this baptism from heaven than I am to baptize you with water." And proceeding to the ceremony of the baptism, conjointly with the application of the water the Spirit was poured out upon her. The two baptisms came in the same. instant of time. The new-born soul shouted aloud the praise of God. Quick as thought it seemed, and sensible as an electric shock, the Holy Spirit's presence and power were felt throughout the vast assembly. And although many years have since passed away, the spiritual effects and the unspeakable joy of that hour still remain.

"The divine unction must attend the administration of the word, in order to render it successful. Without this unction, we preach in vain." The same is true of the sacraments. They are worth nothing only as they are attended in their administration "with the unction of the Holy Ghost."

39

MILEY'S ATONEMENT IN CHRIST.

BY THE REV. J. C. ALLEN, PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS.

The Atonement in Christ. By JOHN MILEY, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, N. J. New York: Phillips & Hunt.

A FUNDAMENTAL doctrine in any body of truth is worthy of careful study. Exact knowledge here will solve many a problem arising in different parts of a system. This is particularly true in the sphere of religion. A fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures does not stand alone. Like a lofty mountainpeak whose base is inseparable from those of lesser heights around it, the foremost truth of the Bible must be seen in close connection with other and related truths. Biblical truth, though revealed at intervals in a period of fifteen hundred years, and written by more than a score of authors, has as striking a unity as there is in the band of disciples scattered over the world, and possibly a more striking unity than is found in the scientific world. A university claims to have unity in its educational system. Mathematics, Greek, and political economy, represent as many different departments. They have a relation to each other, but a distant one. A professor may give instruction for a life-time in one of these branches and not refer to either of the others for a decade, and never investigate them thoroughly. Scriptural truth, varied as it is, brings all its parts into a nearer relation, and however far the division of labor may go on, one preacher cannot take one department of Biblical truth and give up to another some different department. It would be breaking his chain of truth, both ends of which he continually holds in his hands. Hence, when any doctrine of Scripture is fairly com passed, we have included several other doctrines; and when we come to the most fundamental of all, the atonement, we shall not proceed far in comprehending its nature and end

without unfolding the main doctrines of scriptural theology, and coloring our creed with lighter or heavier strokes from the first to the last article.

Dr. Miley has chosen this for his theme, and, writing of the relation of this doctrine to the rest, well says: "If other peculiar and leading doctrines of the Socinian theology be true and scriptural, so is its atonement of moral influence. If its Christology and anthropology be true and scriptural, this atonement is in full harmony with the system, and further, is the only one which it needs or admits. If other cardinal doctrines of Calvinism are true, its doctrine of atonement is true. . . . . The doctrine of divine sovereignty and decrees, of unconditional election to salvation, of the effectual calling and final perseverance of the elect, and that their salvation is invincibly wrought as it is sovereignly declared, requires an atonement which in its very nature is and must be effectual in the salvation of all for whom it is made. Such an atonement the system has in the absolute substitution of Christ, both in precept and penalty, in behalf of the elect. If the cardinal doctrines of the Arminian system, such as differentiate it from Calvinism, are true, then the atonement of satisfaction in the Calvinistic sense of it cannot be true. If, as before noted, the atonement is really for all, and in the same sense sufficient for all, then it must be only provisory, really conditional; and no other truths are more deeply wrought into Arminianism, whether original or Wesleyan; none have a more uniform, constant, unqualified Methodistic utterance. They are such facts of atonement that they require a doctrine in scientific agreement with them."

The reality of the atonement brings into prominence reconciliation, redemption, and the typical sacrifices. In the proof-texts of reconciliation we are said to be reconciled to God, and not God to us. Yet we are not to assume that the only obstacle to our coming into divine favor is our hostility as sinners to him. Dr. Miley says: "It is contrary to those texts according to which God by the reconciliation in Christ puts himself in a relation of mercy toward us, and then on the ground of this reconciliation urges and entreats us in

penitence and faith to accept his offered forgiveness and love."

Out of the great number of theories of the atonement Dr. Miley sifts all but two-the theory of absolute substitution, and that of conditional substitution; yet the so-called moral theory has a large hearing in this book. This is not so much a theory of the atonement as it is a theory of the entire mission of Christ on earth. It is true that mission was a sacrifice from beginning to end, for taking the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of man, he laid aside the glory he had with the Father and became poor for our sakes. But the atonement for sin was a distinct part of the mission as much as his ministry or his example-for washing away our sins is uniformly associated with his death. Advocates of the moral theory in the main emphasize the ministry of our Lord. Of Christ as a divine Teacher to declare the lively oracles of God, or of a Life to reflect the love and glory of the Father, we have the fullest expositions from this class of writers. But the death of Christ enters only as a meager factor into the work which Jesus wrought for our salvation. In the language of a great English theologian, "If our Lord's life had been written by some Socinian or Humanitarian author, the death of Christ would have been treated hurriedly and with reserve. He would have led us to the foot of Calvary. There he would have left us to our imagination, and all that followed would have been summarized in a couple of sentences."* Had Christ died a natural death, with no signs of divine power present, and no resurrection, the so-called moral theory might still remain in its integrity, but the frame-work of the two theories above mentioned would fall to pieces.

The so-called moral theory practically divides the Christian world at the same line where a denial of the divinity of Christ divides it. The Universalist holds that "it is the purpose of God that mankind universally, in consequence of the death of his Son, shall certainly and finally be saved." We might well suppose that from such a view the death of Christ was of supreme importance; yet, the efficacy of the death of Christ

*Canon Liddon: Bampton Lectures for 1866.

does not largely enter into the preaching of this class. The sympathy, example, and ministry of our Lord are held up to persuade us to duty, while the vicarious nature of the atonement is rejected. In denying the divinity of Christ, of necessity they must ignore the chief meritorious element in his work. The Unitarian has for his objective-point in theology the denial of the divinity of Christ. With this is associated the denial of the doctrine of original sin and of endless punishment. If there be not a necessary connection between the denial of these two doctrines and that of the divinity of Christ, there is great harmony and consistency between them. The lower the estimate we put on the nature of Christ the smaller is the work which will be expected of him. If Jesus of Nazareth is a sinless man, we have the right to look for some greater work to be accomplished in his mission than in that of any other man; but if we cannot predicate any thing more of his nature than sinlessness, we are not allowed to look to him for a work which is commensurate with the powers of omnipotence. It is possible to form an estimate of sin low enough that a human Saviour would be qualified to save man from its power; and those who, by their interpretation of Scripture and of human history, would tone down the bold features of original depravity might see no need of a divine Saviour. It is not at all likely that God will make greater sacrifice than is necessary to accomplish the salvation of man. Therefore, if something short of divinity is all-sufficient, he will not send him who thought it no robbery to be equal with God. A low estimate of sin, either in its present strength or future consequences, makes no demand for a divine Saviour. The large element of merit is taken away, and the vicarious atonement rejected. Thus, consistently, they who deny the divinity of Christ become supporters of the moral theory. This view of the atonement seems to lay a tempting bait at the door of the Broadchurch of England, as Romanism does at the door of the High-church. In this country it has captured a few who have been eminent in orthodox pulpits, and have retained those positions while firmly holding to the moral theory. There is good reason then that this view of the atonement, though not