culty and perplexity-that the resources of Divinity were so nearly exhausted, that only a single alternative remained, and the Creator must either abandon the intelligent inhabitants of earth to final, irretrievable destruction, or else rescue them by the precise method which Christianity exhibits. And after all, the point is one respecting which it is useless to speculate. It is surely enough for us to know that some method was necessary; and that a method every way adequate to the end contemplated, has been revealed.

We are thus led to a second general reflection suggested by the passage under consideration, which is, that sufficient provision has been made on the part of God, for the recovery of men from "sin and uncleanness." This is implied in the figurative language of our text. A "fountain" conveys the idea of abundance. The water from a reservoir may be exhausted: but the stream that emanates from an original source, runs with a fulness and steadiness, in which we may recognise at once the bounty and the uniformity of nature. And in the same manner flows the grace of God which bringeth salvation: a tide of benevolence-a current of compassion,-exuberant and perennial.

There are two aspects under which the salvation of the gospel may be contemplated. It may be regarded as a plan both for expiating the guilt of men, and gradually emancipating them from the dominion of evil habits; the former being accomplished through the atoning merits of the death of Christ, and the latter effected by the gracious operations of the Holy Spirit. Let us glance for a few minutes at each of these particulars.

The provision which God has made for the salvation of men, consists primarily in a full satisfaction rendered to his justice for their transgressions, by the sacrifice of

his Son. We are aware, that we are now approaching ground which has been much contested. The doctrine which asserts the necessity and the fact of an atonement for sin, has been assailed by every form and variety of argument. But before we undertake to repel any of the objections which have been made to this doctrine, we would direct your attention, for a moment, to a single point. We presume, then, that every one who has read the Bible, has observed, that the death of Christ is dwelt upon by the inspired penmen with an emphasis altogether peculiar. No one will attempt to deny, that far more importance is attached to this event, than to any other which the sacred Scriptures record. So unquestionable is this fact, that the most candid of the rejectors of the doctrine of the atonement, have felt themselves constrained to admit, that the death of the Messiah, besides its use as an example of fortitude and resignation in the endurance of suffering, may be the means of accomplishing some higher but unknown object in the divine administration. This they grant may be the case, though they contend, that it is a matter too obscurely revealed, to form an intelligible article of religious belief, or to exert a perceptible influence on religious practice. Now, while we admire the ingenuousness of those who make even this slender concession, we deeply regret that the inveteracy of preconceived opinions is such, as to prevent them from discovering that what they view as a mere possibility, the New Testament announces as an absolute and a glorious certainty. The sacred writers occasionally refer to the sufferings of Jesus as an example of fortitude and resignation. But they much more frequently and emphatically refer to those sufferings as a great transaction, in virtue of which sin may be pardoned, and sinners saved. They incidentally exhibit the Son of God as a

perfect model for human imitation, while they generally and chiefly describe him as the only Deliverer from the curse of a violated law. There is, therefore, great propriety and pertinency in the exhortation of an old author, who tells us, to "take heed, that we do not so consider Christ for our pattern, as to disown him for our Saviour and Redeemer."

That the death of the Son of God has some peculiar relation to the forgiveness and acceptance of fallen man, is a truth the denial of which seems to lead to the conclusion, that a very numerous order of scriptural passages convey no intelligible meaning, and can be applied to no useful purpose. Did the prophet Isaiah, for instance, utter nothing more than a puerile rhapsody, when he declared, that the coming Messiah should be "wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities?" Was Daniel beside himself, when he affirmed, that this same Messiah "should be cut off, but not for himself?" Or if it be alleged, that the prophets were accustomed to express themselves poetically and obscurely, what shall we make of many of the assertions of such a plain and prosaic personage as the apostle Paul? He tells us, that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures"-that he "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself"-that he "gave himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour"—that he was "made sin for us, though he himself "knew no sin." The same apostle on more than one occasion represents the Lord Jesus as "the propitiation for our sins." These and similar passages that might be quoted, must, we presume, have some meaning. Now, they surely cannot imply, that Jesus of Nazareth died simply as a martyr and a pattern of heroic fortitude; or, at any rate, if this be their meaning, the inevitable conclusion is, that the authors of the

Bible were so strangely ignorant of the ordinary use of language-so singularly destitute of common sense-that the book which they have written is perfectly valueless, and can answer no other end than to produce dissensions and controversies respecting its contents. And are we prepared for this conclusion? If not, we must admit, that the inspired penmen meant what the phraseology which they have employed to express their ideas, naturally implies that the death of Christ is a great transaction designed to obviate any difficulty which the principles of God's moral government, and the general interests of the universe, might otherwise have interposed to the pardon of human offenders-the prominent provision and leading feature of a plan by which Jehovah might be just, and yet justify the guilty.

It has been already intimated that various objections have been urged against the doctrine of the atonement. And nothing, brethren, is more easy than to object. It is by no means difficult to say, that the doctrine in question represents the Deity as a stern and vindictive being, who will bestow not a look of compassion upon his miserable creatures without some valuable consideration-a being whose laws are “written like Draco's, in blood," and who has" erected a gallows in the centre of the universe" for the most conspicuous and terrible manifestation of his justice and wrath." Nor is it difficult to complain that this doctrine is dark and mysterious-that it supposes a relation to subsist between the sufferings of an innocent Personage, and the acquittal of the guilty, which is wholly incomprehensible. These, and a hundred such objections, we say, are easily made. But the only legitimate query, as we conceive, is, Do the sacred Scriptures, describe the death of Christ as an atonement for sin-an event eminently instrumental in procuring the forgiveness

of human offenders-a something, in short, without which our entire race must have been lost? If they do thus describe it, then there ought to be an end to all unbelief or doubt the saying is a faithful one and worthy of all acceptation. And yet it has been too common for dispu tants on this subject, to forget the point really at issue, and to lose themselves in abstruse and unintelligible disquisitions relative to the nature of the atonement. Brethren, we regard all disquisitions of this sort, whether they proceed from the heterodox, or from those who are reputed orthodox, as speculations that can lead to no valuable or satisfactory result. We have nothing whatever to do with the nature of the atonement. Our business is solely with the question, whether or not one has been made for sin. And if we find that the inspired record virtually answers this question in the affirmative, we are then bound to yield our credence to a fact so highly and fully authenticated, even though we are not able to clear up all the difficulties connected with it, which it is easy for ingenious minds of a sceptical turn to suggest. We know, that some of the most real and obvious phenomena in nature-even the very existence of material thingshave been denied by some philosophers—yes, and denied with such an array of plausible argumentation, that their works remain to this day unanswered-for all the reasoning of Dr. Reid on this subject, however well-meant, serves only to remind us of that famous definition, "Why, a poet is as much as one should say-a poet." And why have not these works been answered? Because our knowledge here below is limited. We know, indeed, that material things do actually exist. Their existence was known to the very metaphysicians who attempted to deny it. But we are unable from the imperfection of our mental faculties, to explain clearly and satisfactorily the