such a display made, and will it not be eternally made, in the torments of the damned? Was all this insufficient? Was a more awful spectacle required, a sacrifice of greater value, in order to produce a stronger impression on the minds of the intelligent universe? Should this be admitted, it would furnish no reason why the sufferings of the present and the future world should not be regarded as forming constituent parts of the atonement. But how opposite would this be to the language of holy scripture, which every where attributes the great work of propitiating an offended Sovereign to Christ alone, exclusive of the agency of any creature either in heaven or on earth!.

In a subsequent letter it will be shown, that, on the principles the principles adopted by our opponents, there is really no display of the evil of sin and of Divine justice. I now proceed to explain and vindicate the views which the advocates of a definite atonement entertain of its

nature.

They believe that Jesus Christ, in accomplishing the salvation of his people, acted as their legal substitute; that he was charged with their sins; that he bare the penalty of the law, or endured the punishment due to them; and thus made a complete satisfaction for their guilt to Divine justice, and paid the price of their redemption. Such are their views of this mysterious transaction, exhibited in the life and death of the Son of God. If these views can be shown to be scriptural, then it will follow, as a necessary consequence, that the opposite views of our brethren must be unscriptural. Let us examine the subject carefully.

1. Christ acted as the SUBSTITUTE of his people.

Substitution is evidently conveyed in the meaning of the preposition 'ung, for, when it is applied to the death of Christ. That this is

its import in Rom. v. 6-8, can hardly be denied. When Paul says, "Scarcely for a righteous man would one die, yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die," he clearly means dying in the room and stead of a good man, in order to save his life; and consequently when he speaks of the superior love of Christ, in dying for us, he must mean his dying, as our substitute, in our room and stead. "Raphelius" (Not. ex Xen. in v. 8.) says Doddridge, "has abundantly demonstrated, that 'væeg nua adave signifies, he died in our room and stead; nor can I find, that αποθανειν υπες τινος has ever any other signification than that of rescuing the life of another at the expense of our own: and the very next verse shows, independent of any other authority, how evidently it bears that sense here; as one can hardly imagine any one would die for a good man, unless it were to redeem his life by giving up his

own."

The Redeemer is expressly called a surety; that is, one who stands engaged to become the substitute of another, to fulfil his obligations, and pay his debts. "By so much," says the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, "was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." Ch. 7. xxii. With this writer accords Peter, in exhibiting the Saviour_as a substitute for sinners: "For Christ," says he, "hath suffered for sins; the just for (veg) the unjust"

the just person in the room and stead of unjust persons, "that he might bring us to God." The Redeemer himself teaches the same doctrine; for he tells us, "The Son of man came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for" (T) in the room and stead "of many." Now in these texts we are taught, not merely that the sufferings of Christ come in place of our sufferings, but that He took our place, and endured the punish

ment that we should have endured, and laid down his life to save our lives.

This was no new doctrine in the church of Christ. By the institutions of Moses, the Jews had become familiar with the idea of substitution. Through a long course of ages they had seen, by Divine appointment, an animal substituted in the place of a human offender, and the life of the animal destroyed to save his life. And why this appointment of heaven? Could the life of a dumb animal save a rational creature from deserved vengeance? It was not possible," says the apostle, "that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." Heb. x. 4. Why then did the altar at Jerusalem continually stream with blood? Doubtless to typify HIM who was the LAMB slain from the foundation of the world; the LAMB of God that tak eth away the sin of the world; to typify "the offering of the body of Jesus once for all;" that "one of fering" by which "he hath perfected for ever them that were sanctified." Animal sacrifices did in type, what Christ did in reality. They were typical substitutes; he was a real true substitute. "Christ our passover is sacrificed (veg) for us." 1 Cor. v. 7. The blood of bulls and of goats sanctified to the purifying of the flesh; but the blood of Christ purges the conscience from dead works to serve the living God. He offered up himself, his person for us. Heb. ix. 14. "He needed not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up HIMSELF." Heb. vii.

in the very nature of things,"

a

says

sermon writer, "that Christ should be liable to suffer that punishment which the law denounced against the transgressor."* And again: "But this idea involves a literal transfer of character. On this scheme Christ, and not man, is the sinner. But Christ and man cannot exchange characters, because sin and holiness are personal, and cannot be transferred from one moral being to another. The sinful or holy acts of one person, may, in a thousand ways, affect another -exert an influence upon his happiness or misery-but it can never be so transferred as to become his sinful or holy act." Such are the assertions of a writer, who a little before had said, "We do by no means intend to deny the doctrines of substitution and imputation:" of consequence, we are to understand him as affirming that the advocates of a definite atonement teach, by their doctrine of the imputation of sins to Christ, that there is such a transfer of moral character in this divine transaction, that it is no longer true that the sins which were actually committed by the sinner were actually committed by him; but were actually committed by Christ, who actually did not commit them.

That they do not teach an absurdity so extravagant, need not be told to any acquainted with their writings. Nor does it follow as a fair and legitimate consequence of their doctrine. In that admirable Epistle of Paul to Philemon in favour of Onesimus, he says" If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that to mine account," (TOUTO EMOI EAROY) charge this to me, impute this to me. "I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it." Now here the apostle offers to become responsible for any debt that Onesimus might owe to his master, and re

quests Philemon to impute, or reckon the debts to him, and look to him for the payment. But according to the writer to whom we refer, this transaction was impossible; because it would involve such a transfer of character, that Paul would become the original contractor of the debt and not Onesimus. A benevolent man sees a poor debtor forced along the street by an officer of justice to prison; he is touched with compassion; he goes to the unfeeling creditor, and says to him, I will be surety for your debtor; charge the debt to me; I will pay it. But he is met by the writer, who rises up and says "The thing is impossible. Such a transaction would imply that you, and not the debtor, had contracted the debt. His act is personal, and it can never become your personal act."

Now, from the imputation of Onesimus' debts to Paul, and the reckoning of a debt contracted by another man to his surety, these absurd consequences follow, with just as much certainty as they do from the imputation of sin to Christ, as we hold the doctrine; that is, with none at all. Who does not see that, in the case of Paul, when Onesimus' debt was charged to him, it still remained true that the debt was originally contracted by Onesimus, and not by Paul? And who does not see, in relation to a surety, that, after a man has become responsible for the payment of another person's debt, it still remains true that the debt was originally contracted by this person, and not by his generous friend? Why then should any intelligent individual impute such absurdities to our doctrine? or how is it that the minds of some are so blinded by prejudice, that they cannot understand a divine transaction, which can be so aptly illustrated by familiar and daily Occurring examples in human affairs? When we say that our sins were charged to Christ, our bre

thren certainly ought to know we do not mean that our sins were taken from us, and infused into Christ, so that we became innocent and Christ actually the sinner: and I may add, our statements are so far from implying any thing of the kind, that it seems difficult to account for such erroneous conceptions, unless we attribute them to a wish to substitute misrepresentation for argument. By the charging of our sins to the Redeemer, we simply mean, they were so imputed, or reckoned to him, that he became responsible to Divine justice for their penal consequences. Our opponents may affirin this to be impossible: but, if we search the scriptures, we shall find, that, in the judgment of inspired writers, it was not only possible, but a glorious fact.*

This important truth was exhibited in the sacrifices under the ancient economy. Having brought the animal to the appointed place, the worshipper was required to put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering. The victim being then slain, the blood was sprinkled round about upon the altar. Lev. i. 3-5. The imposition of the offerer's hand, it is believed, was generally accompanied with a confession of his sins: at least the act denoted his wish to have his guilt imputed to the animal, that, being slain in his place, he might escape deserved punishment. Certain it is, that, on the great day of atonement, the imposition of the high priest's hands was accompanied with a confession of the sins of the people; and the whole transaction exhibited, in the clearest manner, the imputation of sin to the animal. "And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him

*See Outram on Sacrifices.

would not have given it to the legal offerings and no other reason can be assigned than the fact, that sin was imputed to the victim, and the victim was slain in place of the offerer, whose iniquities it bore. In like manner our Redeemer became a sin-offering, by having the sins of his people imputed to him, and dying as their substitute. Peter was crucified; Paul was beheaded; thousands of martyrs shed their blood; and all suffered in consequence of sin; but neither Péter, nor Paul, nor any martyr ever became a sin-offering; nor is it ever in scripture said of any mere man that he was made sin for us. And the reason is that, although the prophets, and apostles, and martyrs suffered much, and in consequence of sin, yet none but Christ was ever charged with our sins, and died as our substitute, to make expiation for them.

In entire harmony with Paul, Peter inculcates the same important truth: "Who his oWN SELF bare OUR SINS, in his own body on the tree, that we being dead unto sin, might live unto righteousness." 1 Pet. ii. 24. BARE OUR SINS. How? Sins were not a tangible mass that could be taken from us as a burden, and placed on the Saviour. Nor could they be infused into him, so as to render him inherently polluted by them. In what way then could he bear them? In no other than by having them imputed, charged to him, so as to be made responsible for their penal consequences. Or will any prefer saying the Redeemer bore the punishment of our sins? That this idea is included in the apostle's meaning we shall readily admit: but, if he bore the punishment of our sins, it will follow, that they were previously charged to his account; because this imputation was necessary to render him responsible for them, and make it just to inflict on him the punishment due to them.

Abigail, when mediating between David and Nabal, when the former was provoked to wrath against the latter, and had determined to destroy him, (1 Sam. xxv. 24.) fell at David's feet and said, Upon me let this iniquity be, and let thy handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thy audience, and hear the voice of thy handmaid.' And in verse 28 she calls Nabal's iniquity her iniquity. By this it appears, that a mediator putting himself in the stead of the offender, so that the offended party should impute the offence to him, and look on the mediator as having taken it upon him, and looking on him as the debtor for what satisfaction should be required and expected, was, in those days, no strange notion, or considered as a thing in itself absurd and inconsistent with men's natural notion of things." President Edwards, vol. viii. p. 515.

Again, observes this profound theologian in the same page: "The word translated here in Isaiah liii. 4 and 12, is : the same word and the same phrase of bearing sin and bearing iniquity, is often used concerning things which are the types of Christ's priesthood and sacrifice, viz. the Levitical priests and sacrifices. It was no uncommon phrase, but usual, and well understood among the Jews; and we find it very often used in other cases and applied to others besides either Christ or the types of him. And when it is so, it is plain, that the general meaning of the phrase is lying under the guilt of sin, having it imputed and charged upon the person, as obnoxious to the punishment of it, or obliged to answer and make satisfaction for it; or liable to the calamities and miseries to which it exposes. In such a manner it seems always to be used, unless in some few places it signifies to take away sin by forgiveness." Edwards, vol. viii. p. 515.

In my next I shall proceed to