Jehovah took on himself a natural body of flesa and blood, and actually suffered death on a cross, to satisfy his infinite justice, and there by save his creatures from endless misery, are ideas which appear to me to be unfounded in the nature of reason, and unsupported by divine revelation. Such notions have, in my opinion, served to darken the human understanding and obscure the gospel of eternal life; and have rendered, what I esteem divine revelation, a subject of discredit to thousands, who, I believe, would never have condemned the scriptures, had it not been for those gross absurdities being contended for, and the scriptures forced to bend to such significations. Christian authors and preachers have labored much to dissuade those whom they have caused to disbelieve the Christian religion, from their infidelity. But, in this case, the salt has lost its savor, become good for nothing, and is trodden under foot of men, who are too sensible to believe the unreasonable dogmas imposed on the world, either through error, or design, and sanctioned by tradition and too inattentive to search the scriptures faithfully and impartially, whereby they might have learned, that those errors were neither in them, nor supported by them. One particular object, therefore, in this work, is, if possible, to free the scripture doctrine of atonement from those incumbrances which have done it so much injury; and open a door, at least, for the subject to be investigated on reasonable grounds, and by fair argument. If we admit that our Creator made us reasonable be. ings, we ought, of course, to believe, that all the truth which is necessary for our belief, is not only reasonable, but reducible to our understandings. In order to come at the subject of atonement, so as to have light continually shining along the path which I intend to occupy, I found it necessary to shew my reasons for not admitting the doctrine, on the ground on which it is usually argued; to do which, I found I must, of necessity, show, that the common notion of the infinity of sin is unfounded in truth; and, of course, every consequence deducible from such an error, equal It may seem not a ly unfounded and unsupported. In my argument on the cause, or origin of sin, I thought it necessary to hint a little on the general idea of the subject, endeavoring to show the want of propriety in what is commonly contended for; and I have sought for the rise of unholy temptations in the constitutions of earthly and finite beings. I have endeavored, also, to trace the causes and consequences of sin (as sin) so as to determine the finite nature of all which belongs to sin as cause and consequence. In any sense, in which it can be said that God is the author of any thing whatever, in that sense of speaking, it cannot be sin. And in any sense, in which any action, or event, can be said to be endless, in its consequences, God must be considered the author of it. In all the statements which I have made of the doctrinal ideas of others, I have been careful to state no more than what I have read in authors, or heard com 1 tended for in preaching, or conversation; and if I have, in any instance, done those ideas any injustice, it was not intended. The reason why I have not quoted any author, or spoken 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 support it, let it come from what quarter -it may. For the sake of ease, however, in writing, I reason with my opponent, opposer, 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 some may think me too ironical, and, in many instances, too severe, on what I call error. But I find it very difficult to expose error, so as to be understood by all, without carrying, in many instances, my arguments in such a form as may not be agreeable to those who believe in what I wish to correct. 1 confess I should have been glad to have written, on all my enquiries, so as not to have displeased any, but to have pleased all, could I have done it, & accomplished my main design; but this I was pursuaded would be difficult. I have, therefore, paid particular attention to nothing, but my main object; depending on the goodness of my reader to pardon what may be disagreeable, in manner or form, as inadvertancies. 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 easier understood. And though I think my objections and arguments, against the common idea of three distinct persons 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 those ideas, as I think that has frequently been done, and well done. The opposers of universalism have generally written and contended against the doctrine, under an entire mistaken notion of it. They have endeavored to show the absurdity of believing that men could be received into the kingdom of glory and righteousness, in their sins; which no Universalist ever believed. In this work, I have en deavored to make as fair a statement, of what I call universalism, as I was able; and it stands on such ground, that the propriety of it can no more be disputed, than the propriety of universal holiness and reconciliation to God. Perhaps the reader will say, he has read a number of authors on the docrine of universalism, and finds considerable difference in their systems. That I acknowledge is true; but all agree in the main point, viz. that universal 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 Christian denominations, that they have set up no standard of their own, to cause all to bow to, or be rejected as heretics. We feel our own imperfections; we wish for every one to seek with all his might after wisdom; and let it be found where it may, or by whom it may, we humbly wish to have it brought to light, that all may enjoy it; but do not feel authorized to condemn an honest enquirer after truth, for what he believes different from a majority of us. A few sentences, which the reader will find towards the close of this work, which have reference to a punishment after death, may cause him to desire more of my ideas on the subject. The doctrine of punishment after death, has, by many able writers, been contended for; some of whom have argued such punishment to be endless, and others limited. But it appears to me that they have taken wrong ground who have endeavored to support the latter, as well as those who have labored to prove the former. They have both put great dependence on certain figurative and parabolical expressions, or passa. ges of scripture, which they explain, so as to cause them to allude to such an event. It appears to me, that they have not sufficiently attended to the nature of sin, so as to learn its punishment to be produced from a law of necessity, and not a law of penalty. Had they seen this, they would have seen, that a perpetuity of punishment must be connected with an equal continuance of sin, on the same principle that an effect is dependant on its cause. Who in the world would contend, that a man, who had sinned one year, could expiate his guilt, by sinning five more, with greater turpitude of heart? State the punishment, say a thousand years, for a sinner who dies in unbelief. What is it for? Say for his incorrigbileness in this world. Well, does he commit sin during these thousand years? Surely, or he could not be miserable. Then, I ask, if it takes a thousand years punishment in another world, to reward a sinner for, say fifty years sin in this, how long must he be punished, afterwards, for the sin he commits during the thousand years? The punishment, or sufferings, which we endure, in consequence of sin, is not a dispensation of any penal law, but of the law of necessity, in which law, as long as cause continues, it produces its effects. Therefore, to prove a man will suffer condemnation for sin, at thirty, forty, or fifty years of age, it would be necessary to prove that he would be a sinner at that time, or those times. So, in order to prove that a man will be miserable, after this mortal life is ended, it must first be proved that he will sin in the next state of existence. It has been argued, by many, that the doctrine of future punishment, or misery, is a necessary doctrine te dissuade men from committing sin, which surely surprises me. To tell a person who is in love of sin, that if he does not immediately refrain, he will have to con'tinue in sin for a long time, would be true, besure; but would be void of force to dissuade him from what he is in love with. I believe, that as long as men sin, they will be miserable, be that time longer or shorter; and that as soon as they cease from sin, they begin to experience divine enjoyment. The scripture speaks of the times of the restitution, of all things, but does not inform us their number, or their |