his inflicting such sufferings upon him, and in such a way, as you suppose. Again, your reasoning implies, that sufferings always suppose a proportional degree of sin, either personal or imputed, consequently, Job, being the most afflicted, should have been the most wicked man in his day, but he was the most perfect and upright; Jeremiah should have been the most sinful of all the Jews; for he said, 'behold and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow;' those Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices should have been sinners above all the Galileans, and those eighteen on whom the tower of Siloam fell, sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem; but Jesus asserted the contrary. Luke xiii. 3, 5. It is agreeable to the scriptures to say, that God called his son who never offended him to suffer because his sufferings were necessary to complete his testimony, to make him perfect, and to qualify him for the exalted station he was destined to fill. If, as we are expressly told, Heb. ii. 10. Christ was made perfect through sufferings, his sufferings were necessary to make him perfect; and, if necessary to make him perfect, it was consistent with the justice and goodness of God for him to be subjected to them. Many creatures suffer who cannot have 'the most distant connexion with moral evil,' as they are entirely without moral consciousness. Will you reconcile the sufferings of the various classes of animals with the divine justice and goodness by saying that they suffer in consequence of sin being im

D

puted to them? Truly, Sir, your reasoning seems to clash with scripture, reason, and undeniable facts.

You contend that 'Though it would be right for a creditor, in some cases, to forgive his debtor; yet it would not thence follow, that a judge has the power of dispensing pardon to condemned criminals, which is the relation in which sinners stand towards God.** This may be true of an earthly judge, who is subordinate to the law; but it cannot be true of God, to whose supreme will the divine law owes its existence. It strikes me that your reasoning limits the power of the Almighty, and looks like arraigning him at your bar, and prohibiting his exercising an authority beyond what is possessed by mortals acting in a judicial capacity; be not offended, Sir, if I remind you of the reproof which he gave to those of old who thought he was altogether such an one as themselves. Psalm 1. 21. Will you insult your Maker, and limit his divine prerogative, as absolute, sovereign of the universe, by saying, that he has not as complete a power, as unquestionable a right, to forgive sins as freely as any creditor forgives a debt? The reader will judge whether this be not implied in the above passage. If sinners be condemned criminals, as you suppose, and God, who is the supreme judge of all, cannot dispense pardon to them, how are they to be forgiven? Can you be ignorant that the character in which Christ hath revealed God to men is not that of an unforgiving judge, but of a

*.P. 45.

r

loving and merciful Father; that he brought not his metaphors to illustrate the divine conduct towards sinners from earthly tribunals, but from the tenderest sympathies and kindest emotions of the paternal breast.

All that you have said about the different degrees of offences, by no means affects the argument; for you are constrained to acknowledge 'That we ought to manifest the same willingness to forgive an offending brother as God does to forgive us.' To make good your point, you should have proved that we ought to manifest a greater willingness to forgive than God does; unless you can prove that he cannot do whatever he will. If you admit that God was willing to forgive without a satisfaction, you must either say that he had not power to act according to his will, or grant he could have forgiven sins without a satisfaction. If you say he was unwilling to forgive without receiving a satisfaction for sins, then, according to your views, the christian, who requires nothing of the kind, is more ready to forgive than God. If you say God was willing to forgive without exacting the penalty of sin, but that it would have been unjust for him to have done it, then you, in fact, say God was willing to have done what, according to your reasoning, would have been unjust, I leave you to free yourself from these difficulties in the best manner you can. As to repentance, that, in every case, is a condition implied in the forgiveness

of sins.

D

I perceive nothing more, in your First Letter, to

which a reply seems necessary.

I remain

yours, &c.

LETTER VIII.

SIR,

IN your Second Letter you endeavor to esta blish the notion of satisfaction for sin, under the more plausible name of 'The Doctrine of Atonement, as it is generally received by what are called orthodox christians.' In your first Letter you let the word satisfaction drop, though you cling fast to the thing, and substitute the phrase a consideration in its place; In your second this latter phrase is also laid aside, and the same thing is contended for under another name; but, however you may vary the language, it is clear satisfaction for sin is what you contend for throughout.

You have merely brought together a number, of detached passages of scripture,* and, in an arbitrary way, built upon them the notion that Christ died

* P. 48, 49, 50, 51 52.

in the place of the unjust,' that he suffered in our place and stead.' If this be a legitimate way of proving a doctrine any doctrine may be proved from the scriptures every dogmatist may bring together an hundred detached passages, without regarding their connexion, make an arbitrary conclusion from them, however unfounded, and take for granted that he has proved his point. This mode of proving requires very little thought, reflection, or reasoning; a concordance, to find the passages, seems all that is necessary. To examine one passage closely, show its meaning by a general view of the context, by comparing it with other parts of scripture, and by a patient examination of the subject to which it relates, would require more study and labor, than to bring together five hundred detached passages in the manner you have done. That you, Sir, who profess to be such an adept in criticism, should think you could prove your point by filling page after page with detached passages of scripture, is more than a little surprising. If a gentleman of the law was to attempt to prove the point he wished to establish in the same way, by quoting an hundred detached sentences, or parts of sentences from as many different law books ; and then conclude that his point was proved; would he not raise a smile in the court? That Christ died for the unjust I readily grant; but that he died in the place and stead of the unjust is not said in any of the texts you have quoted, nor any where else in the scriptures: hence, after all the pains you have taken to prove your point, instead of showing it to be