self; that the Son, and not the Father, suffered; that the Son, and not the Father, bled and died on a cross; that the Son, and not the Father, made an atonement; that the Son, and not the Father, intercedes for sinners. He expressly says, "In the case of all believers, and such and such only will be saved, the misery which Christ endured, is the real and only ground of their release; because without these sufferings, or the atonement, there could have been NO PAR"What follows from all this? Why, if his remarks be just, then it will follow, that according to his own scheme, we are indebted to Christ alone for salvation. How happens it that some writers, while objecting to the principles of others, do not perceive that they are fighting against themselves. The reasoning of this author, if fairly and fully carried out, would sweep away two of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, the ATONEMENT and the TRINITY.

DON OR GRACE FOR SINNERS.

* Beman, p. 50.

In my next, I propose to compare the two theories in regard to the nature of the atonement, in order to discover which accords best with scriptural truth. In the mean time,

I remain affectionately yours.

I

LETTER V.

Nature of the Atonement.

DEAR BROTher,

The doctrines of the two schools in relation to the atonement, have now been compared in three particulars. It has been shown, I trust, that in regard to its extent, in regard to a free and unfettered preaching of the gospel, and in regard to the riches of Divine grace displayed in our salvation, the views of the new school have no superiority over those of the old; and that the latter present the riches of Divine grace in by far the strongest light.

Let us now proceed to institute a contrast between these conflicting views, in several other particulars; in which, I think, it will clearly appear that ours have a most decided advantage.

1. Let us compare the nature of the atonement as explained and advocated by the two

schools respectively, and see whose views and representations accord best with scriptural truth. The nature of the atonement is not a subject on which human philosophy should speculate. It is matter of pure revelation; and nothing farther can be known of it than God has been pleased to reveal. The Bible is our teacher; and those views which accord with the instructions of inspired writers must be true, while those which disagree or depart from them must be false.

The advocates of the indefinite scheme, differ in their views of the nature of the atonement. Some say, it consists in making a display of the evil of sin, and an exhibition of Divine justice. Others represent it as consisting in a satisfaction to public justice for sin in general; but they deny that a proper, real satisfaction for the sins of believers was made to Divine justice, so that they can, on legal principles, be set free from the curse of the law. They admit that Christ's sufferings are a substitute for our punishment; but they deny that He was the substitute of his people, and that, charg

ed with their sins, he endured the penalty of the law, and thus made a real satisfaction for them, and paid a real price for their redemption. They all speak of the atonement as merely opening the door, and removing the obstacle in the way of the exercise of mercy. Let me cite a few quotations from a recent publication-"The atonement consists, not in cancelling the demands of the law for one or all men, but in opening the door of hope, in rendering the pardon of sinners consistent with the character, law and universe of God."* Again: "This atonement MERELY opened the door of mercy; it prepared the way for the offer and the exercise of pardon." Again: "The atonement does not of itself save a single soul. It BARELY opens the door for the accomplishment of this object by free and sovereign grace."

Now, these views are, in my opinion, repugnant to plain and decided testimonies of holy scripture, and tend to destroy the very nature of the atonement.

* Beman.

† Ibid.

+ Ibid.