anguish. If the sinner could possibly sustain all the penalty affixed to his crimes, he would then be released as a matter of right: and if a substitute be accepted in his stead, who fully discharges all his obligations, his release must be equally equitable in this case as in the former. If we admit the propriety of substitution, it must be evident that if the substitute bare the very penalty to which the other was liable, justice has no farther claims. Nor does it at all alter the matter to suppose, as many do, that the imputation is mediate, i. e. not an imputation to the substitute of the crime, but merely an infliction on him of the consequencesfor if the consequences of our sins be inflicted on our surety, it is wholly inequitable that they should be reinflicted on us likewise.

That Christ died for us-in our stead-as our substitute-none can deny, but those who have denied the faith, and are not much better than infidels. "For scarcely for a righteous man would one die, yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die." Rom. v. 7. Here is as evident substitution as can be expressed in words, and in the same sentence the very same form of words is used in reference to Christ." But God commendeth his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us," verse 8. Indeed every word and every modification of words by which substitution could possibly be signified, are used in reference to this great transaction. υπερ, αυτι, δια, περι, “For Christ also hath once suffered, (for what? As a great governmental transaction? nay but) for sins; (for his own? no) the just for the unjust (and for what purpose?) that he might bring us to God." 1 Pet. iii. 18. A transfer of character is indeed an impossibility, and is not necessary to the doctrince of substitution or imputation, nor even consistent with it. If my character were transferred to my substitute, I should then have no moral obliquity to account for, nor would my substitute atone

for my sins, but for his own; and of course could transfer no righteousness to me. Christ was then our substitute. As our substitute he would naturally answer for us, whenever claims were preferred against us. Sin utterly prohibited our salvation-and he is "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world.-But now hath he appeared in the end of the world, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. ix. 26.

So,

Our opponents, indeed, tell us, that the death of Christ was a mere governmental act, an exhibition of the displeasure of God against sin. But this is all gratuitous, and contrary to every representation of scripture. Suppose it were would it not exhibit the displeasure of God against sin, as much to angels and to devils, as to men? Consequently Christ would be no more the Saviour of men than of devils. Besides, how would it be an exhibition of displeasure against sin to punish a being who had no sin either personal or imputed? If the sins of men have not been punished; if the law of God has been lowered, or rather has relinquished its demands altogether; if the threatening has never been executed-wherein is the displeasure manifested against sin? But if God gave his own Son to be our substitute, and did not spare even Him, and did not lessen even towards Him the demands of his law, this indeed would be a bright display of the evil nature of sin.

The ground of the punishment of sin is the essential justice of God, and the evil nature of sin itself. If that which produces the greatest public good is just, then is sin itself just; for who will dare to say, that every sin will not ultimately be made to promote the greatest good. Injustice, therefore, is justice: it tends to the greatest public good, and yet it is proper to punish a just person, viz. one whose actions shall terminate in the highest degree of good. This sentiment, however, has been sufficiently refuted already. If then,

the reason of the punishment of sin be as above stated, it will follow, that it must be punished to the full extent of its demerit. The law of God knows not how to pity, or to relax in the least its terms. It must not be dispensed with but fulfilled. The debtor to it cannot be released until he can exclaim, "it is finished." Hence the Lord Jesus Christ, as our substitute, underwent an equivalent to that very penalty to which we were liable. We are told, indeed, that we know not in what light the sacrifice of Christ is viewed by the great Lawgiver. But do we not know what God himself has explicitly revealed to us? The law pronounced upon us its dreadful curse-" Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, (how? by an act of sovereignty, or gratuitous remission? no but) being made a curse for us." Gal. iii. 13. Are we not told in what light it is viewed? It was inflicted as the very penalty which was pronounced upon us. All those, therefore, for whom he was made a curse are redeemed from the curse: and if he was made a curse for all, the curse must be removed from all, and they can never come into condemnation. Hence the challenge is put in behalf of those for whom a substitute has been provided. "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died;" Rom. viii. 34-fully and positively asserting, that if Christ hath died for them, they never can come into condemnation. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? For Him who knew no sin he hath made to be sin for us (veр nu in our stead) that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor. v. 21. Hence he blotted out the hand writing which was against us; he magnified the law. He was a pos@opa, a usia. He bare our sins in his own body on the tree. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we

are healed. Is there no punishment in all this?

If then our substitute answered all claims against us, we might expect to hear the joyful news of release. Exactly in accordance with this we read, that this atonement was a λυτρον, an αντίλυτρον, ο λατρώ σις, a τιμη, an oς μη ευωδίας—that the Lord was well pleased for his righteousness sake-deliver him from going down into the pit, I have found a ransom. Job. xxxiii. 24. Those also, as might be expected, for whom this atonement was offered, are said to be ransomed. To buy, implies subsequent possession, and, we are "bought with a price."

We know that these expressions are all represented as figurative; and many persons seem to think, that if they can once step into a figure they are safe enough. This is their last resource. Here they hide. Figures, however, are not intended to obscure a passage. They are used to convey meaning, definite meaning, and to convey it more distinctly; and that meaning must be attached to them which seems applicable to the subject in hand. It is strange indeed if the apostles have used them so frequently without intending to convey meaning by them, and that meaning which is usually attached to such figures.

If it be declared to me, that I shall bear my sins, the expression, though figurative, is perfectly intelligible, i. e. that I shall suffer for my sins: and if it be further declared that my surety shall bear my sins, 'veg éμov, in my stead, the expression is still confessedly figurative, but equally intelligible as in the former case, viz. that my surety shall suffer for my sins, or in my stead.

Were we to hear that a certain person ransomed his friend by dying for him, we should consider the expression as figurative-that he did not, in a pecuniary way, buy the release of his friend, but that the ransom was effected by dying in the room of his friend. Supposing it

proper, in human government, to accept a substitute, the acceptance would be a matter entirely of grace; but the substitute being accepted and the ransom paid, we should look upon it as an act of injustice to re-exact the payment by the death of the original offender. Here, however, it ought to be strictly kept in view, that the non-remittance would be a matter of injustice, not to the original offender, but to his substitute, who had ransomed him from death. The word ransomed is here confess edly figurative, and yet perfectly in telligible: and why, I ask, when Christ is said to have ransomed his people, must the expression be interpreted in an entirely different manner? The procurement and acceptance of Christ as our substitute was entirely a matter of grace, but he being accepted and having ransomed his people, justice, not to those for whom this ransom was paid, but to him who paid it, demands the release of the persons ransomed. And as has been frequently intimated already, and shall be more fully proved hereafter, all those who are thus ransomed will be ultimately released. If God be just in justifying the believer, to do the directly opposite, to condemn the believer, must be unjust. To say that any specifick act and its opposite are both just, is as absurd as to say that light is darkness, and darkness light. If, as our opponents say, justification is merely a declaration on the part of God, that they may be saved in consistency with his attributes, then according to them it may be affirmed of all men; but according to scripture, "whom he justified them he also glorified."

Nor is the preceding representation at all inconsistent with pardon. If God promise a blessing, his truth obligates to its fulfilment, and yet the bestowment is equally gratuitous as though it were given without such a promise; so if his justice is obligated to give the Redeemer of the travail of his soul, his grace is as much manifested as though justice VOL. I.-Ch. Adv.

did not at all intervene. It is even more so, because he not only removes the curse from us, but effects it at an immense price, by making his own son a curse for us. He provides for the sinner a ransom, and accepts of it, at its presentation, by the sinner. "That which Christ laid down his life for he merited, and what he merited, is due to those for whom he merited it."* Thus too thought the Apostle Paul, or rather thus the Holy Spirit informs us-"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sin according to the riches of his grace." Eph. i. 7. If his blood merited that forgiveness, then it is not inconsistent with it, but if it was not meritorious of pardon, how is the procurement of pardon through his blood? It was "to declare his righteousness in the remission of sius, that God might be just and yet the justifier of him that believeth.-He is faithful (to his promise) and just (with respect to his Son) to forgive us our sins."

Nor does this prove that we were justified at the death of Christ; but only that our justification was then ensured. Every thing in its order. The sinner cannot be justified or declared righteous until he is righteous, and this is not till he by faith presents "the Lord our righteousness." Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sare-so that by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, they have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to the hope set before them in the gospel. Who, therefore, shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died.

(To be concluded in our next.)

proceeded, principally, on the facts that we have these books in the church;-that we are acquainted with the state of the world at the time when we have supposed they were written; and that such persons as Christ and his apostles lived and propagated their doctrines throughout a large portion of the world. Now, where we find a book existing in the world, and received as authoritative, there is a presumption that it is genuine. This presumption is increased, if it is on religious subjects,-if it corresponds with the character of the times when it professes to have been written; and it amounts almost to demonstration, when we find a large number of copies of this same book, with only some immaterial differences, diffused among different nations, having no connexion with each other-translated into different languages, and received in each with the same veneration. There is the presumption that a man will oftener speak the truth than falsehood;*-the fact that amidst the multiplicity of books that have travelled down to us, scarcely any have been found to be spurious; and the certainty that no sect or body of men will receive a book as genuine, and transmit it to posterity, when they know it to be spurious.

We are now prepared to examine the external evidences for the genuineness of the New Testament; and if no weight should be found to be due to what has already been observed, to inquire what has been said of this book by the enemies of the church; by its pretended friends; -and by its real friends;-and to examine the credit due to each. And,

I. With regard to the testimonies of its enemies-the Heathen and the Jews. The testimony of an enemy is supposed to be peculiarly valuable, because it is thought to be impartial: though in my mind, it is not entitled to as much credit, as that of a friend, converted by the stubbornness of ar

• Chalmer's Evidences.

gument from habits of established prejudice; yet it is a species of evidence, which, on all occasions connected with religious subjects, the infidel is found unreasonably to prefer. Its value lies in this, that an acute and discriminating enemy cannot be supposed to have yielded a point, without careful and thorough investigation-and that therefore the very act of yielding it, supposes that sophistry, and prejudice, and fair reasoning are not sufficient to invalidate its truth. An enemy to Christianity is moreover supposed to be free from the credulity, and weakness, and superstition, and bigotry, which seem to consider the defence of these books as essential to salvation; and to bring to the investigation the same noble and expanded views, and liberality of mind, which distinguish freethinkers themselves.

The most able and distinguished enemies, which have ever vented their malice against the Christian religion, were Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, in the second, third, and fourth centuries. The evidence from the testimony of these men, is precisely of the same nature; and if adduced separately, would be only a repetition of the same kind of proof. The few remarks, which I shall make upon it will be confined to Porphyry.

It is universally admitted that this man was one of the most able and distinguished opposers, which the church has ever known. He brought to his attack upon the Christian religion, the results of a strong and vigorous understanding, richly stored and embued with all the varieties of learning which could be derived from a long and intimate acquaintance with History and Philosophy. He was not a stranger to the Christian religion:-he had been educated among the Ebionites, a sect which received only the Gospel of St. Matthew, as genuine, and he had doubtless learned the reasons which led them to reject the remainder of the New Testament. He was intimate with Christians of other nations: -had resided at Tyre, Sicily, and