the debt of John, and he to whom it was due accepteth of the same
payment, conditionally if he pay it himself also.

This [6] propriation of a metaphor, namely, forgiveness of sin and
abolition of guilt through the redemptive power of Christ's love and of
his perfect obedience during his voluntary assumption of humanity,
expressed, on account of the sameness of the consequences in both cases,
by the payment of a debt for another, which debt the payer had not
himself incurred,--the propriation of this, I say, by transferring the
sameness from the consequents to the antecedents is the one point of
orthodoxy (so called, I mean) in which I still remain at issue. It seems
to me so evidently a [Greek: metabasis eis allo genos.] A metaphor is an
illustration of something less known by a more or less partial
identification of it with something better understood. Thus St. Paul
illustrates the consequences of the act of redemption by four different
metaphors drawn from things most familiar to those, for whom it was to
be illustrated, namely, sin-offerings or sacrificial expiation;
reconciliation; ransom from slavery; satisfaction of a just creditor by
vicarious payment of the debt. These all refer to the consequences of
redemption.

Now, St. John without any metaphor declares the mode by and in which it
is effected; for he identifies it with a fact, not with a consequence,
and a fact too not better understood in the one case than in the other,
namely, by generation and birth. There remains, therefore, only the
redemptive act itself, and this is transcendant, ineffable, and 'a
fortiori', therefore, inexplicable. Like the act of primal apostasy, it
is in its own nature a mystery, known only through faith in the spirit.

James owes John L100, which (to prevent James's being sent to prison)