us; and what are they? In the language of Dr. M. "God hath set forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice, through faith in his blood, for an exhibition of his own righteousness in regard to the remission of sins, committed in past ages, through the merciful forbearance of God. "p. 13. "In this text Paul declares, explicitly, what was the immediate object of Christ's atoning sacrifice ; that is, what effect it had in the economy of redemption, or how it laid a proper foundation for the pardon and salvation of sinful men." p. 8. It was a transaction of such a nature, and such were its effects, "that God might be, and might now be seen to be, a righteous moral governor, and at the same time be the justifier of all that believe in Jesus Christ." This sentiment Dr. M. declares to be at the foundation of his discourse; and from a laboured and very critical investigation, he attempts to show that it is the senti ment of his text. He asserts moreover, 'that he cannot with some modern writers, believe that the death of Christ was merely a tragic scene intended to affect us and bring us to repentance, he believes it to be the meritorious, the sole ground of justification.' That Dr. D. holds the same docAnd trine is perfectly evident. though he has nowhere urged it by a laboured process of argument, yet his whole sermon goes on the assumption of its truth. This does not, indeed prove it true, but it does prove that Dr. D. believes it to be 80, and this is all we are now concerned to know. Turn now to Prof. S.'s first reflection, and we have a developement of his sentiments on this point. The doctrine of the atonement is a fundamental doctrine in the Christian system. It is not merely or principally in Jesus as our teacher, our example, or as having sealed the truth of his testimony by his own blood, that we are called to believe; but principally in him, in that very character in which he was to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness, while unto them who are saved, he is wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption." What says Paul to the Corinthians? "I am determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him CRUCIFIED." Why Christ CRUCIFIED? Why not Christ a teacher, an example, a martyr, a prophet? Plainly because, whatever was done by Christ in all these characters, it would have utterly failed to accomplish the design of saving men, unless his expiatory death had also taken place. Christ crucified then, is the very point on which hang ultimately all the hopes of our sinful race. pp. 46, 47. Salvation by grace, then, on the ground of the atonement as fits sole procuring cause is a theme on which these writers have but one sentiIt is needless to add that ment. theirs is the sentiment which prevails among the orthodox throughout our country. 5. We come now to the last topic on which we shall compare our authors for the purpose of showing their agreement, viz. the practical influence of the atonement, or the effect it is adapted to produce on the moral feelings, not only of our race, but of all intelligent beings to whom the story of our fall and redemption shall ever come. Although Dr. D. has not dwelt at length on this particular part of the subject, still, that he has exalted views in regard to it, cannot be doubted by any who will attentively read his sermon. That he considers the atonement to be as fully adequate to secure the good order and happiness of God's kingdom as the execution of the law upon transgressors would be, or, in other words, well adapted for a "substitute in the place of that execution," is manifest from the spirit which pervades all his remarks. The rending rocks, the quaking earth,-the opening graves,--the darkened sky,-the groan that broke from Calvary; these tell to his mind God's abhorrence of sin; and to this scene he would doubtless point the transgressor to teach him the greatness of that abhorrence. If the lightnings of Sinai, and the fiercer flames of hell. reveal the divine indignation at sin, this indignation shines in still brighter and more tremendous colours from Calvary. There indeed, the whole character of [the] Deity has a signal and transcendant display. Justice appears more awful, as well as more amiable, by its connexion with boundless mercy; and mercy appears at once more venerable and more attractive, by its union with inflexible justice. p. 9. In speaking of the scene on Calvary Dr. M. says, Its direct operation was on the feelings and the apprehensions of beings at large, who are under the moral government of God. It was a transaction without a parallel in the history of the divine government. The Son of God, the Lord of glory, veiled in a human body,fulfilling all righteousness,-expiring amidst the mockery of Jews, and the insults of a Roman soldiery, presents an exhibition of such a nature as must strike every intelligent beholder with astonishment.... As soon as the import is made known, it produces, and actually has produced, the effect designed. For the preaching of the cross, the mere statement of what Christ has done and suffered for the salvation of men, has impressed and converted all the nations which have been favoured with it. And the truly pious in all ages of the Church, though differing greatly in their conceptions of the nature and operations of Christ's sacrifice, have united in admiring the wisdom of this plan of redemption. They have felt that it displayed, though unable perhaps to tell how,the righteousness as well as the goodness of God. It has actually led them to new and adoring views of the divine Being; and has caused them to feel, that this way of salvation exhibited to them the most constraining motives to forsake iniquity and return to the love and service of their Maker. pp. 22, 23, 27. Suppose now, (continues Dr. M.) the Mediator to have been a mere man, an eminent prophet perhaps; and that he endured what the gospel relates; what was there here more than has often occured? Will this effectually secure a reverence for the law? Would it not rather encourage transgression. Suppose then, as some have supposed, that the Mediator was the highest and noblest created or derived being in the universe ;-still he is a creature, and therefore infinitely beneath the rank of God himself. Now if the honour of his law, and the good order and happiness of his kingdom, when weighed in his balance, are equivalent only to such sufferings of such a creature, they are in his account but of limited value, and it is by no means certain, that he may not be in duced by some consideration, and that not of infinite value, to sacrifice them altogether.....But let as suppose now, that the Mediator was in dignity and power on a level with God the Father, and in an equal degree possessed of all divine at tributes, and that he condescended to unite himself with a mortal man; and in this state submitted to be reviled, and loaded with insults, and persecuted even unto death; and we have an exhibition at which the universe may justly stand amazed. pp. 28, 30. Prof. S. reserves this part of the subject for his concluding reflection; though it seems to have been difficult for him to restrain the ardor of his mind so long. While he mused, the fire burned; and having at length gone through the discussion of his subject, he throws off the shackles of logic, and in the fullness of his soul speaks of the efficacy of Jesus' dying love. The eternal Word, God manifest in the flesh, presents to the moral sympathies of our race, higher excitements to virtue and piety, and more powerful dissuasives from sin, than any other consideration which the Christian religion proffers... "Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends:" but Christ has far surpassed this. The same apostle says, "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." Here then is a consideration which will make every heart to vibrate, that is not lost to all sense of gratitude and of mercy. How many thousands have heard the thunders of Sinai unmoved; and even while their awful power has made the very ground to rock, how many have turned a deaf ear to all the admonitions and threatenings which they conveyed, and grown more desperate in their resolutions to persist in rebellion against God; who have yet been melted down under the proclamation of Jesus' dying love, and fallen humble suppliants at the foot of his cross. .... I appeal to fact. When the missionaries of the United Brethren undertook to preach the eternal power and Godhead of the Deity, as displayed in the creation, to the poor benighted Greenlanders, they listened, they gazed, they turned away with silent neglect. The faithful disciples urged on them still more vehemently the attributes of the Creator and Judge of all, and their moral accountability to him. They lis tened, but their hearts remained like the eternal ice with which their region is overspread. Compassion for their perishing condition made the servants of Jesus more urgent still. One other chord there was, which perhaps when touched, might be made to vibrate. They touched it with a faithful hand. They proclaimed to the poor, gazing, perishing heathen, a Saviour, bleeding, groaning, dying for them. They pointed them to his bleeding hands; his wounded side; they bid them look to that Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. The sight prostrated them to the earth. Their stubborn hearts melted like wax before the fire. They fell at the foot of a dying Saviour's cross, and exclaimed: Lord Jesus, save us or we perish forever! Yes, and millions of the ransomed, who have gone to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads, can testify to the power of this mighty truth on their rebellious hearts. Speak ye redeemed, encircling his throne above, and casting your crowns at his feet; is not this he who drew your souls to him by bonds stronger than death; which many waters could not quench; nor floods drown? Hark! I hear the notes of that which fills all the regions of heaven Bong with harmony. It echoes back even to this distant world: "THOU WAST SLAIN AND HAST REDEEMED US TO GOD BY THY BLOOD, out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation, and hast made us kings and priests unto God forever and ever." O for a heart and tongue to unite with this grateful, happy throng, and begin on earth the notes which we hope to sing through everlasting ages in the world above! pp. 48, 49, 50, 52. We have now seen, from what we hope has been a fair exhibition of their sentiments, that these writers entertain perfectly harmonious views, in regard to the necessity of an atonement,-the fact that an atonement has been made,—the character of the Saviour, as possessing a human and divine nature,-the fact that the atonement is the only ground of salvation,—and the sufficiency of the atonement to answer fully the end to be secured by executing the penalty of the law on transgressors. And now we ask if these are not the great and leading points of doctrine which the subject embraces? Do they not constitute the whole subject, so far as it is clearly a matter of revelation? Yet on all these, the writers under con sideration agree with each other perfectly. Shall we prosecute the inquiry then, wherein do they differ;-or, under the apprehension that it will only occasion surprise, shall we rather relinquish it? We might, indeed, well relinquish it; for it must seem quite gratuitous to ask for differences where there is so much agreement. But we are met with consequences of a disagreement, either supposed or real, too painful to allow us to shrink from the undertaking, however needless it might otherwise appear. We have seen the christian public thrown into commotion; and have heard one minister of the New Tes tament, charging upon a brother a crime no less than that of preaching another gospel. We feel compelled, therefore, to come to the business of ascertaining, if possible, what the difference is of which so much has been said; and which, in consequence of so much said, has been the occasion of such excitement. From the comparison we have gone through with, it is obvious that the question which involves the difficulty, must be of a subordinate kind. So in fact we find it. It is a philosophical query, arising out of the great question whether the sufferings of Christ did actually make atonement. That they did, these scripture tells them. But how comes writers fully agree: for so the this to pass?-What is the modus,"how were these sufferings thus efficacious? It is on this point, if on any, that different opinions are maintained;-it is on this point if on any, that Dr. M. and those who agree with him, are thought to be in error. troduced, unlike that out of which But the question now init arises, is one on which, in the opinion of most theologians, the scriptures are silent.* We stand, then, on philosophical ground; and we are glad that we have all arrived * See Butler, Magee, Veysio, ect. here before there was any falling out by the way. Would our limits allow, we should now proceed to give a minute analysis of all the views which Dr. M. has advanced in his discourse. But as we have already seen his views in general, on all the leading points, and as in them he accords perfectly with Dr. D., we shall exhibit his views only on the point of differ ence. How comes it to pass, then, that the death of Christ procures the salvation of the sinner? Is it in consequence of his enduring all the misery which the sinner would have suffered under the execution of the law?-This, most manifestly, he could not do. How could the spotless Saviour feel that remorse of conscience, which will make the sinner's cup of suffering so bitter? The sufferings of the Saviour were not the same in kind, then, that the sinner would have endured. Nor were they the same in quantity. To prove this, requires no mathematical calculation. That the Saviour did not suffer in his divine nature is certain. That he could not in his human nature, endure the accumulated suffering of all who were exposed to the sentence of the law, even for a limited time, is scarcely less certain. Much less could he endure, in a few hours, such an amount that this accumulation, though endlessly increasing, would never exceed it. Thus far we have the views of Dr. M., and thus far surely, they accord perfectly with the sentiments of Dr. D. Look at Dr. D.'s own language. As to his sufferings, we contend not that the Redeemer endured precisely the same misery, in kind and degree, to which the sinner was exposed, and which he must otherwise have endured. This was neither necessary nor possible. p. 8. And what are Prof. S.'s sentiments on this point? This sting, [the sting of a guilty conscience,] the holy and spotless Saviour never felt; this was an agony to which his bosom of spotless purity must have been After stating his reasons for this opinion, he adds: When I say then, that Christ in his sufferings was our substitute, I do not mean that he actually suffered torments the same in kind and quantity as were due to sinners. P. 13. Since, then, all are agreed that in making an atonement, the Saviour did not endure the same sufferings in kind and quantity, that transgressors would have endured under the execution of the law,-wherein consists the equivalency of the atonement? ment? According to Prof. S., An equivalent, is of two sorts. The first has respect to kind and quantity, and requires equality or sameness in regard to both. The second is where the substitute answers the same end, as that would have done in the place of which it is put, or a higher end of the same nature. p. 10. In which of these senses, then, did the sufferings and death of Christ constitute an equivalent for the Not in execution of the law? the first sense, says Prof. S.: When I say that Christ in his sufferings was our substitute, I do not mean that those sufferings were an equivalent of the first kind for the penalty remitted.` Not in the first sense, says Dr. M. Speaking of the atonement, he says: It did not consist in the execution of the law on any being whatever, for it was a substitute for the execution of it. But yet it was in the first sense, says Dr. D., for he remarks: We are constrained to conclude that his sufferings were a substantial execution of the law. The phantom then,-for if this is the difference of opinion it is very shadowy,-is at length detected. We have at last come to the point of disagreement ;-the point on which Dr. D stands alone; and we leave it for those who will examine for themselves to say, whether it is with Prof. S., Dr. M. or himself, that he is most at variance. For what have they said which he has not admitted;-what premises have they asserted which he does not claim? They have said that the sufferings of Christ were not the same in kind and degree as would have been endured by transgressors under the execution of the law. And has not Dr. D. said the same? As to his sufferings, we contend not that the Redeemer endured precisely the same misery in kind and degree to which the sinner was exposed, and which he must otherwise have endured. What is their conclusion?-That the law was not literally executed. And what is his? In as much as the scripture expressly declares that, in redeeming us from the law, he was made a curse for us, we are constrained to conclude that his sufferings were a substantial execution of the law; a real endurance of the penalty, so far as the nature of the case admitted, or required. p. 8. 9. Here, then, is the length and breadth of the difference between Dr. D. and the Professors at Ando ver. And if we are not greatly mistaken this is the only point of difference to which reference can be made. Nor should we have thought that there was even here a difference that could be called disagreement, had we not been compelled to find such a difference somewhere. And when we look at the positions which are admitted in common, and the manner in which the opposing sentiments are asserted, we confess that it is against our better convictions that we speak of discord. For when we find Dr. D. denying that "the Redeemer endured precisely the same misery in kind and degree to which the sinner was exposed," we trace on this point an exact agreement between our authors; and when he says, that the sufferings of Christ were a substan tial execution of the law, a real endurance of the penalty, so far as the nature of the case admitted or required he seems to us either to use language which conveys no very definite idea, or to be inconsistent with himself, rather than to advance any opinion opposed to that of Dr. M. and Mr. S.; for if the misery be not the same, either in kind or degree as the penalty, it must be somewhat difficult to see how it can be the endurance of the penalty. But it is not simply on the ground of the quotations made, that we speak of discord. It is rather in view of conclusions, presented near the close of Dr. D.'s sermon; for in this part of it, he proceeds on the supposition, that the law was literally executed upon the Saviour; and in proportion as he advances, the difference between him and Dr. M. (for Prof. S. had not yet appeared) seems to widen till at last they have the appearance of being diametrically opposed to each other. We are aware that Dr. M. has been understood to deny the vicarious nature of the atonement. As a specimen of his declarations which are supposed by some to amount to such a denial we cite the following. how this exhibition was a display of the The only difficulty is, to understand righteousness of God. To solve it, some have resorted to the supposition that the Son of God became our sponsor, and satisfied the demands of the law on us, by suffering in our stead. But to this hypothesis there are strong objections. To suppose that Christ was really and truly our sponsor, and that he suffered in this character; would involve such a transfer of legal obligations and liabilities and merits, as is inadmissible: and to suppose any thing short of this, will not explain the difficulty. For if, while we call him holden or responsible for us, and liable in a sponsor, we deny that he was legally equity to suffer in our stead; we assign no intelligible reason, why his sufferings should avail any thing for our benefit, or display at all the righteousness of God.— Besides, this hypothesis,-like all the others which suppose the Son of God to have first entered into a close, legal connexion |
