THE ATONEMENT
IN ITS
RELATIONS TO GOD AND MAN
By
The Rev. NATHAN S. S. BEMAN, D. D
THE NATURE OF THE
ATONEMENT An attempt was made, in the first chapter of
this work to show that the doctrine of the atonement is a fundamental
article of the christian system, and an essential
pre-requisite--SINE-QUA-NON--to the salvation of fallen man. Such a
provision, it would seem, from the course of reasoning there pursued, was
necessary in order that God might furnish an expression of his regard for
the moral law, evince his determination to punish sin or execute the
penalty of the law, and thus vindicate his character and establish his
government in the estimation of the rational universe, while he extends
pardon and eternal life to the sinner. That an atonement, embracing and securing these great
objects, has been made, it is presumed, is equally clear from the train of
thought presented, in the second chapter, in close connection with the
sacred volume. It is perfectly safe, in our theological sentiments, to
rest on the naked and reiterated declarations of God; and the mind
experiences an additional gratification in doing this, when these
declarations, on minute and thorough examination, appear entirely
accordant with the sound principles of human reason. There should be no
shrinking, under the dictation of pride or vain philosophy, from such
assertions of the Holy Spirit as these: "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." "The Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity of us all." "But God commendeth his love towards
us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." "In due time
Christ died for the ungodly." "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of
the law, being made a curse for us." "Herein is love, not that we loved
God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our
sins." "Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy
blood." Believing that the necessity of the atonement has
been fully established, and relying on the truth of those declarations of
the Bible, already considered and explained, in which we are taught, that
Jesus Christ has made such an atonement as was demanded by the condition
of the sinner, the character of God and the honor of the law, it becomes a
matter by no means of trivial importance to ascertain and define the
nature of that satisfaction which he has rendered to God on our behalf.
Much indistinctness and confusion have existed, and do still exist, in the
christian church, in relation to this point. Persons who contend earnestly
for the doctrine of the atonement, nevertheless differ as to its nature;
and differ so considerably too, that it is far from being a matter of idle
speculation to inquire which side of this question, is supported by reason
and the word of God. The object of this inquiry is not to excite or
gratify the spirit of idle speculation, or of fruitless controversy, but,
if possible to elicit truth by candid and christian discussion. As it respects the nature of the atonement made by
Jesus Christ, two opinions deserve our particular notice. One opinion
supposes the Redeemer to be in a strict and literal sense the
representative of the elect, and to have suffered for them, as their
substitute, the penalty of the law and those for whom he thus suffered,
are, on legal principles, eventually liberated from the curse, and
restored to the favor of God. The other opinion represents the Lord Jesus
as suffering, not the literal penalty of the law, but that which would
furnish, in the moral government of God, an adequate and practical
substitute for the infliction of this penalty upon transgressors, so far
as divine mercy, in the administration of the gospel, shall interpose for
their salvation; or, in other words so far as they shall welcome, as moral
and responsible agents, under the government of God, the provisions of
this atonement. The distinctions here made, will be more clearly
understood in the progress of the discussion which will be continued in
this and the succeeding chapter. It is supposed by some, that the atonement made by
Jesus Christ, consisted in his suffering, in a strict and literal sense,
the penalty of the law in the room of his people, or in the place of the
elect, or those, and those only, who will be saved. To examine this
position, and show its incorrectness, will claim our first
attention. And here it may be proper to premise, that the
scriptures frequently describe the atonement in language of a figurative
character; and the literal construction which has been put upon this
language, has no doubt, sometimes embarrassed the subject and misled the
honest inquirer. We are informed by the pen of inspiration, that Christ
"hath purchased" the church "with his own blood." Christians are said to
be "bought with a price." Christ was "made a curse for us" and "he hath
made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." These and many other passages
of similar import, are often pressed into a literal exposition, while
their figurative character is entirely overlooked. When the scriptures
tell us, that Christ "hath purchased" the church, or that believers, "are
bought with a price," they do not intend to teach us, that the salvation
of sinners through the atonement, is a pecuniary transaction, and
regulated according to the principles of debt and credit; but that their
salvation was effected, in the moral government of God, by nothing less
than the consideration--the stipulated consideration of the death of his
beloved Son. When it is asserted, in our text, that "Christ hath redeemed
us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us"--we are to
understand, that Christ was himself treated as an accursed being, in his
death on the cross, that the mercy of God, through this great transaction,
might save the sinner from the curse, or the threatened penalty of the
law. If he was made "to be sin for us, it was in a sense which consisted
with perfect innocence--for he "knew no sin." He was practically treated
for our sake, as if he had been 'sin' itself, sin personified; that we
might be treated for his sake as the righteousness of God in him. And when
he suffered, it was "the just for the unjust." But some of these passages
will come under a more critical review in another place. To these figurative expressions are superadded others
of human origin--such as these: "Christ has paid our debt--has answered
the demands of the law, and satisfied the justice of God in our behalf."
If we say that Christ has paid our debt, it is true only in a figurative
sense; and can mean no more nor less than this, that the sufferings of
Christ accomplished the same purpose, in the divine administration, which
would have been accomplished by our rejection and punishment. If he has
answered the demands of the law, or satisfied the justice of God, by the
atonement, we cannot mean, that the law has really inflicted the penalty
which it threatened against the transgressor, or that the divine justice
took its natural course when the innocent suffered, and the guilty were
spared. When theological writers use this style, or adopt this mode of
representing the matter they set aside all the established notions of men
respecting the divine government and moral character; they present a
theory which clashes with all settled opinions respected guilt and
innocence, and the nature and objects of punishment and pardon. The
purpose or intention of the law is, no doubt, answered; and the law-giver
who is the inflexible and immaculate guardian of his own statutes, is
satisfied by the atonement. He is so well satisfied, that he suspends the
penalty of the law which would otherwise fall upon the sinner, and upon no
one else--so well satisfied, that he arrests the hand of justice which
would consign the rebel to eternal flames, and rescues this same rebel, as
a penitent and believing sinner, by the intervention of his sovereign
grace, in the gospel of his beloved Son. That Jesus Christ did not die in
the strict and literal sense, as the substitute of his people, or in the
room of those who will filially be saved, may be established beyond all
reasonable doubt--beyond all enlightened controversy. The reader will
notice the qualifying phrase here employed, "in the strict and literal
sense." This idea of the atonement would involve a transfer
of moral character, which is repugnant to the principles of reason, and at
variance with the disclosures of inspiration. Those who contend, that
Christ literally suffered the penalty of the law in the room of his
people, in such a sense that justice has no farther demand upon them; that
he paid their debt in such a sense, that they must receive a legal
discharge, have contrived a kind of commutation of moral character, a sort
of spiritual transfer or barter, between Christ and those for whom he died
in order to justify and sustain the positions assumed in relation to the
atonement. The doctrines of substitution and imputation, as they are
sometimes presented in systems of theology, are intimately connected with
the present discussion, and should be examined and explained in this
connection. In this system, Christ is the legal substitute of the elect,
and their sins are so imputed to him, that Christ becomes liable to the
penalty of the law, and those for whom he suffers, are, in due time,
necessarily and legally exempted from the curse which was inflicted on
him. While the doctrines of substitution and imputation are unquestionably
taught in the Bible, and are to be received as a part of the evangelical
plan, yet they are to be explained in their appropriate relations to other
doctrines, and they must not be so understood as to set aside the first
principles of reason and common sense. Like all other doctrines and
theological terms, they are the proper subjects of exposition, they are to
be submitted to the same critical examination and to the same tests of
scrutiny as any and all other doctrines of scripture. To the construction
of these doctrines alluded to above, it would seem that every mind
accustomed to reason, on the system of the gospel, as on other important
and weighty matters, would be disposed to enter its entire and unqualified
dissent. It is for ever impossible, in the very nature of things, that
Christ should become liable to suffer that punishment which the law
denounced against the transgressor--and against him alone. The law has no
penal demand against Christ, and such a demand it can never establish. The
soul that sinneth, IT shall die," is the threatening of the law. Against
the innocent it contains no combination, it utters no curse; and, in this
case, the law can, in strict propriety, inflict no punishment. The idea,
that Christ so took the legal place of the sinner, and that the iniquities
of his people were so imputed to him, that the law required his death and
justice demanded the release of those for whom lie died, is at once, a
perversion and a blunder, unscriptural and absurd. The law can have no
penal demand except against the offender. With a substitute it has no
concern; and though a thousand substitutes should die, the law, in itself
considered, and left to its own natural operation, would have the same
demand on the transgressor which it always had. This claim can never be
invalidated. This penal demand can never be extinguished. Fully aware of
the truth of these positions, some have pushed the theory of substitution
so far as thoroughly to meet the exigencies of the case. The sins of his
people, say they, were so laid upon Christ, that he became, in the eye of
the law, the sinner, and was legally punished to the full amount of all
that demerit which was attached to the sins of those who will finally be
saved by his blood. This is a common idea of substitution. But this idea
involves a literal transfer of characters. On this scheme Christ, and not
man, is the sinner. But Christ and man cannot exchange characters, because
sin and holiness are personal, and cannot be transferred from one moral
being to another. The sinful or holy act of one person, may, in a thousand
ways, affect another, exert an influence upon his happiness or misery, but
it can never be so transferred as to cease to be the act of the person who
performed it, and become the act of some other person who did not perform
it. The Bible always represents Christ as holy, and men as unholy; and the
children of God, while they have felt themselves vitally interested in the
atonement made by Jesus Christ, have confessed their own sins, and relied
for pardon and acceptance upon the mercy of God alone. Certainly this
looks very little like having so obeyed the law and suffered its penalty,
in the person of a substitute, as to be discharged, on legal principles
from all guilt, and from the liability to punishment. In what sense Christ was the sinner's substitute, and
in what sense sin was imputed to Christ, will more fully appear in the
progress of this discussion. Let it suffice, for the present, to remark,
that whatever Christ suffered, he suffered as an innocent being--not on
legal principles, but by express stipulation or covenant with the Father.
He did not assume the character of the sinner, and could not, in a literal
sense, endure that curse which the law pronounces alone upon the guilty.
He suffered and died, "the just for the unjust" and those sufferings which
he endured as a holy being, were intended, in the case of all those who
are finally saved, as a substitute for the infliction of the penalty of
the law. We say a substitute for the infliction of the penalty; for the
penalty itself, if it be executed at all, must fall upon the sinner, and
upon no one else. He is the only being known by the law. To the considerations already stated it should be
added, that an atonement for sin which supposes that Christ literally
suffered the penalty of the law for those who will finally be saved,
destroys all mercy in the Godhead. According to this system, the persons
of the Trinity are not perfectly harmonious in their feelings respecting
man's salvation. The eternal Father, as the guardian of the law and the
governor of the universe, it would seem, has no pity for sinners and no
disposition to save them, aside from the atonement; and this atonement
which procures his assent to the salvation of fallen man, involves a full
and literal infliction of the penalty of the law. At least, something like
this representation of the affair, is given by many who have spoken and
written on this subject. It is true, that their notions are not always
clearly expressed, and less frequently are they traced out in all their
relations, and contemplated in all their logical conclusions if they were,
they would seldom stop short of the positions here stated. As a sufficient
answer to this mere human theory,--this refined speculation, let it be
remembered, that if the penal denunciation of the law has been fully
executed on Jesus Christ, then justice can have no additional claim upon
the sinner. By one act of his literal and legal substitute every demand
upon him has been extinguished. The justice of God must let him go free,
for justice has had its last claim. Where then is the mercy of God, where that rich and
sovereign grace, whose praises have been sung on earth, and whose triumphs
will be for ever celebrated in heaven? Certainly, if justice has had its
full demand, if its last uncompromising claim has been extinguished, there
can be no room for the exercise of mercy. But it may be said, in reply to all this, that the
mercy to the sinner is just the same whether he be saved with or without
an atonement; whether this atonement involved a literal infliction of the
penalty of the law, or whether it embraced sufferings which were accepted
in the place of that curse which was denounced against him as a
transgressor. Be it so, that the mercy to redeemed man is the same; but by
whom is this mercy exercised? Surely not by the Father of mercies. It is a
vital principle of that scheme now under examination, to represent God the
Father as rigidly insisting on the infliction of the whole penalty of the
law, before he consents to the offer of salvation to a rebellious world.
Every particle of this curse must be inflicted. Every jot and tittle of
the law must be executed, and then the thoughts of mercy and pardon may
begin to be entertained. Now, if, when the penalty of the law was about to
fall on sinners, the Son of God came forward and endured the exact amount
of that suffering, due, on legal principles, to these sinners, be the
number great or small, then the whole mercy involved in their redemption
is expressed by Christ alone. The Father as one of the persons of the
Godhead, is inflexibly just without any inclination to the exercise of
mercy; while the Son is so merciful, that he has suffered the most rigid
demand of the law, in order to obtain the consent of the Father to the
salvation of his people. This representation appears to us and plainly is
derogatory to the character of God. It annihilates the attribute of mercy,
and represents the Son as a kind of milder Deity who has interposed and
answered the stern demands of the Father, in behalf of his people, or of a
select and definite number of our race, and, in this way, has literally
purchased them from perdition by enduring that identical perdition in
their stead. The death he died was the very death threatened against them,
by the law; the pains he bore were the literal pains of their damnation.
The only difference was, that he bore them in their stead. This view of the case does not correspond with the
teachings of Jesus Christ himself respecting the tender mercies and the
beneficent acts of the Father. "God so loved the world, that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but
have everlasting life." The love of God to our world, to a world of
sinners as such, was the cause, and not the effect, of the atonement. The
mercy of God needed no sacrifice in order to bring it into being, or to
excite it to action. The atonement made by Christ, was not necessary for
this purpose. This attribute had already fixed upon its sublime and grand
design--the salvation of sinners. The penalty of the law, in the case of
those who believe and are saved, is not to be inflicted. This may be
looked on as the settled purpose of the God of mercy. And now the great
question is, what expedient shall be adopted--what expression of the
divine feelings shall be made before the eyes of the universe, in order to
guard the throne of God from encroachment, and to secure the same objects
which would have been secured by the execution of the law itself? This
expedient is to be found in the atonement made by Jesus Christ, the
peculiar and intrinsic nature of which will be more fully illustrated in
the following chapter of this work. If Jesus Christ literally endured the penalty of the
law, in the room of his people, or those who will finally be saved, then
there could be no grace in their pardon and restoration to the favor of
God. The notion of debt and credit furnishes a favorite mode of
illustrating the doctrine of the atonement, with those who hold the system
of literal and legal substitution. Christ is said to have paid the debt
for his chosen people; and, in consequence of this act of Christ, they
are, on legal principles, released from future punishment. As this
representation of the great work of man's recovery from sin is entirely
discarded in the view of the atonement presented in this treatise, it may
be proper to examine, for a moment, the figure itself, and then its
application to the case in hand. This whole matter of debt and credit is of a
pecuniary or commercial character, and may be easily understood. Your
neighbor becomes indebted to you in a large amount, which he is utterly
unable to pay. You resort to legal coercion-institute a prosecution, and
eventually lodge him in prison. A third person, actuated by benevolence,
inquires into the affair--is touched with pity for the tenant of the
jail--becomes his legal surety--pays the whole demand--and restores him to
personal freedom. Now on what principle is that man permitted to cross the
threshold of his prison? Must he come to your feet, and beg to be released
or may he boldly demand liberation on the principles of law? And when he
again rejoices in the light of heaven, to whom shall he express his
gratitude; to his benefactor who paid the debt, or to you who set him at
liberty when the last jot and tittle of your demand was extinguished? It
is manifest that you have no farther claim upon this man, because the debt
is paid. The law has lost its hold upon him. He has a legal right to a
discharge? and, on the score of gratitude, he is indebted to that
benefactor alone who cancelled the demand by paying the debt, and not to
yourself, who exacted, as the condition of his release, the lost jot and
tittle that the law could give you. In the whole matter of prosecution and
imprisonment, you did all that the law would permit you against him; and
in his enlargement from bonds, and his restoration to pardon and
happiness, you did no more than you was compelled, by simple justice, to
do. There is no mercy In the case, for the debt, let it be remembered, is
paid. No part of it, in any sense, remains uncancelled. If it is justice,
this is one thing--and grace is grandly another! Apply this illustration to the doctrine of the
atonement. Man had violated the law of God, and, as a transgressor, was
exposed to the penalty. This penalty, according to the scheme now under
consideration, the lawgiver is determined to enforce. The whole race are
about to perish, when Christ suffers the exact penalty of the law for a
certain part of these offenders; discharges the whole moral demand against
them; and those for whom he thus suffered, are liberated from the curse,
and restored to the favor and affection of God. This representation of the
atonement is noticed by THOMAS ERSKINE, Esq., of Scotland, an acute and
discriminating writer "On the Internal Evidences for the truth of revealed
religion." Speaking of the doctrine of the atonement, he remarks, "It has
been sometimes so incautiously stated, as to give ground to cavillers for
the charge that the christian scheme represents God's attribute of justice
as utterly at variance with every moral principle. The allegation has
assumed a form somewhat resembling this, that, according to christianity,
God indeed apportions to every instance and degree of transgression its
proper punishment; but that, while he rigidly exacts this punishment, he
is not much concerned whether the person who pays it be the real criminal
or an innocent being, provided only that it is a full equivalent; nay,
that he is under a strange necessity to cancel guilt whenever this
equivalent of punishment is tendered to him by whatever hand. This
perversion has arisen from the habit among some writers on religion of
pressing too far the analogy between a crime and a pecuniary
debt." If this commercial scheme be a true and literal
representation of the affair, on what principle are those persons for whom
such an atonement has been made, discharged from the penalty of the law?
That very threatening which the law uttered against these sinners, has
been inflicted on Christ, and, by this act, the whole demand of this
Father was extinguished. The law has no farther claim, and is forever
satisfied. Justice has no farther claim. The whole amount of penal
suffering has been endured by Jesus Christ in the character of a legal
substitute; and how can law and justice open their lips against those
sinners for whom Christ died? If such an atonement as this had been made,
on what principle, it might be asked, would these persons be released from
future punishment? Must they beg of God to spare them from the curse of
the law, and gave them from going down to the prison of despair? This
would be unnecessary, because it is the vital principle of this scheme,
that the whole penal demand has been answered. Jesus Christ is represented
as having suffered the identical amount which their sins deserved, and as
the law cannot punish twice for one and the same offence, they can sustain
no liability to punishment. Shall they bless God, that their sins are
pardoned by his rich and abounding grace? How can grace or pardon consist
with such an atonement as is here described? What grace or favor did you
grant your debtor, when you released him from prison, after his surety had
paid all the demand?--None at all. You did only that which the law would
compel you to do. You liberated the debtor when the whole amount was
discharged, and when he was no longer a debtor, in the judgment of the
law. And if Christ has suffered that very penalty involved in the eternal
condemnation of his people, as some contend, then they ought to be
liberated on the principles of law. Their debt is paid. The law has no
farther demand; and grace and pardon are out of the question. There is but
one being in the universe to whom these persons would be indebted for
their release; and that is the friend who paid their debt, or suffered the
penalty of the law in their stead. Christ, in distinction from the Father,
is their only gracious Benefactor. A moment's reflection will teach us, that this is not
the representation of the atonement given in the Bible. Notwithstanding
what Christ has done, in order to prepare the way for man's salvation, we
are every where taught, that we are saved by grace, and that a free pardon
is consistent with full atonement for sin. "Being justified freely BY HIS
GRACE through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." We need no other
proof than that suggested in this passage, that Christ did not pay the
debt, or literally suffer the penalty of the law for his people. He
prepared the way for our debt to be emitted; or in plain language,
dispensing with all metaphor, he made it consistent and proper and
honorable for sin to he forgiven according to the prescribed terms of the
gospel. The objection against the scheme that Christ literally endured the
penalty of the law in the room of his people, that it precludes the idea
of grace in their restoration to the favor of God, is answered in
something like the following manner by those who hold to this doctrine.
The grace consisted in providing an atonement and in Christ's suffering
the punishment due to his people as sinners. The reward was due to Christ,
and this reward is made over to his people by an act of grace. The great objection against this theory is, that it
does not correspond with the Bible. The gift of Christ as Mediator, it is
true, was the unspeakable gift; and the sufferings of Christ for men, were
the effect of sovereign love; but all this does not save the sinner. The
way is only prepared. The door is open. Mercy can now operate. But the
sinner is still under condemnation: and if he is saved at all, he must be
saved as much by an act of free grace as if no atonement had been made.
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
sins." Sinners, that is, penitent and believing sinners, are "justified
freely by his grace," and they receive "the forgiveness of sins" through
the atonement. And these acts of acquittal and forgiveness, are subsequent
to, and distinct from, the atonement itself. On the principle of a legal
substitution and a literal infliction of the penalty of the law, the
atonement would bring no accession of happiness to the universe. The
system which is now under consideration represents the Lord Jesus Christ
in the work of redemption, as making an atonement for a definite number of
our race. These persons are the elect, or those who will finally be saved.
This atonement by which they are to be saved, consisted in Christ's taking
on himself their personal guilt, and thus enduring the penalty of the law
in their stead. It is not considered enough, on this plan, for him to
suffer what would answer in the place of the infliction of the penalty;
but he must receive, in his own person, the identical curse which they
deserved, and which they had incurred by their sins. The amount of
Christ's sufferings must consequently be the same as the aggregate
sufferings included in the eternal condemnation of all those who are saved
by his merit. There was first a literal transfer of all their sins to
Christ which rendered him legally bound to suffer their punishment, and
then each and all of these sins were expiated upon the cross by his
enduring the original penalty which was threatened in the law. The agonies
which he suffered were equal to the endless misery of all those, who will
be saved by his interposition in their behalf. To this view of the
atonement, it may be farther objected, that it annihilates the last
particle of benevolence in the gospel. If Christ suffered the same misery
in kind and degree that was due to the whole number who will finally be
saved, and which they must have suffered, in their future and eternal
condemnation where are the indications of that wisdom and goodness which
have ever been considered prominent features it, the system of the gospel?
It has generally been supposed, that the gospel is the grand device of
heaven for preventing misery and for increasing happiness among the
rational creatures of God. But if Christ suffered all that the law would
inflict to eternity upon the vessels of mercy, then there is no gain on
the principles of general benevolence. The same misery is endured, in the
rational system, which would have been endured, had the whole race of Adam
perished without the provisions of the gospel. Satan has met with no
signal defeat. If he has not literally accomplished the ruin of the whole
family of man, he has accomplished that which amounts to the same thing,
and his purposes are substantially answered. He has secured a part of the
human race, as the victims of despair, and for those who are rescued from
his grasp, he has received a full equivalent. In the place of the eternal
misery of each redeemed soul, he has seen the same amount of suffering,
both in nature and degree, inflicted on the Son of God.-This is by no
means such a triumph over Satan as the Bible describes. This is not such a
gospel as inspiration reveals. A system which prevents no misery, and
which brings no accession to the happiness of the universe--a system whose
grand and distinctive characteristic is that it devises a way in which the
innocent may suffer a certain amount of misery which was due to the
guilty, would hardly excite, so the gospel does, the wonder and admiration
of the angels in heaven. Read the parable of the lost sheep, and you will
learn, that the plan of redemption will increase, as it was designed to
do, the happiness of the universe. Read almost any page of the New
Testament, and you may infer the same truth which the apostle Paul
distinctly expresses, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that "the
principalities and powers in heavenly places" learn "by the church the
MANIFOLD WISDOM of God." And who can believe that this "wisdom," in its
highest aspirations, has aimed at nothing more sublime, and, in its most
holy and happy achievement, has accomplished nothing more benevolent, than
to transfer an amazing amount of divine wrath from the guilty to the
innocent? Would such a plan, and its accomplishment, impart new rapture to
the songs, and sweeter melody to the harps of heaven? Would such a work,
when projected, be pronounced the masterpiece of the great moral
architect, and, at the crisis of its consummation, inspire a shout of
triumph which shall roll through the length and breadth of the universe?
These things the gospel has done and will do; and we may confidently infer
that it is something more elevated in its aims, and more beneficent in its
results, than the mere commercial transaction here described. The true
plan is discernibly full of grace and glory. But this point ought not to be dismissed here. Can
the scheme adverted to above, be indeed the gospel scheme? Are these,
then, the boasted triumphs of divine grace, that it has devised a way in
which divine grace is vacated, as the innocent may sustain a certain
amount of suffering due to the guilty, and the guilty escape merited
punishment? Let the question be fairly met. If Jesus Christ has endured,
in his own person, the pains of damnation awarded by the decisions of law
to those who will finally be redeemed, or if he has endured an amount of
misery equal to those pains, it would seem to be a clear case, that not
one particle of penal evil is prevented. A mere commutation is all that
has been effected. Those sufferings have been inflicted on Jesus Christ,
in making the atonement, which would otherwise have been endured by his
people in perdition. The amount of suffering, let it be remembered, is the
same. In what then consists the benevolence of this grand device of
heaven? Certainly not in the diminution of misery in the universe! Not one
grain is abated or annihilated. Sinners who will finally be lost, will
endure, in their own persons, the full penalty of the law; and the full
penalty of the same law due to those who are saved, was sustained by Jesus
Christ in their stead. Will it be replied, that those who are saved, will
be more happy, possibly, than they would have been if they had never
sinned and had never been redeemed? This may be granted, but it is equally
true, that many sinners will be more miserable in eternity, than they
would have been, had there been no atonement, and no gospel. Should it be
still farther asserted, that the gospel scheme, and especially the grand
feature of the gospel, the atonement, will augment the happiness of all
holy beings, this too, may be cheerfully conceded. This effect will be
produced, however, by the contemplation of its benevolent features. The
moral power of the gospel to diminish sin and misery, and not the fact,
that it is a device for the infliction of the same amount on the innocent
which was due to the guilty, is what strings the harps, and swells the
songs of heaven! Every good being in the universe, is, no doubt, made more
and more happy as he witnesses the benevolent disclosures of this system.
God and angels and saints rejoice together in its progress and in its
triumphs. But it may admit of a doubt whether this would be the case, if
the gospel could establish no higher claim to admiration, than, that it
had transferred a definite portion of penal evil from one part of the
universe to another, from the unjust to the just--from sinners to their
substitute. A mere quid-pro-quo transaction! It may be objected to the
general course of reasoning adopted in this discussion, and particularly,
to the argument distinctly stated under the present head, that it is not
contended, that the penalty of the law was, in a strict and literal sense,
inflicted on Christ. To this objection it may be replied, that the
doctrine is thus stated and defended by many speakers and writers. It is
frequently proclaimed from the pulpit, and the sentiment may be found
distinctly expressed in a great variety of publications both of ancient
and modern date, that Christ sustained the exact amount of misery due to
those who are to be saved by his blood. It is true, that men who have
candidly examined the objections which are urged against this scheme,
have, particularly of late, adopted a qualified mode of expression in
relation to this point. They contend, that the real penalty of the law was
inflicted on Christ; and, at the same time, acknowledge, that the
sufferings of Christ were not the same, either in nature or degree, as
those sufferings which were threatened against the transgressor. The
declaration of Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, that "Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us," is
considered by some as furnishing unequivocal proof of the fact, that he
endured the full and identical penalty of the law in the room of his
people. But it is, in no shape or manner, asserted here, that the Son of
God suffered the penalty of the law. The apostle is vary particular to
tell us in what sense he was "made a curse for us;" "cursed is every one
that hangeth on a tree." Was this the penalty of the law, or a substituted
suffering as well as a substituted sufferer? Does the law say, "the soul
that sinneth, it shall hang on a tree?" or is this plainly, and palpably,
and immensely, ANOTHER KIND OF DEATH, in form, duration, and
circumstances? If so, it is not the penalty of the law. It is A curse, but
not THE CURSE of the law. Believers are saved from the curse or penalty of
the law by the consideration that Christ was "made a curse" for them, in
another and a very different sense, He was "made a curse" inasmuch as he
suffered, in order to open the door of hope to man, the pains and shame,
and ignominy of crucifixion. He hung upon tree. He died as a malefactor.
He expired as one accursed. In the last dark hour of mortal agony he
appeared abandoned, not only of man, but of God. If the declaration, that
Christ was "made a curse for us," proves, that he suffered the penalty of
the law, then it must, at the same time, prove, by the principles of
legitimate exposition, that the penalty of the law was crucifixion; for it
is written, in the same connection, "cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree." But the penalty of the law was damnation, or eternal death; and
this was threatened against the transgressor alone, and could, in justice,
be inflicted on no one else certainly not on celestial innocence in human
form! As to the declaration, that Christ actually suffered
the penalty of the law, in the place of his people, and yet did not
sustain, either in nature or degree, that misery which the law denounced
and their sins deserved, it appears a direct contradiction in terms. The
penalty of the law was something definite. It embraced sufferings of a
certain kind, and it extended those sufferings to certain fixed and
settled limits. Now if, while Christ was suffering, he endured a misery
essentially different, in its character, from that which was threatened in
the penalty of the law, and if it differed no less in its degree than its
nature, how could it be, in any sense, an infliction of the threatened
curse? The thing is impossible. If God had threatened to inflict a certain
kind and a certain degree of penal evil upon the transgressor, can we say
that this identical curse was executed because an innocent being sustained
a different kind and a different degree of suffering? The position is
utterly absurd, and it is abandoned in the very terms in which it is
expressed. How can we affirm that it is the same penalty, when it is
acknowledged that both its character and quantity are different, and the
subject upon whom it is inflicted is not only a different one from that
contemplated in the law, or known to the law, but sustaining a moral
character directly the reverse of that against which the penalty is
uttered. There is inherent contradiction in such a scheme, and it hardly
seems possible, that a well trained and logical mind should entertain it
for a moment. There are but two theories respecting the nature of the
atonement, which have any claim to self-consistency. One is, that Christ
suffered, in the most strict and literal sense, the penalty of the law for
his people, and the other, that his sufferings were a substitute for the
penalty of the law, which, if executed, would have been the measure of
their punishment, and the perdition of mankind. The first of these theories we have seen is utterly
at war with the Bible and common sense. And yet it is far more consistent
with itself, than that mixed theory which many have been compelled of late
to adopt in order to shield themselves from the arguments of their
opponents. We mean that sentiment which declares that Christ suffered the
penalty of the law for his people, and yet he did not suffer it in nature
or degree. That is, he suffered something essentially different from the
penalty, and yet this was the penalty itself! In a sermon by Dr. Dana, of Londonderry, We find this
sentiment. "In as much as the Scripture expressly declares that, in
redeeming us from the law, he was made a curse for us, we are constrained
to conclude, that his sufferings were a substantial execution of the law;
a real endurance of the penalty, so far as the nature of the case
admitted, or required." In another place he says, "We contend not that the
Redeemer endured precisely the same misery in kind and degree to which the
sinner was exposed." The penalty of the law either was or was not
inflicted on the Lord Jesus Christ. If it was inflicted, then it must have
been inflicted in kind and degree. If not, then his sufferings were
something specifically different from the penalty. To talk of "a real
endurance of the penalty, so far as the nature of the case admitted, or
required," is to say that it was not "a REAL endurance of the penalty,"
because "the nature of the case" did not admit or require it. But why is it necessary to support the position, that
the curse of the law was inflicted on Christ? If it should be said, that
the divine veracity was pledged to execute the law--we reply, that the
divine veracity can find no support in that kind of infliction of the
curse which is here supposed. "A substantial execution of the law"--an
"endurance of the penalty, so far as the nature of the case admitted, or
required"--an infliction of suffering and punishment, not upon the
transgressor, but upon a surety, when the law had not made the most
distant allusion to a surety, certainly has much more the appearance of an
evasion of the law, than the execution of it. If both the nature and
degree of sufferings involved in the penalty of the law, may be dispensed
with, on the same principle, the penalty itself may be set aside, provided
the glory of the law-giver and the happiness of the universe can be
secured in some other way. The moment a man admits, that Christ did not
suffer, in the most rigid sense, the penalty of the law that his misery
was not the same in nature and degree which the law had threatened-that he
did not suffer the same punishment which would have been inflicted upon
those who will finally be saved, and that the atonement was not, in every
feature of it, a "quid pro quo" transaction--a commercial transaction--a
transaction for value received--that moment he admits a principle which is
utterly at war with the theory of legal substitution and the literal
infliction of penalty; and he will never be able to make his system
correspond each and every part with the whole till he adopts that view of
the mediation of Christ which will be drawn out in detail, and fully
discussed, in the next chapter. It may not be improper to remark, in this connection,
that incorrect views of the nature of the atonement, have frequently led
to deep and fundamental errors in religion. A denial of the fact of a
propitiation for sin is commonly the first step towards the rejection of
the Bible as containing a revelation from God. The admission or denial of
this cardinal sentiment, will give form and feature to our whole system of
theological views. The same remark will apply, with some qualification, to
the opinions which we entertain respecting the nature of the atonement. If
for instance, we adopt the sentiment of legal substitution, and say, that
Christ literally sustained the penalty of the law, in the room of a
precise and definite number of our race, how perfectly easy and natural it
is to adopt the deduction, that these persons are saved by an act of
justice? Each and all of their sins, to the full extent of their demerit,
have been punished in the person of a legal sponsor, and now the law has
no farther demand. Indeed, in these circumstances, justice calls for the
release of those who have been punished in the person of their accepted
substitute, because her last claim against them was extinguished when
Christ expired on the cross. To condemn these persons now would be an act
of injustice. Whether such a sentiment as this, or a sentiment leading to
such conclusions, is calculated to excite humility in the bosom, of the
sinner, let the considerate and candid judge for themselves. But transitions, in theology, from one kindred error
to another, are imperceptible and easy. And so it happens in the case
before us. This system supposes not only a spiritual identity, but
certainly, as held and taught by many, an eternal union between the Savior
and those for whom he died. What he did, they themselves have performed;
what he suffered under the penal exactions of the law, they also suffered.
In consequence of a legal oneness, they are not only released from
punishment by an act of law, but in Christ Jesus they are literally
justified, not merely pardoned, and graciously restored to favor, but
LEGALLY acquitted and saved. We have now arrived within the precincts of
antinomianism, than which a sorer evil or a grosser error has rarely ever
afflicted the church of God. A few lines more will finish the picture.
Only let it be understood, that Christ has so obeyed the law, in the place
of his people, that they are released from legal obligation and so
suffered its penalty, in their stead, that they are legally exempted from
punishment and have a legal claim to eternal life, and you have presented
before you a full length figure embracing outline and filling up, form and
feature, of that production upon whose forehead ORTHODOXY is inscribed, in
broad capitals, and which carries in its bosom a proud and unsanctified
and impious heart. This is the enemy of God under the specious garb of
peculiar zeal for "the faith once delivered to the saints;" but so little
accordant is its spirit with the meekness and gentleness of Christ, that
it can hardly, like another grand enemy of God, claim the merit of being
arrayed in the imposing robes of "an angel of light." We may learn, likewise, from this discussion, in what
sense we are to understand substitution and imputation. It may be objected
by some that the positions taken above involve the denial of both of these
doctrines. But the correctness of this assertion cannot be admitted.
Substitution is an essential part of that scheme of man's recovery
maintained in this treatise. The true view of it is our glory and our
hope. The atonement was a substitute for the infliction of the penalty of
the law, or the sufferings of Christ were a substitute for the punishment
of sinners. In the case of all believers, and such and such only will be
saved, the misery which Christ endured, is the real and only ground of
their release, because without these sufferings, or the atonement, there
could have been no pardon or grace for sinners. He suffered what was
necessary to be endured, in order to bring a rebellious world within the
reach of mercy. Thus, in the administration of the divine government, the
sufferings of Christ occupy the place of the eternal condemnation of every
ransomed soul; that is, of every penitent and believing sinner-of every
child of Adam who accepts of proffered mercy. This is vicarious suffering.
It is the suffering of Christ in the place of the endless punishment of
the sinner. Here, then, is substitution in the true and full scriptural
sense; and it is an essential part of the doctrine of the atonement, the
outline of which has been already presented, but the distinctive features
of which will be described hereafter. "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." Here is
substitution in a two-fold sense. In the first place, Jesus Christ is a
substituted person. He stood in the sinner's place; and it was in this new
relation to God and man and the universe, that he made an atonement for
sin. He was himself a substituter-the sinner's substitute. In the second
place, his sufferings were substituted sufferings. In that plan of moral
government by which sinners are saved from death, they took the place of
the eternal punishment of these sinners. In one word suffering is
substituted for punishment. We have a substituted person, and substituted
suffering; and the doctrine of substitution is not given up, but
established, and that in its true nature and on its own impregnable
foundation. As to imputation, it is denied, in this treatise,
that the sins of man, or of any part of our race, were so transferred to
Christ, that they became his sins, or were so reckoned to him that he
sustained their legal responsibilities, or suffered their legal
punishment. But does this involve the denial-or only the illustration or
the doctrine of imputation? Jesus Christ, in order to save men, suffered
without having sinned; and as his sufferings answered all the practical
purposes of the sinner's punishment, and are the sole ground of his
pardon, and acceptance with God, it may be said in relation to all
believers, that their sins were imputed or reckoned to Christ, and that
his righteousness is imputed or reckoned to them. In other words, the
sufferings of Christ form the basis of the sinner's salvation. He endured
all that was necessary to answer and honor the spirit and demands of the
law; and the penitent, believing and pardoned sinner reaps the joyful
harvest, the salvation of his soul. In this sense, imputation is the
doctrine of the Bible. As it respects the results, Christ was treated as a
sinner, that is, he suffered being innocent, and the sinner is treated as
if he were holy, that is, he is freely pardoned in connection with what
Christ has done. And to this effect are the words of the apostle, "He hath
made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him."