Woods:

6. Was the death of Christ a full equivalent for the punishment of sinners? and was it a legal substitute?

The exact meaning of equivalent is, equal in value or worth, of equal avail, or of equal influence. The question then is, whether the death of Christ is in a moral view of equal avail, or equal in value, with the punishment of sinners. To this we have already attended. Christ’s death answered the ends of punishment, so that the honor of the Lawgiver, the authority of the law and the welfare of the moral world are as well secured, as they could have been by the merited punishment of transgressors. And this is the same as to say, the death of Christ is, in a moral view, of equal value with their punishment, or is an equivalent for it. And it is a full equivalent, because it fully answers the ends of punishment, answers them as perfectly as they could have been answered by the infliction of punishment according to the threat of the law. It might be shown, that the death of Christ is more than an equivalent for the punishment of sinners, as it doubtless answers the ends of a just punishment in a higher degree than could have been answered by the punishment itself, besides accomplishing other objects of everlasting importance, which the punishment of sinners could never have accomplished; so that, in the final result, the vicarious death of Christ will be the cause of vast gain to the universe.

But is the death of Christ a legal substitute, and a legal equivalent? The answer to this must vary according to the sense we affix to the word legal. If by a legal substitute or equivalent, be meant that which is provided by law, or that which is exactly conformed to the letter of the law; then the death of Christ is not legal. For the law itself provides for nothing in case of transgression, but the punishment of transgressors. Its precepts and its sanctions, taken literally, relate only to those who are the proper subjects of law. But if by a legal substitute is meant a substitute which supports the principles and answers the ends of law; then the death of Christ is a legal substitute, and a legal equivalent. In its efficacy to accomplish the great purposes of a moral government, it is fully equal, not to say superior, to the direct execution of the penalty of the law.

Leonard Woods, “Lectures,” in The Works of Leonard Woods, (Boston: John P. Jewett & Company, 1851), 478-479.  [Italics original and underlining mine.]

[comments below]

Weeks:

A[spasio]. But why could not his mercy be glorified in the offer of forgiveness to them, if Christ had not died for them?

P[aulinus]. Could mercy have been glorified in the pardon of sinners, if no atonement had been made?

A. By no means. ” Without the shedding of blood is no remission.” If sinners had been forgiven without an atonement, it would not have been a manifestation of the glorious attribute of mercy, but of a weak and inglorious partiality for the wicked.

P. If, then, where no atonement is made, no forgiveness can be granted, it follows that where no atonement is made, no forgiveness can be offered; at least, there is no manifestation of mercy in such an offer. For if the offer should be accepted, the forgiveness could not be granted. What will the non-elect think in the great day, if they find that forgiveness was offered them on the part of God, with the greatest appearance of compassion for them, and at the same time discover that if they had accepted the offer forgiveness would have been refused? Will their mouths be stopped ? Will they not rather be opened wide? Will they not consider it, and justly too, as so far from being a manifestation of mercy, that it was altogether insincere, and no better than mocking their misery?

A. But you suppose a case that never can happen. “If you suppose a non-elect man may believe, you should suppose, at the same time, that both the decree of election and of redemption correspond with this event; and then all difficulty will be removed.”

P. The non-elect are either able or unable to accept the offer. If they are able, then the case can happen; and the appearance of mercy, expressed in the offer, should be judged of accordingly. If they are unable, then the difficulty is greatly increased; for they are not only tantalized with the offer of forgiveness which cannot be granted, but they are mocked with proposals which they cannot comply with. It is like calling upon a drowning man to take hold of a rope and save himself, when there is not only no rope within his reach, but he has no hands to take hold of one if there were.

But if Christ has died for all men, they can all be forgiven if they will repent and believe. And so the offer of forgiveness can be consistently made to them on the part of God, and be a real expression of his mercy. And since they are all moral agents, and able to accept the offer, their salvation is, by this means, put entirely at their own option. Should an earthly government offer pardon to a criminal, upon the easy condition of his own voluntary acceptance, and should it appear that every obstacle was removed, so that he might be pardoned if he would, there would be no doubt of the merciful disposition of that government. Even the criminal himself would say, with his dying breath, ” The government was merciful, but I would not receive pardon at their hands.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Bergius:

1) Q. 38. But the quickening virtue, and the purgation of our sins, is ascribed to the flesh and blood of Christ; which is indeed a divine property.

A. The quickening Virtue and Purgation of our sins is ascribed to the flesh and blood of Christ, not as an essential property of the Deity, but as the virtue and fruit of his sufferings, which is the perfect propitiatory sacrifice which he gave for the life of the World, by which God purges us from sin and quickens us. But therefore is it the perfect propitiatory sacrifice, because it is not the flesh and blood of a mere man, but of the son of God himself, and because he gave it and shed it for us, in perfect love and obedience. And it is as much as to say, “My flesh gives life to the world, that is, thereby the world receives life, for that I came from Heaven, and took true flesh of man upon me, and gave it for the life of the world.” The blood of the Son of God cleanses us from all sin, that is, hereby have we cleansing from all our sins, that the Son of God has shed his own blood for us.    Johannes Bergius, The Pearle of Peace & Concord. Or A Treatise of Pacification Betwixt the dissenting Churches of Christ, (London: Printed by T.C. For John Rothwell, at the Fountain and Bear in Cheap-side; and John Wright, at the Kings Head in the Old Bayly 1655), 35-36. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

2) Q. 49. But what do they accuse your doctrine for?

A. They charge us that we [the Reformed] as if we teach, First, that God did not will at all the Salvation of all men, but has chosen some few merely of his won will and pleasure without any respect of their belief or unbelief to salvation, and rejected the rest and the greatest part of men to damnation. So that the Elect if they live so wickedly, yet must be saved; but that the rejected, if they never so piously, yet must be dammed…

4. [And] that it was not at all the will of God, that Christ should suffer and die for all men, but only for some certain persons, namely the elect.    Johannes Bergius, The Pearle of Peace & Concord. Or A Treatise of Pacification Betwixt the dissenting Churches of Christ, (London: Printed by T.C. For John Rothwell, at the Fountain and Bear in Cheap-side; and John Wright, at the Kings Head in the Old Bayly 1655), 49 and 50. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; square bracketed inserts mine; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Dabney:

1) But it is objected that the report suggests error concerning the application and extent of the atonement. On this subject there are two aspects which Calvinists have always distinguished. One regards the nature of the atonement; the other its design; and we all hold that, in its intrinsic nature, the atonement is infinite. This is the consequence of the infinite dignity of the Mediatorial Person. Its value is, intrinsically, as sufficient for the sins of all men as of one. Its limitation to the elect is not to be sought, then, in it nature, but in its design; and this design, as to its actual application to them, is nothing else than the decree. It is not something else, different and separate, but the decree itself. Now the section of our report under remark, in its first sentences, speaks of the nature of the atonement, and in its last of its application. In its first sentences it uses general terms, “man’s guilt,” “our sins,” etc., for it is speaking only of the nature of Christ’s atoning work, which has no limits.’ And in speaking thus, I claim that the report does but imitate the Scriptures–”God so loved the world,” etc.; “Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world,” etc.–and the Confession itself. Why, then, should it be charged with error for using the same sort of language which the Bible itself does in this connection? But when the report proceeds to speak of the application of redemption, it declares, as I assert, in exact accordance with the spirit of our standards, that God applies it to all the elect, and to no others; and that this application is itself through the purchase of Jesus Christ. We do not invent a statement to establish a supralapsarian order of sequence between the purpose to save the elect and to send Christ to die; but neither does the Confession. It merely declares that redemption is applied through this work of Christ precisely to those to whom it was God’s eternal purpose to apply it; and that is, his elect. The report speaks the same thing.

Moreover, the committee used the word redemption, as they believe, in strict accordance with Calvinistic usage, in a sense distinct from the word atonement. Redemption means, not only a provision of a vicarious penalty to satisfy for guilt, but in addition all the gracious gifts, of active obedience to be imputed, of effectual calling, of sanctification, and of glorification, which make up a completed salvation. All this is designed, purchased, and bestowed for the elect in and through Christ. And in this view they may quote, among many Calvinistic authorities, this of old Willison, Catechism, Ques.: “How doth Christ redeem his people from their bondage?” Ans. “Partly by price, or purchase; partly by power, or conquest.”

In a word, the committee intended to express summarily that sound, but not ultra, view of the atonement held by Calvinists, and expressed in the ancient formula, “Christ died sufficiently for the race, efficaciously for the elect.”  R.L. Dabney, ‘Speech on the Fusion of the United Synod,” in Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, 2:307-308. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »