BARNES ON THE ATONEMENT.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
Bro. White: I have read the extracts from Barnes on the atonement in the Review, and am much pleased with them. I think it would be well if all the readers of the Review would give them a careful reading. I have thought much on the necessity of having something on this subject published that would show the relation that the atonement sustains to the law of God. This is clearly shown by Barnes; and this is, in fact, the all-important part of an atonement—to vindicate and maintain the dignity and authority of law. This was entirely omitted by Stephenson, much to the regret of those who, like David and Paul, delighted in the law of God. I have noticed that almost all of the nominal Adventists of the Marsh or Harbinger party, have entirely rejected the idea of a vicarious atonement. On this account we need a short work on this subject, that will embrace all the great points in this cardinal doctrine, that we can recommend to our hearers and readers. While reading these articles I was led to reflect on the fact that those who deny the authority of the law, mostly reject the vicarious atonement, which is, in fact, to reject the atonement of the Bible altogether. And I do not see how they can do otherwise to be consistent with their theory. Indeed, they would be most consistent if they denied the atonement entirely, which cannot be necessary if the law is overthrown. An elaborate article on this subject by one who believes that the law is made void, would be a curiosity. E. Miller, jr., published a small tract on the atonement, in which he barely referred to the effect on the government of God, and this in the form of the query how the atonement would save the sinner without impairing the authority of the law! And yet he teaches that all law, of every nature, was abolished at the death of Christ. In this dilemma how could he answer his own query? He attempted to answer it by a supposition, in which he lost sight of the atonement entirely. Such work do intelligent men make when they deny the perfect law of liberty. James i, 25; ii, 12; Eccl. xii, 13, 14; Ps. xix, 7; cxix, 45. While I fully endorse all that is contained in the extracts referred to, and also in general all that is esteemed orthodox on this subject, yet there is another reason why we need a short work on this subject. Most of the writers on the atonement take it for granted that the atonement was made at the crucifixion of the Saviour, on Calvary. This is the foundation of many of the peculiar errors of Universalism, ultra Calvinism, and Campbellism. But in the meantime I would recommend the argument of Barnes to the readers of the Review as worthy of their careful consideration.