give to God a consideration for the pardon of sin. 'I suppose, had they believed that he was the Christ, they would not have died in their sins, though they had known nothing of the doctrine of satisfaction; for what he taught was sufficient for their salvation; John, v. 34. These things I say that ye might be saved. Either, 1. Christ taught the doctrine of satisfaction; or, 2. he did not teach what was necessary to be known in order to his hearers becoming christians, and to their being saved; or, 3. the belief of the doctrine of satisfaction is not essential to christ anity, nor necessary to salvation. You may take which of these positions you please; one of them I think you must acknowledge to be fact. It follows, that though the minds of his disciples were not then prepared to receive all the important doctrines which they should hereafter be taught,' this has nothing to do with the present subject; for they certainly were prepared to receive those doctrines which were essential to their becoming his disciples, and to their receiving salvation through his name. Whether I can tell why God did not unfold all his mind at once,' is one thing; but whether Christ omitted teaching a doctrine essential to christianity-in which the very existence of all that is dear to us is involved,' is another and a very different thing.

You reply 2ndly. "The discourses of our Lord do, as we think, certainly teach this doctrine.'* To prove this you quote several passages from the evan

P. 17.

gelical history; but as they express nothing about satisfaction for sin, atonement to divine justice, or of the death of Christ being the consideration or condition which God required in order to his forgiving sins, your barely quoting them proves nothing.

I had said, Had the making satisfaction for sin been that which most of all rendered his death necessary, surely the Savior would have said something on that point, when professedly showing his disciples why he ought to suffer; yet he passed it over in total silence. And you, Sir, have not told us that he ever hinted at the subject on that important occasion; you have not attempted to answer this material part of my argument.

1. After all you have said* about the book of Acts, I think you must admit that we have, in that book, a faithful and sufficient account of what the Apostles preached; and, though I fully admit that the silence of one part of scripture on any subject, cannot reasonably be objected against a doctrine, if it be maintained in another,' still I must contend, that if the doctrine of satisfaction be essential to christianity,' if it be a doctrine in which the very existence of all that is dear to us is involved,' it is reasonable to expect the Apostles would not omit it when preaching to sinners. Did they not preach what is essential to christianity, in the discourses of which we have an account, for many became christians by hearing them? Surely, then, if what you

P. 19, 20, 21.

contend for be essential to christianity, we ought to fnd it in those discourses.

The passages you have quoted as plainly implying the doctrine intended by the expressions 'vindictive justice' and satisfaction for sins,' contain no hint of the kind; they simply state that there is no other medium but Christ through which God communicates salvation to sinners-that he alone has authority to save them-and that all who believe his gospel receive forgiveness; but what has all this to do with vindictive justice and satisfaction for sins? The passage in which you seem to think these things most plainly taught, (ch. xx. 28.) speaks of GOD as the purchaser of the church; consequently if it import the giving a consideration to procure pardon for sinners, it imports that God gave the consideration; it remains for you to say to whom he gave it, and from whom he obtained pardon for his guilty creatures. Surely you will not say, that he gave a consideration to himself to obtain pardon of himself for sinners. At any rate this passage can have nothing to do with Christ's giving God a consideration for our deliverance. I know that what you quote are such passages as the persons (who maintain the doctrine of satisfaction) would think it proper to ground their arguments upon;' but this only serves to convince me of the weakness of their cause.

You acknowledge that the words vindictive justice and satisfaction for sins are not to be found in the whole of God's word;' yet from the frequent use of them by christians, as importing a leading doctrine

of revelation, we might expect to find them in almost. every part of the bible.

On the whole, Sir, you seem to admit that apostolic preaching differed materially from that of the modern advocates for the doctrine of satisfaction. You say, 'It is possible that the Apostles might be treating on subjects which did not naturally lead to this doctrine;' yet they were addressing sinners on the things which related to their salvation. Is not this granting my argument?

I remain yours, &c,

LETTER V.

SIR,

IN attempting to set aside the second reason I assigned for rejecting the notion of satisfaction, you have not adduced any argument from scripture against it, nor attempted to show that my references to Job, xxxv. 6-8. Psalm, xvi. 2. are inapplicable, though both these things you ought to have done but you satisfy yourself with making a distinction, which, when applied to the Deity, is as

*P. 22.

contrary to reason, as it is unfounded in scripture. I said, Satisfaction demanded, implies injury received by him who demands it, and a capability of receiving compensation; but God is no more capable of receiving injury, than he is of doing injury, or than he is of receiving benefit. The premises from which I reason, you say, you cannot admit, because 'I make no distinction between a person acting in an individual and in an official character;' a distinction, Sir, which is utterly inapplicable to the Deity: for let him act in whatever relation he may, whether as a Lawgiver and Judge, or a Father and Friend, he always acts as the absolutely infinite, all perfect, supreme and independent God, and is utterly incapable of receiv ing injury, or advantage from his creatures, in any case whatever; to assert the contrary would be to deny the absolute supremacy and independence of the Most High. ELIHU, in his address to JOB, is treating, not of the abstract nature of God; but of his divine government and providence, which must necessarily comprehend his character as Lawgiver and Judge; yet he states that the conduct of creatures can neither injure nor benefit him. In fact know nothing of the divine character but what is relative; consequently, to admit what you say, would be to admit that we know nothing of it but what supposes the Deity capable of receiving injury or benefit. If a mortal man, the child of imperfection,' whose authority to legislate and judge is necessarily derived, and who is bound by some law superior to himself, cannot act purely from the dictates of his

we