the word "name," to describe those attributes which are peculiar to Jehovah; and, as in the passage now under consideration, we find the word employed by a Jewish preacher, in an address to a Jewish congregation, the conclusion is, that some peculiarity in the work of Christ, something eminent and distinctive, is intended. But this could not be his doctrine, since, as we have already remarked, in that others shared; and of its truths, in their most comprehensive form, others were more fully the preachers than himself. The salvation which Christ supplies results from what he alone did; from a work in which he had no assistant or coadjutor; and what this work is, cannot be conjectured, except it be allowed to be his great vicarious sacrifice and atonement.

But if this mode of reasoning does not satisfy you, it will not be difficult to suggest another, to which I think you will hardly object. Allow, for the sake of the argument, that the Apostle Peter only meant to say that there was no other system of doctrine and morals, but that taught by Christ, which could supply men with salvation, it will follow, that he

that does not cordially believe that doctrine, and fully practise that morality, cannot be saved. And where is the man that can cherish the slightest hope of salvation upon these terms? Let our Lord's sermon upon the mount be the test of our morality, and who can be saved? Where is the man whose heart has been universally free from anger, covetousness, resentment, and distrust of God's providence? whose lips have never been employed, except to bless his enemies, to adore his God, to express universal charity? Where is the eye that has never shot an impure glance, or the slightest expression of malevolence, under the greatest provocation? Where is the hand which has never been employed in wrath or covetous? Alas! every mouth is stopped, and all the world is guilty before God; and there certainly is no salvation for man upon such terms as these.

ness

It seems, indeed, almost impossible that any man should be able to close his ears, I will not say against the testimony of Scripture, but against the testimony of universal experience, upon the subject of the entire corruption of human nature. For if it be allowed

that all have sinned, which no one who believes the Bible will question, there is no other mode in which this momentous fact can be accounted for. To attribute it to example, is only to remove the difficulty one generation, and the depravity of the exemplars is just as unaccountable as that of their posterity; and thus we may go back to the first man, and we shall then be more at a loss than ever. Example, at least, could have nothing to do with him. To suppose that his immediate posterity were corrupted by his example, if he were a pure being, is nonsense; and to admit him not to have been pure, is, in fact, to allow that very principle of evil of which the Scripture testifies. And if the first of men was the subject of a real depravation of nature, it must be allowed that his posterity cannot be rationally supposed free from it. Beyond this, they have the influence of example as a secondary, though incalculably powerful, cause of impurity; and, superadded to both in the bulk of mankind, a sinful system of education confirms the one, and increases the power of the other.

To a mind philanthropically disposed, it is a

F

question of painful interest: "How can man be just with God, and how can he be clean that is born of a woman?" We are at no loss for a reply: but what are the resources of the rejecters of the doctrine of the atonement? It will not be affirmed by any who admit a system of divine government, that God will forgive sin merely as a matter of prerogative. If he pass by all sin, he ceases to be a governor in any conceivable sense of the term; and if he forgive some arbitrarily, and leave the rest to perish, he ceases to be an equitable governor. But as neither of these conclusions can be allowed, some other method must be suggested for human justification.

By all who reject the notion of the forgiveness of sin by the arbitrary constitution of the divine will, the doctrine of substitution is either tacitly or avowedly admitted; that is, they acknowledge that the Governor of the universe accepts something instead of the actual punishment of the sinner. Those who reject the atonement usually put repentance in its room. Hence Socinus expressly affirms, that the pardon of an impenitent sinner is inconsistent with equity; and Dr. Priestley, when arguing upon

the freeness of the pardon which the Gospel proclaims, confines it to the "truly penitent." Now, if by "repentance" be merely meant sorrow for sin, this notion, after all, resolves the pardon of the offender into an act of the divine prerogative, since it is certain that there is no man who, at one time or other of his life, does not regret the commission of sin. All men, therefore, according to this opinion, will be freed from punishment; which is absurd.

In order, therefore, to relieve themselves from this difficulty, some of our rational theologues add "amendment of life" to "repentance ;" and teach, that God will forgive all past offences, upon the condition that we offend no more. It is true that we have no idea of a government, in this world, conducted on such principles; but that, it would appear, is of no importance to the argument. It is true that we cannot conceive how any past acts can be at all affected by our future conduct. The debauchee may become chaste, but this does not restore the health which he has lost by his licentious life; the prodigal may become frugal, but this does not give him back his squandered patrimony; the dishonest man