With reference to the latter, it is indeed a beautiful thing to see this fruit of the Spirit abounding in the chastened child of God; the Lord’s love is thereby glorified, and the comforts of the Holy Ghost are brought experimentally to the view. But where do we read that such affliction, or such patience, is to be regarded as expiation? It may be like the refiner’s fire, by means of which the Lord draws out the pure gold for his diadem, for he says himself, “I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction,” but it has no connexion with expiation. The source of expiation is Divine justice, the means of it is punishment, and the end is the satisfaction of the law; the source of chastisement, on the other hand, is love, for “whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth;” the means of it may be sorrow, as the widow wept that she might rejoice over her risen son; but the end is that we are made more like to Christ, for “he does it for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.” Let no afflicted believer, then, suppose that God is angry with him in his trouble, or that by his patient endurance he can make satisfaction for his sin. Rather let him take his sorrow as a pledge of love, as a sweet token that the Lord has not left him to the wanderings of his sinful heart, but is drawing him nearer to himself, and preparing him for a bright place in the coming kingdom of his Lord.
And as for the other idea, that our own self-inflicted pains can make satisfaction for our sins, we need scarcely look even to the scriptural testimony for its overthrow. If a man were left for execution by an earthly judge, would his sentence be remitted if it were proved that, during his imprisonment, he had thought it right to abstain from meat? And if God’s heavy wrath frowns on a soul, and his justice demands the execution of his law, is it likely, I ask, that the sentence should be remitted because the sinner has thought it right to do penance for a week? The Catechism of Trent even presumes to say that penance is “as it were, a compensation for sin.” [11] Now, what penance can make a compensation to God? what acts of repentance are there so perfect that they do not themselves require to be repented of? and, if any such could be found, how could they make satisfaction for sin? how could the right of to-day be a compensation for the wrong of yesterday? No; if that were our hope, we might weep till the ocean overflowed with the deep tide of our penitential tears; we might lacerate and emaciate the poor human frame till it could no longer contain the worn and peaceless spirit; but, after all, there could be no peace, no satisfaction, no propitiation of God’s justice, and therefore no relief from the weight and burden of our sin. No; we must abandon all thoughts of satisfaction, and throw ourselves as we are before the cross of Christ, in a simple reliance on the one great fact, that he, as our perfect substitute, has blotted out the whole by his own most precious blood. Our satisfaction is that Christ has died, and that alone is sure to be sufficient, for it was purposed by the Father in his own eternal counsels; our atonement has been made by the spotless Redeemer, the eternal Son, and while we adore its full perfection, we give up all thoughts of mixing with it, or adding to it, the poor, defective, imperfect, sin-stricken efforts, which frail, feeble man may strive to make in order to effect a yet further compensation for his sin.
(2.) It is complete; i.e., according to the language of our Articles, it is a “perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction.” It is amply sufficient for the completion of the purposed work, the removal of God’s curse, and his full reconciliation to the lost and guilty sinner.
Now, in order to this completeness there are two things plainly necessary; viz., that it should be free in its application, and perfect in its effect; or, in other words, that the pardon procured by it should be both free and full; free, for it must reach to the lowest depths of the sinner’s fall, or it can never open the door of life to those who are lost in sin; and full, for when it blots out sin, it must blot it out completely, or it can never admit the pardoned believer to the peaceful enjoyment of the love of God.
When, therefore, we speak of a full satisfaction, we include both these truths, and in both these respects we are at direct variance with Rome.
As to the first, it is the doctrine of the Church of England that the work wrought out by Him was so complete, that there was nothing left for the sinner to do, in order to qualify himself for pardon, but that salvation is offered us on the simple terms, “Believe, and live.” “We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” [12]
It is extremely difficult to give any short and clear definition of the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon the subject, for it is a complicated maze, through which her followers are obliged to tread. But the idea throughout is that there must be something in us, as it were, to meet the work of atonement, some satisfaction on the part of the sinner, to qualify him for the reception of the satisfaction of the Lord. In words they would state that the atonement was complete, but in its application of it to ruined souls they neutralize the statement, by demanding something on our part as a condition of our being pardoned through it. It is as though the veil of the temple had been rent from the top almost to the bottom, but still a small fragment left which the sinner must divide, before he can go in before the mercy-seat. It is as though there were a debt of 100l., or any other sum, and the creditor said to the debtor, Your friend has paid the whole, and you shall be free, provided that you now pay down 1l. It matters not what is the character, or what the amount of the remaining sum, which the debtor is required to pay in order to procure the gift of proffered freedom; the simple fact of any such demand destroys the perfection of the ransom of the substitute. As Hooker said of this same system, “I cannot stand now to unrip this building, and sift it piece by piece,” and I believe there is no occasion to do so, as none who are acquainted with Romish teaching can deny that there is some such demand made on every adult before the Lord’s atonement can be made efficacious for his pardon. In some cases the thing demanded is personal sanctification, according to which a person must be holy before he can be justified in his Lord. “If any man shall say that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or the sole remission of our sins, and not by grace and charity, which is diffused in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, and is inherent in them, let him be anathema.” [13a] Sometimes it is good works, as in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which declares that through the atonement we obtain by good works two great benefits, “one that we deserve the rewards of immortal glory—the other that we make satisfaction for our sins.” [13b] The whole, it says, “depends on the merit of our Lord’s passion;” but the good works are represented as acts on our part, through which that atonement is made effectual to our case. Sometimes it is penance, through which mortal sin after baptism is said to be remitted, and of which the Council of Trent decrees, “Whoever shall affirm that the satisfactions by which penitents redeem themselves from sin through Christ Jesus, are no part of the service of God, but on the contrary, human traditions which obscure the doctrine of grace, and the true worship of God, and the benefits of the death of Christ, let him be anathema.” [13c]
Now believers in the Bible are not afraid boldly to say, “Let that anathema rest on us,” for we do believe from the bottom of our heart that the doctrine of grace is obscured and neutralized by such a system of human satisfaction. We believe it to be utterly impossible for penitents to redeem themselves from sin by any satisfaction whatsoever. “It cost more to redeem their souls, so that they must let that alone for ever.” We believe at the same time that there is no such satisfaction needed, but that the whole judgment has been so completely borne, as to lay open the treasury of life to the sinner, even in the lowest depths of his ruin; so that when he has nothing to bring, and can have nothing, and has no prospect of ever having anything at any future time, we can proclaim to him in the words of the Holy Ghost, “Ho! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.”
But before we quit the subject of the completeness of the atonement we must remember its fulness or perfection towards the pardoned believer. We have found that the completeness of the atonement is practically neutralized by the demand of some human satisfaction, in order that the Lord’s propitiation may be made applicable to the sinner; but now another question arises, of the deepest possible importance,—Is the sinner, when forgiven, forgiven completely? Is his sin fully or only partially blotted out? Hitherto we have spoken merely of the man seeking forgiveness, and found how he is required by the Church of Rome to do something before he can reach up to the atonement; now let us proceed a step further, and examine the case of one who has obtained it, i.e., of the pardoned believer,—of the accepted child of God. How does he stand with reference to those sins which have been pardoned through the blood of propitiation? Does any portion of the guilt or charge of them lie against him after his forgiveness? or is the whole removed and blotted out for ever?
It may appear strange to some that I have even raised the question, for the language of sacred scripture is so plain and so often repeated, that those who are familiar with its pages will at once call to mind a host of passages, which place the matter beyond the range of controversy. “Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow; and though they be red like crimson they shall be as wool.” If they are as white as snow, there is surely no stain left. “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” There is therefore no trace or recollection of its blot. “There is therefore now no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus.” There cannot therefore be a guilt or a condemnation left. “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him;” i.e., that the righteousness of God might be imputed to us, just as our guilt was laid upon him; and if that is the case, can there be any vestige left, any remnant of the stain or curse? Surely guilt must be gone if we stand before the throne in the righteousness of Jesus. There is no stain on his garment, no defect in his love. It is perfect, spotless, and untainted for eternity; and the believer, who is clad in it, may cast to the winds all thought of punishment for bygone sin, and let his soul repose in the peaceful enjoyment of unimpeded love.