Besides this, these different expressions are sometimes applied to different subjects. When it is said that Christ “has redeemed us by his blood” (Rev. v. 9), the term redemption of course is used to designate the nature and designed effect of his sacrifice, which he finished on the cross. But when it is said that Christ ‘‘ obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. ix. 12), and that we are “sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of re- demption,” the word is of course used to include, in addition to the means whereby Christ obtained our
* See Chapter iii., Definition 7.
al
EFFECTS OF CHRIST’S WORK. 183
salvation, also its application and complete realization cuarrex by us—when not only the remission of sin and the 2” complete sanctification of our souls will have been attained, but upon the consummated adoption, to wit,
the redemption of our bodies, ‘“‘the creature itself
also shall be delivered from the bondage of corrup-
tion into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. viii. 21—23).
CLIAPTER XII.
The ob- jection that vica- rious punish- ment is unjust con- sidered.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE TRUE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT PROVED BY THE NATURE OF THE UNION WHICH THE SCRIPTURES ASSERT SUBSISTS BETWEEN CHRIST AND HIS PEOPLE.
‘ee our eighth argument, I propose to establish, | by an induction of Scriptural passages, the fact that a UNION of such a kind subsists be- tween the Lord Jesus and his people, as, however mysterious it may be in its own nature, yet when once admitted, on the ground of divine testimony, as a fact, involves, as a natural result, the consequence of his bearing our sins, and our being clothed upon with the rewardableness of his obedience, and which is utterly anomalous and meaningless if our doctrine of literal sub- stitution and of penal sufferings is rejected. | The main objection alleged against the doctrine of vicarious expiation of sin by its opponents is, that it confounds all our elementary and necessary ideas of justice. This objection, in substance, though variously modified in form, is made by the Unitarian and Trinita- rian advocates of the Moral Influence Theory, such as Socinus, 8S. Crellius, Bushnell, and John Young, and by all classes of the adherents of the Governmental Atonement School. It may be considered in two rela- tions: 1. As it respects Christ, it is claimed that the judicial treatment of the innocent as if he were guilty is an outrageous injustice, involving the confusion of every moral principle. 2. As it regards his sinful
THE MYSTICAL UNION. 185
people, in whose stead Christ is said to have died, it is claimed that his punishment in their stead can, as a matter of abstract justice, avail them nothing, for the plain reason that the precise and only thing which justice demands is not the suffering of so much pain, but the judicial infliction of the pain upon the sinner in person. Both Fiske and Barnes insist, as do the Socinians, that it is essential to the idea of the penalty that it is pain in- flicted by the lawgiver upon the transgressor in person. As to the jist side of the objection, we admit that, in the common judgment of all men, to regard and treat a man as responsible for a sin for which he is not truly responsible is beyond question unjust. But this plain principle does not apply to the case of Christ suffering the just for the unjust; because (a) he, being the equal of God, the fountain of all law, and owing no obedience to the law on his own account, and having an unlimited right to dispose of his services and of his life as he pleased, voluntarily assumed our obliga- tions and made them his own. As far as Christ is con- cerned, therefore, there is obviously no injustice in the Father’s exacting from him all the conditions of a sureti- ship which he has spontaneously assumed and volun- tarily yields. Besides this, it is admitted on all hands that Christ suffered for his people. The advocates of the Moral Influence and Governmental Theories of the Atonement maintain that our sins are the occasion of his sufferings. We say that they are the judicial ground of his sufferings. We all agree in maintaining that his sufferings are caused by our sins, and that they are self- assumed by him with the utmost freeness and spontaneity of love. If this be so, it is evident that there is no injustice in the one view of the case any more than in the other. (0.) Since the sufferings of Christ satisfy God, and maintain the honour of his law and the in-
CHAPTER XIII.
CHAPTER XALI,
186 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.