« AnteriorContinua »
wore the ineffable name of Jehovah on his forehead, so he had a name written, which none could properly comprehend but himself; his nume is called the word of God. He had likewise another name written, on that part of his vesture which covered his thigh, King of kings, and Lord of lords, a title much affected by the Eastern monarchs, and by Antichrist himself. The Pope is styled King of kings, and Lord of lords; but what he is only in pretence, Christ is in reality. His armies are mounted upon white horses as well as himself, and are clothed in fine linen, white and clean, as an emblem of their victory and sanctity. An Angel standing in the sun, called the fowls to the great slaughter of Christ's enemies. These enemies are the Beast and the false Prophet—with their armies gathered together, and determined to support idolatry, and oppose all reformation. But the principals, as deserving of the greatest punishment, are taken and cust alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone: and their followers are slain with the sword of Christ, the sword which proceeded out of his mouth; and all the fowls are filled with their flesh. In a word, the design of this sublime and significative description is to show the downfal of papery, and the triumph of Christianity; the true word of God will prevail over superstition and idolatry; all the powers of Antichrist shall be completely subdued; and the religion of Rome, as well as 'Rome herself, be totally destroyed."Therefore,
Christ's treading the wine-press of the wrath of God, affords no evidence, that he himself endured the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. The Bishop has given us no intimation of such an idea, but has represented the whole scene as expressive of Christ's victory and triumph over all his enemies: "For he shall rule them with a rod of iron."
It is thought by some that the dying words of our Saviour, uttered just before he cried with a loud voice and yielded up the Ghost, afford proof that the Son
of God endured the wrath of God. The passage of Scripture is this: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!* It is evident from this prayer of Christ that he was in some sense forsaken of his father, But to learn the real sense, it is necessary to attend to the connexion, in which the words were spoken, either in the 22d Psalm, or in Matthew xxvii, 47. Bishop Horne, as well as some others, supposes that the Beloved of the Father, was, for a time, while he suffered for our sins, forsaken of God; that is, deprived of his comforting influence and presence. He supposes that Christ underwent spiritual desertion, in the same sense that his disciples are left of God. But did the Father ever leave his well beloved Son in the same sense that David was left of God, when he was guilty of murder and adultery? And as Peter was left of God when he denied his Lord and Master; when he declared with an oath that he did not know him? I know not how the Bishop or any one else can prove this. The Bishop views Christ as having set in a cloud, though he rose without one.
But how does it appear that he, who is the Sun of righteousness, and the bright and morning star, set in a cloud? He might be viewed as being sometimes in a cloud by his enemies; but in that situation he was never viewed by his heavenly Father. From his comforting prečence he was never excluded by any intervening cloud. He surely did not set in a cloud. Of this, even his enemies were convinced. For when Jesus expired on the cross, we find that all nature was, as it were, in commotion; the vail of the temple was rent in twain-the earth did quake the rocks rent and the graves were opened. Now, when the centurion, and they that were with "him, watching Jesús, saw the earth quake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying,
“We are not from hence to imagine, that Jesus meant by these words to express any mistrust of God's favour and kindness towards him, or any apprehension that the light of his countenance was withdrawa from him. This was impossible.”
Bishop of London.
Truly this was the Son of God. Hence, Christ, ever in the opinion of his enemies, did not set in a cloud. While upon the cross, he, no doubt, appeared to his enemies, if not to his friends, as in a cloud involved in thick darkness. His enemies said of him. He saved others, bimself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down froin the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let bim deliver him now, if he will have him; for he said, I am the Son of God. Those who thus viewed him and treated him, were the chief priests, scribes and elders; they said these things, mocking and reviling him, saying, If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Thus was Christ viewed by the infidel mockers as in a cloud, and, therefore, forsaken of God. He therefore prayed the Father to dispel the cloud, and let it appear that he had not forsaken him. The Father heard him, and his enemies were immediately convinced: for they said, Truly this was the Son of God. Hence, “No idea can be admitted, that in any sense the Father had forsaken him, except in the want of outward evidence, which, upon his request was exhib. ited in such a convincing manner, as to draw from the actors in the dreadful scene, the most unreserved acknowledgment of his divinity.” The Bishop supposes that "every prayer preferred even by the Son of God himself was not granted.” His opinion is founded upon these words, O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent. (Psalm xxii, 2 ) But Jesus at the grave of Lazarus lifted up his eyes and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me, and I know that thou hearest me always. . We may conclude, then, that the words on which the Bishop founds his sentiment, must be applied to David, and not to Christ.
TYPICAL SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS, IN WHAT
2 CHRONICLES vii, 1. When Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt-offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of
the Lord filled the house. 6. REDEMPTION from sin by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, does not suppose, that the typical sacrifices and offerings were consumed by the fire of divine wrath.
The fire which came down from the Lord to consume upon the altar the typical sacrifices, required by the law of Moses, was the fire of divine love; it was not the fire of divine wrath. The fire which consumed the sacrifice was from the Lord; and this fire was expressive of divine love and not of “anger.
* I have an author by me, which expresses a very different sentiment on the subject. The fire, says he, that consumed the sacrifices which were offered upon the altar, was significant of divine anger, that this was the case, appears from the following considerations, viz.
1. “Nothing gives a more acute and pungent sensation of pain, than fire. We have no ideas of greater bodily torment than may be produced by fire. Accordingly it is a metaphor abundantly made use of, in the holy scriptures, to express the awful nature and greatness of divine anger; and the intolerable distress it will bring on those upon whom it finally falls. No term is more frequently made use ot, in the word of God, to express divine anger than fire. Thus the Supreme Being calls upon his people, by the prophet “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah, and inhab. itants of Jerusalem; lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings,” Jer. iv, 4, see also Jer. xxi, 12 And thus the same prophet laments the evils which God, in his righteous anger, had brought upon his people Israel: He hath cut off in his fierce anger all the horn of Israel: he hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy, and he burned against Jacob like a flaming, fire which devoured round about, Lam. ii, 3.
“The same term is abundantly used in the new testainents, both by Christ himself, and by the apostles; to denote dirine anger, Matt. xii, 41, 42 And when
God is angry with the wicked every day; and his anger towards them will in the day of judgment, be expressed by the fire of his wrath. But God's consuming the sacrifices of his people by fire, was always expressive of acceptance; and therefore, in accepting their burnt-offerings there was always a manifestation of divine love, and not of anger.
God was angry with those who offered strange fire, which he commanded not to be offered. In the case of Nadab and Abibu, “there went out a fire from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.” But the fire upon the altar of God's commanding, ówhich he required should be ever burning, and which he never allowed to go out,'* was expres. sive of love and not of wrath. The children of Israel were commanded to offer two lambs in each day; one
Christ sits in judgment his sentence passed on his enemies will be, Depart from ne ye cursed, into everlasting fire.
"And the closing scene of all is, that the “devil who deceived the nations, is cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and false prophet are to be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” No expression is more freguently madle use of in the sacred writings to denote divine anger than this.
66.2. The final destruction of the enemies of God, is represented in the holy scriptures, by those sacrifices for sin which were expressly required to be burned. The Psalmist saith, “The wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs, they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away. · Had not David considered the fire on the altar, as a figure of divine anger, we have no reason to suppose that he would have represented the effects of this an-, ger on the enemies of God by the sacrifices, which were offered upon the altar of burnt-offering
• Thus we see the fire which consamed the sacrifices which were offered upon the altar, represented divine anger; and was an image of the fire of divine wrath.It is important that there should be an exhibition of divine anger, preparatory to ihe exercise of pardonirg mercy towards the sinner.
“The several ceremonies of the sacrifices for sin, under the Levitical institution, taken to rether, had a language that was very significant. They implied—the divine anger against the sinner, and that in the judgment of God, the transgressor deserveil to die, even that death which was the penalty of the law that the transgressor was of the same sentiments, and entertained the same views of his own character and deserts—that he repented of his sins,and justified God and his law in condemning him-and finally that he fled to, and trusted in, the mercy of God through an atonement wherein his righteous anger figuratively burned against him. This seemed to be the plain and natural import of the sacrifices for sing wisich were appointed by the Levitical law; and of the rites and ceremonies to be observed in offering them.”
After the perusal of the sermon, the reader will doubtless, compare it with this notc ard judge for himself.
Almost every writer has some reculiarity attached to him. No one is wholly right; and none who makes the bible his standard can be wholly wrong. Trutla will fiually prevail, and, to the satisfuction of erery candid mind.
* Lev. vi, 13.