« AnteriorContinuar »
This is the only argument for the Dr's purpose, that can be formed out of the words before us. But every body must fee, that the conclusion of it is wrong drawn: for the only conclusion, that follows from the premises, is this, therefore the blood by which Christ hath redeemed us, is precious blood; a conclusion, which will do nothing for the DoSlor.
Among the Jews, all lambs that were without spot and blemish, or bodily imperfection, were precious lambs, or lambs of value and worth: but all lambs, that were without spot and blemish, did not make atonement for sin, merely because they were without spot and blemish, or lambs of value and worth: No lambs, however perfect or valuable, ever did, or could do this, unless they were killed, and offered to God in the way appointed by him. The natural perfection of their bodily parts rendered them fit for being offered in sacrifice; but it did not constitute a sacrifice: nothing but their death, and the oblation of them to God in the way prescribed by him, did this. Just so, the perfect piety and goodness of Jesus Christ qualified him for being offered in sacrifice; but they did not constitute that sacrifice of himself which he offered to God for sin; nor could they, of themselves, ever have availed to make atonement for sin, in the way of sacrifice. Nothing could do this, but the shedding of his blood, the souring out his foul to death, and the offering himself a flain victim to God. Wherefore, no argument can be taken from the considera^ tion of him, as a lamb without spot and blemish, to prove, that his perfect obedience and goodness was the blood or sacrifice by which he redeemed us; any more than an argument can be taken from the natural or bodily perfection of lambs in the land of Judea, to prove, that the natural perfection of these lambs, as being without spot and blemish was the sacrifices which made atonement for the sins of the Jews. So that there is nothing of argument in what the Dr. here advances.
*Tbe Dr'i Scripture-evidence continued.
§. 13. IV. To prove that the blood or sacrifice, which Christ offered for sin, was his perfect obedience and goodness, the Dr. fays further, " The end of his coming into "the world was to do the will of God, Heb. "x. 7. (John v. 30.—vi. 38.) not to offer "figurative or ceremonial sacrifices, but to 11 perform solid and substantial obedience, t* in all acts of usefulness and beneficence *t to mankind; by which he became a f* high-priest after the order of Melchizedec, "the king of righteousness, and the king of w peace or happiness, Heb. vii. 2. And he
** abode tc abode in his father's love, or continued to "be the object of his complacency and "delight, because he kept his comandments."
§. 14. Because our blessed Lord had received a commandment from the Father, (John x. 18.) to lay down his life for his sheep, his laying it down for them, in a voluntary manner, was a solid and substantial act of obedience to his will, or a doing of his will. And it is the doing of the will of God, by this particular act of obedience, and not by the obedience and goodness of his whole life, that is mentioned as an end of his coming into the world,, Heb. x. 7. This seems to be very evident from ver. 10. where it is said, By which will (of God, done by Christ,) we are sanctified, by the offering of the body of Christ once. This is the scripture account of this affair. But how the Dr. or any other person, should be able to infer from it, that the blood, which Christ shed upon the cross to make atonement for sin, was the perfect obedience and goodness of his whole life, *f in all acts of usefulness and beneficence to *c mankind or, that his perfect obedience and goodness was " the sacrifice which he ** offered to God for the sin of the world," is a thing above my comprehension. These,
in my humble opinion, are very wide and wrong consequences. The Dr. surely, could not think, that though it was not the end of Christ's coming into the world to offer sacrifices of slain beasts, yet it was not to offer himself, his own foul or life, a sacrifice to God; or that his making his foul, or life, an offering for sin, which was one act of obedience only, was the perfect obedience and goodness of his whole life; or, that the doing of God's will in one particular, is not a doing of his will, because it is not a doing of it in all things: and yet he must call in one or other of these absurd sentiments to his assistance, before he can make what he advances here, subservient to his purpose.—The only resemblances between Christ and Melchizedec, of which the scripture gives us any account, regard either the double office of king and priest, which they both executed; or their moral qualifications for these offices; or the unchangeableness of their priesthood, in which neither of them had any predecessor or successor; and not the sacrifices which they offered, as the Dr. would have it. And, indeed, as it is highly probable, that the sacrifices, which Melchizedec offered, were of the animal kind, there could be no similitude between these sacrifices, and that which Christ offered. We no where read, that Melchizedec offered himself to God a
sacrifice. sacrifice for sin; or that he offered his obedience and righteousness as a sacrifice. And, therefore, if what the Dr. says of Jesus Christ, as being, by his perfect righteousness and goodness, " made a priest as"ter the order of Melchizedec," was really true, (as there is reason to think, it is not,) yet this would make nothing for his purpose.
The Dr. adds, " Christ abode in his Fa"ther's love, or continued to be the object "of his complacency and delight, because u be kept his commandments."—This is what the scripture affirms, and is very true. But I cannot fee, how it can subserve the Drs purpose in any imaginable respect. Surely, from Christ's abiding in his Father's love, because he kept his commandments, it will not follow, that his shedding his blood upon the cross, which was one act of obedience only, was all the acts of his obedience, or the perfect obedience and goodness of his whole life; or even, that the acceptableness of his blood and death to God did depend on the acceptableness of all the other acts of his obedience: for all the acts of his obedience were equally, and on the very fame account, acceptable to God, viz. because they were acts of obedience to his will. His act of obedience, in dying upon a cross, was as acceptable to God, as any other single act of obedience whatsoever,