which assert in direct terms, that Christ offered himself a sacrifice for sin; that he died for us, redeemed us by his blood, &c. I go then to other passages of the inspired writers, particularly those, in which they freely express their feelings with respect to Christ, their gratitude for his kindness, their estimation of the work he performed, their reliance on his death, and their ascriptions of glory to him as a Redeemer. From such passages I learn what were the habitual feelings of the writers. I then ask, whether this expression of feeling on the part of prophets and apostles agrees best with the views of the Orthodox, or of Unitarians, respecting the other passages? Does it agree best with the notion, that the influence of Christ's death was like the influence of Paul's death? or with the Orthodox doctrine, that Christ's death was vicarious, and had an influence essentially different from that of any other?

My fifth objection, and the last I shall now state, arises from a comparative view of the moral influence produced by the two systems. Dr. Ware ascribes a certain influence to the death of Christ. But the death of Christ as we understand it, has that same influence, and has it in a still higher degree, than according to his scheme; and besides this, answers other important ends, to which, according to his scheme, it has no relation. Dr. Ware says, Christ's sufferings "are instrumental in delivering us from the dominion of sin ;"-"they are the means of bringing us to repentance ;"-" they operate to bring us to that state of holiness, which has the promise of forgiveness, and qualifies us for it." My position is, first, that Christ's sufferings and death, as the Orthodox regard them, have the same influence. According to the scheme of Unitarians, Christ's sufferings and death confirm his doctrines and promises, and give a persuasive efficacy to his

example. They do the same according to our views. And Orthodox writers have described this influence abundantly, and with great force.

But my position goes farther. The sufferings of Christ, according to our scheme, have the same moral influence in a far higher degree. I mean, that the sufferings of Christ, as apprehended by the Orthodox, have a much more powerful influence to lead sinners to repentance, than as they are apprehended by Unitarians. What are the motives, which lead sinners to repentance? Certainly one of these is, the evil of sin, and the abhorrence with which God regards it. But these are made to appear much greater according to our scheme of the atonement, than according to the other. The sufferings of Christ, as we view them, are a direct and unequalled display of the evil of sin, and the abhorrence with which God regards it. They are intended. primarily for this very purpose. And we believe they really answer this purpose in as high a degree as would have been answered, by God's inflicting upon sinners the whole penalty of the law. But as viewed by Unitarians, they are intended for no such purpose, and answer no such purpose. Now surely that scheme of the atonement which gives the highest view of the evil of sin, and the displeasure of God against it, must have the most powerful tendency to lead men to repentance. This is too plain to need any illustration. I might say the same in regard to the penalty of the law, or the punishment which sin deserves, as set forth by the death of Christ. To those who receive the Orthodox doctrine, the death of Christ shows the dreadfulness of that punishment, in the most striking light possible. But to Unitarians it does not show it at all. Again; to those who receive the Orthodox doctrine, the death of Christ

exhibits a far higher degree of divine love and mercy, than to Unitarians. These acknowledge indeed, that the death of Christ showed divine love by giving confirmation to his doctrines, authority to his precepts, and a persuasive influence to his example. But according to our views of the subject, the divine love was much more gloriously displayed. For there was, as we apprehend, a mighty obstacle in the way of forgiveness, which no penitence, obedience, or suffering of sinners could ever remove. But God, "for the great love wherewith he loved us," removed that obstacle by providing a vicarious sacrifice, or by sending his son to die for us. At such a vast expense, the love of God purchased our forgiveness. This divine love, so often celebrated in the Scriptures, is a grand motive to repentance. While it shows sinners their inexcusable wickedness, it forbids their despair, encourages their hopes and their efforts, melts their hearts with pious grief, and attracts them to obedience. In such ways as these, which I can only hint at, it becomes perfectly obvious, that our doctrine invests the sufferings of Christ with a power to lead sinners to repentance, greatly superior to any which can be derived from the doctrine of Unitarians. Thus the death of Christ, according to our doctrine, has the same kind of moral influence, which it has according to Dr. Ware's scheme, and has it in a far superior degree; besides all the other and higher ends which it answers, in relation to the perfections and government of God, and the interests of his universal empire. This then is my objection, that even in regard to that influence, which Dr. Ware considers as the only thing of any consequence in Christ's Death, his scheme is much inferior to the Orthodox. It takes away half the power of the cross to bring men to repentance.

After this general view, I shall think it wholly unnecessary to remark on all the particular passages in Dr. Ware's fifth Letter, which seem to me erroneous. I shall merely glance at a few of the principal.

upon

I have been not a little surprised at Dr. Ware's saying, that I have not explained the figurative language, commonly used respecting the work of Christ. But I have been most of all surprised, that he should charge me with mixing the literal with the metaphorical sense, especially in the following case. He says, " When by a price paid by some friend, a captive is restored to liberty, or the punishment of a criminal is remitted; there is redemption in the original and literal sense of the word. In the same manner, 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 transgressors; that is a literal redemption, and that, and the other correspondent terms, such as bought and ransomed, are applied in the literal sense," p. 89. But can this be correct? The restoration of a captive by the payment of a pecuniary price, is indeed redemption in the literal sense. But the procuring of a sinner's spiritual deliverance and restoration by an expedient of a moral nature is redemption in a metaphorical sense. To make the sense of the word metaphorical, it is not necessary surely, that the spiritual restoration should be procured without any means whatever, nor without means which are equivalent, in a moral view, to the execution of the penalty of the law. Nor is it necessary that the means used should have a less intimate connexion with the spiritual deliverance procured, than the payment of money has with the deliverance of a captive from temporal bondage. It is sufficient to make a perfect metaphor, if

says,

But

a transaction of a moral nature is represented under the similitude of a pecuniary or civil transaction. Christ redeemed sinners, by paying a price equivalent, in a moral view, to their punishment. Here is no mixture of a literal with a metaphorical sense. The redemption spoken of is of a moral nature; and the price paid is of a moral nature; and so the words redemption, price, pay, are all used in a metaphorical sense. I said in my Letters; "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." On this Dr. Ware "the payment is as literal in the one case as in the other." how so? The deliverance of sinners from punishment by the death of Christ is represented under the similitude of a debtor's deliverance from prison by the payment of his debt. It is this representation of the moral transaction in language derived from a common transaction in civil life, which constitutes the metaphor. Just so the representation of God's pouring out his Spirit, or raining down righteousness, is a metaphor taken from the pouring out of rain upon the earth. The metaphor in both cases is perfect.-If in the case above referred to, Dr. Ware had said, the payment in one case is an important reality, as well as in the other, he would have said the exact truth. All the doctrines of religion are often expressed in metaphorical language. And this language is so far from rendering their meaning obscure and doubtful, that it gives them, and is designed to give them, greater clearness and force.

My respected opponent expresses a serious objection to our using the metaphorical language which the Scriptures use, and other similar language, on the subject of redemption, because it has been the occasion of mistake.