that a considerable body of men, in the very time of the Apostles, should believe the Saviour to be only God, if there was no proof of his being God at all! What ground could they have possibly had to stand on? But take into consideration the Scriptural testimony to the union of the Divine and human natures in Christ, and the mystery is explained, As the Apostles themselves preached the Godhead of Christ, the heretics we speak of would have something to go upon; and with the help of the cavils, now used by Unitarians, about the impossibility of a God-man, they would be able to make out as good a case against the Saviour's Humanity, as was ever made out against his Deity. The truth is a stumbling-block to the natural man; and we are not surprised at his striking his foot against it, on whichever side he may fall.

Another reason why Christ's Manhood is made so prominent in Scripture is a matter of practical importance to ourselves; and with it we will conclude the present subject. It is doubtless to remind us of the privilege of having a Saviour to go to, who, while possessed of all the perfections and attributes of Deity, has also all the feelings and sympathies of man; who having "himself suffered being tempted, is able also to succour them that are tempted." For my own part," says Mr. Jones, in his lecture on this subject, "I can honestly avow that there is no doctrine in the Book of Inspiration, on which I am accustomed to dwell with more heartfelt gratitude and delight, than that of the humanity of my Lord. Oh! the happiness of believing that as he is very God, so is he very man that, as in his uncreated Deity he "dwells in light inaccessible, which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see," so in his humanity he comes down to my comprehension, or at least to my sensibilities and sympathies, and I can think of him as one that dwelt here in a fleshly tabernacle like my own, as one who was perfected for the mediatorial work by the sufferings which he endured, as one touched with the feeling of my infirmities, having been in all points tempted like as I am." Let us then endeavour to hold close communion with our sympathising friend above, that we may be able more fully to value his amazing condescension in not being ashamed to call us brethren: and if any difficulties should still appear too hard for us with respect to the two natures being united in his person, let us follow the example of David, who did not "exercise" himself “in great matters or in things too high for him," but received them in simple faith, and "quieted" himself. Every mountain will fall before us, and every rough place become smooth, when we can say with him, "Yea, my soul is even as a weaned child." Ps. cxxxi. 2.

LECTURE XIII.

THE ATONEMENT.

A just God and a Saviour. Isaiah xlv. 21.

"THE character of God is described in holy Scripture by two marvellous words-really marvellous when fully and truly understood. God is LIGHT, and God is LovE. The government of God is a combination of these. 1. It is the govern. ment of a judge; and so viewed, it is light, and in it is no darkness at all. It is righteous, and in it is no unrighteousness at all. It is true, and in it is no falsehood at all. 2. It is the government of a father; and so viewed, it is love, and in it is no anger at all.-The glory of God as a judge is, that every jot and tittle of his law shall be assuredly fulfilled; every penalty incurred shall be assuredly inflicted. The glory of God as a father is, that he passes by iniquity, transgression, and sin; puts forth the secret and gracious energy, which transforms the wandering prodigal into the returning penitent; and receives the penitent into his open bosom of peace and perfect love. The suffering of Jesus Christ is the moral pivot, on which all this turns. There God proceeds as a judge, pronouncing sentence according to the law, which is holy white light; and there God proceeds as a father, receiving freely to a father's bosom adopted children in everlasting love. This is the combination, by which angels are delighted, devils defeated, sinners saved, and God glorified."

Such is the doctrine of the Atonement; "a doctrine," to borrow the words of another great writer, Soame Jenyns, "so constantly and so strongly enforced through every part of the New Testament, that whoever will seriously peruse those writings, and deny that it is there, may, with as much reason and truth, after reading the works of Thucydides and Livy, assert, that in them no mention is made of any facts relative to the bistories of Greece and Rome."+ Before proceeding to

• M'c Neile.

This author is called by Dr. Pye Smith, "A writer of eminence in the polite world, who knew extremely little of theological systems; but who, leaving a careless infidelity, read the Scriptures with attention and good sense, and described the effect produced on his mind by an unbiassed study of the sacred books."-Thucydides, it may be observed, wrote a history of Greece, and Livy a history of Rome.

N

examine the direct testimony of Scripture on this doctrine, we must first endeavour to remove some stumbling blocks which have been laid in the way, and which unhappily trip up the feet of many enquirers almost before they reach the threshold of the subject. They go to the examination with their minds so full of prejudices, mistakes, and misrepresentations, that the truth is fast barred and bolted out. Let us then clear the way, by considering the chief objections raised against this very essence of the Gospel of Christ.

I. In the first place we are told, that it represents Christ as more kind and merciful than God; that it represents God as requiring something to make him love us; as if Christ by offering himself on the cross produced in the mind of God a feeling of pity and compassion, which he did not feel before.

This objection can only arise from utter ignorance, or from wilful misrepresentation. For the bible teaches us-not that God loves us, because Christ died for us, but that Christ died for us, because God loved us. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son." The sacrifice of Christ did not make God love us, but enabled him to display his love towards us, consistently with perfect justice. God "delighteth in mercy; ;" and because he loved, pitied, and determined to shew mercy towards us, he gave His own Son to be a sacrifice for our sins, that the way might be clear for the exercise of that mercy, without His truth being broken, His honour sullied, His justice violated, His law trampled on with impunity. God would have been just as willing to pardon sinners without an atonement as with one, if it could have been done consistently with his other attributes-truth, justice, and righteousness. And what proof of God's love and mercy can the Unitarian produce, at all to be compared with this stupendous display of infinite compassion-the giving up his own Son to die for us guilty rebels? Yet men are found perverse and wicked enough to argue against the Atonement, as if it shewed God to be implacable and unmerciful, feeling no love to us until prevailed upon by Christ, and unwilling to forgive us without a price being paid for the pardon! It's very true, a price was requiredwhich he paid himself. And so because he was willing to pay the enormous price which his Holiness required for the pardon and salvation of his enemies, he must be a severe and vindictive Being, whose kindness has to be purchased!! It may be, that the injudicious expressions of some advocates of the Atonement have given a handle to such misrepresentations; but that is no excuse for unbelievers making use of the handle, to raise a prejudice against a plain doctrine of Scripture. Let us remark then at the very outset, (and it is of the utmost importance to keep it in mind during the whole of this subject) that, when we speak of God being reconciled, appeased, pro

pitiated, &c., by the death of Christ, we do not mean that it produced in him any change of mind towards us, but that it enabled him to act toward us, and to treat us, as a reconciled Father-which otherwise he could not have done, consistently with his Divine perfections. God would have felt the same toward us, whether an atonement had been made or not; but he could not, without one, have given effect to his benevolent intentions; and it was because he felt such love and compassion for us, that he provided a way of salvation, by which sinners might be received into his favour without relaxing the claims of Divine justice.

II. But when driven from this ground, the Unitarian falls back upon another; and denies that it would be any stain upon God's character to pardon a penitent sinner without an atonement; in other words, that truth and justice form no part of God's character, or if they do, that they can give way for the exercise of another part of his character-mercy. We reply, 1. No sinner in the Universe ever could have repented, unless Jesus had opened a way of access for him to his offended Maker, and had been "raised up to give repentance." More of this in a future Lecture. 2. This theory destroys all Jehovah's perfections; makes him a God of imperfect justice, imperfect mercy, imperfect truth, imperfect holiness, imperfect law. According to this, one attribute cannot be exercised without another having to give way: if justice is exercised, mercy must give way; if mercy is exercised, justice must give way. Whereas, by the sacrifice of Christ, all the Divine attributes are brought into exercise together, without any one of them yielding an iota of its perfection. 3. For the Creator to accept less than perfect obedience to his law would be acknowledging that his law was too strict, that he had required more than he ought to have required of the creature. 4. Reason alone would teach us that repentance of itself cannot blot out past transgressions, A creature is bound to obey God's law perfectly during his whole life. If he did so, he would do no more than just what it was his duty to do. But instead of this, he breaks it for the first half of his life, and then repents and keeps it for the second half. Can his repentance or obedience for the future do away with or make up for what is past? If he could serve God for the last part of his life twice as much as he is required to do, then it might atone for his past deficiencies; but however perfectly he may keep the law now, and however sorry he may be for not having kept it before, he is only just barely performing his present duty; repenting and amending his life is only just what he ought to do now, and leaves his former debt exactly the same as ever. No doubt God in his word promises forgiveness to the penitent; but then he tells us in the same word why he can do so consistently

with truth and justice, namely, because he has provided an atonement for our sins. We are not saying that repentance is of no avail, but that it would have been of no avail, if Christ had not satisfied the demands of God's law and borne our punishment. 5. The judgment of man's conscience with regard to the inefficacy of repentance alone to wash away sin is clearly shown by the universal custom of offering sacrifices; of which we shall have to speak presently.

But whether the foregoing remarks be considered as worth any thing or not is of very little consequence; inasmuch as the grand question, which must authoritatively decide the controversy, is-What saith the Scripture? Let us then see what verdict it gives on this particular objection of Unitarians, namely, that there is nothing in the nature or character of God, which stands in the way of his exercising mercy without

an atonement.

Ex. xxxiv. 5—7. "And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before him and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and fourth generation." By referring to your Bibles you will see that the words "the guilty" are printed in italics, which shows that they are not in the original Hebrew, but have been supplied by the translators to give what they thought the sense. It is very evident however, that the word "it" is the proper word to supply in this place, referring to what has just been spoken of, namely, “iniquity, transgression, and sin." So that God here proclaims one essential part of his "name" or character to be that he forgives sin, but yet will by no means clear it-no, not even by means of repentance. Something then does stand in the way of his forgiving the penitent sinner, namely, his determination not to clear sin or let it go unpunished. And how are these two things to be reconciled? How is the sinner to be forgiven, and yet the full penalty of his transgression to be inflicted? By Jesus submitting to the curse of the law for us, and dying "the just for the unjust." This is plainly taught by St. Paul in Rom. iii. 22—26. 66 For there is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be just,