child; and the patriot pours out his blood on the altars of freedom, that others may enjoy the blessings of liberty,- that is, that others may not be doomed to slavery, want, and death." These, with various amplifications, are Mr. Barnes's instances of substitution in nature, and illustrations of the operation of the atonement. He affirms indeed that this is not all that is meant by that doctrine. That he should have thought it any thing to the purpose, and should call it substitution, shows us at once how widely that word has departed from its old meaning, how strangely strong sense may be distorted by system, and how constantly Calvinistic doctrines are softening their hard features and struggling to put on more rational and liberal forms. It is seen again in this inquiry of Mr. Barnes; "What, we ask, is the precise objectionable point in the atonement, if it be not, that God aids us in our sins and woes, by the self-denial and sufferings of another?" We could assure him, that, so far as we are concerned, we see nothing objectionable in that, and that he wastes his contempt, as well as betrays his ignorance, when he speaks of "the system of the Unitarians which denies all such substitution." No Unitarian would be at the pains to deny such substitution, unless it were to deny that it is any substitution at all. The only real case that he offers is that of the king of the Locrians, who, having made a law that the adulterer should be punished with the loss of his eyes, and, his son being the first offender, reconciled the justice of the king with the feelings of the father, by taking one of his son's eyes and losing one of his own. This was substitution, to be sure. We have seen it referred to before as an apt illustration and triumphant vindication of the old doctrine of vicarious suffering. But we are impelled to ask what kind of justice there is in it, and what human judge would be satisfied with such an execution of the law, or what system stand under it. We might ask too, if any honor is done to the Almighty and Merciful Father, by supposing him driven to such an expedient, or willing to inflict misery upon the innocent that he might thus clear the guilty. Ezekiel was of a different mind: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son."

We have adverted to these illustrations of Mr. Barnes, because they are the first of the kind that we remember to have seen advanced by a sensible writer of the present day.

We are yet more astonished to see similar illustrations used by Mr. Abbott, to whom we now return. He first gives us a story of "The Lost Cap," in substance as follows. In a New-England school, there occurred some difficulty one winter evening among the boys, when one of them, using the power of the strongest, seized a schoolmate's cap and threw it upon the ice, where by the wind and an increasing snowstorm it was driven off and lost from sight. Complaint was brought to the master; the boy who had lost the cap was in tears; he who had wronged him was penitent and troubled, and the whole school in suspense as to the result. The master was himself perplexed at first, seeing that it was unnecessary to punish the penitent offender on his own account, and yet unsafe to let it pass without some reproof and impression. His conclusion we must give in his own words.

"Ah! I see what I can do,' thought he; 'I will take the suffering myself. Yes, I will forgive Joseph at once, and then I will go out myself and find the cap, or help them find it, and when the scholars see that the consequences of this offence come upon my head, bringing me inconvenience and even suffering, especially if they see me bear them with a kind and forgiving spirit, perhaps it will do as much good as punishing Joseph would do. Yes, I know that all my pupils, and Joseph among the rest, are strongly attached to me, and I am sure that when they see me going out into the cold storm, over the ice, and through the snow, to repair the injury which he has done, it will make a strong impression. In fact, it will, I am sure, touch them more effectually, and produce a much stronger dislike to such a spirit, than four times as much inconvenience and suffering inflicted as a punishment on Joseph himself. - Corner-Stone, p. 75.

The plan was carried into effect. The master exposed himself, in the view of all the boys, to the severity of the storm, brought back the cap after a long walk, and was satisfied that the desired impression was made in the school. That we may do Mr. Abbott no injustice, we will let him apply the illustration himself.

"Such a case is analogous, in many respects, to the measures God has adopted to make the forgiveness of human guilt safe. It is only one point, however, of the analogy, which I wish the reader to observe here, viz. that though the measure in question was a thing essential for the master to do, it was not essential for the criminal to understand, at the time he was forgiven.

"So in regard to the moral effect in God's government, produced by the sufferings of Jesus Christ, in preparing the way for the forgiveness of sin. The measure was necessary to render free forgiveness safe; but a clear understanding of its nature and of its moral effect is not always necessary to enable the individual sinner to avail himself of it." Corner-Stone, p. 78.

This occurs in the third chapter, to illustrate Human Duty. In the beginning of the sixth chapter, on Pardon, the author reverts to it, as "an instance of what may be called moral substitution, putting the voluntary suffering of the innocent, in the place of the punishment of the guilty." And, though he disclaims the idea of its being entirely analogous to the great plan of Christian redemption, he repeatedly says that it is analogous so far as the general principle of moral substitution is concerned. He then offers another illustration, in which an injury is done to a school-house, and the master overlooks it, because he sees that the offender is sufficiently punished, and all are impressed, by knowing that he will have to bear the consequences. Another case is that of the wanton destruction of the workmen's tools by some of the students of a College, all of whom, the guilty not being known, agree to repair the injury by a voluntary subscription, and thus the innocent share the punishment due to the guilty.

Now, in regard to all such illustrations, our first remark is, that they are wholly inadequate as measures by which pardon is rendered safe; the first purpose for which they are introduced. Let such cases frequently occur, and the same course be always taken, and what will be the effect? Will the moral impression upon the good be deepened with every repetition, and will that impression go to fix in their minds the distinction between right and wrong, the natural and just consequences of innocence and guilt? Will the moral impression upon the guilty be deepened with every repetition, and their escape from punishment by such means be always safe, whatever their feeling at the time? By no means. Let the boys of any school understand that their master will bear the consequences of whatever mischief they may commit, provided they appear penitent, let the evil-minded students of every college know that their companions will share with them the penalty of all their sins, without their own detection, and he who supposes such principles will stand, or such pardon be safe, has a much better opinion of human nature than we have. No doubt, such

a course will answer a better purpose occasionally than punishment; but there must be a sensitive and well-disposed mind in the offender, the opposite of which must be supposed as a general case, and uncommon evidence of reflection, gratitude, discernment, and permanent impression, in the characters of all interested. As a principle of justice, or a measure of government, it is sadly imperfect. At best, it does but illustrate the moral efficacy of compassion, disinterested love, and voluntary endurance, to impress the heart; which brings it much nearer our view of the atonement, than to any other.

And that is our next remark in relation to all these illustrations, that they do not reach the peculiarity, the true principle, of the Calvinistic doctrine of the atonement. What is that principle? If we allow Calvin himself to reply, he will tell us that Christ did not merely suffer voluntarily, "the just for the unjust, to bring us to God," as Peter thought, but that God inflicted suffering upon him as punishment, — that “he sustained the character of a malefactor," it being requisite "that he should feel the severity of the divine vengeance, in order to appease the wrath of God, and satisfy his justice." Luther would answer us to the same purport, in still more horrible language, which we shudder to read, and will not write. Edwards comes but little short of it, when, with much more of the same kind, or worse, he says: "Then the utmost that vindictive justice demanded, even the whole debt, was paid." If we apply to as late and learned a theologian as Professor Stuart, we learn, that he means by Christ suffering as our substitute, "that God did appoint and accept the sufferings of Christ instead of the punishment due to us as sinners against his law." Every one knows how much there is in every Calvinistic formulary and Orthodox writer, of the same kind. We quote so much of it, merely to contrast it with the illustrations we have considered. And we ask our readers if they would ever suspect, that such illustrations were designed for such a doctrine, or that the substitution of which Mr. Barnes and Mr. Abbott speak, bears the faintest analogy, in any one respect, to the substitution of Calvin, Edwards, or Stuart. No; to furnish any kind of parallel, or the semblance of application, the master should have told the trembling offender, in the case of the lost cap, that it was impossible for him to forgive him, until he had inflicted upon his innocent brother, or some one else, the whole punishment that was due to him. "That you are peni

tent is nothing. The law must be executed. Justice must have its course. One of your fellows, however guiltless, must step forth as your substitute, and bear the whole penalty to its last and bitterest pangs. Or, if some other being, the highest and holiest in the universe, will suffer in your stead, your sins and those of all around you, may be remitted. Justice being satisfied, mercy is free, pardon is safe.'

We are not conscious of the slightest overstatement here. We have never seen the prevalent views of atonement expressed, even by its comparatively moderate advocates, without involving the supposition, that it was impossible, in the nature of things, that sin could be forgiven, whether repented of or not, until it had been legally and publicly punished. That we take to be the inherent, distinguishing principle of the popular doctrine. It is not merely, that an expression must be given of God's abhorrence of sin; it is, that there exists in the very nature of God, or his laws, an intrinsic impossibility that he can forgive sin, until it has been punished to the full, immediately, or vicariously. It is not merely, that a moral impression must be made in favor of the absolute necessity of holiness; that impression may be made in countless other ways, and bring the world to repentance and submission, and yet not reach the difficulty. A sacrifice must be offered, a victim must bleed, infinite satisfaction must be made to inexorable justice. When this has been done, every penitent soul may be pardoned, even though ignorant of the fact and the operation of the sacrifice. To this extent does Mr. Abbott go, and with greater explicitness than most writers, on this particular point. In the passages last quoted from him, it will be observed, that he thinks it not necessary that the sinner should understand the nature or effect of the measures adopted by God to render pardon safe. On the next page he tells us, in very pointed language, "Man could not have been forgiven, if Christ had not died; but he may be forgiven, and yet not know that Christ died, till he actually meets him in heaven." In this way only is the little child to be forgiven, through the expiatory sufferings of its Saviour, though it has no knowledge of these sufferings, and will not for years be able to understand their necessity or power. This is also applied to savages and heathen by Mr. Abbott; and, though strangely applied, we are glad to see, that he asserts the possibility of their being saved through the teachings of conscience and the working of repentance, without any knowledge

VOL. XVIII. N. S. VOL. XIII. NO. II.

20