bling the sound of distant thunder. Now the well-prac tised chest, groans forth the horrible condition of impenitent sinners. The character of God is blasphemously libelled, by a charge of purposes and intentions, which would add ten-fold disgrace to the black characters of Nero, or Caligula. The Scriptures of Truth are saddled with the abominable imaginations of infuriate zealots; and sinners are threatened with endless inflictions of torment, which would disgrace, with inexpressible accessions of cruelty, the villains who figured in the ranks of the assassins at Paris, during the horrors of the French Revolution. Hyperbole is resorted to, and extravagance is stretched out of shape to lend colouring to the terrible descriptions, which are intended to frighten the timid. Ingenious appeals are made to influence the wealthy, to part with some of their gains, to aid the loving preacher and his soul-saving coadjutors, in preventing a God of Love and mercy from maltreating his creatures. The people are cautioned not to trust to the mercy of God. Not to become victims to a false and fatal security. A dreadful Hell is gaping wide to receive them. Their condition is a frightful one-an angry and vengeful God-an endless Hell-a preacher full of love for poor sinners-and money is wanting or needed to perfect the holy work of saving souls from an angry God, a dreadful orthodox Hell, and hungry Devils! Reader, this appeal is made to you.

Farther comment is unnecessary on Paul's manner of preaching. The orthodox contrivance, as exhibited in contrast to Paul's honesty, requires no comment. Truth and error are so dissimilar, that when correctly exhibited, none but the blind can regard them with indifference; or withhold the merited praise, and deserved censure.

Paul proceeds, and, in verse 21, assigns a reason why men should be reconciled to God, viz: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." On this translation the best commentators are agreed, that the original signifies the same as in the Septuagint version of the offerings under the law, where the thing offered has been, by a metonymy, put for the cause of the offering, viz: the sin of the people. But there is an important truth illustrative of the Gospel of Christ, that commentators, in their criticisms on the original text, have overlooked. Paul represents God the Father as the agent or actor. Jesus Christ, God's Son, is the first

patient-then the sentient kosmos, the world, is the second patient. The action of the Great Agent is referred to both patients, in the fullest possible sense, viz: First to Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father-Second to the ktisis or kosmos, God's sentient offspring or creation; and to both, in the whole relation that exists, of origin, purpose, and destination. Therefore God, the Agent, is represented as making both, the first patient, Jesus the offering for, that is, on account of the sins of the second patient, the ktisis or kosmos; who thereby, that is, by this offering of the Son Jesus Christ, are, second in the order of things effected, made the righteousness of God in him, the first patient; Jesus the Great Agent's Son. That is, by a metonymy. They are made righteous by the righteousness of God which is in Jesus, the first patient. This view of the subject of the Gospel of Christ, is Paul's constant exhibition of the truth. ́It is the burden of his Epistle to the Romans.*

We now see the force of Paul's argument, which is a legitimate deduction from Paul's doctrine. First-The reason assigned by Paul, for the reconciliation of the kosmos world, to God, is, "that they who live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them and rose again." And Paul's second declaration, which expresses an additional truth, affirms likewise the same thing, viz: that they, or we might be made the righteousness of God in him;" Jesus. Here God's purpose is set forth, and God represented as the actor, and man the patient, the passive recipient of the blessing of the reconciliation that is in Christ.

Now

mark the consequences that result from these truths. Paul addressed the Epistle containing our text and connexion, to "The church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are at Achaia." Are we to conclude from this fact, that the church of God, and the saints, to whom this Epistle was addressed, were in a state of un

*NOTE. The Greek term uper, rendered for, in this verse, viz :-to be sin FOR us, etc., signifies here, for us-i. e. on our behalf, for our sake; in the sense of protection, care, favour, benefit-as if bending over a person or thing, and thus warding off what might fall upon and harm it. Vide. Prof. Rob. Grk. and Eng. Lex. Also, in construing the metonymy, please consult note, pp. 38, 39, Vol. I., on the metonymical use or sense of the Greek term ilasmos, rendered propitiation, 1 John ii. 2; as collateral testimony with Paul's, etc. Also, see Appendix to Sermon VIII., Vol. I., pp. 156, 157, 158, 159, on the subject of Christ's affinity as the head of the earthly image, to that image, &c.

reconciliation to God, and opposed to God, and hostile to His purpose of mercy toward the kosmos world, at the time Paul wrote? This would be an absurdity of too gross a complexion for any person to receive, or admit for a moment. What, then, shall we conclude to be the true state of the case? I answer-Just what Paul has represented. Paul addressed his Epistle, as a matter of course and necessity, to the very persons to whom it was sent, which were, as above mentioned, the church of God, &c. It matters not to whom Paul sent, or addressed his Epistle. For the address of the Epistle, is not the Epistle, nor vice versa. He might have sent it, with a suitable address, to the high priest at Jerusalem, or to the emperor of Rome, at Rome, without affecting the truths contained in the Epistle. The addressing, and sending the Epistle to the church of God at Corinth, did not, neither could that circumstance, make those to whom it was sent, interested in the truths or doctrine contained in the Epistle. The reason, and the only one, that could interest those in the Epistle, to whom it was sent, is the important fact, that they constituted a part of, and were included in, the ktisis, creation, or the kosmos, world, men universally, whom God in Christ was reconciling to himself. And Paul's designation as an Apostle, by the Lord Jesus Christ, was not to the church of God at Corinth, nor to the saints at Achaia; but to the Gentiles, the nations; consequently to said church, and said saints, only for the reason that they belong, in their classification, to the Gentiles. We, therefore, see, that the efforts of ignorant and bigoted partialists, to restrict or circumscribe the glorious truths of Christ's Gospel, within the narrow compass of their charity and creed, are puerile to the last extreme.

Paul's doctrine, as we have seen, is full to the point, that it is the ktisis creation, or kosmos world, men universally, that constitute the patient of God's reconciliation in Christ. Also, the argument, or deduction from Paul's premises, that it is, that the patient kosmos shall be made righteous in the reconciliation spoken of. And, emphatically, that those who live, should live unto Christ, and not unto themselves. But, it should be remembered, that it is not that those who are dead, should continue, or remain the subjects of death. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, gives as a summary of the effect of the purpose of God in Christ, the following very comprehensive de

tail: "For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For [this is the reason] whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For [this also is the reason] to this end [for this very purpose] Christ both died and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living." (Rom. xiv. 7-9.) Well does Paul say, "Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?" What a reproof is this, to all those who set at nought millions for whom Christ died, and consign them to an endless hell!

Reader, there is a fact connected with Paul's phraseology in the passage quoted, that deserves your candid attention. Paul uses the pronoun we, the indefinite plural of I singular, six times, and the term us, the oblique case of we, once, as convertible with the phrase no man, and also with the phrase dead and living. The orthodox quibble that when Paul says us, he means only we; and when he says we, he means only us, is here seen in its proper light.*

The question is now exhibited in its true light. Paul's argument is a legitimate deduction from his premises. All men are characterized as dead in sins, in the flesh; or alive in a certain sense, in contradistinction to the death that stands in opposition to the life spoken of. And no man dieth to himself. This of all that die. Now, what follows as the legitimate deduction from Paul's premises in his summary to the Romans? If no man, not so much as one of the ktisis creation, or sentient kosmos world, shall die to himself, what follows? And if none shall live unto themselves, what follows as the only legitimate consequences of the facts affirmed? I answer, It follows, necessarily, that Paul's doctrine is true, that the patient ktisis or kosmos, is the subject of the reconciliation in Christ, effected by the Creator God, who is represented as the Agent. No sophistry can evade this con

clusion.

But there is a principle or doctrine, involved in Paul's premises, and affirmed by other inspired writers, which demands our serious attention. I will bring this forward,

* Query-Why not contend that Paul's phraseology 2 Cor. v. 10, "For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ," means only we, Paul, and his believing brethren in the Church at Corinth? The if sometimes appears in the wrong place to please ortnodox bigots!

side by side, with the very candid objection that some commentators have brought to bear on the subject before us: It has been objected, that the phrase not imputing their trespasses unto them," that is, (and necessarily so, too,) to the ktisis creation, or kosmos world, must be considered in the past tense. Well, I am strong enough, surrounded by truth, and armed at all points with testimony, to allow this objection all the weight it can possibly have; and, perhaps, to add a little to it; for I believe it to be correct as far as it can go-then it will stop of its own accord without my agency. Let us see how far this objection can extend.* I will draw the line, by Paul's authority. What is the patient of the recon

ciliation ?

Ans. Kosmos.

Where is the scene of action, where the reconciliation is affirmed to be effected?

Ans. In Christ.

Who is the Actor?

Ans. God the Creator.

What is the reconciliation effected by the Creator God, defined by Paul to be?

Ans. A new creation.

When, at what time, was the reconciliation effected? Ans. In the past tense, when God was in Christ, and efficiently operating to produce this end.

Now I ask, Where was kosmos, men universally, at that time? That is, where was the patient, when the Agent effected the reconciliation in Christ?

Reader, look at Paul's premises again. "God was in Christ reconciling the kosmos world, unto himself." What does the imagery signify? Consider, first, the timesecond, the tense-third, the Agent-fourth, the patientfifth, the operation of the Agent-sixth, the scene of operation, where the operation is performed.

Let us suppose a case for illustration of the imagery: Let the scene be England-the agent, who acts, a man

*If this objection had any force, as it applies in the past tense, the Lord Jesus Christ has settled the question in the future tense, Mark iii. 28, 29, saying, "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never [ouk, not!] forgiveness, but is in danger of [not] eternal damnation ;" but subject to the judgment of the age. For, be it remembered, kriseos can never be construed to signify damnation!

: