Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

the evil effects of it removed, both in respect to this world and the next, and every blessing we enjoy bestowed, for the sake of what Christ did or suffered. In the one case Christ, like other good men, is made the instrument, in the hand of God, on account of his extraordinary merit, of conferring upon us particular privileges and advantages, which yet God might have bestowed without any regard to Christ; in the other, we are supposed to receive every thing that can be deemed most valuable by a rational being, deliverance from eternal misery, and the possession of eternal life, on account of the merits of Christ alone; and we are told, that it is not consistent with the perfections of the divine Being to grant them in any other way.

I have now considered the supposed atonement of Christ in two points of view, as the payment of a debt, and as the suffering of punishment due to others for their sins, and in both views we have found it dishonourable to the divine perfections, or inconsistent with the obvious principles of reason and justice. In the former case, when his death is considered as the payment of a debt, it takes away entirely the exercise of mercy; in the latter, it represents the great Father of mankind as punishing the innocent for the guilty, which is in itself unjust, and can answer no other purposes than those of degrading the divine character, and inducing men to make light of sin, the certain consequences of which are borne by another.

It is still necessary to explain certain phrases, which occur in Scripture, and which have been supposed to countenance this pernicious opinion. This subject, together with some general reflections and observations on the questions that have been discused, and on the general design I have in view, including in all two lectures, will occupy all the time I have allotted to myself the present season.

I shall conclude at present with two observations. The first is, that those who persist in rejecting the doctrine of the atonement, and rely upon the promises of pardon upon repentance alone, have as good ground for comfort as those, who rely upon the merit and death of Christ: for what have the latter to depend upon but the declarations of God, that he will accept of the sacrifice of Christ, and, in consequence of what he has suffered, forgive their sins; 'since it belongs to him alone to prescribe on what terms he will receive offenders into his favour again; and it is not pretended, that this doctrine of atonement is so obvious and natural, that it would occur to the thoughts independently of divine declarations? The hopes of the one rest, then, upon the promises of God, and upon the same ground are the hopes of the other built likewise; for those believe, that Jesus Christ has authorised us to expect, that our sins will be forgiven upon repentance and reformation alone, and that God commissioned him to give us this expectation. What better foundation can there be for peace and comfort than this? Are

declarations of the original love and goodness of God less worthy of our regards, or are the promiseş of God of less value, because they are brought by one of the human race, if he be sufficiently proved to be a messenger from God? When we are taught to consider God as a father, who sent to save the world, because he loved the world, cannot we trust him? when we are assured in the name of God, that he will forgive the trespasses of those, that truly repent and forsake their sins, cannot we believe the as surance? Why, then, should men overlook the solemn promises of one, who cannot lie, who is dis posed of his own free love and mercy to pardon penitent sinners, and choose rather to rely upon a supposed satisfaction made to his justice, which, in whatever light it may be viewed, is attended with insuperable difficulties? Or why should it be thought, that one system of faith is destitute of comfort, when it leaves them in full possession of that ground, which is on all hands allowed to be univer. Sally the foundation of it?

The second is, that the doctrine of forgiveness, as has been before stated, is plain and simple, and agreeable to the general tenour of Scripture-circumstances, which plead strongly in it's favour, when, as it appears, the contrary doctrine of being forgiven for the sake of another, beside being contradicted by many express passages of Scripture, is irrational and absurd, we ought to be very careful how we admit it upon the authority of particular texts.

[ocr errors]

It is certainly a great satisfaction to entertain such an idea of the author of the universe and of his mo. ral government, as is consonant to the dictates of reason and the tenour of revelation in general, and also to leave as little obscurity in the principles of our faith as possible, that the articles of our creed on this great subject may be few, clear, and simple. Now it is certainly the doctrine of reason as well as of the Old Testament, that God is merciful to the penitent, and that nothing is requisite to make men in all situations the object of his favour, but such moral conduct as he has made them capable of.

This is a simple and a pleasing view of God and of his moral government, and the consideration of it cannot but have the best effect on the temper of our minds and our conduct in life. The general tenour of the New Testament is likewise plainly agreeable to this' view of things; and none of the facts recorded in it require to be illustrated by any other principles. In this, then, let us acquiesce, not doubting, though perhaps not at present, we shall in time be able without any effort or straining to explain all particular expressions. in the apostolic write ings, in a manner perfectly consistent with the general strain of their own writings and the rest of the Scriptures.

[ocr errors]

SERMON XXXII.

ON THE LANGUAGE APPLIED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

TO THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

I JOHN ii, 1, 2.

And if any Man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the Propitiation for our Sins; and not for ours only, but also for the Sins of the whole World.

IN the third discourse, which I delivered to you

on the subject of the atonement, I endeavoured to show you what was the design and use of the atone. ments of the Mosaic law, from which the modern doctrine we are considering derives so much countenance and support; and it clearly appeared that they were not intended to remove moral guilt, since they were not appointed for cases of wilful violations of the moral law, but for removing certain incapacities, which unfitted the person who laboured under them for appearing in the presence of God in the tabernacle, in company with the other children of Israel. "The soul, that did aught presumptuously," was to be cut off, and no atonement admitted for him; it was only for sins of ignorance, which have in them nothing of moral turpitude, or

« AnteriorContinua »