Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Under these conditions it was not unjust for Christ to substitute himself in our room, while he is righteous and we unrighteous. By this act no injury is done to any one. Not to Christ, for he voluntarily took the punishment upon himself, and had power to decide concerning his own life and death, and also power to raise himself from the dead. Not to God the judge, for he willed and commanded it; nor to his natural justice, for the bail satisfied this by suffering the punishment which it demanded. Not to the empire of the universe, by depriving an innocent person of life, as Christ, freed from death, lives for evermore; nor by the life of the surviving sinner injuring the kingdom of God, for he is converted and made holy by Christ. Not to the divine law, for its honour has been maintained by the perfect fulfilment of all its demands, through the righteousness of the Mediator; and by our legal and mystical union, he becomes one with us, and we one with him. Hence he may justly take upon him our "griefs and sorrows," and impart to us his righteousness and blessings. So there is no abrogation of the law, no derogation from its majesty, no diminution of its claims; as what we owed is transferred to the account of Christ, to be paid by him.

These preliminary remarks we have thought necessary, in order to the lucid discussion of the question concerning the necessity of the atonement. We now proceed to enquire whether it was necessary that Christ should satisfy for us, as well absolutely, in relation to the divine justice, as hypothetically, on the ground of a divine decree:-Whether it was absolutely necessary in order to our salvation, that an atonement should be made, God not having the power to pardon our sins without a satisfaction, or whether it was only rendered necessary by the divine decree? The Socinians indeed admit no kind of necessity. Some of the old divines, and some members of the Reformed church, contend for a hypothetical necessity only. They think it sufficient for the refutation of the heretic. But we, with the great body of the orthodox, contend for both. We do not urge a necessity simply natural, such as that of fire to burn,

which is involuntary, and admits of no modification in its exercise. It is a moral and rational necessity for which we plead; one which flows from the holiness and justice of God, and cannot be exercised any other way than freely and voluntarily, and which admits of various modifications, provided there is no infringement of the natural rights of Deity.

That there is such a necessity is evinced by many arguments. 1. The vindictive justice of God. That such an attribute is natural and essential to God, has been proved at large elsewhere. This avenging justice belongs to God as a judge, and is essentially connected with that character which he sustains, and with which he can no more dispense, than he can cease to be a judge, or deny himself; though, at the same time, he exercises it freely. It does not consist in the exercise of a gratuitous power, like mercy, which, whether it be exercised or not, injustice is done to no one. It is that attribute by which Deity gives to every one his due, and from the display of which, when proper objects are presented, God can no more abstain, than he can do what is unjust. This justice is the constant will of punishing sinners, which in Deity, cannot be inefficient, as his majesty is supreme, and his power infinite. And hence the infliction of punishment upon the transgressor or his surety is inevitable. A regard to the liberty of God, which he exercises in positive acts, forms no objection to this; nor does his mercy; which, though it may free the sinner from punishment, does not demand that sin shall not be punished.

2. The nature of sin, which is a moral evil and essentially opposed to holiness, forms another argument. The connection between it and physical evil is natural and necessary. As physical evil, or penal evil cannot exist without moral evil, either personal or imputed, so there cannot be moral evil without producing natural evil. Moral and physical good, or holiness and happiness are united together by the divine wisdom, as well as by the goodness and justice of God, so that a good man must be happy, for goodness is a part of the divine image. The wicked must be miserable,

[ocr errors]

as God is just; and this the rather, because when God gives blessings to the righteous, he does it of his own bounty, out of mere liberality bestowing on the creature what it cannot claim by merit; but when he punishes the sinner, he renders to him precisely what he has merited by his sins.

3. The sanction of the law, which threatens death to the sinner. (Deut. xxvii. 29. Gen. ii. 17. Ez. xviii. 20. Rom. i. 18, 32. and vii. 23). Since God is true and cannot lie, these threatenings must necessarily be executed either upon the sinner, or upon some one in his stead.. In vain do our opponents reply, that the threatening is hypothetical, not absolute, and may be relaxed by repentance. This is a gratuitous supposition. That such a condition is either expressed or understood neither has been, nor can be proved. Nay, as the penal sanction of the law is a part of the law itself, which is natural and indispensable, this sanction must also be immutable. With the judicial threatenings of the law, we must not confound particular and economical comminations, or such as are paternal and evangelical, which are denounced against men to recal them to repentance. Such threatenings may be recalled in case of penitence. Of this kind were those denounced against Hezekiah (Isaiah xxxviii.) and against Nineveh, (Jon. iii.)

4. The preaching the gospel forms another topic of argumentation, from which we may prove the necessity of the death of Christ. It announces the violent and painful death of the Mediator and surety, on the cross, and confirms it with the greatest cogency, by the narration of the circumstances of that event. Wherefore, we cannot believe that God should multiply sufferings unnecessarily. His goodness and wisdom do not permit us to harbour an idea, that the Father could expose his most innocent, and supremely beloved Son, to a death most excruciating and ignominious without a necessity, which admits of no relaxation. The only necessity which can be possibly imagined here, is that of making an atonement to the divine justice, for our sins. Every one must perceive that it was absolutely necessary. I know that

our opponents affect to produce various other weighty and important reasons, for the accursed death of the cross, such as the confirmation of Christ's doctrine, and to set examples of all kinds of virtue, especially of charity and constancy! But since Christ had confirmed his doctrines by numerous stupendous miracles, and through his life had given the most illustrious examples of every human virtue, who could believe that God, for that one cause alone, would expose his only begotten Son to torments so multiplied and excruciating? Therefore without all doubt, there were other causes for that dispensation; a regard for the honor of his justice, and the interests of the divine government. To this the Holy Spirit bears witness by the apostle Paul, (Rom. iii. 5.) who affirms that "God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation for our sins, εις δειξιν της δικαιοσυνη άντε, to declare his righteousness," which was inexorable, and did not suffer our sins to be pardoned on any other terms, than by the intervention of the death of Christ.

Again, if God was able and willing by his word alone, without any atonement to pardon our sins, why does the apostle Paul so often and emphatically refer our justification and salvation to the blood of Christ? "We are," saith he, "justified by the redemption which is in his blood." (Rom. iii. 24.) "We have redemption through his blood; the remissions of sins." (Eph. i. 7.) " He hath reconciled all things to himself by the blood of Christ." (Col. 1. 20.) Now there was no need that his blood should be shed if it de-. pended solely upon the divine will. On this supposition, the apostle would rashly and falsely affirm, what he often affirms, that the blood of bulls and of goats, that is the sacrifices under the law, could not take away sins; and that the oblation of Christ alone could. If there was no need of any purgation and if penitence alone was sufficient to take away sin, that is the guilt of sin, without any sacrifice, the apostle's assertion is groundless. What could be taken away without any sacrifice at all, could surely be removed by legal sacrifices. If the divine will alone is necessary, why is it that Paul never refers to it, but always ascends to the na

[ocr errors]

ture of things, as when he asserts that is was impossible for the blood of bulls to take away sins? Surely it must be because sin is so hateful to God, that its filth can be washed away by nothing less than the blood of the Son of God.

5. If there was no necessity that Christ should die, the greatness of God's love in not sparing his own Son, but delivering him up for us all, which the apostle commends, will be not a little diminished. If there was no obstacle on the part of justice, in the way of our salvation, it would indeed have been great grace in God to have forgiven our sins. But it would have fallen far short of that stupendous love which, though justice inexorable stood in the way, removed, by means found in the treasures of infinite wisdom, all impediments to our redemption, displaying a most amiable harmony between justice and mercy. Nor can Christ be said to have appeased the wrath of God, if he without demanding any satisfaction, could by a volition, without any other means, have laid aside his own wrath.

Finally, our opinion relative to the necessity of an atonement does not, in the least, derogate from any of the divine perfections. Not from God's absolute power, because he can neither deny himself nor any of his attributes, nor can he act in such a way as to give the appearance of delighting in sin, by holding communion with the sinner.-Not from the freedom of his will, because he can will nothing contrary to his justice and holiness, which would be injured should sin go unpunished.-Not from his boundless mercy, for this is exercised towards the sinner, though punishment is inflicted on the Surety. On the contrary it makes a glorious display of the most illustrious of the divine perfections-of his holiness on account of which he can have no communion with the sinner, until by an atonement, his guilt is removed, and his pollution purged-of his justice, which inexorably demands punishment of sin-of his infallible wisdom and boundless goodness.

« AnteriorContinuar »