hands of it's first author, it may sometimes become necessary to insist upon those things which few believe, or to oppose doctrines which are generally received. This service fidelity to the trust reposed in them, and a regard to the efficacy of religion, which depends upon it's purity, require from those who profess to teach it. And if it be necessary to plead any authority in a case, where their duty is so plain and obvious, they may mention the example of all reformers of religion in every period of time, and particularly that of the reformers from Popery, who, by continually exposing the errours of the church of Rome, brought them into disrepute. Nor can any other method be pointed out of delivering mankind from the errours, which protestants themselves have retained. To say of discourses on such subjects, that they are controversy, is by no means to declare them improper; for where doctrines embraced by fallible men, and evidently tending to weaken the obligations of morality, are declared to be essential to the nature of true religion, they de serve and ought to be controverted. Such I conceive to be the character of the doctrine, which I mean now to oppose, that of the atonement of Christ, and to the consideration of which I shall therefore proceed without further introduction.

It supposes, then, that there is an infinite evil in sin, and that nothing short of an infinite satisfaction could induce the divine Being to pardon it; that Christ, who was at the same time perfect God and

perfect man, offered this satisfaction by his obedience and death, discharging hereby, according to them, the debts of sinners, and making a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his father's justice. To make this atonement was, in their opinion, the great object for which Christ assumed flesh, appeared in the world, suffered, and died.

This doctrine is intimately connected with that of the Trinity; since no sufferings but those of a person, who is at the same time God and man, are supposed to have sufficient merit to make satisfaction to divine justice. Accordingly we find, that most persons, who have given up the divinity of Christ, have been ready to abandon that of his atonement also; yet as it is supposed to be clearly taught in Scripture, as great stress is laid upon it in the system of our opponents, and important consequences are derived from it, affecting our ideas of the moral government of God and our own moral character, it deserves to be thoroughly considered. The Catechism, drawn up by the assembly of divines at Westminster, declares, that the guilt of sin can be expiated only by the blood of Christ; and that justifying faith is that, whereby a sinner being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the Gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin and for the acceptance of

his person righteous before God: so that, according to this system of faith, not only is the atonement of Christ necessary to the salvation of every sinner, but the belief of and reliance upon that atonement; for without this reliance, or, as it is here called, resting upon the rightcousness of Christ, there can be no saving faith. A doctrine, which is thus deliberately, pronounced to be indispensably necessary to the eternal salvation of sinners, deserves to be carefully investigated by every one, lest, by taking up a false opinion, he should unhappily expose himself to ! irretrievable ruin. No one, however, need be alarmed at such declarations, if they be not founded in truth, any more than at the bold asseverations of the Papists against Protestants, who tell them that they will be eternally lost, because they do not believe their favourite doctrine of transubstantiation.

There are several modifications of the opinion we are about to consider, different from what has been just stated, to which the name of the doctrine of the atonement has been given by persons, who wish to avoid some of the objections to which it is liable, and to preserve a character for what is called orthodoxy, while they have no just claim to it; but that which I have mentioned is the genuine doctrine; for I have borrowed the language from the best standard of Calvinism in this country, the confession, of faith, the larger and less catechisms of the divines assembled at Westminster; and it is against this that my arguments will be directed. While I direct

my principal attention to that subject, I may perhaps take occasion to notice these explanations, and to show how far they deviate from the original idea, and from the language of Scripture.

In pursuance of the plan which I propose to myself, I shall consider, first, on what terms God is represented in Scripture as pardoning sinners; secondly, the design of the death of Christ; thirdly, how this design appears consistent with those various figures in which it is spoken of, and with the many virtues which are ascribed to it.

I am first, then, to consider on what terms God is represented in Scripture as pardoning sinners, Before I do this, I shall examine what the light of nature would teach us upon this subject, or what we should be able to collect from the appearance of things around us, respecting God's inclination to forgive sin.

Now the idea, which the contemplation of the works of nature leads us to form of their author, is that of a Being who is in the highest degree benevolent. We see happiness at present every where diffused among his creatures in an infinite variety of forms and degrees, and an evident tendency in the course of nature to produce a much larger portion of it to the human race. If there be some evil in the world, yet we generally see that it is productive of good, or that it prevents a much greater degree of evil, and therefore is upon the whole an advantage. From a view of the sufferings, then, as well

as of the enjoyments of mankind, we have reason tó conclude, that the design of the divine Being, in making and governing the world, was to render them happy. If such a Being were to inflict punishment upon any of his creatures, we may naturally suppose, that he would have the communication of good in view, that is, in this case, the reformation of the offender, so as to prevent him from injuring himself or others by a repetition of the offence. Now an offender who repents of his conduct, who is sorry for what he has done, and is sincerely resolved that he will not do it again, is surely not a proper object of punishment; for the end of it with respect to him is already answered; there is a disposition to alter his conduct and to do well in future, which is all that could be attained by the severest treatment. To inflict evil in this case would be to do it when it is not likely to answer any useful purpose, and is unnecessary, which can proceed from nothing but resentment and revenge, dispositions which we ought, by no means, to attribute to a perfect Being, such as we know God to be.

We see, indeed, what are deemed the wisest and best of human governments, inflicting punishments upon offenders against the laws, without regarding professions of repentance for the past, or promises of future amendment; but this is obviously because they cannot be certain, that these professions and promises are sincere. Could they be assured of future good conduct, it would be perfectly consistent