sis there are strong objections. To suppose that Christ was really and truly our sponsor, and that he suffered in this character; would involve such a transfer of legal obligations and liabilities and merits, as is inadmissible: and to suppose any thing short of this, will not explain the difficulty. For if, while we call him a sponsor, we deny that he was legally holden or responsible for us, and liable in equity to suffer in our stead; we assign no intelligible reason, why his sufferings should avail any thing for our benefit, or display at all the righteousness of God. Besides, this hypothesis,-like all the others, which suppose the Son of God to have first entered into a close, legal connexion with sinful men, and afterwards to have redeemed them, would make the atonement to be a legal satisfaction for sin; and then the acquittal of the sinner would be no pardon at all, but would follow in the regular course of law. We must, therefore, resort to some other soJution. And what is more simple, and at the same time satisfactory, than that which is suggested by the text? The atonement was an exhibition or display. That is, it was a symbolical transaction. It was a transaction, in which God and his Son were the actors; and they acted in perfect harmony, though performing different parts in the august drama. The Son in particular, passed voluntarily through various scenes of humiliation and sorrow and suffering; while the Father looked on with all that tenderness and deep concern, which he-and none but be-could feel. The object of both, in this affecting tragedy, was to make an impression on the minds of rational beings every where, and to the end of time. And the impression to be made, was, that God is a holy and righteous God; that while inclined to mercy, he cannot forget the demands of justice, and the danger to his kingdom from the pardon of the guilty; that he must shew his feelings on this subject; and shew them so clearly and fully, that all his rational creatures shall feel that he honours his law while suspending its operation, as much as he would by the execution of it. "But how, it may be asked, are these things expressed or represented by this transaction. The answer is,-symbolically. The Son of God came down to our world, to do and to suffer what he did; not merely for the sake of doing those acts and enduring those sorrows, but for the sake of the impression to be made on the minds of all beholders, by his labouring and suffering in this manner. In this sense, it was a symbolical transaction. And the import or meaning of it, as of every other symbol, is to be learned eiVOL. II.-Ch. Adv. ther from the circumstances and occasion of it, or from the explanation that accompanies it. Hence all that either reason or revelation teaches, respecting the object of Christ's visit to our world, may properly be applied to the explanation of this significant transaction.-Does any object, that viewed in this light, it is an obscure and unnatural symbol? I might ask the objector to shew the natural fitness of other symbols both human and divine, to express the import which is ascribed to them. Words, for instance, are symbols of human thoughts and emotions. But what is there in the nature of articulate sounds, to make them significant of the thoughts and emotions of the soul? or to make each word significant of one particular thought, rather than another? The only answer here, is that men have agreed to use certain sounds as symbols of certain thoughts; and thence it is, they have acquired a meaning." "According to the view we have taken of the nature and design of the atonement, the justification of believers is not a justification founded on the principles of law and distributive justice. It is an absolute pardon, an act of mere grace; and of grace on the part of God the Father, as well as on that of God the Son. For the operation of Christ's sacrifice, it appears, was not on the regular course of distributive justice in regard to individual transgressors. Its influence was on the public feeling respecting the character of God. And it only enabled God, with honour to himself and safety to his king. dom, to gratify the desires of his heart by the pardon of repenting sinners. Justification, therefore, is a real departure from the regular course of justice; and such a departure from it, as leaves the claims of the law on the persons justified, forever unsatisfied. This is a legitimate inference from the principles which have been advanced. And it is confirmed by the following considerations." "If the atonement causes transgressors to be justified on the principles of law and distributive justice, either it must change the principles of the law itself, or it must divest the transgressor of guilt and ill desert, or it must legally and fully satisfy the demands of the violated law upon him.-But the first is impossi ble. The law of God is founded on the eternal and immutable principles of distributive justice. It renders to every man according to his deserts. Till the distinction between right and wrong shall cease to exist, or the Omniscient cease to discern it and regard it; the principles of the divine law must remain unaltered. The atonement then did not change the law.-Neither did it divest Q the transgressor of his guilt and ill desert. It could neither recall the deeds he had committed, nor change their moral character, nor separate from him the guilt of them. It therefore could not make the transgressor to become really innocent. Nor did it cover over' his sins, or conceal them and cause them to be overlooked and forgotten. For, the pardoned sinner not only remains, in fact, the same guilty creature he was before; but he is viewed and treated by his Maker, as personally guilty; and he must feel himself to be so, and ingenuously confess and mourn over his transgressions, in order to obtain forgiveness; and if received to mercy, he must forever adore and praise the abounding grace of God in his salvation. The atonement then, did not divest the transgressor of his guilt or ill desert. "Neither did it satisfy the demands of the violated law upon him. For, what were the demands of the violated law? Not, that some transferable good should be surrendered and paid over to God or to the law, as being forfeited by the transgressor. The law did not ordain, that, in case we sinned, certain privi leges or valuable possessions held by us, cution of the law. It did not cancel any of the claims of the law on us. And hence, after the atonement was made, God was under no legal obligations to exempt any man from punishment. If he had never pardoned a single transgressor, neither the law nor distributive justice would have been contravened. And if he pardons at all, it is mere grace. Or to state it otherwise, the atonement was not of such a nature as to require God to pardon us, but it enables him to do it with credit to himself and safety to his kingdom. "The atonement was not a legal or a forensic transaction. It was altogether extrajudicial, or out of the ordinary course of legal procedure. It was an expedient for avoiding a legal procedure in regard to believers. It was in its nature, simply a display or exhibition, intended to impress on all creatures a deep sense of the righteousness of God' as a moral governor." The attentive peruser of these extracts will be at no loss to understand the theory which is proposed and defended in this sermon; but in order that it may be clearly exhibited to the most cursory reader, scheme, still employing, as far as we will present an outline of the practicable, the language of the preacher. should be forfeited into the hands of another or to the public, who might sue for them and recover them. Had this been the case, the Mediator might, perhaps, have been able to pay the forfeiture, or something equivalent to it; and thus have virtually satisfied the law. But the law ordained no such thing. When trans- The radical principle, and we gressed, it requires no payment, no trans- think the grov reydos, of the whole fer of any thing whatever, to another. What then does it demand? That the sinsystem is, that the atonement has ner himself suffer the punishment, which no respect to the evil nature of sin, it denounces. The violated law holds considered in itself―This is a prohim personally guilty, and it requires that per ground of the punishment of due punishment fall on his head, and on his only. For the law of God, as already moved by any thing that a Mediathe transgressor, but cannot be reobserved, is founded on the principles of distributive justice, which renders to tor can do. The atonement can every one according to his deserts. It only effect the removal of that therefore, carefully discriminates between ground of punishment which arises the innocent and the guilty; and it never suffers the distinction to be overlooked from the tendency of sin to disturb or forgotten. When once a creature be- the good order and happiness of the comes a transgressor of its commands or universe. It is not the execution prohibitions, it never is satisfied, and of the law on any being, but must never can be, with any thing short of the be something different from this, as full execution of the threatened penalty it is a substitute for it. The atoneon the transgressor himself." ment therefore does not fulfil or satisfy the demands of the law against transgressors; its immediate influrelations of men as transgressors, ence was not on the characters and nor did it alter the claims of the law upon them. In this transaction "And thus also the bloody sacrifice of the Mediator, was not what the law of God demanded, or could accept, as a legal satisfaction for our sins. All that it could do, was, to display the feelings of God in regard to his law; and to secure, by the impression it made, the public objects which would be gained by an exe Christ did not become our Sponsor to satisfy the demands of the law in our stead: this would be to make the atonement a legal satisfaction. But the atonement was an exhibition or display of the righteousness of God. It was a symbolical transaction, the object of which was to make an impression on the minds of rational beings a method of showing clearly and fully, that God honours his law while suspending its operation, as much as he would by the execution of it. It is therefore merely a symbolical transaction, the meaning of which must be learned from the circumstances or explanation accompanying it. In this respect it resembles words, which are symbols of thought; or sacramental signs, which signify spiritual blessings. This symbol, however, has a natural fitness to express its object; but its object was not so much to enlighten the understanding, as to impress the feelings of creatures-not to exhibit the intellectual conceptions of the Divine mind, but the determinate purposes and holy feelings of God. This being the nature of the atonement, it follows, that the justification of believers is not founded on the principles of law and distributive justice. Justification is a real departure from the regular course of justice; and such a departure from it as leaves the claims of the law on the persons justified, forever unsatisfied; therefore, the pardoned sinner not only remains in fact the same guilty creature he was before, but he is viewed and treated by his Maker as personally guilty; the atonement did not divest the transgressor of his guilt Here we have Dr. M.'s theory of the atonement; and, certainly, no one can complain that he is not sufficiently explicit. Whatever may be thought of his opinions, he is honest and open in disclosing them to our view. From an utter abhorrence of all misrepresentation of the opinions of others, we have been induced to form this summary, almost entirely from the author's own language: for we are certain that many intelligent Christians, in this part of the country, will scarcely believe that any one, who is not professedly a Socinian, would make such declarations as are contained in this discourse. But our plan is not to attempt to render opinions odious by referring them to some heretical system. If we cannot show them to be erroneous by a fair appeal to reason and scripture, we shall not make the effort to beat them down with other weapons. Whatever opinion cannot stand the test of thorough discussion, however long it may have been cherished, and however important it may be esteemed, let it be abandoned. Evidence is always arrayed on the side of truth, though her voice is not always heard; we are, therefore, not afraid of the free discussion of any doctrines, for if they are untrue they ought to be discarded, and if they are sound, they will be more firmly established by a full and fair investigation. We shall now proceed to make some remarks on Professor Murdock's theory, and if they should run out to a length which may be inconvenient to some readers, we hope for indulgence, when it is considered that the subject is of infinite importance. 1. Our first remark is, that this theory is wholly unsupported by the testimony of God, in his word. We know, indeed, that Dr. M. has taken some pains to show that the text, which he has placed at the beginning of his sermon, favours his ideas of the nature of the atonement; but supposing his interpretation to be correct, it still goes but a very little way towards making out this theory. It merely declares that the atonement is an exhibition of the righteousness of God: this is one end which it accomplishes; but it does not follow, that it is the only end. Besides, it may exhibit the righteousness of God by being the execution of the penalty of the law upon the sinner's surety: indeed, this is the only way in which it can. have this effect, according to our ideas. Most commentators, that we have consulted, take this view of the text. But is it not very remarkable, that Dr. M. has not resorted to the Bible at all for evidence of the truth of his opinions? When he leaves the discussion of his text, he seems to take leave of the scriptures. Now, to us, this looks very suspicious. Do we know any thing-can we know any thing of the atonement, but from the sacred scriptures? And are they not very full on this subject? Do they not present the subject under a variety of aspects? Why then did not Dr. M. found his system upon plain and repeated declarations of the word of God? A theory in revealed theology, not founded on explicit declarations of the inspired volume, is no better than a hypothesis in philosophy, supported by no experiment. If God has declared the nature and end of the atonement in his word, we should receive his testimony submissively and cordially; if he has not condescended to declare what it is, we shall never be able to find it out by our subtle speculations and distinctions. Is it not then an unaccountable thing, that Dr. M. has not even compared his theory with the numerous declarations of sacred scripture on this subject? We shall for ever protest against this method of constructing theological systems without the aid of the Bible. It is the very bane of sound theology. Until men (and above all men, professors in theological seminaries,) shall consent to come to the word of God, and receive its doctrines simply as they are revealed, and not strive to be wise above what is written, we shall make no real progress in divine knowledge. We shall be overrun with refined theories, which will supplant each other as rapidly, and with as little advantage to the world, as the fanciful systems of natural philosophy, before that science was reduced within its proper limits and placed on its true foundation. In our times, every man, who has ingenuity enough to spin out a fine theory, immediately falls in love with it, and dreams that great improvements are making in the sublime science of theology. But certainly, if theologians would study their Bible more, and theorize less, the prospect of advancement would be much more flattering. But Dr. M.'s theory is not merely naked of scriptural support; it appears to us in direct hostility with scripture. Some of his strong assertions have a good deal the appearance of setting scripture autho rity at defiance. We know that was not his intention, but men in his station ought to regard even appearances. The holy scriptures teach that "Christ hath redeemed us from the law, being made a curse for us-that he bare our sins in his own body on the tree-that he gave himself the just for the unjust-was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities-when we were without strength, died for us that he was made sin for us-is our propitiation-gave his life a ransom for all-an offering and a sacrifice to God, and some hundred other passages, of like import. But Dr. M., without even troubling himself to explain any of these texts, goes boldly forward, and declares that the idea of Christ being a sponsor is incorrect-that he never satisfied the law, nor suffered the execution of its penalty, nor removed the believer's guilt-that the atonement is a symbol, an exhibition, a display, a means of expressing the feelings of God, merely intended, not to inform the intellect, but make an impression on the feelings of rational creatures. How incomprehensible must be the language of scripture, if it means what Dr. M. teaches respecting the atonement!, this attribute; "an exhibition of But by what methods does he establish these opinions, which appear to be so strange to the sacred oracles? By the help of a few distinctions, and a goodly number of bold assertions. We have, after all our search, found no other support for these new doctrines. We have not been able to find that the learned Professor has resorted to the Bible for a single auxiliary text, in support of his theory. He boldly asserts that so it is, and so it must be; but why it must be so, he has not condescended to inform us. If all the things which he has asserted without proof are self evident to him, his powers of intuition reach far beyond ours. But we did suppose, that it was incumbent on him to show that his views do not militate with the plain declarations of scripture. This, however, he has not attempted; and unless he has some method of accomplishing it, of which we have no conception, we believe it was prudent in him to keep the declarations of scripture as much out of view as possible. He might, indeed, have said that the texts of scripture, which seem to teach the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, are all figurative; but the Socinian can use, and has long ago used, this subterfuge, with as much plausibility as Dr. M. possibly could do. For our own parts, we have established it as a principle, to pay no regard to any theological theories, which are not fairly founded on a just interpretation of the word of God; and therefore this want of scriptural support would have led us to reject Dr. Murdock's views at once, if the system had contained no other marks of reprobation upon its face. 2. Our second remark on this theory of the nature of the atonement is, that it is wholy incompatible with the justice of God. It is true, indeed, that it makes the only end of the atonement to be a display of the righteousness of God." But Dr. M. has not informed us how it can produce this effect. He has, indeed, told us that it is a symbolical transaction, and is calculated to make a very deep impression on rational creatures; but he has no where explained the way in which the sufferings of Christ can, according to his scheme, have the effect of displaying the rectitude of God as moral governor of the universe. When he speaks of the atonement as a symbol, he seems to insinuate that there is nothing in the nature of the transaction itself which has any connexion with the end; but that like other symbols, it derives its signification from divine institution; just as words derive their meaning from agreement and use; or as religious ceremonies, which are symbols, derive their import from the appointment of God. We have only to remark on this view of the subject, that in order to know what meaning God has annexed to this transaction, we must have recourse to the scriptures; there is no other possible method of learning what the will of God is in such cases; but as we have seen, no attempt has been made by the learned professor to show that his views are supported by the general tenor of the word of God. He has not even attempted to prove that his theory can be reconciled with the plain declarations of scripture. But our remark is not founded on a mere defect of evidence in support of the theory; we maintain, that according to the view of the atonement taken by Dr. M. nothing can be conceived more manifestly inconsistent with justice. The fact to be accounted for is, that Christ the Son of God, by the determinate counsel of God, endured sufferings unspeakably great. According to the theory under consideration, no sin was charged to his account. He suffered not in the place of any body. The law |