Part 1

Transcribed from the 1849 J. H. Jackson edition by David Price, email [email protected]

THE ATONEMENT,

AS TAUGHT BY

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

* * * * *

A SERMON, PREACHED IN THE PARISH CHURCH OF ST. MARY, ISLINGTON, ON WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 29, 1849.

* * * * *

BY THE REV. EDWARD HOARE, A.M., OF CHRIST CHURCH, RAMSGATE.

* * * * *

LONDON: PUBLISHED FOR THE ISLINGTON PROTESTANT INSTITUTE, BY J. H. JACKSON, ISLINGTON-GREEN; SEELEYS, FLEET-STREET; AND HATCHARDS, PICCADILLY.

1849.

* * * * *

ALEX. MACINTOSH, PRINTER, GREAT NEW-STREET, LONDON.

* * * * *

ISLINGTON PROTESTANT INSTITUTE.

President.—REV. D. WILSON, M.A.

Treasurer.—GEORGE FRIEND, ESQ.

Committee.

CHILDE, REV. C. F. SMITH, REV. E. HADOW, MR. J. E.

EDMONSTONE, REV. C. STOGDON, REV. A. H. HARDY, MR. JOHN. W. SOUTHERLAND, REV. J. LOVELOCK, MR. E. FELL, REV. H. F. WEIR, REV. J. MARSHALL, MR. SAMUEL. HAMBLETON, REV. J. WILLYAMS, REV. T. E. PECKET, MR. GEORGE. HASLEGRAVE, REV. J. ADAMS, MR. J. SAXTON, MR. E. HEISCH, REV. J. G. FRANCIS. SPURLING, MR. J. HILL, REV. T. B. ATKINSON, MR. R. M. SUTER, MR. E. MACKENZIE, REV. W. B. BENTLEY, MR. WILLIAM. REID, MR. JAMES. NALSON, REV. J. BULLOCK, MR. J. VENN, MR. W. W. OVER, REV. EDWARD. CLACK. MR. —. WADDINGTON, MR. J. PARNTHER, REV. D. ELMER, MR. J. WESTERN, MR. W. PHILLIPS, REV. GEO. ESCREET, MR. THOMAS. WILKINSON, CHAS., SHURT, REV. T. ESCREET, MR. T., JUN. M.D.

SIMPSON, REV. F. G. GREEN, MR. JOHN. WITHERBY, MR. F.

Honorary Secretaries.

REV. J. SANDYS, M.A. MR. D. HAZARD.

REV. R. P. HUTCHISON, B.A. MR. W. PITMAN.

Collector.—MR. LIDDLE, PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, CHURCH-STREET.

RULES.

I. That this Society be called “THE ISLINGTON PROTESTANT INSTITUTE.”

II. That the objects of the Society be to awaken the attention of Protestant Christians to the progress of Popery; to call forth and unite their energies in opposing it; and to form a rallying-point, as well for the defence and promotion of Protestant truth, as for the maintenance of the Protestant principles of the Constitution.

III. That the principal means for the attainment of this object be: the issue of suitable publications; the enrolment of the names of members; public meetings, lectures, and sermons; addresses and deputations to Parliamentary representatives; petitions to the Legislature, or the Sovereign; and correspondence with kindred Societies, with a view to obtain and communicate information.

IV. That the Society be conducted by a President, Treasurer, Committee, and two Clerical and two Lay Secretaries.

V. That Members be of two classes:—

1. That every person contributing a Donation of Five Guineas or upwards, at one time, or an Annual Subscription of Five Shillings or upwards, be a Subscribing Member.

2. That every person from among the operative classes, who shall be recommended by two Subscribing Members, be admissible as a Free Member, subject to annual re-election.

—And that all Members be entitled to attend the General Meetings of the Society, and to receive the Annual Reports, and other publications, as far as the funds will admit, preference being given to the Subscribing Members, to whom also the privilege of voting will be confined.

VI. That a Committee be annually elected, consisting of thirty Lay Subscribing Members, together with all Clergy resident in the parish who are likewise Subscribing Members of the Society, with power to fill up vacancies. That this Committee elect, either from among themselves or from other Subscribing Members, District Sub-committees, with a view to carrying out the objects of the Society generally in the parish.

VII. That the General Committee receive the Reports of the District Sub-committees; determine on the admission and annual re-election of Free Members, in pursuance of Rule V.; regulate all matters of expenditure; suggest plans for general adoption; and supply such publications as may be required for distribution.

VIII. That all publications circulated by the Society be first approved by the General Committee, and bear the stamp of the “ISLINGTON PROTESTANT INSTITUTE.”

IX. That the General Committee meet on the third Monday in every month, and oftener, if needful. Five members to constitute a quorum.

X. That an Annual Meeting of the Members of the Society be held in the month of November, on such day as may be fixed by the General Committee; when the proceedings of the foregoing year shall be reported, the accounts presented, and the Officers and Committee chosen.

XI. That the Secretaries shall call a Special General Meeting on the requisition of not less than twenty Subscribing Members; that such requisition be in writing, and specify the object for which the meeting is to be summoned; and that not less than seven days’ notice be given, by circular, to the Subscribing Members of the Society.

XII. That none of the Rules of the Society be repealed or altered, nor any new ones adopted, but at the Annual Meeting, or at a Special General Meeting called for that purpose.

XIII. That all Meetings of the Society be opened with prayer, and closed with benediction.

XIV. That it be earnestly recommended to all the members of this Society to make its important objects and plans a subject of special and frequent prayer, both in private and in the family.

* * * * *

N.B. 1. Contributions in aid of the Institute will be thankfully received by any of the officers.

2. As the pecuniary qualification for Membership has been fixed at the low rate of 5s., and as every Subscribing Member receives, in the form of publications, considerably more than an equivalent for that sum, it is obvious that the Society can only be maintained by the liberality of such as can afford to contribute more largely to its Funds.

3. All the publications of the Institute may be purchased at Mr. Jackson’s, Bookseller and Publisher, Islington Green.

4. Parties contemplating the formation of similar Societies in any part of the country, are cordially invited to correspond with the officers of the Institute, who will also be thankful for any authentic information and friendly communication from Societies already in existence.

SERMON.

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}