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:—