tures. And they must be able eventually to discern an uniformity and fitness in all his works. One thing must be proportioned to another; and the divine administration must accord with the principles of truth and justice; or his glory will be proportionably diminished. Words, without corresponding deeds, are falsehoods. But God cannot lie, neither in word nor deed. Christ's atonement and rigteousness then, must be infinite.

But how could a finite Saviour make an infinite atonement? Yea, how could such an one make any atonement at all? Or how could he work out a righteousness for others? Must not a derived being owe personally to God, according to the immutable religion of nature, as well as of Revelation, all the service, that he is able to render? Every dependent being must owe to God the love and service of his whole heart, soul, strength and mind. How then could the righteousness of a derived being be of avail for any one beside himself? much less of that infinite avail, needed for the salvation of the fallen world? Yea how could it be "the righteousness of God?" How could Christ be, "Jehovah our righteousness ?"

To render a derived Saviour adequate to the work, for which Christ was designed; or to give an infinite weight to his atonement, righteousness, and administration; the advocates for such a Saviour must have recourse to the indwelling of the fulness of the Father in Christ. In this case, the sufficiency of

the Mediator is rested on the infinite fulness of Divinity, that dwells in him. But if recourse must be had, after all, to the infinitude of the indwelling Divinity, in the derived Son of God; what is gained by supposing the nature of Christ, that actually suffered, to be superiour to human nature? Nothing is gained, except that small addition of merit, which may be supposed to result from the superiority of this derived nature over human nature. But how trifling must this be, when compared with the infinitude of the indwelling fulness of the Father, on which dependence is really made? This infinitude of merit needs no such addition. Infinity of merit must be sufficient without it. Such an addition goes not to the point, on which dependence is finally made,—the infinitude of the indwelling fulness of the Father. But no Trinitarian doubts but the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ. The Trinitarian rests the infinitude of the atonement on the underived Deity, who dwells in the man Jesus Christ. And the opponent (who believes at all in an atonement) must have recourse to the indwelling fulness of God, in Christ, to render his atonement of sufficient avail. What then has he gained by representing Christ as possessed of a nature superiour to all creatures, aside from the indwelling fulness of God? For he does not with this find Christ adequate to the work of mediation, without the indwelling fulness of God. And the Trinitarian finds Christ fully

adequate to the work, with the indwelling of his proper Deity, without supposing his created nature to be more than human.

And this

The sentiment, that to atone for the sins of the world, the sufferings of the Saviour must, in some sense be deemed infinite, most clearly lies at the foundation of the Christian system. "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission." blood must be of infinite avail. It must be (as we are taught by inspiration to view it) "the blood of God." "Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood;" (Acts xx. 23.) The ears of some are wounded by the phrase, the blood of God. I believe as much as they, that the invisible God is an infinite Spirit: And that a pure Spirit hath not flesh and bones, or blood. Yet I feel myself fully warranted to use the phrase, the blood of God; to say that this atoned for sin ;-and that without the shedding of such blood, there could be no remission. The abundant language of the Bible, representing Christ as God, and yet as dying for sin, warrants the phrase, the blood of God, as that which has ransomed fallen man. And the text, in Acts xx. 23, just quoted, fully warrants it.*

* The correctness of our reading of this text, is by some called in question. In some manuscripts of the New Testament, it is found, "Feed the church of the Lord, which he hath purchased with his own blood." And in some, Feed the church of the Lord and God." But I am satisfied with our reading, for the following reasons:

66

1. It accords with the tenor of the Bible, to speak of the

The sufferings of Christ must have been the sufferings of God in a sense, that was either real, or constituted. A person really divine either must exhibit himself as capable of suffering, and really suffering for sin; or else he must adopt a creature into such a constituted union with himself, as that both this divine and this created nature shall go to constitute one complete Person: And the sufferings of the created nature shall be esteemed as the sufferings of the whole Person, or the sufferings of God. There is no other possible sense, in which the sufferings of the Mediator can be of infinite avail, as being the sufferings of God. But Christ's

church as the church of God; and to call Jesus Christ, God. I have already shown in this section, and mean to show more fully, that Christ is abundantly called, and represented to be, God; both in the Old and New Testaments; the mighty God, the great God, the true God. The reading, therefore, "Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood," fully accords with the general language of the Bible. And the sentiment of this reading forms a hinge, on which hangs the salvation of the Church. For there can be no medium between the blood of God, and that of a mere creature. But if there be no atonement made for sin, but what is made by a mere creature, where is the foundation of the Christian's hope? Admitting the reading, "the church of the Lord, which he purchased with his own blood," nothing is gained by the opponent. For we are, in that case, warranted, by the whole tenor of the Bible, to annex to the term Lord here, its highest sense, Jehovah, who is the mighty God. He has redeemed the church by his own blood. The church, then, is bought with the blood of God. The propriety of the phrase is founded in the constituted oneness between the second Person in the Trinity, and the man Jesus Christ, as will be shown.

2. The reading, "the church of God," is found in eight manuscripts. And the following ancient fathers have quoted the text according to our reading: Epiphanius, Basil and Ambrose in the fourth century: Cassian, Ibas and Celestine, in the fifth and Fulgentius, Primesius, and Bede, in the sixth. See Panoplist for April, 1811, page 508.

sufferings are esteemed the sufferings of God: And his blood is esteemed of infinite avail, as the blood of God. Therefore real Deity did dwell in the man Jesus, in such a sense, as to constitute them One, the Person of the Mediator. This connection of the two natures is a mystery; but it is no contradiction, nor absurdity; it is not above the power of God to effect.

No doubt many plausible things may be said, (if men are disposed,) against the divine economy of constituting such a connexion between a Person really divine, and a created nature, as that the sufferings of the latter shall be esteemed as the sufferings of God. The objector, if he be hardy enough! may say, It is all a mere pretence. God did not suffer at all. He only substituted a creature to suffer in his stead; like the king, who engaged to die, and who fulfilled his promise by marrying a poor woman, thus becoming one with her, and causing her to die; which conduct would not be very honorable! But let me ask, what point in Divinity is not capable of being cavilled at ? What point of divine truth has not been attacked, and presented in a base light! Things seemingly plausible may be said in opposition to every cardinal doctrine in theology. But in view of the above objections, let me inquire; do not the same difficulties attend the scheme of our opponents, so far as they rely on the constituted indwelling of the fullness of God, to give an infinite dignity to