I may think of it a year hence, should I live and be in health. But I am satisfied, beyond a doubt, that if I live a year longer, and then find cause to give up my present belief, that I shall not feel a consciousness of having professed what I did not sincerely believe; and was I called to leave the world and my writings in it, and at the last hour of my life should find I had erred, yet I am satisfied, that I should possess the approbation of a good conscience

in all I have written.

Therefore, though sensible of my imperfections, yet enjoying great consolation in believing the doctrine for which I have argued, in the following work, and in the enjoyment of a good conscience, I submit the following pages to a generous and candid public, praying for the blessing of the GOD whom I serve, on the feeble endeavors of the most unworthy whom he hath called as a servant of all men. THE AUTHOR,

A

TREATISE

ON

ATONEMENT.

IN this Treatise on Atonement, I shall con fine myself to three general inquiries. 1st Of Sin. 2d. Of Atonement for Sin. 3d. Of the Consequences of Atonement to Mankind. These particulars may be represented by a disorder; the remedy for the disorder, and the health enjoyed in consequence of a cure. And 1st. subdivide as follows.

Of sin, which, for the sake of ease, I

And 3. Its effects.

1. Its nature. 2. Its cause.

1. Its nature.

And first of the nature of sin. Sin is the violation of a law which exists in the mind, which law is the imperfect knowledge men have of moral good. This law is transgressed, whenever, by the influence of temptation, a good understanding yields to a contrary choice, Where a law exists, it presupposes a legislature, whose intention, in legislation, must be thwarted, in order for the law to take cognizance of sin. This legislature, in all moral accountable beings, is a capacity to understand, connected with

the causes and means of knowledge, which standing or existing, on finite and limited principles, will justify my supposition, that sin, in its nature, ought to be considered finite and limited, rather than infinite and unlimited, as has, by many, been supposed.

By offering my reasons against the infinity of sin, I shall open to an easy method of showing it to be finite. The supposition that sin is infinite, is supported, or rather pretended to be supported, on the consideration of its being committed against an infinite law, which is produced by an infinite legisla ture, who is God himself. I have before observed, and I think justly, that the intention of a legislature, in legislation, must be thwarted, in order for the law, to take cognizance of sin. Now if GoD, in a di-` rect sense of speaking, be the legislator of the law which is thwarted by transgression, in the same direct sense of speaking, his intentions in legislation are thwarted. With eyes open, the reader cannot but see, that if sin be infinite because it is committed against an infinite law, whose author is God, the design of Deity must be abortive; to suppose which, brings a cloud of darkness over the mind, as intense as the supposition is erroneous. It cannot with any propriety be supposed, that any rational being can have an intention contrary to the knowledge which he possesses. Was a resolve brought into the State legislature to be passed into an act, it would be very unlikely to succeed, providing the legislature knew that the intention of the act would utterly fail. It is possible, and very frequently the case, that imperfect beings desire contrary to their knowledge; but this, in every instance, is proof and often the cause of their misery. In such cases, mise, ry rises to an exact proportion to the strength of desire. Now to reason justly, we must conclude, that

if GoD possess infinite wisdom, he could never intend any thing to take place, or be, that will not take place, or be; nor that which is, or will be, not to be, at the time when it is. And it must be considered erroneous to suppose that the Allwise ever desired any thing to take place, which, by his wisdom, he knew would not; as such a supposition must, in effect, suppose a degree of misery in the eternal mind, equal to the strength of his fruitless desire! Were this the case, all the misery to which mortals are subject, bears not the thousandth part of the proportion to the miseries of the Divine Being, as the smallest imaginable atom does to the weight of the ponderous globe; providing, at the same time, the idea of infinity is attached to Deity! Again, if we admit of a disappointment. to the Supreme Being, even in the smallest matter of consideration, it follows, that we have no satisfactory evidence whereby to prove that any thing, at present, in the whole universe, is as the Supreme intended. All the harmonies of nature, which to the eye of wondering man, are so convincing of the existence of that power, wisdom and goodness which he adores, may have continued their laws in active force much longer than GoD intended; brought into existence millions of beings more than were contemplated in creation; and by this time become a perfect nuisance to the general plan of the Almighty. The admission of the error refuted, would sink the mind to the nether parts of moral depravity, where darkness reigns with all its horrors.

The above arguments are introduced, to show the absurdity of admitting a violation of the intention of the Supreme Legislator.

I now turn on the other side, and admit, as a fact, what I have sufficiently refuted, viz. that the inten

tions of God as a Supreme Legislator are violated by the sin of finite beings; but must beg leave to inform the reader that the proposition will by no means afford the intended consequences; but yields me an argument in favor of the finite nature of sin, which I do not want, and of which I shall make no other use than to explode the proposition itself. If any intention of Deity were ever thwarted, it proves, without evasion, that he is not infinite; if so, his will, or intention, cannot be infinite; and, therefore, the consequences intended by the proposition are forever lost, as they exist only upon the supposition of his being infinite. If it be argued, that the intentions of Deity, as a legislator, are violated, not strictly in an infinite sense, but in some subordinate degree, it is giving up the ground contended for, to all intents; for, if the intention violated, be not infinite, the sin of violating it, cannot be infinite.

Again, if sin be infinite and unlimited, it cannot be superseded by any principle or being in the universe; for goodness cannot be more than infinite, neither is there a degree for Deity to occupy above it. And it may be further argued, that the admission of the error refuted, would be a denial of any Supreme Being in the universe; for, as Deity does not supersede sin, he cannot be superior to that which is equal to himself.

Again, I further inquire, can that be considered as an infinite evil, which is limited in its consequences? The answer must be in the negative. If sin be an infinite evil, and infinite in its consequences, as an evil, not only all created beings must suffer endlessly by it, but God himself can never cease to experience the torment-giving power of that which he is unable to avoid! I say more, if sin be infinite and unlimited, for it must be, unlimited, if it be infinite,