RELIGIOUS WORLD.

Evening Star, Issue 13002, 22 December 1906, Page 4

RELIGIOUS WORLD.

A LAY SERMON. Br D. Wishart. The following concludes the above, the first portion of which appeared in our last Saturday's issue : And sinoo Christ was “ God manifest in flesh,” it is almost superfluous to state that tlie manner of His bearing witness was adapted to the apprehension of mankind. No longer need they darkly grope after the knowledge of God, " if haply they may feel after him and find him.” For not only Is He “ not far irom any one of us,” but Ho has given a complete revelation of Himself in so far as it concerns man to know Him. Aud since Christ is God manifest in the flesh, the truth to which He beans witness is not merely the abstract, nature of God— He revoabi the fecjjngs of God and tho principles of His action towards men. Tnereforc the work which he fulfils is at once tho righteousness of man and “the right-eou-ness of God” as wrought by tho Holy Spirit of God in human nature, so that in Christ is fulfilled tha promise: “ I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, aud my salvation shall not tarry.” Verily, there is no other name under heaven given unto men whereby we can be saved, and “ every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the son of man also confess before the angels of God; bnt he that denieth mo in tho presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God.”

Christ came, or, rather, was eont, into the world to declare tho oarr*. exhibit the character or God, and to hear witness vo the truth riicrcof; hence Ho came not iu effect any change in God, for with Him “ can bo no variation, neither shadow that cast by turning.” When wc deny -the possibility of any change in God, of course wc do tot meau’to deny to Him the liberty pf acting differeutly at different times and in different circumstances. To deny film this liberty were to deny all His attributes as a moral agent, and oven His personality, to degrade Him below blind fate, and to make Him no better than a machine that should grind on tho same unvarying routine from eternity to eternity. We suppose it to be obvious to the average human mind that the- unchangeablencss of God, so far from impeding, infers a variation in fits procedure in varying circumstances. As, for example, His unchangeable love of holiness and hatred of sin manifest themselves to-day iu His approbation of ihe righteous aud condemnation of the wicked ; and to-mor-row in His rejection of the former on his falling into sin, and in Iris reception of the latter on his repentance. As it is written : “ When the righteous man turueth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth therein, in his iniquity that; he hath done..shall he die.” AgawY: “When tfio wicked man turnet-h a way. from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful ..and ' ngnt, tie shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turueth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live; he shall not elie. Yet saith the house of Israel, the way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? Are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God.” Christ is not another aud different manifestation of God from tlie one Jehovah He is therefore tlie exponent of God’s counsel, not the author of a new counsel—the executor' of God’s will, not th© changer of that will. Wo absolutely reject, tlierc.ore, 61’ch a statement as the following—-viz., that tho sacrifice of Christ was a propitiation in virtue of which God is now wilting to justify even the ungodly, and to deal with them in a manner fur other than that in which He would otherw.ee have dealt with them. For the statement impl.es that God is now willing to do what He was not always willing to do—that is, that there is a change in God, owing to the direct effect of the proportion of Christ. Moreover, it is made to appear that tlie 'declaration of this change in God constitutes the gospel, or good news, which is to effect a change in men. The whole statement is an assumption of knowledge that is denied to irinn. It is “science fakoly so called,” a corruption of tho simplicity that is in Christ, and a subversion of H s gospel, for

“no man knowoth the Father but the son.” Never was God unwilling to pardon the penitent, or to receive into His favor those who turned from their iniquity. Nor now, when He has “exalted Christ a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance and the remission of sins,” is he any more w.lling than ever he was to relax tho stern demands of righteousness. On similar grounds wc reject such a statement as tho following, viz. :—That the sacrifice of Christ is a ransom, in consideration of which God can havo pardoning mercy on whom He will, without inflicting any injury on any interests in His vast moral empire. Here is, it seems to ua, a most extraordinary inversion of facts and their relations. And wo axe constrained to ask: Whence did the sacrifice of Christ originate? Of whose intelligence and of whose will was it tho product? Was it not tho intelligence of God that devised it? Was it not tho will of God that, determined it? And was IDs intelligence so limited that Ho could not see the end ot His works from the beginning? W'hero, according to these statements, are tho wisdom and seif-sufficiency which are essential attributes of God? Or are wo to believe in two Gods, one of whom ,is wiser and more benevolent than tho other? There is but one God. who Himself devised and determined and did the whole work of man’s redemption. Then surely, since tho sacrifice of Christ‘is God’s own sacrifice, provided and given by Himself, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be the means jof reacting on Himself. No; it is the direct means of making known and ooq--1 vcying His love and mercy to men, of reconciling them to Him through the i Mediator, and not of reconciling Him to , them.

And now. what wo do mean when wo deny that Christ has effected any change in God is that since He came to declare God’s name* with all that it involves, He came not to alter or modify, much less to reverse, any of the principles which God has proclaimed as the rule of his procedure from the beginning. Such a charge, is alleged by some to bo the fruit of Christ’s, work, os vr© have already pointed out., We are sorry that they are not men of straw with whom wo contend. Nor is tho matter ono of idle controversy, which it were better or would be safe to let alone. The idea is widely csrrent that Christ suffered in order that we may not suffer, or that His crucifixion is an expedient to avert tho wrath of God, and to procure for; transgressors immunity from tho penalties that are their due. Sometimes it is spoken of as a ■“ Heaven-meriting righteousness,nwhich furnishes those who believe in it with " a Utla to Heaven.’’ or as a “substi-

tutionaiy . righteousness,” which ■ exempts them from the rigor of God’s law. It is ■represented as : a plea of euclr avail that, should a murderer an hour before his cxc.cution declare (at. tho suggestion of another person) that ho was “ washed in the blood of the Lamb,” ho is sawed, unless God deny His own word. No sane person nan deny that such a doctriffo'must have a demoralising effect, even though it may in some measure- bo counteracted; by other and .inconsistent statements of; its preachers or by tho inherent sense of right in tho consciousness of its hearers. ‘

“ For justice feels iniquity.” Mai as'an imperfect being, who requires tq bo assisted in hia discrimination ot right and wrong and in his. appreciation of good and evil by clear directions and palpable manifestations of their respective qualities and their consequences. And if, when temptation lies strong upon him, ho has the idea that his sinning or not sinning will make no difference to himsollr—that a work has already been done which cannot be re-; called how much soever ho may transgress, but lies at bis service as a compensation for all liis sins, past, present, and to come, and as a guarantee against God’s punishment—that even his Juoge sanctions this commutation of persons and of penalties, and urges him to avail himself of it.. Nothing could - bo devised more likely to weaken tho defence of virtue. By tho relaxation of the law tho moral governor becomes a party with the transgressor to make that law a dead letter. Nor will this effect bo lessened by the consideration that an alleged compensation of some sort has been rendered to God, of which tho sinner bears no share. So much is admitted by some of the defenders of the theory themselves, who acknowledge that such a measure, if frequently repeated, would bo tantamount to an abrogation of all law. But they conveniently forgot that the sacrifice of Christ is of perpetual efficacy, and so the same as if it wore offered yesterday, to-day, and for over. Indeed, there is so much of fictitiousness and of violation of moral principle in the supposed transference of guilt and of penalties for the purpose of acquitting the guilty from punishment as to aggravate, - rather than, diminish, its pernicious tendency. What wo have now to do with, however, is not so much tho injurious influence of the doctrine as its nnlruthfulness. Christ says- that, as tho sent of God, He anno into the world to “bear witness to tha truth,” aud to “declare the name of God.” If then Ho camo to reveal God, as he was, and is and ever shall be, He camo not to make God"different from what! He over was, so that He should be “now willing” or “now able” to deal with sin cn any other terms than those which flow from His own nature, and on which he was always willing and able to deal with them. Or, if Christ cainc into the world arid wrought a work which reacts upon God, Ho was not the doer of His Father’s will, but the doer of His own, as a superior and more benevolent will, which is to modify that of God. and to make Him better than He was. or different from what he was. And if Christ came to make God different from what He was—different, wc mean, in his character and principle of action, or different in bis essential relations to His creatures, and in His requirements from them in order to their fellowship with him —then Ho camo to make a new God. And there is blasphemy in the thought. For, if God could be mad© other than He was, then was Ho no God, and Die newmade God is no God, for He is made. Rut the breath of Christ’s mouth destroys tho wicked, and scatters as chaff the crude theories by which those who would be “ lords over God’s heritage” keep their fellow-men in bondage. He came. Ho says, to “ declare tho name ”of Gcd. But the name or nature of Gcd is not a changeable thing. It holds definite, fixed, immutable relations to His creatures and to their actions. “He cannot deny himself.” Ho cannot think otherwise, feel otherwise, or will otherwise than according to tho nature of tilings, as truthfully viewed in His infinite intelligence. To declare that name, not to alter it, ..not to modify one syllable or letter, or jot or little of it, Christ came into the world. He came to declare it in full, not surely for God’s benefit, that He may know His own name, but for the benefit ihafeihey may ‘.know the.,namo which is jabovo. every name, mod - worship and.adore that they limy have the name named upon them, and be baptised into tho name, and bind it for a.sign upon their hand, and wear it as frontlets between tbeir eyes, and find it their safety, their strength, their hope, their “crown of glory and diadem of boaut-v,” their all in all. In like manner Christ came not to invent, but to bear witness to the eternal truth—not surely to teach it to God, but to teach it to men. that they may be “clean through the words” which Ho sneaks to them, and that “ His words abiding in them,” and thereby “Ho in them,” they may bring forth much fruit to the praise of the glory of His grace.