The ideas, that fin is infinite, and that it deferves an infinite punishment; that the law tranfgreffed is infinite, and inflicts an infinite penalty; and that the great Jehovah took on himself a natural body of flesh and blood, and actually fuffered death on a cross, to fatisfy his infinite justice, and thereby fave his creatures from endless mifery, are ideas which appear to me to be unfounded in the nature of reason, and unfupported by divine revelation. Such notions have, in my opinion, ferved to darken the human understanding and obfcure the gospel of eternal life; and have rendered, what I efteem as divine revelation, a fubject of difcredit to thoufands, who, I believe, would never have condemned the fcriptures, had it not been for those grofs abfurdities being contended for, and the fcriptures forced to bend to fuch fignifications. Christian authors and preachers have labored much to diffuade thofe whom they have caufed to difbelieve the Chriftian religion, from their infidelity. But, in this cafe, the falt has loft its favor, become good for nothing, and is trodden under foot of men, who are too fenfible to believe the unreasonable dogmas impofed on the world, either through error, or defign, and fanctioned by tradition; and too inattentive to fearch the fcriptures faithfully and impartially, whereby they might have learned, that thofe errors were neither in them, nor fupported by them. One particular object, therefore, in this work, is, if poffible, to free the scripture doctrine of atonement from thofe incumbrances which have done it so much injury; and open a door, at least, for the fubject to be investigated on reasonable grounds, and by fair argument.

If we admit that our Creator made us reafonable beings, we ought, of courfe, to believe, that all the truth which is neceflary for our belief, is not only reasonable, but reducible to our understandings.

In order to come at the fubject of atonement, fo as to have light continually fhining along the path which I intend to occupy, I found it neceffary to fhow my reafons for not admitting the doctrine, on the ground on which it is ufually argued; to do which, I found I muft, of neceffity, fhow, that the common notion of the infinity of fin is unfounded in truth; and, of courfe, every confequence deducible from fuch an error, equally unfounded and unfupported. It may feem not a little strange, to fome of my readers, that I dispute the infinity of the law againft which fin is committed; as all unholiness must be, either in union, or difunion, with the eternal law of holiness, and divine purity. But, if the reader will take a little pains to obferve particularly, it will appear plain, that no being can stand amenable to a law above his capacity. And as the creature is finite, in his earthly character, in which character only, he is, or can be a finner, it is not reasonable to fay, that he stands amenable to an infinite law. But, as the reader will find, in this work, fo much of the divine law of perfection, as the creature obtains a knowledge of, (which, in comparison to the whole, is no more than a fhadow to a substance) is the law which he violates by his fin. And though we may speak of the fin of ignorance, it can amount to no more than the production of a virtuous intention thwarted by ignorance, or the same principle by which the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, and the fifh of the fea, gratify their various inclinations and appetites. And I do not think my reader will wish to have me prove that fuch fin is not infinite.

In my argument on the cause, or origin of fin, I thought it neceffary to hint a little on the general idea of the fubject, endeavoring to fhow the want of propriety in what is commonly contended for; and I have fought for the rife of unholy temptations in the conftitutions of earthly and finite be

ings. I have endeavored, also, to trace the causes and confequences of fin (as fin) fo as to determine the finite nature of all which belongs to fin as caufe and confequence. In any sense, in which it can be faid that God is the author of any thing whatever, in that fenfe of speaking, it cannot be fin. And in any fenfe, in which any action, or event, can be faid to be endlefs, in its confequences, God must be confidered the author of it.

may.

In all the ftatements which I have made of the doctrinal ideas of others, I have been careful to ftate no more than what I have read in authors, or heard contended for in preaching, or converfation; and if I have, in any instance, done those ideas any injuftice, it was not intended. The reafon why I have not quoted any author, or fpoken of any denomination, is, I have not felt it to be my duty, nor my inclination, to write against any name, or denomination, in the world; but my object has been, what I pray it may ever be, to contend against error, wherever I find it; and to receive truth, and fupport it, let it come from what quarter it For the fake of eafe, however, in writing, I reasoned with my opponent, oppofer, or objector, meaning no one in particular, but any one who uses the arguments, and states the objections, which I have endeavored to answer. It is very probable, that fome may think me too ironical, and, in many instances, too fevere, on what I call error. But I find it very difficult to expofe error, fo as to be understood by all, without carrying, in many inftances, my arguments in fuch a form as may not be agreeable to thofe who believe in what I wish to correc. I confess I should have been glad to have written, on all my inquiries, fo as not to have displeased any, but to have pleafed all, could I have done it, and accomplished my main defign; but this I was perfuaded would be difficult. I have, therefore, paid particular attention to nothing, but my main object; depending on the goodness of my read

er to pardon what may be difagreeable, in manner or form, as inadvertencies.

What I have written on the subject of the Trinity, is mainly to show the reader in what light I view the Mediator, that my general ideas of atonement may be the eafter understood. And though I think my objections and arguments, against the common idea of three diftinct perfons in the Godhead, who are equal in power and glory, to be unanswerable; yet, it was not my intention to attend to a full refutation of thofe ideas, as I think that has frequently been done, and well done.

The oppofers of universalism have generally written and contended against the doctrine, under an entire mistaken no→ tion of it. They have endeavored to fhow the abfurdity of believing that men could be received into the kingdom of glory and righteousness, in their fins; which no Univerfalift ever believed. In this work, I have endeavored to make as fair a statement, of what I call univerfalism, as I was able; and it ftands on fuch ground, that the propriety of it can no more be difputed, than the propriety of univerfal holiness and reconciliation to God. Perhaps the reader will fay, he has read a number of authors on the doctrine of univerfalism, and finds confiderable difference in their fyftems. That I acknowledge is true; but all agree in the main point, viz. that univerfal holiness and happiness is the great object of the gospel plan. And as for the different ways in which individuals may believe this work will be done, it proves nothing against the main point; but proves, what I wish could be proved concerning all other Chriftian denominations, that they have fet up no standard of their own, to caufe all to bow to, or be rejected as heretics. We feel our own imperfections; we wish for every one to feek with all his might after wifdom; and let it be found where it may, or by whom it may, we humbly with

to have it brought to light, that all may enjoy it; but do not feel authorized to condemn an honeft inquirer after truth, for what he believes different from a majority of us.

A few fentences, which the reader will find towards the clofe of this work, which have reference to a punishment after death, may cause him to defire more of my ideas on the fubject.

The doctrine of punishment after death, has, by many able writers, been contended for; fome of whom have argued fuch punishment to be endless, and others limited But it appears to me that they have taken wrong ground who have endeavored to fupport the latter, as well as those who have labored to prove the former. They have both put great dependance on certain figurative and parabolical expreffions, or paffages of fcripture, which they explain, fo as to cause them to allude to fuch an event. It appears to me, that they have not fufficiently attended to the nature of fin, fo as to learn its punishment to be produced from a law of neceffity, and not a law of penalty. Had they feen this, they would alfo have feen, that a perpetuity of punishment must be connected with an equal continuance of fin, on the fame principle that an effect is dependant on its cause. Who in the world would contend, that a man, who had finned one year, could expiate his guilt, by finning five more, with greater turpitude of heart? State the punishment, fay a thousand years, for a finner who dies in unbelief. What is it for?

Say for his incorrigibleness in this world. Well, does he commit fin during these thoufand years? Surely, or he could not be miferable. Then, I afk, if it takes a thousand years punishment in another world, to reward the finner for, fay fifty years of fin in this, how long muft he be punished, afterwards, for the fin he commits during the thousand years. ? The punishment, or fufferings, which we endure, in confe