Untitled article by J. H. W.

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Apr 21, 1881

BY REMISSION, NOT BY WORKS.

By J. H. W.

A FRIEND in an eastern State has written to us in defense of a certain Bible doctrine from the assaults of a secular paper, and says he receives his proofs from the spirits, of whom he says:—

“The Christian world tells us they are devils, because they tell us that the atonement of Jesus does not wipe out men’s rascalities; but that every man must undo his own wrongs before he can be happy. This is the teaching of departed spirits now returned.”

We do not doubt that our friend, with many others of his mind, is sincere in his belief, and really thinks that the Christian view of the atonement is highly objectionable on moral grounds. But we think he has imbibed a very dangerous error; dangerous to its receiver, and subversive of all right views of the justice and government of a righteous God.

Did we not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being; did we not believe in a future Judgment; did we reject the Bible as a rule of right, we think we might be able to accept the belief of our friend. But then, understand, if there were no God, no Judgment, and the Bible were a fable, it would not make much matter what we believed anyway.

We invite our friend to reason a little on his proposition.

There is a wide difference between ceasing to do wrong and undoing the wrong which we have already done. The murderer may cease to kill, and turn to loving his fellow-men, but that does not undo the wrongs of the past: it does not restore his former victims to life. And no amount of future well-doing, or regrets, or sorrow for the past will ever undo past wrongs. Even if the thief makes restitution for his theft, it does not destroy the fact that he did steal; it yet remains true that he has violated the law and trampled on human rights. To any one who has little or no regard for law and justice, who does not realize the sacredness of the rights of the government and of our fellow-men, this may seem to be an unimportant matter. But not so to us. In the case of a person in the penitentiary for an outrage against society and government and order, how does our friend suppose he is to find his way out? Not by the law which teaches what he should do, and should have done, for by that he stands condemned. Pardon is his only hope. If he cannot secure this he must abide his time, and suffer on for his crime. And a release in any other manner would subvert all law, all government, and all order, and bring only anarchy and confusion.

Some, we know, are so short-sighted as to advocate the idea that there should be no punishment for crime; their sympathies are never in behalf of those who are injured by the commission of the crime, or toward the government and justice, but always toward the criminal. The family of a murdered man may suffer neglect, while the murderer receives bouquets at the hands of tender-hearted women, and is received with acclamations as a hero, or as a martyr if the law asserts its supremacy and inflicts a penalty. Thus if they put any difference between the righteous and the wicked it is always somewhat in favor of the wicked. And thus peaceful honesty is placed at a discount, and lawlessness is triumphant. Sure it is that any government which is not a terror to evil-doers will never be to the praise of them that do well. Right cannot be upheld where wrong is not put under ban.

It is true that the pardoning power may be abused; and so greatly abused as to neutralize the object of courts and of laws. But this can only be under the hands of evil-minded executives—those who have not that high regard for justice which administrators of law should possess. But all right-minded persons will readily acknowledge that the abuse of a thing is no argument against the use of it. Pardon is not objectionable when granted under proper restrictions. If granted indiscriminately it is subversive of government. Now some affect to find a license in pardon; whereas there is a world-wide difference when pardon is properly guarded. The atonement of Christ is for the exercise of the pardoning power; but he who thinks that it gives any license to evil doing proves only this: that he has not examined the doctrine of the atonement sufficiently to understand its object, and not read the Bible so as to get any just idea of its teachings.

When an individual has forfeited his life he cannot escape by anything that he can do; if he is saved from death it must be by what somebody does for him. And complete satisfaction to the violated law can only be made by a voluntary substitute. If such an arrangement can be made to the satisfaction of all parties, then the offender may be spared, and the law be honored also in the execution of its penalty.

But, if the law accept a substitute, and the sinner be allowed to escape punishment, it yet remains a fact that he is a sinner. Favor shown to him is unmerited; and if his evil disposition remains it is not safe to let him escape; he might still prey upon the rights of his neighbors and abuse the favor granted. The gospel system of favor, or atonement, provides for this difficulty by granting pardon only to those who become reconciled to the government and fully accept its principles. The atonement not only works for man, but in him—forgiving the past and insuring obedience for the future. There is no license, no warrant of future disobedience in the gospel.

Granting that this is a truthful statement of the principles of the gospel, there are some who still call it in question, denying the necessity of even such an atonement. But they do not consider that God’s justice is infinite, and that sin is exceedingly hateful in his sight. His justice must be honored; the righteous demands of his government must be satisfied. The gospel system was devised for this very purpose, “that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” Rom. 3:23–26. Here we find infinite justice brought into harmony with infinite mercy. It is only when we lose sight of the just principles of government and the infinity of God’s attributes that we can pronounce the atonement unnecessary. And it is only when the gospel is abused and perverted by the blindness or selfishness of fallen man that it appears to give even the least countenance to immorality.

We have thus briefly viewed the main principles of the gospel. Volumes are needed to unfold all its glories. But the grand requisite to our appreciation of its beauty and richness is to feel that we are sinners. He who will never confess this can never be persuaded that there is “form or comeliness” in Jesus of Nazareth. May the gracious God grant us all the aid of the Holy Spirit to feel our need, and to accept the rich provision of his grace.

J. H. W.