|
(Continued from p. 248.)
Letter 27, The Sacrifice of Jesus
The doctrine of satisfaction and the necessity of
Jesus’ sufferings and death, appears very mainly to
have been invented by his followers; his whole
conduct very evidently contradicts it. We are told
that, “as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold
many publicans and sinners came and sat down with
him and his disciples; and when the Pharisees saw it
they say unto his disciples, Why eateth your master
with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard
that, he said unto them, They that be whole need
not a physician, but they that are sick. But go
ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy
and not sacrifice; for I am not come to call the
righteous (says he) but sinners to
repentance.”* Nothing can be more express than
this declaration of his; but how contradictory to
the present system of Christianity let any one
judge. Jesus declared that they that be whole need
not a physician, but only those that are sick; but
Christians insist that unless <<358>>both the whole
and sick have one, they must be damned.
Jesus freely declares that he came not to call the
righteous, but sinners, to repentance, but
Christians insist that without faith they
must be damned; repentance not being deemed by them
sufficient. Jesus declares from Hosea* “that God
will have mercy and not sacrifice;” but Christians
contradict him, and strenuously insist that God
could have no mercy without sacrifice. Is it
possible that Jesus should have made such a
declaration, if he knew that he himself was to be
made a sacrifice? nay, a necessary sacrifice,
to which he had, as Christians pretend, devoted and
offered himself willingly and freely?
But it is very plain that all pretensions of this
sort have no manner of foundation; since it was with
the utmost reluctance that he suffered. “My soul is
exceeding sorrowful, even unto death,Ӡ (says he;)
he prayed very fervently, “O my Father! if it be
possible let this cup pass from me.”‡ “Father, if
thou be willing remove this cup from me.Ӥ Here is
what he earnestly desired and what he besought in
the utmost agonies,—such as even made the sweat that
came from him “as it were great drops of blood
falling to the ground.”||
The whole of this transaction, therefore, evidently
evinces that he had not made any such agreement; for
either he knew his death to be necessary, or he was
ignorant of it: if the first, then was his praying
to be exempted from that which was necessary from
that to which he had devoted himself, and from that
which he came to perform, absurd and ridiculous; and
would have been thought so had any common person
acted in the like manner, for how could he so
earnestly pray to be exempted from that which he
knew was necessary for him to undergo, having freely
offered himself? was the desire of saving the world
a matter of such indifference to him!— was his love
to mankind abated?
But if he knew not that his sufferings were
necessary, or that, by his means, the world was to
be saved: then could he not be that divine person
which Christians make him, and consequently, if
infinite satisfaction was necessary, or the death of
God requisite, he could not be the person that could
make it; that he could not be God, is plain, not
only from his whole conduct, but also from the
circumstance of the angel’s descent from heaven to
strengthen him;¶ now for God to be either in such
agonies or to stand in need of another’s
assistance, appears to be such an absurdity, as
surely ought not to be mentioned; for of what
service or use would the divine nature be, if
<<359>>it could not prevent human frailties and
fears from getting the better of it, nor prevent its
triumphing over it?*
On
the whole, I think there redounds no honour to Jesus
from the representation of this whole affair, since
he prayed to be excused from it, and besought it
with bloody sweats, it being done contrary to his
inclination. “Not as I will,” says he, “but as thou
wilt,”† or, “Not my will but thine be done;”‡ so
that, if he was a divine person, he must have an
opposite will to that of the Father, which, if so,
it will be difficult to make it consistent; and
either the Jews contracted no guilt, since there
could be no salvation obtained without his
sufferings; or salvation must be made the
consequence of an obnoxious wicked act!
To
these sad dilemmas are they reduced. We are told
“that the whole economy of man’s redemption is
everywhere represented to us as an unsearchable
mystery of divine wisdom and goodness, and as the
object of our belief, and not of our
comprehension;Ӥ but, as this is the foundation on
which the whole superstructure is built, I think
that if the same be proved to be false, everything
that is built thereon must fall; for can that be
made a matter of belief, which we not only do not
comprehend, but is contradictory in itself?
Neither can it be made to answer any end or purpose
at all; for as to original sin, they do not pretend
that it is atoned for, it being an article of faith
that all that are born are enemies to God and slaves
of the devil, and children are doomed by the Romish
Church to limbo if they die before baptism, and the
reformed condemn those that are born of parents not
baptized to damnation; this they do for original
sin, of which the children are most innocent, so
that Jesus’ death was of no service.
And as to actual sin, we are as subject to be
carried away by the flesh as our forefathers were;
the same inclination, the same proneness to vice
predominates in our weak natures, and experience
will teach us that there is not the least
alteration; so that his suffering wrought in us no
cure. And, as to any spiritual benefit, it is plain
that by this scheme the world is in a worse
condition than it was before; for the Jews by the
law of Moses, and the gentiles by that of nature,
obtained salvation; but now the elect only are to be
saved, and this saving doctrine is contracted to
such narrow limits that it extends no farther than a
particular sect; for the Roman Catholics send the
reformed of all sects to the devil, and these in
their turn do the like <<360>>not only by them, but
by all of different sects; for salvation is en
grossed, and made the sole privilege of those within
their own pale, and to the rest of mankind they show
no mercy, as appears by their creeds.
What was it, then, that his death redeemed the world
from?—Was it the cause of introducing true religion?
his death for that purpose was needless, and it
might have been done without his suffering. But
where, or among what sect or party is this true
religion to be religion?—Is it in the Romish Church?
This the others contradict. Is it to be found in
many particular sects? This will be denied by all.
This now being the case, of what benefit were Jesus’
sufferings and death?—Could they, in fact, show the
benefit thereof, and demonstrate the cures pretended
to be wrought by them: then indeed they might boast,
and have some reason to apply the prophecy to him;
but to pretend to impute it to him without proving
the effects, is very extraordinary.
How inconsistent are Christians to their doctrines!
They tell us that Jesus atoned and made satisfaction
for original sin, and yet declare that children are
born with it. But again they pretend that it is done
away by baptism, his death benefiting those only who
received it,—all others continuing under its penalty
the same as if he had not suffered; so that to be
free
from original sin (for which no one ever thought
himself in any wise accountable) his death is not
sufficient; the atonement being made to consist in
baptism, or in being sprinkled with water.
And after all, they place the efficacy of the cure
in the imagination; for they will tell you that
Jesus did his part, and by his death freed every one
from this sin; but it is necessary that you think
so, for otherwise you can receive no benefit from
it. You must therefore first think yourself under
God’s curse and indignation, and then imagine Jesus
had freed you from it; that is, you must imagine
yourself sick, and then imagine Jesus has cured you,
and then you are sound and well; but if you have not
strength of imagination sufficient to make you think
yourself sick, and consequently, that you stand in
no need of medicine, why then, and in such case,
Adam’s eating the forbidden fruit will rise in
judgment against you, and you must be eternally
damned.
Is
not mankind by this redemption scheme in a much
worse condition than it was before? Was this the
inestimable blessing which the world received by his
death? Perhaps one in a thousand will be saved, and
all the rest are to be damned. Now, how he carried
our sorrows and our griefs, or how he bore our
iniquities and our transgressions, or how he made
atonement for our sins, and in what manner he
justified us, are things which I confess I am not
able to comprehend.
<<361>>
Almighty God has declared that on our repenting and
turning to Him with a reformed life, He would accept
and pardon us;* such acceptance on our repentance
and amendment being also agreeable to reason, and to
God’s mercy and goodness. The case must always have
been so, had Jesus suffered or not. Besides, if
Jesus made satisfaction for the sins of the world,
the past, present, and to come, then can it be of no
importance whether we be good or bad; for if that be
so, our reward or happiness must be secured thereby,
without good works or virtuous actions on our part.
But it may be pretended that our reward depends
partly on our own merits, and partly on the
satisfaction which Jesus made,—imputing part of his
own righteousness to make up our own deficiency.
To
this I answer, By this scheme Jesus was only a
saviour in part, and the redemption must then be as
incomplete as it is absurd, besides that it takes
from him the merits of having saved the world; for
if our personal righteousness be necessary, or our
repentance and amendment, then cannot his death be
any advantage to us, because upon these terms, as I
before observed, we ever had assurance of being
accepted. Nothing can be more contradictory than to
pretend that a person (and he a just one, too,) was
to suffer, that the wicked might receive reward; for
if that be the case men would be rewarded without
regard to their merits; for personal merits must
necessarily belong to the agent, and are connected
with the very individual, inherent in himself, and
no transfer can be made of them from one agent to
another; consequently, to claim another’s merits is
the most absurd and incoherent scheme that ever was
invented.
Is
it reasonable that a person plead another’s merits,
and pretend to justify himself by faith? —will this
plea of justification avail the greatest villain?
and shall one who practises all the moral duties of
life be damned because he lacks that faith? Can it
be made consistent with either Scripture or reason
(to make faith the reward of the wicked), that
the wicked be rewarded through faith, and to
impute it to them for righteousness; whilst they
deny to the good, who have led a life of goodness
and virtue, the reward due to their merits?
If
God accepts faith, let them trust to it, and let
there be no distinction between moral good and evil;
but if good works be deemed necessary, why shall not
he who practises them be benefited thereby, let him
belong to what sect or society, either choice or
chance may have placed him in? Shall the merits of
one person benefit all that will
plead them, and shall not personal acts and
righteousness <<362>>avail those who practise them?
can anything be more inconsistent with God’s justice
and mercy? Thus you see to what absurdities the
scheme of Jesus’ sufferings and passion leads them.
But in truth this is only an invention, and entirely
fictitious; for let them suppose that the Jews had
received Jesus as their Messiah; that they had
believed him to be God himself, and that they had
paid him, whilst living, the adoration paid to him
by Christians since his death; what must have been
the consequence? must the world have been damned?
this must have been the consequence, because, no
atonement, no justification, no imputed
righteousness, no faith could then have been
pleaded, and of consequence all must perish
everlastingly. Are they, therefore, not obliged to
us for performing the act, though wicked, as
represented, since it brought them salvation? how
ungrateful are they for this benefit?
Jesus underwent a momentary pain, and for that they
reverence and adore him; the Jews were involved in
the same act, they were appointed to the work, but
they brought destruction and damnation on themselves
and posterity by doing their part; and are yet
despised, ill treated, and abused by those very
persons who pretend to reap the benefit. These are
the absurdities attending this incomprehensible
scheme, they are in the right, therefore, to call it
“an unsearchable mystery,” and as such let those who
can believe it.
I
am, &c.
(To be continued.) |
