LECTURE XI.

THE ATONEMENT.

JOHN, I. 23.

THE NEXT DAY JOHN SEETH JESUS COMING UNTO HIM, AND SAITH, BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD, WHICH TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD.

IN treating of the doctrine of Atonement, which is to be the subject of this lecture, I shall first state those points in which all Christians are agreed, then the points in which they differ, and the reasons for which we adopt our views of the subject, and reject those which are regarded by some as vital to salvation.

We all admit the Atonement to be a reality. We all agree that Christ died for the spiritual benefit of mankind. We all admit that it was to procure the pardon of sin, and to induce man to forsake it; that it was "to take away the sin of the world," that he suffered. They agree in the historical facts, that Christ died a violent and painful death, in consequence of taking upon himself the office of the Messiah, the person promised in the prophecies of the Old Testament. So far the parties are agreed.

But different sects of Christians disagree as to the

manner in which this was effected. One portion of the Christian world has attributed the efficacy of Christ's death to the divine nature, which was a part of his person. The second article of the Church of England reads thus: "The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man ; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for the actual sins of

man."

After the discussion we have been going over in the ten lectures I have already given, I can scarcely believe my own senses when I see this extraordinary composition standing as the second article of the creed of that church, which has lately been making such claims to be the only true church of Christ on earth. It was very and eternal God, who suffered and died upon the cross, to reconcile his Father to us.

When we see such sentiments as these subscribed for almost three hundred years, by deacon and priest, bishop and archbishop, apparently without reflecting on the tremendous assertions they contain, we are tempted to fold our hands in despair, and give up all hope of ever seeing Christianity disencumbered of the speculations of the dark ages. The very and eternal God

was crucified, to reconcile his Father to us! Let us see if there be any ground for such a supposition as the crucifixion and death of God.

We should be pointed, I suppose, to such passages as this: "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the death of his Son ;" and this: "They crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.' This conclusion was arrived at, by supposing "Son of God" to be equiv alent to "God the Son." But the shocking conclusion, that God died, one would suppose, would have led them to doubt the identity of the expressions, "Son of God" and "God the Son," and induced them to examine the subject anew. That examination would have led them to the conclusion, which we have arrived at more than once in the course of these lectures, that the epithet, "Son of God," has nothing to do with the nature of Christ, but is merely equivalent to Messiah. Some have seen the startling character of the proposition, that God died, or suffered in any. way, and, moreover, the natural impossibility of one Person of a Trinity making atonement to another; since, after all, there is but one divine essence, which is shared by the three Persons. They, therefore, softened the matter by saying, that the value of the sacrifice was enhanced by the fact, that the victim was connected in some mysterious way with a divine nature. But this palliation is no cure for the essential defects of the system, for such a connection must have diminished the intensity of Christ's sufferings, nay, have reduced them almost to nothing. This supposition, too, is

at war with the narrative. That makes Christ exclaim upon the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" This must have been uttered either in his divine or his human nature, or in the complex person which was made up by the combination of both. If he uttered it in his human nature, then his divine nature had nothing to do with his sufferings; and if he uttered it in his divine nature or his complex person, he uttered what was not true. God could not forsake him. He could have suffered, then, only in his human nature. All ideas, then, of an infinite atonement, from the infinite nature of the victim, vanish, and become impossible suppositions. To all this, the Scriptures oppose one uniform representation, that it was Jesus, the Messiah, who suffered, and died, and rose again for human good. It was Christ who died for our sins, according to the Scriptures. We omit, for the present, all discussion of the sense in which he died for our sins.

But Christ

The doc

signifies not God, but the anointed of God. trine of atonement, then, has no connection with the Trinity, and all that representation which you sometimes hear, of God's sending his Son from heaven, or the first Person of the Trinity sending the second, has no meaning, no foundation whatever. For "there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all." Whatever atonement was made, was made by the man Christ Jesus.

The next theory is, that Christ suffered as a substitute for mankind, their sins being imputed to him, and his righteousness imputed to them. For this theory many

strong passages are quoted, such, for instance, as the following: "Who himself bare our sins in his own body on the tree." "For Christ, also, once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God." "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God through him." Now there are insuperable difficulties in the way of this interpretation. The first is, that it involves injustice on the part of God. If Christ made an atonement for the sins of mankind, in the sense of suffering their penalty, then God's justice must be satisfied, and mankind in equity ought to be released, just as the debtor must in justice be liberated when the debt is discharged by another party. It is injustice to exact the debt from the debtor and the surety besides. And are the penalties of sin remitted? What are the penalties of sin? They are the outward sufferings which it causes, the inward degradation, and the remorse of conscience which it occasions. Now it is by the will and immediate agency of God, that sin is so punished. But at any moment he might suspend or abrogate that law. Has he done so in consequence of the sufferings of Christ? By no means. That law continues as much in force as ever it was. condition is interposed, that of repentance. It is a law of the mind that repentance shall be a remedy for sin. It changes the view of the mind in regard to it. It breaks off the habit, and by the benevolent ordinance of God, restores peace to the troubled conscience. The laws of the mind are such, that one man cannot take the guilt of another upon himself. What another man suf

Another