Notwithstanding the pains commonly taken, by those who are called orthodox, to decry human reason, and to represent their views of religion as founded exclusively on a reference to scripture, there is good reason to believe that many of their characteristic tenets are in reality derived, not from scripture, even ill-understood, but from the tacit influence of some very erroneous ethical principles, and certain notions arising from a hasty analogy between the divine and human laws, to which they have endeavored to bend the discoveries of revelation.
They may very possibly persuade themselves that these false principles are approved by the word of God, but it is not the less true that they are originally derived from reason; or rather from vague, unfounded prejudice, and very er roneous ideas of the leading doctrines of moral science, and the constitution of human society.
Thus, it is a maxim universally assumed by them, and not infrequently, as it appears to me, very unguardedly admitted by their opponents, that, independently of the grace revealed in the Gospel, under the system of law founded on strict principles of divine justice, there is and can be, no place for forgiveness, no remission even of repented sin.
The law, as such, we are told, is necessarily unchangeable and inflexible; providing no opening for reconciliation, no ground of pardon and acceptance to the penitent. Its language is, obey, or suffer the penalty. In the case of the divine law, this penalty is death; by which term, we are told, is to be understood, not the termination of this mortal life, but eternal existence in a state of hopeless misery.
We are also assured that, according to strict justice, a single violation of the law, the slightest deviation from perfect righteousness, incurs, at the hands of a just and holy God, this dreadful retribution.
We are even assured that it is essential to the perfection of the divine attributes, that the provisions of the law shall in every case be rigidly enforced in their full extent: God cannot, consistently with His justice, pardon sinners without the exaction of the legal penalty.
He owes it, we are assured, to the perfection of his own character - to the honor of his law - to the vindication of His justice in the eyes of the universe, that every offense should be visited with its appropriate punishment, in the person either of the sinner himself, or of an innocent substitute.
At other times, this tremendous view of the moral administration of the universe, is sought to be illustrated by an imaginary distribution of the divine nature into as many persons as it is possible, according to our imperfect modes of conceiving of these things, to enumerate distinct attributes.
In this way a trinity of trinities might be constructed, forming so many distinct persons, having different characters, offices, and claims, mutually checking and controuling each other, when considered separately, limited and imperfect. Mercy, justice, wisdom, and goodness are personified. And represented as putting in their respective claims, Mercy pleads for the remission of sins, and the admission of the penitent to acceptance with God, but justice is inexorable; it "stands upon a full equivalent, and will not remit one sin without it.
Nothing is more common than for theologians to argue questions of this sort, as if the divine attributes were so many separate existences; or at least were to be considered, if we may be permitted without irreverence to use such an expression, as so many separate parts of the Divine nature. But it is evident that this proceeds entirely upon what has been called the popular, in opposition to the philosophical, conceptions of these attributes, and their relation to the conduct of human beings."
Adapted from the sermon, "Remarks on the Commonly Received Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice" by Rev. William Turner, Jr. (1830)
No comments:
Post a Comment