This, be it observed, is predicated of the unchangeable constitution of the nature of God, and not merely of the divine will. (1.) When God commanded the Israelites to be pure, the reason assigned is not “ Because I so will it,” but “For I am holy.” (2.) If moral distinctions are the mere product of the divine will; if they exist only because God wills them to exist; and if they are what they are simply because he wills them to be so; then the proposition that God is holy conveys no mean- ing. It is only equivalent to saying that he is as he wills to be; and would be just as true when asserted of a wicked as of a holy being. (3.) Although God is most willingly holy, yet holiness is with him no more optional than is existence. Hab. 1. 13: ‘Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity.” 2 Tim. 1.13: “He cannot deny himself” Heb. vi. 18: “In which it was vmpossible for God to he.” (4.) Our own elementary intuitions give us moral distinctions which are seen to be absolute, eternal, and necessary. It is essentially repugnant to their character to conceive of them in any sense as contingent. They have their norm in the eternal and necessary nature of God.
Since God is eternal, his modes of feeling and states of mind are as eternal as his essence. There are in him none of those successions of modes or frames, and alter- nations of sentiment and impulse, which characterize our imperfect moral condition. From eternity to eternity he abides the same, without change of state or affection.
THE DIVINE NATURE DEMANDS PUNISHMENT. 49
His holiness, therefore, is one infinite perfection of moral excellence, varied only in its outward exercises and manifestations, as it operates upon different objects in different relations.
Now the Scriptures teach us very plainly that this infinite moral perfection or holiness of God stands to sin as immutable and eternal hatred and vindicatory justice ; and this not only in some instances and in some relations, but invariably and under all possible conditions. (1.) God hates sin. He is said to “hate all the workers of iniquity,” and to be “‘angry with the wicked every day” (Ps. v. 5, vii. 11). Both the ways and the thoughts of the wicked are said to be “an abomination to the Lorp.” This is manifested with terrible energy. Although the heart of God remains eternally as calm as it is deep and strong, the egress of his wrath is terrible. Nah. i. 2: “God is jealous, and the Lorp revengeth ; the Lorp revengeth and is furious; the Lorp will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.”
CHAPTER Iv.
The Scrip- tures as- sert that God hates sin, and regards it as intrin- sically worthy of punish- ment.
(2.) God treats sin as essential ill-desert, as intrinsically —
meriting punishment. Deut. iv. 24: “For the Lorp thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.” Deut. xxxli, 35: “To me belongeth vengeance and vecom- pense.” Isa. lix. 18: “According to their deeds, ac- cordingly he will repay.” Ex. xxiii. 7: “I will not justify the wicked.” Ezek. xvii. 4: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” 2 Thess. 1. 6: “Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you.” Paul (Heb. i. 2) says that under the old dispensation “every transgression and dis- obedience received a just recompense of reward.” Rom. i, 832: “ Knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death.” Over and over again, the reason assigned for inflicting a penalty is that the transgression is “worthy” of it (Deut. xvi. 6,
)50 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
CHAPTSR) XXi. 22, &c., &c.), and no other reason is assigned. As
God es sin because of its intrinsic hetenainess having | _ in itself the reason of the hatred it excites, so he nonin:
lit because of its intrinsic demerit, having the reason _of its punishment in itself. Sin can no more exist with-
out punishableness than it can exist without hatefulness. _As it is inconceivable that God should in a single in- stance fail to hate sin as pollution, so it is inconceivable ‘that he should in a single instance fail to punish it as demerit. There has often been forgiveness for the
/ sinner, but not a single instance of forgiveness for the
Different answers to the
/ question,
sidered.
of the condign punishinent of the sin. / Paul (Heb. ix. 22), in reviewing the old law, declared as the sum of the whole, that ‘‘ without the shedding of blood there was no remission.” It was ‘‘the blood that made atonement for the soul” (Lev. xvii. 11). And in order to the salva- tion of sinful men, it was necessary that Christ should explate sin by his death, to the end that “God might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. ni. 26); that is, to enable God to pardon the sinner without violating his own essential righteousness, which necessarily antagonizes sin.