must consider that God has sent him a curse instead of a blessing; and the task of educating such an ingrained viper would be utterly hopeless. But he does not truly believe it; for he well knows, that such a picture of humanity, instead of being an accurate likeness of children, or of the great mass of mankind, would be a libel upon the most degraded wretch that lives. No man is "utterly made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil." In the very worst character there is some good-some love of parent, brother, child, or friend-some little prop on which a skilful and gentle philanthropist, like the late amiable Dr. Tuckerman, of Boston, could rest a moral lever, which, under God's blessing, might raise a fallen brother from the dust. As to the great mass of mankind, the assertion of Calvinism, that "they are totally depraved by nature," is a plain and absurd libel. Were the allegation true, the earth would be full of iniquity, and nothing but iniquity; for "the corrupt tree would inevitably produce evil fruit." Instead of this, however, the world abounds in amiable, virtuous, noble characters, who adorn, and cheer, and bless all the walks of public and private life. Ten thousand humane, generous, upright, and ennobling sentiments are in constant exercise, whilst the evils springing from malignant passions are comparatively rare. Το say, therefore, that men are all depraved because some are corrupt, is utterly untrue; and to allege, because, as descended from Adam, we naturally inherit human frailty, that we are therefore necessarily tainted by his sin, is to controvert the simplest principles of common sense, and to gainsay the plainest teachings of the Bible. The origin and continuance of sin, under the Divine government, might be satisfactorily explained, without impeaching the justice of God or entailing upon men the heavy and unmerited burthen of transmitted guilt: but such an investigation would be inconsistent with my present object; and I shall consequently proceed to expose some additional errors of the Confession of Faith. On these, however, I must dwell very briefly; relying principally upon their own inherent and palpable demerits for their exposure and refutation.

Having, as I have just shown, imputed guilt to the innocent, no one will be surprised to find the Westminster divines, as a counterpart to this strange theory, imputing holiness to the wicked: thus making both our sins and our virtues to arise from sources entirely independent of ourselves; and, consequently, taking away altogether our individual merits and demerits. This doctrine they set forth in the following

terms:

"It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man: unto whom he did, from all eternity, give a people to be his seed, and to be by him, in time, redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. The Lord Jesus Christ, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself,

which he once through the eternal Spirit offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an eternal inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him."

"To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them; and revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by his word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation."

"All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ."

"Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf."

"God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification."

The preceding extracts contain a plain, unvarnished statement of the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, mis-named Atonement, as held by Calvinists, and by most others who arrogate to themselves the appellation of Orthodox; and whatsoever may be thought of the opinions themselves, we cannot fail to admire the honesty and boldness with which men commit themselves to the support of propositions so wonderful and startling. I have said that this dogma is misnamed Atonement: for, in reality, satisfaction to Divine justice, by Christ's obedience and death, has no connexion, whatsoever, with the blessed and consolatory Christian doctrine of Atonement, as explicitly set forth in the New Testament. The Scripture doctrine of Atonement means the reconciliation, or at-one-ment, of parties who have been alienated; and in this true meaning of the word, I am a firm believer in that doctrine. It is the plain teaching of the Apostles, that "Jesus came to reconcile us unto God "-that "he suffered, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God"-that, "through him, we (not GOD) have received the atonement," or means of "reconciliation by his blood." I repudiate, therefore, in the strongest terms, the unfounded allegation that I deny the animating doctrine of Christian Atonement, because I reject the unworthy and unscriptural human invention of Calvinistic satisfaction. The two opinions have no relation to each other: in fact, they are as opposite as east to west. former maintains the rational and Scriptural view, that Christ came to reconcile man to God, by turning him away from sin; the latter ⚫ advocates the strange opinion, that Jesus influenced God, or made Him to be placable who is "infinite in mercy," and changed the purpose of Him who is "unchangeable!"

The

In truth, the grand and primary error of Orthodoxy, on this point. is the entire mistaking of the object and design of the Saviour's mis

sion and death. The Scriptures affirm, that "Christ Jesus came to call sinners to repentance," and thereby "to bring them to God:" Orthodoxy, on the contrary, affirms, that the death of the Redeemer "entirely paid the sinner's debt," "satisfied the Divine justice," and "purchased the offender's redemption.' Now, as the mainstay of modern evangelicism, this latter view demands a distinct and simple exposure; and, happily, the task is not one of difficult execution.

The allegation is, that "The Lord Jesus Christ, by this perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, hath fully satisfied the justice of the Father, and purchased an everlasting inheritance, in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given him." This satisfaction, it is stated, has been made by the transfer of the sinner's guilt to Christ, and of Christ's righteousness to the sinner. This, however, is only a repetition of the old and palpable absurdity, that men are not sinners on account of their own crimes, or holy on account of their own virtues; but, that moral guilt or moral virtue may be handed from one to another, as a man might transfer his garments or his property! Now, it has been alleged, that this mode of satisfying God's justice has been adopted to prove His "abhorrence of sin." What! is the Divine abhorrence of sin evidenced by punishing the innocent, that the guilty may escape? Surely, such a procedure would rather prove God's hatred of virtue and approbation of iniquity. What would we think of an earthly judge who should evidence his hatred of murder by allowing the convicted assassin to walk unscathed out of court, and ordering the most virtuous man in the community to be hanged up in his stead! And, yet, many men do not tremble to impute similar conduct to Almighty God, and to call it "a satisfaction to his justice!"

But, this doctrine is not more revolting on account of its maintaining that to be a vindication of justice which would be essentially unjust, than in its entirely robbing the Father of his Mercy and Free-Grace: for, "if Divine justice be satisfied," if "the sinner's debt be fully discharged by Christ, his surety," then, all is due to the sacrifice of the Redeemer, and nothing to the pardoning mercy of God-then Jesus would merit our entire love as our suffering ransom, whilst the Father could only be contemplated with terror, as a relentless creditor, "exacting the uttermost farthing." Now, is this the Gospel view of salvation through Christ? Are we there told that 'the perfect obedience and death of Jesus" were the cause of God's mercy; or are we not, on the contrary, expressly informed, that the entire economy of salvation was the effect of the Father's antecedent love!" God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but should have

everlasting life." "God commendeth his love to us in this—that whilst we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly." The Father, then, does not love us on account of the Saviour's sacrifices; but, on the contrary, Jesus came into the world, and suffered, and died, as the evidence and effect of God's unbounded mercy and compassion. Christ, therefore, was not manifested in the flesh to change Him" with whom there is no variableness or shadow of turning," but to reform sinful men and bring them back to God, "through repentance and newness of life." The all merciful could not be rendered more merciful; but the sinner could be reclaimed and rendered more holy: and thus does Christianity appear in its true character; not as affecting God in his goodness, but as influencing man in his life. There is another remarkable feature in the Calvinistic notion of atonement, as "a satisfaction to Divine justice." We are told, that, "sin being an infinite evil, an infinite sacrifice was required for its abolition;" and, consequently, "that Christ must be God, as no Being less than Deity could make an infinite atonement for human guilt." Now, I do not stop to show that my Calvinistic brethren here use the unscriptural assumption of infinite evil, to prove the equally unauthorized assumption of an infinite sacrifice: but, taking their own statement as it stands, and supposing the death of Christ to have made an infinite atonement, then, on their own showing, the justice of God must be satisfied for all the offences of all mankind. Such a doctrine, if not true, would at least be charitable and consistent; but, alas, we find that their alleged infinite atonement is, after all, but of very limited extent, being confined to "those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and to those only!" Adam, it would appear, though a poor, ignorant, inexperienced creature, "seduced by the subtlety of Satan," was able, by a single act, to inflict universal evil upon all his posterity, whilst the Son of God, or, according to the Calvinists, God himself, is only able, by all his sacrifices and labours, to save "the elect few!" The Apostle tells us, that, " as in Adam all die," (or inherit a mortal nature), so in Christ shall all be made alive;" but our Calvinistic friends, whilst allowing all, in the first instance, to possess a universal application, restrict it, in the second instance, to "the elect only "—so that their views would be thus expressed: "As in Adam all mankind die, so in Christ, shall all the elect be made alive." Paul says, that "Not as the offence so was the free gift, but that where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." This the Calvinists deny, making the sin unbounded and the grace restricted. And, then, why all the grand and costly apparatus of the Redeemer's sacrifice to save the elect? Their salvation is already accomplished by an "Eternal Decree, predestinating them to everlasting life;" and "the number of

66

the elect is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished!" How deplorable are the inconsistencies and errors of men, "when they forsake the fountains of living water, and hew themselves out cisterns, broken cisterns, which can hold no water!" In fact, there is no end to the self-contradictions of human theories, in religious concerns. What, for instance, can be more inconsistent than this? The Calvinists assert that "the Lord Jesus Christ hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father, purchased an everlasting inheritance for the elect, and fully discharged their debt;' and yet, speaking of the Last Judgment, they declare, that "all who have lived upon the earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive, according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil." If both the preceding statements be true, then is our Heavenly Father more rigorous and unjust than any human creditor; for, although Christ has "entirely discharged the sinner's debt, and fully satisfied the justice of God," as the all-sufficient Surety for the elect, yet the debt is to be paid again and in full, by the sinner himself, at the last day! Human usury affords no parallel to this exaction of double payment of the same bond.

But, if our theologians only contradicted themselves, the matter would be less serious; unfortunately, however, they often gainsay the Word of God. They maintain, for example, that the sins of the elect were laid upon, or transferred to, the Lord Jesus Christ, so that he literally "bore our sins." This view is embodied, by Martin Luther, in language so strong as to be almost blasphemous; and, yet, it is but a manly, open statement of what others gloss over in more general and guarded terms. Christ," saith he, "because the greatest transgressor, murderer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer, that ever was or could be: for, being made a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, he is not now an innocent person or without sin; he is not now the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, but a sinner. When, therefore, the law found him among thieves, it condemned and killed him as a thief." This is the doctrine of " Satisfaction," in its unveiled features; and I shall only contrast with it the explicit declarations of the New Testament, where the true doctrine of the Saviour's purity and Christian atonement is distinctly set forth. “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world:" "Ye slew the holy one and the just:" He was tempted in all points, as we are, yet without sin :" "Holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners: "He was brought as a lamb to the slaughter:" "He suffered, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." How beautifully do these texts describe, at once, his untainted holiness and the design of his mission? He came to take away, not

66