. 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.

ON THE NATURE OF THE DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE.

TO THE EDIitor of the CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-Your correspondent H. W. in your December Number, has furnished us with an extraordinary composition on the nature of the Divine Omnipotence, which, harmless as it is to those of your readers that think a little, may yet, as I conceive, mislead some few of them that do not think, especially when it comes from a writer so much admired and respected as H. W.; and for this reason I beg leave to solicit your insertion of a few remarks on what I shall in courtesy call his arguments, not undertaking, however, as will easily be seen, to expose even the half of his absurdities.

The proposition that he enunciates is a novel one, "that no such attribute as an unlimited and absolute Omnipotence can exist." If it be meant by this, to deny the existence of an Omnipotence that could perform absolute impossibilities, such as to make that not to have been which has been, or that not to be which is, he would be fighting with a shadow, and denying that of which no one ever asserted or could conceive the existence. But the Omnipotence which he affirms not to exist, is one of which men have a false notion, one which he expects many of his readers to be startled at hearing denied an Omnipotence that God would exercise if he were to banish all evil and suffering from the universe, or if it were to effect in the twinkling of an eye, all that he now effects by means and processes. Such an Omnipotence as this, if there be any meaning in what he says, he denies the existence of. And what are his arguments?

The first is from the concession of his adversaries. "I know that many may at first sight be shocked at the assertion, that the power of God can in any sense be limited. In this, as in various instances, they will object to the same truth, as a distinct proposition, which they will freely assume and take for granted in all their reasonings. Those very persons will speak of Provi dence as devising means, and moving by gradual approaches to the accomplishment of an end. If asked,Why not decree the end without the means?' they will answer, 'Because it could not be attained, at least so well, without them.'” Now the proposition which those persons object to is, not "that God cannot do impossibilities;" there is nothing startling in that; that would be to deny merely that God both can and cannot do certain things; that his power can perform that which is the contradiction of all power. But the proposition they object to is, that no such attribute as unlimited and absolute Omnipotence is in God; which H. W. affirms they take for granted in this reply, and proves it thus; "If then the term could not, be at all admitted, no such thing as unrestricted Omnipotence exists." Here we have a pretty sophism, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum sim

pliciter. H. W. takes the term could not in an absolute sénse, meaning could not possibly; while the objectors use it in a limited and relative sense, could not as well, that is, consistently with his plans and purposes. The distinction between these two senses of the terms cannot or could not, though he is blind to it here, W. H. employs properly enough, when he tells us very properly, page 813, that it is the same thing to us whether God cannot pardon sin consistently with his attributes and moral government, or whether he cannot do it because it is impossible. In the former case, as well as in the latter, he tells us that God cannot save impenitent sinners. But whether the words could not be taken in one or the other of these senses, in neither case will it follow that no such thing as unrestricted Omnipotence exists. If he means unrestricted by possibilities, it follows not; for then his argument will either be, It is absolutely impossible for certain ends to be produced without certain means, therefore God cannot do all things possible; or else it will be, It is impossible in consistency with the plans of God, that certain ends should be produced without certain means; therefore God cannot do all things possible: in neither of which I can see any consequence. If he mean unrestricted by impossibilities, his conclusion does not even then follow, for it is merely an identical proposition, such as, ‘a thing cannot be its own contradiction,' no man is not a man; amounting exactly to this, Omnipotence is not impotence; and such a proposition cannot be the conclusion of any reasoning, neither would such a conclusion be pertinent to his purpose or what he aims at establishing, as I have shown above.

But he adds, "power is in its own nature limited. It can act only on possibility." These are as important truisms as this, 'existence is not non-existence.' Power cannot perform impossibilities, for an impossibility, as I have said above, is the contradiction of all power; but how does this prove that God has not unlimited and absolute power?

He goes on to say, "a sweeping Omnipotence which could, by one sovereign act of will, decree that in the nature of things neither impediment nor resistance should exist, leaves no field for power itself to act upon." Does H. W. let me ask, believe that God existed before all things, and therefore before either impediment or resistance existed? Does he believe that there was then no field for power to act upon? On the contrary, does he believe that on that field, which was void either of impediment or resistance, his power called forth the vast and wondrous universe?

The next argument is from the wisdom of God. "But still more, as it respects the wisdom of God, is it absolutely necessary to dismiss the notion of absolute Omnipotence, before the former attribute can shine forth in its true glory. For surely, according to our conceptions, it would be more wise to arrive at once, if that were possible, at all that means, and contrivances,