:

It is pretended that God, being infinitely offended, required infinite satisfaction. But can God require of his creatures, that which he never put in their power to give? Can we consistently, with the natural notion we have of God, think he can act thus with his creatures! Or that he, in his infinite goodness, can ever require more than is in our power to give? Or can finite creatures give infinite offence? But for argument sake, let us suppose that such a satisfaction was necessary and then let them tell us how it was possible that it should be made at all: for if God the son (as is pretended) be of the same essence with God the Father, how can one suffer and not the other; besides, original sin must have equally offended the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, since they are all but one, or of the same essence: for which reason all three must have required the like satisfaction, for as they all can have but one will, none could pardon without it; and why might not the Father or Holy Ghost be Mediators, as well as the Son and if one could pardon, or did not require infinite satisfaction, why not the other? And if we are told that nothing suffered by this satisfaction, made on the cross, but only the human nature, then they can not make out the satisfaction, which they pretend was necessary: for if human sufferings were sufficient, there was no necessity for any satisfaction to be made by Jesus, as God and man: Adam, or any of his descendants would have done it as well. But let us enquire further: did Jesus make full satisfaction, or did he do it only in part? If the first; pray, what was it that was pardoned? Why nothing: for the debt being fully paid, or satisfaction given, then there was of course, no pardon; for supposing you owe me a sum of money, can it be said that I pardon you any thing on receiving payment, or satisfaction to the full amount? Would it not be ridiculous for me to say, I pardon you, having received the whole? Is it not equally absurd to say, pardon was obtained, when full satisfaction was made and given ? But we may be told, though full satisfaction could not be made, yet, that God accepted it, and took it for such. If so, then must they allow that God can pardon without full satisfaction, which if he can, how absurd must it be, to say he required infinite satisfaction; and why he might not pardon Adam, on the punishment he inflicted, will be impossible for them to show. In short they are reduced to this dilemma, if Jesus made full satisfaction, then there was no pardon, and if he did not make full satisfaction then there was no necessity for either his suffering or death. The Messiah, say they, was to die for the sins of the world: : grant he did so, the natural consequence must then be, that mankind were restored, but nothing like this is pretended; for enquire in

what the restoration consisted? and it vanishes to nothing.

Was

the human race restored to any of its former dignities? No. Was there any alteration in their affairs? No. Did the Jews, to whom the Messiah was promised, as the greatest worldly blessing, receive any benefit or advantage by his coming? No: on the contrary, it is pretended, that the doing that which was necessary to be done, brought on their ruin. Can there be any thing more inconsistent, or contradictory, than to pretend that the salvation of the whole world, could only be brought about by the ignominious death of a person, and that the very act that introduced this salvation, excluded those very people, through whose means it was obtained, from the benefit of it? How are the Jews upbraided for this very act, let all ......ian writers witness, one and all agree, that for this sin, not only the city and temple were destroyed, but that thereby, they brought damnation on themselves and posterity. There is something very unaccountable in this affair for Jesus must die that the world might be saved; and the Jews must be damned for the same reason. That Jesus was to suffer an ignominious death, was pre-ordained, a thing settled by agreement: to this end and purpose it is pretended that "He came into the world; the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his ...... For of a truth, against the holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed. Both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatever thy hand, and thy council, determined before to be done." That this was so, is evident from what Jesus himself tells Pilate. "Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above." (4) Who can forbear lamenting this contrivance? Who can forbear crying, O fatal necessity? Is it thus that the Almighty, the good, the merciful God! deals his blessings to mankind; thus to deceive and doom to destruction, the unhappy instruments which he was pleased to make use of in saving the world? Who could have suspected or believed that the Deity, who fills all things, should so contract his existence, as to be contained in the womb of a woman? That he should take a human shape, and appear among us in disguise, doing all he could to hide from those to whom he was sent, not only his divinity, but the character of the Messiah. (5) Was it to be imagined that the Messiah could in his discourse, make use of nothing but dark sayings and parables, that he might not be known; or, as he expresses himself, "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and

(3) Acts iv. 26. (4) John xix. 11. (5) Mat. xvi. 20

hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time, they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." (6) Is this conduct worthy of God? Is this the Messiah promised the Jews as their greatest good? Behold him using all the art he can, from manifesting himself, "Lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." (7) Could it be imagined, that the Messiah would hinder the Jews the means of being healed and forgiven? " And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. But to others in parables, that seeing they might see, and hearing they might not understand." (8) The Jews did all in their power to be rightly informed, and only desired a sign. (9) But lest they should be convinced, they were refused; and a resolution taken to give them no sign, but the sign of Jonas, (10) which in fact was no sign, as it was never made good to them; for they were excluded from being present, or seeing any of those transactions, related of his resurrection. And I can not help thinking, that if his death brought on the destruction of Jerusalem, and the damnation of the Jews, that it was none of their fault, since the grand secret was never disclosed to those who ought to have had information: of this, Jesus himself, seems to have been sensible: "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do;" (11) were his last and dying words: and St. Peter declares the Jews guiltless: "And now brethren, I wot that through ignorance, ye did it; and so did your rulers." (12) It is therefore, a great absurdity to pretend, that the destruction of the city and Temple, and dispersion of the Jews, were occasioned by putting Jesus to death. Was the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, (which happened 700 years before Jesus's time) owing to his death? Was the destruction of the City and Temple by the Babylonians, owing to his death? Were the many and frequent calamities which befel the Jews owing to his death? Were the frequent profanations, and pollutions of the Temple, and its being so often taken by different enemies, owing to his death? No: the Jews will be told that all those calamities were brought on them by their manifold crimes. If so, why is not the last destruction of the City and Temple imputed to the same cause? The history of those times furnishes such scenes of wickedness and profaneness, as are not to be equaled at any other epoch. Besides, were not the Jews subject to the Romans long before the coming of Jesus? Were they not barbarously oppressed, and ill treated by their extortionate Governors, both

(6) Mat. iv. 12. (7) Mat. xiii. 15. (8) Luke viii. 11. (9) Mat. xvi. 1. (10) Mat. xvi. 4. (11) Luke xxiii. 34. (12) Aets iii. 17.

before, in his time, and afterwards? Was not this, together with a desire of recovering their liberties, and the being misled by some crafty and wicked leaders, that which occasioned their revolt? They might as well pretend, that all the misfortunes which befel the Jews before the coming of Jesus, were owing to his death, as to pretend that what afterwards befel them, was owing to that event: when it evidently appears that this was brought about by so many concurrent

causes.

The doctrine of satisfaction, and the necessity of Jesus's sufferings and death, appears very plainly to have been invented by his followers: his whole conduct, very evidently contradicts it. We are told, that "As Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold many publicans and sinners came, and sat down with him and his disciples; and when the pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, why eateth your master with publicans and sinners. But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick: but go ye, and learn what that meaneth. I will have mercy and not sacrifice, for I am not come to call the righteous (says he) but sinners to repentance. (1) Nothing can be more express than this declaration of his; but how contradictory to the present system of......ianity let any one judge. Jesus declares, that they that be whole, need not a physician, but only those that are sick. But ......ians insist, that unless, both the whole, and the sick have one, they must be damned. Jesus freely declares, that he came, "Not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." But......ians insist that without faith, they must be damned, repentance not being deemed by them, sufficient. Jesus declares from Hosea, (2) that God will have mercy, and not sacrifice. But......ians contradict him, and strenuously insist, that God could have no mercy without sacrifice. Is it possible that Jesus should have made such a declaration, if he knew that he himself, was to be made a sacrifice? Nay, a necessary sacrifice, to which he had, as ...... ians pretend, devoted, and offered himself willingly, and freely. But it is very plain, that all pretentions of this sort have no mauner of foundation; since it was with the utmost reluctance that he suffered. "My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death," says he. (3) He prayed very fervently, "O my Father! if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." (4) "Father if thou be willing, remove this cup from me." (5) Here is what he earnestly desired, and what he besought in the utmost agonies; such as even made the sweat that

(1) Mat. ix. 10. (2) Hosea, vi. 10. (3) Mat. xxvi. 28. (4) Mat. xxvi. 39. (6.) Luke xxii. 42.

came from him, "as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground.” (6) The whole of this transaction, therefore, evidently evinces that he had not made any such agreement; for either he knew his death to be necessary, or he was ignorant of it: if the first, then was his praying to be exempted from that which was necessary; from that to which he had devoted himself, and from that which he came to perform, absurd and ridiculous: and would have been thought so, had any common person acted in the like manner; for how could he so earnestly pray to be exempted from that which he knew was necessary for him to undergo, having freely offered himself. Was the desire of saving the world, a matter of such indifference to him? Was his love to mankind abated? But if he knew not that his sufferings were necessary, or that by his means the world was to be saved: then could he not be that divine person which ...... ians make him; and consequently, if infinite satisfaction was necessary, or the death of God requisite, he could not be the person that could make it; that he could not be God, is plain, not only from his whole conduct, but also from the circumstance of the angels descent from heaven to strengthen him. (7) Now for God to be either in such agonies, or to stand in need of another's assistance, appears to be such an absurdity, as scarcely ought to be mentioned: for of what service, or use, would the divine nature be, if it could not prevent human frailties and fears, from getting the better of it, nor prevent its triumphing over it? On the whole, I think there redounds no honour to Jesus, from the representation of this whole affair, since he prayed to be excused from it, and besought it with blood sweats, being done contrary to his inclination. "Not as I will, [says he] but as thou wilt. (8) not my will, but thine be done." (9) So that if he was a divine person, he must have had an opposite will to that of the father; which if so, it will be difficult to make it consistent : and either the Jews contracted no guilt, since there could be no salvation obtained without his sufferings; or salvation must be made the consequence of an obnoxious wicked act! To these sad dilemmas are they reduced. "We are told that the whole economy of man's redemption, is every where represented to us as an unsearchable mystery of divine wisdom and goodness, and as the object of our belief, and not of our comprehension." (10) But as this is the foundation on which the whole superstructure is built, I think that if the same be proved false, every thing that is built thereon must fall; for can that be made a matter of belief, which we not only do not comprehend, but

(6) Mat. xxvi. 44. (7) Luke xxii. 43. (8) Mat. xxvi. 39. (9) Luke xxii. (10) Waiv. Hist. vol. x. pa. 591.