Page images
PDF
EPUB

ment accomplishes its object of redeeming the sinner, while it maintains the honour of the violated law and promotes the best interests of the universe. It is obvious, therefore, that so partial a discussion of the atonement must omit or notice slightly, many views of importance, and many topics which would demand a minute examination in a work more extended and complete. We have no doubt that much of public prejudice has arisen from this circumstance and equally confident are we, that if Dr. M. had given a full statement of his views on the whole subject, there would not have been more than one solitary point, and that too, in the opinion of many wise and good men, unimportant and untouched by the pen of inspiration, on which he would be found to differ from the general belief. But it will not surely be demanded, that every sermon should contain the entire creed of its author.

Another peculiarity in Dr. M.'s sermon is, that he has discarded the common and consecrated phraseology on this subject, and has employed a new diction of his own. He bas called the atonement a "symbolical transaction," and represented the death of Christ as a "tragedy," comprising scenes of the deepest and most awful interest; a spectacle the most awful and impressive that the Deity himself ever exhibited on the theatre of the universe. We admit that Dr. M. may have been imprudent and unfortunate in rejecting the old, and adopting a new phraseology.

Not, however, that he had not a right to employ what language he chose, nor that the language he has adopted is less appropriate than the common modes of expression, but because the strongest prejudices and the most sacred associations were linked with the customary phraseology. No man of extensive observation, needs to be told, that in common minds the connexion between ideas, and the language em

new

ployed to express them, is so close and indissoluble, that the latter can rarely be changed without changing the former. Common christians, finding in Dr. M.'s sermon modes of expression, and only a few scattered fragments of the old phraseology, would be apt to suspect that along with the common language he had rejected the common belief, and with his peculiar language introduced a theory entirely his own.

If any looked with a suspicious eye upon the frequent references in Dr. M.'s sermon to German writers, we beg leave to say that there are orthodox men in Germany as well as in America, and that most if not all of the German authors quoted as authority were the advocates of evangelical sentiments. The Unitarianism of some German works ought not to bring into suspicion and neglect all the productions of that country, any more than the heresies of Priestly and Belsham should interdict the writings of Newton and Scott, and all the divines of England.

The considerations which we have suggested will be sufficient to explain the reason why the sermon of Dr. M. has been regarded with so much suspicion, and has been so extensively misunderstood and misrepresented. The appearance of a sermon by Dr. Dana, and another by Prof. Stuart on the same subject, has suggested the expediency of analyzing these successive publications, in order to ascertain by candid and careful comparison, in what respects they agree, and in what they are at variance with one another, and with standard writers on the atonement. We wish it to be distinctly understood, that in doing this, our object is altogether pacific; that we come forth, not as controversialists to exasperate, but as friends to conciliate; that we propose not to vindicate or refute any religious opinions contained in the sermons before us, but to show

that they substantially coincide with each other, and with those works to which we have been accustomed to appeal, as giving a clear and able exhibition of the orthodox faith.

In executing our design, it will be necessary, instead of following the train of thought in any one of the sermons before us, to take up in order all the most prominent topics comprised under the general subject of the atonement. But as neither of our authors has fully discussed all these topics, and as on many of them they make only passing remarks, we shall be obliged

to content ourselves in some instances with detached sentences and obvious inferences.

1. We shall in the first place compare the sentiments of these authors on the necessity of an atone

ment.

It seems not to have been the object of either writer to enter upon a full discussion of this particular topic. Still no one of them has entirely omitted it. Dr. M. starts on the supposition that an atonement is necessary, and then proceeds with a train of observations supported by reason and scripture, to show the grounds of this necessity. His object is to ascertain the precise difficulty in the way of extending salvation to the sinner with out an atonement. Having come to the general conclusion that this difficulty arises from what is required of the transgressor in order to support "the good order and happiness of God's kingdom," he proceeds :

This is an obstacle to his forgiveness, which the sinner himself can never remove. He has committed deeds which can never be recalled. He is a transgressor of the law, and must forever stand guilty. What is done can never be undone. All he can do, will be to repent of the past, and cease to do evil in future. His repentance, though certainly proper, cannot change the nature of his past transgressions, nor repair the injury they have occasioned. And no fu

ture obedience can be more than his immediate duty for the time being; it can never make amends for past disobedience. The good of the universe requires that the majesty of the law be maintained inviolate, and this is impossible, let him do what he will, without the full execution of the penalty of the law upon him. pp. 17, 18.

According to Dr. M.'s views then, take away the atonement, and you take away from the sinner his only hope.

Dr. D. pursues a similar train of reasoning, which leads him directly to the same result.

immutably holy and just. These attriGod is holy and just; infinitely and

butes imply that he must have a perfect and irreconcilable aversion to all sin: and must manifest that aversion to his creabe pardoned without an atonement? tures. But how can this be done, if sin Would not the great Jehovah, in this case, practically deny himself? Would not the lustre of his glorious attributes be awfully eclipsed and tarnished?

Further, as the Sovereign of the universe, God has given his intelligent creatures a law. This law, while it requires perfect obedience, must likewise be enforced by penalties. Nor is it enough that these penalties be denounced ;-they must be executed on those who incur them by transgression, or on a surety.

Thus far we have been listening to the language of Philosophy. She infers from the nature of the divine government, and the character of its author, that pardon cannot be dispensed to transgressors without an atonement. Turning away from her oracles, however, and appealing to the scriptures alone, Prof. S. declares,

It is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world; there is no other name under heaven given mong men whereby we must be saved, nor is there salvation in any other.

And he adds,

When those who doubt, admonish us that it would be unbecoming in respect to the Supreme Being, and derogatory to ings of Christ, an innocent victim, were his character, to suppose that the sufferdeemed by him to be necessary or acceptable; I answer with Paul: "For it BE

CAME him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in order to bring many sons to glory, to make perfect the Captain of their salvation, through suffer. ings."-pp. 39, 40.

Whether Prof. S. has by these texts, fully met the Unitarian objection concerning the necessity of an atonement, or not, there seems to be no room to doubt that he intended to do so. For ourselves we can see nothing in these passages of scripture that bears decisively on the point. That there is salvation in Christ, and that there is salva tion in none other; that it was not derogatory in God to inflict suffer. ings on the Captain of our Salvation, and that it was fit that he should be made perfect by sufferings, is not, as we can see, equivalent to a necessity that he should suffer for the purpose of sustaining the law and government of God under a dispensation of pardoning mercy. this is the necessity which the Unitarian objection denies, and to support which, if the dictates of philosophy and common sense are not enough, other texts more decisive to the point than those quoted by Prof. S. might be easily cited. Be this however as it may, the fact that Prof. S. stated this objection of Unitarians and entered into a formal refutation of it, is decisive that he deems it groundless. We should have been gratified had he stated and answered the objection with greater precision.

But

On this point then, all these writers conduct us to the same result, though Prof. S. aims to lead us by the light of inspiration, while Dr. D. and Dr. M. endeavour to illumine our path with the glimmerings of philosophy;-a philosophy, however, whose torch has been lighted at the fires of heaven. with the fact whether they do thus agree, and not with the manner in which they come to this agreement, that we have been concerned. It is obvious, however, that Dr. D. and Dr. M. pursue substantially

It is

the same course of reasoning; for whether we speak of the character of God, the nature of his law, or what the God of the universe requires, we only use different language in reference to the same general subject. After the comparison has been made, no one can fail to see that there is a perfect coincidence of sentiment among these writers in regard to the necessity of an atonement. Nor need we add any thing to show that in this sentiment they accord perfectly with the christian public, and with all approved writers of the present day.

2. The second point of inquiry is, whether an atonement has been made?

As Dr. M. takes it for granted that an adequate atonement has been made, and only makes occasionally a passing allusion to the subject, we cannot be expected to give a formal statement of his views by particular citations. Passages are not wanting however, which speak his sentiments. After stating the grand obstacle to the sinner s salvation, he adds;—

To remove this difficulty, or to enable God righteously to pardon the repenting sinner, the atonement must give the same support to law, or must display as impressively the perfect holiness and justice of God, as the execution of the law on transgressors would...... If such an

expedient can be found, then an adequate atonement is possible, otherwise it is

not.

Now such an expedient, the text represents the sacrifice of Christ to be. It is a declaration of the righteousness of God, so that he might be just," might secure the objects of distributive justice, as it becomes a righteous moral governor to do, "and yet might justify," or acquit and him that be exempt from punishment," lieveth in Jesus,'-pp. 20, 21,

Dr. D. attempts to prove in a more formal manner than Dr. M. that Christ died as an atoning sacrifice. He argues it from "the sacrifices appointed under the ancient dispensation;-the anguish and horror of the Redeemer's soul previous to his death; the institution

of the sacramental supper; and the most plain and unequivocal expressions of scripture."

Being ready before hand to admit the Dr.'s conclusion, we feel no disposition to cavil at his arguments. We will take the liberty, however, to refer him to the use Prof. S. makes of the appointment of sacrifices under the ancient dispensation, and ask him if it does not afford a better example of logical deduction, than the use he makes of it himself. Prof. S. infers from these sacrifices, not that the sufferings and death of Christ actually were substituted in the place of the execution of the law, but simply that the divine economy would admit of such a substitutution. Referring to this system he

says,

Here, we are presented with a case of substitution, actual substitution by the appointment of God;-a case in which a beast is slain instead of the criminal being punished who made the offering of it, and who had himself incurred the penalty of the Mosaic law. And who will venture to pronounce that a similar arrangement under the general government of God in respect to man, is impossible. pp. 24, 25.

When Prof. S. passes the question of possibility, and comes to that of fact, his work is done with a master's hand.

The question

Jews." pp. 32, 33.
then is not, how we may understand
the language of scripture, nurtured,
as we have been, in the bosom of spec-
ulative philosophy, but how would
a Jew naturally construe it? WHAT

IDEAS DID THE PROPHETS, APOSTLES
AND EVANGELISTS MEAN ΤΟ CON-
VEY ?"

The way being thus prepared, Prof. S. makes his appeal to the law and to the testimony in a manner so direct and conclusive that it must carry conviction to the mind of every reader and without multiplying passages he concludes, if what I have adduced does not establish the fact, that the sacred writers did mean to inculcate the doctrine in question, then plainly, the many scores of additional texts which might be quoted, will not prove it ; nor any language, I must add, which it would be in the power of a human being to employ." p. 36.

After proceeding thus far in exhibiting the views of our authors on this part of the subject, it is almost superfluous to remark that each of them supposes an atonement adequate to the wants of a fallen world, to have been made by the great atoning victim of Calvary. The question how it is that the incarnation and death of Christ possess an atoning efficacy, will in another place be so far considered as to exhibit their particular views in regard to it.

3. The third point on which we shall endeavour to exhibit the views of these writers, relates to the character of the Saviour.

"I must ask, at the threshold, before what tribunal must the question be brought. I am bold to aver that philosophy is not a competent judge to decide it." After illustrating this position in a lucid manner, the Prof. adverts to the principles of interpretation which apply to this particular question, first by the general remark that every speaker and writer, intending to be understood, employs, and necessarily employs, language in the same sense, in which those whom he addresses use and understand it; and secondly, by the more particular remark, "that all the writers of the Old and New Testament, were Jews and that the scriptures, viour" was : with very little exception, were originally addressed to Jews," or to churches which in part consisted of

It may indeed be difficult to ascertain with precision an author's sentiments on a subject of which he is not professedly treating. But we presume enough may be found in the writings before us relating to this topic, to satisfy even the most scrupulous of our readers. Prof. S. tells us that the "suffering Sa"the eternal Word, God manifest in the flesh;" and that "in our nature he offered an expiatory sacrifice for sin." Such dec

larations of his sentiments, though unconnected with the reasons of them, do nevertheless tell what those sentiments are; and this is the particular object of our inquiry. Would any learn more fully and from direct argumentation, let them go to his letters addressed to Mr. Channing, and there they will find inferences and deductions of their own unnecessary.

Several remarks from Dr. M. are sufficiently explicit on this subject, though their original design was to illustrate the impression which a Saviour bleeding for sinners is calculated to make on the moral sympathies of man. Thus he says,

The atonement was a transaction, without a parallel in the history of the divine government. The Son of God, the Lord of glory, himself descended to this lower world. He veiled his Godhead in a human body, and humbled himself to dwell with men. He toiled and bore reproach, and suffered from pain and weakness and hunger. He condescended to instruct men, to be their physician, their friend, their very servant;-he washed his disciples' feet, he was obedient to every ordinance of God and man, he fulfilled all righteousness. p. 22.

Dr. D.'s language is more direct on this subject, not because he believes in the union of a divine and human nature in the person of Christ, more strongly than the others, but because he made it a part of his design to enumerate the qualifications which must meet in him who undertakes, as a surety to make atonement for human transgres] sion. Having made a brief enumeration, he adds :

It is scarcely needful to say, that in the the whole universe, one being, and one alone is found, in whom all these qual

ifications meet. Jesus Christ is that being-He is the Sovereign Lord and pro prietor of his own life; having power to lay it down and power to take it again. To crown all, he is truly and properly God,-God manifest in the flesh. p. 7. .

To all this we add our most hearty assent; and we ask if Prof. S. and Dr. M. have not done the same. We shall not dwell longer here, in VOLVI.-No. 9.

61

order to show more fully the harmony of our authors among themselves on this topic, or to show their coincidence with all approved writers of modern times, but shall proceed to compare them on other points of doctrine.

4. The fourth point to be considered is the question, does the transgressor obtain salvation solely on the ground of the atonement.

Some may be ready to say, if an atonement is absolutely necessary, . as has been shown, then salvation, if it comes at all to the sinner, must of course come on the ground of the That such is the truth atonement. we readily admit; but still there are reasons for considering the question thus stated. Our object, let it be remembered, is not to defend any particular sentiments, but to bring together by way of comparison the sentiments of the sermons under consideration. Let it be remembered too, that all do not readily concede to what we have just admitted. There are those who, while they allow the necessity of an atonement in general, admit it as a partial and not the sole procuring cause of salvation. They are of that number who are disposed to put "new cloth unto an old garment." Such, however, are not the sentiments of the sermons beSalvation by grace is a fore us. theme in which they all agree. They agree, too, in going to the Bible to learn that salvation may be even thus obtained. Philosophy may lead to the conclusion that the sinner cannot be pardoned without an atonement, as Dr. M. and Dr. D. have both argued ; but she can never say that an atonement will procure his pardon. Reason alone' says Dr. M. can never disclose the condition of the sinner's acceptance with his Sovereign.' "An offend ed God will make his own terms: and who can tell what they will be, The revtill he reveals them?" elation has been made;" the glad tidings from heaven" have reached

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »