they seem to have gradually abandoned the humble and pacific policy of the gospel, and to have adopted the principles and the policy of the world and of war. This must have greatly bewildered their minds, and have done much to prepare them to regard the atoning sacrifice as a display of divine justice, a substitute for punishment, or a means of appeasing divine anger. All the preceding particulars might have more or less influence in giving popularity to incorrect views of the atonement.

S. The minds of men, being prepossessed by such facts and circumstances, would be prepared to give such a construction to the figurative language of the Bible, as should be most favorable to the received and popular hypothesis. On finding that what are in the Bible called atonements, were, in two or three instances, accompanied with strong manifestations of God's displeasure; it might seem to them, that atonements very naturally meant or implied tokens of avenging justice. They might also observe, that when men were said to bear their own iniquities, marks of divine displeasure were implied, and that when. children were represented as bearing the iniquities of their fathers, they were subjected to evil as the effects of transgressions committed by their parents. This, to minds leaning that way, might turn the scale, and lead them to suppose, that when Christ is said to have borne the sins of many, the meaning must be, that he was punished for their offences. Then the numerous passages in which we read that "Christ suffered for us," and "died for us," would all be interpreted to mean, that he suffered as our substitute. The certainty that such is not the meaning of similar phrases, as used in other cases, and the certainty that God had solemnly disavowed acting on such a princi

ple as punishing one for the sin of another, might be wholly overlooked, or deemed of little weight, when weighed in the scales against hereditary prepossessions.

The popular views of the atonement have unquestionably impressed the minds of many millions of people with the ideas, that God was originally a very stern, vindictive sovereign; that the Son was of a disposition very different from the Father, far more tender and compassionate in his feelings towards sinners, and that his name is emphatically the

"Dearest of all the names above; "

that this Son, perceiving our miserable condition on account of God's anger, kindly interposed in our behalf, and engaged to obey the law, and suffer its penalty as our substitute, and our representative. I do not assert that the facts and circumstances which have been mentioned, produced these results. They have occurred to me, as the most probable causes of such lamentable effects on the minds of Christians.

The saving and benignant policy of the gospel, as a contrast to that of the world, seems to have been greatly overlooked or misapprehended by Christians in general, of every country. To overcome evil with evil, or to effect subjection by resentment and menace, is not the gospel policy. But to overcome evil with good, is not only the principle on which Christians are required to act, and on which the Messiah acted, but it was the principle on which God sent his Son to be the Savior of the world, and on which, he "delivered him up for us all." By overlooking this heavenly policy, men have been led to regard the Messiah, not only as their best friend, but as their repre

sentative, in his obedience and sufferings. The Messiah, however, was God's representative, not ours, in all he did and all he suffered. He came not to do our will, nor "his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him." The atoning sacrifice was not made on our part, to reconcile God to us; but on the part of God, to reconcile us to himself.

The great sacrifice was therefore made on a principle and for a purpose, directly the reverse of those recognised in the heathen sacrifices. It was made not by the offending party, to reconcile the party injured; but by the injured party, to conciliate offenders. God needed not the sufferings of an innocent victim, to render him propitious. The sacrifices of a broken spirit and contrite heart, with their genuine fruits and expressions, were the sacrifices which he required of men, and with which he was ever well pleased. To produce such sacrifices was, I conceive, the purpose of the Mosaic sacrifices, and of their antitype, the blood of the Lamb of God. As this sacrifice was made on the part of God, so he came with his Son, and in his Son, to manifest towards us his forgiving love, and his ardent desire for our reconciliation.

As it will not be without pain to myself that the following queries will be proposed, I hope they will be received, and considered with candor. With this hope, I proceed to ask,-Has it not been a common thing with Christians to impute to Jehovah a character too nearly resembling that of a pagan deity, whose anger could not be appeased but by sufferings and blood? Has not the gospel atonement been too commonly regarded as a sacrifice made for a similar purpose to that for which the pagans offered human sacrifices? Has not the general practice of the pagans, in of

fering sacrifices to propitiate their gods, been often urged by Christian writers as a proof, that there was nothing in the atonement made by the death of Christ, contrary to the light of nature, or the dictates of reason? Has not this, too, been done, without adverting to the fact, that the gospel sacrifice was made on a principle, the reverse of that on which the pagan sacrifices were offered? There surely is not only a conceivable, but a very important difference in the two cases,—a difference which should not be lost sight of by Christians. For when they so lose sight of this distinction, as to represent that the gospel sacrifice and the heathen sacrifices were offered on the same general principle, it seems to me difficult, if not impossible, that any clear views of the love of God, in not sparing his own Son, should be entertained.*

I willingly concede, that the word atonement would be applicable to this sacrifice, whether the purpose were to reconcile God to us, or us to God; but the two purpo

the

*How then, it may be asked, are we to account for the fact, that

pagans were so universally in the habit of sacrificing to their gods on a principle so opposite to that on which the sacrifice of Christ was offered? Answer:-Let it be supposed, that the offering of sacrifices was originally instituted by God; and for the benevolent purposes which were mentioned in preceding chapters; let it also be supposed, that for many centuries, men had no written records to transmit revelations from one generation to another: can it be more wonderful that the original design of the sacrifices should have been so perverted, as to be regarded as means for appeasing divine anger, or as substitutes for punishment, than that Christians, with the gospel in their hands, should so pervert its principles and precepts, as to make them subordinate and subservient to a persecuting or a war policy? Or that the symbol of the cross on which the Savior died, praying for his enemies, should be converted into a military standard, under which Christians might acquire glory by butchering one another!

ses are very different. The former was the purpose of heathen sacrifices; the latter, the purpose of that made by the Son of God. Let us listen to the language of the Apostle- "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Rom. "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ." "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. How different, and how lamentable are the following ideas, expressed by so good a man as Dr. Watts :

v. 10.

"Well, the Redeemer's gone,

T' appear before our God;

To sprinkle o'er his burning throne,
With his atoning blood!

No fiery vengeance now,

No burning wrath comes down ;
If justice calls for sinners' blood,

The Savior shows his own."

"And quench'd the Father's flaming sword
In his own vital blood."

"The Father lays his vengeance by,
And smiles upon his Son."

"Come let us lift our joyful eyes

Up to the courts above,

And smile to see our Father there,

Upon a throne of love.

Once 't was a seat of dreadful wrath,
And shot devouring flame;
Our God appeared consuming fire,

And vengeance was his name.