all along existed from the beginning, cannot be accounted for, or reconciled with our ideas of the moral government of a just and righteous Creator, except on the ground of some atonement having been made some medium of reconciliation established, between God and man. We have seen,

1. That forgiveness could not have been extended to the first transgressors, nor their life spared, unless some such extraordinary manifestation of God's displeasure against sin had been given, as that which the gift and sacrifice of his only begotten son exhibit.

2. That not a single individual would have sprung from the loins of Adam, had it not been for redemption.

3. That in consideration of the atonement to be made for human transgression, Adam was favoured with a second trial under a new dispensation.

4. That Adam and all his posterity owe their existence, under this new dispensation, to the atonement made by the son of God; that existence, therefore, must, next to the gift of eternal life, be the greatest favour which could be conferred upon them.

5. That existence cannot be a favour to all men, unless redemption really and truly provides for their everlasting happiness. Without such a provision, indeed, the dispensation under which we live, would be seriously imperfect; and would be a reflection on the wisdom, and goodness, and power of God.

In conclusion, we may add, if the few simple pro

positions which we have laid down, and defended in the present chapter, be founded in truth and reason, then have we demonstrated, that the doctrine of an exclusive and unconditional election of a part of Adam's posterity to everlasting life, can have no existence but in the imaginations of men; and that it must be men's own fault, not in the sham sense of modern Calvinism but really and truly their own fault, if they are not saved. And it is as clearly demonstrated that the doctrine of reprobation, or, in the smoother language of our modern predestinarians, the passing by, or leaving the non-elect to perish in their sins, is a mere figment of human invention. It must be evident to all, except those who are determined not to see, that a part of Adam's posterity could not be passed by, without passing by the wholethat a part could not be redeemed, without redeeming the whole that a redeemer of any one, must be a redeemer of every one.

CHAPTER II.

ON THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.

On the nature of the atonement, we find that there exists, amongst theologians, a great diversity of opinion. Sentiments as opposed to each other, as are the poles of the earth, have been stoutly defended. The controversy has turned chiefly on the sufferings of the redeemer. By one party we have been told that it was necessary for Christ to suffer the entire penalty which was due to the sins of the whole world; or, in other words, that his sufferings were required to be exactly equal to what all mankind would have suffered if they had been damned. Whilst others contend that his sufferings and death were in no sense vicarious; that is, not endured in the place or stead of others; but intended only to confirm his mission and the doctrines which he taught! Those who

hold the former sentiment, affirm that, unless the whole amount of suffering had been endured, and the entire debt of obligation, which man was owing to divine justice, paid off, no mercy could possibly have been shown to the guilty; whilst those, who hold the latter, would have us believe, that repentance and reformation are, of themselves, sufficient to move the compassion of the Deity to pardon the sins of men!

It is manifest, that these opposite and conflicting sentiments cannot both be true; and, as the inferences which the different parties draw from their respective views, are of considerable importance to mankind, and have a very different practical tendency, it will be necessary to inquire, whether sufficient evidence can be adduced in support of the one or the other; for, in all our inquiries after truth, evidence alone should be our guide. But, instead of asking for evidence, it is more common to inquire, what is the belief of our party? creed to which we have subscribed? known that, when men have once committed themselves to defend the creed or hypothesis of a party, no absurdity is too great, or too gross, for them to run into. Rather than admit that their party may be in error, or that their creed can be wrong, they will hazard the credit of reveJation, and expose religion itself to ridicule and contempt!

What says

the

And it is well

There is no subject, perhaps, to which these remarks are more applicable, than that which we are now about

S

to consider; the nature of the christian atonement. The injudicious manner in which it has been treated by some authors, is calculated, in no small degree, to serve the interests of infidelity, and to conduct mankind into the bewildering labyrinths of universal scepticism.

We are persuaded that those extreme opinions on the nature of the atonement, above referred to, can never be supported on rational and scriptural evidence; yet, each disputant is afraid of any reconciling plan-is unwilling to acknowledge and welcome the truth, when it happens to form an article in the creed of his opponent! To believe any thing that a papist, a unitarian, a socinian, an antinomian, or an arminian believes, would be degrading to their understanding, and would lay them open to the suspicion that they were not true to their own party! And rather than be suspected of this, they will sometimes exclude the clearest light, and involve themselves in absurdities and inconsistencies the most glaring.

From what has been advanced in the preceding chapter, the reader will be inclined, perhaps, to think, with us, that the truth lies somewhere between those extremes to which allusion has been made: and that it will require both attention, and patient investigation, in order to search it out, and to ascertain its exact position. To attempt this shall be our object in the present chapter. May the result of our labour be instructive and interesting to the reader!