the object of Christ's death, would make a considerable change in the controversy, yet as a doctrine, denominated the doctrine of the atonement, is perpetually enforced by one party of Christians with peculiar energy; and with no small degree of anxiety, for those who reject their opinions concerning it; we shall subjoin a few cursory remarks, in order to evince that the popular opinion is not so, well founded, so important, or so honourable to God, as its advocates suppose.

We must observe, that in the warmth of the contest, a deviation has taken place from the primitive and genuine. Signification of the term atonement, which in reality constitutes the importance of the doctrine; and the whole attention has been directed to contingent circumstances alone. Atonement properly signifies reconciliation, at one-ment. Thus in the genuine sense, the doctrine of the atonement is synonymous with the doctrine of reconciliation. This will be allowed by all Christians to be an essential doctrine of Christianity. The blessings of reconciliation to an offended parent, and to such a parent, are beyond conception great; nor can we be too anxious to obtain it. But since we are clearly acquainted with the conditions, which are faith and repentance, it is a matter of inferior importance, whether our notions be perfectly accurate, respecting the manner in which the Divine Being has chosen to confer the blessing. In whatever way the death of Christ may have operated to reconcile a sinful world, if the Being offended, who best knows his own plans and purposes, be satisfied with it, we ought to express our joy and gratitude in a very different manner, than by uncharitable contests about the

L12

mode. Had the mode been as clearly revealed as the blessing itself, it could not have been a subject of contest; but no wise and indulgent parent has ever been angry with a docile child, for not comprehending obscurities.

We may farther observe that the strenuous advocates for what is now called the atonement, are not agreed in their sentiments concerning its specific nature. Some understand by it, that the sacrifice of Christ was necessary to appease the divine wrath, others maintain that a plenary satisfaction to the demands of the law was absolutely necessary, before pardon could be conferred. Some speak of the personal justice of God, and his offended majesty, demanding an equivalent, without which they deprive him of the power or the right, to pardon the offences of his own family. Other advocates for the doctrine are more moderate in their assertions. They represent the Deity as accepting of the meritorious sacrifice of his son, in lieu, or in place of a plenary satisfaction; and they justly maintain, that if the Deity accept of this kind of compensation, we have no right to object.

It is to be observed, that the peculiar sentiments which have thus assumed the title of the doctrine of the atonement, instead of being expressly revealed, are simply inferences, founded upon some particular expressions, which were uttered at different times, and by different Apostles, and occasioned by contingent circumstances. As the following statement will shew:

The word atonement, of which such frequent use is made, in our modern systems of theology, occurs but once in our English translation of the New Testament; where it is manifestly substituted for reconciliation. The

Greek word being the same which our translators had twice rendered reconciled in the preceding verse.

It is in Romans, ch. v. 10, 11. "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son καληλλάγημεν τῷ θεῷ ; much more being reconciled, xalaλλayles, we shall be saved by his life, and not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the reconciliation à où viv τὴν καταλλαγὴν ελαβομεν.

The word satisfaction, upon which so important a stress is laid, in our theological systems, as expressive of the complete pacification of the divine wrath, or the fulness of the price paid down to divine justice, is not to be found in the New Testament.

Propitiation (angion, thaoμos,) is used once by St. Paul, Rom. iii. 25, and twice by the Apostle John, 1 John ii. 2;

iv. 10.

Redeem, redemption, (hurgoris amogos) are too frequently used by St. Paul, tó admit of references, once by St. Peter, 1 Peter i. 18; and thrice in the apocalypse, Rev. v. 9; xiv. 3, 4.

Ransom (arríλurgos) is used once by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy, 1 Tim. ii. 6.

The words offering, or offered, and sacrifice, (vo) as referring to the death of Christ, are used by the Apostle Paul alone, admitting him to have written to the Hebrews; once in reference to the passover, in his Epistle to the Cor. 1 Cor. v. 7 ; once in that to the Ephesians, ch. v. 2; and although the word sacrifice is so often repeated in the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is not applied to Jesus in more than four instances.

Advocate, (πaganλ), is once used by St. John. 1 John ii. 1.

Mediator (ns) is solely used by the Apostle Paul, once in his writing to the Galatians, iii. 19, 20; and thrice to the Hebrews, viii. 6; ix. 15; xii. 24.

Intercession, to make intercession, royxávy is once applied to Christ, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, vii. 25.

The blood of Christ, referring, to his crucifixion, which every scheme of theology acknowledges to be an event of the utmost importance, is frequently mentioned, by St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Hebrews; by St. John and St. Peter; and various are the benefits which they represent as flowing from it. Sometimes it is considered as the medium of redemption, of peace, of reconciliation, of justification; sometimes as ratifying a covenant; often as sanctifying, cleansing from all sin, purifying the conscience from dead works; but NEVER as quenching the divine wrath, and as a compensation to divine justice.

The expression bare our sins αμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνὴνεγκεν, is once used by St. Peter. 1 Pet. ii. 24; and not by any other Apostle.

Should there be any slight errors in the above statement, or trifling omissions, they will not be sufficient to invalidate the following

Remarks.

1. The habitual preference of any other terms, to express the leading articles of a system, than those which were used by the primitive preachers of christianity, is a tacit acknowledgment, that no part of their copious phraseology is adapted to the doctrines which some have supposed them to teach; and this nat ually awakens a

suspicion that such doctrines were not intended; otherwise these teachers would have preferred expressions equally significant. Had they entertained the opinion that the death of Christ was a complete compensation for the sins of men, which is the prevailing theological idea annexed to atonement; or that it was to appease the wrath of the father of mankind, or satisfy his justice, which is implied in the word satisfaction, they would not have expressed themselves so feebly, as to render it necessary for succeeding teachers to substitute stronger language.

2. The popular doctrine of the atonement is obviously formed from the above passages by viewing them collectively; some points of the doctrine being deduced from the one, and some from the other. Each single passage is much too imperfect and defective to contain all the principles ascribed to the whole. Not one of the above expressions, considered singly, conveys an explicit declaration, that true believers are reconciled to an angry and offended God, or a stern judge who will not relax an iota of the demands of justice, without the full price or ransom paid by the sufferings of Jesus. This is a doctrine deduced from those occasional expressions collected together, and compelled by forced inferences to speak such language. But as some of the Apostles have been totally silent concerning these leading points, they must have given very partial views of the gospel. Peter, James, and Jude, have omitted to observe that Christ was a propitiation for sin; and when Peter speaks of redemption, he applies it to the Christian converts being redeemed from their vain conversation, and not from the

3

"