reason, how differs the Christian from the Deist? The only difference is this: that whilst the one denies, that God hath given us a Revelation; the other, compelled by evidence to receive it, endeavours to render it of no effect. But in both, there is the same self-sufficiency, the same pride of understanding, that would erect itself on the ground of human reason, and that disdains to accept the divine favour, on any conditions, but its own. In both, in short, the very characteristic of a Christian spirit is wantingHUMILITY. For, in what consists the entire of Christianity, but in this; that feeling an utter incapacity to work out our own salvation, we submit our wholeselves, our hearts, and our understandings, to the divine disposal; and relying on God's gracious assistance, ensured to our honest endeavours to obtain it, through the mediation of Christ Jesus, we look up to him, and to him alone, for safety? Nay, what is the very notion of religion, but this humble reliance upon God? Take this away, and we become a race of independent beings, claiming as a debt, the reward of our good works;P a sort of contracting party with the Almighty, contributing nought to his glory, but anxious to maintain our own independence, and our own rights. And is it not, to subdue this rebellious spirit, which is necessarily at war with Virtue and with God, that Christianity has been introduced? Does not every page of Revelation, peremptorily pronounce this; and yet, shall we exercise this spirit, even upon Christianity itself? Assuredly, if we do; if, on the contrary, our pride of understanding, and self-sufficiency of reason, are not made to prostrate themselves before the awfully mysterious truths of Revelation; if we do not bring down the rebellious spirit of our nature, to confess

P No. XV.

that the wisdom of man is but foolishness with God; we may bear the name of Christians, but we want the essence of Christianity.

These observations, though they apply in their full extent, only to those who reduce Christianity to a system purely rational; yet are in a certain degree, applicable to the description of Christians, whose notion of Redemption we now come to consider. For what but a preconceived theory, to which Scripture had been compelled to yield its obvious and genuine signification, could ever have led to the opinion, that in the death of Christ, there was no expiation for sin; that the word sacrifice has been used by the writers of the New Testament, merely in a figurative sense; and that the whole doctrine of the Redemption amounts but to this, "that God, willing to pardon repentant sinners, and at the same time willing to do it, only in that way, which would best promote the cause of virtue, appointed that Jesus Christ should come into the world; and that he, having taught the pure doctrines of the Gospel; having passed a life of exemplary virtue; having endured many sufferings, and finally death itself, to prove his truth, and perfect his obedience; and having risen again, to manifest the certainty of a future state; has, not only, by his example, proposed to mankind a pattern for imitation; but has, by the merits of his obedience, obtained, through his intercession, as a reward, a kingdom or government over the world, whereby he is enabled, to bestow pardon, and final happiness, upon all who will accept them, on the terms of sincere repentance." That is, in other words, we receive salvation through a Mediator: the mediation conducted, through intercession: and that intercession successful, in recom

a No. XVI.

pense of the meritorious obedience of our Redeemer.

Here indeed, we find the notion of redemption admitted: but in setting up, for this purpose, the doctrine of pure intercession, in opposition to that of atonement, we shall perhaps discover, when properly examined, some small tincture of that mode of reasoning, which, as we have seen, has led the modern Socinian to contend against the idea of Redemption at large; and the Deist against that of Revelation itself.

For the present, let us confine our attention, to the objections, which the patrons of this new system bring against the principle of atonement, as set forth in the doctrines of that church, to which we more immediately belong. As for those, which are founded in views of general reason, a little reflection will convince us, that there is not any, which can be alleged against the latter, that may not be urged, with equal force, against the former: not a single difficulty, with which it is attempted to encumber the one, that does not equally embarrass the other. This having been evinced, we shall then see, how little reason there was, for relinquishing the plain and natural meaning of Scripture; and for opening the door, to a latitude of interpretation, in which it is but too much the fashion to indulge at the present day, and which, if persevered in, must render the word of God, a nullity.

The first, and most important of the objections we have now to consider, is that which represents the doctrine of atonement, as founded on the divine implacability—inasmuch as it supposes, that to appease the rigid justice of God, it was requisite that punishment should be inflicted; and that, conse quently, the sinner could not by any means have VOL. I.

5

been released, had not Christ suffered in his stead." Were this a faithful statement of the doctrine of atonement, there had indeed been just ground for the objection. But that this is not the fair representation of candid truth, let the objector feel, by the application of the same mode of reasoning, to the system which he upholds. If it was necessary to the forgiveness of man, that Christ should suffer; and through the merits of his obedience, and as the fruit of his intercession, obtain the power of granting that forgiveness; does it not follow, that had not Christ thus suffered, and interceded, we could not have been forgiven? And has he not then, as it were, taken us out of the hands of a severe and strict judge; and is it not to him alone that we owe our pardon? Here the argument is exactly parallel, and the objection of implacability equally applies. Now what is the answer? "That although it is through the merits and intercession of Christ, that we are forgiven; yet these were not the procuring cause, but the means, by which God, originally disposed to forgive, thought it right to bestow his pardon." Let then the word intercession be changed for sacrifice, and see whether the answer be not equally conclusive.

The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed by any who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement, to have made God placable, but merely viewed as the means, appointed by divine wisdom, through which to bestow forgiveness. And agreeably to this, do we not find this sacrifice every where spoken of, as ordained by God himself?God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life*—and, herein is love.

not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins*— and again we are told, that we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot-who verily was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world-and again, that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Since then, the notion of the efficiency of the sacrifice of Christ contained in the doctrine of atonement, stands precisely on the same foundation, with that of pure intercession,-merely as the means, whereby God has thought fit to grant his favour and gracious aid to repentant sinners, and to fulfil that merciful intention, which he had at all times entertained towards his fallen creatures : and since, by the same sort of representation, the charge of implacability in the Divine Being, is as applicable to the one scheme, as to the other; that is, since it is a calumny most foully cast upon both : we may estimate, with what candour this has been made, by those who hold the one doctrine, the fundamental ground of their objections against the other. For, on the ground of the expression of God's unbounded love to his creatures every where through Scripture, and of his several declarations that he forgave them freely, it is, that they principally contend, that the notion of expiation by the sacrifice of Christ, can not be the genuine doctrine of the New Testament."

But still it is demanded, "in what way, can the death of Christ, considered as a sacrifice of expiation, be conceived to operate to the remission of sins, unless by the appeasing a Being, who otherwise would not have forgiven us ?"-To this the