(_Containing an Application of the Principles laid down in pp. 135,
136._)
Forgiveness of sin, the abolition of guilt, through the redemptive
power of Christ's love, and of his perfect obedience during his
voluntary assumption of humanity, is expressed, on account of the
resemblance of the consequences in both cases, by the payment of a
debt for another, which debt the payer had not himself incurred. Now
the _impropriation_ of this metaphor--(that is, the taking it
_literally_) by transferring the sameness from the consequents to the
antecedents, or inferring the identity of the causes from a
resemblance in the effects--this is the point on which I am at issue:
and the view or scheme of redemption grounded on this confusion I
believe to be altogether un-Scriptural.
Indeed, I know not in what other instance I could better exemplify the
species of sophistry noticed in p. 147, as the Aristotelean μεταβασις
εις αλλο γενος, or clandestine passing over into a diverse kind. The
purpose of a metaphor is to illustrate a something less known by a
partial identification of it with some other thing better understood,
or at least more familiar. Now the article of Redemption may be
considered in a two-fold relation--in relation to the _antecedent_,
that is, the Redeemer's act as the efficient cause and condition of
redemption; and in relation to the _consequent_, that is, the effects
in and for the Redeemed. Now it is the latter relation, in which the
subject is treated of, set forth, expanded, and enforced by St. Paul.
The mysterious act, the operative cause is _transcendent_. _Factum
est_: and beyond the information contained in the enunciation of the
_Fact_, it can be characterized only by the _consequences_. It is the
_consequences_ of the Act of Redemption, which the zealous Apostle
would bring home to the minds and affections both of Jews and
Gentiles. Now the Apostle's opponents and gainsayers were principally
of the former class. They were Jews: not only Jews unconverted, but
such as had partially received the Gospel, and who, sheltering their
national prejudices under the pretended authority of Christ's original
apostles and the Church in Jerusalem, set themselves up against Paul
as followers of Cephas. Add too, that Paul himself was _a Hebrew of
the Hebrews_; intimately versed _in the Jews' religion above many, his
equals, in his own nation, and above measure zealous of the traditions
of his fathers_. It might, therefore, have been anticipated, that his
reasoning would receive its outward forms and language, that it would
take its predominant colours, from his own _past_, and his opponents'
present, habits of thinking; and that his figures, images, analogies,
and references would be taken preferably from objects, opinions,
events, and ritual observances ever uppermost in the imaginations of
his own countrymen. And such we find them;--yet so judiciously
selected, that the prominent forms, the figures of most frequent
recurrence, are drawn from points of belief and practice, forms, laws,
rites and customs, that then prevailed through the whole Roman world,
and were common to Jew and Gentile.
Now it would be difficult if not impossible to select points better
suited to this purpose, as being equally familiar to all, and yet
having a special interest for the Jewish converts, than those are from
which the learned Apostle has drawn the four principal metaphors, by
which he illustrates the blessed _consequences_ of Christ's redemption
of mankind. These are: 1. Sin-offerings, sacrificial expiation. 2.
Reconciliation, atonement, καταλλαγη.[133] 3. Ransom from slavery,
Redemption, the buying back again, or being bought back. 4.
Satisfaction of a creditor's claims by a payment of the debt. To one
or other of these four heads all the numerous forms and exponents of
Christ's mediation in St. Paul's writings may be referred. And the
very number and variety of the words or _periphrases_ used by him to
express one and the same thing furnish the strongest presumptive
proof, that all alike were used _metaphorically_. [In the following
notation, let the small letters represent the _effects_ or
_consequences_, and the capitals the efficient _causes_ or
_antecedents_. Whether by causes we mean acts or agents, is
indifferent. Now let X signify a _transcendent_, that is, a cause
beyond our comprehension and not within the sphere of sensible
experience; and on the other hand, let A, B, C, and D represent each
some one known and familiar cause, in reference to some single and
characteristic effect: namely, A in reference to k, B to l, C to m,
and D to n. Then I say X + k l m n is in different places expressed by
A + k; B + l; C + m; D + n.--And these I should call _metaphorical_
exponents of X.]
Now John, the beloved Disciple, who leaned on the Lord's bosom, the
Evangelist κατα πνευμα, that is, according to the _Spirit_, the
inner and substantial truth of the Christian creed--John, recording
the Redeemer's own words, enunciates the fact itself, to the full
extent in which it is enunciable for the human mind, simply and
_without any metaphor_, by identifying it _in kind_ with a fact of
hourly occurrence--_expressing_ it, I say, by a familiar fact the same
_in kind_ with that intended, though of a far lower _dignity_;--by a
fact of every man's experience, _known_ to all, yet not better
_understood_ than the fact described by it. In the Redeemed it is a
re-_generation_, a _birth_, a spiritual seed impregnated and evolved,
the germinal principle of a higher and enduring life, of a _spiritual_
life--that is, a life the actuality of which is not dependent on the
material body, or limited by the circumstances and processes
indispensable to its organization and subsistence. Briefly, it is the
_differential_ of immortality, of which the assimilative power of
faith and love is the _integrant_, and the life in Christ the
_integration_.
But even this would be an imperfect statement, if we omitted the awful
truth, that besides that dissolution of our earthly tabernacle which
we call death, there is another death, not the mere negation of life,
but its positive opposite. And as there is a mystery of life and an
assimilation to the principle of life, even to him who is _the_ Life;
so is there a mystery of death and an assimilation to the principle of
evil; a fructifying of the corrupt seed, of which death is the
germination. Thus the regeneration to spiritual life is at the same
time a redemption from the spiritual death.
Respecting the redemptive act itself, and the Divine Agent, we know
from revelation that he _was made a quickening_ (ζωοποιουν,
_life-making_) _spirit_: and that in order to this it was necessary,
that God should be _manifested in the flesh_, that the Eternal Word,
through whom and by whom the world (κοσμος, the order, beauty, and
sustaining law of visible natures) was and is, should be made flesh,
assume our humanity personally, fulfil all righteousness, and so
suffer and so die for us as in dying to conquer death for as many as
should receive him. More than this, the mode, the possibility, we are
not competent to know. It is, as hath been already observed concerning
the primal act of apostacy, a mystery by the necessity of the
subject--a mystery, which at all events it will be time enough for us
to seek and expect to understand, when we understand the mystery of
our _natural_ life, and _its_ conjunction with mind and will and
personal identity. Even the truths that are given to us to know, we
can know only through faith in the spirit. They are spiritual things
which must be spiritually discerned. Such, however, being the means
and the effects of our Redemption, well might the fervent Apostle
associate it with whatever was eminently dear and precious to erring
and afflicted mortals, and (where no expression could be commensurate,
no single title be other than imperfect) seek from similitude of
_effect_ to describe the superlative boon by successively transferring
to it, as by a superior claim, the name of each several act and
ordinance, habitually connected in the minds of _all_ his hearers with
feelings of joy, confidence, and gratitude.
Do you rejoice when the atonement made by the priest has removed the
civil stain from your name, restored you to your privileges as a son
of Abraham, and replaced you in the respect of your brethren?--Here is
an atonement which takes away a deeper and worse stain, an eating
canker-spot in the very heart of your personal being. This, to as many
as receive it, gives the privilege to become sons of God (John i. 12);
this will admit you to the society of angels, and insure to you the
rights of brotherhood with spirits made perfect.--(Heb. xii. 22.) Here
is a sacrifice, a sin-offering for the whole world: and a High Priest,
who is indeed a Mediator, who not in type or shadow but in very truth
and in his own right stands in the place of Man to God, and of God to
Man; and who receives as a Judge what he offered as an Advocate.
Would you be grateful to one who had ransomed you from slavery under a
bitter foe, or who brought you out of captivity? Here is redemption
from a far direr slavery, the slavery of sin unto death; and he, who
gave himself for the ransom, has taken captivity captive.
Had you by your own fault alienated yourself from your best, your only
sure friend;--had you, like a prodigal, cast yourself out of your
father's house;--would you not love the good Samaritan, who should
reconcile you to your friend? Would you not prize above all price the
intercession, which had brought you back from husks, and the tending
of swine, and restored you to your father's arms, and seated you at
your father's table?
Had you involved yourself in a heavy DEBT for certain gew-gaws, for
high seasoned meats, and intoxicating drinks, and glistering apparel,
and in default of payment had made yourself over as a bondsman to a
hard creditor, who it was foreknown, would enforce the bond of
judgment to the last tittle;--with what emotions would you not receive
the glad tidings, that a stranger, or a friend whom in the days of
your wantonness you had neglected and reviled, had paid the DEBT for
you, had made SATISFACTION to your creditor? But you have incurred a
debt of Death to the EVIL NATURE! you have sold yourself over to SIN!
and relatively to _you_, and to all _your_ means and resources, the
seal on the bond is the seal of necessity! Its stamp is the _nature_
of evil. But the stranger has appeared, the forgiving friend has come,
even the Son of God from heaven: and to as many as have faith in his
name, I say--the Debt is paid for you. The Satisfaction has been made.
Now to simplify the argument and at the same time to bring the
question to the test, we will confine our attention to the figure last
mentioned, viz. the satisfaction of a debt. Passing by our modern
_Alogi_ who find nothing but metaphors in either Apostle, let us
suppose for a moment with certain divines, that our Lord's words,
recorded by John, and which in all places repeat and assert the same
analogy, are to be regarded as metaphorical; and that it is the varied
expressions of St. Paul that are to be literally interpreted:--for
example, that sin is, or involves, an infinite debt, (in the proper
and law-court sense of the word debt)--a debt owing by us to the
vindictive justice of God the Father, which can only be liquidated by
the everlasting misery of Adam and all his posterity, or by a sum of
suffering equal to this. Likewise, that God the Father by his
absolute decree, or (as some divines teach) through the necessity of
his unchangeable justice, had determined to exact the full sum; which
must, therefore, be paid either by ourselves or by some other in our
name and behalf. But besides the debt which _all_ mankind contracted
in and through Adam, as a _homo publicus_, even as a nation is bound
by the acts of its head or its plenipotentiary, every man (say these
divines) is an insolvent debtor on his own score. In this fearful
predicament the Son of God took compassion on mankind, and resolved to
pay the debt for us, and to satisfy the divine justice by a perfect
equivalent. Accordingly, by a strange yet strict _consequence_, it has
been holden by more than one of these divines, that the agonies
suffered by Christ were equal in amount to the sum total of the
torments of all mankind here and hereafter, or to the infinite debt,
which in an endless succession of instalments we should have been
paying to the divine justice, had it not been paid in full by the Son
of God incarnate!
It is easy to say--"O but I do not hold this, or _we_ do not make this
an article of our belief!" The true question is: "Do you take any
_part_ of it: and can you reject the rest without being
_inconsequent_?" Are debt, satisfaction, payment in full, creditor's
_rights_, and the like, _nomina propria_, by which the very nature of
Redemption and its occasion is expressed;--or are they, with several
others, figures of speech for the purpose of illustrating the nature
and extent of the consequences and effects of the redemptive Act, and
to excite in the receivers a due sense of the magnitude and manifold
operation of the Boon, and of the Love and gratitude due to the
Redeemer? If still you reply, the former: _then_, as your whole theory
is grounded on a notion of _justice_, I ask you--Is this justice a
_moral_ attribute? But morality commences with, and begins in, the
sacred distinction between thing and person: on this distinction all
law human and divine is grounded: consequently, the law of justice. If
you attach any meaning to the term justice, as applied to God, it must
be the same to which you refer when you affirm or deny it of any other
personal agent--save only, that in its attribution to God, you speak
of it as unmixed and perfect. For if not, what _do_ you mean? And why
do you call it by the same name? I may, therefore, with all right and
reason, put the case as between man and man. For should it be found
irreconcilable with the justice, which the light of reason, made _law_
in the conscience, dictates to _man_, how much more must it be
incongruous with the all-perfect justice of God! Whatever case I
should imagine would be felt by the reader as below the dignity of the
subject, and in some measure jarring with his feelings; and in other
respects the more familiar the case, the better suited to the present
purpose.
A sum of £1,000 is owing from James to Peter, for which James has
given a bond. He is insolvent, and the bond is on the point of being
put in suit against him, to James's utter ruin. At this moment Matthew
steps in, pays Peter the thousand pounds and discharges the bond. In
this case, no man would hesitate to admit, that a complete
_satisfaction_ had been made to Peter. Matthew's £1,000 is a perfect
equivalent for the sum which James was bound to have paid, and which
Peter had lent. _It is the same thing_: and this is altogether a
question of _things_. Now instead of James's being indebted to Peter
for a sum of money, which (he having become insolvent) Matthew pays
for him, we will put the case, that James had been guilty of the
basest and most hard-hearted ingratitude to a most worthy and
affectionate mother, who had not only performed all the duties and
tender offices of a mother, but whose whole heart was bound up in this
her only child--who had foregone all the pleasures and amusements of
life in watching over his sickly childhood, had sacrificed her health
and the far greater part of her resources to rescue him from the
consequences of his follies and excesses during his youth and early
manhood; and to procure for him the means of his present rank and
affluence--all which he had repaid by neglect, desertion, and open
profligacy. Here the mother stands in the relation of the creditor:
and here too I will suppose the same generous friend to interfere, and
to perform with the greatest tenderness and constancy all those duties
of a grateful and affectionate son, which James ought to have
performed. Will this satisfy the Mother's claims on James, or entitle
him to her esteem, approbation, and blessing? Or what if Matthew, the
vicarious son, should at length address her in words to this
purpose:--"Now, I trust, you are appeased, and will be henceforward
reconciled to James. I have satisfied all your claims on him. I have
paid his debt in full: and you are too just to require the same debt
to be paid twice over. You will therefore regard him with the same
complacency, and receive him into your presence with the same love, as
if there had been no difference between him and you. For I have _made
it up_." What other reply could the swelling heart of the mother
dictate than this? "O misery! and is it possible that _you_ are in
league with my unnatural child to insult me? Must not the very
necessity of _your_ abandonment of your proper sphere form an
additional evidence of _his_ guilt? Must not the sense of your
goodness teach me more fully to comprehend, more vividly to feel, the
evil in him? Must not the contrast of your merits magnify his demerit
in his mother's eye, and at once recall and embitter the conviction of
the canker-worm in his soul?"
If indeed by the force of Matthew's example, by persuasion or by
additional and more mysterious influences, or by an inward co-agency,
compatible with the existence of a personal will, James should be led
to repent; if through admiration and love of this great goodness
gradually assimilating his mind to the mind of his benefactor, he
should in his own person become a grateful and dutiful child--_then_
doubtless the mother would be wholly satisfied! But then the case is
no longer a question of _things_, or a matter of _debt_ payable by
another. Nevertheless, the _effect_,--and the reader will remember,
that it is the _effects_ and _consequences_ of Christ's mediation, on
which St. Paul is dilating--the effect to _James_ is similar in both
cases, that is, in the case of James the debtor, and of James the
undutiful son. In both cases, James is liberated from a grievous
burthen; and in both cases he has to attribute his liberation to the
act and free grace of another. The only _difference is_, that in the
former case (namely, the payment of the debt) the beneficial act is
_singly_, and without requiring any re-action or co-agency on the part
of James, the efficient _cause_ of his liberation: while in the latter
case (namely, that of Redemption) the beneficial act is the _first_,
the indispensable _condition_, and _then_ the _coefficient_.
The professional student of theology will, perhaps, understand the
different positions asserted in the preceding argument more readily if
they are presented _synoptically_, that is, brought at once within his
view, in the form of answers to four questions, comprising the
constituent parts of the Scriptural Doctrine of Redemption. And I
trust that my lay readers of both sexes will not allow themselves to
be scared from the perusal of the following short catechism by half a
dozen Latin words, or rather words with Latin endings, that translate
themselves into English, when I dare assure them, that they will
encounter no other obstacle to their full and easy comprehension of
the contents.
_Synopsis of the Constituent Points in the Doctrine of Redemption, in
Four Questions, with Correspondent Answers._
_Questions._
{ 1. _Agens Causator?_
Who (or What) is the { 2. _Actus Causativus?_
{ 3. _Effectum Causatum?_
{ 4. _Consequentia ab Effecto?_
_Answers._
I. The Agent and Personal Cause of the Redemption of Mankind is--the
co-eternal Word and only begotten Son of the Living God, incarnate,
tempted, agonizing (_agonistes_ αγωνιζομενος), crucified, submitting
to death, resurgent, communicant of his Spirit, ascendent, and
obtaining for his Church the Descent, and Communion of the Holy
Spirit, the Comforter.
II. The causative act is--a spiritual and transcendent Mystery, _that
passeth all understanding_.
III. The Effect caused is--the being born anew: as before in the
_flesh_ to the world, so now born in the _spirit_ to Christ.
IV. The Consequences from the Effect are--Sanctification from Sin, and
Liberation from the inherent and penal consequences of Sin in the
World to come, with all the means and processes of Sanctification by
the Word and the Spirit: these Consequents being the same for the
Sinner relatively to God and his own Soul, as the satisfaction of a
debt for a debtor relatively to his creditor; as the sacrificial
atonement made by the priest for the transgressor of the Mosaic Law;
as the reconciliation to an alienated parent for a son who had
estranged himself from his father's house and presence; and as a
redemptive ransom for a slave or captive.
Now I complain that this metaphorical _naming_ of the transcendent
causative act through the _medium_ of its proper effects from actions
and causes of familiar occurrence connected with the former by
similarity of result, has been mistaken for an intended designation of
the essential character of the causative act itself; and that thus
divines have interpreted _de omni_ what was spoken _de singulo_, and
magnified a _partial equation_ into a _total identity_.
I will merely hint, to my more _learned_ readers, and to the
professional students of theology, that the origin of this error is to
be sought for in the discussions of the Greek Fathers, and (at a later
period) of the Schoolmen, on the obscure and _abysmal_ subject of the
divine _A-seity_, and the distinction between the θελημα and the
βουλη, that is, the Absolute Will, as the universal _ground_ of
_all_ Being, and the election and purpose of God in the personal idea,
as the Father. And this view would have allowed me to express what I
believe to be the true import and scriptural idea of Redemption in
terms much more nearly resembling those used ordinarily by the
Calvinistic divines, and with a conciliative _show_ of coincidence.
But this motive was outweighed by the reflection, that I could not
rationally have expected to be understood by those to whom I most wish
to be intelligible: _et si non vis intelligi, cur vis legi?_
Not to countervene the purpose of a Synopsis, I have detached the
confirmative or explanatory remarks from the Answers to Questions II.
and III., and place them below as _scholia_. A single glance of the
eye will enable the reader to re-connect each with the sentence it is
supposed to follow.