been revealed. But let not credulity be taken for conviction. To pass over a revealed truth, without being able to discover it, is an unhappy mistake; but we doubt whether it is more unfortunate, than to find revelations where none were intended. The former terminates in ignorance, the latter in error. For our own part, we have found nothing in the word of God, which gives any testimony in favour of the doctrine in question. It is nowhere mentioned in any form whatever. It is inferred, and obscurely inferred too, from disconnected and broken passages. But is this enough to prove a doctrine, which contradicts the highest principles of the understanding, which is at variance with the attributes of the Deity, and involves an impossibility? We think not.

Again, the language of Christ himself always implies, that he and the Father are distinct beings. When he prayed to God, was it himself to whom he prayed? It certainly was, if he and the Father were the same being. "All things," he says, "are delivered unto me of my Father-All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Matth. xi. 27. xxviii, 18. Do these passages teach, that he was himself the same being as the Father, who had delivered to him all things? The Apostle says, Acts, ii. 36, "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Can any language more forcibly express two beings? Was God. crucified? And what meaning would there be in these words, if Jesus himself were the being by whom he was made Lord and Christ.

The second part of Mr. Campbell's treatise is devoted to the subject of the atonement, or the doctrine, which teaches, that the sufferings and death of Christ were

taken as a substitute for the sins of men. He states what he conceives to be the scripture view of the subject in the following words.

"Let it be observed, that the Greek word translated atonement is the same, that is almost always rendered reconciliation. It is never translated atonement in the New Testament, except in Rom. v. 11. and there it is in the margin rendered reconciliation; and in this text we are said to receive it. We joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.'

"It supposes a variance to subsist between two parties, but made one again by reconciliation. The scripture gives us a distinct account of the parties at variance, the nature, means, and end of the reconciliation. That the parties are God on the one side, and man on the other seems admitted by all. That the cause of the difference is sin on the part of man, which alienated him from God, is as generally admitted as the former.

"Many also are willing to admit, that, as God is unchangeable in goodness, no change can have taken place in him, and as the change is wholly in man, the reconciliation must consist in delivering him from sin with all its consequences." p. 18.

The view here taken embraces an important fact, and one little regarded by those, who defend the doctrine of satisfaction. Men are to be reconciled to God, and not God to men. God can never have been estranged from his creatures. As he has regarded them once, he must always regard them. His nature is incapable of change or disaffection, and consequently he can never be otherwise than reconciled. The scriptures accordingly always speak of the reconciliation being on the part of men; as in the text above quoted, where it is said, "we have received the reconciliation." And the command is, "Be ye reconciled to God." By their sins men have wandered from their Maker. They have broken his laws, and become disaffected to his government. His love and goodness would bring them back, cause them to see their errors and follies, and reconcile them to his wise and equable dispensations.

This is the reconciliation, which he sent his Son to attain. We are told he sent him to appease divine wrath, and satisfy divine justice. But neither of these things are possible. God is not, cannot be, a wrathful Being; and instead of justice, it would be the most flagrant injustice to demand the sufferings of the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. Christ came to turn men from their iniquities, and to save them from the fatal consequences of their sins. He came to produce a change in them, and not in God. He came to open the way of eternal life, and to reveal doctrines, which should induce men to pursue it. The whole scheme of his religion points to this end. Repentance and holiness are the perpetual theme of every command, and every exhortation. But the notion, that he came to make a full satisfaction for the sins of the world, destroys all the moral and positive parts of his religion. There is no occasion for repentance, holiness, or any other moral quality, if the only object to which they can lead has already been attained. Some have said, that this satisfaction was intended only to repair the breach of the law, which was made by the lapse of our first parents, and that after all every individual is answerable for his own sins. But this device has much the appearance of having been contrived only as an escape from the immoral and dangerous consequences of the scheme, when admitted in its fullest latitude. But it is unsound and inconsistent. The satisfaction was made by an infinite Being. It must, therefore, have an infinite extent; and if it have power to remove one sin, it must have the same power to remove all that ever have been, or ever can be committed. To say, that although an infinite satisfaction is made, God might accept it only in part, would

be to impeach his justice. If full payment be made, justice requires a perfect release.

The doctrine of satisfaction, or substitution, is also at variance with the freedom of divine grace.

"If sin is a debt, and Christ paid it all, upon what ground is it said to be forgiven? Let any of the advocates of this system show, how the full payment of a debt can be reconciled with the glorious truth, that God forgives us freely.—If, as is asserted, Jesus was delivered up, that he might pay the debt, and pacify God's wrath, what was there that God could freely give, when Christ had paid for all? But if, according to scripture, the love of God was such, that he gave his Son to publish the Gospel, to exemplify it in his life, to confirm it by his death, and to assure us of eternal life by his resurrection from the dead, all is clear, all is consistent."-p. 24.

All that is said of grace or pardon in the scriptures, if men are accepted of God on the grounds of a satis faction made for their sins by another being, would be unintelligible. Where is any room for pardon? Our acceptance is secured, and there is nothing to pardon. But we do not learn the scriptures thus. As we read them, our only hope of acceptance is in the free grace, and unmerited pardon of God. Is it said we are pardoned through the merits of Christ? This is only giving wrong names to things, and removing the difficulty one step higher. If a pardon is already purchased, it is granted not as an act of grace or mercy, but of justice.

And yet every sinner must feel, that there is a necessity for the pardoning mercies of God. When the wicked repent, and turn from their sins, and reform their lives, and not before, God in his gracious goodness will forgive and accept them. When we have done all, which our imperfect natures will suffer us to do, we shall still be deficient, and unworthy in the sight of a holy God. But he has promised his loving kindness, his mercy, and his pardoning grace, to remove

the dross which remains. The Son of God has made known the conditions, upon which we may expect the mercy and forgiveness of God will be exercised towards us. He has taught us the part we have to act. He has given us rules, and supplied us with motives. He has revealed the will and the laws of his Father in heaven. If we are in earnest, and persevere to the end in faith, obedience, and righteousness, we shall not lose the reward of our well doing. If we neglect these things, our hopes will prove shadowy and illusive.

We trust Mr. Campbell's book is calculated to do good where it shall circulate. His views appear to us scriptural, and his language is temperate and plain. There is more looseness of style, than we can approve, and the errors of the press are numerous.

We pre

sume the author's duties and avocations might justly be urged as some apology. Mr. Campbell preaches, we understand, to a congregation of unitarians in Pittsburgh, in addition to the arduous labours of a school.

Fifth Letter to the Rev. Dr. Miller. On the Moral Tendency of Unitarian Preaching.

SIR,

My last letter was chiefly devoted to a consideration of the doctrines of Depravity and Regeneration, and their comparative moral tendency, as they are understood by unitarians and calvinists. I come now to the other particulars, by which you characterize unitarian preaching.

You say it teaches, that the various exercises of mind, supposed by some to be essential to piety, are mere