ing quotations show, that protests and remonstrance are of no avail. The enemies of the atonement will go on to misrepresent and calumniate the doctrine.

Dr. B. (p. 229), indulges in the following invectives : "If, therefore, the common doctrine of the atonement or "propitiation imply, that God is not naturally propitious, "placable, and merciful, it contradicts every principle of "natural and revealed religion. He requires nothing to "make him merciful, but to be merciful ourselves; nothing "to make him placable, but that we be meek, lowly, and "forgiving nothing to make him propitious to us, but that we be kind and tender-hearted to one another. With re

spect to himself, he requires only that we walk humbly "before him. Any construction, therefore, of this doc"trine, which represents God as implacable, should be re"jected without further inquiry, without exposing your re"ligious feelings to be degraded by sophistical arguments and fanatical harangues." We grant Dr. B., that if the common doctrine of the atonement implies, that God is not naturally propitious, placable, and merciful, it contradicts every principle of natural and revealed religion. But the common doctrine of the atonement implies no such thing, The advocates of the atonement abhor the idea. They regard it with infinite contempt. It is not the friends, but the enemies of the atonement, that represent God as naturally implacable. It is Dr. B. that thus represents him.According to the Doctor, God is not naturally merciful, propitious, or placable; but requires to be MADE SO!—And who will MAKE him so? WE OURSELVES ! ! He requires our mercifulness to make HIM MERCIFUL !—our meekness, lowliness, and forgiving disposition, to make HIM PLAÇABLE!-our kindness and tender-heartedness, to make HIM PROPITIOUS! What even the blood of the Son of God could not accomplish, is thus modestly ascribed to human virtue ! Let the reader now judge whose principles are most calculated to expose our religious feelings to be degraded by sophistical arguments and fanatical harangues-whose doctrine it is that contradicts every principle of natural and revealed religion.

The advocates of the atonement constantly affirm, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are equal in placability-in mercy-in grace-in love-in all divine perfections. They constantly affirm, that it was the sovereign mercy, grace, und love of God, which induced him to provide a remedy,

to lay help upon one that was mighty to save-to send his Son into the world to save sinners. They constantly affirm, that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only be"gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not "perish, but have everlasting life." Such are the real views of those who hold the doctrine of the atonementviews very different indeed from that " extraordinary accu"mulation of false doctrine" and contradiction, falsely charged upon them by Dr. B.

After our author has sufficiently declaimed against ima ginary false doctrine, he proceeds to state, what he con ceives to be the true doctrine. Sin, he grants, to be hateful to God, and at the same time assures us, that "God's "hatred of sin can mean only his hatred of the sinner, and "his love of righteousness can be shown only by his kindC6 ness to the righteous.' Now, if God hate sin, and if his hatred of sin can only mean his hatred of sinners, it follows of course, that God hates all mankind; for all are sinners ! We distinguish between God's hatred of sin, and his hatred of sinners; the Doctor denies any such distinction. It fol lows then, that since God hates sin-and hates it with an implacable hatred, as our author will not deny-he must also hate sinners with an implacable hatred !—And as the whole human family who are capable of moral agency are sinners, he must hate with implacable hatred the whole human family!-but, if he hate the whole human family with an implacable hatred, the whole human family must be eternally miserable!-They must all be damned! Not one soul can possibly be saved! God loves mankind, according to the Doctor, yet hates them-hates them as he hates sin, that is, with an implacable and eternal hatred!! Such are Dr. Bruce's ideas of God's hatred of sin and sinners! Such is his mild, true, and consistent doctrine !!!

New and

Let us attend to his views of God's love of righteousness. "God's love of righteousness," says the Doctor, 66 can be shown only by his kindness to the righteous.' strange doctrine indeed! A doctrine as unscriptural and absurd, as it is novel. Tell me, Dr. B., can God only show his love of righteousness by his kindness to the righ teous? Can he not also show it by punishing the wicked? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? The senti ments of David on this subject differ widely from those of our author. (Psal. xi. 6, 7,) Upon the wicked he shall “rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest :

"this shall be the portion of their cup. For the righteous "Lord loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold "the upright." Here we see, that God's love of righteous ness is testified, by raining a horrible tempest on sinners, as well as by showing kindness to the righteous.-(See Rev. xvi. 5, 6.—Rom. ii. 6, 9, inclusive.)—I submit, now, to every reader capable of the slightest reflection, whether the friends of the atonement, or Dr. B. may more justly be charged with an extraordinary accumulation of false doctrine and contradiction.

SECTION III.

2

The Death of Christ vicarious.

THE way of a sinner's salvation is so plain that a wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err therein.-But is there any thing so plain either in the volume of nature or divine revelation, as not to be controverted? That there is a God, has been denied that there is a sun in the firmament, has been questioned that there is no material world, has been asserted-that there is nothing in the universe but ideas and sensations, has been strenuously maintained.-It would seem, that the pride of man piques itself in opposing those truths which are the most plain and incontrovertible; whilst it glories in advocating errors the most paradoxical and absurd. Were this weakness of our nature—to call it by no worse name-manifested only in abstract theories, and philosophical speculations, it might be regarded as of very little consequence-it might afford matter of ridicule or amusement: but, when it is employed in subverting the Christian system, or razing the foundations of the sinner's hope, the pious Christian cannot avoid feeling the most acute and painful sensations. Good, however, results from evil. Not only Christianity itself, but all the doctrines of the Christian system, are calculated to bear the most rigorous examination-the most fiery trial. Whilst the wood, hay, and stubble, of erroneous opinions are burnt up, the gold, silver, and precious stones of gospel doctrines shine forth with refulgent splendour, delighting every mind with their beauty, and dazzling every eye with their glory.

The great atoning sacrifice of Jesus was predicted by prophets, typified by sacrifice, proclaimed by apostles, preached by the Redeemer, and celebrated in the rapturous

inspired anthems both of the Old and New Testament church. Hundreds of texts prove that glorious doctrine, which is the foundation stone of the Christian system-the cardinal point, on which turn all our hopes for time and eternity. The doctrine of a vicarious atonement being of great, of paramount, of infinite importance, is taught in the sacred volume so abundantly and so clearly, that he who runs may read.

ISAIAH assures us, that our blessed Redeemer was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; that the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and that by his stripes we are healed-that it pleased the Lord to bruise him, to put him to grief, to make his soul on offer. ing for sin, and to lay upon him the inquities of us all.

DANIEL predicted, that the Messiah should be cut off, but not for himself that he should finish transgressions, make an end of sins, make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness.

THE APOSTLE PAUL assures us, that we are bought with a price that Jesus Christ gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity-that we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins-that he has purchased the church with his blood-that he has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for usthat God has set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, and has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. That Jesus Christ gave himself for us, as a sacrifice and offering of a sweet smelling savour; and put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

PETER affirms, that we are redeemed, not with corruptible things, as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of the Son of God, as of a lamb without spot or blemish-that Jesus Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God-that his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.

THE APOSTLE JOHN assures us, once and again, that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins-and that his blood cleanseth us from all sin.

OUR BLESSED LORD HIMSELF declares, that he came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give life a ransom for many.

These, and a multitude of other Scriptures too numerous

does

for quotation, prove to the humblest and most illiterate mind, the doctine of a vicarious atonement. The obvious meaning of such texts Doctor B. endeavours to evade by a variety of stratagems. He tells us, that "the words in "Greek which are translated for, as Christ died for us," and he was a ransom for many," are equivocal. But I will tell the learned Doctor, that the words avri, veg, and go, in Greek, are no more equivocal than the word for in English. When the mere English scholar reads, that an orange was given for a lemon, or an apple for a pear, he feel any difficulty in the application of the word for? None at all. He knows quite well, that it signifies substitution or exchange. Were Doctor B. to tell him, that he is quite mistaken-that the word for has various acceptations-that, therefore, he should not conclude that there was any barter, substitution or exchange in the case-would not the most illiterate peasant laugh at such criticism? With equal contempt will the plain unlettered Christian treat that criticism, which denies that there is any substitution implied in such texts as these: "Christ died for the ungodly"—He gave his life a ransom for many""Who gave himself a ransom for all." And with still greater contempt will such criticism be treated by the man who understands the force of the original. The radical meaning of the preposition urg, is above. The first quoted text might therefore be more literally rendered, "Christ died above the ungodly." The idea is strikingly significant. The sinner is represented as lying prostrate at the feet of his offended sovereign, and the arm of divine vengeance lifted up, ready to strike the fatal blow; the blessed Redeemer throwing himself, eg, upon or above the sinner, is pierced by the sword of divine justice, whilst the sinner escapes. The ordinary signification of the preposition avri, is also substitution. (Ex. xxi. 23, 24,) " And if any mis"chief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, "tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." In all these instances of substitution, the preposition for, is avr in the Septuagint. Multitudes of similar instances might be adduced. When we are assured that Jesus Christ gave his life a ransom for many (λυτρον αντι πολλών,) can we doubt that substitution is intended? The appropriate meaning of λυτρον, is a ransom, and of avri, substitution. 1 Tim. ii. 6, is, if possible, still stronger. Who gave himself