clared by him to be accursed except those against whom his law denounces a curse; because he has no curse to inflict but what his law denounces. It follows, then, that, as the spotless Redeemer was accursed, he must have been under the curse of the law; but as he could not be under it in consequence of any personal transgression, it remains that, as we have already shown, he was under it by his becoming the voluntary substitute of sinners, and engaging to bear the punishment due to them.

"I wonder," says the celebrated Beza, quoted by Scott on this text, "that Jerome and Erasmus should labour and seek for I know not what figure of speech, to show that Christ was not called accursed. Truly in this is placed all our hope: in this the infinite love of God is manifested; in this is placed our salvation, that our God, properly and without any figure, poured out all his wrath on his own Son;-caused him to be accursed, that he might receive us into his favour. Finally, without any figure, Christ was made a curse for us, in such a manner that unless he had been truly God, he must have remained under the curse for ever, from which, for our sakes, he emerged. For, indeed, if the obedience be figurative and imaginary, so must our hope of glory be."

2. The New School urge, as a second objection, against the doctrine of Christ enduring the penalty of the law, the impossibility of the fact. "It is," says one, "for ever impossible in the very nature of things, that Christ should become liable to suffer the punishment which the law has denounced against the transgressor,-against him alone. The law has no penal demands against Christ-and such demands it can never establish. "The soul that sinneth, IT shall die," is the threatening of the law." An objection, in appear

* Beman, p. 34.

ance, formidable indeed! for if it were in the very nature of things impossible for Christ to suffer the punishment due to sinners, then it would be a hopeless task to endeavour to establish it as a fact that he did bear that punishment. But, I think, notwithstanding this bold assertion, the passages that have been cited plainly teach us that, in the judgment of inspired writers, Christ actually did bear the penalty of the law. Let us examine the proofs by which this confident assertion is supported.

The first is, that the penalty of the law is denounced against the transgressor alone; meaning that it can be executed on him alone, and not on Christ. But this is merely offering one assertion to confirm another.

The second proof is another bare assertion, that "the law has no penal demands against Christ,-and such demands it can never establish." Neither of these assertions contains any evidence.

But the third, being a quotation from scripture, seems to present some proof: "The soul that sinneth IT shall die." But how does this prove that Christ could not endure the penalty of the law for his people? The text is recorded in Ezekiel, ch. xviii. v. 4. Examine it, and you will find its meaning to be simply this: That in the next world the son shall not die or be punished in place of his guilty parent; nor shall the parent die or be punished in place of his guilty son: but every one shall bear the punishment of his own sins. The Jews had impiously impeached the conduct of Jehovah in his treatment of them; and he was pleased to vindicate himself by making this statement in regard to the principles of his administration. But what has this to do with the case of our Saviour? It does not declare that the soul of Christ should not die; for his soul did die in agony and pain. Nor does it say the curse of the law could not be inflicted on him as the substitute of

sinners; for an inspired apostle has told us the curse was inflicted on him. Nor does it say the law had no penal demands against him; for he "was," as Paul teaches, "made under the law ;" and consequently, as has been shown, under its penal demands. To attempt to put upon this text either of these meanings, is only attempting to set one part of scripture against another. Were we to detach it from the context, and separate it from its connexion with other portions of the Bible, and give it the signification, which the words in which it is expressed would, in their full and unqualified meaning, demand, we should shut up our fallen race in hopeless despair; for then it would declare, that every soul that sinneth shall die eternally. But this cannot be its import; because we know, that thousands and millions are saved through Christ, and will never be subject to eternal death. Nor can the meaning attempted to be imposed upon this text in the above quotation, be its real meaning; because it would militate against plain scriptural testimonies to the contrary.

Reasoning similar to that of the author I have referred to, has been put upon the threatening denounced against Adam, to prove that the penalty of the law could not be executed on the Redeemer. "Thou," Adam, "shalt die." The force of the argument lies in this: the commination was addressed to the first man; and therefore it can have no relation to another individual, much less could it be executed on the spotless Redeemer. But the inference is wholly incorrect. How many passages does the Bible contain, which have respect to others than the particular individual or individuals to whom they they were addressed? All the apostolical epistles were thus addressed, yet who does not know that they were designed for the whole church? Who does not know that

promises, and threatenings, and precepts that were addressed to primitive Christians, had respect to Christians in every subsequent age? Who does not know that many promises given to the apostles, in private conversations of our Lord with them, belong to all his future disciples? The sentence denounced against the woman, in Gen. 3. 16, was spoken to EvE; and yet it has been executed on all her female posterity: and the sentence denounced against ADAM, in the 17-19 verses, has been inflicted on all his offspring. Indeed almost every thing spoken to our first parents had a reference to their descendants; and as they are born in a state of mortality, and many die before they are capable of personal transgression; it is manifest, from incontrovertible facts, that the commination addressed to Adam had respect to his posterity; because it has, in every age, been uniformly executed on them. And as our blessed Lord submitted to the state of death, so it is, as already shown, apparent, that he endured the penalty of a violated law.

3. It is objected that Christ did not suffer spiritual death.

That the sacred scriptures represent mankind as being by nature" dead in trespasses and sins," will hardly be denied. It is true that sinners love their depravity; but this is no reason why it should be considered as absurd to suppose that being delivered up to the dominion of sin, was comprehended in the sentence of death denounced against a violation of the divine law; because to innocent man, delighting in holiness and in communion with God, it presented a terrible idea, an object of the greatest dread. That God does punish one sin by giving up the offender to another, is clearly taught in the volume of inspiration. Speaking of the stupid idolatry of the ancient heathen, the apostle says, "for this cause God gave them up unto vile

affections."-" And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things which are not convenient." We, therefore, believe that spiritual death, which ensued upon the withdrawing of the Holy Spirit from the soul of man in consequence of his sin, was included in the original commination of a righteous God against disobedience.

The Saviour was perfectly free from sin. Had the slightest stain of moral pollution marred his obedience, it would have destroyed its saving influence, and indeed made him as helpless as any of our fallen race. In bearing the penalty of the law, it was not necessary that the curse should, in all its circumstances, operate on him as on original transgressors. It was sufficient for him to endure what was essential to the curse, and what the law demanded from him as the surety of sinful men. Now, this consisted in shame, disgrace, pain, anguish, and misery in the whole of his human nature, in soul and in body. Punishment may, in circumstances,

be

very different in different persons. Capital offences are, by human law, punished in various ways; and sometimes one mode of inflicting death is commuted for another. The same diversity of circumstances is seen in the application of punishment under the Divine government. All impenitent sinners are subjected to the same curse of a violated law. Yet how different the sorrows, the pains, the afflictions of life in different men! How differently is natural death inflicted! On one by a sudden stroke of lightning; on another by a lingering disease! This man perishes in the ocean; that man is consumed in the flames of his dwelling. One dies through sheer pain; another gently expires. But in all these cases, thus varying in circumstances, the sentence of the Divine law is inflicted. And for

any thing we know to the contrary, the same diversity in regard to punishment may exist in the next world. The essence of the curse the Redeemer unquestionably did endure. He suffered in soul and in body. He was exposed to shame, disgrace, and ignominy. He endured unnumbered sorrows and miseries. He was deprived of the light of his Father's countenance, so that he had to complain of being forsaken of him. His soul was exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death. And he actually underwent a separation of his soul from his body, and remained for some time in the state of the dead. Thou shalt die," said the law; and the Saviour, the surety of sinners, did die, in the very way the law required.

66

4. It is objected against our doctrine that the Redeemer did not endure eternal death.

In the eternity of future punishment all sound theologians agree. They know that sin deserves everlasting torments, and that a righteous God has threatened to inflict them on all impenitent transgres

sors.

But why is the punishment of sin eternal? Because a mere creature, being incapable of sustaining it in any given period, it must be prolonged through everlasting ages. But the divine Redeemer was able to support his human nature under any degree of pain and misery that the curse due to the sins of his people required to be inflicted on him; and the infinite dignity of his person imparted to his temporary sufferings a value that made them a fair and full equivalent for the everlasting sufferings of all who shall be finally saved. By this mode of inflicting the penalty, the justice of God was better satisfied, the honour of his law more effectually maintained, and the universe more impressively warned against the evil of disobedience, than could have been done by the infliction of it on our whole race.

So that, in the vicarious death of Jesus Christ, as the substitute of his people, all the ends of punishment were completely and gloriously answered. No duration of suffering in a guilty creature can ever satisfy Divine justice; it must run parallel with his immortal existence: but the sufferings, endured by the immaculate and divine Saviour, in the short term of his earthly life, so entirely exhausted the curse, that law and justice did not, and could not, demand a single pain, a solitary tear, or one groan more, to render his awful sacrifice of himself complete. The eternity of punishment is to be considered rather as a circumstance growing out of a case, than as belonging to its essence. It depends on the nature of the subject. In a mere creature it must be eternal; but not in a Divine substitute. To have prolonged the sufferings of Christ beyond the period in which he endured them, would have been unjust.

Finally:

To our views of the atonement, it is objected, that the Redeemer could not, although a divine person, endure the amount of suffering required from him. "If," says a writer frequently quoted, "one soul were to be saved by the atonement, Christ must sustain an amount of suffering equal to that involved in the eternal condemnation of that one soul; and if a thousand were to be saved, Christ must suffer a thousand times that amount, and in the same proportion for any number who are to be rescued from perdition and exalted to glory.""Now, as a single sin deserved eternal misery, which certainly implies infinite suffering, we cannot see how every sin of all the redeemed could have been expiated in a few short hours, by the agonies of the human nature of Christ, though this nature was united to the Godhead. We say that Christ himself could not have made an adequate VOL. IV. Ch. Adv.

atonement-if this atonement implied, that he must endure sufferings equal to the eternal damnation of all those who will finally be saved.""* Hence this writer concludes that the penalty of the law was not endured by the great Redeemer.

In reply to this objection, I remark that the author is mistaken in attributing the expiation of sin solely to the sufferings endured by the Redeemer "in a few short hours," at the close of life. We believe, as the scriptures teach us, that, as he did not feel a single pang on his own account, so all the sorrows and afflictions, persecution and distress, agonies and torments to which he submitted during his abode on earth, were inflicted on him on account of our sins, and constituted the atonement he made for us. How much he suffered it is impossible to tell. None but God can conceive the amount. But we, by no means, either teach, or believe, that he suffered so much for one, and so much for another; and that his agonies increased in their intensity just in proportion to the number that will finally be saved. We believe, and therefore teach, that he endured the curse or penalty of the law; precisely that amount of sufferings which Divine justice, considering the infinite dignity of his person, deemed requisite to make a full and complete satisfaction for the sins of his people. But it is erroneous to suppose that this amount of suffering was regulated exactly according to the number that shall be saved; so that, if the number had been less, his sufferings would have been diminished, or if greater, they would have been increased. The intrinsick merit of the atonement of Jesus Christ, is, as we have shown, in its own nature infinite, and sufficient for the salvation of any number of sinners of our race to whom it may be

3 D

* Beman, p. 78,

applied. Such was the nature of the representative principle on which Adam acted for us, that his first sin, by which the covenant was violated, has conveyed guilt and pollution to all his posterity, and would be equally destructive to all, if the number of his descendants were to be increased beyond that which the Divine decree has determined on. And from the nature of the same representative principle, it follows, that if all mankind were to become united to the Redeemer by faith, and the infinite merits of his atonement were to be applied to them, all would be saved.

Every reflecting mind will see, that the divine nature of Christ imparted to the sufferings and obedience of his human nature, to which it was personally united, an infinite value; and rendered him capable of enduring sufferings that were, in the eye of law and justice, a full and perfect equivalent "for the eternal damnation of all those who will be finally saved." A small piece of gold is in value equal to a much larger quantity of silver, and a still greater quantity of baser metal. A diamond will surpass in value silver or gold that would outweigh it a thousand times. The blood of a rational creature is worth more than the blood of dumb animals; and the blood of Christ is infinitely more precious than that of man. From sinful creatures justice demands eternal torments; but from the immaculate Son of God, while acting as the substitute of sinners, it could demand no more than he actually suffered while on earth, by which he exhausted the terrors of the curse. The Father filled the cup that he put into his hands with every bitter ingredient which the penalty of his law required. The human nature of Christ shrunk back for a moment from the deadly draught, and prayed that, if possible, it might pass from him; but knowing it must be taken, or man must perish, he drank

the cup to its very dregs. "Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without spot and without blemish." 1 Pet. i. 18, 19.

Thus I have endeavoured to answer the objections brought by our brethren against the views we entertain of the nature of the atonement. The attempt, I hope, has been a successful one.

Other points of contrast I reserve for subsequent letters. Should Providence permit, I may compare the two theories in reference to the honour they reflect on the perfections of God, on his holy law, and on the work of our Redeemer.

In the mean time, I remain,
Yours, affectionately.

HOW SHALL WE MAINTAIN BOTH TRUTH AND CHARITY?

(Concluded from p. 348.)

If then the differences between two or more religious denominations be rather nominal than real, if the conviction that such is the fact be so general and deep among the members of these denominations, that publick sentiment really calls for a union, and if by this union, strength, and not weakness, will be produced-in every such case, it is not only admitted but maintained that an amalgamation ought to take place. In all other cases, it is maintained that it ought not to be attempted-1. Because genuine Christian charity may be as fully and advantageously cultivated without it as with it. Nay, it is affirmed, as already intimated, that a part of this excellent Christian grace finds a scope for its exercise, which otherwise it would not have, in embracing with full fraternal affection those who, in certain shades