the sacred scriptures, for a doctrine upon which so much stress is laid. We may add that reason opposes it in every stage, and in every representation of it. It is a strange idea, that the anger of God can only be appeased by the death of his Son, in whom he was always well pleased! It is a strange idea that God cannot forgive a personal injury, without a full satisfaction, or some degree of compensation, which in effect annihilates an act of grace; annihilates a sense of obligation towards the offended party; and transfers it to the benevolent Sponsor! Respecting the requisitions of the law, these are fully satisfied when the constituted penalty is inflicted, whatever may be the nature of the penalty. The object of all penalties is to enforce the observance of laws; the object of all laws is to promote some kind or degree of good. Few, véry few are the cases in which a nice balance can be observed, between the atrocity of the offence and the nature of the punishment. It is, perhaps, impracticable, where great injuries have been committed; unless the injuries consisted in the deprivation of property, by one who possesses wealth sufficient to make ample restitution. The execution of a murderer will not restore the murdered person to life, or indemnify his family for the loss sustained. The law of retaliation will not restore an eye, or a tooth, to the party injured. From these instances it is obvious that the demands of the law are answered, not by paying an equivalent for the offence, but by submitting to its penalties. Even in this case justice is not always inexorable. Justice always demands that the guilty should not be declared to be innocent; but human laws, sanguinary

f

as they too often are, do not preclude mercy; and to deny to the Deity the power of pardoning offences, without indemnification, is laying a restriction upon him to which no earthly potentate would submit. It is advancing a principle in Ethics, which prohibits the forgivenness of an injury! For it is our duty to imitate God in all moral excellence; and if we thus imitate him in not being unjust to ourselves, we shall certainly become revengeful towards others! Once more—

1

The Apostle Paul, upon whose peculiar phraseology the hypothesis we oppose is founded, expatiates with more ardour upon the free abundant grace of God, in the salvation of man, than any other of the Apostles. To quote all the passages which would prove the truth of this assertion, would be to transcribe too large a portion of his Epistles. He introduces his Epistle to the Hebrews by asserting, that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father, as the last messenger from heaven, to instruct and save mankind. If he represents Christ as a propitiation for sin, we are told that "God has set him forth to be a propitiation ;" and that "the redemption that is in Christ, is by the free grace of God." If Christ died while we were yet sinners, it was because "God commended his love towards us, and because God spared not his own son, but delivered him for us all." The following passage is too expressive to be omitted, and so comprehensive, that farther citations from him will be unnecessary. "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their

M m 2

up

trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are embassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled unto God."* St. John expresses the same idea in the following manner: "In this was manifest the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins.†

Such language is so perspicuous and decisive, that one might suppose it to have been the object of the Apostles to confute the sentiments which have been entertained, through a misconception of less definite expressions. They direct our primary attention to the fountain of all good, whose unpurchased commiseration, and parental affections, have planned and executed the scheme of man's redemption.

We are the more strenuous in our opposition to the sentiments under consideration, because they are so inconsistent with the encouraging character of a Parent; the revelation and developement of which constitutes the grand excellency of the Christian dispensation. We have largely shewn the condescending affection with which the universal Father has supported this character through all its offices; and shall a few occasional and equivocal expressions convert him, in our opinion, into the inexorable judge? -Proposing conditions of pardon, at which every earthly parent would revolt? Who, amongst the sons of men, would demand the punish

ment of the most meritorious of his offspring, as a condition of his receiving the most rebellious into his favour? Who would not run and embrace the returning penitent, without demanding a compensation of any kind? and exclaim, with transports of joy, "this my son was dead, and is alive again, was lost and is found ?"

Note I.

After" to the glory of God the Father." Page 320.

The ambiguous phraseology used by the apostle in the passage quoted in the text, has given rise to various inferences of a speculative nature; and it is much to be lamented that the eagerness with which speculative opinions have been supported or opposed, has too much diverted the attention of Christians from the primary design of the writer. This was not to give a dissertation upon the metaphysical nature of Christ, but to expatiate upon his voluntary humiliation for the benefit of man; and the exaltation he enjoyed in consequence of what he has done and suffered for, a sinful world. The passage before us is singular; but it does not attempt to introduce a doctrine unknown before. Nor is it sufficiently explicit to merit the character of an express revelation. It is manifestly a reference to some peculiarity respecting the Son of God, with which the Philippians were not unacquainted. We shall state the following explanation, the principles of which no disputant will controvert, should he not admit that the statement comprehends the whole of the apostle's meaning.

All the rational creatures of God are frequently termed

his offspring. By this honourable appellation they are distinguished from every inferior creature that has life. When Moses informs us that God created man in his own image, no one has inferred that we are of the same essence; this would be an actual participation, not a likeness, or image, which implies a likeness in some respects, where there is an essential difference in others. It can only relate to those, intellectual and moral powers, with which it has pleased the Deity to invest man ; by which he is elevated above the brute creation, and enabled to exercise dominion over them. But, what is of much greater importance, by the capacity of discerning between good and evil, in moral conduct, we are enabled to promote our own well-being, and that of others, to a degree that shall make existence a permanent blessing. Whatever distance there may be in the physical nature of man, in his mental and moral endowments, he is honoured by a likeness to his Creator. But unhappily, as yet, we resemble him alone in the possession of such powers, and not in the exercise of them; for this would render us perfect in our sphere as he is perfect,

T

1

But Jesus, in his moral character, bore the closest resemblance to his heavenly Father. For he was perfect in all things. Therefore was he without controversy, infinitely more in the form and image of the Holy God, than those, whose sinful frailties place them at so remote a distance.

Since the Saviour of the world was, in the excellencies of his moral character, the express image, and the brightness of his Father's glory; he was, according to the established law of Morals, entitled to an exemption