dictive fury; and that Christ. by his death, appeased that wrath, or removed it, or 'turned it to grace?' If God, who is essentially love, became a God of wrath, in consequence of the sin of his creatures, this was one change; if, in consequence of the sufferings and satisfaction of Christ, he ceased to be a God of wrath, this was another change; and if, after all, wrath will be again kindled in him, and eternally burn against millions of his creatures, here will be still another change. But how can any change take place in an unchangeable being? and how can the doctrine which supposeth such changes be true? If you see a man wrathful and vindictive, and you appease his wrath and remove his vindictiveness, you effect a change in his mind; and, if you say Christ did the same thing with respect to God, you in fact say that he changed the mind of God. If you know a man who is at variance with another, and you reconcile him to the person with whom he is at variance, you evidently effect a change in him towards that person; so, if Christ reconciled God to the world, he must evidently have effected a change in him in favor of mankind. Reconciliation cannot take place without a change, under some view or other, taking place in the party who is reconciled. Christ never could reconcile God to man, for this obvious reason, because God is unchangeable: and for this equally clear reason, because he always loved man, consequently never needed reconciling to him; he only hated sin, and to that he is no more reconF

ciled than he was before Christ died, nor can he ever be reconciled to sin unless he were capable of ceasing to be holy. The scriptures never speak of Christ's reconciling God to the world; but of God's reconciling the world to himself by Jesus Christ. Had the Almighty ever been wrathful and vindictive he must have eternally remained so; for this clear reason, because he is unchangeable. If he ever loved his creatures, and felt nothing but love towards them, say when he made them, or when Christ had died for them, it must follow that he hath never for a moment ceased loving them, nor ever felt any thing but love towards them; for the reason already alledged, because he is unchangeable. In the only place in the New Testament were the word atonement occurs (Rom. v. 11.) it is not God, but man, who is said to have received the atonement. From all these considerations it is evident, Christ did not make an atonement to God for the sins of men, that he did not atone the divine wrath, nor reconcile the Most High to his creatures.

6. The notion of Christ's making satisfaction for the sins of men, veils the infinite loveliness of the divine character. It places him in the back ground, in dark shades, to illustrate the superior amiableness of his Son and servant, the meek and lowly Jesus. The loving father of all, the infinite, source of every good, it arrays in infinite terrors: it fills the bosom of infinite love with wrath and fury it distorts the features of infinite loveliness with anger infinitely fierce, and vengeance which cannot be averted until

it be fully satiated, either with the blood of the innocent or the guilty it shades the brow of infinite excellence with vindictiveness and revenge. In plain language, the doctrine of satisfaction represents the one God and Father of all, as a wrathful, vindictive being, who either will not, or cannot, extend his mercy to sinners, and receive them to his favor, unless an innocent person makes atonement to him for their sins, by enduring his wrath in their place and stead. The Son it represents as a very different character, as every thing that is amiable and affectionate in him no wrath, nothing vindictive, is seen,: he stands between his angry Father and offending man, endures in his own person all the weight of his displeasure, all the fierceness of his wrath, and so shelters sinners From the eye of a revenging God,' and makes him well-willing' towards them. Who in such a representation can recognize the God of love, the infinite Father of mercies, who is good to all, and whose tender mercies are over all his works, who delighteth in mercy, and is ever ready to forgive? If the character of God be what the scriptures declare it, if he be not a wrathful, vindictive being, if his nature be not revengeful,—in a word, if God be LOVE, satisfaction for sins could never be necessary to make him favorable and merciful to us.

On the other hand, the supposing satisfaction for sins necessary, to make the Father favorable and merciful to us,' implies a denial that mercy and grace are essential to his nature; and involves the supposition that they are excited in him by some external

cause. Surely a doctrine which involves so many things incompatible with the divine character cannot be true. This argument is strengthened by the consideration that Christ is said to be the image of God; but, according to what we have noticed above, he and the Father would form a striking contrast. How could his sympathising tenderness illustrate the Father's vindictiveness? his loving and forgiving temper the Father's wrathfulness? If his temper and conduct be illustrative of the character and conduct of the Father, as made known by his teachings, it is certain God never was wrathful and vindictive, and that Christ never taught the popular doctrine of atonement.

7. The doctrine of satisfaction degrades the justice of God, by supposing it to be a vindictive, revengeful principle, ever thirsting for blood, and to be satisfied with nothing short of the blood, either of the innocent, or of the guilty: and that, even after plunging its vengeful sword in the soul of the innocent, it still pursues multitudes of the guilty, whose punishment he bore, and exacts a second payment of debts which the innocent victim paid with his own blood, and relentlessly plunges them in the flames of hell, because they cannot satisfy its demands, which were all satisfied by his suffering in their stead: that it first demanded the life of God's holy one, devoted him, as an accursed person, to the death of the cross, inflicted on him 'the very pains and torments of hell,' and was incapable of being satisfied without his blood, and then charged his crucifiers with mur

der because they shed his blood, and subjected them to the most exemplary punishment for their conduct though they are supposed to have done no more than justice required should be done, and that God decreed that those very persons should be the actors of this vile tragedy, who acted therein, and not others. No, the doctrine which arrays the justice of that being who is LOVE in such frightful colors, abhorrent even to the feelings of common sense, cannot be true. Justice consists in doing that which is right; and both reason and scripture proclaim that it cannot be right to impute guilt to an innocent person, and to punish him for it as a sinner; the thing is declared an abomination to the LORD; Pro. xvii. 5. and he would not do what is an abomination to him: the law of God prohibited it; Exo. xxiii. 7. The innocent and rightsous slay thou not; and he would not violate his own law. If he condemned and punished the innocent, how could he find fault with others for imitating him. Is God unrighteous?-God forbid; for how then shall God judge the world. Rom. iii. 5, 6. To require the payment of debts which are already paid, or to punish crimes which are fully expiated, would be manifestly unjust. To punish men for doing what justice required should be done would be flagrant injustice; but either justice did not require that the Jews should put Christ to death, or such injustice must appear in their punishment.

The justice of God consists in his doing, in every case, that which is according to the rectitude of his own holy nature, which is LOVE. Ought it to be