Spirit, and to their entire concurrence in all their works, does he venture to make so round and unqualified an assertion-"There is but ONE BEING in the universe to whom they would be indebted for their release; and that is the friend who paid their debt or suffered the penalty of the law in their stead?" Now, from this difficulty the writer cannot extricate himself by saying he admits the unity of the Divine Being, and that we are indebted both to the Son and the Father; because this would be abandoning his argument, which was to show, that, if Christ paid our debt, or suffered the penalty of the law in our stead, then we are indebted for our release not to the Father, but to the Son alone, as if they were not one and the same being.

This objection to the truth betrays its origin.—Infidelity forged it. Christians have received it at her hands.

But the author may say, as in fact he has said, "Be it so, that mercy to redeemed man is the same; but by whom is this mercy exercised. Surely not by God the Father

It is a vital principle of that scheme against which we contend, to represent the Father as rigidly insisting upon the infliction of the whole penalty of the law, before he consents to the offer of salvation to a rebellious world. Every particle of the curse must be inflicted. Every jot and tittle of the law must be executed."

"Now, if when the penalty of the law was about to fall on sinners, the Son of God came forward and endured the exact amount of suffering due, on legal principles, to these sinners, be the number great or small, then the whole mercy involved in their redemption is expressed by Christ alone. The Father, as one of the persons of the Trinity, is inflexibly just, without any inclination to the exercise of mercy; while the Son is so merciful, that he has suffered the most rigid demands of the law, in order to obtain the consent of the Father to the salvation of his people. This representation appears to us derogatory to the character of God. It annihilates the attribute of mercy, and represents the Son as a kind of milder Deity who

has interposed and answered the stern demands of the Father, in behalf of his people, and in this way literally purchased them from perdition."*

The Father is without any inclination to the exercise of mercy!!! The whole mercy involved in redemption is expressed by Christ alone!!!" And is this a fair representation of the views of those who cordially believe what is stated in the Confession of Faith? "Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God, might be glorified in the justification of sinners." chap. ii. sec. 3. Had the author, who has subscribed the Con

* Beman, p. 37.

fession of Faith, attended to this and other articles of that admirable summary of Christian doctrine, it might have kept him from making such unjust misrepresentations of his brethren's views and statements.

But does he not know that all intelligent advocates of the scheme he opposes, have uniformly represented the plan of redemption as originating in the unmerited mercy and boundless love of GOD THE FATHER? Does he not know that they believe the attributes of Jehovah to be immutable; and that they teach that the death of Christ was not the cause, but the fruit, of mercy, as an attribute of the Father? Does he not know that, while they believe the satisfaction of Christ to have been necessary to a consistent and honourable exercise of mercy, they regard the gift of Christ as the highest demonstration of the FATHER'S UNBOUNDED MERCY! Does he not know that they can, with as much emphasis as he, repeat the delightful encomium passed on the Father's love by the Redeemer? "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten

Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." Does he not know that they constantly teach that "the love of God was the cause, and not the effect of the atonement?" These facts he ought to have known, before he assailed an important doctrine in the Confession of Faith and of the BIBLE; but if he did know them, he must account for misrepresenting so greatly the views of his brethren, as well as he can.

But I have not done with the quotations from this writer. If his remarks have any force they apply to his own scheme. He maintains the necessity of an atonement, to open the way for the exercise of divine mercy, and he has spent a whole sermon on that point, and in showing the love which God bears to his holy law. He contends that unless satisfaction had been made to public justice, salvation would have been impossible. Now, he believes that the Son and not the Father, became incarnate; that the Son, and not the Father, humbled him