Thus the seeming inconsistency between full atonement for sin, and pure grace in salvation, vanishes and disappears. The system of redemption rises into view like a magnificent edifice, displaying the greatest order, proportion and beauty.”
Dr. Maxcy.
“To reconcile grace with justice in the salvation of the sinner, is the Gordian knot, which divines generally have been unable to untie. Upon the principle of an indefinite atonement, the difficulty vanishes. If all the sins of a certain individual have been atoned for by the Redeemer, free grace will not appear in his pardon; because justice would, in that case, require his salvation. But justice is threefold, commutative, distributive, and public. Commutative justice has no concern in this case. Public justice is satisfied by the atonement, because the governor of the universe displays his displeasure at sin in general in the sufferings of Christ. The exercise of distributive justice is entirely set aside, and herein is grace exhibited, the sinner is pardoned at the expence of distributive justice.”
“Although we have stated this argument with all the precision of which we are capable, we must observe, that notwithstanding the show of minute discussion which it makes, its whole force consists in its obscurity, and the confusion of ideas which it produces. The indistinctness of vision which it causes, is the only reason for any man’s offering his hand to those who, by proposing it, promise to be his guide to the temple of truth.
We object to this division of a divine attribute—we object to the use which is made of it—we object to the argument, because it multiplies, instead of solving difficulties—and it takes for granted, what does not exist, a difficulty in reconciling justice with grace.
We object to this division of a divine attribute. It is not correct, even as it applies to man. We are perfectly aware that the Schoolmen, following the steps of heathen philosophers, adopted this division. Suarez builds upon it the doctrine of merit, in order to supply the traffic of indulgences with works of supererogation.[[156]] But, however variously divine justice may be exercised about its several objects, we have no reason to believe, that there are three different attributes of justice, or even that the principle in man, which induces him to act honestly in commercial transactions, and to give to every man his due, is any way different from the principle which influences a good magistrate to conduct with equity his public administration. It is one principle exercised upon various objects. The Scriptures, which uniformly ascribe righteousness to Jehovah, and afford instances of its exercise in thrice three various ways, never intimate that there are three distinct attributes of divine justice.[[157]]
We object to the use that is made of this division. There is no reason for excluding commutative justice any more than distributive, as distinct from public justice, from having any reference to the case of the sinner’s pardon. We can readily conceive of a civil ruler, having, independently of his official duties, certain private and personal duties to discharge towards those, who, in such case, are upon terms of equality with himself. But no equality exists between the creature and Creator. The pardon of sin most assuredly approaches as near to the forgiveness of a debt as the remission of a personal offence, which has no reference to the divine authority. Sin is a want of conformity unto, or a transgression of THE LAW.[[158]] Besides, the Scriptures frequently represent Jehovah condescending to act towards men upon the footing of a previously existing contract or covenant, but never upon the footing of private relation, setting aside his authority. He hath taught us to pray, “Forgive us our debts;” but never to say, “pardon private offences which are no transgression of thy law.” We cannot even conceive of the exercise of distributive justice by the Lord, separate from his authority as our king, our lawgiver, and our judge. We cannot conceive, that it is matter of indifference whether God does or does not exercise distributive justice towards his creatures; and much less can we admit that even, for the sake of mercy, he is ever guilty of one act of distributive injustice. We, therefore, object to the use which is made of this threefold division of the attribute of justice. And we also,
Object to the whole argument which it involves, because it multiplies instead of solving difficulties around the doctrine of the sinner’s justification.
It requires us to believe that God has violated, or set aside the demands of distributive justice in the salvation of his chosen—that the sufferings of our Redeemer were the punishment, not of transgressions which are, in fact, committed, but of sin in the abstract—and that public justice requires only an exhibition of the divine displeasure at sin.
Sin, in the abstract, is only a word. Like an algebraical character, it represents all the transgressions of individual persons. These particular sins are realities; but sin in general, or in the abstract, is only the sign, the word, which we employ in reasoning.[[159]] It is not for the sign, but the thing that Jesus suffered.