1. He obferves, that " nothing tends more <to introduce confufion into our ideas of religion than equivocal terms, and undefined "unfcriptural language." P. 5. Yet he feems not to have kept clear of this errror, which he justly esteems to be very hurtful to religion. In his first letter he examines into the meaning of the word fatisfaction. "Sometimes," "it denotes the pleafure which the "mind takes in any thing that is the object of "our hopes and purfuits; very often it means "the redreffing of grievances, and repairing

he fays,

damages and injuries done or received; and,

laftly, it denotes the obedience due to the "commands of a fuperior, properly made "known to us." P. 3, 4. This last he calls "the fcripture notion of the term fatisfaction "as applied to Chrift," p. 6. and tells us, that in the other fenfe of it, as implying a

reparation of injuries, it is not to be found "in the New Teftament, as applicable to "Chrift." P. 5. This manner of speaking of the term fatisfaction, tends, I should think, to make the reader fuppofe, that the writers of the New Teftament apply it to Christ in the third of thofe fenfes which Mr. G. has here given. Whereas the word is not to be found in the New Teftament, nor is it ever applied to the Meffiah in the Old Teftament, unless Isaiah liii. 11. is to be excepted: He Shall fee of the travail of his foul, and shall be fatisfied. Our author might, therefore, have fpared

fpared himself the trouble of defining a terin which the scripture does not make use of, especially as he himself almost always uses it in a fense different from that which he calls the scripture notion of the term. I have wholly omitted the word fatisfaction in my defence of the doctrine of atonement, for the reason I have just given; and, indeed, I should be far from troubling myself about a doctrine that refted on the meaning of a few equivocal expreffions.

Punishment is another of thofe terms, which Mr. Graham has taken pains to clear up; but he often uses the word in a fense that is inconfiftent with his own definition of it. "Punishment," he fays," is fuffering for "immoral behaviour," p. 23. "and, there"fore, the innocent cannot be punished in the "room of the guilty, without fuppofing him

66

capable of those disagreeable fenfations "which attend the guilty, which is impoffi

ble." P. 29. Yet he frequently talks about the punishment of the innocent: As, “ Can "a manifeft act of injuftice (for fuch I con"fider the punishment of the innocent) ever "be the means of conciliating his favour "who loveth righteousness?" P. 30. "Can "the honour of government be vindicated by punishing the innocent in the room of the guilty." P. 24. Upon this scheme the righteous are not even upon a level with the "wicked; for they are punished, while the

66

66

"wicked

66

"wicked escape." Ib. "Better that many guilty fhould escape, than that one innocent " person should be punished." Ib. Here, if I may be allowed the expreffion, Mr. G.'s common fenfe gets the better of his critical knowledge, and constrains him to use the word punishment in its ordinary fignification, that of fuffering inflicted by judicial pro

ceeding.* If the ideas of innocence and punishment were incompatible, it would be as abfurd to talk of the injuftice of punishing the innocent, as of the injuftice of murdering the dead.

Atonement being the fubject of Mr. G.'s letters, one might fuppofe he would be very clear in his definition of this; but he only informs us what it is not, and leaves us to find out its true meaning by ourselves. "Atone

"ment," fays he, "I will allow, was made by "the death of an animal, but you must not "therefore infer that it was flain in the room "of the offender. And though I may not be "able to affign the precife notion of atone"ment, what it was, wherein it confifted, " and what was the end and design of it, I "think I am pretty sure what it was not. It "did by no means express a fubftitution," &c. P. 46. Yet this author ufes the term continually,

* In punishment the fuffering is inflicted by authority either real or ufurped, and with defign: the latter diftinguishes it from cafualty, and the former from violence or affault. This authoritative defign conftitutes what is here termed judicial proceeding.

nually, as if it were a word perfectly underftood by the reader.

Y

2. When Mr. G. reprefents the fentiments of those who believe the doctrine of atonement, he gives no authorities for his representations, nor does he quote a fingle author who has written in defence of this doctrine. I fhall not fcruple, therefore, to charge him with mifreprefentation, till he has quoted fome author of credit as an authority for fuch accounts of this doctrine as the following paffages contain.* "The representation given by Theologians "of the adminiftration of the universe is, that "the omnipotent arm at the head of it was

66

" I

actually lifted up, ready to ftrike the blow, " and discharge the thunder-bolt on a finful "world, when Chrift feasonably interpofed, "to wreft it out of his hands." P. 14. "need not caution you against viewing the "beft of beings in the light of a tyrant, deter"mined to make finful men for ever misera

ble, had not Jefus interpofed." P. 15. "Had the advocates for this monftrous scheme, "been attentive to the amiable light in which nature, not to fay revelation, exhibits the

66

*

By authors of credit I mean fuch as Bishop Stillingfleet, amongst those of the Church of England, and Dr. Watts, amongst the Diffenters. Both thefe writers have taken pains to ftate the doctrine of atonement, that it might be clearly feen what they undertook to vindicate; and from them Mr. Graham might have given a distinct account of what he oppofes: But instead of this, he exhibits the reasoning of fome anonymous Antinomians, as the language of those who believe this doctrine. See p. 31.

deity, they never would have admitted the " idea of implacability. By faying he is placable only in confideration of a fatisfaction, it is

plain they had no other idea; and yet this "is faying nothing, and worfe than nothing; "for it is still holding him up in the light of "a capricious being, who is pleased with ex

penfive offerings, and moved by foreign "confiderations to do what he is not naturally "and effentially disposed to do." P. 16. “I "see a manifest propriety in the sufferings of "an innocent and good being to bring about "the nobleft purposes of providence, but none upon the scheme of fatisfaction.-This is, if I may be allowed the expreffion, a lus"cious doctrine, which the mobility are exceed

at all

ingly fond of; and no wonder, indeed, they "should, for it permits them to gratify their "fenfual paffions, at the fame time that it "flatters their heavenly hopes." 30.

P.

"What else is Calvinifm," (and they who hold the doctrine of atonement are generally by this author denominated Calvinists)* “ but "a commuting fyftem, where confiderations fo"reign to moral character are made to supply "the want of it; where an external and vi"carious

* " I know no medium between Calvinism, properly fo "called, and Socinianifm. The latter is a scheme friendly. "to virtue, and permits one to go quietly through the "world in the exercise of his reasonable faculties. The "former is a religious fcare-crow, that, like the Inquifition, "in Popith countries, has long ferved the purpofe of ma"king hypocrites and flaves in Proteftant ones." P. 75. Note.