agonies of conviction, 'I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood.' The judge, who unjustly doomed him to the cross, acknowledged, 'I find no fault in this man.' Nay, even the fallen spirits were forced to confess, saying, 'Let us alone: what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, THE HOLY ONE of God.'" Such is the evidence that Christ did not bring himself under the curse.

Some of these passages are quite as decisive in favour of the innocence of the Saviour's nature, as of that of his life. That he was not born under the curse is as unequivocally taught as that he did not bring himself under it. Indeed, an innocent life would seem to afford very satisfactory proof of an innocent nature. We can conceive of a holy nature lapsing into sin, as has been exemplified both in angels and men; but how a holy life, a life free from the slightest taint of corruption, could spring from a nature in every degree corrupt, is, we must say, to us utterly inconceivable. It seems a natural impossibility. An impure fountain cannot but send forth impure streams: a corrupt tree cannot but bear corrupt fruit. To contend therefore, as some have done, for the sinlessness of the Saviour's life, and yet to maintain the sinfulness of his nature, appears to us to be grossly contradictory and paradoxical. But of the strict innocence of the Saviour's nature, of its

11 Psalm xvi. 10; Is. liii. 9; Luke i. 35; John viii. 29, 46.—xiv. 30; 2 Cor. v. 21; Heb. iv. 15.-vii. 26; 1 Pet. ii. 22; 1 John iii. 5; Mark vii. 37; Matt. xxvii. 4; Luke xxiii. 4; Mark i. 24.

perfect freedom from whatever should entitle it to the character of 'fallen,' we should reckon his own words as decisive:-"The prince of this world hath nothing IN ME. To the same effect is the testimony of the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews;-'who is holy,' (oog) signifying purity of nature, as distinguished from 'harmless' (nanos) meaning freedom from evil in respect of external conduct, and also from 'undefiled,' (άpíavros) which seems to denote purity of official qualification and administration. Nor can there be any thing more unequivocal than the language of the angel, when, making known his miraculous birth, he calls him 'that Holy thing,' (rò ayor). This refers to what was conceived and born of Mary; not 'fallen and sinful flesh,' but a 'holy thing,' essentially and naturally holy from the first moment of its existence.

The miraculous nature of the conception of our Lord's humanity affords additional proof of this point. By being born of a virgin, being in a peculiar sense the seed of the woman, the human nature of Christ escaped all connexion with the Adamic covenant. It was at once connected with the race of man, and yet free from the contamination springing from Adam's federal representation of his natural descendants. This is what constitutes the incarnation the great mystery of godliness, and but for this it is not only not easy to assign any good reason for the miraculous nature of his conception at all, but even difficult to vindicate it from consequences that are necessarily and positively injurious. If, even

notwithstanding its miraculous production, his human nature was fallen and sinful, one can scarce help asking for what purpose a miracle was wrought at all in the matter, seeing that fallen and sinful humanity could have been produced without any miracle whatever. But the miracle was not only in this respect useless: it was, at the same time, calculated to convey the impression that the human nature of Christ differed essentially, in this particular, from man's nature in general, an impression which, on the supposition against which we are contending, was false and delusive.

But

We wait not to argue the holiness of Christ's human nature from the oneness of his person; from the necessity of such holiness to his being a proper example to his people; from the impossibility otherwise of his death being voluntary; and from his having survived the conflict with the powers of darkness and the enemy death, which is not else to be accounted for. The discussion of these points would carry us too far away from our general design. we deem it necessary to mention them. How full, and varied, and unequivocal the testimony of scripture may be, there are many who will not hesitate unceremoniously to set aside the evidence of particular texts, by having recourse to some vague or loose mode of interpretation. For the sake of such, it must be made known, that the view taken of these particular texts is fully borne out and supported by certain general principles, which, while they harmonize with the meaning attached to individual passages

of scripture, themselves peremptorily and independently require us to admit the immaculate holiness of Christ's atoning sacrifice.

The perfect innocence of the Saviour's nature and life-thus, we hope, satisfactorily established-enters essentially into that which constitutes the moral worth or intrinsic value of his vicarious sufferings. It shows him to have been free from all legal obligation to suffering in himself. The law of God had in this way no claim upon him for subjection to its curse; and he was thus far at liberty to suffer the penalty due to sin, on behalf of others. It is on this principle that the apostle speaks of his personal innocence as essential to his sacerdotal character and work. 'Such an high priest,' says he, 'became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, who needeth not daily to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins, and then for the people's.'

IV. It was further necessary to the validity of Christ's atonement that he should be entirely at his own disposal.

It is not enough that the substitute, being innocent, is free from the claims of the law to which he gives satisfaction for others. He may be under obligations to another law, the fulfilment of whose demands may render it impossible for him to occupy the place of a surety. His whole time and energies may be thus, as it were, previously engaged, so as to put it out of his power to make a transfer of any part of them for the behoof of others. This is, indeed, the

case with all creatures. Whatever service they are capable of performing, they owe originally and necessarily to God. They are, from their very nature, incapable of meriting any thing for themselves, much more for others. The right of self-disposal belongs not to creatures.

Themselves and all that pertains to them, are the property of Him who made and preserves them. They are under law to God, and at liberty to dispose of themselves only as that law directs. It thus appears that an angel of light, though perfectly innocent, and free from all the claims of the particular legal constitution under which man is bound over to punishment, could not have furnished a sacrifice, of value to atone for human guilt. Angels are creatures, and as such, are necessarily under law to God. They are not under the covenant which God made with man, to be sure; but the law under which they exist demands all their energies, it has a claim upon them for the full amount of the service they are capable of performing, right of giving satisfac

and thus denies them all tion to another law, in behalf of a different order of creatures.

But the Son of God, not being a creature, was originally under no law. He was perfectly at his own disposal. Whatever he might choose, of his own free will to do or to suffer, was what no existing law had a previous right to. He was not only not under the law which man had broken, but he was under no other law; he was not only innocent, but free to dispose of himself as might seem to him to