express the peculiar relation between the Father and the Son. I proceed therefore to other parts of your statement. You say Christ was the substitute of his people, that their sins were imputed to him, and for them he made atonement. To the doctrine of imputation I have no longer any objection. I can easily conceive, as you have already explained the doctrine, that the sins of men might be set to Christ's account as a surety, while he still remains "holy, harmless, and undefiled." But I am anxious to know upon what ground you affirm that Christ was a proper substitute, and that his atonement was a real satisfaction to the divine law for the sins of his people?

Pastor. This is a vital inquiry, and I will endeavour to answer it. Take this view of the case. The sins of men made them answerable to the justice of God; this justice demanded their death unless they could make reparation to the injured law; their character and circumstances, as you will admit, put it entirely out of their power to make such reparation; Christ appeared at this juncture to stand in their place; by assuming humanity he became a proper subject of law, and by the power of his divinity, he was adequate to the great undertaking. He accordingly, in this character of surety, became obedient even unto death, and with his expiring breath, declared that the work of atonement was "finished."

For the truth of this view, I will merely refer you to some of the simple declarations of the word of God. I affirm that Christ was a substitute for others, and the proof is contained in such inspired declarations as these: "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows." "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." "When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin." "He bare the sin of many." "Even Christ our passover was sacrificed for us." "He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." "He died the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God." "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventure for a good man, some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Such passages might be multiplied, but these will be sufficient to prove the vicarious character of Christ.

Parishioner. They are quite sufficient; but were the sufferings of Christ a special offering for the sins of the elect? that is, were they exclusively for their benefit?

Pastor. Strictly speaking, these sufferings were designed for the exclusive benefit of the elect; and for their salvation alone, the atonement is made efficacious. This is the only consistent view of the subject. Atonement was made for sin; sin can only exist in connexion with a sinner; it is never a mere abstraction. Christ's death therefore must have had reference to the sins of particular persons, and if efficacious, then these persons must be released from the claims of a broken law. To say, therefore, that Christ died or made atonement for the sins of any who shall be finally lost, is equivalent to saying, either that his atonement was so far a failure, or that God had unrighteously exacted from such, another payment of the debt, which had been discharged by Christ the surety. I know it is maintained that Christ made by his death, a general satisfaction to the justice of God, rendering it possible for him consistently to pardon whom he pleased. But this is language without meaning. Justice had specific claims against every sinner, and if it were satisfied at all, it must have been in relation to such claims. If Christ bore the penalty for all, then the specific claims of justice on each and all must be satisfied, and all will be saved; but if he bore the penalty only for some, then on the same principle only some will be saved.

There is another view of this subject which has unhappily gained currency, which represents the death of Christ as a mere tragical exhibition before the universe, to testify God's abhorrence of sin. In this theory, Christ's substitution is denied; he is not regarded as even guilty by impu. tation; his death was in no wise a sacrifice; nor were any of his sufferings of a penal nature; and the pardon of sin is effected by a mere act of God's sovereignty. This scheme, is not only absurd, but abhorrent and contrary to all Scripture. It can never be explained in consistency with such passages as we have already cited. How the sufferings of a perfectly sinless being, who was not guilty or liable to punishment on account of imputed sin, could prove God's abhorrence of sin, never has been and never can be explained.

Besides, it is evident that in no

proper sense, could the

The claims of the law

death of Christ, under this view, be an atonement; for it had no special reference to sinners.

are still unsatisfied, and if any be saved, it is in consequence of God's withdrawing his just claims, and recalling his threatenings. Indeed, it seems to me that on this hypothe sis there was no necessity for Christ's suffering at all, for God, as a Sovereign, could have pardoned the sinner as well without, as with a display, that made no amends to a violated law. Not one circumstance essential to the idea of an atonement enters into this scheme, and therefore it is one, with which even a Socinian could not quarrel. The advocates of it may very well say, that "the atonement secures the salvation of no one," for certainly as they understand it, it can secure the salvation of no one.

Parishioner. The last scheme of atonement to which you have adverted, I utterly disclaim, as contrary to all just scriptural interpretation; still it seems to me that your idea of a definite atonement is liable to various objections. First, you say, Christ stood in the law place of his people, and becoming by imputation responsible for their sins, bore the penalty which was due to them. Now this penalty was, as you have intimated, death temporal, spiritual, and eternal, and in this latter are included despair and remorse of conscience; now surely Christ did not bear this penalty with the attending circumstances. And then second, if the atonement had not respect to all men, how can the gospel offer be tendered to them, and how can they be blameworthy in their rejection of it?

Pastor. In relation to your first inquiry, I answer, the penalty of the broken law and nothing less, was endured by the Redeemer. If this were not so, then the penalty is not yet paid, and justice still has claims against the sinner which will for ever prevent his salvation. This penalty was death, but we are not informed, what is comprehended under that term. If this penalty is exacted of a mere creature, we are aware that it includes temporal death, the loss of God's image and favour, and consequently of personal happiness here, with eternal banishment from his presence hereafter. In this latter condition the sinner will ever despair of recovering from his ruin, and will be overwhelmed with remorse. These feelings, instead of being an essential part of the penalty, may be the mere result of its infliction on a sinful creature, who is conscious of his ill desert. But we are not told that these circumstances may not be materially modified in the infliction of the penalty on such a person as Christ, without at all affecting the nature of the

penalty itself. We do not degrade the subject by an attempt to measure the amount of our Saviour's sufferings, by a sort of arithmetical process; we merely insist that they were of a penal nature, and bore to the law the relation of a sanction; as it is said, “He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin;" and again, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Christ it is true, could not suffer eternally, neither could he be the subject of despair and remorse; and yet as God-man, capable of enduring infinitely more than we can conceive, it would be presumption in us to affirm, that he could not have borne the whole penalty, and the precise penalty, in his own person, in a few hours, which would have proved eternally destructive to the whole universe had it been inflicted on it. The penalty of the law is one thing, your circumstantial definition of it may be another. The penalty which made the mighty Redeemer sorrowful unto death for a few hours, may be the same penalty which calls forth the eternal wailings of hell. Thus, for the purpose of illustration; a man justly convicted of an offence against the laws of his country, is punished by imprisonment and hard labour. Conscious of his crime, he may feel the deepest remorse for its commission, while undergoing the infliction of this penalty. But suppose a disinterested friend should, from certain considerations, offer to endure the penalty in his stead, and the law should accept him as a substitute, he would actually endure the penalty of the law, and yet he could not possibly feel any remorse for the imputed crime.

The mistake on this point arises from a failure to distinguish between a mere creature, and the God-man mediator, suffering the same punishment. How will we venture to say, that Jesus could not endure the penalty of the law, when we mark the agony which he suffered? Independently of his excruciating bodily sufferings on the cross, when we observe the blood gushing from his pores in consequence of mental anguish, and hear his piteous cry under the desertion of God, by what rule are we to measure his pains? How can we say he could not endure this penalty, until we can first comprehend what is included in his being bruised by the omnipotent Father and made a curse for us?

But I come to your second inquiry. You ask how a general gospel-offer can be made upon the ground of a definite atonement; or how men can be charged with crimi

nality in remaining impenitent? I can perceive no inconsistency between the two positions. Christ has told me, that he laid down his life for his sheep-this is definite atonement; and Christ has instructed me to preach the gospel to every creature; his authoritative command therefore is my voucher. He has not instructed me to say to any particular individual, that the blood of Christ was shed for him, neither has he authorized me to say to all in the mass, that an atonement has been made for them. He has merely told me to preach the Gospel to all; to display the wonders of his dying love; to unfold the ample nature of the atonement for the salvation of all who repose their faith in it; to explain the terms on which the soul may become interested in it; and to give his own blessed assurance, that whosoever believeth shall be saved. This appears to me to be perfectly plain.

But then you say, if there be some for whom no atonement was made, they must be exonerated from blame for their unbelief. This however is a mere cavil. No man is condemned on the ground that there is not a sufficiency in the atonement to save; for, considered in its own nature, it is of unlimited sufficiency, and its benefits are sincerely and affectionately offered to all, with the gracious assurance that "he that cometh to Christ shall in no wise be cast out." The sinner, therefore, who perishes under the gospel, is justly chargeable with his own destruction. He is righteously condemned, for his wilful and obstinate preference of sin to holiness. "This is the condemnation that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

Parishioner. You have cleared this subject to my satis faction, and I will now revert to another part of your original statement. You said that Christ, by his sinless obedience to the law, wrought out a perfect righteousness which is imputed to his people for justification.

Pastor. Yes, I have said so. The imputation of the righteousness of Christ, who fulfilled the whole law, both in its letter and spirit, constitutes the sinner just in the sight of God. Understand me; I do not mean that the personal righteousness of Christ becomes the sinner's personal righteousness, for that is impossible; but that it is set to his account, as if he himself had performed it, and in the eye of the law, he is regarded as righteous, and is said to be justified. In this righteousness the sinner becomes interested