Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

to every form of bodily pain and mental anguish, and final. ly die the accursed death of a malefactor; and all for no higher purpose than to give credibility to a system of divine truth? Before this can be received as the true explanation of Christ's sufferings, it must be shown,-which never can be shown, that there was no possibility of esta blishing the truth of the gospel without them. Nay more, it must be proved that the gospel truth could not have been confirmed without the whole amount of suffering to which he was subjected. For, admitting that suffering and death were necessary for the purpose, it will be difficult to show that such severity, variety, and intensity of suffering, were indispensable. But, unless it is maintained that had one pang of all that he endured been spared, there would not have been sufficient ground to believe the gospel, the theory fails satisfactorily to account for the sufferings of Christ.

It may be said, that, if the death of Christ was not necessary to confirm the truth of his doctrine in general, it was indispensable to put us in possession of that of his resurrection in particular. True; without his death there could not be such a thing as his resurrection. But, while we believe the doctrine of Christ's resurrection from the dead to be a most important and essential part of Christi. anity, it is surely going too far to say that his death had no other or higher design than to put us in possession of this tenet. According to this he died only that he might rise again. To be sure, that he might rise it was necessary he should die; but it is not the simple fact of his death or of his resurrection, which gives to either its im portance. Had not the purpose and design of his death been what we conceive them to have been, his resurrection would have been void of all that importance which attaches to it in the Christian system. It is as the testimony of God to the value of his sacrifice, and as the pledge and security of his people being raised, that the resurrection of Christ possesses so high a claim on our regard; and both of these views, it will be perceived, it derives from the aton. ing character of his previous death. But, this reasoning apart, it must be obvious to all, that, admitting the death of Christ to have been necessary to his resurrection, had this been all that was necessary, nothing more than the simple fact of his death would have been required. The

simplest form in which this could have occurred would have served all the purpose. It would have sufficed to have died in ease and in honour. The magnitude and severity of his previous sufferings, the agony, and torture, and ignominy, and bitterness of death by crucifixion, are thus all accounted for, and inexplicably gratuitous. Being uncalled for by the necessity of the case supposed, they are still unexplained on the principles of divine equity, and some other view is necessary to be taken of them.

Nor will the theory of example supply the desideratum. Much stress has been laid on this, as if the whole design of Christ's sufferings and death was to set mankind a pat. tern of fortitude, and resignation, and patient endurance. On the supposition that he made atonement for sin, he certainly did set such an example; but not otherwise. Put the case that he suffered not as a legal substitute for sinners, and what an example have we before us! The innocent subjected to the most cruel and excruciating sufferings! Perfect obedience rewarded with the most terrible punishments! The greatest holiness doomed to the greatest anguish !—an example which we hesitate not to pronounce frightful, disgusting, detestable, and impossible under the moral government of a righteous God. Put the case that Christ suffered not the wrath of God for our sins, and we scruple not to say that he failed to set us the example supposed. His mental agony, the anguish of his soul, the fearful bitterness of his cries and his prayers, the bloody sweat of the garden, and the piteous exclamation of the cross, are, on this supposition, out of all proportion to the intensity of the external causes which we observe in operation. The desertion of his friends, and the cruelty of his enemies, might surely have been borne with more equanimity of soul. Many martyrs have been treated with greater external severity, and yet have manifested under it all more apparent magnanimity and comfort, and have expired in triumphant anticipation of heavenly glory: whereas Jesus died amid the horrid darkness of desertion, and complaining, in accents of inconceivable bitterness, of being forsaken by God. Who will say, after this, that he died only to set mankind an example of patience and resignation? Nei ther should it escape notice, that, if the whole design of Christ's sufferings was to exhibit an example, it was impossible that those who lived in preceding ages could be

benefited by it. It will be admitted that the work of Christ had a retrospective virtue; the law was only a shadow of good things to come, of which the substance was Christ; the patriarchs beheld his day afar off and rejoiced. But to the efficacy of an example it is essential that it exist prior to the benefit which it confers. Its influence cannot be retrospective; it cannot be the subject of beneficial anticipation. It may also be observed here, that the theory we are now examining tends to preclude all but adults from the benefit of Christ's sufferings and death. If these were simply exemplary, it follows, of course, that only such as are capable of imitating, can derive advantage from them. Thus infants can reap no benefit from the sufferings of Christ; and all who die before they are qualified to study the example exhibited in his history must necessarily perisha conclusion which would go directly to destroy the dearest hopes of bereaved Christian parents, did not such know assuredly that it is in direct contradiction to the testimony of him who said, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God.'

[ocr errors]

Such are the theories to which the enemies of the doctrine of atonement have had recourse, with the view of accounting for the sufferings of Christ. How entirely they fail, the preceding observations may help us to judge. They leave the facts of the case, in all their peculiar features, wrapt in inextricable mystery. The solution of the difficulty is to be found in the doctrine of Christ's atonement. Admit this, and all is clear. Considering that he bore our iniquities, that he suffered the wrath of God, that he was exposed to all the direful consequences of God's manifested displeasure at guilt, that he drank the bitter cup of penal woe, in short that he gave his soul an offering for sin-considering this, the mystery of his intensest sufferings is explained; the bitter anguish, and bloody sweat, and awful desertion, and final cry, give us no difficulty; all is natural, and easy, and consistent. On every other supposition, however, the whole is involved in impenetrable clouds. Can we hesitate, then, what view of the subject to adopt? Truly we must say, CHRIST SUFFERED FOR

SINS, THE JUST FOR THE UNJUST, THAT HE MIGHT BRING US TO GOD!

SECTION VIII.

PROOF-THE APOSTOLICAL WRITINGS.

THE evidence we are now to bring forward is not inferential, like that formerly adduced. It is direct, conveyed in plain didactic statements; statements, indeed, so plain, numerous, and unequivocal, as not to be mistaken without the most obstinate resistance of the light. In this depart. ment the evidence is so abundant, scattered over so wide a field, and so diversified withal, that it is not possible to convey a definite idea of it, without having recourse to a process of classification.

There are, first of all, those passages in which express mention is made of atonement or reconciliation, as effected by Christ. In our version, the former term occurs but once in the new testament :- We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received THE ATONEMENT (Thy Karadλayńv.)* But the original word occurs in other passages :— And all things are of God, who hath reconciled (karaλλážavтos) us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation (Tñs kaTaddays); to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling (karadAácow) the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation (ris Karadλayns).'† Of the proper import of this term, we have before given our opinion. We have seen that reconciliation and atonement are synonymous, and that to confine the effect expressed by these terms to man, is contrary altogether to the scripture usage of them, as well as to a consistent interpretation of the passages in which they occur. That salvation implies the removal of man's moral enmity to God is frankly admitted; but this is not inconsistent with firmly maintaining that it also necessarily supposes and requires the removal of God's legal enmity

* Rom. v. 11.

t Cor. v. 18, 19.

[ocr errors]

to man.

The party offended must be reconciled as well as the offender, before any real or permanent friendship can be effected; and this we contend is what the language we have quoted above is designed to express. The reconcili.

ation or atonement spoken of, is said to be effected by the death of Christ; whereas the removal of the enmity of man's heart is more properly the work of the Holy Spirit. It is also represented as something synonymous with the non-imputation of trespasses, which itself is decisive of the sense in which it is to be understood; for, while the imputation of guilt presents a legal barrier to reconciliation on the part of God, it interposes no moral barrier on the part of man. Besides, the phraseology of the first of the texts is itself sufficient to determine the point :- by whom we have now received the atonement.' To speak of a person's receiving the boon of reconciliation to God, in the sense of the removal of all legal offence, is intelligible enough; but to speak of his receiving the laying aside of his own enmity to God is, to say the least, uncouth and unnatural phraseology.

[ocr errors]

:

Allied to these, and to much the same purpose, are those texts which ascribe propitiation to the work of Christ :Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation (iaripov) through faith in his blood.** 'Jesus Christ the righteous -he is the propitiation (ixaoμós) for our sins.'t Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation (iλaopóv) for our sins.'‡ The corresponding verb is also used:God be merciful (iáoonri) to me, a sinner.' A merciful and faithful high. priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation. for (iλáckεoα-to propitiate) the sins of the people.'|| The use of these terms by the Septuagint translators of the old testament, to denote the mercy-seat, and the taking away of wrath by means of sacrifice, has already been mentioned. Nor does this application rest solely on their authority, for the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews gives it his high sanction, when, treating of the furniture of the ancient tabernacle, he speaks of the cherubims of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat (rò iλacríptov).'¶ The mercy.

Rom. iii. 25. + 1 John ii. 2.

§ Luke xviii. 13.
¶ Heb. ix. 5.

1 John iv. 10. Heb. ii. 17.

« AnteriorContinuar »