PROVED BY DIRECT TESTIMONY. 189 teousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him;" i. e., each must bear the consequences of his own conduct. (Ezekiel xviii. 19, 20.) In the book of Leviticus the expression frequently occursand occurs where its meaning cannot be misunderstood. Thus of the guilty party, in the case of uncleanness, referred to in the 20th chapter, 17th verse, it is said, "he shall bear his iniquity," i. e., endure the punishment of his crime. Thus, also, we read, Numb. xiv. 33, 34, "And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness. After the number of the days in which ye reached the land, even forty days, (each day for a year,) shall ye bear your iniquities;" that is, endure the consequences of your misconduct. By the editors of the improved version we are, however, assured that the meaning of the apostle, in the phrase, “He bare our sins in his own body on the tree," is, that he removed them, and carried them away; as he is said, they allege, Matt. vii. 17, to bear our sicknesses, when he healed them by his miraculous power. I reply, first-that, granting that they do not misinterpret the language of the evangelist Matthew, it cannot be in this sense that our Lord is said to have borne our sins, by Peter. In the sense of suffering the punishment of our sins, he may, with great propriety, be said to have borne them in his own body on the tree. But what meaning can be attached to the Socinian exposition of the words? How could he, according to their system, 66 remove and carry away our sins, in his own body on the tree?" Their hypothesis does not admit of the supposition that the death of Christ was intended to remove guilt,-to procure our pardon. It precludes the notion of any carrying away of sin, but that which consists in the removal of depravity. Now, can any thing be more manifest than that Christ did not thus remove, and carry away the sin of any, in his own body on the tree? He does it by the power of his word and Spirit. Unless the doctrine of atonement be admitted, the language of the apostle is utterly unmeaning. I answer 190 PROVED BY DIRECT TESTIMONY. Secondly, that there is reason to think they have misunderstood the language of Matthew, in the passage to which they refer. On examining the words of the prophet, it appears quite manifest that the expressions, "He bore our griefs-carried our sorrows-was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities," are intended to convey the same meaning. "He was a man of sorrows," says the prophet; and we thought, such is the implication of his language, that these sorrows were his own sorrows-that they had been laid upon him by the hand of God, as the consequence of his own sin. But we were mistaken,—they were our sorrows which were borne by him; for, "he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities." The punishment which he endured-if it be right to call it punishment was the punishment due to our sins, not his own. When, therefore, the evangelist Matthew, having described his miracles, says, "All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses;" we must, to be consistent with the prophet, understand his meaning to be—that these bodily diseases-the consequences of sin-were removed by omnipotent power, put forth on the ground of the atonement. The effect was made to cease, by the removal of the cause. The sacrifice of our Lord is of sufficient worth and efficacy to rescue us from all the consequences of sin-bodily, mental, and eternal. Had not he been about to present that sacrifice, he would not have healed the sick who applied to him; and hence the healing of diseases is called, in Scripture, "the forgiveness of sins." (Matt. ix. 2.) 2nd. I refer to those passages in which Christ is said to have died for our sins. Isaiah declares, "that he was wounded for our transgressions." The apostle affirms that "he was delivered for our offences;" "died for our sins;" "died for us;" "suffered for sins." All these expressions suggest very naturally "the notion of a substitution, in which the sufferings and death of one person are instead of the sufferings and death which the sins of others deserved." The prepositions used in the above passages are υπερ, δια, περι, αντι. PROVED BY DIRECT TESTIMONY. 191 All of them are employed by classical writers to denote substitution; and, without pretending to say that they are never used in a loose sense-in the general sense of advantage-we may affirm with confidence that the notion of substitution, or that Christ suffered, strictly speaking, instead of the guilty, "could not have been more naturally and significantly expressed than by these prepositions; and that the meaning which a reader, whose mind is unwarped by system, feels himself disposed to affix to them, and the violent interpretations which are necessary, in order to evade that meaning, create a strong presumption in favour of the orthodox interpretation." Let any one read Rom. v. 6, 8, and then say how the idea that the substitution of Christ is intended to be expressed, can be avoided. "For scarcely for," that is, instead of, righteous man will one die; yet peradventure for," that is, instead of, "a good man, some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for," that is, instead of, "us;"-so as that we, believing in him, might not die. our sins." 66 a 3rd. I refer to those passages in which Christ is spoken of as a propitiation for sin. God sent his Son " to be the propitiation for our sins." "And he is the propitiation for "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood." (Vide 1 John iv. 10; ii. 2; Rom. iii. 24.) To propitiate an individual is to turn away his anger; to recover his forfeited favour. A propitiation is that by which his friendship is regained. If, then, the doctrine of atonement be excluded from our system, in what possible sense can this term be applied to our Lord? He must have propitiated either God or man, or he could not have been denominated, as he is, a "propitiation." Now, that he did not propitiate man, or the world, is manifest from the fact that the major part of the world's population is not, even yet, propitiated. Besides, he is said to be a propitiation for our sins,an expression which decidedly proves that the anger removed is not our anger against God, but God's anger against us. He suffered on account of our sins. Moreover, this propitiation was effected by the death of Christ. "He hath recon 192 PROVED BY DIRECT TESTIMONY. ciled us unto God by his blood." This reconciliation could not, then, be the removal of our enmity against God, for this remained after the death of Christ, and is subdued by "the ministry of reconciliation." Christ was a propitiation for sin by rendering the pardon of sin consistent with the perfections, and safe to the government, of God. 4th. I refer to those passages in which Christ is represented as a ransom for mankind,-" Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (Matt. xx. 28; 1 Tim.. ii. 6.) The word in Matthew is Aurpov, which signifies the price paid for the deliverance of a captive from slavery or death; to which, among the ancients, a captive was, or might be, condemned. The word in Timothy is avriλurpov; which denoted the ransom paid for the life of a captive, by giving up the life of another person. The Aurpov might be a sum of money; the avriλurpov was life for life. The λurpov mentioned by our Lord, is the same with avrikur pov. He gave his life a λurpov for us. "I know not," says an excellent writer, "how the fact that Christ made an atonement could have been declared in more explicit or more forcible language." 5th. I refer to those passages in which reconciliation and peace with God are represented as the result of the death of Christ. "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ." It pleased the Father, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself," &c. (Vide Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 18; Col. i. 19, 20.) It has been well and justly remarked by a late writer, that the amount of these expressions is contained in the declaration concerning Christ,-" That we are saved from wrath by him." The nature of this wrath has been explained; it is the punitive or retributive justice of God,-that necessity under which the moral Governor is laid to inflict the ven-. geance of the law upon all who break it. This wrath has PROVED BY DIRECT TESTIMONY. 193 been manifested in the conduct of God. Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth as an example of it, "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." From this wrath the atonement of Christ rescues his people. The Saviour has "made peace through the blood of his cross." He has rendered it possible for God to save the transgressor, without destroying the efficiency of his law, and endangering the safety of his government; and, therefore, through him is preached unto all men the forgiveness of sins. The Unitarians endeavour to evade this argument in support of the doctrine of the atonement, by maintaining that the reconciliation which we ascribe to the death of Christ, is not that of God to man, but of man to God;-that the sufferings of Christ could produce no change in God-that he needed not to be reconciled, because he was never at enmity with man. I answer, first, that the passages to which we have just referred, as well as others, (vide Heb. x. 28, 30, &c.,) in which the wrath of God is expressly affirmed,-and, indeed, the whole of the previous statements, prove most decidedly that, in the sense formerly explained, God did need to be reconciled to man; and that reconciliation in this sense was actually effected by the death of Christ. I answer, Secondly, With Hammond and others, that the words translated "reconcile," have a peculiar sense in the New Testament: that, whereas, in ordinary Greek writers, they signify "to be pacified," and so reconciled; here, on the other hand, they have the force of the Hithpael among the Hebrews. They imply, to reconcile oneself to another; that is, to appease or to obtain the favour of that other. In proof of this, the following passages may be referred to:-" If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, &c. (Matt. v. 23, 24.) In this case, the person addressed is not supposed to have any ground of offence against his brother; but to recollect that his brother has ground of offence against him. His brother is, in short, the aggrieved party. Yet the language is, "Be reconciled to thy brother;" that is, make peace with thy N |
