1. W. H., Cornwall. How grieved I am that you should, with so many others, have been turned aside to sorrow and perplexity, by the sad speculations of the new doctrine! What sorrow it has caused. I do believe this new teaching would rob us of everything, and finally land us in Rome. To give up our complete standing, or justification in Christ risen, for our state, is exactly what a clever Jesuit would wish.
The tendency would be to get us off Christ to self. An old brother, after reading the first tract, said to me “The tendency of this paper is to lead me to myself, my state.” Satan’s object in all this is to perplex saints. Whatever merely perplexes, is of Satan. And he can use the intellect of the dearest child of God, if off his guard. We must not give up what the Holy Ghost has restored, for Romanism.
Now the other sad point. If Christ “entered heaven by his own blood to make propitiation,” then it is clear He had not made propitiation on the cross; then He did not make atonement, or finish the work of atonement on the cross. Tins is exactly what the Church of Rome teaches—the work was not finished on the cross, but is still continued in heaven. And thus are millions robbed of peace with God. Where do you read in scripture, that “Christ entered heaven by his own blood to make propitiation?” I am surprised you do not feel such doctrine to be abhorrent to your soul. You may say, But is it not in one text at least, Heb. 9:1212Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Hebrews 9:12)? Read the whole of verses 11, 12, and see if there is such a thought, and compare this with 1 John 5:66This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6). Is it not the eternal value of His own blood that characterizes His coming, in contrast with the temporal and imperfect value of the blood of goats and calves—having obtained eternal redemption by His blood, God having rent the veil when He bowed His head in death, in proof that the work was finished? And shall we dare to say, No, it was not finished; He had not obtained eternal redemption; He had not made propitiation; He must enter heaven by His blood to make propitiation? This is what you say the author of this new doctrine says, “Christ entered by His own blood to make propitiation.” I beg of you to compare this with scripture. Is there a single parallel text to corroborate the view he takes of Heb. 9:11, 1211But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Hebrews 9:11‑12)?
Then look at Heb. 2:1717Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 2:17). Are we to take the literal order of words, without spiritual perception, to see there is a parenthesis, simply because the word priest comes before the word reconciliation or propitiation; and thus conclude that Christ had to enter heaven as high priest in order to make propitiation in heaven? Then it would follow that He must be a priest in heaven before the whole work of propitiation for sins could be made! The like principle of word-literalism would prove that He had to be crowned with glory before He tasted death! Such reasoning would turn every scripture into confusion. (See chap. 2:9.)
Now turn to the type, Lev. 16. The priest presented the blood to God to make atonement, or propitiation. Does this prove that Christ must therefore be a priest in heaven, before He could make atonement or propitiation? Mark, if this be so, you must also have Christ a priest after death in heaven, before He made substitution for His people’s sins! For on the day of atonement, substitution came in literal order after propitiation. (See vers. 20-22.) And after that the burnt offering. Indeed, the fair result of this new doctrine would be that Christ did nothing on the cross. That is, the reasoning on priesthood to prove that a part of the atonement was not on the cross, beneath the awful wrath of God against sin, but in heaven, where there is no wrath of God on His Son, would equally prove that no part of that infinite work, “either propitiation or substitution, was finished, or effected, on the cross, but in heaven, after He became a priest. Thus it appears to me, the author, in his first tract of perplexity, takes away justification in the risen Christ: and in his second, he denies the finished work of Christ on the cross. The whole thing is as contrary to truth as it can be.
C.S.