THIE

BIBLIOTHECA SACRA,

No. LXXVI.

AND

BIBLICAL REPOSITORY,

No. CXXVIII.

OCTOBER, 186 2.

ARTICLE I.

THE ATONEMENT, IN ITS RELATIONS TO GOD AND MAN.1

BY REV. ENOCH POND, D.D., PROFESSOR IN BANGOR THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY.

THIS little book has been for a long time before the public. The substance of it was published, in four sermons, almost forty years ago. In 1844 it was re-written; the form of sermons was dropped, a new chapter added, and it was given to the public in its present state. Since that period, it has been extensively circulated, not only in our own country, but in foreign lands. It has been translated into several languages, as the French, the Welsh, and the Low Dutch. In the preface to the last edition of his Controversy with the Unitarians, the late Dr. Wardlaw speaks of it with high commendation.

But in the midst of so much approbation, it has not entirely escaped censure. As might have been expected, the Unitarians early laid their hands upon it; and almost immediately after its publication in its present form, it was

Christ the only Sacrifice; or, the Atonement in its Relations to God and Man. By Nathan S. S. Beman, D.D. With an Introductory Chapter by Samuel Hanson Cox, D.D. Second Edition; Revised, re-written, enlarged, and improved. New York: Mark H. Newman. 1844. 58

VOL. XIX. No. 76.

subjected to an elaborate and merciless criticism in the Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, vol. xvii. p. 84. "This book," say the reviewers, "is in itself of little consequence; but from its gross and confident misrepresentation of the truth, it has more of the power due to falsehood, than any book of the kind we know" (p. 138). In the following remarks, we shall have more frequent occasion than we could have desired, to refer to this Review.

The view of the atonement presented by Dr. Beman is that commonly known as the governmental theory; the same that was advocated by Doctors Edwards, Griffin, Emmons, Mr. Burge, and many others. According to this view, the atonement is an expedient of infinite love and mercy, adopted with a view to satisfy the justice of God and sustain his law and government, in extending pardon and salvation to guilty men.

race.

The work before us is divided into five chapters. The first is on the necessity of an atonement. An atonement was necessary, not to make God merciful, but to open a way in which his mercy could consistently flow out to our guilty It was necessary, to manifest God's supreme regard for his law, his holy hatred of sin, and his determination to punish it as it deserves. It was necessary, also, on account of "its practical influence on moral and immortal beings," in this world, and in all worlds. It is sometimes asked: Why could not God pardon repenting sinners without an atonement? To this it is pertinently replied: None ever would have repented without an atonement. The mere influence of a broken law never brought sinners to repentance, and never will.

Dr. Beman's second chapter is on the fact of an atonement; which he argues, first, from the bloody sacrifices of the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations—a form of worship which was extended all over the ancient world. There is no accounting for this peculiar mode of propitiating the Deity, but on the ground of an original divine institution. Nor" would God have appointed such a propitiation, but on the supposition of its symbolical, typical character, pointing

forward, as the scriptures assure us that it does, to the expiation of the cross. The fact of the atonement is also proved by numerous and positive declarations of God's word.

The next two chapters are on the nature of the atonement; in the first of which the author examines and refutes the supposition that Christ perfectly obeyed the law for us, and bore its literal penalty in our room and stead, thus paying our debt to justice, and cancelling all demands of the law against us.

"This system would destroy all mercy in God the Father, in the salvation of sinners, because it represents God as totally disinclined to the exercise of compassion till every jot and tittle of the legal curse was inflicted. On the same principle grace or pardon, in the release of the sinner from future punishment, would be out of the question; for what grace or pardon or favor can there be in the discharge of a debtor whose demand has been cancelled to the uttermost farthing? And as to the benevolence of the gospel, it is impossible to discover how such a feature can consist with that idea of the atonement which represents Christ as having suffered the same amount of penal evil which would have been embraced in the future condemnation of all those who will be redeemed by his sacrifice. What wisdom or benevolence can there be in a plan or expedient which shall inflict a certain degree of suffering upon the innocent, who could never deserve it, in order to spare the guilty from precisely the same degree of suffering, and to which, too, their sins had justly exposed them." p. 122.

In the following chapter (the fourth) Dr. Beman sets forth, more fully than he had before done, what he conceives to be the true nature of the atonement. He regards Christ as having suffered, "not the literal penalty of the law, but that which will fully vindicate the divine character, and support the divine government; while God, at the same time, offers pardon and eternal life to the sinner, and actually secures these blessings to every one who complies with the terms or conditions on which they are offered." This view of the atonement leaves the sinner still exposed to the penalty of the law, and in need of pardon; and represents pardon and salvation as being entirely of grace as much so as though no expiation had been made.

In the fifth and last chapter, Dr. B. considers the extent of the atonement; showing conclusively, from its very nature,

and from a great variety of scripture representations, that it is not limited to the elect, but is sufficient for the whole human race. The offers of the gospel are freely made to all men, and those who fail of heaven will finally perish, not because no atonement had ever been made for them, but because they rejected the provided Saviour, and would not come to him that they might have life.

Dr. B. might have added another argument for the universality of the atonement, from the fact that all men are greatly benefited by it in the present life. The probation of grace on which we are all placed, and every favor we receive in connection with this probation - the air we breathe, the varied blessings of Providence which we enjoy, the means of grace, the strivings of the Spirit, the forbearance of God, long waiting on us to be gracious; in short, everything of this nature, common to the elect and nonelect in the present life, — all is based upon the atonement of Christ; flows to us through this broad channel of mercy; and shows conclusively that, whether embraced or rejected, the provisions of the atonement are for all.

Such, then, is the plan of the work before us—a plan ably and faithfully carried out, rendering the book one of the best in our language on the important subject of which it treats; worthy of the high reputation of its author, and of the wide circulation to which it has attained. His reviewers may indeed say, as in fact they do, that the view here taken presents no proper atonement for sin; that it is little better than the Socinian view, and in some respects even worse; but intelligent Christians will judge differently. They will say, that this is the atonement which Paul and the other apostles preached, and in which they trusted; that here is the corner-stone of Zion, on which the whole church of God rests, and will rest forever.

Having thus expressed our honest appreciation of this work, a judgment in which, we doubt not, we shall be sustained by the generality of Christian readers, we proceed to point out some slight defects or infelicities of statement which have given rise to misrepresentations as to the author's meaning.

In urging the necessity of an atonement, Dr. B. lays an undue stress, in some passages, upon its influence in deterring from sin, promoting obedience, and thus advancing the good of the universe. "The penalty of the law," he says, and of course the death of Christ, the appointed substitute for the penalty," was intended to operate as a powerful motive to obedience; and the execution of this penalty, whenever it takes place, becomes an awful warning to deter others from transgression" (p. 127). Again: "the moral law could never be set aside without the adoption of those precautionary measures which would secure the order and prosperity of the universe as effectually, to say the least, as the infliction of the penal curse would do" (p. 128). Passages such as these have led his reviewers to insist that Dr. B. "denies that sin deserves any punishment for its own sake," but only as a means of deterring others from transgression, and that the great object aimed at in the atonement is to promote the good, the order, the prosperity of the universe, rather than to sustain the law, and vindicate the character and the justice of God. Nor does the influence of these defects of statement, if they be such, end here. By the good of the universe, the reviewers understand the mere happiness of the universe; and they remark, at length, on the great error of setting the happiness of the universe. above its holiness, above the justice and glory of God, above everything. Now that the real meaning of Dr. Beman is perverted and misrepresented in these passages, no candid

1 There is a difference of opinion among writers on moral and theological subjects as to the meaning of the word benevolence. Some-and among them the Princeton Reviewers - insist that benevolence regards only the happiness of its object, and that such men as Doctors Edwards, Hopkins, Emmons, and others, who resolve all holiness into benevolence, make happiness the chief end of creation. Whereas, a greater mistake could not possibly be made. Benevolence, with these men, looks at the good of its object-its highest good; involving, of course, and chiefly, its highest attainments in knowledge and holiness, and not merely its highest happiness. The holy character of God, the scriptures assure us, is all comprised in love, which love can be no other than benevolence. Still, this does not imply that God regards above all things the happiness of the universe, but rather its supreme good, involving its highest spiritual good, and his own highest glory.