Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

his due? Does not this inclose the whole doctrine of imputed worth aud righteousness, as some are benefited for the sake of another. Examine the death of Christ as you will; try it by any test; it is utterly inexplicable except on the principle of its being a substituted expedient in moral government.

Let it be considered that the Lord Jesus Christ is always in the scriptures signally marked out for sufferings. All the prophecies of the Jewish church pointed to these sufferings, all the doctrines and administrations. of the gospel refer to them; and, I might say, all the counsels of eternity looked forward to them, and all the everlasting songs of the redeemed will look backward to them. What, then, can be the meaning of sufferings that centre in themselves all interests from everlasting to everlasting? What principle can explain them? The divine oracles, simple and dignified, respond, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness in the forgiveness of sin."

These

So say the oracles that speak from heaven, but not so say some men professing themselves wise. men charge these very propitiatory sufferings with injustice and wrong. Strange! that God should ever think of declaring his righteousness, by a measure that was in itself unrighteous and wrong. Surely the judgment of men, in this case, is not according to truth. The scriptures explicitly assert, that the atonement was a medium for God to declare his righteousness. But for God, by an unjust expedient, to declare his righteousness with a slur upon it, would be to expose it to contempt and desecration.

[ocr errors]

The supposition that justice is obscured by the atonement, proceeds from misapprehensions of the nature of the atonement, and from wrong conceptions of the nature of divine justice. It is rarely considered and defined what is the JUSTICE to which the atonement relates. By divine justice is generally meant that perfection in God which gives to every being his due, and deals with

every being according to his character. This is called distributive justice. Now upon the shewing of either the friends or the foes of atonement, I ask was this justice at all declared in the sufferings of Christ? Our opponents themselves being judges, Were the sufferings of Christ due to him? Did the justice of God treat Christ according to the deservings of his character?

Take it for granted that the sufferings of Christ were only a testimony to the truth of his doctrine, or an example of obedience to the divine will, and that thus, his sufferings were for the benefit of sinners: and then try to answer these questions. Were such an example and testimony, in justice, due to sinners? Did sinful men, in justice, deserve such benefits? Did infinite justice, in conferring such favors on them, treat them according to their character?

It is impossible to explain either the nature or the consequences of the death of Christ on the principles of distributive justice, as in it, neither Christ nor the sinner is treated according to what is due to his respective character. The justice that was declared and honored in the atonement, is PUBLIC JUSTICE. As public justice is rather a principle in the administration of a government, than an attribute of the divine essence, I shall reserve the full consideration of it to the chapter on the atonement in its relation to moral government. I will just observe, that when we say that Christ has satisfied justice, or that justice was satisfied in the atonement, our meaning is, that the wise and just ends of government were completely secured by the atonement, that through it the lawgiver's prerogative to pardon was exercised with safety to the public good, and that "grace reigned through righteousness."

SOVEREIGN GRACE is another perfection which is supposed to be obscured and clouded by the atonement. It is said, if the good that comes to the sinner, comes through an atonement, then it is not free and gratuitous.

This argument has been fairly met and answered a thousand times, yet, quick or dead, it is constantly used, as if its friends thought that a bad argument was as indestructible and immortal as a good one. It ought to be enough to remark now, that this argument is in direct opposition to the express declaration of scripture.

Their

The writers of the New Testament uniformly and explicitly represent the mediatorial undertaking of Jesus Christ as the highest proof, and the most powerful expression of sovereign grace and infinite love. language is;— 'God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. "God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." "We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace."

[ocr errors]

Is it not strange that God should shew forth to public admiration, and "commend" in the atonement a perfection which men declare to be utterly destroyed by it? It is impossible for us to avoid the conclusion that the abettors of this argument, and the writers of the New Testament, differ "wide as the poles," in their views of the grace of God, and of the sufferings of Christ. The apostles represent the atonement or propitiation as "commending" the grace of God, and as "declaring" the righteousness of God. The abettors of this argument "declare" the atonement to be utterly subversive of all grace and righteousness. The question which of the parties is right, must be settled by the evidences of the inspiration of the New Testament. Our opponents will allow us to recommend them to consider whether their views are likely to be accurate and sound, when they see in the atonement tendencies the very reverse of what Christ and his apostles saw.

The argument which we have been combatting is not at all available, except on the principle of the atonement being a commercial transaction, a quid pro quo.

If sin be represented as properly and literally a debt, and not a moral offence; and if the atonement be set forth as a literal payment of that debt, and not a moral transaction supplying to the government honorable grounds for pardoning a criminal; then, I think that grace does not appear in the discharge of the debtor. The creditor received what was due to him, and release is now justly due to the debtor. The release of such a debtor is no favor.

Sin is called a debt only in figurative language. No one will say that our sins are owing to God. The real nature of sin is an abstraction or withdrawment of what is due, a transgression of the law, a moral and a public offence against God as the Governor of the universe. The atonement is represented in the scriptures, not as a bribe for exciting divine love, but as a medium for exercising it; not as a motive to induce God to be gracious, but as the means for expressing himself gracious; not as a commercial payment making release due, but as an honorable ground for making pardon admissible and safe.

Take the following illustrations of the possibility of favors being perfectly gratuitous and free, though conferred on valuable considerations and honorable grounds. When the Athenian senate granted pardon to Eschylus for the sake of his brother Amyntas, the pardon was unbribed, and entirely of favor and grace. When Philemon received Onesimus for the sake of Paul, his reception back to favor was all of grace. When David shewed favor to Mephibosheth for the sake of Jonathan, the favor was entirely of grace. And when God forgives sinners "for Christ's sake," it is to the praise of the glory of his grace. The loss of Amyntas's arm at Salamis, the labors of Paul, and the kindness of Jonathan, were not causes to produce benevolence, but grounds for the safe and honorable expression of it. David wanted nothing as a motive to induce him to spare Absalom, but he did want something as an expedient through which he could spare him with honor to his throne and

government. If a medium had been found, as in the instances of Eschylus, Onesimus, and Mephibosheth, the expression of David's love would not have been due to Absalom; for the medium of expressing it would not at all destroy the grace and freeness of it.

This argument from the freeness of divine grace is never used by its friends, except to oppose the atonement. It is not that they care for the honors of free and sovereign grace. They do not consider, that their use of the argument is as much opposed to the doctrine of repentance, as it is to the hypothesis of a commercial atonement. None of them preach pardon without repentance; and even those of them who preach universal restoration make it honorable only after an intervening punishment. If divine grace, to be free and unconditional, must be supposed to act without safe grounds, without a just reason, without an honorable medium, then, why not do away with punishment altogether? Why not renounce the doctrine of repentance, as well as that of the atonement? The hardened sinner no more approves of free pardon through repentance, than the selfrighteous relishes a free pardon through an atonement. The apostles preached the atonement, and repentance, as if never suspecting that they infringed on the honors of sovereign grace. I apprehend, then, that what I have here dignified with the name of an "argument" of our opponents, deserves no better name than that of a sophism.

To plead that a boon cannot be free and gratuitous if granted upon honorable grounds only, goes to destroy and subvert moral government entirely. For a governor to treat the injured and the injurious subject alike is to destroy the difference between right and wrong, virtue and vice. Rectoral love is as much exercised and honored in punishing the injurious, as in protecting the injured. In God the attribute of love does not consist in private love towards man, but in good-will towards the universe. It is as much concerned for the public good as for individual happiness. In the

« ÎnapoiContinuă »