CHAPTER FIFTH Remarks on passages in the New Testament.. It is easy to refer to passages of scripture upon any point; but such a reference merely proves nothing: it is necessary the passages referred to should relate to the point in hand, in order to their furnishing proof. Could our opponents refer to passages in the writings of the Apostles in which their doctrine of atonement, or satisfaction, is expressly mentioned, it would be doing something to purpose; but, finding that impossible, they quote a number of texts which have nothing to do with the subject; and, by an arbitrary exposition of detached expressions, and a literal construction of figurative language, they conclude they have established their point. It will be sufficient for me at present to show that the pas-sages they quote have nothing to do with the doctrine in support of which they quote them. Matt. xx. 28. Mark x. 45. The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many. Having in another part of this work, explained the word ransom, as applied to Christ, I barely add, that the plain means ing of the above passages is, that he came to devote his life to the effecting of the salvation of men. 1 Tim. ii. 6. Who gave himself a ransom for all ; i̟. e̟ * to effect the deliverance of all. These are the only places, in the New Testament, where the word ransom occurs and these have no reference to Christ's giving God a price for our salvation; but to his dying to effect our deliverance by the gospel,* Matt. xxvi. 28. This is my blood of the New Testament, mhich is shed for many for the remission of sins. The fact asserted in these words is plain, i. e. that Christ shed his blood to produce an important effect in the creature, to bring sinners to the enjoyment of forgiveness of sins, to cleanse their consciences. His saying 'my blood of the New Testament,' places his death before us as that which confirms the truth and grace revealed to us by the gospel. As he shed his blood to ratify the gospel, which communicates the knowledge of salvation by remission of sins, it is with the utmost propriety said, hẹ shed his blood for the remission of sins. John, i. 29. Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. This passage simply speaks of Christ's taking away sin and so far as sin is removed what the words express is accomplished. Though this is one of the passages which our oppo • The Aurpov, or Ransom given, is not any price paid to the person who detains us captives: but it signifies that which Christ did in order to obtain his end.' • To redeem then does not imply the paying a price to the person holding us in captivity, but only the setting us at liberty from any slavery, or slavish state.' DR. SYKES on Redemption. P. 149. nents quote, they do not believe that sin will ever. be completely taken away from the world; but we believe that both it, and all its painful consequences, will be entirely removed; how then can they bring this passage into argument against us? It is clear. that sin never did exist any where but in the creature, that it can be taken away only from where it is, and that when taken away it does not remain consequently, sin was not taken away merely by. Christ's dying, for it still remains; and the taking it away cannot relate to God's receiving a consider-· ation for the pardon of it, but to the creature's being actually freed from it. It is by the gospel Christ takes away the guilt, the power, the love, and the pollution of sin. John, vi. 51. The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. It may well be doubted whether, in this passage, Christ had any immediate reference to his sufferings, when it is remembered that the words are figurative, and occur in a highly figurative discourse. He was evidently speaking in figurative language when he said that the bread, which he called his flesh; came down from heaven, and was to be eaten by the person who de rived life from it; for surely no one will say that the body of Christ, which was nailed to the tree, camedown from heaven, or ever was eaten by any man. He seems throughout to be speaking of his heavenly! doctrine, what was manifested in the flesh, (1 Tim. iii. 16,) or made known by his ministry, and was calculated to give life to the world. But if we let our opponents take the passage in their own way, what can they make of it? Nothing in favor of their notion of atonement; for Jesus spoke not of giving his flesh to God, as a consideration for the pardon of sin, but of giving it to men, to be food for them, in a figurative sense. Say the words refer to his death, they can mean no more than that he would give himself to die that the world might receive life by his gospel. John, x. 11. I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. Here Christ speaks of giving his life for his people, as a good shepherd would expose his life in defence of the sheep committed to his care. But could he not give his life for his people without giving God a consideration that he might not destroy them? The passage is highly figurative, and figurative passages ought to be explained agreeably to the allusions they contain. Was it common in those days for a shepherd to risk his life to preserve the sheep from being destroyed by the owner, who had intrusted them to his care? was it not rather to preserve them for the owner, from being destroyed by ravenous beasts, that he would expose his life? Before the words can be brought to countenance the modern notion of atonement, they must be detached from their connexion, the allosions they contain be lost sight of, and a forced con→ struction given to them. Had David lost his life in rescuing the lamb from the lion and bear, (1 Sam. xvii. 34, 35,) would it not have been true that he gave his life for the lamb ? Is not Christ's having devo ted his life, exposed himself to all his sufferings, even to a most painful and ignominious death, to effect the salvation of men by the gospel, and to make them partakers of all its blessings, the full import of the words, the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep? As he gave his life on our account, for our benefit, it must be true that he gave his life for us; and this is all that can fairly be gathered from the words. John, xv. 12, 13. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. That this passage should be brought in support of the notion of satisfaction for sins, is what we should not have expected, had we not found it among the texts referred to by our opponents in defence of their hypothesis: such a reference however only discovers a paucity of proofs, and cannot serve their cause; for if the words prove any thing, they prove too much for their purpose; if they prove that Christ's dying for us means his dying in our place, they equally prove that christians are commanded to die in the place of each other. He mentions his laying down his life, as an act similar to what any other man, in particular circumstances, might perform for his friends, and as the evi. dence of the reality and greatness of his love; and he commands his disciples to love one another in the same manner, and to the same degree, as he hath loved them. It follows that, if Christ's laying down PP 1 |