consulted the New Testament, and selected from it such things, as they judged would comport with the particular views and designs which they themselves entertained.

But however many may be the points, in which all these systems substantially coincide, so far as the ory is concerned, with the Christian religion, yet there are other points in which they all fundamentally differ from it. Among the most prominent and important of all, is the great doctrine of the Atonement. Here the devotees of all these systems turn sceptics at once. The offence of the cross is to them a grievous offence. They reject the idea of propitiating a holy God by the death of Jesus, with scorn and contumely. They tread under foot the blood of the cross, and regard it as an unholy thing. They scoff at those who admit the doctrine of reconciliation to God by the mediator's death; and regard them as men bereaved of their reason, or as under the influence of a pitiable enthusiasm.

It is clear, then, that the doctrine in question is one of those fundamental truths, which are the distinctive sign or badge of the Christian religion, as a religion different from the others which have been named. It is one principal thing, which makes our holy religion to be appropriately Christianity, and not Judaism, not Mohammedism, not Theism. No wonder, then, that those who view the subject in such a light, and who have deliberately avowed themselves to be Christians, should contend with earnestness, nay with persevering and invincible earnestness, for a doctrine of such fundamental and distinctive importance. The distinctive nature of it is, indeed, too plain to be seriously called in question. The fundamental importance of it, however, we know by unhappy experience has often, very often, been called in question,

and is still denied. Yet even those who deny it, must admit, that if we who believe it are correct in our views with regard to its being a Scriptural doctrine, its importance cannot reasonably be questioned. Whether salvation is vouchsafed to men, only through the medium of the atoning blood of Jesus; or whether this produces a direct and immediate influence at all upon our reconciliation to God; are questions of everlasting moment to every sinner in this world of probation. Those who believe in the reality and necessity of the atonement, in the expiatory sacrifice of Christ, may well insist on the liberty of being in earnest, upon a question of such a nature. The belief or rejection of this truth, does, in their view, stand essentially connected with the belief or rejection of a Saviour; and of course with everlasting happiness or misery. they not be in earnest then, to defend this doctrine when they believe it; and in earnest, to inculcate it upon others?

We do not offer these remarks, because we think that an apology is necessary, for the deep interest which we feel about the subject in question, in common with most of the churches in our land. They are offered merely to show those who may be inclined to wonder why we should make so much of this topic, that if there be any thing in the Christian religion, of which much is to be made, this is to be regarded as one of those things. They are intended, also, to impress still more deeply on those who believe in the great doctrine of the atonement, and contend for it, that they have much reason to contend for it, and to hold it fast as the distinguishing and fundamental doctrine of the religion which they profess.

We count ourselves to be among those, who regard with great satis faction, the deep sensibility of the

religious public, towards the doctrine in question. It augurs well if it be well regulated. It shows that Christians are not inclined in these philosophizing days, to be turned about by every wind of doctrine. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and forever," said the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, after labouring through a long and masterly argument, to illustrate and enforce the doctrine of atonement by the blood of Jesus. So would we say, at the present time. While the relation of God to man, as lawgiver, sovereign, and judge exists; and of man to God, as his subject, and accountable to him for all his actions, and thoughts, and affections; the doctrine of the atonement must be of fundamental importance. Man, born as he now is, with predominating carnal appetites, will ever be a sinner, and "without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin." Yet it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin." The Lamb of God" only can "take away the sins of the world." If Jesus then, be not "the same yesterday, to-day, and forever," as one expiatory, atoning sacrifice, then will ruin, endless and remediless, befal our guilty race, who have sinned, and for whom no atoning sacrifice has been made. Surely "there remaineth no other sacrifice for sin ;" and only "judgment and fiery indignation must be expected by adversaries!"

We rejoice therefore, in the very deep sympathy which pervades the churches, on this great subject. Not because we are sticklers for all the old terminology and modes of explanation, which the schools of former days, or their adherents in later times, have employed. We do not place any value upon terms, farther than they are significant of things; yea, and of intelligible things. What one mind has conceived, can be communicated to

another. God who made man a rational and social being, and gave him the powers of language, endowed him with the faculty of communicating rational and intelligent thoughts to others; specially those which do not depend on the mere subjective state of individual feeling and views, but are the result of reflection and reasoning. Terms, then, which the schoolmen have employed, in reference to the doctrine of the atonement, if they are significant of things, and things taught in Scripture, may well be retained. There is no merit in that love of novelty and passion for change, that would discard any thing because the schoolmen said, or believed, or taught it. Nor, on the other hand, do we fear to reject or oppose any terminology, which they or their adherents have employed, provided, on examination, it be found to be either unmeaning, or erroneous, or superflu. ous, or antiscriptural.

We suppose ourselves to agree substantially, in regard to the doctrine of the atonement, with the great body of the Protestant divines, who have treated of this subject, since the commencement of the Reformation. We believe in the vicarious sufferings of Christ for sinners. We do not believe in his death merely as a martyr to the cause of truth, and that it merely serves the cause of moral suasion, and thus contributes to our salvation. Nor do we believe, that the example of constancy, fortitude and obedience, which he exhibited by his death, is all that makes him a Saviour on account of his sufferings. We believe fully, that there is other influence, besides that of moral suasion in any form, exerted by his death upon our salvation. We do not deny the influence of moral suasion from his example, in exciting men to virtue, and in directing and animating their efforts. We believe in it fully. And so we do,

in the influence of the examples of all the apostles and martyrs, for the like end. But we believe, that Christ's sufferings were a substitute for those which sinners deserved; that they were vicarious, that is, that they were in the room and stead of those sufferings which sinners deserved; God accepted them in lieu of the punishment which believers must have suffered, unless they had obtained forgiveness; and that the death of Christ does, in this way, have a direct bearing upon the pardon and acceptance of a penitent sinner with God, and not merely exercise a moral influence in persuading him to forsake sin, and repent, and thus obtain pardon. This last we admit, to a certain extent; but it is very far from being all which we admit and believe. We admit, with the great mass of all the reformed churches, the doctrine of a true and real expiation made by the death of Jesus; and believe with the prophet, that the Lord "laid upon him the iniquity of us all," that is, we believe that the sufferings endured by Christ were accepted by our Lawgiver and eternal Judge, in lieu of the punishment due to our sins. Such, we have no doubt, is the meaning of the prophet himself, in the sentence just quoted. The word rendered iniquity, (w) means also consequences of sin, viz. affliction, suffering, as well as the cause of sin, viz. crime or moral turpitude.

We are thus explicit, in our declarations, because we know the sensibility of the religious public to be such, on this subject, that when we profess, (as we do not scruple to profess,) that we reject some terminology and modes of explanation which have been often adopted and insisted on, with relation to the doctrine of the atonement, we incur the danger of being charged with rejecting the doctrine, that the sufferings of Christ are to be regarded as vicarious, or that his suffer

ings and death were a substitute for the punishment which the sinner deserved. Nothing can be farther from our design than to deny this; for this we believe to be the distinctive and essential trait of the great doctrine in question. But we do not maintain, nor do we believe, that the sufferings of Christ were the same in kind, as the sinner deserved; nor the same in quantity, as he deserved. Not the first, because Christ had not a guilty conscience, that " worm which never dies" in the sinner's breast; he knew his sufferings were to be brief, and that he should come out from them, and of course he was not in despair, like the sinner in the world of woe.. Not the second, because he suffered but a short period, even if you include his whole life within the pale of suffering; he suffered as man, and not as the immutable and impassible God; and he could not, therefore, undergo sufferings, within this period, equal in quantity to the sufferings which all the redeemed must have endured, had they been forever cast off. A substitution does not involve the notion of an exact quid pro quo, an equivalency in all respects both as to kind and quantity. Nay the ve ry term itself scarcely ever implies this. We speak of an exact equivalent, rather than of a substitution, when a quid pro quo in all respects is had, in case of an exchange. We do not believe in the necessity of a strict, literal quid pro quo, in such a moral transaction as that of the atonement. Enough, that the law is honoured; that God is satisfied it is so; and that he is now willing to accept penitent sinners, as though they had obeyed. Enough, that the awful consequences of sin are held up, in the most striking and impressive manner, by the death of Christ. Enough, that better purposes have been answered by this death, than would have been accomplished by carrying the law into literal execu

tion. This is satisfaction, (to use the language of the old school,) in its highest and best possible sense. We need no weighing in scales, adjusted even by particles of dust, the exact quantity of suffering which Christ must undergo, in order to make out a literal quid pro quo for the justice and penalty of the law. We believe in no personal and literal transfer of guilt, of moral turpitude, on the one hand; or of holiness on the other. All these things, we believe to be the result of excessive and tenuous speculations on the doctrine in question; the result of a priori, and not of scriptural reasoning.

But then we trust that most of those who have indulged in such excessive speculations, did, after all, hold fast to what is essential in regard to the atonement. While, therefore, we decline to speculate with them in these minima, we do not exclude them from our fellowship, nor from our Christian confidence and affection.

Whenever we read or hear sentiments, in respect to the atonement, which involve the idea that the sufferings of Christ must have exactly equalled the penalty of the law, had it been executed upon believers, we always feel compelled instinctively to ask, Then what gain has accrued to the universe, by his death? The quantity of suffering, on the whole, is not diminished; and where then is mercy, the very idea of which is, relaxing the demands of strict justice? Moral equivalency or satisfaction is what we expect, and what we think we find in the scriptural representation of the atonement. But even here, the sacred writers indulge in no refined and minute speculation. There is scarcely any one passage, which, construed agreeably to the laws of sound interpretation, conveys directly an idea of this nature. It follows rather from the collation of many passages, and in the way VOL. I.-No. V.

35

of deduction from their import. So little did those who were inspired to speak on the all-important subject of the atonement, indulge in the distinctions and minuteness of systematic theology.

We have said enough to shew, that we are neither opposed to any views because they are old, in regard to the topic under consideration; nor attached to any because they are new. We would fain follow the simple biblical view of it, free from all additions made by human refinements, and equally free from all interpretation forced upon the Scriptures by philosophy and reasonings a priori.

We repeat it, that we are sincerely rejoiced to see such a deep sensibility pervade the Christian public, in regard to the doctrine of the atonement. It is an omen of good to the cause of Christianity. But, on the other hand, it is not difficult to perceive, that it is fraught with some danger also. Even to discuss the subject of atonement, is, at present, putting to hazard a man's good name, if not his standing in the church. If he departs from the beaten path, the cry of wanderer is raised. If he refuses to use old names, and old forms of expression, he is in danger of being thought heretical. Scarcely

can one venture even to discuss

minor points relative to this subject, without finding some one to cry out against him. This is unfortunate with regard to discovering what is true, and discouraging to those who are inclined to pursue investigations of such a nature.

Still, there are minds, deeply enough engaged in this great cause, to venture upon the pursuit of what is scriptural, and upon the rejection of what philosophy has added to the scriptures. We rejoice that there are; and after all the various speculations, in one form and another, indulged in by not a few who have had extensive influence in the