SECTION VIII. ATONEMENT. Q. I. IF the demerit of sin be everlasting death, and if all mankind by nature are dead in sin, why is the execution of justice suspended? A. It is on account of what is usually denominated the atonement. By the atonement the way is prepared for the offers of pardon and salvation to be made, and the execution of justice to be suspended, so that sinners may have an opportunity to accept of them. "He that believeth not is condemned already."a It is plain from this passage that according to the language of justice, every sinner is under condemnation; and it must be owing to mercy or grace that he is spared. In the parable of the fig tree our Savior represents justice as demanding the immediate execution of the law, and mercy as pleading for it to be suspended. The reason why mercy pleads that the execution might be stayed, is that the sinner might have an opportunity to repent and secure the favor of God.b Q. II. What do we understand by the atonement? A. By the word atonement is generally understood a full reparation made for the commission of some crime, or the neglect of some duty. In some cases this reparation may be made by the guilty themselves, but in others it is not possible. When a man has violated the principles of commutative justice, and has not punctually met his engagements, he may afterward atone for his neglect by giving his creditor ample satisfaction. But in the case of sin it is a John iii. 18. b Luke xiii. 6—10. impossible for the sinner himself to make reparation. When an offence is committed against a government, in order that the offender may receive pardon, the government has the same right to require satisfaction as an individual. Sin is a crime committed both against God and his government. As God has a just demand upon every sinner for the affection of his heart, and for the improvement of his time and talents, when he has once violated his law, if he were perfectly obedient ever after, as it would be nothing more than his duty for that time, it would never make reparation for past guilt. Now, if an atonement be made for the sinner, it must be made by some other being. That being must be able to make reparation to the government of God, before it can be expected he will be satisfied. Nothing can satisfy his government but that which will show his opposition to sin, and his determination to maintain the law, as much as would be shown in the execution of the penalty. If this can be done, his government can sustain no injury, though sinners should be pardoned. Q. III. What evidence have we that such an atonement has been made? A. It can not be expected that evidence of this kind can be obtained, except from the Scriptures. But if we resort to them, the question is answered at once. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."a "He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities." "The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed."b "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." The day after our Savior had risen from the dead, he a John iii. 16. b Is. liii. 5, 6. overtook two of his disciples as they journeyed toward Emmaus, and finding that they were discouraged because their Master had been put to death, and his body committed to the grave, he reproved them in the following severe and comprehensive terms: "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory?"a "Christ died for our sins."b These are but a small number of the passages that speak with a plainness and decision upon this subject that no art or ingenuity can evade. To any one who reads the Bible with care and attention, the declaration that the doctrine of atonement is not contained in it must be surprising, especially if it come from one who pretends to make it the foundation of his faith. Q. IV. Why could not pardon be extended to sinners without an atonement? A. For the same reason that pardon can not be extended to murderers, consistently with the stability and safety of government. Unless sinners are punished, or the disapprobation of government toward the violation of law be manifested in some way or other, it is impossible for the government to be supported. From such a government, however vile and mischievous a man may be, he can have nothing to fear. The authority of law would exist only in name, and it would have no possible influence in the suppression of vice. Perhaps it may be thought that since the great Jehovah has power sufficient to maintain his government, he has no need of such motives. It is doubtless true that he has power sufficient to bring every being in the universe into perfect submission to his law; a Luke xxiv. 25, 26. 1 Pet. iii. 18, and i. 18, 19. b 1 Cor. xv. 3. Rev. v. 9. Heb. ix. 28. 1 Thess. v. 10. 1 Cor. v. 7, and vi. 20. but it must be remembered that his is a moral government, and must be supported by means of motives. So far as men comply with what is required, without motive or design, or, in other' words, so far as they are compelled by an overruling and almighty power to comply without any willingness or unwillingness of their own, there is no blame or praise to be attached to them. In a government supported in this manner, none of the perfections of God, such as justice and mercy, could be seen. It is then important that men should be capable of being influenced by motives; if this were not the fact, we see not how purposes of mercy could be accomplished by them. From these observations it must be evident that if God were to pardon sin without an atonement, it would result in the following evils: 1. He would be unjust to his law; as he would manifest no respect to it, or determination to support it. 2. He would be unjust to his kingdom; as nothing would be done to suppress disobedience, or to promote peace and good order. 3. He would be unjust to himself; as he would furnish his creatures with no evidence that he is a friend to holiness, or an enemy to sin. Q. V. By what was the atonement made? A. Concerning the proper answer to this question, there are different opinions. It is thought by many that the atonement was made by the obedience of Christ; by others that it was made by his sufferings; and by others still it is attributed to both. From the remarks which have been made in showing the necessity of an atonement, it is plain that the object for which it is made is to support the honor of the divine character and government, and at the same time lay a foundation for the pardon of repenting sinners. This, it may be readily seen, can never be accomplished but by something that would manifest the holiness of God, and his hatred to sin, as much as if he were to inflict upon sinners the penalty of the law. By which of these things, to which the atonement is ascribed, is this object seen to be accomplished? By the obedience or sufferings of Christ, or both? When we speak of the obedience of Christ in our discussion of this subject, we must mean his conformity to the precepts of the moral law, otherwise there would be no ground for dispute. If his willingness to come into the world on his errand of mercy, or his obedience unto death be what is intended by the term, there is no room for debate. No one, it is presumed, will be inclined to contend that his sufferings and death could in any sense be meritorious, unless they were the effect of a voluntary choice. The question now is, does the obedience of Christ, when understood in this sense, manifest in the holiness of God and his hatred to sin as much as if divine justice were executed? It would seem that the suggestion of this question would render any answer unnecessary. By what means can it be said, that, by a cheerful compliance with the requirements of the law, the Lord Jesus has shown the determination of the Father to support and vindicate it? Would sinners infer from this, merely, that a violation of the law was a crime deserving of infinite punishment? Would they certainly conclude that God was determined to execute the penalty of his law? If this expression of the feelings of God would render it consistent for him to issue his proclamation of pardon, then might not every monarch, as far as he had himself obeyed is own laws, extend pardon to every guilty offender; or |