1st Series. No. 74 * THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. BY THE LATE REV. HENRY TURNER, OF NOTTINGHAM, ENGLAND. PRINTED FOR THE American sanitarian Association, BOSTON; CHARLES BOWEN, 141 WASHINGTON STREET. August, 1S33. Price 4 Cents . The following tract presents the substance of two discourses, published since the death of their lamented author, in throwing them into one, it has been found necessary to omit a few passages, and to transpose another. In other respects no alteration has been made. ~f$s 31 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT, The subject of the present publication, is the doc¬ trine of the atonement, according to the usual accepta¬ tion of that term, to signify satisfaction made to God for the sins of men, by the sufferings and death of Christ. We shall be very anxious, in what we offer on this subject, to avoid everything like misrepresentation ; we shall therefore refrain from employing the language of its advocates, w T hen it may be supposed that they have spoken unadvisedly, and have not intended that we should understand in a strict and literal sense the expressions which they have used. In return, we hope that our readers will rather judge by what will be now laid before them, than by the hasty and unfounded ac¬ cusations which are so frequently brought against us by those, who have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. Observe, then, that Unitarians gratefully acknow¬ ledge, that the forgiveness of sins unto eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ ; and through him 4 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 4 alone. They glory in the cross of Christ; they receive Christ as him who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption ; nay, they believe in an atonement by Christ, in the only sense in ivhich that word is used in Scripture. It is not the atonement of the world by Jesus Christ that we are used to controvert ; but we deny that that atonement was effected by satisfaction. There is no such word as satisfaction used in the whole New Testament ; and the word atonement is only to be met with in one place, in the New Testament, Rom. v. 11. u We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have also received the atonement.” And in this place, if you consult the margin of the larger bibles, you will there find the word reconciliation substituted for it. u By whom also we have received reconciliation.” And the best expositors understand the passage in this sense. But, observe, the word atonement , when properly un¬ derstood, has the same meaning as reconciliation. It is made up of two English words, at and one , with the termination ment; now, to be at one, is the same thing as to be in concord, to be united, reconciled ; and at-one- ment , signifies the state or act of being reconciled or united ; and is the same as reconcilement or reconcilia¬ tion. So that in any passage where the word reconcile is used, we might, not improperly, adopt the word atone ) as conveying the same meaning. For example, we might translate the passage in 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, thus ; “ All things are of God, who hath atoned us to himself, by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of atonement, to wit, that God was in Christ, atoning the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses 5 THE DOCTRINE OP ATONEMENT. 5 unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of atonement : we pray you in Christ’s stead be ye atoned to God.” But then, this would not be any proof of the popular doctrine of atonement, for in this passage it is God who offers atonement to men ; and we are describ¬ ed as receiving the atonement ; —* expressions that are altogether improper, according to the ordinary view of the doctrine, since the atonement is ordinarily considered as made to God, received by God, and offer¬ ed on the part of men. In short, there is no word cor¬ responding either to satisfaction or atonement in that theological sense, in the whole New Testament. Now I think we ought always to be suspicious of a doctrine which cannot be expressed in scripture language. The arguments brought forward to prove the doc¬ trine of the satisfaction of Christ, are of two kinds, 1st, Reasonings drawn from the proceedings of men incases that are thought to be similar ; and 2nd, Inferences from Scripture. I. Let us, first, examine the grounds on which is argued the reasonableness of this doctrine . I believe that no one in this day will attempt to es¬ tablish the necessity of a satisfaction for the sins of men, upon the ground of the mere wrath and anger of God, as an offended party, so as that he could not be appeased till he had wreaked his vengeance on some one who stood in the place of, and suffered the punish¬ ment due to the offender. These are sentiments most unfit to be attributed to the Almighty ; especially as he cannot possibly receive injury at the hand of any. (C If thou sinnest, [says Elihu to Job] what doest thou unto Him ; if thou be righteous, what givest thou then, or what receiveth He at thine hand ? Thy wickedness VOL. VII. — no. lxxiv. 1 # 6 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 6 may hurt a man as thou art, and thy righteousness may profit the son of man.” Indeed, it is now, I suppose, universally acknowledged, that God, even the Father, is the spontaneous source and original fountain of salva¬ tion. “ The sacrifice of Christ,” says a celebrated modern advocate of what are called orthodox views, u was never deemed by any who did not wish to calum¬ niate the doctrine of atonement, to have made God placable, but merely received as the means appointed by divine wisdom through which to bestow forgiveness.” Hence, it appears that all those representations of the plan of our redemption which attribute a principle of wrath and vengeance to the Almighty, until changed unto love by the satisfaction and merits of Christ, are, by the confession of all parties, unfounded in truth and reason. It is also, I believe, universally admitted, that we cannot place the necessity for a satisfaction for the sins of men, upon the ground of the mere sovereignty of God, and his unquestionable right to do what he will with his creatures. In requiring punishment, he does not act the part of an arbitrary sovereign, who makes his will the law, and who forbids us to seek for a reason of his proceedings. God is a perfectly good being, and therefore cannot possibly take pleasure in the mere sufferings of his creatures. Reason shows the truth of what Scripture declares, that God u hath no pleasure at all in the death of him that dieth.” Punishment is in itself displeasing to him. In what quality, then, must we consider God as act¬ ing, when he decrees the punishment of offenders ? — Certainly in the quality of a good and wise Governor, consulting for the public benefit, and intending the 7 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 7 maintenance of good order, and the vindication of the laws which have been placed to promote the welfare of those who are subject to them. So far intelligent persons of every party, I believe, are all agreed. But now arises this question, Can such a governor as we have described abate, or in any instance dispense with, the penalties which by law at¬ tach to his offending subjects ? It is said he cannot. — That, which is the most kingly and beseeming attribute that belongs to earthly sovereigns, is withheld from the King of kings. He may not, it is said, in any instance exercise his merciful compassion, until the law (of which he is the sole enactor) is by some equivalent punish¬ ment satisfied, and its penal claims discharged. Now, first, as to the reasonableness or justice of the expedient here supposed to be resorted to, in order to enable God, as the moral governor of the universe, to forgive offenders, can it be proved just, can it even be proved possible, to transfer guilt from one to another, so that the guilty shall escape, and the innocent be punished ? Guilt is, in the nature of things, incapable of being transferred; and no principle of justice can demand, can even permit, that the innocent should be substituted for the guilty, as incurring the penalty of the law. Who ever heard of such a principle as a feature of human legislation ? Even the tyrant Dionysius, when Damon generously urged him to put him to death in the room of his friend Pythias, started back from such a proposal, and forgave them both. There are cases, no doubt, in which the innocent suffer in consequence of the crimes of the guilty ; as when children are impoverished or disregarded, on account of the sins of their parents. However, we 8 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. • 8 ought to distinguish between sufferings and punish¬ ment. Who denies that an innocent person may suf¬ fer ? But can it with propriety he said that he is pun¬ ished ? He has no consciousness of guilt ; he partakes of the consolations which flow from religion, and bears his sufferings with patience and pious resignation ; not like a criminal, overwhelmed with self reproaches, and agitated with bad and tormenting passions. Besides, there is here no substitution of the sufferings of the innocent for the punishment of the guilty. Bad parents, while they live, suffer for their crimes in their own persons, and are tormented by reflecting on the evils which they have brought upon their children ; and their crime, and consequent future punishment, must be aggravated, not remitted, by what their children suffer. Another example is sometimes produced, in which it is thought that there is some resemblance to the satis¬ faction supposed to be made by Christ for the sins of men. It is when a person, who has become surety, under a pecuniary bond, for the good behavior of an¬ other, is made to forfeit the bond in consequence of that person’s misconduct. But surely this is not to the purpose. The forfeiture of the bond is the just penalty of his own rashness, in pledging himself for the be¬ havior of an ill-disposed person, to the detriment of the public ; and the forfeiture of the security does not release the offender himself, if he can be found, from the penalties which the law has affixed to his offence. But supposing we were to grant it possible, and if possible then just, to impute guilt to, and inflict punish¬ ment on, one, as the means by which another might es¬ cape the punishment due to his crimes, can it be shown 9 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 9 that, in the case of the offences of men against the laws of God, it was necessary to resort to such a measure, in order that he may be enabled to release them from the penalties denounced against them ? Is the Al¬ mighty debarred from a power which all law-givers exercise, of relaxing, when it is thought fit, the con¬ dition by which he binds to the observance of his laws ? This cannot be maintained ; for it must be ad¬ mitted that the very thing supposed, viz. to accept of the punishment of a person substituted for the offender, is actually to alter the conditions originally appointed as sanctions of the law. In every community that ever existed under the dominion of law, there has al¬ ways resided somewhere a power of abating and alter¬ ing the penalties directed against particular offences. And who will take upon him to assert, even of an earthly sovereign, that it enhances the dignity of his person, or adds glory to his crown, to be set forth as an inexorable and unrelenting judge ? Can it then be becoming to deny that the Almighty Ruler of all things is able to exercise his clemency ? a clemency, which must far exceed everything of the kind that resides in the breasts of earthly potentates. It certainly, then, cannot be maintained, that, when the Almighty desired to forgive his offending creatures, there existed some necessity, that compelled him to exact the strict pay¬ ment of penalties which he was otherwise disposed to remit ; and that there was no way but that of requiring full satisfaction, through the sufferings and death of Christ, by which he could justly be merciful. — Indeed, it is acknowledged by several ancient Authors in the Christian church, particularly by Athanasius and Au- 10 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 10 gustine, that God might have saved us by his own will, without the intervention of Jesus Christ ; and Bernard asks, u Who knows but that the Almighty had the choice of various methods of our redemption, justifica¬ tion, and deliverance ?” From which it is evident that, in the opinion of these ancient fathers, the satisfaction made by Christ for the sins of men, was not essential to the forgiveness of sins. It follows, from all these considerations, that the law of God is not of that irrevocable, implacable descrip¬ tion which it is sometimes represented to be ; but that it may naturally be expected to admit of some relaxa¬ tion, and not necessarily to require full satisfaction. I will not however deny, that for the maintenance of good order in the moral universe, it is necessary that limits and conditions should be affixed to the exer¬ cise of the divine clemency, in the forgiveness of sins ; otherwise those laws which are designed for the wel¬ fare of his creatures will be neglected and disobeyed. But let us duly consider whether, if it be for no other object than to secure the reverence and obedience of mankind to these righteous laws, other limits and con¬ ditions may not be found, that will have at least as good a tendency this way. What if the necessary con¬ dition of forgiveness be a hearty repentance, and a strict amendment of life, will this have no tendency to enhance our veneration for that law which is declared to be the rock of our life and the necessary condition of our salvation ? Shall we say, That until a satisfaction for sin is provided, he that is sorry for his sins, is as much to be despaired of, as he that continues in them p If “there be joy in heaven over one sinner that repent- eth,” does it not follow, that the holiest and most en- 11 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 11 lightened part of God’s moral creation perceives no ob¬ stacle but impenitence in the way of the full exercise of mercy towards offenders ? If it be otherwise, what explanation shall we find of many ample declarations which the Almighty has made in his holy word, of his will and power to save the penitent sinner ? One remarkable passage, taken from the 18th chapter of Ezekiel, will suffice to impress the force of this argu¬ ment. “ If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath com¬ mitted, they shall not be mentioned unto him. In his righteousness that he hath done, he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked shall die, saith the Lord God, and not that he should return from his ways and live ? When the wicked turneth away from his wickedness, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth and turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.”— Now what exception can we possibly take to this pas¬ sage of holy writ ? Shall we dare to aver that the de¬ mands" of justice are not satisfied by a course of pro¬ ceeding which God has expressly declared to be his own ; or does it not approve itself to reason, as calcu¬ lated in every view to secure our reverence to laws es¬ tablished on such equitable and unimpeachable princi¬ ples of wisdom and goodness ? II. Having thus examined the arguments which have been drawn from the nature of things, and from what we know of the natural principles of justice and equity, 12 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 12 to prove the doctrine of satisfaction, by the sufferings and death of Christ, and given many reasons why they do not appear solid or conclusive 5 we shall now pro¬ ceed to advert to some of the arguments drawn from scripture . The doctrine of atonement for the sins of men, by satisfaction received from the sufferings and death of Christ, is argued from the comparisons made by the writers of the New Testament, between the death of Christ, and the sacrifices, and other ceremonies, under the Jewish law'. In this argument it is assumed, that the sacrifices and offerings under the Jewish law pro¬ ceeded upon the notion of satisfaction for sin, by vica¬ rious punishment ; which cannot, I think, be proved. Victims were slain upon the altar of the Lord, not only as sin-offerings, but as peace-offerings and as burnt- offerings. Now, peace-offerings were intended to express the thanks of the offerer for the mercies of Providence, and were the acts of grateful homage ; and therefore there could be no idea of punishment included in the sacrifice of a victim in such instances. Burnt-offerings, also, had no reference to sin, but were offered to God as to the Creator, Lord, and Preserver of all, who is worthy of all worship and honor. From this it is most evident, that under the Jewish law, the death of a victim in sacrifice does not of itself express the idea of punish¬ ment for sin. Sacrifices and offerings to God taken from the fruits of the earth, or from the animals which lived upon its surface, seem to have formed the earliest kind of worship which mankind paid to their Creator. They were not, then, capable of a more refined kind of worship, and the idea of offering gifts to God was suit- 13 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 13 able to their rude notions of gratitude and piety. This became a part of the religion of the Jews, not from any intrinsic worth or propriety that there was in such a mode of worship, hut because it suited best the untutor¬ ed mind of men under this temporary and imperfect institution. The holy men who lived and wrote under the Jewish dispensation, are at great pains to confute the supposition that there was any intrinsic worth in such offerings, and, indeed, studiously enlarge upon the inefficacy and unimportance of the rite of sacrifice. To show this, I need only produce one or two passages from the Old Testament. “ Thou desirest not sacri¬ fice,” said David (li. Psalm. 16, 17) “else would I give it, thou delightest not in burnt-offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart thou wilt not refuse.” “ To what purpose,” saith Jehovah by his prophet (Isaiah i. 2) “ are a multitude of your sacrifices unto me ? I am full of the burnt of¬ ferings of rams, and the fruits of fed beasts, and I de¬ light not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he- goats.” And also that splendid passage in the book of Micah, (vi. 6, 8) “Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the Most High ? — Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old ? He hath shown thee, O man, what is good, and what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God ?” Thus the writers of the Jewish church absolutely disown the notion of being able in any way to present God with an equivalent or compensation to induce him to pardon ; and it is plain they had no idea that their sacrifices under the law were a type or symbol of any VOL. VII. — no. i.xxiv. 2 14 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 14 equivalent or satisfaction which should subsequently be given for the sins of men. For if they had viewed their sacrifices in this important light, they certainly could not have spoken of them as, under any view, tri¬ fling or insignificant. There certainly is a great number of passages in the New Testament, in which the death of Christ is com¬ pared to that of a victim in sacrifice ; and he is also, in several places, said to have redeemed us with his blood, to have borne our sins, to have given himself without spot to God, that he might purge our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Expressions of this kind, brought together from different parts of the New Testament, present an appearance of confirming very strongly the doctrine of the real sacrifice of Christ ; and when they are adduced, are usually appealed to with great confidence, as admitting of no other meaning, without the adoption of a violent and unnatural method of interpretation. But there is an obvious reason for suspecting that no such interpretation of these passages can appear natural , since they evidently refer to rites and customs with which we are by no means familiar ; and being originally written by persons brought up in the Jewish religion, for the use of those who were per¬ fectly acquainted with its forms and ceremonies, might very naturally be employed to express ideas which will be almost certain to appear to us fanciful and unnatural. We are not to expect that we should be able to under¬ stand scriprure, without taking such circumstances into consideration. Happily, indeed, the New Testament was written by plain men, whose humble rank and want of learning, preserved them from the obscurity which arises from the affectation of science, and qualified 15 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 15 them for writing works which were intended for the use of all mankind. But that they should be perfectly free from modes of expression peculiar to their own country and religion, and derived from the circumstances of their own times, was not to be expected, and if practica¬ ble, would probably have been productive of no real benefit 5 since it would have deprived their works of those features, which furnish a powerful argument for their genuineness. We should soon find ourselves involved in the most palpable errors, if we always adopted that which ap¬ peared the most obvious and natural interpretation of every passage. The most natural interpretation of the words of Christ respecting the Lord’s Supper, “ This is my body,” is that which the Roman Catholics give to them ; but we are not for that reason bound to sub¬ scribe to the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. We must make use of common sense, and consider the general purport and strain of Scripture, or we shall make both heresy and nonsense of various parts of it. It is an obvious rule in perusing any work, to interpret that which is obscure, consistently with that which is plain ; and where language is used which is evidently figurative, which is borrowed from some other subject, and is applied by way of illustration or ornament, to al- low r a greater latitude of interpretation, than when the terms are simple, and strictly appropriate to the subject in hand. The general question, then, to be determined, with respect to passages of this nature occurring so fre¬ quently in the New Testament, is this ; Can a method be discovered of accounting for the application to Christ of such expressions as are borrowed from the ceremo- 16 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 16 nies of the Jewish law, without supposing that any exact and close correspondence was originally intend¬ ed ; and such a method as shall leave unimpeached the credit and authority of the Christian Scriptures as the divinely appointed rule and standard of our faith ? We think that such a method may be discovered, and ought to be applied^ unless we be resolved to charge upon scripture the obscurity and uncertainty which are the result of our previous prejudices. Suppose the case of men born Jews, and brought up in the pious profession of the Jewish religion, attending with devout assiduity upon the temple worship, and “in all the ordinances of the law blameless.” Suppose them to have arrived at a mature age, with their religious habits, sentiments and expressions, modelled after the form of a ritual and ceremonial dispensation ; and at that period let them be introduced to the knowledge of a more spiritual, purer system of religious faith and practice, and let them become inspired apostles and writers under this new dispensation ; let them have oc¬ casion to write epistles to separate communities of be¬ lievers, composed in a considerable degree of men brought up, like themselves, in an attachment to the ancient institutions of Moses. What will naturally be the style of their religious writings ? Certainly it will be Jewish ; and where religious expressions already in frequent and devout use appear applicable to new topics, they will be used in preference to others, of which no definitions are at hand, or which must be made on pur¬ pose. This would naturally be their style of writing. And there would be a great advantage in its being so. For the more familiar the language, the better it is un¬ derstood ; and an abstract method of expressing religi- 17 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 17 ous truths would be an uninteresting jargon, quite foreign to all practical use or benefit. Again, let us consider what impressions might na¬ turally be felt by those writers, and by those to whom they wrote ? Something of this sort ; — that, though the understanding fully admitted the superior excellence of the Christian system, yet there was a void in their feelings, a loss of some of the pleasures and tastes of a religious kind to which they had been accustomed, anc a frequent tendency towards apathy and indifference on the subject of religion. As this exposed converts to the temptation of going back to Judaism, and was a stumbling block for those who remained in unbelief, it was highly important to provide against it. And it was natural to take the method of providing against it, which is employad in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Christian Hebrews had been reproached by their unbelieving brethren with the want of an altar, a priest, a sacrifice. In answer to this, the writer shows that there was a sense in which they wanted none of these. Let us now suppose, farther, that the author and principal person in this new spiritual kingdom, after leading a blameless and holy life, in continual obedi¬ ence to God, and pursuit of the best interests of man, was persecuted on account of his goodness, and the sublime objects he had in view, and indeed voluntarily submitted himself to the effects of their rage, and suf¬ fered death upon the cross ; after which, being raised far above principalities and powers, and being no longer subject to their control, he had power given him from on high to send forth his apostles upon the ministry of reconciliation unto all nations ; delivering from the power of death, by the evidence of his resurrection^ VOL. VII. — no. lxxiv. 2* 18 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 18 and from the power of sin, by the proclamation of for¬ giveness for sins past, and a future righteous judgment. Can it be said to be unnatural or absurd for persons trained up in the ancient religion, to describe so won¬ derful, so glorious a series of events, by all the images that had formerly been devoted to express their most sacred, exalted, and delightful conceptions ? Can we wonder, that Christ should be termed a sacrifice, a priest, an altar, a mercy-seat ; that he should be com¬ pared to the priest entering into the holy of holies ; and that his ascending to heaven should be described as an entering within the veil, offering up himself as a sacri¬ fice once for all, now to appear in the presence of God for us ; putting away sin by his sacrifice of himself? Thus we see that, both by habit and design, it was natural for the apostles of Jesus Christ to express themselves, on this animating and delightful subject, with a considerable latitude of language. Nor can we see any objection to their being allowed to follow the natural bent of their feelings in this respect. It con¬ ciliated, without misleading, the Jews, who were accus¬ tomed to such allusions ; and it would neither mislead nor revolt those of the present day, if they duly reflect¬ ed upon the necessary influence of previous circum¬ stances on the minds of the apostles. Having proposed this general key for the interpreta¬ tion of the passages in which the death of Christ is compared to the sacrifices under the law, it is proper that I should now examine some of them more particu¬ larly ; that it may appear how far it is capable of appli¬ cation. I shall confine myself to a very few instances. Romans, iii. 24, 25. “Being justified freely,” says the apostle, “ by his (that is God’s) grace through the 19 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 19 redemption that is in Christ Jesus ; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, (or rather, as all modern com¬ mentators agree to translate it, a propitiatory, that is, a mercy-seat) through faith in his blood ; to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forgiveness of God.” The apostle here represents Christ as a mercy-seat, consecrated by his own blood, on which the goodness of God, as it were, takes its stand, and declares his gracious purposes and dispositions towards mankind. What was the mercy- seat amongst the Jews ? Here it was that God made the glorious declaration of pardon and favor to penitent sinners. “ There,” says the Lord, “ I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mer¬ cy-seat.” (Exod. xxv. 22.) With what propriety and force might this title be applied to Christ ! He, indeed, became the seat of mercy. By his means did the Lord God commune again with his people. He was the me¬ dium of the mercy of God, in proclaiming to the world a clearer revelation of his will. Christ is also said to have been “made a curse for us.” Here it may be fairly asked, whether by his being made a curse is meant, in the eye of the Jews, or in the eye of God his Father? It is allowed that the Jews denounced him an accursed person. But if by accursed we mean living under the displeasure of God, this was so far from being the case with respect to Christ in his death, that in this very circumstance he was the object of the divine complacency in the highest degree ) as he himself says, tC for this reason does my Father love me, because I lay down my life and it is a general obser¬ vation in the scriptures, that “ precious in the sight of God is the death of his saints.” But the verse speaks 20 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 20 for itself, if the whole be read, and the apostle appears anxious to explain what he means. “ Christ hath re¬ deemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us ; for it is written, accursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” Now Christ was hanged on a tree, and therefore, in this legal sense of the word, he was accursed. After stating these instances, let us repeat, it must be clear that these expressions are not all to be taken literally ; for if they are, they absolutely contradict each other. For instance, a curse and an acceptable sacrifice , are totally inconsistent. For to render a sa¬ crifice acceptable, it was requisite that it should be pure : u Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God any thing wherein is blemish, or that is an abomi¬ nation unto the Lord thy God.” Either, therefore, Jesus was not a curse, or he was not a sacrifice, in the sense of the believers in the commonly received doc¬ trine of the atonement. Again. Christ was a priest, a victim, and a mercy seat : how are these things to be reconciled if all are to be taken literally ? In 1 Cor. v. 7, Christ is compared to the Passover or Paschal-lamb — u Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us.” Here it is plain that Christ is described under the figure of the Paschal-lamb, just as the Christians are exhorted to be pure under the figure of unleavened bread. But consider also the nature of the sacrifice to which Christ is here compared. Was the Paschal- lamb a sin-offering ? Certainly not. The death of the first-born of Egypt was the punishment of a crime in which the Israelites were so far from participating, that they were, in the nature of things, incapable of being guilty of it ; and the feast of the Passover was meant 21 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 21 as a joyful token of their deliverance from the bondage of the Egyptians ; and was therefore the farthest pos¬ sible from a satisfaction by vicarious punishment. In the 1 Oth chapter of Hebrews, 12th verse, the wri¬ ter, speaking of Jesus Christ, says, u this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.” In this and a number of other passages, Jesus Christ is compared to a sin-offering un¬ der the Jewish law. Nor do we deny that Jesus Christ might most properly be considered as a sacrifice for sin, because his death and resurrection were necessary to the confirmation of that gospel by which sinners are brought to repentance, and the hope of eternal life ; and therefore reconciled to God. It will be said, that this is not a literal and real sacrifice. But can it be proved that the writers of the New Testament intended to represent Christ as a sacrifice in the most literal sense ? That they did not seems capable of an easy proof, from the following consideration. They have ap¬ plied the same language to a variety of other subjects ; which they certainly would not have done, if they had conceived that Christ was a real sacrifice, and his death the great original of this religious rite. Thus St Paul exhorts Christians to ic present their bodies a living sa¬ crifice.” St Peter describes them as a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, u to offer up spiritual sacrifices ac¬ ceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” We are exhorted in the epistle to the Hebrews, “ to offer up the sacrifice of praise to God continually.” To do good and to communicate, forget not, “ for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” “ If I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy and rejoice in you all.’’ And in Romans xv. he speaks of himself as the minister 22 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 22 of Jesus Christ to the guilty, ministering the gospel of God, “that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” Thus we see that the writers of the New Testament were in the habit of applying this language to a great variety of subjects ; which makes it less probable that when they applied it to the death of Jesus Christ they meant that we should understand them literally. Besides, though it is under this image of a sacrifice that they frequently speak of the death of Christ, it is by no means the only representation which they give of it. He is described as a good shepherd laying down his life for his sheep. He speaks of himself as a grain of corn, which, unless it fall into the ground and die, abideth alone, but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit. He is spoken of as a captain leading his followers to salvation. By a variety of figures, he is described as a priest, an altar, a mercy-seat, a high-priest entering within the veil, a sacrifice. Here it appears, that what¬ ever comparisons are made between the death of Christ and the sacrifices, and other ceremonies of the law, they are all capable of being explained in the same way, as expressions having great beauty and propriety when considered as figurative, but destitute of both, if we attempt to explain them by a literal mode of interpreta¬ tion. Those passages which represent Jesus Christ as hav¬ ing ransomed and redeemed us, are to be explained in a similar manner, by reference to the general style of sacred Scripture. It is common in Scripture to de¬ scribe the world as in a state of bondage and captivity, held under the strict dominion and oppression of ene¬ mies, Now, it was a custom with most nations to hold 23 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 23 their captives in a state of abject slavery, unless a sum was paid for their restoration to freedom. Mankind were slaves to the grossest superstitions ; the slaves o* sin, under the bondage of sin. From this slavery when they became Christians they were delivered, they were ransomed. When they are described as bought or pur¬ chased, this is an expression used in many cases, where, in a literal sense, no price was paid for the deliverance. Thus Exodus xv. 16, ‘‘Fear and dread shall fall upon them, till thy people pass over, O Lord, till thy people pass over which thou hast purchased.” Deut. xxxii. 16, u Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise ? Is he not thy father that hath bought thee ? Hath he not made thee and established thee ?” God buys a people when he interposes in their favor. And thus Christ purchased us by his death, not from God, but from sin and the power of death ; for he delivered us from the evil course of this world, and gave us mo¬ tives for holiness and obedience, arising from faith in God to forgive sin unto eternal life. So, with respect to the word redeemed , we are described as redeemed from all iniquity ; and we are exhorted to redeem time, in which no literal notion of purchase can be admitted. To produce all the passages which relate to this sub¬ ject, and to afford distinct explanations of them, would greatly exceed the limits of this Tract. What has been said already, may perhaps be sufficient to enable us to understand the principles on which they may be explained consistently with the general sense of Scrip¬ ture ; and so as not to contradict our established belief in the wisdom, goodness and mercifulness of God. And shall we despise the riches and long suffering of God, as displayed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because the 24 TIIE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 24 means which he has adopted do not exactly accord with our expectations ? Shall we find fault with them as not sufficiently splendid and dignified ? The simplicity of the means employed is surely one of the greatest proofs of the divine origin of the Christian institution. When we consider what important things are revealed to us, what more can we desire ? We are told of the forgive* ness of sins, the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting; of the providence of God ever exercised over us and in our behalf; the ascension and immortali¬ ty of Christ, the perpetual love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Why should we wish for knowledge on more important subjects ? What is there incomplete for di¬ rection and instruction in righteousness ? What is there that could have a more happy tendency to inspire us with the most fervent love and veneration of God, and to fill us with sentiments of the most sincere gratitude to¬ wards Jesus Christ ? We look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who, having overcome death, is become the author of eternal salvation to all them that believe in him. He that was dead is alive, he is present to intercede for the welfare of his church, and he will come again to receive his faithful followers to himself. May we earnestly strive to prepare ourselves for his glorious appearance, that we may not be asham¬ ed before him, at his coming, but may be received unto glory, and honor, and praise, through the mercy of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.