from Moses to Christ? Not one. It is easier to assert than prove.

Paul's simplified plan of sacrifice I have accepted. He adduces them to a few poinis. 1st. By them a remembrance of sin was made every year, and we may say correctly, every day. No ravenous unclean beast or fowl was admitted for sacrifice; the sight of such dying could excite in the mind of the worshipper no pity nor compassion. But the innocent and clean beasts and fowls were only required.When the offerer saw these innocent animals writhing in agony and death, he then was made to remember sin, and saw its effects-misery and death. Had not sin entered into the world, death had been unknown. These dead works, or works of death, were considered by Israel as the foundation of repentance. Heb. vi. 2.

2d. "Almost all things by the law were purged with blood"-men as well as things; for all things include persons as well as things. John i. "All things were made by him:" surely persons are here included. To make an atonement for, means to cleanse or purge, as I have proved in my second number. None can say that God was ever cleansed by any sacrifice under the law or gospel. This needs no proof. I know not any better reason why God ordained sacrifice for purification, than his own will; thus in type pointing to the death of his Son, "who is exalted to give repentance and remission of sins."

3d. By law, without shedding of blood there is no remission. Heb. ix. 22. This is evidently Paul's meaning. Now remission of sin is granted to the penitent only-the blood of the victim cleansed the offerer, who by it was made to remember sin; which is essential to repentance in every age.

4th. These sacrifices were typical of the blood of Christ. Did the innocent lamb suffer death for sin-sin not its own? And in this, is not sin in its evil nature bringing misery and death, seen and remembered? So in the innocent Lamb of God is sin in all its horrors seen,