Page images
PDF
EPUB

due to him, and what he might fairly demand. It is evident, however, that I am under great obliga tions to my friend, who has discharged my debts to save me from prison, but under none to my creditor, who has insisted upon the full payment of them. If he have done nothing that is unjust, neither hath he done any thing that is merciful or generous. Let us now consider the scheme of atonement in this light. Men have by their sins contracted a debt to divine justice, which they are not able to discharge, and in consequence of this inability are condemned to eternal misery, from which nothing can save them but the payment of the debt, or of something that shall be deemed of equal value. In these circumstances Jesus, moved with compassion by a view of the wretched condition to which we were reduced, offers something to the Father (I will not say what at present) which is deemed an equivalent for the debt, and is accepted as a full discharge of it. In this case it is evident, that we are greatly indebted to the Son of God, who from motives of compassion and benevolence provided the means of discharging the debt, and hereby saved us from eternal misery. But we have nothing to thank the Father for; since he stands in the place of a creditor, who receives his whole debt, without remitting any thing of his claims: here is no mercy or forgiveness exercised, no favour shown; full justice is insisted upon on one side, and fully satisfied on the other. And are the boasted grace and mercy of

God to sinners in the Gospel dispensation really reduced to this? Do they consist in letting the debtor go free, when his debts have been paid by another? O blind apostle! who has told us, that we are justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. O mistaken Saviour! who has exhorted us to be merciful, as our Father in Heaven is merciful, and to forgive one another, as God forgives us; and who has illustrated this forgiveness by the conduct of a creditor, who, when a debtor had nothing to pay, frankly forgave //him him all the debt. This system admits of no mercy; it exhibits nothing to our view but rigid justice. It contradicts every page of the Bible, and every fact of the divine dealings toward offending creatures on sacred record. It degrades the character of God to that of certain savage tribes we read of, who, devoting to death all the prisoners taken in war, could only be induced to spare them by having a full ransom paid for them. Away with such a doctrine from our thoughts. It is so plainly inconsistent with every idea of divine mercy and benevolence, as not to deserve a moment's consideration.

[ocr errors]

I know the reply, that is usually made to this objection to the atonement, that it leaves no room for the exercise of mercy; that God manifested his mercy by furnishing Christ with the means of paying the price of redemption, by sending him to suffer and die but this is giving up the doctrine entirely; for it is exactly the same thing, whether I remit altoge

ther a debt owing to me, or furnish another person with money to pay me. If God both pay and receive the debt, what atonement can there be made? every thing is done by him, and nothing by another.

Another view, in which the advocates for the doctrine in question represent the atonement of Christ, is that of suffering the punishment due to sinners on account of their transgression, in consideration of which God is supposed to pardon the offender, and to accept of the sufferings of his son instead of those of the sinner. Hence arises the necessity of Christ being God; for they say, so heinous is the nature of sin, and so dreadful the punishment annexed to it, that nothing less than an infinite Being could be able to support this wrath of God, or make adequate satisfaction to divine justice. On this supposition also they account for the agony of Christ in the gardenand the bloody sweat, as likewise for his language upon the cross, when he said, "My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?" They imagine, that these strong expressions of distress proceeded from the sufferings, which God then inflicted upon him in a supernatural manner in lieu of those, which were appointed for sinners in another world. Nay, Calvin went so far as to say, that nothing would have been done by the mere death of Christ, if he had not also afterward descended into Hell, where he sustained that death, which is inflicted by an angry God on the wicked.

But here it natnrally occurs to ask; could God suffer? could God die? If that be impossible, since it would be to suppose him a man like ourselves, where is the infinite Being to make infinite satisfaction for the infinite evil there is in sin, and to bear the whole weight of the wrath of God, as they express it? There is nothing left to bear pain and death but the man Christ Jesus. And can the sufferings of a man during a few hours (if we limit those of Christ to the time spent in the garden or upon the cross, as is usually done) or during a few days (if with Calvin we suppose Christ went into Hell, while his body lay in the grave) be equal to all the sufferings of the elect throughout an eternal duration? How much less equal to the sufferings destined for all mankind, which some suppose Christ endured ?

Besides, vicarious punishment, or punishment instead of another, is a thing in it's own nature impossible. If I owe a sum of money, which I am not able to pay, a friend may pay it for me; but if I have merited punishment by my conduct, no one can suffer that punishment in my place, even should he offer to do it; for punishment implies guilt, which is a personal thing and cannot be transferred. It is impossible, therefore, that Christ should suffer the punishment due to mankind on account of their sins. The same thing may be proved respecting his obedience, which is said to be imputed to sinners that are justified. A man inay obey a law for himself, but cannot obey it for another; for obedience,

as well as guilt, implies something personal, which cannot be transferred. You see, then, what the boasted comfort and dependence of some persons are reduced to: they rely upon the obedience of Christ for supplying their own want of obedience, and upon his punishment for supplying the place of theirs; that is, upon a thing which is impossible.

The great plea for the doctrine of the atonement is; that it is necessary to vindicate the divine justice, that, when an offence has been committed, punishment must be inflicted somewhere, and if not upon the offender, upon some other person. But there is no principle of justice we are acquainted with, that requires this: on the contrary, it is an invariable maxim of law among men, that the guilty alone ought to suffer, and that no punishment ought to be inflicted upon the innocent, even were they voluntarily to offer to submit to it. Let us suppose a case of a man, who is brought into a court of justice for an offence against the law, such as theft or murder, and that the crime is fully proved against him. If a third person were to step forward and say; it is true, that my friend here has been guilty of the crime laid to his charge, and deserves all the punishment, which the law in such cases appoints; but such is my affection for him, that I am willing to bear it for him; punish me in his place-would such an offer be accepted? No; certainly not. The judge would tell him, that the design of punishment was, by making the offender suffer, to prevent others

[merged small][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »