very

It may be objected, that Mofes is called a mediator, Gal. iii. 19. and, therefore, that it cannot be proved from the application of this title to Chrift, that he ftands in any relation to us different from that in which Mofes stood to the people of Ifrael. In answer to this I would obferve, that Chrift is not merely called a mediator in this paffage, but the ONE mediator between God and men; a form of speech different from that made ufe of with respect to Moses. Mofes is likewife called a god, but furely the apoftle's folemn declaration that there is but ONE God would fhew, that the title is applied to him in an inferior sense, though the unity of God were taught in no other part of the Bible. And fince our Lord is ftyled the ONE mediator in fuch a connection, we may with equal propriety conclude, that he is our mediator in a sense which can be attributed to no other person.

The author of the epiftle to the Hebrews exprefsly founds our boldness in addreffing the throne of grace upon the prefence of our compaffionate high-priest in heaven; which proves that respect is due to hit in those addreffes. Seeing then that we have a great high-priest, that is paled into the heavens, Jefus the Son of God-let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, chap. iv. 14, 16. And again in chap. x. 19-22. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter

into

into the holiest by the blood of Jefus, by a new and living way which he hath confecrated for us through the vail, that is to fay, his flesh; and having an high-priest over the house of God: let us draw near with a true heart, in full affurance of faith, &c.

St. John encourages the true christian to hope for pardon from the confideration that he has a powerful advocate with the Father, who is the propitiation for his fins. My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye fin not: And if any man fin, we have an advocate with the Father; Jefus Chrift the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our fins, 1 John, ii. 1, 2. The apostle, in this paffage, is evidently attempting to remove the difcouragements with which fincere chriftians may be afflicted, under a fenfe of the manifold defects of their obedience; and the argument he proposes for this purpose is expressed in terms fo plain, that no fubtilty of criticism, one would think, could ever fet afide the obvious fense of it: The different parts of this paffage fix the meaning of the principal terms in such a manner, that to alter them from their most obvious fignification, is to render the whole sentence obfcure or unintelligible. For should it be faid, that the word here rendered advocate fometimes fignifies a comforter, the expreffion with the Father fhews that it cannot mean

fo in this place. Our Lord promised that he

would

would fend the Holy Ghoft to refide as a comforter with all his true difciples, but to tell fuch that if they fin they have a comforter with the Father, is, in my apprehenfion, to talk unintelligibly. But the following verse clearly determines the sense of the paffage; for this affures us, that Chrift is our advocate with the Father, as being the propitiation for our fins, and therefore he is here very emphatically ftyled Jefus Chrift THE RIGHTEOUS.* Such are the instructions given to penitent believers in the gospel, and in them we may discern. both the truth and importance of the doctrine of atonement for fin by the death of Chrift. Were the Socinian hypothefis true, fuch directions could have no place in the inspired writings, fince they are fubverfive of what that system accounts the true gospel of Christ. IV. Let

* Mr. Graham fays, in his Letters, p. 45, that "the "Greek word asuos," (propitiation) is never ufed by "the facred writers in the fenfe of rendering God propi

tious." The word aσnoua is perpetually used in the Septuagint for making atonement, in conformity to which fenfe of the word, the phrafe ιλαςμος περί των αμαρτιών ημών, which is twice applied to our Lord in St. John's first epiftle, cannot be more justly translated than by the propitiation, or propitiatory facrifice for our fins. In the epiftle to the Hebrews alfo, Chrift is faid to have become our Highprieft, εις το ιλασκεσθαι τας αμαρτίας τ8 λας, to expiate or make reconciliation for the fins of the people, chap. ii. 17. So that whatever is meant by making atonement, thus much is evident, that Chrift is that with refpect to the remiffion of our tranfgreffions of the moral law, which the Jewish propitiatory facrifices were with respect to the tranfgreffions of the ceremonial law.

IV. Let us now take a view of the principal objections made to the doctrine of atonement, and confider whether they are fufficient to overturn the arguments propofed in defence of it.

1. The author of the Appeal afferts,* that it is impoffible to reconcile this, doctrine with those scriptures, which speak of our being juftified freely by the grace of God, and that "the declarations of divine mercy to the pe"nitent are all abfolute, without the most "distant hint of their having any reference to any confideration on which they are made, "as Pfalm lxxxvi. 5. Dan. ix. 3.” †

It is granted, there are in the scriptures many declarations of mercy, which do not mention an atonement as the confideration on which pardon is granted; there are likewise many, which neither mention an atonement

* P. 18.

nor

The arguments which our author has urged against the doctrine of Atonement in his Appeal, Triumph of Truth, and Familiar Illuftration, he has treated rather more diffusely in his Effay on the proper end of the death of Chrift, contained in the firft volume of the Theological Repofitory. But as the three former tracts are our author's latest publications on the fubject, if I mistake not, and as in them his fentiments are expreffed with more conciseness than in the Theological Repofitory; I have only referred to the latter with refpect to thofe arguments, which are not contained in the former. Indeed, I did not know that all the above-mentioned treatises were composed by the fame author, until I had written a confiderable part of this defence.

+ Triumph of Truth, p. 20.

nor repentance itself; but it will not follow from hence, that either the one or the other is unneceffary. If we defire to know the whole counsel of God refpecting us, we must take into confideration the whole of divine revelation; and I fubmit it to the candid reader to determine from the fcriptures already quoted, whether there are not fome declarations of divine mercy to the penitent, which contain more than a diftant hint of a confideration of pardon diftinct from our own penitence. If pardon is granted to all who come unto God through Jefus Chrift in the way he has appointed, that pardon is certainly as free with respect to us, as if there were no mediator between God and man; and the Antinomian, who afferts there is no condition of pardon required of us, is as much fupported in his opinion by the declarations of free-grace, as the Socinian, who afferts there was no condition

performed by our Mediator. The inspired writers of the New Teftament faw no more contradiction between the freenefs of God's grace, and the propitiation made by the death of Christ, than the rest of the Jews did between the goodness of God in remitting their offences against the ceremonial law, and the efficacy of those facrifices, which were the appointed confideration of that remiffion; or than the Socinians do between free-grace, and the neceffity of repentance as the condition of pardon.