The necessity of Atonement, and where satisfaction must be made.

I have, already, entered my proteft, against the necessity of atonement, on the principles upon which christians have generally believed it, by fhowing the fi nite nature of fin, and the error of fuppofing that the law of God required the endlefs misery of mankind, as a penal requi. fition.

Atonement fignifies reconciliation, or satisfaction, which is the fame. It is a being uneconciled to truth and justice, which needs reconciliation; and it is a dissatisfied being which needs satisfaction. Therefore, I raife my enquiry on the queftion, Is God the unreconciled or dissatisfied party or is it man?

For our affiftance on this quftion, let us turn our attention to God's dealings with Adam on the day of tranfgreffion, and the conduct of Adam, the tranfgreffor. Af. ter Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit, his eyes opened to the knowledge of good and evil, and he found himself naked, and endeavored to hide himfelf from God, which he certainly would not have done, had he confidered his Maker his friend. Sin produced two errors in the mind of Adam, which have been very incident to mankind ever fince; the firfl was, he be.

lieved God to be his enemy, in confequence of difobedience; and, fecondly, that he could reconcile his Maker, by works of his own. The first of these errors we discover, from Adam's endeavor. ing to hide from God; and the fecond is feen, in his endeavoring to clothe himself with the works of his own hands. It is plain, that a material change had taken place in Adam; but can we prove, that any alteration happened in God? It is very evident, that Adam was unreconciled to God; but it is equally evident, that God was not unreconciled to him. God's calling to Adam, in the cool of the day, and afking him where he was; clothing him with a garment of fkins, and promi ing that the feed of the woman fhould bruife the ferpent's head, are beautiful reprefentations of the parental love and fatherly care of the Creator. It ought to be observed, that God pronounced no curfe on Adam, but on the ferpent. If the Almighty had been unreconciled or dissatisfed with his creature man, in room of promifing him a final victory over the serpent, the curse would uadoubtedly have fallen on the object of his displeasure.

To fay, that God loved man any lefs, after tranfgreffion, than before, denies his uuchangeability; but, to fay, that man

was wanting in love to God, places him in his real character. As God was not the unreconciled party, no atonement was neceffary for his reconciliation. Where there is a diffatisfaction, it pre-supposes an injured party; and can it be hard to determine which was injured by sin, the Creator, or the sinner? If God was unre. conciled to man, the atonement was neceffary, to renew his love to his creature; but if man was the nnreconciled, the atonement was neceffary, to renew his love to his Creator. The matter is now flated fo plainly, that no perfon, who can read, can mistake.

I fhall now endeavor to prove, from fcripture, that the atonement by Chrift was the effect, and not the cause, of God's love to man. See St. John iii. 16," For God fo loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whofoever believeth on him might not perish, but have everlafting life." According to this paffage, nothing is more plain, in fcripture, than the idea, that what Chrift did for finners, was a confequence of God's love to them. Again, verfe 17, " For God fent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be faved." This paffage fays, that

God did not fend his Son into the world to condemn the world; but, according to

the general idea of atonement, Christ flood as the proxy of man, and the world was tried in him, and condemned in him, and in him fuffered the penalty of the law which man had tranfgreffed. It is alfo faid, in the text, that Chrift was fent, that the world through him might be faved; which, if true, goes to prove, that the Father's object, in Chrift's coming into the world, was the falvation of the finner, and not for the removing of any diffatisfaction in himfelf towards them. Again, fee Romans v. 8, "But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Chrift died for us." As the death of Christ is here spoken of as a commendation of God's love to us, it ought to be confidered as an effect and not the cause of that love. Again, 1 Epistle of John iv. 9, " In this, was manifefted the love of God towards us, because that God fent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." If Chrift's coming into the world, was a manifeftation of God's love to us, this love muft have existed before he came, and his coming was an effect produced by it. Verse

10," Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and fent his Son to be the propitiation for our fins." Verse 19,"We love him, because he first loved us."

1

From thofe paffages, & many more which might be quoted, to the fame effect, it is eafy to learn, that, what the Mediator did for finners, was the consequence, and not the cause of God's love to us. God being infinite in all his glorious attributes, he can by no means love, at one time, and hate the fame object, at another. His di vine omnifciency comprehended all the events of time and eternity; therefore, nothing could take place, to remove his love from an object on which it was placed. The Almighty had no occafion to diflike Adam, after tranfgreffion, any more than he had even before he made him; for, he knew as well then, that he would fin, as he did after it was actually done. The reafon that we mortals love an object, at one time, & diflike it, at another, is the weaknefs of our understandings; we have not always the fame view of the fame object. We may flight an object of great value, its excellencies being out of our fight; and we may fet our affections on one of no value, by erroneoufly attaching a value to it which it does not poffefs. But the Infinitely Wife is fubject to no mistakes; he comprehends the whole futurition of all moral beings, and loves them as his own offspring, with a love confiftent wit his immutable existence. Therefore, it is evident, that God was not the unreconciled,