glad-tidings of the apostles. How different from what is called the "experience" of a Calvinistic believer, who, even after receiving the gospel according to substitution, is required to pass through a fiery process of dejecting impulses before he can give any evidence of the genuineness of his religion! And then he is only allowed to indulge himself in consolation but in proportion as he can be certain that the different criteria of the supposed "work of grace" (the counterfeit of which is represented as difficult to distinguish), will warrant him to conclude that his sins were among the catalogue imputed to the substitute; that he is "interested in the vicarious sufferings and finished work of the Saviour."

But let us now come to what these glad-tidings expressly unfold. Certainly that intelligence which is attested by such abundant instances of supernatural interposition must relate to facts and truths which it is the supreme interest and concern of mankind to know. I shall refer to some of them as briefly as the nature of the discussion will admit, as follows:

1st. The Resurrection of Christ from the dead is one grand and leading point of this good news from heaven. How glorious and triumphant was the important, the unexpected intelligence that "This Jesus (whom the Jews crucified) God raised up!" Acts ii. 32.* See also chaps. iii.,

*The reader who has no recollection of the texts referred to, is particularly requested to turn to them in his Bible. They are not quoted by word, because they would have occupied so much space.

iv., v., X., xiii., &c. We find in Mark xvi. 15, the apostles were especially commissioned to declare this fact to all the world; but, unfortunately, through the word gospel in our translation, the sense is altogether obscured, and the context disjointed. If an orthodox preacher takes this text for a sermon, he makes it mean every thing but what it is intended to mean. Jesus had appeared to his disciples, after his resurrection, to convince them of its reality; and he therefore tells them, since they had seen him alive again, to "go into all the world and preach the glad-tidings." What, the glad-tidings of his vicarious sufferings, &c.? No such thing: the context clearly shews that his resurrection was to be the burden of their message. By the general current of the New-Testament scriptures, this was the grand fact to be communicated, as the source of inexpressible joy to its believers. The Apostle Paul attaches to this event all the value of the Christian dispensation, by declaring, that "If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith also is vain." 1 Cor. xv. 14. To proclaim that Jesus had been crucified was unnecessary; for this was well known before, it being a public transaction, both to Jews and Gentiles. But to tell them that the very same Jesus who, a little while before, was despised, derided, rejected by his own nation, and ignominiously put to death under the sanction of the ruling authorities, was now raised to life and ascended to heaven at the right hand of God as a triumphant

66

victor, must have been to those who believed it, as astonishing as it was important and joyful. Here, then, is a direct contradiction to the notion of satisfaction for sin by substitution; for, first, if this was the point so essential to be known, and so exceedingly momentous, as its advocates represent it to be, why did it not form the subject of the apostolic mission? Or rather, why do they call something the glad-tidings instead of this? How is it to be accounted for that they do not urge his sufferings and death as the matters which most concerned mankind, if they were vicarious? Why did not they dwell upon the necessity of relying on the merits of his death, trusting in his imputed righteousness, and believing in his atoning blood," as the satisfactionists are accustomed to do? And, secondly, if by the sufferings and death of Christ the penalty of sin was endured, justice satisfied, and the work of salvation completed, as they often allege, of what consequence could have been his resurrection? Surely, if such is the ground on which the sinner is liberated from bondage, and freed from the punitive consequences of his sin, the end is answered, and he has all he wants independently of the resurrection of the substitute. I can speak from my own experience, (and I believe I shall also speak for most others who hold the substitutional notion,) that I could not perceive the reason why the Scriptures should attach so much importance to this event, while I believed the doctrine in question; and, in fact, I

altogether overlooked its weighty import as connected with the design of the New-Testament religion. It is sufficiently evident that the orthodox attach a hundred-fold more value to their favourite notion of satisfaction for sin, than they do to this great fact, by the circumstance that they are almost invariably preaching on the one, and scarcely ever alluding to the other. Now, I think we may safely draw the conclusion, that while the apostles preached the resurrection of Christ as the fundamental topic of their discourses, they did not believe the doctrine of substitutional imputation.

"But did not Paul say, (1 Cor. i. 23,) We preach Christ crucified?" &c. Yes; but his meaning is, that they preached that Christ who was crucified, in opposition to a Christ which the Jews expected should establish a worldly dominion. This was to the Jews, therefore, a stumbling-block. The aim of the apostles was to convince the Jews that this same Jesus whom they crucified, and not another to be expected, was the true Messiah, by his being raised from the dead. (See Acts iv. 10-12.) This the reader who consults his Greek Testament will find, as the word translated "crucified" is the participle passive, and should be rendered who was crucified : that is, they preached the same Christ who had been thus put to death; and what they preached concerning him has been already noticed.

2nd. The glad-tidings of the New Testament is generally represented as a dispensation which

unfolds the mercy, benevolence, or good-will of Jehovah. Hence it is emphatically called "the glad-tidings of the grace of God." Acts xx. 24. See also Tit. ii. 11. The great originator of these tidings is called the "God of all grace," 1 Pet. v. 10; and "the Father of mercies," 2 Cor. i. 3. He is also said to dispense his favours "according to the riches of his grace," Eph. i. 7. "According to his abundant mercy," 1 Pet. i. 3. In this dispensation also God is said to be LOVE, 1 John iv. 8, 16. To manifest his love thereby, John iii. 16; 1 John iii. 1, iv. 9, 10. Here, then, we have presented to our view, not an object of terror and aversion, but the most engaging and attracting. On the other hand, the doctrine of substitution represents the Deity as shewing himself in measures of inflexible rigour and vindictive sternness ; and the prominent feature of his character is described thereby to be that of inexorable justice, seeking the strictest enforcement of its rights, and exacting the utmost of its demands! "Now look on this picture, then on that." But let us see wherein this mercy and good-will consist.

By the general tenor of Scripture these gladtidings announce, as a consequence of Jesus' resurrection, forgiveness of sins; Luke xxiv. 47; Acts v. 31, x. 43, xiii. 38. To enumerate all the texts in which this important doctrine is declared, as founded on the mercy of God, is unnecessary; because the satisfactionists, though they pervert their obvious import, are as free in the use of them as can be wished. "We also believe that