« AnteriorContinuar »
of the mind alone; from which it is easy to infer what the mind of the Holy Spirit is in this prophecy, and how it is said to have been fulfilled when Christ healed corporal diseases. Without doubt, it relates primarily to spiritual discase, and debility, i. e. to sin, the punishment of which was laid upon him, that he might suffer its desert in our room. But bodily infirmities and pains, are a part of the punishment of sin, and on this account, in a secondary and subordinate sense it refers to them; because Christ had a right to heal them. Thus what the prophet declares in general, concerning all diseases, Peter applies in particular to the diseases of the mind, and Matthew to the diseases of the body, not ex: cluding, but rather including those of the mind. He demonstrates, that by removing the cause the effect was taken away. Spiritual and physical maladies are intimately connected with each other; the former draw after them the latter, while the latter presuppose the former. Christ is said to have borne both—the diseases of both the body and the soul, but in respects different, according to their different natures. Bodily griefs he bore only by efficaciously taking them away, not by undergoing them in his own person; but he bore spiritual griefs, in two respects,-by suffering them himself, and by taking them away. Nor if Matthew asserts, that Christ healed the sick, and thus fulfilled this prophecy, may we thence rightly infer, that the spirit refers to them alone; because it is well known, that in the scriptures, a prophecy is said to be accomplished, not only when it is completely and ultimately fulfilled, but also when a partial accomplishment of it is begun.
The truth of the atonement is also confirmed by those scriptures, which assert, that Christ was made sin and a curse for us.* How can he be said “ to have been made sin," i. e. a victim, an offering for sin, by God as a judge; and a “ curse”.i. e. a subject of the malediction, which the law pronounces against sinners; not indeed for himself, seeing he was most holy, and supremely beloved by his father, but
• Gal. iii, 13. and 2 Cor. y. 21. Lev. viii. 9.
as being substituted in our place, and taking upon himself, that curse which the law justly pronounces against our sins, in order that he might bear it, and by bearing it take it away? Thus he was made a blessing, by procuring for us the remission of our sins, and a right to eternal life. What would more examples avail here? How could mere confirmation of doctrine effect all this? Is it not most evident, that there was a real substitution of Christ in our room; and in consequence of this substitution, that a real satisfaction, expiation, or atonement has been made, and that this is the doctrine taught by these scriptural phrases? The force of this argument cannot be evaded, by objecting, that Christ is not said to have been a curse, on account of having really borne the curse of the law, which could not have been laid on him, a perfectly blessed and holy person; but because he suffered crucifixion; which, under the law was denominated a curse. The very words of the apostle, and the redemption from the curse of the law, which Christ by his death procured for us, evince the futility of the objection. How can he be a curse, and that for the express purpose of delivering us from the curse, unless he took upon himself the curse due to us? It is no solid objection to this reasoning, that he is the only begotten Son, and the ever blessed God, because he did not endure the curse, in, and for himself as the Son of God, but as our surety and on our behalf. Hence as to his person, he is styled "blessed forever," and in his official character as our representative, he is said to have suffered the punish. ment due to our sins.
Hence we are enabled to understand the force of the expression," he was delivered for our offences.”* Socinus contends, that all which is here intended, is, that an occasion for the death of Christ, was given by our offences, or that Christ died only with the view that he might by his example, incline us to leave off the commission of sin, and render us certain of its pardon. All which is incompatible with the scriptures quoted above, which teach us, that the meritorious and
• Rom. iv. 25.
moving cause, for Christ's being delivered over to death, was our sins, that he might suffer the punishment due to them, and take away their guilt. He is said “to have been delivered for our offences," as sacrifices were offered for sin, doubtless, on account of its guilt, and to take it away. Hence the guilt of our sins was the meritorious cause of the death of Christ, and its final cause, or chief end, to expiate, and remove this guilt. The truth of the atonement is further proved, from the sacrifice of Christ when he expired on the cross, and of which the scriptures so often speak. * Why should Christ be so often, and so expressly called a priest, truly and properly a priest, far more excellent than all the Levitical priests; having by his oblation appeased the wrath of God, and obtained eternal salvation for us, unless, be. cause a full expiation for sin has been made by his satisfac. tion; and unless a more luminous display of the truths shadowed forth by the ancient figures, has been made in Christ! As by the sacrifices under the law, doctrines were not confirmed, examples of love and obedience were not given, no covenant was entered into, nor could they, by their own efficacy, either take away sin, or appease the wrath of God; these sacrifices must have been instituted with a primary view to represent a real satisfaction, an atoning sacrifice for sin. This is more particularly confirmed: 1. From the nature of the priesthood which Christ sustains. He is constituted a priest in things pertaining to God, to appease him by an atoning sacrifice. 2. From the nature of the victim which is substituted in the room of sinners, to bear the punishment of death due to them, as evinced by the rite of imposing hands upon the head of the offering, and over it making a confession of sin. 3. From the threefold effect of the sacrifice-in respect of God, making reconciliation-in respect of sin, purging it and in taking away its guilt: from the expiation of sin, and its pardon, which follow the reconciliation made with God. A person cannot be freed, and obtain pardon,
* Isai. liii. 10. John i. 29. Eph. vi. 2. and the Epistle to the Hebrews, passim.
without the substitution of a victim in his room; God cannot be appeased without the shedding of blood, nor can sin be expiated without the suffering of punishment.
The objections which Volkelius and others, oppose to this reasoning, do not, in the least, weaken its force. They object:--1. “That the propitiatory sacrifices, did not all prefigure the sacrifice of Christ; but the annual sacrifice only, which was offered upon the great day of expiation, and which contained no satisfaction; as a satisfaction could flow neither from the victims offered up, nor from the person of the chief priest."
The apostle Paul, on whose judgment more dependence is to be placed than on that of our opponents, opposes not one propitiatory sacrifice only, but all the sacrifices to that of Christ, and hence he infers their annulment. * Neither the perpetual sacrifice offered up daily, nor the other propitiatory offerings of lambs, which were of a private, not of a public nature, could refer to any thing else, but to the oblation of the immaculate lamb of God for us. It is no objection to this view of the subject, that they were offered for individuals, and not for all in common; for, as the sacrifices which were offered for the whole congregation of Israel, signified that Christ was to make a propitiation for the sins of all his people, so those, which were offered for each individual, were designed to shew, that every individual of Christ's people laden with sin, should seek and obtain reconciliation through the offering of Christ. Farther, although those sacrifices did not, in the sight of God, contain a satisfaction, properly so called; because the soul of man is of too exalted a value to be purchased with the blood of bulls or of goats, yet a typical, ceremonial satisfaction, pertaining to the purity of the flesh, was made by themt-a satisfaction, which by the appointment of God was to be attributed, neither to the victims, nor to the officiating priest separately, but jointly to both.
• Heb. vii. 27, and .. 4, 5.11.
† Heb. ix. 13.
Another objection offered is that:-“ an expiation is only an entire deliverance from the dominion of sin, which deliverance cannot be in the way of merit, attributed to the death of Christ, but only in the way of example, and declaratively.” In this objection, the cause is confounded with the effect. The office of the judge, who releases the prisoner, is confounded with the office of the surety who pays the ransom. The judge sets the prisoner at liberty, while the priscner, or some one in his place, pays the price of his redemption. Hence it follows that the purging of guilt, and the removal of the accusation are effected by the suffering of pun. ishment either in the person of the accused, or in that of another. If all the end answered by the death of Christ, was to declare that an expiation was to be made, it effected nothing more than the victims under the law, which might, nay did attest the same thing; yet the apostle Paul expressly declares, that they could not make expiation for sin. If there were any propriety in this objection, the expiation might be attributed no less to Christ's resurrection than to his death, which the scripture nowhere does. Besides, declaration respects men, expiation God; that belongs rather to his prophetical office, this to his priestly. Though the work of expiation may sometimes be attributed to God the Father,* who never makes satisfaction, yet we cannot justly infer that this expiation is of the same nature with that of Christ; because, according to the different nature of the subjects to whom the expiation is attributed, it is to be differently understood. In respect of God the Father, to expiate, is to accept of an expiation made by a priest, and is made by pardon and acceptance. But in relation to a priest and a victim, to expiate, is to effect an expiation meritoriously by the shedding of blood, and by vicarious suffering.
It is farther objected that:-“sacrifices were only offered up for smaller offences, such as were committed through ignorance or error; that for more aggravated, wilful transgressions, there were no sacrifices instituted; but that Christ
Deut. xxi. 8.