against the idea of Redemption at large; and the Deist, against that of Revelation itself.

For the present, let us confine our attention, to the objections, which the patrons of this new system, bring against the principle of atonement, as set forth in the doctrines of that church, to which we more immediately belong. As for those, which are founded in views of general reason, a little reflexion will convince us, that there is not any, which can be alleged against the latter, that may not be urged, with equal force, against the former: not a single difficulty, with which it is attempted to encumber the one, that does not equally embarrass the other. This having been evinced, we shall then see, how little reason there was, for relinquishing the plain and natural meaning of Scripture; and for opening the door, to a latitude of interpretation, in which it is but too much the fashion to indulge at the present day, and which if persevered in, must render the word of God, a nullity.

The first, and most important of the objections we have now to consider, is that which represents the doctrine of atonement, as founded on the divine implacability-inasmuch as it supposes, that to appease the rigid justice of God, it was requisite that punishment should be inflicted; and that, consequently, the sinner could not by any means have been released, had not Christ suffered in his stead.r Were

See No. XVII.

this a faithful statement of the doctrine of atonement, there had indeed been just ground for the objection. But that this is not the fair representation of candid truth, let the objector feel, by the application of the same mode of reasoning, to the system which he upholds. If it was necessary to the forgiveness of man, that Christ should suffer; and through the merits of his obedience, and as the fruit of his intercession, obtain the power of granting that forgiveness; does it not follow, that had not Christ thus suffered, and interceded, we could not have been forgiven? And has he not then, as it were, taken us out of the hands of a severe and strict judge; and is it not to him alone that we owe our pardon? Here the argument is exactly parallel, and the objection of implacability equally applies. Now what is the answer? "That although it is through the merits and intercession of Christ, that we are forgiven; yet these were not the procuring cause, but the means, by which God, originally disposed to forgive, thought it right to bestow his pardon." Let then the word intercession be changed for sacrifice, and see whether the answer be not equally conclusive.

The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed by any who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement, to have made God placable, but merely viewed as the means, appointed by divine wisdom, by which to bestow forgiveness. And

agreeably to this, do we not find this sacrifice every where spoken of, as ordained by God himself?-God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting. life*-and herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins-and again we are told, that we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot-who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world‡ -and again, that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Since then, the notion of the efficiency of the sacrifice of Christ contained in the doctrine of atonement, stands precisely on the same foundation, with that of pure intercession-merely as the means, whereby God has thought fit to grant his favour and gracious aid to repentant sinners, and to fulfil that merciful intention, which he had at all times entertained towards his fallen creatures: and since, by the same sort of representation, the charge of implacability in the Divine Being, is as applicable to the one scheme, as to the other; that is, since it is a calumny most foully cast upon both we may estimate, with what candour this has been made, by those who hold the one doctrine, the fundamental ground of their objec * John, iii. 16. +1 John, iv. 10. ‡ 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, 20. § Revel. xiii. 8.

tions against the other. For, on the ground of the expressions of God's unbounded love to his creatures every where through Scripture, and of his several declarations that he forgave them freely, it is, that they principally contend, that the notion of expiation by the sacrifice of Christ, can not be the genuine doctrine of the New Tes

tament.s

But still it is demanded, " in what way, can the death of Christ, considered as a sacrifice of expiation, be conceived to operate to the remission of

sins, unless by the appeasing a Being, who otherXwise would not have forgiven us?"-To this the answer of the Christian is, "I know not, nor does it concern me to know, in what manner the sacrifice of Christ is connected with the forgiveness of sins: it is enough, that this is declared by God to be the medium, through which my salvation is effected. I pretend not to dive into the councils of the Almighty. I submit to his wisdom; and I will not reject his grace, because his mode of vouchsafing it is not within my comprehension." But now let us try the doctrine of pure intercession by this same objection. It has been asked, how can the sufferings of one Being, be conceived to have any connexion with the forgiveness of another. Let us likewise enquire, how the meritorious obedience of one Being, can be conceived to have any connexion with the pardon of the transgressions of another:t or whether the prayers of

a righteous Being in behalf of a wicked person, can be imagined to have more weight in obtain ing forgiveness for the transgressor, than the same supplication, seconded by the offering up of life itself, to procure that forgiveness? The fact is, the want of discoverable connexion has nothing to do with either. Neither the sacrifice, nor the intercession, has, as far as we can comprehend, any efficacy whatever. All that we know, or can know of the one, or of the other, is, that it has been ap pointed as the means, by which God has determined to act with respect to man. So that to object to the one, because the mode of operation is unknown, is not only giving up the other, but the very notion of a Mediator; and if followed on, cannot fail to lead to pure Deism, and perhaps may not stop even there.

Thus we have seen, to what the general objections against the doctrine of atonement amount. The charges of divine implacability, and of inefficacious means, we have found to bear with as little force against this, as against the doctrine, which is attempted to be substituted in its room.

We come now to the objections, which are drawn from the immediate language of Scripture, in those passages, in which the nature of our redemption is described. And first, it is asserted, that it is no where said in Scripture, that God is reconciled to us by Christ's Death, but that we are every where said to be reconciled to God. Now, in See No. XX.