THE NECESSITY OF ΑΤΟΝΕΜΕΝΤ. BY THE REV. WILLIAM SYMINGTON. PHILADELPHIA: PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION. Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1837, by ALEXANDER W. MITCHELL, M. D in the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the SECTION I. NATURE OF ATONEMENT. How can man be justified with God? This is the most important, by far, of all the questions that can ever awaken numan inquiry. From the universal consciousness of guilt, it may be presumed, that every individual of our race, has, at one time or another, been forced to utter a similar interrogation. The very language in which it is expressed conveys the idea of difficulty; and one can scarce conceive of its being used without being accompanied, in the countenance of the inquirer, with at least a look of deep anxiety, if not an air of utter despondency. It is a question, too, on which the mind of man, unassisted by revelation, finds itself utterly undone. The light of reason, the lamp of philosophy, the torch of science, have been unable to shed a single ray of hope on this momentous subject; and, left to these, we should have been doomed to the blackness of darkness for ever. Not that there have been no attempts to answer, without the aid of inspiration, the all-momentous question; but the answers have ever been such as were calculated to bewilder and deceive, rather than to quiet the apprehensions of an awakened conscience, or to impart true peace of soul. The utmost that schoolmen, or philosophers, or natural religionists, have been able to effect in this department, has tended only to apply palliatives to the wounded heart, or to administer stupifying opiates to the patient. Forgers of lies, physicians of no value" were they all, leaving their patients, so soon as the temporary effect of their worthless expedients went off, as ready as ever to exclaim, in mental agony, Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? 66 To the light of divine revelation alone does it belong to irradiate this moral gloom; to the wisdom of Jehovah was it reserved, to point out a sovereign remedy for the deep-rooted malady of human guilt. This he has done in his word, which contains full, multifarious, and satisfactory information on the most important of all human inquiries. All who believe the Scriptures, profess to regard the work of Christ as the only remedy for moral evil. They all agree in considerng that he has conferred the greatest possible benefit on the world, and that he is to be regarded as the only Saviour of men from sin and wrath. But by those who agree thus far, very different views are taken respecting the nature of the remedy Christ has provided. These views may be conveniently reduced to three, which have been distinguished by the names of the Socinian, the Middle, and the Catholic. The Socinian system is founded on the supposition, that pure goodness, or unmixed benevolence, constitutes the whole character of God. Discarding vindictive justice, the abettors of this opinion represent him as ready to forgive the sins of his creatures, simply on their repentance. Nothing requires to be done by Christ to procure pardon; he has only to reveal or make it known. His priestly office is obliterated, or merged into the prophetical. His work is to instruct mankind by doctrine and by example; and the sole value of his sufferings and death springs from their tendency to confirm his doctrinal testimony. To this system they ingeniously accommodate all the language of scripture regarding the gospel remedy. When it is said, Christ" died for us," the meaning is that he died for our benefit. He is called "Mediator," only because he came from God to make known the divine mercy to men. He saves from sin" by the influence of his precepts and example, in leading men to the practice of holiness. His "blood cleanseth from all sin, because it was shed in confirmation of that doctrine which is the strongest incentive to virtue. "We have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins," in as much as we are led, by the consideration of his death, to that repentance which is sure to obtain forgiveness under the merciful constitution of the divine government. Respecting this system, it is only necessary, at present, to request our readers to consider how ill it accords with the views given in scripture of the exceeding malignity of sin; how inconsistent it is with other features of the divine character; how much at variance with the letter and spirit of revelation; and how utterly irreconcilable with the exalted nature of the mediatory reward. The Middle system rests on the supposition that a certain power to pardon sin was conferred on Christ in consequence of what he did. Like the former, it discards the idea of any thing being done to procure pardon, but holds that Jesus, by his obedience and sufferings, acquired a power to save. friends of this system, while they allow that God could freely forgive the sins of his creatures without any satisfaction conceive it right in itself that some distinction should be pu The between innocents and penitents-that, while the former are accepted for their own goodness, the acceptance of the latter should proceed on some principle which shall serve to mark their character as transgressors, and to prevent them from feeling on a perfect equality with those who have never deviated from the commandments of God. These purposes are supposed to be served by sinners being pardoned, on profession of penitence, for the sake of something done by Christ, which entitles him to intercede for their deliverance as one friend intercedes on behalf of another. In some respects this scheme may be thought nearer the truth than the former, but it is open to substantially the same objections. It gives a most defective view of the divine character. It does not serve to explain the tenor of scripture language respecting the work of Christ: not to speak of its failing to account for the peculiarity and severity of the Redeemer's sufferings. The Catholic system, so called because it seems to have been held by the great body of Christians since the days or the apostles, is founded on the principle that God is just as well as merciful. It maintains that the pardon of sin is procured by the work of Christ, by which he gave satisfaction to the justice of God on behalf of those to be redeemed. This is what is commonly known by the doctrine of ATONEMENT, deemed, in every age of the church, of such transcendent importance as to deserve the most complete and patient discussion. Such is the system which it is our object to explain, prove, and defend. In doing so, the others must, of course, necessarily fall to be refuted; and the objections against them, which have already been hinted at, will be more fully illustrated and confirmed.* It is important, at the outset, to have a correct definite idea of the doctrine of which we are to treat. Many definitions have been given. Perhaps the substance may be comprehended in the following:-The atonement means, THAT PER FECT SATISFACTION GIVEN TO THE LAW AND JUSTICE OF GOD, BY THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST, ON BEHALF OF ELECT SINNERS OF MANKIND, ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THEY ARE DELIVERED FROM CONDEMNATION. This statement supposes that mankind have offended against the law and justice of God. The fact of man's sin * For a more complete delineation of the three systems, see Prin cipal Hill's Lectures in Divinity (vol. ii. pp. 398–434,) to which we have been indebted in drawing up the above abstract. |
