divine conduct in a moral government. It vindicates infinite rectitude by shewing that it had provided abundant means and inducements to prevent sin, that it sincerely prohibited every sin, that it is determined to punish every sin, and that it has expressed its detestation and condemnation of it in the highest Personage in the universe. It vindicates infinite benevolence by shewing that sin is the exception, and not the rule in the universe; that a compensative measure had been introduced into the divine government which would bring an accession of good to the universe, and that all the divine perfections are more fully and more gloriously developed in the appointed remedy, than they would have been in the prevention of the moral disorder.

In the second place,―The atonement shows that no divine perfection was unconcerned about the honors of moral government.

The instantaneous punishment of fallen angels had given a demonstration that the honors of moral government stood high in the divine estimation; but the forbearance towards man was calculated to excite a suspicion whether they were so now, or not.

A suspension of the penalty or punishment due to sinful man was calculated to awaken in holy angels, and in wicked spirits, a thought that probably, even JUSTICE itself, which had been erst so prompt and vigorous in punishment, had now become somewhat lax, hesitating, and indifferent, towards the interests of moral government. There is also, I think, a general impression on the minds of unrenewed men, that LOVE, GRACE, and MERCY, are some perfections in God that always are kindly disposed towards an unfortunate criminal, always side with him, always plead for him, are always concerned for his liberation and safety, honorably, indeed, if means can be found to make it so, but honorably or not, these perfections always feel very tenderly towards the criminal. Now, it is evident, that if moral government is to be carried on, both these impressions must be removed. These impressions would not be removed by the actual liberation of fallen angels, nor by the

eventual punishment of all the human race. Hence, then, arises the necessity of some wise expedient, and the expedient is the atonement of the Son of God. And the atonement removes these impressions.

The atonement defends MERCY from the charge of indifference to moral government, by shewing that mercy would not express itself, nor deal out a favor, nor deign a smile to the offender, until it had given a public expression of its abhorrence of his sin, and had seen every claim of the government honored. It defends JUSTICE from the charge of indifference to the government, by shewing that the ends of justice are as effectually answered by the atonement, as by the literal infliction of the threatened penalty, and that it has not abated one claim upon the sinner. The atonement is introduced and shewn forth for the very intent and purpose of declaring infinite justice, that God might be JUST, and the justifier of him that believeth. God was just without an atonement, and would have been gloriously just in the punishment of our entire race; but then, he would not have been a JUSTIFIER of believers. The atonement is shewn forth that he might be a JUSTIFIER and the JUST, that he might be just in justifying. In the atonement mercy and justice unite to magnify the law, and to make divine moral government honorable.

In the third place,-The atonement shews that no divine perfection has been injured or wronged by the substitution of a Mediator between the government and the offenders.

The attributes which are supposed to have been apparently slurred by the introduction of a compensative scheme into the divine administration, are truth, justice, and grace.

We have stated that the sufferings of Christ made an atonement, not by being a literal infliction of the identical penalty threatened, but by being substituted and accepted in the room of the penalty due to the offender. These pages assert that Jesus Christ in his death did not suffer the identical punishment which the law had threatened against the sinner.

This statement is met by an argument employed in behalf of the honor of eternal TRUTH. It is said, "Death was threatened in the penalty, and eternal and immutable veracity requires that the substitute should suffer the identical death threatened to the transgressor, just as Pythias would have suffered for Damon."

This is the strongest argument in favor of the position that Christ suffered the literal penalty of the law. In this argument it is overlooked or forgotten, that eternal and immutable veracity requires that the sinner ONLY should die, and not a substitute. The threatening is, "the soul that sinneth, IT shall die." Therefore, should a substitute even suffer the identical death, truth is still very far from being literally fulfilled. If eternal veracity can dispense with the identical sufferer, may it not also, under the direction of perfect wisdom, dispense with the identical sufferings? I think it may; and that it has done so: and in vindication of the honor of divine verity, I submit the following considerations:

A

The truth of any proposition or declaration consists more in the spirit than in the letter of it. Truth in a promise and truth in a threatening are different, especially in measures of government. Truth in a promise obliges the promiser to perform his word, or else to be regarded as unfaithful and false. But truth in a threatening does not, in the administration of discipline or government, actually oblige to literal execution: it only makes the punishment to be due and admissible. threatened penalty does not deprive the lawgiver of his sovereign and supra-legal power to dispense with it, if he can secure the ends of it by any other measure. And if the spirit of the threatening be preserved, the truth of it is not violated by its not being executed to the letter. If a criminal be sentenced to lose his life, the spirit of the sentence is, that his life shall be no longer continued among good subjects, to wrong and injure them. Should this sentence be commuted to transportation for life, the letter of the sentence is not fulfilled, but every one will see that the spirit is preserved.

This supra-legal prerogative of suspending punishment God has exercised in many instances, as in the sparing of Nineveh, and, I believe, in the sparing of our first parents. The identical penalty of the Eden constitution was not literally executed, either on man or on Christ. It was not executed on man, for then there would have been no human race. The first pair would have been destroyed, and mankind would never have come into being. It was not executed on Christ. He did no sin; he violated no constitution, and yet he died. Surely no law or constitution under which he was, could legally visit him with a penalty. If it be said that he suffered it for others, let it be remembered that immutable verity as much requires that the penalty should be inflicted on the literal sinner only, as that it should be inflicted at all.

Nevertheless eternal and immutable truth gathers its fairest and fullest honors from the atonement of Christ. The atonement answers all the ends of government as effectually as they would have been answered by the punishment of the offenders. Though the letter of the penalty be not executed, yet "the spirit and the truth" of it are preserved; and not only preserved, but are more transcendantly demonstrated and honored by the atonement than by literal inflictions upon all the millions of the human race.

INFINITE JUSTICE has also been deemed dishonored in the substitution of a Mediator by the supposition that it punished the innocent instead of the guilty.

It seems to me that it is thoughtless and wrong to say that God has in any-wise punished the substitute. It were better to say that God allowed sufferings to be inflicted on him. Indeed I deem it incorrect to say that justice has punished an innocent being at any time, though thousands of innocent persons have been involved in the punishment of the wicked. The character of justice is as much obscured by the sufferings of the innocent with the wicked, as by the sufferings of the innocent for the wicked. The history of the divine

government presents an immovable array of facts, mus tered from the general deluge, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, earthquakes, war, famine and pestilence, in which the innocent have suffered with the guilty, Yet in every case we cannot gainsay that "the judge of the whole earth has done right." Before any persons renounce the doctrine of the atonement, or that Christ died for transgressors, let them account for his suffering with transgressors. Or, indeed, let them find a reason for his suffering at all.

Without entangling the death of Christ with the difficulties of having been with sinners or for sinners, let any one single out his death as a simple fact in the divine administration, and aecount for it on the principles of justice. He was innocent, harmless, undefiled, did no sin, and kept the law in all points; and yet he suffered pain, reproach and death. Where is the justice of this? -Will it be said that he died to prove the truth of his doctrine? Then we would ask, Does the justice of God deprive a holy and innocent being of life to prove and confirm the veracity of God? Such awful sufferings are rather calculated to disprove the truth of his doctrine by exhibiting him as a disowned impostor, "smitten of God and inflicted." If infinite justice can admit of the death of an innocent being to prove the veracity of God in any doctrine, there is nothing to prevent it from admitting the same measure to express his hatred of sin, and his willingness to save. It is sometimes said that Christ died for an example to men. vindicate or explain the justice of his death. Christ did not justly deserve to be made such an example of; to see the innocent suffer like the most flagitious sinner, gives no encouragement to one to be innocent; and the death of an innocent person can never teach the guilty not to fear the evil of death. The difficulties about the justice of the death of Christ are not removed by saying that he died for our benefit and advantage. Is this a proceeding of justice towards Christ? Does justice by such a measure treat Christ, an innocent person, according to

This does not