tution and death for death were obviously represented, in a manner intelligible, and strongly emphatical. None but the guilty offered, and on their behalf was the offering made. If not vicarious, why this special designation? why required of them on account of their sins, and with a particular confession of their sins? The prophetick scriptures on this point, speak in perfect accordance with what the whole sacrificial system exhibited. Messiah 66 was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities"-" he made his soul an offering for sin"-" the Lord laid on him the iniquities of us all." And in accordance with these statements is the application made of them by Christ and his apostles. His "body was broken for us" "his blood shed for many for the remission of sins"-" we have redemption through his blood." His blood is recognized as the meritorious cause of that redemption. "He once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust." Sins were the direct procuring cause of his sufferings; and in the room and stead of the unjust did he suffer.

2. This scheme of indefinite atonement removes no difficulties attending the contrary scheme, but increases them in number and magnitude.

It is agreed on all hands, that there is a departure from the regular course of strict justice,* which

*We are not prepared to admit that there is any defect of strict justice, when a full equivalent is readily accepted by an offended or injured party, in place of the precise penalty incurred. There may be the exercise of benevolence by the of fended party, while the full demands of justice are rigorously exacted. And such was the fact in the redemption by Christ. If the acceptance of a full equivalent, in place of the infliction of the identical nalty, be thought and called "a departure from the regular course of strict justice," we are not disposed to contend; although we see not how it can be correctly said that there is any departure from strict Ch. Adv.-VOL. X.

pe

would have been the execution of the threatened penalty on sinners themselves. The question then is, what view of this matter is most in accordance with scripture language on this subject, and supposes the least deviation from the regular and undiverted course of justice? We hesitate not to answer-It is that which considers Christ's obedience unto death as strictly and truly vicarious. In this case a person, sui juris, who has " power to lay down his life, and power to take it up again," voluntarily submits to bear the punishment deserved by man; and justice so far yields, as to admit this voluntary substitution. This admission is all that differs from strict justice. In the obedience and death of the substitute, the law is magnified and made honourable, and vindictive justice has its full penal effect. The threatened curse is in full measure executed, and the sinner's debt is paid to the uttermost farthing. The believer who pleads this atonement is justified by a righteousness perfectly commensurate with law and justice. There has been rendered for him, by the admission and consent of justice, the full measure of obedience and suffering which were due: so that God is just both when he pardons, and when he bestows on the believer eternal life, as the reward of perfect righteousness; and justification is in fact what the very term denotes-an adjudging of a moral agent to the full rewards of righteousness, in consideration of the demands of that law being fully satisfied, under which he was placed. Christ is to him "the end of law for righteousness." Neither does his escape from punishment, nor his possession of eternal life, rob the law of God; but "grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by

justice, when all the demands of justice are strictly made, and strictly satisfied.

2 I

EDITOR.

Jesus Christ our Lord." Thus "God is just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." As we before said, the only departure from strict and regular justice, is in admitting that an innocent person, who was fully competent to the work, should voluntarily be "made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law," by doing and. dying for them.

Let us now examine the other views of this subject, which considers Christ's obedience unto death, as in no wise vicarious-That his sufferings were not the punishment of sin, nor the fulfilment of law, nor a satisfaction to justice; but an abstract exhibition of God's hatred of sin-Not of man's sin, nor of the sins of any creatures, but of sin under a general and abstract view. That in virtue of this exhibition having been made, God might, consistently with the honour of his moral government, bestow pardon and eternal life on whom he would. This scheme involves in it a wide and manifest departure from justice, in two respects.

1. Christ, a perfectly holy being, bears "death, the wages of sin," though no sin was, in any way, charged upon him. He did not suffer because guilty, nor voluntarily for the guilty. He was not under any law, yet he suffers and dies, just as a transgressor of law deserves to suffer and die. Justice, it is said, could not admit that, even with his free and full consent, the punishment of man's iniquities should be laid upon him. Yet that same justice, it seems, can admit the sufferings and death of Christ, without any special relation to law, justice, or sin. Is not this a far wider departure from justice than the admission of the voluntary vicarious sufferings of Christ? In the latter case, we see sufferings and death as the penalty of the violated law; in the former such relation is not only unseen,

but is explicitly denied to exist. Besides, I am wholly unable to see how such a dispensation exhibits God's hatred of sin. Had Christ been a sinner, or had his sufferings been, in any way, the punishment of sin, then the exhibition would have been intelligible and distinct: but as the case is supposed, I see no testimony of God's hatred of sin; for in the subject of those awful sufferings, there was no sin, personal or imputed. The sufferings were not the penalty of any law violated; they were not a satisfaction to justice in any way of fended. It would appear to me more natural and easy to view it as an exhibition of hatred to perfect holiness. Intelligent creatures, who witnessed his sufferings and death, might reasonably inquirewhy those awfully severe inflic tions? And were it answered-to show God's hatred of sin: the question would return-what sin? his own sin?-no: then what sin? Sin in general, is the answer. But what connexion or relation, it may still be asked, is there between his sufferings and sin in general? I can see no special connexion or relation whatever. His sufferings are not admitted to be the penalty of any law violated; nor the punishment of any sins which have been committed any where under the government of God. He was holy, and was not in a vicarious way related to any sinner, nor answerable for their offences. Yet "it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to grief." Surely in these disconnected, unrelated, and unmerited sufferings of perfect innocence, we see any thing else than an awful testimony against sin.

As I pass along, I see a father chastise his son with great severity. My first impression is, that he must have committed some grievous offence. On inquiry, I find that he has in no way offended. It now occurs to me as possi

ble, that he may have generously consented to bear what was deserved by some one, whom he affectionately loves, and who is less able than he, to endure the merited chastisement. But I am assured that this too is not the fact. I feel perplexed, and the proceeding is to me the more unaccountable, because I know the father to be eminently affectionate, wise, and prudent. The explanation, at last, is given. The father designs this as a display of his deep abhorrence of profane and licentious conduct. He intends to make manifest to all around, by this severity, that he feels an irreconcilable detestation of such conduct. Now, while I admire the design, I cannot but think that the means are very strange and irrelevant; and that special kindness to his son, and express disapprobation of the guilty, would have exhibited his state of feeling more intelligibly, and with more monitory effect.

In this view of the sufferings of Christ, there is a departure from justice, incomparably wider than in his sufferings regarded as strictly vicarious.

2. The same thing is true as respects the justification of those who believe. A sinner who has in ten thousand instances violated the law, and never perfectly obeyed it in any instance, is not only pardoned, but justified, and entitled to eternal glory. "It is, therefore," says one writer, "a real departure from the regular course of justice, and such a departure from it, as leaves the claims of the law on the persons justified, forever unsatisfied." With what propriety, I ask, can this be called justification? It is a case with which justice has nothing to do. God may be gracious in saving sinners, but he is not just: nor does he in this view justify any believer in Christ. Justification can take place only on one of two reasons, either per

fect innocence, or the demands of the law being otherwise fully satisfied: neither of which reasons are supposed to exist in this case.

As to the question, which scheme departs farthest from justice? there can be no doubt. The scheme we oppose expressly admits that in the justification of a sinner, justice and law have none of their demands. His sins have not been expiated by the obedience of Christ; he is not made legally righteous. There is in this case a total abandonment of the claims of justice and righteousness: and in contradiction to them, the sinner enjoys not only impunity, but the most exalted rewards of righteousness, even eternal glory. This scheme of abstract atonement it is supposed so accounts for the salvation of a sinner, as that his "pardon is absolute, and an act of mere grace; and of grace on the part of God the Father, as well as on that of God the Son." But we think, if it be an objection to the grace of the other scheme that it supposes satisfaction made to Divine justice, the same objection lies against this scheme also, when fully examined. An atonement, it is admitted, has been made; and that if the salvation of man had not been designed, it would not have been made. But, moreover, it was made with special reference to the sinner's salvation; every sinner is justified in consideration of it, and not until he has acknowledged the wisdom and necessity, and pleaded the benefit of that atonement. Justification, then, in this case, is not in all respects an act of mere grace, but involves a regard to an atonement made, as manifestly as when Christ's death is considered as strictly vicarious.

Farther the justification of sinners, it seems to be thought, is not of grace, if Christ paid for them the demands of the law. Why not? Though it be in its general

character a dispensation of justice, it is to man wholly of grace. There is grace, on God's part, in admitting a substitution, and accepting the sinner on his pleading that vicarious satisfaction. In the plan of redemption, God the Father maintains the rights of the divine government and authority; and I see no objection to the grace of man's salvation, though the Mediator paid the uttermost farthing, whilst the benefits of his mediation are given to man most gratuitously. The divine plan secures a perfect satisfaction to the law. It is a mattter wholly between the glorious persons of the Trinity. And having made a wise and holy adjustment, with a view to the salvation of sinners, they bestow it on man accord ing to the riches of divine grace. The Scripture speaks of grace, not so much with respect to the motives or measures of God's acts in them selves, as in their effect on men. The special application of the effects of atonement, is as much a matter of sovereign pleasure, and distinguishing grace, on the vicarious plan, as on the other. An atonement for sin in general, it is said, leaves it as a matter of sovereign pleasure to whom it shall be applied. True; but God's purpose ascertained to whom this application would be made. This purpose also ordained the death of Christ, and ascertained to whom that application should be made. In either way, the sovereign freedom and grace of salvation is the same.

The scheme of abstract atonement, therefore, removes no difficulties alleged to belong to the contrary scheme; but increases them in magnitude and number. M.

MENTAL SCIENCE.

Radical Principles brought to the test of Revelation.

Truth is worthy of being sought, examined, and treasured as pre

cious and imperishable. But it has often been said, no certainty can be gained in mental science. Attainments in this department are only theories, which may or may not be true: these theories are built on mere speculation, contradictory, unsettled, and changing as often as the fashions of the times. Now in sober earnestness, we believe the above representation has more of truth than of caricature or prejudice, in its application to the multiplied theories for explaining mental phenomena which have prevailed for ages. Even since Bacon furnished the key to knowledge, and taught men how to explore the recesses of philosophy, this department has been left mostly in the hands of speculative theorists. It is not now entirely rescued from the mysticism and dogmatism of theoretick speculation; and we fear it is not likely soon to be so rescued. There is ground for strong prejudice, not against the science itself, but against the manner in which multitudes have written and spoken on the subject; and against the unwarranted application of the speculations.

Every man who now undertakes to write or speak on the subject, is met by this prejudice, and will be considered by many judicious and good men as enamoured of deceptive and uncertain speculation. propose now to disabuse ourselves of such an imputation; and we think this can be done in two ways

We

by a fair and candid examination of the method which we have pursued, and which we have called inductive-and secondly, by bringing the radical principles of our articles to the test of divine revelation. If we do not, greatly mistake, both these ways will bring us to the same result, and conduct us to the truth.

The first method will ascertain the facts as they exist, together with their character and relations, which must be true. If this method