passage? Is it their intention to prove, by taking the words in their greatest rigour of signification, that Christ is not the True God, and that the sublime title belongs only to the Father? But this is diametrically opposite to their own declarations.

I know that our opponents labour to persuade us that the term God is not a proper name, but an appellative. For this purpose they have written whole Treatises; nor need we wonder at it. For if it be certain that the emphatical term is the proper name of the Supreme Being, they must be obliged to acknowledge Jesus as a truly Divine Person; because they allow that he is frequently called God, even in such passages as are not supposed to be figurative. They therefore will have it, that the sublime name is an appellative, and that it is frequently given to others besides the great Supreme. Without entering into this dispute, we shall reason with them on their own principles. If, then, the term God be an appellative, we may form the same judgment of it as of the name of king, which is given to Jehovah, by way of excellence, but is also attributed to others. Now I demand of our adversaries, supposing the words of the text were, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only True King, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent," whether they would not affirm that the expressions, "only true king," belong to the Father exclusively of the Son? or whether they would allow them to belong to both? They would, I am persuaded, understand the words thus: This is life eternal, to know thee the only true King; thee, Father, with him whom thou hast sent, even Jesus Christ.

Now, as the name of God, on their principles, is no less appellative than the term King, they ought, if they would act consistently, to understand the words of our Lord thus: This is life eternal, that they might know thee to be the

True God; thee, Father, with him whom thou hast sent, even Jesus Christ. The adjective, true, will furnish us with another argument. By the "True God," our opponents understand the Great God, by way of excellence, the Supreme Being. We allow, that the True God is the Great God; and that the Great God is the True God. But we maintain that the idea of True God, and that of Supreme Being, are two ideas which represent the same object in different lights. The former opposes the infinite object to all such as falsely bear the name God. The latter contrasts the same eternal and sovereign object with every other being in the universe; for all creatures are necessarily and infinitely inferior to him; so that though the very same adorable object is signified by these two Divine characters, yet, as they convey distinct ideas, they ought not to be confounded. This, however, our opponents constantly do, when they dispute against us from the text under consideration. It would not avail to say, the term true conveys the idea of excellence; as when it is said, "Constantine was a true emperor-Alexander was a true hero," meaning that the one had all the qualities which an emperor ought to have, and the other was a great hero. For although the adjective, true, is sometimes used to indicate the excellence of the subject intended, yet it more frequently signifies the reality of it. As when it is said, "Henry the Fourth was the true King of France when he fought against the League, after Henry the Third's death.” That is, he was then really King; he did not usurp the crown. So in the text before us, the expressions, “only True God," carrying in them a manifest allusion to the multitude of Pagan divinities who falsely bore the name of Gods; the epithet true, must signify the reality, rather than the excellence of Him to whom it is applied. But if so it is very easy to prove that the phrase, "only true God,"

should be referred to the Son as well as to the Father. But perhaps I may be told, that the word only, connected with true God, may give the title an excellence, so as to render it peculiar to the Father. By no means. For as the term only, determines that of true; so the term true, limits that of only. As the adjective true, is opposed to false; so the adverb only, is opposed to many. "Only True God," therefore, stands opposed to the multitude of false gods worshipped by the Heathens.

LETTER X.

TO THE REV. CHARLES LE BLANC.

DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT-ABSURDITY OF CONSIDERING JESUS ONLY AS MAN.

REV. SIR,

An unanswerable argument for the Divinity of Christ, as it appears to me, may be taken from the doctrine of atonement. Various parts of holy Scripture are full of it; and, indeed, without it the Bible would be one of the most strange and unaccountable books in the world. But, if Christ were no more than a man, this doctrine becomes impossible in the nature of the thing. I conclude, therefore, that our Blessed Saviour is possessed of a nature equal to this undertaking, or, in other words, that he is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.

This doctrine of satisfaction is the foundation of the Christian religion; that when man had sinned, and was utterly unable to make any satisfaction for his sin, God sent his own Son to take upon him our flesh, and, in the same nature that offended, to make full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, by his perfect obedience, and the sacrifice of himself upon the cross.

Some say, What need any satisfaction? Might not God forgive without it? It would show greater mercy. But these men consider not, that God is not only just, but he is justice itself, justice in the abstract, he is essential justice;

and justice, by its nature, must exact to the utmost farthing; else it were not justice. To remit is mercy, it is not justice. And the attributes of God must not fight and oppose each other they must all stand infinite and complete. You may say, then, How can God forgive at all? How can infinite mercy and justice stand together?

This question could never have been answered, if God himself had not showed it to us in the wonderful economy of our redemption: for here is his justice satisfied to the least iota, by the perfect obedience and passion of Christ, who is God, in the same human nature that offended. Here is infinite wisdom expressed in this means found out for our salvation; and infinite mercy in affording it to us. Thus all his attributes are satisfied, and filled up to the brim. They contradict not, but exalt each other. His mercy exalts and magnifies his justice; his justice exalts his mercy, and both his infinite wisdom. This is the sum and substance, the Alpha and Omega of the Christian religion. Whoever holds not this doctrine, join not with them, nor bid them God-speed. (Leslie to Gildon.)

The sum of what the Scripture reveals about this great truth, commonly called the Satisfaction of Christ, may be reduced to these heads:-1. That Adam, being made up

4

right, sinned against God, and all his posterity in him.(Gen. i. 27; iii. 11; Eccl. vii. 29; Rom. v. 12, 18, 19.) 2. That by this sin of our first parents, all men are brought into a state of apostacy from, and enmity against, God.(Gen. vi. 5; Ps. li. 5; Rom. iii. 23; viii. 7; Ep. ii. 1; iv. 18; Col. ii. 13.) 3. That in this state all men continue in sin against God, and, of themselves, are not able to do otherwise." (Rom. iii. 10-12; vii. 15, 18, 19, 23. 4. That the justice and holiness of God, as the moral governor of the world, require the punishment of sin.-(Ex. xxxiv. 7; Jos. xxiv. 19; Ps. v. 4, 6; Hab. i. 13; Is. xxxiii. 14; Rom. i. 32; iii. 5, 6; 2 Thess. i. 6; Heb. xii. 29.) 5. That God hath also engaged his veracity and faithfulness not to leave sin unpunished. (Gen. ii. 17; Deut. xxvii. 26; Gal. iii. 10.) 6. That God, out of his infinite goodness, grace, and love to mankind, sent his only Son to save and deliver them out of this conditión.-(Matt. i. 21; John iii. 16, 17; Rom. v. 8; 1 John iv. 9, 10; 1 Thess. i. 10.) 7. The way in general whereby the Son of God, being incarnate, is to save lost sinners, was by a substitution of himself, in the room of those whom he was to save.-(2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 13; Rom. v. 7, 8; viii. 3; 1 Pet. ii. 24; iii. 18.)

This way of saving sinners is variously expressed in Scripture. 1. He offered himself a sacrifice for sin to God. -(Is. liii. 10; John i. 29; Ep. v. 2; Heb. ii. 17; ix. 11, 14.) 2. He redeemed us by paying a price, a ransom for us. (Mark x. 45; 1 Cor. vi. 20; 1 Tim. ii. 6; Tit. ii. 14; 1 Peter i. 11, 18.) 3. He bare our sins, or the punishment due to them.-(Is. liii. 5, 11; 1 Pet. ii. 24.) 4. He answered the law and the penalty of it.-(Rom. viii. 3; Gal. iii. 13; iv. 4, 5.) 5. He died for sin and sinners, to expiate the one, and instead of the other.-(Rom. iv. 25; v. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 3; 2 Cor. v. 14; 1 Thess. v. 9, 10.) 6. The effect hereof was: 1. That the righteousness of God