Could it be imagined by a plain, honest man, under these circumstances, that while this strong, impressive language is constantly used and insisted on, something very different is all the time meant from that which strikes the ear? And, let me ask, does it enter into the minds of common hearers of such language, that, correctly interpreted, it expresses no ideas, which would be "objected to by Unitarians ?" (p. 92) It is to be hoped that in future the opinions of Unitarians on this part of the subject will be viewed with less aversion, when we are told from so high authority, that "the language used by orthodox writers is to be understood as highly figurative; that, taken literally, it would impute a character to God, which would excite universal horror; but understood according to the legitimate principles of interpreting metaphors, it teaches the simple truth, that the death of Christ was the means of procuring pardon, or the medium, through which salvation is granted." (p. 93) Dr. Woods is right in supposing, "that no objection will lie in the minds of Unitarians," against the doctrine thus expressed. It is the very manner of expressing the influence of the Atonement, which has been adopted by unitarian writers.

Dr. Woods proceeds to the notice of several other modes of expression, the use of which by the Orthodox he supposes to have been misunderstood, in a similar manner, and from the same cause, the misinterpretation of figurative language. When it is said that Christ bought us, redeemed us by his blood; when he

is said to have paid our debt, to have satisfied divine justice, to have redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, and that our sin was imputed to him; when these and other figurative forms of expression are employed to set forth the design and influence of Christ's death, we are told "they are to be interpreted as metaphorical language, according to the nature of the metaphors used, and that against the literal sense, there are many objections." (p. 95) So far, there will be no controversy on the part of Unitarians, and it gives us no small satisfaction, that we have here a ground upon which we can stand together. And we are not without hope, that agreeing in this principle on which to proceed, we shall gradually approach nearer together in the result, till there shall no difference remain worth contending about.

But when Dr. Woods proceeds to explain the figures, he seems to have fallen into the same error " of mixing a degree of the literal sense with the metaphorical," which he afterwards mentions, and to which he traces some important mistakes, into which other writers have been led. To perceive this you have only to compare together the passage, (p. 94) in which he professes to explain what is meant by our being bought, redeemed, our debt paid, and divine justice satisfied; with that (p. 96), in which "the notion, that if Christ has made a perfect atonement and satisfied divine justice, those for whom he has done this are no longer under the same obligations to obey the law, and punishing them for their sins would no

66

longer be just, is attributed to something of a literal sense being applied to the figurative language of Scripture and of orthodox writers. And it is admitted, that if Christ paid our debt, or the price of our redemption literally, as a friend discharges an insolvent debtor, or purchases the freedom of a slave by the payment of money; it would certainly be an unrighteous thing for us to be held to pay our own debt, or to suffer the evils of servitude." For in the passage referred to, this is the very representation that is made. "As the debtor is freed from imprisonment by the friend who steps forward and pays his debt, so are sinners freed from punishment by the Saviour who shed his blood for them." The payment is as literal in the one case as in the other; and I see not how the consequence, consistently with what is admitted above, is to be avoided. The same may be said with respect to the other terms. The consequence is not to be evaded, if our redemption by Christ means, as is there stated, "his delivering us from the punishment of the law by suffering an evil, which, so far as the ends of divine government are concerned, was equivalent to the execution of the curse of the law upon transgressors." (p. 94) The ends of the divine government are answered, the demands of the law are fulfilled. It has no farther demands. When Christ has done and suffered that which answers the ends of justice in the divine government, the necessity of punishment, so far as those ends are concerned, is superseded. The sinner then is free; exempt alike from obligation, and

from danger of punishment. The debt is paid; justice is satisfied; the ends of government are answered by the voluntary substitute. These consequences certainly follow from the manner which Dr. Woods has adopted of explaining the figurative language of the sacred writers.

But the language in question certainly does admit of a fair and unstrained interpretation, which leads to no such consequences. We are declared to have "redemption, the forgiveness of sins, by the blood of Christ." It will help us to the true interpretation of this language to attend to the use of the word redemption by the sacred writers in other analogous cases. Literally to redeem is to relieve from forfeiture, or captivity, or slavery, or to rescue from punishment by the payment of a price, and the price thus paid is the ransom. When, by a price paid by some friend, a captive is restored to liberty, or the punishment of a criminal is remitted, whose life was forfeited to the law; in each of these cases there is a redemption in the original meaning and literal sense of the word. In the same manner also, if "Christ delivers us from punishment by suffering an evil, which was equivalent, so far as the ends of the divine government are concerned, to the execution of the curse of the law upon transgressors," (p. 94) that is a literal redemption, and that and the other correspondent terms, such as bought and ransomed, are applied, and are to be understood, not in a metaphorical but a literal sense. And here I cannot but observe, that the error complained of, that of

66

mixing a literal with the metaphorical sense of such phrases, consists, not as intimated, (p. 95) " in the manner of reasoning upon them," but in the interpretation of the language itself.

Now it is not difficult in this case to trace the passage of the term in question from its original literal meaning to its metaphorical use. For as the deliverance from captivity or punishment was the principal thing, and the price paid as a ransom only a secondary consideration in making up the complex idea of redemption, it is easy to see how the term came to be used to denote the principal thing alone, where this accessory circumstance was wanting; and thus any kind of deliverance, by a very common change in the use of language, was called a redemption. Examples occur in the sacred writings as well as in our constant use. The deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage is called a redemption, and God is said on this account to be their redeemer, to have redeemed them from the house of bondage, and out of the hand of Pharaoh the king of Egypt.

But how was this redemption effected? Was a ransom paid as the price of their deliverance, as an equivalent for their services, as a consideration, for which their oppressors were to let them go? Let the sacred historians and prophets answer this question. (Exod. vi. 6) "I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments." (Deut. ix. 26) "Destroy not thy people, which thou hast redeemed through thy greatness, which thou hast