revelation, that I shall not detain you with any quotations. That it is inconsistent with equity must, indeed, appear equally evident; but as it is a favourite theme with many, I must trouble with a few brief observations, to set this point in a clear light.

you

If penal justice must be satisfied, it can only be by the punishment of the offender. It can never be satisfied by one person's dying for another. That would be the height of injustice, if required by the legislator; and, if he should accept of the voluntary death of the innocent, this would be more inconsistent with equity, than simply to pardon the guilty, without any compensation at all: for, in this case, justice would be violated in two ways; first, by remitting the punishment of the guilty; and next, by inflicting it on the innocent. If we esteem a gratuitous pardon to be incompatible with justice, we exclude mercy from the Divine administration altogether; and how contrary this is to the character of God, and the providence of God, as well as to the very essence of the Gospel, you need not be told. But since the Gospel never speaks of Christ's satisfying the Divine justice, it is evident, there is no necessity for it; and that our redemption may be effected by wisdom, clemency, and free grace. If it be argued from the Divine holiness and justice, that God must punish the innocent for the guilty: it may be argued from

his goodness and mercy, that he must forgive the guilty, and cannot punish at all.

Neither was this gracious and merciful disposition the effect and consequence of the sufferings of Christ for it was often declared before his death, and even under the Mosaical dispensation. "We now love God, because he first loved us." It is never said in Scripture, that Christ made God merciful; nor appeased his anger; nor reconciled him to us; nor died to vindicate his justice; nor to pay an equivalent or compensation for our sins, nor to expiate them. These are all inferences drawn from obscure phrases, or extorted from the plainest texts. If the popular doctrine were true, this perversion of Scripture would be unnecessary: for it would be the most important part of the revelation; and of course explained as distinctly, enlarged upon as copiously, and repeated as frequently, as faith, repentance and good works.

But grant, that Christ died to expiate the sins of the world, how can the death of one be an equivalent for pardoning the accumulated transgressions of millions, for a succession of ages? To obviate this objection, the advocates for satisfaction are driven to a greater excess of extravagance. They say, it is true, that the offences of mankind were infinite in number and degree;. and, therefore, it was necessary, that the satisfaction should be infinite; and, accordingly, a

being of infinite merit and excellence was sacrificed, in order to atone for them. But, in the first place, the sins of the world were not infinite: for as man is a finite and limited being, so every thing pertaining to him is finite and limited; his existence, and his powers of doing good or evil; his virtues and his vices. Neither, again, could the sufferings of Christ be infinite. Their duration was temporary; and many individuals may have been exposed to greater torments; whereas the pains of hell, for which they were to serve as an equivalent, are supposed to be eternal, and the sufferers innumerable. Besides, his human nature, which alone is said to have suffered, was not infinite.

But then, it is said, the Almighty, who was the Being offended, is infinite, and was entitled to infinite satisfaction. This is to say, that criminals should be punished in proportion to the dignity of the potentate, to whom they are subject, and not according to their own guilt. The infinity of God no more renders our sins infinite, than our obedience: if, therefore, every sin merits eternal punishment, every pious and charitable deed will be entitled to an everlasting reward. Both suppositions are equally extravagant. Guilt, is, no doubt, aggravated by the relation, in which we stand to the authority offended, as of a son to his father; but, on this principle, every offence against God would be

chargeable with infinite atrocity, and consequently all be equal, since there are no degrees in infinity. All would deserve equal punishment; and each of them would require the expiation and atonement of an infinite being. If, on the contrary, each sin be finite, the whole number must be finite, and consequently the atonement and satisfaction required. Lastly, to complete the climax of absurdity, the sufferer, in this case, is thought to be the same in essence and substance, co-essential and consubstantial with the Sovereign himself. If, then, Jesus and his Father be literally and identically one, he sacrificed himself to himself, and accepted of his own sufferings as an atonement to himself; while the real criminals were exempted from punishment, relieved from guilt, and rewarded with high privileges and blessings, without faith, repentance or reformation.

Add to this, that though the Son is a co-equal portion of the Godhead with the Father; and the Spirit with both; yet the Father is the only person satisfied. The Son and the Spirit remain unsatisfied; except the Son has made satisfaction to himself by his own sufferings. Here, then, we have the second person of the Trinity punished by the first: and the third, taking part with the second. What now becomes of their co-equality; or their union, in any sense of the word? But, hearken to the clear and authoritative language

of St. Paul: "There is one God, and one Mediator between God and man." "To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom we are all things, and we by him." "One Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God, and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."*

Another pretence for the popular doctrine of the atonement is, that sin is so hateful to God, as to excite his wrath in the highest degree; and that his vengeance cannot be appeased without the everlasting destruction of the sinners; but that he was prevailed upon by Christ, a portion of his own essence, to accept of his sufferings in their stead. This is an extraordinary accumulation of false doctrine and contradiction. It neither deserves to be refuted circumstantially, nor would my time admit of so protracted an argument. I shall, therefore, confine myself to a few observations.

Sin is, no doubt, hateful to God; but it is a strange exemplification of his hatred, to let the sinner go free, and substitute an innocent person in his room. His displeasure at sin, it seems, is best shewn by forgiving the sinner, without

* 1 Tim. ii. 5.-1 Cor. viii. 6.-Eph. iv. 2.