CHAPTER V:
FULL ATONEMENT, AND SALVATION
WHOLLY BY GRACE, CONSISTENT WITH EACH
OTHER.
THE Scriptures plainly teach, that
though Christ has made a full and complete atonement for
sin, yet the salvation of sinners is entirely of grace. "By
grace ye are saved." Eph. 2:5. Many, however, have found it
difficult to treat the subject as though these doctrines
were reconcilable, the one with the other. But this
difficulty has probably arisen from mistaken views of the
nature of the atonement which Christ has made. Understanding
the atonement to be, literally, a purchase, or the payment
of a debt, some have inferred from it, that, since Christ is
represented as a propitiation for the sins of the whole
world, all men must be saved; others, that, inasmuch as it
is evident that all will not be saved, the atonement could
not be made for all; and others, again, that, if sinners are
saved on account of the atonement, their pardon and
salvation cannot be of grace.
These conclusions are much more
consistent with the premises, from which they are
respectively drawn, than either the premises or conclusions
are with the truth. For, if the atonement did consist in the
payment of a debt literally, it seems very obvious that
there could not be any grace exercised in the acquittance of
sinners, and that atonement and actual salvation, must be
co-extensive. If Christ has really paid the debt of sinners,
they, of course, must be free. Justice must be satisfied,
and can make no further demand. On this ground it must,
indeed, follow, that if Christ died for all, then all will
be saved; and that if all are not saved, then he could not
have died for all. And it equally follows, that none can be
saved by grace. Their debt being paid, it cannot be
forgiven.
Since, therefore, the Scriptures
represent the pardon and salvation of sinners as being
wholly of grace, we may be certain that the atonement cannot
be the payment of a debt, nor, strictly, of the nature of a
purchase. This, too, it is apprehended, has already been
made evident, in what has been shown concerning the
necessity and nature of atonement. But since many at the
present day, have adopted this scheme of the atonement, and
have deduced sentiments from it which are of the most
dangerous tendency, it may not be improper to examine, a
little more directly, the reasoning by which they endeavor
to make their scheme consistent with the exercise of grace,
in the actual bestowment of pardon and salvation,
The Scriptures are so very explicit
and particular, respecting the terms of pardon and
justification, that few believers in divine revelation can
be found, who do not appear anxious to have it understood
that, in some way or other they hold the doctrines of grace.
It has been said by some, that though atonement be the
payment of a debt, yet the pardon of a sinner may be, called
an act of grace, because it is founded in other acts, which
certainly are acts of grace. God's giving his Son to make
atonement, and his actually making it, are acts of grace.
And since the pardon of sinners has, its foundation on these
gracious acts, it may be called an act of grace itself. But
this is, certainly, strange reasoning. To say that pardon is
an act of grace, only because it is grounded on other acts
which are gracious, is nothing less than to say, that it is
an act of grace, though it is not an act of
grace.
Besides, on the ground of the scheme
in question, it is futile to talk of pardon. When a debt is
paid, what can remain to be forgiven? The notion, however,
is not more inconsistent with itself, than it is with
Scripture. "In whom we have redemption through his blood,
the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his
grace." Eph. 1:7. "Being justified freely by his grace,
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Rom. 3:24.
These passages of Scripture, and many others of similar
import, plainly imply, that forgiveness and justification
are themselves acts of grace, and not merely that they are
grounded on other acts of this nature.
Nor is this all. Pardon, or
forgiveness, in its very nature, implies grace. So far as
any crime is pardoned at all, it is pardoned graciously. It
is impossible to forgive in any other way. Pardon, on the
ground of justice, would be a contradiction in terms. To
pardon a sinner is to treat him more favorably than he
deserves; to release him from a punishment which he has
justly merited; and to confer on him a favor, to which he
has no claim. Pardon always implies this. If a criminal be
pardoned, he is treated more favorably than he deserves. His
release from punishment is a favor which he can have no
right to demand. This circumstance, that he cannot demand
it, constitutes his release an act of grace; and the same
circumstance renders it an act of forgiveness. Without this
circumstance, no acquittal can be an act, either of pardon
or grace.
Others, again, among those who
consider the atonement as the payment of a debt, have
attempted to solve the difficulty by saying that, though the
pardon of the sinner is not an act of grace to Christ, since
he has paid the debt; yet it is an act of grace to the
sinner, because the debt was not paid by himself, but by
Christ, his surety.
It, may be observed in reply, that as
to the release of the debtor, it makes no difference who
pays the debt. Whoever may make the payment, if the debt is
paid, it can never be forgiven. If a creditor has received
payment of his demand, he is under obligation to discharge
his debtor, whether he paid the debt himself or some other
person paid it for him. This must be evident to every candid
mind. No creditor can refuse to give up an obligation after
it is fully paid, without the most manifest injustice. But
an act of grace is what, no being can be under obligation,
to him who receives it, to perform. If a being is under
obligation to another to perform an act in his favor, that
act must be an act of justice, and not of grace. Hence there
can be no grace in giving up a demand which is fully
satisfied.
What, then, becomes of the boasted
arguments of those who plead for universal grace, on the
ground that Christ has paid the debt for an men. Alas, what
gross delusion! They talk about grace, free grace for all
men, and yet exclude every idea of grace in the pardon of
sinners, by alleging that Christ has paid their debt. If
their debt is paid, they can never be pardoned. But if
sinners may be pardoned for Christ's sake, then their debt
is not paid; and, consequently, God is under no obligation
to exercise pardon on account of the atonement. Thus it
appears that the argument for universal salvation, deduced
from the notion that Christ has paid the debt for sinners,
is totally groundless. Take it which way we will, it is mere
delusion.
The truth is, Christ has paid no
man's debt. It is true, indeed, that our deliverance is, in
Scripture, sometimes called a redemption; and this word
refers to the deliverance of a prisoner from captivity,
which is often effected by the payment of a sum of money.
Christ is also called a ransom," and we are said to be
"bought with a price." But it must be remembered that these
are figurative expressions. They are designed to communicate
this idea, that as the payment of money as the price of
liberty is the ground on which prisoners are released from
captivity, so the atonement of Christ is the ground on which
sinners are pardoned, or set free from a sentence of
condemnation. These passages, thus understood, appear
intelligible and consistent; whereas, understood literally,
they would contradict other plain declarations of the Word
of God. For sinners we certainly represented in Scripture as
being pardoned of free grace; which, it is evident, cannot
be said with propriety of captives whose liberty is
purchased. Besides, these passages literally bring into view
the payment of money and the discharge of debt. But surely
no one will suppose that sinners have literally plundered
the treasury of heaven, and deprived God of property, and
that the business of the Redeemer was to refund the money
which they had thus wrongfully taken away. We have not been
"redeemed with corruptible things, as silver, and gold; but
with the precious blood of Christ." It is evident,
therefore, that these are metaphorical expressions, and were
never designed to be taken in a sense strictly
literal.
The Scriptures, indeed, use a variety
of metaphors in describing the necessity and nature of
atonement. When sin is represented under a figure, we find
the Saviour introduced under a corresponding figure. If sin
is a disease, and "the whole head sick, and the heart
faint;" Christ is a physician. There is balm in Gilead, and
a physician there. If sin is hunger and thirst, Christ is
the bread and water of life, If sin is error, in a road or
path, Christ is then the way. And if sin is a debt, Christ
is then a price.
Let passages of this description be
understood literally, and they immediately become not only
unintelligible, but plainly contradictory. But let them be
understood metaphorically, as was evidently designed, and
they are intelligible, consistent, and fraught with
instruction. If sin is called a disease, we are not to
understand that it may be healed as easily as bodily
diseases are, or in the same manner; but we are rather to
infer, from this representation, the greatness of the evil;
and that as diseases of the body which are not healed bring
forth, so sin, if it be not destroyed in us, will inevitably
issue in a more dreadful death of the immortal soul. If sin
be spoken of as a debt, it is not to show us that it may be
paid by another; but it is rather to signify to us that our
sins render us accountable to God, though not precisely in
the same manner, yet as certainly as debtors are to their
creditors, and that a day of reckoning must come. If sin is
a debt, and also a disease, and Christ a price to pay the
debt, and a physician to heal the disease, we are no more
authorized to infer that he has paid the debt, than we are
to conclude that he has healed the disease, which we know is
not the fact. The truth is, neither debt nor disease does
specifically describe the nature of sin. Nor does the
payment of a debt, nor the healing of a disease, with any
greater literal correctness describe the work of the
Redeemer.
From what has been shown concerning
the necessity and nature of the atonement, it is evident:
not only that it does not at all consist in the payment of a
debt, but that it is perfectly consistent with free grace in
the pardon of sinners. Grace and justice may be considered
as opposite terms. Where one begins, the other necessarily
ends. That action which justice requires cannot be of grace.
An action, to be gracious, must be unmerited; and, if
unmerited, it must be what no being is under obligation to
perform. An act of grace is what may be performed, or not
performed, without any injustice. The bestowment of a favor,
which might have been withholden without any injustice, is
an act of grace; but nothing short of this can be grace. The
term justice is used in three different ways.
1. It is used in relation to the
property of individuals.
2. It is used in relation to the
moral character of individuals.
3. It is used in relation to the
interest and well-being of society at large.
The first kind of justice, which has
respect to exchanging property, consists in giving every man
his own without respect to moral character. To be just in
this sense of the word; debtors must satisfy the equitable
demands of their creditors, and creditors, when these
demands are satisfied, must give up their obligations. That
grace which would be opposed to justice in this sense, would
consist in giving money where it is not owed, or in giving
up obligations without receiving their value. But, as the
controversy between God and sinners is not concerning.
property, this kind of justice and grace is not at all
concerned in the present inquiry.
It is the second kind of justice
which relates to the treatment of moral beings, in regard to
their character, to which this inquiry has respect To treat
moral beings exactly according to their real character, is
an act of justice. To treat them more favorably than is
correspondent with their character, would be an act of
grace. To treat them more severely than is correspondent
with their character, would be an act of injustice. Now,
this kind of justice has not been satisfied, in the least
degree, by the death of Christ. His sufferings have made no
alteration, at least no favorable alteration, in the
character of sinners. Their personal demerit is as great as
it would have been if no atonement had been made. Indeed, in
a multitude of instances, it is much greater. For if Christ
had not come, they had not had so great sin; but now, they
have both seen and hated, both him and his Father. Mankind
are now by nature, subjects of the same evil heart of
unbelief of which they were the subjects, before Christ
appeared to make atonement for sin. It is still true that
their throat is an open sepulchre, the poison of asps is
under their lips, their mouth is full of cursing and
bitterness, their feet are swift to do mischief [to shed
blood], and the way of peace they have not known. It is
still true, that their whole head is sick, and their whole
heart faint. In point of personal merit, even now they
deserve the damnation of hell. Should God now send them to
that place of torment and confine them there for ever, he
would treat them according to their personal character, and,
consequently, do them no injustice. But if, instead of
sending them to hell, he is pleased to pardon them and
restore them to his favor, he treats them more favorably
than is correspondent with their moral character, and,
consequently, their salvation must be entirely of
grace.
And, since it is evident that the
moral character of sinners is not made better by the
atonement of Christ; and, of course, that this kind of
justice, which consists in treating moral beings according
to their character, is not in the least degree satisfied; it
must follow, that there is as much grace exercised in
pardoning sinners out of respect to the atonement, as there
could possibly have been in case they had been pardoned
without any atonement. Indeed, it was utterly impossible, in
the nature of things, that this kind of justice could be
satisfied. Nothing which Christ did, either in obedience or
sufferings, could possibly alter the moral deserts of
sinners. Nor was it, in the least, necessary that justice,
in this sense of the term, should be satisfied. The moral
desert of the sinner, considered in itself, presented no
obstacle in the way of his salvation. If it had, it would
have been an obstacle in the way of grace, and, if it had
been removed, grace would have been excluded.
It is the third kind of justice
mentioned, which has been satisfied by the death of Christ.
This, if it be proper to call it justice, is fully
satisfied. For, by the sufferings and death of Christ to
atone for sin, God has fully manifested a proper respect for
his law, has made it evident that he loveth righteousness
and hateth iniquity, and has done what was needful to deter
his other subjects from disobedience; so that he may now
pardon sinners without doing any injustice to his kingdom in
general. He may be just, and the justifier of him who
believeth in Jesus. But while the obstacles arising from the
regard which God had to his own character, and the highest
good of his kingdom, which, without atonement, opposed the
salvation of sinners, are all happily removed by the
propitiation of Christ; still, as has been shown, the moral
character of sinners remains unaltered, their personal
ill-desert the same. Hence, notwithstanding God may pardon
them without injuring his kingdom, yet he is under no more
obligation to do it as it respects them, than he would have
been, if no atonement had ever been made; nor will he do
them any more injustice in sending them to hell, than he
would have done in doing the same thing, if Christ had never
died. It is evident, therefore, that there is as much grace
exercised in the pardon of sinners, as there would have
been, if they had been pardoned without any atonement
whatever.
What, then, must be the
disappointment of those, who flatter themselves that all
mankind must be saved, because Christ has made atonement for
their sins. How inconsistent must it be, to talk of
salvation by grace, and yet suppose, that God is under
obligation to save all mankind on account of Christ's death!
As well might it be argued, that God is under obligation to
save fallen angels, for whom Christ never died.
|