came death." We admit that Adam's sin was the occasion of his death and that of his posterity, but we find nothing in the Bible which intimates that his sin was the cause of the death of the inferior races. Why did death come upon Adam and his posterity? We answer, "Death came upon all men, for that all have sinned." Even those "who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression," die; but, it is because all have sinned in some way. Thus the death of the human race is adequately accounted for; but the Bible does not recognize the capability of sinning, in a being without reason or conscience. And hence the death of such beings can have no connexion with sin, and must be explained on other grounds. How there can be any positive connexion between the sin of our great progenitor and the death of animals, a brilliant imagination alone can conceive.

That the carnivorous animals were created so, is ground more tenable than the supposition that they were created vegetable feeders, and had by the fall their animal functions. changed. How Adam's sin made the lion any more bloodthirsty, or how his steadfastness in holiness would have prevented him from seeking his prey, are questions concerning which we should like light.

That owing to his depravity man often subjects the brute creation to suffering and death we admit; but had not Adam nor his posterity sinned, they would have needed food, and this implies the destruction of animal and vegetable life; and they would have wanted water to drink, and their thirst could not have been slaked without destroying multitudes of animalculæ. It may be said, that these are too trifling to be mentioned. We reply, they are animals, and in their kind perfect. Since no one will claim that had Adam remained holy he would have had food "such as angels use," it must be admitted that the wants of his being, even had he not sinned, would have required the destruction of life. We presume

it will not be claimed that the fall is the occasion of our relish for animal food, or the origin of our capacity to masticate or digest it.

THIRD SERIES, VOL. II. NO. II.

21

In objection to the views here advanced, it may be said that, in consequence of Adam's sin, "the whole creation groaneth," etc. (Vid. Rom. 8: 19-22.) That this passage refers to the brute creation remains to be established. Prof. Stuart maintains that xrisis refers to the moral world.*

In the foregoing pages we have attempted to show that the existence of death previous to Adam's creation does not militate against God's benevolence; and we have also endeavoured to show that there is no necessity for insisting on a positive connexion between Adam's sin and the death of brutes. Such a connexion, we believe, the Bible does not teach; and if so, then the existence of death previous to Adam's sin does not impugn Revelation.

The Christian need not tremble for his Bible, because of Geology. This science may be made the handmaid of Religion. Even if its tendencies were infidelityward, as is claimed, who so well able to resist these tendencies as the Christian Geologist? It is exceedingly desirable that every minister should become a master of this science. He will find it an armory, whence he can take many polished weapons with which to do battle for the cause of truth-weapons which, if wielded with skill, will make infidelity hide its head.

ARTICLE V.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST PROVED BY THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.

By Rev. JOSEPH F. TUTTLE, Delaware, Ohio.

DEMONSTRATION is the demand of our times. Nothing short of this satisfies. Lawyers, from the first rate downward through the five grades, must demonstrate, or lose their cause.

* Vid. Stuart's Com. in Loco.

Physicians, real ones and quacks, must demonstrate, or lose. their practice. Statesmen, from the leader of a senate to the petty stump orator of the backwoods, must demonstrate, or be defeated. Clients, juries, patients, "the people"-every statesman's idol-are eager for demonstration, and set it down as positive evidence of a weak cause, if its advocate do not coolly lead all to see in sunlight demonstration complete !

This is significant. A careless observer might see in it nothing but food for laughter, or occasion for a sneer. The dogmatic demands of our generation may be unpleasant, but as precursors to calm and profound investigation, we may not despise them. This characteristic, which now seems so like affectation, will mature, until it sift to the bottom every thing worthy of investigation in politics, science, and religion.

The human mind is a curious creation. What affects one mind falls powerless on another. One reaches a conclusion in reasoning by a process, every step of which is bright as sunlight. He attempts to lead another to the same conclusion by the same process, and at best "he only sees men as trees walking." But this same mind may reach that conclusion by another process, which is perfectly satisfactory. At any rate, to demonstrate a proposition by a variety of diagrams, will not weaken our belief in its truth, and by thus doing we may fasten conviction on some minds, which otherwise might have never apprehended or believed the issue.

By two classes of errorists is the doctrine of Christ's Divinity attacked. The Universalists may conceal their sentiments, and yet generally, when driven by close argument to ultimate conclusions, they do not hesitate to avow their un belief in this fundamental doctrine. Unitarians never shrink from this avowal. "Christ a mere man," is the "shibboleth" of the sect. If such an one as Dr. Channing could speak of Christ's crucifixion, supposing it to be vicarious, as a most awful outrage on justice, we need not fear to say that the whole sect is at least as corrupt. A distinguished antagonist of New England Unitarianism has said that a Unitarian cannot construct a logical argument on this subject; that his

reason has been so perverted that he cannot apprehend the force of a true argument. In further illustration of this point, he used the following amusing allegory, which is in point. "Two persons in a distant planet fiercely disputed the question, Of what material is the earth composed? One stoutly asserted that it was all water, the other as stoutly that it was all land. At length the disputants, in order to decide the question, constructed a very large telescope. The watertheorist happened to turn the instrument so that the Pacific ocean occupied the entire field, and shouted, "There, I told you so; it is all water, nothing but water!" The landtheorist gave the telescope a turn, and the Andes were all that was visible. Transported with delight, he cried out, "All land, all land, just as I said!"

The weakest Christian, in recounting the love of God, expresses himself as convinced that none but a Divine Being could accomplish the salvation of sinners. He seems to have an intuitive perception that the work is too great for any created being, be he a mere human Christ or the loftiest archangel. When he reads in Revelation that a God is his advocate, that a God devised the plan, that a God executed all the provisions of that plan, his heart is at rest. Any thing short of this assurance, distresses the living Christian. For this reason it is useful to demonstrate the proposition of Christ's Divinity, by a variety of diagrams, since in this way we fling new lights across the truth, and banish the last shade. Especially is this course useful when employed as a threshold to that stately argument which is revealed in the Bible.

The design of this article is to construct an argument in support of the following proposition :-None but a Divine Being can make atonement for sin. In prosecution of this design, we shall assume two facts without argument.

1. Man is a sinner against God, and in consequence obnoxious to punishment.

2. Being himself incapable of making reparation for his sin, there is an absolute necessity, in order to his salvation, that an atonement be made by some other being.

Let us examine arguments grounded in probability, without now appealing directly to Revelation. To do this to the best advantage, let us examine four facts, which may become cri

teria of judgment.

1. Examine the relations of the parties which are to be made as one. The one is the infinite and unchangeable Jehovah, the other finite and changeable man. The one is perfectly holy, the other perfectly sinful. The one is a Being whose omniscient benevolence comprehends and regards the best welfare of the entire universe, and earnestly desires to promote that welfare; the other is a being whose selfishness is so narrow and near-sighted, that it neither sees nor cares for the welfare of any but himself. The one is benevolent, the other is selfish. The one loves virtue and hates vice, the other hates virtue and loves vice. In every respect, God and man stand at extremes infinitely separated from each other.

To reconcile these extremes must be the work of one who proposes to make atonement for siu.

2. The atonement must make restitution for all violations of law. Aside from revelation, men have felt the truth of this position, and for ages it was a momentous question to be solved, "Can a divine law be repaired when once broken?" But in the light of revelation setting forth a perfect and holy law, and the repeated violations of that law by men, the question assumes a startling importance. The law is the expression of the Divine will, and it is therefore evident that God never can have mercy on those who have violated his will, without satisfaction being made. For, if he should be merciful on any other grounds, it must be regarded as an acknowledgment on the part of God, that his law is not so holy, nor his commandment so holy, just and good, as was pretended. It would say in effect, that the obligations of the divine law are so trifling that it matters but little whether men regard them or not. Besides, from this last position arises the fearful inference that God is harsh and tyrannical in punishing angels eternally, for breaking a law which his conduct shows he does not regard highly,