must otherwise have been accomplished by the exercise of retributive justice upon transgressors in their own persons.If the work of Christ have that excellency and merit, which the unerring justice of heaven has seen to be an actual doing of that which was requisite to compensate for the injury perpetrated, and to restore the moral harmony which had been violated, it may with the utmost propriety be called a satisfaction. The theological use of the word was probably introduced from the Roman law. Tertullian, who was well acquainted with that science, says, Christus peccata hominum omni satisfactionis habitu expiavit: which may be, I conceive, justly translated, "Christ atoned for the sins of men by a satisfaction perfect in every respect." He clearly shows his understanding of the term, when he says that our Lord, by healing the wound of Malchus, repaired the injury.* It is scarcely necessary to add, that this term involves all the requisite ideas of our doctrine-sin, substitution, and pardon. SUBSTITUTION.-Neither is this term to be found in the Bible, though in common use, and of great moment. The doctrine supposes, as has been said, that Christ takes the place of offending sinners, bearing their guilt, and suffering their punishment. As surety for men, he voluntarily places himself in their situation, as violators of God's holy, just, and good law; he holds himself responsible for all their guilt; and bares his bosom to the full award of the threatened penalty due to them for sin. He substitutes himself in their stead, not merely in regard to punishment, but in respect of obligation to punishment. Christ submttted not only to be treated as a sin-offering, but to be made sin for us. He not only "bare our griefs, and carried our sorrows," but he "bare the sin of many.' While his holy soul was free from all the moral contamination connected with a state of guilt; while personal guilt never could be charged upon him; he, nevertheless, behooved to have imputed to him the guilt for which he was to make atonement. This was necessary that his sufferings might partake of the nature of a punishment. Suffering, disconnected from guilt, is calamity or affliction, not punishment; to punishment, guilt is indispensably requisite. Christ had no guilt of his own; he was incapable, indeed, of contracting it; but "the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all."

VICARIOUS.-This word, as its Latin derivation imports, has the same meaning as that just explained. It signifies performing the functions, or standing in the place of another.

*Dr. Pye Smith's Discourses on Sacrifice, &c., pp. 287, 288.

EXPIATION.-The annulling of guilt, or taking away of sin by some meritorious interposition, is the distinctive idea suggested by this term. Though not found in the Scriptures, no word is of more frequent use, or of greater significance, in connexion with the subject of our present inquiry.

Such, then, are the principal terms, scriptural and technical, which are in use on the subject now under review. It is of great importance that they be rightly understood, so that specific and distinctive ideas be attached to them respectively. In theology, as in other departments of science, we are in danger from that common law by which words and phrases in constant use come to be dissevered from the notions they are designed to represent. This gravitation," as has been happily remarked by a powerful anonymous writer," which brings the heavier substance (knowledge) down, as a residuum, and leaves the lighter (language,) to float as a frothy crust on the surface, is to be counteracted only by continual agitation of the mass. Let it be remarked, then, that the first three terms above explained (atonement, reconciliation, and redemption), direct our attention particularly to the effects of Christ's work; the next (propitiation), to the source of the sinner's danger, the wrath of God which needs to be appeased; the three next (satisfaction, substitution, and vicarious), to the medium of deliverance; and the last (expiation), to its nature as a deliverance from guilt. Some of these terms involve the same ideas as others; but, generally speaking, there are nice shades of meaning which serve to distinguish them. A knowledge of these distinctions will at once serve to direct us in the choice of proper language in speaking on the subject ourselves, and tend to facilitate our right understanding of what is spoken by others. The terms are not to be regarded as mere synonymes or expletives. The death of Christ was at once expiatory, and vicarious, and propitiatory, and atoning. When we say it was expiatory, we mean that it was for sin that he died. When we say it was vicarious, we affirm that he died for the sins of others, not for his own. When we speak of it as propitiatory, we represent it as designed to appease the wrath of God, who is angry with sinners for their sins. And when we say it was atoning, we regard it as effecting a proper reconci.iation.

Let the reader strive, before he proceeds, to fix in his mind

*Saturday Evening; by the Author of the Natural History of En thusiasm, p. 99.

correct notions of the language in use on this subject. Whatever be the matter of investigation, this is of vast moment; and more so, surely, when the theme, as in the present case, is one of such awful magnitude. Let the doctrine in question be clearly distinguished from others which have been substituted by heretics in its place. Let it be distinctly understood what is meant by Christ's atonement. Let the terms in customary use in treating of it be associated with definite conceptions. Thus may we expect the issue of our investigation to be satisfactory and profitable. But if we content ourselves with vain ambiguities, like persons in a mist every thing must appear to us dim and ill defined; we are likely, at every step, to get more and more bewildered; and the result is sure to be darkness and confusion.

It may be proper to remind the reader of the necessity of bringing up a candid, humble, and well-disciplined mind, to the investigation of this great question. A subject so high and difficult in itself, and withal so much controverted, is not to be approached under the influence of prejudice or passion. In such an inquiry much depends on the state of the moral feelings. In justice to the pure light of sacred truth, the dark mists of moral prejudice must be dissipated, and the soul freed from every unholy bias which the love or practice of sin is fitted to impart. Perfect submission ought to be given to the word of God as the sole standard and unerring guide. There should be humble reliance on the promised assistance of the divine Spirit, and the wrestlings of fervent prayer at the throne of mercy for light and direction. Care ought to be taken to view the subject as one, not of speculative re search, but of practical and awful importance; affecting the very foundation of a sinner's hopes; the bond of Christian doctrine; the heart and life-blood of the religion of Jesus. Then will levity, self-confidence, and pride, be discarded; and the investigation be pursued in that lowly, pure, and reverential spirit, which cannot fail to be rewarded with ultimate success. What man is he that feareth the Lord? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.

SECTION II.

OBJECTIONS TO ATONEMENT CONSIDERED.

The view given, in the former section, of the nature of atonement, is strenuously opposed by many. The orthodox

doctrine on the subject is disbelieved by not a few, who, nevertheless, lay claim to the Christian name. Their objeetions are at best but the specious cavils of a cold and specu lative philosophy, and, in many cases, there is reason to fear, the natural result of criminal passions and irreligious prejudice, producing a secret dislike at those exalted views of the divine purity, and those humiliating sentiments of man's guilt and depravity, which the doctrine necessarily presupposes. But from whatever source they spring, the objections in question must be duly weighed. If found to be valid, it will be unnecessary to advance another step: if proved to be unfounded, the future discussion will be freed of no little incumberance. To the candid consideration of these objections, let us, then, proceed.

I. It is objected that the doctrine of atonement represents the Supreme Being in an unamiable light, destroys the attribute of mercy, and resolves his whole character into stern and inexorable justice.

This it is supposed to do by representing the death of Christ as that which procures the mercy or love of God for sinners; that which renders him willing to pardon the sins of his creatures and without which he would not be so willing: in short, as a motive, an inducement, a price, a bribe, a something which effects a change in the divine mind from stern and vindictive wrath to melting compassion. Now, say our opponents, so far from this being the case, God is uniformly spoken of in scripture as in his very nature merciful and gracious; as disposed to regard sinners with spontaneous benevolence; as perfectly reconciled, and instead of needing to be appeased, as waiting to be gracious" and "ready to pardon.' That such is the light in which the sacred writers exhibit the character of God, is not denied; and if the doctrine we maintain could be shown to be at variance with this view of the divine character, this must be regarded as an insuperable objection against it. But we beg attention to the following remarks.

66

1. The objection gives a mistaken view of what the atonement is understood to effect.

It is never supposed, by those who understand the subject, that the work of Christ is, in any sense, the cause of divine love, mercy, or grace; but the medium through which these perfections of God find expression to guilty creatures. It is never regarded as necessary to produce in God love toward men, but as necessary to his love being manifested. It is not looked upon as that which renders God placable, but as

that which renders the exercise of his placability consistent with the other perfections of his nature. It does not procure the divine favour, but makes way for this favour being shown in the pardon of sin. There is a clear and broad distinction betwixt these two things, to which it is of the utmost importance to attend. This distinction is consistent with scripture, where the whole scheme of human salvation is referred to divine love as its origin; and it is as clearly implied in the doctrine under consideration, namely, that the work of Christ gives satisfaction to God for the sins of his people, for this necessarily supposes a previous willingness on the part of God to accept of satisfaction; and what is this previous goodwill but love, or mercy, or grace? The true view of the matter is this, that divine love is the cause of the atonement, and not that atonement is the cause of the divine love. And when the subject is placed in this, its just and proper light, so far from the atonement representing the Deity as unamiable, it must be regarded as itself the brightest display of the divine loving-kindness. Nothing can be conceived more expressive of the benevolence of God, than his sending his Son into the world to suffer and die for the guilty objects of his love. In the estimation of the inspired writers, the gift of his Son is ever regarded as the most perfect manifestation of the riches of God's grace. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." (John iii. 16. 1 John iv. 9.) When atonement is thus exhibited as the effect and not the cause of God's love and mercy, the objection in question is completely neutralized; for so far from representing the Supreme Being in an unfavourable light, it stands forth as the most brilliant and overpowering manifestation of his loving kindness and grace-the pure emanation of infinite, eternal, and unchangeable love. And all such views of the doctrine as are inconsistent with Jehovah's original disposition to be merciful, or which represent him as changed, by the Saviour's sacrifice, from wrath and fury to kindness and grace, are either the misconceptions of friends or the misrepresentations of enemies, which are to be viewed with unmingled disapprobation and regret.

2. But this is not all. The objection proceeds on a mistaken assumption.

It assumes that God is ready to pardon sin without satis