atonement, to a change in God rather than in man himself."-(Atone., pp. 27–8.)

How exactly this "seeming" change in God, implied in the propitiation of God, this change that is "in the creature and not in God"-resembled to the apparent rising of the sun, which yet is only the rolling of the earth-how exactly this coincides with the subjectiveobjective view of Christ, which I have advanced, it requires no words to show. And yet the solution disappears with the difficulty, and is not seen to enter itself into the staple doctrine of the treatise, a moment farther. If true, in the matter, nothing is more evident than that it requires the whole doctrine of the subject to be set in conformity with it. I can hardly imagine how it was possible for a logical, systematizing writer, to produce a book in defense of the definition or thesis, that the atone. ment "is that perfect satisfaction given to the law and justice of God, by the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, on behalf of elect sinners of mankind, on account of which they are delivered from condemnation," and not perceive that the argument of the solution referred to, is one that as truly covers the whole ground of the subject as the definition itself; and so qualifies the terms of the definition as to prove its utter insufficiency, its color of virtual falsity, as a statement of Christian truth. And yet, agreeing that the change, in propitiation, is only a "seeming" truth, "a change in the creature not in God," he still brings out a scheme of atonement so rigidly exterior to us, consisting in a compensation to God's justice so legal and commercial, that exactly all for whom it has been paid must be absolved and saved, whether they

repent or not; otherwise "the monstrous impossibility must be maintained, that the infallible Judge refuses to remit the punishment of some, for whose offenses he has received a full compensation"!-(p. 190.)

These references, I think, are sufficient to show, that I am adequately borne out, by the arguments of the best orthodox writers, whenever they are brought to face the principal question, or main difficulty of the subject. Neither let it be objected that it savors of presumption, to suppose that we are able, in this manner, to go beyond the great teachers of past ages and bring forth truths that were laboring in their mind, as the deepest meaning of their doctrine, but which still they only half conceived. Contrary to this, it seems to me that we only do them the greater honor, by showing, in this manner, that they have been competent teachers and have set us forward in our studies, by the impulse they have given and the lights they have gathered round us. However this may be, nothing is more improbable, or even preposterous, than the impression suffered, I believe, by many, that just at the particular moment of history called the Reformation, the true infallible doctrine of Christ was opened to mankind. Exactly contrary to this, we form, it seems to me, no right or properly intelligent conception of Luther and Calvin, save as we see them rising out of the mires of old superstition; the painful legalities of a religion of works, the careful ascetic scruples, the penances of human atonement, the alms-givings that were to pay God the debt of their sins and had no spring in love to men, all the huge pilings of merit which yet could bring no real peace and liberty to the soul; and, since

these are discovered to be certainly not the gospel, begin. ning their indignant, wrathful Protest against the whole scheme, as a scheme of error and delusion. And when they assert, in place of it, the great Christian truth of Justification by Faith, we are not to suppose that they have settled every thing concerning it; or that God, for once, has given the world two seers who are not prophets, but infallible professors of dogmatic theology. Better is it to say, with Robinson, that "God hath more truth yet to break forth out of his holy word. The Lutherans can not be driven to go beyond Luther. The Calvinists stick where Calvin left them. Both were shining lights in their times, yet God hath not revealed his whole will to them. For it is not possible that the Christian world is so lately come out of such thick antiChristian darkness, and that full perfection of knowledge should break forth at once." This, at least, is true Pilgrim orthodoxy, if it be no other.

I have said nothing, in this discussion, of the particular impeachment of my doctrine advanced in the minority report of your committee, simply because I could not imagine it to be necessary. You have doubtless observed the rather singular terms of their standard.* It appears just so far to assert the doctrine of a literal and penal satisfaction of the divine justice, and

* "To cancel the penal claims of condemning law, by voluntarily offering his sufferings and death as a satisfaction therefor, and so to redeem every believer from further exposure to these claims, was the end sought, and intended, and achieved, by Christ, in the work of atonement."-(Minority Report.)

so far to hint the doctrine of a limited atonement, as may insure the sanction of extreme orthodoxy; and yet is so daintily worded as not to offend the mind of New England, in its fixed rejection of both. Meantime there is held, back of all, a scheme which is neither this nor that, but a scheme of debt and purchase, more literal than Anselm ever conceived ;—a scheme advanced by the member who drew this Report, in a dissertation read before this body a few years ago, and peremptorily rejected by every member of the body; nor by any one more peremptorily, than by the other member of this minority. This theory or scheme, preached also as a sermon before other bodies of clergy, both before and since my book was published, has, in every case, been disapproved by the most competent judges; as involv ing, first, in the relations of the Father and the Son, a very gross form of tritheism, and secondly, a scheme of divine government, under Christ, that is formally and really anomian. I can hardly suppose, therefore, that you are going now to make it a test or standard of orthodoxy against me. It is rather to be expected, that you will take it as an illustration or example of the manner, in which the general deluge of agreements against my heresy has been raised. They have a plausible show of negative unity against me, but no positive unity among themselves.

I have only to add, in closing the discussion, what I think must be sufficiently evident already, as the main peculiarity of my exposition, that it proposes no single formula as containing the whole truth of the subject, but

is chiefly occupied in showing how, or by what method of use, we may receive the true meaning and power of all the scripture language. This language is to stand, accordingly, as being the best and only competent statement of the Christian doctrine, and is not to be substituted by any words of man's wisdom, or by any formulas that are set in terms of academic and abstractive theology. Finding a ready use, in this manner, for all the terms of scripture, no peculiar style of preaching, such as may properly disturb the peace, or offend the honest convictions of our churches, can possibly result from the exposition I have given. For, whatever formulas we hold as the true account of Christ and his work, and however violent the wars we maintain to defend them, it is remarkable that, in the earnest preaching of Christ and salvation, we break over all terms of theory, to preach a Savior crucified our life, our sacrifice, our righteousness, our peace, using all the scripture terms, in much the same way that my doctrine requires. If any peculiarity appears in preaching Christ from the point of view here developed, it will be that he is preached more generally and emphatically as a Power; which never offends, and for which I think I can say with truth, our people are longing with real want and hunger. If it be a crime, that I have sought to moisten the dryness they suffer, if I wish to give them a little more of the true bread from heaven, than some of our meager theories will yield them, and if this be taken by you as a fatal heresy, I hope I may be able to accept your judgment, with a degree of fortitude, answering to the earnestness of my convictions.