SECTION I.

After the law of Paradise had been broken, it was not possible for any being, except the transgressor himself, literally and fully, to suffer the penalty which the justice of God required; nor, to suffer what was equivalent to it, without undergoing the sentence of eternal damnation.

It is perfectly clear, that the letter of the law, which was violated by our first parents, demanded the punishment, not of a third and innocent person, but of the individual who had broken it. It was not said, "In the day that thou eatest thereof, some one of high character and spotless purity, shall surely die for thy transgression;" but, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." If there be any meaning in language, it is utterly impossible, according to these words, for any one, except the real transgressor, literally to suffer the penalty which is here threatened; and as the sentence of the law was not carried into effect- not executed on the real offenders, it is sufficiently evident that justice must have been satisfied with something less than was threatened, or with something different from the full and literal execution of the law.

Again, the desert of sin is generally reckoned to be temporal, spiritual, and eternal death; and had no atonement been made for the sin of man, this would have been precisely the punishment which he must have suffered. But will any one say that Christ suffered death temporal, spiritual, and eternal? If he did, it follows,

that he not only expired upon the cross, but that he also lost the divine favour, in which spiritual life consists, and is now suffering the vengeance of eternal fire! If he did not die this three-fold death, we are again compelled to conclude, that justice was satisfied with something less than the full and literal execution of the sentence of the law, or with something different from it.

Some of those who contend that Christ suffered the full penalty of the law, appear to feel the force of this argument, and sometimes speak as if they suspected the soundness of their own theory. At those times they tell us, the sufferings of the Redeemer were, at least, equivalent to the damnation of the whole world; or, to the damnation of all those, in whose behalf the atonement was made. By taking this new ground, however, they do not get rid of the difficulty; nor do they appear at all to lessen it. It is as much opposed to the testimony of holy scripture; and it is quite as difficult to conceive how an equivalent amount of suffering could be rendered to divine justice for the sins of mankind, as it is to conceive how the entire penalty could be literally and fully discharged. For, such an equivalent must

either have been the exact amount of suffering which the law required from guilty men, or it must not. If it was, then are we compelled to adopt one or other of the following absurd and contradictory conclusions; first, that Christ is now suffering, and will continue to suffer, in everlasting perdition, in the place and stead of all transgressors! Or, secondly, that he endured everlasting punishment for the sins of all mankind, in a few hours!! But, if this equivalent suffering was not the exact amount which was due to sinners, we are then brought back to our former conclusion, that divine justice has been satisfied with some thing less than the full penalty; and the term equivalent, as used by our opponents, is a word without meaning. And since the penalty required of rebellious men, was the endurance of everlasting punishment; which punishment has not been inflicted, either on them or their substitute, it is evident that, whatever might be the nature of those sufferings which the Redeemer of men underwent, he did not suffer, in behalf of sinners, the full penalty of the law.

The mode of reasoning employed by those who contend for an equivalent amount of suffering, will appear from the following extract. "We admit that the sinner deserves eternal punishment, and that Christ was not subjected to eternal punishment. But why? Not because any part of the penalty was remitted to him; but because he was able to bear and survive that stroke of justice which would have proved fatal to the whole

human race.

The ability of Christ to bear punishment is a matter of great importance in this controversy. Amongst men there is as great a difference in the strength of their constitutions, as there is in their pecuniary cir cumstances. A rich man could raise a sum of money without inconvenience, the want of which might subject many a poor debtor to perpetual imprisonment. So a man of a strong constitution will endure as much labour and fatigue as would prove fatal to many sickly persons. If we draw the comparison between the ability of different creatures, the difference is still more striking. A stroke that would make a thousand flies expire, under the most excruciating tortures, would scarcely produce the slightest sensation of pain in man: and there is a greater difference between the ability of Jesus Christ and other men, than between men and flies, to endure suffering.

From this quotation the reader will perceive how very little its most talented advocates can advance in favour of the sentiment under consideration. It is admitted, first, that the sinner deserves eternal punishment; and, secondly, that Christ was not subjected to eternal punishment. And if we apprehend the meaning of all this, it follows, most legitimately, from those admissions, that Christ did not suffer the full amount of punishment which was due to the guilty. That his readers would

D. Isaac's Works Vol. iii. page 4.

be likely to draw this conclusion, is what Mr. Isaac himself appears to have anticipated, and which he, therfore, attempts to provide against in the following argument.

He says,

"Not that any part of the penalty was remit

ted to him; but because he was able to bear and survive that stroke of justice which would have proved fatal to the whole human race."

As Mr. Isaac had yielded the point of Christ's suffering eternal punishment in behalf of all sinners, this reasoning can only be intended to prove that his sufferings were equivalent to eternal punishment; for, as "No part of the penalty was remitted to him," he must have suffered, at least, just as much as eternal punishment for all mankind!

But has Mr Isaac shown, or attempted to show, that any amount of suffering, begun and terminated in a few hours, is really equal to eternal punishment? We think he has not. Indeed, to assert that any amount of limited suffering may be equal to everlasting suffering, is as palpable a contradiction as the mind of man can conceive. We possess no means of calculating how much suffering, or punishment of a limited duration, would amount to everlasting punishment. It is a problem which no attainments in the science of numbers, will enable us to solve. And, if we have no possible means of proving that everlasting punishment may be compressed into the short space of a few hours, what authority have we for