satisfaction, rendering the remission of sins consistent with the divine holiness.? If Christ?s union with the race be one, which begins with creation and antedates the Fall, all of the later points in the above scheme are only natural correlates and consequences of the first. Substitution, representation, reconciliation, propitiation, satisfaction, are only different aspects of the work which Christ does for us, by virtue of the fact that he is the immanent God, the Life of humanity, priest and victim, condemning and condemned, atoning and atoned.
We have seen how God can justly demand satisfaction. We now show how Christ can justly make it or, in other words, how the innocent can justly suffer for the guilty. The solution of the problem lies in Christ?s union with humanity. The first result of that union is obligation to suffer for men since, being one with the race, Christ had a share in the responsibility of the race to the law and the justice of God. In him humanity was created; at every stage of its existence humanity was upheld by his power. As the immanent God, he was the life of the race and of every member of it. Christ?s sharing of man?s life justly and inevitably subjected him to man?s exposures and liabilities and especially to God?s condemnation on account of sin.
In the seventh chapter of Elsie Venner, Oliver Wendell Holmes makes the Reverend Mr. Honeywood lay aside an old sermon on Human Nature, and write one on The Obligations of an infinite Creator to a finite Creature. A.
J. F. Behrends grounded our Lord?s representative relation not in his human nature but in his divine nature. ?He is our representative not because he was in the loins of Adam, but because we, Adam included, were in his loins. Personal created existence is grounded in the Logos, so that God must deal with him as well as with every individual sinner, and sin and guilt and punishment must smite the Logos as well as the sinner, and that, whether the simmer is saved or not. This is not, as is often charged, a denial of grace or of freedom in grace, for it is no denial of freedom or grace to show that they are eternally rational and conformable to eternal law. In the ideal sphere, necessity and freedom, law and grace, coalesce.? J. C. C. Clarke, Man and his Divine Father, 337 ? ?Vicarious atonement does not consist in any single act. No one act embraces it all, and no one definition can compass it.? In this sense we may adopt the words of Forsyth: ?In the atonement the Holy Father dealt with a world?s sin on (not in) a world-soul.?
G. B. Foster, on <402652>Matthew 26:52, 54 ? ?Thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels? How then should the Scriptures he fulfilled, that thus it
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?