Page images
PDF
EPUB

sacred writers for the prevailing opinion, that the death of Christ was a proper sacrifice for sin, and expiated the guilt of men; for it appears to be founded on a literal interpretation of figurative language. I shall next endeavour to show, that this doctrine is as inconsistent with reason, as it is with Scripture.

SERMON XXXI.

THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT INCONSISTENT WITH REASON.

EZEK. Xviii, 20.

The Righteousness of the Righteous shall be upon him, and the Wickedness of the Wicked shall be upon him.

THE

HE doctrine we are opposing supposes, that Christ endured in his own person upon the cross, and during the agony in the garden, the punishment due to sinners on account of their transgressions, and that God was pleased to accept of his sufferings in the place of those he intended to inflict upon offenders; that this was the grand purpose for which Christ came into the world, and that it was prefigured by the sacrifices and atonements of the Mosaic law, which had no efficacy further than as they were considered as referring to this event. It might easily be shown, that the language of Scripture, which has beeu supposed to authorize this extraordinary doctrine, affords it no countenance; that, although the death of Christ is called a sacrifice, yet it is so denominated only in a figurative sense, in the same manner as Christ in other places is called a door and a vine, because in some respects

he resembled these objects; that, admitting Jesus Christ to have been a real sacrifice, this would not answer the purposes of those who maintain it, since it may be shown, that the sacrifices and atonements of the Mosaic law did not remove moral guilt, and only rendered the persons or things for which they were offered fit for the divine service in the tabernacle, consequently that no resemblance between the death of Christ and a sacrifice could authorise the opinion included under the modern doctrine of the atone

ment.

But what I now propose to do is to show, that this doctrine is dishonourable to the divine Being, and inconsistent with the principles of justice as well as with the general tenour of Scripture, which would also justify us in rejecting it.

It represents Christ by his obedience and death as fully discharging the debt of sinners in general, or of the few called the elect, and making a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice thereby.

Without inquiring at present of what kind this satisfaction may be, which Christ is supposed to have made, whether it consist in paying a debt or in suffering punishment for mankind, I shall observe, that an objection against it occurs at first view, when considered in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine which is likewise maintained by the advocates for the atonement. For according to them each of the three persons in the Trinity is

perfect God, and they are all three of them equal. If therefore it was proper, that the Father should demand satisfaction to his justice, because sinners had violated his laws, it would be equally proper that the Son and Holy Spirit, which are each of them God as well as he, should demand satisfaction likewise. Who is it, then, that offers atonement to the Son? and of what nature is it supposed to be? Shall it be said that, the Son and Holy Spirit being one with the Father, the satisfaction made to him is made to them all? It will then follow, that God makes satisfaction to himself, which is as absurd as supposing, that a man should be contented with paying himself the debt, which another owes him. He, who should pretend that his demands were satisfied in this manner, would be considered as an errant trifler by the rest of mankind, and it is degrading the Deity to the same insignificant character, to represent him as satisfied in this manner.

But if it be admitted (as it must be, for there is not the shadow of an argument for the contrary supposition) that the Son and Holy Spirit are satisfied without an atonement for the sins of mankind, then one or the other of these consequences must follow, either that they are more placable than the Father, and therefore more worthy of our esteem and love, or that they are defective in an essential branch of divine excellence, justice; since they do not insist upon receiving what the excellencies of a perfect Being oblige him to require from offending crea

turcs.

Which of these two difficulties it is easier to acquiesce in I am not concerned to inquire; they are each of them insuperable objections to the truth of the doctrine we are combating.

There are two views, under which the atonement of Christ may be considered, as the payment of a debt for sinners, which they were not able to discharge themselves, or as suffering punishment, which was originally due to them. I shall consider each separately, and show that they both lead us into one or more gross errours, and therefore can neither of them be consistent with truth.

I. The atonement supposed to be made by the obedience and death of Christ may be considered as the payment of a debt. Accordingly the assembly of divines at Westminster in their confession of faith declare, that Christ by his obedience and death did fully discharge the debt of those who are justified. Let us see, then, how far this idea of the atonement is consistent with reason and with the divine attributes. If, when I owe a sum of money and am unable to pay, my creditor threaten to put me into prison, a third person may interpose, and to prevent the disgrace and misery, which confinement would occasjon, may generously discharge the debt for me, In this transaction there is nothing that is unreason, able or unjust; my creditor is not blamable for demanding the payment of his debt, or for accepting what out of regard to me is voluntarily offered to him by another; for it is no more than what was

« EelmineJätka »