A CELEBRATED Artist being asked why he bestowed so much time and pains in finishing a certain piece of painting, answered, "I paint for eternity." Could I now write for eternity, it would be the happiest thing imaginable. Not that I dare expect a large share of present applause, or attempt to purchase immortality among those who are honoured with a place in the temple of Fame. It were vanity to hope for the one, and presumption to enroll myself a candidate for the other. And yet there is an immortality to which I may not only aspire with innocence, but for which I should sigh with the ardour of hope, and all the palpitating anxieties of ambition--it is that of hearing at last, "Well done thou good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."

      I feel every possible solicitude in attempting these strictures. To be faithful, and yet to be temperate; to expose the author's errors, and to feel no undue bias, is the difficulty. Did I feel no personal attachment to the author himself, and many more, dear to my heart, who are equally involved with him in those errors; or had he simply announced his own opinions, without attempting to fix a brand of infamy on those of others, and insinuate so grossly as he does, respecting the religion of all who differ from him in sentiment, the task would be comparatively light. Feeling as I do, every sentiment of respect and friendship for him and others of the same opinion; and recalling a thousand pleasing scenes of past intercourse, but not insensible to the impression of injury, my conflict is between tenderness and indignation; between the emotions of a friend, and the just resentment of an antagonist. To repel the [3] liberal and insulting attack which he makes upon our Confession of Faith, as well as upon the motives and personal piety of its compilers and adherents, without the severity of retort; to unravel the sophistries of the publication, without wounding the hand that wrought them; to witness the many trifling conceits and puerile criticisms which occur, without a smile of contempt; in one word, to animadvert upon errors so fatal and glaring, without attempting to chastise the temerity of the man who propagates them will be no easy task.

      Nor are these the only difficulties with which I have to contend. Too often it happens, when we enter upon controversy, that "we know not what manner of spirit we are of," and consequently are very incompetent judges of the springs of action within us, or the aspect of our conduct toward those whom we oppose. A fondness for some favourite theory, is mistaken for the love of truth; zeal for the interests of a party, is baptized with the venerable name of a zeal for the glory of God; down-right ill-nature passes for honest indignation against error; and the bitterness of sarcasm, is thought to be the very soul of temperance, and the sweetness of piety.

      Considering, therefore, the frailty of our nature, and the possibility of erring, where most we thought to act with propriety, I think it best to promise nothing, but cast myself upon the protection and guidance of Heaven, and repose upon the candour and generosity of the publick to bear with my weaknesses, pity my involuntary errors, and pay more attention to the very interesting subjects discussed, than to the manner of discussion.

      From Mr. Stone, I beg to be forgiven, if in some instances I appear to use too much severity. For though I must mention his errors with unreserved plainness, and warn him of their dangerous tendency, I would not willingly wound his feelings. And nothing would be [4] more soothing to my heart, than to hold an interest in his friendship, while employed in the invidious work of exposing notions which have long been the objects of fond research and dilligent propagation, unless it were that of being made instrumental in his re-conversion to truth.

      An apology to the publick for appealing so frequently to the original language of Scripture, as I shall be compelled to do in this work, I think indispensible. Had not Mr. Stone and his partisans, attempted to undermine the confidence of the people, in our translation, I should really blush to rest an appeal where a large majority of my readers cannot follow me, or judge of the correctness of my observations. Though occasions may offer, when appeals of this nature may not only be proper, but absolutely necessary; yet, generally, they should be regarded as the wretched resource of dulness, to arrive at notice, or the insidious artifice of error, to impose on the credulity of mankind.

      There are indeed some places in scripture, which are not so happily translated; yet every person that has taken the least care to be informed, knows that these inaccuracies never affect a single doctrine of religion, and are more properly the objects of criticism, than matters of faith. When it is considered, that there is such an exact correspondence between our translation and those made in all other languages, and that men of the most profound erudition have not only acquiesced in it, as sufficiently correct for general use, but even admired it for being the most literal and sublime that has ever been made; it would appear more like insulting arrogance, or sottish self-sufficiency, than critical ability, in a writer of our latitude, to arraign and condemn it. Though I have spent some time and pains, in making myself acquainted with the languages, in which the scriptures were originally written; I do not solicit the attention of the world, to any thing I may advance, or sound my plea of credibility upon the [5] merit of my own qualifications, of which I feel no disposition to boast, but upon the authority of a large number of the best authors, to whom I have had access. As Mr. Stone entitles his book "Atonement,"-- I do not think myself obliged to take particular notice of other subjects, which he has so unfairly dragged into view, under every feature of distortion, and exaggeration; It will therefore happen that I shall pass over several sections without notice; not because I think his arguments formidable, but because his title does not imply these subjects, and because they will meet with an answer in other publications, which have just been made. With the best will imaginable, the author has aimed at giving a ludicrous, and horrid picture, of our confession, but he ought to know that the fairest face, may be made either hideous, or ridiculous, at pleasure by a false cover, or colouring; and I am apt to think that the venerable gentlemen himself, would alternately, excite laughter or horror, were he dressed out in Foolscap, or an Indian visor. [6]

      Section 1. MR. STONE denied very positively the existence of any covenant made with Adam, and seems to possess a triumph, when he asserts, that none of the Synods, General Assemblies, or Association of Europe or America, have ever been able to produce a single passage in proof of such a covenant. Had he cast his eye upon the confession of the Presbyterian Church in America, (without taking the tour of Europe) he would have seen a number of very pertinent texts, adduced in support of the Doctrine. It is indeed strange, that a man who possesses so very accurate a knowledge of our confession, preached several years, under its government, and has now written to warn the world against its supposed errors, should almost in the first page make an assertion so palpably erroneous, as to impel his reader, either to suspect his honesty, or charge him with ignorance. Tho' I am unwilling to suspect Mr. Stone's veracity, yet I cannot avoid censuring him for making so violent, and illiberal an attack. Upon a book with which he seems so little acquainted.

      He tells us in the midst of this imaginary triumph, that "he leaves the Doctrine to Systematics." But does he indeed mean to sneer at system, and ridicule, order, connection, and consistency? System is the foul of the universe. By System was it framed, and by system its parts hang together. Banish system and you bring back the reign of chaos, and the conflict of opposing elements. Banish system from revealed Religion, and you will surrender the plea of analogy, employed in proof of its divine origin. [7]

      If the doctrines of the Bible, are not reducible to systematic form, and susceptible of just, and proportionate arrangement; if they want consistency, and harmony of part, and cannot be brought to hang together with order, and exactness; there is every reason to reject them, as wanting the impress of Divinity, because all the works of God, carry the strongest marks of regularity, and harmony. A little attention to system, would certainly do Mr. Stone no harm. If his book possess nothing of it, the defect will be fatal to its existence. "Like the baseless fabric of a vision, it will dissolve into thin air," at the first waft of some opposer's wand.

      Mr. Stone affects much astonishment at the credulity of the world, in receiving this doctrine as a fundamental article of religion, when (as he says) there is not a single text to support it. Pardon our credulity, my dear sir, and repress your astonishment, while I quote some (as we suppose) very pointed Scriptures, in proof of the doctrine.--"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eateth thereof, thou shalt surely die. And the law is not of faith: but the man that doeth them, shall live in them. Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth these things, shall live by them. For as many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."^{1} That constitution which threatens a curse in case of disobedience, and promises life upon obedience, is a covenant in the scripture sense of the word. Call it a law, and still that law is denominated a covenant.--"And the Lord said unto Moses, write thou these words; for after the tenor of these words I have made [8] a covenant with thee, and with Israel. And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water; and wrote upon the table, the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.-- But they, like men, have transgressed the covenant.--Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage--The Lord gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenants--And the two tables of the covenant were in my hands--The Lord shall separate him unto evil, out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant, that are written in this book of the law."^{2}

      This is evidently the doctrine of St. Paul, in Rom. v. 12-21, and 1 Cor. xv. 21-48: where, though the word covenant is not mentioned, the thing in substance is clearly stated. Adam is described in this passages, as the representative of his posterity, and in that character, involving them in sin and death, by his violation of the original law, under which he was placed. What makes it undeniable, that he was a representative in covenant, is, that he was called the "figure of him that was to come," and Christ is denominated "the last Adam." Now, if God made a covenant with the last Adam, in whom life is regained, as we know he did, the inference is fair, that he made a covenant with the first Adam, in whom life had been lost.^{3}

      If God's law, delivered upon Mount Sinai, was his covenant, made with Moses and Israel, why was not his law, given to Adam, his covenant too? or will any one pretend to alledge, that the one was different from the [9] other, though death reigned alike through both, and sin, lay heavy upon the world, where there was no direct, or ostensible imputation of it, by a written law?^{4} I would be glad to know upon what other principle, than that of representation, or Adam's being a covenant head, and representative, it is, that his posterity have shared so deeply in the sad effects of his fall? Why do thousands of our race, at this moment, who have never sinned, personally, writhe in pain, and gasp in death, if they have no relation to Adam as a head, and have no concern in the law by which he was governed?

      Sect. 2. The next doctrine arraigned by Mr. Stone, is, that which asserts there is wrath in Deity. He reasons thus: What God is, he is eternally, infinitely, and unchangeably; but God is love; therefore, God is eternal, infinite, and unchangeable love. This argument excludes wrath from Deity. But if wrath be in God, it must be an attribute of his nature; and if an attribute, it must be eternal, infinite and unchangeable; then it would follow, he thinks, that two infinite, eternal, and unchangeable principles, are in God, contrary to one another--love and wrath--which is absurd.

      By the same logic I can prove, that in God there is no love: What God is, he is infinitely, eternally, and unchangeably; but he is said in Scripture, to have wrath; therefore God is infinite, eternal, and immutable wrath; such a dilemma leaves no place for love, in the Deity: or if he possess love, it must be an attribute, everlasting, infinite, and immutable; and of course it will happen that there can exist, two infinite, everlasting, and immutable, principles in God contrary to one another, wrath, and love, which would be absurd.

      The point of fallacy, in this reasoning, may be [10] detected, by observing that more is assumed in the conclusion, than is contained in the premises. In the premises it is only asserted that God is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable love; but the conclusion states, that there is no wrath in him; whereas, wrath is not placed in the premises. The second dilemma is false, because it turns on this assumed, and gratuitous position, that love and wrath, are adverse, and contrary qualities which had not been proven.

      Another argument on which the author seems to rely, is that there can be no wrath in the Deity, because when we are renewed, we feel wrath dying in us. If the writer mean, that sense of justice, which the upright judges possesses, and employs in his adjudication, the renewal of our nature, by no means banishes that; but rather increases, and establishes it, and I conceive that principle in the judge, is some shadow of wrath in Deity: but if he mean the unreasonable, and foolish passion of wrath in man, his reasoning is just as good, as if he had said, because we feel sin dying in us, after conversion; therefore, there is no sin in God.

      When Mr. Stone comes to tell us plainly what he means by that wrath, which he has been proving, is not in God, it comes out to be the wrath, or anger of men. If this be really what he meant, he might have been more sparing of his argumentation, for there is no one so ignorant, as to think God can be the subject of a turbulent and blind wrath, similar to that which we see sometimes in man; but this granted, that such anger has no place in the Supreme Being; will it be a necessary consequence, that he has no wrath at all? will it be impossible, that he feel a righteous indignation against sinners, or that he can possess, no virtuous propensity, to punish them for their iniquities.

      Mr. Stone observes, that "the Scriptures attribute many things to God, which are not really in him, but relatively only," and quotes [11] a number of texts, to shew that God is said to repent, grieve, and be furious; and others to make it evident, that such things cannot be in him. If I take up his meaning, there is something gloomy, and repulsive in this sentence; for is these things which are attributed to him, are not absolutely possessed by him in some way peculiar to his nature; how do we know that he is possessed of any thing certainly, and absolutely. Is there love in God? does he possess compassion, mercifulness, long-suffering, and patience? the Scriptures, indeed say all these are in God; but my confidence in its testimony, is very much checked, because I am told many things are not, really in him, but relatively only. I have then no certain information from the Bible, that God has either love, goodness, or any thing else, in a strict and proper sense; for if he is angry relatively, hates relatively; when it is positively said he does possess these things, I have nothing to assure me that he does not love relatively, and bless relatively too. If my fear of his indignation can have no real object, my hope of his mercy can have no proper basis. One step more would lead to atheism: for if his attributes be only relative, his being must be relative also; for his attributes, characterize his being, and in that case, God can have no proper and positive existence.

      But I choose to credit the plain declarations of Scripture, and believe there is that in God which stands in opposition to sin, & which will lead him to punish the sinner. Such a propension in the divine mind, is in perfect harmony with the exercise of love, and every other holy disposition.

      In the style of sacred writ, it is called wrath, jealousy, vengeance, anger, indignation, and even fury. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men. Who knoweth the power of thine anger? Even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath. Who can stand before his [12] indignation, and who can abide the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. To me belongeth vengeance and recompense. I will render vengeance to mine enemies. He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath and indignation. He made a way for his anger, he spared not their soul from death. How long, Lord, wilt thou be angry? for ever? Shall thy jealousy burn like fire?^{5}

      These passages, and a thousand more, speak a language too plain to be mistaken, that in "the Great and Dreadful God," there is an awful principle, moving him to punish transgressors, and support the dignity of his throne.

      Though the Almighty can feel nothing like irritation--nothing of that violent tormenting passion called anger in men, which stimulates to revenge, and leads on to cruelty, for the sake of mere gratification; yet that he may possess wrath, in a pure, holy, and dignified form, appears to me both rational, and scriptural.

      To describe him as having no anger, but love only, is to confound ideas, and stagger all speculation, as if benevolence and hatred to sin, goodness and wrath, judgment and mercy, were the same things.

      Nor is that all--it gives a very unjust and partial representation of his character by magnifying one perfection at the expence of another. But Paul gives the true character of God, by one happy stroke. "Behold therefore, the goodness, and severity of God."

      It is variety and harmony, energy and softness, and [13] not dull uniformity, which constitutes the sublime and glorious in character. What a feeble, inefficient God would this doctrine of no wrath, make the Supreme Being! No matter what happens in his government, he is always placid, always pacific in temper and operation. No righteous displeasure is felt against sin; no holy indignation burns against the transgressor; no just punishment is executed upon rebels. Love unnerves the arm of vengeance, and the bolt of destruction falls harmless at his feet.

      It is true the rebel is, or may be miserable; but that misery is self-inflicted: God does not punish him by any exertion of his will or power. Thus we come to the most malignant feature of this doctrine, that the Supreme Being does not positively^{6} punish sin, but just leaves the sinner to the necessary consequences of his own conduct.

      No truth, however, is more clearly revealed, than that God does actually, and in a positive manner, inflict punishment upon sinners. To say nothing of the many Scriptures which teach this doctrine, as all these can be set aside by the sweeping reflection, "The Scriptures attribute many things to God, which are not really in him, but relatively only." Behold fact; look into the broad instructive volume of nature, and see a thousand and a thousand facts, to prove that God punishes sin by a special and positive agency. See nations swallowed up in a moment by earthquakes, overwhelmed by eruptions from burning mountains, or swept away to destruction by inundations, tempests, and whirlwinds. Yes, the flaming volcano, the sweeping inundation, the drifted desert, the furious tempest, the convulsive shocks of trembling nature, all speak the language of wrath. [14]

      Does God indeed rule nature, and control her laws? If he does, then in giving licence to the destructive violence of elements against man, he punishes sin positively, and manifests to all the world his terrible displeasure against it. Atheism only, can bar the inference.

      Again, turn to that book which details to us many awful parts of the administration of Divine Providence; not for plain texts to inform us, for these can be easily managed, as not really meaning what they say; but for facts, stubborn facts, which, like the gnarled oak, yield not to the wedge of criticism. Behold the deluge cover the earth, and sweep the world into instant death. The flames descend upon devoted Sodom, and the cities of the plain, and bury their numerous inhabitants in sudden, undistinguished ruin. Behold Egypt, filled with plagues, and its first born sons perish in one dreadful night. See that storm of vengeance ready to burst upon rebellious Israel, when Moses stands in the breach and prays;--that fire from the Lord, which broke out and consumed the sons of Aaron;--that leprosy which whitens upon Meriam;--that pit which opened its voracious jaws to swallow up Dathan and his company,--and that arm of judgment which smote Uzzah for his impious distrust of God, and Herod for his pride and daring usurpation of God's glory! "Lo! these are parts of his ways!" and what is the language which they address to our hearts? None other than this--that judgment, the strange work of the Lord, will inevitably overtake the transgressor.

      It is not true, that the mere existence of sin in any nature, produces sufficient and adequate punishment; the sinner must exist in this world forever, and be so pleased with his situation as not to desire to leave it; and why more miserable in another state, or in the world of spirits, if there be no more punishment than the reign of sin in us? The sinner then, no doubt, becoming conscious of the want to wrath in God, and that no actual punishment shall ever be inflicted, will be [15] perfectly freed from that dread of punishment which now sometimes disturbs his mind, and interrupts his peace, and he will enjoy all the sweets of a wicked nature. Upon this scheme, there is no more misery in hell, than there is amongst a company of robbers and cut-throats, while revelling in their dark retreats, inapprehensive of the vengeance of heaven.

      But the Apostle corrects this foolish wickedness of the sinner's heart, when he says, "Behold therefore, the goodness and severity of God: on them which feel severity."

      Sect. 3. Mr. S. says, to support the doctrine "of Christ being a surety of the elect, or of mankind, he can find nothing in the Bible.--Once, and but once, is he called surety, Heb. vii. 22. 'By so much was Jesus made the surety of a better testament.' Here he is declared to be the surety of the new, or better testament, and not of the elect. By this must be understood, that he gave assurance or certainty, that the promises of this covenant or testament, are faithful and true, and that they shall be fulfilled to all believers, or made sure to all the seed."--P. 7.

      So then, God's promises were defective in point of certainty and credibility; they were not in themselves, faithful and true, but required a voucher to give assurance or certainty, that they are so. Such language from the pen of a Christian minister, is horrid indeed! No, sir, the promises needed no sponsor to give them certainty; they were originally and infallibly true, because the word of God, whose veracity is unchangeable, and that word was confirmed by his oath--two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie.^{7} [16] There was, therefore, in the covenant itself, the highest possible certainty, the fullest and most absolute security of its truth and faithfulness; and any additional confirmation was unnecessary and impossible.

      Further Christ "gave certainty, that the promises of this testament shall be fulfilled to all believers"--This supposes a disability in God, or at least a possibility of failure; he could not fulfill his promises, or might possibly fail to do so; and Jesus became surety for him, as a person of greater ability and credit; and in that view, undertakes to secure the fulfillment of these promises to believers. A professor of faith in Christ should shudder, and a reasoner who denies his equality with the Father, should be ashamed to deliver so absurd a doctrine.

      "To the truth of this Daniel testifies," and the Christ, shall confirm the covenant with many," Dan. ix. 27. No Sir, Daniel testifies no such thing. Had you quoted the whole of the verse, your reader would have seen at once, that you had mistaken the prophet's meaning: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease."

      Let the reader cast his eye upon the 12th verse of that chapter, and he will find Daniel explain himself--"And he hath confirmed his words which he spoke against our judges, that judged us by bringing upon us a great evil."

      By confirming here, the prophet means the fulfilling, or completion of a prediction or the bringing to pass that which had been foretold. Such it is evident is the meaning of the verse quoted, that during the term of one week, he would fulfil the tenor of the covenant, or the promises made concerning the Messiah.

      "Paul testifies the same--Now I say, that Jesus [17] Christ was minister of the circumcision, for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. Rom. xv. 8." Yes, Paul testifies the same with Daniel; but not the same with Mr. Stone. He does not testify that God's covenant or testament was in such a situation as to require a surety to give it certainty, but that as a minister for the truth of God, he confirmed the promises, to manifest that they were gracious and spiritual promises, to shew their scope and tendency, and to appear as the object of them, in whole incarnation, life, and ministry, death and exaltation, they received a glorious completion.

      I know not how it could happen, that Gal. iii. 17, should be introduced in proof of this strange doctrine, that God's gracious covenant needed Christ as a confirmer of its truth and stability, when that text gives just the opposite idea--that the covenant was confirmed of God not only before Christ appeared in the world, to confirm the promises, as Mr. S. attempts to prove by Daniel and Paul; but even four hundred and thirty years prior to the law. The prophet and the apostle speak of the appearance, ministry, and active mediation of Christ; this text carries us back to the covenant long before confirmed of God himself. True the confirmation was in Christ--Yes, a holy God hold no communication, holds no intercourse, gives no promises but in Him, "for all the promises of God in him, are, yea, and in him, amen."^{8}

      The doctrine of the text goes like an axe to the root of this system, which would teach the world that Jesus is not the medium through which mercy flows to man.

      "In reference to the same thing, Jesus is often called a witness, Isaiah lv. 4. Behold I have given him for a witness to the people." [18]

      "The preceding verse shews for what purpose his testimony was designed: i. e. to make sure the mercies or promises of the everlasting covenant." It is really painful to witness such a flagrant perversion of scripture, as appears in the sentence now quoted. Candid reader, open your Bible to be convinced that no such thing as that the testimony of Jesus was to make sure the promises of the everlasting covenant, is contained in the 3d verse--"Incline your ear, and come unto me; hear, and your soul shall live. And I will made an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." It was already sure, as made with David, and confirmed of God in Christ, four hundred and thirty years before the law--Not a single intimation is given, that the testimony of Jesus was to make it sure.

      I leave the author to answer to the public, to his own conscience, and to God, for the representation which he has given here of the mind of the Holy Ghost, and proceed to observe, that the very idea of surety, or sponsor, necessarily implies that there is some deficiency, some imperfection, or some possibility of failure to be guarded against by the credit, and ability of the one who assumes that character.

      Now, if Christ be surety of this better testament, defect and failure to exist, or is supposed possible some where, either in God, in the testament, or covenant itself, or in the person to whom it is made. Not in God nor in his promises as we have seen, but those to whom the promises are made.

      It may be further observed, that he must be surety for one of the covenanting parties, God or his people. Mr. Stone thinks it quite convincing, that Jesus is declared to be surety of the new and better testament, and not of the elect; but every plain man knows, that the surety of a bond or covenant is connected with one of the parties, mentioned in the instrument, and becomes responsible for the person with whom he has assumed the connection. [19]

      According to the representation of Mr. S. the duty of a surety is, to confirm a covenant, to bear witness to its truth. But will he get any body to believe, that a witness to a bond or covenant, and surety are the same thing? or that a surety, or executor has done his duty, when he testifies to the truth of the bond, will, or covenant, should his testimony be admissible? I apprehend not. It is therefore evident, Jesus as surety, must be connected with one party, and bound to the other,--connected with that party in whom the defect lies, with sinners to secure against any failure on their part, that the blessings of the covenant might flow to them through the office or obedience of their sponsor. In no other sense can he be called a surety. For any thing, therefore, that appears to the contrary in Mr. Stone's arguments, we hold one strong text in Heb. vii. 22. "By so much was Jesus made the surety of a better testament."

      The comparison is here made between him, and the Aaronical priests, who were sponsors for the people, answering for them to a holy God; and by sacrifice entering by blood within the veil, to receive for them answers of peace from the Lord. But Jesus our high priest was surety or sponsor for us in a higher sense, as he answered for our sins by the sacrifice of himself; and having entered into the holiest of all by his own blood, he hath obtained eternal redemption for us.

      Whatever scripture implies an interference of Christ as mediator to secure the favor of God to sinners, serves to establish the doctrine of suretyship and substitution. And this is obviously taught in the following scriptures, and many more which might be added. Heb. viii. 6. and ix. 15. and xii. 24. 1 Pet. ii. 24. and iii. 18.

      It is sneeringly said of the doctrine of suretyship, "This is the nail which is thought to be fastened in a sure place," p. 7.--Yes sir, this nail is fastened in sure place, and mocks the puny attempts you make to [20] draw it. Secure in its place, and firm in its tenure, it defies the force of your instrument, and smiles at the feebleness of the arm which wields it.

      Sect. 4. What Mr. Stone advances under the article imputed righteousness, (page 7, 8.) would merit no attention, did he not appear to calculate so exultingly on the force of his own reasoning.--To shew "the force of his reasoning," and estimate with as much precision as possible, its exact momentum, let it stand in the logical form of an argument:

      1. The law of God requires sinners to love him with all their heart, and their neighbors as themselves. Granted.

      2. But Christ their surety has paid their debt of obedience in their room and stead; he must mean to rescind their obligation to law, if he mean any thing at all--And this I deny.

      3. Therefore he has freed them from the obligation of loving God or their neighbor.

      Now it is easy to see, that the reasoner has marched on to his conclusion, by assuming a principle which no person had ever granted, and which he had not proven the advocates for imputed righteousness ever held. The principle assumed is, that the obedience of a moral surety or mediator, releases the persons to whom it relates from all obedience to law. When we admit such an idea as he seems to attach to suretyship, he may try the force of his reasoning upon us, but till then we will have no reason to dread its power. Mr. S. evidently labors under a confusion of ideas in writing on this subject. Treating of our obligation to law, he uniformly does it under the notion of debt and money payment; whereas no two things are more clearly distinguishable than moral justice and pecuniary justice. Though it be true that a person is released from obligation to law in case [21] of debt, when a surety has paid to his creditor the money he owed, it will not necessarily follow, that he can be absolved from moral obligation, because a sponsor or mediator has rendered such worthy services with respect to him, that he is relieved not only from civil pain, but capacitated to obey the law, and rise to the highest honors in government. The story of Aeschylus is very much to my purpose. He was on the point of being condemned to death for impious expressions in his plays. Aminias, his brother, a brave and gallant soldier, who had rendered many important services to his country, and lost one of his hands in a recent victory, was tenderly affected with his situation, and appearing in court as an advocate, lifted up the mutilated arm in their presence, but uttered not a word. An action so expressive and moving, deeply impressed the judges, and the unhappy prisoner was acquitted.^{9} Was Aeschylus who was thus released from punishment, on account of his brother's merit, and dumb but eloquent mediation, freed from all obligation to the laws of his country? Or was the law made void by this transaction? It cannot be said. Neither is the sinner who is saved from wrath on account of Christ's obedience and intercession, freed from obligation to the divine law; nor is that law made void through the benevolent interposition of this friend, who sticketh closer than a brother.

      The author thinks it impossible for Jesus Christ to fulfil the law for sinners, because "As God, he must love himself infinitely; and as Man, he must love God with all his heart, and his neighbor as himself." And this being granted, he asks, "What surplus righteousness is left to be imputed to another?" Such a view of the subject is remote from the point in debate. The question is not what Jesus must do as God, or what he [22] must do as man in a separate and detached sense, but what he must do in his compound character, as God-man, or Mediator. It should have been enquired, whether the law of God had any claim of personal obedience upon Christ as God-man, which he was bound to answer for himself, without reference to sinners? Whether a voluntary unobliged obedience to law, with respect to others, does not possess merit? Whether the obedience of one, on whom the law had no demand as to personal obligation, and which is in its nature supremely excellent from the dignity of the person making it, may not be set to the account of others, and they on that consideration, placed in a new, happy, and honorable situation? These enquiries have not been made by the author; and after all his formality and pomp of argument, he has never glanced at the true spirit of the question. I can very readily see how the Saviour is deprived of merit on Mr. Stone's principle, of his doing just what he should have done, and no more; for Christ himself has taught us to say, after we have done all those things which are commanded, "We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do."^{10} But I cannot see how, on that view of things it could have been predicted of him, "He will magnify the law and make it honorable."^{11} Does law receive glory and honor from the obedience of its subjects? If it does, it will also be disgraced and tarnished by their disobedience, which would be ridiculous to imagine. A law intrinsically excellent, can derive no lustre from the obedience of subjects, and no dishonor from their infraction of its precepts. Immutable and glorious like its author, the law of God will shine as brightly in damning transgressors, as in the government of angels. Thus we see how Mr. S. would degrade the Saviour, by making him an "unprofitable servant;" and reproach the law of God, in order to make the doctrine [24] of imputed righteousness, odious and contemptible. Where did he get his monstrous notion of "surplus righteousness," as if there could be no imputation on any other principle? Or where did he learn the silly meaning which he tacks to "merit" and "meritorious,: as if they must be understood in the same sense, with "works of supererogation?" Not in any dictionary of our language, or in the writings of systematics; not in the Confession of faith, or Catechisms of our church; not in the decisions of General Assemblies, Synods, and Associations in Europe or America,^{12} as he appears to know very little of all these; and might have been very much approved every way by a more intimate acquaintance with them. Most probably he collected it amidst the rubbish of Rome, and now very modestly attempts to put it under the skirt of protestants, and charge them with the theft.

      Perhaps I am wrong in charging the author with having commence with the Imperial City. It is not at all improbable that he derives his notion of surplus righteousness and extra-merit, from the works of Morgan, a subtle and plausible deist of the last century; who under the mask of christianity, attempted its utter subversion, and degraded the character and offices of Jesus Christ, by placing him in the same class with Confucius, Zoroastre and Mahomet. I have read his Moral Philosopher, and there see almost every argument which Mr. S. uses against the doctrines of imputed righteousness, and the atonement of Jesus. That I bring no improper charge against him, will appear from a few extracts: "That the righteousness of Christ, or the redundancy of his merit, could not be placed to our [24] account, so as to make any part of our justifying righteousness, in the sight of God, seems farther evident from hence, that all that was done or suffered by him, was necessary to himself, and upon his own account--Now here certainly could be no such thing as supererogation, or redundant merit, where nothing was done or suffered, but under an indispensable personal obligation."^{13}

      Mr. S. and his deluded followers congratulate themselves upon having burst into a world of light which never before blessed the eye of man, and affect great commisseration for the rest of mankind, who are, they say, groping in the darkness of ignorance and prejudice. The light however which they boast, is that which "leads to bewilder, and dazzles to blind"--It is the very same which had illuminated the page of error, and infidelity in every age, as might be easily shewn, did the compass allotted to these strictures permit a general review of past opinions. As the author appears from the preface and conclusion of his pamphlet, to think himself insulted by the name of deism, I will sometimes take occasion to shew the ground in which the imputation is founded.

      Sect. 5. In page 9, 10--Mr. S. with his usual dexterity, dresses up a beggarly thing, "a tattered system," for the doctrine of Christ's substitution, and thought, no doubt that every body must be frightened at it! He reasons thus; Christ did not suffer natural death in the room of sinners, because all men did--He did not suffer spiritual death for them, because then he would have been a sinner--Nor did he suffer eternal death for them, because he rose again from the dead, and liveth for ever more. All this parade of argument is but an artful attempt to change the face of the question, and mislead the unwary. Whoever said that [25] Christ paid our debt of suffering in kind; or that as a substitute he suffered death, or any thing else, in a strict and literal sense as sinners do? None. Whoever supposed that our release from spiritual death, arose from an actual transfer of sin, or evil qualities to him as our substitute? None. Or whoever asserted that he suffered eternal death, or went to hell for ever, in the room and stead of sinners to save them? None but Mr. Stone, and those who revile the cross; and they are welcome to be as pompous and logical; as witty and profane as they please on the subject. Christians distinguish between sin and its curse; between hell and the sacrifice of Jesus, and are therefore chargeable with none of the absurdities which are so illiberally said to arise out of their doctrine. It would be very well if the author, who is most religiously opposed to creeds, would spare himself the trouble of drawing up articles of faith for others, to which they feel no disposition to subscribe.

      Sect. 6. To establish his favorite doctrine of forgiveness, without reference to the Saviour's merit or suffering; Mr. Stone found it indispensable to set aside the common translation of Eph. iv. 32. "Forgiving one another, even as God, for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." The translation which he proposes is this: "Forgiving one another, even as God in Christ (en Christo) hath forgiven you." He adds, "Why our translators rendered this phrase en Christo, "for Christ's sake" in this place only, when every where else they give the literal translation, I pretend not to say." P. 11. To shew that what is here asserted by the author, as our translators "every where else giving the literal translation," is not true, I will beg the attention of the reader to a few instances in the 1st and 2nd chapters of 2 Peter i. 4; en epithumia, through lust--5. en te pistoi union, to your faith, 2. 1. en to lao, among the people--en umin among you--7. en aselgeia anastrophes, with the filthy conversation. Here on a single leaf of the Testament we see our translators depart [26] from what is said to be the literal rendering; and translate the word through, to, among and with. And more than twice the number of instances, might be taken from the same place. Any one who is able to look into a Greek Lexicon, knows that the word is capable of expressing various relations; and among others, that which it is supposed to do by the translators. That the rendering is correct, appears also from this, that the word is frequently used for eis and dia, both which signify for the sake of, on account of; and from the manner in which the same idea is generally expressed in scripture.^{14} How much confidence should be reposed in the critical abilities of the author, is discoverable in the very first trial of his skill: and I trust the plain unlettered reader will give himself no uneasiness as to the correctness of our translation, but go on to quote the text as formerly, when ever he is assailed by those who are hardly enough to deny the doctrine of forgiveness through Christ. And to assist him, I will introduce another, no less plain and pertinent; which he may defy criticism to wrest or torture. 1 John ii. 12. "I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake:" that is for the name's sake of Jesus Christ the righteous, the advocate with the Father, who is mentioned in the first verse, and plainly referred to, in most of the intervening verses. The same doctrine is also taught in these passages: "Be it known unto you, men and brethren, that through this man^{15} is preached unto you, the forgiveness of sins. And by him all that believe are justified from all things--Neither is there salvation;" that is the pardon of sin, as well as every other blessing "in any other: for there is none other name given among men whereby we must be saved. For this is my blood [27] of the New Testament, shed for many, for the remission of sins. In whom we have redemption through his blood; the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace--In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sin."^{16}

      The Lord Jesus Christ in delivering to Paul the doctrine of the Sacred Supper, calls that gracious covenant which promises forgiveness, and every spiritual blessing, "The New Testament in his own blood." 1 Cor. xi. 25. Expiatory blood is the very principle upon which the covenant or testament of mercy rests; the figurative blood under the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations; and under the evangelical one the blood of Jesus. The mercy seat where God remitted sin, and delivered answers of peace to the people, was sprinkled with blood to denote that he could not pardon sin, or commune with sinners in any other way.^{17} For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."^{18} And the forgiveness of sin proceeded upon the principle of a specific atonement being made to God.^{19}

      So under the gospel, Jesus Christ as the object of faith was, "set forth to be a propitiation," a mercy seat,^{20} sprinkled with his own blood, to display the righteousness or justice of God in the forgiveness of sins. "To declare his righteousness of the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." The most glorious display is given of the justice and rectitude of the divine administration in this method of dispensing pardon, as the righteous and equitable [28] demands of the law have all been answered at the evangelical mercy-seat. And it is clearly taught, that God cannot be just or righteous on any other principle in the remission of sins. "To declare, I say at this time, his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."^{21} Hence we are said to be justified by his blood, and through it to find access into the holiest of all.

      This, and only this, is the gospel doctrine of forgiveness. What Mr. S. advances on the subject, is an evident departure from Christian principle, and falls in precisely with the theories of Herbert, Morgan and other deistical writers--That I do not misrepresent the case, take a quotation from Morgan, who every where argues that forgiveness proceeds upon the principle of God's essential mercy, and the penitence of the sinner. Speaking of Christ's vicarious obedience as unnecessary to pardon, he says, "I hope you will not say, contrary to all the declarations of God, that he could not pardon sin, and accept the penitent, returning sinner, without a prior satisfaction made: since this must deprive him of his natural, essential goodness and mercy, and lay the whole obligation somewhere else."^{22} These are "the green pastures of gospel truth," to which this shepherd leads his flock!

      Sect. 7. It is contended (p. 10, 11, 12,) that surety-righteousness destroys the very idea of grace and forgiveness. Here again we meet the deception which the author practices upon the reader to mislead him by confounding moral justice with pecuniary justice. No two ideas are more distinctly marked in common opinion and in scripture, than those of our obligation to a creditor who demands money, and our responsibility to criminal law, which claims the life of offenders--The [29] scriptures do sometimes, though not very often, treat of sin as a debt, and our release from it, under the notion of payment; but then it is always done in a figurative manner, and the meaning or principal idea is to be fought for, in some string point of resemblance, without attending minutely to every part of the description. The scope of that beautiful allegory, Matt. xviii. which Mr. Stone quotes so partially, is to teach us, that unless we forgive our offending, but penitent brethren, we cannot expect forgiveness from God--When we have gotten this instruction from it, we should be satisfied, and not attempt to draw as this author does, special and definite doctrines from detached parts of the allegory. Because no surety is mentioned in this case of forgiving a debt, he infers that no surety is necessary between God and sinners; as if they sustained no relation to him, but that of debtors. Upon the same plan of interpreting scripture, I can prove that no surety should ever be taken in any case, and I make the inference on the same principle with Mr. Stone, that is, of there being no mention made of any; or that if there be one, the debt should never be forgiven, as it is here said to have been forgiven without any--Again, I might prove from v. 34th, that is my servant or tenant owe me money, and has treated those indebted to him with severity, he should be put to torture till the whole debt were paid; and what is still more shocking to the author's notion of things, I should feel wrath; yes, wrath, when I sentenced the unhappy wretch to these sufferings. "And his Lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him?" What whimsies may not be invented, what errors may not be broached, what blasphemies may not be uttered under the sanction of scripture, if allegory and figure may be made the basis of doctrine? The true state of the sinner is, that of a criminal to justice, lying under sentence of death; and the real state of the question is, whether a righteous God can forgive sin, without reference to the satisfaction of a mediator. As Mr. S. has not taken up the [30] subject on this principle, but varied it to a new and figurative form, and justified the calumny of Paine, who asserts that "the theory of redemption has for its basis, an idea of pecuniary justice, and not of moral justice."^{23} I think it improper to remark particularly on what he introduces in that shape. The whole falls by its own weight, when its basis metaphor is removed.

      Sect. 8. The doctrine of surety-righteousness we are told, "confirms two contrary doctrines, which are equally false, viz. universal salvation, and universal damnation;" p. 12. These results, contrary as they are, can be easily obtained in the usual style of the author's logic; by drawing certain conclusions from doubtful or unallowed premises. His first argument will stand thus: 1st. Christ tasted of death for all men, according to several scriptures. 2d. There is not a text in the Bible, which says, he did not die for all. 3. It follows with certainty, that he did die for all. No it does not follow with certainty, because the first proposition is denied by far the largest part of protestants, who say that the words all, every, the whole word, and the like, cannot be explained as meaning any thing different from the many, the elect, the sheep, the church, and phrases of that kind (which exceed the former in the proportion of ten to one,) because the terms all, every and world, are in most places, necessarily restricted and because both scripture and fact, conspire to prove that Jesus Christ did not die for all men in such a sense, as that all men will infallibly be saved. That he died for all who are, or will be saved, we know with certainty, as fact and scripture both prove it; but that he died in a strict and positive sense for those who never desired nor got an interest in his death, and with regard to whom it has been foreseen from eternity, that they would not believe, I do not know on what ground any man can take upon him to assert. [31]

      The next step in the argument is still more glaring--That its fallacy may appear, let it stand in his own words, thus: 1. He died for all--2. If he died for all men as surety in the way of satisfaction--3d. It undeniably follows, that all must be saved." What a charming piece of logic is here! The first branch of the dilemma, he confesses himself is contested; the 2d. is introduced with an if, and then lo! the conclusion undeniably follows.

      Thus he proves universal salvation; let us now see how he can get universal damnation. I will again propose his argument in his own words:

      1. "As Christ could not suffer more than infinite, then all his sufferings only satisfied law and justice, and could do no more;

      2. "For sins under the gospel there can be no forgiveness, because there is no satisfaction made for them;

      3. "Therefore all, who have ever committed one of those sins, must be damned without remedy." And this proves universal damnation, does it? It only proves that all who had committed certain sins, would be damned. As the greatest part of mankind never heard the gospel, and could never be guilty of sins under it; and as many who believed when they first heard it, I would be obliged, though I admitted the premises, which I do not, to draw just the opposite conclusion, that all will not be damned. But the idea contained in the premises, that sins under the Gospel are not to be recognized and condemned by the law, is indeed the most curious position I have ever seen taken in Divinity--as if the law, which extended to every motion of our souls, and every action of our lives, and demands the universal perfection of our nature, did not notice every sin, and condemn the sinner committing it. [32]

      Sect. 9. Mr. S. thinks the doctrine of Christ's suffering as surety, is contrary to justice. "Every person that is not misled by a favorite system, knows that it is unjust for the innocent to suffer in the room and stead of the guilty. No just law can demand it, or admit of it. The law of God does not demand it, does not admit of it. If the Divine law admitted proxy suffering, and proxy satisfaction, then it admitted Christ's death, consequently he died according to law." p. 15, 16.

      That it may be seen how exactly the quotation now made, corresponds with the objections of infidels, I will quote a few sentences from a writer of that cast. "Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty. even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge--According to him" [Paul] "there are two Adams; the one sins in facts, and suffers by proxy; the other who sins by proxy and suffers in fact."^{24}

      I am glad to see Mr. Stone step into open day, and strike where he can be seen. Hitherto he had lain concealed, and stabbed the doctrine of redemption, under the figure of a debtor and creditor, or money surety; but here he comes into the light, and boldly adopts the sentiments, and almost the language of Thomas Paine: Alas! how is Jesus wounded in the house of his professed friends, who, while they greet him with "hail master," betray him into the hands of sinners! How is the sacred cross insulted in the very sanctuary of God! "It is unjust for the innocent to suffer in the room and stead of the guilty"--How flatly does the author give the lie to the Apostle, who has faith, "Christ hath once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God."^{25} That the innocent should suffer for [33] the guilty, contrary to his will, and without any prospect of reformation in the person, for whom he substitutes himself, would be wrong, because then a virtuous life would be lost to society, a mischievous one preserved, and the object of justice rested from it. But if the innocent voluntarily substitutes himself for the guilty, and that with a certainty of procuring the penitence of those, for whom he suffers; if he possess the power of self-resurrection, and when he dies could rise from the dead--would such a case be contrary to justice, or repugnant to law? If it were, then law and justice would be at variance with benevolence, and oppose the admission of much good into society, which we know can never happen. This is the precise view which we are to take of redemption in the blood of Jesus, by which, millions of guilty beings are recovered to virtue and happiness, while the universe has sustained no loss, and the benevolent being who substituted himself for them, has received no injury, but reigns on high, Lord of all.

      But if the principle which this author endeavours to establish, in opposition to the satisfaction of Christ for sinners, viz: that it is unjust for the innocent to suffer for the guilty, be admitted, it will be hostile to his own scheme.--He contends, that the Jewish victims were slain to awaken penitence in the mind of the worshipper, and what is this but the innocent dying for the guilty? The design of Christ's suffering and dying was, he says, to give a display of the love of God, and move the hearts of men to love and repentance. Can this be called any thing else than the innocent suffering for the guilty? How then has Mr. S. helped the matter, since his doctrine makes thousands of innocent, unoffending animals bleed for the impious and wicked; and teaches that the most pure and glorious being in the universe must suffer, and die for the instruction of the guilty--Indeed his view of Christ's appointment and suffering, is clogged with much greater difficulties than the one he rejects; because that the innocent [34]

      suffer where there is no guilt, either personal or imputed, which is to me one of the most shocking ideas imaginable. To designate the noblest, the purest, the most exalted being, to long and severe sufferings, as God did his own son; to expose him as a victim, on which malice might wreak its revenge, and hell exhaust its fury, shocks every idea of justice or benevolence. That sinful man should suffer the punishment due to his sins, is just; but that a pure being who had never sinned, and who was never so related to sinners, as to incur the penalty of sin for them, should be sent into the world to suffer, is horrid doctrine. We shiver with horror, when we read of parents offering up with merciless hands, their tender smiling infants, in sacrifice to idols. But how much better does this doctrine make the Almighty Father, who consigns his Son to a suffering life of thirty-three years, and to an excruciating, infamous, and even execrable death? I cannot write the horrid things which strike my mind on this aspect of Deity! Further, it may be safely affirmed to be impossible, for a perfectly pure and innocent being to feel misery. Can God suffer? Can angels suffer pain without sin? None will affirm it--How then can Jesus who is greater than angels, feel the most exquisite torture? No, it would have been physically impossible for the first, the most cherished and glorious personage in heaven to have borne pain and infamy, when there was no personal guilt, nor the imputation of any to him, as the representative of sinners. To admit this idea, would be to abandon the first principle of moral truth, that vice and misery, virtue and happiness are inseparably connected.

      The objection I am now considering would lead to atheism, as it lies equally against natural religion, which as well as christianity, requires the innocent to suffer for the guilty. "For the world is a constitution or system, whose parts have a mutual reference to each other; and is a scheme of things gradually carrying on, called the course of nature, for the carrying on [35] of which God has appointed us in various ways to contribute. And when in the course of natural providence, it is appointed that the innocent people should suffer for the faults of the guilty, this is liable to the very same objection as the instance we are now considering. Nay if there were any force at all in the objection, it would be stronger in one respect against natural providence than against christianity; because under the former, we are in many cases commanded and even necessitated, whether we will or not, to suffer for the faults of others--whereas the sufferings of Christ were voluntary."^{26} So naturally does every departure from evangelical truth conduct the mind to the rejection of all religion.

      I can see nothing contrary to the best feelings of our nature in the christian doctrine of the innocent suffering for the guilty. To whom does history devote the fairest page, eloquence her warmest tribute, and poetry her sweetest strains? It is not to those men, who, under the impulse of a generous patriotism and a warm enthusiasm for liberty have devoted themselves to certain death for the good of their country? Every person is charmed with the high merit of Codrus, Curtius, Eustace St. Pierre, and many more who have become martyrs for the safety of their country. Every person feels nature stir within him when he hears Judah in a strain of the most pathetic eloquence that ever burst from a bleeding heart, plead for Benjamin's release and his father's comfort, at the price of his own liberty. And none can be unfeeling that hears David vent the anguish of a father's soul, on learning the fate of a rebellious child; "O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom: would God I had died for thee, O Absalom my son, my son." And shall not the inimitable merit of Jesus, who gave his life a ransom for millions, be reviewed [36] without admiration and raptures? Shall we be men every where else but in religion? Shall we cavil when we should exult? Far otherwise is it with those who have felt the efficacy of his death, in every quarter of the earth, and with the armies in glory.

      Mr. Stone imagines that if Jesus died in the room of sinners, "the Jews in putting him to death were not guilty of murder"--Certainly they were, because they felt malice and meditated his death; that was murder in the eye of the divine law--"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer." To say that the Jews did actually put him to death betrays great ignorance of the crucifixion, and the existing state of things. They were a subjected people, and had not at that time the power of life and death. The Roman governor condemned Jesus, and Roman soldiers crucified him. They also guarded the cross and the tomb.

      In page 34, Mr. S. resumes the subject, and asserts that "Paul charged the devil with the murder of Christ." The notion of the devil's killing the Saviour, is the counterpart to that of his getting his blood. The one harmonizes with the other. And it is very remarkable, that he proves, or thinks he proves them both by the same text. Heb. ii. 14. "Forasmuch then as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise, took part of the same: that through death he might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is the devil."

      I can see nothing like a charge of murder in the passage--Murder is not even named or implied, but the overthrow of Satan's power and empire? No doubt the devil ardently wished the death of Christ, and would have felt a malignant joy in finding his own power prevalent over him. He then would have found [37] Jesus the weak being he had hoped to see him, and which Mr. Stone's doctrine makes him. In this, however the fiend was disappointed. Something more was found on the cross than mere man. One who instead of dying by the onset of hell, died in another way; and thus through death destroyed him who held the empire of death, and was now vainly expecting a triumph. Had the power of the devil, or outrages of Jews, at his instance, killed the Saviour, there would have been practical proof of the superiority of the diabolical power, and of the complete dominion of the prince of death over him for three days. What can the enemies of Christ want more than to have him given to the devil a weak, degraded victim, to his power and malice. Nothing is more plain from the narrative of the crucifixion, than that Jesus did not die in consequence of bodily pain upon the cross. Death was not so early a consequence of crucifixion as to have been effected in the time at which Jesus expired, being about six hours. Two or three days were requisite for the extinction of life in persons who died in that lingering way. A circumstance which the Jews provided against when they besought Pilate to give liberty to break his legs, and the legs of those who were crucified with him. Great langour, weakness, and particularly a faltering feebleness of voice will always precede death, when it supervenes from loss of blood and intense pain. Very different however, was the exit of Jesus. His strength was firm and entire, and his vigor remained fresh in him to his last moment. Though he fainted on his way to Golgotha, yet on the cross no symptoms of weakness or langour are seen, no feeble interrupted sighs are heard from his dying lips. Several facts incontestibly prove this--such as his address to a company of sympathising females, who wept near his cross--his prayer for his murderers--his conversation with the penitent thief--his address to his mother and John--his exclaiming with a loud voice Eloi, Eloi Lama Sabaithani--the cry "It is finished"--and at the very moment of dissolution his crying with a loud [38] voice. Thus Jesus, while natural strength was still green in him, and when earth and hell had exhausted their fury in vain, made the solemn surrender of life, on behalf of sinners. As God, he offered up his human soul and body on the altar of Jehovah, for the expiation of sin. None but God could make such an offering; because none but God had a right to dispose of life. "Therefore doth my father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it up again." It was divine power which Jesus exerted in taking up life, or rising from the dead, as all must confess, and by that very power it was, he laid down his life. "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself."--Does this look like Mr. S's. idea, that Jews and the dogs of hell tore his life away, and made him the feeble, degraded victim of their infuriate vengeance? No, thanks to God for these plain words, "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself."--The surrender was free, unconstrained and godlike. The offering of Christ was made, we are assured, Heb. ix. 14. by the eternal spirit, or divine power. "I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father."^{27} This laying down of life, and taking it again, was in obedience to positive command of God. Upon this principle did the Saviour engage for sinners, in that memorable compact with the Father. "Then said I lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me: I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy LAW is in my heart."^{28} That these words respect the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross, is evident, from its being contrasted with the legal sacrifices, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire," and from the comment of the Apostle upon this passage, where the sacrifice of Jesus for sins is said to supersede the sacrifices under the law. Heb. x. 5-12. The same doctrine is taught in Phil. ii. 8. "He [39] humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Thus it is seen, that in dying he obeyed the commandment, will and law of the father. But plain as all this is, Mr. Stone has the temerity to assert, "the law of God does not demand it, does not admit of it." While the humble christian relies upon the obedience of Jesus, as possessing precious worth, this daring man presumes upon the mercy of God, and makes the blood of the cross a vain thing. The Scriptures frequently speak of the Saviour's priesthood, and the sacrifices which he made to God by death; but according to Mr. S's. hypothesis, the Jews and the devil are raised into the ghostly characters of priests, as they slay the Lamb of God, and offer him upon the cross! A charming priesthood indeed.

      Prophecy, which paints with circumstantial exactness, the death of Messiah informs us, that it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to grief. Isai. liii. 10. That remarkable address to Jehovah, concerning the sacrifice of Christ, when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, is very express; nor less so is the promise made to Messiah, and the ground on which it was to be accomplished--"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied; because he HATH poured out his soul unto death."

      Mr. S. asks, whether "God himself did actually bruise or kill his own Son?" If by bruise or kill, be meant to take life violently, and without authority, I say no: but if by bruise or kill, be understood to take life by right, and according to strict justice, in a case where it is freely surrendered, I answer yes. That Jehovah who is the giver of life to every creature, and to the man Christ Jesus, as well as others, should dispose of his life, and the life of every creature, has nothing in it repugnant to right reason.

      The author with his usual adroitness, endeavours to weaken the testimony of Zech. xiii. 7. "Awake, O [40] sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts; smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."

      "Tradition has sanctioned it as the truth of God, that this sword is the sword of justice." p. 35.

      What tradition, Sir? Where is it? How long has it rolled down the current of time? Is it written or oral?--Mr. S. and every disorganising spirit exclaims against tradition, and under the leveling, undefined name, would confound every thing.

      "But there is not a hint in the Bible of justice being ever called a sword." (ibid.)

      Thus the author shifts his ground, and varies his point of retreat from the difficulty. He first abuses a traditionary something, which he names the sword of justice, and then speaks of justice called a sword. Is the sword of justice the same thing with justice called a sword? No more the same than the sword and the hand which brandishes it. This way of getting rid of a difficulty, has very much the air of chicanery and trick. But indeed I do not blame him. The passage had a frowning aspect, and threw such glances of vengeance towards his doctrine, as indicated a stroke that might be fatal. It was therefore necessary to set it aside in any way. To proceed; is there no hint in Scripture concerning a sword of justice? What is that terrible thing which I see on the East of Eden? "A flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the tree of life?"^{29} Was that flaming sword a sword of justice, or not?--What was that which Moses and Ezekiel saw glitter in the hand of Jehovah? "A sword, a sword whetted and furbished for slaughter"^{30}--What was that [41] sword of Israel's excellency, mentioned, Deut. xxxiii. 29. which should cut off their enemies, and get them a glorious triumph? The Lord himself--Yes, Israel's shield of help, and sword of excellency, or if the author please, a sword of justice. Are these no hints?

      But fortunately it is found, that wicked men are the sword of the Lord. Psalm xvii. 13. And it follows, does it, that they are the sword addressed in this prophecy? To shew how flimsy the author's exposition is, I will read the text in that way, by inserting wicked men for sword. "Awake, O wicked men, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow; smite the shepherd"--What, does the Lord counsel wicked men, nay, command them, to commit murder? Take care, Sir, you do not make God the author of sin.--The Saviour expounds the words very differently. "It is written, I (not wicked men,) will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad."^{31} Who is right, Jesus Christ or Mr. S.? let the reader whose soul depends upon that sacrifice for sin, determine.

      Mr. Stone objects to the doctrine of God's being reconciled, "that it makes God changeable." (p. 16.)

      This object rests upon the false principle that there is no wrath in God, and of course, that he needs no reconciliation. That God punishes sin by a positive interposition, we have certain evidence; and what he does, he must do from principle, or some tendency of his nature, moving him to that action. For we can as easily conceive of action without an agent, as of an agent without principles of action. The principle moving Deity to punish sin by a positive act, I call wrath; and the Scriptures not only assert its existence, but in [42] describing it, use the boldest images, to give us an awful impression of its nature and operation. Either then, the Scriptures are designed to mislead us, and excite our feelings unnecessarily; or these does really exist such a principle as wrath in God. The existence of this principle being granted, it is plan, its operating or ceasing to operate, produces no change in him; for a change of operation is not change of nature or principle. When God, therefore acts, or forbears to act in the punishment of sin, no change of nature or principle can be inferred; both continue to be, what they have been from eternity. Thus when God forbears to act in punishing the sinner, on account of the obedience and mediation of Jesus Christ, he is said to be reconciled; and yet in that reconciliation no change of nature or principle takes place, but only of tendency or operation. He is now the same that he ever was. So that this redoubted objection which meets us in every part of Mr. Stone's book, when closely viewed, turns out to be just nothing at all: like the tall ghost that chills the blood of the midnight traveller, it proves a fleeting harmless illusion.

      It cannot be grace, but debt in God to forgive our sins, the author alledges, if our surety has paid our debt to justice. So Mr. Morgan had said before him. "When satisfaction has been made, the remission of the penalty must after that be an act of justice, and cannot be considered as an act of pardon, or an act of grace."^{32}

      The objection turns upon the old fallacy of pecuniary justice. It is strange Mr. S. cannot drop the idea of creditor and debtor, and consider the subject in a correct point of view. Does the suffering a civil penalty by one person, change the moral character of [43] another? Certainly no--and if not, it will be grace to forgive him, tho' his substitute has suffered for him. History furnishes an instance to illustrate my meaning. Zaleucus, the Locrian Legislator, framed a law, by which adultery was to be punished in the person violating it, with the loss of both eyes. It happened that his own son was convicted of the crime, and sentenced to endure the penalty. To support the dignity of the law, and yet to preserve sight to his son, the benevolent Zaleucus had one of his son's eyes, and one of his own put out.^{33}

      In this case, the suffering of Zaleucus did not change the moral character of his son; he was still criminal, tho' his father had suffered for him. Just so, tho' Jesus has suffered as the sinner's substitute, to meet the claims of justice, the moral character of the sinner is not changed; he needs forgiveness, and it will be grace in God to pardon his sins thro' the obedience of his surety, "In whom, we have redemption thro' his blood--the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace."^{34}

      The last objection which Mr. Stone offers to surety-righteousness is, that "it lulls to supineness and slothfulness in religion."

      It is remarkable, that every man whom revolts from the plain truths of christianity, never fails to reproach the doctrine of justification, by the righteousness of Christ, with leading a licentiousness, or as Morgan phrases it, "laying a foundation to support iniquity by grace."^{35} I cannot open the writings of any errorist, or infidel of any age or country, without meeting this [44] senseless slander. What Mr. S. insinuates here in terms of the most malignant sarcasm, is but the same unavailing calumny which has been tried again and again. Surely he must have been very much at a loss for weapons to assail christians, when he has to resort so often to those pointless ones, with which infidelity has exhausted all its strength against the religion of Jesus.

      It is however not a little consoling, to find ourselves placed in the same group with St. Paul, and the primitive christians; to whose doctrines the very same objection was offered--"Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" was the question in those days, as well as our own. Nor is it among the least proofs of our opinions being the same with theirs; that the same things are objected to ours, that were to theirs. But we deny the fact, that our views of christianity lead us to sin, that grace may abound, or make us less ardent in the pursuit of holiness. We have practical proof that the objection is as unfounded, as it is illiberal. Thousands while they consider with as much effect as Mr. S. and his disciples, "that without holiness no man shall see the Lord," are trusting only upon the precious blood and righteousness of Jesus, for justification before God. Thousands who have not the TEMERITY and HARDIHOOD to found their hope of heaven upon the ground of personal merit, are aiming at universal purity of nature, and perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

      There is no doubt with me, the principles of religion which men adopt, will have a decided influence upon their habits and morals; and, if I may say it, the doctrines I now oppose, will have the greatest possible tendency to lull the mind into a dangerous, if not fatal repose. What so congenial to the corrupt propensities of the human heart, so soothing to its numerous prejudices, or so flattering to its vanity, and presumption as the very liberal creed of Mr. S.?--Faith and repentance are all that can be necessary in order to forgiveness, and these the sinner can exercise at any moment he chooses to exert his power--Men are justified on the ground of personal merit, or because they are actually righteous, and not because Jesus Christ magnified the law, and brought in an everlasting righteousness--God is all love, and this love is fixed upon the race of Adam--the ever beaming streams of infinite love flow out to every part of the universe, and penetrate even to the profoundest hell--In God there is not, nor can be any thing like wrath, vengeance or indignation, that will consume the adversary, or inflict pains upon bold transgressors--How far such principles will go to make men holy, let those decide who adopt them, and rest the trial of eternity upon their truth; but I know a certain part of the universe where such a creed would not find retainers--it is where the wretched inhabitants "believe and tremble." [46]

      THE Second Letter opens with an intimation, that the former one had thrown the mind of his correspondent, into a dreadful state of confusion. I was going to say with some indignation, he must have been very weak indeed, to have been confused, nay, dreadfully confused, by such a production! But my eye caught the next sentence and I think I smiled. "You are convinced that Calvinism has no foundation in truth." What! conviction of the falsehood of Calvinism, and yet the mind in a state of confusion! Conviction and confusion, nay, dreadful confusion in the same mind! A strange match indeed! Then light and darkness may go into wedlock. I had always thought conviction of the truth or falsehood of any system should be the result of calm, sedate reflection, of extensive views of the subject in all its parts, connections and dependencies, and of candid, unbiassed comparison of that with other systems. When there is a clashing of thoughts and dislocation of ideas, the mind must be in a very improper condition to judge whether Calvinism be truth or falsehood, or to learn "what is truth," at the lips of the most admired casuist. From what I know of human nature, I cannot question that it is a primary object with those who are fond of disseminating peculiar error, or favorite opinions to make their onset in this way:

      They assail established and long cherished ideas, with every art of sophistry and zeal; they declaim boldly against the dangerous tendency and tyranny of such opinions; they bid you throw off the slavish yoke of prejudice, assume your liberty and be happy.

      Where the plan succeeds, the mind is thrown off its pivot, its operations are deranged, and that equipoise and harmony of intellectual powers, so necessary [47] in pursuits after truth, entirely lost. All is confusion! dreadful confusion! The trembling pupil is now prepared to believe any thing. Whether Mr. Stone uses that process of proselyting, I have no right to determine, but pass on to hear the answer to the question, "what is truth?"

      "God and man are at TWOS"--Their natures are perfectly opposed one to the other--Christ came as mediator, to "at-one them, or make them one."^{36} When I read the criticisms on the words atone, and atonement, I cannot be persuaded that the author could apply to himself the words of Paul: "When I became a man, I put away childish things." It is really a pity to see a man wearing the venerable character of a christian minister, trifling as he does with the English language, and the word of God in this part of the letter. As the object of my pursuit is to attend to his theological opinions, more than his literary qualifications, I shall leave him to the undisturbed possession of his "AT-TWOS," AT-ONE, AT-ONEMENT, and attend to the doctrines raised from his criticisms. "Hence it is plain that atonement differs not from regeneration." This idea is confirmed from the meaning of the word atonement under the law. There it is explained to signify "purging, cleansing, most generally, if not always."

      I will grant that, purging, cleansing, and atonement mean the same thing, but will it follow that regeneration and atonement are the same? If they be, then according to Mr. S.'s doctrine, the altar, the leprous house, the book, the tabernacle, and the vessels of the ministry were all regenerated. Regeneration is something, done in us, not something done for us; but atonement was something done for the persons who enjoyed that privilege, not in them. Something by which [48] wrath was averted, and purification obtained. The usual phrase is "the priest shall make an atonement for him, or them, and his, or their sin was forgiven." (See Lev. iv. 20, 26, 31, 35.--v. 10, 13, 16, 18.--vi. 7.)

      By "purging," it is evident the scriptures mean something different from personal purity, or regeneration--Thus it is said of Jesus, "When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"^{37} but if the word means a moral cleansing, or change of nature, then Jesus did not sit down at the right hand of God, till after the regeneration of christians in the apostles' days.

      "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission." It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified [purged] with these, [sacrifices of blood,] but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."^{38} From this text it is plain, moral purity cannot be intended, because places and things which are said to be purged, could not be the subjects of it, and because heavenly things themselves were purged by better sacrifices. It must mean then, either to consecrate any thing, or turn away wrath from it; and this sense it can naturally and properly apply to places and things; for these may be subject to judgment, or a curse for man's sake; or from their connection with man, consecration may be necessary. To make atonement, or purge with blood, places or things, is to do that by which wrath, or judgment is averted or prevented from falling upon them for man's sin, or by which they are set apart to a sacred use.

      The Hebrew word kapar, which is translated atone, and sometimes purge, never signifies to change, [49] regenerate, to make pure; but to expiate and appease. Its radical meaning is to cover any thing.^{39} Thus it signifies to cover sin, as in the following passages; Psalm lxv, 3, As for our transgressions thou shalt purge them away (the Hebrew thou shalt cover, or expiate them) Psalm lxxix. 9. Purge away our sins for thy name's sake (Hebrew, cover or expiate) our sins. (Compare Psalm lxxx.2--xxxvii. 2, with Rom. iv. 7.)

      More frequently it refers to the person of the sinner, and signifies to cover him from punishment or suffering, as in Exodus xxx. 15, 16. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls. And thou shalt take the atonement of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls; with which the reader will compare the 12th verse. The word is used to express the same idea in the 4th, 16th, 17th chapters of Leviticus, and great variety of places beside.

      The word is employed to describe the atonement made by Phinehas, when he turned away the wrath of the Lord from the children of Israel, and secured to himself and to his seed, God's gracious covenant of peace.^{40}

      The reader may also consult Exod. xxxii. 30. Psalm lxxviii. 38. Jerem. xviii. 23. where the word is used in the same sense. Having thus shewn that to atone, or make atonement, does not mean as this author supposes, to make one, or to regenerate; but to expiate sin, or [50] protect the sinner from wrath.--I now proceed to examine his notions about reconciliation.

      "A hint to the learned." (p. 21.) The learned certainly will not be wanting in a sense of obligation to the author for his instructive hint, and biblical criticism, will doubtless be enriched greatly by so valuable an accession. "The word (katallage) rendered atonement in our translation, is every where else in the New Testament rendered reconciliation." The author refers to Rom. v. 11. "By whom we have received the atonement." Well then, let it be reconciliation. "By whom we have received the reconciliation." It is then something received from Christ, and not some personal change as Mr. S. concludes.

      "A Reconciliation and atonement are the same thing," and "atonement differs not from regeneration." What a strange ludicrous aspect would it give scripture, did we go on to read it with this author's gloss." For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled [regenerated] to God, by the death of his Son: much more being reconciled [regenerated] we shall be saved by his life." Then Paul and all the christians of his time, were regenerated when they were enemies, and yet, (amazing to tell) after this regeneration, their salvation was yet a future thing, and to be effected by the life of Jesus! Take one more, Col. i. 20. "And having made peace through the blood of his cross by him, to reconcile [regenerate] all things unto himself, by him, I say, whether they be things in heaven, or things on earth, or things under the earth." By this mode of exposition all things in heaven were enemies to God, and needed regeneration. [51]

      "In the laws of Moses also, atonement, and reconciliation are synonymous." Yes, exactly; the word kapar is alternately rendered to make atonement and reconciliation; to atone and reconcile--but we must find some other meaning than regeneration.

      "From the view of propitiation, we see that it does not differ from atonement, reconciliation, and regeneration." It is in perfect harmony with the two first, but differs widely from the last, as would appear if the place of reconciliation be supplied by regeneration. Rom. iii. 23. "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation" [regeneration] &c. 1 John ii. 2. And he is the propitiation [regeneration] for our sins. (iv. 10.) He loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation, (the regeneration) for our sins; and in Hebrews ii. 17. according to this view, Jesus came to regenerate the sins of the people; ilaskesthai tas amartias tou loau.

      "The word ilaskesthai, translated in this verse, reconciliation, is every where else in the New Testament translation propitiation. Rom. iii. 23. 1 John ii. 2--iv. 10. p. 22." Another hint for the learned! "The word ilaskesthai, translated reconciliation." Stop there, it is not translated reconciliation; but as it should be, "to make reconciliation." What must the learned think of this blunder!--mistaking a verb for a noun. "Is every where else in the New Testament translated propitiation." It is not; no, indeed it is not. There is not one place in the whole New Testament where "ilaskesthai," is translated propitiation, nor can it be, for the former is a verb, and the latter is a noun.

      The author refers to Rom. iii. 25. 1 John ii. 2. and iv. 10. as passages in which the word is so rendered, and yet ilaslesthai, is not to be found in either of these texts; but ilasterion, and ilasmas--Words which are very properly translated propitiation. I am really sorry to see Mr. Stone expose himself thus to the animadversions of the public. The only observation I shall make with respect to such lapses, is, that he would occupy the place of an humble enquirer after truth, with more propriety than the chair of a dictator, or the throne of sectarian partiality. At least it should lower the tone of confidence, with which he addresses the whole christian world, as being blind, misled by system, and ranging under the standard of the red dragon. [52]

      Were Mr. Stone as well acquainted with his Greek Testament as he should be, he would find the very word used in Heb. ii. 17. in one more text, which would be fatal to the whole doctrine of his book; I mean Luke xviii. 13. "God be merciful to me a sinner," O Theos ilastheti moi to amartolo, God be propitiated to me a sinner. Here see a sin-burdened penitent, praying his God to be propitious to his soul, contrary to what Mr. Stone says, that it is impossible God should be propitiated or appeased. Who is right, Mr. S. or the publican? The publican we are certain; because this man went down to his house justified; and I most heartily pray the former may learn to utter the same prayer, with all the passionate emphasis of a penitent, and like him have joy and peace in believing.

      To understand the doctrine of propitiation more perfectly, I beg leave to observe, that the Hebrew noun Kaparat, derived from the word kapar, which I have before shewn to signify atone, reconcile, protect, was the name of the led covering the ark of the covenant, made of pure gold. On this, and before it, the high priest was to sprinkle the blood of the expiatory sacrifices on the great day of atonement.^{41} The septuagint render it, in Exod. xxv. 17. by ilasterion epithema. a propitiatory led or covering; but generally ilasterion a propitiatory; by which name St. Paul also calls it. Heb. ix. 5. And by applying it to Christ, Rom. iii. 25. whom God set forth, ilasterion a propitiatory or mercy-seat, assures us that was the true mercy-seat, the reality of which the kaparat, represented to the ancient believers."^{42}

      At the mercy-seat sprinkled with the blood of expiation, God promised to meet with his people, to commune with them, and deliver answers of peace and mercy.^{43} In Jesus alone, who is the true mercy-seat, we [53] draw nigh to God and die not. None who approached in any other way are accepted, but share a like fate with the sons of Aaron, who brought unhallowed incense before him.

      As a principal object of Mr. Stone's book is, to prove that God is not subject of reconciliation with sinners, I shall submit the following observations to the readers' judgment:

      1. All the Jewish offerings for sin were made to Deity. "Unto the Lord did the commandment require the offerings to be made, and unto the Lord was it uniformly made." Lev. i. 9, 13, 14, 17.

      As the offering was made to the Lord, so when the ceremony was performed by faith, and according to law, "The Lord accepted it." See Lev. xxii. and compare verses 21, 23, 25, and chap. i. 4.

      A visible token was [???] vouchsafed, that God did actually accept the oblation. "And the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people, and there came fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar, the burnt offerings and the fat, which, when the people saw they shouted, and fell upon their faces." (Lev. ix. 23, 24.) This happened in the offering of Abel: for God testified of his gifts.

      To God then was the atonement made, because his altar received the sacrifice, his priest offered it, and his fire consumed it, as we have seen in the passage just quoted, to witness the acceptance of the oblation. God's all consuming wrath fell upon the victim, and not on the sinner. Well might the Israelites shout and fall upon their faces at such a fight.

      When the offering was not accepted, the person, or persons for whom it was made, bore his, or their sin, [54] and punishment was inflicted.^{44} Thus Moses prayed God not to "respect the offering of Korah, Dathan and Abiram." Fact proves their offering was not respected; sin lay heavy on their souls: Korah and his associates in rebellion, "went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them; then fire came out from the Lord, and consumed the 250 priests who offered "incense" on their behalf at the door of the tabernacle."^{45}

      At the fall of these men, the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron, charging them with killing the people of the Lord; like some in our day, they believed there was no wrath in God, but in man; in Moses and Aaron, and thought these men had acted very wickedly in murdering God's dear people. Ah! how many are esteemed the Lord's people, who are actually lying under his curse!

      The excessive charity of the people had well nigh proven their ruin: for lo! while they assaulted the prophet, and the priest of God, his "glory appeared," and the Lord said, to Moses "Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment." People should beware how they call some the people of the Lord, and quarrel with God's regularly appointed ministers, when obliged to resort to excision! "And Moses said unto Aaron, take a censer and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly into the congregation, and MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR THEM; for there is WRATH GONE OUT FROM THE LORD, and the plague is begun. And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congregation, and behold the plague was begun amongst the people--he put on incense, and made an ATONEMENT FOR THE PEOPLE. And he stood between the dead, and the living, and the plague was stayed." [55] (Num. xvi.41--48) The reader may compare this passage with 2 Sam. xxiv. 25: where David made an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, "and the Lord was intreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel." The history of this same event is so remarkable in another place,^{46} that I cannot help transcribing it; "And David built an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called upon the Lord, AND HE ANSWERED HIM FROM HEAVEN BY FIRE upon the altar of burnt offerings. And the Lord commanded the angel, and, he put his sword again in the sheath thereof."

      The plain doctrine of these scriptures is, that there was an actual expiation for sin made to the Lord by sacrifice, to turn away wrath from offenders, or that the offender's guilt was transfered to a substituted victim, and God accepting that victim released the offender from punishment.

      Whether we like it or not, this is what the word of God teaches, and I cannot doubt a moment that God is reconciled to sinner.

      2. I am led to the same doctrine by considering the peace offerings, or sacrifices of reconciliation. These were eminent types of him, whom Isaiah styles the Prince of Peace, and whom Paul by way of emphasis styles our peace. Offerings were professedly made to avert wrath, or cover the sinner from punishment. Now of these oblations were both God and man to partake, which proves undeniably that reconciliation was necessary on God's part as well as on the sinner's.^{47}

      3. The sacrifice of the passover was intended to shelter from wrath. With the blood of the Paschal Lamb, were the side posts and lintels of the doors of the children of Israel sprinkled, and when the angel of [56] death passed through the land to slay the first born of Egypt, he passed over every house which was protected by the sign of peace. "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." 1 Cor. v. 7.

      4. The solemn ratification of the covenant of peace between God and Abraham recorded Gen. xv. speaks the same language. The patriarch prepared the victims according to the divine command, and divided them into equal parts, he place the severed bleeding limbs opposite to each other, leaving a passage between them. This done, he passed through the palpitating parts himself, and waited with solemnity and composure the appearance of Deity. About dark, behold the sheckinah, or visible token of God's presence, passed between the pieces of the separated victim, as "a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp; and on that day God made a covenant with Abraham."

      Thus was God's gracious covenant ratified by each party passing between the pieces. It may be remarked that this transaction had an immediate reference to Christ, because the Hebrew word Berith, here translated covenants, means a purifier, a purifying victim, or a purification, sacrifice, and is used several times in scripture as a personal title of Jesus Christ. Isai. xlii. 5. "Give thee as a covenant [Berith] to the people;" also lxix. 8. Zech. ix. 11. As for these also by the blood of thy covenant [Berith] &c.

      Jesus Christ then was the true Berith, or purifying victim, cut off for the ratification of a treaty of peace between God and man, who hath expressed their reconciliation by passing through the Berith cut in twain.

      I have thus availed myself of the evidence of the law, because I view it as typical christianity; and as giving convincing and impressive proof of the doctrine I pursue. "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed on me." One reason why men mistake Jesus, is, because they mistake Moses. [57]

      The ceremonial observances were, we are taught, "the shadows of good things to come." The holy places made with hands were figures of the true; and according to the law, the priests that offered gifts, served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things; as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle. "For see," saith he, "That thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount."^{48}

      All the Levitical institutions, the priesthood, the holy places and sacrifices, were copies, or drafts, exactly taken from the heavenly tabernacle--The priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus, being the originals shewn to Moses in the mount.

      The law of ceremonies then, was the true gospel in copy, type, or figure, drafted from a model in the heavens, and this being so, the proofs which I have drawn, or may draw from that source, are all to carry the same force, as if taken from the gospel itself.

      5. I now proceed to observe, that reconciliation was necessary on God's part, because the sacrifice of Jesus was made directly to God. "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit OFFERED HIMSELF without SPOT TO GOD, purged your consciences from dead works; and walk in love as Christ also hath loved us, and given himself for us an offering, and a SACRIFICE TO GOD for a sweet smelling savor."^{49}

      There we see that the grand original sacrifice from which the legal sacrifices were copied; the grand prototype or model from which they were drawn by Moses in the mount, was OFFERED UP TO GOD, and we can have no difficulty in concluding that its primary [58] design was, to reconcile him to man, or which is the same thing, to turn away the wrath of an offended God from a perishing world.

      Daniel, speaking of the advent of Messiah, and the design of it, says, "seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of the sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity."^{50} The reconciliation mentioned here, will be better understood if along with it, we take the Apostle's comment. "Wherefore, in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a faithful and merciful high priest, in all things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."--This was a reconciliation made for the sins of the people, and could not be any thing effected in them. It was accomplished by a sacrifice and priest, to whom the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices pointed, as the object from which they derived their worth and efficacy. And as reconciliation under the law consisted in the averting of wrath, that made by the sacrifice of Christ, must be exactly of the same nature. We are particularly guarded against mistake, in contemplating this passage by the clause, "in things pertaining to God;" which intimates that what was done by our high priest to procure reconciliation, had an immediate reference to God, as the person to whom the offering was made, and who in the way was to be reconciled.

      6. I now come to prove the same doctrine by plain, positive scriptures, which I will introduce as they occur to mind, without the formality of remark or comment. "He was bruised for our iniquities," and the chastisement of our peace was upon him"--Isai. liii. 5. Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH--Even [59] he shall build the temple of the Lord, and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon the throne, and he shall be a priest upon the throne, and the COUNSEL OF PEACE SHALL BE BETWEEN THEM BOTH. Zech. vi. 12, 13. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, PEACE and GOOD WILL towards men. Luke ii. 14. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have PEACE WITH GOD THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. Rom. v. 1. And I will establish my covenant with thee, and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: That thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more, when I am PACIFIED^{51} (reconciled) toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God. Ezek. xvi. 62, 63. Can any person who pretends to believe in inspiration read these plain texts, and venture to say God cannot be propitiated, or reconciled? If he can, he is to be pitied for having denied the faith, and become more than an infidel.

      Mr. Stone asks and replied, "From whom or from what did Christ redeem, &c.? I answer first, from the devil." (p. 27.)

      That freedom from the bondage of satan is a fruit or consequence of redemption in Christ, is certainly true; but that his blood is shed as the price of the sinner's ransom from the devil, has no foundation in scripture. Not a single passage contains such an odious doctrine. Does any one of those texts which the author quotes prove it? No, they all prove the reverse, that mankind, before conversion remain under his power and dominion. On this subject Mr. S. says, "when Christ had finished the work of redemption, he ascended up on high, and led captivity captive. Eph. iv. 8. [60] Psalm lxviii. 18. They who were in captivity to the devil, and now captivated by Jesus, his lover, and led captive to glory"--This is a nice speculation indeed! Jesus Christ has finished the work of redemption, and led sinners captive to glory, and yet they, poor souls are under the power of the devil. Redemption is complete, the ransom is consummated, and still the objects of it are left to pine in bondage to the god of the world!--The Saviour redeems and triumphs, but not a single soul mounts upward in his train! This is giving him a mock triumph truly!--Where did the author learn that "leading captivity captive," means captivating sinners by love? If that be true, it will happen that Jesus has not yet ascended up on high, and never will, until all the ransomed of the Lord arrive at Mount Sion. The passages he refers to, (Eph. iv. 8. Ps. lxviii. 18.) give a very different representation of Messiah's ascension and triumph. Having spoiled principalities and powers, and dragging them captive in his train, the exulting Conqueror arose into the highest heavens, and received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious. What these gifts are, the scriptures every where assure us; repentance and the remission of sins with every spiritual blessing. Compare Eph. iv. 8--14. with Acts v. 31. 2 Tim. ii. 25. Our redemption from sin and satan is the effect of Christ's death and ascension into glory, and is a redemption by power, not by purchase. "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification--Who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again, who is ever at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."^{52} The redemption by blood was complete, final, and eternal, when Jesus suffered, the just for the unjust, and ascended to his glory. On the cross, he said, "it is finished;" and the apostle informs us "that he having purged our sins, sat down [61] on the right hand of Majesty on high." And again, "By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."^{53} From this it is plain, there was accomplished a complete and eternal redemption, when the Saviour ascended on high. This redemption, was not that redemption from the devil or sin, which is effected by the power of a risen Saviour; but a redemption from the claims of offended justice. The one opened the way for the other; and they are in their nature, very distinguishable, though as closely connected as cause and effect.

      But why does Mr. S. call it redemption at all, when all that the Saviour has done (and he will do more, than he did upon earth) may prove utterly unavailing and ineffective, unless sinners put forth the wonder-working power which they possess in faith and repentance? He says much about Christ's finishing redemption, and paying the full price to the devil; and lo, after all, men are the slaves of sin and satan, till they exert their own strength; or to use the idiom of a kindred philosophy, till they energize, and then their emancipation takes place--God pardons them on the account of their penitence; justifies them because they are actually righteous, and takes them to glory, because they have done well. Where is the redemption, when there is no release till it is self-procured? Where is the grace in justifying one who is already just? Or where is the mercy in saving a sinner, when he claims heaven on the right of absolute merit or personal holiness? There is then no grace, no mercy, no redemption through Jesus--His blood never reconciled God, or procured forgiveness--No intercession of his, prevails for sinners in the court of heaven--No power of his awakens, converts, or sanctifies them--And the price which he paid to the devil, was, it seems a quid recusabile--[62] something that might be refused; as fact proves, that he does not give up the captives upon payment. How then do thy obtain redemption? They burst the chain of bondage, and are free--They energize and their fetters drop off. Here is self-redemption at the expence of the Saviour's blood, power and intercession!--Such doctrine deserves commiseration, rather than a serious answer. Mr. Stone goes on to observe, that "he redeems us from the curse of the law." "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Gal. iii. 13. (See answer to obj. 9, p. 23.) Here for once the author was likely to have come into contact with truth, but the angel frighted him, and off he flies into one of the wildest sallies men ever made. In page 35, he tells us what the curse was, from which Jesus redeemed sinners. "He [the apostle] has sufficiently explained his meaning in the passage which is objected, [that is Gal. iii. 13.] by quoting these words from the writings of Moses, "For it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree." For the confirmation of truth, and to seal this testimony, Jesus submitted to be hanged upon a tree, or crucified, as though he were a real malefactor." By the curse of the law then, the apostle meant crucifixion, and he had fully explained his meaning by quoting Moses, who makes the curse to be hanging on a tree or crucifixion. But Jesus Christ came to redeem us from the curse of the law, which is fully explained to be crucifixion; therefore he came to redeem sinners from BEING CRUCIFIED--Mankind will surely be very grateful for this immense redemption; that is such of them as do not happen to die upon CROSSES. The author also defines the curse to be "misery arising out of sin;" but the apostle had fully explained his meaning of the curse, by calling it crucifixion; and the preacher should have stuck to his text, without attempting to contradict Paul. It is hardly decent to set Paul at commenting, and after hearing a full explanation of the subject from him, to turn about and give it a new gloss. [63] But admit the curse to mean misery arising out of sin; and party of that misery at least is pain, sorrow and death. Has Jesus redeemed us from these? No; for all men suffer them, and of course there is no more redemption in this instance, than in the former ones, of being redeemed from sin and the devil. "By faith in the testimony, the sinner is redeemed from the curse of the law, or from the misery arising out of sin." Ah! here again is that wonder-working faith, which according to the doctrine we hear, does more for the sinner than every Jesus did--But does faith actually free the sinner from the misery arising out of sin? Not so; for the subjects of it still feel pain and die. So that on the author's own principles there is no redemption, or at best but a partial, defective one.

      Mr. S. says, none but the wicked ever thought that Jesus Christ was cursed by the law or God, and thinks the Apostle's meaning quite clear, from the quotation made from Moses. If the reader will turn to Deut. xxi. 23, he will see a direct refutation of what the author advances: "for he that is hanged upon a tree, is accursed of God."

      It is a horrible thing with the author to suppose that God should curse any one. It is folly however, to talk of a curse on any other principle; as there is no real curse but God's. Who can curse if he does not permit? Let Balaam answer, "How shall I curse whom God hath not cursed?"^{54} One of the titles of Christ as God-man in the Hebrew Scriptures, is Allue, which signifies one that is accursed, or subject to a curse. This title is given to him as God and Redeemer, in Deut. xxxii. 15. Job xix. 25--27. and it appears from this very circumstance, that he was viewed and worshipped by the ancient believers, under the idea of [64] his becoming what his named implied, a curse for the salvation of sinners.^{55}--For Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree." In the same sense, he is said to be made sin for us, and to have come into the world with sin. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and, unto them that look for him, shall he appear the second time without sin, unto salvation."^{56} He will appear the second time without sin--that is, without being offered to bear sins as at his first coming, without making his soul an offering for sinners--without being made any more a curse or sin-offering. These plain texts which could not be warped about to mean crucifixion, or any thing else rather than the curse of God, Mr. S. chose to keep out of view. As to 1. Cor. xii. 3. "No man speaking by the spirit of God, calleth Jesus accursed," it has no reference to the present subject, and only means that no one, be he Jew or Gentile, who thinks or speaks under the light or influence of the spirit of God, can reject our Divine Lord and Saviour, and talk of him as tho' he were an impostor abandoned of God; or can designedly detract in any respect from his glory; it being inconsistent with the design of the Holy Ghost to infuse any such blasphemous sentiments.

      Mr. Stone also observes upon this subject; "We have already seen that the law is love--What curse can then be in love? Not any." (p. 35.) His idea of the law is analogous to his notion of God's having no wrath against sin, and both are equally false. The Psalmist says, "from his right hand went the fiery law;" and the Apostle calls the law the "ministration of [65] death," and that which "worketh wrath."^{57} To see that both God and the law curse the sinner, let the reader open his Bible, and read the following passages: Prov. iii. 33. Mal. ii. 2.--4. 6. Gen. xii. 3. Jud. v. 23. Numb. xxii. 6. Jer. xlviii. 10. Mat. xxv. 41. Gal. iii. 10. Deut. xxix. 20, 21--When he has read all these, let him take his station near Mount Ebal, and hear the many curses which the law utters against the transgressor. (See Deut. 27 and 28 chapters.) This done, let him ask himself whether the daring writer of these Letters does not directly give the lie to the lively oracles of God?

      "God did not redeem us from himself." p. 24. To this I subscribe cordially. God does not redeem us from himself, but only from that operation of his power and anger, called in the Scripture judgment, or his strange work.^{58} To release the transgressor from the punishment die to his crimes, which done but God can do, is not redeeming from himself, but to himself. Should the chief Magistrate of Kentucky be induced, from certain considerations, in consequence of the mediation of certain worthy citizens, to suspend the operation of law upon a prisoner in the penitentiary, and release him from confinement; would any person in that case be weak enough to say, the Governor had redeemed him from himself, when it is plain the prisoner had been redeemed to the executive, to society, and even to law.

      Some affirm, that Christ redeemed us from the hands of justice. This is the same as to be redeemed out of the hands of a just God." (ibid.) [66]

      If any are unguarded enough to utter themselves in a style so impious, they deserve something more than contempt. Christ did not redeem sinners from justice itself, but from a certain effect of justice, which is the punishment of sin. They are redeemed from justice, as it inflicts vengeance; but to justice, as it "kisses peace." Through the propitiation of Jesus, the justice or righteousness of God, is illustriously displayed. He now appears as just in pardoning sin, as he would have been in punishing the sinner, had no propitiation been made.^{59} So that while we are saved from a just God that punishes sinners, we are saved to a just God, who forgives inequity, and justifies the ungodly; and while we are saved from a certain operation or effect of justice, the punishment of sin, we are saved to justice in its most glorious exercise, the pardon of sin through the blood of Jesus.

      "It may now be asked, if Christ, or God in Christ, redeems from the devil and sin, and if he gave his blood as the ransom or price, who got the price?"

      After thus formally proposing the question, Mr. S. seems to falter a little, in answering it directly, and attempts to make the Apostle answer it in Heb. ii. 14. though the Apostle's words give no such idea as he suggests.

      Having thus fortified himself by a misapplied quotation, he ventures to add, "Here we see the devil had the power of death, and got the PRICE, which was the DEATH OF CHRIST." (p. 34.) Oh! Mr. S. eat these dreadful words!--Dreadful words to drop from the pen of man, who appears before the world in the venerable character of an Apostle of truth!--Yes, recall them, and pray God to forgive you for writing them. [67] What! was the blood, the "precious blood" of Christ given to a foul abominable fiend? Was God so deeply indebted to the Prince of hell, that the richest blood in the universe must flow out in payment? Was the Supreme Being so weak, so devoid of resource, so thwarted and baffled in his measures, as to be obliged to compound with a poor, damned rebel, who is reserved in chains of darkness to the judgment of the great day, and pay him such a price for the ransom of sinners? Was the Almighty Father so merciless, so lost to tenderness, as to deliver up his own, his only Son, to glut the malice of a blood-thirsty demon? Was the innocent Lamb of God made a victim, and immolated upon the altar of hell, to appease the wrath of the devil? O sacred God! how low is thy power reduced, how is thy character stimatized, how is thy glory tarnished by such a doctrine! What a libel on TRUTH and the CROSS! Its worst enemies could with no more to render it contemptible. No feature of infamy could be imposed upon christianity that would make it more disgusting, more shocking, more repulsive, than the hideous one we now contemplate.

      Nor is this all, if we admit the odious idea of Christ's blood being given to the devil, it follows inevitably that the patriarchal and Mosaic institutions which shadowed out the sacrifice of Jesus, were positive establishments for sacrificing to devils. If God offered up his son's blood as an oblation to satan, it cannot be doubted that the prefiguring blood of animals slain in sacrifice, must have been devoted in the same way. Thus all the victims which bled or smoked upon the ancient altars, were so many sacrifices to devils. Nor are those idolaters to be blamed, who, impelled by a barbarous superstition, have offered up their children to Moloch, Thor, or Woden, as the practice of sacrificing human victims has received the sanction of divine example. This finishes the climax of degradation. The law and the testimony want nothing more to hold them up to universal contempt and detestation. [68]

      Let not the world, however, think Mr. S. an original in this idea--Mr. Morgan had published it before him to expose christianity. "If the deliverance of mankind from the power and dominion of satan, had been by a proper purchase or price of redemption paid for them, it seems most reasonable, that the price of redemption should be paid to the conqueror, who had them in possession, whose prisoners they were, and who thereupon pleaded a right in them by conquest, i. e. the DEVIL."^{60}

      To obviate the force of the many texts, which say, that Christ died for us, and shew that they do not mean his dying in the room, and in the stead of sinners, Mr. S. appeals again to the original, and gives his reader a labored criticism on the word uper, for. Without detaining the plain reader with a formal refutation of what the author advances, I will call his attention to a passage where for must mean in the room of, and nothing else; because there is a positive instance given of one person's dying in the room of another, to save his life. "For scarcely for [uper] a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for [uper] a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for [uper] us." Rom. v. 7, 8. With these plain texts before us, we may defy Mr. S. nay, an host of critics, and calmly acquiesce in the doctrine of substitution.

      As to what Mr. Stone observes, p. 31, that the ancient believers had no respect to the blood of Christ, in offering their sacrifices, I think but little necessary in reply--What has been already laid before the reader, sufficiently refutes not only that idea, but all that he has advanced relative to sacrifices under the law, being designed to awaken penitence in the mind of the [69] persons who made them. I will only add a few passages from scripture to shew that his notion is wholly unfounded. Job, who, as we have already seen, worshipped the Redeemer as one that would be made a curse for sinners; says, "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth," &c. Job xix, 25, 26, 27. Compare chap. xxxiii. 23, 24. Christ informs us, that Abraham, whose faith is contrasted with that of the blinded Jews, whom he then addressed, rejoiced to see his day. "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad." John viii. 56. And the apostle declares that Moses observed the passover in faith of Christ. "Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt." Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the first born should touch them. Heb. xi. 26--28. See also verse 19. 1 Cor. x. 1--4. And how is it that we are exhorted to imitate the ancient saints in faith and patience, if they knew nothing of a Saviour? "That ye be not slothful, but followers of them, who through faith and patience inherit the promises." Heb. vi. 12. Mr. Stone grants that "that there is now no other name under heaven by which we can be saved, but the name of Jesus;" but if we are to follow the ancient saints, who knew nothing of Christ or his blood, in the same faith (as we are admonished by the scripture) then we at any rate must be damned, whatever has become of them.

      Mr. Stone thinks that Isaiah liii. 6, 7, 11, 12, is explained by Matt. viii. 16, 17, where Christ is said "to take our infirmities, and bear our sickness." To bear sickness he contends was to heal it; and to bear sin is to heal it, or bear it away. From what he says, one would be led to imagine he meant to keep up the analogy between healing diseases, and healing or bearing away sins; and that as a divine power was necessary in the cure of diseases, so it must be in the cure of sins: but not [70] dropped, and the reasoner gets his conclusion on a new principle, i. e. the mind acts faith in Christ, and is delivered from sin. If the cases are really analogous. let the analogy be preserved; let as much be inferred in one case as in the other; and as omnipotent power was requisite for casting out devils, and curing sickness, let it be argued that it is equally so, for bearing away sin, and healing the sinner. Then the argument will be fair and impressive, and the doctrine much better than what the author generally gives. If the analogy be not precise and definite, if it cannot be preserved, as it appears from the close of the argument, then it was unfair to introduce it at all. But indeed it is unnecessary to take any pains in exposing the reasoning, as it clearly refutes itself.

      It was in consequence of the imputation of guilt, and upon the principle of expiation, that Christ felt pain and sorrow in his own person, or relieved those who were possessed with devils, or affected with various diseases of body and mind. Such interference of mediatory power subserved the purposes of his kingdom of grace. We know that every must have been inflicted on account of sin, as God never inflicts any without cause. From this view we may account for this application of that passage of Isaiah liii. iv. to the Savior by the evangelist Matthew: "Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." If there had been no imputation of guilt, Jesus could never have according to justice, felt pain, or sympathised with the wretched in their sufferings; and if there had been no such thing as the expiation of sin, there never could have happened any deliverance from the punishment due to sin, or any relief from pain.

      But left this sense of bearing sin might not apply, other views are given of the subject. It may mean bearing one another's burdens or infirmities, as Ezekiel bore in vision the iniquities of Israel; or it may [71] children of Israel, when he went into the holy place; or it may mean the burden of the prophets--Yes, it may mean any thing with this writer but what it does; suffering for sinners on the principle of a translation of guilt. And I would be glad to know how a perfectly innocent being can suffer at all, on any other principle than that of a transfer of guilt. Can the author really think that such a view as he gives of bearing sin, expounds that variety of expression, by which the Saviour's passion is pointed out by the prophet? Where is it said of any man or prophet, that it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to grief--that his soul was made an offering for sin--and that he poured his soul unto death? Or where is it said of any man, prophet, or apostle, as it is in the New Testament of Christ, that he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself--that he was offered to bear the sins of many--that after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, he sat down forever on the right hand of God--that his blood cleanseth from all sin, and purges the conscience from dead works--or that his blood washes, justifies, sanctifies, and redeems sinners to God? No sir, all your rhetoric passes for nothing, and can be considered only as a decent slide-off from the real point in debate. To determine the meaning of bearing sin, it may be proper to observe that the Hebrew word, used by Isaiah, (liii. 4, 12.) to describe the Messiah's bearing iniquity is often made use of to express a translation of guilt from one person to another, so as that the last became obnoxious to the punishment due to sin in the first. Thus it is employed to express a translation of the people's guilt to the Levitical priests and sacrifices, which were types of Christ's priesthood, and sacrifice through which sin was pardoned, and punishment averted. The learned Parkhurst renders the word thus; "To bear sin as an offender, to be reckoned as a sinner, and punished accordingly:" and he goes on to observe that in Lev. v. 1, 17--xxiv. 15. it signifies to bear in a vicarious manner, or in the room of the sinner; as Aaron typically bore the sins of the people; and as [72] Christ really bore them.^{61} Compare Exod. xxviii. 38. Lev. xvi. 21. with these verses in Isaiah liii. No idea is more disagreeable to Mr. S. than the imputation or transferring of guilt from one person to another, and yet the word of God abounds with it. The whole ritual of sacrifice embraces it as a first principle, and there can be no doubt that real as well as typical christianity is founded upon it. Nothing was more familiar to the minds of men, at the time when inspiration was given--When Jacob hesitated to execute the plan which his mother proposed, Rebekah said, "Upon me be thy curse, my son, only obey my voice."^{62} Judah proposed to assume the guilt of Benjamin, and endure the penalty of his crime.^{63} Abigail, when mediating between Nabal and David, with a view to avert the indignation of the prince from her husband, takes the crime upon herself, and even calls it her own trespass. "Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be--I pray thee, forgive the trespass of thine hand-maid."^{64} The woman of Tekoah, uses the same language of imputation to David. "My Lord, O King, the iniquity be on me, and on my father's house: and the King and his throne be guiltless."^{65} And when Pilate said "I am innocent of the blood of this just person; the Jews replied, his blood be upon us, and upon our children." These instances shew that the idea of imputation was not strange or uncommon in those times; and that bearing sin, and enduring the punishment, were precisely the same. I shall dismiss the question by a few quotations, which establish very expressly our opinion of what is meant by bearing sin. The holy garment shall be upon Aaron and his sons, when they come near [73] unto the altar to minister in the holy place, that they bear not iniquity and die. They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it, Neither must the children of Israel henceforth come nigh the tabernacle of the congregation, lest they bear sin and die.^{66}

      Mr. S. will not allow that the cup which Jesus drank, mentioned Matt. xxvi. 39. John xviii. 11. could mean the wrath of God, because he said to his disciples, "Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with." Matt. xx. 22, 23.

      That exact conformity between the sufferings of Jesus and these disciples was not intended, appears from fact; because neither of them died upon a cross. The author, should also have remarked, the difference of expression in these passages--"The cup which my Father gave me, shall I not drink it--Ye shall drink indeed of my cup." Jesus drunk the whole cup, they only drink of it, or partake of it partially--A full draught and a sip are certainly very distinguishable things. I would observe further, that if the wrath of God made no part of that cup which Jesus drunk, we will be wholly at a loss to account for the events of his passion. Why that agony and depression, that anguish and sweat of blood which marked his retreat in the garden? Why that cry of desertion upon the cross; "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," if he endured no wrath for sinners? Or why those darkened heavens and convulsions of nature, if no indignation of God lighted up the sufferer? When all nature wore the aspect of vengeance, did the God of nature smile? Jesus has described it himself in one word; "If these [74] things be done in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry." If innocence thus suffer where guilt is only imputed, how intolerable will be the doom of iniquity? if no wrath, no preternatural suffering be supposed in the death of Jesus, it is less dignified and happy than that of a thousand martyrs, who have suffered in his cause. Their faces shone with joy while they trod the way of blood, but we see the Son of God sorrowful, deserted, venting groans and uttering cries in death. Why does he not triumph like Stephen in the moment of trial, if he endured the pains of crucifixion, and the darkness of temptation only?^{67} Was he more feeble or less magnanimous than the martyr? Or why was he less cherished of the Father? When we consider him as bearing up a sinking world, and pouring out the struggles of his soul for sinners, our admiration of his patience, fortitude and magnanimity is lost in astonishment and wonder. On Mr. Stone's plan, he has acted with less dignity than others who have drunk the same cup. But while Mr. S. degrades the death of Jesus, and sinks it below the level of martyrdom, even an infidel could say, "If the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus are those of a God."^{68}

      "It is evident the churches have been wrong. Witness the parties, the bitterness, the envy, the cold [75] formality and deadness, which exist to the disgrace of the christian name." (P. 36.)

      Yes we will witness with pain, Mr. Stone, that you and your associates in revolt, have done all that you could do, to increase parties and excite the evils of division. The work is all your own. You have the honor of it! if it is one, of reiterating the old affair of schism, and of introducing a most afflicting scene of discord, bitterness and envy. How many congregations, who were united in the sweetest bonds of Christian fellowship, have had their peace violated, their harmony interrupted, their fervor chilled, and the many evils of religious faction excited amongst them? How many families, once peaceful and happy in their profession of religion, have been set at variance, and have had the soft cords of christian intercourse broken off, perhaps for ever? Lost to every sentiment of tenderness and charity, you have aimed at unhinging the mind, and dissolving the bands of society; and have appeared more solicitous to disseminate your doctrines, than to preach the gospel; to bring over to your opinions, those whom you confessed to be christians, than to convert sinners. Your zeal has expended itself, not in making men christians, but in giving their opinions a certain shape and figure. Not contented with attempting the ruin of the church from which you had revolted, you carry on hostilities every where, and aim at the overthrow of order and peace in every other society of christians--Nay you have subserved the cause of infidelity, not only by preaching its doctrines, but by doing what it could never have done, you have divided and distracted the churches. If these things merit the laurel! with it your head shall be eternally green.

      The most extraordinary thing in this publication occurs in the conclusion: "The woman travailing to bring forth the man-child truth."

      Truth then is not the offspring of heaven, but of [76] the woman--The fair stranger has never yet visited our forlorn earth; but now he comes, and the nations will exult at his approach! The woman is now in the state of parturition, and soon we may hail the wondrous boy.

      From this it would seem that he has not yet appeared, and if so, Mr. S's book cannot be what it professes, an answer to the question, "What is Truth!" But it is not meant so--the idea is advancing, and even now is partially disclosed to observation. And what may be seen? The Apology of the Springfield Presbytery, Their Last Will and Testament, and Two Letters, entitled Atonement. What the man-child's features, strength, and proportions will be, we may venture to prognosticate without danger of mistake, for a Hercules, may always be known by his foot. Monstrun horrendum in forme ignes cui lumen ademptum.

      What strange contradiction is here! All along we have heard much about the plainness of truth, the simplicity of the gospel, and the ease of understanding and believing it; and now behold the church must travail, strong throes must seize her, ere the world can be blest with the vision of the man-child truth.

      Thus I have given as concise a reply as I well could, to that extraordinary publication, entitled "Atonement," which conceals under that specious name a total renunciation of the doctrine, as taught in the scriptures. What Arians, Photinians, Socinians, and Deists have done in every age to destroy this grand distinguishing doctrine of our holy faith, has been attempted in the book before me, and that too, under a marked veneration for the blood of the cross. Ah! my dear sir, what have you done? You have mediated the ruin of [77] our only prop for eternity, our dearest pledge of peace with God, the sacrifice of Jesus. You have attempted wresting from us, the sheet-anchor of our hope, and would leave us at the mercy of the winds and the waves. Oh "Beware with what intent you touch that holy thing," the blood of the covenant. Even to esteem it lightly is damning. Beware lest you tread under foot the Son of God, and deny the Lord that bought you. I conjure you in the words of Tertullian to Marcion, who like yourself assailed the doctrine of the cross: "Spare the only hope of the whole world, O thou, who destroyest the most necessary glory of our faith."--Shall I offend by this plainness? I mean it not. It is not your reproach, but your conversion at which I am; even now I would press you to a heart that bleeds for you; and were it possible, would blot out forever with my tears the shame, of your apostacy; but I will be silent and let Heaven and Earth speak.

      To you, the church, prostrate in dust, bathed in tears, and bleeding with many a wound, lifts up the warning voice, "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little." To you, ten thousand martyrs cry from crosses, racks, stakes, and scaffolds, and say, "will you frustrate our testimony of blood." To you, Calvary, stained with sacred blood, watered with tears, and echoing back the groans of the dying Jesus, calls in a voice of tenderness, "rob not the holy cross of its glory." All nature trembling, convulsed and lowering with vengeance, murmurs in the language of terror, "Do not crucify the Son of God afresh, nor put him to open shame." A venerable group in glory, the patriarchs, the prophets, and the saints of ancient days, look down and say, "receive the testimony we bore." The apostles, bending from their thrones, point indignant to the cross, and ask, "Will you deny the Lord that bought you?" A vast multitude which no man can number, stretching along the heavenly hills, clothed in white, and bearing in their hands the palm of victory, reproach you as they [78] sing "unto him that loved us, and washed us in his own blood." An innumerable company of angels reprove you, as they point and say, "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." But lo! above this cloud of witnesses, rises one most glorious, shining as the fun in his strength; his hairs white like snow and as wool, his eyes as a flame of fire, his feet as fine brass burning in a furnace, and out of his mouth goes a two-edged sword! Hark! a voice as the sound of many waters warns you in the road of opposition, "Why persecutest thou me, I am the first and the last; remember therefore, from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do thy first works--repent, or else I will come quickly and fight against you with the sword of my mouth." Further I cannot go, feeling as I do--Ah, my apostate brother, still dear to a heart that bleeds for you, hear his awful voice; fall at his feet, and implore forgiveness through his much injured blood. "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh: for if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven."

      I close this testimony for truth, with a sigh for the existence of those heresies which have occasioned it; with tears for the melancholy condition of many dear friends who have so sadly fallen by them; and with a warm and affectionate aspiration to Almighty God for their conversion to the truth.

      ^{1} Gen, ii. 17. Gal. iii. 12. Rom. x. 5. Gal. iii. 10.
      ^{2} Exod. xxxiv. 27, 28. Hosea vi. 7. Gal. iv. 24. Deut. ix. 11, 15. Deut. xxix. 21.
      ^{3} Ps. lxxxix. 3. Isai. xiii. 6. Heb. x. 5-7.
      ^{4} Rom. v. 13, 14.
      ^{5} Rom. 1.18. Ps. xc.11. Nah. 1.6. Deut. xxxii. 35, 41. Ps. lxxviii. 49, 50. lxxix. 5.
      ^{6} By punishing sin positively, is meant, the actual infliction of some pains, and not merely those arising from the existence of sin in the transgressor.
      ^{7} Heb. vi. 13.
      ^{8} 2d. Cor. i. 20.
      ^{9} Flavel's Fountain of life opened--Sermon 13.
      ^{10} Luke xvii. 10.
      ^{11} Isai. xlii. 21.
      ^{12} Some Divines have spoken of a surplusage in Christ's righteousness with respect to its accidents, call it meritum superlegale; but with respect to it substance, which was to be imputed for justification, they supposed it to be just what it should be, and no more. See Flavel's Works, vol. i. p. 204; on Merit and Meritorious.
      ^{13} Moral Phil. vol. i., p. 153, 154.
      ^{14} See Schrevilius, Scapula, Hedericus upon the word.
      ^{15} Dia Touton; for the sake of this person.
      ^{16} Acts iv. 12, 13, 38, 39. Matt. xxvi. 28. Eph. i. 7. Col. 1. 14.
      ^{17} See Exod. xxv. 17-22.
      ^{18} Lev. xvii. 11.
      ^{19} See the 4th and 5th chapters of Leviticus.
      ^{20} So the Greek word Ilasterion signifies.
      ^{21} Roman. iii. 25, 28.
      ^{22} Moral Philosopher, p. 245.
      ^{23} Age of Reason, first part, p. 59.
      ^{24} Age of Reason. pt. 1st, p. 54, 60.
      ^{25} 1. Pet. iii. 18.
      ^{26} Butler's Analogy, p. 256.
      ^{27} John x. 17. 18.
      ^{28} Psalm xl. 7. 8.
      ^{29} Gen. iii. 24.
      ^{30} Deut. xxxii. 41. Ezek. xxi. 28.
      ^{31} Matt. xxvi. 31.
      ^{32} Moral Philosopher, p. 149.
      ^{33} Flavel's Works, Vol. 1, p. 109.
      ^{34} Eph. i. 7.
      ^{35} Moral Philosophy, Vol. 1, p. 170.
      ^{36} Page 20.
      ^{37} Heb. i.3.
      ^{38} Heb. ix. 22, 23.
      ^{39} See Parkhurst, Taylor, Robertson, and Pagninus on the word.
      ^{40} Numb. xxv. 13, comp. verses 11, 12.
      ^{41} Lev. xvi. 14, 15.
      ^{42} Parkhurst.
      ^{43} Exod. xxv. 17, 22.
      ^{44} Lev. vii. 18.
      ^{45} Numb. xvi. 15--35.
      ^{46} 1 Chron. xxi. 26, 27.
      ^{47} Lev. iii. 6, 16--vii. 11, 27.
      ^{48} Hebrew x. 1. viii. 45.
      ^{49} Heb. ix. 4. Eph. v. 2.
      ^{50} Chap. ix. 24.
      ^{51} The Hebrew word is Kapar, which has been already explained.
      ^{52} Rom. iv. 25.--viii. 34.
      ^{53} Heb. i. 3--ix. 12.
      ^{54} Numb. xxiii. 3.
      ^{55} See Parkhurst on the word.
      ^{56} 2. Cor. v. 21. Heb. ix. 28.
      ^{57} Psalm lxviii. 17, 2. Cor. iii. 7. Rom. iv. 15.
      ^{58} Rom. ii. 5. Isai. xxviii. 21.
      ^{59} Rom. iii. 25, 26.
      ^{60} Moral Philos. p. 156.
      ^{61} See Parkhurst upon the word; Pool's Synopsis on Isaiah liii. Lev. i. 4. and xvi. 21--28. and Edwards' Miscel. Observ. p. 358, 359.
      ^{62} Gen. xxvii. 12, 13.
      ^{63} Gen. xliv. 33.
      ^{64} 1 Sam. xxv. 24, 25.
      ^{65} 2 Sam. xiv. 9.
      ^{66} Exod. xxviii. 43. Lev. xxii. 9. Numb. xvii. 22. see also Lev. vii. 18, where the same thing is expressed, and also the obnoxious doctrine of imputation.
      ^{67} Mr. S. accounts for the sorrows of Jesus, by saying, "the dogs of hell were let loose against him." This expression is as low as it is shocking. It does really seem as if he meant to ridicule the death of Christ, by unkennelling hell to worry and torment him. We believe indeed that Jesus was tempted in that hour of darkness, but we believe too that he repelled the assaults of satan, as he had done before in the wilderness. "The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me." John xiv. 30.
      ^{68} J. J. Rousseau--Letter to the Archbishop of Paris.

[Strictures, pp. 1-79]

      John P. Campbell's Strictures on Two Letters, Published by Barton W. Stone, Entitled Atonement (Lexington, KY: Daniel Bradford, 1805) has been transcribed from a microfilm copy of the book kindly lent by Abilene Christian University's Center for Restoration Studies.

      The electronic text is intended to be a page-for-page reproduction of the printed edition; however, throughout the text the letter "s" has been substituted where the letter "f" is used to represent the "long s" commonly used in pre-nineteenth century printing. Otherwise, no effort has been made to normalize the text.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. I have let stand inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography; however, I have offered corrections for misspellings and other accidental corruptions. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 7:      in deed strange, [ indeed strange,
            con nection, [ connection,
 p. 9:      neiehr eat [ neither eat
 p. 13:     fire?* [ fire?"{5}
 p. 15:     controul [ control
 p. 19:     mercies of David. [ mercies of David."
 p. 23:     mr. S. [ Mr. S.
 p. 31:     him? [ him?"
 p. 34:     mischievious [ mischievous
 p. 35:     the the most cherished [ the most cherished
 p. 36:     O my son [ "O my son
 p. 38:     Semething [ Something
 p. 39:     ALW [ LAW
            supercede [ supersede
 p. 42:     coufel [ counsel
 p. 45:     primative [ primitive
 p. 46:     chufes [ chooses
 p. 47:     neture, [ nature,
 p. 49:     set down [ sit down
 p. 52:     a propitiation [ a propitiation" 
            is not be found [ is not to be found
 p. 54:     (Liv. [ (Lev.
 p. 55:     asd the living, [ and the living,
 p. 59:     upon him-- [ upon him"--
 p. 63:     on a tree. [ on a tree."
            malefactor" [ malefactor."
            graeful [ grateful
 p. 65:     iufufe [ infuse
            analagous [ analogous
 p. 69:     for uper] [ for [uper]
 p. 71:     Ezekial [ Ezekiel
 p. 75:     out the the struggles [ out the struggles
 p. 78:     groupe [ group
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
373 Wilson Street
Derry, PA 15627-9770
724.694.8602
stefanik@westol.com

Created 23 January 1998.