Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of the words? Can such strong expressions of a dying Redeemer receive due honour by a confinement of them to à mere memorial of a dying martyr to confirm his doctrine, or by sinking them to a mere figurative manifestation of what sin deserved, without any proper expiation of it? Would an expiring prophet utter such speeches as would naturally lead his disciples into so great a mistake? Would the Saviour of the world in his last conversation with his friends, betray them into such superstitious errors as Agrippa supposes the doctrine of his atonement for sin to be? Would his wisdom and his goodness either incline or permit him to tell his disciples so expressly, that his blood was shed for the remission of their sins, and mean no more by it than Agrippa does?

Query VIII. After I had proved by the force of the former queries, that the gospel doth evidently reveal this doctrine of Christ's atonement for sin, and our sanctification by the Holy Spirit, then to confirm this yet further, I would enquire of Agrippa in the next place, what were the most necessary and most important blessings which mankind in their sinful and miserable estate stood in need of, and which accordingly the gospel reveals and bestows? Tell me, Agrippa, what are our chief necessities, and what are the chief favours which we want from heaven? Do we not find ourselves guilty before God by our many iniquities and violations of his holy law? Do not our hearts accuse and condemn us? And do we not stand in need of divine forgiveness? Is not the awakened conscience of man in his natural estate, solicitous how he shall obtain pardon of the great God? Has not this been the enquiry of thoughtful persons in all ages, What shall I do to appear before the Lord, and to bow myself before the most high God with acceptance? Micah vi. 6. Has there not been a general tradition among Jews and gentiles, that the anger of God was to be removed by sacrifices, or the putting to death of some animal creature in the room of criminal men? Whence came this universal tradition? Whence this general sense of mankind, that there must be an atonement for sin made by sacrifices? It does not look like the invention of man, as Porphyry has shewn long ago, to cut living creatures to pieces, and burn their entrails, in order to please his Maker. Is it not highly probable therefore that it was some original institution of God, or divine appointment, attended with a promise or encouragement to hope for mercy from an offended God? And what could such sacrifices of brute creatures signify to this purpose; but as they were figures of some more valuable and richer sacrifice? And is not this the very thing which the gospel of Christ reveals, and hereby answers the solicitous and anxious enquiries of guilty men? Even that there is forgiveness to be found with God, and that the sacrifice of atonement is his own Son, by whom we have redemption from punishment in his blood, even the forgiveness of sins through the riches of his grace.

my

Again, what is the next chief concern and enquiry of an awakened soul? I find nature prone to sin, my senses and passions lead me astray from the inward dictates of my duty: Temptations in this world are great and many, my own strength to resist them is but weakness, they prevail over me notwithstanding all my better resolutions. Is there no assistance in this difficult work to be obtained from heaven, whereby I may keep myself from the defilements of a sinful world, and serve and please my Maker and my God? And is not this also another blessing which the gospel reveals? Even the Spirit of God promised to mortify our sins, to renew our souls to holiness, to sanctify us and reform us to a heavenly temper, to enable us in some measure to do our present duty

[blocks in formation]

here, and fit us for the enjoyment of God hereafter. Thus that sacred book, the New Testament, discovers to us those two most eminent and important blessings which an awakened sinner feels himself to stand in need of; and yet Agrippa has left them both out of his creed.

Query IX. Since the gospel has revealed these two blessings in such express language for the relief of sinful man: What is there in the description or proposal of them in the gospel that lies cross to the dictates of right reason? What is there in the literal sense of these doctrines that is contrary to the nature or perfections of God, or disagreeable to the reason of man? What is there that should constrain us to construe them into a metaphorical sense, and to explain them merely as figures and emblems? It is granted indeed, that the reason of man could not find them out; yet when once they are revealed and proposed to us, do they not appear very consistent with our best reasonings about God or man, and consistent also with all other parts of divine revelation?

It must be confessed there are some things so described in scripture, as makes it necessary to explain them by the help of tropes and figures; as for instance, there are several expressions which represent God to us as seeing with his eyes, as hearing with his ears, as working with his hands, as rejoicing, as grieving, as repenting, &c. and these cannot be understood in their literal sense, because it is contrary to the nature of God who is a Spirit, contrary to our reason in our best apprehensions of God, and it is also contrary to other places of scripture where God is declared to be a Spirit who hath no bodily parts or passions: And these are sufficient arguments to constrain us to forsake the literal sense, and to construe these expressions in scripture as mere figures and resemblances of divine things, spoken after the manner of men. So in the Lord's Supper, when Christ says, this bread is my body, it cannot be understood in the literal sense, because it is contrary to the testimony of our senses, our reason, and the scripture, that the body of Christ should be handled and eaten by the apostles, and yet at the same time be sitting at the table and eating with them, with a hundred other absurdities which attend the popish doctrine of transubstantiation; it must be therefore a figurative expression, and it is hard to conceive how any reasonable and honest mind should mistake the true meaning, viz. this bread is the sign or figure of my body.

But in the plain scriptural doctrines of the atonement of Christ for sin, and the assistances or influences of the blessed Spirit towards the restoring of our natures to holiness, there is nothing absurd, nothing inconsistent with reason, or with other scriptures, so as to make it necessary to construe them by tropes and figures. This may be made sufficiently to appear, if we ask but a few questions on each of these subjects. And first, of the atonement of Christ for our sins.

Is it not a most reasonable thing that a penalty should be annexed to the transgression of God's holy law, in order to deter men from sinning against God? Is not death a proper punishment for sin? Hath not the transgressor well deserved it? Is not the execution of this threatening a proper means to secure the honour of God's authority, his justice, and his government of the world? but is there no room for mercy to interpose and save here and there a criminal? May not divine justice receive the same honour, and the authority and government of God be as effectually secured in the world, by making it appear that sin is punished, and the penalty executed upon a willing and avowed surety, as if the sinner himself were punished? Will not the world learn hereby how dangerous a thing it is to transgress the law of God, when it appears that even mercy itself will not release

the sinner without some atoning sacrifice, without some demonstration of the justice of the law of God, and his hatred of sin? And when so glorious a person, and one so dear to God as his own Son, becomes the surety, how doth this more abundantly manifest that God will not spare wilful criminals, since even his own Son must be smitten when he becomes a surety for the sinner, rather than sin should go unpunished? I would ask yet further,

Why Agrippa should think this doctrine unreasonable? Is not suretiship for debts a common thing among men? Is it not practised daily? And is not the surety seized, and the debt exacted from him, if the principal debtor be insolvent? Is he not made to suffer imprisonment, and all the hardships of it on the account of the principal? And is not the debtor discharged if the surety pays the debt? In criminal cases indeed suretiship is not so frequent among men, for they have not such absolute power over the life or limbs of themselves or others, or have they so much love for their friends. But what good reason is there, or can there be, why the Son of God, who had power over his own life, and whose compassion to guilty man was exceeding great, might not become his surety, and suffer death in his stead, that is, pay the debt of suffering which the sinful creature owed to a just God?

Is there not hereby a new and sensible honour done both to the mercy and justice of God the universal Governor arising, from this contrivance of his wisdom, to punish sin on such a surety, and yet to save sinful creatures, both which could hardly have been glorified any other way? For if the penalties had been fully executed on the sinner, mercy would have lost its honours; or if the sinner had been pardoned without an atonement, the justice and authority of God the Governor, would seem to have been too much neglected and dishonoured. Thus this doctrine of atonement is so far from diminishing the honour of the attributes of God, that it highly exalts them.

As to the second doctrine, viz. the influences of the Spirit of God to sanctify our nature, what is there more agreeable to reason than this? When God saw the weakness of his creature man since the fall, to change his own nature into holiness, and to fulfil his duty, how agreeable is it to our best apprehensions of the mercy of God, to suppose that he would afford some divine aids to those who seek them? That he would graciously assist the feeble endeavours of his creatures to repent of sin, and to spend their lives in obedience to their Maker, and that by the operations of his own Spirit; and that by this Spirit of his he would enable weak creatures to overcome their powerful temptations?

But I am very brief in these enquiries, because the objections against these doctrines have been often and abundantly satisfied in answers that have been given to socinian writers in former and later times. Since therefore there is no necessary reason that requires us to construe these scriptural expressions into tropes and figures, why should we not understand the divine descriptions of these blessings of the gospel in their own most evident and proper sense? Why should not Agrippa understand them as we do in their plain meaning, since I am persuaded Agrippa wants them as much as we? Why does he not humbly receive them, and live upon them as the favours of a condescending God? Or let him boldly declare, that he does not want them, and therefore he cannot believe them.

Query X. And now the very last enquiry I shall put to Agrippa and his friends, is this, which I mentioned before in my discourse, when you turn these peculiar glories

and blessings of the gospel into tropes and figures, what is it you aim at, or expect to gain by it? What is the advantage pretended or hoped for by all this force upon the scripture, but by stripping the religion of Christ of its peculiar honours, to make it appear more like the religion of nature, both to ourselves and our infidel acquaintance? But give me leave to ask in the name of God, why are we so much ashamed of these peculiar and supernatural glories of the gospel, which were sent from heaven as the choicest blessings to a wretched world? Must all the revealed doctrines of God and his Son be brought down to the relish and gust of infidels, before we who call ourselves christians dare to believe them? Is there no truth of God to be credited unless it square with their opinions? Why should we be so solicitous to avoid the displeasure of those who deny and ridicule these articles of faith, which are the obvious and sacred meaning of the words of scripture, and which are given us to be the life of our souls? Why are we so fond to please and flatter those men who deny the plain and express doctrines of the New Testament, and destroy the most natural sense and design of the two sacraments, the two only ceremonies of the christian religion? Why so zealous and foolish to compliment the professed adversaries of Christ and his blessed gospel at so dear a rate, as to part with the noblest favours of heaven to humour and please them?

To conclude, if these were doctrines or propositions only mentioned occasionally, and but once or twice in the Bible; if they were only taught in emblems and metaphors and dark prophecies: If they were only hinted in the warm and pathetic parts of scripture, and never mentioned in those places where the doctrines of christianity were professedly taught; if they were preached only by one apostle, or only written in one part of an epistle; if they were such doctrines as stood contrary to the nature of God or the reason of man; if they received no testimony or support from the former revelations of God, or from other parts of the divine dispensations towards men, a honest and studious man might be ready to suspect, whether the words which express them ought to be construed in the literal sense; or at least, whether they were articles of any importance in christianity. But when this scheme of truth is spoken of by Christ himself as far as was proper in his life-time, and that both in parables and in plain language; when it is plainly taught by Peter and John as well as Paul, and that not only in one part of their writings, but in almost every place where the great doctrines of christianity are designedly taught, and where such truths might properly be inserted ; when their epistles are full of this language wheresoever they speak of the great and important doctrines of the gospel, or of the practical uses of them; when it is foretold by the ancient prophets, prefigured in the chief ceremonies of the ancient church, and held forth in the sacraments of the New Testament; I say, when I put all these things together, and others which I have mentioned as proofs of these two eminent articles of christianity, I am so overpowered with evidence concerning the true and plain meaning of the language of scripture, that I am ready to wonder how it is possible for any man of reason in the sincere exercise of it, to read the New Testament, and not see there these great articles of the atonement for our sins by the blood of Christ, and the sanctification of our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

I would therefore entreat Agrippa and his friends to consider once again, whether they may not be mistaken in their strange interpretations of the word of God. I would entreat them once again to read the gospels and epistles with a honest heart and without prejudice or bias from their former opinions. And with their studies let them join their

earnest supplications to the great God to guard them from error, and lead them into all truth; and at the same time let them maintain a pious resolution to subject their belief and conscience to every thing that shall appear to be the plain meaning of God in his word: He giveth wisdom to them that ask it: He giveth to those who are good in his sight, wisdom, understanding, and knowledge; Eccles. ii. 26. He bestows wisdom on the humble, and the meek will he guide in his way: He will shew them the secret of his covenant, and lead them into his salvation; Psalm xxv. 9, 24.

SECTION III.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT FOR SIN ARGUED.

[ocr errors]

Cavenor was one of the friends and disciples of Agrippa, though Paulinus knew it not. When he heard these queries of Paulinus, he was struck with a sensible surprize to find the whole current of scripture run so contrary to the opinions he had lately embraced, and he now confessed he had never well considered these matters before. The case in short was this: He had fallen into company with some persons who were almost weary of christianity, and had dropped as much of it as their consciences would let them part with at once: He was too easily led away from his former faith by the ridicule which was often cast by the disciples or friends of Agrippa on these doctrines which Paulinus defended: He was borne down by the bounces and boasts of just reasoning, which they never failed to make, and which, as they pretended, lay all on their side. However, he seemed at present astonished to observe, that the glorious designs of God and his grace in the gospel, led us plainly into other kind of doctrines than what is contained in Agrippa's creed, and particularly that concerning the atonement of Christ for sin. He could not at once freely and utterly renounce his errors, yet he was a little afraid to persist in them. He felt a sensible concern about his eternal interests, and fell to enquiring, upon supposition that this scheme of Agrippa concerning the designs of the death of Christ, should prove to be a mistake, whether it were not an innocent error. "Are there not many mistakes, said he, concerning some truths of the christian religion, and concerning the sense of many texts in the New Testament, which are very pardonable things? And what greater mischief is there in denying the proper atonement of Christ, than in many other mistaken opinions which Paulinus himself would grant might be received and embraced very innocently, and without danger to our christianity."

Ferventio, who was a very warm and zealous defender of the common faith, and much in the same sentiments with Paulinus, as to the doctrines of the gospel, immediately took fire when he heard Cavenor ask such a question as this: What mischief, says he, is there in these opinions? There is a long and dreadful train of mighty mischiefs in them; there is a great appearance of infidelity, and a large step toward it: There is bold affront offered to scripture in some of its plainest revelations, and a denial of the blessed gospel in some of its chief glories: There is unspeakable injury done to the honour of God, both in his justice and his grace, there is a sinking of the dignity of the Son of God, as a dying Mediator, into a mere prophet and witness; and there is a dreadful risk and hazard to the souls of men, by encouraging them to venture into the presence of God without a sacrifice. This is not a little dispute about the logical relations of the

« AnteriorContinuar »