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."