Christ
acting as the second Adam, or according to a covenant with the
Father, in the whole of His atoning work.
This
idea must be carried with us, whether we consider the fundamental
presuppositions of the atonement, as stated in some of the first
sections, or discuss the special reference and extent of the
atonement, as exhibited in section xli. (p. 312). The doctrine of the
atonement cannot be understood without the idea of a conjunction
between Christ and His people, whether or not it is called a covenant (pactum salutis), and whether or not we use the terms of the federal
theology. The whole scheme of thought relating to the covenant
occupied at one time an important. place in the Reformed Church, and
in some portions of the Lutheran Church, though it never became
general in the latter.
Of
various elements which may be said to have concurred, if not to
originate, at least to turn attention to this scheme of thought, the
two following may be particularly named: the cavils of Socinus, and
the subsequent rise of the Arminian controversy. As to the first of
these concurring forces, I may mention that one of the objections
against the satisfaction on which Socinus laid stress, was, that
there ought to be at least some conjunction between the guilty and
him that is punished; and he would not admit that there was any such
conjunction or bond between Christ and us. This drove the defenders
of the truth to assert the affirmative, and to define it. They main
tained that Christ was united to us, not only as a partaker of our
humanity by becoming one of us, our brother and friend, but also as
He entered into a still closer conjunction as the Bridegroom, Head,
Shepherd, Lord, King, and Surety of His people. Grotius, in his
treatise, De Satisfactione, chap, iv., is particularly emphatic in
asserting this close conjunction, on which the possibility of an
atonement depends. Thus, in op position to Socinus, Grotius says, "It might be said here that man is not without relation to man, that
there is a natural kindred and consanguinity between men, and between
our flesh assumed by Christ. But another much greater conjunction
between Christ and us was decreed by God, for He was ap pointed by
God to be the Head of the body of which we are members. And here it
must be observed, that Socinus erroneously confined to the flesh
alone that conjunction which is sufficient for laying punishment upon
one for another's sins, since here the mystical conjunction has no
less power. This appears principally in the example of a king and a
people. We cited above the history of the Israelites punished for the
sin of David." A little afterwards, Grotius adds that this con
junction lays the foundation for vicarious punishment: "There
fore the sacred writings do not at all favour Socinus, declaring, as
they do, that God did the very thing which he undeservedly accuses of
injustice; but neither has he any greater defence from right reason,
which it is wonderful that he so often boasts of, but nowhere shows.
But that all this error may be re moved, it must be observed that it
is essential to punishment that it be inflicted for sin, but that it
is not likewise essential to it that it be inflicted on him who
sinned; and that is manifest from the similitude of reward, favour,
and revenge, — for reward is often wont to be conferred upon the
children or relations of a well-deserving person, and favour on the
kinsman of him who conferred the benefit, and revenge upon the
friends of him that offended. Neither do they, on that account, cease
to be what they are — reward, favour, and revenge. Add to this,
that if it were against the nature of punishment, then this very
thing would not be called unjust, but impossible. But God forbids a
son to be punished by men for the father's fault; but impossible
things are not forbidden. Moreover, injustice does not properly
happen to a relation (such as punishment is), but to the action
itself, such as the matter of punishment is. And here the true
distinction must be inquired into, why it is not equally free to all
to punish one for another's sin, and to bestow a favour or reward for
another's merit or benefit; for an act which contains in it a reward
or favour is a benevolent act, which, in its own nature, is permitted
to all; but an act which has in it punishment, is a hurtful act,
which is neither allowed to all, nor against all. Wherefore, that a
punishment may be just, it is requisite that the penal act itself
should be in the power of the punisher, which happens in a threefold
way: either by the antecedent right of the punisher himself, or by
the legitimate and valid consent of him about whose punishment the
question is; or by the crime of the same person. When the act has
become lawful by these modes, nothing prevents its being appointed
for the punishment of another's sin, provided there be some
conjunction between him that sinned and the party to be punished. And
this conjunction is either natural, as between a father and a son; or
mystical, as between king and people; or voluntary, as between the
guilty person and the surety. Socinus appeals to the judgment of all
nations; but as to God, the philosophers doubted not that the sins of
parents were punished by Him in the children." I shall not quote
further from this memorable chapter of Grotius, in which he
overwhelms his opponent by the testimony of all classical antiquity.
I have adduced this discussion, only to show how men came during the
course of it to adopt and maintain a certain necessary conjunction
between the Redeemer and the redeemed, which involved something more
than a mere community of the same nature, and, in a word, the
elements of a covenant.
But
another cause concurred with the former. When the Arminian debates
arose, and the five points were debated, many were led, during the
course of this discussion, more and more to the conclusion that there
was a given party in whose behalf all the provisions of redemption
were contrived and carried into effect. Thus, Amesius, Coronis, p.
112, expresses himself: "Addam etiam insuper, si nullo modo
versabatur ecclesia in mente divina, quum unctus et sanctificatus
fuit Christus ad officium suum, turn caput constitutus fuit sine
corpore, ac rex sine subditis ullis in praesentia notis, vel omniscio
ipsi Deo: quod quam indignum sit thesauris illis divinae sapientiae
qui in hoc mysterio absconditi fuerunt, non opus est ut ego dicam.
Hoc unum perpendat cordatus Lector satisfactionem illam Christi pro
nobis nocentibus susceptam valere non potuisse, nisi aliqua
antecedente inter nos et Christum, conjunctione; tali scilicet qua
designatus est a Deo ut caput esset corporis, cujus nos sumus membra;
ut Vir cl. Hugo Grotius, relictis remonstrantibus, quos alibi
defendit ingenue concedit. — Defensionis fidei Catholicae, pagina
66."
Hence
the doctrine of the covenant was the concentrated essence of
Calvinism, and appeared especially in a formed and jointed system,
after the Synod of Dort. Cloppenburg maintained it just after that
Synod. Thus these two elements above named led many of the greatest
divines of the Reformed Church to bring out, and" to lay stress
upon, a pactum salutis, or foedus, as necessary to a full
understanding of the atonement. This doctrine has fallen out of the
prominence it at one time occupied in theology. But whatever view may
be held as to that scheme of thought, there is no room for two
opinions as to the scriptural character of the doctrine, that there
must be a certain conjunction between Christ and the redeemed.
It
is due to the federal theology to state, that it was only meant to
ground and to establish the undoubtedly scriptural doctrine of the
two Adams (Rom. v. 12-20; 1 Cor. xv. 47). These are by no means to be
regarded as two different lines of thought, or as two mutually
exclusive modes of representing truth. They proceed on the same
principle, and they come to precisely the same result, — the one
from the view-point of humanity, the other from the counsels of the
Trinity. No one can doubt, who examines the federal theology, that
the design of those who brought that scheme of thought into general
reception in the Reformed Church for two centuries, was principally
to ground, and to put on a sure basis, the idea of the two Adams;
that is, to show that there were, in reality, only two men in
history, and only two great facts on which the fortunes of the race
hinged. The leading federalists were Cloppenburg, Dick son the
Scottish divine (who developed it so early as 1625 — see Life of
Robert Blair, in the Wodrow publications — several years before the
work of Cocceius, De Foedere, appeared in 1648), Cocceius, Burmann,
Witsius, Strong, Owen, etc. etc. It became a magnificent scheme of
theological thought in the hands of these men, and of others who took
it up with ardour. That foreign thoughts afterwards came to be
introduced into it, and that it became complicated by many additional
elements, brought in to give it completeness, but which only lent it
an air of human ingenuity and artificial construction, cannot be
denied. But as to the point already referred to, there is no doubt
that they intended to establish, by this mode of representation, that
Christ and His people were to be regarded as one person in the eye of
law; and that, properly speaking, there were only two heads of
families, and only two great facts in history — the fall and the
atonement.
Against
this whole scheme of thought, a reaction set in a century ago. Nor
can this be wondered at, when we remember that it was overdone at
that time, and that a reaction was only the effort of the human mind
to regain its equilibrium — as is always the case when anything is
carried too far. It was over done, and now it is neglected.
But
it is by no means to be repudiated, or put among the mere antiquities
of Christian effort. This, or something like it, whether we adopt the
federal nomenclature or not, must occur to every one who will follow
out the revealed thoughts uttered by Christ Himself to their
legitimate consequences. The only objection of any plausibility is,
that the notion of a covenant presupposes a twofold will in God. To
meet this objection, springing from an exclusive regard to the unity
of the Godhead, it may be remarked, that the supposition of a council
or covenant, having man's redemption for its object, has no more
difficulty than the doctrine of a Trinity. Each person wills, knows,
loves, and exercises acts to one another and to us; and as they are
personally distinct in the numerical- unity of the divine essence,
so, according to the order of subsistence, they each will, though
not apart and isolated. Accordingly, Dr. Owen remarks against
Biddle, in his Vindiciae: "Because of the distinct acting of the
will of the Father, and of the will of the Son, with regard to each
other, it is more than a decree, and hath the proper nature of a
covenant or compact."
Whatever
view may be taken, however, of that scheme of thought, the one
important matter on which no doubt can be entertained by any
scriptural divine, is, that as Adam was a public person, the
representative of all his family, according to the constitution given
to the human race, as contradistinguished from that of other orders
of being, so Christ, the Restorer, stands in the same position to His
family or seed. The world could be redeemed on no other principle
than that on which it was at first constituted. Augustin's formula,
ilk unus homo nos omnes fuimus, as applied to the first man, is perhaps the very best that has ever been given; and the same formula may
be applied with equal warrant to the second man, the Lord from
heaven. As applied to the atonement, this principle of a covenant, or
of a conjunction between Christ and His seed, is simple and easily
apprehended. The conditions being fulfilled by the second man, His
people enter into the reward.
Thus
Christ was commissioned to do a work for a people who were to reap
the reward. The Father laid on Him the conditions given to Adam, with
the additional one derived from guilt, and claimed satisfaction from
the Son undertaking to act for a seed given to Him. Man could be
redeemed only on the principle or constitution on which God placed
him at first, and not on one altogether different; and the one aim of
the federal theology was meant to base and to ground this biblical
truth.
George
Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by Christ Himself,
Appendix on Sec. X.
No comments:
Post a Comment