cle unless the occasion be worthy of it. In all Christ's doings and sufferings there was a needs be. "Thus it behoved him to suffer." If there had been another way by which the great object could have been effected, it would have been. There needed no farther illustration of what was already written as with a sunbeam on the inconceivable misery of our world, and the everlasting destruction of the fallen angels. It does appear to me that the atonement does mean something more, much more, than this. Under this view of the subject, I cannot see how it was necessary that Jesus should have died; and if not necessary, surely it would not have taken place. Let those who entertain this sentiment think again of the subject." Have they not been mistaken? Have they not thoughtlessly endeavored to accommodate this great Scripture doctrine to a philosophical system? Does it agree with any view of the sufferings and death of Christ contained in the Bible?

This view of the atonement proceeds upon the supposition that the pardon and justification of sinners is an act of mere mercy. That God exercises mercy in the pardon of sinners, the preacher feels no disposition to deny. He would cordially unite with all those who sing,

"O to grace how great a debtor!"

But he, at the same time, believes that the justice of God is as strikingly illustrated as his mercy. And so it is thought the Scriptures consider the subject. So it seems to me the apostle John thought when he penned the following words" If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness;" and Paul, when he said—“ Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." (Rom. 3:25, 26.)

Now, how the justice of God appears under this view of the atonement, I am utterly at a loss to conceive; or even what concern it has with it. And yet we are told by the Holy Ghost, that God is just in performing this act of grace, and that in the view of the propitiation found in the blood of Christ. All this is easily understood and explained under what I believe to be, a Scriptural view of the atonement; but under this view, it seems to me no more than a mere flourish of words, conveying no definite meaning to the mind; and I strongly suspect, would never have been thought of, certainly not suggested by the word of God, unless, when some philosophical dogma was hardly pressed, men had laid hold of the first plausible imagination which had suggested itself to the mind. Upon his plan, I find it difficult to know what such expressions as these mean "The Lord our righteousness" -" Christ Jesus, made of God unto us righteousness”- Bring in an ever. lasting righteousness"-" Make reconciliation for iniquity"-" He will magnify the law and make it honorable”—with a multitu le of others of similar import. Is the word of God so lame on a subject of such tremendous import, involving all the hopes of our ruined race, or am I so blind? Let the men of God, the expounders of the revealed will of Jehovah, the ambassadors of God to men, the comforters of those whom guilt has distressed, the priests whose lips should keep knowledge, think, and inquire, whether such. be the nature of the atonement? Are these the teachings of the Holy Ghost? Think again, and let God speak by you.

-66

This view of the atonement appears to me to be very nearly akin to a branch of Unitarianism. It certainly leaves the law and justice of God where it finds them, for it has nothing of the nature of a satisfaction in it; and how, without a definite satisfaction, duly rendered, a transgressor can escape the curse denounced, who can tell? This is the language of the Lawgiver, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." To deliver us from this dreadful state, "Christ was made a curse for us." How emphatical on this point is the Scripture?- For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. 5:21.) The Unitarians admit that Christ died-but not as an atoning sacrifice-not to satisfy the divine law and justice-not to " bring in an ever. lasting righteousness"-not to free us from the curse of that law which we had violated. He died, say they, as a martyr for the truth, to show that he really believed what he taught-thus putting the death of Christ upon a footing with the death of James or Paul. And I see not why, under the view to which I am objecting, the death of these men might not have an swered the purpose as well as the death of Christ, if it be not considered as a proper sacrifice of atonement to satisfy the divine law and justice. The alleged design, "To illustrate the divine displeasure against sin," does not alter the case. Is it to be credited, even for a moment, that God would, for such a purpose, so unnecessarily have put his only begotten Son to shame? Is there any thing in the death of Christ, which, under this view of the subject, bears a single characteristic of a real atonement? Was it in this school that Socinus received the rudiments of his education? Will men, to get out of the mire, plunge the whole body into this bottomless slough? Having thus shown that the view of the atonement to which our attention has been directed, is entirely inadequate and inadmissible, we shall next proceed to show,

II. From the Scriptures WHAT ITS TRUE NATURE IS. If we clearly understand what the nature of the atonement is, we shall have very little difficulty about its extent and application. In order to arrive at a Scriptural knowledge of this, I remark in the

1st place, That our race is sinful and guilty. We are also taught, that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission. The reason of this is, because the forfeiture of life is the penalty for transgression. "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"-"The soul that sinneth it shall die." For this state of things God has provided a remedy in "the seed of the woman," his "only begotten Son." That Son must be "made of a woman," that he might be "near of kin," having the right of redemption, be "under the law," and have blood to shed, or a life to offer up. (See Gen. 48:16, Job 19:25, Gal. 4:4, 5.) But inasmuch as it was the divine design, that four thousand years should elapse before "the seed of the woman" should come to perform the great work, God saw fit to have that work foreshadowed by types, to keep alive faith in the first promise, to impress the hearts of men with a sense of their guilt and need, and give them some distinct apprehension of the mode in which sin was to be atoned for. Hence the institution of sacrifices. They were of divine institution, as we learn by comparing Gen. 4:4 with Heb. 10:4. These sacrifices could do no more than I have stated, for it is written, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin." (Heb. 10:4.) We find the whole system of sacrifices embraced in the Jewish ritual, and shall pro

bably be able to ascertain the true nature of the atonement, by comparing the Scriptural account of that ritual with what is said concerning the suffer ings and death of Christ. This, it is thought, will give us a clear view of the divine mind on the subject. We may with propriety make this compa rison, for we are told that "The law had a shadow," (or figure, or type,) of those "good things to come," the substance of which was found in Christ. It will not be expected, nor is it necessary, for the object had in view, that a detailed view should be given of the legal sacrifices. Their nature and ob. ject can be sufficiently ascertained without this. These sacrifices were numerous and various. My present design is to direct your attention to two or three of them as explanatory of their nature and object, and which may serve to throw light on the great doctrine of the atonement. The first re-. lates to sacrifices to be made by individuals. "And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about." (See Lev. 3:2, 9, 13; 4:4, 24, 29, 33.) The plain and obvious meaning of this transaction is the following: The person bringing the offering is considered as a sinner. The penalty is death. He feels desirous of relief. The Lawgiver has appointed a victim which may be re ceived as a substitute for the transgressor. It has life, and must have, for "without the shedding of blood is no remission." He brings the appointed victim. He lays his hand upon its head, acknowledges his just liability to the penalty, gives it to the demands of the law; it dies in his stead, and he is set free. And now, should any one complain of him as a transgressor, and demand his punishment as a violator of the law, he has an effectual and legal plea in bar cf further proceedings, because he has offered the required satisfaction. An atonement has been made. We shall hereafter take occa. sion to verify with respect to Christ's sacrifice what is here predicated of an acknowledged type of it.

The next instance to which I shall refer, relates to communities; viz., the Jewish commonwealth or congregation. "And the elders of the congrega. tion shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the Lord; and the bullock shall be killed before the Lord." (Lev. 4:15.) The same gene. ral view is given in the account which we have of the goats on the great day of atonement, in the 16th chapter of Leviticus. "And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, in all their sins, put. ting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited." His fellow was slain. This is proba bly the most striking and instructive type in the whole of the ancient ritualthe most complete figure of the atonement made by Christ. No single type could fully fore-shadow the real atonement, the taking away of sin by the sacrifice of Christ. But in this double type we have the confession and transfer of guilt, the bearing away of iniquities, so that they no more return to accuse and condemn, and the offering of the atoning sacrifice. Here, there fore, we should look to find the most perfect type of "the Lamb of God;" for here was the great day of atonement. I might add that distinguished transaction on Mount Moriah, which occurred in the days of Abraham, when, in the act of sacrificing his son, he was arrested by the Lord, and had his attention directed to the ram caught in the thicket, which he took and offered in the

"Your

stead of his son-to which occasion Jesus referred when he said, father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad."

The leading idea which runs through the whole system is, The substitution of the animal, offered instead of the person making the offering, including a legal transfer of the guilt of the person to the sacrifice, sometimes plainly expressed, and, as I think, always clearly implied. This, it appears to me, enters fully into all the legal sacrifices, and constitutes all their character and force. That whole system, we have seen, was typical of gospel verities, for the identification and illustration of which the apostle employs almost the whole of the epistle to the Hebrews. It was from these sacrifices principally, that believers derived their ideas of atonement and acceptance with God, from the beginning till the full development of the gospel dispensation by Christ; and the main part of the knowledge upon which their faith was founded, was illustrated by these exhibitions. If they had any distinct understanding of the doctrine of atonement it flowed from this source. I am aware it may be, said, these were only types and figures. But types and figures mean something; and in this case, they are exceedingly important. Upon a right understanding and application of them, the salvation of souls depended. They were, till the manifestation of God in the flesh, the principal lights on the pathway to heaven. It was as necessary then to understand their nature and application, as it now is to understand the nature and application of the great sacrifice of the Lamb of God. The ancient faith of the church of God was not the belief of cunningly devised fables. The lamb of the ancient sacrifices was a distinct symbol of "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." Else the ancient faith stood not in the power of God, but in the wisdom of men. Having briefly shown the nature and object of the ancient sacrifices, considered as types of the great atoning sacrifice which was to be offered once for all in the fulness of the time, it may now be relevant to turn our attention,

ter.

2. To the view which the Scriptures give us of that sacrifice. I say Scriptures, for on this subject we can borrow no light from any other quarAnd if they should put into our hands "a two-edged sword," let it cut its way, no matter whose system it may pierce," or whose "joints and marrow it may divide asunder," or "the thoughts and intents of whose heart it may discern." My object shall be to ascertain, if possible, "the mind of the Spirit." It will not be expected that every passage of Scripture which speaks of the death of Christ will be quoted or noticed; for it is not designed to write a system on the subject, but to ascertain as briefly as possible, what was the nature and design of what Christ did, when "through the Eternal Spirit he offered himself without spot unto God."

Our attention shall first be directed to the light which prophecy throws upon the subject. One of the distinguishing names by which the Messiah was revealed to the church of old, was that of "Redeemer." The name occurs too frequently for particular reference. The idea conveyed by the name is that of a person who procures the release of a slave or captive, either by the payment of a valuable consideration, or by the strong hand of power. With respect to the former, Christ is called "a ransom." (Job 33:24; text; 1 Tim. 2:6.) With respect to the latter, "A Deliverer," (Rom. 11:26.) When we consider Christ as "a ransom,' his sacrifice necessarily conveys the idea of a substitute. So the Holy Ghost seems to consider it when he moved Caiaphas to say, "it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." (John 11:50.) This appears to me to be the attitude in which the facts

of the case place the subject. The law condemns us to death. Christ pays "the ransom" by offering up his own life in our stead. Is not this the construction which every sensible, unsophisticated mind would put upon the language which the Holy Ghost has seen fit to employ for our instruction? If our systems cannot bear this, let them perish. They are not worth maintaining at the expense of giving up the plainness and simplicity of Bible truth.

Isaiah has been called the evangelical prophet, because he entered more fully into the spirit of the gospel dispensation than any of his compeers. We might then expect more light on this subject from him than from any other of the ancient prophets. He has also expressly written on the subject, particularly in his fifty-third chapter. Let me direct your attention to some of his very striking language:-"Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows". "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all"- For the transgression of my people was he stricken" "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin"-" He shall bear their iniquities." This language is definite and plain-the ideas are strikingly expressed-so variously, yet simply exhibited, that I scarcely know how it is possible to be mistaken as to the meaning.

The death of Christ is here certainly considered as a proper sacrifice. What else can the phrase, "make his soul an offering for sin," possibly mean? Can any language more precisely and plainly express that idea? He is evidently considered as charged with the guilt of those for whom he

Does the declaration, "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," import less than this? Can it by any legitimate rule of interpretation mean any thing else than this? Let it not be said, guilt cannot be transferred. That would be begging the very thing in dispute. The question is, What does the Lord say, and what does his language fairly import? We do not pretend that the Lord Jesus Christ was actually guilty. But we do say, that he gave himself to be legally charged with the guilt of those for whom he died, and was treated accordingly; and that the phrase which we are now considering fully bears us out in this sentiment. And this sentiment, which the word of God so clearly teaches, we must and will maintain, against every objection which "the wisdom of this world" may bring against it. Here we plant the standard of the cross, and say, "Let God be true." We shall hereafter find, that this is the only view which will admit of even a tolerable interpretation of several interesting and important passages of Scripture. It also harmonizes entirely with that part of the chapter where it is said, "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities." It only remains to remark, that the doctrine of substitution here stands forth in such bold and prominent relief, that a man must have a bold, if not a presumptuous mind, who, with this chapter before him, would venture to deny it. How could that idea be more plainly and convincingly expressed? We have here, man, a guilty sinner, condemned by the law which he had violated; and yet, justly pardoned-and Christ, the surety, charged with the guilt incurred, and treated by God himself as the sinner would have been; viz., dying under the wrath of God-wounded, bruised by God's own hand. Is this substitution, or is it not? Can lan