The Gospel herald. (New Carlisle, Ohio), 1860-11-03

              Devoted to Oliristia,nity, Morality, the Interests of  Sab>ba,tli Sclioola, Social Improvei-trent, Temperance, Education, and General NTewa,
"BEHOLD,   I   BEING   TOU   GOOD   TIDINGS   OE   GEEAT   .TOY  ....   ON   KAETH   PEACE,   GOOD   WILL   TOWARD   MEN.
VOL. 17.
B.\.YTON, 0., SATURDAY, NOV. 3,1860
NO. 26.
SELECT POETRY.
I the Ghrintvin ln'iuir9r.
Stauzas-
BT T. W. 0.
Rise up and worship I    Morning's light
Sbrea-nis from the ruddy eastern sky; Scatters afar tlie gloom of night.
And spreads its banners far on high. Thy Father whose kind care hath kept
Tluie while tbe night-hours paaaed away, Whose tender love hath never .slept,
Demands Uio earliest thoughts of day. Bow down aud  worship 1    Noontide shinea
Rejoicing on the litlds of eartli. Where tender grass and waving lines
Of grain spring freshly into birth. To Him whose wiiiidrous glories far
Surpass al! noontide e'er eim show. To whom the Sunboams shadows are.
Homage is due from all boUiw. Bow down and worship I    Evening falls
In silence on the peaceful sea, And all around thee nature calls,
"Oh man I  thy Maker praise with me; Soou shall ihy day of life be done.
Soon round thy bed tliy frienda shall weep. Past face thy low, descending buii,
Aud God givo hia beloved sleep." Sing Sing, Sept. 2',), Vim.
~ OarGlNALITlES.
Writtm for tlie Hosfd Hm
The Atonement,
,r, P,  WATHON,
I presume we ooiild hardly approach a subject more exteiisiVoly clothed with the habiliinoutH of obscurity than that of tho atoiionioTit. One so deeply hid from the oye of tho common people; nay, indeed Irom th« eye ofthe iiivos- ti,Lrn.tiv6 world, is difficult to specify. Yet, of all other doctrines, this is i/ie important one—the one that compre¬ hends mcst, and upon which hangs so many questions of real moment, and lasting conBoqucnces, We revere it as the doctrino of G-od's word—as the ono of all others, frautrht with tho highest interests to lieaven and eartli—as tho ehoiceatvein ofthe whole mine—-tho qiiinteHSonoe of the divine scheme, and the key-stone of thcppiritual arch. In this doctrine, we have brought to boar, in tho most striking manner, the grandest exhibitions of Grod's sover¬ eign love and wisdom, and alMo, where¬ in we soe consulted the bighost wants of the human race. I apj-^roach this subject with reverence only equaled by an approtich to heaven's throne of grace, and too, with diffidence; not bo- cause 1 have a hesitancy in speaking that of which I am persu.aded; but, because of tbe magnitude of the sub¬ ject, and the groat diversity of opinion with regard " thereto. In my argu¬ ment, I simply speak for myself (though possibly in harmony with the views of a majority of our people), and too, with a f.ouviciion of beiug a defender, ofthe views of a small minority ofthe Christian world. This matters not With me, however, not that I delight in onteriaining contrary opinions, but because lam so thoroughly convinced ofthe correctness of the ministry in tlieir views of tho matter. In our presoni. argument, we shall not discuss the dignity, ability and nature of our Savior, but shall bear this constantly
in mind, that, as a divine Eedeemer, He is adequate to tho proper pertor- mance ofhis allotted woi-k. Ho is the dignitary to whom we look with confi¬ dence for an accomplish ntont of tho atoning work—a work which concerns God, on the one hand, and man, degra¬ ded man, on tho other, Christ is the cementing bond between the two,— How sweet ought our meditations be of this work so grand; referring to the Supreme Euler of the Universe, with His e,'itendi.!d hand of bounty, ready to impart grace to tho wretched world, through tho mediation of our Savior JesuB Christ. The word atonement, is derived from tho Greek, Kattallagee, and signifies reconciliation, agre..,inent or coming together. It occurs but once in the English translation of tho J^ow Testament; that in Romans 5:11. In the investigation cf the atonement we need firstly ascertain tho condition of man that demanded tho same. Why did Christ leave the presence of tbe Father? Why suffer such base in¬ gratitude on the part of mtm ? And why die for such a heartless race as He then met';' These are questions th.at have much interested mo from my ear¬ liest reccoUection—questions that the child may ask, and we need almost look to the philosopher for their proper answer. These questions may appear trivial at first, yet they cover the ground passed over by the Church, for the last 18 centuries. Other questions may arise, but unassociated with these, thoy full. There was nothing in heav¬ en tiiat demanded our iiavior's death. There was no misery, no sin and no death. It was all on m.an's ac¬ count. One thing, to my mind, is ev¬ ident. Christ never woiild have done tliat for man, that man could have done lor himself. Not that heaven is unwilling to till earth, but we find it a law of "God, ..at earth shall do her own work. Christ, then in His mis¬ sion, contemplated something more than tho work of man. Ho came to do tho work of a God—tbat which man could not do. What then, wo enquire, was the work of Christ? man, o'er ho sinned, was assured of God that he must not violate heaven's commands, and that to violate them, was to bring upon himself and hi'.;, posterity, the penalty thereof, to~wit: death. Man had shown Him here, thattliree things were true,
1. Tbat he could ain,
2. '¦.Phat he would behold accounta¬ ble if he did.
3. Thathe would incur the displeas¬ ure of God thereby. Man sinned with his eyes opon to tiio consequences—he read his destiny in each case clearly; whatever tho penalty was, that ho was to Buffer, and that' he would suffer. A God of love and wisdom had decreed, that which waa right, and just. A di¬ vine intervention would not be suffered to abrogate a divine decree. God would not thus work. He in His wisdom would decree that, and that alone, that should come to pass. God does not pei'form a work, that He might demol¬ ish the same again. Nay, verily, bat His work shall stand fast. In this respect, upon every hand *nd in His every move we have exhibitions of His immutability ; God ch»ngeth not as does man. It was not then tho work of Christ, to save man from the
penaltyjof a violated Itxw. Christ came not to do the will of man, but the will of His God; that was, that man should suffer the penalty by Him pro¬ nounced; that penalty was death. If that death was eternal then will man suffer the stime, for no power of earth ean,'And no power of heaven will pre¬ vent divinely appointed consequences. If such was the case, man could not aslconeiove, be benefitted in the least degree by the mission of Christ, though ho were shown the way of happiness here for the day, and through His in¬ tervention came to be possessed there¬ of, it would bnt add to the torment of his hell in the future. No! eternal death was not the penalty. Physical death wasthatpenalty. This, man was to suffer, and this man does suffer.— Tho bodies of all mon are being grad¬ ually destroyed by sin—tho first sin— you are humbled with the dust to be¬ come inmates of the tomb. Who can save his love from tho hand of the grave? Not one—this is the home of all men-—they find their lonely bed. Christ then was willing that man should die; from this he did not try to save him. This penalty we find cov¬ ers the whole human family. There is one more legitimate result of sin which follows only the actual trans¬ gression. This principally refers to tho inind, whereas the direct penalty refers to the body. The first is unlim¬ ited, tho last is limited. Sin was tho same in the day of Adam as now. Law then as now was violated, and the same results produced—death to holiness, and in sin, agony of mind, departure frotn God—clothed with shame and guilt and half despair. From this Christ did not come to save men. I mean tho eflecl of His individual ain. Bach sin with us has its penalty, tho same as did Adam's first. We have nev¬ er learned tho state of man, tliat deman¬ ded the intervention iifChrist. Where now tho key to unlock tho object of his mission to earth. 1 think Christ had two objects of al! others most in view. The first referred to the phys¬ ical, and second to the inoiital man.— With the first, man has nothing to do —tho second cannot be accomplished without means of co-operation. Oneia unconditional, the other conditional. Of the first, wo have an explanation in 1 Cor, 15: 22, As in Adam all die even so in Christ, shall all be made alive. This only refers to the resur¬ rection of the dead. To bring this about was one grand object of Christ's mission to earth. Here seems to be mystery, and liere is the strong pioint of Adventism. It may be asked what would havo been the result, if the.res¬ urrection bad not been brought about. To confess this I cannot answer fully to my own satisfaction. Tlie Ad von t- ist says: "lilan would have had tn eternal sleep had not Christ descen¬ ded to the tomb," for sa_ys be, "both spirit and body sleep together." Tiiis 1 do not sanction, but I think a corp¬ oral form is highly necessary in our future state, and to meet this want, we hare the resurrection. This ia a par¬ tial atonement of the sin of man. In this we behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world i. e. overcome the ofl'ect of sin, in this one respect. Tae p malty is suffered., man descends to tketomb, but Christ brings
him up again. The victory of tho grave is not a final one; man dies, but be lives again. But Christ in his mission had still another object iu view; a work was to be wrought re¬ ferring exclusively to the mind. His was not a work of Christ alone, bub one wbereinherequiredhuman co-oper¬ ation The part that Christ was to per¬ form was to set before niati that exam¬ ple, the imitation of which, would lead him from his moral thraldom—tho path of the transgressor, into spiritual liberty, and tliejiath of life and happi¬ ness. Christ did not (as before remak- ed, ) design lo save men from this snir- itual death, if guitly of sin, but lo aid man by his noble example to keep from tho violation of heaven's laws.
In Christ we have a divine model, w^ell worthy tho imitation of man in all its parts. To imitate, is lifo ever¬ lasting; to neglect to do, is death, from which is no escape. In both the abovo cases, we see demands for the inter¬ vention of a divine power, .But some may object to this view ofthe atone¬ ment because we have failed to associ¬ ate therewith a groat deal of mystery, Some think that questions of Theology should bo dark as midnight darkness —clothed with mystery. If they are not, but on the contrary, plain to hu¬ man comprehension, they are deemed of no account vi'hatever. It would seem that some would wish the revela¬ tions of God, so mysterious as to be be¬ yond their coniprebension, and thus prevent tho possibility nf their yield¬ ing compliance to them. Again; we have hardly referred to the infant jior- tion ofthe race. Are they not to bo saved, and is not a divine intervention necessarj' to accomplisli tho work? Yes, if they have inherited Adam's sin and guilt! But who is authorized lo say they have? iSurely, nut tlie at¬ tentive reader ofGoii's Word, If sin uiid guilt tliey have not incurred, for I deem it invariably tlie result of act¬ ual transgression, then they, need no riavior to deliver thciii//wjni/rom, Yet, Christ is to them what .lie is to the adult [lortion of tho race, upon tho question ofthe resurrection. I fail to see wherein else (iftlioy die in infan¬ cy) they liavc need of a Savinr's inter¬ vention, I have now sjiecified tho ob¬ ject contemplated liy Christ, in his earthly mission. 1 am aware that Chi ist's was a work of reconcilliation; bnt this.is brought about in m.an's disjiosition to imitate the example of Christ. Our .I^Ietbodist friends teach that Christ camo to reconcile God to nitui. I think there is a sliglit mis- ' take, or at least it is so viewed liy minds of deep intelligence. .Reconcil¬ iation was the work ofthe atonement, and was perfi.>rnied by (ilirist's agency, liot was the Fathor reconciled to man? 'I'hifl becomes the question of ditl'cr- cnco. I think to the contrary, i, c, that man was reconciled to God, Dr, Walts says, "ray God is reconciled," To this I .have the following objectionft: If, betbro Christ's coming, God was unreconciilod, but by his coming. He became reconciled, then Ho became difi'orent from what Ho was; and, if so, is He immutable? 1 can conceive of no greater change tlian from unrecon- ciliation to reconciliation. Again; waB God ever unreconciled toman? Sure¬ ly not; but aimply to his sinful course.