Statement of Doctrine
It may elucidate the statement of the points involved in the orthodox doctrine as to the nature of Christ’s Redemptive Work, which I propose to give in this chapter, if we first take a step backward, and attempt to estimate those conditions which made that work necessary. It is assumed that the end to be attained was to reconcile God and man. What, then, were the difficulties to be surmounted? What parties are to be affected by the introduction of such a provision into the administration of the divine government? And how do they severally stand in relation to it?
1. There is God. It is evident that whatever the nature of God demands, as the condition of this reconciliation, must be provided. And it is no less evident that the conditions, rendered necessary by God’s nature, must take precedence of all others; and, indeed, since all created natures and relations are contingent upon God’s nature, so all other conditions of redemption whatsoever must be contingent upon the demands of his nature. JsTow we expect to show (1) that the Scriptures teach that one of the attributes of the divine essence is abhorrence of sin for its intrinsic sinfulness, both in its aspect as pollution and in its aspect as yuill. It is of the essence of his moral perfection to forbid it and punish it. (2.) That God has, from the first enunciation of his law to Adam, pledged his incorruptible truth that “the soul that sinneth, it shall die.”
2. There is the sinner himself in a certain legal relation, and with a certain moral disposition as it respects God.
(1.) As to his legal relations, the Scriptures clearly teach that, at his creation, he was put under the equitable Covenant of Works for a certain probationary period. This just constitution provided (a) everlasting well-being on condition of perfect obedience, and (b) everlasting ill-being on condition of disobedience. Now, although under that covenant man failed, it is evident that, nevertheless, both of these conditions must be maintained in their integrity. To relax them would be to violate the word of God, to dishonour his law, and to render his promises and his threatenings alike unworthy of respect. The penalty, when once incurred, can be preserved in violate only by being executed. The promise of everlasting well-being can be truthfully granted only when the condition of perfect obedience has been fulfilled. Suffering a righteous penalty entitles no criminal to a reward; and to offer eternal blessedness to such, on terms denied to unfallen Adam and to all angels, would be placing a premium on sin.
(2.) As to man’s moral disposition toward God, Scripture and experience teach that it is a condition alike of conscious guilt and of alienation, (a) It is a condition of conscious guilt. Conscience is an indestructible element of human nature. It is God’s incorruptible witness ‘ii the soul, in the midst of all its moral corruption,
STATEMENT ( F 1>OCTKINE. 27
judging of sin as he judges of it. It is armed with the vindicatory emotion of remorse, which demands expiation, and which never can be pacified by mere pardon. Pardon allays fear; sanctification allays self-abhorrence; but only expiation can appease remorse. (b) Man’s condition involves a disposition of fear, distrust, sullen alienation as respects God. This might all be removed by an exertion of new creative power. But God works upon man in consistency with his nature as a rational and free agent. Such an exhibition of God’s character and disposition toward man must be made, therefore, as shall tend, according to the laws of man’s moral and emotional nature, to subdue his alienation and to dissipate his distrust.
3. There is the moral universe, embraced in one general system of divine government. If sin is punished in one province, government is strengthened throughout the empire. On the other hand, if law is relaxed and sin pardoned by mere sovereign prerogative in any one province, the government is just so far forth dishonoured and weakened throughout all provinces and for all time. Sinful men, therefore, cannot properly be reconciled to God until after provision has been made to demonstrate to all the subjects of God’s government his immutable determination to punish sin in all cases without exception.
The orthodox doctrine provides exhaustively for satisfying all these conditions of redemption at once, by the one act of the Lord Jesus, in vicariously suffering the penalty of the broken law as the Substitute of his people. His motive was infinite love. The precise thing he did was to suffer the penalty of the law as the substitute of his people. His direct intention was to satisiy justice in their behalf, and thus secure, on legal terms, their salvation. In doing this, he also necessarily satisfied the natural demand of the sinner’s conscience for expiation, and subdued his sullen alienation, and removed his distrust of God, by the supreme exhibition of divine love made on the cross. At the same time, and by the same means, he gave to the whole moral universe the highest conceivable demonstration of God’s inexorable determination to punish all sin, just because he did so punish it even in the person of his Son. The Socinian, or Moral Influence Theory, supposes that the sole design and effect of Christ’s sufferings was to subdue the wicked alienation of man by an exhibition of self-sacrificing love. It is evident that this view is not only partial and inverted, making the reconciliation of man to God everything, and the reconciliation of God to man nothing, but it is also absurd when detached from the central idea of expiation. Christ’s sufferings subdue the alienation of man because they exhibit divine love. They exhibit divine love, because they were endured as the means necessary to remove obstacles otherwise insuperable even by God to the exercise of favour to sinful men. A tragedy gotten up for the transparent purpose of affecting our feelings, having no inherent principle or necessity in itself, would disgust rather than conciliate enmity.
The Governmental Theory, however its principles may be disguised by vague and general statements, essentially involves the assumption (1) that justice is only a mode of benevolence; (2) that the penalty was not executed on Christ; that his suffering? were not necessary to satisfy the rigour of divine justice; that, on
STATEMENT >F DOCTRINE. 29
the contrary, he suffered a substitute for the penalty, as an example of punishment to counteract in the moral universe, by exhibiting God’s determination to punish sin, the evil effects that would otherwise ensue upon its pardon. It is even more evident than in the case of the Socinian Theory that this view is not only partial and inverted, putting the claims of the moral universe before those of God, but absurd, also, when detached from the central idea of expiation, which it was invented to supersede. For how can his sufferings be an example of punishment unless Christ really suffered the penalty of the law? How can they demonstrate God’s determination to punish sin unless sin was in very deed punished therein?
The orthodox doctrine as to Redemption involves the following points.
1. As to its Motive. This was the amazing love of God to his own people, determining him, in perfect consistency with his truth and justice, to assume him self, in the person of his Son, the responsibility of bearing the penalty and satisfying justice. The same identical essence and attributes are common to the Father and the Son. The justice demanding satisfaction, and the love prompting to the self-assumption of the penalty, are co-existent states of divine feeling and purpose.
2. As to its Nature. (1.) Christ assumed the law-place of his people. He owed no personal obedience, and he had sovereign right over his own life to dispose of it as he willed. Prompted by the infinite love common to the Father and himself, he voluntarily assumed all of our legal responsibilities. (2.) He obeyed and suffered as our Substitute. His sufferings were vicarious.
30 THE XA rURE JP THE ATONEMENT.
By his obedience and sufferings he discharged a 1 our obligations to the divine law, both in its federal and penal relations. His sufferings cancelled the claims of penal justice, and his obedience merited the rewards of the original covenant of life. (3.) While there was, of course, no transfer of moral character, he assumed the guilt (just obligation to punishment) of our sins. All their shame and pollution remain ours, while all their guilt (penal obligation) was willingly assumed by, and imputed to him — i. e charged to his account. (4.) He did not render a pecuniary satisfaction, and therefore did not suffer the same degree nor duration, nor in all respects the same kind of sufferings, which the law would have inflicted on the sinner in person. But he did suffer the very penalty of the law. That is, sin was punished in him in strict rigour of justice. His sufferings were no substitute for a penalty, but those very penal evils which rigorous justice demanded of his exalted person when he stood in our place, as a full equivalent for all that was demanded of us. The substitution of a divine for a human victim necessarily involved a change in the quality, though none whatever in the legal relations, of the suffering. (5.) He did not, of course, suffer in his divine nature. But because of the infinite dignity of his person, his finite sufferings constitute an absolutely perfect satisfaction, sufficient to expiate the sins of all men.
3. As to its Effect. (1.) It produced no change in God, any more than do acts of creation and providence. The efficient purpose existed in the divine mind from eternity. He acted upon it, as if accomplished from the fall of Adam. The infinite justice and the infinite love exercised in the sacrifice of Christ were in the divine mind from the beginning. The effect of the satisfaction was to render possible the concurrent exercise of the justice and the love in the treatment of the same sinful persons. (2.) It expiated the guilt of sin. It fulfilled the demands of law. It propitiated justice. It reconciled us to God. (3.) It actually secures our salvation, and does not simply put us in a salvable state. According to the terms of the Covenant of Grace, the impetration of redemption by Christ is infallibly connected with its application by the Holy Ghost. (4.) Not being the payment of a pecuniary debt, which ipso facto liberates, but a vicarious penal satisfaction, it remains, as far a? we are concerned, as a matter of right, in the hands of God to grant its benefits to whom he pleases, when and on whatsoever terms he pleases. His granting it in any case is an act of sovereign grace. But since Christ acted by covenant, he has acquired by his performance of the stipulated conditions a strictly legal title to the salvation of all for whom he acted. As between God and the Mediator, the claim in right is perfect. As between God and the Mediator and sinful man, it is all free and amazing grace. (5.) Being the actual execution in strict rigour of justice of the unrelaxed penalty of the law in the person of the God-man, it is the most impressive exhibition to the moral universe conceivable of God’s inexorable determination to punish all sin. (6.) Being an exhibition of amazing love — of the costliest self-sacrifice, overcoming obstacles otherwise insuperable to the well-being of its objects — it effects what only such love can; it melts the hearts, subdues the rebellion, and dissipates the fears of sinful men.