There appears to me great accuracy in the scriptural language on this subject. What our Saviour underwent is almost always expressed by the term _suffering_. Once it is called a _chastisement_: yet there he is not said to have been chastised; but “the chastisement of our peace was _upon him_.” This is the same as saying he bore _our_ punishment. He was made a curse for us: that is, having been reckoned, or accounted the sinner, as though he had actually been so, he was treated accordingly, as one that had deserved to be an outcast from heaven and earth. I believe the wrath of God that was due to us was poured upon him, but I do not believe that God for one moment was angry or displeased _with him_, or that he smote him from any such displeasure. There is a passage in Calvin’s _Institutes_, which so fully expresses my mind, that I hope you will excuse me if I read it. You will find it in Bk. ii. chap. xvi. § 10, 11. “It behoved him that he should, as it were, hand to hand, wrestle with the armies of hell, and the horror of eternal death. The chastisement of our peace was _laid upon him_. He was smitten of his Father for our crimes, and bruised for our iniquities: whereby is meant that he was put in the stead of the wicked, as surety and pledge, yea, and as the very guilty person himself, to sustain and bear away all the punishments that should have been laid upon them, save only that he could not be holden of death. Yet do we not mean that God was at any time either his enemy, or angry with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Son, upon whom his mind rested? Or how could Christ by his intercession appease his Father’s wrath towards others, if, full of hatred, he had been incensed against himself? But this is our meaning—that he sustained the weight of the divine displeasure; inasmuch as he, being stricken and tormented by the hand of God, DID FEEL ALL THE TOKENS OF GOD WHEN HE IS ANGRY AND PUNISHETH.” _Peter._ The words of scripture are very express—He hath _made him to be sin for us_—He was _made a curse for us_.—You may, by diluting and qualifying interpretations, soften what you consider as intolerable _harshness_. In other words, you may choose to correct the language and sentiments of inspiration, and teach the apostle to speak of his Lord with more decorum, lest his personal purity should be impeached, and lest the odium of the cross, annexed by divine law, remain attached to his death: but if you abide by the obvious meaning of the passages, you must hold with _a commutation of persons_, the _imputation_ of sin and of righteousness, and a _vicarious punishment_, equally pregnant with _execration_ as with _death_. _John._ I wish brother Peter would forbear the use of language which tends not to convince, but to irritate.