done, instead of a finite nature from the agent, then the satisfaction will be infinite from the nature of the Being to whom it is rendered, though the agent who renders it be finite. The other point in which this argument fails, is this. Christ made an infinite satisfaction by his sufferings and death, because he was an infinite Being, both God and man. But if you ask the advocates of this dogma, if they believe the Second Person of the Trinity, suffered and died, they answer, "No: it would be blasphemous to suppose so." Then it follows that nothing but the man suffered. What then becomes of the infinite satisfaction? It goes out in mere words. It is asserted in form, and denied in fact. The Divine Person must have been withdrawn all that time to the ruin of this argument, and the contradiction of creeds and articles of faith which assert that the two natures were joined in one Person never to be divided. Besides the Second Person, being equal in every respect in the Godhead with the first, the sins of mankind doubtless being committed against the whole Deity, were as much against him as the Father, and if the Father were angry and required satisfaction, the Second Person must be so too, and likewise require satisfaction. But he could not make satisfaction to himself, though he might to the Father and the Holy Ghost. It follows then irresistibly that the Second Person never has been, and never can be satisfied. Such amazing inconsistencies men are led into by falling into the fundamental error, that the atonement is the reconciliation of God to man, instead of man to God. But it is said, that the death of Christ was intended to make a display to the universe of the infinite evil of sin, and the wrath of God against it. It would have been making light of it, to have pardoned it on any other ground without making this exhibition. In answer to this I would say, that I can conceive of no possible way in which the evil of sin could be made to appear so light. The evil of sin is the happiness it prevents or destroys among mankind, the degradation and misery to which it subjects the sinner. These are its natural effects according to the laws of nature and God. Its appropriate punishment is remorse of conscience, and outward inconvenience and suffering. Its only cure, true penitence and thorough reformation. One of its evils and punishments is the slow, painful, and difficult process, the disagreeable and nauseous remedies to which we must submit, in order to be cured of this loathsome disease that we have brought upon ourselves. This, to my mind, displays the evil of sin more impressively than any thing else could do. And I will add, I know of no way in which this wide-spreading evil of sin could be so diminished, I had almost said annihilated in my view as to suppose that all this mighty connection between cause and effect, of sin and suffering could be arrested and broken off, and all the merited sufferings of the myriads of the human race could be concentrated and expiated by the sufferings of a few hours, by the agonies of one death. Sin is not so great an evil if all its ill consequences can be so easily got rid of. I might have said, according to the theory we are opposing, the agonies and death of one human being, for it is not pretended, or rather it is strenuously denied, that the Divine Nature, the Second Person of the Trinity suffered. He must have been, if he were God equal to the Father, at that very moment filling all space in a state of infinite happiness and bliss. All connection of Jesus with him then, if there were any sympathy between them must have mitigated the sufferings of Jesus, instead of making them infinite. Besides, there were some circumstances in the death of Christ, though an exceeding painful and excruciating one, of alleviation, of comfort and support. "It was for the joy set before him that he endured the cross, despising the shame." Was there no consolation in the anticipation of this joy? He was not descending to a dark, a doubtful, or a fearful tomb. He knew that in three days, he should rise in glory, and ascend to that eternal joy which was set before him. His sufferings were not infinite in duration, nor could they have been in degree, because there was much to console him under them. To suppose then that these sufferings were equivalent to, and sufficient to cancel and do away, all the black crimes of all mankind in all ages, is to my mind to make light of sin, rather than impress the universe with its infinite evil and ill-desert. How much more impressive to witness in its endless manifestations, the inexorable law by which suffering is chained to sin in the sinner's own person, not to be broken, but by true contrition and real reformation. Moreover, this whole hypothesis of satisfaction and substitution is founded on an entire misapprehension of the nature of sin and guilt, responsibility and punishment. It supposes things, which are impossible in their own nature. It supposes sin, guilt, punishment, innocence and righteousness to be transferable; that men's sins, guilt, and punishment were transferred to Christ, and his innocence and righteousness transferred to them. Sin is a personal act, and cannot be transferred, any more than personal identity can be transferred. It cannot by any possibility become the act of one, who never participated in it. Until one man can become another, he never can be guilty of his sins. That it cannot be transferred, is made certain by the very nature of conscience. That another suffers for my sin cannot relieve my conscience. It is rather aggravated than relieved by the fact. The only thing that can relieve me, is to suffer the penalty myself, or sincere repentance and reformation. Punishment is any kind of penalty, pain, or suffering inflicted on a transgressor. Punishment can take place only when there is a consciousness of guilt. If inflicted where there is no consciousness of guilt, it is not punishment. It is injury, or injustice. Vicarious punishment is a contradiction in terms. One man can suffer in consequence of another's sin. But this does not take it away; it rather aggravates it. One man may suffer for another that is a sinner, in order to reform and save him. One brother may undergo much for another brother in order to bring him to repentance, reformation, and reconciliation to their common father. But unless he brings him to repentance and reformation, it is all in vain. He cannot suffer in his stead, nor do any thing to expiate his guilt. Unless the guilty man repents and reforms, his conscience is not cleansed. He must suffer. He cannot enjoy peace or comfort. Here then we come back to the ground from which we started. The sufferings and death of Christ are availing to take away the sins of men, only so far as they lead men to repentance and reformation. To this agrees this declaration of the apostle Peter: "Forasmuch as ye know that 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." What can being redeemed by the blood of Christ from their vain conversation mean but being brought to repentance and reformation? There is no other deliverance from sin but by repentance and reformation. And we go further, and say, that without repentance and reformation, forgiveness can do little or no good. And here again we affirm that the theory of the atonement being the reconciliation of God to man, instead of man to God, utterly mistakes the nature of things. |