show mercy to the sinner. I have before remarked, that the pardon of sin, as an act of prerogative, would practically annul the divine government. In order, therefore, that God might prove himself just as well as good, Christ was appointed to undergo, in his own person, the punishment due to our sin; not the aggregate of everlasting suffering due to the sins of all mankind, but such a measure of suffering as might illustriously evidence the purity of the divine nature, and the inflexibi lity of the divine law; and, as joined with the infinite dignity of the sufferer, might thus enable the Deity to bless and restore those who believe, not only without dishonour to his own character, but with an immense accession to the manifestations of his glory before the eyes of an intelligent universe.

In immediate connexion with the obedience of Christ, is a covenant by which God binds himself to reward the infinite merit of his Son. Than this, nothing could be more just; and, indeed, we can hardly conceive how such a work as that of Christ would be justly allowed to pass without an accession of infinite honour. The reward which Christ claims, is

the salvation of all that believe; and as this may now be effected without disgrace to the divine law, the demand of the Saviour is ratified, and God engages thus to honour his Son to all ages. Although, therefore, as we before remarked, all the blessings shed upon us are of grace, yet the communication of such blessings to Christ, as the federal head of the faithful, is of justice; and God would, consequently, be as much dishonoured now by refusing to save those who believe, as, independently of the atonement, he would have been by the salvation of all sinners.

You will here perceive, without any difficulty, that the peculiar merit of Christ's suffering does not consist in its being merely an act of obedience to the Father, but in the demonstration which it supplies of the divine purity, by which means the highest glory is reflected upon the Deity. Upon this specific ground, it is fitting that the most exalted gifts which Christ could receive in his mixed or mediatorial character should be conferred upon him. But he seeks no greater blessedness than to be the first-born of many brethren, and to bring many sons (of God) unto glory. Thus is the

design for which he suffered constituted the reward of his suffering. Thus does the Father, by the exercise of his mercy to all who believe, confer the highest honour upon the Son. The seat of the mediatorial kingdom is the paradise of God; the throne of the mediatorial kingdom is the throne of God. Here will the Father be honoured in the Son; and here will the Son be glorified by the Father; and here, when the purposes of the mediatorial work are consummated, a great multitude, which no man can number, will unite to ascribe "blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." My dear friend, it is not presumptuous to hope that you and I may be admitted into this

blessed society.

LETTER V.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

THE second species of argument by which the doctrine of the atonement may be supported, is that derived from analogy. By

"analogy" I mean the resemblance of relative qualities or circumstances; and, as I have before remarked, it has pleased God, in condescension to our aptness to this method of instruction, to supply us amply with analogical illustrations of his nature and government, and of the great doctrines of the Christian system. Thus, when he calls himself a Father, he employs a term of analogy, instructing us in the relation which he bears to his people by the wellknown relation implied in this phrase. Thus, the relation of branches to a stock in a tree, is brought before us to teach us the relation of Christ to his people. The relation of combatants is employed to illustrate the difficulties of the Christian life. In each of these analogies, you will perceive that there is no resemblance between the objects of which these relations are predicated. God does not resemble a man who has children, and who is therefore called a father; Christ has no similarity to a tree; nor are the souls of Christians like the bodies of soldiers. The similarity you will remark is in the relation, and, even in that, only partial. There are many circumstances of the relation of a father to his chil

dren, which by no means resemble the circumstance of the relation of God to his people. The sacred writers employed the phrase in reference only to those few qualities which are common to both, and so of all others. I make these remarks here, that you may perceive that it does not at all detract from the value of analogical reasoning, that the analogous objects are totally dissimilar, and that even in their relative character they possess only a very few features of resemblance.

There are only two analogies which I propose to institute in the present instance. The one is that of typical arrangement; and the other, that of providential government. The object of each is widely different from the other. Under the first, I propose to show that there were in all ages before the coming of Christ certain religious institutions, which bore the same relation to man as a sinner, and to God as a moral governor, as the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ is by the writers of the New Testament alleged to have done. My design, in the second of these analogies, will be to prove, from the admitted facts of the divine government, not only that it was à priori