"carious righteoufnefs is fubftituted in the room of a real and perfonal one." P. 72.

3. Mr. G.'s Letters abound with invective, and abuse of those whose fentiments he opposes. "Whatever charms it" (the doctrine of atonement) might have for the vifionary and li"centious, no fober or fenfible man would

ever become its apologist.". P. 52. " I "think the doctrine of Chrift's atonement, as "believed by the bulk of profeffed Christians,

opens a wide gap for the introduction of "fuch evils into fociety, as would foon fap "the foundation of it, were it not check'd by "better principles of nature's planting.". "But for this a Calvinift would be a confiftent "being throughout, and form his practice upon his principles: And in that case, I "think, we should have as much occafion for

gibbets as we have for churches." P. 64, 65. "The abettors of this doctrine, not much ac"customed to argument, and knowing that "reason is not in their intereft, generally in"trench themselves behind the authority of "great numbers and great names.” P. 65. "Their general character is known to be that "of bigotry to their own modes and fenti"ments, without any grains of charitable al

"lowance for those that differ from them." P. 69. Some readers may wonder why such abufe is fo liberally bestowed on this occafion. Mr. G. tells us he has received personal affronts from fome who hold the doctrine he op

poses,

66

pofes, and perhaps the remembrance of them might somewhat influence his mind while he was writing. "Where will you find a Theologian," fays he, "who will defend them" (the fentiments he opposes)" by other argu"ments than thofe of anathemas and execra"tions? I and others have lately had fome fpecimens of the politenefs and humanity by which they are distinguished in this refpect." P. 75. Yet we are not to suppose that our author means to speak contemptuously in all this; for he himself has affured us to the contrary. "I would not," fays he, " by "what I have faid, be understood to infinuate "a contempt for popular prejudices, or that "they ought to be treated with contempt. "I would have them, on the other hand, "treated with all imaginable lenity." Ib.

66

4. There is an argument or two in Mr. G.'s letters, which I have not had occafion to take notice of in examining the tracts before referred to: Thefe I fhall now confider.

(1.) Mr. G. afferts, that the doctrine of atonement is contrary to the principles of natural religion as they are deducible from the conduct of divine providence in the world. "The remedies provided in nature for those "who hurt themselves by their vices ;"" the "affection which all animals are obferved to "have for their offspring," and "the difpo"fition which we find in ourselves to forgive

66

injuries," are in his opinion, proofs that

"God

"God will pardon his offending offspring up"on their penitence." P. 8, 9, 10. The intelligent reader, I apprehend, will think these proofs not very conclufive; for the conclufion has certainly no neceffary connection. with its premiffes. If our author would draw a real proof of his doctrine from the conftitution of nature, he must make it appear, that repentance does in all cafes avert or remove those natural punishments of fin which God has appointed in the world. But it is evidently otherwise. • The miferies which, in the re

gular courfe of nature, are the consequences ' of wickedness, are properly confidered as the natural punishments of it. Some of them follow it with a swifter, others with a flower pace; fome are tranfitory, others of longer ⚫ continuance but the penitence of a criminal, even before their arrival, affords him no fecurity against the floweft of them; and when either his fears or his feelings have • worked a reformation, fuch as are naturally of longer continuance are not by that refor⚫mation presently removed. Whatever then can be alleged, concerning the ends of punishment, or the fatisfaction made by a reformed penitent, when applied to this subject, must be trifling. All argumentation is here precluded. We have fact and experience to convince us, that God does not always pardon the repenting finner.'* What

ever

* Dr. Powell's Charge in 1772. See alfo Butler's Analogy, part 2d. chap. 5th.

ever notions we may gain by the light of nature concerning the divine mercy and justice, Revelation alone can fatisfy us how far, and under what circumftances, either the one or the other will be exercised towards finners. Mr. G. has fufficiently confuted himself with respect to this argument against the doctrine of atonement: for although he adopts Dr. Duchal's opinion, that " it must have been an ar"ticle of natural religion in all ages, and a "fundamental article too, that God would

66

forgive fin to the truly penitent," and that "all wife men must neceffarily have fallen in"to this fentiment with much affurance;" he nevertheless afferts, that " Mankind, be

fore fupernatural light arose upon them, "were in a state of great depravity and alie"nation from God, funk in ignorance, vice, " and fuperftition;" and that "in fuch a "ftate it is natural to fuppose them very "much at a lofs as to the terms of their ac

ceptance with God." P. 52. But how are these things confiftent? If mankind in a state of natural religion were very much at a loss as to the terms of their acceptance with God, how is it that these terms are a fundamental article of natural religion, which every wife man would embrace with much affurance ?*

(2.) It

See Dr. Duchal's letter to Dr. Taylor, fubjoined to Mr. G.'s work, p. 81.

*The author of the Appeal feems to have fallen into the fame inconfiftency in his reafoning upon this fubject.

For

(2.) It is faid, p. 43. "Had Chrift offered "himself in the Jewish sense of facrifice, that "is the literal and original sense of it, he must "have incurred the guilt of offering to God a “human one, of all others the most offenfive " in his fight."

Mr. G. offers nothing by way of proof of his affertion, that human facrifices are in all cafes offenfive to God. I fuppofe, therefore, that he imagines it to be an allowed truth which no one will difpute. For my part, I am fo far from thinking a human facrifice to be in

all

For after having given extracts from feveral authors, by way of proof that mankind have always entertained juft apprehenfions of the divine mercy, he makes this inference. "It is almoft demonftrable, that mankind have always "confidered their maker and univerfal parent, in the fame "light with that, in which reason and the scriptures, both "of the Old and New Teftament, uniformly represent "him, viz. as of himself gracious and merciful, long-fuf"fering, forgiving iniquity, tranfgreffion and fin, not "willing that any fhould perifh, but defirous that all his "offending creatures fhould repent and live." Yet when he comes to "fubjoin, by way of conclufion, a concise

view of the fcheme of falvation by Jefus Chrift," he gives this description of the ftate of mankind without divine revelation. "Let us, then, fuppofe the whole race "of mankind to be in a state of apoftacy from God, loft "to all sense of religion and virtue, in the expreffive lan"guage of fcripture, dead in trefpaffes and fins; that with"out a revelation and a faviour they were in the most

t

deplorably vicious and wretched circumftances, in a "fure way to make themselves miferable both here and "hereafter," &c. Theological Repofitory, vol. I. p. 416, and 422. I cannot conceive how mankind could univerfally entertain fuch fentiments of God, as are contained in divine revelation, and yet be loft to all fenfe of religion, and be in a fure way, without revelation, to make themfelves miferable both here and hereafter.