Here, then, I will conclude this Section. It is certain, that the one God has from the beginning of creation, manifested himself to his people under various characters, expressed by various names, suited to their various states of necessity. Thus we find God saying to Moses, "I am Jehovah; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them." Whether this name was altogether before unknown, is disputed among commentators: but it evidently was either first assumed, or was assumed anew, at the founding of the Israelitish Church by the calling of Moses: was it not then to be expected, that, when God founded the Christain Church, the character of which, compared with all that preceded it, was so entirely new, he would again manifest himself by an entirely new name? Now we may be certain that he never called himself by a new name, but in reference to some new manifestation of his character: was it not then to be concluded, that when he should appear in the character of Redeemer, it would be with some new development of the infinite perfections which are comprised in his essence; yet that it could not be as a separate Divine Person; just as, when he manifested himself as Jehovah to Moses, it was under a new character, but without any difference as to person from that in which he was known as God Almighty? Accordingly, we have abundantly seen, that both prophets and evangelists unite in proclaiming that such is the fact. Isaiah, we have ascertained, declares, over and over again, that the Being who redeems the church and human race is Jehovah; and not only so, but that Jehovah the Redeemer is he that formed the human race, that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by himself. Jesus is constantly called the Saviour in the New Testament: nay, the very name, Jesus, means the Saviour; but Jehovah, we have found, declares that beside himself there is no Saviour; the very name, Jesus, the Saviour, involves then a blasphemy, unless the being who owns it is the alone Jehovah. How clearly, too, is this established by the declarations of Jesus himself! We have noticed, in particular, his avowal to Philip, and have seen, that "every attempt to explain it to any but the New Church sense, wears the character of most miserable subterfuge, most palpable violence." Thus, while the Old Testament openly declares, that there is no Saviour beside Jehovah, and no Creator but Jehovah the Redeemer, the Redeemer of the New Testament corrobarates the testimony with his solemn assurance, that there is no Father, that is, no Jehovah, out of him. If he that hath *Ex. vi. 2, 3.

seen him hath seen the Father, it can only be, because HE IS HIMSELF THE PERSON OF THE FATHER, who dwells in him as the soul dwells in the body. Hence he is the proper Object of worship. As, when we address a man's body, we address his soul at the same time; and in fact, if he is a sincere man, we see his soul in his body, because it shines through it, and causes it to express all its sentiments; so, when we address the Lord Jesus Christ, we at the same time address the Father; and, in fact, we see the Father in him; because his Person is "the brightness of the Father's glory, and the stamped impression of his substance"* (as the original of that passage expresses it, not person, according to the sense now attached to that term, because the Father, since the coming of Jesus Christ, has no personal Form distinct from his.)

Altogether, then, I trust, the Candid and Reflecting will admit, that these first truths of theology are most certain, and assailable by no valid objection: that as there is, and can be, but One God, so the Lord Jesus Christ is He: that in his Glorified Person the whole _Trinity centers; the Divine Essence, or Father, being his Divine Soul, the Divine Manifestation, or Son, being his Divine Form, and the Divine Influencing Power, or Holy Spirit, being his Divine Effluent Life and Operation: thus that the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ is the proper Person of the Father, and is the Sole Dispenser of the gifts of salvation.

*Heb. i. 3.

SECTION VIII.

THE ATONEMENT, SACRIFICE AND MEDITATION, OF JESUS CHRIST.

PART I.

ATONEMENT IN GENERAL, AND ATONEMENT BY SACRIFICES, ESPECIALLY BY THE SACRIFICES OF JESUS CHRIST.

I AM now to address to the Candid and Reflecting some remarks on the Atonement, Sacrifice, and Mediation, of the Lord Jesus Christ. These are subjects on which tomes innumerable have been written; and, certainly, to present our views respecting them with such fulness, as the labors which have been bestowed on building up and fortifying the commonly received sentiments might seem to demand, would require at least a whole volume of moderate dimensions. As, however, I have determined, in this work, to treat at greatest length those subjects in regard to which our views are generally thought most strange, which are those relating to the eternal world and state, and to the claims of the enlightened Swendenborg to attention as a particular Instrument for making known the truths to be discovered at the Lord's second coming; I shall treat this, like the other principal doctrinal sentiments which I am called here to discuss, with comparative brevity. I shall simply propose and explain what we believe to be the truth; I shall offer the system which, in our estimation, explains all the phenomena of the case in its principal branches; and shall leave the reader, for himself, to apply it to the detection of the fallacies, which compose, or support, the more prevailing doctrines.

"All things," says a great authority," are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath committed

unto us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit; that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them."*

The Apostle here delivers, in one single sentence, the whole doctrine of the Atonement; and, to call attention to it, he propounds it in the most express and formal manner. "God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ:" and the ministry of this reconciliation, committed to the Apostles, was, to declare this truth; "to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." The word here translated reconciliation, is the same as is elsewhere rendered atonement; it cannot then be denied, that the Atonement of Scripture is nothing else but our reconciliation with God, effected by the dwelling of God in the person of Jesus Christ.

The word translated reconciliation being the same as is elsewhere translated atonement, the above text might, therefore, with equal propriety, be rendered thus: "All things are of God, who hath atoned us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath committed unto us the word of atonement; to wit, that God was in Christ, atoning the world unto himself," &c. Had it been given thus, the ground of some prevailing mistakes would have been taken away. At present, the word atonement occurs only once in the New Testament. That is in Rom. v. 11, where the apostle says, "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." It is not a little extraordinary, that a word which occurs but once in the whole of the New Testament, from which, more especially, Christians profess to derive their creed, should have come to occupy so great a space in the language of the theology of the day. And it is more extraordinary still, that it should have come to be supposed, that the Lord made an atonement to the Father, thus that the atonement was received by the Father, when yet it is said, in the only text of the New Testament where the word occurs, that it is we who have received the atonement. The reason of the mistake is, because the proper meaning of the word has been little attended to; which is, as just stated, reconciliation. This was the only meaning which the word bore when the Scriptures were translated; although, like the words person, ghost, and others, it has since assumed a different signification; and men have been too much influenced, in their religious sentiments, by the changes which have gradually taken place in the meaning of words. In every other place, the same word, and its corresponding verb, are translated reconciliation, and to reconcile. Thus in * 2 Cor. v. 18, 19.

the verses preceding that just quoted from the Romans, our translators say, "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life: " then follows, "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the atonement." Here then atonement is used as the answering substantive to the verb to reconcile. Atonement, is literally, at-one-ment: the state of being at one, or in agreement.* Though the word atonement occurs but once in the New Testament, it is often used in the Old, but always in the sense of reconciliation. Doubtless, then, the atonement of Christian doctrine is reconciliation with God, including the means by which reconciliation is effected.

The writer whom I chiefly follow is pleased to affirm, that we deny this ministry of reconciliation; and quotes, as if they were against us, instead of being, as is the fact, entirely confirmatory of our doctrines, such texts as speak of the Lord Jesus Christ as having become a sacrifice for us, or as having, as Paul in one place explicitly states, "given himself as an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour." And he says "if we may not, as Baron Swedenborg would teach us, view Christ as a sacrifice for sin, then we require of the Swedenborgians to tell us, what the Mosaic sacrifices were types of: for according to their doctrine, those sacrificial types had no antitypes." This sentence displays that utter ignorance respecting what our doctrines are, which so eminently distinguishes most of those who undertake to write against them. Our doctrines never teach that we may not view Christ as a sacrifice for sin; but they show, on the contrary, how he truly was such, and rectify the mistakes which many entertain in regard to what a scriptural sacrifice is: and so far from making the Mosaic sacrifices types without antitypes, they bring their antitypes to view in a more clear and satisfactory manner than was ever before accomplished.

FIRST, then, we shall show, That the Sacrifices of the Mosaic law were not meant to represent the punishment of sin : but, on the contrary, That they represented the hallowing of every affection and principle of the mind, and thus of the whole man, to the Lord. SECONDLY, That the sacrifice of Jesus Christ did not consist in his suffering the punishment due to sin, but in his hallowing every principle of his Human Nature to the Godhead, till at length his Human Nature became a living sacrifice, or thing fully consecrated, sanctified and hallowed, by perfect union with his Divinity. THIRDLY, we will answer *See Acts vii. 26; 1 Macc. xiii. 50'; 2 Macc. i. 5, vii. 33. P, 35.

† Eph. v. 2.