this work, we doubt not, will, in coming generations, be reregarded as a marked era in the progress of light in the nineteenth century. It is destined, we judge, to do more than any other work that has appeared, to bring back the great doctrine of Atonement to the heart of the church.

Every evangelical denomination holds, in theory at least, that the doctrine of Atonement is the main pillar of the whole scheme of redemption, and that the sufferings of Christ, in connection with the mysteries of the incarnation, constitute by far the greatest and most heart-moving event that has yet transpired in the universe of God. Yet, as a matter of fact, that great transaction does not now affect the hearts of even those whom we cannot but regard as sincere christians, as it manifestly did the hearts of those by whom it was at first proclaimed. Toa reflecting mind, the question would naturally come home with the deepest interest,-what is the cause of this difference of impression? Nor can the question hardly fail to arise in such a mind,-whether this difference is not owing to some error which has crept into the modern view, and has thereby to a great extent neutralized the impression which the subject is in itself adapted to make upon the mind? Such an error our author professes to have discovered, and to its influence he attributes the evil of which we are speaking. For centuries, the common faith of the church has been, that in those fearful sufferings constituting the Atonement, Christ's human nature and that exclusively, partook. The divine nature, to be sure, deeply sympathized with the sufferings of the human, but in no sense partook of them, even the sympathy exercised, so far from implying anything in the form of pain, contained no element not implied in a state of perfect, uninterrupted and infinite felicity. Such sufferings, were therefore mere human sufferings, and nothing else. In them exclusively, according to the theory under consideration, the Atonement consisted. It may readily be admitted that the union of the divine with the human nature of Christ, enabled the former to endure a degree of suffering otherwise impossible. Still, those sufferings were, and must have been limited, and as they were endured exclusively by the human nature of Christ, they could have been nothing else than human sufferings. It is a contradiction in terms to affirm otherwise.

Such a view of the work of Atonement, is totally unadapted to make a deep, permanent and all-transforming impression upon the mind. No conception of mere human suffering of a few hours continuance, however intense in itself, has any ad

aptation to the production of such results. We may assume what we please in respect to the subject, we make the most strenuous efforts, to impress our own minds with the convic tion that there is a power here to produce such transformations; still the heart lying comparatively unbroken, and unmelted under the pressure of such an apprehension of the subject, affirms continually that the work of Atonement is not what the Bible asserts it to be, or that an essential error has been somewhere introduced into our view of that work. The divine declaration, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature," can never become, in its full sense, a reality in actual experience, so long as Gethsemane and Calvary present a no more melting spectacle to the mind, than that of a human sufferer.

Equally impossible is it for us to feel, however we may rea son upon the subject, that such sufferings, whatever relation they may sustain to the divine nature of Christ, can constitute an adequate Atonement for human guilt, or lay an adequate foundation for the redemption of lost men. The declaration may be reiterated in our ears again and again, that the divine nature of our Savior could impart infinite dignity and worth to the sufferings endured by the human. We may assume that it must be so of a truth. Still we cannot but feel it to be otherwise. All admit that there must be infinite merit in the sufferings of our Savior. Else they can never constitute an adequate Atonement for the sins of men. Still when it is

asserted that such merit does, or can lie in any human sufferings, our feelings, however we may reason upon the subject, can never respond to this assertion as presenting any thing else than shadow, instead of substance to the mind. It is an intuition of the universal intelligence, that the merit of sufferings, under any conceivable circumstances, can never transcend the dignity and worth of the sufferer, in the same circumstances. If the latter are finite, so must the former be. Here then, the question, forces itself upon us ;-does the di vine impart infinite dignity and worth to the human nature of our Savior? If so, the latter, as well as the former, is an object of worship, and the finite has equalled the infinite. Who believes that? Who does not know that it would be gross idolatry in us to worship the mere human nature even of the Son of God? If then the union of the divine with the hu man nature of Christ, cannot impart infinite dignity and worth to the latter, it cannot impart corresponding merit to any suf ferings which this human nature has endured. How can Godd

himself make that in any sense infinite, which from its own nature, is, and must be in all respects finite? The necessary consequence of the theory pertaining to the sufferings of Christ which we are now considering, is, that we have no Atonement adequate to the necessities of fallen humanity.

In opposition to such a view of the subject, our author takes the ground that in the work of Atonement, the divine as well as the human nature of our Savior suffered, and that it was the sufferings of the former, that in a pre-eminent sense constituted that Atonement. The spectacle of the garden, and of the cross, is no less awful and soul subduing than that of the agony of "God manifest in the flesh," that of the Incarnate Word, who "in the beginning was with God, and was God," travailing in the Greatness of his strength in the work of man's redemption. The Son of God, not merely in his human nature, but "through the eternal Spirit," that is the divine spirit or nature which he possessed, offered himself without spot to God," for us. When the church in her soulmelting hymns exclaims

"Agonizing in the garden,

Lo! your Maker prostrate lies!
On the bloody tree behold Him,
Hear Him cry before He dies,"

our author affirms that she is not uttering a glorious untruth, but an awful yet blessed reality.

If we consider this as the true exposition of the sufferings of Christ, one thing is quite certain. Neither time nor eternity can weaken the power of these sufferings to melt, subdue and transform the heart. If in the garden and on the cross, I really and truly behold my God agonizing there for my redemption,

"Then am I dead to all the world
And all the world is dead to me.' "

Here is the "mystery of godliness," into which, throughout endless ages, even angels will desire to look. Onc fact in confirmation of the adaptation of this view of the subject and of this only, to move and melt the heart, should not be omitted here. While the church has in theory adopted the oppo-. site view, this is the only one presented in her soul-melting hymns. The special object of sacred poetry, is to melt and dissolve into love and tenderness, the sensibilities of our nature. But one view of the sufferings of Christ, has real poetry or melting power in it. The common view has neither.Hence the creed and the hymns of the church, have for cen

turies stood in palpable contradiction to each other. In the former, we have only the spectacle of a human sufferer. As presented in the latter,

"God the mighty Maker dies

For man the creature's sin."

Such a contradiction can be accounted for, but upon one supposition, the universally felt adaptation of this one view only of the sufferings of Christ, permanently to melt and sub

due the heart.

Assuming this as the true view of the sufferings of Christ also, we not only know, but deeply feel, that in him we have an Atonement for sin, fully adequate to all our necessites as sinners. The infinite dignity and worth of the sufferer cannot but impart corresponding merit to the sufferings He endured in our stead. We not only see, but deeply feel that God can be "just and justify the believer in Jesus." In this wondrous plan, "Mercy and truth have met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other." "Truth has sprung out of the earth, and righteousness has looked down from heaven."

An enquiry of no little interest and importance here suggests itself, to wit: what has been the real basis of the opinion so long entertained by the church in respect to the sufferings of Christ? Whence did the sentiment originate, that the divine nature of our Savior did not at all partake of those sufferings? It certainly did not take its rise in a careful study of the Scriptures, with the simple enquiry-what do they teach on this subject? We think we are quite safe in the assertion, that there is not a solitary passage in the Bible,that can be shown even to look towards a revelation of such a sentiment. We believe that none of its advocates even profess to adduce any thing from "the law and the testimony" in its support. It is not then as a revealed truth, that this doctrine has ever been received by the church. The basis of her convictions, or rather, assumptions in respect to it, is not any thing found in the Bible.

. On the other hand, this sentiment has obtained in the church in opposition to the plainest teachings of Inspiration, to` the whole tenor of the Bible in respect to this subject. The most impressive and heart-moving passages of scripture pertaining to the Atonement and sufferings of Christ, lose all their force and meaning when construed according to this view. Take a few, as examples. "For in that He Himself hath suffered,

being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." Every one knows that it is to the divine and not to the human nature of Christ, that we are to look for succor in temptation. How then must this passage read, in order to assert the sentiment under consideration? It must read thus: Because the human nature of Christ "suffered, being tempted,” his divine nature, which was all the while during the conflict in a state of absolute and infinite felicity, and consequently was not tempted at all, is "able to succor them that are tempted." Is the passage before us adapted to express any such sentiment as that? Does not a different and opposite sentiment most undeniably lie upon its surface? Is not all its beauty and impressive force annihilated by such a construction? Can any other sentiment be drawn from it than this, that the very nature to which we are in the hour of temptation to look for succor, did itself "suffer, being tempted"? But the true meaning of this passage will be still more plain and impressive, if it is read in connection with several preceding verses:

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil: and deliver them who through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto his brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people; for in that He Himself hath suffered,being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."

It would be the height of absurdity to suppose that it is the human nature of our Savior, to which the apostle refers in the declaration, "He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham," &c. Now what perfect violence is done to the whole passage, by the construction which makes the apostle refer to the human instead of the divine nature of Christ, in the phrase, "In that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted." What unbiased mind can read this entire passage, and avoid the full conviction, that reference to the same divine nature is had throughout the whole of it? Yes, reader, the same divine being who "took part of the same," that is, became a "partaker of flesh and blood," and who by taking upon him, not "the nature of angels," but the "seed of Abraham," was "made like unto his brethren," it was this same being that "suffered being temptcd," and is therefore "able to succor them that are tempted." The most obvious meaning, as well as the tender beauty and impressive force of the entire passage, is destroyed by any