word of God? It is utterly impossible to screen men from the sentence of condemnation, and at the same time acknowledge the inspiration of the Bible. What, then, do we think of the question so much agitated among philosophers, whether there is more virtue or vice in the world? If the Scriptures have authority, the question is decided at once. Yet of all the train of philosophers, there are none so bold as to decide against man, except a few of the most impious and atheistical cast. Notwithstanding the testimony of Scripture is so obviously against them, the great band of Christian philosophers seem, with one voice, to determine in favour of the virtue of man, and seem to think that the vindication of God requires this determination, as well as the honour and interest of human nature. Moral evil will appear greater or less according to the standard by which we judge, and the light in which we consider actions. But even with all our partiality for human nature, it is impossible for us not to acknowledge that moral evil has a most extensive sway in the hearts and lives of men. If we see so much of it, how great and extensive must it appear to the Searcher of hearts, who judges by his perfect law? an apostle has testified that there is no good thing in himself by nature, how ridiculous is it for philosophers, professing deference to the writings of the apostles, to occupy themselves in attempting to prove, contrary to experience, contrary to the doctrine of the apostles, that there is in the world more moral good than evil? Before they sit down to this work, ought they not, consistently, to throw off the authority of Scripture? But that the world is guilty before God, is not only evident from scripture and observation; it is also clear from viewing the present state of man, with respect to happiness. It is obvious to the slightest observation, that the human race is miserable, amidst all its mirth and dissipation. Men are seeking happiness from the enjoyment of earthly things, according to their various desires and appetites, but happiness they do not find. From the highest to the lowest, there is something that mars their peace and enjoyment. Those things that vulgar eyes may view as evidence of the happiness of the great, are only so many ways to drive away sorrow

If

or reflection. Even in laughter, says Solomon, there is sorrow; and intemperate mirth is known often to conceal an aching heart. True happiness is to be found in God alone; and it will ever be impossible that it can be found by any of his enemies. Notwithstanding He sends his rain upon the just, and upon the unjust, and often heaps the good things of this world on his enemies, they still find something that prevents their complete happiness in the enjoyment of them. Haman is a proof that all the honour of the first prince of the greatest king in the world is rendered unconsolatory to its possessor, by the most trivial circumstance. The vulgar sometimes consider that they who drive in glitter and pomp enjoy a sort of heaven upon the earth, not knowing that sometimes varnish covers greater misery than even the meanest of the vulgar endures. Philosophers, with the exception of a few of a sceptical cast, teach us that there is more happiness than misery in the world; and they have been at immense pains to overturn the arguments that Mr. Hume has advanced for the opposite side of the question, from war, pestilence, sickness, famine, poverty, and the like. They have contrived to make men tolerably happy, notwithstanding all these accidents of life. Not only do they find happiness for our poor in the midst of their poverty and labour, but even for the wicked savage, roaming about in quest of his prey. Without questioning at present the accuracy of their accounts, with respect to the happiness of men in general, I would only ask, is the happiness they enjoy a happiness worthy of rational nature? Is it a happiness suitable to the powers and capacities of man? Does it appear to befit his original grand distinction? The sweep-chimney may be happy in the midst of his soot and nastiness; the gipsey may be happy in the toils and profits of his art; that is, each may be insensible to his misery; but is their happiness a happiness suitable to the dignity of man-the lord of the lower world? The drunken tradesman may be happy, on Saturday night, spending the earnings of the week, while his wife and children are in want at home. The intemperate citizen, or statesman, may be happy in enjoying the juice of the grape; but is this the happiness of man,

possessing such noble talents? If it is happiness, it is the happiness of the madman, with his crown of straw. Whatever may be said with respect to the happiness of the bulk of men, applies only to their insensibility, and it is not so much happiness as stupor. Even the constant laborious employments that necessarily occupy the time of by far the greater part of men, are inconsistent with the proper exercise and happiness of rational nature. Who is it can seriously say, that man was at first sent into the world to drudge and slave for a few years in the most ignoble employments, and leave the world, without almost being conscious of the noble powers of soul that he possesses? Not only the employments of a few or of the crowd, but even the employments of almost all classes of men, seem unworthy of the original dignity of our nature, and the high faculties that we still in some measure possess. If labour diverts the talents of the poor from every noble occupation, why do not the rich spend their time in the cultivation of their rational nature, and in pursuits worthy of them? But if the vulgar are ignorant, the rich are frivolous; and, instead of employing their time in noble purposes, it is generally employed in vain show, or the pursuit of gold, power, honour, or pleasure. When we take a view of the employments and pursuits of men in general, the world appears rather to be a bedlam than a paradise. In such circumstances, how foolish is it for men to endeavour to justify themselves against the conclusions of Scripture! How useless to appeal from the testimony of God to the evidence of fact! The whole face of the world-the whole circumstances of men, as well as the clear view of Scripture, pronounce man to be guilty. The unanimous verdict from every source of evidence is, guilty. If there is hope, that hope must be not from innocence, but from mercy.

SECTION II.

THE SCRIPTURES TEACH-DECLARE THAT THE DEATH OF CHRIST IS AN ATONEMENT FOR SIN; THAT IT IS THE ONLY ATONEMENT, AND THAT IT IS AN ATONEMENT FOR THE CHIEF OF SINNERS.

In such a state of guilt and misery is placed the whole human race! It is a melancholy truth indeed; but if the Scriptures are the word of God, it is a truth altogether incontestible. Instead, then, of disputing the divine testimony, let us inquire from the same authority, whether there be any way of escape. Is the fate of fallen man as hopeless as that of fallen angels? The Scriptures decisively answer this question-there is a way of escape from guilt, and misery. God, who, in his sovereignty, has reserved the sinning angels in everlasting chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day, has, in his mercy, provided a way of salvation for sinners of the race of Adam. (This way of salvation is the most stupendous monument of divine wisdom, and power, and truth, and justice, and mercy, and sovereignty, that ever was exhibited in the world.) He hath provided a Saviour, who, by his death, has made atonement for sin, and through whom all his people have the gift of eternal life. The whole scope of revelation, from the first intimation given to our first parents to the end of the New Testament, bears witness to this plan of salvation, as well as to the guilt of man. The law of Moses presents it to us in a thousand different ways, and its numerous rites have no meaning or propriety distinct from these truths. If man is not guilty, and if the blood of Christ is not a propitiation for sin, the law of Moses is a cumbersome burden of useless and empty ceremonies. But instead of taking so wide a range, I shall at present content myself with submitting a few passages from the New Testament, to the consideration of my fellow-sinners, as being amply sufficient to prove this grand doctrine.

When the Father sent his Son into the world, he in

troduced him with this testimony-"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him." We are here directed to Jesus as the only way to God. When the Father testifies that he is well pleased in his beloved Son, he intimates that he is well pleased with his undertakingthat he is well pleased to accept his life as a sacrifice for sin, in lieu of the eternal punishment of the sinner; that the work which Jesus was about to accomplish, was such as fully satisfied his justice, and honoured his whole character. That he is well pleased with his Son, in any other view than as the sinner's substitute, would be no information worthy of being communicated. In all other respects, if Jesus was the beloved Son of God, he could not be otherwise than pleasing to him. But when he comes to execute the great work which he had undertaken for man's salvation, the Father's testimony, that he is well pleased in him, gives us every assurance that he will accept his sacrifice, and, for its sake, deliver the guilty sinner. The Father enjoins us to hear him; we are then bound to believe all that he taught personally or by his apostles. Let us hear, then, his own testimony, with respect to his errand into the world. "The Son of Man," he says, "came to save that which was lost." And how does he save the lost? By giving his life to redeem them. "The Son of Man," he says, 66 came to give his life a ransom for many."-Matt. xx. 28. Is there any one at a loss to know what is meant by a ransom? Do not the most illiterate know that it is a price given to recover any thing that is alienated or in slavery? Can any thing, then, be more clear than that the life of Jesus was given as a ransom for sinners?

When the Lord Jesus was instituting his supper, he said of the bread, "This is my body, which is broken for you; and of the cup, this is the New Testament in my blood, shed for many for the remission of sins." So, then, his body was broken for sinners, and his blood was shed for the remission of the sins of many. Does this need any comment? Could any man wishing to adopt the clearest phraseology to express the fact, that Christ's death is an atonement for sin, select more definite, more explicit language?

To the same purpose is the testimony of the apostles.