with sinful men, and afterwards to have redeemed them.-would make the atonement to be a legal satisfaction for sin; and then the acquittal of the sinner would be no pardon at all, but would follow in the regular course of law.-We must, therefore, resort to some other solution. p. 23. From the manner in which Dr. M. has here stated the doctrine that Christ is our sponsor, we should have anticipated the charge of his denying the vicarious nature of the atonement. To deny that Christ satisfied the law, by suffering in our stead, must, it seems, in spite of all explanation, mean that Christ did not in any sense die in our stead, or or as our substitute. There are those who will have it that there is one sense and only one in which it can with any propriety or truth be said, that Christ died in our stead; so that to say he did not die in our stead in the sense of satisfying the - demands of the law on us, or to say there was not a legal transfer, so that our sins became the sins of Christ, our guilt his guilt, our liability to punishment, his liability to punishment, to say this, is in the view of many, to deny that Christ died in our stead in any sense.— It is true that they who hold the doctrine of this legal transfer, deny that it imparted any sinful quality to the disposition or actions of Christ; they say 'he did not bear our sins as immoral qualities, tinging his soul with pollution.' How these things can be consistently maintained, how our sins can become Christ's by a legal transfer, so become his that we neither deserve punishment nor are liable to it, and yet not pollute his soul; in what sense they can become his and be transferred away from us, unless as they render him personally guilty, and as such liable to punishment, or unless they be taken away from us consequentially, i. e. unless the transfer be of such a kind that on account of it, we, though remaining personally guilty and illdeserving, may be treated as right eous, they who hold these sentiments are not kind enough to tell We think a little logical effort us. at definition would contribute much towards the adjustment of this part of the dispute. But not to enter into the discussion of this topic, what are the views of Dr. M. and Mr. S. and Dr. D. in regard to it. an Nothing is plainer than that Dr. M. intended to deny the doctrine of substitution as it is held by some. He intended to deny such exemption from guilt and liability to punishment on our part through the atonement, as should render it unjust that we according to law should be considered as still personally guilty and deserving of punishment. And we say that this is the only meaning which his language in the above cited passage will possibly admit. In pp. 31.-34, he has unfolded his meaning still more unequivocally, where he asserts. And thus also the bloody sacrifice of the Mediator, was not what the law of God demanded, or could accept, as a legal satisfaction for our sins. All that it could do, was, to display the feelings of God in regard to his law; and to secure, by the impression it made, the public objects which would be gained by an execution of the law. It did not cancel any of the claims of the law on us. And hence, after the atonement was made, God was under no legal obligations to exempt any man from punishment. If he had never pardoned a single transgressor, neither the law nor distributive justice would have been contravened. And if he pardons at all, it is mere grace. Or to state it otherwise, the atonement was not of such a nature as to require God to pardon us, but it enables him to do it with credit to himself and safety to his kingdom.. But while Dr. M. denies that kind of substitution which supposes Christ to have taken our sins as his own sins, and to have borne the same penalty which was due to us, and in this way to have rendered us no longer guilty and deserving of punishment, does he deny substitution in every sense?-Does he not hold that the sufferings of Christ were a substitute for our punish object of the law is in the most effectual manner answered. p. 18. ment on the ground that they exhibited the justice and sustained the moral government of God as really We have said that it was the conand effectually as our punishment clusion of Prof. S. and Dr. M. that would have done; that while it suthe law was not literally executed. perceded the necessity of punishing How then are the sufferings of the transgressor according to law, Christ, instead of our deserved so far as punishment could be punishment? What is the nature necessary to support law, it still of the substitution ?-Prof. S. is apleft him as truly deserving of pun-parently averse to answering the question. ishment according to law, as had no atonement been made? Thus he says the atonement "did not consist in an execution of the law on any being whatever, for it was a substitute for an execution of it." And without multiplying passages or dwelling on the scope of the sermon, speaking of the impassible God as personally united with an abused, suffering mortal, he says "the human mind can conceive, of no exhibition calculated to produce a deeper impression. Of course this appears to be the most efficacious atonement, the best SUBSTITUTE for the execution of the law, which it was possible for infinite wisdom to devise." p. 30. The main object of Prof. S. is unquestionably to present the same view of the substitution of Christ. This is evident not only from the statement of the doctrine of his discourse, and from the explanation of it continued through more than ten pages, but in the following passage he has given what cannot but be regarded as an accurate epitome of the views of Dr. M. on this point, as his own. If they [the scriptures] present the death of Christ as a most awful and affecting display of the evil of sin, and of the divine displeasure against it, enhanced beyond description by the dignity of his person, and the peculiar severity of his sufferings; and if this makes an appeal to the moral sensibilities of the human race, in favour of gratitude and obedience to God, and against sin, in a manner far more affecting and successful, than the literal execution of the penalty of the law on sinners; is not this sufficient? And if thus much lies on the face of the New Testament, and every reader, learned and unlearned, can see and fecl it; this is enough; the I confess myself averse to indulging much in speculation here, as to the how and the why of the equivalency in question. My reason is, that the sacred writers do not seem to indulge in any curious speculation on the subject. p. 17. For ourselves, we do not think that the answer to this enquiry at all demands what is here termed "curious speculation."-We supfact clearly answered the question; pose the sacred writers have in and this too, without " any philo sophizing, any refined speculation in which equivalency is or can in their writings, about the manner be made out. Indeed if they had not; had they simply asserted the fact of an atonement, the nature of the subject would be sufficient in our apprehension to lead every mind to just and adequate views on this point. For ourselves we applaud the attempt of Dr. M. and of the great subject. Indeed we think other writers, to unfold this part of Mr. S. himself, notwithstanding his apparent aversion to it, has stated with great explicitness, the true answer to this interesting enquiry. Thus he speaks of the sacred writers as presenting "the death of Christ as a most awful and affecting DISPLAY of the evil of sin and of the divine displeasure against it,"-language which to our minds conveys precisely the doctrine on this part of the subject, which Dr. M. ̄intended to teach in his sermon-we might say has in fact taught; for we are not of those who would make the author of a sermon of so much intrinsic worth as that of Dr. M. an offender for a word. Concerning his meaning on this part of the subject we are not at a loss, and it is matter of surprise to us that any candid reader should be. The statement of his opinion so constantly recurs, it is so directly drawn from the interpretation which he gives to his text, his view is so inwoven into the whole drift and form of his discourse, that it would seem impossible to be misunderstood. We shall see how just an occasion for misapprehension he has furnished. Unfortunately as it would seem, Dr. M. in answering the enquiry how God's regard for his law is expressed by the atonement, says"symbolically," Vox inauspicata. Here it is that we find the obnoxious-shall we say doctrine, or rather word, that has been the occasion of such unhappy consequences. What does Dr. M. mean then, when he calls the atonement" a symbolical transaction?" Evidently the Evidently the same which he means when he says in the more common, but to some not less obnoxious terms, that it is an "exhibition"-" a display" &c. What then does he mean by exhibition or display. Let him speak for himself. * Does this look like frittering away In two respects, it coincided precisely with a public execution of the law itself: its immediate influence was on the same persons; and that influence was produced in the same way,-by means of a public exhibition. For what is a public execution of the law on culprits, but a public exhibition? and an exhibition which is intended to affect the feelings and apprehensions of the community, to impress them all with high respect and revercace for the law, that stern guardian of the public weal? The atonement, to be a proper substitute for the execution of the law, ought to be a public exhibition; and such an exhibition, as would impress all the creatures of God with a deep and awful sense of the majesty and sanctity of his law, of the criminality of disobedience to it, and of the holy unbending rectitude of God as a moral governor."-p. the atonement to something destitute of reality? With the reiterated declarations of Dr. M. before us, that it was an exhibition or manifestation of the rectitude of God, and an exhibition of his justice, an expression of his regard for the authority of his law that is without a parallel in the divine government, and that it must fill the mind of every beholder with wonder and amazement, can we say that he makes it "a metaphorical atonement, which should procure a metaphorical pardon, a metaphorical justification, a metaphorical deliverance from wrath to come." It is true indeed that Dr. Mur dock has called the atonement a symbol, a term, we think not happily selected. He has spoken of the atonement as an exhibition, a display in some instances without stating of what it is an exhibition or display; a detached form of expression which in itself might imply that the thing spoken the thing spoken of, was mere display, an empty, unmeaning show. After speaking of the atonement as a "symbolical transaction," as being also a "significant transaction," he proceeds for the purpose of answering an objection, to maintain that as an arbitrary symbol, it might answer the purpose of an atonement. He refers to words as arbitrary symbols of motions of the body, to the rainbow thought and emotion, to particular and to other arbitrary symbols, whose import is to be learned from general consent or accompanying explanation, and maintains that the atonement, though it were a symbol of such a character, would still be an atonement. Here if we mistake not, is the error of Dr. M. and it is this, as it seems to us, inadvertence of thought and expression, which has caused the heresy of this author to ring from one end of the country to the other. The head and front of his offending is, not that he has called the atonement of Christ an arbitrary symbol, but that he has advanced the hypothetical opinion that God might employ, a symbol of such a character for the purpose of atonement. This opinion of Dr. M. we think erroneous, nor do we doubt that he will pronounce it to be so himself after farther consideration. That any mere arbitrary symbol, whatever verbal declarations of its design might be made, should be an efficacious atonement, we regard as impossible. Actions speak louder than words; and the moral Governor who should pardon transgressors, and yet furnish no proof that he duly regarded the law except his own declaration, would scarcely expect to be believed by his subjects. In such a case some farther counteracting testimony must be furnished. His regard for his law, and his purpose to support its authority, must be evinced if he pardons transgression not merely by something said, but by something done. Whatever constitutes an atonement for sin against God, it must, to answer the purpose of an atonement, be in its own nature an expression of the purposes and feelings of God; an expression as real, as appropriate, full and deci-sive, as would be made by the actual punishment of transgressors. It must, if the word symbol in any just sense is to be applied to it, be not a mere arbitrary symbol, but, as Dr. M. maintains the atonement of Christ to be, a significant symbol. The infliction of penalty on transgressors would itself be such a symbol; its whole efficacy lying in the fact that it would be a decisive and convincing expression of God's regard for his law and of his purpose to uphold its authority. In other words, punishment would be an act of God, expressing his justice or righteousness. And an atonement, to be an atonement, must make an equally decisive expression of the same thing. Such an expression, according to Dr. M. is in fact made by the atonement of Christ. That such is his real opinion, though he has, as we judge, advanced an bypothetical opinion on the subject which cannot be supported, is evinced by the following explicit statement of his views of the atonement, considered as a symbol. After affirming that "this symbol has a natural fitness for its object," he says, Again the feelings of creatures were to be impressed by an exhibition, not of the intellectual conceptions of the divine mind, but of the determinate purposes and the holy feelings of God. And the impression to be made, was to be universal, and deep and lasting as eternity. Now the symbol chosen, was certainly calcu lated to make a deep and lasting impression on the minds of creatures. This all must admit. It was also of such a nature, as to exhibit uncommon strength of feeling and very great decision of mind, in regard to something, on the part of God the Father and his Son. Never did they per form an act indicative of so intense desire and purpose, or one that seemed to involve so much painful effort. This symbol then, had all that is necessary in any symbol of emotion or purpose, to give it fitness for its object. As soon as the import of it 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 man, has impressed and converted all the nations which have been faroured 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. 26, 27. If such then be the real opinion of Dr. M. concerning the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are constrained to ask, why should that which by every candid mind must be regarded as an error of in advertence, which is at most a mere hypothetical error, and one which is lost amid the prominent fulness signated? In reality, can such contention about words? A strife unworthy of sober amount to any thing more than a strife and earnest inquirers after truth; and one which never can serve any purpose, but to alienate from each other and divide those who love the Saviour, and trust for acceptance with God solely in his atoning blood."*pp. 9, 18. given to the truth, (except indeed to the microscopic eye of theological jealousy,) be magnified into damnable heresy.' And why should the Seminary with which the writer of the sermon is connected, be traduced as rapidly approximating the lowest licentiousness in theological sentiment? The real opinion of Dr. Murdock concerning what the atonement of Christ actually is, (for in the offensive passage he only asserts what would be true, if they doctrines of revelation, there is atonement were a mere arbitrary symbol,) is the current opinion of the country. Not only have Edwards and West, and Smalley, the writers in the Christian's Magazine, and Prof. Stuart advanced the same opinion, and surely this is respectable company, but Dr. Dana also tells us that on Calvary, "the whole character of [the] Deity has a sig nal and transcendant display"--that there Jehovah is exhibited as "A God, all o'er consummate, absolute." Now should we reason a moment respecting Dr. D.'s views as here expressed, we should say, that in his apprehension, the atonement was a "signal and transcendant display of the whole character of the Deity-an exhibition of Jehovah as a God consummate, absolute;" or in Dr. M.'s language, that the atonement "displayed the righteousness as well as the goodness of God." But enough of this war of words. We will not believe that Dr. D. is such a stickler for forms of expression, as to engage in a dispute where, in his apprehension, nothing else is involved. Let a single remark from Prof. S. be sufficient on this point; though we cannot affirm that he made it in reference to the language in question. "Is it not idle to waste time and pains, in contending about certain modes of expression, which some may choose to employ, but which they think it better to avoid, because they are liable to misconstruction; when, after all, there is a substantial agreement in regard to the idea to be de ion respecting phraseology: We To return then from this digresshave seen that on the great and leading doctrines, which are strict perfect harmony of sentiment; and that it is only on one point that there is any discrepance; and that, in the opinion of most divines, a have seen, moreover, that on the point of philosophical inquiry. We point of difference, the same premises are both adopted by Dr. M. and Dr D.; and that, in the conclusion to *We had intended to institute a full com 66 parison of the authors under review with standard writers on the atonement; but our limits force us to compress this part of our If our readers design into a brief note. will take the trouble to give Magee, the writers of the Selections on the atonement and others a thorough perusal, they will find, that on the point of difference Dr. M. agrees with these highly respected writers. Dr. Magee observes, "I have used the expression vicarious import, rather than vicarious, to avoid furnishing any colour to the idle charge made against the doctrine of atonement, of supposing a real substitution in the place of the offender, and a literal translation of his guilt and punishment to the immolated victim; a thing utterly incomprehensible, as neither guilt nor punishment can be conceived, but with reference to consciousness which cannot be transferred." No. xxxviii. p 167. Says Dr. Smalley, "The truth is, our ill desert is not taken away by the atonement of Christ. There is no transfer of merit or of demerit, one way of the other, only of their fruits and conseSelections on the atonement." quences." pp. 123-125. Dr. Edwards pursued the same train of reasoning on the point in question, that has been so obnoxious in Dr. M. He comes to the same conclusion, "that Christ has not, in the literal and proper sense, paid the debt for us." He did not satisfy the claims of commutative or distributive, but of public or general justice. Ser. 2. Selections on the atonement. See also Burge's Essay. Dr. Griffin's Humble Attempt. Dr. Dwight's Theology, Vol. II. Ser. LV. LVI. LVIP. Dr. Maxy, West, etc. |
