Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

But the appointed method in which this great Mediator performs his most gracious design, hath laid a still more firm foundation for our unshaken confidence. It was proper that the terms of our reconciliation should be proposed by the Lord himself; and as these related to the Mediator, they required him to assume our nature into personal union with his Deity, that, as "God manifest in the flesh," he might stand related to us also, in the most intimate manner, as our brother, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh; that so he might properly represent us, undertake our cause as interested in it by the ties of one common nature, and encourage our most unlimited confidence in his compassion and love. Thus hath he humbled, emptied, and impoverished himself; as they, in behalf of whom he mediated, “were partakers of flesh and blood, he also took part of the same:" "he is not ashamed to call them brethren:" and now, as his union with the Father, in the divine nature, renders him a proper person to vindicate his rights, and display his glory; so, in virtue of his union with us in the human nature, we may most cheerfully rely on him to take care of our immortal souls. This also shows the propriety of his interposing in our behalf; for some connection or relation is supposed to subsist between the Mediator and those for whom he acts; else, why does he solicit favour for them, rather than for others in similar circumstances? And even if the plea be supported by some payment or satisfaction made, it seems proper that there should be a ground on which to determine for whom this should be done, and to whom the benefit of it should belong. When, therefore, the Son of God undertook the office of Mediator between God and man, he took not on him the nature of angels, as he meant not to mediate on their behalf; but he assumed the human nature: and this renders it very obvious and natural for us to conclude, that all he did and suffered on earth, and all he now performs in heaven, in the character of Mediator, was exclusively intended for the benefit of men, whose nature he bears, for whom he mediates, and to whose account the whole will be imputed, that is, to such of them as accede to, and avail themselves of his mediation. For this also must be taken into the account, as if men who have this divine constitution stated to them, with suitable evidence, do not approve of the Mediator, but reject his mediation, they of course exclude themselves from the benefit of it. We shall, in the two following Essays, consider more particularly the righteousness and atonement of our great Mediator, and his continual intercession in heaven for us. It is indeed almost impossible to discourse in general concerning his mediation, without in some degree adverting to these subjects, but it would be improper any farther to anticipate them in this place.

It does not seem necessary to attempt a laboured proof, that our Lord's mediation is of that nature, and instituted for the purposes which have been stated. The general language of Scripture conveys this idea of it, to those who understand and believe it in its obvious and literal import. In particular, the scope of St Paul's reasoning in the epistle to the Hebrews, establishes the doctrine under consideration. Was Moses a typical mediator, at the giving of the law, that through his intervention the national covenant might be ratified between God and the people? This only shadowed forth a better covenant, founded on better promises, which Christ hath mediated between the Lord and his spiritual Israel: and "this person was counted worthy of more honour than Moses, being a Son over his own house, which he had builded; whereas Moses was no more than a servant," or even a part of the house itself (Heb. iii. 1-6). Were the high priests, of the order of Aaron, typical mediators between God and the people, in virtue of their perpetual sacrifices, and burning of incense? The insufficiency and unprofitableness of such mediators, and all their sacrifices and services, must be shown, to make it manifest that another priest must arise, after another order, whose dignity, excellency, and invaluable ministrations might really effect those ends which the other merely prefigured and represented as in a picture, or rather as an indistinct and feeble shadow. So that through

Him, access was given to believers, to the mercy-seat of God, in the holy places not made with hands; whereas, before, the very shadow of this blessing was concealed by the veil; and none might approach to it on pain of death, but the high priest alone; nor he more than one day in a year, with the blood of the sacrifices, and the burning of incense. What do all these arguments (which fill up more than half this epistle) signify, but that Jesus is such a Mediator as hath been described? The apostle says, “that there is one Mediator between God and man; even the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. ii. 5, 6.) No doubt he is truly man, and performs his mediation in human nature; for he assumed our flesh for this very purpose; but the apostle, by declaring him to be the one Mediator, excludes all other mediators. Moses, and the priests of Aaron's line were, in a certain sense, mediators between God and man; and every believer, when he prays for others, in some degree interposes his requests between God and them, to seek mercy in their behalf. Yet Christ is the only Mediator; because he alone is capable of, and appointed to perform such a mediation as hath been described, in virtue of his personal dignity and the ransom he hath made." Through him we have access to the Father." He" is our Peace-maker;" "our Advocate with the Father." He says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father but by me,” (John xiv. 6.) So that no man ever did, or ever will, find acceptance with God, who rejects Christ's mediation. We must come to God in his name, asking all blessings for his sake, and presenting all our services by his hands, and through his intercession, even "giving thanks to God and the Father through him."

In this view of the subject, we may consider Christ as the Mediator be-, tween God and man, in such a sense, that no sinner on earth can be found to whom we may not propose all the benefits of his mediation, provided he truly "come to God by faith in Christ;" whereas fallen angels, and those men who have died in their sins, are wholly excluded from this benefit by the very constitution of the covenant which he mediated. On the other hand, all other mediators, and all attempts to approach God without a Mediator, are an affront both to the Father and the Son; even as the sacrifices which Israelites offered contrary to the law were an abomination to the Lord. As, therefore, we must shortly meet our offended Sovereign at his awful tribunal, let us now avail ourselves of this inestimable appointment; and constantly approach his throne of grace, through our faithful and merciful High-priest and Mediator; that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in every time of need.”

[ocr errors]

ESSAY IX.

On the Merits and Atonement of Christ.

THE opinion, that the Deity might be appeased by expiatory sacrifices, has been very widely diffused among the human race; and the attempt has generally been made by shedding the blood, and burning a part of the body of some useful animal. This notion and practice seem very remote from the dictates of our natural reason: and it is extremely improbable, that they should have been the result of man's invention. We may, therefore, most rationally conclude, that it is wholly the doctrine of revelation, and the appointment of God, handed down by tradition from the progenitors of our race, to the several branches of their posterity; and it is certain that we meet with it in the Bible, immediately after the entrance of sin. When Cain's oblation of the first fruits of the earth was rejected, and Abel's sacrifice of the firstlings of the flock was accepted; we may naturally conclude, that the latter was presented according to the Divine appointment, and that

the former was not. But if we inquire into the reason of this appointment, the practice of the patriarchs, &c., and the multiplied precepts in the Mosaic law, as to this particular; we shall not easily arrive at any satisfactory solution, except we admit the doctrine of Christ's atonement, and suppose them to refer to him, as the substance of all these shadows. I shall, therefore, in this essay, endeavour to explain, illustrate, and prove this doctrine, and to show its importance in the Christian religion.

The rules and general usages respecting expiatory sacrifices, under the Old Testament, may assist us in understanding the nature of our Lord's atonement, of which they were types and prefigurations (Heb. x. 1.) The offender, whose crimes might be thus expiated, was required, according to the nature of the case, to bring "his offering of the flock, or of the herd, to the door of the tabernacle." The very nature of the animals appointed for sacrifice was significant; not the ferocious, the noxious, the subtle, or the unclean; but such as were gentle, docile, and valuable; and none of these were to be offered, but such as were "without blemish," or perfect in their kind. The offender was directed to bring an offering, in which he had a property, to be presented unto God, and thus substituted in his stead, for this particular purpose. He was then "to lay his hands upon the head" of the sacrifice, which denoted the typical translation of guilt from him, by the imputation to the substituted animal. This is generally thought to have been attended by a confession of his sins, and prayers for pardon, through the acceptance of his oblation: and doubtless it implied as much, and would be attended at least with secret devotions to that effect by every pious Israelite (Lev. i. 4; iii. 2; iv. 4; xvi. 21.) The priests were next employed "to shed the blood of the sacrifice!" which, being the life of every animal, was reserved to make atonement, and was therefore not allowed to be eaten, under the Old Testament dispensation (Gen. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. 11.) Afterwards, the body, or a part of it, as the fat, &c., were burned upon the altar with the fire which came immediately from heaven, both at the opening of the tabernacle worship, and afterwards at the consecration of Solomon's temple (Lev. ix. 24; 2 Chron. vii. 1-3.) Now, who can help perceiving that this fire represented the avenging justice of God (who is a consuming fire;) and that, when it consumed the harmless, unblemished sacrifice, whilst the guilty offerer escaped, it aptly prefigured the way of a sinner's salvation, through the expiatory sufferings of the spotless Lamb of God? The animal's violent death, by the shedding of its blood, denoted the offender's desert of temporal death; and the subsequent burning of its fat, or flesh, showed him to be exposed to future vengeance: but then, they represented the guilt and punishment, in both respects, as translated from him to the sacrifice, which bore them in his stead; and the whole ceremony, which concluded with the sprinkling of the blood, and in many cases its application to all those things that pertained to the worship of God, evidently typified the believer's deliverance from guilt and punishment, from the sting and dread of death, and finally from death itself, from sin, and all its consequences; the acceptance of his person and services, and his participation of eternal life and felicity, through" him who loved him, and washed him from his sins in his own blood," &c.

These appointments were varied, in divers particulars, as they respected the several kinds of sacrifices: but most of them coincided in the grand outlines here mentioned. The paschal lamb, the flesh of which was roasted and eaten, &c.; and the bodies of the sin offerings for the congregation, &c., which were burned without the camp, form the principal exceptions; but these variations serve to illustrate the several parts of that great subject which was exhibited by them. Even the thank-offerings and peace-offerings, though evidently typical of the believer's spiritual worship and communion with God, and with the saints, were all attended with the shedding and sprinkling of the blood, and the burning of the fat of the sacrifice on which they feasted. Nay, the very purifications with water (the emblem of sanc

ATONEMENT OF CHRIST.

tification;) the re-admission of a leper into the congregation; the consecration of a priest; the performance of a Nazarite's vow, &c. were, in different ways, connected with the same observations. "Almost all things were purged with blood, and without shedding of blood there was no remission" (Heb. ix. 22.) So that this ran through the whole ritual law, and was interwoven with every part of the worship performed by the ancient church of God.

:

We need not be surprised, that they who overlook the typical import of the ritual law, or doubt of the atonement of Christ, should either consider these institutions as "an overgrown mass of trivial ceremonies;" or attempt to account for them from the policy of Moses; or trace them from the customs of the surrounding nations. But indeed the Israelites were expressly forbidden to imitate the Gentiles, and several institutions in the law were intended to keep them at a distance from their superstitions and if any agreement be found in other respects, it is far more reasonable to suppose, that the Gentiles borrowed their usages from the Israelites, than that the Israelites were encouraged or required to copy the worship of idolaters; and the epistle to the Hebrews sufficiently proves to all who read it as the word of God, that these ceremonies were shadows or types of the redemption by Jesus Christ, in its several parts. Indeed some persons of great eminence in their line, would persuade us that the penmen of the New Testament accommodated their language on this subject to the usages of the Jews; and rather wrote agreeable to vulgar notions and prejudices, than according to the true nature of their subject. This must mean (if it mean any thing more, than at any rate to evade an argument which cannot be answered,) that the apostles were mistaken, or that they wilfully misled mankind: and we may safely infer from this method of reasoning on such a subject, that the divine inspiration of the New Testament in general, of the epistles in particular, and especially of that to the Hebrews, must be given up by all who persist in denying the real atonement of Christ, whenever this argument is used against them with energy, by some able and zealous controversialist; or at least, they must be forced to betake themselves to evasion, and other ingenious ways of losing sight of the precise point which is contested with them. As every one of the grand divisions of holy Scripture carries along with it the evidence of its own divine original, so it may not be unseasonable to observe, that this is particularly the case with the books of Moses, which some have lately affected to speak of, as a respectable ancient composition, &c. ; yet with very plain intimations that they are not to be regarded as of divine inspiration. But are not the prophecies contained in these books, fulfilling even to this day, in the state of the Jewish nation, and of the posDid not our Lord quote them as the unerring word of terity of Ham? God, and not merely as the words of Moses? (Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10; xxii. 31, 32; Luke xxiv. 27, 44). And can any man believe in Christ, who speaks of those books as a human composition which he quoted, and by quoting, authenticated as the oracles of God? But it is most to our present purpose to observe, that the astonishing coincidence between the types of the law, and the language used concerning Christ, by his apostles, &c., establishes the authority of the books of Moses along with that of the New Testament, so that they cannot be separated; as well as teaches us the real meaning of them. If attempts to lessen our regard to this part of Scripture be not the covert attacks of infidelity, most certainly they are calculated to subserve its

cause.

"Known unto God are all his works from before the foundation of the world." What man of common sense, therefore, if not warped by prejudice, can suppose that the Lord, having appointed a number of ceremonies, without any reference to a future dispensation, and not suited to give mankind any just views of it, but the contrary, should afterwards so arrange that dispensation, or at least leave his servants so to speak of it, as to lead men to form notions more conformed to those antiquated rites, than to its real nature? Who can believe, that this new revelation should be made in such lan

guage as must give believers erroneous views of it, unless they are extremely careful how they understand it; make large allowances for the prejudices of education, &c., in those who first propagated it; and employ much ingenious labour to discover the truth, by divesting it of the numerous metaphors under which it lies concealed or obscured? Surely, if we allow the Scriptures to be the word of the unerring, unchangeable, and all-wise God, we can scarce speak of such a method of interpretation, without failing of that reverence which we owe to his Divine Majesty. Does an architect, when about to erect a magnificent edifice, purposely arrange his plan to suit some inconvenient scaffolding which happens to be upon the spot, having been raised on another occasion? Or, if he build according to a scaffolding previously made by his directions, is he ever supposed to form the plan of his structure for the sake of the scaffolding? Or does any one doubt, that the scaffolding was raised to suit the plan that he had drawn for his intended building? And is it not almost infinitely more rational to suppose, that the Mosaic law was arranged, with a reference to the future revelation of the gospel; than to suppose, that the gospel was obscured, and even mis-stated, that it might be made apparently to accord to the abrogated ceremonies of the law?

[ocr errors]

But

But, though "without shedding of blood, there was no remission" of sins, under the old dispensation; yet" it was not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin," (Heb. x. 4.) If the question should be proposed to a Socinian, why this was not possible?" he might perhaps find it not very easy to give a direct and satisfactory answer. if we allow (according to the idea of "no remission without shedding of blood,") that the necessity of an atonement, in order to forgiveness, originates from the infinite holiness and justice of God, and the intrinsic evil and desert of sin, and the consequent impossibility that he could pass by sin, without showing his abhorrence of it, and determination to punish it according to its demerit; we shall readily perceive, that nothing could render it consistent with the Divine glory to pardon and save sinners, which did not exhibit his justice and holiness in as clear a light, in shewing them mercy, as these attributes would have appeared in, had he executed the threatened vengeance. And if this were the case, however it might suit the designs of Infinite Wisdom, to appoint the sacrifices of lambs, bulls, goats, &c., as types and shadows, means of grace, or conditions of temporal remission; yet they could not possibly take away the guilt of sin; because they were not adequate exhibitions of the infinite justice and holiness of God. For what proportion could the death of an animal bear to the remission of that guilt, which merited the eternal punishment of an immortal soul? Or how could rational creatures behold, in such an observance, God's holy hatred of sin, and love of sinners? The same reasoning is conclusive, in respect of the vicarious sufferings of any mere man, or mere creature. Suppose it were right that one creature should bear the punishment merited by another; and any one could be found free from guilt, and willing to be substituted in the place of his guilty fellow-creature: yet he could only answer, one for one, body for body, life for life, soul for soul; his temporal sufferings could only answer to the temporal release of the condemned criminal; but could not be an adequate ransom for this immortal soul from future punishment; much less could it expiate the guilt of the unnumbered crimes of many millions. Should it be said, that this might be, if God had so appointed; I answer, that God appointed the sacrifice of bulls and goats; yet it was impossible that they should take away sin; and for the reason before assigned, it was impossible that God should appoint them, as more than a type of the real atonement. But no mere man can be found, who has not himself deserved the wrath of God; no one's body and soul are his own; no mere creature could be willing to bear the vengeance of heaven for another, if he might; and none might if he would: it may be our duty to lay down our lives for our brethren; but it cannot be allowable for us to choose to be

« AnteriorContinuar »