they now see it. It will teach them to reverence the faithful who in earlier times labored under so many difficulties and yet so well, and into whose labors amidst so many advantages they have entered.

T. J. Sawyer, D.D.

ARTICLE XVII.

A Study of the Atonement.

THE poet Young, in the last of his seven "Satires on the Love of Fame," promised his readers

"Some future strain, in which the Muse shall tell
How science dwindles, and how volumes swell;
How commentators each dark passage shun,

And hold their farthing candle to the sun;

How tortured texts to speak our sense are made,
And every vice is to the Scripture laid,"-

and although his language was confessedly satirical, it was barbed with sufficient truthfulness to make it stick in the public mind, where, like a well-aimed and strongly driven shaft, it still holds lodgment, and to some extent serves its original end. For notwithstanding the patent fact that science in general has not dwindled, but increased, within the last hundred years, and that, together with the other sciences, that of Biblical interpretatien has made notable gains, it is still true that many commentators and representatives of the various exegetical schools are prone to shun those Scriptural passages which cannot be explained in the light of their views, or to twist and pervert them as ingeniously as possible to bring them into seeming harmony with the dogmas which they fondly cherish, and to which they have pledged themselves beforehand.

I bring no railing accusation against any particular set of interpreters. I simply call attention to a prevalent tendency, which is limited to no one sect, but from which, probably, no sect is entirely free. I make bold to say that in my

opinion our own sect is not entirely beyond some suspicion of being influenced by that tendency, in respect to its treatment of certain passages which bear upon disputed questions. Not so much in regard to the foremost question upon which it has differed, and differs still, from the most of the other great bodies of Christians, as in regard to some lesser and subordinate questions, do I think that 1 see that this suspicion is true.

No one can justly charge the Universalist Church with having shunned any of the passages which bear, or are supposed to bear, on the pre-eminently important question of the destiny of human kind. Far from it, this Church has made a specialty of the interpretation of those passages, and has dealt no less frequently and openly with such of them as are commonly claimed by the Partialist Churches in support of the doctrine of endless punishment, than with those which support in the plainest manner the great doctrine of the final salvation of all men. Universalist preachers and commentators, instead of shunning the passages which relate to the punishment of impenitent people, have sometimes been charged, on the other hand, with treating those passages too exclusively, to the neglect of other portions of God's word to mankind. They have been charged with an excess of controversialism. Whether this charge be true or not, it exonerates them from the counter charge of refusing to consider those parts of the Bible. As a matter of fact, they have not only considered them, but have rescued them from the darkness in which the Partialistic interpretation involved them. They have been the pioneers in throwing light upon those passages and showing what they really mean. That they have made them all entirely clear is perhaps more than can be fairly claimed. think it is; and for my own part, I am still waiting for a thoroughly satisfactory explanation of those passages which refer to the second death. But in the main the Universalist exegesis of those portions of Scripture which bear on the subject of human destiny, is clear, and rational, and convincing. Every year it makes converts among scholars and thinkers, and in the end it will surely prevail as the truth.

I

I am not sure that the same can be said, however, in regard to a certain class of passages which relate to the method, or to the moral and spiritual processes, by which the result is to be accomplished. To speak more directly, I doubt the correctness, in one important particular, of the ordinary Universalist idea of the atonement, and the ordinary Universalist man er of dealing with some of the passages which bear upon it. As a sample of the class of passages to which I refer, let me instance the first and second verses of the second chapter of the first general epistle of John: "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." I am not satisfied with the manner in which our Church has treated this passage; for while it has properly laid great stress upon the evidence which the passage furnishes as to the extensiveness of the work which Christ does for mankind, it has failed, in my opinion, to give due recognition to the character of that work, or the nature of that atonement, as indicated by the language of which the apostle makes use. It has failed to give a clear and satisfactory explanation of the statement that Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father, and the propitiation for our sins. Indeed, so far as I know, it has hardly given any explanation at all, but has contented itself with denying and disproving the interpretation which is given by the Partialist Churches.

I

say the interpretation, rather than the interpretations, of the Partialist Churches, because, notwithstanding the variations to which it is subjected by them, they all hold to the same fundamental theory, basing their various modifications upon essentially the same premises which they assume to begin with. What their theory is may be briefly told; viz., that sin is an infinite offence against God, on account of which He was infinitely angry at us, and had justly condemned us to infinite punishment-or, in other words, to bc excluded from His presence, and to be consigned, at the death of our bodies, to a place or condition of outer darkness, in common language known as hell,

There to converse with everlasting groans,
Unrespited, unpitied, unreprieved,

Ages of hopeless end,❞—

but that He was willing to release us from the penalty if some one else, who was properly qualified, would serve as our substitute, and in our stead bear the penalty, or such an equivalent for it as would satisfy His wounded honor and vindicate the claims of justice. Such a substitute was found in the person of Jesus Christ, His Son, who, by humiliating himself to wear our nature and suffering death upon the cross, made reparation for our sins and appeased God's wrathful feelings towards us. Having horne in our stead what we deserved, he is entitled to demand our exemption from it; and this he does if by faith in him we accept his services. Standing before the throne of God, he advocates the cause of those sinners who trust in him, and by pleading for their acquittal on the ground that he has suffered for them and has satisfied the claims of justice, he propitiates God towards them and saves them from hell.

Now this theory certainly has the merit of being easy to understand. It is definite, clear, and, if the premises be granted, logical. It rightly begins with a definition of sin and a statement of its consequences, showing the need of a propitiation for it, and of our having an advocate with the Father on account of it. And it cannot be denied, moreover, that belief in it has a mighty influence to make men love and honor Jesus and devote their possessions and lives to his cause. Its natural tendency is to make them feel that he is their best friend and only hope, and to excite in them a lively gratitude for the service which he had rendered to them.

But notwithstanding all that may be said in its favor, we feel obliged to reject this theory as unreasonable, unscriptural, and dishonoring to God. We cannot admit its definition of sin, nor consent to the imputation which it casts on God's character. Desirable as it is that men should love and honor Christ the Son, it is at least equally important that they should love and honor God the Father; and the tendency of this theory is to exalt the Son at the expense of the Father in the esteem and affection of mankind. It derogates from God's

goodness, mercifulness, and lovableness, and inclines its believers to regard Him with a shrinking feeling, a feeling of uncomfortable awe and timidity, instead of with that filial feeling which they ought to entertain as His children and heirs. While calling Him the Father, it really presents Him in an unfatherly character and ascribes to Him, under the name of justice, the grossest injustice of which the mind can conceive. The Bible, rightly interpreted, gives no shadow of support to it. Nowhere in its pages is Christ called a substitute for sinners. Nowhere is it said that he has expiated our sins or appeased God's wrath. Nowhere is it said or intimated that he desires to save us from the punishment of our sins. Nowhere is it said that the punishment which we deserve is infinite in amount or everlasting in duration. All of this our Church has clearly seen and repeatedly stated, giving no uncertain

sound.

But what then? If Christ be not our advocate with the Father, and the propitiation for our sins, in the sense which this theory gives to the words, in what sense is he so? How shall we interpret the apostle's positive statement? To say that his language is metaphorical, and true in no other than a figurative sense, is not sufficient to meet the case; for it is not to interpret the statement at all. Granting that it is metaphorical, of what is it metaphorical? What fact does the figure express to our minds? What fact did the apostle intend to express by it? Let us not evade the issue. Good old Thomas Fuller prayed that he might never rack a Scripture simile be yond the true intent thereof, lest, should squeeze blood out of it. and might well have been heeded preted this passage as to squeeze blood from it. But on the other hand, we should be careful not to put too much water into the pure milk of this part of God's word. Dr. Bushnell, in his work entitled "God in Christ," charged the Unitarian doctrine of the atonement with "pumping out" the contents of the Scriptural forms; and he defined the doctrine as that which identifies atonement with reconciliation of men to God.

instead of sucking milk, he His prayer was a wise one, by those who have so inter