Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

for us must imply that his death was vicarious, and that he died to make satisfaction for our sins: but if so, will it not follow," they ask, that when Christians are called to suffer for Christ, and to lay down their lives for the brethren, they are called to endure vicarious sufferings, to die in the place and stead of the brethren, and to make satisfaction for them; seeing the forms of expression are the same in both places ?" To this we reply, that Christians are never said "to suffer for Christ, nor lay down their lives for the brethren," in the same sense as Christ is said to suffer for the sins of the world. Is it any where said, that Christians gave their lives a ransom for many, for the remission of sins? -that God hath set them forth to be a propitiation, through faith in their blood, for the remission of sins?-that they died for the ungodly? that our brethren, the passover, were sacrificed for us?-that they gave themselves for our sins?-that in them, we have redemption through their blood, even the forgiveness of our sins ?-that they gave themselves for us, that they might redeem us from all iniquity?-that by their own blood they entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us ?—that they appeared to put away sin, by the sacrifice of themselves?-that they were once offered to bear the sins of many ? -that we were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the precious blood of the brethren?—that St. Paul, Peter, or Stephen have suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that they might bring us to God?-that the blood of the saints, his sons, cleanseth us from all sin? that they were slain, and have redeemed us to God by their own blood? The very quotation of these passages is, it is presumed, more than sufficient to answer the argument here adduced. They, at once, show the difference of the manner in which Christ and the martyrs died for the brethren; and how little can be safely concluded from similarity of expression in parts of sentences, and in reference to different subjects. But the plain and obvious meaning of passages of Scripture is often attempted to be set aside by verbal criticism; and the mind of the common Christian is bewildered by arbitrary canons of interpretation, and minute observations on particular words. Thus it has been contended, that "what must be the meaning of words in some passages, and may be the meaning in all, is always the true one;" and in the application of this rule to the particle for, it is asserted that, since it must, in some places, be translated on account of, and may be so in all-that is its proper construction wherever it occurs. It is in this way that the various words in the original which are generally translated for, are at once disposed of, and the doctrine of the Atonement, or the substitution of Christ's death for that of the sinner, is entirely set aside. But can any thing be more gratuitous than the assumption of the canon of interpretation on which this conclusion rests? Is it not obvious to common sense, that what may be translated in one way, will admit of another construction? yea, and that the probability is, that it ought to have another? For what does this conditional word may intimate, but that we are not absolutely driven to the necessity of a particular construction, inasmuch as the word has been found to have a different meaning, and may possibly admit it in this case. This is indeed a fair mode of reasoning, when we find an insulated passage of Scripture apparently opposed to numerous others of a plainly

different meaning; but it can never be had recourse to, with safety, when the general tenor of concurrent Scriptures, such as those above referred to, have a directly contrary character; for this would be to substitute the rare exception for the general rule. The only legitimate mode of interpretation is to give every word its natural and obvious sense, unless the context manifestly require a different construction; and this, for the plain reason that every writer, who wishes to be understood, uses words in their customary sense; and if he be driven to the necessity of using them in any other, he trusts to the context to make his meaning clear. It is in vain, therefore, to tell us that the word for, may signify in all cases, on account of, because the question still recurs, what is its natural and intrinsic meaning? for it is in this only that it ought to be taken, unless the context render it absolutely necessary to interpret it otherwise.

"God is never said to be reconciled to the world," say Socinians, "because he was never at enmity with it: it was the world that was at enmity with God, and was to be reconciled by coming to the knowledge of his goodness to them. The New Testament knows no such language, as that God was reconciled to the world."

This would strike the ear of any one, conversant with the Holy Scriptures, as very extraordinary language, and induce him to enquire whether, seeing that the "whole world lieth in wickedness," God has at length become reconciled to sin, and withdrawn that "wrath " which the Apostle Paul says "is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." But, waiving this, let us enquire whether it be true that the New Testament says nothing of God being reconciled to the world, but speaks only of man being reconciled to God. The first passage that occurs respecting reconciliation is Matt. v. 23, 24. "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught AGAINST THEE, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be RECONCILED to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." Who is the person here offended, and, of course, needs reconciliation? Is it not the individual who had something to allege against the person who had brought his gift to the altar, and whose just displeasure it was necessary to avert before he could piously offer his gift? It was not the enmity surely of the offender, but of the offended, that was to be removed; and the reconciliation to be effected must be with him who had been injured. So that it appears that the very passage on which this novel doctrine is founded, (for it is on this text that the argument is chiefly built,) proves directly the reverse of that for which it is cited, and shows, beyond all doubt, that it is not the sinner who is to be reconciled to God, by laying aside his enmity, but God, who is to be reconciled to the sinner, by the latter implicitly submitting himself to such terms as his offended judge shall prescribe. Now, this passage explains the sense in which other texts, where the same expression of being reconciled occurs, are to be understood. If, for instance, it could have been at all doubted, that, when the apostle says, we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled unto God," he meant, submit yourselves to God, and accept his terms of peace," the passage, on which we have just commented, would place that meaning beyond all controversy. It

66

is God, and not man, who is to be reconciled; and let the reader now judge how true the assertion is, that "the New Testament knows no such language as that God was reconciled to the world."

It is again alleged, that "the law of God has been placed in a false light, by the belief of the doctrine of satisfaction (or the atonement) hence the Divine law has been represented as a mere covenant of works. It has been said, that it knows nothing of mercy; and that it would be dishonoured, if a sinner were pardoned without an innocent victim first suffering its penalties. All this appears," to Socinians, "to be contrary to truth. So far from the law being a mere covenant of works, it was introduced on the ground of God's previous promise of grace to Abram, to which it was not in opposition."

When it is said, that "the law is a covenant of works," no more is meant than what the apostle asserts in the very chapter to which reference is here made, "The man that doeth them, shall live in them; and cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them." There were two ways of seeking to obtain eternal life; one "by the deeds of the law," and the other "by faith in Christ Jesus." Whoever sought life in the former way, were under " a covenant of works; those who sought it in the latter, were under "a covenant of grace." By the former, the apostle says, it is evident that no man is justified; and he assures us, that the just shall live by faith.

[ocr errors]

We do indeed acknowledge that the law of Moses, taken collectively, as consisting of moral and ceremonial duties, was a covenant of grace; and by no means set aside the promise made to Abraham, because the sacrifices it prescribed provided a typical remedy for transgression; but we also maintain that those of the Jews, who partook of the grace of it, did so, not by their obedience to the moral law, but in virtue of their atoning sacrifices, which prefigured that which was offered up on the cross by Jesus Christ, and their faith in the promised Messiah, who, as the Lamb of God," was "slain from the foundation of the world,” and who "taketh away the sin of the world." Hence it follows, that justification was always obtained by faith in Christ, and not "by the deeds of the law."

But it is said, that "instead of the law knowing nothing of mercy, we are told in the decalogue of God's showing mercy unto thousands of generations."

This, even in the sense of the objector, only shows that grace and mercy were published along with the law, and that, with the curse, God had provided a way for conferring a blessing, which no one denies. But the inference intended to be drawn from it, that mercy is to be obtained under the moral law, for transgressors, is not supported by the case adduced. The whole passage runs thus: I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of THEM THAT LOVE ME, AND KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. observed that the grace here promised is not to them that BREAK the law, but to the posterity of them that LOVE God, and KEEP his commandments. But it will be obvious to the most cursory reader of this clause in the commandment, that no reference is here made to the penal

It will be

consequences of personal transgression, which is the case requiring an atonement; but simply to the fact established by universal experience as well as thus announced by the law, that children, even to remote generations, often partake of the temporal good or evil arising from the virtuous or vicious course of conduct of their progenitors.

C. JERRAM, M.A.

CERTAINTY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION.

THE resurrection of Christ from the dead is a most important doctrine of Christianity. Upon the truth and evidence of this, depend the truth and evidence of all our religion: for "if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain," saith the apostle, "and ye are yet in your sins," (1 Cor. xv. 17.)

1. Our faith would be vain, because terminated on a deceiver, who promised this, both as the complement of all his other miracles, and the seal of the truth and divinity of his doctrine; wherein, if he had failed, the one would have been justly accounted impostures, and the other falsehoods.

2. We should yet be in our sins, because the propitiatory sacrifice, which he offered upon the cross, would have been of no avail to the acquitting of us from our guilt, had not Christ risen again from the dead, to apply unto us, by his Spirit, the virtue of that oblation, for our righteousness and justification.

So that the whole weight and moment of the Christian religion depend upon the resurrection of Christ from the dead, as its only basis and support. All those mysterious truths, which either he himself taught his Church in his own person, or inspired his apostles to deliver to the Church in his name, are therefore to be received, because they are clearly attested to us by innumerable miracles wrought by him, and by virtue of his name, and faith in it. For God, who is truth itself, will never set the seal of his omnipotence to a lie. And the most miraculous of all those miracles, that which gives them the firmest evidence that they were wrought by God, is his raising himself from the dead. So that, how abstruse soever the doctrines themselves seem to be, how unaccountable soever to the disquisition, how incomprehensible soever to the sphere and extent of our reason; yet we have still the same certain grounds to believe the most mysterious articles of our faith, as we have to believe, that he who taught them, rose again from the dead. Whence it appears, that the ultimate resolution of all our religion is made into this of the resurrection of Christ. And for the truth of this, our Saviour is content to leave himself to the judgment of human senses.

See here the infinite wisdom of the economy and dispensation of the Gospel! that those sublime truths, which far transcend the highest pitch of our reason, should yet be founded upon the certainty of our very senses; so that we have as much reason to believe them, as we have to believe the reality and existence of what we see, and hear, and feel. They hear his salutation: they see his person: he shows to them his hands and his side: he bids them handle and feel him; and commands Thomas

to search his wounds: he eats, and drinks, and converses with them: and these evidences he gives, not only to single persons, but sometimes to whole multitudes of them; not in one single instance, but several times, and in several places, for forty days' continuance.

This, therefore, is the first and great thing which the Apostles were to believe, even the resurrection of the Saviour, confirmed to them by the infallible evidence of their senses; and upon the belief of which depends the belief of all the mysteries of our religion.

Against this report which the Gospel gives us of the resurrection of our Saviour, there can lie but two doubts,-1. The one is, whether the relaters of it might not have had a design to delude us: 2. The other, whether they were not deluded themselves. For if it can be evinced, that they were neither deceivers nor deceived, it is clear, in spite of all seeming impossibilities, that our Lord really and corporally rose again from the dead. Both these, therefore I shall endeavour to make good.

I. As to those infidels, who do not so much question the infallibility of sense, as the credit of the relaters: not whether what they saw or felt were truly such as their sense dictated it to be; but whether they did, indeed, see and feel, and had the sensible trial of those things, which they give out to the world, and did not rather conspire together to revive their lost credit and their sinking religion, by reviving him, whose doctrine they embraced and whose person they admired; to persons who may be assaulted with such doubts as these, I shall, to remove such vain surmises, offer these following considerations :—

(1.) Let them consider, that it is not the custom or interest of liars, to appeal unto the testimony of many witnesses for the truth of what they assert; since it is most likely, that among a great company and number of them, some one may be found, who, either out of honesty, interest, or weakness, may afterwards detect the fraud and all the mystery of the combination.

never saw.

Had there been but one or two to have avouched the resurrection of Christ, and asserted his appearance to them, there might have been some more colourable pretence for the atheist to be suspicious, that they had plotted together to delude the world with fables, and reported what they But the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ was not like those apparitions of saints and angels with which the popish legends are so nauseously stuffed, vouchsafed to a solitary melancholy monk or two; but at several times, to several persons, and oftentimes to very many of them together. Saint Paul speaks of a whole cloud of witnesses; so many, as cannot leave the least surmise in the most scrupulous mind, that they should all attest his resurrection by confederacy: (1 Cor. xv. 6,) "He was seen by above five hundred brethren at once; of whom," he tells us, "the greater part were then alive," when he wrote this epistle; and this famous appearance to so numerous a company may either be that mentioned (Matt. xxviii. 7,) where he promiseth to meet them in Galilee; or else, that at the Mount of Olives, when he ascended gloriously into heaven. Now, had there been any forgery or falsehood in the joint testimony of so many hundred witnesses, doubtless the unbelieving Jews and heathens, who neglected no occasion to discover the defects of a hated doctrine, would, among some of them, have had

« AnkstesnisTęsti »