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.

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 establish 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 pur 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

a fact, you are forced to leave it merely as an inference. I might easily present the reader with as many detached passages of scripture in favor of our side of the question, as you have done of yours; but what would be the use of doing this, unless I proved that the passages, taken in their connexion, clearly expressed the thing which I brought them to establish.

You found the notion of Christ's suffering and dying in our place and stead, not indeed upon the bare sound of words, for you have not even that in favor of your opinion, but upon detached passages of scripture, without giving yourself the trouble of showing that though the passages quoted express no such thing, yet that what they express amounts to it; without troubling your readers with an examination of any one of them; without a single reference to context, or one solitary remark on the construction or necessary import of a single text quoted.→→ Could you think, Sir, your readers would be so credulous, or that what you said would have so much weight with them, that they would admit the scriptures to mean what they no where express, merely because you quoted a number of passages, and tacked to them the notion of satisfaction for sins? And is this the best kind of proof of which your doctrine is capable? A roman Catholic can bring detached passages of scripture in favor of the doctrine of transubstantion, and even the sound of the words would be in his favor; but the sense, when the passages are examined, would be against him; this A Ca

་

you will

admit: and it ought to teach us the absurdity of building doctrines upon detached passages of scripture.

Instead of attempting to refute my "interpretation' of the texts on which you build your hypothesis, though you had said* that my interpretation of such passages would hereafter come under discussion, and though you grant, † 'that these passages may admit of a different interpretation,' you content yourself with appealing to the common sense of the candid reader,' without venturing on the discussion you had before mentioned, or giving any proof that my interpretation is a perversion of art and sophistry;' though it appears you wished to have it so viewed.

You say," Would not the conclusion which an in different person, without the aid of criticism, would draw from them (the texts quoted) be, that Jesus Christ suffered death in the place and stead of the sinner; and that, on this account, all the blessings of the gospel, such as pardon, justification, sanctification, and salvation are bestowed upon the believer?' This, Sir, is begging the question: and is it not a lit tle extraordinary, that, after speaking in such strong terms of the absurdity of being indifferent on which side truth may be,' you should feel yourself necessitated to appeal to the conclusion which an indiffer ent person would make? But do you mean the indifferent person should draw his conclusion from the detached passages you have brought together merely,