Page images
PDF
EPUB

dience "who knew no sin," always perfect? All that could be added to it, then, by his death, so far as this view of the subject is concerned, was, that one more act of obedience was joined on to those already done. If you say, This was a high and peeuliar act of obedience; we grant it. But what was the object? For an example to others. This is well, in respect to those who are called to martyrdom. But surely these make up but a very small part of mankind. Was there any merit in this obedience, which accrued to the benefit of others? If you allow this, then you come at once to the ground, that the sufferings of Christ, in some sense at least, were of a vicarious nature.-We recommend to Mr. D. greatly to abridge and compress this head, in the next edi

tion.

IV. The death of Christ was to furnish a sign, a token, that God is willing to pardon the penitent.

We suppose Mr. D. means to say, that the death of Christ is regarded by some, as a sign or symbol for confirmation of the assurance that sinners may be pardoned in case of penitence. That there was no need of such a symbol, in order to produce in men a disposition to believe in God's pardoning mercy, Mr. D. illustrates as follows:

If a ruler is in fact willing to pardon those, who have transgressed the laws; there cannot, in the nature of the case, be any difficulty in persuading them to believe it. The only alternative in his treatment of them is

punishment, or pardon. But they certainly do not wish to be punished; and as certainly they do wish to be pardoned, or exempted from punishment. And the same motives, which render them willing to be pardoned, would render them willing to believe, if the fact were really so, that the ruler was willing to pardon them. The human mind is always willing to believe what it wishes, even against evidence; but where evidence and inclination coincide, the case has never yet

been known, in which it was difficult to produce conviction. In some of these states it has not been necessary to announce the universal pardon of offences in order to inspire transgressors with the hope of obtaining it. The indiscreet multiplication of pardons on the part of the government, has been so efficacious in diffusing this hope, that the prisons have overflowed with the expectants of its clemency. In the Bible the statute-book by which God governs his kingdom in this worldthere are numerous clauses which at

least appear, and beyond all doubt have been very generally believed, to threaten transgressors with punishment; and that too neither very mild in degree, nor very short in duration. Yet, with these minatory clauses staring them in the face, mankind have to a prodigious extent believed, and been tainly pardon them, either whenever fully persuaded, that God would certhey should repent, or without any repentance at all. The history of the world ever has been, and now is, a practical comment upon this persuasion. If then these minatory clauses could have been expunged, or had not been inserted; the persuasion that God would pardon the penitent, would have been universal. All that was ne cessary on the part of the Supreme Ruler, to secure the most implicit credence in this his gracious intention, was to announce it; and mankind would have gladly believed it without evidence. pp. 83, 84.

Mr. D. then proceeds with other considerations, which show the utter futility of such a theory as that which he is opposing. We think he may well omit the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh arguments. The others may be compressed to advantage. advantage. There will then be enough to render futile, such an undefined and undefinable theory as that in question; we had almost added, these will be more than sufficient to meet such a puerile effort to explain away the great doctrine of vicarious sacrifice.

V. Christ died to prove the resurrection of the body. That such an idea has been thrown out, by those who oppose the doctrine of atone

ment, we do not deny. But we are not acquainted with any writers of note, who maintain that this was a great or principal object of the death of Christ. Mr. D. has indeed, crushed the whole structure to atoms, which has been erected upon this; if indeed any one has ever been so bereaved of his senses as to erect one. We cannot well account for it, that our author should make so much of his scheme, and bring ten arguments to refute what ten sentences might have done.

In the course of his argument, he admits, without any question, that the resurrection of Christ does prove the doctrine of a general resurrection, but says that this was only an incidental end, not the principal object of Christ's death. But we do not agree, even so far, with the theorists whom he is now opposing. We have pretty strong sensations of something paradoxical in the very statement of the theory. The resurrection of Christ, if any thing, must prove the general resurrection. But how the death of Christ can prove a resurrection, much more, a general one, we have not eyes to see.

But you will say, "He could not

rise unless he first died." Good; and he could not die, if he had not been born and lived. The birth of Christ, then, and the life of Christ, just as much prove the doctrine of a general resurrection, as his death.

But we go farther, and aver that even the resurrection of Christ does not and cannot prove a general resurrection. The Apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. appeals to the resurrection of Christ as a proof that the doctrine of a resurrection may be true, and is no absurdity or impossibility. "If, says he, there be no resurrection, (as the heretics averred, whom he is here opposing,) then Christ is not raised." Now as all admitted this, it was argumentum ad hominem, which he used in

this case, and which showed the entire inconsistency of his opponents. And when he says that "Christ is risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of those who slept,' the meaning is simply that he, first of all, and pre-eminently, has risen from the dead, prepared to "ascend to his Father and our Father, to his God and our God."

But where is the assertion that his resurrection proved the doctrine of a general resurrection? An argument of an analogical nature, it may in some measure afford. As Christ, who possessed a nature and a body truly human, did rise from the grave, and ascend to heaven, so the possibility, that those who are his true followers may imitate him in this respect, is doubtless shown. But then, how many things were attached to the person and nature of Christ, in various respects, which afford no good ground for analogical reasoning. For example, he was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.' In none of these respects is the analogy to be complete in regard to us, in the present world. And surely, analogy is the only ground of reasoning, in the case in question. How can it be proved, then, that all which has taken place, in respect to Christ's human nature, must take place in regard to ours?

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

We believe, indeed, in the doctrine of a general resurrection. But we do not see, how the fact that the Son of God, the Redeemer of men, was raised in a miraculous manner from the grave, "before he saw corruption,' would necessarily prove that all men, good and bad, will be raised to life, after being for ages dissolved to dust, and scattered to the four winds of heaven. Such a doctrine needs other proof than fancied analogy. And those who maintain, that the object of Christ's death was to prove the doctrine of a general resurrection, not only render themselves obnoxious

to the charge of irrepov porspov, but of a paralogism which only needs to be stated in order to be refuted. We recommend to Mr. D. to abridge what he has said in refutation of this nonsense, so as to occupy, at most, but one tenth part of the room, which his arguments against it now occupy.

VI. The great end of the death of Christ was to prove the truth of Christianity.

This is an allegation often made, and greatly insisted on, by many who oppose the doctrine of the atonement. Our author first observes that it would be derogatory to the character of God, to suppose that he could not prove the truth of Christianity, unless by the death of Christ. That he could not prove it without using such means, would indeed be derogatory. But an opponent might well answer here, that he did not choose to prove it in any other way, and by infinite wisdom judged this way to be the best. May not the same things be said, in reference to the death of Christ as an expiatory offering? That God could not redeem men, in any other way, we suppose Mr. D. will not assert. That he did not think proper to do it in any other way, and that infinite wisdom has judged properly, and in the best manner, is what he would maintain. Might not his opponent take the same ground in the other case?

Mr. D. next observes, that as the Mosaic religion was proved to be true without the death of its founder, so Christianity might have been established in a similar way. This is sound and conclusive, so far as the possibility of the thing is concerned. Our author next proceeds to show, briefly, that the death of Christ could not, in itself considerod, prove the truth of Christianity. On this head, a more powerful argument might be made out; and Mr. D. is abundantly able to render

it irrefragable. If voluntary martyrdom can prove the truth of any scheme of religion, then may we easily have an indefinite number of truths and systems, in direct opposition to each other, and at war with the eternal principles of right and wrong. Martyrs enough can always be found, who are willing to sell life for the purchase of posthumous renown.

Under the fourth head, we must introduce Mr. D. to speak for himself.

On this supposition, his death occurred at a most unfortunate period. No part of the New Testament then existed, or for a considerable number had not been even orally communicaof years afterwards; and a large part ted to the Apostles. Christianity, as a system of truths, did not exist, except in the imperfect and uncertain recollections of the Apostles. All the facts and truths which they had forgotten, as well as all which had not been communicated, were lost by his death. The only hope that the former would be recovered, depended on the declaration of Christ, "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you;" and the only hope that the latter would ever declaration, "I have yet many things be known, depended on the similar to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the Truth. He shall receive of mine and show it unto you." If then Christ died to prove the truth of Christianity, why did he not defer it until Christianity existed, until his nication of it from his lips, until it was disciples were able to bear the commuall communicated and written down, and the New Testament completed under his own hand and seal. Had this been done, and had Jesus taken the volume thus finished, and declared, "I am now going to die, in order to prove the truth of this volume," the transaction would have had something in it definite and palpable. But what was the identical thing then existing, which his death proved to be true Was it the collection of facts and sen

timents which the Apostles recollected; or was it those which they had forgot ten, and which the Holy Spirit was to bring to their remembrance; or was it the farther collection which they could not bear while Christ was living, and which the Holy Spirit was first to communicate. pp. 108, 109.

On the nature of the appeal in Mr. D's fifth argument here, we have a word to say, by way of caution. Arguments of this nature do not strike many minds with force. The subjective views of the angels, and of glorified spirits, are not developed in Scripture with such particularity that we can often argue from them without hazard. And there is always something too much like an appeal to the imagination, in cases of this nature.

The scene on the mount of transfiguration, Mr. D. has so often adverted to, in the course of his arguments respecting the atonement, that we must beg leave to suggest a word of caution, on this subject. On p. 21, he speaks of this mountain as being Tabor, as though this

fact was an established and not a mere conjectural one. So he does

again, pp. 79, 100, 105, and 126. In all these cases, he seems to build an argument upon it. Now we can gather nothing more respecting Christ's death, from the scene of the transfiguration, than that it was considered a great event, and that the minds of the disciples were to be prepared for it by this august exhibition. The particular object to be achieved by it, must be left to other Scriptures to determine. We recommend to Mr. D., who can use much better arguments with great skill and power, to make a more chastised use of angelology and pneumatology, in his next edition.

The remaining considerations adduced under this head by Mr. D. serve to strengthen and fortify the position which he has taken, and to show the impossibility of maintain

ing, with any tolerable probability, the position which he assails.

Mr. D. closes the third part of of his discourses, with a brief examination of the theory respecting the atonement, which Dr. Channing has advanced, in his Sermon at the ordination of the Rev. Jared Sparks, at Baltimore. This is, "that the Scriptures ascribe the remission of sins to Christ's death, with an emphasis so peculiar, that they ought to consider that event as having a special influence in removing punishment, as a condition or method of pardon, without which repentance would not avail us, at least at that extent which is now promised in the Gospel."

In reply to this, we present our readers, with the manner in which Mr. D. parries the thrust of his antagonist and deals his own blows frequent and hard.

It will probably be thought, that this scheme of explaining the death of Christ, as it is embraced by many, should like the preceding ones, be subjected to a minute examination. To decline doing this is the result, not of choice, but of necessity. Were it fully bodied forth, so as to be tangible or even visible, it would be numbered as a seventh theory, and carefully investigated. But when it is said that without the Death of Christ as a condition or method of pardon, Repentance would not avail us in procuring it, at least to that extent. which is now promised in the Gospel; we are at a loss how to interpret the language, and we look for additional information on the following points.

1. Is it intended that Repentance by itself, would procure us an inferior kind of pardon, less advantageous than that now promised; or that it would avail us to a certain degree, in procuring that now promised, but not altogether; or that it actually procures the pardon of a certain portion of our sins, but not of the remainder?

2. To what kind of pardon, on the first supposition; to what degree, on the second; and to how great a part of it, on the third; would Repentance avail us, without the Death of Christ!

3. On what grounds, would Repentance avail us, to that kind; that degree; or that portion?

4. Why would not Repentance also avail us either to the higher kind; or altogether; or to procure the remainder?

5. On what grounds does the Death of Christ avail us in thus effecting what mere Repentance could not avail; is it directly as obedience, or suffering; or indirectly, as it leads us by its moral influence to a higher kind of repent

ance ?

6. What is the specific difference between those two kinds, or degrees, or portions of our pardon?

7. On the third supposition, why cannot the Death of Christ alone and of itself, avail us in procuring also that

part of our pardon, which Repentance avails us to procure?

8. What passages of Scripture, speak of such an inferior kind of pardon; or of the degree to which Repentance avails us; or of the portion of our sins for which it is sufficient?

9. In what passages of Scripture, is the Death of Christ spoken of as procuring a higher kind of pardon; or as eking out our pardon, by availing us to an extent to which Repentance could not avail us? Is it said by the Saviour, "This is my blood of the New-Testament which is shed to procure a better kind of pardon than that which repentance would procure ;"-or by Paul, "Christ hath fully availed to redeem us from the curse of the law, when repentance could avail us only in part;" or by John, "The blood of Christ, cleanseth-not from all sin, but-from those more heinous sins, which could not be washed away by the tears of repentance "?

Until these points are distinctly stated, it is not possible to conjecture, what the theory is, nor of course, by comparing it with the word of God, to learn whether it is true or false. This is the only reason, why a more minute and marked attention is not paid to what, if fully conceived and fully stated might have proved an additional explanation of this most wonderful event.pp. 112, 113.

We hope Dr. Channing may undertake to answer these questions. But it seems he has the happy fac

ulty of meeting all his opponents with indignant silence or contempt; which is an argument more easily come at, and wielded by him with much more skill, than those of a logical or exegetical nature. "Take care," said a wise monk to his Catholic brother, who was deputed on an errand to some schismatic Lutherans, in order to bring them back to the faith or to denounce them, "take care, that you do not enter into dispute with them; for this would only be allowing that you think they have some reasons for their belief, as well as you; and moreover, it would be letting down your cause to the examination of grovelling minds, who cannot comprehend the force of your arguments. Silence is the safest course. If you say nothing, then they will have nothing to lay hold of and pervert. Rebuke; frown; show them that you despise their opinions; then they cannot help feeling your superiority." We strongly suspect Dr. C. has somewhere met with this wary advice, and paid more deference to it, than he would acknowledge himself to be ready to yield to the Church of Rome. But we leave him and Mr. D. to settle their own matters, and proceed.

The fourth part of our Author's discourses is occupied with proposing and explaining the theory of atonement which he himself embraces. After stating the right which is conferred on one individual, (in consequence of another's having neglected to discharge a duty incumbent upon him, and which is a matter of just claim by the former,) to exact a reparation, either of the same specific nature as the duty in question, or an equivalent for it, or punishment in case a law is broken, Mr. D. thus proceeds:

These remarks will serve to explain the general meaning of the word Atonement. AN ATONEMENT IS THE

« PreviousContinue »