this objection, which clearly lays the whole stress upon our obedience, we discover the secret spring of this entire system, which is set up in opposition to the scheme of atonement: we see that reluctance to part with the proud feeling of merit, with which the principle of Redemption by the sacrifice of Christ, is openly at war: and consequently, we see the essential difference there is, between the two doctrines at present under consideration; and the necessity there exists, for separating them, by the clearest marks of distinction. But to return to the objection that has been made, it very fortunately happens, that we have the meaning of the words in their Scripture use, defined by no less an authority, than that of our Saviour himself -If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath OUGHT against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way-first BE RECONCILED TO thy Brother, and then come and offer thy gift.* Now from this plain instance, in which the person offending is expressly described, as the party to be reconciled to him who had been offended, by agreeing to his terms of accommodation, and thereby making his peace with him; it manifestly appears, in what sense, this expression is to be understood, in the language of the New Testament. The very words, then, produced for the purpose of shewing, that there was no displeasure on the part of God, which it was necessary by some means to avert, prove the direct contrary: and our being reconciled to God, evidently does not mean, our giving up our sins, and thereby laying aside our enmity" to God (in which sense the objection supposes it to be taken) but the turning away his displeasure, whereby we are enabled to regain his favour. And indeed it were strange, had it not meant this. What! are we to suppose the God of the Christian, like the Deity of the Epicurean, to look on with indifference, upon the actions of this life, and not to be offended at the Sinner? The displeasure of God, it is to be remembered, is not like man's displeasure, a resentment or passion, but a judicial disapprobation: which if we abstract from our notion of God, we must cease to view him as the moral governor of the world. And it is from the want of this distinction, which is so highly necessary; and the consequent fear of degrading the Deity, by attributing to him, what might appear to be the weakness of passion; that they, who trust to reason, more than to Scripture, have been withheld from admitting any principle, that implied displeasure on the part of God. Had they attended but a little to the plain language of Scripture, they might have rectified their mistake. They would there have found, the wrath of God against the disobedient, spoken of in almost every page. They would have found also a case, which is exactly in point to the main argument W See No. XXI. * See No. XXII before us; in which there is described, not only the wrath of God, but the turning away of his displeasure by the mode of sacrifice. The case is that of the three friends of Job-in which, God expressly says, that his wrath is kindled against the friends of Job, because they had not spoken of him the thing that was right*—and at the same time directs them to offer up a sacrifice, as the way of averting his anger. But then it is urged, that God is every where spoken of, as a Being of infinite Love. True; and the whole difficulty arises from building on partial Texts. When men perpetually talk of God's justice, as being necessarily modified by his goodness, they seem to forget, that it is no less the language of Scripture, and of reason, that his goodness should be modified by his justice. Our error on this subject proceeds from our own narrow views, which compel us to consider the attributes of the Supreme Being, as so many distinct qualities, when we should conceive of them as inseparably blended together; and his whole nature as one great impulse to what is best. As to God's displeasure against sinners, there can be then upon the whole no reasonable ground of doubt. And against the doctrine of atonement, no difficulty can arise, from the Scripture phrase, of men being reconciled to God: since, as we have seen, that directly implies, the turning away y * Job. xliii. 7. See No. XXIII. See No. XXIV. the displeasure of God, so as to be again restored to his favour, and protection. But, though all this must be admitted, by those who will not shut their eyes against reason, and scripture; yet still it is contended, that the death of Christ cannot be considered as a propitiatory sacrifice. Now, when we find him described, as the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world*; when we are told, that Christ hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God; and that he needed not, like the High Priests under the law, to offer up sacrifice daily, first for his own sins, and then for the people's; for that this he did once, when he offered up himself; when he is expressly asserted to be the propitiation for our sins||; and God is said to have loved us, and to have sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins §; when Isaiah describes his soul as made an offering for sin; when it is said that God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all*; and that by him we have received the atonement†; when these, and many other such passages, are to be found; when every expression, referring to the death of Christ, evidently indicates the notion of a sacrifice of atonement and propitiation; + Ephes. v. 2. * Joh i. 29. Hebr. vii. 27 I liii. 10. See No. XXVI. when this sacrifice is particularly represented, as of the nature of a sin offering; which was a species of esacrifice "prescribed to be offered upon the commission of an offence, after which the offending person was considered as if he had never sinned:"-it well may appear surprising, on what ground it can be questioned, that the death of Christ is pronounced in Scripture to have been a sacrifice of atonement and expiation, for the sins of men. 1 It is asserted, that the several passages, which seem to speak this language, contain nothing more than figurative allusions: that all that is intended is, that Christ laid down his life for, that is, on account of, mankind: and that there being circumstances of resemblance between this) event and the sacrifices of the Law, terms were borrowed from the latter, to express the former, in a manner more lively and impressive. And as a proof that the application of these terms is but figurative, it is contended, h 1st. That the death of Christ did not correspond literally, and exactly, to the ceremonies of the Mosaic Sacrifice: 2ndly. That being in different places, compared to different kinds of sacrifices, to all of which it could not possibly correspond, it cannot be considered as exactly of the nature of any and lastly, that there was no such thing as a sacrifice of propitiation or expiation of sin, under the Mosaic dis eSee No. XXIX. f See No. XXX. |