Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

LECTURE XI.

THE ATONEMENT. ITS NECESSITY.

THE Word Atonement occurs but once in the New Testament, (Rom. v. 11.) In that passage the Greek is καταλλαγην, from the verb καταλ. Loooo, which means to reconcile.

It is, however, a word of frequent occurrence in the Old Testament. In the Hebrew, the word is copher, signifying, primarily, to cover, or overspread; but is constantly used to denote the expiation or satisfaction made for sin, by the various sacrifices and offerings presented under the law.

By lexicographers generally, the word is defined to mean an expiation or satisfaction for an injury or offence.

In a theological sense, by the atonement, we understand the expiation or satisfaction made for sin, by the sufferings and death of Christ, whereby salvation is made possible to man.

No subject belonging to Christianity has been thought to involve more intricacy, and certainly none possesses more importance, than the one now presenting itself to our consideration; therefore, it merits at our hands the closest thought and the most devout supplication, that in reference to this deeply interesting theme, we may be led to a clear perception of the "truth as it is in Jesus."

It will readily be perceived that the great subject of redemption through the atonement of Christ is predicated upon, and intimately connected with, the state of man as a sinner, which has been the subject of discussion in several of the preceding lectures. Indeed, it is clear, that, if man be not a sinner, to provide a Saviour for his redemption would be perfectly useless. Redemption through Christ is obviously a scheme of recovery from the evils of the fall. It is a gracious remedy for the moral disease with which, as we have already seen, the nature of man is infected. To deny the existence of the disease, is to discard the necessity of the remedy. Hence, it would appear reasonable to suppose that our views of the nature of the remedy will be influenced by the light in which we view the disease for which it is provided. If we are heterodox on the one point, to preserve consistency throughout our system, we cannot be sound in the faith upon the other. Thus, it will be seen,

that, in proportion as the scriptural doctrine of depravity has been depreciated or discarded, so has the doctrine of atonement been explained away or denied.

Before we enter properly into the investigation of this subject, as presented in the Scriptures, it may be proper briefly to present the leading views which have been entertained upon it by different classes of theologians. That Jesus Christ is the Saviour of sinners, and that his mission into our world, and his death and sufferings, are, in some way, connected with this great work, is freely admitted by all. But when we come to speak of the nature of the connection between the death of Christ and the salvation of man, a great diversity of sentiment, on points of vast importance, is at once seen.

The first theory which we shall notice upon this subject is generally denominated Socinianism, though it has been adopted by most of the modern Unitarians. The substance of this system we shall present in the language of Dr. Priestley, in his "History of the Doctrine of Atonement." The quotations have been collected and thrown together by Dr. Hill, in his "Lectures," as follows:

"The great object of the mission and death of Christ was to give the fullest proof of a state of retribution, in order to supply the strongest motives to virtue; and the making an express regard to the doctrine of a resurrection to immortal life the principal sanction of the laws of virtue, is an advantage peculiar to Christianity. By this peculiar advantage the gospel reforms the world, and remission of sin is consequent on reformation. For although there are some texts in which the pardon of sin seems to be represented as dispensed in consideration of the sufferings, the merit, the resurrection, the life, or the obedience of Christ, we cannot but conclude, upon a careful examination, that all these views of it are partial representations, and that, according to the plain general tenor of Scripture, the pardon of sin is, in reality, always dispensed by the free mercy of God upon account of man's personal virtue, a penitent, upright heart, and a reformed, exemplary life, without regard to the sufferings or merit of any being whatever."

From these extracts it appears, that the Socinians deny that Christ suffered in the room of sinners, to expiate their sins, and satisfy the demands of a broken law. According to their view, he only saves us, by leading us to the practice of virtue, through the influence of his example and instructions.

The second theory we shall notice is the Arian hypothesis. This, while it attaches more importance than the Socinians do to the death of Christ, denies that it was either vicarious or expiatory; and so falls very far short of the proper Scripture view. This system represents Christ

as more than a mere man :-as a super-angelic being, the first and most exalted of creation; and that his mission into our world was a wonderful display of benevolence; inasmuch as he left the high honors of glory, and condescended to lead a life of toil and ignominy in the propagation of his religion; and then to seal the truth of his doctrine with his own blood. Sufferings so great, say the Arians, by so exalted a character, although they are in no sense vicarious or expiatory, yet, are not without their influence, but constitute a powerful argument in favor of the salvation of sinners, since they form a sufficient ground for the Redeemer to claim the deliverance of all who repent and believe, as a reward for what he has done and suffered in their behalf. Thus, according to this view, the Saviour gains a power and dignity as a Mediator by his sufferings, though there is seen no special necessity for them, inasmuch as God, had he seen fit, could have extended salvation to man as consistently without as with those sufferings.

The theory which we have here presented has not only been advocated by the Arians, but, with little variation, has found favor with some divines having higher claims to orthodoxy; such as Dr. Balguy of the established Church of England, and Dr. Price among the Dissenters. We will not now enter into the discussion of the peculiar character of the two schemes just presented; but in the regular course of the investigation of the Scripture doctrine of the atonement, we trust, their refutation will be sufficiently obvious.

In pleading for their peculiar views on the subject of the atonement, the different parties have not only appealed to the Scriptures, but have instituted a course of reasoning founded upon the analogy of faith and the general tenor of revelation. Such a course of investigation, in reference to this subject, is by no means improper, provided both reason and revelation be allowed to occupy their proper position. But let it be remembered, that, while we may exercise our reason in reference to the correct understanding of what is plainly revealed, we are not at liberty, as professed Christians, to reason in opposition to the explicit declarations of the inspired Oracles. That this obviously important principle has always been observed, especially by those who have opposed the expiatory character of the atonement, can by no means be affirmed. Indeed, there is perhaps no subject, in the investigation of which, men have ventured further in bold and impudent assertion, in the very face of plain Scripture. Such has been the spirit of many who have written in opposition to what we conceive to be the true doctrine of the atonement, that they have been utterly incapable of making a fair statement of the doctrine they opposed. They have poured their vituperation and abuse upon a caricature of their own invention, -a creature of their own

imagination, bearing scarcely a feature of resemblance to the acknowledged sentiments of those whom they opposed. But this will more fully appear as we proceed in the investigation of the doctrine.

I. The first point to which we invite attention is the difficulties in the way of man's salvation, which rendered the atonement necessary. Why was it, it is asked, that there was a necessity for the sufferings of the Son of God? To this we reply, that the great necessity for the atonement is founded upon the pure and unchangeable principles of the Divine government. But these must be considered in connection with the true character and condition of man, as well as the grand design of the Almighty in his creation. Let these important points be carefully examined, and the necessity for the great work of atonement will be clearly seen.

1. Then, we say, that in proposing to himself the creation of human beings, the Infinite Mind must have been swayed and determined by a design worthy the character of the Supreme Creator. This grand design or reason for the creation of man could not have been predicated upon the nature or character of man while as yet he had no actual existence, but must have been the result of the Divine perfections, in their independent operations. "I do not here introduce any external impulsive cause, as moving God unto the creation of the world; for I have presupposed all things distinct from him to have been produced out of nothing by him, and consequently to be posterior, not only to the motion, but the actuation of his will. Since, then, nothing can be antecedent to the creature beside God himself, neither can anything be a cause of any of his actions but what is in him; we must not look for anything extrinsical unto him, but wholly acquiesce in his infinite goodness, as the only moving and impelling cause."—(Pearson on the Creed.)

From all that we can learn of the nature of God himself, and the character of his administration toward his creatures, we are led to infer, that, in the creation of man, the great object was the development of the Divine perfections, and the happiness of intelligent creatures. Anything repugnant to, or falling short of, this pure and exalted object, would be so derogatory to the Divine character, and so palpably inconsistent with what we see of the Divine administration, as to be utterly incapable of commanding the assent of an intelligent mind.

2. If it be admitted that the above statement, in reference to the design of God in our creation, is correct, we inquire, in the next place, whether the noble and exalted powers with which man was originally endued were in their nature calculated to promote this design? Now, it must be admitted, that the Almighty was not only perfectly free to

as more than a mere man:-as a super-angelic being, the first and most exalted of creation; and that his mission into our world was a wonderful display of benevolence; inasmuch as he left the high honors of glory, and condescended to lead a life of toil and ignominy in the propagation of his religion; and then to seal the truth of his doctrine with his own blood. Sufferings so great, say the Arians, by so exalted a character, although they are in no sense vicarious or expiatory, yet, are not without their influence, but constitute a powerful argument in favor of the salvation of sinners, since they form a sufficient ground for the Redeemer to claim the deliverance of all who repent and believe, as a reward for what he has done and suffered in their behalf. Thus, according to this view, the Saviour gains a power and dignity as a Mediator by his sufferings, though there is seen no special necessity for them, inasmuch as God, had he seen fit, could have extended salvation to man as consistently without as with those sufferings.

The theory which we have here presented has not only been advocated by the Arians, but, with little variation, has found favor with some divines having higher claims to orthodoxy; such as Dr. Balguy of the established Church of England, and Dr. Price among the Dissenters. We will not now enter into the discussion of the peculiar character of the two schemes just presented; but in the regular course of the investigation of the Scripture doctrine of the atonement, we trust, their refutation will be sufficiently obvious.

In pleading for their peculiar views on the subject of the atonement, the different parties have not only appealed to the Scriptures, but have instituted a course of reasoning founded upon the analogy of faith and the general tenor of revelation. Such a course of investigation, in reference to this subject, is by no means improper, provided both reason. and revelation be allowed to occupy their proper position. But let it be remembered, that, while we may exercise our reason in reference to the correct understanding of what is plainly revealed, we are not at liberty, as professed Christians, to reason in opposition to the explicit declarations of the inspired Oracles. That this obviously important principle has always been observed, especially by those who have opposed the expiatory character of the atonement, can by no means be affirmed. Indeed, there is perhaps no subject, in the investigation of which, men have ventured further in bold and impudent assertion, in the very face of plain Scripture. Such has been the spirit of many who have written in opposition to what we conceive to be the true doctrine of the atonement, that they have been utterly incapable of making a fair statement of the doctrine they opposed. They have poured their vituperation and abuse upon a caricature of their own invention,-a creature of their own

« PreviousContinue »