for "that Chrift was given by the Father, as an evidence that he requires no fatisfaction."*

"Chrift," I read, "was wounded for ourf tranfgreffions," &c. "Ye are bought§ with a

* Page 79 of Narrative.

+ Some Writers of a Socinian caft have attempted to get clear of this direct and varied testimony of the Prophet to the vicarious fufferings of Chrift, by fuppofing he was describing fome other perfon, not Chrift. But furely, if an inspired writer may be credited, it does refer to Chrift; for Philip from Ifaiah Nii. 7. 8, "began and preached Jefus to the Eunuch.'

Isaiah liii. 5.

§ You ask," who was the feller ?" It is fufficient to reply to fuch a quibble, that this is a juft tranflation of the original word. If we talk nonfenfe,fo does the Apostle, who elsewhere fays, "Christ hath redeemed us, hath bought us off, + from the curfe of the law." And this paffage will also repel a gross infinuation, that Christ did not die to fave our fouls from Hell, and that we are not delivered from any sufferings that came by the Fall, through the death of Christ. If he redeemed us from the curfe of the law, by becoming a curfe for us, he by his fufferings delivered us from fufferings. For he was made a curfe when he'fuffered on the

tree. I refer you alfo to John iii. 14. "As Mofes lifted up the the Serpent in the Wilderness, even fo muft the Son of Man be lifted up that whofoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." Here, his being lifted up evidently means his death on the cross, and the end of that lifting up is, that we should not perish, but have eternal life.

*Acts viii. 35. † εξηγόρασεν.

Page 77 of Narrative.

price.' "*"Chrift was flain, and has redeemed us to God by his blood." "We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of fins."t Now if all thefe expreffions mean no more than that "God is difpofed to forgive us, if we re

pent and walk uprightly, and that Christ was "manifefted as an evidence that he requires no "fatisfaction;" I fhould be glad to be told, why it is not written, we are redeemed by the miracles of Chrift and the Apoftles? For certainly, the miracles, which he and his disciples wrought, are the most direct and indisputable proof of his miffion; also, why we never read "the blood of the Apostles cleanfeth us from all fin." Many an impoftor has fealed his pretenfions with his blood; and if Chrift's death prevail only as you reprefent it, then we have redemption through the blood of the Martyrs; Stephen was ftoned for us, and gave himself for our fins in the fame fenfe in which Chrift did. It also imports you to fhew why St. Paul exclaims, "God forbid that I should glory,

fave in the Cross of our Lord Jefus Chrift."+ Though it be no where faid in Scripture, that Christ died to fatisfy Divine Justice, yet is it not nearly fynonymous to fay, "that God fent forth his Son to be a propitiation (or that which shall induce, and permit God to be propitious) through faith in his blood"; that "God hereby declares his Righteousness, and can be just, whilst he is the Justifier of him who believeth in Jefus ?" Is it not evident that the design of the propitiatory facrifice of Chrift, was that God's justice as well as his mercy might be displayed in the remiffion of fins?—But you have ftrong objections to fuch an idea.

" It

reprefents God in an odious point of view, "as fo inflexibly auftere, that he would remit "nothing, a character detefted among men."§

You fuppofe (page 86,) that had Chrift been God as well as Man, and had the Apoftles preached him fuch, Jews and Heathens would have been won, and the offence of the Cross have ceased. The most effectual method the Apoftles could have taken to avoid giving offence to the Pharifee and the Philofopher, would not have been by paffing over the Death of Chrift; for the death of an innocent fufferer excites admiration not contempt; but to have avoided treating of Chrift as "having made peace through the Blood of the Crofs." It is the preaching of the Crofs thus which to this day is called foolishness."-See 1 Cor. i, 17, to the end.

Gal. vi. 14, and 1 Cor. ii, 2. Rom. iii, 25, 26.

Narrative, page 75.

And it involves God in the crime of injustice; "for justice can never punish the innocent for "the guilty, and let the guilty go free." * And you obferve, (in page 79) that "to per"fons who maintain the notion of the infinite "atonement of Chrift, he is the first object of "love and regard.”

God is never to be confidered as a private Individual in his conduct towards Men, but as a moral Governor of the Universe. In this character he has at different times threatened to fend deftruction on Kings, Kingdoms, the whole human Race. Was he "auftere" in doing this? Would he be " auftere" and "rigid" should "he remit nothing?" But he did remit nothing; he deftroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, Babylon and Jerufalem, without mercy: he drowned all the world, as he threatened, except eight perfons whom he promised to spare. Was this "auftere?" No; you fay, in these awful unmitigated vifitations, "he exhibited

66

proper views of his juftice." (page 76.) At one time, then you fee his juftice in punishing finners; at another, because "God can by no means clear the guilty" without punishing their offence, he is exhibited as a relentless inflexible Being, and held up for deteftation. Are you fo acquainted with the character and government Narrative page 83. + Exod. xxxiv. 7.

of God, as to be able to affirm, that he is odious in taking vengeance; and to dictate what is becoming, what unbecoming the juft and righteous Jehovah !

you

But we are charged with involving the conduct of God in the crime of injuftice in punishing the innocent Jefus for our offences, and letting the guilty go free.* Before had ventured fuch an affertion as this, it became you to be able to fhew that there is nothing happening under the government, by the permiffion, by the direct appointment of God himself, that does not, on this principle, demonftrate him to be an unjuft and cruel God.

How do you account for his permitting all the human race to be brought into a state of affliction and death by the fin of one man? Why were the Amalekites ordered to be deftroyed, man and woman, infant and fuckling, (1 Sam. xv, 3.) for fins committed by their anceftors near 400 years before? Why are children born to inherit miseries brought on them by others? Why were the innocent lamb and bullock appointed by God to be facrificed to make atonement for the fins of a human tranfgreffor? If God is to be judged by the ftandard of our capacities, these permiffions and ap

* Page 83.