Footnote 153:
All the reasons upon which pardons are granted in human governments
fail in the Divine.
Footnote 154:
“The scripture insists on full atonement, and yet every where holds up
the deliverance of sinners as an act of pure grace. This is a gordian
knot in divinity. Let us not by violence cut it asunder, but attempt
fairly to untie it.
Before we proceed, it may not be improper to observe, that the
greatest difficulty with which this part of the subject is
embarrassed, appears to have originated in the want of an accurate
definition of justice and grace. Theologians have said much about
these, yet few have defined them with sufficient accuracy to render
them intelligible, or make them appear consistent. I shall therefore,
_First_, explain the meaning of the word grace.
_Secondly_, the meaning of the word justice.
_Thirdly_, apply these explanations to this part of the subject, with
a view to solve the difficulty with which it is embarrassed.
_First._ What are we to understand by the word grace?
We are to understand by it the exercise of favour, and consequently
the bestowment of good where evil is deserved, and may in justice be
inflicted. Where there is no exposure to evil, there is no room for
the exercise of grace. He who is not guilty is not a subject of
pardon. He who does not deserve punishment cannot be said to be freed
from it by an act of favour. Grace therefore always implies, that the
subject of it is unworthy, and would have no reason to complain, if
all the evil to which he is exposed were inflicted on him. Grace will
appear great according to the view which the sinner has of his own ill
desert, and the consciousness he possesses of the punishment or evil
from which he is delivered. Grace and justice are opposite in their
nature. Grace gives; justice demands. Their provinces are entirely
separate. Though they are united, yet they are not blended in man’s
salvation. Hence that remarkable passage in Rom. xi. 6: ‘If by grace,
then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. But if
it be of works, then it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more
work.’
_Secondly._ What are we to understand by the word justice? It assumes
three denominations—commutative, distributive, and public.
1. Commutative justice respects property only.[155] ‘It consists in an
equal exchange of benefits,’ or in restoring to every man his own.
2. Distributive justice respects the moral character of men. It
respects them as accountable creatures, obedient or disobedient. It
consists in ascertaining their virtue and sin, and in bestowing just
rewards, or inflicting just punishments.
3. Public or general justice, respects what is fit or right, as to the
character of God, and the good of the universe. In this sense, justice
comprises all moral goodness, and properly means the righteousness or
rectitude of God, by which all his actions are guided, with a supreme
regard to the greatest good. Justice, considered in this view, forbids
that any thing should take place in the great plan of God, which would
tarnish his glory, or subvert the authority of his law.
_Thirdly._ Let us now apply these explanations to the solution of the
difficulty under consideration.
1. Did Christ satisfy commutative justice? Certainly not. Commutative
justice had no concern in his sufferings. Men had taken no property
from God, and consequently were under no obligation to restore any.
But do not the scriptures represent Christ as giving himself a ransom,
and as buying his people with a price? They do. They also represent
men, while under the influence of sin, as prisoners, slaves, captives.
These expressions are all figurative, borrowed from sensible to
express moral or spiritual things, and therefore are not to be
explained as if literally true. If we say that Christ hath redeemed
us, that he has bought us, that he has paid the debt and discharged
us—if we have any consistent meaning, it must be this: That in
consequence of what Christ has done, we are delivered from sin, in as
great a consistency with justice, as a debtor is delivered from his
obligation, or the demands of law, when his debt is paid. That is, God
extends pardon in such a way, through Christ, that he does not injure
the authority of his law, but supports it as effectually as if he
inflicted punishment.
2. Did Christ satisfy distributive justice? Certainly not.
Distributive justice respects personal character only. It condemns men
because they are sinners, and rewards them because they are righteous.
Their good or ill desert are the only ground on which distributive or
moral justice respects them. But good and ill desert are personal.
They imply consciousness of praise or blame, and cannot be transferred
or altered so as to render the subjects of them more or less worthy.
What Christ did, therefore, did not take ill desert from men, nor did
it place them in such a situation that God would act unjustly to
punish them according to their deeds. If a man has sinned, it will
always remain a truth that he has sinned, and that according to
distributive justice he deserves punishment. In this sense justice
admits the condemnation of Paul as much as it does of Judas. The
salvation of the former is secured, and his condemnation rendered
impossible by another consideration.
3: Did Christ satisfy public justice? Undoubtedly he did. This is
evident from what has already been advanced respecting the necessity
of atonement, in order to a consistent exercise of mercy. Christ’s
sufferings rendered it right and fit, with respect to God’s character
and the good of the universe, to forgive sin. The atonement made by
Christ presented the law, the nature of sin, and the displeasure of
God against it, in such a light, that no injury would accrue to the
moral system, no imputation would be against the righteousness of the
great Legislator, though he should forgive the sinner, and instate him
in eternal felicity. Perfect justice therefore is done to the
universe, though all transgressors be not punished according to their
personal demerit. The death of Christ therefore is to be considered as
a great, important, and public transaction, respecting God and the
whole system of rational beings. Public justice requires, that neither
any of these be injured, nor the character and government of the great
Legislator disrespected, by the pardon of any. In these respects
public justice is perfectly satisfied by the death of Christ. This is
evident from the following passages of scripture. Rom. iii. 21; ‘But
now the righteousness (rectitude or justice) of God is manifested
without the law, being witnessed by the law.’ Before the introduction
of these words, the apostle had demonstrated, that the whole world,
Jews and Gentiles, were all under sin and condemnation. ‘Now,’ says
he, ‘we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them
that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole
world become guilty before God.’ All, if treated according to
distributive justice, must be found guilty and condemned. ‘Therefore,’
says Paul, ‘by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.’ How,
then, it might be inquired, can any be justified, and yet God not give
up his law, but appear perfectly righteous and just? The answer
follows. ‘By the righteousness of God, which is manifested without the
law, being witnessed by the law.’ Rom. iii. 21. That is, the
righteousness or justice of God, with respect to himself and the
universe, is clearly manifested, though he do not execute the law, as
to distributive justice, on transgressors, but pardon and save them.
This is so far from being contrary to the law, that it is witnessed by
the law. For the sufferings of Christ demonstrate, that God no more
gives up the penalty of the law, than if he should inflict it on the
original transgressor. The righteousness or justice manifested in this
way is through Christ; ‘whom,’ says Paul, ‘God hath set forth to be a
propitiation, through faith in his blood.’ For what end? ‘To declare
his righteousness for the remission of sins.’ ‘To declare at this time
his righteousness (for this purpose) that he might be just, and the
justifier of him that believeth in Jesus,’ Rom. iii. 25, 26. Hence it
is said, ‘Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one
that believeth,’ Rom. x. 4. That is, the end of the law is as fully
answered in the salvation of men by Christ, as it would have been if
they had never transgressed, but had obtained life by perfect
obedience. It is said, ‘If we confess our sins, he is just to forgive
us our sins,’ 1 John i. 9. He is just to himself, to his law, to the
universe. God styles himself ‘a just God, and a Saviour.’ Is. xlv. 21.
Hence justice and mercy harmonize in man’s salvation.
From the preceding statement of the nature of grace and justice, it
appears,
_First_, That atonement, and consequently the pardon of sin, have no
respect to commutative justice.
_Secondly_, That the sufferings of Christ did not satisfy distributive
justice, since that respects personal character only; and therefore,
with respect to distributive justice, salvation is an act of perfect
grace.
_Thirdly_, That Christ’s sufferings satisfied public justice; and
therefore, with respect to public justice, salvation is an act of
perfect justice.
Thus the seeming inconsistency between full atonement for sin, and
pure grace in salvation, vanishes and disappears. The system of
redemption rises into view like a magnificent edifice, displaying the
greatest order, proportion and beauty.”