On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ. By Rev. William Symington [pp. 201-233]

Symington on the dtonemnent.
cruelty. But even supposing that some of them had participated in his crime; yet these seven were not the whole of
his descendants, and yet they suffered for the whole house.
Here an atonement was made to the Gibeonites by the death
of seven men. These men bore the punishment of the sin
of their ancestor, and the offended party was satisfied, and
the divine judgments were withdrawn. Here then is a clear
case of guilt being transferred from the father to his offspring,
and of an atonement being made which reconciled the offended party, and turned away the wrath of God from the
people. And this was in exact accordance with what is said
in the second commandment, "visiting the iniquities of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate mne."
As then sin cannot go unpunished, as law and justice require
the execution of the deserved penalty, there can be no salvation for any sinner, unless vicarious sufferings are admitted.
There was no obligation on the Ruler of the universe to
relax the strict demands of the law upon the individual
transgressor; he might have held him to endure the penalty
in his own person. But when a divine SUBSTITUTE appears,
and offers his body to be wounded and bruised for our iniquities, and his soul to be poured out unto death to make an
atonement for our sins-vwhen THE LAMB OF GOD presents
himself to the stroke of divine justice, and offers to bear our
iniquities in his own body on the tree-to die the just for
the unjust-to give his life a ransom for our redemption, and
God is well pleased with his sacrifice and accepts it as sweet
smelling savour, a full satisfaction and complete atonementwho has any right to object to the gracious transaction?
Surely there is no injury sustained, and consequently no injustice.
But on this subject we have to contend not only with those
who deny the atonement Altogether, but with brethren who
have invented a new scheme of atonement, which if it does
not subvert the doctrine, greatly obscures and endangers it.
And as this theory is much more current in this country
than in Great Britain, Symington has not particularly considered it; although, indeed, the principles which he has
established do virtually overthrow it. But as this new theory
is in our opinion exceedingly dangerous, and is defended and
zealously propagated by many among ourselves, we shall be
pardoned for spending some time in examining its principles.
And we here make the avowal that we charge the opinions
[APRIL
222