the gentile philosophy, were early brought into the christian system, and that, in process of time, christianity was much heathenised. The heathen conceived of their gods as subject to anger and wrath, as sometimes becoming vindictive, and that they might be appeased, and rendered favorable, by gifts and sacrifices. These heathen notions were at length grafted upon the gospel, and received as a part of christian truth. The vicinity of pagan neighbours might help forward this corruption, by a misconception among christians that what was spurious in the old superstition was a reality in the true religion.— When christianity became the religion of the empire, pains were soon taken to make the christian church bear a strong resemblance to the pagan hierarchy, and to make the religion of Jesus as much as possible to the heathen taste; hence much of paganism was infused into it. The ignominious death of Christ had long been a stumbling block, and a rock of offence, which christians had discovered a disposition as much as possible to remove; to represent it as vicarious, and as literally the price of our salvation, was doing it effectually. The pagans valued their sacri, fices, as the means of procuring the favor of their gods, and to represent the dying Jesus as an expiatory sacrifice, by which the favor of the true God was procured, was obviating at once their objection to christianity founded upon his shameful death. The gospel was greatly corrupted in some other points before the notion of the death of Christ being vicarious was thought of among christians. In such cir

cumstances the doctrine of satisfaction arose, and, no doubt, they greatly tended to its rise.

4, The Jews, though their law knew nothing of vicarious sacrifices, frequently manifested a disposi tion to substitute their sacrifices, and ritual service, in the place of moral purity and holiness. They sometimes degenerated so far as to suppose that, if their altars were but heaped with their bleeding and smoaking victims, they must be acceptable to God, and secure of his favor. Though frequently reproved by the Prophets of the LORD, they were not easily recovered from this error. We have only to suppose the same error, in reference to what Christ had done and suffered, to make its way among christians, as they degenerated from the purity and simplicity of the gospel; and, after having begun to trust to what he had done, instead of doing what he had taught, it is easy to conceive, how they would go on in a train of false reasoning, their want of moral rectitude prompting them, until at length they conceived his death to be vicarious, and his righteousness transfer-: able to them; and, when once such an idea was conceived it would not be easily eradicated.

5. It should be remembered that the Apostles were Jews, and had much to do with the jewish people throughout the whole of their ministry. The idioms of their vernacular language would naturally occur in their preaching and writings: it would be a matter of course for them to make frequent use of jewish forms of expression, and accommodate them to the subjects treated of in the New Testament. They

would do this the rather as they aimed at displaying the superior benefits of the gospel, when contrasting it with the legal dispensation, in order to weaken the attachınent of the Jews to the institutions of Moses: hence they would sometimes use jewish forms of expression in a figurative sense, to render the comparison between the law and gospel the more striking. From a careful examination of the Apostolic writings it will appear that what is here supposed was really the fact, When the peculiar circumstances of the Apostles were forgotten, especially in nations habituated to a less figurative style, their language would be misconstrued, what at first was merely an allusion would be viewed as a literal circumstance; and, gradually, legal forms of expression would acquire a meaning, among christians, which they did not bear, even under the law. Thus phrases which had been applied figuratively to Christ and his death, at length, by a rigid literal construction, were taken to express a vicarious sacrifice, an atonement of the wrath of God, an expiation of sin. The rise of the doctrine of satisfaction, among christians, may be accounted for on the foregoing principles.

1

In the preceding observations I have attempted to show that the existence of the doctrine I oppose may be accounted for, without supposing it to have any foundation in scripture. I proceed now to a more particular examination of some of those figurative expressions, in the sacred writings, the abuse of which gave rise to the notion of Christ's making satisfaction for sin.

1. The wrath of God.

This is often mentioned in the Old Testament, and a few times in the New; but we never read of wrath in God, or that his nature is wrathful: on the contrary, the declarations of scripture prove that wrath can have no place in him, that nothing wrathful exists in his nature. He hath said fury is not in me. GOD IS LOVE. He is The Lord God, merciful, and gracious. Mercy and grace stand opposed to wrath. That nature which is love can have nothing wrathful in it; for wrath and love are direct contraries. A being in whom there is no fury cannot be wrathful and vindictive.

Had wrath ever existed in eternally remained; beWhen the wrath of God

God, in him it must have cause he is unchangeable. is spoken of it cannot mean a passion which affects his infinite mind; for he is not subject to passions as we are. To suppose To suppose the sins of men capable of agitating the Eternal on his throne, by raising in him the passion of anger, is to ascribe omnipotence to sin,

to

suppose its influence extends to the Deity, and that the Almighty is, in some respect, dependent on his creatures for the feelings which exist in his changeless mind. To feel wrath is incompatible with perfect peace and happiness; but God hath ever been, and must ever remain, the very God of peace, the ever blessed, or happy, God: consequently it is impossible he should ever have felt anger, or wrath The phrase, wrath of God, must be figurative; because not capable of a literal construction, consis

M

tently with the infinite excellency of the divine naturc. It simply imports the displeasure of God against sin. Properly speaking, it is felt, not in God, but in the creature. It is called the wrath of God because it is a painful feeling produced, in a sinner, by a view of the holiness of God, and an apprehension of his displeasure; or, because it is excited in the guilty mind by what God hath made known of his will. Strictly, it doth not arise from what God is, but from the apprehension the sinner has of him, associated with his own guilty feelings. Where sin and guilt are not, no feeling of the wrath of God can exist.

ture.

Two ideas will be found to express what the phrase, wrath of God, imports, wherever it occurs in scripEither it intends a sense of the displeasure of God, resting on the mind of the sinner; or, it intends the judgments which God inflicts, as a punishment of sin, to excite in the creature a sense of its evil nature. In reference to the former idea the wrath of God is said to abide on the unbeliever; i. e. an apprehension of his displeasure is not removed from him. In reference to the latter, when the judgments of God are stayed, or punishment averted, his anger is said to be turned away.

Without construing this phrase, the wrath of God, literally, the thought never could have arisen that it was necessary for Christ to atone, or appease, the divine wrath and it is by continuing to give too literal a construction to such phrases that the notion of satisfaction is perpetuated. But, as it is evident