"world is a constitution or system, whose parts have a mutual "reference to each other: And there is a scheme of things gra❝dually carrying on, called the course of nature, to the carrying "on of which, God has appointed us, in various ways, to contri"bute. And when in the daily course of natural providence, "it is appointed that innocent people should suffer for the faults ❝of the guilty, this is liable to the very same objection as the "instance we are now considering. The infinitely greater im"portance of that appointment of Christianity which is objected "against, does not hinder but it may be, as it plainly is, an appoint"ment of the very same kind, with what the world affords us "daily examples of. Nay, if there were any force at all in the "objection, it would be stronger, in one respect, against natural "providence, than against Christianity. Because, under the "former, we are in many cases commanded, and even necessi "tated, whether we will or no, to suffer for the faults of others. "Whereas the sufferings of Christ were voluntary."

Thirdly, To the efficacy of the sufferings and death of Christ in preventing the future penal consequences of sin, it hath been objected, That we do not understand how they can have any such efficacy. True; we do not understand this, because revelation hath only discovered to us the fact, without explaining the manner in which it is brought to pass. Nevertheless from the silence of scripture, and from our ignorance of the manner in which Christ's sufferings and death operate, in preventing the future penal consequences of sin, it doth not follow, that his sufferings and death have that efficacy by an arbitrary and tyrannical appointment. They may have it in the way of natural consequence. For, to use B. Butler's words, Anal. part ii. c. 5. sect. 7. "What "has been often alleged in justification of this doctrine, even "from the apparent natural tendency of this method of our re"demption; its tendency to vindicate the authority of God's "laws, and deter his creatures from sin; this has never yet been "answered, and is, I think, plainly unanswerable; though I am "far from thinking it an account of the whole of the case. But, "without taking this into consideration, it abundantly appears "from the observations above made, that this objection, is not "an objection against Christianity, but against the whole gene"ral constitution of nature. And if it were to be considered "as an objection against Christianity, or considering it as it is, "an objection against the constitution of nature; it amounts to "no more in conclusion than this, That a divine appointment

❝ cannot be necessary or expedient, because the Objector does "not discern it to be so: though he must own that the nature "of the case is such, as renders him incapable of judging whe"ther it be so or not, or of seeing it to be necessary, though it "were so."-Farther, as the same excellent reasoner observes in the same page, "Though it is highly right, and the most "pious exercise of our understanding, to inquire with due re❝verence into the ends and reasons of God's dispensations : "Yet when those reasons are concealed, to argue from our ig66 norance, That such dispensations cannot be from God, is infi"nitely absurd. The presumption of this kind of objections, "seems almost lost in the folly of them: And the folly of them "is yet greater, when they are urged, as they usually are, "against things in Christianity, analogous or like to those natu"ral dispensations of providence, which are matter of experi"ence. Let reason be kept to, and if any part of the scripture "account of the redemption of the world by Christ, can be "shewn to be really contrary to it, let the scripture, in the name of God, be given up. But let not such poor creatures "as we, go on in objecting against an infinite scheme, that we "do not see the necessity or usefulness of all its parts, and call "this reasoning."

Fourthly, To the efficacy of the sufferings and death of Christ in preventing the future penal consequences of sin, it hath been objected, that it is unnecessary; because sinners being rendered capable of pardon by repentance, God, whose goodness is infinite, will pardon them without any atonement: that is, he will in consequence of the sinner's repentance, prevent the future penal consequences of his sins from befalling him. But, before an objection of this kind is urged, the objector ought to know, whether there are any reasons, which make the punishment of sin necessary under the moral government of God. And if there are such reasons, whether they may be dispensed with in every case where repentance takes place. And what effect the dispensing with these reasons, and the pardoning of the sinner - simply on his repentance, would have on the other subjects of God. To the determining of these questions, such a knowledge of the whole plan of God's moral government, and of the relation of its various parts to each other, and of the purposes for which, and the means by which he carries on his government, is necessary, as doth not fall within the comprehension of human reason. In such a state of ignorance, for any one to determine,

in opposition to the scheme of salvation made known in revelation, that God may, and will pardon sinners simply on their repentance, seems not a little presumptuous.

Were we to judge of this matter by what happens in the present life, we should be led to believe, that repentance will not, by itself, prevent the penal consequences of sin in the life to come. For when men ruin their fortunes by extravagance, or their health by excess in sensual indulgencies, it is well known, that repentance alone doth not remove these evil consequences of their follies and excesses. In like manner, when individuals incur the penalties of human laws, no wise governor finds it either reasonable in itself, or expedient for the good of the community, to free the criminal from the punishment which the wholesome laws of the state have annexed to such crimes, merely because he hath repented of them. The punishment of criminals is necessary to deter others from committing the like offences. Wherefore, if in the present life, repentance is never found of itself to remove the temporal evil consequences, which God hath connected with vice; also if, men themselves being judges, repentance ought not to prevent the punishment of crimes injurious to society, what reason hath any person, from the present constitution of things, to expect that repentance of itself will prevent those penal consequences which God may have thought fit to annex to vice in the life to come? Much more, what reason hath any one, from the present constitution of things, to expect that repentance and reformation will put the sinner into the condition he would have been in, if he had always preserved his innocence? The prevalence of propitiatory sacrifices in every age and country of the world, certainly sheweth it to be the general sense of mankind, that repentance is not of itself sufficient to procure the pardon of sin; but that something besides is necessary to induce the Deity to be propitious, even to the penitent sinner.

I acknowledge, indeed, that the prevention of the bad consequences of vice, and the removal of these consequences when they happen, which in the present constitution of things, sometimes takes place through the timely assistance of others, affords a presumption, that the connection between sin and punishment is not so rigid, but that in certain cases it may be broken. This presumption, however, goeth no farther than to afford a slight hope, that punishment, even in the life to come, may possibly be avoided through some foreign assistance. But

whether any such assistance be actually provided, and what that assistance is, and by whom it is to be afforded, cannot be known from the present constitution of things. It is God alone who can discover these things to us. Wherefore, if revelation teacheth that God hath been pleased, through the vicarious sufferings of his Son, to prevent those penal consequences from coming on sinners in the future life, which in the original constitution of things he hath connected with sin, these things should not be objected against because they are not discoverable by human reason. The only thing proper for us to do, is to inquire whether it be really a doctrine of revelation, that through the sufferings of Christ the penal consequences of sin are, in the life to come, to be prevented from coming on the sinner, who having repented of his sins and reformed his conduct, is capable of being pardoned. And if, on inquiry, this is found to be a doctrine of revelation, "Our wisdom is," as Butler observes "thankfully to accept the benefit, by performing the conditions 66 upon which it is offered, without disputing how it was pro"cured on the part of Christ."

SECTION II.

Shewing it to be a Doctrine of Revelation, that Christ hath made Atone-ment for the Sin of the World, by his Death.

That Christ hath made atonement for the sins of men by his sufferings and death is revealed in all those passages of scripture, where his death is represented as a propitiatory sacrifice. For, since according to the ideas, which in every age and nation, mankind have entertained of propitiatory sacrifices, they were believed to have a real efficacy in procuring the pardon of sin, the scriptures, by calling Christ's death a sacrifice for sin, have declared it to have that efficacy; and have taught us to expect pardon, through the efficacy of that sacrifice.

To recite all the passages of the Jewish and Christian revelations, in which the sufferings and death of Christ are spoken of as a propitiatory sacrifice, and the pardon of sin is represented as owing to the efficacy of that sacrifice, would lengthen this essay beyond bounds. The following appear to be some of the principal passages, and therefore they merit the reader's attention, Isa. liii. 6. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.— 10. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed. John i. 29. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away 46 妻

VOL. III.

the sin of the world.-Rom. iii, 25. Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood, for a proof of his own righteousness in passing by the sins which were before committed through the forbearance of God: 26. For a proof also of his righteousness in the present time, in order that he may be just, when justifying him who is of the faith of Jesus.-Rom. iv. 25. Who was delivered to death for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.-Gal. iii. 13. Christ hath bought us off from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.-Ephes. i. 7. By whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. -Heb. ii. 14. Since then the children participate of flesh and blood, even he in like manner partook of these, that through death he might render ineffectual him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. -Heb. ix. 25. Not however, that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy places every year with other blood. 26. For then he must often have suffered since the formation of the world but now once at the conclusion of the ages, he hath been manifested to abolish sin-offering, by the sacrifice of himself. 27. And for as much as it is appointed to men once to die, and after that the judgment; 28. So also Christ, being once offered in order to carry away the sins of many, will, to them who wait for him, appear a second time without sin-offering, in order to salvation.Heb. x. 10. By which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Christ once.-1 Pet. iii. 18. For Christ also hath once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.

These passages, with many others which might be mentioned, taken according to their plain meaning, in conjunction with what Christ said to his disciples, when he instituted his supper, to prevent his death and the ends for which he died, from being forgotten in the world; namely, This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, Matth. xxvi. 28. I say, these passages teach us, That Christ's sufferings and death, have, as B. Butler expresses it, an efficacy additional to, and beyond mere instruction, example, and government.

To elude, however, the force of the argument, taken from the account given in the scriptures, of the end for which Christ suffered and died, some have affirmed,

First, That Christ's death is called a sacrifice for sin, not be cause it was really such a sacrifice, but merely in accommodation to the prejudices of mankind, who, from the beginning of the world, expected the pardon of their sins through the efficacy of sacrifice. To this the answer is, 1. We know, that Christ's