that the work of atonement is made to consist of the slaying of the victim, and the sprinkling of the blood.

I still, with all respect to J. C. L., say the same thing; the work of atonement consists of the slaying, including the previous sufferings of the victim, which is performed on earth, without the necessary interference of the Priest; and the sprinkling of the blood performed in heaven, to which was necessary and indispensable the intervention of the Priest.

He speaks of another part of the work. "There is an entire omission of what to my judgment formed a most important part of the ceremony, the consumption of the victim's body on the altar of offering;" and this marked by him in Italics, to point out the stress he lays upon this position: and then, to prove the necessity of this "most important part of the ceremony," he refers to Lev. i. and quotes at length Lev. iii. 1-5. "And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace-offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about. And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace-offering, an offering made by fire unto the Lord, the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards. And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away." How could J.C. L. make such a strange confession here? Was it possible that he forgot that in the peace-offering there was not "the consumption of the victim's body on the altar of offering." The fat only was burnt upon the altar, the body of the victim was eaten as an eucharistic feast by the offerer, the priest having a part of it for his share. But this "most important part of the ceremony, the consumption of the victim's body on the altar of offering," took place but in one of the many sacrifices prescribed by the law, namely, in the whole burnt-offering. It did not take place in the sin-offering: the body of the victim was not burnt upon the altar of offering. On the great day of atonement, where especially was the Priesthood and sacrifice of Christ typified, "the bullock for the sinoffering, and the goat for the sin-offering, whose blood was brought to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp, and they shall burn in the fire their skins and their flesh and their dung, and he that burneth them shall wash his clothes," &c. (Lev. xvi. 27.).

Here we see that it was not a most important part of that ceremony, by which atonement was made, to have the victim's body consumed on the altar of offering. The sin-offering, however, though not burnt on the altar, was burnt without the camp, and did typify, as the apostle in the Hebrews tells us, Christ suffering without the camp; but this will not assist J. C. L. in finding something belonging to the atonement besides the sprinkling of the blood, which must be done by a Priest; for it was not the high priest that burned the sin-offering on the day of atonement. "The bullock and the goat shall one carry forth without the camp, and they shall burn in the fire their skins, &c. &c., he that burneth them shall wash his clothes, &c." But there was one offering which the priest was to burn upon the altar; this was the whole burnt-offering. I entirely disagree with J. C. L. as to what was typified by this burning by the priest, upon the altar. He says this burning was to point out to the sinner the fearful consequences of sin, and the awful nature of God's wrath. I conceive, on the other hand, that the fire of the altar consuming the animal, represented God's favourable acceptance of the sacrifice, rather than his wrath upon the victim. The offering was supposed to ascend to God in the flame, and therefore, in the Hebrew, the whole burnt-offering has its name from a word that signifies ascending. This appears to be just the difference between the burning of the sin-offering by a person not the priest, without the camp, and the burning of the burnt-offering by the priest on the altar; the one signified God's wrath lying on the victim; the other God's gracious acceptance of the sacrifice: and both these have their antitype and fulfilment in Christ. He bore God's wrath when he suffered without the gate; He was accepted of his Father, and had the token and sign of acceptance when He was raised up and ascended into the heavens (John xvi. 10;) when the great choir of angels say, "Lift up your heads ye gates, and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in."(Ps. xxiv.)

There is a confusion and error in these allusions of J. C. L. to the legal sacrifices, at which I am somewhat surprised. I feel assured that when he re-considers them, he will himself admit his error.

The only other argument which I find in the sermon is drawn from its being said in many places, that Christ offered a sacrifice -offered himself. From this his argument seems to be, that none but a Priest could offer. Christ did offer himself on the cross whilst on this earth, therefore he must have executed the office of a Priest upon earth. He quotes, besides other passages, Heb. x. 12. 14, and adds, "There is an express mention made of an offering by Christ somewhere. That this cannot refer to his intercessory offering, I think, because that is continuous, and must be a thing of unbroken recurrence until the conclusion of his mediatorial kingdom. It must have been, then, the great sacrifice of the cross that is here spoken of. According to St. Paul, then, Christ as a Priest (for it is admitted none other durst) CHRIST AS A PRIEST did offer himself, once for all, upon the cross, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, &c. According to the opinion of R. D. and such as hold with him, he did not. Which of these be right, judge ye."

Now all this seemingly triumphant argument falls to the ground upon the consideration of this simple fact, that the words offer and offering have two senses, and are used as implying two different things; 1st, the offering of an animal to be a victim, and 2d, the offering of that victim unto God. J. C. L. says, "It is admitted that none durst offer but a priest;" in the second sense of offering, this is true, but not in the first sense. It was not the priest's part to offer an animal to be a victim; it was the priest's part to offer the victim to God. I will give examples from Scripture. (Lev. i. 3.) "If his offering be a burntoffering of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will." Here is offering not by a priest, and this is the constant language of the law; so that in this sense J. C. L. must retract his assertion, that none must offer but a priest, and he must own the invalidity of his argument that Christ must be a Priest upon earth, because he offers himself to be a victim on the earth: the argument rather runs the other way, that as it was a private man that offered an animal to be a burnt-offering, and not the priest, so it was in Christ's character as a man, and not as the priest, that he offered himself to be the victim.

But we have also the same word "offer" used to express the action of the priest, in doing his part of the sacrifice, and offering it to God. (Lev. vii. 8.) "And the priest that offereth any man's burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt-offering which he hath offered." In like manner, Christ having voluntarily offered himself as man to be the victim that should bear the sin of the world, he further, in his character of high priest, entered into the holy-place, even heaven itself, and there offered himself without spot to God for

us.

There are two offerings, one typifying what Christ did upon earth; this did not require the offerer to be a priest: another typifying what Christ has done and is continually doing in heaven; this did require the offerer to be a priest. Christ did offer himself on earth to be a victim for the sins of the world; this did not imply or require his priestly character. Christ did, and does, in heaven, offer his sacrifice on the true tabernacle; this does imply and require his priestly character.

I think, then, the question between J. C. L. and myself, as to the Priesthood of Christ on earth or in heaven, stands thus. J. C. L. has not brought forward one plain text of Scripture which speaks of Christ executing the priestly office on earth, whilst I refer to many that expressly declare heaven to be the place of his priestly ministrations, as Heb. viii. 1., ix. 11. 24., x. 21, &c. J. C. L. was not satisfied with my division of the work of atonement into two parts; one done on earth without the necessary intervention of a priest, the other done by a Priest in heaven. He sought therefore to find and point out an important part of the work requiring a priest, and to be done on earth; in this he failed. He endeavoured likewise to ground an argument in favour of the exercise of the office of the Priesthood on earth, from its being said of Christ that he offered one sacrifice; but as in many passages of Scripture those not priests are said to offer, he has failed here too, in proving Christ to be a Priest on earth, though he offered himself on earth to be a victim.

As to J. C. L.'s admiration of Archbishop Ussher's language, that "Christ offered his humanity upon the altar of his divinity," I can only say there is no accounting for taste. I think it very absurd; and the way of accounting for it, that the altar sustained the offering, and that his divinity sustained his humanity, &c. very childish and unsound. Those that would think this a good argument, would be caught by the sound rather than the sense. If it was ever so true that it was one of the peculiarities of an altar that it sustains the victim, and that the divinity of Christ sustained the humanity in his sufferings, still it would be bad logic to infer from thence that the divinity was the altar. This reasoning would as easily prove the divinity to be the cross as to be the altar. But in saying this, there is betrayed an error as to the office of the altar. It is not a peculiarity of an altar to sustain the victim, the brazen altar never sustained any victim, except in the case of a burnt-offering; and the golden altar (which was used on the great day of atonement, in the whole of which ceremony there was a peculiar type of Christ's great work of atonement,) never sustained any victim. It never had any part of the victim put upon it but the blood; so that after all, this play upon words grows out of a mistake as to the use made of an altar.

In conclusion, I would remind your readers that my great object in bringing this subject of the Priesthood of Christ before them, has not been to prove that Christ was not a Priest upon earth, but rather to enforce upon them that he is a Priest, executing his office for them in heaven. It is true that in considering his whole sacrifice, which is begun upon earth and is completed in the heavens, I do see reasons to lead me to think that the part which Christ performed on earth, he did not perform in his character of Priest, because I see that the types of what he did on earth were not necessarily performed by the priests: but to enforce this was not my object in taking up the subject; and if any person still thinks that Christ, as a Priest, slew himself upon the cross, even as the high priest, on the great day of atonement, slew the bullock and the goat for a sinoffering, I quarrel not with them, neither do I feel much anxiety to bring them to my opinion. What I am anxious for is, to fix their minds upon the large and important part of the atoning sacrifice which Christ, as the High Priest of our profession, was to perform on his entrance into the heavenly sanctuary, and which he never ceases, and never will cease to perform in heaven for his Church until the dispensation of grace shall be brought to an end. Those who consider that the antitype of the altar is to be looked for any where out of the heavenly places, whether they think it to be the cross, or the divinity joined to the humanity during Christ's sufferings, they leave just nothing to be done by Christ in his character of Priest in heaven. If the altar which was shadowed forth by the legal altar was upon earth, and if Christ, the great High Priest, performed his Priestly office on that altar on earth, then nothing remained for him to do as a Priest in heaven. For I may well ask, what had the priest to do in offering a sacrifice, after he had performed what was to be done upon the altar? Nothing: he had finished his work. But if the antitypical altar is in heaven, then after Christ left the earth, he had to go to the place where the true altar was, to do the important work of the High Priest connected with the altar. This I conceive to be the real position of Christ our High Priest, now in the heavens; as it is expressed Heb. viii. 1, 2. "We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man."

But it may be asked, who denies this? Every one who makes the altar on which Christ officiates, as Priest, to be on earth. J. C. L., who approves of the assertion, that the divinity sustaining the humanity of Christ, in his sufferings on earth, was the altar; J. C. L. who says, "Christ was as a burnt-offering upon the altar, when he was suffering the flames of God's wrath," and that "he was a Priest, 'laying in order' both his soul and body upon the altar-fires of God's wrath." All these make Christ's work as Priest, at the altar, a past transaction. They put the altar upon earth, and they make the High Priest a member of a worldly sanctuary and not a heavenly. It is against these mistakes that I write. I wish to lead Christians to consider this subject as the truth is, and in a way that shall bend their hearts and their affections to a living High Priest, now performing his Priestly office for them in heaven; that shall encourage them to draw nigh to God, in the full assurance of faith that they have an High Priest over the house of God, who now lives to intercede for them upon the ground of his sacrifice and blood-shedding, which he pleads for them before the mercyseat in heaven. I wish to make Christ more dear and more near to every believer; more continually looked to, whilst they are running the race that is set before them. This is my object, and it is with me a small thing to be judged of man's judgment, as setting forth views bordering closely upon those maintained by Crellius and others of the Socinian school. Selfish man does not, at the first hearing, receive the lesson which even hints that he has been wrong; but time and consideration overcomes his prejudices. I shall wait patiently for this effect upon J. C. L.; and by the manifestation of the truth, I hope to commend myself to every man's conscience, in the sight of God.

R. D.