should suffer in his Godhead without imparting suffering to the clay tenement in which he is enshrined.

But, without discussing the doctrine of possibilities when applied to the Omnipotent, it is enough for us to say that the blessed incarnation of the Bible would have failed in some of its apparent objects had the adjunct man remained in a condition of untouched felicity. No imitable example would have been left to the suffering faithful as a pattern of meekness and patience. There would have been no visible and palpable representation to shadow forth the atoning agonies on earth, and perpetuate their remembrance in heaven. No bloody sweat, no speaking scars would have symbolized the viewless pangs of the redeeming God. How could the man have participated with the kindred Deity, in his exaltation unless he had participated with him in his sufferings? The man, as well as the enshrined Divinity, "for the joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is now set down at the right hand of the throne of God."-Hebrews, xii., 2.

CHAPTER XX.

Objections to Prevalent Theory-Venerable for its Age and Prevalence-Miniature of its Outlines-Derogates from Simplicity and Fulness of Atonement-Not founded on Scripture-Imparts to Bible figurative Meaning-Lowers Affection from Godhead of Christ to Manhood-Strengthens Unitarian Error.

We have now reached the point where it becomes necessary, in the progress of our argument, to attempt a more detailed examination of the prevalent theory than we have hitherto done. This is a delicate branch of our subject. We would not willingly aid in the demolition of a material edifice, venerable for its age, and consecrated as the scene of memorable events, however much we might complain of its architectural proportions. With how much profounder regret do we enter, with hostile purpose, that spiritual structure, which has extended over continents its vast dimensions, and grown gray under the frosts of almost fifteen hundred years! Ever since its erection, it has been the abode of the chief portion of the piety of Christendom. In its many chambers devotion has for ages uttered her dying prayers, and breathed forth her last faltering accents. From its lofty turrets, for near fifteen centuries, have triumphantly ascended joyous groups of " the spirits of just men made perfect."

That the corner-stone of this stupendous structure has been laid in error, is engraved on the tablet of our heart, as it were, by a pen of iron on tablets of marble. With the absorbing belief resting on our soul that the second person of the Trinity suffered and died, in his ethereal essence, for the redemption of our race, we cannot withhold from this sublimest of truths the aid of our feeble voice, even were we to stand alone with a world opposed. Religious misconception is not changed into truth by its prevalence or age. If errors of faith could be consecrated by their universality or antiquity, then might the paganism of China interpose against the missionaries of the Cross a rampart more impregnable than her celebrated wall interposed to Tartar incursions.

The following is a miniature representation of the prevalent theory: It affirms that the second person of the Trinity, the incarnate Redeemer of the world, suffered and died, not in his divine nature, which is impassible, but in his human nature only that by virtue of the union of his divine and human natures, called the hypostatic union, there was imparted to his human sufferings and death a value and dignity which made them, in the estimation of infinite justice, and in pursuance of the covenant of grace between the Father and the Son, an adequate atonement for the sins of the

redeemed. This, though a brief, is believed to be a faithful sketch of the prevalent theory.

To this theory are opposed serious objections, some of which have already been intimated.

First. The theory derogates from the simplicity and fulness of the atonement, and imparts to it an illusive character. It subtracts from the atonement its vital principle. It robs it of its suffering, dying God. It substitutes the sufferings and death of the creature for the sufferings and death of the Creator. That the human son of the Virgin was a creature-as really so as Peter or John-the advocates of the prevalent theory will not deny. Nor will they affirm that mere creature sufferings could have atoned for the sins of man. For then Gabriel, instead of the eternal Son, might have been the incarnate redeemer of the world. But the prevalent theory would seek to imbue the sufferings of the creature with a borrowed value, reflected from the Creator dwelling within. How the indwelling God could impart atoning value to creature sufferings, in which he did not himself participate, but from which he stood dissevered by the immutable laws of his being, none of the faculties of man, save his imagination, can shadow forth. Sufferings, valueless as an atoning offering in themselves, could not have derived atoning

merits from the mere juxtaposition of indwelling divinity.

The intrinsic worth of a habitation would not be enhanced by the rank of its occupant. Human vanity might, indeed, attach to an edifice, proffered in satisfaction of a debt, a fictitious value, from its having been tenanted by a prince; but the calculations of human vanity would not have affected Him, who must have weighed earth's supposed offering for sin in the balance of the sanctuary, in the face of the intelligent universe. The Holder of the everlasting scales would, we suppose, have fixed the value of the offered tabernacle of clay from the intrinsic worth of its terrestrial materials, little moved by the consideration that the "Prince of life" was its tenant, and the poor oblation for a ruined world must have had written over against it the superscription so astounding to the aspiring Oriental despot, "Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting."

The supposition that the chief office of the second person of the Trinity in the work of redemption was to impart, by his holy incarnation, dignity and value to creature sufferings, is the imagination of the prevalent theory. Had the communication of dignity and value to creature sufferings been the chief object of the incarnation, it