interpreted in its plainest and most obvious sense. Take an example :

It is not to be denied, that at the present moment, the Christian church, with a very few exceptions, consists of worshippers of Christ. Millions, once a week at least, join in addressing "God the Son, Redeemer of the world," and exclaiming, "Thou art the King of Glory, O Christ! thou art the everlasting Son of the Father." This we know has been the case for many ages. But if Christ be not really God, all such persons are idolaters. Yet they find a series of scriptures which, when explained in their most obvious sense, appear to sanction this worship. If, therefore, the doctrine of Christ's divinity be heresy, it is very plain that it originated in the equivocal statements of the writers of the Bible: and this brings us back to our former position; these persons must have been incapable of expressing themselves definitely, or they must have been careless whether the church became almost wholly alienated from God, or remained firmly attached to his worship; whether it dedicated its best adoration to the one true God, or to a human being; whether, in short, they became

E

the means of establishing a system of idolatry more plausible, and more likely to prevail, than any of which the world had ever before conceived.

You will be prepared, I think, to go with me even further than this, and to admit, that if the Bible is not to be interpreted according to the natural signification of its phraseology, it must have been designed to deceive the bulk of mankind. Human nature in all ages is the same; and the habits of the mind in interpretation are precisely what they were when St. John wrote his Gospel. Of course, therefore, it must have been clear to the writers of the Bible, that what they asserted would be understood in the most literal sense of which their statements were capable. Under this impression they must have written, and the result is plain enough in the present opinions of the mass of Christians. Since, therefore, we cannot deny the writers of Scripture an ordinary measure of common sense, it follows that they must have intended to produce the present state of things; and if our doctrines be untrue, that they must have intended to delude mankind and dishonour God. And yet there

are those who reject the ordinary interpretation of their statements, who, nevertheless, believe that they were divinely commissioned; in other words, that God sanctioned the efforts of wicked men to deceive the world; that he enabled them to work many miracles for the product of the most compact and enduring system of idolatry which ever existed. But I cannot proceed. The impiety and absurdity of this unavoidable conclusion is so palpable, so rank, so shocking, that I cannot bring myself to prosecute it any further. Infidelity is wicked enough, but hardly so outrageous as this. It is, at least, more consistent; and, of consequence, preferable.

To sum up these arguments :

1. The Bible was intended for all mankind, and particularly for the poor and illiterate. But it can be of no use except upon the admission, that all men are capable of understanding its contents; and this they cannot be but according to the natural signification of its statements.

2. The Bible was designed to be a universal moral blessing. This design can only be accomplished by a common rule of interpreta

tion. But if it be not understood according to the ordinary use of language, there can be no such rule; and, in that case, it becomes the most pernicious book in the world.

3. God has given his sanction to the writers of the Bible. They must, therefore, have been both intellectually and morally qualified for their task. They could not have intended to deceive men; nor could they have been unaware of the meaning which would be attributed to their writings. The doctrines, therefore, which they have been generally supposed to state, must be such as they designed us to receive. But these doctrines are gathered from the literal interpretation of their statements therefore, they must have intended us to understand their writings according to the natural signification of their phraseology.

Now to apply this reasoning to the doctrine of the atonement of Christ, the question you will perceive is, simply, whether this doctrine, as generally received, may be gathered from the natural signification of the Scriptures. Can we, while we keep in view the ordinary modes of language, find in the Bible any declarations which amount to an assurance

that the death of Christ was a vicarious sacrifice? Did he suffer in our stead? Did he die that we might be saved from the punishment due to our sins? Was his death rendered necessary by the inflexibility of divine justice, and did he by this act satisfy the requisitions of justice, so that our sins might thus be forgiven? I have designedly put these interrogatories in those forms of words which are popularly employed upon this subject; not because they are not capable of objection from captious minds, but because they are, on the whole, more appropriate and intelligible than any perfectly novel modes of phraseology. In reply then, out of multitudes of passages, take the following:-"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Isai. liii. 4-6. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners,