it to another, his Father. And does not the mercy of the Father grant it to the Son? Certainly the advocates for this doctrine must feel themselves reduced to the following dilemma; Either that the mercy of the Father was not equal to the mercy of the Son or that the justice of the Son was not equal to the justice of the Father. There can be no alternative. One must be granted; which ever it is, the orthodox system is destroyed. Our system requires neither, but is clear and consistent throughout.

10th. Will it be said that God himself provided the atonement to be made to himself? Then it renders the whole doctrine a complete nullity. If a person owe me a sum of money, and I chuse to have the debt discharged, is it not precisely the same thing whether I remit the debt at once, or supply another person with money, to pay me again in the debtors name? If satisfaction be made to any purpose, it must be in some manner in which the offender may be a sufferer, and the offended person a gainer. If the Son be the same God with the Father, then did the Almighty sacrifice himself to himself, to satisfy his own? justice, and appease his own wrath. Is not this precisely the same as to say that he forgave the debtors without any satisfaction at all, and thus reduce to nothing the boasted doctrine of atonement.

11th. If it were the death of Christ which gave this satisfaction to the Deity, then it could have been a man only who accomplished the atonement. The first idea which we have of God is that of immortali

ty. It is therefore an utter impossibility that God should die, because the moment he becomes mortal, or liable to death, he ceases to be God. If therefore it was the death of any person which satisfied the justice of the Deity, it must have been the death of a mortal man. It must therefore after all, have been a finite being, who satisfied infinite justice.

12th. The sentence to be pronounced at the day of judgement is invariably stated to be pronounced according to the works of the individual. There is not as far as I can recollect a single exception to this statement either in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles or the Epistles. In every instance in which the day of judgment is introduced, men are said to be punished or rewarded, according to the deeds done in their body. Is not this a striking fact? Upon this alone the case might be rested. It is utterly impossible that a revelation from God should positively assert this, if the decision were to be made according to a person's speculative opinions, or in consequence of the merits of another.

13th. Upon this subject the following statement appears to be such as may be collected from the Scripture In the Jewish code of laws, the sanctions, that is, the rewards proposed and the punishments threatened were all of a temporal nature, such as that of living long in the land, and having their iniquities visited upon their children. Now the great object of a new revelation was to supersede these, to prove the reality of a future state of rewards and punishments, and by

these motives, instead of temporal ones, to urge them to virtue and obedience to God. This was the new covenant. God on his part, promised to his children forgiveness of the past and acceptance in a future world, if they on their part forsook their former evil practices, and devoted themselves to the service of God in sincerity of heart. In order to stimulate them to this change of heart and life, in addition to promises and threats, a more powerful motive was held out, the selection of a Man pre-eminent among his fellows for piety and virtue, as an example of the manner in which they should act, and as a proof of the veracity and fidelity of God in accepting him for his obedience, and rewarding him with eternal life. To accomplish this object, it was necessary that this exalted character should be exhibited to the very last as persevering in his obedience. It was necessary that he should die publicly and be raised again to lifethis being the only positive proof that could be given of a resurrection to life after death. His death and resurrection then, were the consummation of the whole, the seal of the covenant. They were of the utmost importance, for without them the two grand objects could never have been secured, the proof of futurity and the perfection of the example. These being the consummation of the whole, the benefits of the New Covenant may without any forced construction of language be ascribed to these, Hence originate all those passages which speak in such triumphant language, of the death and resurrection of Christ, Now, be it rew

membered that the benefits received are in different parts of the New Testament ascribed to all the following causes; to the sufferings of Christ, to his life, to his death, to his resurrection; and in ten times the number of places, to our repentance and future obedi- · ence. Now all these are true in part, but only in part; for without any one of them the end would not have been so completely answered. Without his life the revelation would not have been made-withouthis sufferings and death, his obedience could not have been perfected, for which he was rewarded;-without his resurrection no proof of a future state could have been given -and without our obedience as the consequence of these inducements the blessings of the New Covenant do not extend to us. Consequently he died for us, for our sake. He was delivered for our sins, not instead of, but on account of our sins. Our redemption or deliverance from sin was through his blood, and our ransom effected by his life. By enforcing the operation of these motives and inducements, he hath re conciled us to God-he hath borne away our sins on a tree-he hath brought us to one with God, that is, accomplished the atonement. Thus could I without any perversion, use every word and phrase upon this subject in the New Testament, which are so frequently urged against us. One object pervades the whole, one end alone is to be answered-to make man fulfil his part of the covenant-to make man obedient, pious, righteous, good. This is the first and last, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end of

the gospel dispensation. The others are grand inducements to this end, and if they do not accomplish it, there is reason to believe, that such would not be converted though one rose purposely from the dead.

Lastly. Our system of doctrine is a cheerful and enlivening one. Its peculiar representations of the character of God, and the ultimate destiny of man, are eminently fitted to inspire satisfaction and delight: We look around us with complacency we look forward with blissful anticipation-for we trace the operations of that omnipotent Love from which all things originated, and which will consummate its work, by establishing the universal and eternal reign of virtue and happiness. With other Christians, the doctrine of satisfaction is the source of Christian joy. But what pleasure can that notion afford to a benevolent mind? Will it teach him to rejoice in a God who knows not how to pardon, and who, but for the interposition of his Son, would have been ever unmoved by the groans of misery, the sighs and prayers of penitence;-in a world under the wrath and curse of God, and whose inhabitants are born under a law which they cannot fulfil-and to an infinitely wretched destiny which they cannot avoid; or in a salvation purchased by innocent blood designed for only a part, probably a small part f mankind, and which leaves millions not more sinful than himself, in a state of remediless ruin? If there be those who can derive pleasure from such considerations, I envy not their selfish and degrading joy.