VII. The word atonement, in the original Hebrew, denotes a covering; and in the Greek, an inward change. In the New Testament, the Greek word is invariably translated reconcile, except in the 5th of Romans and 11th verse, where atonement, or At-One-Ment, is substituted. Who is to be covered? Who is to be inwardly changed? Who is to be reconciled or atoned? Not the "Father of lights, with whom is no variableness neither shadow of turning ;" who is "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever," (James i. 17; Heb. xiii. 8.) Not the Great Jehovah, the Good Shepherd; "I am Jehovah," says he, "I change not; therefore, ye sons of Jacob, ye are not consumed," (Mal. iii. 6.) No, it is man, mutable man, not the immutable one, who is to receive the atonement, or reconciliation. What says the apostle: "God has reconciled or atoned us to himself by Jesus Christ. God was in Christ reconciling or atoning the world unto himself," (2 Cor. v. 18, 19;) "And not only us, but we also joy in our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the atonement or reconciliation," (Rom. v. 11.)

VIII. Neither Karaλay, nor its corresponding verb, signify reconciliation or atonement, i. e. at-one-ment, or in agreement, anger, or abatement of it. How, then, is the desired-for covering to be put on, the inward change to be effected, the reconciliation, or atonement, to be received? We answer, in the words of holy writ, "through our Lord Jesus Christ," i. e. his divinely inspired word, through whose sacred and bright truths, immediately we apply them to our lives, the atonement may be said to be received; inasmuch as this, alone, is the prefigured spiritual sacrifice, the only efficient cleansing of our will, the altar of our minds, which can bring us into atone-ment, or agreement, and conjunction with our Maker, empower us to exchange our evil affections for good affections, and to put on, "as a covering, the beautiful garments of Jerusalem."

PERCUNCTATOR.

WE think our correspondent, "Percunctator," attaches by far too much importance to the efforts of Swedenborgianism. "The new Church!" the very name is enough to condemn it with men of ecclesiastical, nay, scriptural knowledge. If any true Church can be a new one, Christ must have founded a false Church. But the objections, which he states as those on which the members of this new Church build their modest claim to subvert the old, must surely expose it to the contempt of any man capable of comprehending a syllogism.

I. The first Swedenborgian objection proposed by Percunctator, amounts to this:-The scape goat, when the sins of the people were laid upon it, became unfit for the altar; this is negative evidence that every animal was slain as immaculate as it was selected; hence, we suppose, it is intended to be argued that the slain animals could be no representation of a vicarious atonement, because the sins of the people were not transferred to it.

The illuminati of the "new church" should have here recollected that, supposing the dispensation of redemption to be such as we state it, it could not have been adumbrated in all its parts by any single

ceremony; could such have been the case, indeed, the burthensome character of the Mosaic ritual would have been greatly diminished. Nor could any single ceremony correspond minutely to its antitype. Thus the animals were not tortured, though Christ was; and their bodies were consumed by fire, which his was not. The great doctrine to be inculcated in sacrifice, was that of vicarious atonement; and as long as this was distinctly represented, circumstantial peculiarities were disregarded. Thus the sacrifice of the scape goat had two parts; one goat was sacrificed immaculate, to intimate that our Lord died really so; the other was charged with the sins of the people, to shew that Christ really took away sins. The two goats together clearly conveyed the idea of an immaculate sufferer, and a transfer of sins. The victims are constantly called atonements, sin offerings, &c. Now they were so either literally, or figuratively. Those who deny the atonement of Christ, will not, we suppose, contend for that "of bulls and of goats." If they were a figurative atonement, what atonement, save that of Christ, they could prefigure, we will thank the "new Church" theologians to inform us.

But "the sacrifices prefigure a feast." We think not. They were feasts. They could not be types of themselves. They were types of gospel joy and salvation through the atonement. See Isaiah xxv. 6; Rev. xix. 9. The partakers of the victim partook sacramentally, and received, by the participation, the benefits of the atonement, which the ceremony represented. The Lord's supper does not prefigure a feast, but it is one; it is that whereby the atonement of Christ is applied to the souls of the communicants. As to the question, “Can what the Deity accepts as food, be the punishments and torments of sinners?" We reply, certainly not, and the sacrifices represented no such thing. They represented the death of Christ, and nothing beside. "Could the Deity accept as food the punishments and torments of his Son?" No! But the Deity could and did accept the death of his Son as a satisfaction for the sins of the world; and thus he accepted the death of an animal slain in representation of that event, and by his command.

II. The instances quoted by "Percunctator," from the Old Testament, to prove that the prophets "bore our griefs and carried our sorrows," wholly ramble from the point, except Ezek. iv., the wording of which, indeed, may suggest a plausible argument; but which, in reality, is to be referred to the same class with the others. In none of the other passages is there any mention of the prophets "bearing griefs" vicariously. What they suffered, they suffered typically; not to deliver the people from suffering the same, but to shew them what would be the consequence of persisting in their sins. Ezek. iv. is to be interpreted on the same principle. God did not lay on the prophet the sins of the people in such a sense that they were to be acquitted in consequence; Ezekiel personated them prophetically or typically, and represented the punishment which their sins would incur. But of Christ it was declared, "he was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes are we healed." "His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." We

challenge the Swedenborgians to produce any thing like this applied to any other prophet.

III. "But the atonement of Christ by blood must be figurative." Why?

66

It is not natural or material blood which is here meant, but Divine truth, &c." That is, human folly is to determine what was the office of Divine wisdom! If not the blood, but the doctrine of Christ, secures our redemption, certainly there never was a more incongruous or irreconcilable figure of rhetoric than that which puts the former for the latter. Substitute "Divine truth," for blood, in Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. i. 19; or in Heb. ix. 12-14: "Neither by the BLOOD of goats and calves, but by his own DIVINE DOCTRINE he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the BLOOD of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the DIVINE DOCTRINE of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" That is, if a triangle have three sides, how much more shall a square have twenty! Do the Swedenborgians really mean to accuse St. Paul of writing such nonsense as this?

IV. "In the Jewish sacrifices the death of the victim was not regarded as to the idea of punishment." Why, then, is it spoken of as a sin offering? "Nor is its dying ever spoken of in the appointment of the ceremonial." This is contrary to fact. The slaying of the victim is often spoken of, which, we apprehend, is the same thing. "Is not blood the life?" says the Swedenborgian. If so, it follows that the mention of bloodshedding includes the idea of death.

V. "To sacrifice did not originally mean to slay, to kill, to deprive of life, but to make sacred, devote, and dedicate." What argument the Swedenborgian founds upon this assumption, we know not; but the contrary is notoriously the fact. The verb пt always has the radical meaning of slaughter, and answers to the Latin mactavit. Every offering need not be a sacrifice, though every sacrifice is an offering. But the burning of the Nazarite's hair did not constitute him a burnt offering; nor was Jephthah's daughter, in any sense, a burnt offering, unless she was so in the literal sense. Many commentators think that in'ny should be rendered, OR I will offer it up;" and we confess we are agreed with them.

VI. "Sacrifices and burnt offerings were only by Divine permission; MOST DECIDEDLY not by the Divine concurrence." What shall we say to such a "most decidedly?" Is it ignorance or impudence? Is the whole Mosaic law, with all its positive commands, forgotten? Commands which, in many instances, were issued under the severest penalties. And against all this are two solitary places of scripture to be quoted? The Jews, from seeing the application of sacrifices to the expiation of sins, came to understand them, not as the visible signs and instruments of an atonement wrought out by other means, but as the actual atonement for sins, which justified them in living what lives they pleased. This was a kind of transubstantiation. Against this perversion of the doctrine, the texts Jer. vii. 22, 23, and

Ps. li. 7, were directed; and there are other texts to the same effect. Sacrifices and burnt offerings could not, certainly, propitiate God; they were the appointed applications of a real propitiation; and, as such, acceptable, and no further. The real propitiation did not extend to impenitent sinners; and, therefore, these could scarcely expect to be expiated by the typical. The heart was what God required; the sacrifice, independently of this, could afford no satisfaction. But the truly religious heart among the Jews, would not fail to offer the sacrifice because this was the command of God. Compare Ps. li. 16, 17, with 19.

VII. The verb D, undoubtedly, has the radical meaning of covering; that it also has the sense of atoning, it seems impossible to doubt. The П, or covering of the ark, the LXX. call iλaorýρiov. The derivative sense is taken from the idea of interposing a covering or shelter to protect the sinner. Thus the blood of Christ protects us from the anger of God. The term karaλλay, brings us to the same meaning by a different root. It implies, literally, a change in the condition of two parties, and, according to its ordinary acceptation, a change from enmity to peace. This is exactly the state of matters with respect to God and sinners.

THE CHURCH BUILDING SOCIETY.
Report for 1831-1832.

THE Society, since its last Report, has proceeded steadily in the fulfilment of its important designs. In the last year, 78 new applications have been received, and 72 new grants have been made. In 19 cases, there have been additional grants, in consequence of the increase of accommodation proposed to be given. The whole number of grants made in the last year, amounts therefore to 91. The sum, voted by the Committee in aid of the different applications, make a total of 11,489.; and 19,329 additional sittings have been provided, of which 13,541 are free and unappropriated. In the preceding year, the sum of 15,4791. was voted, and the sittings provided, amounted to 24,265.

Such have been the operations of the Society during the last year. The total amount of sittings in different places of worship belonging to the Church of England, which the Society, since its first establishment, has assisted in providing, is 227,320; of these, 166,544 are free and unappropriated, and towards the funds raised

for this important object, the Society has been enabled to contribute 148,1607.

Gratifying testimonies of the accomplishment of the Society's designs, have been received from different Clergymen, who have received its aid.

The Committee have also the pleasure to announce the following contributions from Diocesan and District Committees:

Canterbury Diocesan Com.
Oxford Diocesan Committee..
Plymouth District Committee.
Devon & Exeter District Com.
East Cornwall District Com...
Durham Diocesan Committee.

£ s. d. 140 0 0

73 10 0

28 19 6

30 9 3

26 20 46 4 6

The Society's efficiency has been demonstrated by what it has already effected; and it has therefore as strong a claim as ever upon the liberality of all those who feel an interest in its welfare, and are anxious to promote its designs. The disposable balance on the 31st of March, was 14,296.; and as the grants voted in the last year, amounted to 11,4897., it is clear, that without a continuance of that