Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

While, on the other hand, the foregoing observations, as would be but natural to suppose, was in fact the case, evidently bring into view the FATHER as sitting to hold the rights of government, while the SON was acting the part of a servant; and having himself a glorious and awfully majestic part to act, while a sin-offering is made by Christ, we behold the high and holy character of HIM to whom it is made; and, see the awful manifestations of that divine displeasure, the exhibitions of which can no more be suppressed, than God himself can cease to be infinitely holy; or can be restrained from expressing, in his government over a fallen world.

CHAP. VII.

In which it is shown that the anger of God which appeared, and was expressed, in the sufferings of Christ; was really against sinners.

SOME have apprehended that it is impossible the sufferings of an innocent person, should express anger against the guilty; And, on this ground have supposed it absurd to consider Christ as, in any sense, a substitute, in his sufferings, for sinners. Therefore against the idea of atonement being made by the sufferings of Christ, it is objected that "we cannot comprehend how the punishment, or sufferings of "an innocent person, should express displeasure against the guilty."

[ocr errors]

66

THIS objection implies that it is essential to the character of God, that in his providential government, he should treat every one according to his own character and deserts: And that as far as natural good and evil, brought on moral beings, express the divine approbation, or the contrary; the glory of God, and

the rectitude of his government requires that he confer only good on the righteous, and evil on the vicious. On this hypothesis, therefore, either one or the other of the following things must be true: viz.

1. THAT it is inconsistent with the character of God, and the rectitude and glory of his government, to exercise mercy to sinners in delivering them from the natural evils their sins deserve. For, according to the objection before us, in the rewards and punishments of the future world, God only expresseth his approbation and disapprobation of the several characters of the different persons who are the subjects of them. If it be impossible for God to express displeas ure against sinners, by bringing natural evil on Christ;" it must be equally impossible for God to express approbation of the character of Christ, by conferring natural good on sinners. If God can intelligibly express his approbation of the obedience of Christ by conferring blessings on sinners; he can intelligibly express his abhorrence of the disobedience of men, by laying the curse on Christ. The objection supposeth it absurd that there should be an interchange of persons, between Christ and sinners, as to the blessing and the curse of obedience and the reverse. And if this be absurd, the salvation of sinners is not to be considered as the reward of Christ's obedience; but of their own penitence and return to their duty. And consequently the design of Christ's coming into the world, could be no more than to bring the good news that penitence shall obtain pardon; and of his death," to seal the truth of it with his blood, On this supposition all the blessings that will ever be confered on the followers of Christ, in the future world, are to be considered only as so many marks of the divine approba tion of their characters: And there is no other meritorious cause of the salvation of sinners, than their own penitence and return, to their duty. This, it is

easy to see, at once excludes every idea of gospel mercy, and of the meritorious righteousness of Christ as a ground of the salvation of sinners. If the salvation of sinners be only a reward of their own penitence and obedience, all ideas of gospel-grace are wholly excluded. For, it is a maxim of the gospel that, to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt.(g)

If it be essential to the glory of God that, in the good and evil he brings on his creatures, he should treat every one according to his deserts: the consequence is that, in his providential government in dispensing blessings and evils, he never doth, in fact, express any displeasure, in any way whatever, against those who are vessels of mercy. From no natural evil whatever, no adversity or sufferings, are we authorised to conclude that there is, or ever was, in the divine mind, the least displeasure against them for any sin they ever committed against God.

On this supposition it is manifest that it is not essential to the glory of God, and the rectitude of that government which he is actually exercising over men,. that he ever should express displeasure against us, for, any of our conduct, by bringing natural evil upon us. For, if, in consistency with the rectitude of this government, he may save a part of the human race without expressing his disapprobation of their conduct by any natural evils whatever; it is evident that the glory of this government could not be sullied, nor the rectitude of it rendered suspicious, by a total suspension of punishments: And, notwithstanding all the wickedness that has taken place; the divine government may appear perfectly equal and glorious, if no sinner be ever punished.

(g) Rom. iv. 4.

[ocr errors]

2. Ir it be admitted that it is essential to the glory of God, and the rectitude of his government, that his anger be in some way expressed, in his providence, against the wickedness of those whom he pardons an saves, the objection before us must imply that divine anger against the sins of men, may be manifested to a degree fully sufficient to support the honor of the government of God, without any natural evils. The objection supposes that the natural evils brought on Christ did not express divine anger against the sins of men; And, that, for this obvious reason, that the punishment, or sufferings of an innocent person, cannot express displeasure against the guilty. If, therefore, these natural evils which were brought on the person of Christ, were not expressions of divine anger against the sins of men; they did not in any way express divine anger: because, it is on all hands admitted that they expressed no degree of anger against Christ.

IF, then, in the sufferings and death of Christ, God expressed no displeasure against the wickedness of the world: it is manifest that, by no natural evils whatever doth he express anger against sinners whom he pardons and saves. And therefore, whatever be the rebellion and wickedness of men, the honor and rectitude of divine government by no means infer a necessity of natural evils; but, the glory and dignity of the character of God may be fully supported without the execution of punishments.

IF, in the sufferings and death of Christ, God expressed any degree of anger whatever; it must have been against sinners: because, no degree of it existed. against Christ. But if, on the other hand, the natural evils endured by the Saviour, were no expressions of divine anger; it most clearly follows that God may, consistently with the rectitude and glory of his gov.

ernment, pardon and save sinners without expressing by natural evils any degree of displeasure against them for their sins. And, if God may do this consistently with the rectitude and glory of his government; he may, also, consistently with the moral law, which is the great rule of his moral government. For, whatever God may do consistently with the honor of his government, he may also do, consistently with the honor of his law: And, of course, the law itself doth not require that the sinner should be punished. So long, therefore, as we believe that, neither the glory of the divine character, the rectitude of his government, nor the honor of his law, require that sinners. should be punished; we cannot possibly, with the least reason, entertain any fears or expectations of future punishment: but, must, of necessity, view all the awful threatnings of the law only as so many scare-crows held out to terrify weak minds.

THESE are the obvious and necessary consequences of denying the necessity of punishments, in the divine government, when moral evil hath actually taken place.. To this conclusion will the sentiment that God may consistently pardon and save sinners without expressing, by any natural evils, his displeasure against them, evidently lead, and, in this will it manifestly termi

nate.

BUT, if it be granted, on the other hand, that the honor of the divine government forbids that sinners should be pardoned and saved without God's expressing in some way, by natural evils, his righteous displeasure against them, for their sins; it must of course be that this displeasure be expresssed by natu-. ral evils brought on an innocent person: because the salvation in question, is from such and only from such natural evils as the sinner deserves. If this displeasure be expressed by natural evils trought on the sin

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »