Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ther, which he was not in respect of his Godhead ; for in respect of that he was equal with his Father; Phil. ii. 6. Heb. i. 3: neither can it signify his human nature alone, distinct from us. First.

jection which may arise in the mind of the reader, from the recognition of Abraham's faith in this instance, by Paul in his Epistle to the Heb. xi. 17: but it should be remembered, that Paul introduces the relation with a latitude that admits, with the strictest propriety, the above observations: "by faith, Abraham, when he was tried, "offered up," &c. The idea that Paul affixes to the verb tried, is correspondent with the verb tempt, in the original history: both imply in that connection, an attainment on the part of the person tempting or proving of the end proposed, without an actual compliance with the letter of the command, to the fullness of its extent, on the part of the person tried. The act of the mind proved the energy of his faith; for after he mentally sacrificed his son, he received him in a figure from the dead. Yet, in the sense Abraham regarded the command, and according to its obvious meaning, he did not obey; for when he was upon the point of obeying it, in its most unqualified sense, he was prevented by a messenger from God, which proves, that when God gave the command, he was determined that Abraham should be

[blocks in formation]

First. Had he been set up, it must be either în esteem or in offices: I answer, in both.

First. In respect of esteem or honor. The first honor that our nature had, (and indeed the greatest) was to be taken in relation to God, which

was

prevented from complying with its injunction. How could it be otherwise, if it is admitted that the moral law arises from the nature and not merely from the will of God, as a possitive command does, its authority is unchangeable, and its rights unalienable. Does it say unto one, thou shalt not kill? it says unto all, thou shalt not kill and the law of God arising from his nature, cannot change until God changes. As its rights are as unalienable as its nature is unchangeable, could God in this instance abrogate his law? if in this instance, why not in all: God is no more above his law, nature and as long as God remains holy, just, and good, his law in all its tittles, will remain unrepealed. Had Abraham obeyed the positive order of God in sacrificing his only son, contrary to the moral command, would he not have incured guilt in the breach of that command? and, 'could that guilt be removed by a sovereign act of preterition irrespective of the obedience and atonement of Christ. Whence then did the necessity of the interposition of Christ arise in the behalf

than he is above his

of

was in being taken into personal union with the Union. Son of God: 2 Pet. i. 17.

Secondly. Our nature being thus united to the

Son of God, which was his heir, was made Lord of all by inheritance: Heb. i. 2. 4. Ps. viii.

3, 4. Heb. ii. 6, 7, 8. Oh, infinite Wisdom! Wisdom

Oh,

of murderous David? he was guilty of murder! and had Abraham sacrificed his son, (my mind recoils at the idea of human sacrifices) he would have been guilty of murder also, in the breach of the same law, and the guilt of both acts equiponderant in the balance of divine justice. It may be urged, that had Abraham sacrificed his son, and that being accessary to the death of any person, is a real murder, under whatever circumstances it is perpetrated, that a provision would have been made for the removal of that guilt: but, if a provision had been made, it must have been made by the imputation of the guilt of that act to Christ, and that too from the same date as the existence of the eternal covenant. But the murder was not committed, therefore no guilt could have been imputed. And it appears to me, that if Christ suffered under the weight of one sin more than his church had committed, he suffered `unjustly; and if there are any acts of sin for which he did not suffer, his sufferings will be found not equivalent to the demands of law and

justice.

Oh, infinite Counsel! If thou, Lord, hast said, What is man? surely I have reason to cry out, What is man? Now, if our nature has been thus honored and esteemed of God in Christ, then the whole body has been honorable; but the former is true, also the latter. Isaiah xliii. 4: Since

thou

justice. If on the other hand it is said, that Isaac, as a sinner, having forfeited his life to the law, and that in consequence of that forfeiture, God had a right to demand that life, whenever and by what means he thought fit, without any blame attached to the instrument employed.

I answer; that as Isaac was a covenant, and an adopted son, his exposure to the law was done away, by the imputation of all his guilt to him who stood his surety. But, it may be further said, that the violent death of a believer is not incompatible with the gracious designs of mercy towards him. In this instance it would have defeated the purpose of God respecting Isaac, and nullify his promise to Abraham: In Isaac shall thy seed be called. Will any reply, by saying, that Abraham believed that God would have raised him from the dead? Abraham believed no such thing; neither does the word say that he did; but he believed that God was able to rise him up so do I believe it as well as Abraham,

and

[ocr errors]

thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honorable, and I have loved thee. Prov. viii. 22, compare with ver. 30, 31. The Lord possessed me; ver. 22. Our nature was possessed. And in ver. 30, I was daily his delight: ver. 31, Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth. Here

and so does every Christian believe the same: without the energy of Abraham's faith, I believe that God will rise the dead. The power that will rise the dead, with the same ease could have brought Isaac out of his ashes; and no power short of that, for the man who died, the moment that is past, is as really dead as Abel, who died thousands of years ago.

Will any one insinuate that Abraham's accounting God able to rise his son from the dead, was the same as believing that he would do it? They are two acts of the mind perfectly distinct; the one arises from the omnipotence of God, the other is founded upon his promise.

God gave Did Abra

Abraham no promise to this effect. ham believe without a promise? if he did, he acted presumptuously; and if he acted presumptuously, his name ought to have been called, Abraham the Father of Presumers, instead of Abraham the Father of the Faithful. But, suppose we admit (that which is not true) that Abraham did believe it, the belief of such an interposition in

« AnteriorContinuar »