suffer eternal death, and his temporal death is only one. For both reasons, therefore, because it was temporal, and because it was but the death of one man, it could not be intended to be a satisfaction to divine justice in the stead of the eternal death of an incalculable multitude. On this ground Socinus consistently rejected the Atonement of Christ altogether. Duns Scotus (4,D. 1308), Grotius, the great author of the Governmental Atonement Theory, and the Arminian theologians Episcopius, Limborch, and. Curcellzeus, all admitted the fact that the single and temporal death of Christ was no equivalent for the eter- nal death of all men severally; but they refused to admit the inevitable conclusion, that: therefore the for- giveness of sins was based ultimately upon a simple act
of sovereign prerogative, and that justice was in no sense propitrated, because vt was not vm. strict rigour satisfied. ~ Scotus held that God graciously “accepted” the single and temporal death of Christ as a sufficient satisfaction. _ Grotius held that the demands of the law were so far sovereignly “relaxed” by God that. the intrinsically inferior work of Christ was found sufficient. ‘The Ar- | minians said that God graciously “ estimated” Christ’s work for more than its intrinsic value. :
The principle upon which this objection proceeds is both rational and conclusive if the Socinian view of Christ’s person is true; but it is both preposterous and insufferable from the mouth of any one professing to be- lieve in the supreme divinity of our Lord. Christ suffered solely in his human nature. But his person is infinite and divine. All legal relations and obligations what-
‘ seever, whether original or vicarious, are necessarily per-
sonal, We cannot, of course, explain psychologically the relation between the two natures and their concur- rent experiences and interactions in the unity of the Theanthropic Person. But this much we do know—the
OBJECTIONS STA TE D AND ANSWERED. 289
humanity was necessarily impersonal. It began and
continued to exist only within the eternal personality of
the Logos. The eternal, august, supreme, second person of the Godhead obeyed and suffered in the stead of sin- ners. The heavens darkened and the earth trembled in the presence of the amazing fact. Away with all blas- phemous impertinence with respect to the “relaxation” of the law in order to lower it to the terms of such a
CHAPTER XX,
— leer
satisfaction, or of the gracious ‘“‘estimation” of such a —
satisfaction in order to raise it to equality with the de- mands of the law! On the contrary, the law is “ magni- fied” by such an obedience and by such a penal suffering,
as it could not be by the several eternal sufferings of all ©
creatures actual or possible; and justice is not only satis- fied, but glorified, borne aloft and set ablaze in the crown of God. |
5. It is constantly objected by the advocates of the Governmental Atonement Theory that the Church- doc- trine necessarily involves an absurd theory of imputa- tion. They insist that the “Satisfaction Theory,” as they call it, has always been associated with the doctrine that the personal sinful character of his people was transferred to Christ, and that the personal good charac- ter of Christ was transferred to them. This objection would be crushing indeed if it happened to contain a single grain of truth. But since it is utterly false as a
The Church doctrine of “‘im=- putation” shown not to include “ transfer of moral charac- ter.”
matter of history, and absurd as a matter of criticism, .
its effect is to be seén only in its recoil upon its originators. The Church doctrine always has been simply that the legal responsibilities (penal and fede- ral) of his people were by covenant transferred to Christ; and that he, as mediator, was regarded and treated accordingly. The sinful act and the sinful nature are inalienable. The guilt or just lability to punishment is alienable, or no sinner could be saved.
CHAPTER xx.
—— ae
The ob- jection that Christ owed obe- dience for himself, disprov- ed.
290 YHHE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
Our evil nature remains inalienably our own, until we are changed by the Holy Ghost in regeneration and sanctification, The obligation to punishment, accord- ing to the terms of the eternal covenant, has been taken — from the elect and fully discharged in the sufferings of our Substitute.
6. They object that although Christ did not owe punishment for himself, yet, like every other created nature, his humanity was conformed to the law of moral perfection as the condition of its own excellence, and hence that it was incapable of any works of super- erogation, and hence he must have been incapable of rendering a vicarious obedience in the stead of his people.