our sins, in the sense in which such phrases are used in the New Testament; nor whether there be any other name given among men whereby we can be saved; all these things are fully admitted; but the question is whether the doctrine of atonement, or satisfaction be true, as stated above: and it is apprehended that, however some, in the present day, may refine upon the notion of vicarious sufferings and obedience, such a doctrine must, on the whole, lead to the same conclusions as the foregoing extracts plainly

express.

It is presumed that the extracts from scripture, in the opposite columns, must convince the unbiassed enquirer after truth, that the notion of Christ's making satisfaction for the sins of men is contrary to the letter, as well as the spirit of divine revelation.The scriptures clearly teach that God is love; that he is merciful and gracious; that he is unchangeable; that he will not condemn and punish the guiltless; that Christ was always the object of his love and good pleasure; that he died a just and holy person; that God forgives sins freely, on the ground of his rich mercy, and bestows all blessings freely. Hence, it is presumed, that it is not affirming too much, to say, that the doctrine of satisfaction is refuted by the express language of scripture. Certain it is that such language as the advocates for that doctrine have ever held can be no where found in the sacred writings: and that the words of the sacred penmen must be strangely twisted to be brought into any seeming agreement with so strange an hypothesis.

CHAPTER SECOND.

The Doctrine of satisfaction refuted by argument.

REAL evidence must ever be on the side of truth. Error and falsehood may have seeming evidence. It is by subjecting both to the scrutiny of reason, that the reality of the former will be perceived, and the fallacy of the latter detected. While things remain unexamined, and men take for granted that those particular notions, which are termed orthodox, are certainly true and of the first importance, it is not to be wondered that they suppose such notions to be built on scripture, and supported by the most decisive proof; and that they think the opposite doctrines unscriptural and destitute of any real evidence. The reader is not required to relinquish what he has hitherto thought a doctrine of divine truth, or to receive as true what he has been taught to regard as a dangerous error, without the most serious and careful examination, nor on any ground but such evidence as carries full conviction to his mind; but he is requested to do justice to himself and the subject, by giving it a candid and impartial examination. Let the advice of an Apostle be regarded: Prove all things,' Truth cannot suffer by the closest scrutiny, it has nothing to fear from examination and exposure; its native excellence and convincing evidence will become the more

manifest. Our opponents should consider when they shrink from examination, by persuading others that it is dangerous to attend to the arguments we advance, that they are betraying the weakness of their own cause, and tacitly admitting that they dare not submit it to the ordeal of a rational investigation. Such a method may preserve men of weak and timid minds attached to the cause of reputed orthodoxy ; but firm and vigorous souls, inspired with the ardent love of truth, will become the more anxious to examine what is said by both parties. It is not uncommon for persons who espouse the doctrine I oppose, to cry out against our arguments as carnal reasoning, to give us credit for uncommon abilities, and to insinuate that it is dangerous for plain illiterate persons to put themselves in the way of, what they call, our sophisms. This we think ungenerous. We know not why our reasonings should be called carnal any more than theirs. They reason as well as we: and, whatever outcry may sometimes be made against reason, they certainly are glad of reason as an auxiliary so far as it is favorable to their cause. We suppose their reasonings are merely human, those of fallible creatures, as well as ours. We think no reasoning ought to be called carnal, dently flows from some sensual principle, or be prostituted to mere sensual purposes. Supposing we possessed the ability in arguing with which we have sometimes been complimented, it would not follow that we were the more likely to deceive others; unless it could be proved that superior ability involves

unless it evi

dishonesty. If we impose on others by substituting sophistry for sober argument we lie open to detection our opponents are numerous, and many of them men of parts and learning, let them detect our supposed sophisms, and disabuse the unlearned rea der; but it must be done by something more than merely raising an outcry against us. The arguments I am about to state, I trust, will be found perfectly adapted to the common reader.

I am aware that some sincere christians will feel shocked at the idea of arguments being constructed against a doctrine which they have ever held most sacred, and esteemed the ground of their hopė as sinners. It will not surprise me if such persons should load me with censures, and consider the present attempt as aimed at the foundation of the gospel. I would say to them 'strike, but hear.' I am willing to bear all their reproaches if they will but seriously examine the arguments.

1. Those who maintain the doctrine of satisfaction, contradict themselves, and one part of their system destroys the other; for they suppose that all the blessings of grace and salvation originated in the love of God to man; yet that God was become wrathful, and either would not or could not save sinners, and receive them to his favor, unless Christ first appeased his wrath by bearing the punishment due to them for their sins. Now, if God loved a guilty world so greatly as to give his Son to save them, if all the blessings of grace and salvation flow from his pure love to sinners, it must follow that he

was nor wrath with them, however much he might disapprove of their conduct; for love and wrath cannot subsist, at the same time, in the same mind. If sinners are saved, and restored to the divine favor, because Christ has appeased the wrath of God, satisfied his justice, reconciled him, made him wellwilling' towards his creatures, it follows that Christ is the cause rather than the effect of God's love, and that the blessings of grace and salvation flow from what Christ hath done rather than from the pure love of the Deity. One part of this contradictory system. must be false, nor need we be at a loss to tell which; for we read (John iii. 16.) that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son: and that all the blessings of the gospel flow from the great love wherewith he loved us even when we were dead in sins. Ephe. ii. 4, 5. Again, they profess the doctrine of free grace, that sinners are saved by the grace of God, and that the gospel is throughout a system of free grace; yet they represent salvation, and the divine favor, as coming to us by a kind of bargain between the Father and Son; that Christ gave God a consideration for them, that he bought and paid for our redemption, which places the subject before us in the light of a bargain, of sale, pur, chase, and delivery, rather than that of a system of free favor. They talk of Christ's having merited our salvation for us, and that we are saved on the ground of his mirits, and yet that we are saved by the free grace of God: which seems a flat contradiction; for what is merited, and bestowed on the ground of me