08.03.18. Note H—Page 86

Note H—Page 86 The Sufferings of Christ—Their Amount and Character.

Let it be observed, that we do not here speak either of the precise nature, or of the amount, of the sufferings which Christ endured, but only of the character in which he endured them, whatever they were; and the character, consequently, which is to be assigned and ascribed to them. It was in the character of one made under the law, and made sin for us, that he endured these sufferings; and therefore, they were, in the strict sense, penal and retributive; and as borne by one, the divinity of whose person, and the merit of whose obedience, imparted an infinite value to his offering of himself, they exhausted the full penal and retributive sentence lying upon the guilty sinners whose place he took. As to the exact nature of these sufferings, beyond what is revealed respecting his bodily anguish and mental agony, it would be presumptuous to inquire; it was a good form that was employed in the old litanies: “By thine unknown sufferings, good Lord deliver us.” The sweat in the garden—the cry on the cross—speak volumes. Nor, as to the amount of these sufferings, do we at all incline to the idea of the striking of a balance, or the settling of an exact proportion or account, between the number of sins to be expiated, or of sinners to be redeemed, and the stripes inflicted on the surety; as if his sufferings, weighed and measured to the value of each sigh and each drop of blood, were exactly adequate to the guilt of the transgressions of his people—neither more nor less: so that, if fewer sins, or sinners, had been concerned, his pain would have been less; while, if it had been the will of God to save more, he must have had additional pangs to bear. Any such calculation is to be utterly repudiated, as dishonouring to God, and savouring of a carnal mind. So far as we can judge, such is the heinousness of sin, and the inflexibility of the righteous and holy law of God, that had there been but one individual sinner, for whom atonement was to be made, it would still have been as necessary as now that the eternal Son of God should become incarnate, and assume that individual’s nature, and take his place under the law, and under the curse of the law; for even then, nothing short of the Surety’s perfect obedience in his stead could have justified that one transgressor, and nothing short of his endurance of the cross, with all its woe, could have procured remission of his sins. And so, on the other hand, such is the Surety appointed by the Father, and such the merit of his voluntary obedience and propitiatory sufferings and death, that had the number of those whom he represented been increased a hundredfold, it does not appear that it would have been needful for him to do more, or to endure more, than he has actually done and endured for his elect. The real question is, Did he obey and did he suffer, in a representative character? and if so, Whom did he represent? Was he under the law? In fulfilling all righteousness, did he meet the positive demands of the law which his people had foiled to meet? In enduring all his sufferings and submitting to the cross, did he receive the punishment due to his people? Was his righteousness a legal righteousness, and were his sufferings penal sufferings? If not, the atonement has no meaning at all. It is a mere coup de theatre, a spectacle, or exhibition, to amaze men; or a coup d’ etat, to convey an impression of God’s greatness; it has no reality as a satisfaction to God’s justice; nor can it ever come home, as a personal transaction, to me. THE END