as the rule of his faith, would venture to controvert this position, or allow a doubt to remain in his mind. But some persons are not so easily satisfied. They have conceived a prejudice against the doctrine, and will not be convinced by any evidence. Hence they have recourse to the same expedient, by which they endeavour to set aside the proofs of the divinity of Christ, namely, the pretence that the words are not to be understood according to their usual import. They cannot deny that he is called a priest, and his death a sacrifice; but they allege that the literal sense must be rejected, for no reason which I can discover, except that it is at variance with their system. Christ, they say, was a metaphorical priest; his death was a metaphorical sacrifice; and what follows, but that he has obtained for us a metaphorical redemption, that is, no redemption at all? As the Scriptures were given to instruct us in religion, it may be presumed that they are written in language which all may understand. To suppose that the style is highly figurative even in the didactic parts, that plain truths are wrapt up in metaphors, that the real is often different from the apparent sense, is to throw a most injurious reflection upon the word of God, and would justify the church of Rome in withholding it from the common people as a book liable to be abused by them. No person who has read the Old Testament, can be ignorant what is meant by a sacrifice. He understands it to have been a victim slain and offered upon the altar, in order to avert the anger and procure the favour of God. When he finds that, in the New Testament, the death of Christ is called a sacrifice, and considers that both parts of revelation proceeded from the same Author, he is necessarily led te believe that the word retains its ancient sense, and that Christ died in our room to reconcile us to God. We account him a blundering writer, who uses the same word upon the same occasion in different senses; and we call him an unfair writer, who, by changing the meaning without warning, seeks to impose upon his readers. To tell us that we ought to beware of being misled by the sound of words, and that, in the passages which speak of the death of Christ as a propitiatory oblation, nothing is intended but an allusion to the sacrifices of the law, is to tell us that we may seek truth where we please, but we shall not find it in the Scriptures. If a person is honestly inquiring after truth, he will have recourse to no shifts-no far-fetched and overstrained methods of establishing a particular point. There will be no prejudices admitted in favour of one opinion, and against another; there will be no reluctance to receive evidence, on whatever side it present itself; there will be a cautious and diligent use of all the means, by which a correct view of the subject is most likely to be obtained. Truth alone being his object, there will be no temptation to step out of the way which leads to it. When the question regards the sense of a particular author, he will proceed according to the plan pursued on all such occasions, and understand the terms in their common acceptation, unless it clearly appear that the author has designedly deviated from the established usage. He will not attempt to make him express sentiments different from those which he seems to express, if he is writing historically or didactically, without assigning a reason sufficient to satisfy any competent judge. If we see a person taking a different method, wresting words from their obvious import, talking of metaphors when the literal sense is perfectly intelligible and spontaneously presents. itself to the mind, trying to find out, not what they naturally signify, but what they may be made to signify by the dexterity of bold and unprincipled criticism, and converting the text into an enigma, the recondite meaning of which can be discovered only by conjecture and not by any rational rules of interpretation, we have ground to suspect that he is not honest, and that his aim is, not to come at the truth, but to establish a doctrine of his own. Such is the procedure of Socinians, with respect to the atonement and the divinity of Christ. It is itself sufficient to put every man upon his guard, and betrays a conviction, on their part, that the Scriptures, as we have them, and their system, cannot stand together. Socinianism requires a new Bible, or, what amounts to the same thing, an improved version; that is, a corrupted text, and an equally corrupt interpretation. LECTURE LVIII. ON THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST. The Correspondence between the atoning Sacrifices of the Levitical Law and the Death of Christ, traced and proved-Christ a Substitute, and his Death an Atonement-Notice of Objections to the Doctrine. We have ground for believing that the death of Christ was an atonement for sin, in the language of Scripture, which, being borrowed from the sacrificial rites of the law, is applied to that event in such a manner, as to leave no doubt that his death was considered by the sacred writers as having the same nature, and the same design, with the th the ancient oblations. But, in order more fully to establish the doctrine, let us take a closer view of the legal sacrifices, and observe how exact is the correspondence between them and the death of Christ in every thing essential. If we find that it has all the characters of a true and proper sacrifice for sin, we cannot hesitate to view it in this light, and to regard it as the procuring cause of pardon and eternal life. The first point of resemblance is found in the substitution of the sacrifice. It was put in the place of the person who offered it, and was called an offering for his sin, or for his soul. It was not a free gift, a token of gratitude, or a tribute paid by a subject to his sovereign, but a vicarious oblation, which was slain to signify the death which he deserved, and to save him from personally undergoing the penalty. As this notion of a sacrifice is obviously. taught by the law, so it was adopted by the Jews and by the Gentiles, who both considered the victim as given for them, as occupying their place. This was signified by the act of laying his hands upon the head of the victim, by which the offerer transferred his guilt from himself to the devoted animal, that it might be punished in his stead. Jesus Christ was substituted in the room of sinners; and hence he is called alled, "the surety of a better covenant.' A surety is one who gives security for another, that the other will fulfil his engagements, or, in the case of failure, that he will fulfil them for him. Some say that he was surety to us for God, having engaged that God would perform his promises; or surety for us to God, having engaged to him that we should perform the condition of the covenant. Both ideas are inadmissible, and the true meaning is explained by the apostle in another place, when he says, that Christ was "the Mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."t He was a surety who undertook to die for those whom he represented. The substitution is evident from those passages in which he is said to have died for us, in . It is acknowledged that the preposition sometimes signifies merely on account of, or with a view to the advantage of; but it does not follow that, in reference to the death of Christ, it imports only that he died for our good, to confirm his doctrine, and to set us an example. It is beyond doubt that it also signifies in the room of, and bears this sense when it occurs in connexion with the verb on, both in the Scriptures and in the classics. "The Socinians," says Raphelius, "will not find one Greek writer to support a different interpretation.' "In this sense it occurs repeatly in the writings of Xenophon: Hus v Tep rouтcu arcberev;† "would you be willing to die for this boy?" that is, as is evident from the context, "Will you die in his stead? save his life by parting with your own?" AVTINEX'S TOU Tags garba—“ Antilochus dying for his father" obtained such glory, that he alone among the Greeks was Φιλιπιτως. The preposition retains the same sense in the New Testament. When Caiaphas, the high priest, said, that it was expedient ἵνα εις ανθρωπος αποθανη υπες του λαου, και με όλον το έθνος απόλητα, he manifestly signified that our Lord should be put to death as a victim for the Jews, that by his death they might be saved from the vengeance of the Romans. He was to be like the περιψήματα and περικεθηρματα of the Greeks, men who were taken from the multitude and slain, that the anger of the gods might be appeased. "Scarcely-ing for a righteous man will one die, but for a good man,-ig ro ayaw some would even dare to die."§ Persons might be found to lay down their lives for such a man. The apostle is unquestionably speaking of a case of substitution, of the voluntary sacrifice of one life for another. The preposition, therefore, must, by all the laws of criticism, have the same import, in the words which immediately follow:But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,-ing μar anteve.”|| preposition art, The law says, had put out the The same inference may be drawn from the use of the which conveys the idea of commutation and substitution. οφθαλμός αντί οφθαλμου, οδος αντι έδεντος, requiring that the man who eye or the tooth of another, should lose one of his own. To render xxxv avre ***, is to do any injury to our neighbour, because he has done an injury to us. In these cases, the general idea is that of commutation. The preposition also denotes substitution and succession, or coming in the room of another. Thus, Archelaus reigned over Judea,—arri ‘Headcu TCU TAτgos UUTCU—" in the room of Herod his father."¶ And in what other sense but this of substitution can we understand it in the following words? "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many-" δούναι την ψυχην αυτου λυτριν αντί πολλών." ** The preposition ascertains the action to be vicarious, to be an action performed by one person, not only for the benefit, but in the room of another, as a benevolent man would lay down the price demanded for the liberty of a captive, which the captive himself was unable to pay. The life of sinners was forfeited, and it was redeemed by the life of the Saviour. The word g signifies a price of any kind, but is limited to the sense of a ransom by the occasion, being Autgan arti me, for the deliverance of many. There is a compound noun, age, which is used by Paul, when he says, that Christ gave himself a "ransom for all, to be testified in due time;" intimating, in the most intelligible manner, that his death was not merely the means, but the price of our redemption, and, consequently, that his sufferings were vicarious. When we affirm the substitution of Christ, we suppose that our guilt was legally transferred to him, so that he was made answerable for it; and, in this respect, there is a resemblance between him and the ancient sacrifices. They were called sin-offerings, and simply non, sin,-the same term being em • Raphelii Annot. tom. ii. p. 253, 254. Rom. v. 7. Ib. 8. ¶ Matt. ii. 22. + De Venat. † De Cyri Exped. ployed to denote the transgression and the oblation for it, because there was a translation of the one to the other, or the latter was considered as bearing the former. This translation was represented by a significant rite. When the priest, the ruler, or any one of the common people, brought for a sin-offering a bullock, a goat, or a kid, or a lamb, each was commanded to lay his hand upon its head; and the meaning of the rite is evident from what was done on the great day of atonement. Two goats were then presented, of which the one was to be slain and offered for a sin-offering; but the other was to be sent by the hand of a fit person into the wilderness, in order to represent the removal of guilt as the effect of the sacrifice. That the design might be understood, and might make a proper impression upon the spectators, "Aaron,” says the law," shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness."* There seems to be an allusion to this rite, and certainly the same thing is expressed by the prophet, when he says, "All we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." They were laid upon him as the sins of the Israelites were laid upon the scape-goat. To the same purpose are the words of the Apostle, "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." I add the testimony of Peter: "Who his own self bare our sins in his body on the tree: by whose stripes ye were healed."§ The sins which he bore on the cross were not his own, but ours; and "his bearing them" implies, that they had been laid upon him as a burden under which we were sinking into perdition, and from which he was graciously pleased to relieve us. It is an obvious inference from these passages, that there was a transference of the sins of men to our Saviour, as the sins of the Israelite were transferred to the animal which he brought to the altar. Christ having voluntarily engaged to give satisfaction to the Divine justice for us, they were reckoned to him, as a debt is reckoned to a surety when the debtor himself is insolvent, and the creditor looks to the surety for payment. God dealt with him as if the sins had been his own; he inflicted punishment upon him as if he had been the offender. This is what we mean by saying that our sins were imputed to him; he came under an obligation to bear the penalty. They were only imputed to him, but not accounted really his own. This was impossible; for God, who always judges according to truth, would not charge one person with having committed the sins of another. Such a charge would be false, and never was, nor never will be, made. We cannot, therefore, read without disgust and detestation the language in which some high-flyers have indulged, men who carried every thing to excess, and exposed important doctrines to reproach, by the unguarded and presumptuous manner in which they expressed them; not hesitating to call our blessed Lord a sinner, and the greatest of sinners; and to maintain that, during his last sufferings, he was separated from God and disowned by him, and was odious and abominable in his sight. These are not the words of truth and soberness, but the ravings of impiety or insanity. Such men did not understand the translation of guilt, which merely implies an obligation to punishment, but no moral taint, and was so far from rendering our Lord an object of the displeasure of his Father, that he never was the object of higher approbation than when he was expiring on the cross. The voluntary susception of our guilt, while in himself he was § 1 Peter ii. 24. Lev. xvi. 21, 22. † Is. liii. 6. + 2 Cor. v. 21. perfectly pure, could not for one moment change the sentiment of entire complacency with which his heavenly Father had always regarded him. Without sin, he was a sin-offering, bearing the iniquities of those whom he had undertaken to redeem. He owed nothing to justice for himself, but he owed much as the surety of men. His death was accompanied with such circumstances as showed that it was a penal act; for, besides its shame and its torments, it was that kind of death which the law had pronounced to be accursed; and the preternatural darkness at his crucifixion, was a visible symbol of the frown of the invisible Creator. The animal which was substituted in the room of the offending Israelite, and over which he had confessed his sin, was slain, and laid upon the altar. Life was given for life; the life of the animal, which God was pleased to accept, instead of the life of the man. "The life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it unto you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."* That Jesus Christ died, is a fact about which there is no dispute; but, with respect to the design of his death, we have seen that his professed followers are far from being agreed. It is granted that he died for our good, that he submitted to crucifixion to attest his doctrine, and give us an example; but that his death was a sacrifice of atonement, some men confidently deny. Upon their hypothesis, there was no material difference between his death and that of many other holy men, who laid down their lives for the truth, and at the same time, were admirable patterns of faith, and patience, and hope. We assert, that he died as the substitute of the guilty; that death was a punishment inflicted upon him for our sins, which were the impulsive cause of his sufferings, and, in this sense, he was made a curse for us; and that the great design was, to give satisfaction to Divine justice. This view is founded upon the passages formerly quoted to prove his substitution, passages which assert, that "he gave himself for us ;" that "he was made sin," or a sin-offering, "for us ;" that he died for all;" that " he bore our sins in his own body on the tree;" that he suffered, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." In a case where the defence of a particular system was not concerned, it would be acknowledged to be contrary to the laws of sound interpretation to understand, by such expressions, merely that the death of Christ has been productive of some benefit to mankind. I should wish to know, from those who wrest them from their obvious sense-the sense which they have suggested to all men but themselves-in what stronger terms the inspired writers could have expressed themselves, if it had been really their design to inform us that Christ died, not only for our good, but to atone for our sins; and whether the usage of the language, and the prevailing sentiments of those for whose instruction they wrote, would have led them to employ other terms than those which they have actually employed. If their words do not teach that the death of Christ was a true and proper sacrifice for sin, we must say that this is an idea which human language is incapable of communicating. Is it possible to be more explicit than Peter is, when he affirms, that Christ suffered for sin, or as a sin-offering, the just for the unjust? Surely every man must see, who has not wilfully shut his eyes, that the just One suffered in the room of the unjust; suffered that they might not suffer; that his death was vicarious, and he submitted to it that he might bring us to God, or effect a reconciliation between us and our offended Creator. There is no perceptible difference between his death and the legal sacrifices but this-that, in the one case, it was an animal without reason which was slain, and in the other, it was a man, the Son of the living God, who was the victim. His death was called a sacrifice, • Lev. xvii. 11. |