DEAR SIR,

      An innocent creature can be in no need of a Saviour;--in no need of repentance;--in no need of a pardon;--in no need of sanctification. But a sinner, as such, is in want of pardon; and of his Maker thinks not proper to grant that pardon by an absolute act of sovereignty, he is in want of a Saviour; and moreover, if his nature at the same time that it contracted guilt, contracted also a moral slain, and became depraved, he will need a Sanctifier. That we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God,--that we are all guilty before God and liable to merited punishment,--and that God will not pardon by an absolute act of grace, are axioms in theology that need no proof. And if our natures have contracted a moral taint, we want some being or other, to restore our lapsed powers. [98]

      A Saviour has been graciously provided for us, and it imperiously becomes us not only to believe in him, but narrowly to examine, under the guidance of God's own manifestations, into the nature and offices of that Saviour; and at the same time, closely to consider, in what respects we stand in need of his assistance. These two views will have a tendency to throw light on each other.

      From the foregoing letter, I think it must appear to every discerning mind, that the sacrificial terms of the ceremonial law, may be fairly applied to the death of Christ. But in the further development of this interesting subject, we shall introduce others, which open up, more fully the true nature of atonement; and which give a proper description of that great sacrifice, as possessing in truth and reality that expiatory virtue, which the sacrifices of the law but relatively enjoined, emblematically represented, and imperfectly reflected. Having now the aid, of both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, we cannot be easily mistaken. But to enumerate the various passages, in which the death of Christ is represented to have been a sacrifice, and the effect of this sacrifice to have been strictly propitiatory, would lead to such a prolix detail, as would be incompatible with the design of a work as limited as this must be. Nor can it be expected that I should notice every fugitive objection, or hackneyed argument which your book contains against the nature and design of the Christian sacrifice, the commonly received notion of which you have industriously laboured to destroy.

      On a subject so delightful, and so consoling, as the sacrifice of Christ, against which you have raised such a host of Socinian objections, it were desirable to avoid the unpleasant task and unwelcome perplexities of disputatious criticism. But having restored to this as your main fort, it becomes necessary to attempt its demolition; and by a little time and patience, we hope, with the divine assistance, to crumble this fortress, and complete its dilapidation.

      For the sake of the plain reader, I will here endeavour to bring you to a point, by gathering your views, and presenting your theory of the sacrifice of Christ in such a light, as cannot well be misapprehended. You had [99] declared that the "first effect" of the legal sacrifices was the purgation or cleansing of the transgressor; "the consequence of this effect was the atonement" took place between him and his God. "The union was restored, or atonement made--the sin covered--cast into the depths of the sea, so as to be seen no more." But how is this reconcilable with a previous statement made with approbation in a quotation from Dr. Doddridge, respecting the use of the sacrifices: "They were never intended to expiate offences to such a degree as to deliver the sinner from the final judgment of God in another world:" Or, in your own words, this "was not a forgiveness or justification of the spirit by faith or grace." What then was it, if those sins were to be seen no more? But to proceed: We here find an "effect," and "the consequence" of an effect, without definitely stating or exhibiting the operating cause, which I believe to be the vicarious import and expiatory nature of these sacrifices, as I have been observed, but which you will not admit in your scheme. What is merely secondary, and an undoubted consequence, you make the sole end of the atonement, and resolve the whole into a mere ceremonial purification. You deny that the victim was a substitute in the place of the offender, as a medium through which the divine displeasure against sin was displayed, or the divine placability obtained. If I am not mistaken, this is the true state of the question between us. Here we split exactly; and I firmly believe that your route leads into the regions of infidelity; while the one for which I contend, runs a direct course to the throne of God, passing through the blood of the substituted Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.

      In so many words, you have declared, that "Jesus Christ, our great sacrifice, has died to cleanse us from sin, and make reconciliation;" which is certainly true, and will pass for sound doctrine in any orthodox pulpit. But how to establish these results, upon that principle which denies the doctrine of substitution, and satisfaction, in both the Mosaic and Christian schemes, is what has never yet been done. Nor can it ever be done on that plan which renders the pardon of sin by blood unnecessary; seeing the act of forgiveness is based upon the repentance of the sinner, and not [100] on the blood of expiation, or the vicarious obedience and passion of his surety. Shall I be told here, that it is God's plan, his own appointed method, to deal favourably with offenders through the intervention of bloody rites and sacrifices, which he could do without attaching to them the nature of expiation, or considering them vicarious. This I deny; and maintain that the pardon of sin by an absolute act of sovereignty, according to the notion of the deist, is a much more consistent scheme, I know that God deals with sinners when he saves them according to the plan, and the method his infinite wisdom has seen fit to adopt; but we should be careful not to misrepresent his plan, by fabricating one in our own heads, according to our vague theories, and then proclaim to the world that it is an exact copy of the original that God shewed to Moses in the mount, and to his Prophets and Apostles in subsequent ages.

      After stating what you call the designs of the blood of Christ, and the effect, and the consequences of the effects; using words and phrase contrary to established usage and the laws of exegesis; you complain of the charge of your having "denied the efficacy of his blood to redeem and save sinners:" and to rebut this charge, you raise the following anticipated questions: "How does the blood of Jesus effect these things in us? Or how does his blood sanctify, wash, cleanse, or purify us from sin? How does it take away sin--redeem us from sin?" &c. Your answer is very short: "By faith in his blood." This is very true upon the good old plan which I advocate. But in your scheme it may mean any thing or nothing. We are just where we were before. A new set of questions has to be settled; What is this faith? What place does it occupy in our justification? What does it see in that blood? Nothing like satisfaction;--nothing like expiatory virtue;--nothing like meritorious efficacy; it is not the blood of a substituted victim; it is not the stipulated price of our redemption; it must not flow to appease divine displeasure, or satisfy divine justice. O, Sir, I do behold such a dreadful hiatus,--such a horrid divulsion in your scheme, as leaves no discoverable foundation on which I could hope for salvation one moment! [101]

      From this gloomy prospect, however, I must not turn away, until, upon thorough examination, I shall find I have not been mistaken: This can be ascertained more fully by examining your notions respecting "the sacrifice of Christ Jesus," beginning at p. 52, and occupying 30 pages of your book. And as the principal force of your argument rests on the meaning of the words bearing sins, taking away sins, intended to express, as you suppose, not the bearing of sins in a way of burden and suffering for them, but merely the bearing them away, or putting them away by forgiveness, we shall examine into this matter particularly, and somewhat critically of course.

      There are two words used in the 53d chapter of Isaiah to express bearing sin; the one is sabal, in the eleventh verse, and nasa in the twelfth. This latter is capable of various meanings, according to the nature of the subject with which it is connected. "So we find it," says Dr. M'Gee, "when joined with the word sin, constantly used throughout Scripture, either in the sense of forgiving it, on the one hand; or of sustaining, either directly or in figure, the penal consequence of it, on the other. Of this latter sense, I find not less than 37 instances, exclusive of this chapter of Isaiah; in all which, bearing the burden of sins, so as to be rendered liable to suffer on account of them, seems clearly and unequivocally expressed. In most cases, it implies punishment endured or incurred." On atonement, p. 240.

      This same word, he informs us, when connected with sins, iniquities, &c. and also when combined with the words disgrace, reproach, shame, &c. "of which there are 18 to be found, and in all of them, as before, the word is used in the sense of enduring suffering. The idea therefore of a burden to be sustained, is evidently contained in all these passages. Of the former sense of the word, when connected with sins, iniquities, offences, either expressed or understood, namely, that of forgiving, there are 22; in all of which cases, the nominative to the verb nasa is the person who was to grant forgiveness. To forgive then, on the part of him, who had the power so to do; and to sustain on the part of him who was deemed either actually or figuratively the offender, seem to exhaust the significations of the word nasa, when connected with sins, transgressions, [102] and words to that import." This, Sir, fully confirms what I before advanced in reply to the new matter which grew out of your imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew respecting the word nasa being applied to God, Joseph's brethren, &c. And I will now affirm, what you dare not to deny before any master of Hebrew language, that the generic signification of the word nasa, when applied to sins, seems to be that of bearing, suffering, enduring: and then, on the part of the sinner, it implies, bearing the burden, or penal consequences of transgression: And on the part of him against whom the offence has been committed, bearing with, and patiently enduring it.

      To show the inaptitude of the word nasa being made to signify bearing away, or taking away sin; if I were confined to one single passage in the Bible, I would select, as marking most decidedly, that this world has not acquired the sense of forgiving, through the signification of bearing away, I say, I would select that very one, Exod. 10. 17, which you adduced to prove that it did. When Pharaoh says unto Moses forgive, (nasa) I pray thee, my sin only this once, and entreat the Lord that he may take way from me this death, if the word nasa were rendered bear away, or take away, it must then be, take away the punishment of my sin. Do you ask me why? I reply; because the taking away the sin itself is unintelligible, and it is only in the other sense that the word can be said to acquire the force of forgiveness, i. e. a remission of the merited punishment. But let the word expressing forgiveness, be also admitted to convey the force of enduring, bearing with, all is perfectly natural; and Moses having thus forgiven the sin of Pharaoh, might reasonably be called on to entreat the Lord to remit the punishment. The language of Scripture furnishes no authority for translating the word nasa, when connected with iniquities, in the sense of bearing away. But if you will press the contrary, we will give it one more trial. In Lam. 5. 7, compared with Jer. 31. 29, 30. and to the application of it also in Ezek. 18. 19, 20, and in Num. 14. 33. it will be found in all of these, that the sons are spoken of a bearing the sins of their fathers, and in none can it be pretended, that they were to bear them in the sense of bearing them away, or in any other sense than in that of suffering for them: the original term to express this, is [103] sabal in the passage in Lamentations, and nasa in all the rest. Now for the examples: Doth not the son bear (nasa) the iniquity of the father? To this the prophet replies, referring to the judicial dispensation under the new covenant, the son shall not bear (nasa) the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear (nasa) the iniquity of the son. In the passage in Num. the sons are said to bear (nasa) the abominations of their fathers. Now, in all these places, make the word read bear away the iniquity, &c. and then apply the sense of forgiving, and it at once makes perfect nonsense. The word sabal, in relation to sins, is exemplified but in two passages; the one in Lamentations just quoted--the fathers have sinner, and are not, and we have borne their iniquities; or, as Dr. Blayney renders it, we have undergone the punishment of their iniquities; the other is Isai. 53. 11. when speaking of Christ's suffering for his people: Dr. Lowth renders it, "For the punishment of their iniquities he shall bear." (sabal.) The force of this word will not admit of question. "In every passage," says M'Gee, "where it is not connected with the word sins, or sorrows, in the literal sense of bearing a burden, we can have but little difficulty to discover its signification, where it is so connected." Now when we see this word sabal so strictly and exclusively applied to the bearing a burden, standing connected with iniquity in the 11th verse, exactly as nasa is with sin in the 12th verse of Isa, 53. can any thing more be wanting to strengthen the argument concerning the word nasa? This part of Scripture seems designed to disclose the whole scheme and essence of the Christian atonement; and, from the frequent and familiar references made to it by the New Testament writers, it appears to be recognized by them, as furnishing the true basis of its exposition.

      I will avail myself here of the testimony of the incomparable Lowth, in his admirable translation.

      Here we behold the vail that covered the mystery of our redemption, which long lay hid beneath the shade of Jewish ceremonies and types, now lifted up by that prophet justly called evangelical, divinely commissioned to describe that great propitiatory sacrifice, whereby our salvation has been effected, as plain as it is possible for language to convey it. This chapter may justly challenge for its title, the passion of Jesus Christ, according to Isaiah. We feel disposed to set down in company with this blessed prophet, to enjoy the blissful hope that he did, apprehending no danger from enemies, and out of the noise of their cavillations. But no, this must not be:--Behold a host of Socinian critics, headed by Priestly, Sykes, J. Taylor, H. Taylor, Crellius and Dodson, with a number of under-graduates in their rear, pressing after them, all intent on making war upon the prophet, until they either destroy him, or effect a capitulation of their own terms. The usual method has been to single out one expression from this entire passage, and by undermining its signification, to [105] shake the whole context into ruins. To bear the sins of many, it is contended, must signify merely to bear them away, or remove them, by which nothing more is meant here, as one of them expresses it, than "the removing away from us our sins and iniquities by forgiveness." To help out with this theory, the apostles Paul and Peter are made to speak a sentiment they never intended: So when Paul says that "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, (Heb. 9. 28.) and (1 Pet. 2. 24) "Who, his own self, bare our sins in his own body on the tree," it is contended that the rendering should be, He bare away the sins of many, &c. Here again, to bear sin, and to forgive sin, are made synonymous and convertible, leaving out the idea of substitution altogether. To support this Socinian hypothesis you have introduced Isai. 53. 4. with Taylor's interpretation, which you endeavour to support by Mat. 8. 16. 17. where the evangelist applies that passage of the prophet to Christ, when employed in casting out devils and curing diseases. "Himself took our infirmities, and bare out sicknesses." The inference you wish to draw from this passage is, that as Christ's casting out devils and healing the sick, are to be understood of the removal of those evils; so his bearing sin, must be explained of his bearing it away, that is, by forgiving it.

      I have two objections to the use you make of the text in Peter:--Your translation is erroneous; for the Greek word anaphero, which is there rendered bare, does in its primitive and most direct signification mean, to bear up, sustain, endure, or shoulder up any thing. It strictly signifies to bear up, not bear away, and to carry up, not carry away; and it is commonly applied in the sense of offering up a victim, as carrying it up to the altar: and therefore may be applied to Christ bearing up with him, in his own body, our sins (epi xulon) to the cross. It fairly admits the sense of bearing as a burden; and joined to the words sins or iniquities, it thereby signifies the bearing their punishment or sustaining the burden of suffering which they impose. I am further supported here from another consideration; the simple sense of phero, is to bear, but with the force of the adjoined preposition ana, upward, it signifies to bear up as a burden, and 133 passages of the Old Testament, it is used by the [106] Seventy, in their translation of the Hebrew, in which it never occurs in the sense of bearing away.

      But I further object to your reference of the text in Peter, to the 4th verse in the 53rd of Isaiah. It should be to the 11th and 12th. Because Peter quotes the very words of the prophet, and what is worthy of remark, he quotes them too in the language of the Seventy, which leaves not a single doubt of his stating them in the very same sense in which they used them; and that when he says Christ bare our sins in his own body on (or to) the cross, he means to mark, that Christ actually bore the burden of our sins, and suffered for them all that he endured in his last agonies.

      As to the reference of Mat. 8. 17 to Isa. 53. 4. I have no objection; nor do I see any difficulty in harmonizing them without your gloss. Let the first clause in each relate to diseases removed, and the second to sufferings endured, and all will be plain and easy. The Greek words elabe and ebastasen in Matthew, bear to each other the proportion of the verbs Nasa and Sabal in Isaiah; the former in each of the these pairs being generic, and extending to all modes of taking or bearing on or away: and the latter being specific, and confined to the single mode of bearing, as a burden. There are 26 places in all (exclusive of this of Mat. 8. 17) in the New Testament, in which the word bastasso occurs, and in no one is the sense any other than that of bearing, or lifting as a burden. I will here cite some of them, and apply your rendering in a parenthesis, and we shall at once discover its inaptitude and nonsensical shape. Thus Mat. 20. 12. "have borne (borne away) the burden and heat of the day." Luke 14. 27. "Whosoever doth not bear (bear away) his cross." John 16. 12. "But ye cannot bear them (bear them away) now." Acts 15. 10. "A yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (to bear away.) Gal. 6. 2. "Bear ye (bear ye away) one another's burdens:" And 5. 10. "He that troubleth you shall bear (bear away) his judgment." Rom. 15. 1. "We that are strong ought to bear with (bear away) the infirmities of the weak." The irrelevancy, and inconsistency of such a gloss, must evidently appear without further specimens: and thus is the [107] original objection derived from St. Matthew's application of the prophecy, completely removed; since we now see that the bearing applied by the evangelist to bodily disease, is widely different from that which the prophet has applied to sins; so that no conclusion can be drawn from the former use of the word which shall be prejudicial to its commonly received sense in the latter relation.

      As I conceive the establishment of this point as gaining at least half the battle, I must detain a moment longer on it: and as the testimony of your "learned Hebrew critic," Dr. Taylor, is important to me in this case, I shall here adduce it to confirm my statement respecting the word nasa. The purport of his criticism on that word, in his Key to the Apostolic Writings, (No. 162) is to forgive, and also to bear away, or take away, and this you have greedily swallowed as a delicious morsel of biblical criticism. But, Sir, I am really at a loss to know how you put it up with this same Dr. Taylor, in his definition of Nasa in his Hebrew Concordance, which I presume was under your eye when you wrote. Thus the Doctor writes: Nasa. "To bear, to lift up; to bear, to suffer affliction, trouble, terrors, reproach, shame, punishment, sin, iniquity. Lev. 5. 1, 17, and 24. 15. Numb. 18. 22. Ps. 59. 7.--88. 15. Jer. 15. 15. Ezek. 14. 10.--39. 26." Now, by carefully attending to this quotation, and especially the texts referred to, it may be seen how this author refutes himself very handsomely. It will be found, that to bear sin, is to suffer the punishment due to it, and two of the texts (Ps. 59. 7, and 88. 15) can apply to no other than the suffering Saviour.

      I will connect with this the testimony of Dr. Parkhurst, whose consummate learning and industry no one can question. That part of his explanation which relates to the present controversy, is as follows: "To bear, bear up as the waters of the flood did the ark. Gen. 7. 17.--To bear, carry as a burden. Gen. 45. 23. Exod. 25. 14.--To bear sin as an offender; to bear it himself as a burden, i. e. to be reckoned as a sinner, and punished accordingly. Lev. 5. 1, 17.--24. 15. et al. freq.--To bear sin in a vicarious manner, or instead of the sinner; and that whether typically, (see Exod. 28. 38. Lev. 10. 17 and 16. 21.)--or really. Isai. 53. 4, 12." (Heb. Eng. Lex. under Nasa.)

      With such a testimony as that of Dr. Parkhurst, and even that of your learned friend Dr. Taylor, may I not triumphantly declare my point to be unequivocally established. And now, what is the result of this unavoidably prolix investigation? It is this: That the original terms, when connected with the word SINS, and INIQUITIES, are, throughout the entire of the Bible employed to signify, not bearing them away, in the indefinite sense of removing them, but sustaining them, as a burden, by suffering their penal consequences: and this not only where the individual was punished for his own sins, but where he suffered for the sins of others. This point being as I conceive, fully and fairly established, your whole theory respecting the ancient sacrifices goes to ruins; and we behold, rising up more prominently than ever, the gospel salvation, though in embryo, beneath the shade of Jewish ceremonies and types, which were shadows of good things to come. Here we see the appointed victim bleeding as an emblematic substitute in the place of the transgressor, bearing the symbolical burden of his sins, which (by the imposition of his hands on its head at the altar, accompanied by the confession of his guilt,) were typically translated to it, and in consequence thereof, death is inflicted as the desert of those sins committed by the offerer. In this view of the subject the institution of animal sacrifice seems to have been peculiarly significant, as containing the very elements of religious knowledge. What memorial could be devised more apposite than this to exemplify that death which had been denounced against man's disobedience? What could more significantly exhibit the awful lesson of that death which was the wages of sin, and at the same time represent that death which was actually to be undergone by the Redeemer of mankind? Have we not here connected in one view the two great cardinal events in the history of man, the fall and the recovery? For my part, I will readily acknowledge if these things are not so, the Bible is a strange book, and the ancient ceremonial institutions it contains, the most insignificant in meaning, and inapposite in application. But there can be no mistake here. The sacrifice of Christ was a true and effective sacrifice, whilst those of the law were but faint [109] representations and inadequate copies, intended for its introduction. They were merely preparations for this ONE SACRIFICE, in which they were to have their entire consummation. To this point let us now turn our attention, and see if we have not sufficient authority, from reason and Scripture, for its truth and unequivocal establishment.

      In the first place, then, I lay it down as a self-evident, intuitive position, that a perfectly pure and innocent being cannot be the subject of pain and suffering where there is no guilt, either personal or assumed. This surely cannot for a moment be doubted. It is an axiom in morality universally acknowledged, that virtue and happiness, vice and misery, are as closely connected as cause and effect. The moral administration of God has wisely and gloriously displayed the truth and fitness of this principle; nor does the history of the universe afford a single instance of its violation. Not only so;--but it must be demonstrable, that there is an absolute, nay, a physical impossibility, from the very nature or constitution of moral intelligent beings, that any of them should endure the suffering of pain or death where there is no guilt assumed in the place of another, or where there is no personal delinquency on the part of the sufferer. For an innocent being, therefore, to feel pain, and die, without sin, real or imputed, would be at once a demonstration of the fallacy of the principle. The conclusion now to be drawn is legitimate and fair, that if Christ died for sinners at all, he must have suffered and died as their substitute, i. e. in their room and stead. Will you tell me here, that though he did not die as a substitute, yet he died according to the appointment of God, to answer a benevolent purpose, and produce much good? I reply, that God will never do evil that good may come: and the appointment of an innocent being without personal or assumed guilt, to long-continued, and in the last instance, intense suffering, would be doing that very thing. I see no way to justify the divine conduct in such a case. It would be an act of arbitrary cruelty, and a direct infringement of moral justice. Suppose the judge of your district were to enter up a judgment against you for the payment of a large sum of money for a debt you never personally contracted, or assumed to pay as surety for [110] another, and then tell you he did it not from any principle of law or equity, but to answer some good and benevolent purpose;--would you acquiesce, and admit that the end sanctified the means? Rather would you not complain, and demand where was the law, human or divine, that would support and sanction such a procedure. If then Messiah was cut off, but not for himself; if he died for our sins, having no sin of his own, but approved of God himself, being well pleased with him, can you tell me how it came about, that the inoffensive sufferer, the harmless, spotless Lamb of God, endured through all his life, but especially in his last agonies, such a scene of suffering and death, as terrified and convulsed creation to behold, if he died not in the sinner's stead? You have undertaken to enumerate five ends or designs of the death of Christ; namely: "To take out of the way the law that was against us,--to introduce the everlasting gospel,--to destroy death and the grave,--to bear down the dark vail between earth and heaven,--and to display the love of God to sinners;" but how you can get all these designs into operation without making the divine Being violate the principle of moral justice, still remains an enigmatical proposition, which the most acute Socinian ingenuity has never yet been able to solve. But the advocate of Christ's suretyship and substitution is quite at home here, and finds no difficulty. He not only can see what you have stated to the ends of Christ's death, rather as the results of that death; but likewise, in that death itself he can discover a vicarious sacrifice, by which his guilt is expiated, a real atonement made for his soul; and hence he is brought nigh to God by the blood of Christ.

      Another argument, no less weighty and invincible, is drawn from the nature of the divine law, and perfections of God. All men by the law are justly pronounced guilty and deserving death. This law is holy, just and good. It does not comport with the justice, truth and faithfulness of the divine law-giver, to suspend or remit its penalty; that were an act of unrighteousness and an infraction of his own perfections. He is, from his own nature, bound to execute the just and equitable sentence of the law, which being indispensable, must fall somewhere. It is easy to see the propriety of its coming down on the head of [111] the personal transgressor, but it will not refuse a proper, voluntary, adequate substitute, by which justice may be satisfied, the honours of the law maintained, and pardons obtained, without any flaw or chasm in the divine administration. There can be no remission of sin without satisfaction, made either by the sinner himself, or by a legal substitute assuming his place, and becoming answerable for the righteous claims of law in his pardon and restoration to divine favour. Will you tell me, "This scheme destroys the ideas of grace and forgiveness, for the surety to pay the full demand, and then the creditor forgive?" I answer, no. Waving the argument arising from the distinction between pecuniary and moral debt, let us take it upon the debt and credit plan, as the objection comes. Suppose you owe a large sum, and have no property or funds wherewith to pay it; you are arrested by judgment and cast into prison,--a benevolent man, say a son of your creditor, pays up the debt and releases you, the original creditor is satisfied, but lo! you are as much under obligation to the son, your surety, as ever; but suppose he did all this through disinterested benevolence, as an entire gratuity, and consequently forgives you the debt, is there not grace and forgiveness here, and yet satisfaction rendered to law and justice by the benevolent transactions of your surety? The debt is really paid, and freely remitted too by him who paid it for you. The father, your original creditor, does not object, nor does law object, if the son, your surety, thinks proper to forgive you the debt. Will you drive on a little further, and say with Socinus; "God is our Creator: our sins are debts which have contracted with him; but every one may yield up his right, and more especially God; who is the supreme Lord of all, and extolled in the Scriptures for his liberality and goodness. Hence then it is evident that God can pardon sins without any satisfaction received." Here the deist will heartily join issue at once. But this is entirely a fallacious mode of reasoning. It confounds right, as it respects pecuniary debts, and right, as it respects government. The former may be given up by an individual without satisfaction, but the latter cannot, without infringing the claim of justice. Our sins are called debts, not properly, but metaphorically. [112] It is no uncommon thing for moral obligations to be expressed in language borrowed from pecuniary transactions. For a man to owe a debt of obedience, or owe his life to the justice of his country, or for one to pay a debt of gratitude--no one mistakes these things, by understanding them of pecuniary transactions. Without this distinction it is not difficult to see with what plausibility unbelievers may argue against the truth of the gospel, but likewise how the want of it has been the occasion of many errors amongst the professors of christianity.

      But still, those who pervert, as well as those who oppose the doctrine of atonement, are not contented, and continue to press their objections. What need of satisfaction? Might not God forgive without it? WOuld it not show greater mercy? To which it may be replied, that God is not only just, but he is justice itself, justice in the abstract, he is essential justice. And justice, by its very nature, must exact to the utmost farthing; else it were no justice. To remit is mercy, it is not justice. And the attributes of God must not contradict and oppose each other: they must all harmonize and stand infinite and complete. How then can God forgive at all? How can infinite mercy and justice stand together? The wonderful economy of our redemption will answer, by referring to the obedience and passion of the Saviour. Here the mercy of God magnifies his justice: his justice exalts his mercy, and both his infinite wisdom. This is the sum and substance, the Alpha and Omega of the Christian religion; the contrary contradicts the revelation of God, and introduces the reign of chaos.

      But I now proceed to confirm the doctrine of the Christian atonement, as a vicarious sacrifice, from the word of God. After what has been proven concerning the 53rd chap. of Isaiah, which contains the whole scheme and substance of the Christian sacrifice, I need not enlarge on those passages of the New Testament which so amply and comprehensively describe his matter, that the writers of that portion of revelation seem to have had the chapter perpetually in view, insomuch that there is scarcely a passage in the gospels or epistles, relating to the sacrificial nature and atoning virtue of the death of Christ, that may not [113] obviously be traced to this example. So that in fortifying this part of Scripture, we establish the foundation of the entire system. For the sake of brevity, our quotations shall neither be numerous nor lengthy. We are told in the words of our Lord, that the Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many. (Matt. 20. 28.) that, as St. Paul expresses it, he gave himself a ransom for all, (1 Tim. 2. 6.) that he was offered to bear the sins of many, (Heb. 9. 28.) that God made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, (2 Cor. 5. 21.) that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, (Gal. 3. 13.) that he suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, (1 Pet. 3, 18.) that he died for the ungodly, (Rom. 5. 6.) that he gave himself for us, (Tit. 2. 14.) that he died for our sins, (1 Cor. 15. 3.) and was delivered for our offences, (Rom. 4. 24.) that he gave himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God, (Eph. 5. 2.) that we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son. (Rom. 5. 10.) that his blood was shed for many for the remission of sins, (Mat. 26. 28.)--These, and many others, that might be added, were it necessary here to enlarge the number of witnesses, all directly refer to the prophet Isaiah, and fully establish the propitiatory sacrifice and oblation of the Son of God. Against this host of testimony, so full, so positive, and so strong, one would think there could not possibly be an objection. But what will not human "philosophy and vain deceit" undertake, when the wisdom of man is to be exalted above the wisdom of God. We must now have another scuffle with Socinian criticism; the word for, in all these passages , is to have a gloss that entirely changes their commonly received import, and leaves us without a substitute. The metaphysical ingenuity of Dr. Priestly, with the industry and acuteness of Sykes and Taylor, have furnished the rational expositors of the present day, with quite an easy way of extricating themselves from the shackles of Scripture language. When Christ is said to have died for us, it is to be interpreted dying on our account, or for our benefit. Says Priestly, "If, when rigorously interpreted, it shall be found, that if Christ had not died, we must have died, yet it is still, however, only consequentially so, and by no means properly and directly so, as a substitute for us." He thinks the writers, being [114] accustomed to the strong figurative expression of the East, used the phrase, he died for us, "or in our stead, without meaning it in a strict and proper sense." You have joined with these your leaders, and seem to have mounted upon their shoulders, from which lofty elevation you have made a great display of criticism on the Greek preposition translated for, until you have criticised the very life out of it, rather than suffer it to express the idea of substitution. In the "many hundred places where huper (for) is used in the New Testament, you have never found it translated in the stead of but in two texts. 2 Cor. 5. 20. 'We pray you in Christ's stead,' (huper) and Philem. 13. 'Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me:' but in neither of these is the death of Christ implicated." (p. 80.) Well, what of that? Still it is true, that huper, is, in these two texts, rendered in the stead of, and certainly means substitution there, let the subject be what it may; but bring it to the death of Christ, and it is huper still, and will express the same sentiment. But by a certain magic, which has more to do in your criticism, than any writer I ever examined, you are enabled to find out that the word huper, if it "must signify substitution," will make "Paul and other apostles suffer a substitutes for us--christians substitutes for one another, and in the same sense as Jesus was--christians substitutes for Christ, and suffered in his room and stead--Christ was a substitute in the stead of our sins--and entered into heaven in our room and stead." My dear Sir, did you think that either wise men or fools would profit by such an outrage on common sense as this? Must we attribute this gross departure from all rules of correct usage and interpretation of language, to a want of knowledge or sincerity? To one or the other of these alternatives we are inevitably left. Will you leave your learned languages for a moment, and turn over Johnson's Dictionary to the word for, and there learn that it has forty different acceptations, according to the subjects with which it is connected: you will there learn that in one of them it means substitution. Well, suppose I contend it means substitution in the remaining 39, and apply it accordingly; would you not at once set me down for a fool, a hypocrite, or a literary [115] madman. But I act just as consistently as you have done in your management of the word huper, which appears to have met your research in "many hundred places," and in only two are you willing that it shall have the force of substitution; and this, not doubt, the more readily, because the death of Christ is not the subject with which it stands connected. There are four Greek prepositions, dia, peri, huper and anti, used in the New Testament in explaining this doctrine; the two former refer to the occasion and cause of Christ's death, that is, our sins. Thus, in Rom. 4. 25, "Who was delivered for our offences," not in the room and stead of our offences, I grant. But when Christ died for us, the subject is changed, the manner of the expression is varied, and huper, whenever it refers to Christ's sufferings, it plainly signifies his being substituted in our room and stead; as in Rom. 5. 6. "Christ died, huper asebon, for the ungodly." And Tit. 2. 14. "Who gave himself, huper hemon, for us." As for anti, I contend that it is seldom or never used but to signify the substitution of one thing or person in the room of another; thus, when Christ is said to give his life a ransom, anti pollon, for many, (Mat. 20. 28. Mark 10. 46.) this evidently implies his being substituted in their place, as the frequent use of it in other Scriptures evinces. (See Mat. 2. 22. and 5. 38. and 17. 27. Luke 11. 11. &c. &c.)

      I could, were it necessary, abundantly establish the point in hand from examples drawn from Greek writers, who have used the word huper in all the force of substitution. Do you recollect the story of Seuthes and Episthenes in Xenophon? The former being about to put to death a beautiful youth he had captivated, was arrested by the latter, who being a great lover of youth, proposed to die in his stead: Seuthes asks him; "Are you willing, Episthenes, huper toutou apothanein, to die in his place?" Being answered, without hesitation, in the affirmative, by laying down is neck for the life of the lad, Seuthes turned to the youth and inquired ei paisein auton ANTI ekeinou, if he were willing, that he (Episthenes) should suffer instead of him?" Here huper and anti are used alternately in this single instance in the fullest sense of substitution, which no one can doubt. In the history of Greece it is recorded of Agesilaus, that he decreed, that if any one should give [116] way his horse or his armour, &c. in order to get rid of military service, that he must, at the same time, have some one ready, huper autou apothanoumenon, who would die in his place, if he expected to live; thereby giving him fully to understand, that for such a crime he must die himself, unless he could procure some one to take his place. Another instance we have in "Antilochus, who throwing himself down, tou patros HUPER apothanon, to suffer death (in loco) in the place of his father, obtained such glory, that he alone, of all the Greeks, was styled the lover of his father." The same idea is conveyed in the words of Caiaphas respecting our Saviour's dying HUPER tou laou, for the people, that the whole nation perish not. (John 11. 50.) In like manner, (2 Sam. 18. 33) when David saith concerning Absalom, Tis doe ton thanaton mou ANTI sou, there is clearly expressed David's wish that his death had gone instead of Absalom's. That a vicarious death is directly asserted in the above instances, I believe to be indisputable, and that the Greeks were accustomed to use the words huper and anti as having the force of substitution, there can be no question.

      What then is the fair and honest inference that ought to have been drawn from the "many hundred places" that you examined where the word huper is used? Is it that, because the word does not necessarily imply substitution in all these passages, that therefore it does not imply it in any? Such kind of logic would soon shake all your work into ruins, and poorly was it worth while to employ it in this way against us. We admit that it would be improper to say that Christ died instead of our offences, yet we deny that it would be so, to say, that he died instead of us. It is sufficient, if the different applications of the word carry a consistent meaning. To die instead of us, and to die on account of our offences, perfectly agree. But this change of the expression necessarily arises from the change of the subject. For Christ to die, therefore, for sin, and sinners, I understand it plainly to signify that he died to expiate the one, and instead of the others. When he is said to die for sin, for our offences, the occasion and cause of his death are referred to, and then the words peri and dia translated for, are commonly used; but when he died for us, the words [117] huper and anti are used to denote a vicarious death, and to express the real sense of substitution. This I have no doubt is the fact, and I am willing to rest my soul's salvation on it, as a Scriptural doctrine, explicitly set forth in the following and many more passages; viz. Rom. 5. 7, 8. "For scarcely (huper) for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure (huper) for 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 (huper) for us." To deny that the word for, in this connection, means substitution might do for Bedlam, for sure no man in his sense can do it. 1 Pet. 3. 18. "For Christ also hath once suffered (peri) for sins, the just (huper) for (instead of) the unjust." Rom. 5. 5. "Christ died (huper) for, (instead of) the ungodly." 1 Cor. 5. 7. "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed (huper) for (instead of) us." Rom. 5. 8. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died (huper) for (instead of) us." Mat. 20. 28. "The Son of man came to give his life a ransom (anti, for, [instead of]) many." (See also Mark 10. 45.) Tit. 2. 14. "Who gave himself (huper) for, (instead of) us." In 1. Cor. 15. 3, it is said Christ died for our sins, and in Gal. 1. 4, Who gave himself for our sins; in both place huper is used to convey a substitutive force in the connection I have already noticed; an attention to which will obviate your statement respecting Mat. 26. 28. "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many"--(peri.) Here you say, "huper is explained by peri, which never signifies substitution." This you think is so conclusive that "the nicest critic cannot pervert it to signify substitution." Permit me just to hint here, what I think a nice critic would have done: Not only his nicety, but his honesty would have led him to quote the whole verse: "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins:" This last part of the verse you left out. It seems to have a direct reference to the blood wherewith Moses established and sanctified the first covenant, and plainly marks out the similitude in the nature and objects of the two covenants, at the moment that Christ was prescribing the great sacramental commemoration of his own death. Even Dr. Priestly himself admits these words to imply, "that the death of Christ in [118] some respects resembles a sin-offering under the law:" a concession that naked truth ought to constrain every man to make. I therefore deny that the word huper, in Luke 22. 20. which is a collateral passage, is explained by peri, as you aver in the text in Matthew, so as not to imply substitution. The expressions of the two evangelists are not the same: Luke says, "This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed (huper) for you." Matthew has it, "shed (peri) for many," adding what you left out, as before observed, so that huper is very proper in the first case expressing properly substitution, whereas peri is equally proper in the latter, having a substitutive force referring to our sins as the occasion, or necessitating cause of the blood of the new covenant, without which they could not be remitted.

      I have been thus particular on this point, because I perceive it to be the last main pillar in your fortress on which you have particularly relied for support. How I have succeeded in diminishing its strength, I am willing that an impartial literati shall decide. To the candid, intelligent reader, I appeal. And to the modest, unlearned reader, I offer as an apology for troubling him with critical observations the real necessity imposed upon me, because a thorough investigation of the sentiments here opposed could not well take place without. I hope, however, he will have no further complaint on this score, during the remainder of this work.

      That the obedience and death of Christ were vicarious, that is, in the room and stead of sinners;--that he acted as their surety;--that his sufferings were propitiatory, satisfying the law and justice of God for them, by expiating their sins, and thereby opening up the way for the exercise of free remission and justification; are truths that I believe we have fully established. And here would we stop, were it not that, we deem it necessary to notice some of your principal objections, which, though indeed futile and groundless, yet, lest they should be considered strong and unanswerable, we shall attempt their removal and thereby render the doctrines I have stated and defended the more prominent and certain. Some of those objections have already been set aside in the present letter, and the whole of them were one after the other refuted in my former [119] letters, which it seems for some cause you were not willing to answer. That you did not condescend to notice it, you dare not to say, for in one single place, your critical eye happening to light on a small inaccuracy respecting the word ias, which I had introduced in connection with a remark of Dr. Scott, you pounced upon it with great avidity, and soon dispatched it without mercy, by the superior force of your critical powers, and then hurried away, without attempting the refutation of one single point of doctrine. It is hence to be inferred, that if you had been apprehensive of a similar triumph on any point of theological discussion in my book, that it would have shared a similar fate. To abridge my present labour, gladly would I refer to that work as containing a fair refutation of your objections, but it is highly probable, many who may read this, will not have the opportunity of availing themselves of the benefit of the work referred to, not having it in possession, and never having seen it. Having upon a careful review, found it, on this subject, to contain sufficient strength, I shall make a liberal use of it, by adopting as much thereof as I may think proper.

      Your first objection to the suretyship and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, is, that it is "unscriptural, or not found in the Bible" (p. 64.) And you contend, that "it is never said that the blood of Christ did satisfy God's law or justice, or that it was designed to satisfy them." And in another place; "It is a pity that so much is said and written on the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction,--when the doctrine is not contained in the Bible." And again; "People unacquainted with the Bible, by attending to a great part of the preaching and systems of religion in the present day, would almost conclude, that Christ died only to satisfy justice--appease the vengeance of God, and purchase grace. These things I do not believe to be contained in the Bible." Such declarations are so plain, that it is the more surprising to find among your followers, a number who roundly assert that you hold no such sentiments; and are almost offended if they are contradicted. Probably these are the "Calvinists and Arminians, that live in your communion, in the closest bonds of Christian union." They are very worthy of the name, no doubt: and I [120] presume that Trinitarian Calvinists and Arminians as much covet their fellowship, as they are delighted with their consistency. Such a declaration, however, may, in some measure, answer the purpose for which it was designed.

      In answer, however, to your objection, I will observe the following things: There are but three ways in which a sinner can possibly hope to escape inevitable perdition: namely, by personal conformity to the moral law;--the absolute mercy of God, or the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ. This first is decided at once by the apostle: "By the deeds of the law there shall not flesh be justified in his sight," and, "as many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse." As for the second, I have showed already the impossibility of such a scheme. And moreover, it is the principal refuge of infidelity. To pardon sin, as an absolute act of mercy, would be a total neglect of holiness; for mercy has regard to the object as miserable--not to his guilt, which is the cause of it: And for God to act mercifully, without manifesting his infinite holiness and justice in the condemnation of sin, would not be an act of holiness; and therefore, no such absolute act of mercy is possible with God. Besides, such a notion of forgiveness, without satisfaction to justice, renders the incarnation--the life--the sufferings--and the death of Christ, superfluous, and entirely unnecessary. If the way was so short, that by such an act, without satisfaction, sin might have been pardoned; why, says Dr. Bates, "should the infinite wisdom of God take so great a circuit?"--The apostle Paul supposes this necessity of satisfaction as an evident principle, when he proves wilful apostates to be incapable of salvation, "because there remains no more sacrifice for sin:" for the consequence were of no force, if sin might be pardoned without sacrifice, that is, without satisfaction, which lays the only solid foundation for hope, and that shall hope for mercy in any other way, will find, alas! too late, that he has deceived his own soul."

      A single moment's reflection must convince any one, that God's essential justice, which must forever punish transgression, cannot admit of any act of mercy, without some adequate display of righteousness, in connection with such an act. The propitiatory sacrifice of the cross has afford [121] a meeting place where justice and mercy harmonize. The apostle, by one masterly stroke, has plainly shewn this in Rom. 3. 24-26. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a PROPITIATION, through faith in his blood, TO DECLARE HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS--that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. According to this passage, free grace and mercy require a propitiation, even the shedding of the Saviour's blood, as a medium through which it may be honorably communicated. Here is a satisfaction that does not, as you suppose, preclude the exercise of grace in forgiveness, but likewise in which the displeasure of God against sin being manifested, mercy and grace to the sinner are exercised without any suspicion of his having relinquished his regard to righteousness. This is clearly to be seen, for in his setting forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation, he declared his righteousness for the remission of sin.

      Could such language as this be appropriate, if God exercised forgiveness without reference to the satisfaction rendered by the ilasterion, the propitiatory sacrifice in the blood of the Son of God? Here the title of the Mercy-Seat is applied to Christ, partly because it covered the tables of the law which were broken by the fall of man, to signify, that by him pardon is procured; and principally because God was rendered propitious by the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice on it, where he exhibited himself, as on a throne of grace, dispensing pardons to the people. The ilasterion, the name of the figure, is by the apostle applied to Christ, because he alone can answer the demands of the law by interposing between justice and our guilt, and by his own blood open the way for our reconciliation to God.

      Before I dismiss this subject, I will present you with Dr. Doddridge's definition of satisfaction, as we understand it applied in the holy Scriptures. "Whatever that is, which, being done or suffered, either by an offending creature himself, or by another person for him, shall secure the honours of the divine government, in bestowing upon the offender pardon and happiness, may properly be called a SATISFACTION, OR ATONEMENT made to God for him." (Lectures, [122] vol. 2. p. 217.) Can it be possible there is any inconsistency or contradiction here? He adds, "It is not here our intention to assert, that it is in the power of an offending creature to satisfy for his own sins, but only to shew what we mean when we speak of his doing it." The word satisfaction does not always, in strict propriety of speech, amount to the payment of a debt. It has been used in a sense signifying to content a person aggrieved, and is put for some valuable consideration, substituted instead of what is a proper payment, and consistent with a remission of that debt or offence, for which such supposed satisfaction is made, which is a circumstance to be carefully observed, in order to vindicate the doctrine, and to maintain the consistency between different parts of the Christian scheme. Expunge this doctrine of Christ's satisfaction from the Bible, and who can tell why it pleased the Lord to bruise him,--to put him to grief,--to make him a sin-offering,--to make our iniquities to light upon him,--to make him a curse,--to number him with transgressors,--to condemn sin in his flesh,--to smite the man that is his fellow,--to spare him not, but deliver him for our offences;--who can understand the meaning of his last dying expression,--IT IS FINISHED,--say, who can tell what all these things mean, if you dismiss from the Bible the heart-consoling doctrine of satisfaction by the vicarious death of the Lamb of God? This very doctrine has made the streaming eye of many a broken-hearted sinner to glisten with joy; it has cheered the hearts of millions of living Christians, and was all their hope and ground of consolation and triumph in their dying moments. Was all this wrong? Was it all mistake? O, my dear Sir; did you but know what you are doing, while you are endeavouring to destroy this only ground of hope and rejoicing, methinks that tears of sorrow and deep regret would be your meat day and night. Could your theory operate by a retrograde influence, and undo all that has been done on the ground of Christ's substitution and satisfaction, what havock and disappointment, what changing and turning upside down of things, what shifting of ground, and new-modelling of the doctrines and laws of the kingdom of Christ would take place,--ancient saints, who lived and died rejoicing on this very ground only, would find that it [123] was all illusion,--all a mistake,--and that the ground and foundation of their hope,--the object of their faith,--and the standard of their experience, were essentially different from what they had expected. This is not imagination; let your scheme operate in a prospective direction, and the same results are better realized. Yea, listen to the speaking trumpet from England and Germany, and some of our northern states, and learn the awful consequences of philosophizing away into rational Christianity the fundamental doctrines of the Deity of Christ and his vicarious atonement.

      It is further objected, that "this scheme imposes certain damnation on every one who ever sinned against the gospel, in one instance, by unbelief or disobedience. For, according to the scheme, the curse of the law was death, temporal, spiritual and eternal. But Christ could not suffer more than eternal death--could only satisfy the law properly and fully; consequently his sufferings could make no satisfaction for sins against the gospel." (p. 66.) Here is certainly one of the most curious positions ever taken in divinity. It is just this; that sins under the gospel are not to be recognized and punished by the law. This is fairly contained in the premises, which makes one class of sins under the law to which the satisfaction of Christ is limited, and by which it is so properly and fully exhausted, that there is no surplus or remainder to apply to another class of sins under the gospel. "The inference then is, if God cannot forgive sin without a satisfaction, every transgressor of the gospel must be certainly damned." Such logic as this cannot but put one in mind of the exclamation of an honest Quaker once, "O argument, O argument, the Lord rebuke thee?" How easy it is for an opponent, when he has a mind, to build up a man of straw for his adversary, and then with a great parade and show, wage war and obtain a victory over it.

      It is again contended, that the doctrine of substitution "conveys the notion of two independent Gods. For one God cannot purchase any thing from himself, so as to satisfy himself." This is the borrowed language of infidels, and is really too ridiculous to come from the pen of a Christian minister. The position is entirely without foundation [124] in truth, and of course, the conclusion is fallacious. It is no where said that God the Father paid the price of our redemption, or made the purchase of it, but Christ, by the offering of his soul and body, paid, as we believe, in his human nature what was accepted in the divine. The apostle moreover declares, that the "church of God was purchased with his own BLOOD." (Acts 20. 28,) which, on the authority of Clarke and Griesbach, you say should be read, "The church of the Lord," &c. But how Theos, God, can be changed into Kurios, Lord, perhaps these men may better account for than I can. One thing, however, is very certain, and that is, the phrase "church of the Lord" is not a Bible phrase, as it is no where to be found, and this makes it evident that it is not according to apostolic usage. But let it be the church of the Lord, the church of Jehovah, still he hath purchased the church with his own blood, and expression which, no doubt, you can criticise away to suit your scheme. I will add once more; the sacrifices under the law were offered to God, and that he accepted them cannot be denied; yet his were both the animal that was sacrificed, and the person who offered it: Did not both really belong to him? And to him was not the offering made? Yet, what man in his senses would ever think about God's offering to himself, or paying himself in these ceremonies? Such inferences are too visionary and chimerical to deserve a serious refutation.

      Again: "This scheme contradicts stubborn facts.--For, according to the scheme, the demands of law against the sinner were death, temporal, spiritual and eternal; and that Christ, the sinner's surety, suffered and satisfied these demands in the sinner's stead." Then, "why do the elect suffer temporal or spiritual death? Why does Christ live for evermore, and not suffer eternal death?"

      Nothing, indeed, could, in our apprehension, be more completely stupid, than is the triumphant assurance with which this objection is frequently advanced. Be it remembered, that the fact of the Redeemer's undertaking and accomplishing the deliverance of his elect, can by no means involve the necessity of an instantaneous recover from their thraldom.--Mercy, as well as wisdom, will evidently dictate such a mode of applying the great [125] deliverance as may be best accommodated to the circumstances of the case. But very evidently the reversal of the decree by which "it is appointed unto all men once to die," would be so far from comporting with the dictates of either wisdom or mercy, that the inevitable consequence must be a scene of horror and dismay, greater than we have words to paint. Suppose that no godly men were to die; then clearly every instance of morality around us would bear on its front the indubitable attestation that the deceased had been adjudged to the place of torment. What havock such an assurance would make of human feeling, even of sanctified feeling, none need be informed. This is only ONE consideration, among many, that might be suggested in behalf of the reasonableness, and even necessity, of letting things take their present course. But because the Redeemer thus applies his remedy in the measure and manner best suited to the actual state of the world, is it therefore to be inferred, that no remedy of the kind contended for, is applied at all? Does it follow that, because he has not adopted what would evidently be an unpropitious and uncomfortable course, he must be debarred from taking any order on the subject? From death temporal he will deliver; but because the best interests, and the peace of the world, demand such an arrangement, the last enemy that shall be conquered is death.

      As for Christ's suffering eternal death, no one ever said or thought so. You have charged the scheme you oppose, with holding that the "demands of the law were death temporal, spiritual, and eternal." In the first page of your introduction, you declared to the world that the doctrines you opposed were not taken "from individual authors, but from our professed creeds and standards." In what page of our public standard will you find the declaration respecting the demands of the law being death temporal, spiritual and eternal? You cannot show it on any page of that book, and this is not the only instance of departure from your own statement respecting the source from when you have drawn out the doctrines you profess to oppose. But whatever the demands of the law might be, whatever may be the meaning of Christ being "made under the law," and being "made a curse for us," [126] it is very evident he lacked not the capacity of sustaining the full measure of the curse; by him, of consequence, the penalty was exhausted when he subjected himself to its demands for the redemption of his people. As for the objection, at least strongly implied, with respect to the Saviour's not having endured death spiritual, as a part of the wages of sin, it rests on a ground entirely fallacious. The corruption of the creature, its enmity, its desperation, are the necessary consequences of the withdrawment of the divine communion. Men naturally hate God when they regard him only as the God of judgment, and in connection with their own guilt--they are, say the Scriptures, his enemies by wicked works." But to suppose the same liability to corruption, on the part of the Saviour, would argue no less absurdity than blasphemy. Still, however, in so far as the act of God is directly concerned in this matter, the Saviour did not escape even this portion of the penalty. Communion with his Father actually was suspended; and so keenly did he feel the infliction of this judgment, that on the cross he exclaimed, "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The penalty, therefore, in every respect, was perfectly exhausted. That it did not involve an eternity of suffering, we ascribe to that very divinity of his nature which is denied by you, but without which, he must have evidently sunk beneath the untempered stroke of the Almighty arm: that it did not issue in the corruption or, in other words, in the aversation of his heart from his God and Father, we ascribe to the fact that, constituted as he was, (divine as well as human) he was necessarily and unchangeably pure. "To redeem them that were under the law," it became necessary that he should be "made under the law;" his obedience was unto death in their behalf. "It became him," (God the Father,) "for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation (the Saviour) perfect through sufferings." This was the only method by which many sons could be brought to glory; and of the reasonableness and expediency of such a dispensation, adopted by infinite wisdom, there can be no doubt--"IT BECAME HIM." To say "that God killed his Son," as you have charged upon us, is language worthy of [127] Tom Paine. We know that it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and we need not be concerned how it was done. To use the language of Bishop Watson, in reply to that arrogant and dogmatical theology that decrees the rejection of the doctrine of atonement, on the score of its inconsistency: "We know, assuredly, that God delighteth not in blood; that he hath no cruelty, no vengeance, no malignity, no infirmity of any passion in his nature; but we do not know whether the requisition of atonement for transgression may not be an emanation of his infinite mercy, rather than a demand of his infinite justice. We do not know whether it may not be the very best means of preserving the innocence and happiness, not only of us, but of all other free and intelligent beings. We do not know, whether the suffering of an innocent person, may not be productive of a degree of good infinitely surpassing the evil of such sufferance; nor whether such a quantum of good could, by any other means, have been produced." "By accepting the death of Christ instead of ours," says Bishop Porteus, "by laying on him the iniquity of us all, God certainly gave us a most astonishing proof of his mercy: and yet, by accepting no less a sacrifice than that of his own Son, he has, by this most expressive and tremendous act, signified to the whole world such extreme indignation at sin, as may well alarm, even while he saves us, and makes us tremble at his severity, even while we are within the arms of his mercy."

      It is further contended, that "if Christ be the substitute or surety of the elect only, then the blessings of pardon, eternal life, &c. are procured for a part of mankind only, and cannot, in truth and sincerity, be offered to others." To this I reply, in the words of Dr. Scott: "There is such an infinite sufficiency in the atonement of Christ, and it is so proposed to sinners, as a common salvation for all who will accept of it, that a foundation is laid for the most unreserved invitations, exhortations and expostulations, and no sinner will be rejected who sincerely seeks this salvation. Yet these general truths perfectly harmonize with the secret purposes and foreknowledge of God, in respect of the persons who actually will embrace and obtain the proffered blessings." On Rom. 5. 15-19. [128]

      Dr. Owen, whose very name is a blister to heretics, and especially to Socinians, asserts, "That it was the purpose and intention of God, that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value and dignity; sufficient in itself for the redemption of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose; yea, and of other words also, if the Lord should freely make them, and would redeem them. Sufficient, we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world; and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world." Owen on Redemption. Book 4. Chap. 1.

      In perfect accordance, with these, are the sentiments of President Davis, Witsius, Henry, Searle, Smith, Fuller, and many others, when treating on this subject. So that those who hold the sovereignty of God's election of his people to eternal life in Christ Jesus, their head, feel no ways impeded by the shackles which your Socinian ingenuity and industry have forged for them. Equally unfounded is your fifth objection, which supposes that the scheme of suretyship destroys the foundation of faith, and involves the necessity of an actual knowledge of our election and salvation, before we are authorized to believe in Christ as our Saviour. It is not at all surprising to find this doctrine abused by men who expect to make their election sure, irrespective of their calling; and it is less so, to find the doctrine perverted by those who confound the warrant for believing with the nature of faith itself, which are as distinct as the naked word of God addressed to sinners every day, and that exercise of heart, which, acting upon this warrant, believeth unto righteousness.

      It is again objected, that "this scheme represents God as changeable--as being full of wrath against the sinner; but by the blood of Christ, he is appeased, or reconciled to the sinner, though he remains unchanged, and in the same state of rebellion against God and his government:" (p. 67.) This charge owes its origin to a lack of knowledge or honesty; if the former, it is certainly inexcusable,--if the latter, it is unpardonable in a man of high pretensions to learning and charity. Who ever held that God is reconciled to impenitent sinners? Where do you find a single paragraph in our public standards, from which you can [129] draw such an unhallowed, not to say blasphemous inference? Sir, is this the way you are redeeming the pledge so positively given in your introduction, that the doctrines you were about to drag to your inquisitorial tribunal, were to be taken "from your own professed creeds and standards only?" And are we to view it as a further specimen of your honesty with this declaration in the front of your book, afterwards to fabricate a third scheme, (in p. 76) represented and illustrated by a run-away soldier--apprehended--tried-- condemned--commiserated and released by an officer getting five lashes in his place, &c. &c. and then gibbet it up to public disapprobation and contempt, thereby to aggrandize your own scheme, at the expense of your opponents, by rendering theirs odious and contemptible? You have asserted it to be a privilege "not only to state your own views of doctrines, but also to state the views of others." I have no objection, provided it be done fairly and honestly. But I had rather be allowed, if convenient, to speak always for myself, than that another should give my sentiments a meaning I never intended, and a coloring they will not bear. Just such a treatment we are now receiving from you. A more headless, shapeless mass of Arianism, Socinianism, and Pelagianism, accompanied with the most bare-faced contradictions, false coloring and misrepresentation, I can honestly say, I believe I never saw in the same compass, as I find comprised in the pages of your book.

      It is strongly implied in your objection, that there is no wrath in God; and that for God to be reconciled to us, would make him changeable. But, be it remembered that, the displeasure of God, is not like man's displeasure, a resentment or passion, but a judicial disapprobation: which, if we abstract from our notion of God, we must cease to view him as the moral governor of the world. The Scriptures represent a reciprocal opposition between him and the sinner: "My soul loathed them, and their soul abhorred me." (Zech. 11. 8.) "God is angry with the wicked every day;" and their "carnal mind is enmity against God." (Ps. 7. 11. Rom. 8. 7.) That reconciliation was necessary on the part of God as well as on the part of man,--that the Divine Being is placable, and that his judicial [130] disapprobation can be removed, without a change of his nature, can be directly proved by the word of God. "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 they mouth any more, when I am PACIFIED (kaper, reconciled) toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God." (Ezek. 16. 62.) Again, (Luke 18. 13.) "God be merciful to me a sinner." In the original it is, (ho Theos ilastheti moi to amartolo) God be propitiated, be pacified, be reconciled to me a sinner; for the word, ilastheti, will bear either of these renderings. But without multiplying quotations, I will recite a case exactly in point to the main argument before us, in which there is described, not only the wrath of God, but the turning away of his displeasure by the mode of sacrifice. The case is that of the three friends of Job--in which God expressly says to one of them, "My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends:--Therefore, take unto you now, seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept, lest I deal with you after your folly." (Job 42. 7, 8.) This case is most decisive, and speaks louder than a thousand arguments, and must forever demolish the foundation of your fabrick. And thus the doctrine of God's being propitiated, appeased, or reconciled to the sinner through the sin-atoning blood of the Lamb, is most firmly established, and placed beyond the reach of Socinian criticism and cavil forever.

      But lastly: It is urged, that the scheme you oppose, "contradicts the gospel plan of justification by faith. For it represents the sinner as justified by the surety-righteousness of Christ imputed to him.--The imputed righteousness of Christ is not once named in the Bible." As for the gospel plan of justification, or of any thing else, I apprehend they are words without any definite meaning in your plan. Probably the term justification means the same as atonement, if you had explained it. As for the imputed righteousness of Christ not being named in the Bible, it is an assertion that avails nothing; the doctrine is there, and if you do not see it, or enjoy its benefit, the more is the pity. If Messiah brought in everlasting righteousness, [131] and then was cut off, but not for himself (Dan. 9. 24, 26) and if that righteousness is unto all and upon all them that believe, (Rom. 3. 22) well may the justified believer greatly rejoice in the Lord OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, and say, "my soul shall be joyful in my God, for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation,--he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness." (Isai. 61. 10. Jer. 23. 6.) Well might the apostle prefer the loss of all things that he might "with Christ, and be found in him, not having his own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." (Phil. 3. 9.) "David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works." (Rom. 4. 6.) It is worthy of remark, that the apostle here alters the words of David, so as to make them bear more fully upon this point: for David speaks only of the non-imputation of sin; (see Ps. 32. 1, 2.) whereas the apostle (doubtless under the inspiration of that divine Spirit who dictated the words) understood his words as expressing a positive imputation of righteousness; which view of them alone suited his argument. He, moreover, leaves out the words that more immediately follow his quotation, lest by citing them he should give occasion to an adversary to say, that our guileless state is, in some measure, united with faith in the matter of our justification before God. We are evidently justified by "the righteousness which is of faith," and it is equally as evident, that it is of faith, that it might be by grace. Tis not consequently, the mere act of faith that constitutes our justifying righteousness, any more than the exercise of love or any other work, for in such a case it would be our own righteousness, and not the righteousness of faith, which respects the object of faith, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is, in a similar way, called "our hope," (Heb. 6. 18) and who is "the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Rom. 10. 4.) He is the perfecting end of the moral law, which says, "The man that doth these things shall live by them, (v. 5) and he did that which the law could not do, (ch. 8. 3) and secured the great end of it. The law is not destroyed, nor the intention of the law-giver frustrated; but full satisfaction being made by the death [132] of Christ for our breach of the law, the end is attained, and we put in another way of justification.

      The doctrine for which we contend, when simply defined and stated is this: "The action and sufferings of A, might be said to be imputed to B, if B should, on the account of them, in any degree, to be treated as if he had done or suffered what A has done or suffered, when he really has not, and when, without this action or suffering of A, B would not be so treated." (Dod. Lec. vol. 2d. p. 209.) From this definition the following conclusions are fair and legitimate, viz: The sin of A may be said to be imputed, if B, though innocent, be upon that account treated in any degree as a sinner. On the other hand, the righteousness of A, may be said to be imputed to B, if upon account of it, B though a sinner, be treated as if he were righteous. That Christ was treated as a sinner, the Scriptures plainly testify; he was numbered with transgressors--suffered for sins--was made to be sin (a sin offering) for us--was made a curse for us--for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; and shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation, which infers that his first appearing was in some sense with sin; but having none of his own, we are at no loss to account for the meaning of these expressions, when we learn from Daniel, that Messiah was cut off, but not for himself, and Paul declaring that he died for our sins, and was delivered for our offences. All true believers, therefore, rejoice in the following declaration; "Their righteousness is OF ME, saith the Lord,--In the Lord (our righteousness) shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." (Isai. 45. 25. and 54. 17.)

      But here comes an objection against the law-fulfilling righteousness of Christ, on which it is presumed great reliance has been put, to overturn the whole we have said. It is said "there are many precepts of the law which Christ could not have fulfilled. How could he have fulfilled the peculiar duties of a wife to her husband, or of a husband to his wife--of parents to children, or the duties of any relation he did not sustain?" I did think, that in a new, corrected edition of your body of divinity, this would certainly have been expunged, but instead of that, it comes in a little amended by the addition of the word, "literally," [133] which was not in your first address. "There are many precepts of the law which Christ could not have fulfilled literally:" well, let it be literally; is this found in the Bible? No, not once. But your objection flatly contradicts the Saviour himself, who expressly declares that he came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill--one jot, or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED." (Mat. 5. 17.) If there is one jot or tittle, one single precept of the law unfulfilled, the obedience of the Saviour must be imperfect. But he has further declared that, to love the Lord with all the heart, and our neighbour as ourselves, are the two commandments on which do hang ALL THE LAW and the prophets." (Mat. 22. 37-40.) Moreover, the apostle Paul teaches that, Love is the fulfilling of the law, and that is the one word in which all the law is fulfilled, i. e. LOVE. This is the sum aggregate of the whole; so that whosoever shall "offend in one point," by omission or commission, "he is guilty of all." (Jas. 2. 10.) But here, again, according to your logic, James is wrong; for the man who has no wife, the woman without a husband, and the parent who has no child, cannot violate the whole law, or by offending in one point, be guilty of all, however numerous their failures are in other respects. The truth is, the Saviour completely fulfilled the universal law of love to God and man; nor is there a single precept of the gospel, the violation of which, would not be recognized and condemned by the law, which extends to every motion of our souls, and every action of our lives, and demands the universal perfection of our nature.

[LBWS 98-134]