Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

sibility of arriving at results that could satisfy himself, or secure the confidence of others. Had Mr. Adams done this, he would have disposed of the difficulty in regard to the radius vector of Uranus at a single glance. Not having done this, he was staggered by the question propounded by the royal astronomer, and deterred from the prosecution of his enterprise, till the appearance of Le Verrier's paper of June, 1846, encouraged him to resume it.

M. Arago thinks he sees in these facts abundant proof that "the work of Mr. Adams was only a rough sketch, an incomplete trial, in which the author himself, pressed by the difficulty which Mr. Airy had suggested, placed no confidence." The general truth of Mr. Adams' results would hardly justify so sweeping a sentence as this. The subsequent remarks of M. Arago, however, cannot be charged with injustice:

"If M. Le Verrier, aside from every consideration of ability, knowledge, and skill, was more fortunate, it was because he completely revised the theory of Uranus before undertaking his principal research; because he introduced into it important terms of which his predecessors had no knowledge; because he rectified, in accordance with his new theory, the differences which had been found between the tables and observation; because the errors which served as the basis of his calculations really existed, while the errors inserted in the Greenwich publications were stained with all the imperfections of Bouvard's tables."

In a letter published in the Athenæum, and dated Oct. 15, Prof. Challis considers the part taken by Mr. Adams in the theoretical research for the new planet, as sufficient to justify his proposing a name for it. With Mr. Adams' consent he suggests the name of Oceanus. This assumption of a right which obviously belongs to Le Verrier, strikes M. Arago as the climax of arrogant injustice. He protests against it with great vehemence, and with a tincture of bitterness which shows how keenly sensitive he is to the honor of France, and of French philosophers. Le Verrier waives his right to name the planet in favor of Arago, at whose request he commenced his investigations; and Arago insists on placing the name of the discoverer above the father of Saturn. Pope says, "Superior beings, when of late they saw A mortal man unfold all nature's law, Admired such wisdom in an earthly shape, And show'd a Newton, as we show an ape.'

[ocr errors]

What will they do when they learn that this apotheosis has placed a “glassmaker" at the head of their genealogy?*

Dickinson College, January 20th, 1847.

Astronomers do not seem inclined to adopt the name Le Verrier for the new planet, but have agreed to call it Neptune.

ART. VI.-Atonement as taught by Wesley, Fletcher, Clarke, and Watson, in their Sermons, and other Theological Writings. Published by Lane & Tippett, 200 Mulberry-street, New-York. "GREAT is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh." It is sometimes objected to the system of revealed religion, that it contains mysteries, and that this fact is derogatory to its claim of divine authority. The existence of mysteries is admitted; but this, so far from being an objection, is really a confirmation of the divine authenticity of the Bible. The unexplained and insolvable facts of revelation are in proof that man is not its author. Had it originated with man, it would be strange indeed if man could not comprehend it: but there being in the system a disclosure of facts and principles which come not within the natural range of human thought, its claim of inspiration is thereby confirmed. Indeed, we see not how it would be possible for God to make a revelation to the finite mind of man,-of the attributes and perfections of his own infinite character,—of the features of his moral government, and of the plan of salvation through a Redeemer all which sustain relations to other beings and other worlds, and take hold of the boundless nature of God, of which our knowledge must ever be imperfect-without containing facts and references above the reach of the most lofty human intellect.

Abstract these mysteries, and the pages of the Bible will present much less proof than they now do of being written by the finger of God. Apart from the mode of the divine existence, there is no one doctrine of revealed religion involving more of mystery and moral grandeur than the atonement. It has occupied the thoughts and pens of the most profound, and yet its depths remain unfathomed it is the soul and centre of all that is interesting, glorious, and blissful, in religion. Embracing the objects it contemplates, the grounds of its necessity, and the principles on which it proceeds, it is the most benevolent, mysterious, and exalted development of a mysterious and incomprehensible God.

Considering men as they are, it need not be a subject of wonder that different and discordant views of atonement should prevail. Interest, prejudice, and corruption, have much influence in the formation of religious opinions. Besides, the practice, which, unfortunately, is too prevalent, of subjecting the doctrines of revelation to the test of human reason, has long been a fruitful source of diversity and error in matters of religion.

To men of genius and erudition there is a strong temptation to

discard as divine truth what they cannot fully explain; and this tendency is quite apparent in some who claim to be, and are generally acknowledged, evangelical. They seem not to be aware that their aim is to take the exalted facts of revelation out of their proper place, and bring them down to the diminutive standard of their own comprehension.

The doctrine of atonement in its nature, objects, and relations to other doctrines of religion, is purely a subject of revelation. He who, with childlike simplicity, takes the Bible for his guide, will not greatly err; but he who discards the Bible only so far as he can conform it to his notions of right reason, or who makes rationalism the basis of his interpretations, will

"Find no end in wandering mazes lost."

There were no "theories of atonement" during the first two centuries. Not that the immediate successors of the apostles had no definite conceptions of the nature of atonement, but the age of philosophical speculation had not yet commenced in the church. These "fathers" adhered to the simplicity of the Bible, and attempted no nice distinctions or metaphysical statement of the facts and principles involved in this great subject.

The history of the various theories taught since theologians began to make atonement a subject of speculation is both curious and instructive. The first that made its appearance after this age was that adopted by Origen, and which subsequently became the prevailing theory of the Greek Church. In substance it was as follows:-The devil, by stratagem and fraud, had managed to get the human race under his control, and held them in absolute dominion. God, being interested in their welfare, sought their deliverance. This he might have effected by violence, but was restrained by considerations of justice. He, therefore, offered Christ as a ransom, which being accepted, the human race was set at liberty. But Satan was deceived in the transaction. For he supposed Christ to be finite: hence, when he proved to be also the Son of God, he was unable to retain him in his power; and, consequently, lost both his captives and the price of their redemption. Another theory-traces of which are found in the writings of Athanasius, and whose influence extended to the twelfth centuryattempted to explain the atonement with philosophical and dialectical exactness. In order to this, the judicial word, satisfaction, was adopted by the advocates of this view, and made the basis of their theory. Had they confined themselves to the Scriptural idea of satisfaction, they would not have been misled. But taking their

notion of satisfaction from "debiti solutio," (payment of debt,) they reduced the whole scheme to a commercial transaction, in which Christ is made to pay in kind and quantity the exact amount of the sinner's indebtedness. This is regarded by all sober divines as unscriptural, and unworthy the infinite and benevolent character of God.

A third theory, which prevailed from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, has been appropriately denominated "juridico philosophical." The principal advocates of this system were Anselmus, Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus. They taught that man was obliged not only to pay satisfaction for disobedience to God's moral government, but also an additional amount for the dishonor brought upon God. But this, man himself was unable to do. Hence it was determined that the Son of God, as God-man, should make this satisfaction. As God, he made satisfaction; and as man, he was surety for men in regard to what was yet deficient. The principle which lies at the foundation of this theory is undoubtedly correct, and highly important. It makes a clear distinction between God's essential and rectoral justice;-a distinction which should never be overlooked in contemplating that moral necessity which renders the atonement indispensable to the salvation of sinners. The error of this plan is not in its fundamental and ruling principle, but in the attempted explanation of the "modus operandi' in its execution.

To describe the various and conflicting theories brought into being by the wand of theological diviners since the fifteenth century, would require more space than can be spared in this paper; but we may speak of them as to their prevailing tendencies. They exhibit two extremes :-one, seen in the historical sketch given above, based on the notion that the atonement is to be understood in the light of a commercial transaction, or the literal payment of a debt. The other not only objecting to these views, but rejecting the proper idea of atonement in any form. The first extreme represents God as angered, enraged, implacable, revengeful; that he could not be moved to compassion till he saw blood flow; that Christ so took the sinner's place, as to have the sins of men imputed to him-as to be regarded by divine justice as a sinner, and receive the exact punishment due the sinner in his own person. The second saw no reason why God should be displeased at all— denied the existence of positive divine punishments-disrobed Christ of his divinity, and made the importance of his work consist in the value of his doctrine and instruction: while his death was

* Ziegler's Essay. Historia Dogmatis de Redemptione.

merely that of a martyr, in which he gave an example of forgiveness toward his enemies, and firmness and patience under suffering, worthy of all imitation. These extremes have assumed various forms and modifications, preserving the while their respective characteristics. The first gave birth to Antinomianism; the last, to rationalism and infidelity.

66

But out of this contradiction and confusion of the theological world has arisen another theory, which takes the middle ground, professing to avoid what is objectionable in both the above-named extremes; discarding the unworthy and degrading views of God and the atonement held by those who defend the quid pro quo" plan of redemption, and at the same time maintaining an evangelical position on purely Scriptural grounds, at an equal distance from the loose and skeptical notions of the Socinian school. This we shall denominate the Wesleyan, or Methodistic, theory; not because its chief features were not perceived before the days of Wesley, but because we are indebted to him and his coadjutors more than to any others for a plain and forcible explanation and Scriptural defense of it; and because it is the view adopted and cherished by Wesleyan Methodists both in England and America. The remainder of this paper will be devoted to an exposition of the nature of this theory. The works placed at the head of this article have contributed more to form the theological opinions of Methodists, than any, or all, other human productions; they are therefore justly considered standards, and as such we shall consult them in the course of our investigations. The method we propose embraces the following points :

1. The character of the moral law and design of its penalty. 2. Christ, the sinner's substitute in satisfying for transgression. 3. The sense in which Christ's death meets the demands of penalty.

In discussing the subject of atonement, it is important to get a clear view of the nature of God's law and the design of its penalty. If the law be not unchangeable and eternal, an imbodiment of the moral perfection of God, it follows it is based on expediency, and may be maintained or not, without materially affecting the character of God or the claims of justice. But if the law of God be perfect in the measure of its holiness, justice, and goodness-in short, if it be but the expression of the infinite and eternal mind, with respect to himself and all created dependencies, then the aspect of the subject is wholly changed, and the necessity for supporting the law in its dignity and authority, without any abatement, finds its vindication in the infinite nature of God. That such is the

« VorigeDoorgaan »