This is as it should be. Truth, the truth of God, should be our sole aim, and in pursuit of it all party distinctions should be forgotten.-The work is written with great simplicity and plainness, and breathes throughout a spirit of christian love and meekness. We will give one or two extracts, taken almost at random, as specimens of the author's manner, and style of thinking on the subject of which he treats. The leading idea he intends to inculcate, as expressed in the title of his work, is that the atoning sacrifice is a display of love -not of wrath.' After quoting several passages to show 'the different senses in which one person is said to die or suffer for another,' he observes, 'From the numerous passages which have been quoted, it is very clear that there are several distinct senses, in which one person may be said to suffer or die for another. The question naturally occurs, In which of these senses did Christ suffer and die for sinners? The prevalent opinion has been, that he suffered and died as a substitute for sinners. But to this hypothesis there are many objections; some of which may be briefly stated.

1. The death which Christ endured for us was natural or temporal death; yet all men, the friends as well as the enemies of Christ, are still liable to natural How then could Christ's death be a substitute

death.

for ours?

2. If it be said, that he suffered "the wrath of God" as our substitute; why are we still liable to penal sufferings?

3. The hypothesis that God inflicted on the inno

cent the penal evils due to us, ascribes to God a mode of conduct, and a principle of government, which he forbids men to adopt, and which he himself has positively disclaimed.

4. The principle which the hypothesis ascribes to God, is always unjust and cruel when adopted by men.

5. To interpret the phrases, in relation to Christ, "suffered for us" and " died for us," as meaning substituted suffering and death, is to depart from all the analogies of the Bible, in the use of such phrases in relation to other persons; excepting merely the cases which relate to forbidden conduct and a disclaimed principle.

'After God had forbidden the Israelites to punish the innocent for the offences of the guilty, and had assured them that this practice did not pertain to his mode of government; is it to be admitted that he adopted this very principle for the display of his justice? If we know in what sense a good shepherd is said to lay down his life for his sheep, we may know in what sense the Lord Jesus laid down his life for us. For he was the good Shepherd, and we were as his sheep gone astray. In seeking our recovery he had to encounter enemies and dangers, and to endure sufferings and death. The object of Christ's mission was the recovery of men from a state of sin and misery, to reconcile them to God that they might become obedient and happy. As in pursu→ ing this benevolent object he exposed himself to suffering and to death, and not only thus exposed himself, but actually suffered and died; it is with perfect propriety,

and according to a common use of language, said of him that he suffered for us,-died for us,-laid down his life for us. But that his sufferings were not the effects of God's displeasure against him as our substitute, is, to my mind, very clear from the following passages of Scripture :

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John iii. 16.

""But God commendeth his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." Rom. v.8.

"He who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" Rom. viii. 32.

"That he by the GRACE of God should taste death for every man." Heb. ii. 9.

""Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins." 1 John, iv. 10.

'I hardly know of any language which could more clearly convey the idea, that both the mission and the sufferings of the son of God were the fruits of God's love to sinful men. Even in regard to the 'propitiation,' or reconciling sacrifice, John says," Herein is love!" the love of God, not his 'wrath.' It seems to me that the gospel does not exhibit God to us, as such an austere Sovereign, that he cannot forgive even a penitent, without inflicting the deserved evils on an innocent victim; but, as a being who has indeed a father's heart, and is disposed, by tender compassion for his guilty

offspring, to do all that wisdom and love shall dictate to reconcile and save them. In the exercise of the purest love, he sent his Son, "not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved." Though God well knew that the mission of his Son would cost him his life;—and though the Son was one in whom he was ever well pleased; yet such was his love to us, that he did not withhold this object of his most tender affection, but delivered him up for us all, when this became necessary to the accomplishment of his benevolent purpose respecting our salvation.

"This delightful view of the subject appears to me clearly authorised by the Gospel; and with great propriety the intelligence of such love may be called good tidings. This view of the subject seems also to accord with God's long-suffering conduct towards Adam and his posterity, subsequent to the fall; and with the benignity of the Divine character as revealed to Abraham, to Moses, and to the people of Israel,—both by words and symbolical institutions. I may add, that this view of the subject excludes the awful, the painful, and, to me, unnatural idea of God's displaying avenging justice on an innocent and holy victim, as necessary to the exercise of forgiving love toward his penitent children. It is presumed that this supposed example of the mode of Divine forgiveness, has never been, and never can be, imitated by any enlightened and benevolent being in the universe. Yet every Christian is required to forgive, as God forgives!' pp. 79, 82.

Again in treating of the question, 'In what sense did

وو

the Messiah bear the sins of many? he observes, 'It is said of Christ, "He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. "Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses." It could be only in a metaphorical sense, that he bore our griefs, our sicknesses, or our sins. Matthew, after recording the many miracles which Jesus performed on a certain occasion, tells us, that these things were done, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet,-Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses." If, then, Christ might bear our sicknesses by exercising a benevolent sympathy and his power of healing; why not bear our sins by benevolent labors and sufferings to redeem us from all iniquity? I see no more evidence that, in bearing our sins he bore our punishment, than that in bearing our sicknesses, he suffered all the pains and distresses, of which he relieved others.'

p. 93.

THE CONDITIONS OF OUR ACCEPTANCE WITH GOD.

How strange that men should puzzle and distress themselves indefatigably about what natural conscience infers so directly and the Scriptures testify so plainly! If we had but the single declaration of Peter, that, ‘In every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him,' should we need any