The infinite nature of sin is another feature in the doctrine of satisfaction, which was formerly set forth in a conspicuous light by all sound writers, but which of late seems to be left more in the shade. Many have urged it as a point of vital importance, and affording one of the strongest arguments for the deity of Christ. The whole matter may be compressed into a single syllogism of the simplest form. Sin is an infinite evil. It requires an infinite being to atone for such an evil. Christ atoned for it; therefore, Christ is an infinite being, or God. This no doubt would be very solid and logical, were it not for a solitary defect in the leading term of the syllogism. That sin is an infinite evil is evidently false, and of course the chain of consequences, which was supposed to hang upon this position, falls to the ground. All sin is committed by a finite being; and no such being can commit an infinite act, whether good or bad. Besides, if sin were infinite, every sinful act would be equal in magnitude and crime, which is absurd. Another consequence of this doctrine, and a most serious one, is, that if satisfaction for sin can only be made by an infinite being, God himself must have suffered for sin, as he is the only infinite being in the universe. Nor is this consequence imaginary or theoretical; it has been made a theme with indiscreet and overzealous preachers, for magnifying the merits of the Saviour, and enlisting the passions by vivid representations of the intense sufferings, which must have been endured by an Almighty Surety. Is it possible, that any mind can have a just sense of

the holy character of God, or be imbued with the spirit of exalted and rational piety, which can endure a thought so shocking? What devout sentiments and feelings, or what reverence and adoration, can that doctrine awaken, which represents the Go of the universe as dwelling upon the earth, suffering the abuses of wicked men, and dying on a cross? Can such a doctrine have any purifying influence? Yet this doctrine must be true, if an infinite being has suffered to satisfy infinite justice, and take away the guilt of infinite sin.*

The doctrine of election and reprobation is another, which has lost much ground of late, but which is still retained by every consistent Calvinist, and closely linked in the scheme of satisfaction; so closely indeed, that the efficacy of Christ's death is confined exclusively to the "elect, whom God did from all eternity decree to justify." Witsius has a long argument to prove this tenet, and concludes by saying, that it would be " unworthy of the wisdom, goodness, and justice of God to exact and receive satisfaction from his most beloved Son, for those, whom he neither gave, nor wanted to give to his Son, and whom

66

*Bishop Magee is very indignant, that Dr. Priestley should charge this doctrine of infinite sin upon the orthodox scheme of atonement. "That some few indeed, have argued thus," he remarks, "is certainly to be admitted and lamented. But how poorly such men have reasoned, it needed not the acuteness of Dr. Priestley to discover. On their own principle the reply is obvious; that sin being committed by a finite creature, requires only a finite satisfaction, for which purpose a finite person might be an adequate victim."-Dissert. No. xiii. But we have already seen, that Dr. Magee's plan of atonement retains no more than a shadow, and a very faint shadow of orthodoxy.

he decreed to consign to everlasting confinement, that they might suffer in their own persons the demerit of their crimes."* Without going into the author's argument, the question would seem here most naturally to arise, that since Christ is God, or, as you have called him, an Almighty Surety, how is it possible, that the infinite satisfaction of such a being should not have taken away all sin? Justice is no more than infinite, and when this is satisfied by an infinite sacrifice, its demands are at an end; if a single sin can be removed by such a sacrifice, all the sins which ever have been, or ever can be committed, must, in the necessity of the case, be equally removed.

But our duty calls us at present to the tendency of this doctrine, as making a branch of the scheme of satisfaction. And in this respect, the case is too plain to need many words. The account of the matter is this. God so formed his creatures originally, that they must become the slaves of sin; for notwithstanding the covenant of works, of which divines say so much and the Scriptures so little, God knew this covenant would be broken. Forseeing this, he resolved, even before the covenant was made, to rescue a certain portion from the penalty of transgression. Hence he entered into another covenant with the Son, by which he agreed to accept his sufferings, for a specified number, and determined, as we are told,

* Economy of the Covenants, p. 359. Chapter on the Persons for whom Christ engaged and satisfied.

for "the praise of his glorious justice," to consign the remainder to everlasting torments. And what gives this singular act a still more extraordinary aspect is, that Christ is acknowledged to have been as able and willing to save all, as part, had it thus been the will and the good pleasure of God.

Now in what character does this exhibit our holy and heavenly Father? His justice has been satisfied to its utmost limits, and yet he refuses to let his purchased favour flow to any but a selected number, whom he has arbitrarily chosen, without any regard to their merits or superiour claims. Allow that the attributes of God, and all the rich blessings of his providence, loudly call upon us for praise, and reverence, and gratitude; nevertheless, let the question be seriously answered, whether a single trait of his character is here displayed, which does not essentially diminish the force of such a call? Shall they, who are condemned, praise him for plunging them into eternal misery? Is this consistent with human nature? Do we love those, who seek our ruin? Would it not be an insult and mockery to demand of any one in the midst of his sufferings to love and honour the author of his wretchedness?

And again, shall they who are saved praise God for their fortunate rescue? Surely not; it is not to him they are indebted; he has released nothing; he has demanded and received a full satisfaction without mercy or favour; the righteous owe every thing to their Surety, but nothing to their God. Where then is the cause of praise, of devotion, or of any duty

to our Maker? There is none. These reflections must occur to every mind, and need not be dwelt upon. Can any thing be more certain, than the tendency of such a doctrine to destroy all piety, love of God, and devout adoration of the divine majesty, if its pernicious influence were not counteracted by the dictates of the understanding, the authority of the moral sense, and the imposing attributes of the divine nature?

On this topic, as well as many others intimately related to this part of the subject, much more might be said. The above hints will serve to show in what light the doctrine of satisfaction places the character of God, and what must be its natural influence on the devout affections of men, and on all the duties of piety.

LETTER VII.

On the popalar Doctrine of Atonement as affecting the practical Virtues.

SIR,

In my previous remarks on atonement, I have taken pains to exhibit this doctrine in some of the numerous forms in which different sects of christians have been accustomed to view it, and to delineate, as accurately as I could, the portraiture, which has been