The plan, therefore, which he purposed was in the person of the eternal Son to bear the curse himself, and to make satisfaction for the broken law. In his holiness he could not remit it, so in unutterable love he bore it. What could not be done through bare remission could be done through substitution; and the Son himself was prepared and offered as a substitute. There was never such a person, nor such a scheme. In order to represent man, he became himself perfect man. In order to satisfy the law, he first in his life fulfilled its holiness, and then in his death bore its sentence. Thus the satisfaction for sin was perfect. The law passed sentence on man, and man endured it. The law claimed fulfilment, and man fulfilled it. The law required a worthy substitute for the whole race, and He, with all the attributes of the Godhead, was amply sufficient as a ransom for the world. Thus his work is sometimes called atonement, because, by his own death, he atoned for sin, or presented an equivalent for the sinner’s guilt; sometimes expiation, because it expiated or took away the wrath due to sin; sometimes it is called satisfaction, because, in his death, he satisfied the law; sometimes oblation, because he was offered on the cross, as the lamb was offered on the altar; and sometimes propitiation, because the wrath of God was propitiated, so that he loves those whom before he regarded with righteous displeasure; but in all cases the leading idea is the same, viz., that punishment was required by God’s righteousness, and that he endured it as the representative or substitute of the sinner. The satisfaction of an unchangeable sentence was its one great object. It was God’s act of homage to the unbending holiness of his law. There was in it the perfect display of two attributes, love and justice; love which prompted him to save the ruined, and justice which required the sacrifice, in order that the purpose of love might be fulfilled. Thus the atonement is the one central point in which “mercy and truth are met together, and righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” III. From this brief and general view of the doctrine of atonement, we may proceed at once to some of the _leading truths respecting it_, more especially dwelling upon those which form the distinctive teaching of the Church of England, as contrasted with that of Rome. These may be summed up under three heads:— (1.) That there can be no other satisfaction for sin. (2.) That the satisfaction made by our Lord was complete. (3.) That it was final.