was not executed upon him. The transaction then was simply this: The most glorious and innocent person in the universe, who was capable of suffering, was punished in the most grievous manner, having no sins to answer for, either his own, or those of others. Is there any need of argument or illustration on a point so plain? Is there any thing conceivable more incompatible with righteousness than the punishment of an innocent person? And it will not change the nature of the transaction to say, that Christ consented to endure this exceeding weight of misery. For any one to consent to be dealt with unjustly cannot make it just: if a man consent that another should kill him, or deprive him of his liberty, the consent cannot make it right. How then could it be just in God to afflict with pains so inconceivably great, his own Son? If he were considered in the light of a sponsor, or substitute, then indeed the case would be changed. We shall not now discuss the question, whether a substitute for sinners is admissible; but supposing that Christ did become a substitute, then he could be punished consistently with justice; but if we consider him as an innocent person, subjected to the penalty of no law, and having no demands of justice to satisfy, then there can scarcely be expressed a more selfevident proposition, than that his death and sufferings are irreconcilable with justice. Dr. M. admits, that the regular course of distributive justice is suspended. "Justification is a real departure from the regular course of justice;" but this departure from justice does not relate to the sufferings of Christ, but to the remission of the penalty of the law, incurred by transgressors. There is therefore a twofold injustice necessary to be supposed, according to this theory: the one in the sufferings of the innocent; the other in the remission of punish ment to the guilty. How God can be just while he departs from the regular course of justice, is what Dr. M. has yet to explain; and how that departure can be an exhibition of his righteousness or justice, is a problem still more difficult to be solved. The Ruler of the universe, in the atonement, departs from the regular course of justice, in the punishment of the innocent, and in the release of the guilty; and yet this transaction is to exhibit his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus! We have no doubt that the learned professor has thought much on this subject; and yet it is manifest to us, that he would have done well to extend his views still farther than he has done. His scheme needs much addition to render it in any degree consistent. 3. Our third remark is, that according to this theory the death of Christ has in it nothing of the nature of atonement. An atonement is a satisfaction made to an offended person in behalf of the offender. It is a means of appeasing the anger of the person injured. An atonement for the sins of men must contain in it a satisfaction to God on account of their sins. It is an expiation, or propitiation for sin. But according to this scheme, it is a mere symbolical transaction, intended to make the impression that God is righteous. But this is no atonement. Suppose God had fixed upon something else as the symbol of this truth-suppose he had annexed to the vivid lightning, this meaning, would there be any propriety in calling this an atonement? Take away all idea of the death of Christ being a satisfaction to law and justice in behalf of sinners, and you destroy the very nature of atonement. The name may be retained, but the thing is gone as completely, as in any system of Socinianism whatever. And vicarious sufferings are excluded from this system by the express and repeated declarations of the author; therefore all inquiries and disputes respecting the persons for whom the atonement was made, are pronounced to be improper, and to arise from not understanding the nature of the atonement. That the author does reject the idea of vicarious satisfaction from the atonement, is manifest from the whole tenor of the discourse, but it is explicitly stated in his third inference, when he says" These controversies (about the extent of the atonement) arise from the supposition, that the atonement draws after it by necessary consequence, the salvation, or at least the pardon, of all that believe. And they have given no little trouble to those who hold the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction." Now we contend that this destroys the very nature of atonement, and that the word ought not to be retained. Suppose that we were informed, that a number of soldiers had disobeyed orders, and incurred thereby a heavy penalty, but that an atonement had been offered and accepted, is it possible to separate from it the idea of the persons for whom it was made? If an atonement has been made, in whatever it consists, the inquiry will ever be proper; for whom was it made? For every thing which partakes in any degree of the nature of atonement, must have relation to offences, and these suppose persons who are chargeable with them. And an atonement which has no relation to offences committed, is an absurdity; if the word be applied to things of this kind, it is an abuse of language. All that is said in this third inference, in the conclusion of the sermon, furnishes conclusive evidence, that according to the theory of the author, the true nature of atonement is completely destroyed. 4. Moreover, it will appear by an impartial consideration of the principles laid down in this discourse, that an effectual atonement is impossible, because the principal ground of punishing transgressors cannot be removed by any atonement. The author admits that sin deserves to be punished on account of its intrinsic evil; but he asserts, as we have seen, that nothing that a Mediator can do, will have any effect to remove this reason of punishment. Then it must remain in full force, or must be removed in some other way. What that way is, the preacher has undertaken to inform us, p. 16, 17. "They (sinning creatures) must become holy; this, and this only, can remove the first ground of punishment-and this certainly will remove it." Now, however strange this doctrine may appear to some persons, we ought not to be surprised at the earnestness and confidence with which it is asserted; for if this position cannot be maintained, the whole theory is perfectly nugatory. There is no doubt that the principle here assumed, whether true or false, is a corner stone in this fabrick. Let us see then what has been brought to support it. The whole is included in the latter clause of a sentence already quoted. "When creatures cease to be sinners, they cease to be odious in the sight of God." The author seems, however, to have felt some misgiving about this matter; for, in the next sentence, the idea is repeated with some addition: "Their new and holy characters," says he, "render them now lovely in his view; and he can therefore feel no repugnance, so far as their present characters are concerned, to embracing them as his dear children." What does he mean by "present characters?" If no more than that a holy God must be pleased with the present holy exercises of a holy soul, it is true, but nothing at all to the purpose. Does God, in viewing the characters of his creatures, extend his attention to nothing but the pre sent exercises? Do not all the actions ever performed go into the estimate? Let us suppose two creatures of similar faculties and advantages, one of whom departs from the way of rectitude, and lives for many years in the commission of the most enormous crimes, while the other retains his innocence and never offends; but at the end of this period, the first returns (no matter how) to his original state of purity; must God, from the holiness of his nature, view them with the same approbation? Does the ceasing to perform evil acts immediately obliterate them, so that they can have no effect on the Divine mind? It is wonderful that the sagacious author did not feel the force of his own sound reasoning in the next paragraph. He has committed deeds which cannot be recalled. He is a trangressor of the law, and must forever stand guilty. What is done can never be undone. All he can do will be to repent of the past, and cease to do evil for the future." Now, these are incontrovertible truths; and Dr. M. will do us a great favour, if he will show why they do not apply as perfectly to the first ground of punishment laid down by him, as to the second. When men form an estimate of the characters of one another, do they not comprehend in their view the whole conduct of every person, as far as they can ascertain it? If it were not so, a man who had reformed need not be ashamed of having perpetrated the most abominable crimes. God views things as they are, and in their just connexions. All the actions of a man belong to him, and go to form his character; those performed long ago are as much his own, and as truly appertain to his character, as those which he is performing at the present moment. It cannot be, there fore, that God can look upon one who is stained with the guilt of enormous sins, in the same light as if he had never offended, because he has now become holy. He must for ever contemplate the man as one who has been guilty of heinous offences, and as He acts agreeably to his own views of truth, He must deal with such an one according to his character. We speak now in relation to the theory of Dr. M., for we believe that by a Mediator, the greatest sinner can be so reconciled to God, that he can be received as if he had never offended: but this can never be the case upon the plan here proposed. A mere change of character can never remove this ground of punishment. Indeed, to suppose that it could, is to suppose that guilt contracted by a series of evil acts, can be obliterated by the performance of holy acts, afterwards. This is the identical error of those, who think that repentance will certainly wash away all former sins. But if the intrinsic evil of sin be a just ground of punishment, as Dr. M. fully admits; and if a creature by transgression has incurred this punishment, then his performing his duty afterwards can have no effect on his former guilt. His good conduct for the present will secure him from incurring more guilt, but the old charges stand in full force against him. If then this ground of punishment cannot be removed by making the creature holy, and if, as Dr. M. asserts, "nothing that a Mediator can do will remove it," what is the condition of every sinner? Is not salvation impossible? For, when by the atonement, the second ground of punishment is removed, the first standing in full force, all the sufferings and work of the Mediator must be utterly ineffectual. Dr. M. should have examined this ground more thoroughly, before he ventured to trust his whole structure upon it. He has certainly brought himself into a dilemma: either reformation must have the efficacy of cancelling contracted guilt, or the salvation of any sinner is impossible; for here is a punishment incurred which no atonement can remove. We have not a doubt that this single thing is sufficient to demolish Dr. M.'s whole theory. The foundation is unsound-his main principle is perfectly untenable; and when this is removed, the superstructure must fall-unless we can be reconciled to a scheme which would plunge every sinner into utter despair. (To be concluded in our next.) DIDACTICO JOHANNIS MARCKII CHRISTIANE THE- Editio prima Americana, accu- No republication of an old book in our country could, we think, have given us more pleasure than that which is here announced. We are pleased, not only because MARCK'S Medulla is a theological work of prime excellence, copies of which could not easily be obtained, but because we hope this republication furnishes a presumption that the taste and demand for such works are increasing among us. We certainly do need, and that egregiously, in the English language, a good system of didactick theology, in which a short, clear and satisfactory notice should be taken of the many points of controversy. Wanting this, the book before us is perhaps the best subVOL. II.-Ch. Adv. stitute that can be found. Indeed, we think it better than any thing that could, in the same compass, be expressed in our language-Latin being far more favourable than English, to the forming of a summary at once perspicuous and complete. We therefore earnestly recommend this valuable manual to every theological student, and to every young clergyman in the United States, who may read our miscellany. In this work, justly styled Medulla, he may see, in the narrow compass of 334 duodecimo pages, a fair exhibition of all the important points of theology, the principal passages of scripture, by which the doctrines laid down by the author are, in his opinion, supported, and the chief objections of Papists, Prelatists, Arminians, Socinians and Infidels, stated and answered. The author, it is well known, was a stanch Calvinist, of the old school. But we should suppose that such a work would have attractions, not only for those who think with the writer, but for those who differ from him toto cœlo: for if it be natural, that the former should be desirous to see the best arguments by which their faith may be defended, the latter, we should think, must be curious to observe in what manner an able adversary notices and replies to their objections. We have compared this American edition, cursorily, with four European editions, and pretty carefully with the copy from which the reprint has been made. The American edition, so far as relates to paper and typography, is decidedly superior to any of the others. Its editor also, has corrected a multitude of minor errors in the language. The few which remain, are mostly to be found in the first 80 pages, and in the quotation of texts from the Greek New Testament, with which the work abounds. But there is not an error, we think, of such a nature as to occasion any difficulty to the reader, even with R out a reference, which might easily be made, to the passage from which the quotation is taken. The double index which accompanies the American edition, and which is found in one only of the foreign editions which we have seen, is a most valuable appendage. It enables the reader to turn immediately to any topick discussed, or to any text of scripture which the author has explained or alleged. In a few instances, the American editor has changed a little the expressions of the author. These changes we have examined, and in our judgment they are all clearly for the better; and the editor has had the fairness to specify them all at the beginning of the book. Still we should have been better pleased, if the text of the author had been permitted to stand exactly as he framed it, with the proposed alterations inserted at the bottom of the page. There are, it is true, some variations in the readings of the European copies; but wherever these occurred, recourse might have been had to the larger work of the author, from which the Medulla has been extracted-his Compendium Theologiæ Christianæ, which forms a quarto volume. Or if this was not accessible, as we are told that it is scarcely to be found in our country, it would certainly not have been difficult to consult the commentary of the author's pupil and friend BERNHARDIN DE MOOR,* * DE MOOR, in the preface to his commentary, gives the reasons why he had chosen to build his system on the Compend of MARCK as a foundation; and he quotes from the Compend, the reasons assigned by its author for not making it more diffuse.-They are worthy of the attention of all who may peruse the Medulla, to which they are still more applicable than to the Compend. The whole passage is as follows "Theologiæ hoc Compendium præ aliis elucubrandum sumsi varias ob causas. Tum ut gratum probarem animum pro institutione solidâ, quam ex tanti Præceptoris ore scriptisque haurire mihi licuit; proque benevolentiâ singulari, quâ me dum in which, no doubt, the text of our author is found as he left it. Having mentioned the commentary of de Moor, we cannot forbear to express our high estimation of its merits, and to add that a venerable professor of Theology, whose opinion on such a subject we regard as second to none in our country, considers it, we know, as instar omnium, among works of systematick Theology. We avow, nevertheless, that our own favourite systematick writer is PICTET. His three quarto volumes in French, and a fourth, containing his Chris viveret amplexus est. Tum ut quadantenus responderem voto, quo, paucis ante obitum mensibus, Vir mihi desideratissidemici annum in Trajectinâ transacturus mus, quum postremum tirocinii mei Acapalæstrâ hinc abirem, ultimum mihi dixit vale; se sperare indicans, laborem à me susceptum iri, ubi ipse desineret: quanquam non nisi eminus tantum Virum sequi mihi datum sit; & passibus æquis cum ipso incedere longè majorem ingenii sagacis, eruditionis vastæ, judicii subacti, memoriæ tenacissimæ, facilitatis promtişsimæ & incredibilis, posceret copiam, quam vel mihi vel plurimis per benignam Dei Providentiam nancisci contigit. Ideo insuper mihi exponendum arrisit hoc Theologiæ Compendium, quia cum multos in cæteris scriptis superaverit Eruditos alios, in hoc Systemate conscribendo semet ipsum superasse videatur Vir clarissimus: adeo, juxta idoneos & æquos rerum harum arbitros & judices, præ plurimis aliis Theologia Compendiis, & ordine concinno, & verborum aptâ brevitate, & rerum solidissimarum copiâ immensâ verissimè emimagis distinctam hujus Compendii Acadenet. Sed hoc ipsum quoque explicationem mica Juventuti tanto magis reddit necessariam atque exoptatam. Verè enim scripsit AUCTOR noster in Præfatione operi huic præmissâ: Stylus contractus à me adhibitus est, non ut studiosè veritates obscurarem, aut quod clariùs cogitata vasto volumine exprimere non possem, ; sed ut pro ratione Compendii paucis verbis multa complecterer, ac judicium & industriam auditorum meorum acuerem &c. En, Juvenes optimi, est hoc Compendium tale, ut laborem à vobis exigat indefessum; absque quo per ejus lectionem levem non proficietis.Lectio subsequi debet, cum attentione ad verba singula, ex quibus haud facilè multa admodum frustrà posita reperietis; eaque repetita potiùs, quam nimium festinans aut protensa." |