answer of the Christian is, "I know not, nor does it concern me to know, in what manner the sacrifice of Christ is connected with the forgiveness of sins: it is enough, that this is declared by God to be the medium, through which my salvation is effected. I pretend not to dive into the councils of the Almighty. I submit to his wisdom: and I will not reject his grace, because his mode of vouchsafing it is not within my comprehension." But now let us try the doctrine of pure intercession by this same objection. It has been asked, how can the sufferings of one Being, be conceived to have any connexion with the forgiveness of another. Let us likewise enquire, how the meritorious obedience of one Being, can be conceived to have any connexion with the pardon of the transgressions of another t or whether the prayer of a righteous being in behalf of a wicked person, can be imagined to have more weight in obtaining forgiveness for the transgressor, than the same supplication, seconded by the offering up of life itself, to procure that forgiveness? The fact is, the want of discoverable connexion has nothing to do with either. Neither the sacrifice, nor the intercession, has, as far as we can comprehend, any efficacy whatever. All that we know, or can know of the one, or of the other, is, that it has been appointed as the means, by which God has determined to act with respect to man. So that to object to the one, because the mode of operation is unknown, is not only giving up the other, but the very notion of a Mediator; and if followed on, cannot fail to lead to pure Deism, and perhaps may not stop even there. Thus we have seen, to what the general objec tions against the doctrine of atonement amount. t No. XIX. The charges of divine implacability, and of inefficacious means, we have found to bear with as little force against this, as against the doctrine, which it is attempted to substitute in its room. We come now to the objections, which are drawn from the immediate language of Scripture, in those passages, in which the nature of our redemption is described. And first, it is asserted, that it is no where said in Scripture, that God is reconciled to us by Christ's Death, but that we are every where said to be reconciled to God. Now, in 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 before us; in which there is described, not only the wrath of God, but the turning * No. XXII. No. XXI. 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 jus tice, 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 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 Job xlii. 7. y No. XXIII. * No. XXIV. 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; when this sacrifice is particularly represented, as of the nature of a sin offering; which was a species of sacrifice "prescribed to be offered upon the commission of an offence, after which the offending person was considered as if he had never sinned :"-it may well 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. 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 * Joh. i. 29. 1 Joh. ii. 2. **Rom. viii. 32. a No. XXV. No. XXVIII. + Ephes. v. 2. b No. XXVI. Hebr. vii. 27. ¶ liii. 10. c No. XXVII. |