CHAPTER XIII.

Mr. G.'s objections to the prevalent theory shown to be without foundation, and to recoil upon himself. His views of the atonement. His theory not founded on the Bible. Converts the plain language of scripture into metaphor. The objection that the prevalent theory tends to lower the eye of devotion from the Godhead to the manhood of Christ, shown to be unfounded. The tendency of Mr. G.'s theory to strengthen the hands of Unitarians and Infidels.

MR. G., in the twenty-first chapter of his book, has stated in a connected view, several objections to the prevalent theory, most of which have already been answered in the preceding pages. A few additional remarks, however, may not be useless. He admits. that this theory is venerable for age, and compares it to a "structure, which has extended over continents its vast dimensions, and grown gray under the frosts of almost fifteen hundred years. Ever since its erection, it has been the abode of the chief portion of the piety of Christendom. In its many chambers, devotion has, for ages, uttered her dying prayers, and breathed forth her last faltering accents. From its lofty turrets, for near fifteen hundred years, have triumphantly ascended joyous groups of the spirits of just men made perfect." Yet he feels himself called upon to lay ruthless hands upon this venerable temple. He says, "That the corner stone of this stupendous structure, has been laid in error, is engraved on the tablet of our heart, as

it were, by a pen of iron, on tablets of marble. With the absorbing belief resting on our soul, that the Second Person of the Trinity suffered and died, in his ethereal essence, for the redemption of our race, we cannot withhold from this sublimest of truths, the aid of our feeble voice, even if we were to stand alone with a world opposed."

While I most cheerfully accord to Mr. G., the credit of good intentions, I cannot but think, that he has, in this thing, mistaken his duty. I am also confident that he will find it much more difficult to demolish this magnificent structure, than he seems to imagine. From "its many chambers," if I mistake not, "devotion" will continue to utter "her dying prayers," long after he shall have been gathered to his fathers. But let us notice some of his objections.

"First-The theory derogates from the simplicity and fullness of the atonement, and imparts to it an illusive character. It subtracts from the atonement its vital principle. It robs it of its suffering, dying God. It substitutes the sufferings and death of the creature, for the sufferings and death of the Creator."

From what I have already said on this subject, it will be perceived, that I do not feel the force of this objection. I will add a few thoughts. According to the common opinion, the sufferings and death of Christ answered the same end in the moral government of God, as would have been answered by the eternal punishment of all those for whom he died. And what higher end is answered by them, according to the the

ory of Mr. G.? According to the one theory, a greater amount of suffering is considered necessary, than according to the other. But does this, of itself, demonstrate its superiority? Is that view of the atonement

which supposes the greatest amount of suffering to be necessary to make an atonement, necessarily the most honorable to God, and the most worthy of belief? Suppose then a new theory should be invented, in which it should be maintained, that all the Persons of the Godhead suffered and died for the sins of the world; or suppose it should be maintained, that the Second Person of the Trinity endured sufferings infinite in degree, not only for a short time, but for a thousand years; might not the advocate of this theory, claim that it far surpassed the theory of Mr. G.?that it gave a more striking view of the evil of sin ? -a more glorious exhibition of divine justice, and of the infinite love and mercy of God manifested in the redemption of sinners? Might he not say, that it affords a broader and firmer foundation for the sinner's hope, than the other theory? And in view of these assumed facts, might he not say, that Mr. G.'s theory "derogates from the simplicity and fullness of the atonement," and "abstracts from the atonement its vital principle?" Who would see any force, in such reasoning as this? And yet, if I mistake not, it is precisely the same kind of reasoning as that employed by Mr. G. on the point in question.

The proper inquiry is, What do the scriptures teach on this subject? That view of the atonement which they teach, is the true view. And the true view is the

most honorable to God, and suited to exert the best moral influence upon men. It is doing no honor to Christ, to suppose that he suffered more than he actually did suffer. On the contrary, it is, as I have shown, dishonoring him. If we have proper views of the greatness and glory of his character, a comparatively small amount of suffering on his part, will appear to us, to possess infinite atoning value. That the eternal Son of God, should condescend to assume our nature, go through a scene of deep humiliation, and suffer an ignominious death, is enough to fill the universe with astonishment. I ask, what creature throughout the vast dominions of Jehovah, could be made acquainted with this fact, and not feel, that as an atoning sacrifice, it is abundantly sufficient to make it manifest, that God is just, while he justifies the sinner?

But according to the theory of Mr. G., the sufferings of the Son of God derived no atoning value from the dignity and glory of his Person. It was necessary that he should endure the full amount of suffering merited by those whom he wished to redeem, before one of them could be pardoned. And is it so? Could not God, if he pardoned sin, in any other way show to the universe the justice of his law, and his determination to support it, than to inflict upon his own Son the full amount of suffering deserved by those who were to be pardoned for his sake? Is such a view of the atonement honorable to the Son of God?

Besides according to this view, as I have shown, the atonement has caused no diminution of suffering

in the universe. It has only transferred the suffering of one part of the universe to another. It is, of course, difficult to see how there can be any benevolence in the plan of salvation.

66

Mr. G. says, the prevalent theory "imparts to it" (the atonement) "an illusive character." How does this appear? He tells us, it would seek to imbue the sufferings of the creature with a borrowed value, reflected from the Creator dwelling within." This is not a correct representation of the subject. The advocates of the prevalent theory, do not maintain that the expiatory sufferings were the sufferings of a mere creature. They maintain that they were the sufferings of Christ, and Christ is not a mere creature. He is the incarnate God. It was He that suffered, and although he suffered in the flesh, that is, in his human nature, the sufferings were His, as truly so, as if they had been endured in his divine nature. This I have already abundantly shown. To represent the advocates of the prevalent theory, therefore, as maintaining that mere "creature sufferings" derived atoning value from the "mere juxta-position of the indwelling divinity," is a gross, though doubtless undesigned, misrepresentation. The sufferings of Christ were the sufferings of the Godman, and are never to be thought of as the sufferings of a mere man. They were the sufferings of that glorious Person, who is "the same yesterday, to day, and forever." It was He that suffered-not "constructively," but really; for what is affirmed of his human