ily proved from a review of the principal authors who have opposed the doctrine of the atonement; of which several striking exemplifications will be brought forward, in the course of the present article. But as it is not our intention to deal in needless criminations, we shall direct the attention of our readers to the leading parts of the question, as already stated; both because such an arrangement of topics naturally suggests itself, and because it will lead us to an orderly examination of the principal reasonings and researches, in the volumes before.

us.

We have said an orderly examination of the volumes. Had their reverend and learned author consulted the principles of methodical arrangement, we should not have thrown out any remark, which might assume, for a moment, the tone of censure. But however highly we may estimate the work itself, we must in limine frankly state, that its profound and interesting disquisitions would have appeared to much greater advantage, had the second edition presented an entire alteration of the plan adopted in the first. It was originally published in one volume, containing two discourses, with a number of subjoined references to the notes of the appendix; occupying at least four fifths of the volume, and printed on an inconveniently small type. As this disposition of the parts appeared to be the effect rather of accident than of design, we were willing to hope, when the present edition was announced, that the whole would be remoulded on a simpler and more coherent plan. There are, indeed, some alterations and additions; and the notes, which are seventy-six in number, appear in a type of the same size as the sermons, in consequence of which im provement, the volume is very properly extended into two But the difference in respect of arrangement is so trifling, as to retain all the disadvantages of the first edition. The value of the discourses cannot be duly appreciated, by their becom ing only a sort of text to the elaborate commentary that follows a kind of syllabus or table of contents, without the advantages of an alphabetical distribution. Many of the notes refer to other notes, in which the subject happens to be more amply discussed. The affinity of their parts is merely that of aggregation. They are loose and unconnected; and though made up of costly and invaluable materials, are in some mea sure deprived of the effect which would have been secured, by a greater degree of concentration in the arguments, and a happier method of combination. We make these remarks with the greatest deference and respect, because we are desirous, that a work of such acknowledged ability, so eloquent in its diction, so forcible in its reasonings, and so accurate in its criti cisms, should be something more than an unorganized mass of

philology, and possess, with all its higher attractions, a natural and logical arrangement.

The first principle, which it is necessary to establish in conducting an inquiry into the doctrine of atonement, respects the moral government of God. By "moral government" we understand, the enactment and operation of laws, regulating the conduct of rational beings, and enforcing those regulations by rewards and punishments. That such a system of government is established by the Supreme Being, is a conclusion supported by a variety of analogical reasonings. It arises from the mutu

relations of man and his Creator. If there be indications of wise and benevolent design in the government of the natural world, it is a rational presumption that they should be displayed in the moral department of the universe. It would be truly inexplicable, if, after the proof of undoubted superintendance in the operation of those laws that are subservient to the welfare of man, man himself, for whom this extended system of mighty and minute contrivances was formed, should be abandoned to the caprices of instinct and desire, and have no idea of the end of his creation, of his dependance, and his destination. We are therefore compelled to admit that, either by revelation or by some intelligible medium of intercourse, the Almighty would make known to man, his duty, and enforce, by appropriate sanctions, the obligations which devolved upon him. Proofs of such a revelation having been made, are happily within our reach; and the more accurately we investigate its nature and import, the more shall we be satisfied of its consonance with the dictates of reason, and of its singular agreement with many of the fragments of early tradition, that seem to have been preserved for the purpose of authenticating its ancient records. Adverting to the discoveries of scripture, we find that God made man, in his own image;" a sublime description of the original dignity of his nature. The fair lineaments of that moral resemblance to God were soon effaced, and their beauteous proportions destroyed, by the entrance of sin. But sin, and the law, of which it is a violation, are correlative terms. We are led then to inquire, what was the law, or system of moral government, under which intelligent creatures were placed? The "great teacher sent from God" has given us an admirable compendium of that law,-which was virtually inscribed on the heart of man, in his state of primæval rectitude; which was more fully developed in the precepts and probibitions of the decalogue; which was explained in the writings of the prophets; which his own life perfectly exemplified; and, some faint impressions of which, have been preserv ed, in the universal dictates of natural conscience, amidst all

the darkness and depravity of our nature, That law required supreme love to God, and "love to our neighbours, as ourselves." But what are laws without sanctions, without annexations of reward to secure obedience, and of punishment, to prevent transgression? Even in this world, we find by experience and observation, that a connection so generally obtains between vice and suffering, virtue and happiness, that we are in some measure enabled to ascertain the principles on which it is founded. We consider the facts as clear intimations of a moral government, divinely administered; and, on consulting. the pages of scripture, we learn that "there is a God who judgeth in the earth." If the consequences of our actions in the present state, may be viewed in the light of moral sanctions, we may naturally expect a full disclosure of their nature and extent in the sacred volume. There we find the claims of God on our homage and obedience, to be unlimited. The relation in which he stands to us, involves in it every demand which can appeal to our convictions of duty, our sense of interest, or our capacity of pleasure. "A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master-if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear, saith the Lord of Hosts ?" In the character of God, we meet with endearment and authority combined. A violation therefore of claims, so natural and so just, enforced by such a combination, must be awfuly aggravated. Should we be surprised, that DEATH should be inflicted on the guilty; and that this sentence should extend not only to the present state, and include in it all the miseries of mortality, but respect a condition of future suffering, without mitigation and without end? Such is evidently the import of those solemn denunciations which the authority of Heaven promulged, as the sanctions of his lawCursed is every one that continueth not in all things, written in the book of the law to do them."-" The soul that sinneth, it shall die." When these threatenings were annexed to the divine injunctions, it was not merely that they should operate in terrorem, without any serious intention of actually inflicting them, in case of transgression, This would be an absurd and irrational supposition. If, therefore, they were annexed as the sanctions of law, on what ground were they ever set aside? Why is the penalty demanded in their infliction relaxed? In other words, what constitutes the medium of pardon, and what authorizes the hope of it? We conceive that every scheme but that which admits of a sacrificial mediation, reflects on the veracity and justice of God,-implies an exorbitance in the

2. * Malachi, 1. 6. † Deut. xxvii. 26. compared with Gal. iii. 10.

prior demands of the law-deranges the order and harmony of the divine perfections and nourishes the flattering, presumptuous idea of impunity.

It would be easy to verify these general assertions, by an ample detail of scriptural reasonings; but it is our intention in this part of the inquiry merely to consider the total inefficacy of that ground of hope, respecting our restoration to the favour of God, to which the opponents of Atonement and Sacrifice direct us. It is pretended, that, repentance, will satisfy the claims of justice, and cancel the enormities of sin. To this, we reply in the eloquent and impressive language of Dr. Magee, that

pu

actual experience of the course of nature directly contradicts the as sertion; and that in the common occurrences of life, the man, who by in temperance and voluptuousness has injured his character, his fortune, and his health, does not find himself instantly restored to the full enjoyment of these blessings, on repenting of his past conduct, and determining on future amendment. Now if the attributes of the Deity demand that the nishment should not outlive the crime; on what ground shall we justify this temporal dispensation? The difference in degree cannot effect the question in the least. It matters not whether the punishment be of long or of short duration; whether in this world of the next. If the justice or goodness of God require that punishment should not be inflicted, when repentance has taken place, it must be a violation of those attributes to permit any punishment whatever the most slight or the most transient.

What reason have we to suppose that God's treatment of us in a futurę state will not be of the same nature as we find it in this; according to established rules, and in the way of natural consequence?-Our experience of the present state of things, evinces that indemnity is not the consequence of repentance here: can the counter-experience be adduced, to shew that it will hereafter? The justice and goodness of God are not then necessarily concerned, in virtue of the sinner's repentance, to remove all evil consequent upon sin in the next life, or else the arrangement of events in this, has not been regulated by the dictates of justice and good.

pess.

Now let us enquire, whether the conclusions of abstract reasoning will coincide with the deductions of experience. If obedience be at all times our duty, in what way can present repentance release us from the punishment of former transgressions? Can repentance annihilate what is past? Or, can we do more, by present obedience, than acquit ourselves of present obligation? Or, does the contrition we experience, added to the positive duties we discharge, constitute a surplusage of merit, which may be transferred to the reduction of our former demerit? And is the justification of the philosopher, who is too enlightened to be a Christian, to be built after all upon the absurdities of supererogation? "We may as well affirm," says a learned Divine, "that our former obedience atones for our present sins, as that our present obedience makes amends for antecedent transgressions." And it is surely with a peculiar ill grace, that this sufficiency of repentance is urged by those who deny the possible efficacy of Christ's mediation; since the ground on which they deny the latter, equally serves

for the rejection of the former: the necessary connection between the merits of one being, and the acquittal of another, not being less conceivable, than that which is conceived to subsist between obedience at one time, and the forgiveness of disobedience at another." Vol. I. Disc. I. pp. 5-8,

The inefficacy of repentance is capable of other illustrations, derived from the actual conduct and general convictions of mankind. The administration of just and equitable laws, in a well ordered government, is a striking emblem of that righteous retribution, which the supreme law-giver displays in all his judicial proceedings. What should we think of that judge who should dispense with the execution of the sentence of the law, after the clearest evidence of guilt had been ascertained, and in defiance of a plain and definite statute? We might at tribute his decision to lenity; but it would be properly replied against such an exculpation, that justice to the criminal is mercy to the country. Nor would the exculpation be more valid, by uniting in our imagination the legislative and the ju dicial characters. It might be added, that the sovereign who made laws one day, and virtually repealed them the next, was incapable either of making laws, or of executing them, and was therefore unfit for the office he had assumed. It has been well remarked by Beccaria that " clemency is a tacit disapprobation of the laws.” "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" In opposition to this remark, it is sometimes asserted, that God is the universal Parent of mankind; that we are to be considered as his offending children; and as a kind and indulgent father would be satisfied with repentance, in case of transgression, "our father in heaven will forgive our trespasses,' if we repent and amend. To this specious plea we answer, that no single relation of a creature towards his fellow creatures, can adequately illustrate that higher relation, which the divine being sustains; and on this account, a variety of allusions is employed in the scriptures, that, by combining these scattered representations, we may approach to some just and accurate ideas of his relative character. Yet if we could imagine a case of peculiar enormity to arise, under the mildest domestic government, in opposition to a well-known and explicit injanction, it would be perfectly consistent with the benevolence of the father, and secure the future exertion of his power, to demand such a reparation of the breach that had been made, as the sincerest penitence would be totally inadequate to afford. He might display mercy in restoring the offender to favour, and righteous severity in the method of that restoration. The proof of repentance might be essential to the obtaining of paternal regard, though not the ground on which it was obtained. The medium of amicable intercourse might be itself the expedient of fatherly affection, and thus manifest at once his compas