Chapter 39

128.So the word is properly rendered by the Chaldee Paraphrast.

129.See Joseph. Antiq. Lib. XVIII. cap. 1. & Lib. XX. cap. 2. & de Bell. Jud. Lib. II. cap. 6.

130.Βασιλειαν ο καιρος, ανεπεισθε.

131.Vid. Sueton in Vespas. Percrebuerat oriente toto, ventus & constans opinio, esse in fatis; ut eo tempore Judea, profecti, rerum potirentur; & Tacit. Histor. Lib. V. Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret, Oriens, profectiq; Judea rerum potirentur.

132.See Lightfoot’s works, Vol. I. Pag. 765, 766.

133.SeeVol. I.Page 291, 292.

134.It is otherwise styled, Necessitas consequentiæ.

135.And in presenting his glorious body with the marks of suffering.

136.See Vol. I. page 261.

137.This is generally styled, by divines, Communicatio idiomatum in concreto, non in abstracto.

138.See Vol. I. page 296, 306.

139.Prophets were, indeed, oftentimes set apart for that office, without anointing; but it seems probable, from the command of God to Elijah, to anoint Elisha to be a prophet in his room, that when they were called, in an extraordinary manner, to be public prophets, and in that respect, as it is said concerning the prophet Jeremiah,[chap. i. 10.] Set over nations and kingdoms,then they were not only sanctified and ordained hereunto, but the ceremony of anointing was used, especially when some other prophet was appointed to instal them in this office. And as for kings, though they were not always anointed, yet this ceremony was generally used, as is observed by some Jewish writers, when the kingdom was rent out of the hand of one, and another was, by immediate divine direction, substituted to reign in his stead: thus, when the kingdom was taken from Saul, David was anointed; and it was also used in other instances, though the crown was inherited by lineal descent, when any other made pretensions to it. Thus David commanded Solomon to be anointed, because Adonijah pretended to it,[1 Kings i. 34.]And Joash was anointed, though he had a right to the crown, as descended from Ahaziah, who was king before him, because the crown had, for some time, been usurped by Athaliah,[2 Kings xi. 12.]In these, and such like cases, kings were installed in their office by unction, though, in other instances, it was not universally practised.

140.See Vol. I. Page 347-350.

141.See Vol. I. Page 291, 292.

142.The force of this argument, and the application of these and several other scriptures to Christ, depend upon this supposition, which, we take for granted, and, were it needful, might easily be proved, that whenever a divine person is said, in scripture, to appear in the form of an angel, or to appear in a cloud as a symbol, or emblem of his presence, this is always meant of our Saviour.But compare Watts’s Works, 5 vol. 381, and Edwards’s Works, 4 vol. 491.

143.Vid. Ephiph. Hær. Page 67. § 7.

144.Among the latter, is the learned Dr. Lightfoot. See his Works, Vol. I. Page 12. and Vol. II. Page 327.

145.We have no account of the year when this battle was fought; but it is evident that it was before Isaac was born, and consequently before Abraham had lived 25 years in the land of Canaan. And that Shem was then living, appears from hence, that from the flood to Abraham’s coming into the land of Canaan, was 427 years, as appears by considering the sum total of the years of the lives of the patriarchs, mentioned inGen. xi. 10.& seq. and also that Terah was 130 years old when Abraham was born, as appears, by comparingGen. xi. 32.withActs vii. 4.andGen. xii. 4.and by considering Abraham as 75 years old, as it is there said he was, when he left Haran. Now Shem was born 98 or 100 years before the flood, as appears by comparingGen. v. 32.withchap. xi. 10.andvii. 11.Therefore, when Abraham went out of his country into the land of Canaan, Shem was 525 or 527 years old; and, when Shem died, he was 600 years old, Gen. xi. 10, 11.therefore Shem lived more than half a hundred years after this battle was fought.

146.See Jurieu’s critical history, vol. I. chap. 11.

147.As yet there was no church.

148.See critical history, vol. I. page 110.

149.This opinion is maintained by Cunæus, [Vid. ejusd. Repub. Hebr. Lib. III. cap. 3.] and some others after him.

150.“Some insist that he is none other than theSon of Godhimself, who, assuming theappearance, orreality, of humanity, exhibited to Abraham an early picture of his future priesthood.“This is all over contemptible.—1. Because every high priest is taken from among men; theappearanceof humanity is not enough.—2. Because if he was at that time a priest, and discharged the duties of his office, he must have ‘suffered often,’ (twice) ‘from the beginning of the world;’ and not ‘by the once offering up of himself have for ever perfected them who are sanctified:’ then, moreover, Abraham would have received the promised blessing, contrary to the scriptures: and, in fine, the appearance of the Son of God, as the Son of Mary, was superfluous. If, to avoid those absurdities, it be alleged that though he appeared as a priest, he did not discharge the duties of his office: then, in the first place, he is degraded into a mere pageant, an officer without functions: and, in the second place, he is stripped of all typical character: for the priest who neithersacrifices, norintercedes, can never be a type of one who doesboth.—3. Because, if Melchisedec was the Son of God, whether in real humanity, or only in its appearance,hemust have been a type ofhimself; the ideas ofidentityandsimilarityare confounded; and Paul instead of saying, αφωμοιωμενος τω υιω του Θεου, that he was ‘made like to the Son of God,’ should have said, ων ο υιος του Θεου, that he was the Son of God.—4. Because it would be unworthy the manly sense of Paul, to say nothing ofinspiration, to labour through a long dissertation to prove a mere truism, which it would disgrace an ideot to utter, and insult a child to offer for information; namely, that Messiah’s priesthood was very like itself.—5. Because it would be extremely irreverent to suppose, that the adorable God lifted up his hand and swore, that his Son’s priesthood, should be like his Son’s priesthood. An identical proposition does not require such a solemn confirmation.”Gray on Priesthood.

150.“Some insist that he is none other than theSon of Godhimself, who, assuming theappearance, orreality, of humanity, exhibited to Abraham an early picture of his future priesthood.

“This is all over contemptible.—1. Because every high priest is taken from among men; theappearanceof humanity is not enough.—2. Because if he was at that time a priest, and discharged the duties of his office, he must have ‘suffered often,’ (twice) ‘from the beginning of the world;’ and not ‘by the once offering up of himself have for ever perfected them who are sanctified:’ then, moreover, Abraham would have received the promised blessing, contrary to the scriptures: and, in fine, the appearance of the Son of God, as the Son of Mary, was superfluous. If, to avoid those absurdities, it be alleged that though he appeared as a priest, he did not discharge the duties of his office: then, in the first place, he is degraded into a mere pageant, an officer without functions: and, in the second place, he is stripped of all typical character: for the priest who neithersacrifices, norintercedes, can never be a type of one who doesboth.—3. Because, if Melchisedec was the Son of God, whether in real humanity, or only in its appearance,hemust have been a type ofhimself; the ideas ofidentityandsimilarityare confounded; and Paul instead of saying, αφωμοιωμενος τω υιω του Θεου, that he was ‘made like to the Son of God,’ should have said, ων ο υιος του Θεου, that he was the Son of God.—4. Because it would be unworthy the manly sense of Paul, to say nothing ofinspiration, to labour through a long dissertation to prove a mere truism, which it would disgrace an ideot to utter, and insult a child to offer for information; namely, that Messiah’s priesthood was very like itself.—5. Because it would be extremely irreverent to suppose, that the adorable God lifted up his hand and swore, that his Son’s priesthood, should be like his Son’s priesthood. An identical proposition does not require such a solemn confirmation.”

Gray on Priesthood.

151.He livethfor any thing to the contrary shewn in his history.

152.“Thatdeathis a punishment for sin, and that all mankind are by death offered as asacrificefor sin, is not only a doctrine of revealed Religion, but the plain dictate of Reason. For, though it is Revelation alone that can teach us, how God threatened death as the punishment of a particular sin, yet Reason must be obliged to acknowledge, that men die, because they are sinners. But if men die, because they are sinners, and Reason itself must receive this, as the most justifiable cause of Death; then Reason must allow, that the death of all mankind is appointed by the true God, as asacrificefor sin. But, if Reason must acknowledge the death of all mankind as a sacrifice for sin, then it can have no just objection against the sacrifice of Christ,becauseit washuman.“Revelation, therefore, teaches nothing more hard to be believed on this point, than Reason teaches. For, if it be just and fit in God, toappointanddevoteall men to death, as the properpunishmentof their sins; how can it be proved to be unjust and unfit in God, to receive the death of Jesus Christ, for the same ends?”Human Reason.

“Revelation, therefore, teaches nothing more hard to be believed on this point, than Reason teaches. For, if it be just and fit in God, toappointanddevoteall men to death, as the properpunishmentof their sins; how can it be proved to be unjust and unfit in God, to receive the death of Jesus Christ, for the same ends?”

Human Reason.

153.All the reasons upon which pardons are granted in human governments fail in the Divine.

154.“The scripture insists on full atonement, and yet every where holds up the deliverance of sinners as an act of pure grace. This is a gordian knot in divinity. Let us not by violence cut it asunder, but attempt fairly to untie it.Before we proceed, it may not be improper to observe, that the greatest difficulty with which this part of the subject is embarrassed, appears to have originated in the want of an accurate definition of justice and grace. Theologians have said much about these, yet few have defined them with sufficient accuracy to render them intelligible, or make them appear consistent. I shall therefore,First, explain the meaning of the word grace.Secondly, the meaning of the word justice.Thirdly, apply these explanations to this part of the subject, with a view to solve the difficulty with which it is embarrassed.First.What are we to understand by the word grace?We are to understand by it the exercise of favour, and consequently the bestowment of good where evil is deserved, and may in justice be inflicted. Where there is no exposure to evil, there is no room for the exercise of grace. He who is not guilty is not a subject of pardon. He who does not deserve punishment cannot be said to be freed from it by an act of favour. Grace therefore always implies, that the subject of it is unworthy, and would have no reason to complain, if all the evil to which he is exposed were inflicted on him. Grace will appear great according to the view which the sinner has of his own ill desert, and the consciousness he possesses of the punishment or evil from which he is delivered. Grace and justice are opposite in their nature. Grace gives; justice demands. Their provinces are entirely separate. Though they are united, yet they are not blended in man’s salvation. Hence that remarkable passage in Rom. xi. 6: ‘If by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work.’Secondly.What are we to understand by the word justice? It assumes three denominations—commutative, distributive, and public.1. Commutative justice respects property only.[155]‘It consists in an equal exchange of benefits,’ or in restoring to every man his own.2. Distributive justice respects the moral character of men. It respects them as accountable creatures, obedient or disobedient. It consists in ascertaining their virtue and sin, and in bestowing just rewards, or inflicting just punishments.3. Public or general justice, respects what is fit or right, as to the character of God, and the good of the universe. In this sense, justice comprises all moral goodness, and properly means the righteousness or rectitude of God, by which all his actions are guided, with a supreme regard to the greatest good. Justice, considered in this view, forbids that any thing should take place in the great plan of God, which would tarnish his glory, or subvert the authority of his law.Thirdly.Let us now apply these explanations to the solution of the difficulty under consideration.1. Did Christ satisfy commutative justice? Certainly not. Commutative justice had no concern in his sufferings. Men had taken no property from God, and consequently were under no obligation to restore any. But do not the scriptures represent Christ as giving himself a ransom, and as buying his people with a price? They do. They also represent men, while under the influence of sin, as prisoners, slaves, captives. These expressions are all figurative, borrowed from sensible to express moral or spiritual things, and therefore are not to be explained as if literally true. If we say that Christ hath redeemed us, that he has bought us, that he has paid the debt and discharged us—if we have any consistent meaning, it must be this: That in consequence of what Christ has done, we are delivered from sin, in as great a consistency with justice, as a debtor is delivered from his obligation, or the demands of law, when his debt is paid. That is, God extends pardon in such a way, through Christ, that he does not injure the authority of his law, but supports it as effectually as if he inflicted punishment.2. Did Christ satisfy distributive justice? Certainly not. Distributive justice respects personal character only. It condemns men because they are sinners, and rewards them because they are righteous. Their good or ill desert are the only ground on which distributive or moral justice respects them. But good and ill desert are personal. They imply consciousness of praise or blame, and cannot be transferred or altered so as to render the subjects of them more or less worthy. What Christ did, therefore, did not take ill desert from men, nor did it place them in such a situation that God would act unjustly to punish them according to their deeds. If a man has sinned, it will always remain a truth that he has sinned, and that according to distributive justice he deserves punishment. In this sense justice admits the condemnation of Paul as much as it does of Judas. The salvation of the former is secured, and his condemnation rendered impossible by another consideration.3: Did Christ satisfy public justice? Undoubtedly he did. This is evident from what has already been advanced respecting the necessity of atonement, in order to a consistent exercise of mercy. Christ’s sufferings rendered it right and fit, with respect to God’s character and the good of the universe, to forgive sin. The atonement made by Christ presented the law, the nature of sin, and the displeasure of God against it, in such a light, that no injury would accrue to the moral system, no imputation would be against the righteousness of the great Legislator, though he should forgive the sinner, and instate him in eternal felicity. Perfect justice therefore is done to the universe, though all transgressors be not punished according to their personal demerit. The death of Christ therefore is to be considered as a great, important, and public transaction, respecting God and the whole system of rational beings. Public justice requires, that neither any of these be injured, nor the character and government of the great Legislator disrespected, by the pardon of any. In these respects public justice is perfectly satisfied by the death of Christ. This is evident from the following passages of scripture. Rom. iii. 21; ‘But now the righteousness (rectitude or justice) of God is manifested without the law, being witnessed by the law.’ Before the introduction of these words, the apostle had demonstrated, that the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, were all under sin and condemnation. ‘Now,’ says he, ‘we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world become guilty before God.’ All, if treated according to distributive justice, must be found guilty and condemned. ‘Therefore,’ says Paul, ‘by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.’ How, then, it might be inquired, can any be justified, and yet God not give up his law, but appear perfectly righteous and just? The answer follows. ‘By the righteousness of God, which is manifested without the law, being witnessed by the law.’ Rom. iii. 21. That is, the righteousness or justice of God, with respect to himself and the universe, is clearly manifested, though he do not execute the law, as to distributive justice, on transgressors, but pardon and save them. This is so far from being contrary to the law, that it is witnessed by the law. For the sufferings of Christ demonstrate, that God no more gives up the penalty of the law, than if he should inflict it on the original transgressor. The righteousness or justice manifested in this way is through Christ; ‘whom,’ says Paul, ‘God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood.’ For what end? ‘To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins.’ ‘To declare at this time his righteousness (for this purpose) that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus,’ Rom. iii. 25, 26. Hence it is said, ‘Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,’ Rom. x. 4. That is, the end of the law is as fully answered in the salvation of men by Christ, as it would have been if they had never transgressed, but had obtained life by perfect obedience. It is said, ‘If we confess our sins, he is just to forgive us our sins,’ 1 John i. 9. He is just to himself, to his law, to the universe. God styles himself ‘a just God, and a Saviour.’ Is. xlv. 21. Hence justice and mercy harmonize in man’s salvation.From the preceding statement of the nature of grace and justice, it appears,First, That atonement, and consequently the pardon of sin, have no respect to commutative justice.Secondly, That the sufferings of Christ did not satisfy distributive justice, since that respects personal character only; and therefore, with respect to distributive justice, salvation is an act of perfect grace.Thirdly, That Christ’s sufferings satisfied public justice; and therefore, with respect to public justice, salvation is an act of perfect justice.Thus the seeming inconsistency between full atonement for sin, and pure grace in salvation, vanishes and disappears. The system of redemption rises into view like a magnificent edifice, displaying the greatest order, proportion and beauty.”Dr. Maxcy.“To reconcile grace with justice in the salvation of the sinner, is the Gordian knot, which divines generally have been unable to untie. Upon the principle of an indefinite atonement, the difficulty vanishes. If all the sins of a certain individual have been atoned for by the Redeemer, free grace will not appear in his pardon; because justice would, in that case, require his salvation. But justice is threefold,commutative,distributive, andpublic. Commutative justice has no concern in this case. Public justice is satisfied by the atonement, because the governor of the universe displays his displeasure atsin in generalin the sufferings of Christ. The exercise of distributive justice is entirely set aside, and herein is grace exhibited, the sinner is pardoned at the expence of distributive justice.”“Although we have stated this argument with all the precision of which we are capable, we must observe, that notwithstanding the show of minute discussion which it makes, its whole force consists in its obscurity, and the confusion of ideas which it produces. The indistinctness of vision which it causes, is the only reason for any man’s offering his hand to those who, by proposing it, promise to be his guide to the temple of truth.We object to this division of a divine attribute—we object to the use which is made of it—we object to the argument, because it multiplies, instead of solving difficulties—and it takes for granted, what does not exist, a difficulty in reconciling justice with grace.We object to this division of a divine attribute. It is not correct, even as it applies to man. We are perfectly aware that theSchoolmen, following the steps of heathen philosophers, adopted this division. Suarez builds upon it the doctrine of merit, in order to supply the traffic of indulgences with works of supererogation.[156]But, however variously divine justice may be exercised about its several objects, we have no reason to believe, that there are three different attributes of justice, or even that the principle in man, which induces him to act honestly in commercial transactions, and to give to every man his due, is any way different from the principle which influences a good magistrate to conduct with equity his public administration. It is one principle exercised upon various objects. The Scriptures, which uniformly ascribe righteousness to Jehovah, and afford instances of its exercise inthrice threevarious ways, never intimate that there arethree distinctattributes of divine justice.[157]We object to the use that is made of this division. There is no reason for excludingcommutativejustice any more than distributive, as distinct frompublicjustice, from having any reference to the case of the sinner’s pardon. We can readily conceive of a civil ruler, having, independently of his official duties, certain private and personal duties to discharge towards those, who, in such case, are upon terms of equality with himself. But no equality exists between the creature and Creator. The pardon of sin most assuredly approaches as near to the forgiveness of adebtas the remission of apersonal offence, which has no reference to the divine authority.Sin is a want of conformity unto, or a transgression ofTHE LAW.[158]Besides, the Scriptures frequently represent Jehovah condescending to act towards men upon the footing of a previously existing contract or covenant, but never upon the footing of private relation, setting aside his authority. He hath taught us to pray, “Forgive us our debts;” but never to say, “pardon private offences which are no transgression of thy law.” We cannot even conceive of the exercise of distributive justice by the Lord, separate from his authority as our king, our lawgiver, and our judge. We cannot conceive, that it is matter of indifference whether God does or does not exercise distributive justice towards his creatures; and much less can we admit that even, for the sake of mercy, he is ever guilty of one act of distributive injustice. We, therefore, object to the use which is made of this threefold division of the attribute of justice. And we also,Object to the whole argument which it involves, because it multiplies instead of solving difficulties around the doctrine of the sinner’s justification.It requires us to believe that God has violated, or set aside the demands of distributive justice in the salvation of his chosen—that the sufferings of our Redeemer were the punishment, not of transgressions which are, in fact, committed, but of sin in the abstract—and that public justice requires only an exhibition of the divine displeasure at sin.Sin, in the abstract, is only a word. Like an algebraical character, it represents all the transgressions of individual persons. These particular sins are realities; but sinin general, or in the abstract, is only thesign, the word, which we employ in reasoning.[159]It is not for thesign, but the thing that Jesus suffered.Thewordsin, too, represents the transgressions of angels. If the Redeemer suffered for sin in general, he made atonement for devils, although he took not on him the nature of angels. And if public justice demanded no more than the display of Jehovah’s hatred of sin, then Christ is dead in vain, for such display is made in the everlasting punishments of Hell. But justice demanded more. It demanded the punishment of the sinner; and could not be satisfied with any thing short of this, unless Messiah should so unite himself to sinners, not only by assuming their nature, but by becoming in law their representative, as to bear all the sins of all the persons for whom his sufferings were intended to atone. We object also to this argument in defence of indefinite atonement,Because it takes for granted, what does not exist, that if all the demands of divine justice are satisfied to the full by the atonement, then grace is excluded from our pardon. This is not the case. Justice is indeed satisfied. It does not oppose, but demand the salvation of all for whom Christ died. Here is no difficulty—no Gordian knot. Grace reigns through righteousness. We refer our readers to what is said on this subject, page 377, and conclude our examination of this argument in the words of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. “Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet, inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification, but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.”Christian’s Magazine, vol. iii.Atonement imports reconciliation, a beingat one. The Hebrew signifies tocover. The Greek word denotes acommutation, as of enmity for friendship. But we use atonement forransom, orprice, and we never pray for it. Redemption imports a deliverance. To say that the ransom was paidindefinitely, that is, not more for one than another, is plainly contrary to his views, who spoke of those who weregiven to him, and of hislaying down his life for his sheep. His sacrifice was real, and its object could not besin in general, a mere abstract term; a sacrifice of which Satan might avail himself, as well as man. If the atonement, and redemption be indefinite, so were the decrees or purposes, the suretyship of Christ, the foreknowledge of God, and the promotion of the glory of God in the work.On the other hand, to represent these transactions, so strictly as matters of debt, and credit, as that the quantum of price was exactly commensurate to the guilt of the saved, and neither more nor less, is not warranted by the word of God. This is to impute the cause of damnation to Christ’s not having died for those who perish; and not to their guilt. Both these conclusions are erroneous. Christ died forall men, andevery man, not in the sense of the universalists, not in the same sense as he died for his sheep; but that his sacrifice is sufficient for all; and God the Father, whose mercy can reach no fallen creature, but in Christ, has authorized the offer of covenant mercy to all; and desires the destruction of none. Thus men perish only by their sins. The Sacrifice of Christ is of infinite value, for he is a Divine person; and the sins of all men can be no more than infinite.The truth seems to be, that the sacrifice is infinite; that the offer is to be general; that man perishes by his own fault only; and all this is according to the eternal purposes of God. Nevertheless the salvation of the saints was certain; the price particularly paid with a view to them; who are eventually effectually called, justified, sanctified, and brought to glory.

Before we proceed, it may not be improper to observe, that the greatest difficulty with which this part of the subject is embarrassed, appears to have originated in the want of an accurate definition of justice and grace. Theologians have said much about these, yet few have defined them with sufficient accuracy to render them intelligible, or make them appear consistent. I shall therefore,

First, explain the meaning of the word grace.

Secondly, the meaning of the word justice.

Thirdly, apply these explanations to this part of the subject, with a view to solve the difficulty with which it is embarrassed.

First.What are we to understand by the word grace?

We are to understand by it the exercise of favour, and consequently the bestowment of good where evil is deserved, and may in justice be inflicted. Where there is no exposure to evil, there is no room for the exercise of grace. He who is not guilty is not a subject of pardon. He who does not deserve punishment cannot be said to be freed from it by an act of favour. Grace therefore always implies, that the subject of it is unworthy, and would have no reason to complain, if all the evil to which he is exposed were inflicted on him. Grace will appear great according to the view which the sinner has of his own ill desert, and the consciousness he possesses of the punishment or evil from which he is delivered. Grace and justice are opposite in their nature. Grace gives; justice demands. Their provinces are entirely separate. Though they are united, yet they are not blended in man’s salvation. Hence that remarkable passage in Rom. xi. 6: ‘If by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work.’

Secondly.What are we to understand by the word justice? It assumes three denominations—commutative, distributive, and public.

1. Commutative justice respects property only.[155]‘It consists in an equal exchange of benefits,’ or in restoring to every man his own.

2. Distributive justice respects the moral character of men. It respects them as accountable creatures, obedient or disobedient. It consists in ascertaining their virtue and sin, and in bestowing just rewards, or inflicting just punishments.

3. Public or general justice, respects what is fit or right, as to the character of God, and the good of the universe. In this sense, justice comprises all moral goodness, and properly means the righteousness or rectitude of God, by which all his actions are guided, with a supreme regard to the greatest good. Justice, considered in this view, forbids that any thing should take place in the great plan of God, which would tarnish his glory, or subvert the authority of his law.

Thirdly.Let us now apply these explanations to the solution of the difficulty under consideration.

1. Did Christ satisfy commutative justice? Certainly not. Commutative justice had no concern in his sufferings. Men had taken no property from God, and consequently were under no obligation to restore any. But do not the scriptures represent Christ as giving himself a ransom, and as buying his people with a price? They do. They also represent men, while under the influence of sin, as prisoners, slaves, captives. These expressions are all figurative, borrowed from sensible to express moral or spiritual things, and therefore are not to be explained as if literally true. If we say that Christ hath redeemed us, that he has bought us, that he has paid the debt and discharged us—if we have any consistent meaning, it must be this: That in consequence of what Christ has done, we are delivered from sin, in as great a consistency with justice, as a debtor is delivered from his obligation, or the demands of law, when his debt is paid. That is, God extends pardon in such a way, through Christ, that he does not injure the authority of his law, but supports it as effectually as if he inflicted punishment.

2. Did Christ satisfy distributive justice? Certainly not. Distributive justice respects personal character only. It condemns men because they are sinners, and rewards them because they are righteous. Their good or ill desert are the only ground on which distributive or moral justice respects them. But good and ill desert are personal. They imply consciousness of praise or blame, and cannot be transferred or altered so as to render the subjects of them more or less worthy. What Christ did, therefore, did not take ill desert from men, nor did it place them in such a situation that God would act unjustly to punish them according to their deeds. If a man has sinned, it will always remain a truth that he has sinned, and that according to distributive justice he deserves punishment. In this sense justice admits the condemnation of Paul as much as it does of Judas. The salvation of the former is secured, and his condemnation rendered impossible by another consideration.

3: Did Christ satisfy public justice? Undoubtedly he did. This is evident from what has already been advanced respecting the necessity of atonement, in order to a consistent exercise of mercy. Christ’s sufferings rendered it right and fit, with respect to God’s character and the good of the universe, to forgive sin. The atonement made by Christ presented the law, the nature of sin, and the displeasure of God against it, in such a light, that no injury would accrue to the moral system, no imputation would be against the righteousness of the great Legislator, though he should forgive the sinner, and instate him in eternal felicity. Perfect justice therefore is done to the universe, though all transgressors be not punished according to their personal demerit. The death of Christ therefore is to be considered as a great, important, and public transaction, respecting God and the whole system of rational beings. Public justice requires, that neither any of these be injured, nor the character and government of the great Legislator disrespected, by the pardon of any. In these respects public justice is perfectly satisfied by the death of Christ. This is evident from the following passages of scripture. Rom. iii. 21; ‘But now the righteousness (rectitude or justice) of God is manifested without the law, being witnessed by the law.’ Before the introduction of these words, the apostle had demonstrated, that the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, were all under sin and condemnation. ‘Now,’ says he, ‘we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world become guilty before God.’ All, if treated according to distributive justice, must be found guilty and condemned. ‘Therefore,’ says Paul, ‘by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.’ How, then, it might be inquired, can any be justified, and yet God not give up his law, but appear perfectly righteous and just? The answer follows. ‘By the righteousness of God, which is manifested without the law, being witnessed by the law.’ Rom. iii. 21. That is, the righteousness or justice of God, with respect to himself and the universe, is clearly manifested, though he do not execute the law, as to distributive justice, on transgressors, but pardon and save them. This is so far from being contrary to the law, that it is witnessed by the law. For the sufferings of Christ demonstrate, that God no more gives up the penalty of the law, than if he should inflict it on the original transgressor. The righteousness or justice manifested in this way is through Christ; ‘whom,’ says Paul, ‘God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood.’ For what end? ‘To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins.’ ‘To declare at this time his righteousness (for this purpose) that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus,’ Rom. iii. 25, 26. Hence it is said, ‘Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,’ Rom. x. 4. That is, the end of the law is as fully answered in the salvation of men by Christ, as it would have been if they had never transgressed, but had obtained life by perfect obedience. It is said, ‘If we confess our sins, he is just to forgive us our sins,’ 1 John i. 9. He is just to himself, to his law, to the universe. God styles himself ‘a just God, and a Saviour.’ Is. xlv. 21. Hence justice and mercy harmonize in man’s salvation.

From the preceding statement of the nature of grace and justice, it appears,

First, That atonement, and consequently the pardon of sin, have no respect to commutative justice.

Secondly, That the sufferings of Christ did not satisfy distributive justice, since that respects personal character only; and therefore, with respect to distributive justice, salvation is an act of perfect grace.

Thirdly, That Christ’s sufferings satisfied public justice; and therefore, with respect to public justice, salvation is an act of perfect justice.

Thus the seeming inconsistency between full atonement for sin, and pure grace in salvation, vanishes and disappears. The system of redemption rises into view like a magnificent edifice, displaying the greatest order, proportion and beauty.”

Dr. Maxcy.

“To reconcile grace with justice in the salvation of the sinner, is the Gordian knot, which divines generally have been unable to untie. Upon the principle of an indefinite atonement, the difficulty vanishes. If all the sins of a certain individual have been atoned for by the Redeemer, free grace will not appear in his pardon; because justice would, in that case, require his salvation. But justice is threefold,commutative,distributive, andpublic. Commutative justice has no concern in this case. Public justice is satisfied by the atonement, because the governor of the universe displays his displeasure atsin in generalin the sufferings of Christ. The exercise of distributive justice is entirely set aside, and herein is grace exhibited, the sinner is pardoned at the expence of distributive justice.”

“Although we have stated this argument with all the precision of which we are capable, we must observe, that notwithstanding the show of minute discussion which it makes, its whole force consists in its obscurity, and the confusion of ideas which it produces. The indistinctness of vision which it causes, is the only reason for any man’s offering his hand to those who, by proposing it, promise to be his guide to the temple of truth.

We object to this division of a divine attribute—we object to the use which is made of it—we object to the argument, because it multiplies, instead of solving difficulties—and it takes for granted, what does not exist, a difficulty in reconciling justice with grace.

We object to this division of a divine attribute. It is not correct, even as it applies to man. We are perfectly aware that theSchoolmen, following the steps of heathen philosophers, adopted this division. Suarez builds upon it the doctrine of merit, in order to supply the traffic of indulgences with works of supererogation.[156]But, however variously divine justice may be exercised about its several objects, we have no reason to believe, that there are three different attributes of justice, or even that the principle in man, which induces him to act honestly in commercial transactions, and to give to every man his due, is any way different from the principle which influences a good magistrate to conduct with equity his public administration. It is one principle exercised upon various objects. The Scriptures, which uniformly ascribe righteousness to Jehovah, and afford instances of its exercise inthrice threevarious ways, never intimate that there arethree distinctattributes of divine justice.[157]

We object to the use that is made of this division. There is no reason for excludingcommutativejustice any more than distributive, as distinct frompublicjustice, from having any reference to the case of the sinner’s pardon. We can readily conceive of a civil ruler, having, independently of his official duties, certain private and personal duties to discharge towards those, who, in such case, are upon terms of equality with himself. But no equality exists between the creature and Creator. The pardon of sin most assuredly approaches as near to the forgiveness of adebtas the remission of apersonal offence, which has no reference to the divine authority.Sin is a want of conformity unto, or a transgression ofTHE LAW.[158]Besides, the Scriptures frequently represent Jehovah condescending to act towards men upon the footing of a previously existing contract or covenant, but never upon the footing of private relation, setting aside his authority. He hath taught us to pray, “Forgive us our debts;” but never to say, “pardon private offences which are no transgression of thy law.” We cannot even conceive of the exercise of distributive justice by the Lord, separate from his authority as our king, our lawgiver, and our judge. We cannot conceive, that it is matter of indifference whether God does or does not exercise distributive justice towards his creatures; and much less can we admit that even, for the sake of mercy, he is ever guilty of one act of distributive injustice. We, therefore, object to the use which is made of this threefold division of the attribute of justice. And we also,

Object to the whole argument which it involves, because it multiplies instead of solving difficulties around the doctrine of the sinner’s justification.

It requires us to believe that God has violated, or set aside the demands of distributive justice in the salvation of his chosen—that the sufferings of our Redeemer were the punishment, not of transgressions which are, in fact, committed, but of sin in the abstract—and that public justice requires only an exhibition of the divine displeasure at sin.

Sin, in the abstract, is only a word. Like an algebraical character, it represents all the transgressions of individual persons. These particular sins are realities; but sinin general, or in the abstract, is only thesign, the word, which we employ in reasoning.[159]It is not for thesign, but the thing that Jesus suffered.

Thewordsin, too, represents the transgressions of angels. If the Redeemer suffered for sin in general, he made atonement for devils, although he took not on him the nature of angels. And if public justice demanded no more than the display of Jehovah’s hatred of sin, then Christ is dead in vain, for such display is made in the everlasting punishments of Hell. But justice demanded more. It demanded the punishment of the sinner; and could not be satisfied with any thing short of this, unless Messiah should so unite himself to sinners, not only by assuming their nature, but by becoming in law their representative, as to bear all the sins of all the persons for whom his sufferings were intended to atone. We object also to this argument in defence of indefinite atonement,

Because it takes for granted, what does not exist, that if all the demands of divine justice are satisfied to the full by the atonement, then grace is excluded from our pardon. This is not the case. Justice is indeed satisfied. It does not oppose, but demand the salvation of all for whom Christ died. Here is no difficulty—no Gordian knot. Grace reigns through righteousness. We refer our readers to what is said on this subject, page 377, and conclude our examination of this argument in the words of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. “Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet, inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification, but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.”

Christian’s Magazine, vol. iii.

Atonement imports reconciliation, a beingat one. The Hebrew signifies tocover. The Greek word denotes acommutation, as of enmity for friendship. But we use atonement forransom, orprice, and we never pray for it. Redemption imports a deliverance. To say that the ransom was paidindefinitely, that is, not more for one than another, is plainly contrary to his views, who spoke of those who weregiven to him, and of hislaying down his life for his sheep. His sacrifice was real, and its object could not besin in general, a mere abstract term; a sacrifice of which Satan might avail himself, as well as man. If the atonement, and redemption be indefinite, so were the decrees or purposes, the suretyship of Christ, the foreknowledge of God, and the promotion of the glory of God in the work.

On the other hand, to represent these transactions, so strictly as matters of debt, and credit, as that the quantum of price was exactly commensurate to the guilt of the saved, and neither more nor less, is not warranted by the word of God. This is to impute the cause of damnation to Christ’s not having died for those who perish; and not to their guilt. Both these conclusions are erroneous. Christ died forall men, andevery man, not in the sense of the universalists, not in the same sense as he died for his sheep; but that his sacrifice is sufficient for all; and God the Father, whose mercy can reach no fallen creature, but in Christ, has authorized the offer of covenant mercy to all; and desires the destruction of none. Thus men perish only by their sins. The Sacrifice of Christ is of infinite value, for he is a Divine person; and the sins of all men can be no more than infinite.

The truth seems to be, that the sacrifice is infinite; that the offer is to be general; that man perishes by his own fault only; and all this is according to the eternal purposes of God. Nevertheless the salvation of the saints was certain; the price particularly paid with a view to them; who are eventually effectually called, justified, sanctified, and brought to glory.

155.See Doddridge’s Lectures, p. 190; and also Dr. Edwards’ third sermon, preached it New Haven, 1735.

156.See Owen on Jus. chap. ii.

157.“Were this the proper place, it would be easy to show, by a criticism on the best writers upon this subject, that their definitions of commutative, distributive, and public justice, interfere, and are otherwise essentially incorrect.”

158.Shorter Catechism.

159.“Did we deem it eligible to introduce metaphysics into this discussion, we could more effectually expose the idea of punishing anonentity—‘sin in the abstract.’ We are no conceptualists; and the controversy between the Nominalists and Realists is now at an end. It prevailed long enough. It agitated the European universities, interested thrones, and shed much precious blood. No philosopher will now defend the opinions of the Realists. Abstract terms have no counterpart in nature. Stew. Phil. Mind. ch. iv. § 2, & 3.”

160.See Quest. XXXVIII.

161.These, which are styled, Passiones trihoriæ, ultimæ,are generally called, Pænæ satisfactoriæ;and all his sufferings before them, Pænæ convincentes.

162.It is an abominable strain of blasphemy, which some Popish writers make use of, when they say that not only the cross was the altar, but that it was sacred, and had a virtue to sanctify the gift offered thereon, which is the foundation of that idolatrous adoration which they give to it.

163.Λυτρωτην.

164.There are several propositions used, in the New Testament, in explaining this doctrine, namely, δια, περι, υπερ,andαντι; διαandαντιrefer to the occasion and cause of Christ’s death, to wit, our sins: Thus it is said, in Rom.iv. 25. Who was delivered for our offences, Ος παρεδοθη δια τα παραπτωματα ημων;and, in 1 Pet.iii. 18. Christ also hath once suffered for sins, Περι αμαρτιων επαθε;and, in this case, his substitution in our room and stead is principally argued, from its being for our sins, for which death was due. As forυπερ,whenever it refers to Christ’s sufferings, it plainly signifies his being substituted in our room and stead; as inRom. v. 6. Christ died υπερ ασεβων, for the ungodly;and, inTit. ii. 14. Who gave himself for us, Ος εδωκεν εαυτον υπερ ημων.And this is not only used in the New Testament to signify the substitution of the person dying in the room of another, or, in other instances, acting in his stead; as in2 Cor. v. 20. Phil. ver. 13.but it is taken in the same sense when used in other writers, Vid. Euripid in Alcest., μη θνησχ᾽ υπερ του δ᾽ ανδρος;and Demosth. in Coron.εγω τουθ᾽ υπερ σου ποιησω;and the Latin word, that answers to it, is sometimes used in the same sense. Vid. Ter. in Andr.Ego pro te molam.As for the prepositionαντι,that is seldom or never used, but it signifies a substitution of one thing, or person, in the room of another: Thus when Christ is said togive his life a ransom, αντι πολλων for many,inMatt. xx. 28. Mark x. 46.this plainly imports his being substituted in their room, as appears by the frequent use thereof in other scriptures. SeeMatt. ii. 22. chap. v. 38.andchap. xvii. 27. Luke xi. 11.and in several other places, Vid. Grot. de Satisfact. Christ. cap. 9.

165.See the note immediately preceeding.

166.See Page201-203 ante.

167.“The judicious, whether Trinitarians, or Unitarians, have always acknowledged an intimate connexion between the doctrine of Christ’s true Godhead, and that of his satisfaction for sins; as both must be at once confessed, or denied. If he by his sufferings could satisfy the avenging justice of God for the sins of all believers; then he behoved to be more than any creature. If on the contrary, such a thing was not necessary, then no other end could be so important, that for it God should empty himself, and ‘assuming the form of a servant, become obedient to the death of the cross.’But the truth of Christ’s satisfaction is confirmed in the word of God by so many testimonies, and these of the clearest kind, that those of another opinion, find themselves under a necessity to give every where to these passages an arbitrary sense; so feeble, improper, and far-fetched, that by such a strain of interpretation, people are in danger of turning from all the doctrines of the Bible and of pronouncing it the most uncertain of all doctrinal books, and the most ready to mislead. On this subject much has been written. We shall only observe the following things as suitable to our purpose.In the course of Christ’s prophetic teaching upon earth, we find evident proofs, that he had appeared not only for that end, but chiefly for a very different purpose, namely, to suffer and to die; that being a saving work, and of the utmost necessity. He declared that he came to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. More than once he informed his disciples, that by a bitter and a most humbling kind of suffering, which hung over his head, that which was written concerning him, behoved to be accomplished.His circumstances and manner of acting were wholly directed to that end. The joyful solemnizing of his birth, by a retinue of spirits immortal and enthroned, was heard by good witnesses indeed, but of low degree, and few in number; and with some express testimonies on earth, during his quiet education in a remote and contemptible town, they were almost gone out of mind. His heavenly consecration was shown to John only; his glorification on the mount, only to three of his followers, of which he forbade them to speak till after his resurrection, or to make him known every where as Christ. Several times he commanded not to propagate the cures he had wrought. Often his preaching was involved and figurative, more adapted to inflame thegreatagainst him, than to unite themanyin his favours. Yet his greatness could not be wholly unknown, and when men would have exalted him, he shunned it. By all these things, the judgment and the confidence of the people concerning him, was much more vague and unstable, than even concerning his austere forerunner.—In one word, his ministry was so conducted as might best serve, not to prevent, but to pave the way for his farther suffering and death, while the clearer and more extensive spread of his doctrine, and thereby at the same time, the publication of his death and his glory, behoved to be the work of the apostles in his name.That Christ suffered and died for the good of his church, is without controversy; so also did the apostles. But was any of them crucified for us, as was Christ? To say this, would in Paul’s judgment be the utmost absurdity. What then hath the Saviour done, which no other did?—‘He was delivered for our offences.’ ‘He suffered for our sin, the just for the unjust; that he might bring us to God.’ He ‘died for our sins.’ ‘The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.’—And so indeed, that he delivered us from sin, by taking it upon himself. For he who neither had nor knew sin, was of God made to be sin for us, that we might he the righteousness of God in him. He ‘bare our sins in his own body upon the tree.’ ‘Behold, said John, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.’ And how does hetake it away?By his death. For to say a lamb takes away sin, is not sense, if there be not an allusion to the Paschal Lamb, or to other sacrificed lambs, which were to be slain according to the law. ‘Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.’ ‘Ye are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot.’—He put himself in our place, fulfilled for us the demands of God’s holy law, and for us satisfied his inflexible justice. Why, pray, of all men, of all the saints, of all the most excellent teachers, was Christ only free from all moral impurity? As a Prophet, this was not absolutely necessary for him; but necessary it was that he, being to fulfil the law for others, should have no need to satisfy for his own sin. ‘God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and that for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.’ ‘God sent forth his Son made under the law, to redeem them who were under the law.’—The apostle confirms this in the clearest manner, giving us at the same time, a notable sign of the remarkablecursein the death of Christ. It is written, ‘Cursed is every one, who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree.’This important doctrine is inculcated on us in many places, under the notions ofa purchase, a ransom, a propitiation, and a testament; by which the virtue and the efficacy, of Christ’s death are elucidated. Let it not be objected, that these phrases are borrowed from other things, and therefore to be understood in an improper and figurative sense. A figurative sense is not however, no sense at all, or without sense; but serves to make profound subjects more comprehensible to a common understanding.1.A Purchase.Believers in their soul and their body are God’s, ‘because they are bought with a price;’ they are the church of the Lord God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. The song unto the Lamb runs, ‘Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood;’ which strongly indicates, that their salvation is to be ascribed to the merits of his bloody death.2.A Ransom.In the New Testament, the worddeliveranceis often used in translating one, which properly signifiesa 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 calleda 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 becauseof) 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 theNew Testament, we rather choose to translate it theNew 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 atoningdeath, with a chargeto shew it forthin particular.The medium of our acceptance and justification before God, is every where in the gospel said to befaith 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 ifbelieving in Christsignify 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, thelawcannot 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 inflexiblelawcondemns 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 hisdoctrine, but in hisblood, 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 understandthe 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 efficaciousmeritsto 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.

But the truth of Christ’s satisfaction is confirmed in the word of God by so many testimonies, and these of the clearest kind, that those of another opinion, find themselves under a necessity to give every where to these passages an arbitrary sense; so feeble, improper, and far-fetched, that by such a strain of interpretation, people are in danger of turning from all the doctrines of the Bible and of pronouncing it the most uncertain of all doctrinal books, and the most ready to mislead. On this subject much has been written. We shall only observe the following things as suitable to our purpose.

In the course of Christ’s prophetic teaching upon earth, we find evident proofs, that he had appeared not only for that end, but chiefly for a very different purpose, namely, to suffer and to die; that being a saving work, and of the utmost necessity. He declared that he came to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. More than once he informed his disciples, that by a bitter and a most humbling kind of suffering, which hung over his head, that which was written concerning him, behoved to be accomplished.

His circumstances and manner of acting were wholly directed to that end. The joyful solemnizing of his birth, by a retinue of spirits immortal and enthroned, was heard by good witnesses indeed, but of low degree, and few in number; and with some express testimonies on earth, during his quiet education in a remote and contemptible town, they were almost gone out of mind. His heavenly consecration was shown to John only; his glorification on the mount, only to three of his followers, of which he forbade them to speak till after his resurrection, or to make him known every where as Christ. Several times he commanded not to propagate the cures he had wrought. Often his preaching was involved and figurative, more adapted to inflame thegreatagainst him, than to unite themanyin his favours. Yet his greatness could not be wholly unknown, and when men would have exalted him, he shunned it. By all these things, the judgment and the confidence of the people concerning him, was much more vague and unstable, than even concerning his austere forerunner.—In one word, his ministry was so conducted as might best serve, not to prevent, but to pave the way for his farther suffering and death, while the clearer and more extensive spread of his doctrine, and thereby at the same time, the publication of his death and his glory, behoved to be the work of the apostles in his name.

That Christ suffered and died for the good of his church, is without controversy; so also did the apostles. But was any of them crucified for us, as was Christ? To say this, would in Paul’s judgment be the utmost absurdity. What then hath the Saviour done, which no other did?—‘He was delivered for our offences.’ ‘He suffered for our sin, the just for the unjust; that he might bring us to God.’ He ‘died for our sins.’ ‘The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.’—And so indeed, that he delivered us from sin, by taking it upon himself. For he who neither had nor knew sin, was of God made to be sin for us, that we might he the righteousness of God in him. He ‘bare our sins in his own body upon the tree.’ ‘Behold, said John, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.’ And how does hetake it away?By his death. For to say a lamb takes away sin, is not sense, if there be not an allusion to the Paschal Lamb, or to other sacrificed lambs, which were to be slain according to the law. ‘Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.’ ‘Ye are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot.’—He put himself in our place, fulfilled for us the demands of God’s holy law, and for us satisfied his inflexible justice. Why, pray, of all men, of all the saints, of all the most excellent teachers, was Christ only free from all moral impurity? As a Prophet, this was not absolutely necessary for him; but necessary it was that he, being to fulfil the law for others, should have no need to satisfy for his own sin. ‘God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and that for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.’ ‘God sent forth his Son made under the law, to redeem them who were under the law.’—The apostle confirms this in the clearest manner, giving us at the same time, a notable sign of the remarkablecursein the death of Christ. It is written, ‘Cursed is every one, who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree.’

This important doctrine is inculcated on us in many places, under the notions ofa purchase, a ransom, a propitiation, and a testament; by which the virtue and the efficacy, of Christ’s death are elucidated. Let it not be objected, that these phrases are borrowed from other things, and therefore to be understood in an improper and figurative sense. A figurative sense is not however, no sense at all, or without sense; but serves to make profound subjects more comprehensible to a common understanding.

1.A Purchase.Believers in their soul and their body are God’s, ‘because they are bought with a price;’ they are the church of the Lord God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. The song unto the Lamb runs, ‘Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood;’ which strongly indicates, that their salvation is to be ascribed to the merits of his bloody death.

2.A Ransom.In the New Testament, the worddeliveranceis often used in translating one, which properly signifiesa 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 calleda 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 becauseof) 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 theNew Testament, we rather choose to translate it theNew 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 atoningdeath, with a chargeto shew it forthin particular.

The medium of our acceptance and justification before God, is every where in the gospel said to befaith 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 ifbelieving in Christsignify 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, thelawcannot 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 inflexiblelawcondemns 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 hisdoctrine, but in hisblood, 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 understandthe 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 efficaciousmeritsto 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.

Back to Index Next