ures which this opinion represents the Divine Being to have taken was the display of his justice, and of his abhorrence of sin, to the subjects of his government.

Is it not surprising, then, that, in all the books of scripture, we no where find the principle on which the doctrine of atonement is founded. For though the sacred writers often speak of the malignant nature of sin, they never go a single step farther, and assert, that "it is of so heinous a nature, that God cannot pardon it without an adequate sat"isfaction being made to his justice, and the honor of his "laws and government." Nay, the contrary sentiment occurs every where, viz: that repentance and a good life are, of themselves, sufficient to recommend us to the divine favor. Notwithstanding so many notorious sinners, particu-lar persons, and whole nations, are addressed by inspired persons, and their conduct strongly remonstrated against in the course of the sacred history, none of them are ever directed to any thing farther than their own hearts and lives. "Return unto me, and I will return unto you," is the substance of all they say upon these occasions.

Certainly, then, we ought to suspend our assent to a doctrine of this important nature, which no person can pretend to deduce except by way of inference from particular expressions, which have much the air of figure and allusion. On the other hand, it seems natural to explain a few obscure expressions and passages, by other numerous, plain and striking texts, relating to the same subject; and these uniformly represent God as our universal parent, pardoning sinners freely, that is, from his natural goodness and mercy, whenever they truly repent and reform their lives.

All the declarations of divine mercy are made without reserve or limitation to the truly penitent, through all the books of scripture, without the most distant hint of any regard being had to the sufferings or merit of any being whatever. It is needless to quote many examples of this. One only, and that almost the first that occurs, may suffice. It is the declaration that God made of his character to Moses, presently after the Israelites had sinned in making the golden calf. Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7, "And the Lord passed by before "him, and proclaimed the Lord, the Lord God, merciful "and gracious, long suffering, abundant in goodness and "truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, "transgression, and sin." In the New Testament, also,, we

are said to be justified freely by the grace of God.-Rom. iii. 24. Tit. iii. 7. Now, certainly, if the favor had been procured by the suffering of another person, it could not have been said to be bestowed freely.

Agreeably to this, David, and other pious persons in the Old Testament, in their penitential addresses to the Divine Being, never plead any thing more than their own repentance, and the free mercy of God. Thus David, Ps. xxv. 6,7-" Remember, O Lord, thy tender mercies, and thy loving kindness, for they have been ever of old. Remember "not the sins of my youth nor my transgressions; accord"ing to thy mercy remember thou me, for thy goodness "sake, O Lord."

If the doctrine of atonement be true, it cannot, however, be pretended that David, or any other pious person in the Old Testament, was at all acquainted with it; and therefore the belief of it cannot be necessary to salvation, or indeed of much consequence. Had this doctrine on which so much stress is now laid, been true, we should have expected that Job, David, Hezekiah, Nehemiah, and Daniel, should have been reproved whenever they presumed to mention their integrity before God, and took refuge in his mercy only, without interposing the sufferings or merits of the Messiah to mediate for them. Also, some strong clauses should have been annexed to the absolute and unlimited declarations of the divine mercy that are so frequent in the Old Testament, which would have restrained and fixed their meaning, in order to prevent the dangerous constructions to which they are now too much open.

Indeed, admitting the popular doctrine of atonement, the whole of the Old Testament is, throughout, a most unaccountable book, and the religion it exhibits is defective in the most essential article. Also, the Jews, in our Savior's time, had certainly no idea of this doctrine. If they had, they would have expected a suffering and not a triumphant Messiah.

With respect to forgiveness of injuries, the Divine Being, always proposes his own conduct to our imitation; and in the Lord's prayer we are required "to forgive others, as we hope to be forgiven ourselves." Now it is certainly requir ed of us, that if our brother only repent, we shall forgive him, even though he should repeat his offence seven times a day.-Luke xvii. 4. On the same generous maxim,

therefore, we cannot but conclude that the Divine Being acts towards us.

The parables, by which our Lord represents the forgiving mercy of God, are the farthest possible from being calculated to give us an idea of his requiring any thing more than merely repentance on the part of the offender. What else can we infer from the parable of the prodigal son, or the master whose servant owed him a thousand talents, &c.

If our Lord had considered the Jews as having lost sight of the fundamental principle of their religion, he would certainly have pointed it out to them, and have drawn their attention to it. If, therefore, the proper end of his coming into the world had been to make satisfaction to the justice of God by his death (which certainly they who did not expect a suffering Messiah could have no idea of) he would have taken some opportunity of explaining it to them. But nothing of this kind occurs in the whole course of his preaching; and though he frequently speaks of his death, it is never as having had such an end.

Our Lord speaks of repentance, of good works, and of the mercy of God in the very same strain with that of Moses and the prophets, and without giving any intimation that their doctrine was defective on those heads. In his account of the proceedings of the day of judgment, the righteous are represented as thinking humbly of themselves, but they never refer themselves to the sufferings or merit of their judge, as the ground of their hopes; though nothing can be conceived to have been more natural, and pertinent on the occasion.

Whenever our Lord speaks of the object of his mission, and death, as he often does, it is either in a more general way, as for the salvation of the world, to do the will of God, to fulfil the scripture prophecies, &c. or more particularly to give the fullest proof of his mission by his resurrection from the dead, and an assurance of a similar resurrection of all his followers. He also compares his being raised upon the cross to the elevation of the serpent in the wilderness, and to seed buried in the ground, as necessary to its future increase. But all these representations are quite foreign to any thing in the doctrine of atonement.

When our Lord takes so much pains to reconcile the apostles to his death, in several discourses, of which we have a particular account in the gospel of John, he never tells them

that he must die in order to procure the pardon of their sins; nor do we find the least hint of it in his solemn intercessory prayer before his death. On the contrary, he speaks of their sufferings and death in the same light as his own. To James and John he says, ye shall, indeed, be baptized with my baptism, and drink of the cup which I drink of.-Mark x. 39. And he recommends his own example to them, in laying down his life for them.-John XV. 12.

After he is risen from the dead, he keeps the same profound silence on the subject of the supposed true and only great cause of his death; and as little do we find of it in the history of the book of Acts, after the minds of the apostles were fully illuminated with the knowledge of the gospel. They only "call upon all men every where to "repent and believe the gospel, for the remission of their

"sins."

The apostle Peter, in his discourse to the Jews, immediately after the descent of the Holy Spirit, and again in the temple, upon the cure of the impotent man, paints in the blackest colors the sin of the Jews in crucifying our Lord; but though he exhorts them to repentance, he says not one word of satisfaction, expiation, or atonement, to allay any apprehension they might have of the divine justice. And a fairer opportunity he could not have wished to introduce the subject. How fine a turn might he have then given to the popular cry of the same nation, at the time of our Lord's crucifixion, His blood be on us and on our children. Instead of this, he only exhorts them to repent, and to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, for the remission of their sins. What he says concerning the death of Christ, is, only that he was delivered to them by the determinate council and foreknowledge of God, and that with wicked hands they put him to death.-Acts, ii. 23-iii. 17.

Stephen, in his long speech at his trial, makes frequent mention of the death of Christ, but he says not one word of his being a propitiation for sin, to lead his hearers to consider it in that light.

What could have been a fairer opportunity for introducing the doctrine of satisfaction for sin by the death of Christ, than the Evangelist Philip had, when he was explaining to the eunuch the only prophecy in the Old Testament which can be construed to represent it in that light; and

yet in the whole story, which is not a very concise one, there is no mention of it. And when the eunuch declares his faith, which gave him a right to christian baptism, it is simply this, that "Jesus is the Son of God."

The apostle Peter, preaching to Cornelius, the first of the proper Gentile converts, is still silent about this fundamental article of the christian faith. Much he says of Jesus Christ, that God anointed him with the Holy Spirit, and with power, that he went about doing good, &c. He also speaks of his death and resurrection, but nothing at all of our good works being accepted through his sufferings or merit. On the contrary, what he says upon the occasion, may, without any forced construction, be turned against this favorite opinion. Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but that, in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him.Acts x. 34, 35.

The apostle Paul, before the Jews at Antioch, Acts xiii. 28, at Thessalonica, ch. xvii. before Agrippa, ch. xxvi. and at Rome, ch. xxviii. on all these occasions, treats, and sometimes pretty largely, concerning the death of Christ; but never with any other view than as an event that was foretold by the prophets. He shows the Jews the aggravation of their sins, and exhorts them to repentance and to faith in Christ, but nothing farther. In his preaching to hea thens at Lystra, Acts xiv. and at Athens, ch. xvii. he discourses concerning the supremacy and goodness of the one living and true God; and exhorts them to turn from their lying vanities, for that though" at the times of their former "ignorance God had winked, he now commands all men every where to repent; because he has appointed a day "wherein he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he has ordained, whereof he hath given as surance unto all men in that he hath raised him from the "dead." Now in all this, there is not one word of the true gospel scheme of salvation by Jesus Christ according to some. There is nothing evangelical; all is legal and carnal.

When we find the apostles to be absolutely silent, where we cannot but think there was the greatest occasion to open themselves freely concerning the doctrine of atonement; when, in their most serious discourses they make use of language that really sets it aside; when they never once