pardon and eternal salvation. They seem, in fact, intended for men unaccustomed to the worship of God in truth and spirit. The following passages suffice to illustrate this beyond doubt. Micah vi. 7, 8: "Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first born for my transgression; the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good, and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Here Jehovah, while shewing his displeasure at mere animal sacrifices, enjoins just actions and humility in lieu of them, as worthy to be accepted by God, without substituting human sacrifices in their stead. Hosea vi. 6: "For I desired "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings.' Isaiah 1-11, [i. 11, 16-18,] "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord. I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats.-Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow," &c. Does not Jehovah here substitute good works alone for sacrifices, as real

means of taking away sins? Psalm 1.8 [8-15]: "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burntofferings, to have been continually before me. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the Most High; and call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me." Jehovah, who protests against the idea of the flesh of bulls being supposed his food, and the blood of goats his drink, cannot be supposed to have had delight in human blood, the blood of his beloved Son. Sam. xv. 22: "And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." Prov. xxi. 3: "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice." Eccles. v. 1: " 66 Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready. to hear than to give the sacrifice of fools. For they consider not that they do evil."

It is now left for us to ascertain in what sense we should take such phrases as, "This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins;" "Christ hath once

appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;" "Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate;" "I am the living bread;"" If any man eat of this," &c. Whether do these passages imply that Jesus, though he preferred mercy to sacrifice, (Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7,) did actually sacrifice himself, and offer his own blood to God as an atonement for the sins of others, or do they mean that Jesus, knowing already that the fulfilment of his divine commission would endanger his life, never hesitated to execute it, and suffered his blood to be shed in saving men from sin through his divine precepts and pure example, which were both opposed to the religious system adopted by his contemporary Jews? Were we to follow the former mode of interpretation, and take all these phrases in their strictly literal sense, we must be persuaded to believe that God, not being contented with the blood of bulls and goats and other animal sacrifices, offered to him by the Israelites, insisted upon the offer of the blood and life of his Son, as the condition of his forgiving the sins of men; and that Jesus accordingly offered his blood to propitiate God, and also proposed to men actually to eat his flesh! Would not the doctrines of Christianity, in this case representing God as delighted with human victims, and directing men to cannibalism, appear monstrous to every civilized being? No one, unless biassed by prejudices, can justify such inconsistency as to interpret literally some of the above-mentioned phrases

in support of the doctrine of the atonement, and explain the last-quoted figuratively, as they are all confessedly alike subversive of every rational idea of the nature of the Divine justice and mercy.

To avoid such a stigma upon the pure religion of Jesus, it is incumbent, I think, upon us to follow the latter mode of interpretation, and to understand from the passages referred to, that Jesus, the spiritual Lord and King of Jews and Gentiles, in fulfilment of the duties of his mission, exposed his own life for the benefit of his subjects, purged their sins by his doctrines, and persevered in executing the commands of God even to the undergoing of bodily suffering in the miserable death of the cross-a selfdevotion or sacrifice of which no Jewish highpriest had ever offered an example.

Ought not this belief in the unbounded benefieence of Jesus to excite superior gratitude, love, and reverence towards our Saviour and King, than the idea that he, as God above mortal afflictions, borrowed human nature for a season, and offered this fictitious man as a sacrifice for the remission of sin, while he himself was no more afflicted with that sacrificial death than with the sufferings of other human individuals! If there be in this latter case any gratitude felt for the afflictions which attached to the death of the cross, it should be manifested to that temporary man Jesus, and not to Jesus the Christ, whom the Editor and other Trinitarians esteem as God above pain and death.

If it be urged that it is inconsistent with common justice to pardon sin that requires the capital punishment of death without an atonement for it, it may be replied, that the perfection of divine justice, as well as other attributes of God, should not be measured by what are found in, and adopted by the human race. Is it consistent with our common notions of justice to visit the sins of fathers on their descendants, as God ascribed to himself, Exodus xx. 5.? Is it consistent with our common notions of justice to afflict men with infinite punishment for their finite guilt, as Jesus declares in Matthew xviii. 8.? Even in the present case, would it be consistent with common notions of justice to afflict an innocent man with the death of the cross, for sins committed by others, even supposing the innocent man should voluntarily offer his life in behalf of those others? We can have no idea of the perfection of divine justice, mercy, and wrath, unless from what is revealed to us; and as we find in the sacred books, that sins have been pardoned in consequence of the intercession of righteous men, without any sacrificial atonement, we should, therefore, be contented with those authorities, and should not entertain doubt as to pardon being bestowed upon those who have had the advantage of the intercession of Jesus, exalted as he was by God over all prophets and righteous men that ever lived.

Numb. xiv. 19, 20, Moses prayed to the Lord, "Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this peo