Part 2

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 100_l._, 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 1_l._ 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.