THE ATONEMENT.

"And not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." Romans 5: 11.

The vast importance attached to the doctrine of atonement by Jesus Christ, renders it proper for us to make it a subject of particular consideration. Our remarks will be characterized for brevity. The value of a discourse is not always to be determined by its length. Let us devote our undivided attention, therefore, to the following exposition.

1. We shall define the phrase, atonement of Christ. This phrase is in the tongue of almost every one who speaks on the subject of the Christian religion. But alas! how few have any definite ideas or sentiments concerning it! Most people appear to be grasping at a multitude of morals and sentences, which convey no definite or intelligible meaning. This is a very unhappy state of things, in relation to a subject of such acknowledged moment. It affords ambitious and designing men an opportunity of disposing of their learned and subtle arguments, at a

very

lucrative rate, and secures them a perpetual market for such merchandise, by keeping the people ignorant of the subjects of their inquiry. They are as Ephraim feeding upon east wind,-continually dissatisfied; and still longing for more of this unsubstantial food.

If the doctrine of atonement is a subject of revelation, then, most certainly, it can be defined and illustrated; and if it is not a subject of divine revelation, the multitude ought to be informed of the fact, and govern themselves accordingly. Let us endeavor to settle this question, once for all, by a direct appeal to scripture

and reason.

The word atonement is found in no passage, except our text, in the New Testament. I regard this, as an important fact. But the same original word, katallagen, which is rendered atonement, occurs frequently, and is translated-reconciliation. This is good evidence that it should be so translated in the passage just read. It would make the Scriptures harmonious, and the meaning of the text easy of apprehension. Its meaning would be obvious to all. Thus

"And not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now reIceived the reconciliation." "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary, supports this view of the subject. He says, "It was certainly improper to translate katallagen here, by atonement, instead of reconciliation; as katallasso signifies to reconcile, and is so rendered by our translators in all places where it occurs. It does not mean the atonement here, [where does it?] as we [Methodists] generally understand the word, viz the sacrificial death of Christ; but rather the effect of that atonement, the removal of the enmity, and by this, the change of our condition and state; from kata, insensitive, and allasso, to change; the thorough change of our state from enmity to friendship."

We es

teem the testimony of the learned Commentator, in this case, as highly important. For it must be considered that he was literally compelled so to render the word, and did not do it from choice. He could not in conscience do such violence to the apostle's language, as to retain the word atonement, as the best and correct translation of the original word. He admitted the truth of this, though it put his old notion of atonement, viz. the sacrificed death of Christ, in jeopardy. We wish all Commentators would exhibit equal candor. If all our spiritual guides would be as frank and honest, in their avowal of their sober convictions, the common people would so understand the doctrine of atonement by Jesus Christ. They would see that it means the same, as reconciliation to God, or a thorough change from enmity to friendship, and from darkness to light, or from error to truth. Such a change of heart or moral condition is

very desirable, and a revival of religion directed to this end, would be promotive of genuine reformation. Would preachers exhibit the doctrine of atonement, as above explained, it would naturally tend to the people's advancement in knowledge and virtue--in their reconciliation to the moral government of God. Then would our text perfectly harmonize with the next preceding verse, as well as with many other scriptures.

But if any are tenacious of words, and especially, are determined to receive the Bible in the dress in which it was presented by king James' translators; we have only to ask their indulgence for a moment, and they will perceive that the state of the argument will be the same.

For we

have it from good authority--and indeed it will be disputed by nonethat the primitive import of atonement, agrees very nearly with reconciliation; so that we only prefer the latter word on account of its greater force and perspicuity, in the case we are considering. Atonement is a sort of compound word, being composed of three monosyllables, viz at-onement; and implies agreement, harmony,, union. When the unreconciled receive the atonement, then, they are brought to an agreement with God. They harmonize and unite in his pleasure and precepts. This language, Not my will, but thine, O God, be done. Hence the Gospel is called "the word of reconciliation "" the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." See 2 Cor. 5: 18, 19, 20.

But will similar remarks apply to this subject, as it is interwoven in schemes of human invention? Do they confine the work of atonement

exclusively to the creature? We think not. Even Dr. Clarke, candid as we have seen him, could not be

satisfied, without dragging into his remarks on our text, the old notion of sacrificial atonement. Like thousands of others, equally renowned for erudition and talents, he could not think it was enough for the sinuer to be thoroughly changed in the state of his mind, from enmity to friendship; but God himself must also--if we may reverently speak it-be changed, or become reconciled to the sinner! He probably had his eye on that darling point in orthodox theology, which represents one Person in the adorable Trinity," as dying upon the cross, to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile another Person in the Godhead, to a sinful world!! Horrible! horrible indeed! The mere mentioning of such an absurdity, is sufficient in this day of critical inquiry, to ensure its rejection. Its refutation is imprinted on its very face. Hence it may be safely dismissed without ceremony.

2. We shall next treat of the necessity of atonement or reconciliation by Jesus Christ. And here too, we must be guided by the testimony of revelation. Romans 5: 6, 7, 8. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." See Also, Col. 1: 19, 20, 21. "For it pleased the Father,

that in him should all fullness dwell: And, having male peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled."

Man's moral or spiritual condition,

then, rendering the reconciliation necessary, is evident from the above scriptures. It is a state of sin-ungodliness, enmity, alienation from God by wicked works. The change which he experiences in being reconciled, makes him virtuous, godly, friendly and near to God by good works. Thus are the doctrine and morality of the Gospel united. So long as man continues unreconciled, he must be miserable. Reconciliation is essential to happiness. It is God's most benevolent work upon the heart, and produces pure bliss. To meet the necessities of the case, it must be general or universal; for, Paul says, We have before proved

that both Jews and Gentiles were all under sin;" and the sad experience and observation of all ages, fully corroborate that degrading fact. God beheld a world lying in wickedness, and therefore, determined to reconcile the whole world to himself, by making all men holy, and consequently happy.

And yet, this doctrine only provokes another question, viz. how did men become sinners, so as to need reconciliation? This question has become a sort of gordian knot among theologians, and must be answered by appeal to the scriptures, or not at all. Let St. Paul attempt an answer. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon ail men, for that all have sinned." The meaning evidently is, that all sin may be traced back to one man, Adam, as the source from which it sprang, or the occasion of its existence. the apostle could not mean, either that Adam was morally accountable for the sins of his posterity, or they for his. Such a thing is utterly inconceivable. Strictly speaking, one man cannot be punished for the sins of another; and yet, he may suffer in

But

consequence of them. There is an essential difference between suffering by reason of another person's sins, and being punished as a sinner. Such a state of suffering may be called a misfortune or calamity, but not a punishment.

The innocent frequently suffer, in a great degree, in consequence of being connected with the guilty; but they do not, on that account, participate in their guilt. And SO may individuals, families, and even comaunities, be contaminated by wicked examples and corrupt precepts, and be led into sin and consequent wretchedness; but they suffer no further, morally, than they voluntarily sin against their own knowledge or convictions of right and wrong. All beside this, may be reckoned on the score of calamities, to which all on earth, the innocent as well as the criminal, are liable.

On the other hand, people enjoy innumerable blessings in consequence of the virtues of others; but they are not bestowed as rewards, under such circumstances. The most profligate and wicked, share in the fruits of benevolent exertion; but they do not share in the virtues of their benefactors. The dispensation of blessings and calamities, belongs to Him, by whose pleasure we have our existence, and our respective allotments of good and evil, prosperity and adversity, enjoyment and suffering. He alone can understand the consequences of human actions, as they influence the conditions of others, in a thousand different ways, inscrutable to finite observation; but, of one thing we may be certain, that each individual is rewarded according to his own works, whether good or ill.

Hence, although Adam's transgression stands at the head of the long catalogue of crimes, yet, each individual of his offspring has been ac

countable for his own conduct. So thought St. Paul, who says,-“ For as by one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Here is no ambiguity; the reason why all have been condemned is, that all have sinned, personally. No man is in the lea-t danger of suffering condemnation as a reward of vice, unless he is personally sinful; nor can any one rationally expect personal justification, till he becomes personally holy. Neither blame nor praise can be transferred from one person to another, or be imputed, (as some would say) any more than eye-sight, hearing, hunger, thirst, pain, or any other sensation. Now, if we adopt the rule of interpretation here laid down, Scripture and reason will harmonize, and men be blest with a clear understanding of the Truth as it is in Jesus.

3. The joy consequent upon reconciliation, claims a moment's`attention. "And not only so, but we joy also in God, etc." All who participate in the same reconcilement of heart and mind, will, in the same degree, partake of the joys above mentioned. All unreconciliation produces misery. How great must that be then, which arises from alienation of heart-enmity to the fountain of good; and abandonment to wicked works? How deplorable the condition of all, who riot in opposition to the holy law of love, which God has given for our felicity, through faith, obedience, and acknowledgement of the truth? Such was the former condition of those of whom Paul spake. They were the children of iniquity and wrath, even as others, till they beheld by the clear eye of faith, the exceeding riches of grace in the Gospel of God. They beheld-were convinced-and reconciliation followed. They had joy in this life, by

to come.

And all who now become reconciled, or receive the atonement, in a similar manner, will participate of similar joys, and rejoice and exult in the manifestation of divine love; infinite goodness and grace. They will not only experience

'What nothing earthly gives or can destroy,

The soul's calm sunshine, and the heart felt joy,"

but look forward by the vision of faith, and soar on the pinions of hope, to those cloudless regions of day, where bloom un withering flowers in the fair fields of immortality and glory. Who then will not heed the exhortation, "be ye reconciled to God?" Who would repine under the conviction; that universal reconciliation will succeed the wide-spread commotions of the human mind? the turbulent agitations of a world lying in wickedness? None, we answer fearlessly, NONE, who are real disciples of Christ. The reconciliation of the whole world, will be productive of complete, universal holiness and bliss; and the same hallowed affections which would lead us to desire these, will cause us to rejoice in the contemplatian of that, by which they will be produced and perpetuated. Amen. REV. RUSSELL STREETER.

ERRORS IN THE TRANSLATION.

THE ARTICLE.-No 3.

In the Greek there is but one article, and that answers to our definite article the. The indefinite article is indicated by the absence of the definite article. The use of the article, or its absence, in the New Testament, is a matter of more importance than is likely to be appreciated by one not thoroughly conversant with the subject. Many of the errors in

corrected in the new, but not all.

In many instances, "the Holy Spirit," should have been "a holy spirit." In the temptation, the devil is made to say to Jesus, "If thou art the Son of God," when he says simply, "If thou art a son of God." This was more becoming, considering who it was that made the inquiry. The evangelists never lose sight of the characters and standing of those whom they introduce to us. Hence the centurion at the crucifixion does not speak like a Christian, as the translators would have us believe, when they make him say, "Truly this is the son of God." But he says, as we should expect a heathen to do, "Truly this is a son of God." It is evident that the absence of the arti- ; cle, both before son and God, is not a mistake of the copyist, from the fact that the different evangelists have the same form of language. this sentence, we do not employ the article before God, but the Greeks do, and in that way distinguish between the true God and the false.

In

There is an important passage in John 5: 27, in which the omission of the article spoils the sense of the author. "And he gave him authority to execute judgment also, because he is a son of a man "—not, " because he is the son of man." "A son of a man," is a Hebraism for, "a man." It is the simple assertion that the mission, here referred to, could be best accomplished by a man.

In the New Testament, Jesus is sometimes designated Jesus the Christ, and sometimes Jesus Christ; in other words, the article is sometimes used before Christ, and sometimes not. But the translators, especially of the old version, have not always followed the original. In the Gospels the article is nearly al