THIS is a question which has lost none of its importance since it was first asked; which each must yet answer for himself, and the answer to which will form our lives and shape our destinies. When it was first propounded to the Jews, it was no small matter to confess that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the Son of the living God. To confess that Jesus was the Christ, at that time, was to estrange one's friends, to be regarded as an outcast, and to be cut off from church privileges, which then included nearly all the privileges which a citizen could enjoy. But the times have changed. Popular and worldly religion of this age accepts Jesus as the Son of God. And then it lifts its head in pride because it has "witnessed the good confession," and goes on living very much as the Pharisees did who rejected him altogether. The question for each to answer for himself now is that of Pilate: "What shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" If he is the Son of God, where shall we place him in the divine plan? In what light shall we view his incarnation and his death? Whence the necessity of such suffering and such a death? What was its object, and what is to be accomplished thereby? These are all-important questions; and the world is being much agitated by them at the present time. If this agitation tended to lead people to self-examination and humiliation before God,—to inquire how they could appropriate to their great necessities the benefits of his wondrous death, it would be well. But such is not the case. The tendency of the current inquiry is, largely, to show that there was no absolute necessity for his death; nothing in the divine government or the divine character which made such a sacrifice necessary to human salvation. Here is the great inconsistency of the Universalist system. It claimed that there was nothing but love in the divine character; nothing which could possibly demand the death of the offender; and yet claimed that all were saved through Christ, while it could not show that, by any principle of the divine government, the death of Christ was at all necessary, or could be closely related to human salvation. If there is nothing in the character of Deity which called for the death of the sinner, what possible relation can the death of Christ have to the sinner's salvation? When we examine closely this dilemma of Universalism we shall find that the current of liberal orthodoxy is setting in the same direction. It is Universalism only half concealed. The recent trial of Dr. Thomas, of the Methodist church, will doubtless serve to greatly strengthen this tendency toward loose views of the atonement. When such religious papers as the Christian Union and the Independent show an unmistakable sympathy for Dr. Thomas, and are ready to excuse his position, which again places his accusers in the light of persecutors, we may expect that lesser lights in the religious world, and the secular press in general, will make him a martyr for an admissible Christian faith. The correspondent of the Christian Union gives the following as the views of Dr. Thomas on the atonement:— "On the atonement, Dr. Thomas holds what he calls the moral view, which is nearly the same as the moral influence theory of Bushnell. He loves to express his opinion in the words of Paul, 'God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.' He insists that the Father loved the world as much as did the Son, and came forth in Christ to save it. He denies that one part of the deity was sacrificed to appease another part, or that Christ was punished as a sinner in man's stead. His sufferings and death, instead of being inflicted as a penalty, were voluntarily undertaken to do away with the necessity of a penalty. The atonement was intended to show the love of God and to save the sinner, by wooing him and otherwise influencing him to a better life, and also by making it possible for God to pardon him and still uphold the integrity of the law." This is the theory of Henry Ward Beecher also, all except the last sentence, which does not at all belong to the theory. The Scripture theory is that of maintaining the integrity of the law while the sinner is pardoned, but "the moral view" subverts this. The expression, "One part of the deity sacrificed to appease another part," does not seem respectful to the subject. Yet it must be admitted that the faulty view of the divine existence held by many, gives rise to such a thought. The gist of the theory, however, is found in the following sentence:— "His sufferings and death, instead of being inflicted as a penalty, were voluntarily undertaken to do away with the necessity of a penalty." The New Testament distinctly speaks of the death of Christ as "a sacrifice." "He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:26. "Offered one sacrifice for sins." Chap. 10:12. As Jesus was a fulfillment of the law in its Levitical service, we look to the Scriptures for the correct idea of sacrifices, which is that of substitution. Upon this we will dwell more particularly in another article. At this time we will notice the love of God as professedly vindicated by this "moral influence theory." We readily admit that God so loved the world as to give his Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. There was a reason why man was in danger of perishing; he was a sinner, and "the wages of sin is death." Death as a penalty, he was in danger of suffering. Jesus came to suffer death that man might live. But why must man suffer the reward of his actions? Because God is just, and his law is immutable. Justice required the infliction of the penalty upon the evil-doer. And what is accomplished in the death of Jesus? By means of it God may be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3:23-26. Thus it is made plain that justice required the death of Christ in order that the sinner might have life. "God loved the world." But we are told that the death of Christ was to manifest this love to the world. Then we inquire, If God's love to the world induced him to save the world from death, why did not God's love to his Son save his Son from death? Or did not God love his Son as well as he loved the world? He was always "well pleased" with his Son; was he better pleased with the world? If the love of God was the only attribute exercised in this proceeding, who shall reconcile the infinite love of God with the agony of Jesus in the garden, and the more terrible agony and awful death on the cross. If the sufferings of Christ were an exhibition of divine love, and love only, would not the sinner be excusable if he prayed to be spared from sharing in such love? We speak reverently, and considerately. If justice did not demand the death of Christ in the sinner's stead—if his death was not suffered as a penalty—then we affirm with full confidence, that no one can show any necessity for his death. And if his death was not necessary to meet the demands of the divine law in the sinner's stead, then his sufferings and death were anything but a manifestation of the love of his Father. We say, in the sinner's stead, because justice had no demand upon Christ himself, for he was sinless. "But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Isa. 53:5. "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." 2 Cor. 5:21. Any view of his death but that of a substitute or sacrifice, subverts the atonement and casts dishonor on the divine government. If his death was the suffering of a penalty, then justice is vindicated, and the reproach which sin has thrown upon the divine law and the divine character, may be thrown off without the total extermination of the sinful race.