Part 42

2. _A Ransom._ In the New Testament, the word _deliverance_ is often used in translating one, which properly signifies _a redemption, or ransom_. Thus it is written, ‘ye were redeemed from your vain conversation, not by corruptible things, as silver or gold, but by the precious blood of Christ.’ This redemption is explained by the forgiveness of sins. It is, therefore, his blood and death, wherewith he made payment, in order to procure our discharge from the debt of sin. He came ‘to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.’—λυτρον. Matt. xx. 28. and αντιλυτρον. 1 Tim. ii. 6.

3. _A Propitiation._ Sometimes this in the Greek is called αποκαταλλαγη, (conciliatio) that is, _a reconciliation_. Accordingly, believers are now reconciled to God by the death of his Son; by his cross; by the blood of his cross, and in the body of his flesh through death. ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself:’ which is farther explained, ‘not imputing their trespasses to them.’—But it is also called _a propitiation_, in the translation of ἱλασμος, (expiatio) used concerning the victims which were anciently slain, as a typical propitiation in place of the guilty. So now Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for our sins. For God ‘sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins.’ God hath set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness, by (or rather because _of_) the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, ‘the Lamb of God hath so taken away the sins of the world,’ that he took them upon himself, that he bare them, that he died in the place of his people.

4. _A Testament._ According to his last institution, the assignation of the everlasting inheritance, is called ‘the New Testament in his blood, which was shed for many, for the remission of sins.’ This signifies to us, not only that Christ had a perfect right to the honour of settling the inheritance, not only that his death as a testator was necessary to put his people in possession of it; but, that that inheritance had its foundation precisely in the shedding of his blood, in his deepest humiliation, and his violent death; as thereby their sins, which otherwise stood in the way of salvation, could be forgiven. If, instead of the _New Testament_, we rather choose to translate it the _New Covenant_; the allusion will be somewhat different, but the matter the same.

This leads us to the epistle to the Hebrews, in which all these doctrines are ascertained to us at great length, and with invincible arguments. That epistle was intended to demonstrate indeed, the authority of Christ’s instruction above all the prophets, and even Moses himself: but also, under propositions borrowed from the ancient religion, and fitted to the Hebrews, to reconcile his priestly office with the intention of the Levitical sacrifices, and to exalt it infinitely above Aaron’s priesthood. Christ being a High Priest of unchangeable power, needed not to offer up sacrifices for his own sins, but having offered himself up once to God, he thereby made reconciliation for sin, made an end of it, opened a sure way to heaven, and ‘can save unto the uttermost all who come unto the Father by him.’ Read the 5th and the 10th chapters. Would you, on account of the doctrine so full of consolation, suspect this epistle, and erase it from the volume of holy scripture? In it, however, no doctrine occurs, which is not also mentioned elsewhere; and this apostolic epistle is surpassed by none of the rest, in sublimity of matter, in weight of evidence, in glorifying the grace of God in Christ, in strong consolation, in encouraging to the spiritual warfare, and in the most animating motives to holiness and perseverance.

Besides, in the Saviour’s satisfaction only lies the reason, why his suffering together with his resurrection, are every where represented to us as the sum and substance of the gospel. No other part of his history and ministration are so fully propounded, and that by all the Evangelists.—We have already seen, that the Apostles preached, not only the doctrine of evangelic morality, but chiefly Christ himself, that is, his person, work, and two-fold state. Paul would know nothing among the Corinthians, ‘but Jesus Christ and him crucified.’ The cross of Christ was that alone in which he gloried. He reduces the knowledge of Christ, for the excellency of which he counted all things but loss and dung, to the knowledge of the power of his resurrection, and of the fellowship of his sufferings.—In that most important conversation on the holy mount, between our Lord, and two of the celestial inhabitants, the two great teachers and reformers under the old dispensation, we find no more mentioned, but that it turned upon that decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.—In the cross, and the other humiliations and sufferings of the Saviour comprehended under it, the love of God towards men, in not sparing his own Son, as also his wisdom and power unto salvation are displayed in a peculiar and a most conspicuous manner. In the cross, is the abolishing of the power and the fear of death. Deliverance from the dominion of sin, as also the glory to come, are its pleasant fruits. The plain, but most consolatory symbols of the grace of Jesus, in Baptism, and the Holy Supper, point us in like manner to his atoning _death_, with a charge _to shew it forth_ in particular.

The medium of our acceptance and justification before God, is every where in the gospel said to be _faith in Christ_: and that indeed in opposition to, and with warning against the law, or the seeking of our justification by the works of the law. Now if _believing in Christ_ signify only, to receive and to obey his doctrine concerning the rational grounds and duties of religion; how then is the doctrine and the righteousness of faith quite another thing than the demand and righteousness of the law whether we consider the moral law naturally, or as written by Moses? Nay, Moses had also taught the capital doctrines of rational religion, God’s existence, unity, providence, the duties of man, &c. and that the love of God, and of our neighbour, is more than all sacrifices, was often inculcated under the old economy, and not unknown to the Jews.—Or does the prohibition of seeking righteousness by the law, only mean the omitting of the Mosaic rights? But in the places quoted, and in others, the _law_ cannot possibly be understood in such a limited sense. Besides the righteousness of faith, in contradistinction to that of the law, had place even under the old dispensation. Further, these external solemnities could indeed be abolished; but they were instituted by God himself, and hence the observing of them did not so militate against a rational religion, that it in itself could make a man condemnable.—Paul constantly teaches, that the opposition between faith and the law, in respect of our seeking righteousness by them, consists in this, that God’s inflexible _law_ condemns all sinners, Jews and Gentiles; that by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified; that through sin, the law is become weak to give life: but that faith acknowledges and embraces Christ, as he who fulfilled the righteousness of the law, was made a curse for us, and set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, not only in his _doctrine_, but in his _blood_, for a demonstration of the righteousness of God.

And why else was ‘Christ crucified unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness?’ Surely, not so much on account of the capital truths of rational religion taught by him. The Jewish doctors, and the best philosophers among the Heathens, who had acknowledged them were honoured on that account. Nor was it because Christ, continuing a worthy and faithful, but an unsuccessful teacher of his doctrine, was unjustly accused, and shamefully put to death. The memory of a condemned Socrates was not held in contempt. The reason was purely this, that the Saviour’s suffering was proclaimed as the only ground and cause of our reconciliation and salvation: while the Jews and Heathens thought to be saved by the value of their own virtue: and to them it was exceeding strange, and most mortifying to their pride, that penitently acknowledging their guilt, they behoved to seek life in the deep abasement of a crucified Mediator, and in his justifying resurrection.

All our reasoning thus far makes it evident, that we must not understand _the sufferings of Christ for sin_, merely as if God, being about to announce by the gospel, grace and life to the nations, would previously manifest his aversion to sin, by a striking example of his vengeance; and for that purpose, deliver up an ambassador vested with extraordinary privileges, to so much sorrow and shame. Surely all preceding ages had already exhibited awful instances of God’s fearful displeasure with the sins of individuals and communities, without deliverance from sin being ever ascribed to them. That a mean man among the people, that a teacher wandering about in poverty, should be shamefully put to death by a civil judge, was much less calculated to exhibit a signal and extraordinary example of divine wrath, than the immediate interposition of Providence, which had often, in former times inflicted, and still could inflict miraculous punishments on the most eminent persons, or on whole nations. At any rate, to manifest a righteous abhorrence of sin, vengeance behoved not to fall upon one perfectly innocent. This last would be quite absurd; unless the innocent person, (as holy scripture has already taught us) should with God’s approbation, as spontaneously, as generously, substitute himself in our place, by bearing our sin.—Accordingly, sacred scripture represents the sufferings of Christ, not only as a proof and confirmation, but as the cause of our reconciliation.

We by no means exclude other advantages ascribed by Socinus to the Saviour’s death. Beyond all doubt, he thereby confirmed his integrity and the truth of his mission. But, pray, was it ever heard, that a false prophet, in the founding of a new society, mentioned his own, his certain, his fast approaching, and most offensive punishment of death, as the intention of his ministry; and made it an article of his doctrine?—In confirmation of his doctrine and mission, Jesus generally appealed to his miracles; and yet, where are the forgiveness of our sins and a title to life ascribed to his miracles, as they often are to his bloody death?—For what doctrine was Jesus condemned? Not for the truths and prescriptions of natural reason; but because he declared himself to be higher far than any human prophet. (See Section IX.) If the celestial chorus at his birth, if the Father’s voice at his inauguration, if his glory on the mount, had been openly perceived by the Jewish council and all the people; if the lightnings darted forth in confirmation of Moses and Elias, had caused him to be honoured; especially if he had satisfied their prejudices concerning the Messias; if, with legions of his Father’s angels, he had destroyed the Roman government, broken that yoke, recovering and extending David’s mighty kingdom; their infidelity would have been conquered, and eagerly would they have confided in him. They would have been more easily drawn by giving bread, or causing manna to rain, than by promising them his flesh and blood.—A steady martyrdom was more necessary to the preaching of the apostles; because their doctrine in a great measure referred to and was built upon the truth of the all-important events of the Saviour’s death and exaltation. In relation to which, as they could not be deceived, so likewise their sincerity behoved to be put beyond suspicion. But the Lord Jesus Christ had abundance of glorious means to confirm his doctrine; and if nothing else had been to be effectuated by it, he behoved not to have undergone a cursed death upon the hill of infamy; and that under the pretence of a legal procedure, which caused the multitude to revolt from him, his friends to be offended at him, and plunged his best followers in deep distress.

We also respect the design of exhibiting in his sufferings, an example of love, submission to, and confidence in God. But such an extremity of shame was not necessary for that purpose; and his sufferings were accompanied with so much perturbation, vehement distress, cries and tears, that quite other ends were ever to be obtained by them; else he would not have exceeded many valiant martyrs. Besides, could any apostle, courageously foreseeing, and alluding to his own martyrdom in confirmation of the truth, and for an example to others, be able to say, as did Christ, ‘whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, &c.?’ 2 Tim. iv. 6. compared with John vi. 51-57.

Do men in spite of the divine testimony, find reasons and scruples against a vicarious satisfaction; if we are not much mistaken, they are easy to solve. But far stronger reasons combat the persuasion, that the Holy Supreme Being can show himself favourable, or indifferent, to the voluntary violation of those laws and moral duties from which he himself cannot absolve a rational creature; or to speak in a plain and familiar manner, that God can, and also will suffer sin to escape with impunity.

If then, (to conclude in the language of the apostle, when enlarging on the glory of Christ,) the Son of God, by himself purged our sins; how narrowly and how perversely would we limit his saving work to his preaching? How inconsistent is it with this, that men, according to the usual phrase among Christians, ascribe efficacious _merits_ to Christ; but in an unusual sense understand them only of his doctrine and his excellent character? against which sentiment, too, much could be objected. How evidently then is that confirmed, which we asserted, that Christ himself in his person and performances, is the cause and ground of our salvation? If the suffering and death of Christ alone have merited salvation for the innumerable multitude of all them who ever believed in him, or shall believe; if his suffering, though short in duration, was the satisfactory ransom, to deliver all those sinners from the fear of death, and from the wrath to come; then the infinite worth of his person and work, must surpass all understanding; then from that most gracious deliverance we deduce an important proof of his more than human, his divine excellency.”

DR. WYNPERSSE.

Footnote 168:

“In the consideration of this subject, which every Christian must deem most highly deserving the closet examination, our attention should be directed to two different classes of objectors: those who deny the necessity of any mediation whatever; and those who question the particular nature of that mediation, which has been appointed. Whilst the deist on the one hand ridicules the very notion of a Mediator: and the philosophizing Christian on the other, fashions it to his own hypothesis; we are called on to vindicate the word of truth from the injurious attacks of both; and carefully to secure it, not only against the open assaults of its avowed enemies, but against the more dangerous misrepresentations of its false or mistaken friends.

The objections which are peculiar to the former, are upon this subject, of the same description with those which they advance against every other part of revelation; bearing with equal force against the system of natural religion, which they support, as against the doctrines of revealed religion, which they oppose. And indeed, this single circumstance, if weighed with candour and reflection; that is, if the deist were truly the philosopher he pretends to be; might suffice to convince him of his error. For the closeness of the analogy between the works of nature, and the word of the gospel, being found to be such, that every blow which is aimed at the one, rebounds with undiminished force against the other: the conviction of their common origin must be the inference of unbiassed understanding.

Thus, when in the outset of his argument, the deist tells us, that as obedience must be the object of God’s approbation, and disobedience the ground of his displeasure, it must follow by natural consequence, that when men have transgressed the divine commands, repentance and amendment of life will place them in the same situation as if they had never offended:—he does not recollect, that actual experience of the course of nature directly contradicts the assertion; and that, in the common occurrences of life, the man who by intemperance and voluptuousness, has injured his character, his fortune, and his health, does not find himself instantly restored to the full enjoyment of these blessings on repenting of his past misconduct, and determining on future amendment. Now, if the attributes of the Deity demand, that the punishment should not outlive the crime, on what ground shall we justify this temporal dispensation? The difference in _degree_, cannot affect the question in the least. It matters not, whether the punishment be of long or short duration; whether in this world, or in the next. If the justice or the goodness of God, require that punishment should not be inflicted when repentance has taken place; it must be a violation of those attributes to permit any punishment whatever, the most slight, or the most transient. Nor will it avail to say, that the evils of _this life_ attendant upon vice, are the effects of an established constitution, and follow in the way of natural consequence. Is not that established constitution itself, the effect of the divine decree? And are not its several operations as much the appointment of its Almighty framer, as if they had individually flowed from his immediate direction? But besides, what reason have we to suppose that God’s treatment of us in a future state, will not be of the same nature as we find it in this; according to established rules, and in the way of natural consequence? Many circumstances might be urged on the contrary, to evince the likelihood that it will. But this is not necessary to our present purpose. It is sufficient, that the deist cannot _prove_ that it will _not_. Our experience of the present state of things evinces, that indemnity is not the consequence of repentance here: can he adduce a counter-experience to show, that it will hereafter? The justice and goodness of God are not then _necessarily_ concerned, in virtue of the sinner’s repentance, to remove all evil consequences upon sin in the next life, or else the arrangement of events in this, has not been regulated by the dictates of justice and goodness. If the deist admits the latter, what becomes of his natural religion?

Now let us inquire, whether the conclusions of abstract reasoning will coincide with the deductions of experience. If obedience be at all times our duty, in what way can present repentance release us from the punishment of former transgressions? Can repentance annihilate what is past? Or can we do more by present obedience, than acquit ourselves of present obligation? Or, does the contrition we experience, added to the positive duties we discharge, constitute a surplusage of merit, which may be transferred to the reduction of our former demerit? And is the justification of the philosopher, who is too enlightened to be a Christian, to be built, after all, upon the absurdities of supererogation? ‘We may as well affirm,’ says a learned Divine, ‘that our former obedience atones for our present sins, as that our present obedience makes amends for antecedent transgressions.’ And it is surely with a peculiar ill grace, that this sufficiency of repentance is urged by those, who deny the _possible_ efficacy of Christ’s mediation; since the ground on which they deny the latter, equally serves for the rejection of the former: the _necessary connexion_ between the merits of one being, and the acquittal of another, not being less conceivable, than that which is conceived to subsist between obedience at one time, and the forgiveness of disobedience at another.

Since then, upon the whole, experience (as far as it extends) goes to prove the natural inefficacy of repentance to remove the effects of past transgressions; and the abstract reason of the thing, can furnish no link, whereby to connect present obedience with forgiveness of former sins: it follows, that however the contemplation of God’s infinite goodness and love, might excite some faint hope, that mercy would be extended to the sincerely penitent; the animating _certainty_ of this momentous truth, without which the religious sense can have no place, can be derived from the express communication of the Deity alone.

But it is yet urged by those, who would measure the proceedings of divine wisdom by the standard of their own reason; that, admitting the necessity of a Revelation on this subject, it had been sufficient for the Deity to have made known to man his benevolent intention; and that the circuitous apparatus of the scheme of redemption must have been superfluous, for the purpose of rescuing the world from the terrors and dominion of sin; when this might have been effected in a way infinitely more simple and intelligible, and better calculated to excite our gratitude and love, merely by proclaiming to mankind a free pardon, and perfect indemnity, on condition of repentance and amendment.

To the disputer, who would thus prescribe to God the mode by which he may best conduct his creatures to happiness, we might as before reply, by the application of his own argument to the course of ordinary events: and we might demand of him to inform us, wherefore the Deity should have left the sustenance of life, depending on the tedious process of human labour and contrivance, in rearing from a small seed, and conducting to the perfection fitting it for the use of man, the necessary article of nourishment; when the end might have been at once accomplished by its instantaneous production. And will he contend that bread has not been ordained for the support of man; because that, instead of the present circuitous mode of its production, it might have been rained down from heaven, like the manna in the wilderness? On grounds such as these, the philosopher (as he wishes to be called) may be safely allowed to object to the notion of forgiveness by a Mediator.