the guilt of that horrible crime he was condemned. Surely then he suffered punishment. You may affirm, he suffered unrighteously; you may affirm, he was unjustly punished: but you cannot in truth say he was not punished; because it will for ever remain a fact that he did suffer death as the punishment of a crime. The language of inspiration confirms this reasoning. (See Acts, xxvi. 11. Prov. xvii. 26.) The king of the Locrians enacted a law, that an adulterer should suffer, as the punishment of his crime, the loss of both his eyes. His son was the first transgressor. The father felt for his child; and the sovereign felt for the honour of his law. How were these conflicting feelings to be reconciled? How could the father spare his son and the sovereign maintain his law? He deprived the adulterer of one of his eyes, and he gave up to vengeance one of his own. Whatever judgment may be formed of the conduct of this ancient monarch, it cannot with propriety be denied, that he actually participated with his son in the punishment denounced against his offence; and it must be admitted that by this mode of executing the penalty of his law, as salutary an impression might be made upon the minds of his subjects as could have been made by depriving the culprit of both his eyes. None could afterwards doubt that he was determined to maintain his law, by inflicting its penalty on all offend

ers.

Having made these remarks on the general question, I offer in support of the truth stated at the beginning of this letter, the following arguments.

1. It follows as a consequence from what has, been already established: for if Jesus Christ suffered as our substitute, in our room and stead, and if our sins were imputed to him, then the sufferings he endured were the penalty of the law, or the punishment due to our sins.

2. During a long course of ages this truth was typically held up to view in the daily sacrifices of the Jewish church; for it can hardly be denied that the animal victims were considered as dying in the place of the offerer, and as symbolically bearing his punishment. Now, the substance of this shadow was found in the great Antitype; Christ realized the idea that had been prefigured in the types.

3. The history of our Redeemer's sufferings proves that he endured the penalty of the law. His sufferings began at his birth, extended through his life, and terminated only in his death. He suffered from poverty and hardship, from slander and persecution. He suffered from men and devils, from earth and heaven, from the hands of his enemies and the hands of his Father. He suffered both in body and in soul. In the garden of Gethsemane such was his amazement and consternation, and anguish of spirit, that he said to his disciples, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death;" and to his Father, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." On the cross his sufferings were aggravated by every circumstance of shame and indignity that malice could invent; and to crown all, his Father hid his face from him, so that, in the bitterness of extreme sorrow, he exclaimed, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!" At last, having finished his awful sacrifice, he bowed his head and gave up the ghost.

Such were the Redeemer's sufferings; and it is natural to ask, Why did he suffer? To reply, he suffered for us, or he suffered in consequence of sin, is saying_no more than Socinians will say. The scriptural reply is, Christ, by his sufferings, endured the penalty of a violated law, and thus satisfied Divine justice for the sins of men. But our brethren, while they affirm he satisfied publick justice, by his

sufferings, deny that he bore the penalty of the law. Their very nature, however, we think, evince the contrary.

For what is the penalty of the law? An inspired apostle shall answer the question: The wages of sin is death." Rom. vi. 23. By death cannot be meant simply the separation of the soul and body. This term is used in scripture in a variety of senses. It signifies any great calamity. Speaking of the plague of locusts, Pharaoh said to Moses and Aaron, "Intreat the Lord your God, that he may take away this death only." Exod. x. 17. It signifies circumstances of great danger: "The sorrows of death compassed, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid." Ps. xviii. 4. It signifies great vexation or distress of mind: "And it came to pass, when she pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, so that his soul was vexed unto death, that he told her all his heart." Jud. xvi. 16. Death, by which the apostle expresses what is the wages of sin, is a word of large import. It comprehends all the pains and sorrows, labours and toils, sufferings and miseries, which wicked men endure, either in this world or in the next; for all these, together with the death of the body, constitute the wages of sin, or the penalty of the divine law, when inflicted on impenitent offenders. How manifest then is it that Jesus Christ bore this penalty! All the pains and sorrows, all the sufferings and miseries that the law could demand from him, as the Surety of his people, in order to make expiation for their sins, he actually endured; and at last terminated his humiliation and sufferings by dying on the accursed tree.

4. As the Old Testament exhibited typically Messiah's sufferings in this light, so the language of the New expressly ascribes to them this character. It speaks of

them in terms so plain and decided, that it seems surprising how any can deny the truth now under investigation. The Son of God, the apostle tells us, "was made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law." Gal. iv. 4, 5. How was Christ under the law? Just as they whom he came to redeem were under it. Sinners are under the law, both in respect to its preceptive requirements, and its penal demands; they are bound to obey the one, and to satisfy the other: and so was the Redeemer under the law; he voluntarily obligated himself to obey all the precepts of the moral law, and to satisfy all its penal demands by enduring its curse. Moreover, as the church was under the ceremonial law, when he appeared in the world, he submitted also to this law and all its institutions; and, as a token of his subjection to it was circumcised, although, as a perfectly holy man, he could, on his own account, be under no obligation to observe it.

The correctness of this interpretation may be confirmed by a passage in the 40th Psalm, as explained in the 10th chap. of the epistle to the Hebrews. "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. 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 within my heart." By the will of God in the 6th verse, the Saviour doubtless means, as he explains it in the next member of that verse, the law of God. Now, he declares that he delighted to do this will, or to fulfil this law; or as the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews shows that this will or law of God referred especially to the Saviour's sacrifice of himself, or, in other words, to his sufferings, it will follow, that he considered himself under obligation to obey the divine law in this respect.-In pre

senting himself as a sacrifice for sin he took delight, because it was required by the law of his God.

It appears, then, from these texts, that the Redeemer voluntarily subjected himself to the penal demands of the divine law; and consequent ly he was legally bound to endure its penalty. That he actually fulfilled his engagements and bore the penalty is plainly and unequivocally asserted by the apostle Paul. "Christ," says he, "hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a cURSE for us." Gal. iii. 3. Now, this seems so plain as almost to preclude any reasoning on it. The curse of the law was its penalty; and to say Christ was made a curse for us is equivalent to saying he was made a punishment; for what is the penalty of the law, but the punishment it denounces against transgressors? The meaning of the term curse, in the first part of the text, cannot be disputed; nor can any just reason be assigned for giving to the same term, in the second part of it, a different meaning. But when it is said that Christ was made a curse, our brethren contend the expression is figurative. Granted; but let it be remembered it is used to convey a very important truth. "The carnal mind," says the same apostle, "is enmity against God:" which doubtless is a figurative expression; for no one will believe he intended to teach that the mind of man is really enmity, in the abstract. Yet, in using this strong expression, he undoubtedly designed to inform us that the carnal mind is in a state of real enmity to God, highly and violently opposed to his holy will. And what less can the inspired writer mean, by saying Christ was made a curse for us, than that he actually endured the curse or penalty of the law for us? for if Christ did not bear the curse or penalty of the law, but merely suffered for us, it could not with any propriety be asserted he was made a CURSE for us; an expression than which

the whole vocabulary of human language could not furnish one stronger.

Surely this is decisive scriptural testimony to the truth under discussion. But plain as it appears to us, our brethren endeavour by a forced interpretation of it to deprive us of its support. I shall not, however, interrupt the course of my argument, by introducing their construction in this place. It shall be attended to, when I take up their objections to our views of the nature of the atonement.

Beside these texts, many others bear testimony to the important truth, that the divine Saviour endured the penalty of the law, or bore the punishment due to our sins. The inspired writers no where teach that he suffered for sin in general. Sin, in the abstract, is a mere name, a word; and if any should say that Christ died for sin in general, or in the abstract, they would utter a manifest absurdity. The sacred penmen teach a very different doctrine. They teach us that Christ died for the sins of individuals; for sins really committed. "He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities." "He died for our sins." "Who was delivered for our offences." "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many."

Such is the language of the inspired writers: and all these texts, by fair construction, will prove that the Redeemer submitted to the punishment due to our sins. The evangelical prophet asserts it in plain language: "The chastisement of our peace was upon him;" Isaiah, liii. 5. that is, the punishment (for this is the meaning of the term chastisement), the punishment of our sins necessary to procure peace for us with God, was laid upon him. President Edwards, treating on this subject, says, "His bearing the burden of our sins may be considered as somewhat diverse from his suffering God's wrath. For his suffering

wrath consisted more in the sense he had of the dreadfulness of the punishment of sin, or of God's wrath inflicted for it. Thus Christ was tormented, not only in the fire of God's wrath, but in the fire of our sins; and our sins were his tormentors: the evil and malignant nature of sin was what Christ endured immediately, as well as more remotely, in bearing the consequences of it."*

I think, my dear friend, I may now say that, by plain and decisive scriptural testimonies, the following points have, in this and the preceding letter, been proved; namely: 1. That Jesus Christ was constituted the SUBSTITUTE of sinners. 2. That he was charged with the SINS of his people; and,

3. That he sustained the PENALTY of the law, or bore the PUNISHMENT due to their sins.

It must then follow, conclusively, that his sufferings were a real and full SATISFACTION to Divine justice, and that he actually paid the PRICE of our redemption. How remarkable that passage in the epistle to the Romans! "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of him that beJieveth in Jesus." Rom. iii. 25, 26. From this text it is a clear inference, that if Christ had not become a propitiation for sin; if his blood had not been shed for the remission of it, and he had not interposed to turn away Divine wrath from believers; if he had not brought in his righteousness, Jehovah could not consistently with the demands of his justice, have pardoned and justified any of our race: but that now, through the satisfaction made by the death of Christ to the demands of his justice, and that com

plete righteousness which he has wrought out, he can, in the remission of the sins of believers, and in their justification, display not only his boundless mercy, but his inflexible justice.

To you, my friend, and to me, it is matter of surprise, that our brethren do, in the face of such plain testimonies of scripture, assert that the Redeemer did not pay any real price for our redemption. I shall not here repeat the texts quoted in my fourth letter, (page 246) to show how frequently and expressly the inspired writers use this very term, and other cognate words. I would only ask, what language can be plainer? Is it figurative? Was not the blood of Christ real? Was not the church, the object of his purchase, real? Was there not a real exchange? Did he not really give his life, his blood, for his people? Are we not told that "to this end Christ died and revived and rose again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living ?"

I shall close this letter with two extracts from the writings of President Edwards, for whom our brethren profess so great a veneration.

Illustrating the nature of the atonement by referring to the Jewish sacrifices, he says, "If there was nothing of true and real atonement and sacrifice in those beasts that were offered, then doubtless they were an evidence, that there was to be some other greater sacrifice, which was to be a proper atonement or satisfaction, and of which they were only the presage and signs; as those symbolical actions which God sometimes commanded the prophets to perform, were signs and presages of great events which they foretold. This proves that a sacrifice of infinite value was necessary, and that God would accept of no other. For an atonement that bears no proportion to the offence, is no atonement. An atonement carries in it a PAYMENT or SATISFACTION in the very nature of it.

And if satisfaction was so little necessary, that the divine Majesty easily admitted one that bears no proportion at all to the offence, i. e. was wholly equivalent to nothing, when compared with the offence, and so was no payment or satisfaction at all; then he might have forgiven sin without any atonement."* Again: "It cannot here be reasonably objected, that God is not capable of properly receiving any satisfaction for an injury; because he is not capable of receiving any benefit; that a price offered to men satisfies for an injury, because it may truly be a price to them, or a thing beneficial; but that God is not capable of receiving a benefit. For God is as capable of receiving satisfaction as injury. It is true, he cannot properly be profited; so neither can he properly be hurt. But as rebelling against him may be properly looked upon as of the nature of an injury or wrong done to God, and so God is capable of being the object of injuriousness; so he is capable of being the object of that which is the opposite of injuriousness, or the repairing of an injury. If you say, what need is there that God have any care for repairing the honour of his majesty when it can do him no good, and no addition can be made to his happiness by it? You might as well say, what need is there that God care when he is despised and dishonoured, and his authority and glory trampled on; since it does him no hurt ?" The president then goes on to prove, from the natural dictates of conscience, and from the light of reason, that Jehovah demands a reparation of the evil of sin, not merely because it is injurious to the happiness of his creatures, but chiefly from regard due to his own insulted Majesty.

Sincerely and affectionately,
Yours, &c.

FOR THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE.

HOW SHALL WE MAINTAIN BOTH

TRUTH AND CHARITY?

Who that possesses the real spirit of the gospel, and has any tolerable acquaintance with the history of the church, but must have wept over the unhappy contentions and divisions which have existed among good men, the true disciples and followers of Christ, from the time of "the sharp contention" between Paul and Barnabas, till the present hour?

And is there no way of avoiding or preventing this evil; so reproachful to religion, so hurtful to its progress, and so destructive of the peace and comfort of Christians themselves? Unquestionably there is-We know assuredly that this evil will come to an end; for we have the promise, "Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice, with the voice together shall they sing; for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion." Isaiah, lii. 8.

It may bear a question, whether, when this glorious promise shall be completely fulfilled, it will entirely destroy the distinctions which now exist between the various denominations of Christians; so that they shall all be called by one name, and be perfectly united in their religious sentiments and opinions. That there must be a unanimity, in all opinions which are either essential or highly important, seems indispensable to the fulfilment of the promise. But is it necessary, in order to seeing eye to eye, and singing with the voice together," that there should be a perfect accordance of opinion in all minor pointsin those things which all may regard as unessential, and of small comparative importance? It is believed not. A part of the perfection of Christian charity, to which men will then so happily approximate, may consist in this very thingthat they may, with entire brotherly affection, embrace those who differ 2 X