041. CHAPTER 18 - THE ATONEMENT - ITS NATURE - EXPIATORY CHARACTER OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
CHAPTER 18 - THE ATONEMENT - ITS NATURE - EXPIATORY CHARACTER OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. IN the preceding chapter, the proper nature of the atonement has been argued from the typical institution of the sacrifices of the Old Testament; but, as has already been intimated, clear and conclusive as the evidence from that source may be, it is not the principal reliance of the advocates for the true doctrine of the atonement. As the first dawn of morning light is succeeded by an increasing brilliancy, till the earth is illumed by the full glories of mid-day, even so the great doctrine of redemption through the blood of the everlasting covenant, which at first faintly gleamed from the illustrious promise of “the seed of the woman,” continued to shine, with still increasing luster, through the consecrated medium of the types and shadows, the smoking altars, and bleeding victims, of the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations; till, at length, under the superior light and more glorious developments of gospel day, we behold the clear fulfillment of ancient predictions, the infallible comment upon the divinely instituted types, and the most explicit revelation of the great mystery of salvation, through the merits of the vicarious and piacular oblation of God’s Messiah. For a correct view of the doctrine of the atonement, we are not left to reason from ancient predictions and Jewish types alone, but we are furnished with an abundance of the plainest and most direct testimony. Let the true point of controversy be now borne in mind. That Christ died for us in such sense as to confer benefit upon us, Socinians, Arians, Unitarians, etc., admit; but the doctrine for which we contend is, 1. That he died for us as a proper substitute - in our room and stead.
2. That his death was propitiatory - a proper expiation, or atonement, for our sins.
These are the points which are strenuously denied, especially by those who also deny the proper divinity of Christ; but, that they are expressly taught in the Scriptures, we shall now endeavor to show.
Now, the point is, to show that Christ died for us, as a proper substitute.
I. Our first argument is founded upon those passages in which Christ is expressly declared to have died for us.
1. That the preposition uper, translated for, sometimes merely signifies on account of, or, for the advantage of, is admitted; but that it also implies instead of, and that such is its meaning, as applied to the subject in hand, in the Scriptures, is what we shall endeavor to prove.
(1) That it is so used by the Grecian classics, cannot be disputed. Raphelius, in his “Annotations,” affirms that “the Socinians will not find one Greek writer to support a different interpretation.” One or two quotations are all we shall adduce: “Would you be willing uper toutou apoqanein,” to die FOR this boy? - that is, would you be willing to die in his stead? - to save his life by the sacrifice of your own? Again:
‘Antilocov tou patrov uperapoqanwn - “Antilochus, dying for his father,” obtained such glory, that he alone among the Greeks was called Filopatwr. The context in these passages admits of no other construction than that of a proper substitution. (See Xenophon De Cyri Exped. et De Venat.)
(2) But that such is the sense of the preposition in the New Testament, may be seen from John 11:50. Caiaphas said: “It is expedient for us that one man (apoqanh uper tou laou) should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” The meaning evidently here is, that the life of Christ should be taken to save the lives of the nation from the vengeance of the Romans. Romans 5:7 : “For scarcely (uper) for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventure (uper) for a good man some would even dare to die.” Here the sense is plainly that of substitution - the life of one man for that of another. But see the next verse: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, While we were yet sinners, (Cristov uper hmwn apeqane,) Christ died for us.” Now, if uper, in the preceding verse, meant a plain substitution of life for life, it must, in all fairness of criticism, mean the same here, for it is a continuation of the same argument.
2 Corinthians 5:21 : “For he hath made him to be sin (uper hmwn,) for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Here the sense evidently is, that Christ was made a sin-offering, as a substitute for us, In no other sense can it be said that he “was made sin.” The word amartian, here rendered sin, is by Macknight and others translated sin-offering. So it is frequently used in the Septuagint. So also it is used in Hebrews ix: 28: “And unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time, (cwriv amartiav,) without a sin-offering, unto salvation.” The scope of the apostle’s argument will admit of no other interpretation. So also it is used in Hebrews 13:11 : “For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for (amartiav) a sin-offering.” Now, it is clear, that the blood of beasts was offered “for sin” in no other sense than that of an expiation or atonement. Hence we perceive that Christ was “made sin for us” in no other sense than that of a vicarious offering. 1 Peter 3:18 : “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just (uper) for (or, instead of) the unjust.” Romans 5:6 : “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died (uper, instead of, or) for the ungodly.” 2 Corinthians 5:15 : “And that he died (uper) for (or, instead of) all.” Hebrews 2:9 :
“That he by the grace of God should taste death (uper) for (or, instead of) every man.” 1 Timothy 2:6 : “Who gave himself a ransom (uper pantwn) for (or, instead of) all.”
2. Again: from the use of the Greek preposition anti, we may also infer that the sufferings of Christ were vicarious. That this preposition implies commutation and substitution, we may see from Matthew 5:38 : “An eye (anti) for (or, instead of) an eye, and a tooth (anti) for (or, instead of) a tooth.” Also, see Matthew 2:22 : “Archelaus did reign in Judea (anti) in the room of his father Herod.” Now let us see how this same preposition is used in reference to our Lord. Matthew 20:28 : “Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom (anti) for (or, instead of) many.”
If the foregoing quotations do not prove that Christ died as a substitute for us, we may confidently affirm that they prove nothing.
II. In the next place, to prove that the death of Christ was both vicarious and propitiatory, we appeal to those passages which speak of his dying for our sins.
Isaiah 53:4-6 : “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But 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. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Verses 10 and 11: “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities.” The passage just quoted is as plain and pointed as language will admit. Had the prophet written for the express purpose of vindicating the doctrine of atonement from the Socinian perversion, we do not see how he could have more strongly presented the vicarious and expiatory character of the death of Christ. Observe, here, our Lord is said to have “borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;” our iniquity is said to have been “laid on him;” and he is said to “bear the iniquities of many.” In all this there is doubtless an allusion to the ceremony in reference to the scape-goat, upon which the priest laid his hands, and confessed over it the sins of the people, and then sent it away into the wilderness but there is evidently more implied here than the bare removal of sin. This is implied, but the most emphatic meaning of the language is the bearing of the punishment due to sin. That this is the meaning of the phrase “to bear sin or iniquity” in the Scriptures, may be seen from Leviticus 22:9 : “They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it.” Here, to bear sin was to be exposed to death, the penalty of sin. See, also, Ezekiel 18:20 : “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear (die for) the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear (die for) the iniquity of the son.”
Thus it will appear that, by our Saviour bearing our iniquities, as seen in the passage from Isaiah, we are plainly taught that he bore the punishment due to us on account of our iniquities; consequently his sufferings were vicarious and expiatory. Again, it is said: “He was stricken, smitten of God, wounded, bruised, chastised; it pleased the Lord to bruise him,” etc. Language cannot more plainly declare that the sufferings of Christ were a penal infliction for our sins. Again, by his sufferings we here learn that we procure “peace,” “we are healed,” we are “justified;” all of which testify that his death was properly propitiatory.
There is an allusion to this passage in Isaiah in 1 Peter 2:24 : “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed.”
Here the expiatory character of the death of Christ is clear from the effects resulting from it. By it we are said to be “dead to sins,” “alive unto righteousness,” and to be “healed.” In Galatians 3:13, we read: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” The law had said: “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.” Consequently, as “all had sinned, and come short of the glory of God,” all were exposed to this curse; therefore, as Christ, in this sense, became a curse for us, he must have suffered in our room, on account of our sins.
Romans 4:25 : “Who was delivered for our offenses.” Here our offenses are presented as the antecedent cause of the sufferings of Christ; consequently they were expiated by his death.
III. Next, we refer to some of those passages which speak of reconciliation, propitiation, etc., as connected with the sufferings of Christ.
1 John 2:2 : “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”Colossians 1:20 : “And having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself.” Romans 3:25 : “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.”
Romans 5:11 : “By whom we have now received the (katallaghn) atonement,” (or reconciliation.) The amount of these passages is equivalent to what is implied in being “saved from wrath through him” - that is, delivered from exposure to the penalty of his punitive justice. Again, we would notice some of those passages in which the salvation of the gospel is spoken of under the appellation of redemption.1 Peter 1:18-19 : “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation, received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” Ephesians 1:7 : “In whom we have redemption through his blood.” The Greek words lutrow, apolutrwsiv, properly imply the liberation of a captive by the payment of a ransom, or some consideration, without which he could not have been liberated; therefore we are here taught that the death of Christ is the procuring cause of salvation.
IV. Lastly, we notice that justification, or the remission of sin, and sanctification, are said to be connected with the death of Christ.
Acts 13:38-39 : “Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.”1 John 1:7 : “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”
Revelation 1:5 : “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.”Matthew 26:28 : “For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins.”
Ephesians 1:7 : “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” Romans 5:9 : “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” The evidence from Scripture for the vicarious and expiatory character of the death of Christ might be extended much farther, but we deem it unnecessary. If persons are disposed to abide by the express declarations of Scripture, what has already been adduced is sufficient; but if they are determined, at all hazards, to spurn the Bible doctrine of the atonement, they may, if they choose, form a creed to suit their own notions, and enjoy the luxury of fancying that it is the “perfection of beauty,” however adverse it may be to the teachings of revelation. We think we may safely say that, had the inspired writers designed expressly to teach the vicarious and propitiatory character of the death of Christ, the passages we have adduced are admirably adapted to the accomplishment of that purpose; but had they designed to teach an opposite doctrine, it will be a difficult task to vindicate them from such a degree of ignorance of language, or disingenuousness of purpose, as would utterly discredit their claims to inspiration.
V. Having now established from the Scriptures the grand and leading principles of the atonement, as based upon the vicarious and expiatory character of the death of Christ, as the meritorious and procuring cause of salvation, we proceed, next, to illustrate more particularly the reasonableness and propriety of the whole scheme. From what has already been said in reference to the necessity for the atonement, as originating in the principles of the divine administration, it will necessarily follow that, after man had violated the law of God, there was but one possible way in which the threatened penalty could, in any degree, be averted or removed, and guilty man rescued from the opening jaws of impending ruin. And we now inquire, What was that way of escape? What was the only door of hope to a ruined world? We answer, it was that something different from the precise penalty should be substituted, which would answer, as fully as the threatened penalty itself, all the legitimate purposes of the divine government. Now if it can be shown that the sufferings of Christ, in our room and stead, meet this requirement, and perfectly secure all the ends of the divine administration, the propriety of the great scheme of atonement which we have presented will at once be manifest, and the plan will be opened up to our view “by which God can be just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” That the point now proposed may be clearly presented, it will be necessary for us to inquire what are the grand purposes of the divine government. These are -
1. To show God’s hatred to sin, arising from the holiness of his nature. This is essential, in order that his holy and excellent character may be known and revered by his intelligent creatures. For if their happiness be connected with their duty, and their paramount duty be love to God, it is plain that they cannot be led to the exercise of that love unless his character be presented to them in its native excellence and purity, as it was proclaimed unto Moses - “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.”
2. Another end of the divine government is, to show God’s determination to punish the sinner. This is essential, that he may maintain dominion over the intelligent creation, and prevent general anarchy and rebellion, and consequent destruction, throughout all parts of the moral universe. If the “morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy,” at the birth of creation, may we not reasonably suppose that they were spectators of the fall of man? And what, we ask, would have been the effect upon, perhaps, millions of worlds, had the Almighty failed to require the penalty of the violated law? Would they not all have received license to sin with impunity? And would not the result probably have been fatal to the inhabitants of innumerable worlds? Therefore we conclude that the mercy of God, much more his justice, demanded satisfaction for a broken law, that the divine determination to punish sin might be strikingly exhibited for the safety and happiness of myriads of intelligent and accountable creatures, formed for happiness in communion with God.
Thus it appears to us that the two particulars above presented exhibit the grand ends of the divine government. Now if it can be made to appear that the sufferings and death of Christ, as a substitute, will subserve these purposes, as fully as the exact penalty threatened in its precise kind and degree, then it will follow that, by this arrangement, the honor of the divine throne may be sustained, the demands of justice satisfied, and yet mercy be extended to a fallen world. All this, we conceive, is fully accomplished in the divine plan and arrangement, as set forth through the merits of the crucified Immanuel. That such is the fact, will more fully appear by the examination of several particulars.
(1) Consider the exalted character of Christ. Here we must view him as Mediator - as God-man, possessing all excellency and perfection; as “the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person.” But we must also contemplate him in the endearing relation of the Son - the only Son - the well-beloved Son of God. For the Almighty to let fall his wrath upon a character so exalted, and so dearly beloved, rather than to violate the claims of justice, or give countenance to sin, surely is a far more illustrious exhibition of the holiness of his character, and his settled purpose not to clear the guilty at the sacrifice of correct principle, than could have been presented by the eternal punishment of the whole human family.
(2) Notice the freeness with which Christ was delivered up by the Father, and with which he consented to suffer for us. Man had no claims upon God. God was under no obligations to man. All was free, unmerited mercy and compassion. God saw and pitied us, and ran to our relief. The Saviour voluntarily laid down his life. Surely these facts enhance the value of the sacrifice, and tend gloriously to exhibit the extent of the love, the holiness of the nature, and the sacredness of the justice of God.
(3) Next, notice the nature and extent of the sufferings of Christ. We do not pretend to say that he suffered, either in kind or degree, precisely the same that man would be required to suffer, if deprived of the benefits of redemption. Far from it, indeed. The very idea is monstrous and absurd.
He could not suffer the same kind of torment. One of the principal ingredients in the cup which the miserably damned are to drink, is the bitterness of remorse. This the Saviour could not taste.
Neither do we believe that he suffered to the same extent that man would have been required to suffer, had no atonement been provided. We cannot believe it: in the first place, because there is no intimation of the kind in the Bible; and, in the second place, because we think it unnecessary, unreasonable, and absurd. It was unnecessary, because of the superior merits of Christ. The value and efficacy of his atonement result mainly, not from the intensity of his sufferings, but the dignity of his character. It was the humanity, and not the divinity, which suffered. The humanity was the sacrifice, but the divinity was the altar on which it was offered, and by which the gift was sanctified. The sufferings were finite in their extent, but the sacrifice was of infinite value, by reason of the mysterious hypostatic union with the divinity.
(4) Again: the hypothesis is unreasonable and absurd, because it would mar the glorious exhibition of divine love in redemption. For if the full and exact penalty due to man, in kind and degree, was endured by the Saviour, where is the manifestation of the Father’s benevolence? Redemption, upon this supposition, would not be a scheme of grace, so far as the Father is concerned; but merely a transfer of misery to a different object - from the guilty to the innocent. But, furthermore, an endless degree of punishment was due to man; consequently this punishment was infinite, at least in duration. But the sufferings of Christ, as they were not infinite in duration, so neither could they have been infinite in extent; otherwise they never could have terminated. Infinite means without limit. But his sufferings were limited - they came to an end; consequently they could not have been infinite. Had they continued even an hour longer than they did, with their greatest intensity, it is evident they would have been greater, in the aggregate, than they were; therefore they were not infinite in extent. All the infinitude connected with them is applicable to the dignity of the sufferer, and not to the intensity of the agony.
(5) And if it be objected that the atonement cannot be satisfactory to justice, unless it equal the original penalty in the extent of suffering, we reply, that the same argument would prove that it must also correspond with the original penalty in the kind, as well as the degree, of misery; which we have seen to be impossible. All that is necessary is, that the sufferings be such as justice can accept as an adequate satisfaction, in the character of a substitute, for the original penalty. All that may be lacking in the extent of the suffering is amply made up in the superior, yea, the infinite dignity, of the sufferer. But, after all, we freely admit that the agony of our blessed Lord was great, beyond the power of language to describe, or of mere man to endure. “It pleased the Father to bruise him;” and he bore the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.
(6) On the subject now under consideration, the following observations of a learned divine are appropriate and satisfactory:
“But how, it may be asked again, could the sufferings of Jesus Christ satisfy for the sins of ‘a great multitude which no man can number, out of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues’? The common answer is, that the transcendent value of his sufferings was the consequence of the dignity of his nature, and it seems to be sufficient. His sufferings were limited in degree, because the nature in which he endured them was finite; but their merit was infinite, because the suffering nature was united to the Son of God, (the divinity.) An idea, however, seems to prevail, that his sufferings were the same in degree with those to which his people (all mankind) were liable; that he suffered not only in their room, but that quantum of pain and sorrow which, if he had not interposed, they should have suffered in their own persons through eternity; and so far has this notion been carried by some, that they have maintained that his sufferings would have been greater or less if there had been one more or one fewer to be redeemed. According to this system, the value of his sufferings arose, not from the dignity of his person, but from his power. The use of his divine person in this case was, not to enhance the merit of his sufferings, but to strengthen him to bear them. If this is true, it was not necessary that he should have taken human nature into personal union with himself; it was only necessary that he should have sustained it; and this he could have done, although it had subsisted by itself. That the sufferings of the man Christ Jesus were greater than those which a mere mortal could have borne, will be readily granted; but, although it does not become us to set limits to Omnipotence, yet we cannot conceive him, I think, considered simply as a man, to have sustained the whole load of divine vengeance, which would have overwhelmed countless myriads of men through an everlasting duration. By its union to himself, his human nature did not become infinite in power; it was not even endowed with the properties of an angel, but continued the same essentially with human nature in all other men.” (Dick’s Theology.)
Those who imagine that Christ endured all the pain which “the millions of the redeemed were doomed to endure throughout the whole of their being,” have taken an improper view of the whole subject. They have considered “our sins to be debts in a literal sense, and the sufferings of Christ to be such a payment as a surety makes in pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings.”
Those who have represented “that one drop of the blood of Christ would have been sufficient to redeem the world,” have erred on the opposite extreme. According to this, it might well be asked why he shed so many drops as he did, or why he “poured out his soul unto death.” Therefore, while we admit that the sufferings of Christ were inconceivably great, we cannot believe that they were infinite in degree. Their transcendent value resulted from the union of the divine with the human nature. From what has been said, we think it must appear that, through the sufferings and death of Christ, in our room and stead - although something different is accepted, instead of the exact penalty originally denounced - the ends of the divine government are fully answered, the holiness of God is exhibited, the claims of justice satisfied, and thus “mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other;” and a new and living way is opened up for the extension of mercy to fallen man. All difficulties being removed - the law being “magnified and made honorable” - God can stoop to fallen man with offers of pardon, and the throne of justice stands secure.
VI. We conclude the present chapter by noticing a few of the prominent objections which have been urged against the view here taken of the atonement.
1. It has been said “that it is derogatory to the divine character to suppose that God was angry with the human family, and could only be induced to love them by the death of his own Son.” To this we reply, that the doctrine of the atonement sets forth no such idea. It is true the divine justice demanded satisfaction, or the punishment of the criminal; and this fixed principle of the divine administration to punish the guilty is, in Scripture, denominated the anger, or indignation, of God; but no intelligent divine ever taught or believed that the Almighty is liable to be perturbed by the rage of that passion, in the sense in which it exists with men. This is so far from being true, that “God loved the world” with “the love of pity,” or compassion, perhaps quite as much before the atonement was made as after it; yea, it was his love that induced him to send his Son to die for us; and therefore it is plain that this objection is founded upon a false assumption.
2. It has been objected “that it is contrary to justice to punish the innocent for the guilty.” To this we reply, that if the innocent sufferer undertakes voluntarily, in view of a rich reward which is to follow and a greater good which is to result, there is nothing in it contrary to strict justice, as recognized in the practice of the wisest and best of our race in all ages. The objection now under consideration must come with a bad grace from believers in the truth of revelation; for if it be unjust for the innocent to be punished in the room of the guilty, it must be unjust for the innocent to be punished under any circumstances. The ground of the injustice, if there be any, is not that the innocent is punished for the guilty, but that he is punished at all. Now, if we believe in the truth of revelation, we are compelled to admit, 1. That Christ was perfectly innocent - “he did no sin.”
2. That he was punished - “it pleased the Father to bruise him.” These are facts which we must discard our Bible before we can dispute. The only question, then, for us to determine is, whether it comports more with the principles of strict justice, the purity of the divine administration, and the general tenor of Scripture, to say that the innocent Saviour was punished with the most excruciating pangs for no good cause - for no assignable reason whatever - or, to contend, as we have done, that his sufferings were voluntarily entered upon, in the room and stead of a guilty world of sinners, who had incurred the penalty of a violated law, from which they could only be released by the admission of a substitute. That the former position is far more objectionable than the latter, we think cannot be disputed. If we admit the former, we assume a ground in direct opposition to the plainest principles of justice, as recognized by all enlightened governments upon earth, and as set forth in the Holy Scriptures; if we admit the latter, we are sustained by the theory and practice of the wisest and best of mankind, as well as the plain teachings of Holy Writ. Therefore the objection may be dismissed, as deserving no farther reply.
3. It has been objected that the view we have taken of the atonement is “contrary to the admitted facts that all men suffer, more or less, the penalty of the violated law in this life, and that some will still continue to suffer it in a future state.”
(1) Now it is contended by the objector, that if Christ suffered this penalty in our room and stead, all for whom he suffered should be immediately and forever released therefrom; otherwise a double payment of the claims of justice is exacted, which would be unreasonable and derogatory to the divine administration. The objection here presented lies with full force against the view taken of the atonement by the Antinomians and many of the Calvinists, but it can have no application to that view of the subject which we have presented, and which we believe to be the scriptural account.
(2) Upon the supposition that Christ discharged the exact penalty of the law due from man, in the sense in which a surety would liquidate the debt of an insolvent individual, by the payment of the full demand in dollars and cents, it would most certainly follow that the debtor would be at once and forever discharged from all obligations to the creditor, and justice would require that all for whom the atonement was made should have immediate and complete deliverance from the penalty of the law which they had incurred. But such is far from being the true presentation of the subject. The very idea of a substitute implies that something different from the exact penalty is admitted in its place. And here it must also be confessed, that in the admission of Christ as a substitute, there is a relaxation of the rigor of law; for the Almighty was under no obligations to admit any compromise or commutation whatever, and, in strict justice, might have rejected every substitute, and enforced with rigor the threatened penalty, to the last jot and tittle. But, at the same time, be it remembered, that the admitted relaxation of law was such as was perfectly consistent with justice, such as was calculated to sustain the honor of the divine throne, and such as God might, consistently with his character, admit.
(3) Now, if it be admitted that God was at liberty either to accept or reject the substitute, it will follow that he was at liberty to prescribe the terms on which the substitute should be accepted. And, as God was under no obligations to accept a substitute at all, so he was under no obligations to extend mercy to the sinner through the substitute. And as the efficacy of the substitute, as such, is based entirely on the will and appointment of God, even so the blessing of pardon and salvation through him is based entirely on the unmerited mercy and free grace of God, who has condescended freely to bring himself under obligations, by his own voluntary promise, to extend mercy to man through the Mediator. Hence it will follow that, as the admission of the substitute, and the promise of mercy through him, were acts of pure favor and free grace on the part of God, so, also, it must be the prerogative of God to fix, by his own will and appointment, not only the degree of suffering to be endured by the substitute, in order that the law may be “magnified and made honorable,” and salvation be made possible to man, but also the condition upon which, and the plan according ‘to which, pardon and salvation are to be extended.
(4) Therefore it is clear that the atonement of Christ, taken in the abstract, does not bring God under obligation to extend pardon and salvation, absolutely and unconditionally, to any. The obligations of God to pardon and save the sinner, upon any terms, result not necessarily from the atonement, as such, But from the gracious promise which God has been pleased freely to make. Now it will follow that, as God has not been pleased to promise that all for whom the atonement was made shall be immediately and unconditionally pardoned and released from the penalty of the law, there is no ground for cavil against the doctrine of atonement because all men in the present life suffer to some extent, and some in a future state shall suffer to the full extent, the penalty of the law.
Thus it is clear that the objection taken to the view of the atonement, from the admitted fact that all for whom it was made are not at once and forever released from the penalty of the law, falls to the ground. The great truth is, that salvation, through the atonement, is not a system either of prevention, or of absolute and immediate deliverance, but of deliverance, according to a prescribed plan, which the Scriptures sufficiently unfold.