Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

flesh, ye shall die; but if, through the Spirit, ye do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

LEIGHTON.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONE-
MENT OF CHRIST BRIEFLY
EXPLAINED AND DEFENDED
IN A SERIES OF LETTERS TO
A FRIEND.

LETTER I.
The Doctrine stated,

DEAR SIR,

AGREEABLY to your request, some thoughts on the Doctrine of the Atonement are here offered to your candid consideration. A doctrine, which is much objected to by those who style themselves rational Christians, and also by some others: but which seems to be plainly taught in the Scriptures as an important article of the Christian religion.

It has been, I think, the general belief of Christians, particularly, as professed in the Protestant churches, that the sins of men were imputed to Christ, or judicially charged upon him, as their sponsor: That their guilt, or the obligation they were under to suffer deserved punish ment, was transferred to him: He having by the appointment of God the Father, and his own free consent, undertaken to make satisfaction to the law and justice of God, by bearing the punishment due to their sins, in their stead; that so God's infinite hatred of sin and love of righteousness being fully exercised and expressed, and the ends for which the punishment of sin. was necessary, as well answered as they would have been in the punishment of the sinners. He might, consistently with the hon

our of all his perfections, and the interest of his universal kingdom, pardon, and justify all those who by a true faith are united to Christ, and so receive the gift of his righteousness.

But to prevent mistake, it must be carefully observed, that we are far from imagining that' the sins of men were transferred into Christ,for in him was no sin. It is impossible that the act of one person should, be made the act of another. Nor can the criminality, the blameworthiness, the desert of punishment, which is inseparable from sin, be shifted from the sinner to one who is personally innocent. Far be it from us to imagine that Christ became blamable, or that he deserved punishment, or that God was displeased with him, in consequence of his becoming our sponsor, and assuming our guilt, or penal obligation. The Father was ever well pleased in his beloved Son, who was never more the object of his complacence, than when he bore our sins in his own body on the tree. The guilt and punishment of our sins was not deserved by him, but he became subject to it by voluntarily taking this burden on himself. And so the punishment of our sins became due to him, as being responsible on our behalf, though it was not deserved by him.

We must not then confound the guilt of sin, with its criminality, or desert of punishment. It is true the word is sometimes used to signify a state of being blamable or faulty. But by the guilt of sin we understand the obligation to punishment to which the sinner is subject by the threatening of the law. In this

sense the word is always used by our divines in treating of the redemption and satisfaction of Christ. Though the demerit of sin, or its desert of punishment, is inseparable from its evil nature, and it must remain forever true that a sinner deserves punishment; and though according to the law every transgression must receive its deserved punishment, yet the penitent and believing sinner may be pardoned, and so freed from his guilt or penal obligation, in consequence of Christ's taking it upon himself by the approbation and appointment of the Father. Tho' the law and justice of God, and the interest of his kingdom, require that sin be punished, yet the sovereign of the world might consistently with justice, and the spirit of the law, so far relax its rigor as to transfer the penal obligation of sinners to their approved and authorized sponsor, who by suffering the penalty of the law in their stead has freed all penitent believers from their guilt or exposedness to deserved punishment, his satisfaction and merit being accepted in their behalf, as equivalent, and answering all the ends for which the punishment of sin is necessary.

To impute sin, or righteousness to any one, in the language of the Scriptures, does not mean the same with judging that he had sinned, or that he is in himself a righteous person. To impute sin to a person, is to charge it to him so far as to hold him subject to the penalty thereto annexed, as if he had sinned. To impute righteousness is to accept one as entitled to the rewards of righteousness, as if he were a righteous person. So Paul wrote

to Philemon, that if Onesimus had wronged him, or owed him any thing, he should impute it to him, (so it is in the Greek.) He did not mean that Philemon should think that Paul had wronged or owed him, but that he should charge him with whatever Onesimus might owe, and he would be responsible for it. And he elsewhere mentions the blessed, ness of the man, to whom right: eousness without works is im puted. This could not mean that he was judged to be personally righteous in the eye of the law. It could not be his own righteousness which was imputed to him. For he is described as a pardoned sinner, whose sins were covered, and not imputed to him. Though in himself he was not righteous, but a sinner, and God knew him to be such a one, yet he did not impute sin, but imputed righteousness to him that is, he freed him from guilt,

and exposedness to punishment, as if he had not sinned, and accepted him as righteous, and entitled to the reward of righteousness, on account of the righteousness of his sponsor giv, en and imputed to him.

How this transferring of the guilt of sin, and the rights of righteousness, is consistent with the justice and truth of God, may perhaps be considered hereafter. In the mean time, if this should appear to be the doctrine of the Scriptures, we should be cautious of objecting to it, tho' our reason should be puzzled in accounting for it. Let us then have recourse to the law and to the testimony, searching the Scrip tures whether these things are so. If we should not be thought wors thy to rank with the rational

Christians, yet if we can attain to be scriptural ones, we may think ourselves happy. I would, however, not neglect to use, as well as I can, the small share of reason which God has given me, in investigating and ascertaining the true meaning of the divine oracles, by comparing more obscure or ambiguous passages with those whose meaning is more plain and determinate. To explain the Scriptures by the Scriptures seems to be a rational, as well as approved method of procedure. May God assist and succeed the attempt. With respect and affection, your friend,

A Christian of the ancient School. (To be continued.)

[blocks in formation]

I SHALL join my poor petitions, that He who "giveth erally," may be with you in the important design you mention. And when that first object, that of collecting together the doctrines, and the sentiments of Revelation, is accomplished, a second will naturally come in view; that of studying the transcendent eloquence of those divine writings, and enriching the mind by attentively noting the varieties of energetic expression with which great truths are conveyed; the numerous striking figures, and turns of thought; and the inimitable specimens of the beautiful, the pathetic, and the

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

sublime; with the simple majesty, which runs through the whole volume. I mention this now, because many of these specimens will meet us, while we are pursuing the first object; and may therefore be minuted as we go along. But they will deserve to be made a distinct branch of study. Where else can we find the truths of religion conveyed with such majesty; or in a manner, which awakes such great and exalted sentiments?

I doubt not it has often occurred to you, whether prayer, which constitutes so important a part of the public exercises, should not be more premeditated, than it often is; and have more of meaning, and be more inspired, enriched, and diversified with the varieties of sublime and impressive devotional matter, which the Scriptures furnish. Improve then upon those, who have gone before you. In this there is a large field open for it. It is easy to observe who has not attended enough to this branch of study. But accept it as a proof of sincerity, that I dare not omit a hint of this nature, though it brings up in a strong view, my own deficiency. It is nevertheless true, that prayer, though I believe it should be generally more compendious, than it is, might become as interesting, as any part of public exercise, and such it ought to be. Such it was, indeed, where Colman, the two Coopers, President Davies, and a few more officiated. And it may be again, if with the attentions now hinted, the Spirit of grace and supplication shall concur, which, that we may both experience, is the continual wish of your friend, &c.

My dear Sir,

No. 4.

I AM much pleased that you find such friendship and valuable society with Mr. I hope you will derive much assistance and animation from him in those studies, in which I pray the MOST HIGH to grant you the best direction, and the happiest suc

cess.

With respect to your choice of books, though I have not an idea of adding much to what will meet you from other quarters, I will however drop a hint or two. One is, to prefer those authors, who take up divine subjects, in the way which is most agreeable to their nature, and most adapt ed to interest the heart. Divinity has this special quality; that it is always wronged, when it is treated in a mere speculative manner. Yet it often has been, and by great writers, especially where they treat upon the great first principles of natural or revealed religion. Yet these, be cause they are first principles, are the more interesting, and should be treated as such; and when they are, the effect is perceived at once. I do not suppose that either of us considers Necker, as a finished divine. But there are some specimens in him of the kind I refer to, which are certainly very impressive; and worthy to be remembered by the divine and the preacher: Particularly in his 5th chapter on the importance of religious opinions, to which I refer you. Yours, &c. (To be continued.)

[blocks in formation]

essay, are such as are connected with the story, propagated by the Jews, that the disciples came by night and stole the body of Jesus, while the watch were asleep. Of course but a small portion of the arguments in favour of the resurrection must be expected. I lay no claim to novelty; if any one shall say, "I have heard, or thought of the same before," perhaps some others have not. The advancement of the truth, not the gratification of curiosity, is my sole object.

The body of Jesus, let it be remembered, was placed in a sepulchre, which had been cut out of a rock; all entrance into it therefore was excluded, except at the mouth. The mouth was closed by a very large stone, and guarded by a band of Roman soldiers, who, as it is well known, if found asleep at their posts, must have answered for it with their lives. How happened it, that the discipres, who undoubtedly were apprized of this military law, and of the other facts referred to, should venture to gain access to the sepulchre, at so great a haz ard? Knowing the watch to be awake, they must have despaired of success; and what reason had they to imagine that sixty or seventy men, for such was the usual number of a Roman guard, would suffer themselves to sleep, at the risque of their lives; and that all would so sleep at the same instant of time? Here would indeed have been a miracle, how much soever the enemies of Christianity may wish to avoid For the Panoplist. one in matters of revelation.

RESURRECTION OF

CHRIST.

THE arguments, which I have selected for the subject of this

But, admitting that the soldiers were asleep, how could they testify that the disciples stole the body? They might, it is true,

testify that, before they slept, the body was there; and that, when they awoke, it was missing; but this is not telling how it was missing; whether through the stealth of the disciples, or miraculously, or any other mode of escape. But I will not waste time in examining the evidence of facts, which were witnessed by persons asleep.

Admitting again that the soldiers were asleep, how happened it, that the disciples knew that fact? We cannot suppose that they were watching such an event, an event the most improbable, and beyond the power of the imagination itself to fancy. Be sides, what reason had they, or any body else, to suppose that the body could be conveyed away without giving alarm to the soldiers, when it is considered, especially, that many hands would be required to move the stone from the mouth of the sepulchre, and that this could not be performed without producing a very considerable noise! Would it, furthermore, be natural for the disciples, in their haste, to be so particular, as to¶ strip the body of its winding sheet, and the head of its napkin; and, wrapping them up in separate parcels, to lay them carefully in the tomb? Would it not have been more natural, to take the body with its clothes about it, and make all possible dispatch, to avoid detection? Why did they choose the latter part of the night, as it must seem they did, on the supposition made, for such an expedition? For it should be considered that, after they had stolen

* See Mark xvi. 1-4; also xv. 46. See John xx. 6, 7.

[blocks in formation]

*

the body, it was incumbent upon them also to conceal it.

Had the chief priests believed that the body was stolen, why was not an immediate search ordered, to discover where it was deposited? Had search been made, there is every reason for believing that a discovery would have been the result. It is no very easy matter to conceal a dead body for any great length of time, so that no traces of it be observed; and at that time, in Jerusalem and its environs, full of people collected to keep the passover, the difficulty must have been increased. The thing was possible indeed; and that possibility, we allow objectors to employ to their utmost advantage. That the chief priests believed nothing about the stealing of the body, and that they fabricated the story themselves, or connived at the fabrication, is manifest from the fact, that they made no effort to detect the fraud of the disciples, as they would term it. They had the strongest motives to expose to the world the knavery of these men, if any such knavery existed; they had the fullest reason to believe, that by a diligent search the body might be discov ered; if such discovery had been made, Christ would have been proved, at once, to be an impostor; his religion have been overthrown; and themselves not only exonerated from the guilt of putting him to death, but shown to be highly praiseworthy in vindicating the truth of God. These were motives, which could not have failed to influence the minds of such men, as composed the Sanhedrim of the Jews; men covetous of a character for zeal in their religion, and little

« VorigeDoorgaan »