Atonement imports reconciliation, a being _at one_. The Hebrew
signifies to _cover_. The Greek word denotes a _commutation_, as of
enmity for friendship. But we use atonement for _ransom_, or _price_,
and we never pray for it. Redemption imports a deliverance. To say
that the ransom was paid _indefinitely_, that is, not more for one
than another, is plainly contrary to his views, who spoke of those who
were _given to him_, and of his _laying down his life for his sheep_.
His sacrifice was real, and its object could not be _sin 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 for
_all men_, and _every 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.
Footnote 155:
See Doddridge’s Lectures, p. 190; and also Dr. Edwards’ third sermon,
preached it New Haven, 1735.
Footnote 156:
See Owen on Jus. chap. ii.
Footnote 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.”
Footnote 158:
Shorter Catechism.
Footnote 159:
“Did we deem it eligible to introduce metaphysics into this
discussion, we could more effectually expose the idea of punishing a
_nonentity_—‘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.”
Footnote 160:
_See Quest. XXXVIII._
Footnote 161:
_These, which are styled_, Passiones trihoriæ, ultimæ, _are generally
called_, Pænæ satisfactoriæ; _and all his sufferings before them_,
Pænæ convincentes.
Footnote 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._
Footnote 163:
Λυτρωτην.
Footnote 164:
_There are several propositions used, in the New Testament, in
explaining this doctrine, namely_, δια, περι, υπερ, _and_ αντι; δια
_and_ αντι _refer 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 for_ υπερ, _whenever it refers to Christ’s sufferings, it
plainly signifies his being substituted in our room and stead; as in_
Rom. v. 6. Christ died υπερ ασεβων, for the ungodly; _and, in_ Tit.
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 in_ 2 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 preposition_ αντι, _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 to_ give his life a ransom, αντι
πολλων for many, _in_ Matt. xx. 28. Mark x. 46. _this plainly imports
his being substituted in their room, as appears by the frequent use
thereof in other scriptures. See_ Matt. ii. 22. chap. v. 38. _and_
chap. xvii. 27. Luke xi. 11. _and in several other places, Vid. Grot.
de Satisfact. Christ. cap. 9_.
Footnote 165:
_See the note immediately preceeding._
Footnote 166:
_See Page 201-203 ante._
Footnote 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 the
_great_ against him, than to unite the _many_ in 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 he _take 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
remarkable _curse_ in 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 of _a 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 word _deliverance_ is often
used in translating one, which properly signifies _a redemption, or
ransom_. Thus it is written, ‘ye were redeemed from your vain
conversation, not by corruptible things, as silver or gold, but by the
precious blood of Christ.’ This redemption is explained by the
forgiveness of sins. It is, therefore, his blood and death, wherewith
he made payment, in order to procure our discharge from the debt of
sin. He came ‘to minister, and to give his life a ransom for
many.’—λυτρον. Matt. xx. 28. and αντιλυτρον. 1 Tim. ii. 6.
3. _A Propitiation._ Sometimes this in the Greek is called
αποκαταλλαγη, (conciliatio) that is, _a reconciliation_. Accordingly,
believers are now reconciled to God by the death of his Son; by his
cross; by the blood of his cross, and in the body of his flesh through
death. ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself:’ which is
farther explained, ‘not imputing their trespasses to them.’—But it is
also called _a propitiation_, in the translation of ἱλασμος,
(expiatio) used concerning the victims which were anciently slain, as
a typical propitiation in place of the guilty. So now Jesus Christ the
righteous is the propitiation for our sins. For God ‘sent his Son to
be a propitiation for our sins.’ God hath set him forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his
righteousness, by (or rather because _of_) the forgiveness of sins.
Therefore, ‘the Lamb of God hath so taken away the sins of the world,’
that he took them upon himself, that he bare them, that he died in the
place of his people.
4. _A Testament._ According to his last institution, the assignation
of the everlasting inheritance, is called ‘the New Testament in his
blood, which was shed for many, for the remission of sins.’ This
signifies to us, not only that Christ had a perfect right to the
honour of settling the inheritance, not only that his death as a
testator was necessary to put his people in possession of it; but,
that that inheritance had its foundation precisely in the shedding of
his blood, in his deepest humiliation, and his violent death; as
thereby their sins, which otherwise stood in the way of salvation,
could be forgiven. If, instead of the _New Testament_, we rather
choose to translate it the _New Covenant_; the allusion will be
somewhat different, but the matter the same.
This leads us to the epistle to the Hebrews, in which all these
doctrines are ascertained to us at great length, and with invincible
arguments. That epistle was intended to demonstrate indeed, the
authority of Christ’s instruction above all the prophets, and even
Moses himself: but also, under propositions borrowed from the ancient
religion, and fitted to the Hebrews, to reconcile his priestly office
with the intention of the Levitical sacrifices, and to exalt it
infinitely above Aaron’s priesthood. Christ being a High Priest of
unchangeable power, needed not to offer up sacrifices for his own
sins, but having offered himself up once to God, he thereby made
reconciliation for sin, made an end of it, opened a sure way to
heaven, and ‘can save unto the uttermost all who come unto the Father
by him.’ Read the 5th and the 10th chapters. Would you, on account of
the doctrine so full of consolation, suspect this epistle, and erase
it from the volume of holy scripture? In it, however, no doctrine
occurs, which is not also mentioned elsewhere; and this apostolic
epistle is surpassed by none of the rest, in sublimity of matter, in
weight of evidence, in glorifying the grace of God in Christ, in
strong consolation, in encouraging to the spiritual warfare, and in
the most animating motives to holiness and perseverance.
Besides, in the Saviour’s satisfaction only lies the reason, why his
suffering together with his resurrection, are every where represented
to us as the sum and substance of the gospel. No other part of his
history and ministration are so fully propounded, and that by all the
Evangelists.—We have already seen, that the Apostles preached, not
only the doctrine of evangelic morality, but chiefly Christ himself,
that is, his person, work, and two-fold state. Paul would know nothing
among the Corinthians, ‘but Jesus Christ and him crucified.’ The cross
of Christ was that alone in which he gloried. He reduces the knowledge
of Christ, for the excellency of which he counted all things but loss
and dung, to the knowledge of the power of his resurrection, and of
the fellowship of his sufferings.—In that most important conversation
on the holy mount, between our Lord, and two of the celestial
inhabitants, the two great teachers and reformers under the old
dispensation, we find no more mentioned, but that it turned upon that
decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.—In the cross, and the
other humiliations and sufferings of the Saviour comprehended under
it, the love of God towards men, in not sparing his own Son, as also
his wisdom and power unto salvation are displayed in a peculiar and a
most conspicuous manner. In the cross, is the abolishing of the power
and the fear of death. Deliverance from the dominion of sin, as also
the glory to come, are its pleasant fruits. The plain, but most
consolatory symbols of the grace of Jesus, in Baptism, and the Holy
Supper, point us in like manner to his atoning _death_, with a charge
_to shew it forth_ in particular.
The medium of our acceptance and justification before God, is every
where in the gospel said to be _faith in Christ_: and that indeed in
opposition to, and with warning against the law, or the seeking of our
justification by the works of the law. Now if _believing in Christ_
signify only, to receive and to obey his doctrine concerning the
rational grounds and duties of religion; how then is the doctrine and
the righteousness of faith quite another thing than the demand and
righteousness of the law whether we consider the moral law naturally,
or as written by Moses? Nay, Moses had also taught the capital
doctrines of rational religion, God’s existence, unity, providence,
the duties of man, &c. and that the love of God, and of our neighbour,
is more than all sacrifices, was often inculcated under the old
economy, and not unknown to the Jews.—Or does the prohibition of
seeking righteousness by the law, only mean the omitting of the Mosaic
rights? But in the places quoted, and in others, the _law_ cannot
possibly be understood in such a limited sense. Besides the
righteousness of faith, in contradistinction to that of the law, had
place even under the old dispensation. Further, these external
solemnities could indeed be abolished; but they were instituted by God
himself, and hence the observing of them did not so militate against a
rational religion, that it in itself could make a man
condemnable.—Paul constantly teaches, that the opposition between
faith and the law, in respect of our seeking righteousness by them,
consists in this, that God’s inflexible _law_ condemns all sinners,
Jews and Gentiles; that by the works of the law, no flesh shall be
justified; that through sin, the law is become weak to give life: but
that faith acknowledges and embraces Christ, as he who fulfilled the
righteousness of the law, was made a curse for us, and set forth to be
a propitiation, through faith, not only in his _doctrine_, but in his
_blood_, for a demonstration of the righteousness of God.
And why else was ‘Christ crucified unto the Jews a stumbling-block,
and to the Greeks foolishness?’ Surely, not so much on account of the
capital truths of rational religion taught by him. The Jewish doctors,
and the best philosophers among the Heathens, who had acknowledged
them were honoured on that account. Nor was it because Christ,
continuing a worthy and faithful, but an unsuccessful teacher of his
doctrine, was unjustly accused, and shamefully put to death. The
memory of a condemned Socrates was not held in contempt. The reason
was purely this, that the Saviour’s suffering was proclaimed as the
only ground and cause of our reconciliation and salvation: while the
Jews and Heathens thought to be saved by the value of their own
virtue: and to them it was exceeding strange, and most mortifying to
their pride, that penitently acknowledging their guilt, they behoved
to seek life in the deep abasement of a crucified Mediator, and in his
justifying resurrection.
All our reasoning thus far makes it evident, that we must not
understand _the sufferings of Christ for sin_, merely as if God, being
about to announce by the gospel, grace and life to the nations, would
previously manifest his aversion to sin, by a striking example of his
vengeance; and for that purpose, deliver up an ambassador vested with
extraordinary privileges, to so much sorrow and shame. Surely all
preceding ages had already exhibited awful instances of God’s fearful
displeasure with the sins of individuals and communities, without
deliverance from sin being ever ascribed to them. That a mean man
among the people, that a teacher wandering about in poverty, should be
shamefully put to death by a civil judge, was much less calculated to
exhibit a signal and extraordinary example of divine wrath, than the
immediate interposition of Providence, which had often, in former
times inflicted, and still could inflict miraculous punishments on the
most eminent persons, or on whole nations. At any rate, to manifest a
righteous abhorrence of sin, vengeance behoved not to fall upon one
perfectly innocent. This last would be quite absurd; unless the
innocent person, (as holy scripture has already taught us) should with
God’s approbation, as spontaneously, as generously, substitute himself
in our place, by bearing our sin.—Accordingly, sacred scripture
represents the sufferings of Christ, not only as a proof and
confirmation, but as the cause of our reconciliation.
We by no means exclude other advantages ascribed by Socinus to the
Saviour’s death. Beyond all doubt, he thereby confirmed his integrity
and the truth of his mission. But, pray, was it ever heard, that a
false prophet, in the founding of a new society, mentioned his own,
his certain, his fast approaching, and most offensive punishment of
death, as the intention of his ministry; and made it an article of his
doctrine?—In confirmation of his doctrine and mission, Jesus generally
appealed to his miracles; and yet, where are the forgiveness of our
sins and a title to life ascribed to his miracles, as they often are
to his bloody death?—For what doctrine was Jesus condemned? Not for
the truths and prescriptions of natural reason; but because he
declared himself to be higher far than any human prophet. (See Section
IX.) If the celestial chorus at his birth, if the Father’s voice at
his inauguration, if his glory on the mount, had been openly perceived
by the Jewish council and all the people; if the lightnings darted
forth in confirmation of Moses and Elias, had caused him to be
honoured; especially if he had satisfied their prejudices concerning
the Messias; if, with legions of his Father’s angels, he had destroyed
the Roman government, broken that yoke, recovering and extending
David’s mighty kingdom; their infidelity would have been conquered,
and eagerly would they have confided in him. They would have been more
easily drawn by giving bread, or causing manna to rain, than by
promising them his flesh and blood.—A steady martyrdom was more
necessary to the preaching of the apostles; because their doctrine in
a great measure referred to and was built upon the truth of the
all-important events of the Saviour’s death and exaltation. In
relation to which, as they could not be deceived, so likewise their
sincerity behoved to be put beyond suspicion. But the Lord Jesus
Christ had abundance of glorious means to confirm his doctrine; and if
nothing else had been to be effectuated by it, he behoved not to have
undergone a cursed death upon the hill of infamy; and that under the
pretence of a legal procedure, which caused the multitude to revolt
from him, his friends to be offended at him, and plunged his best
followers in deep distress.
We also respect the design of exhibiting in his sufferings, an example
of love, submission to, and confidence in God. But such an extremity
of shame was not necessary for that purpose; and his sufferings were
accompanied with so much perturbation, vehement distress, cries and
tears, that quite other ends were ever to be obtained by them; else he
would not have exceeded many valiant martyrs. Besides, could any
apostle, courageously foreseeing, and alluding to his own martyrdom in
confirmation of the truth, and for an example to others, be able to
say, as did Christ, ‘whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed, &c.?’ 2 Tim. iv. 6. compared with John vi. 51-57.
Do men in spite of the divine testimony, find reasons and scruples
against a vicarious satisfaction; if we are not much mistaken, they
are easy to solve. But far stronger reasons combat the persuasion,
that the Holy Supreme Being can show himself favourable, or
indifferent, to the voluntary violation of those laws and moral duties
from which he himself cannot absolve a rational creature; or to speak
in a plain and familiar manner, that God can, and also will suffer sin
to escape with impunity.
If then, (to conclude in the language of the apostle, when enlarging
on the glory of Christ,) the Son of God, by himself purged our sins;
how narrowly and how perversely would we limit his saving work to his
preaching? How inconsistent is it with this, that men, according to
the usual phrase among Christians, ascribe efficacious _merits_ to
Christ; but in an unusual sense understand them only of his doctrine
and his excellent character? against which sentiment, too, much could
be objected. How evidently then is that confirmed, which we asserted,
that Christ himself in his person and performances, is the cause and
ground of our salvation? If the suffering and death of Christ alone
have merited salvation for the innumerable multitude of all them who
ever believed in him, or shall believe; if his suffering, though short
in duration, was the satisfactory ransom, to deliver all those sinners
from the fear of death, and from the wrath to come; then the infinite
worth of his person and work, must surpass all understanding; then
from that most gracious deliverance we deduce an important proof of
his more than human, his divine excellency.”