mere man with a divine commission might have answered. But to atone for the sins of man, as well those inherited from the corruption of the parent stock, as those which have been incurred by the waywardness of individuals, was such an atonement as none who were themselves of the same frail nature could make. Now, looking to Scripture, it appears to me, that the laws of God's government having been continually broken by all, and God having thus been continually set at nought and neglected and despised, the divine wrath must necessarily have been provoked, and that his majesty and justice therefore required some atonement to be made, in order to the reconciliation of man to himself, and to the arrest of punishment. Now, 'without shedding of blood,' as I read, 'there is no remission.' Not the blood of goats or bulls, (for he says, ' I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats,') but of some greater and worthier offering. In reference to this it is, that I consider the sacrifice of animals to have been enjoined by the Mosaic law; and, in fact, it is only upon the principle of some immediate revelation from God himself, that I feel able satisfactorily to account for the origin of any of those sacri

fices which prevailed so universally among mankind, previous to the coming of Christ, as the means of appeasing the anger of the Deity, and which still exist among the nations that have not yet known him. The death, therefore, which, according to the sacred writings, Christ suffered upon the cross, appears to me to have been the sacrifice of a spotless victim, offered unto God to turn away his displeasure,' and to make that atonement for the sins of the world, which could only be expiated by the shedding of the blood of Him who had done no sin.' To say that this doctrine is irrational, is only an admission of its high mysterious character, which shows it to be above human reason, but which yet is not contrary to it. To say that it is unscriptural, appears to me to be altogether directly opposed to the revealed word of God, which, to my mind, is here explicit. To say that it is derogatory to the character of Jesus, seems also a mere fanciful objection, lowering that high feeling of gratitude with which this, the greatest proof of his love, was designed to inspire us; for greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.' And, really, Sir, except upon the supposition of

१

this being a certain, effectual atonement, I feel myself wholly unable to comprehend the meaning of the following, and other texts of Scripture; such as Christ has borne our sins he bare our sins in his own body upon the tree,'and the Lord laid on him the iniquities of us all. The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin he is the propitiation for our sins - he gave himself a ransom for all-in him we have redemption through his blood-we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ.' Were it necessary, I could extend these quotations, but after a careful perusal of the Law, the Prophets, and the Evangelists, I hitherto have been unable to arrive at any other conclusion, than that the paschal lamb, sacrificed as a piacular victim for the sins of the Jews, was only the shadow of that greater sacrifice, Jesus Christ, as an atonement for the sins of the whole world."

"I understand all this differently," said Mr. Trueman, “and in a manner more agreeable to reason and sense, to the goodness and mercy of God. Adam transmitted no moral corruption to his offspring; there is no mention of any such in any well-authenticated part of Scripture; and if he did, his race not having been

concerned in his transgression, cannot be responsible for it: no, we are no more corrupt at our birth, than Adam was at his creation; and as to pardon of personal sin, the Scriptures teach us that penitence and the practice of virtue from the love of God, is all that is required to obtain it ; all this is reasonable, it is just, it is scriptural. But I will proceed to speak briefly on one or two other points, and then leave you to make what reflections upon our creed you please. With respect to the person of Christ, you are aware that we consider him wholly human, and though indeed more highly endowed, yet precisely in the same light as any other prophet; and to the objection made against this, by affirming that he received divine worship, we reply, that the only reverence he is described to have accepted, was a homage altogether distinct from adoration. And with respect to his ascension after his resurrection, as said to be seen by his apostles and others, we consider it as a mere vision, and the adoption of a heathen notion, that all great men among them

* Memoirs of Priestley, vol. ii. p. 562,

who had benefited their species in an eminent degree, were, at their deaths, translated to heaven."

"Mr Trueman," said I, with all the seriousness that such a subject required, "I conceive it as direct blasphemy to attribute the apotheosis of a Romulus or an Augustus to the ascension of Him, who is declared, as our Great High Priest, to have entered the holy of holies to make intercession for us, nor shall I carry the subject of this conversation further than by remarking upon the personal worship paid to him while on earth, in the words of an author, whose writings I the other day accidentally took up, that the blessed martyr Stephen, just before he expired, preferred the following prayer to his Saviour, — Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' Can a departing soul be thus solemnly committed into the hands of any one, but of Him, who is the God of the spirits of all flesh? Does not St. Stephen here worship Christ, in the very same manner in which a little before, Christ himself had worshipped the Father? Where is the difference between, Father, into thy

Jesus, receive my spirit?" Does not the martyr