Horatio G. Stafford wrote lyrics for the hymn that has the chorus, "It is well, it is well with my soul". It may be more quickly recognised by that chorus than its title, "It Is Well".
Verse 3 starts off well, and ends well, but there's a bit in the middle that disturbs me (put in bold) as this seems to show a muddling up of two different theological points about what happened at the cross. Here is all of verse 3:
My sin, O the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but in whole,
Is nailed to His cross, and I bear it no more:
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
But does not Colossians 2:14 state that it was the handwriting of ordinances which were contrary to us that was nailed to the cross, removing them - "in whole"?
Yes, 1 Peter 2:24 says that Christ, on the tree, bore in his own body our sins. However, the handwritten commands were perfect, not sinful, yet the time came for them to be removed. This seems to have happened alongside Christ bearing our sins in his body on the tree. That which was not perfect (our sins) was borne by Christ in his body, while the perfect law of God was nailed to the cross, to be removed.
Does this not conflate those two truths, by fusing bits of both together, so that both truths are corrupted? Our sins are ours, personally. The law of God is perfect and is his. Is it not critically important for the sake of biblical theology to know how both those things were dealt with - one nailed to the cross, the other borne in Christ's body?
(Note: this related question deals with Colossians 2:14 and may be helpful in clarifying the doctrine of that scripture, but it does not deal with the hymn in question and the other scripture it incorporates. Whose hand wrote 'the document that listed my transgressions' ? (Colossians 2:14) )