How it comes to pass, that the personal dignity of the sufferer conveys to the sufferings of his humanity a worth proportioned to him who suffers rather than to that which suffers, we pretend not fully to explain. The above observations, however, serve to show that the principle on which this is affirmed, is one on which we are not altogether unaccustomed to reason. It is not meant to be inferred that any analogies, such as that resorted to above, can give us a complete idea of the nature of a case which is transcendently and awfully peculiar. It is enough if they serve to neutralize the objections of such as are disposed to cavil at the truth. On a subject of this nature, it ill becomes us to speak either with carelessness or with precipitation. It is to be approached only with cautious reverence. Here, if anywhere, we should be careful to be lowly wise.' Yet we may be permitted to show the reasonableness of a doctrine, and to expose the temerity and presumption of its adversaries, without laying ourselves open to the charge of being wise above what is written. The following statement may not altogether be without its use, in shedding a ray of light on this acknowledgedly great and profound mystery:-A person only can perform moral acts: The human nature of Christ possessed no personal subsistence: Of course, although the human nature of Christ could either suffer or obey, the obedience and sufferings of his humanity, viewed in themselves could have no moral character: To give them a moral character they must be viewed in connexion with his person: Whence it follows that, the obedience, and sufferings of Christ, physically considered, possessed only the worth of humanity, but morally considered possessed a worth proportioned to the dignity of his divine person. Now, the sufferings and death of Christ for the sins of his people were of a moral character, being endured with a view to meet the claims of the divine moral government, to satisfy the law and justice of God. It follows that there attached to them all the value which divine dignity could inpart.t

was equally capable of enduring it. True, they might endure it, but would their suffering have answered the same end? Would it have satisfied justice? Would it have had the same effect upon the nation, or tended equally to restore the tone of injured authority?"-Works of And. Fuller, vol. V. p. 565.

On this delicate point, I beg to confirm the view I have given, by referring the reader to the following paragraphs by Dr. Pye Smith.

"I. The assumption of human nature by the eternal word, who is God, was the act of an infinite mind, knowing, intending, and contemplating all the results of that act of assumption, through the period

But we are more concerned with the evidence of the fact, than with the explanation of the mode, of this great and important truth. Those who hold the doctrine of Christ's divinity, can never hesitate to admit that the sufficiency or efficacy of his atonement springs from the supreme dignity of his person as the Son of God. The validity of his sacrifice takes its rise from his true and essential divinity. To this the testimony of Scripture is distinctly borne. The epistle to the Hebrews, which treats professedly of the insufficiency of the legal sacrifices, and the intrinsic validity of that of Christ, commences with an elaborate demonstration of Christ's divinity, as the basis on which the subsequent reasoning is made to rest. The High Priest of the Christian profession is explicitly shown to be the brightness of the Father's 's glory and the express image of his person; to be much better than the angels; to be God whose throne is for ever and ever; to be Jehovah who laid the foundations of the

of the designed humiliation and for ever. To the divine mind, nearness and remoteness of time or space are equal. Consequently, as the actual assumption of human nature was the first result of the omnipotent will, so the same act, or volition, must equally have carried forwards and communicated its original divine value to all the subsequent moral and mediatorial acts of the incarnate Saviour.

"II. The union of the divine and human natures, in his person, was constant and invariable. The Scriptures afford us no reason to think that the Messiah's human nature though retaining always its essential properties, had ever a separate subsistence. To the mother of Jesus it was announced, 'The holy Being which is born of thee, shall be called the Son of God:' and, according to the prophetic declaration, as soon as men could say, 'Unto us a child is born,' so soon was it the fact that his name was called The wonderful, the counsellor, the mighty God.' It was the Mediator, in his whole person, that acted for the salvation of man; though it was impossible that the divine nature could be subject to suffering.

"From these two positions I infer a third, which I venture to propose, as an unexceptionable mode of stating this important, though profound and difficult subject::

"III. All the acts of our Lord Jesus Christ that were physical, or merely intellectual, were acts of his human nature alone, being necessary to the subsistence of a human nature: but all his moral acts, and all the moral qualities of his complex acts; or, in other terms, all that he did in and for the execution of his mediatorial office and work ;were impressed with the essential dignity and moral value of his divine perfection.

"These reasons appear to me sufficient to authorize our attributing to this holy sacrifice, a value properly INFINITE, on account of the divine nature of him who offered it. A most important conclusion! Rich in blessing to the contrite sinner: full of joy to the obedient believer" Disc. on Sac. pp. 69–71.

earth, who shall remain when all else has perished, who is the same and his years shall not fail. While, in another part of the book, the blood of Christ is represented as deriving its superiority over the ceremonial sacrifices, from its being offered THROUGH THE ETERNAL SPIRIT'-a phrase understood by some of our most eminent critics and divines to refer to the divine dignity of his person. How much more shall

the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God' (Heb. ix. 14.) It is because Jesus Christ is God's Son that his blood possesses intrinsic validity to cleanse from all sin. The value of the gift and the sufficiency of the propitiatory sacrifice arise from the same circumstance. • God sent his SON to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John iv. 10.)

II. But this is not all. Relationship of nature to those for whom the atonement was made, is an essential element in its validity.

Christ required to be real and proper man, as much as the true God. To qualify him for making atonement he must possess opposite attributes, a frail and mortal nature combined with ineffable dignity of person. We allude not now to the necesssity of the incarnation to fit the Messiah for suffering, to render him susceptible of pain and death, to make the offering of himself as a sacrifice a thing possible. We refer rather to the possession of human nature as imparting a character of worth or validity to what he did. This was requisite, not more to enable him to suffer, than to impart to his sufferings an essential value in the estimation of the divine law. Had the work of our redemption been a mere mercantile transaction, it mattered not by whom the price might have been paid. But being a moral satisfaction to the law of God for the sins of men, there existed a moral fitness or necessity that the satisfaction should be made by one in the nature of those who had sinned and were to be redeemed. The Redeemer behoved, as of old, to be a kinsman, a brother. Without this, neither could the moral government of God be vindicated, nor the glory of the divine Lawgiver maintained, nor the principles of the law upheld. The law in its precept was suited to man, and in its curse it had a claim upon man. Its requirements were such as man only could fulfil; its penalty such as one possessing the nature of man only could bear. The penalty was suffering even unto death; and no angel, no one who had not a body as well as a soul, could die. The death only of a man could possess a

moral and legal congruity to the curse of a law given to man and broken by man. It was not, then, merely to qualify him for suffering that the Messiah took upon him the nature of man, but to qualify him for such sufferings as should possess validity in the eye of the divine law. Both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified must be ALL OF ONE, (i. e. all of one nature.) Therefore in all things it behoved him to be made LIKE UNTO HIS BRETHREN, that he might make reconciliation for the sins of the people. Since by MAN came death, by MAN came also the resurrection of the dead. The serpent's head could be bruised, only by the SEED OF THE WOMAN. (Heb. ii. 11, 17; 1 Cor. xv. 21; Gen. iii. 15.)

III. Freedom himself from all personal obligation to suffer, is another essential ingredient in the value of Christ's

atonement.

He who makes atonement for others must himself be entirely free from that which renders the atonement necessary. What renders atonement necessary is sin. But Jesus was altogether holy. It would seem to be a dictate of reason and common sense, that vicarious punishment cannot be borne by one who is himself a sharer in the guilt which calls for it. The law, in this case, has a previous claim upon him. His own state renders an atonement necessary. He cannot remove his own guilt by his sufferings, and how can it be possible that he should remove the guilt of others? A substitutionary victim must itself be perfectly spotless and pure.

This was plainly enough pointed out in the Levitical law. The high priest was required to possess a high degree of ceremonial purity. Perfect moral purity was impossible; but the necessity of this in the antitype, was sufficiently taught, by this legal functionary being required to be free from all bodily defect or deformity, to be the son of one who was a virgin and not a widow when married to his father, and by his being exempted from certain methods of contracting ceremonial defilement. The sacrificial victim, also, was to be a lamb without blemish and without spot. To the same purpose was it enacted that the red heifer should not only be one without spot wherein was no blemish, but one upon which never came yoke. (Num. xix. 2; Deut. xxi. 3.) All this, doubtless, was designed to shadow forth the immaculate purity of the great High Priest of our profession, who put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

In virtue of his spotless innocence, Jesus was completely free from all manner of legal obligation to suffer, arising from himself. Legal obligation to the curse may arise from one

or both of two things: either from being born under the curse, that is to say, from original sin; or from becoming exposed to the penalty in consequence of a personal breach of its requirements, that is, by actual transgression. Infants of the human family are under it in the former way; adults in both: but Jesus was neither the one nor the other.

He was free from all actual sin. His obedience to the divine law, under which he voluntarily brought himself, was complete. His thoughts were ever pure; guile was not found in his mouth; and he did always those things that pleased his father. As regarded God, he fully exemplified the duties of religion;―cherishing every pious emotion of love, faith, gratitude, patience, and submission; and scrupulously performing, with punctuality and exactness, every act of devotion, meditation, prayer, praise, and attendance on the services of public worship. As respected men, every social duty, whether of affection and obedience and respect to relatives, or of kindness and fidelity to friends, or of justice and equity and benevolence and integrity in general society, was fully exhibited. Nor were the personal duties of temperance, sobriety, circumspection, and self-command, less strictly observed by him.

These are not unsupported assertions. The testimony borne to the innocence of the Saviour's life is most complete and decisive. Prophets spake of him as the Holy One,' who had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.' The angel announced him as that holy thing' which should be born of Mary. Himself said 'I do always those things that please the Father-Which of you convinceth me of sin?-the prince of this world cometh and hath nohing in me.' His apostles spoke of him as one who knew no sin'-who was without sin'-' who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners'-' who did no sin, neither was guilt found in his mouth'-one, of whom it could be said, in him is no sin.' But the most decisive testimony of all is that which was borne by his inveterate enemies. The Jews, who were brim-full of prejudice against his person and claims, were unwillingly compelled to affirm, He hath done all things well.' The traitor who gave him up to his enemies, exclaimed under the agonies of conviction, 'I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood. The judge, who unjustly doomed him to the cross, acknowledged, I find no fault in this man.' Nay, even the fallen spirits were forced to confess, saying, 'Let us alone: what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to