mors, qiias omnibus mortibus, quas singuli pro suis peccatis merue- rant, non aequivaluisset."
It is obvious that the objections presented in the above extracts arise from confounding pecuniary with judicial or legal satisfaction. There is an analogy between them, and, therefore, on the ground of that analogy it is right to say that Christ assumed and paid out debts. The analogy consists, first, in the effect produced, namely, the certain deliverance of those for whom the satisfaction is made ; secondly, that a real equivalent is paid ; and, thirdly, that in both cases justice requires that the liberation of the obligee should take place. But, as we have already seen, the two kinds of satisfaction differ, first, in that in penal satisfaction the demand is not for any specific degree or kind of suffering; secondly, that while the value of pecuniary satisfaction is independent entirely of the person by whom the payment is made, in the other case everything de- pends on the dignity of him by whom the satisfaction is rendei'ed ; and, thirdly, that the benefits of a penal satisfaction are conferred according to the terms or conditions of the covenant in pursuance of which it is offered and accepted.
The principle that a thing avails for whatever God chooses to take it, which is the foundation of the doctrine that Christ's work was not a satisfaction in virtue of its intrinsic worth but only by the gracious acceptance of God, cannot be true. For, —
1. It amounts to saying that there is no truth in anything. God may (if such language may be pardoned) take anything for any- thing ; a whole for a part, or a part for the whole ; truth for error, or error for truth ; right for wrong, or wrong for right ; the blood of a goat for the blood of the Eternal Son of God. This is impossible. The nature of God is immutable, — immutable reason, truth, and goodness ; and his nature determines his will and his judgments. Therefore it is impossible that He should take that to be satisfac- tion which is not really such.
2. The principle in question involves the denial of the necessity of the work of Christ. It is inconceivable that God should send his only begotten Son into the world to suffer and die if the same end could have been accomplished in any other way. If every man could atone for his own sins, or one man for the sins of the •whole world, then Christ is dead in vain.
3. If this doctrine be true then it is not true that it is impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. If every creatum ohlatum tantum valet, pro quanta Deus acceptat^
488 PART in. Cii. VIL— SATISFACTION OF CHFJST.
then why might not the Old Testament sacrifices have sufficed to take away sin ? What rendered them inefficacious was their own inherent worthlessness. And what renders the satisfaction of Christ effectual is its own inherent value.
4. The Scriptures teach the necessity of the death of Christ, not only by implication, but also by direct assei'tion. In Galatians ii. 21, the Apostle says, " If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." This means that if the righteousness necessary for the salvation of men could have been secured in any other way the whole work of Christ is a matter of supererogation, an unneces- sary expenditure of what was beyond all price. Still more explicit is his language in Galatians iii. 21 : " If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." It is here asserted that if any other method could have availed to save sinners it would have been adopted. Our Lord, in Luke xxiv. 26, asks, " Ought not Christ to have suffered these things ? " There was an obligation, or necessity, which demanded his sufferings if the salvation of sinners was to be accom- plished. The Apostle again, in Hebrews ii. 10, says, " It became liim, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bring- ing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." There was a necessity for the suffer- ings of Christ, and that necessity was not merely governmental, nor for the accumulating moral power over the sinner's heart, but it arose out of the nature of God. It became Him. It was con- sonant with his perfections and character, which is the higliest conceivable kind of necessity.
5. What the Scriptures teach of the justice of God leads to tlie same conclusion. Justice is a form of moral excellence. It belongs to the nature of God. It demands the punishment of sin. If sin be pardoned it can be pardoned in consistency with the divine justice only on the ground of a forensic penal satisfaction. There- fore the Apostle says (Romans iii. 25), that God sent forth Clirist as a propitiation through faith in his blood, in order that God might be just in justifying the ungodly.
6. The Scriptures, in representing the gift of Christ as the high- est conceivable exhibition of the divine love, do thereby teach, first, that the end to be accompHshed was worthy of the sacrifice ; and, secondly, that the sacrifice was necessaiy to the attainment of the end. If the end could have been otherwise attained there would have been no exhibition of love in the gift of Chrfst for its accomplishment.