thers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without spot and without blemish." 1 Pet. i. 18, 19.

Thus I have endeavoured to answer the objections brought by our brethren against the views we entertain of the nature of the atonement. The attempt, I hope, has been a successful one.

Other points of contrast I reserve for subsequent letters. Should Providence permit, I may compare the two theories in reference to the honour they reflect on the perfections of God, on his holy law, and on the work of our Redeemer.

In the mean time, I remain,

Yours, affectionately.

LETTER VIII.

The Truth of God.

MY DEAR Brother,

In the two preceding letters, I endeavoured to prove, that the definite scheme accords with the scriptural representations of the nature of the atonement, far better than the indefinite. Let us now,

II. Look at the two theories in another point of contrast, and inquire which puts the most honour on the Divine perfections; the truth, the justice, and the love of God.

The TRUTH of God will first claim attention. Truth is a perfection essential to the Divine nature; an attribute of which the Supreme Being can never be divested. He is celebrated by the inspired writers as "a God of truth," "and plenteous in truth." "All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth, to such as keep his covenant and testimonies." "He shall judge the world

in righteousness and the people with his truth." "The Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting, and his truth endureth to all generations." "He keepeth truth for ever." "The word of the Lord is right, and all his works are done in truth." "All his works are truth, and his ways judgment." "God is not man that he should lie." "The Strength of Israel will not lie." "God that cannot lie."

Such are the testimonies of inspired writers to this glorious perfection of the Divine nature. Jehovah is truth itself. He always speaks the truth; and he always does according to truth. It is impossible for him to deviate, in one word or action, from the requirements of truth. He is true in his threatenings as well as in his promises.

Now, this attribute of the Supreme Ruler of the universe, is honoured by the views we take of the atonement. We represent him as being incapable of departing from his word, by suffering sin to escape the penalty of the law. His threatenings,

we believe, are always executed either on the head of the transgressor, or on the head of his surety. Jehovah fulfils his comminations, exactly according to his meaning when he denounced them.

Not so our

They aban

brethren of the New School. don the penalty of the law. It is executed neither on the ransomed of the Lord, nor on their Redeemer. Sin escapes without punishment. "There," says one, "is a secret and perpetual recurrence to the idea that Christ has paid the demand, or suffered the penalty of the law, so that its claims are now quieted, and the sentence of condemnation repealed. But this is a fundamental, and may prove a fatal error. There is nothing in the character of Christ's sufferings which can affect or modify the penalty of the law. These sufferings were not legal. They constituted no part of that curse which was threatened against the transgressor."* Again: "The atonement paid no debt-it involved the infliction of no penalty."+

* Beman, p. 68.

P

† Ibid. p. 72.

If these assertions be true; if the penalty of the law has been inflicted neither on the saved sinner, nor on his Redeemer; then his sins go unpunished: no satisfaction is made to Divine justice; and the truth of God is prostrated in the dust. He threatens; but he does not execute his threatenings. He declares that sin shall be punished; but he pardons it, and suffers it to escape without punishment.

How will our brethren get over this difficulty? How can they save the honour of the Divine veracity? Will they say, that God is not bound to fulfil his threatenings, while they admit that he is bound to fulfil his promises? I am not ignorant of the distinction made between a promise and a threatening. I know it has been said that, as by the former a right is passed over to him to whom the promise is given, justice requires the promiser to act according to his engagement; but in respect to the latter, the matter is very different: no right being conveyed to another, no obligation of justice demands the fulfilment of the threaten