possible, consequently the doctrine sitself is a mere nullity.

-43. Neither Christ nor his Apostles tanght the doctrine of satisfaction, nor even hinted at it, not even on those occasions when it was most to be expected, if a doctrine of truth. Those who contend for the popular notion of atonement suppose that those who reject it must die in their sins; for they make it a fundamental article of christian faith; but when Jesus told the Jews that except they believed that he was> the Christ they would die in their sins, he added not a word about the necessity of their believingi that he must die in the place and stead of sinners to atone the wrath of God, in order to their beingisa ved: he left them totally in the dark about this sup-. posed fundamental doctrine of the gospel. In his sermon on the mount he said not a word about it; though at the conclusion of that sermon he describes the man who builds on a good foundation, he gives not the least hint of his vicarious sacrifice being the foundation; but declares that the man who heareth his sayings and doeth them is the wise builder. When he described the character of those who shall enter the heavenly kingdom, he said nothing about their believing his death to be satisfaction for their sinsbut makes the only qualification their doing the will of God. At a time when his disciples did not believe it was necessary he should die, he declared to Peter that he had confessed the truth upon which the church should be built; though Peter had only confessed that Jesus, the Son of man, was the Christ

the Son of the living God. (See Matt. 16 Chap.) It seems then our Lord did not make the notion of his death being vicarious an article of christian faith. Had the death of Christ been necessary to make satisfaction for the sins of men, it is reasonable to expect he would have told his disciples so, at the time when he was laboring to convince them of the necessity of his dying by the hands of wicked men; but, though he mentioned several other rea-i sons why he must suffer, he said not one word of what is thought by many christians most of all to render his death necessary: he gave not the slightest hint that unless he died to satisfy divine justice they could not be saved. How can it be supposed, had the notion of satisfaction been true, he would have been silent on the subject at such a time. After his resurrection, when shewing how it behoved him to suffer, not a hint is given of his saying a word about vindictive justice, of his having appeased the wrath of God, or made satisfaction, or any thing of the kind. When he commissioned his Apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, he gave no intimation of this being on the ground of his having purchased salvation for mankind. The total silence of Christ on the subject, throughout the whole of his ministry, when he was about to suffer, and after his resurrection,: even on those occasions when, if the doctrine were true, it would have been natural for him to have introduced it, seems no weak argument against the popular notion of atonement.

According to the history given of the apostles ministry, in the book of Acts, and their discourses recorded there, the Apostles preserved the same silence respecting Christ's having made satisfaction for sins, as he had done before them. The advocates for this notion think it necessary, when preaching to unconverted sinners, to say a great deal about the vindictive justice of God, and the utter impossi→ bility of his saving them on any ground but the com plete satisfaction, or atonement, made by Christ to: divine justice for all their sins. Had the apostlés entertained the same views, it is reasonable to sup→ pose, they would have insisted on the same points, when preaching to unconverted sinners; yet we do not find that they said one word either about vindic tive justice, or satisfaction for sin. The silence of the apostles, added to that of their master, respect ing the doctrine of satisfaction, is a proof that it is not a doctrine of the gospel; for we can know of no doctrines of the gospel but what Jesus and his Apos tles taught.

4. Satisfaction demanded implies injury received by him who demands it, and a capability of receiving compensation; but God is no more capable of receiving injury than he is of doing injury, or than he is of receiving benefit. Job xxxv. 6, 7, 8. "If thou sinnest, what doest thou against him? or if thy transgression be multiplied, what doest thou un to him? If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand? Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art, and thy

righteousness may profit the son of man.' Chap. xxii. 2, 3. Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself ?-Is it gain to him that thou makest thy ways perfect ?? Psa. xvi. 2, 3. O my soul, thou hast said unto the LORD, thou art my LORD; my goodness extendeth not unto thee: but to the saints that are in the earth. As God is absolutely independent, above all influence, incapable of sustaining injury, or receiving benefit, from any one, it is impossible he should demand and receive satisfaction, or an equi valent for his favor to sinners.

1

But it is argued that, though he cannot be perso nally injured, his justice was injured, and that it was his justice required satisfaction: this affects not the argument; for what is his justice separate from him whose justice it is. Can justice, viewed abstractedly, be a person capable of acting and suffering, of receiving injury and compensation? The justice of any being is the rectitude of his conduct, the equity of his ways; and. surely, the rectitude of the divine conduct was not diminished, nor the equity of God's ways interrupted, by the evil actions of his creatures. Justice can neither demand, nor receive, any thing, but as some one demands and receives it in the name of justice; therefore to say that the justice of God demanded and received satisfaction is, in effect, the same thing as saying God himself demanded and received satisfaction. Sin is no where but in the creature, all its effects are restricted to the creature, and all the injury done by it

is done to the creature; consequently, it is in the creature that reparation for the evil produced by sin is required and this reparation can only be made by the restoration of the sinner to purity and happiness: in other words, by the removal of the evil from those who are the subjects of it: this is effected, not by an innocent person suffering in their place and stead, but by their reformation and recovery to the paths of

rectitude.

It may be said, though God is not injured by our sins, yet the good of the moral system is, the interests of our fellow creatures are; and consequently satisfaction was necessary. To this I reply, whatever injury had been done to the moral system it could not be repaired by the cruel murder of an innocent person, which is spoken of in the New Testament as a gross violation of moral principle: there seems no way of repairing the injury done to the moral system, but by the reformation and future good conduct of those who have done it. However the interests of creatures may be injured by sin, it is not possible to compensate that injury by any thing but the amendment, and future right actions of those who have been injurious.

5. The notion of Christ's atoning the wrath of God, and reconciling him to sinners, is a contradiction to the divine immutability. If God be unchangeable, in one mind and none can turn him, the same from everlasting to everlasting, without variableness, or the least shadow of turning, how can it be true that our sins filled him with wrath and vin