It is just thus, when any _divine_ matter is revealed by God; it can no more possibly be revealed to us, as it is in its _own nature_, than an _angel_ can appear to us, as it is in its own nature; but such supernatural matter can only be revealed to us, by being represented to us, by its likeness to something, that we already _naturally_ know.
Thus revelation teaches us this _supernatural_ matter; that Jesus Christ is making _perpetual intercession for us in heaven_: for Christ’s _real state_, or _manner_ of existence with God in heaven, in regard to his church, cannot, as it is in its _own nature_, be described to us; it is in this respect ineffable, and incomprehensible. And therefore, this high and inconceivable manner of Christ’s existence with God in heaven, in regard to his church, is revealed to us under an idea, that gives us the truest representation of it, we are capable of.
But if any one should thence infer, that the Son of God must therefore either be always upon his knees, or _prostrate_ in some humble form of a supplicant, he would make a very weak inference.
Because this revealed idea of Christ, as a perpetual Intercessor in heaven, is only a comparative representation of something, that cannot be _directly_ and _plainly_ known as it is in its own nature; and only teaches us, how to believe something, though imperfectly, yet _truly_ of an incomprehensible nature.
Again: When it is by the letter of scripture revealed to us, that the blessed Jesus is the one _Mediator_ between God and man; that he is the _Atonement_, the _Propitiation_, and _Satisfaction_ for our sins: these expressions only teach us _as much_ outward knowledge of so great a mystery, as human language can represent. But they do not teach us the perfect nature of Christ’s state between God and sinners. For that being a _supernatural_ matter, cannot by any outward words be revealed to us as it is in its _own nature_, any more than the _essence_ of God can be made _visible_ to our eyes of flesh.
But these expressions teach us thus much with certainty, that there is in the _state_ of Christ between God and sinners, something infinitely and inconceivably beneficial to us; and _truly answerable_ to all that we mean by _mediation_, _atonement_, _propitiation_, and _satisfaction_.
And though the _real, internal manner_, of this mediation and atonement, as it is in its own nature, is _incomprehensible_, yet this does not lessen our knowledge of the truth and certainty of it, any more than the _incomprehensibility_ of the divine nature, lessens our certainty of its real existence.
And as our idea of God, though consisting of incomprehensible perfections, helps us to a real and certain knowledge of the divine nature; and though all mysterious, is yet the solid foundation of all piety; so our idea of Jesus Christ, as our _Mediator_ and _Atonement_, though it be incomprehensible as to its real nature, yet helps us to a _certain_ knowledge of Christ, as our _Mediator_ and _Atonement_; and, though full of mystery, is yet full of motives to the highest piety, love, and gratitude unto God.
All objections therefore, raised from any difficulties about the nature of _atonements_, _propitiations_, and _satisfactions_, as these words are used in common language, are vain, and entirely groundless.
For all these objections proceed upon this supposition, that _atonement_, or _satisfaction_, when attributed to Jesus Christ, signify neither more nor less, than when they are used as terms in _human laws_ or in _civil_ life; take away this supposition, and all objections are entirely removed with it.
To return: I have granted this writer his great principle, _That the relations of things and persons, and the fitness resulting from thence, is the sole rule of God’s actions_: and I have granted it upon this supposition, that it thence follows, that God must act according to his _own nature_; and therefore nothing could be fit for God to do, but what had the reason of its fitness in his own nature: and if so, then the _rule_ of his actions could not fall within our comprehension. And consequently, _reason alone_, could not be a competent judge of God’s proceedings; or say, what God might, or might not, require of us: and therefore I have, plainly turned his main argument against himself, and made it fully confute that doctrine, which he intended to found upon it.
But though I have thus far, granted the _nature_ and _relations_ of things and beings, to be the rule of God’s actions, because that plainly supposes, that his _own nature_ must be the rule of his actions; yet since our _author_, and other modern opposers of revealed doctrines of religion, hold it in another sense, and mean by it, I know not what _eternal, immutable_ reasons and relations of things, _independent_ of any being, and which are a _common rule and law of God and man_, I entirely declare against it, as an erroneous and groundless opinion.