tionally admit, as that would reduce the Almighty to a state of suffering. It is very evident, that the scriptures represent the Almighty in extremely different characters; and I confess I cannot reconcile them in any other way, than by the two covenants, or what is the same, flesh and spirit. Our ideas of God, while under the legal dispensation, walking in fleshly minds, are consonant to that oharacter which the scripture represents our Creator in, as wrathful, filled with indignation towards us for our sins, and every day angry. Those ideas which the mind entertains of the father of all mercies when enlightened by the spirit of the new man, and while walking in the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which maketh free from the law of sin, are altogether consonant to that endearing character given in scripture, of our Father who is in heaven, who causeth his sun to shine on the evil and on the good; and sendeth rain upon the just, and upon the unjust; who loved us while we were yet enemies, and sent his Son to die, in attestation of his love to his creatures; who is good unto all, and whose tender mercies are over all the works of his hands; who is of one mind, and changeth not. Says my opponent, if the Almighty govern all the affairs of mankind, according to his own appointment; if he were never disappointed; suf fers no violation of will; but does, in all things, and by all things, maintain and support his own eternal system of divine goodness, what room do we find, for the necessity of atonement, whereby peace is made by the blood of the cross? By this question, I come to my second general subject, viz. ATONEMENT FOR SIN. In my enquiries on this momentous subject, I shall, First, examine three doctrinal tenets on atonement; from which, I shall beg leave to dissent, and give my reasons therefor. Secondly, Show the necessity of atonement, and where satisfaction must be made. Thirdly, Inquire into the personage and character of the Mediator, who makes the atonement, and his ability to perform the work. Fourthly, Of atonement in its nature. Christian divines, in general, have agreed in supposing sin to be an infinite evil, being a violation of an infinite law, and, therefore, that the law required an infinite sacrifice; short of which no atonement could be made; that the transgression of Adam brought the whole human race into the same situation of sin and misery, and subjected them all to the infinite penalty of an infinite law, which they had violated in their parent, before they individually existed. After the above agreement, many different roads are taken; and divines of the greatest abilities, and of the first rank among the literati, have drained the last faculty of invention, in plodding through the dark regions of metaphysics, to bring up a Samuel to explain the solecism of satisfying an infinite dissatisfaction. The plan of redemption, as held by many, may be reduced to the following compendium. God, from all eternity, foreseeing that man would sin, provided a Mediator for a certain part of his posterity, who should suffer the penalty of the law for them, and that these elect ones, chosen by God from the rest of mankind, will alone be benefitted by the atonement; that, in order that the sacrifice might be adequate to the crime, for which, the sinner was condemned to everlasting, or endless suffering, God himself, assumed a body of flesh and blood, such as the delinquent was constituted in, and suffered the penalty of the law by death, and arose from the dead. By this process, the demand of the law was completely answered, and the debt due to Divine Justice, by the elect, was fully and amply paid. But that this atonement does not affect those who were not elected as objects of mercy, but that they are left, to suffer endlessly for what Adam did, before they were born. It is true, they are a little cautious about saying, that God himself absolutely died! But they say, that Christ, who was crucified, was really God himself, which must, in effect, amount to the same thing. And in fact, if the Infinite did not suffer death, the whole plan falls, for it is by an infinite sacrifice that they pretend to satisfy an infinite dissatisfaction. Why the above ideas should ever have been imbibed, by men of understanding and study, I can but scarcely satisfy myself; their absurdities are so glaring, that it seems next to impossible, that men of sobriety and sound judgment should ever imbibe them, or avoid seeing them. I have already sufficiently refuted the idea of an infinite sin, which opens to a plain path, in which the mind may run, and run clear of all those perplexities which have served to confuse, rather than enlighten mankind. If sin be not infinite, the dissatisfaction occasioned by sin is not infinite, therefore an infinite sacrifice is not required. But, for the sake of illustration, we will for a moment admit, that the doctrine of atonement stands on the ground over which we have just gone. I will state it as it is often stated by those who believe it, which is by the likeness of debt and credit. The sinner owed a debt to Divine Justice, which he was unable to discharge; the Divine Being cannot, consistently with his honor, dispense with the pay, but says, I must have what is my due; but as the debtor has not ability to pay the smallest fraction, Divine Wisdom lays a deep concerted mysterious plan for the debt to be discharged. And how was it? Why, for God to pay it himself! My neighbor owes me a hundred pounds; time of payment comes, and I make a demand for my dues. Says my neighbor, my misfortunes have been such, that I am not the possessor of the smallest fraction of property in the world; and as much as I owe you I am worse than nothing. I declare to him, positively, that I will not lose so much as a fraction of the interest, and leave him. A friend calls, and asks me how I succeeded in obtaining my dues of my neighbor; I reply, my neighbor is not, nor will he ever be able to pay me any part of my demand. My friend says, he is sorry that I should lose my debt. I answer, I shall not lose it. I have very fortunately, in my meditations on the subject, thought of a method, by which I can avail myself of the whole, to my full satisfaction; and I think it is a method which no person in the world, but myself, could ever have discov ered. My friend is curious, and impatient to know the mighty secret, never before found out. The reader may guess his confusion, on my telling him, that, as I have that sum already by me, I am now going to pay up the obligation, before the interest is any larger! This has been called the gospel plan, which contains the depths of infinite wisdom. I should be pleased to see, what I have never seen, professors following such example in obtaining what the poor widow, the fatherless, and the needy, owe them. But, says the advocate for the plan, a distinction ought to be made, between the persons in the Godhead. It was the second person in the Godhead, who paid this infinite debt, to the first; therefore, it is not altogether like a person paying his own demand. I say, in answer, if the first and second persons in the Godhead are not so essentially one as to make the debts due to one belong equally to the other, and payment also, they are not so essentially one, as to be represented by two distinct persons, related only by Adam, who are in co. in merchandise. But, for the sake of carrying the argument still further, I will admit this variety of persons in an infinite, indivisible being! And also the plan of atonement on the principle of the second person's paying the demand to the first. And here it will be necessary to introduce the third person in the Godhead, as it is contended that the third person makes known to the debtor, what the creditor determines concerning him. Then the plan of the doctrine may be represented by the following similitude: A owes B the sum of one thousand pounds; the time of payment comes, demand is made; A is not worth a farthing, neither is it in his power to raise a fraction of the money. B immediately commences a process against A, of which, C, a friend of A's, being informed, goes to B, asks him how large a demand he holds against A; B informs him, a thousand pounds, and the interest. And is A worth nothing? asks C. Nothing, answers B. Would you make a deduction of twenty-five per cent, if you could have the money down? asks C. Not the |