1 JOHN II. 2.

“AND HE IS THE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS.”

It is impossible to overrate the deep importance of the holy subject presented to us by these blessed words. They lead us to the foundation of the believer’s faith; and announce the great fact upon which our life depends. They bear with them all the deep interests of eternity, for without the atonement we are unquestionably lost, while receiving the atonement we are no less unquestionably safe. Measure therefore, if you can, the difference between the poor unhappy soul spending eternity in the agonies of the damned, and a blessed spirit rejoicing before the throne of God, and filled with delight in the unfettered exercise of holy love, and you may thence gain a scale or standard whereby to estimate the work of Jesus, when he gave himself as the propitiation for our sin.

May the Holy Spirit be with us and direct our investigation! May He take of the things of Christ, and show them unto us! May He so solemnize our hearts by his grace, that, in the spirit of little children, we may search his word with meekness! And may He so enlighten our understanding, that we may be guided by that word into the peaceful enjoyment of his saving truth!

We are to examine, then, the doctrine of atonement, as taught by the Church of England; and in doing so we will endeavour to investigate the end, the plan, and some of the leading characteristics of the work.

I. The end, or purpose; i.e., the object to attain which our Lord was made a propitiation.This object is stated in our Second Article to be, “to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original, but also for actual sins of men.”

There is in every natural heart a deep sense of alienation from God an irresistible conviction that the soul is not safe with him. It pervades all classes and all characters. It is felt by the profligate, for however earnestly he may strive to stifle conscience, he cannot altogether still the conviction that the path he is treading is the way to hell. The moralist feels it, for with all his propriety of outward conduct, and with all the delusive self-satisfaction which he grains from comparing his character with that of others, there remains a still small voice, which assures him, in language not to be mistaken, that in God’s sight he is defective, that God’s will has not been obeyed, and that his law has been most sadly broken. The formalist feels it, for, while, in the earnestness of his religion, he pursues with unremitting zeal his appointed course of rites and services, there is still a want of peace in the inmost recesses of his soul; there is earnestness without love, zeal without joy, religion without peace, and active devotion without any rest in communion with God.

Now this sense of alienation in the heart is nothing more than the echo, or reflection, of God’s testimony in the Scripture. There is a perfect harmony between conscience and the Bible. They both convey God’s testimony, written in the one case on the secrets of the heart, and in the other on the pages of the inspired word. Both acknowledge the sense of alienation. But the Bible goes the farthest, and while the heart can only deplore the fact, the Scriptures explain both its causes and its remedy. Turning, then, to the word of God, we discover that there are two causes for this uneasiness of spirit,—our own sin, and God’s judgment. We are all by nature, according to our Article, “very far gone from original righteousness;” and, according to the language of the Scriptures, “the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; so then they that are in the flesh cannot please God:” words clearly descriptive of an enmity on our part towards him. Then, again, that same Article teaches us that “in every person born into the world this inbred sin deserveth God’s wrath and damnation,” in exact accordance with the same Scripture, which declares, that “the wrath of God is revealed against all unrighteousness and disobedience of men;” showing that on God’s part there is a judicial wrath, and that, as a holy lawgiver, he cannot love the guilty. If any, therefore, inquire the reason of this secret uneasiness in his soul, we reply, that the cause is twofold; it is partly because his own heart is at enmity with God, and partly because God’s holiness is at enmity with him. There is the corruption of his own nature which makes him at variance with God’s will, and there is the curse of unforgiven sin, which shuts him out from all enjoyment of God’s love.

Now the end or object of the atonement is to remove that curse entirely and at once, so that, God being reconciled to the sinner, the sinner may be reconciled to God, and the anxious soul restored to peace. A regret has been expressed that our Second Article was not worded differently, and that it was not written, “to reconcile us to the Father,” instead of, “to reconcile the Father to us.” It is the wish of such objectors to convey the idea that the object of the crucifixion was to remove one only of the causes of separation, and to produce such a moral impression on the mind of the spectator as should soften his heart, and do away with his enmity towards God; they would exclude the thought of God being reconciled to us by the satisfaction of his righteous law. But this is the great and primary effect of atonement, as taught in sacred Scripture. The change in man’s heart is a consequence which follows from it, but the change in God’s regard to the sinner is the one effect immediately produced by it. Its one object was to enable him to spare the sinner without departing from his law, to give full vent to his love without detracting from his holiness, to take the curse away that the sinner, who deserved it, might be loved as an adopted child. “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” [7]

Imagine yourself, then, freely forgiven, with the whole curse gone; loved as if you had never known the smallest taint of sin, beloved by God himself as if you had been holy even as the Son of man, enjoying access to the throne without a fear, and welcomed by Him without a hinderance. Imagine yourself, though lost, fallen, and guilty, thus pardoned, thus beloved, while the holiness of God’s law remains untouched and undiminished, and you see the end or purpose of the atonement on the cross.

II. What, then, was the plan by which this mighty change was effected,—by which God was thus reconciled to man?

It could not be done by the mere remission of sin, for then the law of God would have been dishonoured, the sentence passed would not have been executed, and the pardon of the sinner would have been a departure from the truth of God.

The plan, therefore, which he purposed was in the person of the eternal Son to bear the curse himself, and to make satisfaction for the broken law. In his holiness he could not remit it, so in unutterable love he bore it. What could not be done through bare remission could be done through substitution; and the Son himself was prepared and offered as a substitute. There was never such a person, nor such a scheme. In order to represent man, he became himself perfect man. In order to satisfy the law, he first in his life fulfilled its holiness, and then in his death bore its sentence. Thus the satisfaction for sin was perfect. The law passed sentence on man, and man endured it. The law claimed fulfilment, and man fulfilled it. The law required a worthy substitute for the whole race, and He, with all the attributes of the Godhead, was amply sufficient as a ransom for the world.

Thus his work is sometimes called atonement, because, by his own death, he atoned for sin, or presented an equivalent for the sinner’s guilt; sometimes expiation, because it expiated or took away the wrath due to sin; sometimes it is called satisfaction, because, in his death, he satisfied the law; sometimes oblation, because he was offered on the cross, as the lamb was offered on the altar; and sometimes propitiation, because the wrath of God was propitiated, so that he loves those whom before he regarded with righteous displeasure; but in all cases the leading idea is the same, viz., that punishment was required by God’s righteousness, and that he endured it as the representative or substitute of the sinner. The satisfaction of an unchangeable sentence was its one great object. It was God’s act of homage to the unbending holiness of his law. There was in it the perfect display of two attributes, love and justice; love which prompted him to save the ruined, and justice which required the sacrifice, in order that the purpose of love might be fulfilled. Thus the atonement is the one central point in which “mercy and truth are met together, and righteousness and peace have kissed each other.”

III. From this brief and general view of the doctrine of atonement, we may proceed at once to some of the leading truths respecting it, more especially dwelling upon those which form the distinctive teaching of the Church of England, as contrasted with that of Rome. These may be summed up under three heads:—

(1.) That there can be no other satisfaction for sin.

(2.) That the satisfaction made by our Lord was complete.

(3.) That it was final.

(1.) And, in the first place, it must be obvious that nothing else can make a satisfaction for sin. There is in the human heart a constant tendency to strive after some expiation, a tendency which is seen in Heathen as well as Christian lands, and which is nothing more than the natural effort of the unenlightened heart to shake off the burden of its guilt. But, before the cross of Christ, all such tendencies should at once disappear, and the immeasurable costliness of the Divine remedy should stamp all human schemes with nothingness. If man could do anything to make expiation for his sin, then why did the Son of God suffer? why the great mystery of the incarnation? why the agony in the garden? why the hiding of God’s countenance? and why the assurance that sin is blotted out through the Saviour’s most precious blood? We need only look for a moment to the eternal divinity of the whole plan, to the deep mystery of the incarnation, and to that marvellous fact, that in the hour of his deepest need the Son was forsaken of the Father, to be well assured of the most certain truth, that nothing that man could do could, in any form or any circumstances, avail to make satisfaction for his sin.

The Church of England, therefore, has decided in the Thirty-first Article, after describing the perfection of the work of our Lord,—“And there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone.” But in this respect we are in direct opposition to the Church of Rome, for, although its advocates admit in words the completeness of the atonement, and in theological discussion would trace all merit to it as the fountain-head, yet there are numberless decrees and practices which show too plainly that many other satisfactions have been practically admitted into their system. For example, the Council of Trent decreed, “That such is the abundance of the Divine bounty, that we are able to make satisfaction to God the Father, through Christ Jesus, not only by punishments voluntarily endured by us as chastisements for sin, or imposed at the pleasure of the priests, according to the degree of the offence, and also (and this is an amazing proof of love) by temporal pains inflicted by God himself, and by us patiently borne.” [10] Now, although in this very decree all is said to be through Christ, it must be plain to the practical and simple mind, that there are two new sources of satisfaction opened to the sinner,—the voluntary infliction of penance, and the patient endurance of involuntary pain.

With reference to the latter, it is indeed a beautiful thing to see this fruit of the Spirit abounding in the chastened child of God; the Lord’s love is thereby glorified, and the comforts of the Holy Ghost are brought experimentally to the view. But where do we read that such affliction, or such patience, is to be regarded as expiation? It may be like the refiner’s fire, by means of which the Lord draws out the pure gold for his diadem, for he says himself, “I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction,” but it has no connexion with expiation. The source of expiation is Divine justice, the means of it is punishment, and the end is the satisfaction of the law; the source of chastisement, on the other hand, is love, for “whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth;” the means of it may be sorrow, as the widow wept that she might rejoice over her risen son; but the end is that we are made more like to Christ, for “he does it for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.” Let no afflicted believer, then, suppose that God is angry with him in his trouble, or that by his patient endurance he can make satisfaction for his sin. Rather let him take his sorrow as a pledge of love, as a sweet token that the Lord has not left him to the wanderings of his sinful heart, but is drawing him nearer to himself, and preparing him for a bright place in the coming kingdom of his Lord.

And as for the other idea, that our own self-inflicted pains can make satisfaction for our sins, we need scarcely look even to the scriptural testimony for its overthrow. If a man were left for execution by an earthly judge, would his sentence be remitted if it were proved that, during his imprisonment, he had thought it right to abstain from meat? And if God’s heavy wrath frowns on a soul, and his justice demands the execution of his law, is it likely, I ask, that the sentence should be remitted because the sinner has thought it right to do penance for a week? The Catechism of Trent even presumes to say that penance is “as it were, a compensation for sin.” [11] Now, what penance can make a compensation to God? what acts of repentance are there so perfect that they do not themselves require to be repented of? and, if any such could be found, how could they make satisfaction for sin? how could the right of to-day be a compensation for the wrong of yesterday? No; if that were our hope, we might weep till the ocean overflowed with the deep tide of our penitential tears; we might lacerate and emaciate the poor human frame till it could no longer contain the worn and peaceless spirit; but, after all, there could be no peace, no satisfaction, no propitiation of God’s justice, and therefore no relief from the weight and burden of our sin. No; we must abandon all thoughts of satisfaction, and throw ourselves as we are before the cross of Christ, in a simple reliance on the one great fact, that he, as our perfect substitute, has blotted out the whole by his own most precious blood. Our satisfaction is that Christ has died, and that alone is sure to be sufficient, for it was purposed by the Father in his own eternal counsels; our atonement has been made by the spotless Redeemer, the eternal Son, and while we adore its full perfection, we give up all thoughts of mixing with it, or adding to it, the poor, defective, imperfect, sin-stricken efforts, which frail, feeble man may strive to make in order to effect a yet further compensation for his sin.

(2.) It is complete; i.e., according to the language of our Articles, it is a “perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction.” It is amply sufficient for the completion of the purposed work, the removal of God’s curse, and his full reconciliation to the lost and guilty sinner.

Now, in order to this completeness there are two things plainly necessary; viz., that it should be free in its application, and perfect in its effect; or, in other words, that the pardon procured by it should be both free and full; free, for it must reach to the lowest depths of the sinner’s fall, or it can never open the door of life to those who are lost in sin; and full, for when it blots out sin, it must blot it out completely, or it can never admit the pardoned believer to the peaceful enjoyment of the love of God.

When, therefore, we speak of a full satisfaction, we include both these truths, and in both these respects we are at direct variance with Rome.

As to the first, it is the doctrine of the Church of England that the work wrought out by Him was so complete, that there was nothing left for the sinner to do, in order to qualify himself for pardon, but that salvation is offered us on the simple terms, “Believe, and live.” “We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” [12]

It is extremely difficult to give any short and clear definition of the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon the subject, for it is a complicated maze, through which her followers are obliged to tread. But the idea throughout is that there must be something in us, as it were, to meet the work of atonement, some satisfaction on the part of the sinner, to qualify him for the reception of the satisfaction of the Lord. In words they would state that the atonement was complete, but in its application of it to ruined souls they neutralize the statement, by demanding something on our part as a condition of our being pardoned through it. It is as though the veil of the temple had been rent from the top almost to the bottom, but still a small fragment left which the sinner must divide, before he can go in before the mercy-seat. It is as though there were a debt of 100l., or any other sum, and the creditor said to the debtor, Your friend has paid the whole, and you shall be free, provided that you now pay down 1l. It matters not what is the character, or what the amount of the remaining sum, which the debtor is required to pay in order to procure the gift of proffered freedom; the simple fact of any such demand destroys the perfection of the ransom of the substitute. As Hooker said of this same system, “I cannot stand now to unrip this building, and sift it piece by piece,” and I believe there is no occasion to do so, as none who are acquainted with Romish teaching can deny that there is some such demand made on every adult before the Lord’s atonement can be made efficacious for his pardon. In some cases the thing demanded is personal sanctification, according to which a person must be holy before he can be justified in his Lord. “If any man shall say that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or the sole remission of our sins, and not by grace and charity, which is diffused in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, and is inherent in them, let him be anathema.” [13a] Sometimes it is good works, as in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which declares that through the atonement we obtain by good works two great benefits, “one that we deserve the rewards of immortal glory—the other that we make satisfaction for our sins.” [13b] The whole, it says, “depends on the merit of our Lord’s passion;” but the good works are represented as acts on our part, through which that atonement is made effectual to our case. Sometimes it is penance, through which mortal sin after baptism is said to be remitted, and of which the Council of Trent decrees, “Whoever shall affirm that the satisfactions by which penitents redeem themselves from sin through Christ Jesus, are no part of the service of God, but on the contrary, human traditions which obscure the doctrine of grace, and the true worship of God, and the benefits of the death of Christ, let him be anathema.” [13c]

Now believers in the Bible are not afraid boldly to say, “Let that anathema rest on us,” for we do believe from the bottom of our heart that the doctrine of grace is obscured and neutralized by such a system of human satisfaction. We believe it to be utterly impossible for penitents to redeem themselves from sin by any satisfaction whatsoever. “It cost more to redeem their souls, so that they must let that alone for ever.” We believe at the same time that there is no such satisfaction needed, but that the whole judgment has been so completely borne, as to lay open the treasury of life to the sinner, even in the lowest depths of his ruin; so that when he has nothing to bring, and can have nothing, and has no prospect of ever having anything at any future time, we can proclaim to him in the words of the Holy Ghost, “Ho! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.”

But before we quit the subject of the completeness of the atonement we must remember its fulness or perfection towards the pardoned believer. We have found that the completeness of the atonement is practically neutralized by the demand of some human satisfaction, in order that the Lord’s propitiation may be made applicable to the sinner; but now another question arises, of the deepest possible importance,—Is the sinner, when forgiven, forgiven completely? Is his sin fully or only partially blotted out? Hitherto we have spoken merely of the man seeking forgiveness, and found how he is required by the Church of Rome to do something before he can reach up to the atonement; now let us proceed a step further, and examine the case of one who has obtained it, i.e., of the pardoned believer,—of the accepted child of God. How does he stand with reference to those sins which have been pardoned through the blood of propitiation? Does any portion of the guilt or charge of them lie against him after his forgiveness? or is the whole removed and blotted out for ever?

It may appear strange to some that I have even raised the question, for the language of sacred scripture is so plain and so often repeated, that those who are familiar with its pages will at once call to mind a host of passages, which place the matter beyond the range of controversy. “Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow; and though they be red like crimson they shall be as wool.” If they are as white as snow, there is surely no stain left. “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” There is therefore no trace or recollection of its blot. “There is therefore now no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus.” There cannot therefore be a guilt or a condemnation left. “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him;” i.e., that the righteousness of God might be imputed to us, just as our guilt was laid upon him; and if that is the case, can there be any vestige left, any remnant of the stain or curse? Surely guilt must be gone if we stand before the throne in the righteousness of Jesus. There is no stain on his garment, no defect in his love. It is perfect, spotless, and untainted for eternity; and the believer, who is clad in it, may cast to the winds all thought of punishment for bygone sin, and let his soul repose in the peaceful enjoyment of unimpeded love.

But now contrast with this the teaching of the Church of Rome. The Council of Trent decreed, “If any man shall say that after the gift of justification has been received, sin is so remitted to any repentant sinner, and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out, that there remains no debt of temporary punishment to be endured either in this world, or in the world to come, in purgatory, before a way can be opened into the kingdom of heaven, let him be anathema.” [15a] You observe, that the persons alluded to in the decree are justified believers, by whom the gift of justification has been already received, and whose sin is remitted; you observe also that the state of mind in which they are described is that of true repentance, for they are said to be “repentant sinners;” and yet the decree distinctly declares that there still hangs over them the remaining punishment of unforgiven sin. It is true that the punishment is described as temporary, but the fact that there is any punishment at all is a virtual denial of the completeness of the atonement, for there can be no punishment if there is no remaining charge of sin; and there can be no remaining charge, if all has been satisfied by the blood-shedding of the Lord.

But let us refer to one other extract. In the Catechism of Trent an explanation is given of the doctrines defined in the decrees, and there we find the same distinction between eternal and temporal punishments; we find also a distinction between God’s mercy and his justice, and it says of God, that “through his mercy he forgives sins, and the eternal punishments due to them; through his justice he punishes the man with punishments of limited duration.” [15b] The justice, therefore, of God is described as still in exercise against the believer. The Scriptures teach us that, being satisfied, it is enlisted on our behalf, for “if we confess our sins,” he is not merely merciful, but “is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” How, I would ask, can it be just to forgive, because of the merit of a finished expiation, and at the same time just to demand a fresh expiation from this forgiven sinner for his forgiven sin? and what has become of the completeness of that satisfaction which the Lord wrought out for us as our substitute, if the justice, after all, be not fully satisfied, but the wrath of God still hangs over the accepted soul?

These extracts, however, merely explain the general theory, and we shall probably be able to understand it better if we examine an instance of its practical application.

We shall find just such an instance in the case of purgatory. The Catechism of Trent declares of it, “Besides (hell) there is a fire of purgatory, in which the souls of the pious, being tormented for a define time, expiate their sin, that so an entrance may be opened to them into the eternal country, into which nothing defiled can enter.” You observe that according to these words, the persons in purgatory are pious believers, heirs of the kingdom, blessed spirits, who are about to reign with Christ. You observe, in the next place, that they are in the torture of fire, not gently and sweetly spiritualised, but burnt up and tortured; and you observe, in the third place, that the purpose of it is to make expiation for their sin. It is not to purify or refine, to chasten, that so they may be partakers of God’s holiness; but it is to expiate, to make atonement, to satisfy that unsatisfied justice, of which we read in the preceding extract. They are said to make an expiation by torture, in addition to that which the Saviour has already made for them by his blood. His expiation is represented as not enough to introduce them to the kingdom, but is said to leave them with so much of sin’s defilement, that their own burning is required to complete the work.

Now we would earnestly put it to every conscientious Roman Catholic, Can such a system be reconciled with the teaching of the Scripture respecting the Lord’s atonement? Did the Son of God really offer himself as our ransom, and was that ransom so insufficient that our own expiation is required still? Did God legally declare that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, and yet does he condemn those very persons to expiating torments in purgatorial flame? Are we made through his atonement the righteousness of God in him, and yet are we held so accountable for sin as to lie for centuries under his heavy wrath? Has he really promised, “Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more,” and yet does he remember those very sins for centuries, while, in the exercise of unrelenting justice, he demands expiation from a suffering soul? Oh! no, brethren, “By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified:” he hath blotted out the curse, and blotted it out completely; he hath rent the veil from the top to the bottom, and removed all barriers between the sinner and the throne. We need no expiation, or satisfaction, to qualify us for the reception of the atonement, for it reaches down to the lowest point of our ruin, and proclaims to the most guilty, “Thy curse is borne, believe and live.” It needs no second expiation to fill it up and perfect it, for there is not a spot left in the garment which he cleanses, not a sin imputed to the blessed saint whom he justifies. Only let each of us be found amongst the number, pardoned through the atonement and accepted, through the righteousness of Christ. Then we may go without fear to the throne of grace, and boldly cry, Abba Father; then we may feel the deepest conviction for indwelling sin, but may rest in the fact that there is no condemnation, and may feast the soul in the full enjoyment of everlasting love; then we may adopt with heartfelt gratitude the ever-memorable words of Hooker,—“I must take heed what I say; but the Apostle saith, ‘God made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.’ Such are we in the sight of God the Father, as is the Son of God himself. Let it be counted folly, or frenzy, or fury, whatsoever, it is our comfort and our wisdom; we care for no knowledge in the world but this, that man hath sinned, and that God hath suffered; that God hath made himself the Son of man, and that men are made the righteousness of God.” [17]

(3.) And now we may proceed to the last subject of our remark; viz., that this atonement is final, that is to say, that there can be no possibility of repetition, no second propitiation, no re-enactment of the scene on Calvary.

That there can be no further offering of any kind whatever, follows at once from the perfection of our Lord’s atonement. If the whole curse of sin has been blotted out for ever, what place is there for any further propitiation? What can cleanse that which is already white as snow? What sin can be laid on the victim, when we are made the righteousness of God in Christ? What can satisfy a law which has been long since satisfied in Christ? What can make expiation for a curse, when the curse itself has been already blotted out through his blood?

Nor is this the inference of merely human reason. If it were, we might well distrust it, for what is the human intellect to dive into the unfathomable depths of eternal wisdom? But it is the conclusion drawn by St. Paul, under the direct inspiration of the Spirit. In the ninth and tenth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, he is led to the discussion of this very subject. If you study the passage from chap. ix. 25 to chap. x. 18, you will observe that the whole argument turns upon this principle, that an offering, if imperfect, requires repetition,—if perfect, is final. “The law,” he says, “having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices, which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect; for then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.” In other words, these sacrifices being merely shadows, and being ineffective to the perfecting of the conscience, were repeated year by year; but had they been perfect, they would at once have ceased for ever. Repetition, therefore, is the result of imperfection, and where there is full remission, there can be no more sacrifice for sins. It is impossible, therefore, to admit the idea of any further propitiation whatever, of any kind, or by any person, without throwing reflection on that wrought out for us by the Lord. If his work is perfect, there can be no repetition needed; and if any fresh oblation is still required for the putting away of sin, it can only be because there was some defect or failure in the great work wrought out by our Lord upon the cross. If, as he said, it was finished then, it is quite impossible it should be repeated now.

Still less can there be any second offering of our Lord Jesus Christ himself. It would be strange to suppose that there could be any fresh propitiation made by any fresh victim, but stranger still would be the idea that the Saviour himself, the Son of God, should again suffer for man. The whole plan of the Gospel from the beginning to the end is a uniform contradiction to such a thought. There was a long and progressive work planned in eternal wisdom for the Holy One, of which his incarnation, his life, his death, his resurrection, his ascension, his mediation, and his coming reign are successive steps. And all these are essential to each other; his mediation, e.g., is essential to his atonement, and his atonement to his mediation. If there had been no atonement there could have been no mediation, for there would have been no offering to present; and if there had been no mediation, then the atonement had been valueless, for there had been no priest to present it before God. So, again, with the crucifixion and the resurrection; had there been no death there could have been no resurrection, and had there been no resurrection, there would have been no acceptance of the perfect satisfaction in the death. We are therefore to regard the whole as one divinely appointed work, and we learn that as at the appointed time it was necessary to redemption that Christ should die, so now that the resurrection day is past, it is no less needful that he should live. It would subvert the whole plan and economy of the Gospel to suppose that he could be a second time offered. It would utterly neutralize the resurrection, for when he rose from the dead he was accepted in the completeness of his satisfaction, and welcomed with the words, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” [19] It is no less opposed to the doctrine of his mediation, for it is a living priest that we require, and it is because he ever liveth that “he is able to save to the uttermost all them that come unto God by him.” And it is no less in violation with every description of his glory, for though he appears in heaven as the Lamb, that has been slain, he has declared from that very throne that he can be slain no more: “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold I am alive for evermore.”

I need not say that these are the principles of the Church of England. They are distinctly contained in the sentence of the Article, “the offering of Christ once made.” Whether or not they are the principles of the Church of Rome, I leave you to judge from the following extracts from the decrees of the Council of Trent respecting the Mass:—

“And since the same Christ who once offered himself by his blood on the altar of the cross, is contained in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, and offered without blood, the Holy Council teaches that this sacrifice is really propitiatory, and made by Christ himself; so that if we approach God contrite and penitent, with a true heart and sincere faith, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid. For assuredly God is appeased by this oblation, bestows grace, and the gift of repentance, and forgives all crimes and sins how great soever; for the sacrifice which is now offered by the ministry of the priests is one and the same as that which Christ then offered on the cross, only the mode of offering is different.” [20a]

Now looking at these words you observe that they contain two or three most startling statements.

(1.) That there is a propitiatory sacrifice offered continually.

(2.) That the reason of this propitiatory sacrifice is that God is not yet appeased, or, in other words, that the atonement is incomplete, for it says, “God is appeased by this oblation.”

(3.) That the victim offered is the very same, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ. The wafer is said to be transubstantiated into the living person, body, soul, and divinity, of the Lord, and as such to be offered without blood upon the altar; as is yet more distinctly stated in the Catechism, where it says: “We confess that the sacrifice offered in the Mass is one and the same as that offered on the cross; seeing that the victim is one and the same; namely, Christ our Lord, who offered himself as a bloody offering once only on the altar of the cross, for the bloody and unbloody victims are not two victims, but one only, whose sacrifice, according to the Lord’s commands, Do this in remembrance of me, is daily renewed in the Eucharist.” [20b]

Now, if there be any Roman Catholic here to-night, I would most earnestly ask of him, how such language can be reconciled with the clear statements of the Word of God? Mark how St. Paul, in the chapters to which I have referred, again and again declares that there can be no fresh offering of the Lord. He says, in chap. ix. 26, “Now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Can he, then, be appearing daily in his human person, that he may be sacrificed again? He says, chap. ix. 28, “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;” and chap. x. 10, “By the which will we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Is it possible, then, that he should be offered every Sunday on ten thousand Romish altars? He says, chap. x. 12, “This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin, for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” How then can we believe that be is now dying as a second sacrifice upon earth? He says, x. 14, “By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” and if that one offering is sufficient to give to us all a full and perfect justification before God, how can those who are thus perfected admit the idea of a second sacrifice to appease God’s justice, and a second victim to obtain forgiveness at his hands? No, dear brethren, that one offering was once and for ever. It was “eternal redemption” that the Lord then obtained for us. Eighteen centuries have passed since it was offered, and have borne down in their passage thousands and tens of thousands of happy spirits, who, washed in that living fountain, have found a peaceful reception in the Lord. They have each one borne with them the sad taint of deep corruption, and have grieved in spirit over indwelling sin. They have been placed in various spheres in life, some buffetted by the rough adventures of this stormy world, some led through the fire of persecution, and called as witnesses for Christ to stand alone in their faith; while others have been led in the softer dealings of the Spirit by smoother paths, and to more gentle resting-places; but all have gained their strength from one source, and derived their peace from one truth—that source Christ Jesus; that truth the one most certain fact, that the Lord has made on the cross a full, perfect, and sufficient satisfaction for their sin. Upon it they lived, upon it they died, by it they triumphed, and through it they will all be presented faultless at the coming.

And that fountain is as fresh now as ever; that atonement is as perfect in its application to us as it was to them. We too have our indwelling sin, our deep inbred corruption, which without atonement must destroy us for eternity, but we have the atonement, and resting in it we may be safe.

Now the whole controversy with Rome turns on the power and application of that atonement to the conscience of sinners. It is not a question of mere historical antiquity, or ecclesiastical genealogy, but one involving the soul’s peace. The soul needs peace, and in the Scriptures peace is promised. “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you,” was the clear and unfailing promise of the Lord. But in order to [obtain] that peace we must receive the atonement as God has revealed it, viz., as a full, perfect, and final expiation for our sin. How can there be peace while we are striving to effect an impossibility, and to make satisfaction to that broken law which could only be satisfied by the blood of the Son of God? How can there be peace while we are toiling to reach the atonement instead of simply trusting it, and hoping by holiness, good works, and penance to make such a qualifying righteousness, as shall fit us for the reception of the grace of God? How can there be peace if the justice of God still hangs over the accepted believer, and requires centuries of purgatorial flame as a further expiation for his forgiven sin? How can there be peace if we are to regard the work on the cross as still requiring repetition in the mass, and directed to the Saviour as still offered on the altar instead of mediating at the right hand of God?

Away then with all thoughts of any human satisfaction, of anything that man can do to make a compensation for his sins! Our one compensation is the fact that the Lord Jesus has endured the curse of all. Away with all limits to that work of his, which may either fetter its freedom or detract from its fulness! our hope is that it reaches down so low that the guilty sinner need bring nothing as the purchase of his reconciliation, and it rises so high that he stands accepted in the righteousness of God. Away with all thoughts of either requiring or presenting any fresh propitiation, with all idea of offering a second time the risen Lord, who now reigns exalted on the throne. The one great propitiation was enough, and we want no more. We know that there is deep corruption eating into the very heart’s core; we know that we cannot stand a moment before God without atonement, but we know also—and we hope to spend eternity in praising God for that blessed knowledge, that the atonement then made was perfect; and that he who then died our death now lives to perfect our life. On him therefore we cast the whole burden, without limitation, as without reserve, and trusting to him and his work, we find peace and salvation for our souls.