therefore, to a letter devoted expressly to the discussion of that subject, it was certainly reasonable to expect a distinct statement of the orthodox explanation of the texts of scripture, in which it is supposed to be taught, and a defence of the interpretation by which those texts are understood to express the meaning that is assigned to them. More especially was this to be expected of one, who complains that the opinions of the Orthodox are misrepresented, and who, in their name, disclaims the opinions, which are attributed to them. But in this expectation I am disappointed. There is much complaint of misrepresentation, but I find no distinct statement in what the alleged misrepresentation consists, nor what are the precise opinions maintained by the Orthodox on this subject. I am able to collect but a very imperfect and indistinct idea, what the scheme, which claims to be Orthodox on this subject, is. It is asserted, that the language used by orthodox writers on this subject, like that used by the sacred writers, is highly figurative, (p. 86, &c.) that it is not to be understood literally, that it does not mean, what it seems to express. It would have greatly assisted us, and possibly put a period to all controversy on the subject, had the writer seen fit to explain the figures, and give the true interpretation of the metaphors, which it is complained have been so misunderstood, and have thus laid the foundation for misrepresentation.

The first charge of misrepresentation is, that the author of the Sermon makes it a part of the orthodox system, "that God took upon him human nature, that he might pay to his own justice the debt of punishment incurred by men, and might enable himself to exercise mercy”—“ that he might appease his own anger toward men, or make an infinite satisfaction to his own justice." The unfairness alleged in this representation is, that it does not recognize the distinction of persons in the Deity, which is maintained by the Orthodox, and it is implied, that if no such distinction do exist, the representation would not be liable to objection, for no objection is made to it on any other ground. It was incumbent then on Dr. Woods, not merely to assert this distinction as an article of the orthodox faith, but to explain what it is, and to show its foundation in the language of scripture. The former he has

declined, as not being within the scope of our limited minds. (p. 84) the latter, as not falling within his purpose (p. 85) in the discussion of the subject. But until both are done, I can see no ground for complaining of the absurdity charged upon the doctrine. It is a legitimate and necessary consequence of the orthodox faith, that Jesus Christ, whom the Father sent into the world, is the same being with the Father who sent him; that Christ, who interposed and made an atonement for sinners, is the same being with that God, who, it is alleged (p. 65) "would never have saved them without such an interposition." It was the same God, the same being, who sent, and was sent, who made the atonement, and whose anger was appeased by the atonement, who made satisfaction to offended justice, and whose justice was satisfied. It is not enough to assert, (p. 64) that "the Father and the Son are two as really as Moses and Aaron, though not in the same sense, nor in any sense inconsistent with their being one." It belongs to him, who asserts this, to state intelligibly, what is the nature and import of the distinction here intended; to explain in what sense two, and in what sense one. No man knows better than Dr. Woods, that until he has done this, he has done nothing to the purpose. He uses words without meaning, and merely casts a mist, where he is bound to shed light.

The next imputation on the orthodox faith, which Dr. Woods endeavours to remove is, that it conveys to common minds the idea, that "Christ's death has an influence in making God placable, or merciful, in quenching his wrath, and awakening his kindness towards men. Now to vindicate the system, and those who support it, from this charge, it was necessary to show, that the language in which the doctrine is expressed and enforced by the Orthodox, is not calculated to produce this impression. But has this been done? By no means. The contrary is frankly admitted. It is conceded that the literal sense of the orthodox writings amounts to this. It is asserted indeed, that the doctrine of the Orthodox is the very reverse of this," that the mercy of God, not the interposition of Christ, was the origin and moving cause of the work of redemption ;" (p. 68) that the mercy or placability of God could neither be produced nor increased by

•6

the atonement of Christ." These are noble, correct, scriptural views We are delighted to find on this point an opinion so highly important, in exact coincidence with that of Unitarians, and one to which they attach a very high degree of importance. We are glad to find a strong sensibility expressed to the honour of the divine character and horror at the thought of an opinion, so derogatory to it, as that which is attributed to the influence of the language they use on the subject. But why then does he go on to defend the use of that language, instead of correcting it? Since it is admitted not to be the language of scripture, and that understood literally it does convey the ideas objected to; that it does make the impression at which so much horror is expressed, does express a doctrine acknowledged to be false and unfounded; why is it not given up? Especially as it would, on this point, put an end to all controversy. And why complain that the opinions of the Orthodox are misrepresented, when it is acknowledged that the opinions attributed to them are the literal and obvious meaning of the language they employ?

It is to little purpose to say, that the figurative language used on this subject, though not the same, resembles that employed by the sacred writers in reference to the same subject. Dr. Woods admits that the language of the sacred writers is highly figurative. He admits too that such boldness of metaphor is peculiar to the Eastern, and particularly to the Hebrew idiom; (p. 85) and that it is not so consentaneous to our language. (p. 99) Why, then, will orthodox writers use it without explanation, when it serves to mislead readers and hearers who are not aware of this character of the Eastern languages; and lead them into so great an error? And if orthodox writers, instead of explaining the metaphors, so that their true meaning may be understood, for the purpose of strong impression," use them as if they were to be understood literally; and not only so, but further sanction that interpretation by the use of other similar language of the same literal import: especially if they charge Unitarians with denying or explaining away the doctrine for the very reason, that they explain the language in question as figurative; can he be surprized that the Orthodox should be supposed to hold the opinions, which the language literally

expresses? 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 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. ner then is free; exempt alike from obligation, and from danger of punishment. The debt is paid; justice is satis

The sin