See Edward Cobb's he has said rather

would have been as well understood if he had left it as the Apostles and Quakers have it. pamphlet, p. 23. It seems to me more than will be found correct when tested with scripture testimony, in stating "the necessity, nature and effects of the atonement, when he says, "God had given to mankind a perfect law, holy and just like himself, worthy to be the rule of rational creatures forever; which is still binding in our day, and will be to the end of the world.”

Paul says, "For that the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." Rom. viii. 3, 4. Again Paul says, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Gal. iii. 24, 25. And Heb. viii. 13, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old." Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Heb. vii. 18, 19. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, for the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigh unto God.”

Is this the law which is so perfect, that it was just like God himself? and worthy to be a rule for rational creatures forever? and yet disannulled for the weakness and unprofitableness of it?

There can be no great benefit derived by the world from such statements, since to me they appear to con

tradict seripture testimony: nor do I see the propriety of his statement generally on the subject of atonement. He says nothing about the most interesting and glorious designs of that event.

I do not believe that he knows much about the string of assertions he annexes: neither do I believe in his authority to determine the situation God would have brought himself into if he had done otherwise than he did; or that he has any power to limit the Holy One, or to determine what the wicked would have said, or laid to his charge; or that the penitent would not have known that it was because he was merciful that they were pardoned.

These are assertions I have no disposition to contradict, as in thus doing I should like him be only prating something that either he or myself knows little about.

He then comes directly to the point. • He found a ransom, Immanuel took our place, a voluntary and spotless sacrifice, God laid on him the iniquities of us all, he was made a curse for us.” To which add what he has before said, and it is his full description of the atonement and a scriptural one, viz. "he suffered the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God."

I will now repeat Barclay's description of the atonement, and it will give some idea of what he is quarrelling with the Quakers about. See Apology page 202. "God manifested this love towards us, in sending his beloved son the Lord Jesus Christ into the world, who gave himself an offering for us, and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour, and having made peace through the blood of the cross, that he might reconcile us unto himself, and by the eternal spirit offered himself without spot unto God, and suffered for our sins, the

just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God." And Barclay says, in page 141: "For as we believe all those things to have been certainly transacted which are recorded in the holy scriptures, concerning the birth, life, miracles, sufferings, resurrection and ascension of Christ, so we do also believe that it is the duty of every one to believe it, to whom it has pleased God to reveal the same, and to bring them to the knowledge of it, yea, we believe it to be damnable unbelief not to believe it when so declared," which passages are quoted by Cobb in his observations page 22, 23.

There are many other "incidental" but very important effects intended by his mission, and without the accomplishment of which, we may derive but little benefit from his atonement, some of which I will quote from his sermon on the mount. Matt. v. 9. "Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called the children of God." Rand says defend youselves, but Christ says, verse 39,"But I say unto you that ye resist not evil." Christ says again, verse 34," But I say unto you swear not at all." But Rand says, "and they have needless scruples of conscience concerning oaths." So it seems those "iucidents" of his mission Rand thinks may be explained away, although positive commands, notwithstanding his complaints of others for allegorizing scripture. But his are not to be complained of, seeing they are of a fashionable kind, and belong to the privileges of school divinity. But let the wise consider, what very great benefit can be derived from the death, sufferings, resurrection, ascension, and intercession of a Saviour, if we refuse him according as he is promised; as a leader and guide into all truth, as a word behind us, a testified by the evangelicel prophet: "And though

the Lord give you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers, and thine ears shall hear a word behind thee saying, this is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand and when ye turn to the left. 20, 21."

Isaiah xxx.

And the Saviour promised, John xiv. 15, 16, 17: "If ye love me keep my commandments, and I will pray the Father and he shall send you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him, but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you and shall be in you;" and verse 26, but the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you." Again Matt. xi. 27: "All things are delivered unto me of my Father, and no man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Now are all these promises with many others to be explained away, and people made to believe that they are under a dispensation no better than the children in the wilderness were, when they had to look to a bra. zen serpent to be healed? For if we are to look without for help, independently of the teachings of Christ's Spirit, we might as well have one thing as another to look at, as indeed they that looked at the brazen serpent were not likely to be deceived. In the present day, those who profess to have no other guide but those expositions of Scripture which abound in this age, must

follow a blind guide, as every day's experience teaches us: one man saying they mean one thing, and another, another; so that who can say which is right?

After what is inserted of the Quaker belief of the atonement, I think it unnecessary to quote any more from their authors, although many might be quoted to shew their scriptural belief of it.

Candid readers of the scriptures and Quaker writings will not doubt that they are likely to derive as much use of the atonement from their understanding of it, as from Rand's explanation; and that his own writings give sufficient evidence, that his objections arise more from envy, than from real concern for any errors of theirs concerning it.

6

But he says (page 46) "The most explicit account of their belief concerning a suffering redeemer are the following." And farther on he says, "Tuke (page 39) comes to the point, and remarks, The chief objects of the coming of Christ evidently appear to have been, ist. By the sacrifice of himself to make atonement to God for us, and to become a mediator between God and men. 2d. By the sanctifying operations of the Holy Spirit, to finish transgression, and make an end of sins, and to bring in everlasting righteousness."" But to this he objects, "This surely was done rather by his death and resurrection than by his spirit, seeing the apostle says, "He died for our offences, and rose again for our justification."" But I do not see that Tuke in this contradicts the apostle, if we will allow the apostle to explain himself; for it clearly appears, by divers passages in his writings, that the only way for us to be fully justified in the sight of God, is by the sanctifying operations of his Spirit. Barclay says, Apology, page 225, "That it