They admit them, and plead for them. They allow, at least, and maintain, that men are not justly punishable by the Judge of all the earth, whatever iniquities they may commit; and that, in fact, no man is punished of God at all, nor ever will be. So firmly are they established in the belief that the foregoing argument is demonstration, and can never be confuted.

But must not the weak place in this invincible argument, be made manifest to all men? I cannot but flatter myself, the attentive candid Universalist must feel this firm ground give way under him. The hope of salvation built upon the idea that the holy sovereign of the universe is obliged in justice to pardon and save the vilest of sinners, is certainly a very forlorn hope.

That believers themselves do not deserve eternal life, nor even deliverance from eternal death ;—that God is under no kind of obligation, for value received, even to them, on any account whatever, seems plainly implied in our text, and hath been sufficiently illustrated, I conceive, in the preceding discourse. And if so, certainly he cannot be obliged in justice to save all men. Salvation is sincerely offered to all, if they will thankfully receive Christ as their Saviour, and penitently return, through him, to their Creator and their God. With regard to giving them a heart, or making them willing to do these things, God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy. Surely "by sending his Son into the world, that the world through him might He saved," he hath not brought himself so infinitely indebted to mankind as to be in justice obliged to save all the world, whether they will or not.

Secondly. Hence we may see, that the Socinians have no reason to object against the doctrine of atonement, as though it were irreconcilable with the doc

trine of free grace, and represented God the Father as unforgiving, implacable, unmerciful.*

As many have explained the doctrine of atonement, I cannot say that these reproaches cast upon it by its adversaries, are altogether unjust. Were it right to conceive of it under the literal, low notion of paying debts, or repairing damages, between man and man, it would indeed seem as if there were no proper remission of sins to believers, nor any mercy in granting them deliverance from the curse of the law. But if we consider God as acting in this great affair, in his own proper character, as Supreme Ruler of the world; and requiring atonement in order to the salvation of

* Dr. Priestley, a celebrated modern writer on the side of Socinianism, has much to say upon this head. He says, " We. read in the scriptures, that we are justified freely by the grace of God. But what free grace, or mercy, does there appear to have been in God, if Christ gave a full price for our justification, and bore the infinite weight of divine wrath on our account? We are commanded to forgive others, as we ourselves hope to be forgiven; and to be merciful as our Father, who is in heaven is merciful. But surely we are not thereby authorized to insist upon any atonement or satisfaction, before we give up our resentments towards an offending penitent brother. Indeed, how could it deserve the name of forgiveness if we did ?-It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of satisfaction for sin by the death of Christ, with the doctrine of free grace, which, according to the uniform tenor of the scriptures, is so fully displayed in the pardon of sin, and the justification of sinners.-It is only from the literal interpretation of a few figurative expressions in the scriptures, that this doctrine of atonement, as well as that of transubstantiation, has been derived; and it is certainly a docrine highly injurious to God; and if we, who are commanded to imitate God, should act upon the maxims of it, it would be subversive of the most amiable part of virtue in men. We should be implacable and unmerciful, insisting upon the uttermost farthing."

1

guilty men, only for the support of public justice, and that he might still be a terror to evil doers, at the same time that he discovers himself abundant in goodness and ready to forgive. If we consider, moreover, that the demerit of sin is not at all taken away, nor the need of pardoning mercy lessened by vicarious sufferings. In a word, if the foregoing view of this subject be scriptural and just, what shadow of ground can there be for any such reproaches and objections?

Thirdly. Hence we are furnished with an easy solution of a difficulty which some have imagined, respecting our being justified, at all, on account of the active obedience of our Saviour. The difficulty is this. Christ, in his human nature, in which only he could obey, owed obedience on his own account, and therefore could have no merit by that means to be placed to the account of his followers as the ground of their justification. Hereupon some have supposed and taught, that the sufferings of Christ, to which he was under no personal obligation, are the only meritorious ground of our acceptance unto eternal life. Or, that all further than deliverance from the curse of the law, is from the grace of God, and the merit of our own imperfect obedience.*

This imaginary difficulty, however, arises entirely from the supposed necessity of merit strictly purchasing good at the hand of God; and a merit properly transferable. According to that conception of the matter, it is certain Adam's obedience could have availed nothing in behalf of any but himself. He, unques

* The above difficulty was started, and the above doctrine advanced, by a divine of some note in Germany the last century; who made a party considerable enough to be taken notice of by Dr. Mosheim, in his Ecclesiastical History How he was answered, I think the Doctor hath not informed us.

tionably, was under personal obligation to yield the most perfect obedience to his Maker of which he was capable. Therefore had he remained innocent, and continued in all things given him in charge to do them, he could have had no merit of supererogation, to be reckoned to his posterity. Nor do I conceive that the man Jesus Christ, consistently with his personal duty to his heavenly Father, could have done less than to have fulfilled all righteousness. On supposition a purchasing, transferable merit had been necessary, I do not therefore see how this difficulty could be fairly obviated. But from the things which have been said, it is abundantly evident, I apprehend, that no such merit was necessary, is scriptural, or possible. God may do honour to himself, as one that loves righteousness, by making multitudes happy out of respect to the tried virtue and obedience of one, though that one have only done what it was his duty to do. All notions of supererogation, and of a fund of merit to be sold and bought, or any way communicated from one to another, proceed upon the maxims of commercial, not of rectoral justice. Every thing of this kind is going off entirely from the ideas of sin and duty, to those of debt and credit, damages and reparations.

Fourthly. From the foregoing view of the subject, we learn, that those who are justified in the gospel way, have nothing whereof to glory, but have all the reason in the world to be humble before God. They have merely a merit of congruity to plead in his presence; and that merit, not at all their own.

Were "salvation an absolute debt to the believer from God, so that he might in justice demand and challenge it," to be clothed with humility, and to be a prostrate suppliant before the throne of grace, might, indeed, seem unbecoming, and quite out of character,

Had Christ" merited, by way of purchase and complete payment, the removal of all that evil we had deserved, and the enjoyment of all the good we needed. and could desire, and that by a valuable consideration tendered into the hand of divine justice in that behalf;" and had we this "sum in sight, and under our hand," we might well assume a high tone, and say, "Here's one and there's the other." Our beggary would be at an end; nor would it suit with our affluent circumstances, to be so poor in spirit as to petition and pray. We might say to the Almighty, "We are lords, we will come no more unto thee:" or, coming, might be so laconic as only to say, "Lord, give us our due."

But, my brethren, ❝ you have not so learned Christ; if so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him as the truth is in Jesus." Christians have not these heaven-debasing, self-exalting sentiments, in the bottom of their hearts, however they may speak unguardedly, or think inaccurately on some occasions. I dare say the venerable divines above quoted, did not mean so, neither did their hearts think so. They never prayed as though those things were true; they never felt as if they believed them. Such speculative notions of the atonement and imputed righteousness, owing originally to the strong figures of holy scripture, terally understood, have been exceedingly common; and therefore have been received implicitly as unquestionable truths, by the learned as well as the illiterate ; however inconsistent with innumerable other sentiments in which every true christian is most firmly es tablished. Certainly, by the law of faith, boasting is excluded. Certainly if our justification be freely by divine grace, we have nothing whereof to glory. We have as much reason to be humble-as much cause, with deep abasement, to confess our daily sins, and to