every law both human and divine, which is at once to annihilate all distinction between right and wrong, virtue and vice. If the extent of the divine favour is to be measured by the unbounded hopes of the finner, then how are the perfections of Deity, and the equity of his moral government to be vindicated? How is a difcrimination to be made between the righteous and the wicked, "between those "who ferve God and thofe' who ferve him " not?" Both reafon and confcience concur in condemning the finner's claim to the mercy of God: A claim fuggefted by audacious hope, and founded upon principles too fallible to bring peace to a mind anxious about futurity, and apprehenfive of juft retribution. that Now, if this fandy foundation be the only one upon which the religion of nature fupports the hopes of her votaries, let us inquire, whether the wishes of the human heart be placed upon firmer ground, by the gospel itjelf, according to a late fashionable fyftem: A fyftem, of which the chief object is to exclude from revelation the atonement of Chrift, grand and capital doctrine which hitherto, in the general fenfe of the church, was not only its characteristical diftinction, but the great pillar on which all its other parts depend. To the abettors of this fyftem, the doctrine of falvation by the cross, instead of the wis dom of God, appears, as much as ever it did L 2 το to the ancient Jews and Greeks, a ftumbling block and foolishness." To enter into the field of controverfy upon this fubject belongs not to my defign: Nor is it neceffary: Ability, and learning, and eloquence have been employed in its defence, at leaft in an equal measure to any which have been oppofed to it, and with this fingular advantage, that in the plain fenfe and common acceptation of words, the uniform language of Scripture is decidedly in its favour. So much, indeed, is this the cafe, that great ingenuity and kill in criticifm alone can torture them into a different meaning. "That Chrift fuf "fered and died as an atonement for the fins "of mankind," fays a late polite and ingenious lay-writer," is a doctrine fo ftrongly and fo conftantly enforced, through every 66 part of the New Teftament, that whoever "will feriously peruse these writings, and de"" ny that it is there, may with as much reafon " and truth, after reading the works of Thu"cydides and Livy, affert, that in them no " mention is made of any facts relative to the "hiftories of Greece and Rome." In behalf of this most interesting doctrine, I would appeal, not merely to found criticifm and fair interpretation of Scripture; I wish it to be tried not by the understanding and the reafoning powers of the mind only, but alfo by the feelings of the heart, and particularly by * Soame Jenyns's View of the Internal Evidence of the Chriftian Religion, 7th edit. p. 29. the the confcience of a finner awakened to a sense of guilt, and alarmed by the thoughts of a judgment to come. Defcribe to a man of reflection, in that state of mind, the plan of the gospel when stripped of this doctrine; tell him of the fublimity of its doctrines, the purity and excellence of its precepts, and the awfulness of its fanctions; delineate to him the unexampled innocence and beneficence of the life of its blessed Author, the astonishing magnanimity and fortitude of his death, not as a facrifice for fin, but as a teftimony to the truth of his doctrine and miffion: Explain to him, if he will liften to you, the laboured and ingenious criticisms by which you remove the common acceptation of words, and prove that the doctrine of the atonement has no place in the facred page. But what, may not the alarmed finner juftly reply, does all this contribute to the ease and comfort of my troubled mind? The purity and extent of the fyftem of duty enjoined by the golpel, its dreadful sanctions, and the fublime character of its Author as an example, only tend to exhibit, in more glaring colours, the imperfection of my obedience, the greatness of my fins, my just defert of punishment, and my total incapacity of making any fatisfaction to divine juftice. You tell me, that even upon your plan, the gofpel contains the ftrongest affurances of mercy and pardon to the fincerely penitent. But does not the fame gofpel, in folemn terms, declare, "That God "is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, L 3 "that "that he will not acquit the guilty; that the "unrighteous fhall not inherit the kingdom "of God; that he will render to every man "according to his deeds, indignation and "wrath, tribulation and anguifh upon every foul of man that doth evil." Some way there must be, if the gofpel be indeed from God, of reconciling thofe contradictory affertions. Your hypothefis does it not. From it I derive no folid fatisfaction to my mind. In it I perceive no foundation upon which I can build my hopes of pardon and acceptance with God in any confiftency with his truth and justice, with the harmony of his perfections, and the equity of his government. On the contrary, by pointing out the purity and extent of the divine commandments, and the terrible punishments prepared for tranfgreffors, it only ferves to render my condition more hopeless and defperate. To a perfon in this ftate of mind, what founds can be fo cheering, fo full of confolation and peace, as those which convey the true and distinguishing doctrine of the gospel? "God fo loved the world, that he gave his "only begotten Son, that whofoever belie "veth on him fhould not perish but have "everlafting life *.-Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and "fent his Son to be the propitiation for our "fins t. There is now therefore no condem * John iii. 16. + 1 John iv. 10. << nation "nation to them that are in Chrift Jefus. "It is God that juftifieth, and who can con"demn *?" Where was there ever a doctrine or an idea conceived or propofed, fo wonderfully calcu lated to give eafe to the foul trembling under a confcioufnefs of guilt, as that which is contained in these, and a thoufand other paffages equally explicit? Are the difficulties, which the pride of human reafon fuggests, unfurmountable obftacles, to the reception of this doctrine? Shall we renounce, with difdain, that pardon of fin and that gift of eternal life, which nature most vehemently folicits, because offered not in the way which our fhallow understandings propofe, but in that which infinite wildom hath chofen, as the purchafe of the obedience and death of the Son of God? In the page or field of controversy, in the warmth of angry theological debate, and eager conteft for victory, objections may appear for midable. But what will be their afpect to the Christian, in his hours of retirement and feri ous reflection, when meditating upon his own character and defert, and looking forward to his appearance in the prefence of his Maker? Then, be affured, these mountains created by pride and contention will dwindle away into nothing, and the mind will return to fentiments morebecoming its condition. In thefe feafons, * Rom. viii. L. 33. 34. the |