QUESTIONS ON LECTURE XI.

17. Why was it requisite to promote the obedience of man?

HAVING seen, in the preceding lecture, the necessity for the atonement, we now enter upon the investigation of its NATURe.

No subject connected with our holy religion has been attacked by unbelievers with more virulence than this. They have summoned to the onset the utmost power of invective and raillery which their ingenuity could devise and their venom employ. But in no part of their wanton assault upon the principles of religion have they more glaringly exhibited their disingenuousness and their ignorance. That they may oppose with success, they first misrepresent. Their version of the Christian doctrine of atonement has been generally presented in something like the following miserable caricature:-"That the Almighty created man holy and happy; but, because he simply tasted an apple, he instantly became enraged against him and all his posterity, until he had wreaked his vengeance by killing his own innocent Son, when he immediately got over his passion, and was willing to make friends with man." Such is the horrible and blasphemous figment of the doctrine of atonement exhibited by infidels, for the fiendish purpose of scorn and ridicule. But how vastly different is this from the truth! Let unbelievers first inform themselves correctly, and they will find less reason to scoff and deride. But to the law and to the testimony. With the most implicit reliance upon its truth, we appeal to the Word of God for information upon the important subject before us.

I. We would endeavor to establish the grand and leading proposition, that the death of Christ is, according to the Scriptures, the meritorious and procuring cause of man's salvation. The whole doctrine of atonement is evidently based upon the proposition now before us; and, consequently, we shall endeavor carefully to define the terms of the proposition, before we bring the subject to the test of Scripture.

1. Then, by the "meritorious and procuring cause of salvation," we mean more than is admitted upon the Socinian hypothesis. Even by this scheme, which perhaps the most of all schemes depreciates the merits of Christ, his death is not entirely discarded as useless, and in every sense of the word disconnected with human salvation. But if we

inquire in what sense the death of Christ is connected with salvation, according to this system, it will be seen to allow no merit, in the proper sense of the word, but only to admit an indirect influence to his death; as it sealed the truth of his doctrine, honored him as a martyr, and thus became instrumental in leading men to repentance, by which they would necessarily be saved, whatever may be the circumstances or instrumentality by which that repentance is produced. By this scheme it will readily be seen that repentance, and not the death of Christ, is the meritorious cause of salvation; and the death of Christ cannot, in the proper sense, be considered as strictly necessary; since the death of any other being, as well as many other circumstances, might be instrumental in inducing men to repent.

2. By the "meritorious and procuring cause of salvation," we mean more than is admitted by the modern Arian hypothesis. By this scheme, the death of Christ is only necessary to salvation as it gives an exhibition of his disinterested benevolence, in voluntarily submitting to sufferings so great in the behalf of others; and thus enables him as Mediator to claim the salvation of sinners as his reward. This scheme, it may be observed, destroys the absolute necessity for the death of Christ, inasmuch as it makes salvation depend solely on the personal virtue and dignity of the character of the Mediator. Now it is clear that the actual sufferings of Christ could not add anything to the intrinsic virtue and personal dignity of his character. He was a being of the same exalted character before his incarnation, and possessed quite as much benevolence before his sufferings; and it cannot be supposed that his actual humiliation and matchless sufferings were necessary to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Father, the excellency of the character of his immaculate Son. Had this been the only necessity for the death of Christ, well might it have been dispensed with; and we may rest assured that the benevolence of the Father could never have required it.

But, by the phrase, "meritorious and procuring cause of salvation," as applied to the death of Christ, we mean, 1. That there were obstructions in the way of man's salvation, which could not possibly be removed without the death of Christ. 2. That his sufferings were vicarious and expiatory that he died in our room and stead, to satisfy the claims of law against us, and thereby to render it possible for God to extend to us the mercy of salvation, on such terms as his wisdom and goodness might devise and propose. This we present as the full and absolute sense in which the death of Christ was necessary to man's salvation, and as the proper scriptural view in which the atonement of Christ is the "meritorious cause of salvation." The doctrine here briefly stated occupies so important a position, and stands so conspicuously to view throughout the

entire volume of revelation, that a mere quotation of all the passages in which it is contained, would be a transcript of a large portion of the Holy Scriptures.

So deeply interwoven is the doctrine of atonement with the whole system of revelation, that it is not only expressly presented in numerous passages of the New Testament, but adumbrated, with a greater or less degree of clearness and force, in the types and predictions of the Old Testament. Many of these, it is true, considered in an isolated state, are not sufficiently definite and explicit to amount to satisfactory proof; but taken in connection with the general tenor of Scripture upon this subject, and with the direct and unequivocal declarations with which the whole system of revelation abounds, their evidence is too weighty to be entirely overlooked.

(1.) An intimation, too clear to be misunderstood, concerning the incarnation and sacrificial sufferings of Christ, is contained in the first promise or announcement of a Redeemer after the fall. Gen. iii. 15. God said to the serpent, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Here, we may observe, there is an intimation of a character styled the "seed of the woman," and consequently human in one sense, who must be superhuman, or at least superior to Adam, in another sense; for he is to "bruise the head" of the serpent, or gain a signal victory over him, who had just gained so great a triumph over Adam. Observe, in the second place, that this triumph is not to be a bloodless conquest;-it is not to be gained without a struggle, and, at least, some degree of suffering; for the serpent was to "bruise the heel" of "the seed of the woman." This evidently refers to the sufferings of Christ, by which redemption from the miseries of the fall was to be extended to man. Now, as Christ, who is universally admitted to be the "seed of the woman" here spoken of, "did no sin," but was perfectly innocent, we can see no consistency in his "heel being bruised,” or in his being permitted to suffer in the least, unless it was by way of expiation, in the room and stead of others; therefore, we see in this ancient promise at least a dawn of light upon the doctrine of atonement through the sufferings of Christ.

(2.) Our next argument on this point is based upon the sacrificial worship of the ancient patriarchs. There can be but little doubt with regard to the origin of animal sacrifices. Were there no historic record upon this subject, it would appear, a priori, impossible for this system of worship to have originated with man. There is nothing in nature which could have led unassisted human reason to infer that God could be propitiated by the blood of slain victims. So far as reason alone is con

cerned, a conclusion quite opposite to this would have been the most natural. Sacrificial worship must have originated by the appointment of God. This may be clearly inferred from the Mosaic history. Immediately after the fall, it is said, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them." Commentators are generally agreed that the skins here spoken of were taken from animals slain in sacrifice as, a sin-offering to God. As yet, the ravages of death had not entered the world, nor had the use of animal food been allowed to man; therefore, the most rational inference is, that God, immediately after the fall and the first promise of a Redeemer, by his own express appointment, instituted sacrificial worship, connected with the duty of faith in him who, by the offering of himself in the fulness of time, was to" bruise the head of the serpent," and atone for the sins of the world. That this is the true origin of sacrifices, may be strongly inferred from the fact that Abel and others of the patriarchs were soon engaged in similar worship. It could not have been an invention of their own, for they are said to have performed it in faith, which clearly implies, not only the Divine authority for the institution, but also its typical reference to the promised Messiah, the great object of true faith in all ages.

The following remarks upon the passage before us are from the Commentary of Matthew Henry :-"Those coats of skin had a significancy. The beasts whose skins they were must be slain, slain before their eyes, to show them what death is, and, (as it is Eccl. iii. 18,) that they may see that they themselves are mortal and dying. It is supposed they were slain, not for food, but for sacrifice, to typify the great Sacrifice, which in the latter end of the world should be offered once for all: thus, the first thing that died was a sacrifice, or Christ in a figure, who is therefore said to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."" The following comment upon the same words is from Dr. A. Clarke :- It is very likely that the skins out of which their clothing was made were taken off animals whose blood had been poured out as a sin offering to God; for, as we find Cain and Abel offering sacrifices to God, we may fairly presume that God had given them instructions upon this head; nor is it likely that the notion of a sacrifice could have ever occurred to the mind of man, without an express revelation from God. Hence we may safely infer, 1. That as Adam and Eve needed this clothing as soon as they fell, and death had not as yet made any ravages in the animal world, it is most likely that the skins were taken off victims offered under the direction of God himself, and in faith of HIM who in the fulness of time was to make an atonement by his death. And, 2dly, it seems reasonable, also, that this matter should be brought about in such a way that Satan and death should have no triumph, when the very