Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

refute this opinion, the falsity of which was demonstrated when we pointed out the effects of Adam's transgression. It is sufficient to repeat the well known words of the Apostle, " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned;"* and the words of our Lord, "No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."t

But although Socinians have sometimes talked in this loose manner, that the death of Christ might excite as little attention as possible, yet they have found it necessary from the general tenor of Scripture, to admit that it had some important end, and have racked their invention in order to give a plausible account of it.

In the first place, They tell us that he died to give us an example of patience, resignation, faith and hope; and thus far they are countenanced by Scripture, which says, "Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his steps;" and addresses this exhortation to us: "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind."§ But the question is, Was this the only design of his sufferings? Does the giving of an example exhaust the meaning of the language of Scripture on this subject? We grant that he has left us an example, but we deny that this was the only object which he had in view; and we pronounce it to be false reasoning to hold any single end which is gained, to be the only end contemplated by the person who employed the means. Every man knows the distinction between a subordinate and an ultimate end, and is aware that, unless both be considered, we do not understand the design of the agent. If it was the sole purpose of the death of Christ, to give us an example, we cannot avoid thinking that the means were disproportionate to the end; and it seems incredible that a just and good Being would have subjected a person so excellent as Unitarians acknowledge him to have been, pure and spotless in his life, and richly furnished with supernatural gifts, to the most cruel torments, solely that we might learn how to behave under our afflictions. We might have been taught this lesson at less expence; and it does not appear to be a happy expedient for recommending submission, to place before us the spectacle of a person enduring the severest sufferings, although he had neither sinned himself, nor become responsible for the sins of others. The moral efficacy which is ascribed to the example, is destroyed by the nature of the case. Nothing will induce us to acquiesce in the will of God, when its operations are painful to our feelings, but a full conviction of his justice and benevolence. But the agony and blood of one who had never offended, are calculated to create fear and distrust, and to represent the Ruler of the universe, rather as a despot than as the Father of the human race.

In the second place, they tell us that he died to attest the truth of his doctrine. I grant that this is true, but in a sense which they will not allow. He died to confirm the promises of God, by paying the price of the blessings exhibited in them, and securing the enjoyment of them to believers. "All the promises of God in him are yea, and in him amen, to the glory of God."} But his death had this effect, because it was an atonement for sin, by which the anger of God was appeased, and his favour was restored. I deny that he was a simple martyr for the truth, and is to be classed with Stephen, and James, and Antipas, and other holy men, who have sealed their testimony to religion with their blood. Considered in itself, his death would not have proved the truth of his doctrine; it would have proved only that he was fully persuaded of its truth. This is all that we can justly infer from the sacrifice which a man

• Rom. v: 12. † John x. 18. + 1 Pet. ii. 21. § Ib. iv. 1. 2 Cor. i. 20.

makes for his principles; if we go any farther, as there have been martyrs for different religions, we should be compelled to conclude, that they are all equally true. It was not necessary that he should die to confirm his doctrine, because he had already established it upon the solid basis of his miracles. To these he appealed, saying, "Believe me for the very work's sake."* They demonstrate that he was a messenger from God, and consequently, that whatever he delivered in the name of God, was to be received without murmuring and disputing. They were admitted as evidence by all persons of candour, and with respect to those who were dissatisfied, we may say, that they would not have believed, although one had risen from the dead. "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do these miracles which thou doest, except God be with him." Hence we conclude, that this was not the design of his death. His dying for the truth could not have afforded clearer evidence than his miracles, nor considered in itself, evidence so clear. What followed it, indeed, namely his resurrection, is the grand demonstration, that he was the object of the divine approbation; but it is so, because he was put to death as an impostor and blasphemer, and was not at all necessary, independently of these charges against him, to vindicate his claim to the character of a messenger from God. The proof was so complete before his last sufferings, that those who rejected him were without excuse, as we learn from his own words: "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin."‡ Once more, They tell us that he died to give us the assurance of eternal life, that we might be led to faith and obedience, through which we obtain the remission of sin. At first sight, it seems strange and far from the truth, that the painful and ignominious death of an innocent person should avail to persuade us, that a recompence is prepared in a future state for those who lead a holy life upon earth. Appearances are directly in the face of such an expectation. Aware of this difficulty, Socinus said that this hope, which exerts so happy an influence upon us, is not properly the effect of the death, but of the resurrection of Christ, and is ascribed to his death, because it necessarily preceded his resurrection. But if this were the truth, the Scripture would have made mention of his resurrection, or rather of his ascension to heaven, and his sitting at the right hand of God, when it speaks of the remission of sin, and not of his death and sufferings, at least not so often, and in such significant terms. The frequent, and almost constant, conjunction of his "blood" with remission, indicates that the latter is not a remote, but the proximate effect of it. To what purpose is this circuitous method? Remission is granted to those only who obey the commandments of God; faith, and the hope of a reward, as Socinus affirms, are motives and excitements to obedience; this faith is generated by the consideration of Christ raised from the dead, and exalted to glory on account of his holiness; but death preceded his resurrection, and therefore remission is fitly said to be obtained by his death. That which is near, or separated by a moderate interval, is not assigned as the cause, but that which is removed to a great distance from the effect; the first step in the process is given as the cause of the result, while it ought to be ascribed to the last step, which goes immediately before it; and this is done not once, but uniformly. Who can believe that the Scripture expresses itself so inaccurately and obscurely? To speak of his death when it means his resurrection, of which his death was not the cause but the antecedent, is just as proper as to speak of night when we mean day. A slight perusal of the sacred writings will convince any man who is not prejudiced, that this is not the true account. He will find that the remission of sin is not attributed to the resurrection and exaltation

• John xiv. 11,

† Ib. iii. 2.

+ Ib. xv. 22.

66

of Christ, or to the effect which these events are calculated to produce upon our minds, but expressly to his death; and that his death, as distinguished from his resurrection and exaltation, is stated to be the procuring cause of our redemption. "If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."* Our reconciliaton, which implies the pardon of sin, was effected by his death, and not by the life which he now leads in heaven.

In a word, they tell us that Christ died in order to obtain the power of forgiving sin. But to this assertion we oppose the fact, that he possessed this power before his death; and it is absurd to suppose him to have died for the purpose of acquiring what was already his own. He repeatedly said, "Thy sins are forgiven thee." It is observable that, on one occasion, he used these words, "The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins;'t as if he had meant to provide for the refutation of those who affirm that this power was subsequent to his ascension. He had power to forgive sins while he was on earth, in his state of humiliation; and that it does not signify, as some pretend, simply the power of healing diseases, will appear on consulting the passage, where there is a clear distinction between the pardon and the cure of the paralytic; the one having taken place before the other, and the cure being expressly declared to be the sign and confirmation of the pardon.

This view of the death of Christ, as the means of obtaining the power of forgiving sin, leads me to take notice of another theory, which has been called the middle scheme, because it admits more than the Socinian, and less than the Catholic system. This statement, however, is not perfectly accurate; because Socinus himself, and his immediate followers, who allowed to Jesus Christ supreme authority over men, held in substance the doctrine which has been supposed to be peculiar to the scheme now to be considered.

The middle scheme agrees with the Socinian in rejecting the atonement, but it accords thus far with the Catholic, that it maintains the intervention or mediation of Christ in a qualified sense, as necessary, or at least as appointed, for the restoration of the guilty to the favour of God. It proceeds upon this principle, that God, who is infinitely merciful, may pardon the transgressions of his creatures freely, and might have pardoned them upon repentance, but that it appeared expedient to his wisdom, and conducive to the interests of his moral government, to exercise his mercy to them, not immediately, but through the interposition of another person. This friendly office was performed by Jesus Christ, whom the abettors of this system do not consider as the eternal and consubstantial Son of God, but as the first and most glorious of created beings, by whom the world was made. Pitying our fallen race, he generously engaged to assume our nature, to submit to poverty and persecution, and to suffer crueifixion, that he might acquire the right and power to. carry into effect his benevolent design. His services were highly acceptable to God; and in consideration of them, there has been granted to him, upon his intercession, a kingdom or government over men, authorising him to bestow pardon and eternal life upon those who repent and obey. In confirmation of their scheme, they appeal to certain cases mentioned in Scripture, as being analogous, and as evincing its conformity to the manner in which the Divine administration is conducted; to cases in which the sins of others were pardoned at the request of good men, and from respect to their virtues. Thus, great privileges were conferred upon the Israelites, to reward the piety and obedience of Abraham; the idolatry of the people in the wilderness was pardoned when Moses interceded for them; and God heard the prayer of Job for his three friends, against whom his anger was kindled, because they had not spoken of him the thing that was right. † Matt. ix. 6.

• Rom. v. 10,

F

As this system admits a Mediator, although it confines his duty to intercession founded on his previous sufferings, it enables its advocates to make a plausible use of the language of Scripture, and to say with truth, according to their limited views, that we are saved by the blood of Christ, that we are forgiven for his sake, that we are redeemed to God by the death of his Son. It seems also to guard the honour of the Divine government amidst the exercise of mercy, by not treating the sins of men as light and venial, and pardoning only from respect to the merits of a being of a higher order, through whom their repentance is accepted. It will occur, however, to your minds, that the Scriptural phrases concerning the death of Christ must be interpreted in a low sense, that they may be brought to accord with the scheme now under consideration. We are saved by the death of Christ, not as an atonement, for this idea is expressly excluded; but as a preliminary step to our salvation, or as the appointed means of obtaining the power to save us, or rather the power to prescribe the terms of our salvation. If it be said that this power was merited by his sufferings, and, consequently, that they are in truth the primary cause of salvation, we remark that, after all, no more is ascribed to them than might be ascribed to the sufferings of a mere man, on whose account some favour should be conferred upon his family and friends. He has received wounds or lost his life in the service of his country, and his country testifies its gratitude by rewarding those who are related to him. All the arguments drawn from the terms in which the death of Christ is spoken of, to prove its propitiatory nature against the Socinians, bear with equal force against the scheme of intercession. It is true, according to both systems, that he did not die as our Surety, and bear our sins in his own body on the tree. This scheme, in short, is an expedient which has been devised, not to interpret Scripture according to the genuine sense, but to explain it away; to evade, on the one hand, the obnoxious idea of atonement, and to seem, on the other hand, to attribute to our Saviour's death some powerful efficacy in our redemption from sin. It is liable to the objection against the Socinian system, that it does not satisfactorily account for the sufferings of an innocent person, as on all hands he is acknowledged to have been. It may display the goodness of God, but it reflects upon his justice, with which it is impossible to reconcile the sufferings which Christ underwent by Divine appointment, although he was free from personal or imputed guilt. In short, although it has been called a beautiful theory, it will not appear in this light to the man who thinks, and thinks justly, that the beauty of a moral system depends upon its truth; and to a person who has studied and understood his Bible, it will not have even the merit of speciousness, because, before it could impose upon him for a moment, he must have forgotten all that he had read.

66

I have said that it is an objection against this and the Socinian system, that they do not satisfactorily account for the death of an innocent person. That our Saviour was without sin, we may assume as an incontrovertible fact, upon the testimony of Scripture; and we reject with abhorrence the insinuation of modern Unitarians, who have dared to insinuate that, although his public life was blameless, he might not be exempt in private from the imperfections incident to humanity. He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." According to all our ideas of justice, an innocent person has a right to live in peace under the protection of the laws, and we should exclaim against the government which should molest him, as oppressive and tyrannical. Yet we are not surprised when such a person is persecuted by men, because we know by experience what are the fatal effects of calumny and envy, and how often power is abused from caprice, and ignorance, and passion. But, in heaven we look for a pure administration, and it is a principle of reason and religion,

* 1 Pet. ii. 22.

that the righteous are acceptable to the Ruler of the world, and are the objects of his peculiar care. The sufferings of our Lord did not originate solely from men; the agency of God was concerned in them, and they all, indeed, befel him either by his immediate interposition, or by his appointment and permission: "It pleased the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief."† Some tell us that, in virtue of his sovereignty and supreme dominion, God may subject his creatures to sufferings without a cause; that he is not bound to give an account of his proceedings to us; that, if an angel in heaven, or the holiest man upon earth, were severely afflicted, it would be sufficient to say, that such is his will. Were this doctrine admitted, our antagonists could explain the mystery of the cross without any difficulty. But those who hold it, have forgotten that the Lord of the universe is not a despot, but a righteous and beneficent Governor; they take a partial view of his character, and sink all his other perfections in that of his power. They have forgotten, too, that he has prescribed a law to himself, from which he will never deviate; a law expressly declaring that he will render to every man according to his deeds. Hence we conclude, with the utmost certainty, that when any being suffers there is a just cause. We are at no loss to account for the sufferings of men, whatever are their attainments in piety and virtue, knowing, as we do, that each of them is a sinner; but what reason shall we assign for the sufferings of Him, who was proclaimed by a voice from heaven to be the Son of God, in whom he was well pleased? Here both the systems which we have reviewed entirely fail. They give no explanation in which a well instructed mind can acquiesce. To say that Christ was subjected to sufferings for the benevolent purpose of conferring important benefits upon mankind, is to give the highest sanction to the principle, which is so strongly reprobated in the Scriptures, that evil may be done that good may come. To say that, although his sufferings were great, he has been amply rewarded for them, is to set up the plea, that a person may be treated unjustly in the mean time, provided that justice shall be done to him at last, and to vindicate any arbitrary exercise of power, if the victim of it is not an ultimate loser. Such a procedure would be condemned in a human governor, and is not to be attributed to Him who is the archetype of justice to kings and princes.

You have heard the reasons which are assigned for the death of Christ, by those who deny that it was an atonement for sin. If they have proved unsatisfactory, the doctrine of the catholic church remains unshaken; and it is a presumption in its favour, that all the attempts to substitute something better in its place have failed of success. Before, however, we are authorised

to pronounce it to be true, we must ascertain that it is not only preferable to other views of the subject, but that it is agreeable to Scripture, from which only the real design of the death of Christ can be learned. It is not our business to contrive a variety of hypotheses, and try which of them is most suitable, but to inquire what our Saviour himself and his disciples have said upon this important subject.

I begin by observing, That the idea of atonement has prevailed among all nations and in every age of the world, and that, accordingly, sacrifices have been offered with the view of propitiating the Deity. From what source the idea and the practice were derived, is a question about which learned men have been divided in sentiment. Some have maintained that sacrifices were an invention of men, who hoped, by the offering of something valuable, to gain the favour of the Being whom they worshipped, as we seek to conciliate the good will of our superiors by gifts; and others contend that they originated in the command of God to our first parents after the fall. Without en

* Is. liii. 10.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »