I. Of the Use of Reason in Matters of Religion.

BE not backward, or afraid, my brethren, to make use of your reason in matters of religion, or where the scriptures are concerned. They both of them proceed from the same God and Father of us all, who is the giver of every good and every perfect gift. They cannot, therefore, be contrary to one another, but must mutually illustrate and enforce one another. Besides, how can we distinguish one scheme of religion from another, so as to give the preference to that which is the most deserving of it, but by the help of our reason and understanding? What would you yourselves say to a Mahometan, whom you would persuade to [Page 8] abandon the imposture of Mahomet, and embrace christianity, but bid him use his reason; and judge, by the help of it, of the ma­nifest difference between the two religions, and the great superiority of yours to his? Does not God himself appeal to the reason of man, when he condescends to ask us, Whether his ways be not equal? Ezek. xviii. 29. Does not the apostle exhort us that in understanding we be men? 1 Cor. xiv. 20. Are we not expressly commanded to prove all things, and then hold fast that which is good? 1 Thess. v. 21. Also, when we are commanded to search the scriptures, John v. 39 more must be meant than merely reading them, or receiving implicitly, the interpretations of others. Searching must imply an earnest endeavour to find out for ourselves, and to understand the truths contained in the scriptures; and what faculty can we employ for this purpose, but that which is commonly called reason, whereby we are capable of thinking, reflecting, comparing, and judging of things?

Distrust, therefore, all those who decry human reason, and who require you to abandon it, wherever religion is concerned. When once they have gained this point with you, they can lead you whither they please, and impose upon you every absurdity which their sinister views may make it expedient for them that you should embrace. A Popish Priest would require nothing more than this, to make you believe the doctrine of transubstantiation, and that a man is infallible; or to persuade you to commit the most flagrant wickedness; as a means of doing God service. For the first of these articles they do not fail to urge the words of scripture, which ex­pressly say, concerning the bread that is used in the Lord's supper, that it is the body of Christ; Matt. xxvi. 6. and there is no possibility of replying to them, but by appealing to reason, as the necessary and proper judge of the sense of scripture. The Papists, therefore, as might well be expected, is forward, on all occasions, to vilify human reason, and to require men to abandon it; but true Pro­testants will not part with it. It is by the help of reason, in con­junction with the scriptures, that we guard ourselves against the gross delusions of the Papists, who, after relinquishing reason, have been made to believe a lie; and by the diligent and continued use of the same power, let us endeavour to combat every remaining error, and trace out and reform every corruption of christianity, till we hold the pure truth as it is in Jesus, and obey it in the love thereof.

Do not think that, by recommending the use of reason, I am about to decry the scriptures. My appeal shall be to both, upon every subject on which I address you; and I think you cannot but see that the plainnest and most obvious sense of the scriptures is in favour of those doctrines which are most agreeable to reason. A good man will rejoice to see them thus go hand in hand, mutually illustrating and enforcing one another.

II. Of the Power of Man to do the Will of God.

ONE of the subjects with respect to which I earnestly wish that you would attend to the voice of reason and the scriptures, and with respect to which, one mistake will be followed by many others, and mistakes of great consequence, is concerning the power of man to do the will of God. It is a favourite opinion with many teachers of religion, that men have naturally (or by that constitu­tion and frame which God their maker hath given them) no power at all to do any thing that is good, not even to think a good thought, much less actually to obey any of the commands of God; so that, if men were left to themselves, they could do nothing but sin, and must be under a necessity of aggravating their con­demnation, by every thought, word, and action of their lives. But, my brethren, how does this doctrine agree with the scrip­tures, and particularly with the manner in which the Divine Being constantly expostulates with the sinful sons of men; as when he says to the Jews, ‘Turn ye turn ye from your evil ways, why will ye die, O House of Israel. Ezek. xxxiii. 11. Wash ye make you clean.’ Cease to do evil learn to do well, &c, Isa. i. 16.

Is it not plain from this, that it depends upon men themselves, whether they will repent and turn to God or not? And how can it depend upon themselves if they have not naturally, a sufficient power to do it? You cannot think that God would command, and expect obedience, when he had not given power to obey; and much less that he would urge men to provide for their own safety and happiness, when himself had put an effectual bar in the way of it.

Suppose that any man's children were shut up in a building that was on fire, while he himself was without, and had the key: and that, instead of opening the door, to favour their escape, he should only call out to them to flee out of the place, in order to avoid instant destruction; and that, as the necessary conse­quence of this, they should all perish in the flames before his eyes; what would you think of such a father? You would want words to express your abhorrence of his cruelty; and yet in this very light do many christian divines represent the conduct of that God whose tender mercies are over all his works, and who has solemnly declared, that he hath no pleasure in the death of a sinner, but rather that he would turn from his way and live Ezek. xxxiii. 11. yea, who would have all men to be saved. 1 Tim. ii. 4.

The conduct of our merciful God and Father, is certainly far different from this, and more agreeable to reason and equity. If he designed us to be accountable creatures, and treats us as such we must have talents given us, which we may either improve or misimprove. If we be the subjects of his moral government, we must be in a condition either to observe or to break his laws. A power to do the one necessarily supposes a power to do the other; and without this power we should not be the proper subjects [Page 10] of religion; as, in that case it would be vain to propose to us either rewards for obedience, or punishments for disobedience.

Nor is the supposition of a power in man to do the will of God, any foundation for pride. For we must still say, with the apostle, What have we that we have not received? and how then can we glory, as if we had not received it? Every good and every per­fect gift comes from God; and, knowing this, the more we receive of his bounty, the more thankful, and the more humble we should be. I shall, certainly, be more solicitous to exert myself in doing the will of God, when, I believe that I have a talent to improve, than if I believe that I have no talent intrusted with me at all; so that I cannot do even so much as the wicked and slothful servant, who hid his talent in a napkin.

Some of those persons who believe that all mankind are absolute­ly incapable of doing any good, are sometimes heard to invite sin­ners of all kinds to come to Christ, as they are, and to say, that the viler they are, the more welcome they will be to him; as if he was, after this, to cleanse them by some miraculous power. But, my brethren, the invitation of the gospel runs in very different terms. It is, Repent, and bring forth fruits meet for re­pentance. Matt. iii. 8. Repent, and be converted that your sins may be blotted out. Acts iii. 19 And none are invited to come to Christ, but those who labour and are heavy laden; nor can they find rest for their souls, till they have actually learned of him to be meek and lowly in heart. Matt. xi. 28.

What can be more contrary to the maxims above-mentioned, than the whole tenor of that serious expostulation with the children of Israel in the prophet Isaiah, part of which I quoted above? wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes. Cease to do evil, learn to do well. Seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, (and not before) and let us reason together, says the Lord. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isa. i. 16, &c.

Others, who entertain the same opinion of the utter inability of man to do the will of God, act more consistently with those sen­timents, but far more inconsistently with the scriptures, in never preaching to sinners at all; though to call sinners to repentance was the chief end of Christ's coming into the world. Matt. ix. 13.

Whatever represents a state of acceptance with God, as a thing that may be brought about without any efforts of our own, and especially if it may be done in a moment, or in a very short space of time, is sure to be a popular doctrine. Mankind in general care not how little is expected of them, or how little they themselves have to do, in order to get to heaven. But true religion, that alone which affords solid ground of hope towards God, consists in a change of heart, affections, and habits; which can only be brought about by serious resolution, and a vigorous and con [...]ant exertion of our powers. Nay, unless a course of virtue be begun, and good habits [Page 11] formed early in life, there is very great danger that the thorns, briars, or bad soil, will prevent the good seed from ever coming to maturity.

To believe, as the same persons do, that faith and repentance are nothing that we ourselves are capable of, but altogether the mira­culous operation of the spirit of God in us and upon us, supposes that this great and sudden change may as well take place at the last hour of life, as at any other; which certainly encourages the most unwarrantable and most dangerous presumption, and is far from having any countenance in the scriptures. The word of God always represents a safe and happy death as the consequence of nothing but a good and well-spent life. Some, indeed, are said to have been called at the eleventh hour, but none at the twelfth, when the time for labouring in the vineyard was quite over; and not one of the foolish virgins, who had neglected to provide themselves with oil, was admitted to the marriage-supper.

III. Of Original Sin.

AS a foundation for this strange doctrine, of the utter inability of men to do what God requires of them, a doctrine so in­jurious both to our Maker and ourselves, it is said that by his first offence our first parent Adam, and all his posterity, lost all power of doing any thing acceptable to God for the future; that he was the representative of all his posterity; so that when he sinned, we all sinned; and, every sin being an offence against an infinite God, we all became, from that moment, liable to an infinite punishment, even the everlasting wrath and curse of our Maker. And they say, that, on this account only, it would have been just in God to have made us all suffer the most exquisite and endless torments in hell, even though we had never sinned in our own persons.

But, my brethren, you find nothing like any part of this in your bibles. For there you read, The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Ezek. xviii. 4. And long after the transgression of Adam, and to this very day, God is continually calling upon men to cease to do evil, and learn to do well; which certainly supposes that men always have had, and that we now have, a power to do so. It is allowed that we suffer by the sin of Adam, as any child may suffer in consequence of the wickedness of his ancestor; but it is not possible that we should have sinned in him. Wherever there is sin, there is guilt, that is, something that may be the foundation of re­morse of conscience; something that a man may be sorry for, and re­pent of; something that he may wish he had not done; all which clearly implies, that sin is something that a man has given his con­sent to, and therefore must be convinced of the reasonableness of his being punished for But how can any man repent of the sin of Adam, or feel any thing like remorse of conscience for it; when he cannot but know that he never gave his consent to it, and could not possibly have been, in the least degree, accessary to it? Good and bad conduct are, in their own nature, personal, and cannot pos­sibly [Page 12] be transferred from one to another. Whatever some divines pretend, nothing of this kind can be imputed in this sense of the word. We may receive harm by means of one person, and benefit by means of another, but no sin of the former, or righteousness of the latter, can be considered as ours, in the eye of an equitable and just God. The contrary is as much the language and the plain meaning of the scriptures throughout, as it is agreeable to the common sense and reason that God has given us.

IV. Of Election and Reprobation.

SUPPOSING that all mankind became liable to the ever­lasting wrath and curse of God for the sin of one man, some divines say, that it was mercy in God to save any, though by an arbitrary decree, which left all the rest of the human race under an inevitable necessity of perishing. But certainly, my brethren, such tender mercy is cruelty. All the creatures of God must look up to him as the author of their being, since it was, undoubtedly, in his power to give, or to withhold it, at his pleasure; and, surely, a good and merciful God would have put a stop to the propagation of such a race of creatures, rather then suffer them to be born in such shocking circumstances; in which he infallibly foresaw, that the greatest part of them must be exposed to, and even actually suffer remediless destruction. As surely as I derive my being from a just and merciful God, I conclude that the terms on which I came into the world are advantageous to me; and therefore, that it must be my own fault only, if I have not reason to rejoice in it, and to be thankful, for it. But, indeed, I can hardly think that any man seriously believes, that the greatest part of his fellow-creatures are born into the world under a predetermined necessity of being for ever miserable. For in that case, it must appear probable that any children which he himself may be the means of bringing into the world will be for ever miserable; and surely no man of real goodness or compassion would wish to have children, or be necessary to their being born in such circumstances.

If this doctrine be true, what motive can any man have to en­deavour to flee from the wrath to come. Matt. iii. 7. when if it is to be his lot at all, nothing that he can do will enable him to escape it; or what motive can a man have to exert himself to lay hold on eternal life, 1 Tim. vi. 12. when, if he is to enjoy it at all, he cannot possibly miss of it, or of any thing belonging to it, or that is necessary to prepare him for it? What reason had the apostle Paul to exhort Christians to take heed lest they should fall, 1 Cor. x. 12. when none that ever did stand could possibly fall? and what reason had he to labour, left after having preached to others, he himself should be a cast-away, 1 Cor. ix. 27. when, being certain of his conversion, he must have known that that consequence was impossible?

This doctrine, of absolute election and reprobation, is certainly [Page 13] a doctrine of licentiousness, and not a doctrine according to godliness; and let divines employ all the ingenuity they are masters of, it is impossible for them to clear this opinion from being the cause of fatal despair in some, and as fatal a security in others. If this opinion were true, and men were really aware of their situation, I should think it impossible to prevent their falling into absolute distraction, through terror and anxiety. It would be like a man having his all, his life, nay infinitely more than his life, depend­ing upon the cast of a die; the decree of God being a thing that he has as little power to command. Besides, this doctrine cer­tainly represents the God and Father of us all in such a light, as no man would chuse that he himself should appear in.

V. Of the Divinity of Christ.

SO fatal have the consequences of the sin of Adam been repre­sented, that you have been told, that nothing but the blood of God himself could reverse them; and therefore you have been taught to believe, that Jesus Christ, whose proper title is the son of man, as well as the son of God, was not merely man, but very and eternal God himself; without considering that, by thus ma­king more Gods than one, you are guilty of a breach of the first and most important of all the commandments, which says express­ly, Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, Exod. xx. 3. But whatever such divines may say, the apostle Paul says, in direct contradiction to them, that, ‘To us there is but one God, the FATHER, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him, 1 Cor. viii. 6.’ And again, after saying that we have one Lord, one faith, one baptism, he adds, ‘one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all, Eph. iv. 5.6.’ The creed of all Christians, therefore, ought to be, ‘There is ONE GOD, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus, 1 Tim. ii. 5.’

The Father is frequently stiled God, even with respect to Christ, as well as other beings. ‘The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, give unto you, that ye may know the exceeding greatness of his power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand, &c. Eph. i. 17. &c.’ Christ himself uses the same language. ‘I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and unto my God, and your God, John xx. 17. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’

Christ who was the image of the invisible God, and the first-born (or most excellent) of all his creatures, Col. i. 15. and in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Col. ii. 9. ack­nowledged that his Father was greater than he, John xiv, 28. and, indeed, upon all occasions, and in the clearest terms, he expressed his dependence upon God his Father, for all his power [Page 14] and glory; as if he had purposely intended to guard his disciples against forming too high an opinion of the dignity of their master. ‘Verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, John v. 19. I can of mine own self do nothing. As I hear I judge, and my judgement is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father, who sent me, v. 30. The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, but the Father who dwelleth in me, he doth the works. xiv. 10. I live by the Father. vi. 57. The Father hath given to the son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to exe­cute judgment. v. 26.27. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matt. xxviii. 18 He even calls his Fa­ther the only true God, John xvii. 3 that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.’ It appears to me not to be in the power of language to exclude the idea of the divinity of Christ more expressly than by these solemn words.

Notwithstanding the divine communications with which our Lord was favoured, some things are expressly said to be withheld from him. For he himself, speaking of his second coming, says, Mark xiii. 32. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Fa­ther. In Matthew xxiv. 36. where the same observation is re­peated, it is, but my Father only.

The apostles notwithstanding their attachment to their Lord, and Master, always preserve the idea of his subordination to the Father, and consider all his honour and power as derived from him. ‘He received from God the Father, honour and glory, 2 Pet. i. 17. It pleased the Father, that in him should all fullness dwell, Col i. 19. The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, Rev. i. 1. Ye are Christ's and Christ is God's, 1 Cor. iii. 23. The head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. xi. 3’

The reason why Christ was so much distinguished by God the Father, is frequently and fully expressed in the scriptures, viz. his obedience to the will of God, and especially in his submitting to die for the benefit of mankind. ‘Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, John x. 17. He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father, Phil. ii. 8—11. Who, for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is now sat down at the right hand of God. Heb. xii. 2.’

Our Lord says, that he and his Father are one. John x. 30. but he sufficiently explains himself, when he prays that all his disciples may be ‘one with him, and his Father, even as they are one. John xvii. ii. and he gives them the same glory [Page 15] which God had given to him, ver. 22.’ Besides, at the very time that our Lord says, that he and his father are one, and in the very sentence preceding it, ver. 29. he says, that "his Father is "greater than all. But how could the Father be greater than all, if there was any other, who was so much one with him, as to be, in all, respects equal to him.

The mere term God is, indeed. sometimes used in a lower and inferior sense in the scriptures, denoting dominion only; as when the Divine Being himself says, that he will make Moses a god to Pharaoh, Exod. vii. 1; but surely, there can be no danger of our mistaking the sense of such phrases as these; or if it were possible, our Lord himself has sufficiently guarded against any miscon­struction of them when applied to himself, by the explanation he has given of them; informing us, that if in the language of scripture, they are called gods to whom the word of God came, John x. 35 (though, in fact, they were no other than mere men) he could not be guilty of blasphemy in calling himself only the Son of God. Now if Christ had been conscious to himself that he was the true and very God, and that it was of the utmost conse­quence to mankind that they should regard him in that light, this was certainly a proper time for him to have declared himself, and not to have put his hearers off with such an apology as this.

But even this power and dominion, to which Christ is advanced by God his Father, who gave all power into his hands, and who made him head over all things to his church, Eph. i. 22, this media­torial kingdom of Christ (as it is sometimes, and with sufficient propriety, termed) is not to be perpetual. For the apostle Paul, speaking no doubt, under immediate inspiration, expressly says, that when the end shall come, that God shall have subdued all things to his Son (in which, he observes, that he must be excepted who did subdue all thing unto him) he must deliver up the kingdom to God, even the FATHER, and he himself subject to him who had put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 1 Cor. xv. 24. &c. Nay, he himself says expressly, that he had not the disposal of the highest offices of his kingdom, Matt. xx. 23. To sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

So clear, my brethren, so full, and so express, is the uniform testimony of the scriptures to the great doctrine of the proper unity of God, and of the subordination of Christ, and all other beings to him, that the prevalence of so impious a doctrine, as the contrary must be, can be ascribed to nothing but to that mystery of iniquity, which though it began to work in the times of the apostles themselves, was not then risen to so enormous a height as to at­tack the supremacy of the one living and true God, and give his peculiar glory to another. This, my brethren, among other shock­ing corruptions of genuine christianity, grew up with the system of popery; and to shew that nothing is impossible to the superstition and credulity of men, when they are become vain in their imagi­nations, [Page 16] after exalting a man into a god, a creature into a creator, they made a piece of bread into one also, and then bowed down to, and worshipped, the work of their own hands.

But though it seemed fit to the unsearchable wisdom of God, that all the errors and abuses of popery should not be reformed at once; and though this great error was left untouched by the first reformers, blessed be God the bible is as open to us as it was to them? and by the exertion of the same judgment and spirit, we may free christianity from the corruptions which they left adhering to it; and then among other excellencies of our religion, Our Lord will be one and his name one. Zech. xiv. 9.

If you ask who, then, is Jesus Christ, if he be not God; I answer, in the words of St. Peter, addressed to the Jews, after his resurrection and ascension, that Jesus of Nazareth was a man ap­proved of God, by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him. Acts ii. 22. If you ask what is meant by man, in this place; I answer, that man, if the word be used with any kind of proprie­ty, must mean the same kind of being with yourselves. I say, moreover, with the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, that ‘it became him by whom are all things, and for whom are all things,’ to make this great captain of our salvation in all res­pects, like unto us his brethren, that he might be made perfect through sufferings. Heb. ii. 10.17. and that he might have a feeling of all our infirmities, iv. 13. For this reason it was that our Saviour and deliverer was not made of the nature of an angel, or like any super-angelic being, but was of the seed of Abraham, ii. 16. that is (exclusive of the divinity of the Father, which resided in him, and acted by him) a mere man, as other Jews, and as we our­selves also are.

Christ being made by the immediate hand of God, and not born in the usual course of generation, is no reason for his not being considered as a man. For then Adam must not have been a man. But in the ideas of St. Paul, both the first and second Adam (as Christ, on this account, is sometimes called) were equally men; By man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead, 1 Cor. xv. 21. And, certainly, in the resurrection of a man, that is, of a person in all respects like ourselves, we have a more lively hope of our own resurrection; that of Christ being both a proof and a pattern of ours. We can, therefore, more firmly believe, that because he lives, we who are the same that he was, and who shall undergo the same change by death that He did, shall live also. John xiv. 19.

Till this great corruption of christianity be removed, it will be in vain to preach the gospel to Jews, or Mahometans, or, indeed, to any people who retain the use of the reason and understanding that God has given them. For how is it possible that three persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, should be separately, each of them, possessed of all divine perfections, so as to be true, very, and eter­nal God, and yet that there should be but one God; a truth which is [Page 17] so clearly and fully revealed, that it is not possible for men to re­fuse their assent to it; or else it would, no doubt, have been long ago expunged from our creed, as utterly irreconcileable with the more favourite doctrine of a Trinity, a term which is not to be found in the scriptures. Things above our reason may, for any thing that we know to the contrary be true; but things expressly contrary to our reason, as that three should be one and one three can never appear to us to be so.

With the Jews, the doctrine of the Divine Unity is, and indeed justly, considered as the most fundamental principle of all religi­on. Hear O Israel, the Lord Our God is one Lord, Deut. vi. 4. Mark xii. 29. To preach the doctrine of the Trinity to the Jews, can appear to them in no other light than an attempt to seduce them into idolatry, a thing which they dare not entertain the most distant thought of.

The great creed of the Mahometans, is, that There is one God, and Mahomet is his prophet. Now that Mahomet is not the prophet of God, it is to be hoped they may, in time, be made to believe; but we must not expect that they will so easily give up their faith in the unity of God. To make the gospel what it was originally, glad tidings of great joy; and as at last it certainly will be to all the nations of the world, we must free it from this most absurd and impious doctrine, and also from many other corruptions which have been introduced into it. It can no otherwise appear worthy of God, and favourable to the virtue and happiness of mankind.

Lest some common objections should hinder the reception of the great truth here contended for, I shall briefly consider and reply to the principle of them. It is often said that Christ speaks of his humanity only, whenever he represents himself as in­ferior to the Father, and dependent upon him. But the scriptures themselves are far from furnishing the least hint of any such me­thod of interpretation, though, according to the Trinitarians, it is absolutely necessary to the true understanding of them.

Besides, when it is applied to the passages in question, it is far from making them either true in themselves, or agreeable to the obvious purport and design of the places in which they are in­troduced. I shall just mention a few. Could our Lord say with truth, and without an unworthy prevarication, that the Father is the only true God, John xvii. 3. if any other person, not implied in the term Father, was as much the true God as himself? Now the term Father being appropriated to what is called the first person in the godhead, cannot comprehend the Son, who is called the second. This key, therefore, is of no service in this case, and our Lord, by expressing himself as he has done, could not but lead his hearers into what is called a dangerous mistake.

When our Lord said that his Father was greater than he, did he make any reserve, and secretly mean, not his whole self, but only part, and the inferior part of himself the other part being equal in power and glory with the Father? How mean the pre­varication, and how unworthy of our Lord!

[Page 18]When our Lord said that the time of the day of judgment was not known to himself, the Son, but to the Father only, could he mean that his humanity only did not know it, but that his divinity (which is supposed to be intimately united with his humanity) was as well acquainted with it as the Father himself? If the human nature of Christ had been incapable of having that knowledge communicated to it, the declaration would have been needless; but as that was not the case, his hearers must necessarily understand him as speaking of himself in his highest capacity; as he certainly must do, if at all, when he speaks of himself as the Son, corresponding to the Father.

If Christ had not satisfied the Jews that he did not mean to make himself equal with God, would they not have produced it against him at his trial, when he was condemned as a blasphemer, because he confessed that he was the Christ only: and yet no Jew expected any thing more than a man for their Messiah, and our saviour no where intimates that they were mistaken in that expectation. It is plain that Martha considered our Lord as a different person from God, and dependent upon God, when she said to him, John xi. 22. I know that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.

VI. Of ATONEMENT for Sin by the Death of Christ.

YOU have been taught by divines, that if Christ be not God, he could not have made an infinite satisfaction for the sins of mankind. But, my brethren, where do you learn that the pardon of sin, in a finite creature, requires an infinite satisfaction; or, indeed, any satisfaction at all, besides repentance and reformation, on the part of a sinner. We read in the scriptures that we are justified freely by the Grace of God, Rom. iii. 34. 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, Matt. vii. 14. 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 resentment towards an offending and penitent brother. Indeed, how could it deserve the name of forgiveness if we did? If he only repent, we are commanded to for­give him. Luke xvii. 4.

You read in the scriptures that Christ died a sacrifice for our sins. Heb. ix. 26. So he did; and a sacrifice it was, of a sweet smelling savour to God. To die, as Christ did, in the glorious cause of truth and virtue; to die, as he did, in order to show us an example of patiently suffering death for our religion, and the good of man­kind, and in a firm hope of a resurrection to a future and eternal [Page 19] life; to die, as he did, in express attestation of his own divine mission, by his manifest resurrection from the dead, and as the fullest proof of that doctrine, by means of which sinners are con­tinually reconciled unto God, was a noble sacrifice indeed. We also are commanded to yield our bodies living sacrifices. Rom. xii. 1. And we are required to offer the sacrifices of praise continually. Psal. cxvi. 17. But it is plain that all these are only figurative expressions, and used by way of comparison. Neither our bodies, nor our prayers can be considered as real sacrifices; nor are we, therefore, obliged to suppose that Christ was a real sacrifice. And though we, like him, should be called actually to lay down our lives for our brethren, 1 John iii. 16. which, in imitation of him, we are enjoined to be ready to do, we should be sacrifices only in the figurative sense of the word.

It is true, that no man who is a sinner (and all men have sinned) can be justified by his works. We all stand in need of, and must have recourse to, free grace and mercy; but it is a great dishonour to God to suppose that this mercy and grace takes its rise from any thing but his own essential goodness; and that he is not of himself, and independent of all foreign considerations whatever, what he solemnly declared himself to Moses, at the time of the giving of the law, to be, namely, a God merciful and gracious, long suffering, abundant in goodness and in truth. Exod. xxxiv. 6. or that he re­quires any other sacrifices, but the sacrifices of a broken spirit, and a contrite heart, which he will never despise. Ps. li. 17.

Can we wish for a more distinct, and perfect representation of the manner in which God forgives the sins of his offspring of mankind, than our Saviour has exhibited to us in that most excellent parable of the prodigal son; in which the good father no sooner sees his child, who had abandoned him, and wasted his substance in riotous living, returning to him and to his duty; but without waiting for any atonement or propitiation, even while he was yet a great way off, he ran to him, fell upon his neck, and kissed him. Luke xv. 20. The same representation we see in the parable of the creditor, who freely forgave his servant, because he humbly desired him. Let us not then, my brethren, deprive the ever blessed God of the most glorious and honourable of all his attributes, and leave him nothing but justice, or rather vengeance, which is expressly said to be his strange work. Isaiah xxviii. 21.

It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the satisfaction for sin by the death of Christ, with the doctrine of free grace, which, according to the uniform tenet of the scriptures, is so fully dis­played in the pardon of sin, and the justification of sinners. When, therefore, the apostle Paul says, Rom. iii 24. That we are justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, the meaning of the latter clause must be interpreted in such a manner as to make it consistent with the former; and it is far from requiring any force or straining of the text to do it. For it is only necessary to suppose that our redemption (or, as the word pro­perly [Page 20] signifies, and is indeed frequently rendered by our translators, our deliverance) from the power of sin, i. e. our repentance and reformation, without which there is no promise of pardon, is effected by the gospel of Jesus Christ, who came to call sinners to repentance; but still God is to be considered as the giver, and not the receiver with respect to our redemption, for we read that he spared not his own son, but gave him up for us all. Rom. viii. 32.

To say that God the Father provided an atonement for his own offended justice is, in fact, to give up the doctrine. If a person owe me a sum of money, and I chuse to have the debt discharged, is it not the same thing, whether I remit the debt at once, or supply another person with money wherewith to pay me to the debtor's name? If satisfaction be made to any purpose, it must be in some manner, in which the offender may be a sufferer, and the offended person a gainer; but it can never be reconciled to equity, or answer any good purpose whatever, to make the inno­cent suffer the punishment of the guilty. If, as Abraham says, it be far from God to slay the righteous with the wicked, and that the righteous should be as the wicked, Gen. xviii. 25. much far­ther must it be from him to slay the righteous instead of the wicked.

I wish the zealous advocates for this doctrine would consider, that if it be necessary, in the nature of things, that the justice of God be satisfied before any sin can be pardoned, and Christ be God as well as the Father, whether the justice of Christ ought not to have been satisfied in the first place. If so, what other infinite being has made satisfaction to him? But if the divine nature of the Son required no satisfaction, why should the divine nature of the Father require any?

If it had been inconsistent with the divine justice to pardon sin upon repentance only, without some farther satisfaction, we might have expected to have found it expressly said to be so in the scriptures; but no such declaration can be produced either from the Old or the New Testament. All that can be pretended is, that it may be inferred from it. Though good works are recom­mended to us in the strongest manner, it is never with any salvo or caution, as if they were not of themselves acceptable to God. The declarations of the divine mercy to the penitent are all abso­lute, without the most distant hint of their having a reference to any consideration on which they are made. Thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive. Psalm lxxxiv. 5. To the Lord our God be­long mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him. Dan. ix. 3. When David and other penitents confess their sins, and intreat for pardon, they refer themselves to the divine mercy only, without seeming to have the least idea of any thing farther. Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions; according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness sake, O Lord. Psalm xxv. 6.

It is particularly remarkable, that when sacrifices under the law are expressly said not to be sufficient for the pardon of sin, we are [Page 21] never referred to any more availing sacrifice; but to good works only. ‘Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it; thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of the Lord are a broken spirit A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psalm li. 16 17.’ If any of the Jews had had the least notion of the necessity of any atonement for the sins of mankind, they could not but have expected a suffering Messiah; and yet it is plain that the very best of them had no such idea. And though our Saviour frequently explains the reason of his coming, and the necessity of his suffering, it is never on any such account. If he had done it any where, it might have been expected in those discourses by which he endeavoured to reconcile his disciples to his death, in his solemn prayer before his suffer­ings, at the time of his agony in the garden, or when he was up­on the cross; yet nothing of this kind drops from him on any of these occasions.

When our Lord describes the proceedings of the day of judg­ment, he doth not represent the righteous as referring themselves to the sufferings or merit of their judge for their justification; and the judge himself expressly grounds it on their good works only. Though St. Peter, in his discourse to the Jews on the day of Pente­cost, speaks of their sin in murdering Christ as of a heinous na­ture, he says not a word of the necessity of any atonement, or that an ample satisfaction had just been made, by means of their very wickedness. How would a modern divine have harangued upon the occasion, and what advantage might he have taken of the cry of the Jews, His blood be upon us, and upon our children. But St. Peter only exhorts to repentance, and speaks of the death of Christ as an event that took place according to the foreknow­ledge of God.

All the discourses of St. Paul upon various occasions in the book of Acts, are entirely moral. In his celebrated speech at Athens, he only urges his hearers to repentance, from the consi­deration of a future judgment. He says not a word of what is now called the true gospel of Jesus Christ. In short, 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 doctrine 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.

These, my brethren, are the principal heads on which I propo­sed to expostulate with you, in the plain and free manner in which I have done. Do you yourselves, ‘search the scriptures and see whether these things be so. Pray to the God of truth to lead you into all truth, and may he give you understanding in all things.’

VII. Practical Consequences of the above Doctrines.

THE found knowledge of christianity is not of importance as a matter of speculation merely; though abstract truths, especially truths that relate to God, and the maxims of his moral government, are not without their utility and obligation; but the truths that I here contend for nearly affect the sentiments of our hearts, and our conduct in life; as, indeed, has been shewn in many respects, already. Considering God as possessed of the character in which some divines represent him, it is impossible, while human nature is what it is, that he should appear in an amiable or res­pectable light. Such a God may, indeed, be the object of dread and terror to his creatures; but by no means of their love or reverence. And what is obedience without love? It cannot be that of the heart, which, however, is the only thing that is of any real value in religion. Also, how can a man love his fellow-creatures in general, when he considers the greatest part of them as the objects of the divine abhorrence, and doomed by him to an everlast­ing destruction, in which he believes that he himself must for ever rejoice? And what can remain of virtue, when these two great sources of it, the love of God and of mankind, are thus grossly cor­rupted? Lastly, how must the genuine spirit of mercy and forgive­ness, which so eminently distinguishes the gospel of Christ, be debased, when God himself (whose conduct in this very respect is particularly proposed to our imitation) is considered as never for­giving sin without some previous atonement, satisfaction, or intercession.

On the other hand, loving God, as the compassionate Father of all his offspring, as willing that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of his truth; and also loving all mankind as our brethren, as, together with ourselves, the children of the same gracious Father, we cannot want the most generous and powerful motives to do the will of God, and to provoke one another to love, and to good works; being in no fear of counteracting the secret designs of the Almighty, which we believe are aimed, not at the destruction, but the happiness of all his creatures.

Think not, however, that I am so uncharitable as to suppose that all those who profess to maintain the doctrines I have been arguing against, are universally destitute of the genuine love of God, or of their fellow-creatures. I am sensible, and truly thankful, that it is not always the consequence; but it is because the hearts of such persons are really influenced by better principles than those which they avow. They by no means habitually regard the Divine Being in the light in which their principles represent him, but as the true Father of all the creatures that he has made, and, as such, sincerely desirous to promote their best interests.

Also, notwithstanding, if they be asked, they will not hesitate to say, that Christ is God, the supremacy of the Father, even with respect to the Son, is, at the same time, the real sentiment, [Page 23] of their Minds; and when they lift up their hearts to God, it is only God the Father that is the proper object of their adoration. The constant tenor of the scriptures is so contrary to their professed creed, that though they dare not call it in question, it is not able to counteract the plainer, the more consistent, and the better prin­ciples which will force themselves upon their minds from conversing with the bible.

Besides, it requires more subtilty and refinement to enter into the principles above-mentioned, than the common people are masters of. They cannot conceive how one man should sin, and another person, six thousand years after, be guilty of that sin, and punishable for it; how one person's righteousness should be con­sidered as the righteousness of another; or that three distinct persons should each of them be God, and yet that there should be no more gods than one.

Men of plain understandings, in fact, never do believe any such thing; nor can it be supposed that the gospel, which was intended to be the solid foundation of the faith, hope, and joy of common people, should require so much acuteness, as is necessary to give even a plausible colour to these strange assertions. The attempt to explain them (and, till they be explained, they can no more be believed, than a proposition in an unkown tongue) can lead to nothing but endless and unprofitable contro­versy. It is happy, therefore, that so many persons make a better use of the gospel than their tenets would lead them to do, and that they consider it chiefly as a rule of life, and the foundation of hope after death. But, as far as the principles I have been arguing against are believed, they cannot but do harm to those who entertain them, as well as bring disgrace upon the christian name; both which every lover of the gospel should endeavour to prevent.