crificers; otherwise than by supposing, that such a substitution as we are speaking of, was intended to be suggested. If all the sacrifices under the law, the sin-offerings, as well as others, had had their effect with God, as symbolical expressions of a right temper of mind; it is natural to think, that the slaying and offering those sacrifices in general, would have been represented, as procuring their effect with God in favour of the offerers: whereas the effect referred to is attributed, and seems in a more special manner to have been owing, to the blood, that is, the offered lives. of the sacrifices; it being expressly said, that it is the blood which maketh an atonement for the soul.*

• It may not be amiss to take notice here (though perhaps in some respects out of place) of what you are pleased to say, No. 59. It is said indeed, Lev. xvii. 11, Ye shall not eat blood: for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul. But how? You ask: · By way ' of vicarious punishment? not a word of that. There'fore we are at liberty to judge, that the blood made ' atonement in sin-offerings, as the shedding, sprinkling, ⚫ and pouring of it out at the foot of the altar signified 'the sacrificer's devoting his very life to the honour and 'service of God.' It must be owned, that it is not said here in so many words, that the blood made atonement by being shed in the offerer's stead; (for as to the phrase, vicarious punishment, I shall have occasion to observe

Not to observe, that if the levitical sacrifices had had their effect with God, only as significant expressions of a devout, thankful, or penitent disposition in the offerer; it seems reasonable to think, that that effect would have depended (I may

hereafter, that it seems to me neither necessary nor expedient to make use of it :) but then, the question is, whether the words just quoted, do not more naturally and obviously lead us to consider the blood, as making atonement for the offerers in that way, than in the way you mention to me, I own, they seem to do it; and, I think, not without reason: for when it is intimated (that we may take in both verses) that the blood of the animal is the life that God had given it to them (the Israelites) to be offered in sacrifice for them; and that it was the blood in particular, that made atonement for their souls, or lives; what sentiment does so naturally occur to the mind as this; that atonement was to be made for the life of the sacrificer, by the pouring out the blood, or life of the sacrifice in his stead? not to observe, that the blood in sin-offerings cannot reasonably be thought to have made atonement, as the shedding of it, &c. signified the 'sacrificer's devoting his very life to the honour and ser'vice of God:' because (as an attentive reader will, I think, observe) the atonement is represented to be made by the blood, not as signifying any thing then existing when it was poured out; but as something which had before been given and appointed to make atonement; and which therefore, in consequence of that appointment, had, as it were, a virtue sufficient for that purpose. See the following note. As to the objections, which you have arged against the notion of vicarious suffering; I shall ake notice of them in their proper places.

say, perhaps, entirely) upon his temper or disposition: whereas the sin-offerings at least seem to have had their effect with God, independently of that consideration my meaning is, that, as the lives of the Israelites are supposed to have been forfeited to the Divine Being (by what means, it is not, at present, necessary to inquire); so the sparing of those lives, or God's being so far reconciled to them, is represented as the effect of those sacrifices, which were offered from time to time, according to appointment, for that purpose: and as an effect too, which took place (as appears from their lives being actually spared) whatever was the temper or disposition of the offerers, or of those upon whose account the sacrifices were offered: which, one would think, upon your hypothesis would hardly have been the case.*

*

I might, perhaps, have justly said here: ; which upon your hypothesis could not surely have been the case for if expiatory sacrifices made atonement, or had their effect with God, only as expressions of a right temper of mind; that is, if (as seems to be your meaning from your discourse throughout, particularly No. 28, and 118.) nothing but a proper and worthy temper of mind in the offerers made atonement, or had properly any salutary effect with God; then no sacrifice, not accompanied with such a temper, could have any such effect, or make atone

But, it seems, to the question, In what 'manner had sacrifices respect to God?' we must seek for an answer, not in the levitical law, but, as you are pleased to

ment for the sacrificers: which yet was far otherwise : as may be gathered from all those places in the law, from which we learn, that if, in the case of a sin or trespass, the appointed sacrifice was offered, atonement was thereby made for the offerer, and his sin or trespass forgiven: Lev. iv. v. and vi. or No. 28. Unless you will say, which, I should think, you scarcely will, that every such sacrifice was attended with that temper of mind in the offerer, of which, according to you, it was intended to be expressive. I am not ignorant, however, of what you suggest, No. 119. (if I may be allowed to take notice of it in this place) that you consider it, as confirming your sentiment (concerning sacrifice) beyond all doubt, that the scripture every where declares; that without 'sincere prayers and thanksgiving; without repentance, 'faith, and obedience, all sacrifices were not only un•profitable, as to the favour of God, or his pardoning 1 mercy; but also detestable in his sight,' &c. If, sir, you mean by these words, that the levitical sacrifices did not procure for the offerers, the removal of any guilt, without sincere prayers, thanksgiving, &c. it seems to me, as I have already intimated, to be hardly reconcilable with those passages in the law, to which I have just referred, and in which it is declared, without mentioning any thing of the temper of the offerer, that the pardon of sin, as an effect, should follow upon the offering the sacrifice appointed. But if your meaning be, that none of those sacrifices, without sincere prayers, &c. rendered the offerers of them, in a moral or spiritual sense, objects of the divine favour; this, I must own, is a truth, which I have nothing to say against; but, at

say, ' in other parts of scripture:' we must 'consult the sense of prophets and apostles, 'who had a clear and full knowledge of the 'nature and ends of divine institutions.'

:

the same time, must beg leave to say, that it is a truth, which, how well grounded soever it may be, seems to me not to your purpose: because those sacrifices, though, when not accompanied with faith, obedience, or repentance, they could not properly recommend the offerers to the favour of God, yet might have some effect with him notwithstanding; that is, they might be so far available to the offerers, as to procure for them the sparing or continuance of their lives, which had been forfeited; or the removal of some guilt or uncleanness and this effect they appear to me, I say, actually to have had, independently of the disposition of the offerers: but then, not by reason of any necessary, or natural connexion, between the offering of those sacrifices, and the removal of the offerer's guilt; but because God had appointed them to be the grounds of this effect. For no one can well doubt, but that God might appoint what sacrifices he pleased, and annex to the offering of them such effects as he should think proper too (though we may reasonably suppose a priori, that God would be the author of no appointment or connexion, but what would have a tendency to some good.) And this is a principle, which, if I mistake not, you, yourself, sir, go upon; when you lead us, both in this and your other writings (No. 186, and Key to the Apostolic Writings, chap. viii. §. 119,) to consider the sacrifice of Christ, as available in some respects to those, who not only are not properly influenced by the consideration of it, but have not so much as heard of it. And indeed, there is not necessarily, or in the nature of the thing, any connexion between the sacrifice, or death, or worthiness of the most excellent person, and the conferring any ben