seen in Christians, did place them on a juster footing before God, and raise them to a higher as well as happier moral state.

It

I venture to claim for Christianity that it has put forth this great doctrine, the love of God to man, more powerfully than any other religion. It is, I believe, the attractiveness of this great truth which is the secret of that power which to this day is seen. in evangelical revivals. It is a great thing indeed to bring home to man's heart that God does love him. And I would also maintain that we see this doctrine in unsurpassed beauty and purity in the original and unquestioned teaching of Christ. was his reproach that he received publicans and sinners. It was his profession that he came to seek and to save that which was lost. He taught his disciples a universal kindness to their fellow men by the example of God, who maketh the sun to shine, and the rain to come down, alike upon the evil and the good. The most beautiful of all his parables describes the reception of the penitent. Among the last acts of his life was an intercession for the human instruments of his murder.

The above remarks upon the great Christian idea of grace appear to me true and just. But I am bound to add that there are views connected with this doctrine, in the minds of many Christians, which seem to me open to objection. The act of divine

mercy is generally thought of as consisting of two parts—the pardon of sin upon the part of God as our sovereign, and an actual influence from him upon our spirit to make us better. I do not wish to challenge the truth of this kind of analysing of God's dealings with us. The ideas may be the best which we can at present form, but I do hold that in both cases the views popular with many Christians present a difficulty. We will begin with the first. The act of pardon on the part of God is not thought of by Christians as a mere act of grace or mercy, but is believed to be founded upon an act of Christ on behalf of man, and mainly his death. I say mainly, because a very considerable school of divines hold, not only that the death of Christ procured for sinners the forgiveness of their sins, but also that the active obedience of his life is in some way made over and attributed to them, and obtains for them divine favour in place of an actual righteousness of their own. Now there seems to me to be something in certain popular views of this reconciling of sinners to God by Christ opposed to our natural moral convictions. The simple idea that Christ the God-man died on our behalf, or in a popular sense died even in the place of man, i e. for others' sins, when without sin, is certainly taught in the Scriptures, and does not present, I think, any difficulty. That he should die as a martyr to his great cause, or give up his life in some

way which was, upon principles unknown to us, connected with the forgiveness of our sins, is only a height of virtue, an act of self-sacrifice, every way worthy of him and credible in him. And I must add that it has been an act fruitful of the best feelings amongst his followers. And, further, it seems to me in keeping with God's system of government that in so great an act as the reconciliation of sinners to himself, he should use some means or instrument as he does in all his acts, so far as we know. There is nothing in this inconsistent with his fatherly love, seeking the 'lost sheep.' I would wish it to be distinctly understood that it is not 'satisfaction,' i.e. Christ's sufferings being in some way the ground of our forgiveness, but 'penal satisfaction,' i.e. Christ's actually being punished in our place, to which I am about to raise an objection. Theories of the atonement, which are at least widely popular, go beyond the former. They explain the transaction upon principles which seem to me indefensible. aware that learned divines are cautious about such explanations. Archbishop Magee, for example, seems to allow that the atoning efficacy of Christ's death cannot be explained on principles of natural The explanation which I have in view, and of which I will presently speak, is often attributed to Anselm, and I must allow that this eminent prelate 1 Archbishop Magee, No. xix. p. 199.

reason.

I am

has set what seems to me an unwise example of speculation on this subject. Nevertheless, he has not given exactly the explanation to which I object. The notion which I oppose seems to be that of a transfer of punishment. So much sin calls for so much suffering; Christ is said to bear the pain in the place of the sinner, and so the sinner is, under certain conditions, allowed to escape. This transfer of suffering, or substitution of another sufferer, seems to me at variance with reasonable views of punishment. If we take the politic principle, which makes punishment reformatory to the offender or deterrent to others, that principle which I for one believe that we must, in the present stage of civilisation, think best to represent the mind of God, we see that an atonement, such as that here thought of, seems to make God indifferent whether he punishes the guilty or the innocent, so only some one is punished. That surely is not fitted to enforce obedience. Rather, it encourages hopes of escape. Nor yet, if there be any reformatory power in mere suffering upon the offender, could this have place here, for no pain is inflicted upon him. I may be told that there is a reformatory power in the manifestation of love, and I freely allow that there is, and I also believe that very many Christians have experienced that power from this very doctrine. But I do not see why there should not be this bettering

influence in the simple statement that Christ died for us. The act of love, the sacrifice of self if you will, is surely the same, and deserves the same from us, with or without this theory of substitution. Nor yet, if we take another view of punishment, if we suppose divine justice to proceed on the vindictive principle, the principle that requires so much pain for so much sin, are we helped to understand this theory of the atonement. For surely it is of the essence of this requirement that what it exacts should be rendered by the offender. But, according to the theory before us, he suffers nothing. These objections to this view of the atonement seem to me fatal. But I may add that there is another, which is at least of weight. If Christ has suffered the punishment due for all the sins of all men-and this is the only form of the doctrine which has plausible grounds-why, then, are any men, whether penitent or impenitent, believing or unbelieving, to be punished? To punish them would be to punish their sins twice over, once in Christ, the substitute, and again in them, the real offenders.

I may be told that this doctrine is to be received simply as matter of revelation. Independently of miraculous attestation, the moral and spiritual depth and beauty of the New Testament bear witness to a deeper insight on the part of its writers into spiritual things than we can pretend to, and consequently such