proper distinct persons in the Trinity, independent of each other, which is nothing less than making three distinct Gods. Mr. Howe would have helped out this hypothesis by supposing a mutual self-consciousness among them. But this is equally arbitrary and ineffectual; since three perfectly distinct intelligent beings still remain. For, supposing a proper self-consciousness to be communicated to three men, this circumstance could never be imagined to make them one man.

Bishops Pearson and Bull were of opinion," that though God the Father is the fountain of the Deity, the whole divine nature is communicated from the Father to the Son, and from both to the Spirit; yet, so as that the Father and Son are not separate, nor separable from the divinity, but do still exist in it." But this union is a mere hypothetical thing, of which we can neither have evidence nor ideas. If the Father be the sole fountain of Deity, he only is God, in the proper sense of the word, and the two others can be nothing but creatures, whether they exist in the Deity (of which also we have no idea) or out of him.

66

"Dr. Wallis," says Dr. Doddridge, thought the distinction between the three persons was only modal; which seems also to have been Archbishop Tillotson's opinion." If so, they were both of them nothing more than Sabellians, whom all the ancients classed with Unitarians. In the same class also, ought to be ranked Dr. Thomas Burnet, who "maintains one selfexistent and two dependent beings; but asserts, that the two latter are so united to, and inhabited by the former, that, by virtue of that union, divine perfections may be ascribed, and divine worship paid to them." This too was evidently the opinion of Dr. Doddridge himself, and probably that of a great number of those who were educated under him, and perhaps also that of

Doddridge's Lectures, p. 403. (P.) Prop. 2 Ibid. v. 402. (P.

cxxxii.

Dr. Watts.3 But, in fact, this scheme only enables persons to use the language, and to enjoy the reputation of orthodoxy, when they have no just title to either. For the divinity of the Father dwelling in, or ever so intimately united to, what is confessed to be a creature, is still no other than the divinity of the Father in that creature, and by no means any proper divinity of its own.

Besides, whatever we may fancy we can do by words, which are arbitrary things, and which we can twist and vary as we please, the properties and prerogatives of divinity cannot be communicated. The Divine Being cannot give his own supremacy; and whatever he can give, he must have a power of withdrawing, so that if he should communicate any extraordinary powers to Christ or to the Holy Spirit, (supposing this to have been a distinct being,) he can, whenever he pleases, withdraw those powers; and for the same reason, as he voluntarily gave them their being, he must have a power of taking away that also. How then can they make two parts of a proper Trinity in the divine nature, and be said to be equal in power and glory with the Father?

Christians should be ashamed of such unworthy subterfuges as these. The most fearless integrity, and the truest simplicity of language, become Christians, who wish to know, and to propagate truth. Certainly, if men be deceived, they are not instructed. All that we can gain by ambiguous language is, to make our readers or

Trinitarians, as appears by a pamphlet entitled 3 He was certainly suspected by the strict "The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity viudicated, in opposition to Mr. Watts's Scheme of Abraham Taylor. Ed. 2nd, 1728." The author

one divine Person and two divine Powers, by was Tutor of an Independent Academy at Deptford. It would, I believe, be found, on examination of Watts's later publications, that his faith in a Trinity never recovered the shock it must have received from Mr. Tomkins's “Appeal concerning the plain Sense of Scripture," 1722, in answer to his "Christian Doctrine of the Trinity, or Father, Son and Spirit, Three Persons and One God.

and to affect many other articles in the scheme of Christianity, greatly disfiguring and depraving it; I shall show, in a fuller manner than I mean to do with respect to any other corruption of Christianity, that it has no countenance whatever in reason, or the Scriptures; and, therefore, that the whole doctrine of atonement, with every modification of it, has been a departure from the primitive and genuine doctrine of Christianity.

SECTION I.

THAT CHRIST DID NOT DIE TO MAKE SATISFACTION FOR THE SINS OF MEN.

Ir is hardly possible not to suspect the truth of this doctrine of atonement, when we consider that the general maxims to which it may be reduced, are nowhere laid down, or asserted, in the Scriptures, but others quite contrary to them,

It is usual with the sacred writers, both of the Old and New Testament, to assign the reasons of such of the divine proceedings respecting the human race, as are more difficult to be comprehended, and the necessity and propriety of which are not very obvious, and might be liable to be called in question. Such is the divine condescension to the weakness, shortsightedness, and even the perverseness of men.

He is willing that we should be satisfied that all his ways are equal, that they are all just, reasonable and expedient, even in cases where our concern in them is not very apparent. Much more, then, might we expect an explanation of the divine measures, when the very end which is answered by them is lost if we do not enter into the reasons of them, as is evidently the case with respect to the doctrine of atonement; since the proper end of the measures which this opinion represents the Divine Being to have taken was the display of his justice,

and of his abhorrence of sin to the subjects of his government.

Is it not surprising, then, that, in all the books of scripture, we nowhere find the principle on which the doctrine of atonement is founded? For though the sacred writers often speak of the malignant nature of sin, they never go a single step farther, and assert that, "it is of so heinous a nature, that God cannot pardon it without an adequate satisfaction being made to his justice, and the honour of his laws and government." Nay, the contrary sentiment occurs everywhere, viz. that repentance and a good life are, of themselves, sufficient to recommend us to the divine favour. Notwithstanding so many notorious sinners, particular persons, and whole nations, are addressed by inspired persons, and their conduct strongly remonstrated against in the course of the sacred history, none of them are ever directed to anything farther than their own hearts and lives. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, is the substance of all they say on these occasions.

Certainly, then, we ought to suspend our assent to a doctrine of this important nature, which no person can pretend to deduce except by way of inference from particular expressions, which have much the air of figure and allusion. On the other hand, it seems natural to explain a few obscure expressions and passages, by other numerous, plain and striking texts, relating to the same subject; and these uniformly represent God as our universal parent, pardoning sinners freely, that is, from his natural goodness and mercy, whenever they truly repent and reform their lives.

All the declarations of divine mercy are made without reserve or limitation to the truly penitent, through all the books of scripture, without the most distant hint of any regard being had to the sufferings or merit of any being whatever. It is needless to quote many examples of this. One only, and that almost the first that occurs, may suffice.

structions to which they are now too much open.

Agreeably to this, David, and other pious persons in the Old Testament, in their penitential addresses to the Divine Being, never plead anything more than their own repentance, and the free mercy of God. Thus David, Ps. xxv. 6, 7: "Remember, O Lord, thy tender mercies, and thy loving-kindnesses, for they have been ever of old. Remember not the sins of my youth nor my transgressions; according to thy mercy remember thou me, for thy goodness' sake, O Lord."

If the doctrine of atonement be true, it cannot, however, be pretended that David, or any other pious person in the Old Testament, was at all acquainted with it; and therefore the belief of it cannot be necessary to salvation, or indeed of much consequence. Had this doctrine, on which so much stress is now laid, been true, we should have expected that Job, David, Hezekiah, Nehemiah and Daniel should have been reproved whenever they presumed to mention their integrity before God, and took refuge in his mercy only, without interposing the sufferings or merits of the Messiah to mediate for them. Also, some strong clauses should have been annexed to the absolute and unlimited declarations of the divine mercy that are so frequent in the Old Testament, which would have restrained and fixed their meaning, in order to prevent the dangerous con

Saviour's time had certainly no idea of this doctrine. If they had, they would have expected a suffering, and not a triumphant Messiah.

With respect to forgiveness of injuries, the Divine Being always proposes his own conduct to our imitation; and in the Lord's Prayer we are required "to forgive others, as we hope to be forgiven ourselves." Now it is certainly required of us, that if our brother only repent, we should forgive him, even though he should repeat his offence seven times a day. Luke xvii, 4. Upon the same generous maxim, therefore, we cannot but conclude that the Divine Being acts towards us.

The parables, by which our Lord represents the forgiving mercy of God, are the farthest possible from being calculated to give us an idea of his requiring anything more than merely repentance on the part of the offender. What else can we infer from the parable of the prodigal son, or the master whose servant owed him a thousand talents, &c.?

If our Lord had considered the Jews as having lost sight of the fundamental principle of their religion, he would certainly have pointed it out to them, and have drawn their attention to it. If, therefore, the proper end of his coming into the world had been to make satisfaction to the justice of God by his death, (which certainly they who did not expect a suffering Messiah could have no idea of,) he would have taken some opportunity of explaining it to them. But nothing of this kind occurs in the whole course of his preaching; and though he frequently speaks of his death, it is never as having had such an end.

Our Lord speaks of repentance, of

good works, and of the mercy of God, in the very same strain with that of Moses and the prophets, and without giving any intimation that their doctrine was defective on those heads. In his account of the proceedings of the day of judgment, the righteous are represented as thinking humbly of themselves, but they never refer themselves to the sufferings or merit of their judge, as the ground of their hopes; though nothing can be conceived to have been more natural and pertinent on the occasion.

Whenever our Lord speaks of the object of his mission and death, as he often does, it is either in a more general way, as for the salvation of the world, to do the will of God, to fulfil the scripture prophecies, &c., or more particularly, to give the fullest proof of his mission by his resurrection from the dead, and an assurance of a similar resurrection of all his followers. He also compares his being raised upon the cross to the elevation of the serpent in the wilderness, and to seed buried in the ground, as necessary to its future increase. But all these representations are quite foreign to anything in the doctrine of atonement.

When our Lord takes so much pains to reconcile the apostles to his death, in several discourses, of which we have a particular account in the gospel of John, he never tells them that he must die in order to procure the pardon of their sins; nor do we find the least hint of it in his solemn intercessory prayer before his death. On the contrary, he speaks of their sufferings and death in the same light as his own. To James and John he says, Mark x. 39, "Ye shall, indeed, drink of the cup which I drink of, and with the baptism that I am baptized with, shall ye be baptized." And he recommends his own example to them, in laying down his life for them, John xv. 12, 13.

After he is risen from the dead, he keeps the same profound silence on the subject of the supposed true and only

great cause of his death; and as little do we find of it in the history of the book of Acts, after the minds of the apostles were fully illuminated with the knowledge of the gospel. They only call upon all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, for the remission of their sins.

The apostle Peter, in his discourse to the Jews, immediately after the descent of the Holy Spirit, and again in the temple, upon the cure of the impotent man, paints in the blackest colours the sin of the Jews in crucifying our Lord; but though he exhorts them to repentance, he says not one word of satisfaction, expiation, or atonement, to allay any apprehension they might have of the divine justice. And a fairer opportunity he could not have wished to introduce the subject. How fine a turn might he have then given to the popular cry of the same nation, at the time of our Lord's crucifixion, His blood be on us, and on our children! Instead of this, he only exhorts them to repent, and to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, for the remission of their sins. What he says concerning the death of Christ is only that "he was delivered to them by the determinate council and foreknowledge of God, and that with wicked hands they had put him to death." Acts ii. 23, iii. 17, 18.

Stephen, in his long speech at his trial, makes frequent mention of the death of Christ, but he says not one word of his being a propitiation for sin, to lead his hearers to consider it in that light.

What could have been a fairer opportunity for introducing the doctrine of satisfaction for sin by the death of Christ than the evangelist Philip had, when he was explaining to the Eunuch the only prophecy in the Old Testament which can be construed to represent it in that light? And yet in the whole story, which is not a very concise one, there is no mention of it. And when the Eunuch declares his faith, which gave him a right to