To establish this essential point, appeal was made to the Revelation in the New Testament; which, on the supposition of its proceeding from the same divine fountain of wisdom, puts this subject beyond the reach of rational controversy. For in that Revelation we are told, on the authority of Christ himself, that his blood was the blood appointed to be shed for the remission of sins. Matt. xxvi. 28. In conformity with which sovereign idea is the decided language of the Apostle, where he says; that "Christ appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;" Heb. ix. 26.-that he "bare our sins in his own body on the tree;" 1 Pet. ii. 24.that" He was made sin and a curse for us." 2 Cor. v. 21.-Gal. iii. 13.-that " his soul was made an offering for sin, and that we have Redemption through his blood;" Isai. liii. 10. Col. i. 14.-that, being an High Priest, he must of necessity have something to offer; but, that it being impossible in the nature and reason of things, that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin, God prepared Christ a Body; that in that Body he might have the the blood necessary to fulfil the divine will on this occasion; "that the redeemed, through the vail of his flesh, might have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus." Heb. x. 19. The foregoing sacrifical modes of expression, addressed to men in the practice of worshipping God by sacrifices, must, on their own principles, be understood to imply, that the life of Christ, thus declared to be offered up, was, in conformity with the general idea annexed to sacrifice, a proper sacrifical substitution of his life for that of the sinful party: otherwise, there being no analogy between the two cases, the language of the New Testament on this subject, has no appropriate meaning; and St. Paul must plead guilty to the charge, that infidelity has brought against him, of being an inconclusive reasoner. But from the premisses which have been laid down, and from which we have argued on this subject, namely, that one part of Divine Revelation cannot contradict another, the conclusion is incontrovertible. Whilst the Jew then, who with the vail before his eyes acknowledges the Old Tes tament tament only to be the Word of God, thereby rejects the council of God against himself, the unbeliever, under the Christian Dispensation, does more; for on the admission that the New Testament contains also a Divine Revelation, he makes God a liar, by denying the record which God has therein given of his Son: which record, in the plain language of the Baptist runs thus; that " Jesus was the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John i. 29. The other part of this great subject, inseparably connected with the doctrine of vicarious atonement for sin by the shedding of blood, respects the character of the person whose blood was shed for the purpose. It is supposed by some, that provided men live honest and sober lives, they may be allowed to think and act freely, as to those points, which concern the manner in which they worship God, or the notions they may form about him. But Scripture sets before us another view of things, by teaching us, that to believe what has been revealed relative to the divine nature, attributes, and personality; and to shew our dependence dependence on the means and method of Salvation, by acknowledging Jesus Christ in the character in which he appeared in the world, and paying him such services as he has prescribed, constitutes the essence of all true Religion, and the only sure foundation for all moral duty. To establish, therefore, the most essential article of our faith, relative to the divinity of Christ, as necessary to the accomplishment of the work he undertook for man, and the consequent establishment of Christian practice, the same process of comparative evidence, by which the dif ferent parts of divine Revelation conspire to the elucidation of its general subject, was adopted. From the Old Testament, it was ob served, speaking of the children of men, that "none of them can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him.", Psal. xlix. 7. Whilst the language of the New Testament was brought forward to inform us, on the authority of Christ himself, that "the Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for many." The argument drawn from these premisses, premisses, and considered to be decisive, was briefly this. If no man, according to the language of the Old Testament, can redeem his brother; and if, according to the language of the New, "the Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for many*;" it necessarily follows that this Son of Man must be something more than man; other, wise he was incompetent to the work he came to perform.-At the same time, we are expressly told by an inspired Apostle, that Jesus" verily took not on him the nature of angels," Heb, ii. 16.-If Jesus Christ then was something more than man, and yet not an angel; in what character, it may be asked, did He appear in the world? The Scriptures have fully answered this important question, by inform ing us, that the seed of the woman" promised in Paradise" to bruise the Serpent's head," was, in the plain unequivocal language of the Gospel, “God manifest in the flesh, that He might destroy the works of the devil." That for this purpose, " all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Him *Matt. xx. 28, 1 Tim. iii. 16-1 John iii. 8. bodily;" |