“To reconcile grace with justice in the salvation of the sinner, is
the Gordian knot, which divines generally have been unable to untie.
Upon the principle of an indefinite atonement, the difficulty
vanishes. If all the sins of a certain individual have been atoned for
by the Redeemer, free grace will not appear in his pardon; because
justice would, in that case, require his salvation. But justice is
threefold, _commutative_, _distributive_, and _public_. Commutative
justice has no concern in this case. Public justice is satisfied by
the atonement, because the governor of the universe displays his
displeasure at _sin in general_ in the sufferings of Christ. The
exercise of distributive justice is entirely set aside, and herein is
grace exhibited, the sinner is pardoned at the expence of distributive
justice.”
“Although we have stated this argument with all the precision of which
we are capable, we must observe, that notwithstanding the show of
minute discussion which it makes, its whole force consists in its
obscurity, and the confusion of ideas which it produces. The
indistinctness of vision which it causes, is the only reason for any
man’s offering his hand to those who, by proposing it, promise to be
his guide to the temple of truth.
We object to this division of a divine attribute—we object to the use
which is made of it—we object to the argument, because it multiplies,
instead of solving difficulties—and it takes for granted, what does
not exist, a difficulty in reconciling justice with grace.
We object to this division of a divine attribute. It is not correct,
even as it applies to man. We are perfectly aware that the
_Schoolmen_, following the steps of heathen philosophers, adopted this
division. Suarez builds upon it the doctrine of merit, in order to
supply the traffic of indulgences with works of supererogation.[156]
But, however variously divine justice may be exercised about its
several objects, we have no reason to believe, that there are three
different attributes of justice, or even that the principle in man,
which induces him to act honestly in commercial transactions, and to
give to every man his due, is any way different from the principle
which influences a good magistrate to conduct with equity his public
administration. It is one principle exercised upon various objects.
The Scriptures, which uniformly ascribe righteousness to Jehovah, and
afford instances of its exercise in _thrice three_ various ways, never
intimate that there are _three distinct_ attributes of divine
justice.[157]
We object to the use that is made of this division. There is no reason
for excluding _commutative_ justice any more than distributive, as
distinct from _public_ justice, from having any reference to the case
of the sinner’s pardon. We can readily conceive of a civil ruler,
having, independently of his official duties, certain private and
personal duties to discharge towards those, who, in such case, are
upon terms of equality with himself. But no equality exists between
the creature and Creator. The pardon of sin most assuredly approaches
as near to the forgiveness of a _debt_ as the remission of a _personal
offence_, which has no reference to the divine authority. _Sin is a
want of conformity unto, or a transgression of_ THE LAW.[158] Besides,
the Scriptures frequently represent Jehovah condescending to act
towards men upon the footing of a previously existing contract or
covenant, but never upon the footing of private relation, setting
aside his authority. He hath taught us to pray, “Forgive us our
debts;” but never to say, “pardon private offences which are no
transgression of thy law.” We cannot even conceive of the exercise of
distributive justice by the Lord, separate from his authority as our
king, our lawgiver, and our judge. We cannot conceive, that it is
matter of indifference whether God does or does not exercise
distributive justice towards his creatures; and much less can we admit
that even, for the sake of mercy, he is ever guilty of one act of
distributive injustice. We, therefore, object to the use which is made
of this threefold division of the attribute of justice. And we also,
Object to the whole argument which it involves, because it multiplies
instead of solving difficulties around the doctrine of the sinner’s
justification.
It requires us to believe that God has violated, or set aside the
demands of distributive justice in the salvation of his chosen—that
the sufferings of our Redeemer were the punishment, not of
transgressions which are, in fact, committed, but of sin in the
abstract—and that public justice requires only an exhibition of the
divine displeasure at sin.
Sin, in the abstract, is only a word. Like an algebraical character,
it represents all the transgressions of individual persons. These
particular sins are realities; but sin _in general_, or in the
abstract, is only the _sign_, the word, which we employ in
reasoning.[159] It is not for the _sign_, but the thing that Jesus
suffered.
The _word_ sin, too, represents the transgressions of angels. If the
Redeemer suffered for sin in general, he made atonement for devils,
although he took not on him the nature of angels. And if public
justice demanded no more than the display of Jehovah’s hatred of sin,
then Christ is dead in vain, for such display is made in the
everlasting punishments of Hell. But justice demanded more. It
demanded the punishment of the sinner; and could not be satisfied with
any thing short of this, unless Messiah should so unite himself to
sinners, not only by assuming their nature, but by becoming in law
their representative, as to bear all the sins of all the persons for
whom his sufferings were intended to atone. We object also to this
argument in defence of indefinite atonement,
Because it takes for granted, what does not exist, that if all the
demands of divine justice are satisfied to the full by the atonement,
then grace is excluded from our pardon. This is not the case. Justice
is indeed satisfied. It does not oppose, but demand the salvation of
all for whom Christ died. Here is no difficulty—no Gordian knot. Grace
reigns through righteousness. We refer our readers to what is said on
this subject, page 377, and conclude our examination of this argument
in the words of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. “Although
Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full
satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are
justified; yet, inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a
surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this
surety, his own only son, imputing his righteousness to them, and
requiring nothing of them for their justification, but faith, which
also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.”