man to pay him in their stead. Would not the debtors see greater mercy, and feel a weightier obligation, if they were to receive a free, gratuitous release?" Now it is true that the advocates of atonement have often spoken of Christ as having "bought us, or redeemed us from destruction, by the price of his own blood." And in doing so, they have followed the example of the Scriptures; which represent us as God's debtors, Matt. vi. 12; as "bought with a price," 1 Cor. vi. 20; as "redeemed with the blood of Christ," 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. It is also true that some Orthodox writers, especially those who have maintained what is called a limited atonement, have, in the view of their brethren, who entertained a different opinion as to the extent of the atonement, insisted too much upon this representation. But no writer, generally received as an authority among the Orthodox, has asserted that the atonement of Christ is to be regarded merely as the payment of a debt, and as removing no other obstacle to the pardon of sinners but one existing on the part of God. Francis Turrettin, arguing the necessity of an atonement, says that "sin, for which satisfaction is required, is to be regarded, not only as a debt, by which we are bound to divine justice for its payment, but also as a crime, for which we are under sentence of eternal death before God, the supreme Governor and Judge of the world. Wherefore sinners are not only called debtors, Matt. vi. 12, but also guilty before God, or condemned by his law, Rom. iii. 19. Hence, to effect our redemption, it was necessary that the debt of sin should be paid, and our guilt expiated," i. e. according to his use of the term guilt, the demand of the law upon us satisfied.* "Some of the peculiar principles of the Antinomians," says Dr. Bellamy, seem to take their rise from wrong notions of the nature of satisfaction for sin." "They seem to consider God merely under the notion of a creditor, and us merely under the notion of debtors." But "nothing is more evident than that God is, in scripture, considered as the righteous Governor of the world, and we as criminals guilty before him; and the evident design of Christ's death was, to be a propitiation for sin; to declare and manifest God's righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."+ "The atonement of Christ," Andrew Fuller remarks, "proceeds, not on the principle of commercial, but of moral justice, or justice as it relates to crime. Its grand object is to express the divine displeasure against sin, and so to render the exercise of mercy, in all the ways wherein sovereign wisdom should determine to apply it, consistent with righteousness." And Dr. Woods has stated, that, "when Christ is said to pay our debt, it is signified, simply, that, by means of his sufferings, he delivers us from punishment. This similitude does not relate particularly to the mode of deliverance, nor to the nature of the evil which is escaped, nor to the nature of the good secured, but merely to the fact of his procuring deliverance by means of his death." Once more, Trinitarianism is represented, in this discourse, as teaching that, in the crucifixion of Christ, the divinity suffered and died. "Its leading Ib. vol. i. p. 89. *Theol. Elenct. Loc. 14. Quest. 10, sect. 6. feature," says the author, p. 17, "is the doctrine of the Infinite Divinity dying on a cross." Page 45, he represents the Orthodox as maintaining that "the angels need an executed God to confirm their loyalty." And, lest it should be supposed that, in employing "the language of earnest discussion," he had, in the passages just quoted, used expressions which might seem to convey more than was intended, he adds, p. 46, "Let none say that we misrepresent the doctrine of atonement, the primary and essential idea of which is the public EXECUTION OF A GOD, for the purpose of satisfying justice and awakening a shuddering dread of sin." Here is an example of boldness of assertion never before equalled, so far as we now recollect, even by Unitarians. The Orthodox have in former instances been censured for maintaining that "an infinite being suffered for sin," inasmuch as they maintain that the humanity of Christ, by which the sufferings which made atonement were endured, subsisted in intimate personal union with the divinity, in consequence of which those sufferings have, in their view, an unlimited value. But never before, as far as we know, has any one ventured to represent Trinitarians as believing in the sufferings of the divinity, the execution of a God. And the reason probably has been, that all preceding impugners of Orthodoxy have felt that it would be hazarding too much to make such a representation. For scarcely ever was there an Orthodox sermon preached, or treatise written, in which the reasons of the incarnation of Christ were assigned, which did not state as the most prominent one, that he might suffer and die in our stead. And whenever it has been thought important to show that he could not suffer in our stead without becoming incarnate, it has been invariably asserted, that the divine nature is incapable of suffering. "Why," ask the Westminster divines, "was it necessary that the Mediator should be man?" And they reply," That he might perform obedience to the law, suffer, &c."* "As it would have been impossible," says Calvin, in his chapter on "the necessity of Christ becoming man in order to fulfil the office of Mediator," "As it would have been impossible for one who was only God to suffer death, or for one who was a mere man to overcome it, he associated the human nature with the divine, that he might submit the weakness of the former to death as an atonement for sins, and that, with the power of the latter, he might contend with death, and obtain a victory on our behalf." Francis Turrettin argues, "It was necessary that our Mediator should be man, as well as God, that, by dying, he might acquire salvation for us; for the divinity could not die." "If Christ," says President Edwards, "had remained only in the divine nature, he would not have been in a capacity to have purchased our salvation; not from any imperfection of the divine nature, but by reason of its absolute and infinite perfection; for Christ, merely as God, was not capable of that obedience or suffering that was needful. The divine nature is not capable of suffering, for it is infinitely above all suffering,"s Such are the statements, in this discourse, of some of the more prominent doctrines of Orthodoxy; and such is a portion of the evidence of the incorrectness *Larger Catechism, Q. 39. Instit. b. ii. cap. xii. sect. 3. Theol. Elenct. Loc. 13, Quest. 3, sect. 19. of these statements, Our apology for occupying so large a portion of this review with quotations from Trinitarian writers of authority is twofold. So serious a charge as that contained in this head of remark, ought never, we think, to be made, without being sustained by the most express proof. We also knew that statements similar to those we have quoted from the discourse, (with the single exception of the last of them,) are frequently made by Unitarians, from the press, and from the pulpit; and we considered it a duty to improve the present opportunity of informing those of our readers, who have been in the habit of hearing and perusing such statements without a knowledge of their incorrectness, what are the opinions of the Orthodox on the subjects referred to. And now what shall be said of these numerous and palpable misrepresentations? Were they beyond a doubt, the result of intention on the part of their author, we should be at no loss for an answer to the question. To bring upon individuals or classes of men the public odium, by imputations known to be unfounded, is a most aggravated offence against society, and against heaven. But what means can be employed, having a more direct and certain tendency to bring upon persons public odium, than to impute to them religious tenets, calculated to excite, and found, by experiment, never failing to excite execration and contempt? What then is the extent of criminality in the professed minister of the Gospel, who has reason to believe that hundreds, perhaps thousands, will receive his statements with implicit confidence, and suffers himself, publicly, to impute such |