Chapter XX: Part 20

_There are several propositions used, in the New Testament, in
explaining this doctrine, namely_, δια, περι, υπερ, _and_ αντι; δια
_and_ αντι _refer to the occasion and cause of Christ’s death, to wit,
our sins: Thus it is said, in Rom._ iv. 25. Who was delivered for our
offences, Ος παρεδοθη δια τα παραπτωματα ημων; _and, in 1 Pet._ iii.
18. Christ also hath once suffered for sins, Περι αμαρτιων επαθε;
_and, in this case, his substitution in our room and stead is
principally argued, from its being for our sins, for which death was
due. As for_ υπερ, _whenever it refers to Christ’s sufferings, it
plainly signifies his being substituted in our room and stead; as in_
Rom. v. 6. Christ died υπερ ασεβων, for the ungodly; _and, in_ Tit.
ii. 14. Who gave himself for us, Ος εδωκεν εαυτον υπερ ημων. _And this
is not only used in the New Testament to signify the substitution of
the person dying in the room of another, or, in other instances,
acting in his stead; as in_ 2 Cor. v. 20. Phil. ver. 13. _but it is
taken in the same sense when used in other writers, Vid. Euripid in
Alcest._, μη θνησχ᾽ υπερ του δ᾽ ανδρος; _and Demosth. in Coron._ εγω
τουθ᾽ υπερ σου ποιησω; _and the Latin word, that answers to it, is
sometimes used in the same sense. Vid. Ter. in Andr._ Ego pro te
molam. _As for the preposition_ αντι, _that is seldom or never used,
but it signifies a substitution of one thing, or person, in the room
of another: Thus when Christ is said to_ give his life a ransom, αντι
πολλων for many, _in_ Matt. xx. 28. Mark x. 46. _this plainly imports
his being substituted in their room, as appears by the frequent use
thereof in other scriptures. See_ Matt. ii. 22. chap. v. 38. _and_
chap. xvii. 27. Luke xi. 11. _and in several other places, Vid. Grot.
de Satisfact. Christ. cap. 9_.

Footnote 165:

_See the note immediately preceeding._

Footnote 166:

_See Page 201-203 ante._

Footnote 167:

“The judicious, whether Trinitarians, or Unitarians, have always
acknowledged an intimate connexion between the doctrine of Christ’s
true Godhead, and that of his satisfaction for sins; as both must be
at once confessed, or denied. If he by his sufferings could satisfy
the avenging justice of God for the sins of all believers; then he
behoved to be more than any creature. If on the contrary, such a thing
was not necessary, then no other end could be so important, that for
it God should empty himself, and ‘assuming the form of a servant,
become obedient to the death of the cross.’

But the truth of Christ’s satisfaction is confirmed in the word of God
by so many testimonies, and these of the clearest kind, that those of
another opinion, find themselves under a necessity to give every where
to these passages an arbitrary sense; so feeble, improper, and
far-fetched, that by such a strain of interpretation, people are in
danger of turning from all the doctrines of the Bible and of
pronouncing it the most uncertain of all doctrinal books, and the most
ready to mislead. On this subject much has been written. We shall only
observe the following things as suitable to our purpose.

In the course of Christ’s prophetic teaching upon earth, we find
evident proofs, that he had appeared not only for that end, but
chiefly for a very different purpose, namely, to suffer and to die;
that being a saving work, and of the utmost necessity. He declared
that he came to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. More
than once he informed his disciples, that by a bitter and a most
humbling kind of suffering, which hung over his head, that which was
written concerning him, behoved to be accomplished.

His circumstances and manner of acting were wholly directed to that
end. The joyful solemnizing of his birth, by a retinue of spirits
immortal and enthroned, was heard by good witnesses indeed, but of low
degree, and few in number; and with some express testimonies on earth,
during his quiet education in a remote and contemptible town, they
were almost gone out of mind. His heavenly consecration was shown to
John only; his glorification on the mount, only to three of his
followers, of which he forbade them to speak till after his
resurrection, or to make him known every where as Christ. Several
times he commanded not to propagate the cures he had wrought. Often
his preaching was involved and figurative, more adapted to inflame the
_great_ against him, than to unite the _many_ in his favours. Yet his
greatness could not be wholly unknown, and when men would have exalted
him, he shunned it. By all these things, the judgment and the
confidence of the people concerning him, was much more vague and
unstable, than even concerning his austere forerunner.—In one word,
his ministry was so conducted as might best serve, not to prevent, but
to pave the way for his farther suffering and death, while the clearer
and more extensive spread of his doctrine, and thereby at the same
time, the publication of his death and his glory, behoved to be the
work of the apostles in his name.

That Christ suffered and died for the good of his church, is without
controversy; so also did the apostles. But was any of them crucified
for us, as was Christ? To say this, would in Paul’s judgment be the
utmost absurdity. What then hath the Saviour done, which no other
did?—‘He was delivered for our offences.’ ‘He suffered for our sin,
the just for the unjust; that he might bring us to God.’ He ‘died for
our sins.’ ‘The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.’—And
so indeed, that he delivered us from sin, by taking it upon himself.
For he who neither had nor knew sin, was of God made to be sin for us,
that we might he the righteousness of God in him. He ‘bare our sins in
his own body upon the tree.’ ‘Behold, said John, the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sin of the world.’ And how does he _take it
away?_ By his death. For to say a lamb takes away sin, is not sense,
if there be not an allusion to the Paschal Lamb, or to other
sacrificed lambs, which were to be slain according to the law. ‘Christ
our passover is sacrificed for us.’ ‘Ye are redeemed by the precious
blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot.’—He
put himself in our place, fulfilled for us the demands of God’s holy
law, and for us satisfied his inflexible justice. Why, pray, of all
men, of all the saints, of all the most excellent teachers, was Christ
only free from all moral impurity? As a Prophet, this was not
absolutely necessary for him; but necessary it was that he, being to
fulfil the law for others, should have no need to satisfy for his own
sin. ‘God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and that
for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law
might be fulfilled in us.’ ‘God sent forth his Son made under the law,
to redeem them who were under the law.’—The apostle confirms this in
the clearest manner, giving us at the same time, a notable sign of the
remarkable _curse_ in the death of Christ. It is written, ‘Cursed is
every one, who continueth not in all things which are written in the
book of the law to do them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of
the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every
one who hangeth on a tree.’

This important doctrine is inculcated on us in many places, under the
notions of _a purchase, a ransom, a propitiation, and a testament_; by
which the virtue and the efficacy, of Christ’s death are elucidated.
Let it not be objected, that these phrases are borrowed from other
things, and therefore to be understood in an improper and figurative
sense. A figurative sense is not however, no sense at all, or without
sense; but serves to make profound subjects more comprehensible to a
common understanding.

1. _A Purchase._ Believers in their soul and their body are God’s,
‘because they are bought with a price;’ they are the church of the
Lord God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. The song unto
the Lamb runs, ‘Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy
blood;’ which strongly indicates, that their salvation is to be
ascribed to the merits of his bloody death.

2. _A Ransom._ In the New Testament, the word _deliverance_ is often
used in translating one, which properly signifies _a redemption, or
ransom_. Thus it is written, ‘ye were redeemed from your vain
conversation, not by corruptible things, as silver or gold, but by the
precious blood of Christ.’ This redemption is explained by the
forgiveness of sins. It is, therefore, his blood and death, wherewith
he made payment, in order to procure our discharge from the debt of
sin. He came ‘to minister, and to give his life a ransom for
many.’—λυτρον. Matt. xx. 28. and αντιλυτρον. 1 Tim. ii. 6.

3. _A Propitiation._ Sometimes this in the Greek is called
αποκαταλλαγη, (conciliatio) that is, _a reconciliation_. Accordingly,
believers are now reconciled to God by the death of his Son; by his
cross; by the blood of his cross, and in the body of his flesh through
death. ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself:’ which is
farther explained, ‘not imputing their trespasses to them.’—But it is
also called _a propitiation_, in the translation of ἱλασμος,
(expiatio) used concerning the victims which were anciently slain, as
a typical propitiation in place of the guilty. So now Jesus Christ the
righteous is the propitiation for our sins. For God ‘sent his Son to
be a propitiation for our sins.’ God hath set him forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his
righteousness, by (or rather because _of_) the forgiveness of sins.
Therefore, ‘the Lamb of God hath so taken away the sins of the world,’
that he took them upon himself, that he bare them, that he died in the
place of his people.

4. _A Testament._ According to his last institution, the assignation
of the everlasting inheritance, is called ‘the New Testament in his
blood, which was shed for many, for the remission of sins.’ This
signifies to us, not only that Christ had a perfect right to the
honour of settling the inheritance, not only that his death as a
testator was necessary to put his people in possession of it; but,
that that inheritance had its foundation precisely in the shedding of
his blood, in his deepest humiliation, and his violent death; as
thereby their sins, which otherwise stood in the way of salvation,
could be forgiven. If, instead of the _New Testament_, we rather
choose to translate it the _New Covenant_; the allusion will be
somewhat different, but the matter the same.

This leads us to the epistle to the Hebrews, in which all these
doctrines are ascertained to us at great length, and with invincible
arguments. That epistle was intended to demonstrate indeed, the
authority of Christ’s instruction above all the prophets, and even
Moses himself: but also, under propositions borrowed from the ancient
religion, and fitted to the Hebrews, to reconcile his priestly office
with the intention of the Levitical sacrifices, and to exalt it
infinitely above Aaron’s priesthood. Christ being a High Priest of
unchangeable power, needed not to offer up sacrifices for his own
sins, but having offered himself up once to God, he thereby made
reconciliation for sin, made an end of it, opened a sure way to
heaven, and ‘can save unto the uttermost all who come unto the Father
by him.’ Read the 5th and the 10th chapters. Would you, on account of
the doctrine so full of consolation, suspect this epistle, and erase
it from the volume of holy scripture? In it, however, no doctrine
occurs, which is not also mentioned elsewhere; and this apostolic
epistle is surpassed by none of the rest, in sublimity of matter, in
weight of evidence, in glorifying the grace of God in Christ, in
strong consolation, in encouraging to the spiritual warfare, and in
the most animating motives to holiness and perseverance.

Besides, in the Saviour’s satisfaction only lies the reason, why his
suffering together with his resurrection, are every where represented
to us as the sum and substance of the gospel. No other part of his
history and ministration are so fully propounded, and that by all the
Evangelists.—We have already seen, that the Apostles preached, not
only the doctrine of evangelic morality, but chiefly Christ himself,
that is, his person, work, and two-fold state. Paul would know nothing
among the Corinthians, ‘but Jesus Christ and him crucified.’ The cross
of Christ was that alone in which he gloried. He reduces the knowledge
of Christ, for the excellency of which he counted all things but loss
and dung, to the knowledge of the power of his resurrection, and of
the fellowship of his sufferings.—In that most important conversation
on the holy mount, between our Lord, and two of the celestial
inhabitants, the two great teachers and reformers under the old
dispensation, we find no more mentioned, but that it turned upon that
decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.—In the cross, and the
other humiliations and sufferings of the Saviour comprehended under
it, the love of God towards men, in not sparing his own Son, as also
his wisdom and power unto salvation are displayed in a peculiar and a
most conspicuous manner. In the cross, is the abolishing of the power
and the fear of death. Deliverance from the dominion of sin, as also
the glory to come, are its pleasant fruits. The plain, but most
consolatory symbols of the grace of Jesus, in Baptism, and the Holy
Supper, point us in like manner to his atoning _death_, with a charge
_to shew it forth_ in particular.

The medium of our acceptance and justification before God, is every
where in the gospel said to be _faith in Christ_: and that indeed in
opposition to, and with warning against the law, or the seeking of our
justification by the works of the law. Now if _believing in Christ_
signify only, to receive and to obey his doctrine concerning the
rational grounds and duties of religion; how then is the doctrine and
the righteousness of faith quite another thing than the demand and
righteousness of the law whether we consider the moral law naturally,
or as written by Moses? Nay, Moses had also taught the capital
doctrines of rational religion, God’s existence, unity, providence,
the duties of man, &c. and that the love of God, and of our neighbour,
is more than all sacrifices, was often inculcated under the old
economy, and not unknown to the Jews.—Or does the prohibition of
seeking righteousness by the law, only mean the omitting of the Mosaic
rights? But in the places quoted, and in others, the _law_ cannot
possibly be understood in such a limited sense. Besides the
righteousness of faith, in contradistinction to that of the law, had
place even under the old dispensation. Further, these external
solemnities could indeed be abolished; but they were instituted by God
himself, and hence the observing of them did not so militate against a
rational religion, that it in itself could make a man
condemnable.—Paul constantly teaches, that the opposition between
faith and the law, in respect of our seeking righteousness by them,
consists in this, that God’s inflexible _law_ condemns all sinners,
Jews and Gentiles; that by the works of the law, no flesh shall be
justified; that through sin, the law is become weak to give life: but
that faith acknowledges and embraces Christ, as he who fulfilled the
righteousness of the law, was made a curse for us, and set forth to be
a propitiation, through faith, not only in his _doctrine_, but in his
_blood_, for a demonstration of the righteousness of God.

And why else was ‘Christ crucified unto the Jews a stumbling-block,
and to the Greeks foolishness?’ Surely, not so much on account of the
capital truths of rational religion taught by him. The Jewish doctors,
and the best philosophers among the Heathens, who had acknowledged
them were honoured on that account. Nor was it because Christ,
continuing a worthy and faithful, but an unsuccessful teacher of his
doctrine, was unjustly accused, and shamefully put to death. The
memory of a condemned Socrates was not held in contempt. The reason
was purely this, that the Saviour’s suffering was proclaimed as the
only ground and cause of our reconciliation and salvation: while the
Jews and Heathens thought to be saved by the value of their own
virtue: and to them it was exceeding strange, and most mortifying to
their pride, that penitently acknowledging their guilt, they behoved
to seek life in the deep abasement of a crucified Mediator, and in his
justifying resurrection.

All our reasoning thus far makes it evident, that we must not
understand _the sufferings of Christ for sin_, merely as if God, being
about to announce by the gospel, grace and life to the nations, would
previously manifest his aversion to sin, by a striking example of his
vengeance; and for that purpose, deliver up an ambassador vested with
extraordinary privileges, to so much sorrow and shame. Surely all
preceding ages had already exhibited awful instances of God’s fearful
displeasure with the sins of individuals and communities, without
deliverance from sin being ever ascribed to them. That a mean man
among the people, that a teacher wandering about in poverty, should be
shamefully put to death by a civil judge, was much less calculated to
exhibit a signal and extraordinary example of divine wrath, than the
immediate interposition of Providence, which had often, in former
times inflicted, and still could inflict miraculous punishments on the
most eminent persons, or on whole nations. At any rate, to manifest a
righteous abhorrence of sin, vengeance behoved not to fall upon one
perfectly innocent. This last would be quite absurd; unless the
innocent person, (as holy scripture has already taught us) should with
God’s approbation, as spontaneously, as generously, substitute himself
in our place, by bearing our sin.—Accordingly, sacred scripture
represents the sufferings of Christ, not only as a proof and
confirmation, but as the cause of our reconciliation.

We by no means exclude other advantages ascribed by Socinus to the
Saviour’s death. Beyond all doubt, he thereby confirmed his integrity
and the truth of his mission. But, pray, was it ever heard, that a
false prophet, in the founding of a new society, mentioned his own,
his certain, his fast approaching, and most offensive punishment of
death, as the intention of his ministry; and made it an article of his
doctrine?—In confirmation of his doctrine and mission, Jesus generally
appealed to his miracles; and yet, where are the forgiveness of our
sins and a title to life ascribed to his miracles, as they often are
to his bloody death?—For what doctrine was Jesus condemned? Not for
the truths and prescriptions of natural reason; but because he
declared himself to be higher far than any human prophet. (See Section
IX.) If the celestial chorus at his birth, if the Father’s voice at
his inauguration, if his glory on the mount, had been openly perceived
by the Jewish council and all the people; if the lightnings darted
forth in confirmation of Moses and Elias, had caused him to be
honoured; especially if he had satisfied their prejudices concerning
the Messias; if, with legions of his Father’s angels, he had destroyed
the Roman government, broken that yoke, recovering and extending
David’s mighty kingdom; their infidelity would have been conquered,
and eagerly would they have confided in him. They would have been more
easily drawn by giving bread, or causing manna to rain, than by
promising them his flesh and blood.—A steady martyrdom was more
necessary to the preaching of the apostles; because their doctrine in
a great measure referred to and was built upon the truth of the
all-important events of the Saviour’s death and exaltation. In
relation to which, as they could not be deceived, so likewise their
sincerity behoved to be put beyond suspicion. But the Lord Jesus
Christ had abundance of glorious means to confirm his doctrine; and if
nothing else had been to be effectuated by it, he behoved not to have
undergone a cursed death upon the hill of infamy; and that under the
pretence of a legal procedure, which caused the multitude to revolt
from him, his friends to be offended at him, and plunged his best
followers in deep distress.

We also respect the design of exhibiting in his sufferings, an example
of love, submission to, and confidence in God. But such an extremity
of shame was not necessary for that purpose; and his sufferings were
accompanied with so much perturbation, vehement distress, cries and
tears, that quite other ends were ever to be obtained by them; else he
would not have exceeded many valiant martyrs. Besides, could any
apostle, courageously foreseeing, and alluding to his own martyrdom in
confirmation of the truth, and for an example to others, be able to
say, as did Christ, ‘whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed, &c.?’ 2 Tim. iv. 6. compared with John vi. 51-57.

Do men in spite of the divine testimony, find reasons and scruples
against a vicarious satisfaction; if we are not much mistaken, they
are easy to solve. But far stronger reasons combat the persuasion,
that the Holy Supreme Being can show himself favourable, or
indifferent, to the voluntary violation of those laws and moral duties
from which he himself cannot absolve a rational creature; or to speak
in a plain and familiar manner, that God can, and also will suffer sin
to escape with impunity.

If then, (to conclude in the language of the apostle, when enlarging
on the glory of Christ,) the Son of God, by himself purged our sins;
how narrowly and how perversely would we limit his saving work to his
preaching? How inconsistent is it with this, that men, according to
the usual phrase among Christians, ascribe efficacious _merits_ to
Christ; but in an unusual sense understand them only of his doctrine
and his excellent character? against which sentiment, too, much could
be objected. How evidently then is that confirmed, which we asserted,
that Christ himself in his person and performances, is the cause and
ground of our salvation? If the suffering and death of Christ alone
have merited salvation for the innumerable multitude of all them who
ever believed in him, or shall believe; if his suffering, though short
in duration, was the satisfactory ransom, to deliver all those sinners
from the fear of death, and from the wrath to come; then the infinite
worth of his person and work, must surpass all understanding; then
from that most gracious deliverance we deduce an important proof of
his more than human, his divine excellency.”

DR. WYNPERSSE.

Footnote 168:

“In the consideration of this subject, which every Christian must deem
most highly deserving the closet examination, our attention should be
directed to two different classes of objectors: those who deny the
necessity of any mediation whatever; and those who question the
particular nature of that mediation, which has been appointed. Whilst
the deist on the one hand ridicules the very notion of a Mediator: and
the philosophizing Christian on the other, fashions it to his own
hypothesis; we are called on to vindicate the word of truth from the
injurious attacks of both; and carefully to secure it, not only
against the open assaults of its avowed enemies, but against the more
dangerous misrepresentations of its false or mistaken friends.

The objections which are peculiar to the former, are upon this
subject, of the same description with those which they advance against
every other part of revelation; bearing with equal force against the
system of natural religion, which they support, as against the
doctrines of revealed religion, which they oppose. And indeed, this
single circumstance, if weighed with candour and reflection; that is,
if the deist were truly the philosopher he pretends to be; might
suffice to convince him of his error. For the closeness of the analogy
between the works of nature, and the word of the gospel, being found
to be such, that every blow which is aimed at the one, rebounds with
undiminished force against the other: the conviction of their common
origin must be the inference of unbiassed understanding.

Thus, when in the outset of his argument, the deist tells us, that as
obedience must be the object of God’s approbation, and disobedience
the ground of his displeasure, it must follow by natural consequence,
that when men have transgressed the divine commands, repentance and
amendment of life will place them in the same situation as if they had
never offended:—he does not recollect, that actual experience of the
course of nature directly contradicts the assertion; and that, in the
common occurrences of life, the man who by intemperance and
voluptuousness, has injured his character, his fortune, and his
health, does not find himself instantly restored to the full enjoyment
of these blessings on repenting of his past misconduct, and
determining on future amendment. Now, if the attributes of the Deity
demand, that the punishment should not outlive the crime, on what
ground shall we justify this temporal dispensation? The difference in
_degree_, cannot affect the question in the least. It matters not,
whether the punishment be of long or short duration; whether in this
world, or in the next. If the justice or the goodness of God, require
that punishment should not be inflicted when repentance has taken
place; it must be a violation of those attributes to permit any
punishment whatever, the most slight, or the most transient. Nor will
it avail to say, that the evils of _this life_ attendant upon vice,
are the effects of an established constitution, and follow in the way
of natural consequence. Is not that established constitution itself,
the effect of the divine decree? And are not its several operations as
much the appointment of its Almighty framer, as if they had
individually flowed from his immediate direction? But besides, what
reason have we to suppose that God’s treatment of us in a future
state, will not be of the same nature as we find it in this; according
to established rules, and in the way of natural consequence? Many
circumstances might be urged on the contrary, to evince the likelihood
that it will. But this is not necessary to our present purpose. It is
sufficient, that the deist cannot _prove_ that it will _not_. Our
experience of the present state of things evinces, that indemnity is
not the consequence of repentance here: can he adduce a
counter-experience to show, that it will hereafter? The justice and
goodness of God are not then _necessarily_ concerned, in virtue of the
sinner’s repentance, to remove all evil consequences upon sin in the
next life, or else the arrangement of events in this, has not been
regulated by the dictates of justice and goodness. If the deist admits
the latter, what becomes of his natural religion?

Now let us inquire, whether the conclusions of abstract reasoning will
coincide with the deductions of experience. If obedience be at all
times our duty, in what way can present repentance release us from the
punishment of former transgressions? Can repentance annihilate what is
past? Or can we do more by present obedience, than acquit ourselves of
present obligation? Or, does the contrition we experience, added to
the positive duties we discharge, constitute a surplusage of merit,
which may be transferred to the reduction of our former demerit? And
is the justification of the philosopher, who is too enlightened to be
a Christian, to be built, after all, upon the absurdities of
supererogation? ‘We may as well affirm,’ says a learned Divine, ‘that
our former obedience atones for our present sins, as that our present
obedience makes amends for antecedent transgressions.’ And it is
surely with a peculiar ill grace, that this sufficiency of repentance
is urged by those, who deny the _possible_ efficacy of Christ’s
mediation; since the ground on which they deny the latter, equally
serves for the rejection of the former: the _necessary connexion_
between the merits of one being, and the acquittal of another, not
being less conceivable, than that which is conceived to subsist
between obedience at one time, and the forgiveness of disobedience at
another.

Since then, upon the whole, experience (as far as it extends) goes to
prove the natural inefficacy of repentance to remove the effects of
past transgressions; and the abstract reason of the thing, can furnish
no link, whereby to connect present obedience with forgiveness of
former sins: it follows, that however the contemplation of God’s
infinite goodness and love, might excite some faint hope, that mercy
would be extended to the sincerely penitent; the animating _certainty_
of this momentous truth, without which the religious sense can have no
place, can be derived from the express communication of the Deity
alone.

But it is yet urged by those, who would measure the proceedings of
divine wisdom by the standard of their own reason; that, admitting the
necessity of a Revelation on this subject, it had been sufficient for
the Deity to have made known to man his benevolent intention; and that
the circuitous apparatus of the scheme of redemption must have been
superfluous, for the purpose of rescuing the world from the terrors
and dominion of sin; when this might have been effected in a way
infinitely more simple and intelligible, and better calculated to
excite our gratitude and love, merely by proclaiming to mankind a free
pardon, and perfect indemnity, on condition of repentance and
amendment.

To the disputer, who would thus prescribe to God the mode by which he
may best conduct his creatures to happiness, we might as before reply,
by the application of his own argument to the course of ordinary
events: and we might demand of him to inform us, wherefore the Deity
should have left the sustenance of life, depending on the tedious
process of human labour and contrivance, in rearing from a small seed,
and conducting to the perfection fitting it for the use of man, the
necessary article of nourishment; when the end might have been at once
accomplished by its instantaneous production. And will he contend that
bread has not been ordained for the support of man; because that,
instead of the present circuitous mode of its production, it might
have been rained down from heaven, like the manna in the wilderness?
On grounds such as these, the philosopher (as he wishes to be called)
may be safely allowed to object to the notion of forgiveness by a
Mediator.

With respect to every such objection as this, it may be well, once for
all, to make this general observation. We find, from the whole course
of nature, that God governs the world, not by independent acts, but by
connected system. The instruments which he employs in the ordinary
works of his Providence, are not physically necessary to his
operations. He might have acted without them, if he pleased. ‘He
might, for instance, have created all men, without the intervention of
parents: but where then had been the beneficial connexion between
parents and children; and the numerous advantages resulting to human
society from such connexion?’ The difficulty lies here: the _uses_
arising from the _connexions_ of God’s acts may be various; and such
are the _pregnancies_ of his works, that a _single act_ may answer a
prodigious variety of purposes. Of the several purposes we are, for
the most part, ignorant: and from this ignorance are derived most of
our weak objections against the ways of his Providence; whilst we
foolishly presume, that, like human agents, he has but one end in
view.

This observation we shall find of material use in our examination of
the remaining arguments adduced by the deist on the present subject.
And there is none to which it more forcibly applies than to that by
which he endeavours to prove the notion of a Mediator to be
inconsistent with the _divine immutability_. It is either, he affirms,
agreeable to the will of God to grant salvation on repentance, and
then he _will_ grant it without a Mediator: or it is not agreeable to
his will, and then a Mediator can be of no avail, unless we admit the
mutability of the divine decrees.

But the objector is not, perhaps, aware how far this reasoning will
extend. Let us try it in the case of prayer. All such things as are
agreeable to the will of God must be accomplished, whether we pray or
not; and therefore our prayers are useless, unless they be supposed to
have a power of altering his will. And indeed, with equal
conclusiveness it might be proved that repentance itself must be
unnecessary. For if it be fit that our sins should be forgiven, God
will forgive us without repentance: and if it be unfit, repentance can
be of no avail.

The error in all these conclusions is the same, it consists in
mistaking a conditional for an absolute decree; and in supposing God
to ordain an end unalterably, without any concern as to the
intermediate steps, whereby that end is to be accomplished. Whereas
the _manner_ is sometimes as necessary as the _act_ proposed: so that
if not done in that particular way, it would not have been done at
all. Of this observation, abundant illustration may be derived, as
well from natural as from revealed religion. ‘Thus we know from
natural religion, that it is agreeable to the will of God, that the
distresses of mankind should be relieved: and yet we see the
destitute, from a wise constitution of Providence, left to the
precarious benevolence of their fellow-men; and if not relieved by
_them_, they are not relieved _at all_. In like manner, in Revelation,
in the case of Naaman the Syrian, we find that God was willing he
should be healed of his leprosy; but yet he was not willing that it
should be done, except in _one particular manner_. Abana and Pharpar
were as famous as any of the rivers of Israel. Could he not wash in
them, and be clean? Certainly he might, if the design of God had been
no more than to heal him. Or it might have been done without any
washing at all. But the healing was not the only design of God, nor
the most important. The _manner_ of the cure was of more consequence
in the moral design of God, than the _cure_ itself: the effect being
produced, for the sake of manifesting to the whole kingdom of Syria,
the great power of the God of Israel, by which the cure was
performed.’ And in like manner, though God willed that the penitent
sinner should receive forgiveness; we may see good reason why,
agreeably to his usual proceeding, he might will it to be granted in
one particular manner only, through the intervention of a Mediator.

Although in the present stage of the subject, in which we are
concerned with the objections of the DEIST, the argument should be
confined to the deductions of natural reason; yet I have added this
instance from Revelation, because, strange to say, some who assume the
name of Christians, and profess not altogether to discard the written
word of Revelation, adept the very principle which we have just
examined. For what are the doctrines of that description of
Christians, in the sister kingdom,[169] who glory in having brought
down the high things of God to the level of man’s understanding? That
Christ was a person sent into the world to promulgate the will of God:
to communicate new lights on the subject of religious duties: by his
life to set an example of perfect obedience: by his death to manifest
his sincerity: and by his resurrection to convince us of the great
truth which he had been commissioned to teach, our rising again to
future life. This, say they, is the sum and substance of Christianity.
It furnishes a purer morality, and a more operative enforcement: its
morality more pure, as built on juster notions of the divine nature:
and its enforcement more operative, as founded on a _certainty_ of a
state of retribution. And is then Christianity nothing but a new and
more formal promulgation of the religion of nature? Is the death of
Christ but an attestation of his truth? And are we, after all, left to
our own merit for acceptance: and obliged to trust for our salvation
to the perfection of our obedience? Then indeed, has the great Author
of our religion in vain submitted to the agonies of the cross; if
after having given to mankind a law, which leaves them less excusable
in their transgressions, he has left them to be judged by the rigour
of that law, and to stand or fall by their own personal deserts.

It is said, indeed, that as by this new dispensation, the certainty of
pardon on repentance has been made known, mankind has been informed of
all that is essential in the doctrine of mediation. But granting that
no more was intended to be conveyed, than the sufficiency of
repentance; yet it remains to be considered _in what way_ that
repentance was likely to be brought about. Was the bare declaration
that God would forgive the repentant sinner, sufficient to ensure his
amendment? Or was it not rather calculated to render him easy under
guilt, from the facility of reconciliation? What was there to alarm,
to rouse the sinner from the apathy of habitual transgression? What
was there to make that impression which the nature of God’s moral
government demands? Shall we say that the grateful sense of divine
mercy would be sufficient; and that the generous feelings of our
nature, awakened by the supreme goodness, would have secured our
obedience? that is, shall we say, that the love of virtue and of right
would have maintained man in his allegiance? And have we not then had
abundant experience of what man can do, when left to his own
exertions, to be cured of such vain and idle fancies? What is the
history of man, from the creation to the time of Christ, but a
continued trial of his natural strength? And what has been the _moral_
of that history, but that man is strong, only as he feels himself
weak? strong, only as he feels that his nature is corrupt, and from a
consciousness of that corruption, is led to place his whole reliance
upon God? What is the description which the apostle of the Gentiles
has left us, of the state of the world, at the coming of our
Saviour?—_being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate,
deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful,
proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful—who, knowing the judgment of God, that they
which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same,
but have pleasure in them that do them_.

Here were the fruits of that natural goodness of the human heart,
which is the favorite theme and fundamental principle with that class
of Christians, with whom we are at present concerned. And have we not
then had full experiment of our natural powers? And shall we yet have
the madness to fly back to our own sufficiency, and our own merits,
and to turn away from that gracious support, which is offered to us
through the mediation of Christ? No: lost as men were, at the time
Christ appeared, to all sense of true religion: lost as they must be
to it, at all times, when left to a proud confidence in their own
sufficiency: nothing short of a strong and salutary terror could
awaken them to virtue. Without some striking expression of God’s
abhorrence of sin, which might work powerfully on the imagination and
the heart, what could prove a sufficient counteraction to the violent
impulse of natural passions? what, to the entailed depravation, which
the history of man, no less than the voice of Revelation, pronounces
to have infected the whole human race? Besides, without a full and
adequate sense of guilt, the very notion of forgiveness, as it relates
to us, is unintelligible. We can have no idea of forgiveness, unless
conscious of something to be forgiven. Ignorant of our forgiveness, we
remain ignorant of that goodness which confers it. And thus, without
some proof of God’s hatred for sin, we remain unacquainted with the
greatness of his love.

The simple promulgation then, of forgiveness on repentance, could not
answer the purpose. Merely to _know_ the condition, could avail
nothing. An _inducement_ of sufficient force to ensure its
_fulfilment_ was essential. The system of sufficiency had been fully
tried, to satisfy mankind of its folly. It was now time to introduce a
new system, the system of _humility_. And for this purpose, what
expedient could have been devised more suitable than that which has
been adopted?—the sacrifice of the Son of God for the sins of men:
proclaiming to the world, by the greatness of the ransom, the
immensity of the guilt: and thence, at the same time evincing, in the
most fearful manner, God’s utter abhorrence of sin, in requiring such
expiation; and the infinity of his love, in appointing it.

To this expedient for man’s salvation, though it be the clear and
express language of Scripture, I have as yet sought no support from
the authority of Scripture itself. Having hitherto had to contend with
the deist, who denies all Revelation; and the pretended Christian, who
rationalizing away its substance, finds it a mere moral system, and
can discover in it no trace of a Redeemer: to urge the declarations of
Scripture, as to the particular nature of redemption, would be to no
purpose. Its authority disclaimed by the one, and evaded by the other,
each becomes unassailable on any ground, but that which he has chosen
for himself, the ground of general reason.

But, we come now to consider the objections of a class of Christians
who, as they profess to derive their arguments from the language and
meaning of Scripture, will enable us to try the subject of our
discussion by the only true standard, the word of Revelation. And
indeed, it were most sincerely to be wished, that the doctrines of
Scripture were at all times collected purely from the Scripture
itself: and that preconceived notions and arbitrary theories were not
first to be formed, and then the Scripture pressed into the service of
each fanciful, dogma. If God has vouchsafed a Revelation, has he not
thereby imposed a duty of submitting our understandings to its perfect
wisdom? Shall weak, shortsighted man presume to say, ‘If I find the
discoveries of Revelation correspond to my notions of what is right
and fit, I will admit them: but if they do not, I am sure they cannot
be the genuine sense of Scripture: and I am sure of it, on this
principle, that the wisdom of God cannot disagree with itself?’ That
is, to express it truly, that the wisdom of God cannot but agree with
what this judge of the actions of the Almighty deems it wise for him
to do. The language of Scripture must then, by every possible
refinement, be made to surrender its fair and natural meaning, to this
predetermination of its necessary import. But the word of revelation
being thus pared down to the puny dimensions of human reason, how
differs the Christian from the deist? The only difference is this:
that whilst the one denies that God hath given us a Revelation; the
other, compelled by evidence to receive it, endeavours to render it of
no effect. But in both there is the same self-sufficiency, the same
pride of understanding that would erect itself on the ground of human
reason, and that disdains to accept the divine favour on any
conditions but its own. In both, in short, the very characteristic of
a Christian spirit is wanting—HUMILITY. For in what consists the
entire of Christianity, but in this; that feeling an utter incapacity
to work out our own salvation, we submit our whole-selves, our hearts,
and our understandings, to the divine disposal; and relying on God’s
gracious assistance, ensured to our honest endeavours to obtain it,
through the Mediation of Christ Jesus, we look up to him, and to him
alone, for safety? Nay, what is the very _notion_ of religion, but
this humble reliance upon God? Take this away, and we become a race of
independent beings, claiming as a debt the reward of our good works; a
sort of contracting party with the Almighty, contributing nought to
his glory, but anxious to maintain our own independence, and our own
rights. And is it not to subdue this rebellious spirit, which is
necessarily at war with virtue and with God, that Christianity has
been introduced? Does not every page of revelation, peremptorily
pronounce this; and yet shall we exercise this spirit, even upon
Christianity itself? Assuredly if we do; if, on the contrary, our
pride of understanding, and self-sufficiency of reason, are not made
to prostrate themselves before the awfully mysterious truths of
revelation; if we do not bring down the rebellious spirit of our
nature, to confess that the _wisdom of man_ is but _foolishness with
God_; we may bear the name of Christians, but we want the essence of
Christianity.

These observations, though they apply in their full extent, only to
those who reduce Christianity to a system purely rational; yet are, in
a certain degree applicable to the description of Christians, whose
notion of redemption we now come to consider. For what but a
preconceived theory, to which Scripture had been compelled to yield
its obvious and genuine signification, could ever have led to the
opinion, that in the death of Christ there was _no expiation for sin_;
that the word _sacrifice_ has been used by the writers of the New
Testament merely in a figurative sense; and that the whole doctrine of
the redemption amounts but to this, ‘that God, willing to pardon
repentant sinners, and at the same time willing to do it, only in that
way, which would best promote the cause of virtue, appointed that
Jesus Christ should come into the world; and that _he_, having taught
the pure doctrines of the gospel; having passed a life of exemplary
virtue; having endured many sufferings, and finally death itself, to
prove his truth, and perfect his obedience; and having risen again, to
manifest the certainty of a future state; has not only, by his example
proposed to mankind a pattern for imitation; but has, by the merits of
his obedience, obtained, through his intercession, as a reward, a
kingdom or government over the world, whereby he is enabled to bestow
pardon and final happiness, upon all who will accept them on the terms
of sincere repentance.’ That is, in other words, we receive salvation
through a Mediator: the mediation conducted through intercession: and
that intercession successful in recompense of the meritorious
obedience of our Redeemer.

Here, indeed, we find the notion of redemption admitted: but in
setting up, for this purpose, the doctrine of _pure intercession_, in
opposition to that of _atonement_, we shall perhaps discover, when
properly examined, some small tincture of that mode of reasoning,
which, as we have seen, has led the modern Socinian to contend against
the idea of redemption at large; and the deist, against that of
revelation itself.

For the present, let us confine our attention to the _objections_
which the patrons of this new system bring against the principle of
atonement, as set forth in the doctrines of that church to which we
more immediately belong. As for those which are founded in views of
general reason, a little reflection will convince us, that there is
not any, which can be alleged against the latter, that may not be
urged with equal force, against the former: not a single difficulty
with which it is attempted to encumber the one, that does not equally
embarrass the other. This having been evinced, we shall then see how
little reason there was for relinquishing the plain and natural
meaning of scripture; and for opening the door to a latitude of
interpretation, in which, it is but too much the fashion to indulge at
the present day, and which if persevered in, must render the word of
God a nullity.

The first, and most important of the objections we have now to
consider, is that which represents the doctrine of atonement, as
founded on the _divine implacability_—inasmuch as it supposes, that to
appease the rigid justice of God, it was requisite that punishment
should be inflicted; and that consequently the sinner _could_ not by
any means have been released, had not Christ suffered in his stead.
Were this a faithful statement of the doctrine of atonement, there had
indeed been just ground for the objection. But that this is not the
fair representation of candid truth, let the objector feel, by the
application of the same mode of reasoning, to the system which he
upholds. If it was necessary to the forgiveness of man, that Christ
should suffer; and through the merits of his obedience, and as the
fruit of his intercession, obtain the power of granting that
forgiveness; does it not follow, that had not Christ thus suffered and
interceded, we could not have been forgiven? And has _he_ not then, as
it were, taken us out of the hands of a severe and strict judge; and
is it not to him alone that we owe our pardon? Here the argument is
exactly parallel, and the objection of implacability equally applies.
Now what is the answer? ‘That although it is through the merits and
intercession of Christ that we are forgiven; yet these were not the
_procuring cause_, but the _means_, by which God originally disposed
to forgive, thought it right to bestow his pardon.’ Let then the word
_intercession_ be changed for _sacrifice_, and see whether the answer
be not equally conclusive.

The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed by any who did not wish to
calumniate the doctrine of atonement, to have _made_ God placable, but
merely viewed as the _means_ appointed by divine wisdom, by which to
bestow forgiveness. And agreeably to this, do we not find this
sacrifice every where spoken of, as ordained by God himself?—_God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life_—and
_herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent
his Son to be the propitiation for our sins_—and again we are told,
that _we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb
without blemish, and without spot—-who verily was foreordained before
the foundation of the world_—and again, that Christ is _the Lamb slain
from the foundation of the world_. Since then, the notion of the
efficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, contained in the doctrine of
atonement, stands precisely on the same foundation with that of pure
intercession—merely as the _means_ whereby God has thought fit to
grant his favour and gracious aid to repentant sinners, and to fulfil
that merciful intention, which he had at all times entertained towards
his fallen creatures: and since by the same sort of representation,
the charge of implacability in the Divine Being, is as applicable to
the one scheme as to the other; that is, since it is a calumny most
foully cast upon both: we may estimate with what candour this has been
made by those who hold the one doctrine the fundamental ground of
their objections against the other. For, on the ground of the
expression of God’s unbounded love to his creatures every where
through Scripture, and of his several declarations that he forgave
them _freely_, it is, that they principally contend, that the notion
of expiation by the sacrifice of Christ cannot be the genuine doctrine
of the New Testament.