intended to convey the impression that Dr Hampden regarded the received statements of truth as merely some out of infinite theories which might be raised out of the words of the Bible, and, the reader would of course suppose, as not materially differing in value from the rest whereas his words, in the sense in which he used them, are simply true and harmless.

The next four Propositions relate to the theory of the Atonement, a subject on which every one at all conversant with the history of Theology knows that a number of theories have been constructed. Of these Propositions, the first (9) may be past over, as merely stating a historical fact, that the application of the word punishment to the sacrifice of our Saviour is taken from the Aristotelian philosophy; that is to say, as a theoretical term, involving a speculative explanation of the work of Redemption, though supported by analogous expressions in Scripture. Dr Hampden further says: "It is to be remarkt how strongly the inefficacy of repentance to wipe away guilt, and restore the sinner to his lost state, has imprest the minds of those who have thought on human nature with any depth of philosophy. It is of little purpose to urge the natural placability of the Divine Being, His mercy, His willingness to receive the penitent. God, no doubt, is abundantly placable, merciful, and forgiving. Still the fact remains. The offender is guilty: his crime may be forgiven; but his criminality is upon him. The remorse which he feels, the wounds of his conscience, are no fallacious things. He is sensible of them, even whilst the Gospel tells him, 'Thy sins be forgiven thee. Go, and sin no more.' The heart seeks for reparation and satisfaction: its longings are, that its sins may be no more remembered, that the characters in which it is written may be blotted out. Hence the congeniality to its feelings of the notion of Atonement. It

is no speculative thought, which suggests the theory: speculation rather prompts to the rejection of it: speculation furnishes abstract reasons from the Divine attributes for discarding it as a chimera of our fears. But the fact is, that we cannot be at peace without some consciousness of Atonement made. The word Atonement, in its true practical sense, expresses this indisputable fact. Objections may hold against the explanations of the term: they are irrelevant to the thing itself denoted by the term. Turn over the records of human crime; and whether under the forms of superstition, or the enactments of civil government, the fact itself constantly emerges to the view: all concur in shewing that, whilst God is gracious and merciful, repenting Him of the evil, the human heart is inexorable against itself. It may hope, tremblingly hope, that God may forgive it, but it cannot forgive itself. This material and invincible difficulty of the case, the Scripture Revelation has met with a parallel fact. It has said, we have no hope in ourselves, that, looking to ourselves, we cannot expect happiness, and at the same time has fixt our attention on a Holy One who did no sin, whose perfect righteousness it has connected with our unrighteousness, and whose strength it has brought to the evil of our weakThus Christ is emphatically said to be our Atonement, not that we may attribute to God any change of purpose towards man by what Christ has done, but that we may know that we have past from the death of sin to the life of righteousness by Him, and that our own hearts may not condemn us. If our heart condemn us not,' then may we have peace with God:' but, without the thought of Christ, the heart that has any real sense of its condition must sink under its own condemnation."(Pp. 251-253.)

ness.

Who would have imagined that, out of this excellent

passage, two heretical Propositions would be extorted? The first (12) is: "Atonement' in its true practical sense expresses the fact, that we cannot be at peace without some consciousness of atonement made, not that God may forgive us, but that we may forgive ourselves." Just observe how this sentence is patcht up, and how shamefully it misrepresents the author. Standing thus alone, it is intended to signify that Dr Hampden represents the word Atonement as, "in its true practical sense," merely expressing the subjective fact of our consciousness of the need of an Atonement. Whereas, after speaking of this subjective fact, he shews how Revelation has provided the objective fact corresponding to it. And is not this correspondence and harmony between the wants of our nature and the gifts of Revelation one of the strongest evidences of its truth, a proof that it is the true key, from its fitting all the wards of the mysterious lock? The last words in the Proposition are torn out of another sentence, where they stand in a different connexion and meaning: "The heart may hope, tremblingly hope, that God may forgive it; but it cannot forgive itself.”

The other Proposition (11) is: "Christ is emphatically said to be our Atonement, not that we may attribute to God any change of purpose towards man by what Christ has done, but that we may know that we have past from the death of sin to the life of righteousness by Him." What is the objectionable matter in these words, it is not easy to see; except that the citer, by printing said in italics, seems to insinuate that Dr Hampden meant to question the truth of Christ's really being our Atonement? Yet nothing of the kind is involved in the use of so common a phrase. I have seen it objected indeed somewhere, that it is heretical to deny a change of purpose in God; and that this is inconsistent with our second Article, where Christ is said to have died "to

reconcile His Father to us." But it is plain that these words must be interpreted in conformity to the passages of St Paul from whence they are derived; and it is to be regretted that the framers of our Articles did not more closely follow St Paul's expression, and say,' to reconcile us to the Father.' For thus St Paul writes: "And all things are of God, Who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you, in Christ's stead, Be ye reconciled to God." (2 Cor. v. 18-20.). So again (Rom. v. 10), "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." Again (Eph. ii. 16), "That He might reconcile both to God, in one body by the Cross." In like manner (Col. i. 20, 21), "For it pleased the Father, that in Him should all fulness dwell, and, having made peace through the blood of His Cross, by Him to reconcile all things to Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven: and you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death." I know not however whether Dr Hampden meant more by what he has said, than that the reason why Christ is called our Atonement, is not that we may be led thereby to speculate concerning the nature of God, and to ascribe changeableness to Him, but that we may have a full assurance that by his death we are reconciled to God. This explanation is more in accordance with the general spirit of his theology.

The remaining Proposition on this subject (10) is: "The

E

bane of this philosophy of expiation was, that it deprest the power of man too low." Now what do these words mean? Standing as they do among a series of Propositions concerning the Atonement, and immediately after one which speaks of the Sacrifice of Christ, the reader is of course intended to infer that "this baneful philosophy of expiation," which thus "deprest the power of man too low," must have related to that Sacrifice. A more perfidious citation was never made: and I understand, as may readily be supposed, that this is the passage which, of all others, has kindled the greatest indignation against its author. Now these words do indeed follow in the original just after the long passage I have quoted about the Atonement. But that passage had been preceded by a discussion on the philosophical speculations concerning punishment, as a compensation for sin, in which the author speaks of the vain notion that "self-mortification would recommend us to the favour of God," and again, "of the fond impiety of supererogation." Returning to this point, he adds: "The bane of this philosophy of expiation was, not that it exalted human agency too highly, but that in reality it deprest the power of man too low. It was no invigoration of the mind, no cheering of the heart to masculine exertion, in working out the great work of salvation, by exaggerated, yet noble, views of what man could accomplish. But it checkt the aspirings, both of the heart and of the intellect, by fixing them at a standard that had only the mockery of Divine strength, and not the reality. It brought men to acquiesce in a confession of impotence, without carrying them at once to the Throne of Grace. The ecclesiastical power stood between the heart and Heaven. Atonement was converted into a theory of Commutation, degrading to the holiness of God, while it spoke the peace of God in terms of flattering delusion to