3. These premises being settled as the actual relations between the parties, the grand problem arises. How can this mutual disagreement be removed? That the change, if any, must take place in man, is obvious, not only because God is immutable, but because he certainly has not been at fault. The offender alone must make the amends. The Being offended against may indeed propose advances towards reconciliation, as it belongs
to him to lay down the terms of satisfaction, but these cannot involve any concession nor imply any retraction. The standard of righteousness must not be lowered, nor wrong exculpated. The case presents a difficulty in two aspects, neither of which can be overlooked in any scheme proposing its settlement. They relate respect- ively to th&imst and i\\Q future. Two questions there- fore arise : 1. How can the sinful acts already com- mitted be properly forgiven? 2. How can their recur- rence be most effectively prevented in time to come? These two subordinate problems must be wrought out together, as the omission to solve the latter would ren- der the solution of the former nugatorj'. The media- tion of Jesus Christ exactly meets all the conditions of both these problems. It is spontaneous on the part of God, voluntary on the part of the Mediator, and does not infringe on the freedom of man. It cancels the past debt, takes away the sense of present guilt, and removes the disposition to transgress thereafter. It releases, rec- onciles, and renews at once.. Pardon, peace, purity are its harmonious results. Justification, regeneration, sanc- tification are its immmiities. The first frees from the judicial sentence, the second restores to the heavenly family, and the third fits for life here and forever. All this is due to the vicarious principle of the atonement. It remains to show more particularly how the substitu- tion of Christ as a victim for man in undergoing the penalty accomplishes these ends successfidly and satis- factorily. The transfer of the punishment due to hu- man crimes, as effectetl in the life and death of our Sav- iour, is not a mere forensic device, nor simply a diplo- matic artifice ; it is no stratagem invented to elude jus- tice, nor a pretence set up to screen impunity. If, with regard to its individual objects, it was unconditional and absolute, as Universalism generally on the one hantl represents it by extension, and strict Predestinarianism on the other by limitation, it would justly be liable to this charge. But inasmuch as it secures the permanent reformation of the culprit in the very process of amnesty, it is not purely penal, but also prophylactic; it changes the relations of the sinner by converting him into a saint.
(1.) The chief, if not the only difficulty in our concep- tions of the method of Christian redemption, relates to the justice of substituting an innocent for a guilty per- son in the expiation of crime. This is, to be sure, an abstract question, but it is a fundamental one. Its de- termination, however, rests with the Being to be pla- cated, and with the individual submitting to become the victim, rather than with ourselves, the beneficiaries of the arrangement, or with any other intelligences who may be merely spectators. As the compact, in pursuance of which this mediation is effected, was confined to the bosom of the Godhead, we might fairly be excused from attempting its vindication ; especially as the Father and the Son, regarded as the contracting parties, are so iden- tified in nature and action that any moral discrepancy or personal disagreement, such as this question implies, is necessarily excluded. Indeed, if thej' two freely con- sent, as the plan presupposes, it is hard to see who can have a right to raise a doubt or utter complaint on the subject. Still, to obviate all cavil, it may not be amiss to pursue this point as far as we may without presump- tion or arrogance.
Instances of a similar but far less extensive vicarious suffering have occurred in human histor}', and arc often pointed to as rare but striking illustrations of this prin- ciple. These were applauded at the time of their occur- rence, and have been commended ever since by the com- mon voice of mankind, without incurring the imputa- tion of unfairness or compromise. If we look into the design of judicial exactions, so far as human legislation and administration enable us to discern it, we find it to be fourfold : 1, the appeasement of the wrath of the in- jured party; 2, the moral cure of the offending party; 3, the allaying of the sense of wrong in the convictions of the community ; and, 4, the deterring of others from
MEDIATION
22
MEDIATOR
similar crimes. ISIost laws for earthly retribution have chiefly in view the pecuniary reparation of the wrong, and the protection of society against its recurrence ; and
it shall die." The mediation under consideration was an equkuleni, such as met the mond design of the pen- alty. Nor is it correct to argue that as man incurred
in these respects Christ's atonement is as parallel as pos- injiniie guilt hy sinning against infinite holiness, so sible. In cases of capital punishment, with which the Christ otfered an infinite satisfaction by reason of his present is most analogous, the first two ends of penal in- i divine and perfect nature. Neither part of this propo- tiiction are necessarily excluded, by the death of the j sition is tenable. No finite creature is capable of infi- murdered and the execution of the murderer; so that I nite guilt, not even the sum total of all humanity, for it there remain only the moral influence and the preventive i is limited both in its numbers and nature, and so is like-