Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

ishing churches have, as it were, sprung from that one stock." 1

On the 20th of June, 1815, Dr. Griffin was installed Pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church in Newark, New Jersey. There his ministry was attended with extraordinary success. In 1821 he was invited to the Presidency of the College at Danville, Kentucky; to the Presidency of a College in Ohio; and to the same office in Williams College, Massachusetts. The last named office he accepted, and discharged its duties from the autumn of 1821 until August, 1836, fifteen years. The Faculty of Williams College wrote in 1837, that to Dr. Griffin, "probably more than to any other man, is it owing that this College was placed on a permanent foundation, and enjoys its present degree of prosperity. His labors in its behalf were arduous, persevering and successful. During his Presidency the College enjoyed several powerful revivals of religion, and it was especially from its connection with the cause of Christ that he watched over its interests, and prayed for it. Through his pupils his influence is now felt in heathen lands." 2

On the first of October, 1836, he took up his residence for the third time in Newark, New Jersey, where he remained, highly venerated and perseveringly useful, until his death, November 8th, 1837. He was then in the 68th year of his His funeral sermon was preached by Rev. Dr. Spring, of New York. A discourse commemorative of his death was subsequently delivered at Williams College, by the Rev. President Hopkins.

age.

Before he resigned his Presidency at Williamstown, Dr. Griffin had published various interesting pamphlets, and three extended volumes. The first of these volumes was his "Park Street Lectures," "a book, by the way," writes President Humphrey, "which will go down to posterity." 3 He delivered these Lectures in Boston during the winter of 1812-1813," on successive Sabbath evenings, to a crowded

Dr. Sprague's Memoir, pp. 243, 244.

2 Ibid. p. 240.

3 Ibid. p. 243.

audience, collected from all classes of society. [The] Lectures awakened the deepest attention both of friends and foes, and it is hardly necessary to say that they have passed through several editions, and have long since taken a prominent place among the standard theological works of our country." The second volume which Dr. Griffin published was in 1819, on the Atonement. "As this," writes Dr. Sprague, " is almost throughout a work of pure metaphysics, it were not to be expected that it should have gained so extensive a circulation as the more practical and popular of his productions; but it was evidently the result of great intellectual labor, and could never have been produced but by a mind trained to the highest efforts of abstraction." 2 The third volume of Dr. Griffin was published in 1833, entitled: "The Doctrine of Divine Efficiency, defended against certain Modern Speculations." He wrote this work in the sixty-fourth year of his age. He had then various controversial inducements to make expressions antagonistic to some which he had published in the highest vigor of his mind. He preserved his consistency, however, far more than controversialists are apt to do. In 1839, two years after his decease, two volumes of his Discourses were published, and a third volume appeared at a still later date. Unaccompanied with his majestic elocution, these Discourses give no adequate idea of the man whom Dr. Samuel Spring called the "prince of preachers," and whom Dr. Sprague denominates "the giant of the pulpit." His theological speculations were evidently affected by his desire to present the truth in an impressive and a practical form, especially in the times of religious excitement; and his eloquent sermons were, in their turn, affected by the type of his theology. A peculiar interest is added to his writings by this action and re-action of his metaphysical theories and his rhetorical appeals. He labored to awaken the zeal of the churches, and when it was awakened he preached with the most fervid eloquence. In the retreat of his study he remembered those

1 Dr. Sprague's Memoir, p. 128.

2 Ibid. pp. 140, 141.

scenes of thrilling interest, and he conducted his logical processes in sympathy with the past, and in preparation for a future revival of Christian zeal.

It is not the aim of the present Article to examine all the theories of Dr. Griffin on all the doctrines which he discussed; nor to defend any of his speculations, defensible as many of them are; nor to controvert such of them as may seem liable to objection; neither to expose nor to explain the apparent discrepancies between the assertions which he made during the interval of nearly forty years, from the time of his first, to the time of his last publication; but the intent of the Article is simply to explain, and that chiefly in his own words, his theory of the Christian Atonement.

The work from which the main quotations in the Article are made, is the second of his above-named volumes, that which he published in the fiftieth year of his age, and on which he seems to have expended his most masculine energy. It is irenical in its intent, and is entitled: "An Humble Attempt to reconcile the Differences of Christians respecting the Atonement, by showing that the Controversy which exists on the Subject is chiefly verbal: to which is added an Appendix, exhibiting the Influence of Christ's Obedience." It is divided into three parts, designated thus: "the Nature of the Atonement;" its "Extent;" Scriptural View." Without adhering to the exact plan which President Griffin prescribed for his work, but from which he himself freely deviates, we will attempt to state his principles in the following order.

"the

§ 1. Christ did not suffer the literal Penalty of the Law for us.

On the relation of Christ's sufferings to the legal and the literal penalty for sin, various theories have been held. Oné is, that Christ endured the punishment which was denounced against the transgressors, for whom he died. Another theory is, that he did not endure any punishment, but that his pains were substituted for penalty. The latter theory was adopted by Dr. Griffin. To the question: What was the

end of Christ's death as an atoning sacrifice? he replies: "Precisely the same as respects the support of law, that would have been answered by our punishment. The atonement, we have seen, was a cover for sin, was adapted so to bury sin from view, that it should not be punished. It therefore came exactly in the room of punishment, and was adapted to answer the same end. When it had done that it had removed the necessity of punishment, and instituted a complete cover for sin." (p. 22.)

"To atone, in every one's mouth is to make reparation for an injury or amends for an offence. Now to cover sin (the Hebrew idiom for atone) is a figurative expression, and plainly means no more than that sin is so far hid from view that it is not to be punished." (p. 15.)

After repeatedly affirming that the atonement was "not a literal execution of the law" (p. 36), and that "it came in the room of punishment, and was all that punishment would have been, except a literal execution of justice," and this, i. e. a literal execution of justice, the atonement "could not be" (p. 25), our author expressly asserts:

"Christ therefore could not sustain our legal punishment, or the literal penalty of the law. If the law had said that we or a substitute should die, this might have been the case; but it said no such thing. The law is before us, and we see with our eyes that it contains no such clause. The plain truth is, that the sufferings of Christ were not our punishment, but only came in its room. They were not the death of the identical 'IT' that had sinned. They answered indeed the same purpose as related to the honor of the law, but they were not the same thing, and could not be the same thing without an absolute personal identity. So far from enduring our punishment, the plain fact is, he died to prevent our punishment.

But it is still urged with a surprising degree of tenacity, that the honor of God and the eternal principles of right bound him to punish sin. But he did not punish sin; for the sinner escaped and the Innocent suffered. It is said that truth required him to punish. Then truth failed; for certainly he did not punish Paul, and Christ was not a sinner." (p. 152.)

§ 2. Christ did not satisfy the Law of God for us.

With regard to the atonement as a satisfaction of the divine law, there are several theories. One is, that the law re

quired perfect holiness of men, that Christ obeyed the law for men, and thus satisfied the demand of the law for duty; also, that the law required the punishment of sinners, that Christ suffered this punishment, and thus satisfied the demand of the law for penalty; therefore, Christ satisfied the law in all its requisitions. Another theory is, that Christ did not satisfy the law by obeying it in our stead, nor by suffering its penalty in our stead; that he did not in strict speech satisfy the law at all, for the law as such must always demand both perfect holiness and also the punishment of the unholy; but Christ by his atonement did satisfy the Protector of law in forbearing to inflict the penalty which was legally threatened. The second of these theories was adopted by Dr. Griffin. He did not believe that the demand of the law for our obedience was satisfied by Christ's obeying the law in our stead; nor that the demand of the law for our punishment was satisfied by Christ's suffering punishment in our stead; for, as we have seen, he did not believe either that Christ obeyed the law for us, or that he suffered punishment for us. Dr. Griffin did believe, however, that the atonement honored the law so signally as to satisfy God in pardoning the offences which the law, in its very nature, did and must condemn. He says:

"It follows from the foregoing reasonings, that the sufferings of Christ were not a literal satisfaction of law and justice, even in behalf of believers, much less in behalf of the unregenerate elect. The law is before us, and if we can read it we can see for ourselves what would have been a literal satisfaction of its claims. It never demanded the death of the innocent for the guilty, but the death of the identical persons who had sinned: and till this is yielded the law is not literally satisfied, and justice, (for the law is the exact measure of justice,) is not satisfied. Justice did not take its course, for the Innocent suffered and the guilty escaped. But the authority of the law is supported, even in the event of the pardon of believers, (not in the event of the pardon of the unregenerate elect, for that would ruin the law, and none the less for their being elect;) and this was enough to satisfy the Protector of the law. This was the satisfaction really made. The Protector of the law was satisfied: and men in expressing this truth in figurative language, said that the law was satisfied." (pp. 157, 158.)

« AnteriorContinuar »