law; and probably arises from different constructions put upon it. If the written law is expressive of an anger in God against sinners, which, in its natural operation would bring eternal punishment upon them; it is obvious that the spirit of the law cannot be preserved in government, unless this anger be, in some sensible way, exhibited to the views of creatures: and consequently, that it would be inconsistent with the character of God to pardon sinners without an atonement; and such an one as should exhibit this anger; and in which it should appear to burn against sin

ners.

BUT on the other hand, if God may consistently pardon sinners without an atonement; or without exhibiting an anger which would bring eternal destruction upon sinners, should it fall immediately upon them; it is obvious, either that the law exhibits no such character, in the great Governor of the world, as would naturally lead us to expect such an event; or that the true character of God is not fairly delineated in the moral law. For that the law should threaten eternal death to every transgressor, and at the same time fairly and faithfully delineate the moral character of God; and yet that God should pardon the sinner without any atonement; is a manifest absurdity. The supposition, therefore, that God may consistently pardon, without any atonement, either wholly subverts the divine law, or gives a view of it totally different from that which is naturally exhibited in an

atonement.

HERE, then, according to the ideas of those who deny the atonement, are the true feelings of genuine, gracious repentance: at least it involves, an apprehension that it would be inconsistent with the very nature, and with every idea of goodness, for God to shut us out from his favor. From any repentance toward

God, which involves those ideas of the divine character, it is easy to see the human heart is not naturally very averse. Yea, to define any material change, with respect to its views of the divine character, which takes place in the human heart, in repentance; will, on this hypothesis, be utterly impracticable. Surely no such change can be conceived as renders, divine, supernatural influences, in any measure necessary. We need not, therefore, be surprised to hear those who deny the necessity of atonement, renounce every idea of divine supernatural operation, in the conver sion of sinners.

AND with what appearance of consistency, gentlemen who entertain such ideas respecting atonement, can urge that this is a doctrine which subverts the very notion of grace in the pardon of sinners; is hard to be conceived. For, with such, it is a fundamental maxim that it would be inconsistent with goodness to deny pardon to penitents. On this foundation the And superstructure of their whole system is built.

what grace there can be in conferring pardon, in cases wherein it would be unjust and cruel to withhold it, cannot possibly be imagined. Little reason have those who entertain such sentiments, to exclaim against the advocates of atonement, as denying the doctrines of free grace in the salvation of sinners.

THUS manifest is it, that the denial of atonement makes a total change in the aspect, not only of the mor al law, but also of the whole christian system. Itexhibits both the divine character itself, the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles, and the terms on which the sinner may be pardoned and saved, in a light infinitely diverse from that in which they all appear in the. atonement of Christ.

AND now it must be left with the candid, intelligent reader, to judge for himself; faithfully comparing what is here offered with the unerring oracles of God. These are the only standard of truth; and by these must every doctrine be tried. Every sentiment, every scheme of doctrine that will not bear this test, however cherished, or by whatever great name it be au. thorised, will sooner or later fall to the ground. While, on the other hand, every system, and every sentiment that is found here, however unpopular, however exploded by the great and the wise, among men ; will infalliby stand, and shine, and brighten forever

and ever.

AND the whole must be left with HIM who, himself, made atonement for the sins of the world; for him to use, and to dispose of, as in infinite wisdom, he shall see will be for the best. With Him the cause of truth may be confided in his hand it is infinitely safe. May the time be hastened when the darkness shall be dispelled, and the light shall shine: when his truth, such as it is, shall be known and be confessed, from one end of the earth even unto the other; and the whole earth shall be full of the knowledge of the glory of the Lord. AMEN.

APPENDIX.

TAINING A VIEW OF CONSEQUENCES, RESULTNG FROM A DENIAL OF THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

THE doctrines of christianity are so connected together, and many of them so evidently imply each other, that a denial of one, subverts the foundation of many others. This is more obviously the case respecting that of the Divinity of Christ, than almost any other doctrine. As the christian system is built on Christ, his character is so interwoven with the whole, that the nature and consistency of it can be comprehended, no further than his true and real character is understood. All evangelical doctrines derive their complexion from the character of Christ, their Auther:-And, must necessarily admit and require very different constructions, according to the sentiments, which are to be entertained respecting the real Divinity of his person.

We often derive advantage from a view of conse quences naturally flowing from opinions proposed to us. Gonsequences afford one rule for trying the strength and justness of principles from which they result. The consequences, which naturally flow from opinions, and the influence these opinions necessarily have on others, serve, many times, to shew their consistency, or the reverse. In this view of the subject, it may be useful to trace some of the consequences, which naturally flow from a denial of the Divinity of Christ.

In the preceding Examination of the Scripture Doctrine of Atonement, the true and real Divinity of Jesus Christ was taken as a given point; and on this ground was the inquiry into the nature of the atonement he made for sin. As the truth of this doctrine is much more freely and openly called in question, than it was when the Treatise was first published; it is thought that, in aid of this important subject, a view of some of the consequences, naturally resulting from a denial of the real and essential Divinity of Christ, may now, with propriety, be added.

I. Ir Christ be not truly a divine person-God as well as man, it must be, that there is no atonement made for the sins of men; and, of course, if any sinners of mankind are pardoned and saved, they are sa ved without regard to any atonement made for them.

Ir the death of Christ were not an atonement for sin, none has been made. By atonement is here meant that which magnifies the broken law of God, and does it the same honor, which would have been done by the execution of its penalty whenever it be incurred. The only natural and ordinary way to magnify and honor a broken law, is to execute its penalty on the offender. Laws, which are not executed, will, neither be of force, nor command respect. If the sinner be forgiven without such a testimony of divine displeasure against him, as honors the law of God, and establishes its authority to the same degree, that the execution of its penalty would have done; it would seem to diminish the respectability, both of the law, and of the Lawgiver; and, naturally tend to take away the fear of offending the holy God. Whenever, and in whatever way, the displeasure of God against the sinner be as fully and sensibly expressed, to the view of creatures, as it would have been by the execution of the penalty of the law itself upon him, atonement is made