Discussions in theology

Front matter

{ LIBIURY OF CONGRESS. ^

JUNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DISCUSSIONS

Preface

This volume is a Second Edition of the Miscellanies it contains. They have been collected out of Periodicals, in which at different tiroes they were pj'inted. They have been carefully revised, and it is hoped, now appear in a better than their original form. The subjects of them are important, and however imperfectly treated in these small papers, have not been discussed without a deep sense of their value. The author has been induced to prepare the little book which embodies them, by a desire to give whatever of truthfulness and sound teaching may be found in them, more emphasis and more influence than it might otherwise have had.

Contents

I.— MIRACLES THE PROOF OF CHRISTIANITY, . 1

II.— NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT, 39

III.— NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT— Continued, . 57

II. NATURE OF THE ATONEMEl^T -I

Nothing is more emphatically taught in Scripture,"^ than that "the grace of God which bringeth salvation''' could not have been bestowed arbitrarily, or without regard to principles of fitness and propriety, as to the MODE of procedure ; but was under the highest necessity of adliering to a suitable manner in accomplishing its object. God, though above every other necessity, could not disregard His own character nor act in a way unworthy of Himself, as the Lord and Maker of all. Such a way is conceivable, but it was not possible, because not consistent with the essential perfections of the Divine Nature. It would not have become the Most High.

2. It may have been well, if not necessary, on our account also, that respect should have been had to method. The way of showing favor is itself often of more value than all particular benefits ; indeed, essential to the permanent value of every benefit. A family may have received a father's generosity in the amplest measures, and yet be less indebted to him for this, than for his liaving always bestowed his offices of kindness in such a way as to make them so many instances of wisdom in himself — so many exemplary lessons to his household, as to the paramount value of character. It is often better that things in themselves very desirable should be left undone, rather than be done in an improper manner. Might not, then, the Divine favor towards man have proved no favor in the end, if God had disregarded mode in conferring it ?

3. It was not only well, but absolutely indispensable for our sakes, that method should have been observed. Had not God consulted his own honor, He would not ultimately have benefited mankind. God is Himself the portion of man 5 but God dishonoring Himself were no more God. No happiness, no possibility of it, would be left to man, if God should do an unwise thing, or a thing on any account misbecoming the Supreme Majesty of heaven and earth. The benevolence of God, His power to bless mankind, depends on His always acting worthily of Himself

4. But the Scripture* teaches that the glory of God, " the essential perfections of the Divine nature,"t required, that He should not only have had respect to mamier, but have limited Himself to ojie manner namely, " the making the Captain of our salvation per-

* In the text before referred to and others.

f See Heb. ij. 10. We have not exaggerated the force of the word " became " in this passage. " The word signifies that decency and becomingness, which justice, reason and equity require ; so that the contrary would be unmeet, because unequal and unjust. Thus every one's duty, that which is incumbent on him, feet tlirough sufferings." For this — this, and no other — the necessity was the same as that God be unchangeably God, a Being of infinite perfection, who will not dishonor Himself by conduct unbecoming or unsuitable in sucli a Being.

5. The doctrine we are to explain, takes for granted concerning this plan, that it embraces what evangelical theology has termed an atonement for sin. By this phrase is intended, an amende, a compensation, or satisfaction, for the remission or setting aside of tlie condign punishment of sin ; or the punishment of the sinner according to his desert. The idea of Atonement is sometimes identified with simple at-one-menl, or reconciliation ; but if the design be to exclude what has now been expressed, it will not be pretended that this is the evangelical or orthodox meaning of the term. The Atonement, as commonly held by the Church, rests on the assumptions that man is a sinner, and that there is in the nature of sin that which deserves and calls for punishment ; and is something which comes in place of punishment, supposing this to be forborne. Our object does not require us to examine the assumptions just mentioned. Taking as conceded, that man is a sinner, and that sin incurs punishment, we are to show the principles or nature of that Atonement or satisfaction for the remission of in his place and station, is that which becomes him ; and thence in the New Testament, that which is not Kara to Trpen-ov, thus decent, is condemned as evil, 1 Cor. xi. 13 ; 1 Tim. ii. 10 : and itself is condemned as a rule of virtue. Mat. iii. 15 ; Eph. v, 3." — Dr. Oic&n, in loc. Works, vol. iii. p. 394.

42 NATURE OF TEE ATONEMENT.

punishment, which, we assume, the way of the Divine mercy to mankind embraces.

6. We ground the necessity for an atonement, under the circumstances supposed, in the perfection of the Divine Nature, and the necessity that God always act worthily of Himself. Supposing that there is forgiveness with Him, — that He may and does remit the punishment of sin, God, we say, owes it to Himself, as the Best and Greatest, the Lord and Creator of all things, to require an atonement. Sin calls for punishment, and God cannot disregard the demand ; cannot — if it be necessary that the Deity retain the glory of His nature inviolate. Of this the proof is in itself. The difference between good and evil, holiness and sin, is essential and immutable, and to this difference, no upright being can be insensible ; neither can such a being refrain, if occasion arise, from expressing appropriately, approbation of holiness, and hatred of sin. The Most High, then, infinite as He is in moral perfection, and holding the provinces of Lawgiver and Ruler of the world, was under a necessity — that repeatedly mentioned, of being true to Himself in His mode of agency, — to manifest, in fitting measure and form. His disapprobation of sin. It became Him to do this, in the first place, in His Law — the rule of life which He gave to man ; and, in the next place, he must do the same, if there be occasion, in administering and executing His Law. It is impossible, that either in the one or the other province, He should fail to express His estimate of the demerit or turpitude of sin ; nmch more do, or omit to do, anythings which might imply, that his His abhorrence of sin is less than it should be, or may be changed or abated. These things have their proof in themselves, and cannot be denied. But if they be true, how may God, acting towards His creatures as Lord and Judge of all, dispense with the pmiishment of sin ? A penalty the law must have ; and where it has been incurred by transgression, hovv- may it consist with the moral rectitude of the Deity, not to execute the penalty ? Is not punishment in this case necessary to the just revelation of the Divine displeasure against sin ?

7. But the fact lies before us, and is admitted by all, that punishment is foreborne ; that mercy in the Divine administration "rejoices against judgment," and opens the gates of Heaven to those who have incurred condemnation to eternal death. There is remission of punishment for rebellious men. But how miglit this take place, without dishonor to Him, " for whom are all things and by whom are all things ?" The primary and natural means of maintaining His honor being set aside, does a possibility remain of securing the end by any other means ? Our doctrine gives this question an affirmative reply. It asserts there was one other moans, — namely, an Aionement, by which the end could be and was secured. And because the end must be secured, and could be by no other means, an Atonement in order to the forgiveness of mankind was as necessary, as that God do nothing incompatible with His essential excellency.

8. But how could even an Atonemeht answer the purpose ? The careful consideration of this question is necessary to our design. To see the truth distinctly here, is to understand the doctrine of the Atonement. Let it be remembered, then, what the precise thing was that would have put the Divine conduct out of harmony, out of consistency, with the essential perfection of God, in case of an arbitrary remission of punishment. It was just this, that there would in that case have been no appropriate revelation of the despleasure of God against sin. Against sin : Not as jeoparding government merely, but as essentially evil in itself, apart from its actual or possible developments of its evil tendency. The interest of government does not comprehend the entire ground of the necessity for an Atonement. Does not the efficacy of the Atonement in maintaining government depend on its sufficiency to meet a higher demand, namely, that the harmony of the Divine Perfections be conserved, and particularly, that Justice, as an attribute of the Divine Nature, essential and indefeasible, irrespective of external relations and consequences, be satisfied ? Let there be then an adequate revelation of God's displeasure against sin, and does not the necessity for punishment disappear ? Why is punishment necessary any longer, if its object is attained ? It was only in order to the manifestation of the Divine abhorrence of sin, that punishment was appointed. It was not appointed simply for its own sake. If it be possible, then, by any other means than punishment, to reveal in full measure and power the Divine Indignation against sin ; in other words, if there be any means by which the cud of punishment is answered as perfectly as by puuisliment itself, and if these means are provided, is not the way now open, so far as the honor of God is concerned, for the setting aside of punishment ? May not pardoning mercy liere intervene, and grace abound in all its offices of kindness and love, without opposition from any one of the Divine perfections? May not God now act as it becomes Him to do, even while He pours upon the guilty and the condemned, if only they are prepared to receive it, all the fulness of His benevolence ? In the language of inspiration, may we not say that God now may be just and yet the justifier of men ? Or is there still something in the nature of God inconsistent with the remission of punishment ?

9. To some it appears, so at least we understand them to say, that two things in the Divine Nature are still inconsistent; two essential perfections — the Divine Justice and the Divine Veracity.

A necessity for punishing sin lies, it has been said, in the nature of sin itself, as deserving of punishment ; punishment is dueio sin ; — so that Justice has no place if punishment be set aside. But, is this indeed so ? Punishment is due to sin, if due and desert be the same? Sin deserves punishment; and if Justice is wanting wherever there is not treatment according to desert, forbearing to punish is being unjust ; and there is truly a hindrance to the remission of punishment still remaining in the Nature of God : He would be the author of injustice if He should forbear to punish. The high and unchangeable necessity of which we have again and again spoken, would be against admit-

46 i^-4 TUBE OF THE A TONEMENT.

ting any substitute for the punishment of sin. No atonement is admissible, not even though the atonement be itself punishment, i. e., the punishment of another: for the argument is, that there must bo punishment where and hecaiise it is deserved ; and the sinner's desert of punishment is one of the things which are eternal.

10. But let it be inquired into, whether that is the true idea of Justice which leads to this conclusion? Is it so, that Justice implies and necessitates treatment according to desert^ so that where there is sin there must be punishment, or Justice is sacrificed? The necessity of treatment according to desert — is this embraced in the nature of Justice ? Is there, then, no such thing with God, as the remission of the punishment of sin, or veritable forgiveness ? What means the preaching of the remission of sins among all nations in the name of Christ V'

Besides, how, after adopting this idea of Justice, can we give it a place among the Virtues ? If Justice be a virtue, a good thing, it can never be opposed to any other virtue, or oblige us to anything evil, or be inconsistent with universal goodness. The Virtues are homogeneal, sisters in the same family ; they love and embrace one another. If I must renounce Virtue — be malignant or vindictive, for example, in order to retain what I choose to call Justice, either Justice is now an evil thing, or I have abused it, by giving its name to that which is evil. That cannot be in its own nature good which requires us to be, or to do, evil. But suppose a man to be brought into judgment * Luke xxiv. 47.

and condemned as a criminal ; and that, by some means, the ends to be answered by his punishment are already secured — that through a certain arrangement or provision, no injury will be sustained, and no good be lost — no ill consequences of any kind will follow, by forbearing to punish him — so that if his punishment should take place it would be for no end but simply for punishment's sake ; and now suppose again, that something naming itself Justice should forbid his discharge on the ground that it would keep him from his desert, would this something, bear whatever name it may, be anything else than simple malignity — would it do in this case what might be regarded as a praiseworthy office, a thing worthy to be classed with the exercises and acts of that holy Love, which is the fulfilling of the moral law ? Surely it ought not to be called Justice. Is the quality of Justice such that it must inflict punishment, in all cases where it is merited, irrespectively of the ends of punishment, or merely bocause punishment has been incurred and is deserved ? The ends of punishment must be regarded ; they are the justification and defence of its infliction — what Justice points to, it may be with tears of pity, as the necessitating cause of her severity. If these can be secured without punishment, it is not Justice, or any form of goodness, but arbitrary cruelty, that will proceed, in these circumstances, to inflict a pang, though death itself be deserved. Justice is in this case satisfied — she does not and cannot object to the remission of punishment : Justice is no enemy to Love.

11. It may be well to note the office and place of Justice in a Virtuous character. It is essential, but it does not hold the highest seat among the attributes of goodness. The supremacy belongs to Love — the highest, brightest adornment and glory of every good being. Wisdom is in the service of Love ; so is Power ; so is Justice. The work of Justice is to secure to all their rights, and protect the interests of all. This done, Justice is content ; she seeks nothing more. If by any proceeding of Wisdom — any means whatever not unlawful in themselves — the interests of all are placed in perfect security, nothing would be more unjust and absurd than to forbid, in the name of Justice, the manifestations of mercy.

12. Distinctions have been made in Justice, as if it were of different kinds, Distributive, Commutative, and Puhlio ; but Justice in each of these varieties is of the same nature ; in neither of them does it ever fulfil the part of simple despotic power, or renounce the rule of Love and Goodness. Distributive Justice deals out to every one the portion of good " wliich falleth to him ;" allots to each one his claims, suffers no one to be injured ; but it hinders no one from relinquishing his rights at the suggestion of benevolence or compassion, much less does it oblige any one to be malignant or unforgiving. Commutative Justice — faithfulness to contracts, honesty between man and man — is not against indulgence to an unfortunate debtor, nor will it imprison an honest debtor who has no means of payment ; such a measure never proceeds from any modification of Justice ; it is the doing of pure malevolence. Public Justice is of the same character : it demands the punishment of crimes, as a means of securing the public good, but it is not against the pardon of an offender whose punishment may be remitted with prudence ; or, as the case sometimes is, must be remitted, unless the public good be disregarded. To return to our former statement, it is never of the nature or spirit of Justice to give pain where no ulterior end is to be answered, where there is no object to be reached beyond the giving of pain, or where the infliction terminates in itself. Such severity proceeds not from Justice, but gratuitous cruelty. Justice, then, is not in the way.

13. The other supposed obstacle is the Divine Yeracity. Punishment, we are reminded, is not only deserved, it is threatened and denounced. It is expressed in the Law itself, as the consequence of transgression, and is not the Law the voice of truth ? Or is it consistent with the principle and end of Divine legislation, to allow the idea that what the Law names as the penalty of transgression, may be incurred and yet not endured? If this be so, is not the discouragement of transgression, the majesty of the Law — the strength of the Divine government, less than it might be?

It must be confessed that there is, on this supposition, less of one kind of strength than in the opposite view there would be. If the Divine government proceeded on the principle, adopted, it is said, by an ancient tyrant, that no remission or mitigation of the punishment prescribed in the law would, xindev any circumstances^ be admitted, there would, indeed, be in 3 it more of that terrible strength which is displayed in the stern exercise of authority ; more, in other words, of despotic power. But it is impossible that God, a Being of perfect and unchangeable goodness, should administer such a government. He would not be God if He should assume the throne of an arbitrary despot. Any plan of government, not consistent with the supreme rule of Love or Goodness, is such as would dishonor the Most High. He could govern on no such plan. If the remission of punishment may be 'made compatible ivith Justice, it is reproachful to Him to suppose that He would, by institutes of law and government, have foreclosed against Himself the exercise of the pardoning prerogative ; or disabled Himself from appearing in His administration true to His own nature as the God of Love, whose goodness is His glory.

The fact is, that mere legislation, unless it be itself unlawful, never binds the hands of love, or forbids mercy under all possible or supposeable circumstances. The veracity of a lawgiver is not pledged by the simple fact that he has annexed a penalty to his law, for the execution of the penalty in all cases of transgression. Let Justice be satisfied, and truth itself would lose the quality of a virtue, if it should now be a barrier to the free exercises of benevolence. Just legislation, like Justice itself, implies no necessity for punishment, except as the ends of punishment may require. The penalty of a law is "not to be taken for a prediction, expressive of a certain event, or what shall be ; but a commination, expressing what is deserved, or most justly may be ; the true meaning or design of a commination being, that it may never be executed."-' They ■\vho think otherwise, " labor under a delusion as to the meaning of threatenings, which, though they affirm simply, nevertheless contain in them a tacit condition, depending on the result."t Such universally is the groundwork, the law, of all true legislation, human and Divine. Where law under the Divine government is broken, the penalty is incurred, the transgressor is amenable to punishment ) but God has not, by the mere fact of having given the law, pronounced a priori against the exercise of mercy. He holds, and from the first meant to hold, the pardoning prerogative in His hand. Although, according to the letter of the law, the offender is exposed to death, yet God, except as justice demands satisfaction, has left Himself free to do with him as He pleases — to have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and show compassion to whom He will show compassion.

14. These Divine perfections, then, are not in the way. So far as Justice and Truth are concerned, the way is open and clear. Is there any other obstruction? If an amende, an atonement, may be supplied, is there anything remaining, in or out of the Divine nature, to restrain the exercise and manifestation of Divine benevolence to mankind ?

According to the evangelical faith, such a measure has become a reality. An Atonement has been made, by means of which all the perfections of God harmonize and interblend their glories in favor of men ; His

* Howe. f Calvin,

Justice, Truth, Holiness, Wisdom, commingling with His Mercy, and all perfectly consenting together, to set before us, as a free and sovereign gift, eternal life, with all its variety of infinite blessings. It is, we hold, a historical verity, that such a measure has come into existence and operation ; has taken effect, and is the groundwork of the Divine dispensations of grace and goodness which so abound towards our sinful world. We regard it as the chief of all the ways of God — the foundation of His kingdom. The immediate agent by whom it was accomplished, was He to whom the Scripture refers, under the title, " the Captain of our salvation." The means were included in those sufferings of His, by which, as the Scripture saith, "He was made perfect." In these sufferings the Atonement is to be found. The Gospel of Jesus Christ records the history of the transaction. It had its consummation in the agony and bloody sweat and unparalleled death of Christ. " The decease wliich He accomplished at Jerusalem," including its preliminary and attendant particulars, was an atonement, a satisfaction to Divine Justice, whereby the door of salvation was opened to mankind. This is the grand article of evangelical Theology.

15. The doctrine embraces an explanation, ^lnowmg why it was that this death had the efficacy which is ascribed to it ; or what gave it its power to atone for sin. This arose in part from the nature of the death or sufferings of Christ ; but chiefly from the character which the doctrine ascribes to the Sufferer. In this latter respect, the doctrine, without controversy, presents a great mystery. It gives to the Sufferer a sphere of antecedent and independent existence, out of and above the creation. It makes Him distinct from God,^" and at the same time co-equal and coeternal with Him ; partaking with Him the essence and inherent glory of the Godhead :t whereby He was competent to dispose of Himself as He pleased, and also to suffer or do whatever might be exacted of Him for the satisfaction of Justice, without being Himself overcome and swallowed up, in meeting His dread liability. It afl&rms of Him, moreover, that He sustained a mysterious relation to God, that, namely, of an Only Begotten Son, who dwelt from eternity in the bosom of the Father. It adds, that this uncreated and co-eternal Companion and Son of God, came into the world, in the fulness of time, clothed in humanity, yet without sin, for the suffering of the death which awaited Him. Further, it represents Him as bearing, by the imputation of Justice, the sin of mankind ; thus making His sufferings vicarious, while it gives them a severity not to be explained or justified under any other idea than that they were a substitute for our punishment — a compensation for its remission. Finally, it declares that by virtue of these sufferings, on the part of one who possessed the Divine nature in full equality with God, an Atonement was made — every end answered which could have been gained by inflicting condign punishment on mankind.

16. The sufficiency of this measure — its power to atone — no one, of course, could perfectly appreciate,

* " The Word was mth God." f " Tlie Word was God."

besides God Himself. None else could compreliend the amount of the guilt to be forgiven, or the punishment which it incurred ; nor could any other estimate justly the value of the sufferings which were endured by Christ — such sufferings of such a personage. Their compensative merit, in their breadth and length, their depth and height, who but God alone could comprehend ? But they must have been an adequate compensation, having been appointed and accepted as sucli by the Divine Justice : and now, since by the will of God they have been published and set forth as sufiicient for their great purpose, that it has this sufficiency, or is a full amende or satisfaction to justice, cannot but assert itself in the consciousness of every one to whom it comes, in its just statement and influence. Being an atonement in fact, according to the judgment and testimony of God, it must be one in their experience. Having satisfied the ethical nature of God, it cannot but also satisfy conscience, or the ethical nature of man. The facts embraced in it, — that the sufferer was, in essential dignity, equal with God, and was also His Only Begotten Son, cannot but be regarded and accepted as constituting it an atonement. Let it be admitted, that the degraded man, whose sweat in the garden was as great drops of blood falling down to the ground, and who died on the cross in the manner described in the gospel, was the equal, and express image of God, the brightness of His glory, and His own Son ; and that He suffered thus " to purge our sins," or make satisfaction for us to Justice; and though UQ finite mind can conceive the magnitude of the punishment due to mankind, yet sure and self-evident it is, that neither this punishment nor anything else, could have been of greater avail as expressive of the demerit of sin, and the Divine indignation tovrards it. Let the statement be apprehended and received by the human conscience, and it cannot but give that conscience peace and quietness, as to the atoning sufficiency of the stupendous Measure."^

17. But is the statement itself credible ? Does it not involve intrinsic absurdity, or what is repugnant to reason and natural religion ? Is not the possibility of an atonement grounded in an assertion respecting the character of Christ, which cannot be true? There could have been no atonement, it is said, if there had not been One in eternity with God, who Himself possessed the Divine attributes: in other words, it is taught, that Christ was strictly a Divine Person. This is the foundation of the doctrine of the atonement. Is it consistent with the greatest and first of all truths — the Unity of God ? The statement is presented with a concession — rather with a bold

* It is sometimes said, that the identical penalty denounced against transgressors of the law was snifered by Christ ; but that what Christ suffered, as to the matter of it, was not their penalty is certain : Edwards has indicated the difference in the following particulars :

1. Christ felt not the gnawings of a guilty condemning conscience.

2. He felt no torment from the reigning of inward corruption and lusts, as the damned do.

3. Christ had not to consider that God hated him.

4. Christ did not suffer despair, as the wicked do in hell. Edwards' Works, vol. viii., p. 176. D wight's edition.

averment, that it is in this respect a mystery ; but it is a mystery and no more ; it is not against any dictate of reason, or contradictory of the Divine Unity. In asserting the pre-existent and eternal Divinity of Christ, it does not deny the one and simple essence of God, but only implies that this one essence is pluri-personal ; or that in the essence of the Deity there are more Persons or subsistences than one. There is nothing in reason, nothing in nature against this assertion. It relates to the mode of the Divine existence — a great mystery indeed. But to men, what is there that is not in some respect mysterious ; and if all nature be full of mystery, why should we expect to find out by searching, the mode in which the great Infinite Himself subsists ? The mystery, in this case, is one which, it is contended, the Scriptures reveal in a thousand places ; which, indeed, including its cognate doctrines, is the subject-matter of the Bible. The only question is, Is the Bible understood and interpreted aright?