in the shape of allusions or illustrations, he thought it essential to the honor of the Scriptures that they should be sustained. The force of this man's mind, thus wrongly directed, has kept back the Christian world for half a century.

It is in vain to represent, as he did, the opposition which the human heart makes to Calvinism as originating in the native depravity of man. It is in vain to say that it is natural enmity of the human heart to God which makes us reject with abhorrence the doctrine of the Divine Sovereignty, which means nothing more nor less than the arbitrary choice of some men to salvation, and of others, of precisely the same character, to everlasting woe. It is not native depravity which leads to the rejection of such a doctrine as this. It is the native rectitude of the human soul, which instinctively abhors injustice. The mind which could acquiesce in such a doctrine would show the highest evidence of deep depravity, -a connivance at injustice. And it is a remarkable and a significant fact, that no one acquiesces in the doctrine of election until after he has reason, in his own estimation, to believe himself among the elect. Then he is ready to acknowledge the justice of a decree which saves himself, no matter how many millions it condemns.

Quite as unsatisfactory is the method of disposing of rationalism adopted by the German pietists. "A Christian consciousness," say they, "receives the doctrine of the Fall, and its kindred dogmas, because it most naturally explains the inward corruption which every Christian feels in himself and witnesses in the world." But this, if it means any thing, must mean, that Christianity teaches doctrines which cannot be believed until a man becomes a Christian. Such a representation is an out

rage, not only on logical consistency, but on common sense. Faith, in Scripture, is represented to be the very agency by which a man becomes a Christian. But this representation makes it necessary for a man to become a Christian before he can have faith.

Such representations as these afford no effectual bar to the progress of rationalism. For the question immediately recurs, What is human reason? It is the reason of all mankind in that condition in which God creates them. It is not the reason of a few, who profess to have received especial illumination. Their judgments can be no legitimate authority to the rest.

It may be justly said, that the relation which faith bears to reason forbids the subordination of reason to faith. Faith must be founded on reason, or it is mere credulity. Reason is placed as a sentinel at the entrance, to determine what is to be admitted as truth into the mind, and acted on as such. It is one of the chief offices of reason to decide what is to be believed, and what is to be rejected. It is just as hurtful and just as dangerous to believe too much as too little.

The consciousness of sinfulness is no legitimate proof that it had its origin in a transgression of Adam thousands of years ago; and the supposition that it did so is inconsistent with God's justice. Reason objects to such an explanation. But reason makes no objection to the supposition that, being created free and in a state of probation, mankind have fallen from innocence by a misuse of the powers which God has given them.

DISCOURSE XVII.

SALVATION BY CHRIST.

FOR THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST. HOW THINK YE? IF A MAN HAVE AN HUNDRED SHEEP, AND ONE OF THEM BE GONE ASTRAY, DOTH HE NOT LEAVE THE NINETY AND NINE, AND GOETH INTO THE MOUNTAINS, AND SEEKETH THAT WHICH IS GONE ASTRAY? AND IF SO BE THAT HE FIND IT, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, HE REJOICETH MORE OF THAT SHEEP, THAN OF THE NINETY AND NINE WHICH WENT NOT ASTRAY. Matt. xviii. 11, 12.

It is the object of this discourse to inquire into the relation of the mission of Christ to mankind and to human nature. One of the titles of Christ is "Saviour." He is called "the Saviour of the world." In our text he declares of himself, that he came "to save that which was lost."

In most of the theologies which are now extant in the world, the work of Christ is thought mainly to consist in working a change in human nature. The assertion that Christ is the Saviour of the world conveys to most minds the implication that the world was lost. And being lost is supposed to imply, not only that all mankind are sinful in their actions, but that their nature itself is fallen,

changed, and deteriorated from what it once was.

The great office of Christ is the restoration of human nature to what it would have been, if Adam had never sinned. This of course amounts to a change in the structure and faculties of the human soul. Adam ruined human na

To this view of things there are many weighty objections. In the first place, the sin of Adam is said to have made mankind mortal. If he had not sinned, men would have been either immortal on earth, or they would have been translated as Enoch and Elijah were. Supposing this were the fact, did Christ restore mankind to their primitive condition in this respect? Have not all mankind died, including Christ himself?

But did Adam destroy mankind morally, so that they are all lost to virtue and salvation? Such an arrangement would have been the most appalling act of injustice that the human mind can possibly conceive. But that state of things is denied by the express language of the New Testament. Peter declares, that "God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.” Paul declares, that "God will give eternal life to all, both Jew and Gentile, who, by a patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, honor, and immortality." If this be so, Christ could not have come to remove any impediment in human nature, in order to make eternal life attainable, for it was attainable before. Mankind then are not lost, in the sense of being in such a condition as to make eternal life unattainable.

In the second place, I say, that the main office of Christ had nothing to do with changing human nature. The main office of Christ was that of a Teacher.

One

of his first public acts was to deliver the Sermon on the Mount. "And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

It

Teaching has no power to change human nature. has power to change character. Nature and character are two things entirely different. The nature of any thing is the constitution which God has given it. The nature of a good man is not different from the nature of a bad man. Character is created by voluntary action. It will be either good or bad, according to the voluntary choice of what is good or bad. Nature cannot be changed without miracle. Christ wrought miracles, not to change any man's moral character or moral nature, but only to change physical nature. His miracles were intended to affect man's moral character indirectly, by producing faith, belief in what he taught, and consequent obedience to his precepts.

But the very fact, that the Saviour's main business was teaching, contradicts the hypothesis of moral inability, derived from original sin or total depravity. What does the very fact of teaching suppose in those who are taught? It implies a perception of that which is right, which approves of what is true and good. It implies a sense of obligation, which always accompanies the perception of that which is right, or it would be of no use to present truth and goodness to the mind. It implies a power to act according to them, or teaching itself would be vain and absurd. Human nature surely could not have fallen far, if it still possessed the power of being profited by teaching, the power of perceiving what is good and right, the power of feeling the obligation of doing what is right, and the power of actual obedience.