And (b) as to its application and effect, is the atoning work of Christ so complete in itself that it secures the salvation of those for whom it was made; or does it
only put the sinner in a salvable state, leaving the result
to depend upon other conditions ?
I. The first point, it is evident, would have no rele- The At- vancy whatsoever on the supposition of the truth of the aie Moral Influence Theory. If the one design of Christ's carrie He sufferings is to touch our hearts and subdue our affec- ne tions, the efficiency of the work must depend upon every justice. man’s subjective appreciation of Christ’s person, of his Syst!" motives, and of the necessity and value of his interven-
. tions in our behalf.
The advocates of the Governmental Theory deny that Ditterent Christ suffered the penalty of the law, or that his suffer- Se ae ings were in intrinsic value a full equivalent for the ty penal sufferings in person of all those in whose behalf he suffered. They maintain that since these sufferings are an expedient to secure certain ends in the administration
15
CHAPTER XVII.
224 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
of the divine government, they are introduced and acted on in the remission of sins by God in his capacity of a Sovereign, and not asa Judge. He wills to accept the satisfaction of Christ, not because in its intrinsic nature it is a full equivalent in rigour of justice for the personal punishment of his people, but because his wise and bene- volent mind sees that he may do so with perfect safety to all the best interests of his general government.
Duns Scotus, referring the necessity for the Atonement ultimately to the will and not to the nature of God, consequently maintained that God could have forgiven sin without any satisfaction ; that if he had so willed, he might have proposed conditions of forgiveness other than those fulfilled by Christ; and that the temporary and finite sufferings of Christ are accepted by God, in the gracious exercise of sovereign prerogative, as a sub- stitute, but not as a full, legal equivalent for the eternal sufferings of men. This principle Scotus expressed by the term acceptilatio, borrowed from the Roman law, and defined as “the optional taking of something for nothing, or of a part for the whole.”
Grotius, in his great work De Satisfactione, rejected the term acceptilatio, but retained substantially the idea. He refers the necessity of the Atonement to the interests of good order in the universe. He considers the optional will of -Ged the ground and origin of law, and maintains that the demands of law may of course be relaxed by the choice of the same will that creates them. He held that Christ did not pay inthe stead of sinners a quid pro quo, but an aliud pro quo, which God graciously accepts ; that is, Ged’s law is not satisfied in rigour of justice by what Christ has done, but he has sovereignly relaxed it, so that it is virtually, that is, in practical effect, satisfied thereby.
Limborch says: ‘‘ The satisfaction of Christ is so called
PERFECTION OF THE ATONEMENT. 225
(by some) because that he for our sakes endured all the cuarren ° ° ° ° XVIL
penalties charged against our sins, and by fully discharg- ing them he made satisfaction to divine justice. But that opinion has no foundation in Scripture. The death of Christ is called a sacrifice for sin ; but sacrifices were not payments of debts, neither were they full satisfac- tions for sin; but the penalty was gratuitously remitted on condition that the sacrifice was offered.” *..... “Tn this they greatly err, because they consider the price of redemption to be in all things equivalent to those miseries from which redemption is secured. The price of redemption was determined by the estvmation of Him who held the captive, and did not release the captive on the ground of merit.” +
Curcelleeus says: ‘‘Christ did not, therefore; as is commonly thought, make satisfaction by suffering all those penal evils which we merited for our sins. For, in the jirst place, this does not pertain to the nature or purpose of sacrifice ; for sacrifices were not the payment of debts. Secondly, Christ has not suffered eternal death, which was the penalty deserved by our sin, for he hung upon the cross only for a few hours, and rose again the third day. Even if he had undergone eternal death, it does not appear how he could have made satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world; for this would have been only one death, which never could have equalled all the deaths which individual men merited for their respective sins...... Fourthly, this opinion cannot possibly be made consistent with the gratuitous remission of all sins, which the Scriptures everywhere teach that God, in his infinite mercy, concedes to us in Christ.” }
The Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed Churches have The true
held, on the other hand, that the penal satisfaction made Speirs
proved,