|
(Continued from p.
42)
The 53d chapter of Isaiah is famous amongst
Christian expositors; the whole is applied to and
explained of Jesus. They tell us that he is therein
described and represented, as a person despised and
rejected, as a man of sorrow and acquainted with
grief; as one on whom the sins of the whole world
were to be laid, as one who should offer himself to
an ignominious death and be chastened for our
transgressions and iniquities,—thereby redeeming
lost mankind and working their reconciliation with
an infinite and offended God,—atoning with his life
and suffering for original and actual sin; the whole
human race (as they pretend) being slaves of the
devil, and under God’s wrath and damnation, as
partakers of Adam’s sin;—God requiring infinite
satisfaction, which not being in the power of any
finite creature to make, could only be done by Jesus
as being both God and man.
It
is ready surprising to what lengths they stretch
these doctrines; asserting that no person
<<244>>can be saved by his own merits, making salvation
attainable only by the merits of Jesus (that is
declaring we are only to be saved by proxy); and
they will have all good or beneficent works to be
sinful without faith in Jesus, holding all accursed
who believe they shall be saved by the law, or sect
which they follow. Thus one absurdity giving rise to
another, they banish that charity which on many
occasions they pretend to be the distinguishing
characteristic of their religion, but with what
little foundation I appeal to their creeds, as these
doctrines and inventions are the foundation of the
present system of Christianity, and are the
consequences of, and have their foundation on
original sin, from whence they draw a pretence for Jesus’s sufferings and ignominious death, and the
necessity of infinite satisfaction, that is the
necessity of one God dying to satisfy another, or
the same God.
It
will be necessary to sift this matter and show its
absurdity, and prove that there is no manner of
foundation either in reason or Scripture for such
invention; for, as is judiciously observed, one of
God’s revelations cannot contradict another,
because He gave us the first to judge all others
by.* It will be, therefore, vain to pretend that
these doctrines are above reason, if they contradict
reason and common sense; that being the criterion by
which all doctrines must be judged.
It
is very plain and evident that Adam and the rest
concerned in original sin, had sentence pronounced
on them by God himself, which sentence was inflicted
on the offenders; we have it in the following words:
“And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because
thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all
cattle and above every beast of the field; upon thy
belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat, all the
days of thy life; and I will put enmity between thee
an the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, it
shall bruise thy head and thou shall bruise his
heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly
multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow
shall thou bring forth children, and thy desire
shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast
hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten
of the tree which I commanded thee, saying, Thou
shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground for thy
sake, in sorrow shall thou eat of it all the days of
thy life,Ӡ &c.
This was God’s own definitive sentence, which being
executed on the different (or several) offenders,
will any one say that God required either a greater
or a different satisfaction than that which
<<245>>he himself imposed? Can any one say, that He
was not satisfied with his own judgment?
Go
wiser thou, and in thy scale of sense
Weigh thy opinions against Providence.—Pope.
Can there be a greater absurdity and contradiction,
than to pretend that God himself must suffer that He
may pardon? How inconsistent (not to say impious)
are such doctrines! how unacquainted must those who
propagate, and inculcate such notions, be of God and
his attributes! Is it to be imagined that the sin of
our first parents, after judgment and sentence
executed, should again be revived after some
thousands of years? What tribunal or court of
justice would allow this? Or who could be the
appellants? Was it Adam that appealed against his
Maker, or did the Almighty appeal against himself,
or his sentence? Is not such a proceeding, in fact,
inflicting punishment on the Deity, as if He were
the aggressor for giving a merciful sentence against
Adam?
Snatch from his hand the balance and the rod,
Rejudge his justice, be the God of God. —Pope.
Can anything be mom ridiculous? and shall we believe
people, nay, learned people are serious, when they
pretend to impose such absurdities for doctrines?
It
is pretended that God being infinitely offended,
required infinite satisfaction; but can God require
of his creatures that which He never put in their
power to give? Can we consistently with the natural
notion we have of God, think He can act thus with
his creatures, or that He in his infinite goodness
can ever require more than is in our power to give?
or can finite creatures give infinite offence?
But for argument’s sake let us suppose that such a
satisfaction was necessary, and then let them tell
us, how it was possible that it should be made at
all; for if God the son (as is pretended) be of the
same essence with God the Father, how can one suffer
and not the other? Besides, original sin must have
equally offended the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
since they are all but one, or of one and the same
essence,—for which reason all three
must have aired the like satisfaction; for, as they
all can have but one will, none could pardon without
it; and why might not the Father or Holy Ghost be
mediators as well as the Son, and if one could
pardon or did not require infinite satisfaction, why
not the other?
And if we are told that nothing suffered, by this
satisfaction made on the cross but only the human
nature; then they cannot make out the satisfaction
<<246>>which they pretend was necessary; for if
human sufferings were sufficient, there was no
necessity for any satisfaction to be made by Jesus,
as God and man. Adam, or any of his descendants,
would have done it as well.
But let us inquire farther, Did Jesus make full
satisfaction, or did he do it only in part? If the
first, pray what was it that was pardoned? Why
nothing; for the debt being fully paid, or
satisfaction given, there was then, of course, no
pardon; for supposing you owe me a sum of money, can
it be said that I pardon you anything, on receiving
payment, or satisfaction to the full amount? Would
it not be ridiculous for me to say, I pardon you,
having received the whole? Is it not equally absurd
to say pardon was obtained, when full satisfaction
was made and given? But we may be told, that though
full satisfaction could not be made, yet, that God
accepted it, and took it for such; if so, then must
they allow, that God can pardon without full
satisfaction, which, if He can, how absurd must it
be, to say He required infinite satisfaction; and
why He might not pardon Adam, on the punishment he
inflicted, will be impossible for them to show.
In
short, they are reduced to this dilemma: if Jesus
made full satisfaction, then there was no pardon;
and if he did not make full satisfaction, then there
was no necessity for either his sufferings or death.
The Messiah, say they, was to die for the sins of
the world; grant he did so; the natural consequence
must then be, that mankind were restored; but
nothing like this is pretended, for inquire in what
the restoration consisted, and it vanishes to a mere
nothing. Was the human race restored to any of its
forfeited dignities? no; was there any alteration in
their affairs? no; did the Jews to whom the Messiah
was promised as the greatest worldly blessing,
receive any benefit or advantage by his coming? no;
on the contrary, it is pretended, that the doing
that which was necessary to be done, brought on
their ruin.
Can there be anything more inconsistent or
contradictory than to pretend that the salvation of
the whole world could only be brought about by the
ignominious death of a person, and that the very act
that introduced this salvation excluded those very
people, through whose means it was obtained, from
the benefit of it? How the Jews are upbraided for
that very act, let all their writers witness; one
and all agree, that for this sin not only their city
and temple were destroyed, but that they brought
thereby damnation on themselves and posterity.
There is something very unaccountable in this
affair; for Jesus must die that the world might be
saved, and the Jews must be damned for the same
reason. That Jesus was to suffer an ignominious
death was pre-ordained, a thing settled by
agreement; to <<247>>this end and purpose, it is
pretended; “he came into the world, the kings of the
earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered
together against the Lord, and against his Christ;
for of a truth against the holy child Jesus, whom
thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate,
with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were
gathered together, for to do whatever thy hand and
thy council determined before to be done.”* That
this was so, is evident from what Jesus himself
tells Pilate: “Thou couldst have no power at all
against me, except it were given thee from above.Ӡ
Who can forbear lamenting this contrivance; who can
forbear crying, O fatal necessity! Is It thus that
the Almighty, the good, the merciful God deals his
blessings to mankind, thus to deceive and doom to
destruction the unhappy instruments which He was
pleased to make use of in saving the world? Who
could have suspected or believed that the Deity, who
fills all things, should so contract his existence
as to be contained in the womb of a woman,‡ that he
should take a human shape, and appear among us in
disguise, doing all he could to hide from those to
whom he was sent not only his divinity, but also the
character of Messiah?§ Was it to be imagined that
the Messiah would in his discourses make use of
nothing but dark sayings and parables, that he might
not be known? or, as he expresses himself, “that
seeing thus, may see and not perceive, and hearing
they may hear and not understand, lest at any time
they should converted and their sins should be
forgiven them?”||
Is
this conduct worthy of God? is this the Messiah,
promised the Jews as their greatest good? Behold him
using all the art he can, from manifesting himself,
“lest at any time they should see with their eyes,
and should understand with their heart and should be
converted, and I should heal them.Ӧ
Could it be imagined, that the Messiah would hinder
the Jews in the means of being healed and forgiven?
“And he said, Unto you it is given to know the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; but to others in
parables, that seeing they might not see, and
hearing they might not understand.”** The Jews did
all in their power to be rightly informed, and only
desired a sign.†† But lest they should be convinced,
they are refused; and a resolution taken to give
them no sign, but, the sign of <<248>> Jonas,* which
in fact was no sign, as it was never made good to
them; for they were excluded from being present or
seeing any of those transactions related of his
resurrection; and I cannot help thinking, that if
his death brought on the desolation of Jerusalem,
and the damnation of the Jews, it was none of their
fault, since the grand secret was never disclosed to
those who ought to have had information.
Of
this Jesus himself seems to have been sensible;
“Father forgive them for they know not what they
do,Ӡ were his last and dying words; and St. Peter
declares the Jews guiltless,—“And now, brethren, I
wot, that through ignorance ye did it, and so did
your rulers.”‡
It
is, therefore a great absurdity to pretend, that the
destruction of the city and temple and dispersion of
the Jews were occasioned by putting Jesus to death.
Was the destruction of the kingdom of Israel (which
happened 700 years before Jesus) owing to his death?
was the destruction of the city and temple by the
Babylonians, owing to his death? were the many and
frequent calamities which befel the Jews, owing to
his death? were the frequent profanations and
pollutions of the temple, and its being so often
taken by different enemies, owing to his death? No;
the Jews will be told, that all these calamities
were brought on them by their manifold crimes; but,
if so, why is not the last destruction of city and
temple imputed to the same cause?
The history of those times furnish such scenes of
wickedness and profaneness, as are not to be
equalled at any other epoch: besides, were not the
Jews subject to the Romans long before the coming of
Jesus? were they not barbarously oppressed and
ill-treated by their extortionate governors, both
before, in his time, and afterwards? was not this,
together with a desire of recovering their
liberties, and the being misled by some crafty and
wicked leaders, that which occasioned their revolt?
They might as well pretend that all the misfortunes,
which befel the Jews before the coming of Jesus,
were owing to his death, as to pretend, that what
afterwards befel them was owing to that event; when
it evidently appears, that this was brought about by
so many concurrent causes.
I
am, &c.
(To be continued.) |
