ther, to set before us, as a free and sovereign gift, eternal life, with all its variety of infinite blessings. It is, we hold, a historical verity, that such a measure has come into existence and operation; has taken effect, and is the groundwork of the Divine dispensation of grace and goodness which so abound towards our sinful world. We regard it as the chief of all the ways of Godthe foundation of His kingdom. The immediate agent by whom it was accomplished, was He to whom the Scripture refers, under the title," the captain of our salvation." The means were included in those sufferings of His, by which, as the Spirit saith, "He was made perfect." In these sufferings the atonement is to be found. The gospel of Jesus Christ records the history of the transaction. It had its consummation in the agony and bloody sweat and unparalleled death of Christ. "The decease which He accomplished at Jerusalem," including its preliminary and attendant particulars, was an atonement, a satisfaction to Divine Justice, whereby the door of salvation was opened to mankind. This is the grand article of evangelical Theology.

15. The doctrine embraces an explanation, showing why it was, that this death had the efficacy which is ascribed to it; or what gave it its power to atone for sin. This arose in part from the nature of the death or sufferings of Christ; but chiefly from the character which the doctrine ascribes to the sufferer. In this latter respect, the doctrine without controversy, presents a great mystery. It gives to the sufferer a sphere of antecedent and independent existence, out of and above the creation. It makes Him distinct from God,' and at the same time co-equal and co-eternal with Him; partaking with Him the essence and inherent glory of the godhead: whereby He was competent to dispose of Himself as He pleased, and also to suffer or do whatever might be exacted of Him for the satisfaction of justice, without being Himself overcome and swallowed up, in meeting His dread liability. It affirms of Him, moreover, that He sustained a mysterious relation to God, that, namely, of an only begotten son, who dwelt from eternity in the bosom of the Father. It adds, that this uncreated and co-eternal companion and Son of God, came into the world, in the fulness of time, clothed in humanity, yet without sin, for the suffering of the death which awaited him. Further, it represents Him, as bearing by the imputation of justice, the sin of mankind; thus making His sufferings vicarious, while it gives them a severity, not to be explained or justified under any other idea, than that they were a substitute for our punishment-a compensation for its remission. Finally, it declares that by virtue of these sufferings, on the part of one who possessed the Divine nature in full equality with God, an atonement was made-every

"The Word was with God."

2 "The Word was God."

end answered which could have been gained by inflicting condign punishment on mankind.

16. The sufficiency of this measure-its power to atone-no one, of course, could perfectly appreciate, besides God himself. None else could comprehend the amount of the guilt to be forgiven, or the punishment which it incurred; nor could any other estimate justly the value of the sufferings which were endured by Christ-such sufferings of such a personage. Their compensative merit, in their breadth and length, their depth and height, who but God alone could comprehend? But they must have been an adequate compensation, having been appointed and accepted as such by the Divine Justice and now, since by the will of God they have been published and set forth as sufficient for their great purpose, two things are of the highest certainty; First, the manifest divinity of the measure (if it be of God, it must proclaim itself his work):-and, secondly, the human mind must be competent to perceive evidences of its being what God declares it to be, an atonement truly-a sufficient amende or satisfaction. For the object or end of it, not being an effect on the mind of God only, but a revelation of God's displeasure against sin, which the subjects of the Divine government were to regard and understand, as such, it must needs have in itself power to make this revelation. The atonement, in other words, must be an atonement as well in the consciousness of every one to whom it comes in its just statement and influence, as in the esteem and judgment of God. It must have in itself a self-evidencing virtue— be its own witness-proclaim itself an atonement, as the sun shows what he is by his own beams, without need of external witness-bearing. The facts embraced in it must show it to be an atonement; and they do. That the sufferer was in essential dignity and glory equal with God, and was also His only begotten Son; and that His sufferings were such as the statement represents these facts cannot be mentioned in connexion with their design, without asserting their sufficiency as an atonement. Let it be admitted, that the degraded man, whose sweat in the garden was as great drops of blood falling down to the ground, and who died on the cross in the manner described in the gospel, was the equal and express image of God, the brightness of His glory, and His own Son; and that He suffered thus "to purge our sins," or make satisfaction for us to justice; and though no finite mind can conceive the magnitude of the punishment due to mankind, yet sure and self-evident it is, that neither this punishment nor anything else, could have been of greater avail as expressive of the demerit of sin, and the Divine indignation towards it. Let the statement be apprehended and received by the human conscience, and apart from all external testimony, it must give that con

science, peace and quietness, as to the atoning sufficiency of the stupendous measure.

17. But is the statement itself credible? Does it not involve intrinsic absurdity, or what is repugnant to reason and natural religion? Is not the possibility of an atonement grounded in an assertion respecting the character of Christ, which cannot be true? There could have been no atonement, it is said, if there had not been One in eternity with God, who himself possessed the Divine attributes: in other words, it is taught, that Christ was strictly a Divine Person. This is the foundation of the doctrine of the atonement. Is it consistent with the greatest and first of all truths-the unity of God? The statement is presented with a concession, yea, rather with a bold averment, that it is in this respect a mystery-a mystery it may be, to angels as well as men-what is far above human and perhaps all finite comprehension; but it is a mystery and no more; it is not against any dictate of reason, or contradictory of the Divine Unity. In asserting the pre-existent and eternal divinity of Christ, it does not deny the one and simple essence of God, but only implies that this one Divine essence is pluri-personal; or that in the one and simple essence of the Deity there are more persons or subsistences than one. There is nothing in reason, nothing in nature against this assertion. It relates to the mode of the Divine existence-a great mystery indeed. But to men, what is there that is not in some respect mysterious; and if all nature be full of mystery, why should he expect to find out by searching the mode in which the great Infinite himself subsists ? The mystery, in this case, is one which, it is contended, the Scriptures reveal in a thousand places; yea, which, including its cognate doctrines, is the grand subject-matter of the Bible. The only question is, Is the Bible understood and interpreted aright?

18. To this brief view of the atonement, though we have endeavored to make it definite and distinctive, it may be proper to subjoin a few additional observations in order to insure it, if possible, against misapprehension.

The atonement, as now propounded, gives no unfavorable impression of the Divine character; does not represent God as divided against Himself, or the persons of the Godhead as divided and contrary to one another; does not ascribe gentleness to Christ and deny it to the Father. The whole Deity is made the author and finisher of the measure; the will and purpose of the entire Godhead were fulfilled; it was as much the doing of the Father as of the Son; the Son, while he gave himself, was also the Father's gift. The conception of opposite feelings and interests is not justified, but precluded.

There is no ground for the objection, that it makes God unjust

in order to be just,—unjust in his treatment of Christ, in order to be just in showing favor to the guilty. Christ does not become a sinner, because by imputation he bears our sins. He is not regarded as deserving the treatment he receives. He is not treated otherwise than as he chooses to be. He simply foregoes His own honors and rights for a time, and offers Himself to suffer, as the necessary means of our salvation. He is not punished, in the ordinary meaning of the word, as implying personal criminality. No injustice is done Him, unless it be in the nature of Justice to permit no sacrifice to be made, no interest or right surrendered for the benefit of others; unless justice be the enemy of self-denial and disinterested benevolence.

The atonement does not imply that there is a vindictive propensity in the Divine nature; or that God needs compensative sufferings for his own gratification, or any motives out of Himself in order to be inclined to the exercise of compassion. It supposes the Deity to be incapable of acting with impropriety, or in a manner which does not become Him, but not to be vindictive or slow to mercy. The atonement assumes as a necessity, that every Divine attribute harmonize in every Divine act or procedure; and that the Divine conduct never be out of keeping with itself, or inconsistent with the majesty and honor of God, as the Lord and Maker of all. But this is not against the purest and highest benevolence; it is only against a benevolence falsely so called, which, by disregarding mode in manifesting itself, would defeat all the ends of infinite goodness. The atonement is but the mercy or goodness of God, using a proper mode of showing itself to man. Instead of being against goodness, it is an instance of goodness, comprehending every other, and also infinitely surpassing all other forms of goodness possible or conceivable. It is the chief means by which God demonstrates his goodness.

There are representations in evangelical writings and discourses which, taken to the letter, and apart from their connexions, are to the discredit of the atonement, as implicating the Divine character in reproach. The atonement is said to be the appraisement of the Divine vengeance; the wrath of God is set forth as spending and exhausting itself on the pure and innocent Savior, &c. But these are bold and strong expressions, the import of which, as consisting with just views of the Divine goodness, is commonly obvious from their context and scope. They are not without warrant from Scripture.' They make no bad impression on candid minds. When it is kept in mind that the atonement is God's own work, that Christ was His own Son, in whom He was always well pleased, and that His treatment of Christ was, in fact, a sacrifice infinitely expensive to Himself, no room is left for understanding the language in question as imput

1 Zech. 13: 7. Is. 53: 10. Rom. 3: 25.

ing malignant feelings to the Deity. It serves but to show the malignant nature of sin, and the greatness of the love of God to man.

19. It is not true of the atonement' that it is incomprehensible or obscure as to the manner in which it answers its end. Nothing in the atonement is more manifest than its mode of influence, or how it is connected with forgiveness and salvation. An attempt to state the doctrine, which does not show this connexion, omits the radical idea of the atonement. The atonement, in its very definition, declares how it opens the door for the manifestations of mercy. What is the atonement but a satisfaction to Justice, as complete as would have been our punishment, in order to the remission of punishment without dishonor to God, and without detriment to his law and government? And is it still a mystery how the atonement is connected with our salvation? There is mystery in some things pertaining to the atonement, but it is denying the doctrine to say that we know nothing of the mode of its influence.

20. The atonement cannot with propriety be regarded as a strictly forensic transaction. Where the terms peculiar to courts of judicature are used in speaking of it, they are not to be taken literally; but, as human language must needs be taken very often when employed to express Divine things, with more or less accommodation to the nature of the subject, as by its own evidence, or by other means, understood. The atonement, for example, justifies no one in the forensic sense, the satisfaction which it makes not being such as the law exacts from debtors or criminals. Forensic justification and satisfaction are incompatible with forgiveness: he who is justified in a court cannot be pardoned he whose debt is discharged cannot be forgiven: but the atonement does not render our free and gratuitous forgiveness an impossibility. Its influence is precisely the reverse; namely, to make our forgiveness consistent with the perfection and glory of God; or if we may so speak, to obtain the consent of Justice and all the other Divine attributes to the exercise of the pardoning power. The atonement does not give us a claim on God, on the ground of justice; it does not impose a necessity or obligation on God to forgive us; it does not deprive Him of his high prerogative, as Judge and Lord of all, to have mercy on whom He will have mercy: it does not transfer this prerogative from Himself to Christ, or give it to the Son exclusively of the Father. We have mentioned what it does. It brings all the perfections of God into harmony with the free manifestations of His mercy; so that in making these manifestations He acts as becomes Him for whom are all things and by whom are all things.

21. The extent of the atonement is determined from its nature. How far indeed it is to avail in actually saving men, or 1 1 As Mr. Coleridge, Dr. Paley, and others say.