19. On the Atonement of Christ

ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST.

“The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,”

Isaiah 53:6. It is important to know the design and elFects of the sulTerings of Jesus Christ. Though the Scriptures appear to be full and explicit on this subject, there is no inconsiderable difference of opinion respecting it. The doctrine of the atonement is of the fir^t importance, whether it be viewed in relation to the moral condition of man, or in relation to the nafure and character of the Lord Jesus.

T’to Creator made mankind moral agents, and he gave them a law for the regulation of their conduct. This law required perfect obedience; and it threatened punishment for every transgression. Whatever may be the difference, in respect to the number of God’s commands in different ages of the world, they are of one nature; they require obedience, and they threaten punishment for every offence. If, in one age of the world, the penalty of the law was everlasting puriishment, it was the same in every age.

We look over this world, and we find that it is a province of divine government; and that it is a rebellious province. They have violated the law of their divine Sovereign; forfeited the reward of righteousness; and incurred the penal consequences of transgression. If the law have its natural course, the threatened punishment will be inflicted upon every transgressor; and the whole race of man will suffer the vengeance of God for ever. If the divine law b«

32 250 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. just and good, its honor would be supported in this way by its own provisions. But we learn from the general dealings of God with this world, and from his revealed word, that mercy is an attribute of his nature; that he is benevolent to sinful man; that he delighteth not in the death of sinners. A question naturally rises here; how can God exercise both justice and mercy in relation to the same subjects of his government?

If they be entirely obedient, justice gives them the rewards of righteousness. If they transgress, justice consigns them to the threatened penalty. In either case there is no mercy. The holy and the rebellious angels are both under the influence of the justice of God. When the Creator saw human nature, the workmanship of his hand, despoiled of its moral excellence, he was disposed to shew mercy, to bestow favor. But how this could be done consistently with the claims of justice, and with the validity of the divine law, could not, probably, be discovered by the greatest efforts of created mtelligence. If pardon were conferred upon every transgressor, without any consideration, the law would have no force; it would impose no restraint; it would be merely advisory, but not authoritative. Subjects would yield to every impulse of their base passions, having no ground to fear any pernicious consequences. If part were pardoned without any consideration, it would proportionately diminish the force of the divine law. Every one would hope that he might belong to the favored number, and much restraint from transgression would be taken off. In either case sin would not appear very heinous; nor would it appear to be very offensive to God. The divine government would not appear with great majesty in the sight of men. Sin would abound much more than it does at present; and this would not be calculated to prepare subjects for the holy services and enjoyments of the heavenly state. ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 2 Samuel 1:1-27

If God should forgive sinners on the ground of their suffering a certain term of punishment, it would be on the principle of justice or mercy. If it were on the principle of justice, it would follow that as sin deserved but a limited punishment, it was a finite evil. This view of it would comparatively diminish its guilt, and it would diminish the dignity of the divine character and government, against which it was committed. If God should abate his threatened punishment, either in degree, or in duration, on the ground of mercy, he would manifest, comparatively, less abhorrence of sin; he would diminish the dignity of his character and the efficacy of his law and authority. If sin be an infinite evil and deserves a proportionate [)unishment, a point in duration will never arrive, in which the transgressor can claim exemption from further suffer- By some it is maintained that repentance is the ground, on which pardon is bestowed upon the guilty.

It is admitted, that under the present economy of divine government, sin is forgiven on the condition of the repentance of the transgressor. But repentance is not the procuring cause of his forgiveness. The divine law requires perfect obedience; and it declares that “cursed is every one, who continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them.” It makes no abatement of its requisitions; and it makes no provision for exemption from its penalty on any condition whatever. If a transgressor repents, his act of penitence comes not within its scope. Sorrow for sin makes no satisfaction to the violated law. It makes no remuneration to the one offended, or injured. Were transgressors pardoned solely on the ground of their repentance, the requisitions of the law would be diminished; its authority and efficacy would be weakened, and proportionate encouragement would be given to transgression. But it has been maintained that it might be reasonably expected that God would forgive on the ground of 252 ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. repentance; and that this has been a prevailing sentiment of the nations of the earth. But this is not fact. This conclusion would not be made from any analogy whatever. The civil law does not grant pardon to a culprit in consequence of his repentance. It requires that the penalty be inflicted; so that no one should be encouraged to transgress. If a man be injured by his fellow creature in his person, property or character, will he be satisfied merely with the repentance of the offender? Will he not require an equivalent for the damages, which he has sustained? A restitution of property unjustly taken, and eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and blood for blood, were part of the divine law, which was established on principles of strict justice. Remuneration for injuries, when it is practicable has always been considered a prerequisite for acceptance of repentance. As mankind could make no recompense to the divine Sovereign for the offences they had offered him, they could not infer that their repentance would secure them the forgiveness of their God. It is a well known fact, that heathen nations generally, if not universally, have adopted the expedient of sacrifices to appease their offended deities; which they would not have done, had they believed that repentance only would have rendered them propitious. The more dear to them were the victims, which they offered, the more pleasing, they imagined, would be their sacrifices to their incensed deities. From this arose the practice of offering human victims.

Some offered the fruit of their bodies for the sins of their souls. Whether the practice of sacrifice was an invention of the human mind in the darkness of paganism, or whether it was handed down by tradition from the first ages, it is certain, that mankind generally have embraced the sentiment, that something beside repentance was necessary to make satisfaction for sin.

Nothing occurs under the Providence of God, which warrants a belief that repentance will be followed by ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 253 forgiveness. But we witness many things, which would naturally lead us to a different conclusion. “For when men ruin their fortunes by extravagance, or theii- health by excess in sensual indulgences, it is well known that repentance alone doth not remove these evil consequences of their follies and excesses. Wherefore, if in the present life, repentance is never found of itself to remove the temporal evil consequences, which God hath connected with vice; also, if men themselves being judges, repentance ought not to prevent the punishment of crimes injurious to society, what reason hath any person, from the constitution of things, to expect that repentance of Itself will prevent those penal consequences, which God may have thought fit to annex to vice in the life to come. Mu< h more, what reason hath any one, from the present constitution of things, to expect that repentance and reformation will put the sinner into the condition, he would have been in, if he had always preserved his innocence.”*

It appears evident that a transgressor cannot do any thing, which will make satisfaction to the divine law, but suffering its penalty. If he repent and reform, and Irom the present time render a perfect obedience to the divine precepts, he does nothing to cancel the demands, which stand against him for past transgression. Present obedience is but present duty.

It cannot have a retrospective influence. If one, for any given time, could do more than his duty for that time, he might acquire a surplus of righteousness, which would counterbalance transgressions, and supply past deficiencies. But this method is alike contrarient to reason and to revelation. It requires no arguments to prove that if a transgressor cannot save himself from the penal consequences of sin, he cannot save others. Should a created being, of any grade whatever on the scale of creation undertake in his behalf, what would be the consequence? However • Macknight.

254 ON THE ATONEMENT 0F.CHRIST. great his capacity, or his benevolence might be, his own obhgations to his Creator, should be proportionate to his degrees of ability. It would be required of him, on his own account, according to what he had.

Suppose he should volunteer his services in behalf of this sinful world; that he should sutfer in their stead.

If he were under obligation to his Creator to make this sacrifice, he would perform only his own duty; he would acquire no surplus of merit, which he could transfer to the necessitous. If he were not under obligation to make this sacrifice, there is no evidence that he would have a right to do it; and if he had, there is no evidence that the divine Sovereign would accept it in behalf of his rebellious subjects. There is no evidence that it would be equivalent, in the sight of the law, to the penalty, which it had threatened.

If God design to shew mercy by forbearing to inflict the threatened penalty on transgressors, it appears to be necessary that something should be done or suffered, which would as fully support the divine character, and render the divine law as efficacious, as if it had its natural course, and subjected every offender to its curse. Were any thing less than this substituted, God’s abhorrence of sin would appear to be diminished; transgression would be encouraged; and the law, of course, would cease to produce its full and designed effect. How then can rebellious subjects be forgiven, and divine authority be supported? We are wholly indebted to divine revelation for an answer to this question. We are taught by the sacred scriptures that there is in the divine Nature a plurality, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that they are manifested in the work of redemption; that in respect to office the Father holds authority, and the Son and Holy Spirit are subordinate; that this method is adopted by consent, and without infringement upon the divine prerogatives of either. In the covenant of redemption it was stipulated that the Son should have the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 255 the earth for his possession; that he should see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; and that he should be King in Zion. The Son, in view of what he had to do, and of what he was to receive, said, “Lo, I come, to do thy will, O God.” Ever since the apostasy, the Son has been the medium of intercourse between the Father and the human race; and between the human race and the Father. He has ever been the medium, through which every blessing has been conferred upon this fallen world. When the fulness of the time (the time marked out by prophecy) was come, the Son of God laid aside, concealed, or emptied himself of that glory, which he had with the Father, was born of a woman; was made’flesh, and took upon him the form a servant. He was rich^ as Creator and Proprietor of the world; he was rick in respect to his divine glory in heaven; but for the sake of a sinful world he became poor; he assumed a condition of poverty, not having where to lay his head; he subjected himself to a state of humiliation. From this scriptural representation we see what the Son of God did on the part of Divinity for the support of the divine law, while pardon was offered to sinners on merciful conditions. In this state of abasement the divine Son was exposed to the greatest indignity; and he actually received the grossest insults, and the most contemptuous treatment during his public ministry on earth. In the exercise of divine benevolence he came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost.

He came to his own^ the people, who had been the objects of his special care, support, and ’ direction.

He addressed them in the most affectionate language.

He offered them the greatest of blessings, salvation, on condition of faith in his name. He appealed to his works, his divine works, to prove his benevolent designs, that he was the Son of God; and that he was able to bestow what he had offered. But they returned him ingratitude and abuse. They not only refused the offers of his mercy; but they were inveterate 256 ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. against him. In his works of love they accused him of confederacy with Beelzebub. When it was proposed to them whether they would give preference to him, or to a vile malefactor, they with one consent gave their voice in favor of the latter. All this ignoming and abasement were endured by the divine Son. In union with him was the Son of man, whose nativity was miraculous; whose life was holy, harmless, undefiled; who received the Spirit without measure, and was anointed with the Holy Ghost, and with power. So intimate was the union of the Son of God with the man, Christ Jesus, that the sufferings of the latter upon the cross were a sacrifice of vastly more importance than the sufferings of any other man. The spotless purity of his nature, the perfection of his character, the extraordinary unction of the Holy Spirit, which he received, and his union with the Son of God, rendered him peculiarly dear to the Father.

Here we have at one vjew the constituent parts of the atonement, viz. the humiliation of the Son of God, and the sufferings of the Son of man. These parts ought to be viewedT so far distinctly, that their different values may appear; and they ought to be viewed so far unitedly, as they are the acts, or sufferings of one and the same Mediator. If the Son of God humbled himself by union with the Son of man, the Son of man was exalted by the same union: and there arose a reciprocal influence from this mysterious connection.

We must cautiously avoid any hypothesis, or language, which seems to blend or confound the two natures of Jesus Chrir.t; which seems to attribute a suffering of painful sensations to his divinity, or a communication of divine properties to his humanity. Wlien it is represented that the Word was made flesh, that the second Jldam was the Lord from heaven, that he, who expired upon the cross was the Lord of glory, that the Son of man would ascend up where he was before, we are not to understand that divinity was ON THE, ^ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 257 converted into humanity, or that humanity was converted into divinity; or that either nature sustained the least deo^ree of chanj^e. But this manner of expression conveys the idea of the intimate connection of his two natures; and during his incarnate state, the mention of one involves the other, and by implication, the same things may be predicated of each. The Scriptures use the same mode of expression, in relation to the material and immaterial part of man. They predicate of his soul what belongs to his body, and they predicate of his body what belongs to his soul.

(See Ezekiel 18:20. Matthew 16:17.)

Whatever degree of dignity and capacity was added to the Son of man, by the peculiar union of thcy Son of God, he was still human and limited in all his powers. The siiTferings, which he endured on the cross, were human sufferings; and, by their very nature, were limited in degree. But if we add to this, the abasement of the divine Son, which is unspeakably more important, there will appear to be no deficiency in the extent or efficacy of the atonement.

If these are the constituent parts, or the matter of the atonement, there is no ground for the objection, that it was made wholly by the man Christ Jesus, and that it is limited in its nature and in its value. Let it be kept in view that the object of the atonement is to support divine authority, and express divine abhorrence of sin as fully as if the law had its natural course, and mankind suffered its penal consequences. When it is brought into the estimate that the Son of God was divine; that he was infinitely dear to the Father; that in obedience to his will he volutarily sustained the deepest degree of humiliation; and that the Son of man, who was in the nearest and most endearing connection with himself, suffered death of the most ignominious and painful kind, it appears that the law was magnified and made honorable, while forgiveness of sin was ofTered to transgressors on merciful conditions. It appears that this substitution has expressed as great 33 258 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. regard for the law, and as great disapprobation of sin, as if the whole race of man had remained under its curse, without any provision for their deliverance.

Why might not the Deity pardon transgressors without a sacrifice, as well as pardon them on the ground of a sacrifice made principally by himself? It is not our province to assign reasons for all the dealings of the Most High; nor for the peculiar method, which he has adopted in the scheme of redemption. But it must be considered that, in the economy of grace, the Father holds authority; and the Son is subordinate, and subjected to his control; and that this is the ground of the covenant, which makes provision for the salvation of man. Of course, the Son might do that in behalf of the human race, which iflight be acceptable to the Father, while he made them offers of mercy. If there “Were simple unity in the divine Nature, it appears that this method, the method of sacrifice, would be impracticable. Should God grant pardon, in a single instance, without an atonement, he might, on the same principle, forgive others to any extent; and mankind would take encouragement to violate the divine law with hope of impunity. But this consequence does not follow from the atonement, as it is brought to our view in the Gospel. Though there is a propitiation made sufficient for the sins of the whole world, yet no one will receive pardon except on the condition of repentance and reformation. The wicked can find no encouragement on this ground, to continue in sin; for while they retain their habits of iniquity, they are as fully under the penal threatenings of the law as if no sacrifice had been made; and they have no interest in pardoning mercy, nor can they have, while they persevere in transgression. There is as much necessity of holiness of heart and life, under the provisions of the Gospel, as if righteousness and justification were by the law. The design and work of Jesus were not only to save people from the penalty due to their sins, but to save O^ THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 259 them from the practice and guilt of them. For this purpose he has authority, by the covenant of redemption, to send the Holy Spirit into the world to conviiice of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; to chan^^^e the disposition of the human heart; to sanctify the affections and to keep the subjects of his effectual operations through faith unto salvation. This appears to be necessary, in order to prepare them to receive the remission of their sins. For if they were pardoned in a slate of impenitence, and rebellion against divine authority, it would frustrate alike the design of the law and of the atonement.

Inseparably connected with the sacrifice of Christ, is his obedience. In his abasement and sufferings, he was submissive to the will of the Father. He yielded a perfect obedience to the divine law; and proved that it was holy, just and good. He gave as full and clear evidence in favor of the divine commands, as mankind would have done by a perfect observance of them. Had the Lord Jesus Christ made only an expiation for sin, he would only have saved them from suffering; he would not have procured for them the reward of righteousness. But he did not leave the work of salvation unfinished. He is “the Lord, our Righteousness. He is the end of the law for righteousness.” He has suffered the penal part, and he has obeyed the preceptive part of the law for the human race. He has fulfilled the law; and he maintains its dignity and efficacy, while he offers pardon and reward to those, who believe on his name. On this plan the faith of men is accounted to them for righteousness; and God is just, while he justifies them. Had any created being, of whatever grade, proposed to substitute his obedience for the obedience of the human race, so that his righteousness might be accounted to them, could he have done it? Could he have performed more than his own duty, so that he could have had a surplus of righteousness, which might be set to their account; aod for which thej 260 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. might receive the reward of everlasting blessedness? Were revj^ard granted on this ground, would not the law greatly suffer; and would not people set a small value upon a righteousness and its reward, which might be obtained at so low a rate?

If we examine the ancient sin offering, and view it in connection with the sufferings and death of Christ, we shall obtain light on the subject. The type and the antitype unite their influence to lead us into the knowledge of a truth the most interesting to a fallen world. “The Hebrews had properly but three sorts of sacrifices; the burnt offering, which was wholly consumed, only the priest had the benefit of the skin, Leviticus 7:8. The sacrifice for sin, or expiation for him, who had fallen into any offence against the law, Leviticus 4:1-35. The peace offering, which was offered voluntarily, in praise to God, or to ask favors. Sic. Leviticus 7:3Leviticus 7:1,Leviticus 7:34.” The trespass offering was an expiatory sacrifice. The law concerning this was explicit. ’If a soul sin and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbor, in that which was delivered him to keep; — or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely, — he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto; and he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock.— And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord, and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all he hath done in trespassing therein.” (See Leviticus 6:1-30 :) For a sin of a different kind the transgressor was required to “bring his trespass offering unto the Lord; and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for the sin, which he hath done; and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him,” Leviticus 19:21,Leviticus 19:22. When Aaron and his sons were consecrated to the priest’s office, Moses brought a bullock for a sin offering; and they laid their hands upon the head of the bullock, and he slew it for a sin offering. (See Leviticus 8:1-36 :) ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 261

After the death of Aaron’s sons, it was an established ordinance for him and his successors to offer a sin offering once a year for himself and for the sins of the people. He sacrificed a bullock to make atonement for his own sins. For the people he took two goats; one he sacrifi -ed; and over the other, with his hands on its head, he confessed their iniquities, putting them upon the head of the goat; and then he sent it, bearing their sins, into the wilderness. (See Leviticus 16:1-34 :) This was the law for making atonement for the sins of the priest, and for the sins of the people. Had we no further information on this subject than what we derive from the law of sacrifices, we could discover no wisdom in their institution; no efficacy in the blood of beasts; no connection between the sacrifice of. animals and the forgiveness of sin. But the apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, gives us the information on this subject, Vv’hich we need. He S[)eaks of the legal sacrifices; contrasts them with the sacrifice of Christ; and shews the vast superiority of the latter. “The law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices, which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered; because that the worshippers once purged, should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sius. But Christ being come an high Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect labernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of 262 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST.

Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, oflfered him-’ self without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? — Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world, but now once in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (See Hebrews 10:1-39 :) From a contrast of the Jewish sin offerings with the sacrifice of the high priest under the gospel dispensation, we perceive that the former were but a shadow of good things to come; that they were a representation of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God; and that they derived all their meaning, and all their efficacy from this connection. If the legal sin offerings were appointed to be efficacious in procuring remission of sin, much more would the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, in which all others terminated, lay a foundation for the pardon of sinners. Without this allusion, the Hebrew ritual appears as unmeaning and unavailing as the- superstitious rites of the heathen.

If the Jews, as a nation, had waxed gross, and through their carnal ordinances did not discern spiritual things, there is no reasonable doubt that the Jewish saints viewed the trespass offering as an expiatory sacrifice, looking forward to the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, and drawing all its import and all its value from that source. The ancient prophecies shed some glimmering rays upon this one, great sacrifice. The saints by faith caught the light; and like Abraham, they saw the day of Christ, and were glad. If, at the time the Messiah was upon earth, the principal part of the Jewish nation had no idea of a suffering Savior, there is no doubt there were some of that nation, who had correct views of the prophecies relating to his incarnation and death; and had faith in the divine promises. Caiphas, the high priest, though an enemy of Jesus, appeared to have correct views of ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 263 the design of his sacrifice. “It is expedient for us,” said he, “That one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. — He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation. And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one, the children of God, that were scattered abroad.” The scriptures very fully and clearly represent the sufferings of Christ to be a sacrifice for sin. “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. — The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. — For the transgression of my people was he stricken. — He bare the sin of many. (See Isaiah 53:1-12 :) This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:28.) For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ranson for many. (Mark 10:45.) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.

(Romans 3:24,Romans 3:25.) Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. (Romans 4:25.) For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. — But God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

(Romans 5:6,Romans 5:8,Romans 5:9,Romans 5:10.) For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. — For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Corinthians 15:3.) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21.) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of 264 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. sins. (Colossians 1:14.) Who gave himself a ransom for all.

(1 Timothy 2:6.) Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. (Hebrews 9:28.) Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold; — but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

(1 Peter, 1:18,19.) He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. — And sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10.) They sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” (Revelation 5:9.) These texts and many more of similar import, clearly shew that Christ was offered as a sacrifice for sin; and that in consequence of his propitiatory offering, transgressors may receive forgiveness. If these passages do not convey this idea, it appears to be impossible to find language, which will convey it. From this view of the subject, it appears that Jesus Christ has made an atonement for sin, and that this is the ground, on which forgiveness is offered to transgressors, on certain merciful conditions. There is a manifest distinction between the meritorious, or procuring cause of pardon, and the terms, on which it may be received. Because the law is magnified and made honorable by the sufferings and obedience of Christ, it does not follow that the law is made void; and that it has no further claims upon mankind. Because there is a propitiation made for the sms of the whole world, it does not follow that all have a claim to exemption from punishment; or that all will be forgiven. It must be remembered that faith and repentance, on the part of the transgressor, are exercises of mind and heart, which are indispensable in order to receive the mercy of pardon. The atonement, on the part of Christ, and faith and repentance, on the part of the transgressor, are set forth in the Scriptures to be absolutely necessary to salvation. ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 265 When one only is mentioned in connection with forgiveness, the other is not excluded, but implied, or understood. The atonement originated in divine mercy. God was angry with the wicked, as sinners. But as the workmanship of his hand, as intelligent creatures, capable of serving, honoring, and enjoying him for ever, he loved them. “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us. We love him because he first loved us.” The Father was not moved, by the sacrifice of his Son, to shew mercy. But in the exercise of his mercy, he adopted this as an expedient, by which he could consistently offer pardon to his rebellious subjects. The Father and Son were of one mind on this subject. The Father was willing to give up his Son to be a sacrifice for sin; and the Son was equally willing to become a sacrifice, so that salvation BQjght be offered to sinners.

If we cannot discover any natural connection between the suffering and obedience of one, and the forgiveness and reward of another, our want of discernment forms no argument against the reality, or wisdom of this plan. Many things occur in the natural and moral world, for which we cannot account; and whose connection we cannot discover. In civil government, rulers often suffer in consequence of the vices of their subjects; and subjects often receive great blessings in consequence of the wise administration of their rulers. In families, the prudent conduct of parents proves to be a great blessing to their children; and the vicious practices of children bring great sufferings upon their parents. A similar connection runs through the various grades of society. In many instances, great natural evils, which were intended as such by their authors, have resulted in the most beneficial effects. If this method is found in the constitution of nature, under the administration of the divine Sovereign, why should not the same principles be admitted when they are found in the scheme of redemption?

34 266 ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. The greatness of the atonement, as it has been exhibited, is no evidence that it was not appointed and adopted by the divine Sovereign, as an expedient for the salvation of this sinful world. If it appear to any to be disproportionate to the effects, which are designed to be produced by it, it arises from ignorance of the worth of the soul, and of its bearing upon the moral government of God. The human soul, though of limited powers, possesses an extensive capacity.

It is capable of continual progression in knowledge and enjoyment. There is no doubt that there will be a point in eternity, when it will be equal in its faculties to the most exalted angel, who now ministers before God’s throne; and that it will be then in a state of progressive improvement.

If it were an object unworthy of the Son of God, to humble himself, to provide salvation for such an individual, then bring to view the first human pair with the whole line of their posterity, diverging into thousands of branches, extending to thousands of generations, and spreading over the breadth of the whole earth. View this extensive province, not merely once replenished with inhabitants, but peopled thousands of times, and removed in succession to another world, to receive their everlasting destination. View this multitude, which no man can number, and say, is not their salvation an object of immense magnitude? Is it not an object worthy of God to accomplish? If it were not inconsistent with the dignity of the divine JBeing, to form and support such a species of beings as mankind, it cannot be inconsistent with his dignity to make provision for their reformation, for their forgiveness, and for their future blessedness. Besides, the atonement of Christ in connection with the economy of redemption, is made known to the angelic hosty and probably it is disclosed to other systenjs of intelligences amidst the immensity of creation; and it may serve as a link in the chain of divine government to connect and support its various parts. ON THE ATONEMENT OP CHRIST. 267 When we take into consideration the constituent parts of the atonement, its effect upon the moral condition of man, and upon divine government, it appears that no created being was adequate to this work.

It is presumable that the first offerings and sacrifices were instituted by divine authority. In a history so concise as that of Moses, there can be only a sketch of the most prominent events. But many truths may be discovered by induction. Cain and Abel brought their respective offerings unto the Lord.

It is not improbable that sacrifices were made before this time. But these were recorded because they were accompanied with peculiar and important circumstances. What could have induced these brothers, if they were not required, to make these offerings to the Lord? If they presented them as gifts to the great Proprietor of all, to avert his displeasure, or render him propitious, analogy fails to give it support.

They then held their property in common; and, of course, they did not know by experience what effect gifts would produce upon their fellow beings; and consequently they would find it difficult to infer what effects they would produce in relation to the Creator. The circumstance, that Abel was accepted in his offering, is an evidence that this rite was of divine institution. It can hardly be supposed that fallen creatures were left to invent for themselves a method of worship, or of sacrifice; and it is equally improbable that they should invent a method, which would be pleasing to the Lord. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.” He had faith in the divine promise: “the Seed of the Woman shall bruise the serpent’s head.” Through his sacrifice of beasts he looked forward to the sacrifice of the promised Seed. As Abel discerned this connection between the sacrifice and the divine promise, there is no reasonable doubt that this sacrifice was instituted by divine authority. Further, the use of flesh was not given to man till after the flood. It Isaiah 268 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. not probable, therefore, that Abel would hare dared to take away the life of animals, even for sacrifice, if he had not been commanded by God. The sacrifice of animals was a sin offering; and when Abel made this offiering to the Lord, he was conscious of his guilt; he had confidence in the divine promise, and faith in that blood, which cleanseth from all sin. If the law respecting sacrifices was not given in a formal manner till a long period after the apostasy, it, by no means follows that they were not of divine institution during that interval. The decalogue was not communicated in a formal manner till the time of Moses. But there is no reasonable doubt that every one of the ten commands had been made known before; and were as binding as they were afterward.

It is not probable that reason invented the expedient of sacrifice for sin. Some have traced it to this origin, and others have contended that the doctrine is very unreasonable. There appears to be no moral connection between the sin of one and the suffering of another; nor between the suffering of one and the forgiveness of another. If this be true, how have sacrifices generally obtained in every age through the world, where revelation has not been enjoyed.’ There is no reasonable doubt that sacrifices have been perpetuated by tradition. The nations, which descended from Noah, were acquainted with the sacrifices which God had instituted. When the revelations of the divine will were deposited among one nation, the Jews, other nations still retained a knowledge of sacrifices; and this knowledge was handed down from one generation to another. In addition to this, many heathen nations were acquainted with the Jews, and with their religion. From them they might keep in remembrance the institution of sacrifices, but with great corruptions. It appears much more reasonable that heathen sacrifices grew out of Jewish, or patriarchal, than that these were engraffed by the divine hand upon their’s. ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 269 The prevalence of sacrifices among heathen nations generally, if not universally, affords evidence that they are conscious of guilt; and feel the necessity of an expiation tor sin. If they believed that repentance and reformation would secure their forgiveness and restore them to the favor of their offended God, they would not seek pardon by sacrifice. But as they have ever sought it in this way, it follows that unassisted reason never taught them that they could obtain pardon without this expedient.

It appears by the laws which were communicated to Moses concerning sacrifices, that the trespass offering was of an expiatory nature. When people had transgressed the commandment of the Lord, they were commanded to bring an animal for a trespass offering; to lay their hand upon its head and slay it. The priest took of the blood with his finger and put it upon the horns of the altar; and poured out the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. The priest made an atonement for their sin; and it was forgiven him. See Leviticus 4:5: 6 : The ceremony respecting the scape goat is a striking representation of the transference of sin. The transgressions of the people were confessed over the goat; put upon his head; and he bore them away into the wilderness. By this method atonement was made for the sins of the people. These sacrifices, viewed by themselves, appear inefficacious and unmeaning. “In those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sms every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins,” Hebrews 10:3,Hebrews 10:4. But when these sacrifices are viewed m connection with their antitype, they appear significant and important. The apostle Paul contrasts the sacrifices under the law with the sacrifice of Christ; and shews most clearly that the latter, both in respect to victim and priest, infinitely exceeded the former. From the contrast it appears that the Jewish sacrifices were types of Christ’s sacrifice; and that 270 ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. from connection with it, they derived all their importance. If those symbols, in connection with the thing prefigured, were ordained to make a propitiatory sacrifice for sin, it is an unavoidable conclusion that the reality itself is adequate to this purpose.

“He is the propitiation for our sins,” &c. 1 John 2:21John 2:2. “The word ^iKcmixog is no where found in the New Testament, but in this passage, and in chap. 4:10. But it occurs often in the LXX translation of the Old Testament, where it signifies a sacrifice of atonement.

Thus Leviticus 6:6,Leviticus 6:7. Numbers 5:8. K^iog iKctay^a is a ram for a sin offering. And Ezekiel 44:27, Tsi^oaCps^siv iKu.ffy.ov is, to offer a sin offering. In considering the death of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, John, like the other apostles, followed his Master, who in the institution of his supper, directed his disciples to consider it, as designed to bring to their remembrance his blood, shed for the many, for the remissions of sins. (Macknight.) “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation,”

Romans 3:25. Whether /Acjcvi?’ov alludes to the cover of the ark, or whether it expresses the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, its import is the same, or nearly the same, because it was on the cover of the ark, or mercy seat, the atonements were accepted, and pardons were dispensed. Christ, as a propitiatory sacrifice, was represented by the mercy seat. He, “by his atonement, covered our sins, and bore the curse for us; standing between God and the curse of the law for our sakes, that God might look on the law through Christ, as fulfilled by him on our behalf.”