Page images
PDF
EPUB

of the law on Christ. We simply quoted the passage containing the 'shadowy difference,'and said in ref. erence to it, that Dr. D. seemed in this instance, either to use language which conveyed no very definite idea, or to be inconsistent with himself, rather than to advance any opinion, opposed to Prof. S., or Dr. M.

It seems hardly necessary to add, that we had no design to fasten on Dr. D. the charge of self-contradiction, thongh we confess that, to avoid imputing to him a sentiment which we verily believed he did not entertain, we were obliged to say, it looked more like an inconsistency with himself, than like an opinion contrary to that of Prof. S. and Dr. M., especially as the same phraseology was repeated in his sermon in opposition to the state ment of Dr. M. that the atonement was a substitute for the execution of the law. Our difficulty was to put the two passages together, so that Dr. Dana should agree with the professors and also with himself, when in one he did so expressly declare the same thing that they declare, and in the other furnished so plausible an occasion for supposing that he held a different opinion. Whether we had reason for feeling this difficulty, the passage which occasioned it must decide.

Inasmuch 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."

It seems, however, Dr. D. did not mean by substantial execution of the law, even in connexion with the phrase "real endurance of the penalty, &c." a literal execution. And whether the sense he gives to the term substantial be authorized by usage or not, we are willing to give up words for things, and are

happy to find by so doing that the agreement between Dr. D. and Dr. M. is even more unquestionable and exact than from the unexplained language of the former, we had felt authorized to make it.

66

Dr. D. had passed severe reprehension on the sermon of Dr. M. and he represents us as telling the world that the whole ground of all this reprehension is a mere dif ference of expression between Dr. M. and himself." If Dr. D. supposes we meant to assert that he thus severely reprehends Dr. M. merely because he has not used the consecrated phraseology which belongs to the subject, while he did not suppose the opinions of Dr. M. to be reprehensible, he has greatly mistaken us. We expressed our conviction that he did honestly misapprehend Dr. M.; and if Ďr. D. understands us to say the novel and somewhat peculiar phraseology of Dr. M. occasioned the misapprehension, and consequently the severe reprehension, of his sermon, he understood us correctly; and we feel competent to defend our language thus understood; remarking by the way, that we cannot see it to be either unjust, or the extreme of injustice, simply to say that, on account of the peculiar phraseology of a writer, another has honestly misapprehended him, and through such misapprehension, passed a severe sentence on his production.

Regarding then, the peculiar phraseology of Dr. M. as the source of misapprehension, we did represent it as the ground of Dr. D.'s severe censures; and we ask, what else could be the ground? Dr. D. would have it to be the theory collected from the sermon. But we say the sermon does not contain the theory: we have shown, as we believe, that it does not. And if it does not-if the opinions reprehended are not to be found in the sermon, they are not in fact the ground of the reprehension, for they do not exist. We have ne

doubt that Dr. D. supposed otherwise. But we think he errs in this, and therefore say that the novel and peculiar phraseology of Dr. M. has led to this error and this reprehension, on the ground that there was no other way of accounting for it. The passage complained of might have been altered for the better; though it did not strike us as being liable to Dr. D.'s objection.

When we suggested that Dr. D. might have "laboured under an undue influence from rumours that were in circulation," we thought, considering the great severity of his censures, that it was a charitable construction, not disrespectful, nor so intended.

As to what we said of Dr. D.'s misrepresenting Dr. Murdock, we think he will be satisfied with the explanation already given, that we meant simply misapprehension. In this sense, our language surely is neither indecorous, nor uncandid. That we intended nothing else is apparent on the page where the word is found.

We pass over for the present the consideration of the passage concerning which Dr. D. complains that it represents him as proceeding, in the latter part of his discourse, on the supposition of a literal execution of the law; and proceed to notice another point to which he calls our attention.

We had made a comparison of the sermons in respect to their prominent points of doctrine, and asked, whether these were not the great and leading points of the subject, the whole subject, so far as it is a matter of revelation? Dr. D. answers "yes, with one exception only-the atonement itself." It strikes us somewhat singularly, that when we had shown by ample quotations from our authors, that they were agreed as to the necessity of the atonement, the fact that an atonement has been made, the character of the Saviour,

[blocks in formation]

PENALTY OF THE LAW ON TRANSGRESSORS, and especially when we were particular to show in the course of our remarks, that the sufficiency of the atonement as the ground of pardon and salvation, consisted in revealing the divine indignation at sin,' and furnishing ‘a signal and transcendant display of the whole character of the Deity ;' that we should be charged with omitting" the atonement itself." It is true so far as the words are concerned we did not specify in this summary, the nature of the atonement. But did we not specify the thing? What renders the sufferings and death of Christ an atonement? We say, the fact that they equally display the righteousness or justice of God, as would the execution of the penalty of the law on sinners. Not so Dr. Dana, if we understand him. He evidently sup poses that in unfolding the nature of the atonement we must go further, and show how the sufferings of Christ make this display of God's righteousness, even to the point of asserting his own views of substitution, vicariousness, &c. Now we deny that "the how" of this display of God's righteousness enters properly into the nature of the atonement as a scriptural doctrine. We explicitly stated the mode of the fact to be in our view philosophical ground. It was, in respect to the mode of the fact, that we found all the difference we could find, between Dr. D. and the Professors at Andover; and hence we considered ourselves peculiarly happy, that we had all reached this point, without falling out by the way. Hence too, we have ever regarded those of our brethren who have held different views of the mode of the fact, those on the one hand who in this

respect have held the doctrine of legal transfer, or literal substitution, and those on the other who have denied it, as still maintaining the scriptural view of the nature of the atonement; and this on the simple principle that both hold the grand fact itself,viz.that the sufferings and death of Christ make the requisite display of the justice of God, in the pardon of sin. We do not say that to hold this truth without also holding the necessity of the atonement, &c. is enough to constitute orthodoxy on the general subject, but that this is orthodoxy in respect to the nature of the atonement. Such unquestionably has been the estimate of most of the orthodox of the North, and of the South, or the voice of mutual anathema, had long ago told us to the contrary. With these views of the subject, we ask with what propriety Dr. D. can charge us, with omitting the atonement itself, in the summary we gave of the leading and essential points of the general subject?

But we are not alone in fault. Dr. M. it seems, "in a sermon professedly written on the nature of the atonement, has not informed us what the atonement is." The term nature is of various import; and that Dr. D. and Dr. M. understand it in different senses, we need not stop to show. We cannot, however, but think, that when Dr. M. speaks of the nature of the atonement as that which makes a display of the justice of God equal to, or greater than, that which would be made by the execution of the penalty on sinners, (we speak not now of what was necessary to making such display,) be with great accuracy delineates that in the suffer ings of Christ, which, so to speak, constitutes their atoning quality, or which constitutes them an atonement. Now if Dr. D. can show that it is not essential to the nature of the atonement, that it should display the justice of God, or that the sufferings of Christ, if they did not

make this manifestation, could be an atonement; or if he can show that the sufferings of Christ, making this manifestation, be the mode of the fact what it may, will not constitute an atonement, then he may claim that Dr. M. has given us no information,' as to what the atonement is. True, there may be a mode of displaying the justice of God, which shall be essential to the fact of such display. But then, the mode which is essential to the fact, may not be an essential point of faith, nor can it be supposed to be any part of the faith of the great body of real Christians. Whether then, the mode of the fact be supposed to be by Christ's becoming our sponsor, by a legal transfer of guilt and punishment, or by a literal substitution or not, we shall arraign no man for essential doctrinal default on this point, who admits the fact, that the sufferings and death of Christ so display the justice of God as to become an adequate and the only ground of the remission of sin; at least we shall not do this, until the chapter and verse of the Bible be pointed out, which unfolds the mode of this fact, and exhibits it as the 'essence' of the atonement.

But, says Dr.D. "the grand defect of this account is, that he [Dr. M,] represents that as the essence of the atonement which is one of its apBecause God pendages or results. has set forth Christ as a propitiation, to declare his righteousness, it certainly does not follow, that the propitiation of Christ, and the manifestation of God's righteousness, are synonymous and convertible terms." It is true indeed that these terms in this connexion, are not exactly synonymous; but it is equally true that nothing is more common than to call that which manifests, displays, expresses, &c. a manifestation, display, &c. ;* and

*The sufferings of Christ, as we view them, are a direct and unequalled display

[merged small][ocr errors]

66

The essence of the atonement as we gather it from Dr. D.'s statement consists in ❝ the Saviour's substitution in the place of sinners," the fact that his sufferings were vicarious (in the received sense of of the term,)" and the fact that they constituted a proper satisfaction for sin." "In these, mainly, consists the essence of the atonement"-and the manifestation of God's righteousness is only "its result, its effect, and not its essence." It is not in our power to compare this statement with any thing which Dr. M. has said till we shall have received a definite explanation of two of its particulars :-first, what Dr. D. understands to be the 'received sense' of the term vicarious; and secondly, what we are to understand by "a proper satisfaction for sin," in distinction from "the manifestation of God's righteousness"-keeping in mind that the former is to the latter as a cause to its effect, or as the thing itself to its appendage.

Of Dr. M.'s sermon Dr. D. further says that it "omits and apparently rejects the doctrine of the Saviour's substitution in the place of sinners, &c." We would ask if mere omis

of the evil of sin, and the abhorrence with which God regards it. They are intended primarily for this very purpose."-Dr. Wood's Reply to Dr. Ware, p. 207.

"The object of the death of Christ is

then, to declare, or manifest, that God is righteous, and that in the salvation of sinners, he will support the honour of his

law and the "interests of virtue."-Letters to Unitarians, p. 102 How much does this proposition differ from the following? "The death of Christ is then, a declaration, or manifestation, of the righteous

ness of God," &c.

VOL. VI.-No. 12

84

sion of one point of doctrinal theology in a sermon, is doctrinal delinquency, and also if apparently rejecting as distinct from really rejecting that point, is a sufficient warrant for virtually charging such delinquency? Because a preacher, in endeavouring to unfold a particular part of a great subject, does not dwell on all its bearings and relations, whether suggested by his text or not, does he therefore deny that the subject has those bearings and relations? Is it a fact, however, that Dr. M. does omit the doctrine of the Saviour's substitution in place of sinners? The question is not whether he has dwelt on this subject so distinctly and fully as was neces sary to give completeness to his sermon in Dr. D.'s judgment; but has he furnished evidence--even the negative evidence of omission, that he rejects this doctrine ? We think we have shown the contrary. It is true that he has not said, totidem verbis, that Christ was a substitute for sinners, but has he not said the thing? For when he says that the sufferings of Christ were a substitute for the execution of the law, for whom would he have us understand that they were thus a substitute? Plainly for sinners:--and what more is asserted when it is said that Christ was a substitute for sinners. Was he a substitute in any other way than by his sufferings, and as these sufferings become the ground of remission to the transgressor? Where then is the vast difference which some imagine between saying that the sufferings of Christ were a substitute for the execution of the law, in the true import of this language, and the proposition that Christ was a substitute for sinners. That there is any difference worthy of notice except that the former phraseology more specifically states what the substitution respects, our theological ken has notyet discovered. On this point we would be learners.

The assertion that Dr. M. "de

nies Christ's sufferings to be vicarious in the received sense of the term" assumes that the term 'vicarious' bas but one received sense, whereas the fact is otherwise. We adverted to the different senses in which the term is applied by different writers to this subject and showed that while Dr. M. denies the sufferings of Christ to be vicarious in one sense, he fully admits them to be so in another sense. The discussion need not be repeated here.*

After all then, for we are anxious to settle this point, how does it appear that Dr. M. denies that Christ's sufferings were vicarious ? That Christ suffered, and in our nature, he surely does admit. Unless Christ had thus suffered man must have suffered the penalty of the law :this Dr. M. also admits. Christ's sufferings then are in place of man's suffering in other words Christ suffered in place of the sinner.

It is true, the suffering in the one case is not precisely what the suffering would have been in the other case. Nor does Dr. D. contend that it must be. If this does not amount to the doctrine of substitution or vicarious suffering, what more will Dr. D. add to it, stopping short of a literal and exact substitution. He may if he please go on to describe Christ's sufferings and say that he endured the torturing pains of divine dereliction" and that "no sorrow was like

66

Magee." I have used the expression vicarious import rather than vicarious to avoid giving any color to the idle charge made against the doctrine of the 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. "Dr. Woods." A literal and exact substitution was impossible." Fuller's Dialogue on Substitution.

"If no more were meant resumed James than that which he did and suffered is graciously accepted as if it were ours, I freely as I have said before, acquiesce in it, But I do not believe, and I can hardly persuade myself that brother Peter believes the obedience and sufferings of Christ to be so ours, that we can properly

be said to have obeyed and suffered.'

his sorrow"-and Dr. M. will not differ from him here. He may add, if he chooses to express himself so, that Christ by his suffering satisfied the law, and if he means by this that the law was satisfied in regard to the end to be answered by the execution of the law on transgressors, Dr. M. takes this ground with him-it is the very thing be labours to show. But does Dr. D. urge that Dr. M. makes the immediate object of Christ's sufferings to be, not the salvation of sinners, but the manifestation of God's righteousness ? Grant this; but what is the object of this manifestation? Does it terminate in itself? Is it a manifestation for the sake of a manifestation? No, Dr. M. tells us, its object was the salvation of sinners" it laid a proper foundation for the pardon and salvation of sinful men." Nor has he any where said as Dr. D. more than intimates

66

that the manifestation of God's righteousness is the sole and exclusive end of Christ's death." Dr. M.'s reasoning then is this :-Christ suffered for sinners-he stepped between them and the law, and saved them from the full weight of its penalty, by so suffering in his own person as to answer the same end which would have been answered by the execution of the law itself on the transgressors. This was 'satisfying divine justice' in the only supposable way in which it could be satisfied, except by a literal transfer of legal liabilities to Christ or by suffering the law to take its course on sinners. This was saving us from the curse by being made a curse for us, so far as the necessary and we may say admissible import of this language is concerned according to Dr. D.; for even he rejects the notion of a legal transfer. Dr. D. may add, if he prefers a different phraseology, this was "a real endurance of the penalty so far as the nature of the case admitted or required." But while the language is changed, is the thing altered?

But let us look again for a mo

« PreviousContinue »