truth through the world and in each particu lar heart, could not have been communicated without it, so as to have been distinctly and vividly apprehended; but it is never mentioned except in connexion with these objects; nor is it ever taught as a separate subject of belief. There is a great and important difference between these two modes of statement. In the first, the doctrine stands as an isolated fact of a strange and unintelligible nature, and is apt even to suggest the idea that Christianity holds out a premium for believing improbabilities. In the other, it stands indissolubly united with an act of Divine holiness and compassion, which radiates to the heart an appeal of tenderness most intelligible in its nature and object, and most constraining in its influence.

The abstract fact that there is a plurality in the unity of the Godhead, really makes no address either to our understandings, or our feelings, or our consciences. But the obscurity of the doctrine, as far as moral purposes are concerned, is dispelled, when it comes in such a form as this, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life." Or this," But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things." Our metaphysical ignorance of the Divine essence is not indeed in the slightest degree removed by this mode of stating the subject; but our moral ignorance of the Divine character is enlightened; and that is the

thing with which we have to do. We love or hate our fellow creatures--we are attracted to or repelled from them-in consequence of our acquaintance with their moral characters; and we do not find ourselves barred from the exercise of these feelings, because the anatomical structure of their frames is unknown to us, or because the mysterious link which binds the soul to the body has baffled all investigation. The knowledge communicated by revelation is a moral knowledge, and it has been communicated in order to produce a moral effect upon our characters; and a knowledge of the Divine essence would have as little bearing upon this object, as far as we can see, as a knowledge of the elementary essence of matter.

I shall give one example more of the mode in which the truth of God has been perverted by passing through the hands of men. The doctrine of the atonement through Jesus Christ, which is the corner-stone of Christianity, and to which all the other doctrines of revelation are subservient, has had to encounter the misapprehension of the understanding as well as the pride of the heart. This pride is natural to man, and can only be overcome by the power of the truth; but the misapprehension might be removed by the simple process of reading the Bible with attention; because it has arisen from neglecting the record itself, and taking our information from the discourses or the systems of men who have engrafted the metaphysical subtleties of the schools upon the unperplexed statement of the word of God. In

order to understand the facts of revelation, we must form a system to ourselves; but if any subtlety, of which the application is unintelligible to common sense, or uninfluential on conduct, enters into our system, we may be sure that it is a wrong one. The common-sense sys

tem of a religion consists in two connexions,first, the connexion between the doctrines and the character of God which they exhibit; and secondly, the connexion between these same doctrines and the character which they are intended to impress on the mind of man. When, therefore, we are considering a religious doctrine, our questions ought to be, "What view does this doctrine give of the character of God? and what influence will it have on the character of man?" Now, the Bible tells us that God so loved the world as to give his Son for it. It tells us, also, that he did this that he might show himself just, even when justifying the ungodly; and that he might magnify the law and make it honourable. The mercy and the holiness of the Divine character, therefore, are the qualities which are exhibited by this doctrine. The effect upon the character of man, produced by the belief of it, will be to love Him who first loved us, and to put the fullest confidence in his goodness and willingness to forgive--to associate sin with the ideas both of the deepest misery and the basest ingratitude--to admire the unsearchable wisdom and the high principle which have combined the fullest mercy with the most uncompromising justice—and to love all our fellow creatures from the consid

eration that our common Father has taken such an interest in their welfare, and from the thought, that as we have been all shipwrecked in the same sea, by the same wide-wasting tempest, so we are all invited by the same gracious voice to take refuge in the same haven of eternal rest.

It might seem scarcely possible that this simple doctrine should be misapprehended; and yet from the unaccountable and most unfortunate propensity to look for religious information any where rather than in the Bible, it has been perverted in a variety of ways, according to the tempers of those who have speculated on it. It has been sometimes so incautiously stated, as to give ground to cavillers for the charge that the Christian scheme represents God's attribute of justice as utterly at variance with every moral principle. The allegation has assumed a form somewhat resembling this, "that, according to Christianity, God indeed apportions to every instance and degree of transgression its proper punishment; but that while he rigidly exacts this punishment, he is not much concerned whether the person who pays it be the real criminal or an innocent being, provided only that it is a full equivalent." This perversion has arisen from the habit amongst some religious writers, of pressing too far the analogy between a crime and a pecuniary debt. It is not surprising, that any one. who entertains such a view of the subject, should reject Christianity as a revelation of the God of holiness and goodness. But this is not

**

the view given in the Bible.

The account

which the Bible gives of the matter is this, "Herein is love,-not that we loved God, but that God loved us, and sent his son to be a propitiation for our sins ;" and God set forth Jesus Christ, "to declare his righteousness." Any view of the doctrine which is inconsistent with this account, is a perversion of Scripture, for which the perverters are themselves responsi ble, and not the Bible. The error consists in separating the actions of God from the intention manifested in them towards men. Were such a view, however, of the Divine being, as that which has been just mentioned, actually and fully believed by any man of an ordinary construction of mind, it would assuredly produce very strange and very melancholy results. He would learn from it to consider the connexion between sin and misery, not as a necessary connexion, but as an arbitrary one, which might be dissolved, and had been dissolved by the authority of mere power. Thus he could

not identify in his thoughts and feelings misery with sin, which is one of the prominent lessons of the Bible. He could see nothing in the character of God either venerable or lovely. And even the restraint of fear would be removed by the idea that a penalty had been already paid of greater price than any debt of crime which he had contracted or could contract. His heart could find in this doctrine no constraining power urging him to the fulfilment of the great commandments of love to God and man. In fact, this doctrine undermines the