The Plan of Salvation.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3811, 16 March 1881, Page 2

The Plan of Salvation.

[We conclude the Rev S. J. Neill's second lecture on the above : —]

Again, a query is raised about the righteousness of Christ: Did Christ possess an infinite justice as well as God the Father ? and, jt not, why not? and, if He did, why did He not regard His justice as violated? and, if He did, who died to satisfy the justice of God the Son ? And as to God "the Holy Ghost, why is His righteousness not mentioned ? If God the Son and God the Holy Ghost be equal with God the Father, infinite in justice, then, has their justice not been sinned against ? or has it not been satisfied ? and, if satisfied, who died to satisfy it, since the justice of God the Father required God the Son to bear it ? Are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost each infinite in all qualities ? or doen fiod the Father only possess infinite justice, God the Bon infinite mercy, while God the Holy Ghost is represented with applying the work of

Christ? But the Scripture does say there are sins against the Son, which shall be forgiven, and sins against the Holy Grhost which shall not be forgiven either in this or in the coming age. Where does the . doctrine of substitution apply ? Again. Mr Hyde objects that the doctrine of substitution is incomplete, and that its most ?eliement advocates dare not carry it to its legitimate and inevitable consequences. "What was the penalty to be suffered bf man ? Ail that was involved in the terrible sentence pronounced on man's sin. If Christ bore all the punishment due to man's sin in man's stead, then all the tremendous penalty was borne by Christ, and the great penalty was eternal banishment from the presence of God — eternal immolation in hell. Is there any one, he says, who does not revolt from this inevitable and legitimate carrying out ot the doctrine of substitution ? It is true that it is urged that as Christ was an infinite victim, His sufferings for a short period was an equivalent for the eternal, damnation of all men ; but he 'maintains that this is another subterfuge, and if it is said that God connived at it, then it^is said that Sod connived at four untruths instead of three. For the argument is that Christ's infinity is balanced against man's punishment being eternal, which he holds is not possible; and that, besides^ we are put into a dilemma, for we mtl& either say that it was Christ's human nature which suffered, or his infinite nature : if his human, then the suffering |was finite, and consequently inadequate ; if we assert that it was Divine, then we ascribe pain, hunger, and death to the Infinite Ixod.

Further, it is objected that this doctrine represents God as changeable—changing from infinite mercy to infinite wrath, and then back to infinite mercy again. But since both must have been infinite iv God, how can man's sin, which after all is finite, work this infinite change in the unchangeable ? It will not do to say that because man's sin was against an infinite law-giver, therefore it was an infinite transgression. Such a subtilty might have served to amuse the schoolmen in the middle ages. Here, then, is the action of a finite being working two infinite changes in the unchangeable God. Again, it is objected that the doctrine is inconsistent itself, seeing that a portion of the punishment was physical pain, the anguish of child bearing, and the subjection of woman to nian ; Did Christ bear any of these in man's stead ? Have they not to be borne still? If Christ bore, them, how have they to be borne twice over? Further, it is'objected that, this doctrine is subversive of the Divine Unity. One dies, and the other accepts his death ; one is all justice, another all* love, a third all influence ; and that no matter what yve may say to tne contrary, it is heathenism slightly disguised, and really three' Gods, though we assert only one under the condition of three persons, seeing that we pray to one, for the sake of another, to give us the help of a third. It is ass-rted that the doctrine is not only unreasonable, but unscriptural, That the dogma holds that Christ redeemed mau, or bought him back either from God, or from the devil, as many of the Christian fathers held, whereas the Scriptural view is that Christ did not buy back man from either, but that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death—that is, the devil; that he might redeem us from, all iniquity, and purify aa unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works; that we are redeemed, not from God, but to God. Mr Hyde maintains that the Scriptural view is that Christ, the True and Only God, coming in the flesh, overcame the power of hell, redeemed man from spiritual death—" redeemed us all from iniquity," and from the hands; of them that hate us. This, he says, the Scriptures sublimely teach, but not the doctrine of substitution. Further, that it was not God that was reconciled to man, but man that was reconciled to G-od ; as " when we were enemies, we were reconciled unto God," and "we have not received the atonement," and " God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself," &c.; and, says he, "Is it not strange that; St. Paul, any more than the Evangelists, does not say one word about the offended justice, the wrath requiring a victim, the justice requiring a substitute, and that such a phrase as Christ being a substitute does not occur once in the New Testament, though other phrases which are used have been construed by men into meaning that; but that,: seeing the Apostles used the best words they had to express their ideas, and did not use this word, the very best to express this idea, that, therefore, they had not this word or idea of substitution." So far we have taken the objections put forth by a single ' school, and a single man of that school, and we do not intend to proceed any farther that way, as we have, I think, a tolerable fair sample of the objections raised, at least inside the Christian Church. Those against the scheme of election, brought against us by Methodists and others, we lave not referred to, because we have not time, and besides they are of a very difficult nature, as all questions going beyond this world and beyond time, must of necessity be ; nor could we take up the objections which are raised by Sceptics a,nd all that sort of people. Those we have given, have been given, I trust, fairly, and as nearly as possible in the words of the author using them. We shall now proceed to try afif answer these objections, or the greao principles which' underlie them, using freely for that purpose the very best means at our disposal; and if anybody can produce any better means, we shall be most happy to receive it and use it. You will know, however, when you are made awavo of authors referred to, that they are esteemed by the learned amon* the most able defenders of the faith ia the English Church and in the Scotch Church.