AN ESSAY ON THE SURETISHIP OF CHRIST.
IN TWO PARTS.
PART I. The Doctrine stated.
PART II. Objections answered.
By Samuel Richardson.
By so much was JESUS made a SURETY of a better Testament.
Heb.
vii. 22.
CHESTER: Printed by C. W. LEADBEATER, for the Author; AND SOLD BY W. BUTTON, Paternoster-Row; T. KNOTT, Lombard-Street, London; LEADBEATER, and the AUTHOR, Chester; MORRISSON, Perth; and GILLIES, Glasgow. 1796. PRICE 2s.
PREFACE.
ALTHOUGH the following Essay originated in a private controversy; that is, a controversy carried on for some time in private, between the Church of which I am a member, and some other Churches of the same denomination; and although I am in some measure sensible of my literary defects; yet something may be said by way of apology for my appearing thus in print.
(1) We have no other way of communicating our sentiments to all who are concerned in this controversy.
(2) Some who were not immediately concerned herein, have heard of the dispute; and our sentiments have been so much misunderstood, that it seems necessary to rectify these mistakes. (3) The SUBJECT in debate is, in our estimation, of infinite importance, and of universal concernment; and therefore I have not confined myself to the question as it stood amongst ourselves; but have endeavoured to treat it in such a manner as to make this Essay equally interesting and useful to all who read it. (4) Although the truth of Christianity
in general,
has been supported with ability and success against the bold attack made by Mr. Thomas Paine; yet I have not met with any thing which I could esteem as a sufficient reply to the argument he has urged against that grand peculiarity of the Gospel,—
the doctrine of Redemption.
I have therefore attempted something in that way. (5) I am in hopes that (if there should seem a necessity for it) this little Essay may give occasion to some more able Friend, to take up his pen.—For the rest, I can only say to the
Critic,
—Spare me!—but to the
Deist, Jew,
or
Christian,
I say—Spare not!—So much by way of Apology.
I have used, very freely, every thing I found to my purpose in human Authors; but I never rest any part of the argument upon their
Authority.
They frequently helped me to express my own thoughts with more ease and clearness, than I could otherwise have done; and therefore I used their Words; but so far am I from building upon the authority of their Names, that I differ widely from almost all of them, upon other matters.—The Age of Popery is gone: let every man now exercise
his own
reasoning Powers, and
"be fully persuaded in
his own
mind."
But although I reject all human authority, in matters of a
religious
nature, I have so frequently referred to the Authority of Revelation, that I fear the reader will not have patience to examine the Sacred Text: yet it is what he ought to do.
As to that part of the book which is controversial; I can only say, (1) I hope I have neither misrepresented the sentiments, nor abused the person of any man. (2) The replies I have made, and the proofs I have advanced, appear to me to be conclusive; and I am fully satisfied that the doctrine we maintain, is the most just to God, and the most safe to man, that can be imagined. But I do not expect that every one else will be thus minded. When we do not like a sentiment, it is easy to misrepresent it to ourselves and others; we can start objections, and refuse to be satisfied: and as to scripture texts, we can either find a different sense for the words as they stand, or we can alter the translation. At least we may darken or perplex the question so as to make it a matter of doubtful disputation which therefore ought not to be insisted upon. For instance:—
Some, perhaps, may say,—What a piece of work is here about a single word! Christ is called a
Surety
only once in all the Bible; and even then he is not said to be the Surety of
Sinners,
but the Surety of a
Testament.
—Yet here is a book written upon the Suretiship of Christ!—I shall conclude the Preface with a reply to this.
(1) Although Christ is only
once
expressly called a Surety; yet since it is GOD who calls him so, we are absolutely certain that Christ does sustain this Character. We do not find that it was said to Adam, any more than
once,
—
"On the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."
—Was the threatening less certain? or of less importance? I might multiply instances of this kind. The word
Atonement
occurs but
once
in the New Testament; but the thing intended thereby is often mentioned: so it is with respect to the Suretiship of Christ.
As to the word
Testament,
it will be granted that it is of the same import, in this place, as the word
Covenant.
See Mr. M'Lean's treatise on the Apostolic Commission. p. 59.
Now as this is certainly a covenant between GOD and
man,
Christ must be the Surety of
sinners,
for the following reasons:
(1) "EGGUS
or
EGGUHTHS,
A Surety;
is one that undertaketh for another wherein he is
defective;
really or in reputation. Whatever the undertaking be, whether in words or promise; or in depositing a real security in the hands of an arbitrator, or by any other personal engagement of life and body, it respects the
defect
of the person for whom any one becomes a surety. Such an one is
sponsor
or
fidejussor
in all good authors and common use of speech. And if any one be of absolute credit himself, and of a reputation very unquestionable, there is no need of a surety, unless in case of mortality. The words of a surety in the behalf of another, whose ability or reputation is dubious, are,
(ad me recipio, faciet aut faciam,)
"I take the matter upon me, he shall do it, or I will."
(2) God therefore can have
no surety
properly, because there can be no conceiveable
defect
on his part. There may be indeed a question, whether any words or promise be
his;
but to assure us of that, is not the work of a surety, but of
any means
whatever that may give
evidence
that it is so. He doth indeed make use of
witnesses
to confirm his word; that is, to testify that he hath made such promises; but the difference is wide enough between a
witness
and a
surety;
for the latter must be of
more ability,
or more credit and reputation, than he for whom he engages, or there is no need of his suretiship. This none can be for God.—And if this be not the notion of a surety in this place, the apostle makes use of a word no where else used in the whole scripture, to teach us that which it doth never signify among men; which is sufficiently improbable and absurd. For the sole reason why he made use of it was, that from the nature and notion of it among men in other cases, we may understand what he ascribes under that name to the Lord Jesus."
(3) "We on all accounts
stand in need of a Surety
for us, or on our behalf. Neither without the interposition of such a Surety could any Covenant between God and us be firm and stable, or an
everlasting Covenant,
ordered in all things and sure. In the first Covenant made with
Adam
there was no Surety, but God and men were the immediate Covenanters. And although we were then in a state and condition able to perform and answer all the Terms of the Covenant, yet was it broken and disannulled. If this came to pass by the failure of the
Promise
of God, it was necessary that on the making of a new Covenant he
should have a Surety
to undertake for him, that the Covenant might be stable and everlasting. But this is false and blasphemous to imagine. It was
man alone
who sailed and broke that Covenant. Wherefore it was necessary that upon the making of the
New Covenant,
and that with a design and purpose that it should
never be disannulled
as the former was, that we should have a
Surety
and undertaker for us. For if that
first Covenant
was not firm and stable because there was no
Surety
to undertake for us, notwithstanding all that Ability which we had to answer the terms of it; how much less can any other be so, now our Natures are become depraved and sinful? Wherefore we alone were
capable of a Surety
properly so called; we alone
stood in need of
him, and without him the Covenant could not be firm, and inviolate on our parts. The Surety therefore of this Covenant is so with God for us.
(4) "It is the
Priesthood of Christ
that the Apostle treats of in this place, and that alone. Wherefore, seeing the Lord Christ is the Surety of the Covenant
as a priest,
and all the sacerdotal actings of Christ have God for their
immediate object,
and are performed with him on our behalf, he was
properly
A SURETY FOR US"
DR. OWEN
The following pages are designed to state and defend that work which Christ performed in the capacity of a SURETY. I have attempted to prove that he acted in this capacity, from his infancy to his death, in obeying the commandments, and suffering the penalty of the Moral Law. This is the DOCTRINE, however expressed, which these lines are intended to maintain. I contend not about particular words or modes of expression. THE TRUTH ITSELF, and not any particular mode of expressing it, is that which I labour to defend. Neither is it every particular
circumstance
attending the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, as they are stated in this Essay, which I contend for. I have mentioned these circumstances as I found them, or as I think I found them, in the scriptures, and that for the sake of illustration; but they are not all
essential
to the main point, as expressed above.—Therefore, if any one should think it his duty to animadvert upon this Essay, let him not spend his time in cavilling at meer expressions or circumstances; but attend to the main Doctrine in question.
Chester,
Dec.
1, 1796.
S. Richardson.
AN ESSAY ON THE SURETISHIP OF CHRIST.
PART I. The Doctrine stated.
SECTION I. On the state of Man by Nature.
I Take it for granted that there is a GOD, who presides over the universe, and takes notice of the moral actions of men; and consequently that there is a future state of rewards and punishments, of happiness and misery. It is also reasonable to believe that the MORAL LAW delivered by Moses, and continued as a rule of life to Christians under the New Testament dispensation, is, in fubstance, the very same law which naturally binds all men; and by which God will judge the world. This law dictates to us our duty towards God and man. It also promises happiness to the obedient, and condemns the sinner.
1. The moral law requires that we love the only true God, with all our heart, soul, mind and strength: this is the first and great commandment. The second is like unto it, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Upon these two commandments hang all the law.
Mat. 22. 37-40.
Whatsoever flows naturally from this principle of love, is a part of the moral law,
Rom. 13. 8-10.
and is binding upon all mankind.
Rom. 3. 19.
2. This law is enforced by a promise, and a threatning. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments:
Mat. 19. 17.
Rom. 10. 5.
but cursed is every one who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal. 3. 10.
—To be bound,
upon these terms,
to keep the commandments, is what the Scriptures usually intend by the expression,
"
under the law.
"
Rom. 3. 19. Chap. 6. 14.
All men are, by nature, under this law. The heathen nations, who had not this law as delivered by Moses, were nevertheless bound by it, as it is made known by the light of nature. All mankind (lunaticks, idiots, and infants excepted) may, and actually do know enough of this law to constitute them sinners, and leave them without excuse when they act contrary to it.
In speaking of a law of nature, we have no occasion to strive with Philosophers about what they call
innate ideas.
Equally impertinent would it be to enquire, what impressions of duty men would have had, if they were otherwise framed and situated than what they are; that is, if they were not every where surrounded with the visible works of their Creator: if they were not furnished with powers of body and mind suited to perceive these works: and if they had not been made Male and Female, Parents, Children, Brethren, &c. Taking men as they are, it is evident they are abundantly furnished with the means of knowledge, to render them accountable to their maker for all their ways.
That which may be known of God, says Paul, is manifest unto men, for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and God-head; so that they are without excuse.
Rom. 1. 19, 20.
It can do nothing toward invalidating these words of Scripture, to recount the many absurd notions of the heathen concerning the number and quality of their gods; because nothing more absurd has been either thought or done by them in regard to religion, than what has been done by those who have lived under the superior light of revelation. If Transubstantiation cannot prove that we are without a Bible, no more can idolatry prove that the heathen are without a law of nature.
Having shewed that the heathens transgressed the first part of the law, (our duty toward God) the Apostle proceeds to speak of those things which regard man and man. And here, speaking of the propensity be-between the different sexes, which stands at the head of all other relations among mankind, he calls it
natural;
and a similar propensity between those of the same sex, he calls
unnatural;
Rom. 1. 2, 6, 27.
therefore highly criminal. Is any other argument necessary to evince its criminality, beside an appeal to the human breast? I hope not.—In like manner, the other relations formed by nature between parents and their offspring, between children of the fame parents, &c. demand suitable affection and behavour; and to counteract that affecton is to act an
unnatural
part. Indeed the scriptures every where appeal to the human breast, as fixing the law of natural affection. Thus.—Can a woman forget her sucking child?
Isa. 40. 15.
—Ye being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children.
Mat. 7. 11.
—Like as a father pitieth his children,
Psal. 103. 13.
&c. &c. Remarkable are the words of Paul. Rom. 2. 14, 15. Here he says that the Gentiles who had not the written law of Moses, were nevertheless a law unto themselves. He says they did the work of the law
by nature,
which shewed it written in their hearts: not indeed by perfect
obedience
to it; but, as he says, by their mutual accusations and excuses touching the breaches of it. In this sense we see many in our own days doing the work of the law, even while they are in the act of disobeying it. We can see the most infamous characters amongst men accusing each other, and by their rapid exchange of the odious terms,
drunkard, whore, thief, lyar, ungrateful,
&c. we see them very quick sighted, and very capable of doing that work of the law which consists in condemning the guilty. Now Paul says they did this in his days,
by nature.
Moreover,
The Apostle shews, not only that the heathen had a sense of right and wrong, but also that they knew the judgment of God against sinners.
Rom. 1. 32.
And when we consider how universally
sacrifices
prevailed amongst the heathen nations, we see Paul's testimony corroborated; and we may conclude that a dread of future punishment ever haunts the guilty breast, in a greater or less degree.
There are two opposite extremes which some men run into upon this subject. Some deny the very existence of the law of nature; whilst others contend for it's sufficiency to bring
fallen
man to happiness. Both parties are wrong. The law points out our duty, finds us guilty, condemns us, and there it leaves us.
When we read the history of all times and nations,—when we consider what daily passes before our own eyes and in our own breasts, we find a melancholy proof of the scripture doctrine concerning our depraved state. The most renowned of the heathen Philosophers
Socrates.
died in the prosession of idolatry;
See
Rollin's Ancient History.
the chief man
Paul.
in the strictest sect among the Jews, was found disaffected to the true character of God;
1 Tim. 1. 13.
and christians unanimously say—
"In many things we all offend."
James 3. 2.
How then shall man be just with God? Hail! thou SUN of RIGHTEOUSNESS! From the gloom of guilt and despair we turn our eyes toward thy chearing beams.
SECTION II. On the UNION between Christ and his people.
IF in tracing the lowly steps of Immanuel from Bethlehem to Calvary, we should view him as a single individual acting for himself alone, much of the beauty of his sacred history would be lost. To guard against this, it may be useful to take some notice in this place of the unity, or oneness, of Christ and his Elect. The inspired writers speak much of this union, and illustrate it in a variety of ways.
1. This union was fore-ordained—it was fixed upon in the Divine mind before the foundation of the world: see Ephesians, Chap. 1. throughout.
2. This union began to appear under the Old Testament dispensation. It was prefigured by various types, even from the Creation downward. Adam and Eve:
Gen. 2. 21-23.
Eph. 5. 22-32.
—Every High-Priest, who bore the names of the twelve tribes upon his shoulders and on his breast:
Exod. 28. 9-29.
—Every animal sacrificed
in the people's stead
Gen. 22. 13.
—all these prefigured, among other things, the union of Christ and his people. The Temple itself appears to have been a Type of Christ in such a sense as to comprehend his people.
John 2. 18-21.
Eph. 2. 21, 22.
Nor did this union appear to saints of old only in types and shadows. The spirit of Christ was in his people, even before he came in the flesh:
1 Pet. 1. 11.
and this spirit, by testifying of Christ, fixed the faith, hope, and love of the saints in him.
John 8. 56.
Heb. 11. 13.
It is true that there is something
peculiar
in the gift of the divine spirit under the New Testament dispensation; nevertheless the saints of old were not destitute of this amazing gift.
3. This union between Christ and his Elect was drawn still closer, when the divine Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.
John 1. 14.
For verily he took not on him the nature of Angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. At this time, and in this way, the Eternal WORD became the SON of God,
Luke 1. 35.
and the BROTHER of all Gods' children. Thus he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified by him, are all of one Father, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them his
Brethren.
Heb. 2. 11.
4. Adam was created the Foederal Head of his posterity—he stood as our representative, and we were all in his loins. So long as
He
obeyed,
We
obeyed in him; and when
He
sell,
We
also sell in him. This union prefigured that of Christ and his people.
Rom. 5. 12, 14.
5. This union is compared with that which subsists between the Root, Stock, and Branches of a Tree:
John 15. 5.
—and with the union which is formed between the Foundation, Corner-Stone, and superstructure of an Edifice:
Eph. 2. 21, 22.
—and with the union which subsists between a Husband and Wife, particularly that of Adam and Eve. Upon this account we are said to be members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph. 5. 30.
—Another union largely insisted upon in the word of God, is that which we see between the Head and members of one and the same living Body:
Eph. 4. 3-16.
1 Cor. 12. 12-27.
where One Spirit animates all the members, and governs every motion of the body.—This last comparison seems to carry the Union of Christ with his people, to the greatest possible perfection—it approaches to the idea of personal identity. Indeed the Spirit of Christ dwelling in, and informing, and actuating all the members of his body, the church, forms such a wonderful union between him and them, that he compares it to the Oneness of the Father and the Son!
John 17. 21-23.
6. To the idea of union, we must add that of a SURETY.
Heb. 7. 22.
A surety, we all know, is a Bonds-man, or one who gives security for another: so that, if the debtor himself fails, his surety must pay his debts.
Prov. 22. 26, 27.
The debt we owe to God, considered as his
creatures,
is, a perfect and continued obedience to all his righteous commandments: but as we are not only creatures, but
sinners,
therefore justice has another demand, viz. satisfaction, or atonement for the sin committed.—If we carry the sentiments of this Section in our minds, the next will appear more beautiful and interesting.
SECTION III. A summary view of that important Work, in which every jot and tittle, precept and penalty, of the Moral Law, are amply fulfilled in our Divine Surety.
WHEN our first parents had sinned, and thereby forfeited the divine favour, and brought misery and death into the world, then divine mercy began to unfold itself.
The Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head,
Gen. 3. 15.
was the first gracious promise to sinful man. Sacrifices also were immediately appointed, which served to cast light upon this obscure promise. Although this light was small, when compared with ours, yet it was sufficient to give hope to the guilty, and we know not how far the spirit of Christ might open their understandings to comprehend it's import. Certainly when they saw a Lamb sacrificed in their stead, and their shame and nakedness, which sin had discovered, hid by the natural cloathing of the slaughtered victim,
Gen. 3. 10, 21.
they might comprehend something of the true intent of the Promise: and Paul informs us that it was by
Faith
Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.
Heb. 11. 4.
At sundry times and in divers manners
Heb. 1. 1.
this first promise was repeated, and further explained; the light increasing more and more as the time advanced. At length, Daniel fixed the time for the Messiah's appearance, and told his nation, plainly, what their long expected Deliverer was to do, viz. Make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting Righteousness.
Dan. 9. 24-26.
When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a Woman, made under the law to redeem.
Gal. 4. 4. 5.
At eight days old he was circumcised,
Luke 2. 21.
thereby intimating that he became a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal. 5. 3.
At twelve years old he speaks of being about his Faher's business: and he speaks of this in such a manner as implies that he had been so employed before this time: He mentions it as a thing which ought to have been so well known to Mary and Joseph, as to have prevented that sorrow with which they sought, and that amazement with which they found him:
"
How
is it that ye sought me?
"
said he,
"
Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
"
Luke 2. 42-49.
—But although the Child Jesus was perfectly acquainted with his own divinity; and although he was able to astonish all who heard him, yet he went down to Nazareth with Joseph and Mary, and was subject unto them.
Luke 2. 51.
In this state he spent the first thirty years of his life.
Luke 3. 23.
During which time it does not appear that he wrought any miracle, or manifested forth his glory.
John 2. 11.
Joseph was a Carpenter; and there is reason to believe that the Son of the Highest worked at that trade, earning his bread like a poor labouring man: for he is called, not only the Carpenter's Son, but the Carpenter.
Mark 6. 3.
Every period of the Redeemer's life, has a glory peculiar to itself. A certain Author very properly observes, We are apt not to have high enough thoughts of the glory of Christ's private life; yea it is impossible for us to have high enough thoughts of it. The peculiar glory of this part of his work, consisted in it's obscurity, which set an eternal brightness upon holiness, upon every Duty, and act of submission and obedience to God.
Another Writer (with less wisdom) says,
"As it hath seemed good to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, to be
very sparing
in the history of his private life, we must be contented to remain in ignorance of what is not revealed."
—That every thing which Jesus said and did, is not revealed to us, is readily granted: but this is true, not only of his private, but also of his public life.
John 21. 25.
The history of his private life is indeed given in
few words;
but it should be considered that few words are sufficient to record the history of a poor working man, in whose days there might be very little
variety.
The disappointment which some men discover, in finding so little said in Scripture upon this period of our Suretie's life, seems to proceed upon the supposition that his private life was more adorned and diversified with those shining acts which glitter in the eyes of men, and commonly excite their admiration and applause, than we have any account of in scripture: and perhaps this way of thinking has it's foundation in the old jewish prejudice, that it was inconsistent with the character of the Messiah, to be a poor Carpenter. But those who see the necssity of our Suretie's obedience to the moral Law, or eternal rule of Righteousness, will rejoice to find him thus employed—to find him spending thirty years of his humiliation in doing little else than fulfilling that law, in a family connection, and in that low and laborious situation, to which the original curse had reduced fallen man.
Gen. 3. 17-19.
Those who view Immanuel in all this, acting as our Surety—discharging the very debt in which we were involved, will see a peculiar beauty, and feel inexpressible satisfaction in the whole. They will be ready to adopt the language of Paul—
"We know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, though he was rich, for our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich."
2 Cor. 8. 9.
At length the scene changes—Jesus quits his obscurity and enters public life.
"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him: but John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said unto him, Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all Righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water; and Lo! the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and it lighted upon him; and Lo! a voice from heaven, saying, THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED."
Mat. 3. 13-17.
The Son of God being thus announced, an universal terror pervades the infernallegions,
Mark 1. 23-26. Chap. 5. 1-9.
and men join with devils to resist the sinner's Friend.
John 8. 44.
Nevertheless, he is obeyed (whether willingly or by constraint) by all sorts of beings. The winds and seas and the inhabitants of the deep attend his word:
Mat. 8. 27. Chap. 17. 27.
John 21. 6.
evil Spirits abandon their human habitations:
Mat. 4. 23-25.
diseases of all sorts fly at his command:
Mat. 4. 23-25.
he gives the Word, and thousands of hungry men are filled with a handful of bread:
Mat. 14. 13-21. Chap. 15. 29-38.
the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the GOSPEL preached unto them.
Luke 7. 22.
Thus our Surety
"went about doing Good:"
Acts 10, 38.
yet in the midst of all, he himself continues poor, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
Isa. 53. 2, 3.
He continues poor:
He appears to have subsisted upon what some of his disciples were pleased to give him:
Luke 8. 1, 2, 3.
but so deficient were these supplies, that he has been obliged to work a miracle for tribute money;
Mat. 17. 27.
and we find him, at times, destitute of a place to lay his head.
Mat. 8. 20.
Despised and rejected of men:
The few, indeed, who saw his glory, (as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth,)
John 1. 14.
worshipped him as their Lord and their God:
Mat. 2. 11. Chap. 8. 2. Chap. 9. 18. and 14. 33. and 15. 25. and 28. 9, 17.
Luke 24. 51, 52.
John 9. 35-38. Chap. 20. 28.
(as do the whole Church,
Psalms 45. 11.
Acts 9. 14, 21.
1 Cor. 1. 2.
and all the Angels in heaven
Heb. 1. 6.
Rev. 5. 8-14.
) yet even among these he acted as a servant,
Luke 22. 27.
and washed his disciple's feet.
John 13. 4-16.
But the chief of the jewish nation were continually reproaching him, and thirsting for his blood. He was reproached as a glutton and Drunkard, a friend of publicans and sinners:
Mat. 11. 19.
he was called a deceiver;
John 7. 12.
Mat. 27. 63.
a mad-man;
John 8. 48. Chap. 10. 20.
a samaritan, and possessed of a Devil:
John 8. 48. Chap. 10. 20.
they called him a blasphemer,
John 10. 33.
and excommunicated all who owned him as the Messiah:
John 9. 22, 34. Chap. 12. 42.
several times they attempted to stone him,
John 8. 59. Chap. 10. 31. and 5. 16-18.
and once they led him to a precipice, intending to dash him to pieces.
Luke 4. 28, 29.
A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:
Although Jesus Christ endured all his suffering with more than the patience of Job, yet he was not insensible or void of feeling. One of those Psalms
Psalm 69.
in which we know Jesus is the speaker, gives us an affecting view of his feelings under the vile reproaches he met with from men. Thus he laments unto his Father:—
"They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away.—Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord God of hosts, be ashamed, for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded, for my sake, O God of Israel; because for thy sake I have born reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children; for the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up, and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. When I wept and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach. I made sack-cloth my garment, and I became a proverb unto them. They that sit in the gate speak against me; and I was the song of the drunkard."
—The remainder of this Psalm chiefly relates to what took place on the cross; but this much evidently belongs to what Christ suffered during his public ministry. Compare the 4th. verse with John 15. 25. And the 9th. verse with John 2. 17.
Having gone through the various scenes of private and public life; having thus far continued in all things that are written in the book of the law; and having already experienced much of that affliction to which sinful man is obnoxious; he now enters upon the last awful scene, in which he is to finish his work, and thus fully discharge that debt which, as our Surety, he had taken upon himself.
The hour being come, he withdrew to eat his last passover supper with his disciples. After supper, they left the City, repaired to the mount of Olives,
Mat. 26. 30.
and from thence into the garden of Gethsemane.
Mat. 26. 36.
John 18. 1.
Judas was now gone to the chief priests,
John 13. 21-30.
from whom he was shortly to come with an armed band. Jesus therefore left part of his disciples
Mat. 26. 36.
at the garden door to wait their arrival; and took Peter, James, and John,
Mat. 26. 37.
to be witnesses of his Passion, as they had been of his Transfiguration.
Mat. 17. 1, 2.
"And he began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy: and saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye hear and watch. And he went forward a little,
Mark 14. 33-35.
and kneeled down and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done.
We are not warranted to conclude that these were all, or near all the words which Jesus now expressed. They may contain the
substance
of all he prayed for at this time; or at least of all which the disciples heard
distinctly:
but, from the circumstances of his
retiring
to pray, and the disciples
falling asleep
while he was praying, and his saying to Peter when he returned from prayer the first time,
"Couldst thou not watch
one hour?
"
from these circumstances, I say, It is evident that Jesus continued a considerable time at prayer.
Luke 22. 42.
—Having thus prayed, he returned to the three disciples, and finding them asleep, He said unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou! couldst thou not watch one hour? Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation: the spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Mat. 26. 40.
—The sorrows of his soul still continuing, he went and prayed again to the same purpose, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass from me except I drink it; thy will be done.
Mat. 26. 42.
—Although the three disciples had been admonished in such tender accents by their suffering Friend, yet their eyes closed again before he had concluded his second prayer; so that he found them asleep at his next return.
By returning thus frequently to his disciples, he gave them opportunity to read his diftress in his countenance and gestures.
Once more he leaves them, and there appeared an Angel unto him from heaven strengthening him. And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground. Thus our adorable Immanuel suffered unspeakable sorrows in his soul, as long as divine justice, at this time, demanded. And when he arose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping
for sorrow.
Luke 22. 43-45.
This circumstance shews that they were not quite inattentive to what was passing before them. The grief they felt at the sight of his distress, so overpowered them that they sank into sleep.
Judas, having received a band of men, and officers from the chief priests and pharisees, now came with lanterns, and torches, and weapons: and Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth to meet them, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said unto them, I AM HE Immanuel thought proper to make the guard sensible upon this occasion that they could not take him without his consent, and accordingly these words were spoken in such a manner that the whole band went backward and fell to the ground. The end being answered, he permitted them to recover. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? They said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these (pointing to his disciples) go their way.
John 18. 2-8.
The soldiers, or rather some of the servants of the high priest, laid hands on Jesus;
Mat. 26. 50.
and Peter drew a sword, smote one of them, and cut off his ear. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
John 18.
And Jesus said, suffer ye thus far; and he touched his ear and healed him.
Luke 22. 51.
—All his disciples forsook him and fled.
Mat. 26. 56.
Then the band, and the captain, and the officers of the Jews, took Jesus and bound him,
John 18. 12.
and led him away to the high priest; and with him were assembled all the chief priests, and the elders, and the scribes.
Mark 14. 53.
The high prist then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort, and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. When he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by, struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why smitest thou me?
John 18. 19-24.
Now the chief priests and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death, but found none: for though many bare false witness against him, their witness did not agree together.
Mark 14. 55.
At last came two false witnesses and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. The high priest arose and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace.
Mat. 26. 61-63.
Some of the council said unto him, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
Luke 2. 67, 68.
The high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Mat. 26. 63.
Jesus said,—I AM.
Mark 14. 62.
Nevertheless (or as some translate it,
moreover,)
I say unto you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mat. 26. 64.
—Upon this the whole council exclaimed, Art thou then the SON OF GOD! He answered, Ye say that (or,
that which)
I am.
Luke 22. 70.
—Then the high priest rent his clothes and said, What need we any further witness?
Mark 14. 63.
for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.
Luke 22. 71.
And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
Mark 14. 64.
Then did they spit in his face:
Mat. 26. 67.
they blindsolded him: they buffetted him,
Mark 14. 65.
and said, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who it is that smote thee.
Mat. 26. 68.
And the servants struck him with the palms of their hands.
Mark 14. 65.
The priests and elders having thus condemned Jesus, they consulted together again,
Mark 15. 1.
and resolved to carry him before Pilate the Roman Governor, that he likewise might pass sentence upon him. Without this they could not accomplish their purpose, because the power of life and death was now taken out of their hands.
John 18. 31.
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas, unto the hall of Judgment. Pilate went out unto them and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him unto thee. Pilate said, Take ye him and judge him according to your law. They replied, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.
John 18. 28-32.
Pilate being obliged to proceed to the tryal, the Jews began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a King.
Luke 23. 2.
Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again, and called Jesus and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
When the Jews asked Jesus if he was the Son of God, he answered directly,
I am;
but when Pilate asked him if he was a King, he first sets him right about the import of the question, and then he answers it.—The question which the jews asked needed no explanation—it was plain they intended to ask if he were the Son of God in such a sense as would be blasphemy in any meer creature: to this he could directly reply, I am: But as Pilate intended (or might be understood) to ask if he were a
temporal
Monarch, therefore Jesus entered into this explanation.
Pilate replied, Am I a jew? thine own nation, and the chief priests, have dilivered thee unto me, what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom was of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am, (or,
that which I am)
A King. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth: every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Pilate having found that Jesus disallowed
fighting,
and only proposed to erect a kingdom by bearing witness to truth, he plainly saw that his kingdom could never interfere with the authority of Caesar.—What is truth! said he; and immediately went out to the jews, and said, I find in him no fault at all.
John 18. 33-38.
This exasperated the jews much, and they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.
Luke 23. 5.
Mark informs us that they accused him of
many
things: but he answered nothing. Pilate asked him again, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee! But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.
Mark 15. 3-5.
It is easy to see in Pilate, the great man in embarrassment. He evidently dreaded condemning Jesus, for fear of what might happen in the next world: but then he had measures to keep with the Jews, and with his master, Caesar; and this at length had the ascendency. At present, perhaps, he hoped to extricate himself from this dilemma, by the next step he took.—When Pilate heard of
Galilee,
he asked whether the man were a Galilea? And as soon as he heard that he belonged to HEROD'S Jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who happened (so to speak) to be at Jerusalem at that time.
When Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad, for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him, and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. Then he questioned with him in many words, but he answered him nothing.
Luke 23. 6-9.
—The expectation of this great man being raised so high, his disappointment must have been very mortisying.—The chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Jesus.—We are not informed particularly of what they now accused him; but we may learn from the effect, that they ran upon his having assumed the titles and honours of the Messiah; for the insults he met with were plainly in derision of that.—And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.
Luke 23. 10, 11.
Pilate called the chief priests and the rulers together, and in the hearing of the multitude he addressed them thus:—Ye have brought this man unto me as one that perverteth the people, and behold, I having examined him before you, have found no fault in him touching the things whereof ye accuse him. No, nor yet Herod, for I sent you to him. I will therefore chastise him and release him. (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast) But the chief priest and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. And they cried all at once, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas. Pilate willing to release Jesus, speak again unto them; but they cried, Crucify him, Crucify him. And he said unto them the third time, Why? what evil hath he done? I find no cause of death in him, I will therefore chastise him, and let him go. And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he should be crucified: and the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.
Luke 23. 13-23.
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it. Then answered all the people and said, His blood be upon us, and on our children. Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified:
Mat. 27. 24-26.
yet not without making other attempts to save him.
The soldiers having received orders to crucify Jesus, took him first and scourged him. Then they put on him a scarlet (or purple) robe,
It is said that the Ancients gave the name of purple to all colours that had any mixture of red in them. consequently scarlet itself obtained that name.
Mat. 27. 28.
Mark 15. 17.
John 19. 2.
and when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it on his head, and a reed in his hand, and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail king of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed and smote him upon the head.
Mat. 27. 29, 30.
Pilate now goes forth again to the Jews, and thus accosts them:—Behold, I bring him forth unto you, that ye may know I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe, and Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! When the chief priests and officers saw him, they cried out, Crucify him, Crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him and crucify him, for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
John 19. 4-8.
When Pilate heard that Jesus called himself the Son of God, he was the more afraid, and went again into the judgment-hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then Pilate said unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me except it were given thee from above.
Once more Pilate sought to release him; but the Jews cried out, If thou let this man go
thou art not Caesars friend;
whosoever maketh himself a King, speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate heard
that saying,
he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment-seat. And he said unto the Jews, Behold your king! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate said, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
John 19. 8-16.
Then delivered he Jesus unto them to be crucified. And they took the purple robe off him, and put his own cloathes on him, and led him away to crucify him.
Mat. 27. 31.
—By comparing the Evangelists together, it appears that when they first set out, Jesus himself carried the Cross, upon which he was to be crucified. But as they led him away they laid hold upon one Simon a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the Cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.
John 19. 17.
Luke 23. 26.
—The cruel disposition which the Jews and Roman soldiers manifested, forbids us to look upon this as an act of compassion toward Jesus: it seems more probable that Jesus had sunk under its weight. Nor should we think this at all inconsistent with his divinity; for although, as God, he supported the universe by the word of his power,
Heb. 1. 3.
yet, as man, he was subject to the feelings of humanity:
John 4. 6.
and if we consider the fatigue of the preceding night, spent without sleep;—the sufferings he had undergone in the garden;—his having been hurried from place to place during his tryal; the want of food and loss of blood he had sustained,—if we consider these things, we may see reason to believe that he was not long able (as man) to carry the Cross.
As they led him to Calvary, there followed him a great company of people, and of women, who bewailed and lamented him; but he said unto them, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children: for, behold, the days are coming in the which ye shall say, Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bare, and the paps that never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
A
green
tree is an emblem of a righteous person, and a
dry
tree of the wicked. (Ezek. 20. 47. Chap. 21. 3.) The meaning therefore is, If I who am Righteous suffer these things for the sins of my people, what shall be done to the man who must bear his own sins?
When they were come to a place called Golgotha, they gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall; and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. And when they were come to Calvary, they Crucified him.—The appointed soldiers dig the ground, wherein the Cross is to be erected. The nails and the hammer are ready. The Cross is laid on the ground, Jesus is stripped, and lies down on the bed of sorrows. They nail him to it. They erect it. He hangs upon his wounds; bleeding; between two thieves;
John 19. 18.
praying for his enemies;
Luke 23. 34.
reviled by the mob,
Mat. 27. 39, 40.
the rulers,
Luke 23. 35.
the priests,
Mark 15. 31.
the soldiers,
Luke 23. 36-38.
the two thieves;
Mat. 27. 44.
Mark 15. 32.
and—God his Father forsook him!
Mat. 27. 46.
It appears that Jesus continued in this situation for about six hours before he expired;
Mark 15. 25, 34.
during which time he did not utter many words so as to be heard by those who stood by; but David informs us in what manner his mind was exercised:
"My prayer is unto thee, O Lord, in an acceptable time: O God, in the multitude of thy mercy hear me, in the truth of thy salvation. Deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink: let me be delivered from them that hate me, and out of the deep waters. Let not the water-flood overflow me, neither let the deep swallow me up, and let not the pit shut her mouth upon me. Hear me, O Lord, for thy loving-kindness is good: turn unto me according to the multitude of thy tender mercies, and hide not thy face from thy servant, for I am in trouble: hear me speedily. Draw nigh unto my soul and redeem it: deliver me because of mine enemies. Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour; mine adversaries are all before thee. Reproach hath broken my heart, and I am full heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity; but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Psal. 69. 13-21.
—MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the voice of my roaring.—But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel. Our fathers trusted in thee; they trusted and thou didst deliver them. They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee and were not confounded. But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me, laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord, that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. But thou art he that took me out of the womb; thou didst make me to hope when I was upon my mother's breast. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly. Be not far from me, for trouble is near; for there is none to help. Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax, it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and
Thou
hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me, the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. But be not
Thou
far from me, O Lord; O my Strength, haste thee to help me,
Psal. 22. 1-19.
&c.—'Tis done.—The voice of our Mediator prevails —our Surety has paid the debt—the law can demand no more—justice is satisfied.—Jesus, looking to his reconciled Father, said, Into thy hands I commend my spirit.
Luke 23. 46.
—Thou hast sent me to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
Dan. 9. 24.
and now
IT IS FINISHED.
John 19. 30.
And behold! the veil of the Temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept, arose, and came out of their graves
after his resurrection,
and went into the holy City, and appeared unto many.
Mat. 27. 51-53.
The Jews, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the Cross on the Sabbath- day, besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forth with came there out blood and water.
The spear thrust into his side is thought to have reached his heart; for the water issuing from the wound seems to shew that the pericardium was pierced, and that Jesus had been some time dead. Or if he had not, this wound was of such a nature as must have killed him. And therefore as it was of great importance to mankind to be ascertained of the truth of Christ's death, when John relates this circumstance, he insists upon it particularly, and mentions it as a thing which he himself saw:
"And he that saw it bear record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye may believe."
John 19. 31-36.
When the Even was come, Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man and an honourable counsellor, went to Pilate and craved the body of Jesus.
Marst 15. 42, 43.
Nicodemus, also, came and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linnen cloths, with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. In the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new sepulchre; there laid they Jesus, therefore, because of the Jews preparation-day, for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
John 19. 39-42.
This tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea; it was his own new tomb, which he had hewn out of the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
Mat. 27. 59, 60.
SECTION, IV. As the payment of the uttermost farthing completes the satisfaction, which is immediately followed by giving a discharge; therefore, as our Surety has now fully paid our debts, it is expected that he should be discharged from the prison of the grave; and also take possession of the reward of Righteousness.
NOW the important question is brought to a crisis, and the Judge of all is called upon, by both parties, to interpose and give decision.—Jesus had called God his Father in a sense which implied equality of nature;
John 5. 16-18. Chap. 10. 30-33.
and accordingly he called upon all men to honour the Son even as they honoured the Father:
John 5. 23.
The Jews, upon the other hand, called this Blasphemy.—Again: Jesus maintained that all men, himself only excepted, were sinners; and that they could obtain the divine favour only through him.
John 3. 14-21. Chap. 6. 27.—58. and 10. 1-18. and 14. 6.
But the Jews could by no means admit the truth of this: they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, could not submit to be saved by the righteousness of our incarnate God.
Rom. 10. 1-4.
They had no objection to a Messiah who should tell them what good thing
they
should do to obtain eternal lise; but they were offended at the thought of his being the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
These were the chief points in debate between Jesus and the Jewish nation; and when Jesus was dead and buried, they hoped that this controversy was decided in their favour. They argued in a triumphant and insulting manner even while Jesus was nailed to the Cross:—He saved others, let him
save himself,
(said they) if he be the Christ, the chosen of God. Let Christ the King of Israel descend from the Cross, that we may see and believe. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him; for he said,
I am the Son of God.
Luke 23. 35.
Mark 15. 31.
Mat. 27. 43.
This triumph was premature. The decision of the question did not turn upon his coming down from the Cross, but upon his rising again from the dead. This was to be the grand proof on either side. If Christ did not rife from the dead, the Jews were right in rejecting him as the promised Messiah; but if he did, then all he taught is TRUE, and the Jews were guilty of a murder the most atrocious that could be committed.
This medium of proof had been previously fixed upon. The Jews, more than once, demanded a sign of his being the Messiah; and Jesus referred them to his resurrection.
Mat. 12. 38-40.
John 2. 18-22.
They did not forget this, as we shall see.
Jesus was crucified and buried on the Jew's preparation-day, that is, the day before the sabbath.
John 19. 31.
The sabbath day commenced at sun-set,
Lev. 23. 32.
and it was as much as they could do to to get the Bodies from the Cross, before its commencement.
John 19. 31.
On the day after the day of preparation, that is, on the sabbath day, which, as was observed, began when the sun was setting, the chief priests and pharisees came together to Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive. After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch, go your way, make it as sure as you can. So they went and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone.
See
Dan. 6. 17.
where a similar precaution is used by Darius in the case of Daniel.
and setting a watch.
Mat. 27. 62-66.
Thus while the chief priests and pharisees very prudently guarded against fraud, resolving, no doubt, to exhibit the body of Jesus after the third day as an impostor, they put the truth of his resurrection beyond all reasonable doubt, by furnishing a number of unexceptionable witnesses to it, even the Roman Soldiers, whose testimony they themselves could not refuse: For behold! At the appointed hour, the Angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door of the sepulchre. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow; and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
Mat. 28. 1-4.
Jesus, without an Angel, could easily have opened himself a passage from the tomb; but it was meet that Angels should attend and open the door to their rising Lord: It was meet that his
servant
should dismiss a band of ruffians, and send them, terrified, to tell their employers the awful tale: There was also a propriety in the Angel's opening a free passage into the sepulchre for the friends of Jesus, and in waiting there until their arrival.
Very early in the morning, upon the first day of the week, the women came unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the Sun,
Mark 16. 2.
bringing the spices which they had prepared.
Luke 24.
1. It appears that they were dissatisfied with the hasty manner in which (upon account of the approaching sabbath) the body of their Lord had been embalmed: so they came, when the sabbath was past, to do it properly.
And as they went along they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? for it was great.
They seem unacquainted with all that had passed since the evening of the day on which their Lord was crucified, when the disciples rolled the stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away.
Mark. 16, 3, 4.
And they entered in, but found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
Luke 24. 3.
Upon this, one of them (Mary Magdalene) ran to seek the Apostles, to tell them the
distressing
news. Finding Peter and John, she saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him! Then these two Apostles ran to go to the sepulchre.
Johe 20. 2-4.
While Mary Magdalene was gone in quest of the Apostles, it appears that the other women (having probably searched round the garden in vain) entered the sepulchre a second time, and saw the Angel that rolled away the stone, sitting within; and they were affrighted.
Mark 16. 5.
But the Angel said unto them, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here; for he is risen as he said. Come see the place where the Lord lay.
Mat. 28. 5, 6.
And as they were much perplexed there-about, two Angels stood by them in shining garments; and as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, the Angels said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you while he was yet with you in Galilee, saying, The son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
Luke 24. 4-7.
But go your way, tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and behold he goeth before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
Mark 16. 7.
And they remembered his words.
Luke 24. 8.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre, with sear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
Mat. 28. 8.
After the women had departed, Peter and John came to the sepulchre, to examine the truth of what Mary Magdalene had told them concerning the body of Jesus being taken away; and Mary herself followed them. Peter and John having entered the sepulchre, and not finding the body of their Lord, they seem to have believed, as Mary did, that some one had taken it away: as yet they knew nothing of his resurrection. Then they went again unto their own home.—But Mary stood without at the sepulchre, weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two Angels in white, sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain: And they say unto her, Woman why weepest thou? she saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, (probably being affrighted) and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her,
Mary.
She turned herself and saith unto him, MASTER!—Calling her by her name with his usual tone of voice, she knew him and would have embraced him; but he declined this for the present, giving her to understand that, as he was not yet ascended, she would have other opportunities for expressing her joy; but that she must go immediately and tell his
Brethren.
&c.
John 20. 3-17.
While these things were passing, the company of women who saw the Angels at the sepulchre, and who were despatched by them to tell the disciples what they saw and heard, found
some
of the disciples, and delivered their message to them; amongst whom were Cleopas and his companion.
Luke 24. 22, 23.
These women going in quest of some other of the disciples, Jesus met them, saying, All hail! And they came and fell at his feet, and worshipped him. Jesus saith unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
Mat. 28. 9, 10.
—
Now
these women had something more to tell: Before, they could only say, We have seen a vision of Angels who said he is alive: but now they could say, We have seen him.
While the women were going to spread these glad tidings, some of the watch came into the City, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave a great bribe unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept.
Mat. 28. 11-13.
—The priests could hardly be so stupid as not to know what judgment the world would form of guards telling what happened
while they were asleep:
but absurd as this might be, it was the best colour which could be put upon the matter.
The women having found their brethren, told all things which they had heard and seen. And they, when they had heard that Jesus was alive, and had been seen, and had spoken these things, believed not.
Mark 16. 10. 11.
Peter, however, who had been mentioned
by name
as one unto whom the news should be told,
Mark 16. 7.
arose, and ran a second time unto the sspulchre: and stooping down, he beheld nothing but the linen clothes, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
Luke 24. 12.
The Lord's appearance to Peter, mentioned 1 Cor. 15. 5. may have happened as he was returning from the sepulchre this second time; for we are certain it took place on the day of the resurrection.
After this, Jesus appeared to two of his disciples who were going to Emmaus; and a long and interesting conversation took place. Its length obliges me to omit it here, but the reader may see it in Luke 24.—These two disciples returned the same evening to Jerusalem, where they found the Eleven, (that is, the Apostles) and others with them. Before they came, Peter had arrived with a confirmation of the report first given by the women, and therefore the Apostles accost these two disciples thus, THE LORD IS RISEN INDEED,
and hath appeared unto Simon.
Then Cleopas and his companion relate what they knew; and as they spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them; and gave them every demonstration that men are capable of receiving.
Luke 24. 33-48.
John 20. 19. 23.
But Thomas, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord! But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said, Peace be unto you. Then, turning to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side.—The sight of Jesus must have been sufficient to prove his refurrection; but the knowledge which he now shewed of what was doing when he was absent in body, brought his divinity so strongly to mind, that Thomas answered by saying unto Jesus, My Lord, and my God!
John 20. 24-29.
Jesus having first by Angels,
Mat. 28. 7.
and afterwards in person,
Mat. 28. 10.
ordered his disciples to go home to Galilee, with a promise that they should see him there, they went. And when they were come to their respective homes, they followed their occupations as usual: and particularly the Apostles, who pursued their old trade of fishing upon the Lake. There were together, Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James, John, and two other disciples. Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with you. They went and spent the whole night without catching any thing. When the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore; but they did not know him: owing, probably, to its being as yet some-what dark, and they being some distance from the shore. Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered, No. He said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They did so; and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. Therefore John saith unto Peter, It is the Lord! Then they all made haste to shore; found it even so; and dined together in his company.
John 20.
—John observes that this was the
third
time that Jesus appeared to his disciples.
John 20. 14.
He means, the third time he appeared to the Apostles in a body or company; for this was the
seventh
time he appeared: viz. (1) to Mary Magdalene; (2) to the other women; (3) to Peter, who was the first
man
who saw him: (4) to the two disciples going to Emmaus; (5) to the Apostles, Thomas being absent; (6) to the Apostles again at Jerusalem, Thomas being present; and (7) now for the first time in Galilee.
After this, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part were still living when Paul wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians.
1 Cor. 15. 6.
This seems to be that appearance of himself upon a mountain in Galilee, which he had repeatedly promised to his brethren; and unto which we read of the Apostles going, Mat. 28. 16.
It appears that the disciples returned after this to Jerusalem.
From
Acts 1. 3-12.
compared with
Luke 24. 50.
it is plain that the discourses, before his ascension, related
Mark 16. 15.
and
Luke 24. 44-53.
were delivered in or near Jerusalem. Besides, he ascended from the mount of Olives.
Acts 1. 12.
Here again he appeared unto them; and how often he did so we cannot tell.
It is evident that he shewed himself to the apostle James alone, though none of the evangelists relate that appearance,
1 Cor. 15. 7.
But we are told that he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many infallible Proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: and being assembled with them, commanded that they should not depart from Jerusalem, until they were fully qualified, by the holy spirit, to preach the Gospel in all languages and nations.
And he led them out to the mount of Olives, as far as to Bethany:
About two miles from Jerusalem.
John 11. 18.
and he lift up his hands and blessed them.
Luke 24. 50, 51.
Acts 1. 9, 12.
And while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven:
Luke 24. 50, 51.
Acts 1. 9, 12.
a cloud received him out of their sight.
Luke 24. 50, 51.
Acts 1. 9, 12.
—"God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet. Sing praises to God, sing praises: sing praises to our King, sing praises.
Psalm 47. 5, 6.
—Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in. Who is the King of glory? The Lord of Hosts, he is the King of glory.
Psalm 24. 9, 10.
—The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of Angels: the Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.
Psal. 68. 17, 18.
Eph. 4. 8.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world.
Eph. 1. 3, 4.
—We were, by nature, the children of wrath, even as others: but God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he hath loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
Eph. 2. 3-6.
—Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into the holy of holies, whither the FORERUNNER is
for us
entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: being by interpretation, first, KING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, and after that, KING OF PEACE.
Heb. 6. 19, 20. Chap. 7. 2.
Sing, O ye Heavens; for the Lord hath done it: Shout, ye lower parts of the earth: Break forth into singing ye mountains; O Forest, and every tree therein: For the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified him self in Israel.
Isa. 44. 23.
TO THE READER:
BELIEVE IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED.
Acts 16. 31.
PART II. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
OBJECTION I.
THE famous Author of the Age of Reason says,
"
The doctrine of Redemption has for its basis, an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice. If I owe a person money, and am not able to pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person may take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me; but if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed: moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty, even if the innocent would offer itself.
"
To this we reply,
1. This distinction between
moral
Justice, and
pecuniary
Justice, has no foundation in the nature of things. Justice is
moral
Justice still, whether it has to do with money or with murder. When the moral law says, Owe no man any thing, it delivers a
moral
precept, and speaks the language of
moral
Justice, no less than when it says, Thou shalt not kill. What! is it no
crime
to contract debts when we are not able to pay? Surely it is. Yet if my friend is willing to become Surety for me, however innocent he may be, moral Justice requires that he should smart for it.
2. When a Surety is admitted in any case, his admission is founded, not upon Justice
only,
but also upon mercy. If I owe money and am not able to pay it; and if Justice admits of another person taking the debt upon himself and discharging it for me, this is uniting Justice and mercy together. When my friend sees me in distress, takes my place, and discharges my debts; this is an act of
mercy;
—Justice admits, but mercy performs it. Again: When my creditor demands payment of my Surety, his doing so is an act of Justice. So that, in this case, Justice
demands,
and mercy
grants
payment.
3. From hence we may discover the principle upon which the office of a Surety is founded. It is ordained chiefly for the sake of harmonizing Justice and mercy. These two attributes, in many cases, seem to clash. Justice might require the law to be put in force against an unfortunate or dishonest debtor; while mercy might prompt a Judge to spare him, either for his own, or for his miserable family's sake. What is to be done in this case? If Justice is heard, mercy cries in vain: if mercy prevails, Justice retires dissatisfied: but by the interposition of a Surety, mercy and Justice kiss and embrace each other. Does this render either attribute less amiable? Far from it: It heightens their native charms.—If Justice had refused the proposal of a Surety—a Surety every way able to answer its demands, would it not seem too implacable? And upon the other hand, if mercy had insisted upon the debt being cancelled without payment, when the Surety could well afford it, would it not appear an enemy to Justice; and might not the creditor justly complain?
4. Having discovered the principle upon which the office of a Surety proceeds, to determine, in any particular case, whether a Surety may or may not be admitted, we must consider whether the circumstances of the case be such, that, all things considered, the admission of a Surety can subserve the mutual purposes of Justice and mercy.
5. We can now explain how it comes to pass that human laws can so seldom admit of a Surety in criminal cases. I say,
seldom,
because even human laws sometimes go this far: as, for instance, when a
crime
is punished by a fine, which is often the case, a man's friend may pay it for him. Again: sometimes when a crime is committed, the criminal is set at liberty by finding sureties for his future good behaviour; and if he afterwards is guilty of the same crime, his sureties are liable to suffer in his stead. And again:
National Hostages
are a very ancient and general expedient. In this case it is universally allowed that, when any person delivers himself up as the hostage or surety of his nation, he is liable to suffer for the crimes of his country. But, as has been observed, it is not always that human laws can admit of a surety in criminal cases. This is not because our legislators condemn the principle itself; for if they did, how could they adopt it in the instances just alluded to? but the reason is, They find, in certain cases, the circumstances are such that a Surety cannot be made to subserve the mutual purposes of justice and mercy, or answer any good end; but would rather be attended with many evil consequences. For instance: When murder is committed, justice demands life for life; and here it is impossible, amongst men, to make use of a surety. Because (1) Who would willingly die for a murderer? (2) If such a person could be found, who gave him power over his life, to dispose of it in such a way? (3) There would be no security for the future conduct of the criminal; and therefore it would only be depriving society of a useful member, to give back one who might immediately commence his former destructive practices. (4) It could not even serve the purpose of mercy, because all that mercy might gain by the salvation of the criminal, it would lose again in the death of his surety.
6. For these causes we grant to the objector, that, in many cases of a criminal nature,
"All the circumstances are so changed, that moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty;"
that is, justice cannot, under these circumstances, admit of a surety. But then, when these circumstances come to be named, not one of them can be objected to the Suretiship of Christ. For instance, (1) He had absolute power over his own life, and a sovereign right to dispose of it as he saw good. Moreover, having humbled himself to the state of a servant, he acted, not only by his own choice, but in obedience to the commandment of his Father. (2) No individual beside himself sustained the least inconvenience from his undertaking. He did not redeem his people that they might continue their pernicious practices; but made it absolutely certain that they should leave them off, and begin a life of righteousness, the moment they should be made acquainted with what he had done for them. Their language upon this occasion is, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man. I restore him four-sold. (3) In substituting Jesus in the room of the guilty, all the ends of mercy, as well as divine justice, were fully answered: Myriads of men were thus raised from the greatest depth of guilt and misery, to an eternity of holiness and happiness. And although this cost our divine Surety much, yet, in the end he obtained what he deemed an ample recompense. He had power, not only to lay down his life, but also to take it again: he saw of the travel of his soul, and was satisfied: he saw the eternal happiness of his people secured; and this gave him infinite delight: he saw every perfection of the God-head glorified in the highest, and the foundation laid for eternal hallelujah's from all the blessed: and he saw himself, in his human nature, crowned with that glory which, in his divine nature, he had with his Father before the world was. These considerations go to prove that it was perfectly consistent with justice, as well as glorious to divine mercy, to substitute Jesus in the room of his guilty people. To this we must add,
7. It would not be consistent with justice to admit a
sinner
to glory, without this substitution. Mercy might provide such a surety as justice could admit; but mercy could not, consistently with justice, bestow happiness on the guilty without a Surety. No reason can be given why justice should refuse this Surety; but many reasons may be given why it should demand him. For instance: If the sinner had been saved without this Surety, the divine law would be made void. The part of a subject is to obey; the part of a Sovereign is to keep up the authority of his laws. Though subjects neglect their part, the Sovereign may do his. Though the law be broken, yet while that treatment is given to disobedience and obedience which the Law-giver has appointed, the authority of the law is still kept up: but if the Sovereign neglect his part, dispense with the execution of the law, then the law passes away, and, in effect, the Governor resigns his authority and tolerates all manner of wickedness and confusion. It is shocking to that reason which God has given us, to see a magistrate without power over his subjects; to see a parent without authority among his children, or a master among his servants: but this is nothing in comparison with beholding GOD destitute of authority among his creatures. In other cases, this want of authority would produce confusion only in kingdoms or families; but in this case it would bring the whole universe into disorder. The former would infer confusion only for a
time:
but this introduces confusion to
eternity.
I shall conclude this article with two very opposite specimens of reasoning; and leave the Reader to his choice.
Mr. Thomas Paine, after telling his readers that,
"No
external
evidence can, at this long distance of time, be produced to prove whether the church fabricated the doctrine of redemption or not," adds, "therefore the question can only be referred to the
internal
evidence which the thing carries in itself; and this," continues he, "affords a very strong presumption of its being a fabrication; for the internal evidence is, that the doctrine of redemption has for its basis, an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice."
Jonathan says,
"As the character of THE JUST GOD AND THE SAVIOUR can no where be published but along with the doctrine of redemption, I am assured, by seeing the GRANDEST CHARACTER thence arising, that the doctrine must be true. For to suppose that the bare notion, or idea of any thing greater than God could ever be any where imagined, would be the wildest of all absurdities. Moreover, it must be very evident that that view of God, which the lower it abases the pride of man, raises his comfort and joy the higher;—which reduces man to the most unreserved dependence, while it exalts him to the summit of all happiness; could never be the contrivance of man, whose strongest impulse is towards the gratifying of his pride, and whose joy naturally rises or sinks according to the success thereof. Therefore, when the doctrine of redemption, and the character of God thence resulting, are conveyed to my mind by the same testimony, I have no room to doubt, that God, who alone can describe his own character, is the testifier of both."
"This doctrine," continues Jonathan, "while it proves all my former wisdom to be foolishness, opens to me a new and more delightful source of knowledge, throwing light upon a thousand facts that I could never account for before; shewing me a no less satisfactory than wonderful propriety, in all the extraordinary circumstances attending the Birth, Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, and the ministry of his witnesses.—It throws light upon all the ancient sacred writings, and the extraordinary facts recorded in them, from the creation downwards. It sets my mind at rest, as to all the difficulties about the divine character, and the condition of man, which occasionally pinched me before.—I am now reconciled to the entrance of sin and death into the world, and the whole dark side of things, on account of the light that shines from the greatest darkness.—I am now reconciled to the shade, on account of the magnificent picture thence arising to my view. In a word, I thence perceive a no less amiable than grand uniformity of design, in all the works of God, from first to last. Whereas, should I shut my eyes against the light issuing from thence, I am immediately lost in an unfathomable abyss of—guilt, despair, and death."
"I am fully satisfied, then, in agreement with the Apostles, to hold this doctrine as the Gospel, the Word, and Testimony of God; and to call it, by way of eminence, THE TRUTH, in opposition to every false gloss upon the scriptures, and every false reasoning about the light or law of nature, or about any of the works, or ways of God.—Let this Truth be my companion, and I will not be ashamed in the presence of all the sons of Socrates, though joined with those of Gamaliel."
Thus far Jonathan.
The objection we have now considered, is supposed to come, not only from Deists, but also from all those nominal christians who reject,
altogether,
the Suretiship of Christ. As Deists deny the authority of the Bible, and as the others pay but little homage to it's divinity, I have hitherto avoided the impertinence of quoting that Book in a way of proof. When arguing with such persons, it is necessary to meet them upon their own ground,—the light of nature.
The objections which follow, come from a different people—people who admit,
in part,
the Suretiship of Christ; and who profess a greater reverence for the Word of God. The question, therefore, and the medium of proof, are both changed. In the former case, the question was, Can divine Justice admit of a Surety to act and suffer for sinful men? In the present case, this is granted; and the question is, What was the sinner's Surety bound to perform? The former question was argued upon the ground of common sense; but this is to be determined by the word of God. Not that we are now to lay aside the use of our reason; only, whereas we formerly reasoned from
principles of natural light, we must now reason from Revelation.
OBJECTION II.
"
WE grant that Christ
died
as our Substitute; but his conformity to the moral law is set before us as an
example,
which shews that he did not obey this law for us in his life, in the same precise sense in which he obeyed it for us in his death, otherwise we should have been as fully freed from obedience to it in every respect, as we are from it's penalty or curse.
"
Answer.
His sufferings also are laid before us as an example;
John 15. 12, 13.
1 Peter 2. 21.
1 John 3. 16.
and if his sufferings may be both substitutional and exemplary, why may not his obedience to the law be so also? If it be said, His sufferings are not exemplary in the same respect wherein they are substitutional; I answer, Neither is his obedience. Obedience to the law, considered as the
condition
of happiness, is no more binding upon his disciples
Rom. 6. 14.
than sufferings are, considered as
expiatory.
And this indeed proves that he did obey the law for us, in the same respect in which he suffered for us; that is,
As our Surety;
for if he had not, we should have been bound to obey it ourselves, and that upon condition of obtaining happiness; for, obedience to this law is the unalterable condition upon which we may obtain eternal life. But I need not say much in reply to this objection. A babe in Christ will see that it betrays great ignorance of the nature of Christianity. When we are told that, If Christ obeyed the law for us, we cannot be bound to observe it even as a rule of conduct; it is just like saying, Since Christ has obeyed the law, as well as suffered its penalty, in order to give us a title to happiness; therefore we are under no obligation to glorify God for his mercy!
OBJECTION III.
"
THE holiness of Christ's heart and life, in conformity to the moral law, was a necessary qualification of his own person—it qualified him for the work he came to finish as our substitute, but it was not the very work itself.
"
Answer.
If Christ had not been made under the law to fulfil it as our substitute, his conformity to it could not have been a necessary qualification of his own person: Immanuel would have been perfectly holy in heart and life, if he had never been bound to obey those precepts which are proper and peculiar to
meer creatures
—to
men—sinful
men. Therefore when the incarnate God was made under the law, it was
to redeem;
not to
qualify
himself for redeeming. Thus the objection seems to form a flat contradiction to the word of God. To set this in a clearer light, let us consider (1) The law to which Immanuel conformed: (2) His conformity to this law: (3) The dignity of the person who thus conformed to this law.
1. The law to which our divine Surety conformed, is the very same law which his people were under.
"He was made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law."
The moral law may indeed be considered as the one law unto all God's reasonable creatures, in respect of the principle from which obedience should proceed, namely,
Love.
But still this law has different forms, according to the different natures, and also according to the different circumstances of those to whom it is given: so that, in some respects, the law given to Angels, and the law given to men, will be different. It will not be said unto Angels,—
"Honour thy father and thy mother."
Nor yet,
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Such precepts as these are not adapted to their nature.—Again: The moral law will differ also according to the different circumstances of creatures of the same species. I shall mention two remarkable instances of this, which cast considerable light upon the question before us.—The first is that remarkable difference in the moral duties of men, which is caused by the entrance of Sin. The precept,
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self,"
although it be the same precept both before and after the fall; yet it
now
binds us to do many things which would not have been our duty, if we had never sinned. For instance: If we had not sinned, this precept would only bind us to love the Righteous; for we and all our neighbours would have been of that description; but since we have sinned, this same precept binds us to love the unrighteous; for we and all our neighbours are (at least by nature) of this character.—Another important difference in the moral law, which depends upon the circumstances of those to whom it is given, is the difference between this law considered only as a rule of life, and considered as prescribing the condition of acquiring happiness. This is not a fanciful but a real and important difference; and the persons to whom I now speak, will admit it. They know that all men are by nature under this law as prescribing the terms and condition of acquiring happiness; but the believer in Jesus has a title to glory independent of his own obedience; and he conforms to the law only as a rule of conduct.
2. We are to consider Christ's conformity to this law. And here we must observe, (1) Christ was made under the law, not before, but after the entrance of sin;—not when it bound man to love none but the righteous; but when it bound us to love sinners. (2) Christ's conformity to the law was constant and universal; that is, he
continued
in
all
things that are written in the book of the law to do them. (3) His conformity to this law was properly
obedience;
that is, submission to its authority. This is plainly taught us when we are told that He was made
under the law;
for that expression always imports the authority of the law over its subjects. To which we must add, (4) Christ was not only bound to obey this law, as a rule of life, but in order to merit the reward of obedience. This is what the scriptures usually intend by the phrase,
"
Under the law;
"
and there is no reason for understanding it differently when we are informed that Christ was
made under the law.
Upon the contrary, we have every reason for understanding the words in their usual sense; for, while he was fulfilling every jot and tittle of the law, we see him, not in the state of enjoying, but of meriting the reward; and he obtained it DECAUSE he had loved righteousness and hated iniquity.
Heb. 1. 9.
3. Consider now the Dignity of the Person who thus obeyed the law. He is not a meer creature, like those upon whom this law is binding. He is the independent Jehovah.
Jer. 33. 16.
True, he has clothed himself in human nature; but he is the same person still. The person who made the world; who supports all things by the word of his power; whose sovereign will is the supreme law of the universe,—this is the PERSON who was made under the law—a law adapted to
creatures—meer
creatures—creatures naturally below Angels, and made far lower still by sin!—This is the PERSON who
obeyed
this law—who obeyed it as dictating the terms and condition of acquiring happiness! And shall we say, If He had not submitted to this as our substitute, He must have done so as his own personal qualification? Far be it!—Had man continued in his original purity, and had our Creator been pleased to appear in our nature, his holiness would, no doubt, incline him to love his imperfect image in sinless man: But this love would not be
obedience
to the moral law: His appearing in human nature would not bring him so upon a level with his creatures, that we might consider God and man as
neighbours
bound by the same precept, and upon the same condition, to mutual love. Therefore, when Immanuel was made under the law, it must be that he might obey it as our substitute.
This argument acquires additional weight when we consider our divine Surety as made under the law after the entrance of sin. We have observed that the holiness of Immanuel would incline him to love his own image in
sinless
man; but it would be perfectly consistent with his holiness to detest the whole human race after they became sinners; and therefore, to love sinful man in conformity to the moral law, could never be essential to the holiness of our incarnate God. To what end then was he made under it? Why must he fulfil every jot and tittle of this law? Why must he do this in such a low, obscure, laborious, and sorrowful state? Why must he spend thirty years of his life in doing little else? Why must he do this in the form of a servant working for a reward? Why!—Because he was made under the law to redeem them that were under it.
Altho' the objector cannot prove his point without refuting the foregoing argument, yet I am at liberty to say, that this argument is not essential to the doctrine I contend for; I mean, it is not so essential as that the truth of the doctrine depends upon it.—If it were not blafphemy I might grant, for sake of argument, that the incarnate God could not be holy if he had not been made under the moral law—if he had not obeyed that law in the manner in which we have seen he did obey it; yet it would not follow from hence that he did not obey this law for us; that is, as our Surety, and in our stead; for, since this law could have had no claim upon him if he had not been made man,—since he was made man upon our account,—and since his obedience is of infinitely greater merit than that of all the elect put together; therefore no good reason can be given why he might not obey this law for himself (if such a thing could be necessary) and for us also. This
alone
is a sufficient answer to the objection: Yet we must remind the reader of what was said before, and that we by no means give up the former argument; for although holiness was essential to our Redeemer's Sacrifice, the obedience he yielded to the law was not essential to his own personal holiness: he would have been perfectly holy if he had never been made under the law, or bound to obey its precepts in the manner in which he did obey them.
OBJECTION IV.
"
IF Christ had obeyed the law as our Surety, and that all through the previous course of his life, it would have superceded the necessity of his expiatory sufferings and death; for the law has not a double demand, but an alternative, requiring either perfect obedience, or the suffering of its penalty.
"
Answer.
This objection is made up of truth and error connected together by false reasoning. It is
not
true that our Suretie's obedience to the law could supercede the necessity of his sufferings and death; because the wages of sin is death.—It
is
true that there are some cases in which the law has not a double demand, but an alternative; but these cases are so essentially different from the case of Christ and his people, that it must be false reasoning which concludes that no more can be demanded in one case than in the other. But we shall be more particular:
1. If a man could be found who had continued in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them, certainly he would not deserve to suffer the penalty, because, in this case, no sin has been committed. But it is equally certain that those for whom Christ obeyed the law, have sinned; and this makes the difference.
2. When a sinner has finished his course of tryal, and filled up the measure of his iniquity, then the divine law consigns him over to hopeless misery. The "Alternative" does not run thus,
Either obey the commandments or suffer the penalty, and thou shalt obtain the reward;
but rather thus,
Obey, or thou hast forfeited for ever the promised reward, and also subjected thyself to endless misery.
— If obedience to the divine precepts, as a condition of life, as well as suffering the curse of a broken law, are not both required of the damned; it is because their case is hopeless—they are utterly rejected, and shut up in eternal despair.
Now I know of no other case but these two, wherein the law does not make a double demand; and these are, each of them, essentially different from the case of Christ and his people. In the first of the two cases mentioned, the law does not demand the personally righteous to suffer its penalty, because they have not sinned: In the second case, the law does not require the damned to obey its precepts as a condition of life; because the prospect of a reward is totally cut off from them: But the case of Christ and his people stands thus;—They have sinned, yet they do not suffer the penalty: They have not perfectly obeyed the commandments, yet they obtain the reward due to perfect obedience. This difference is of such a nature as to demonstrate the fallacy of the reasoning in the objection. To see the truth of this, let us take (1) the case wherein the law does not demand the suffering of its penalty; and (2) that wherein it does not demand obedience to its precepts as a condition of happiness; and let us reason from each of these cases to that of Christ and his people. In the first instance the argument will stand thus:
The law does not require those to suffer its penalty, who have obeyed its precepts and
NEVER SINNED;
therefore it cannot require our Surety to obey its precepts and suffer its penalty, altho' we
HAVE SINNED!—In the second instance the argument runs thus:
The law does not require the damned, upon whom the penalty is inflicted, to obey its precepts as a condition of life, because
NO REWARD OF OBEDIENCE IS GIVEN OR HELD OUT TO THEM;
therefore the law cannot require our Surety to suffer its penalty and obey its precepts, although
THE REWARD OF OBEDIENCE IS GIVEN TO US!—A man who cannot see into the fallacy of this reasoning, I can only say of him, that his case is lamentable. Others, it is hoped, will see, that, since the demerit of the damned, and the reward of the righteous, are both found in the case of a Christian, therefore the work of his Surety must comprehend what answers to each; that is, the
penalty
and the
righteousness
of the law. If not, it is evident that the eternal law must be made void in one respect or other. If our Surety had not suffered for our sins; and if, nevertheless we were to escape the wrath to come; it could no longer be said,
"The wages of sin is death."
And if the commandments of the law are not obeyed for us, and that perfectly, and yet if we obtain the reward of perfect obedience; where shall we find the obedience to which this reward is promised?
I speak to men who are not vain enough to say, that they themselves have yielded this perfect obedience.
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. This is the language of that law concerning which it is said,—Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
That this is spoken of the commandments of the moral law, cannot be disputed without great perverseness; as is plain from all that follows in the chapter.
Mat. 5.
OBJECTION V.
"
IF Christ answered this two-fold demand of the law;—if he not only suffered the penalty, but also obeyed its precepts, and that as our Substitute; how is it that the Scriptures so frequently ascribe our salvation to his sufferings?
"
Answer.
Because it was chiefly in suffering the penalty of the law that he obeyed its precepts.—While he was growing up as a root out of a dry ground—a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief:—while he suffered poverty, that we might be made rich:—while he suffered shame and reproach, that we might escape both:—while he was in agony, that we might rejoice:—while he was stripped and scourged, that we might be healed:—while he was forsaken, that we might be accepted:—while—in a word, while he bore all our griefs, and carried all our sorrows, he was thereby manifesting the highest love to God and man; which is the very essence of the moral law, or eternal rule of Righteousness. So that it is the same thing whether we say, We are justified by his blood; or, We are made Righteous by his obedience. The penalty and the commandments
must be distinguished;
but, in the obedience of our Surety, they
cannot be separated
—they include each other.
OBJECTION VI.
"
IT is granted that Christ, in suffering for sin, manifested the highest love to God and man; but why should this love be considered as a fulfilment of the Moral Law?
"
Answer.
1. A side from his suretiship engagements, I see no reason for considering his love in this light; but since he stood in our place, as our Head, Representative and Surety, it was necessary he should discharge every debt we owed, so far as to give us a title to the forfeited reward: and therefore,
2. We are expressly told that God sent forth his son, made of a woman,
made under the law;
Gal. 4. 4.
and that he came into the world to fulfil this law:
Mat. 5. 17, 18.
which he could not do but by manifesting the highest love to God and man; for LOVE
is the fulfilling of the Law.
Rom. 13. 10.
—Hence also it is said,
"The Lord is well pleased for his
Righteousness sake;
he shall magnify the
Law,
and make it honourable."
And again,
"Christ is the end of the
Law
for
Righteousness,
to every one that believeth."
Isa. 42. 21.
Rom. 10. 4.
OBJECTION VII.
"
BUT if the inspired writers considered the work of Christ in this light,—if they saw, in the work he performed as our Surety, not only the penalty of the law inflicted, but also the righteousness of the law fulfilled; then we might have expected to hear them ascribing salvation to this work, considered sometimes in the former light, and sometimes in the latter.
"
Answer.
The thing which we might have expected, has actually come to pass. In the scriptures, the righteousness (as well as the sufferings) of our divine Surety, every where meets our eye. I shall here transcribe some passages, after just observing, that wherever salvation is ascribed to RIGHTEOUSNESS, we may be sure it is the righteousness of our Surety that is intended; for it is
not by works of righteousness which
WE
have done,
that we are saved.
Tit. 3. 5.
ADAM: He was the Type of Him that was to come. For if by one man's offence, death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the Gift of
Righteousness,
shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.
Rom. 5. 12, 21.
ABEL: By
faith
he offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was
Righteous.
Heb. 11. 4.
NOAH: He became heir of the
Righteousness
which is by saith.
Heb. 11. 7.
ABRAHAM: He is the father of all them that believe, that
Righteousness
might be imputed to them also.
Rom. 4. 11.
MOSES: The Righteousness which we obtain without works, was
witnessed by the Law
and the Prophets; even
the Righteousness of God,
which is by saith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe.
Rom. 3. 21. 22
DAVID: He described the blessedness
David described the
Effect,
and Paul described the
Cause.
—David described the
Blessedness
of the man; but Paul has described the medium through which this blessedness flows.—The
Blessedness
described by David is this—Iniquity is forgiven, sin is covered: the meritorious cause of this, as described by Paul, is, RIGHTEOUSNESS IMPUTED. This was known to David also. see
Psalm 70. 15.
Psalm 89. 16.
of the man unto whom the Lord imputeth
Righteousness
without works.
Rom. 4. 6.
ISAIAH: Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine Elect in whom my soul delighteth:—The Lord is well pleased for his
Righteousness
sake; He will magnisy the Law, and make it honourable!
Isa. 42. 1. 21.
—Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I
Righteousness
and strength.
Isa. 46. 24.
—Hearken unto me ye stout-hearted, that are far from
Righteousness:
I bring near
My Righteousness:
it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry; and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.
Isa. 46. 12. 13.
—Every tongue that shall rise in judgment against thee, thou shalt condemn: this is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their
Righteousness
is of ME SAITH THE LORD.
Isa. 54. 17.
JEREMIAH: Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise to David a Righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute justice and judgment in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Jer. xxiii. 5, 6.
DANIEL: Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon the holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting
Righteousness.
Dan. ix. 24.
CHRIST:
Think not that I am come to destroy the
Law
or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. FOR verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one one tittle shall in no wise pass from the LAW, till all be fulfilled.
Mat. 5. 17. 18.
THE FOUR EVANGELISTS: They tell us of all things that Jesus began both to Do and Teach, until the day in which he was taken up into heaven: for an abstract of which I refer to the first part of this Essay.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES: In this book we have the substance of what the Apostles preached unto sinners, and by which they were to be saved. In
six
of their sermons, or discourses, we find them careful to lay before their hearers, not only the sufferings, but also the righteousness of Christ. In these discourses he is three times emphatically called, THE HOLY ONE OF GOD:
Acts. ii. 27. Chap. iii. 12-14. and xiii. 35.
and as often, THE JUST ONE.
Acts- . 14. Chap. vii. 52. and xxii. 14.
Peter gives a short, but comprehensive and beautiful description of his character when he says,
He went about doing good:
Acts 10, 38.
and also when he calls him,
A man approved of God.
Acts 2. 22.
—If it should be objected, that although these teachers represent Christ as an Holy, Just, or Righteous person, yet they do not, in these discourses, expressly affirm that he wrought his righteousness in the capacity of our head, representative, or Surety; I reply, neither do they, in these discourses, expressly affirm that he
suffered
in this capacity. One answer will equally suit his righteousness and sufferings. The truth is, there was no necessity for the Apostles to affirm, in these discourses, more expressly than they have done, that Christ obeyed or suffered
for
sinners: because, when they preached the righteousness and sufferings of Christ as the ground of hope; telling the people that,
Through his name,
whosoever believed in him, should receive the remission of sins;
Acts 10. 43.
and that,
By him
all that believe are justified from all things;
Acts 13. 39.
—when the people heard this, I say, as many of them as understood it, would easily see that Christ must have stood in the capacity of our Surety; for it is this that lays a foundation for our being justified through him.
ROMANS. The doctrine of Imputed Righteousness appears, in this Epistle, not only to be a doctrine of Christianity, but also to be one of the most important and fundamental doctrines of that religion. For the sake of introducing this doctrine, the Apostle sets himself to prove that the whole world is become guilty before God;
Rom. Read from chap. 1. 19. to chap. 3. 19.
and he makes the forgiveness of sin,
Rom. 4. 6, 7.
justification,
Rom. 5. 18.
and eternal life,
Rom. 5. 17.
depend upon imputed righteousness: and when he bewails the case of his brethren the jews, it is because they were ignorant of this doctrine.
Rom. 9. 30-33. and chap. 10. 1-4.
The Righteousness which is imputed to the believer, is worthy of being made
so much
account of. The incarnate God is the Lord our Righteousness.
Jer. 23. 6.
The righteousness which is unto and upon all them that believe, is the righteousness of God.
Rom. 3. 21, 22.
2 Cor. 5. 21.
Philip. 3. 9.
2 Pet. 1. 1.
The righteousness which is bestowed as a gift, and which is upon all men who believe, is the righteousness of one, Jesus Christ.
Rom. 5. 17. 18.
This is the Person who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Rom. 10. 4.
And it is through his righteousness that grace reigns unto eternal life.
Rom. 5. 21.
Although the scriptures in general, and the Epistle before us in particular, are so very full and plain upon this, yet some men will remind us, in a way of
opposition,
that FAITH
is imputed for righteousness.
But the Apostle must be understood in a way consistent with himself.—It is a common thing with all writers, to use one and the same word to express an
Object,
and the
faculty
or affection which regards that object. Hence the words—
fear, hope, joy, peace, love,
&c. are used indifferently to express the objects of these affections, and these affections themselves. God is called the
fear
of his people,
Gen. 31. 42.
Isa. 8. 13.
because they sear him: Christ is our
hope,
1 Tim. 1. 1.
because we hope for happiness through him: He is our
peace,
Eph. 2. 14.
because we enjoy peace with God through him: &c. So also the word
faith
is used indifferently to express the
Truth
which we believe, and our
belief
of the truth. So that it is the same thing whether we say,—
Faith
is come,
Gal. 3. 25.
or,
Christ
is come:—It is the same thing whether we say,—Paul preached the
Faith,
Gal. 1. 23.
or, He preached
Christ:
—It is the same thing whether we say, we are Justified
by Faith,
Rom. 5. 1.
or,
By Him
all that believe are justified:
Acts 13. 39.
—It is the same thing whether we say,—
Faith
is imputed for righteousness,
Rom. 4. 9.
or,
Christ
is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Rom. 10. 4.
CORINTHIANS. Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us Wisdom, and
Righteousness,
and Sanctification, and Redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
1 Cor. 1. 30, 31.
—If the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of
Righteousness
exceed in glory.
2 Cor. 3. 9.
—God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit. that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who know no sin; that we might be made
the Righteousness of God in him.
2 Cor. 5. 18-21.
GALATIANS. When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.—And if sons, then heirs of God thro' Christ.
Gal. 4. 4-7.
PHILIPIANS. Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Philip. 2. 5-8.
—For whom, says Paul, I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung that I may win Christ and be found in him, not having
mine own righteousness
which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the
Righteousness which is of God
by faith.
Philip. 3. 8, 9.
HEBREWS. Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a Sceptre of
Righteousness
is the Sceptre of thy Kingdom. Thou hast
loved Righteousness
and
hated iniquity,
THEREFORE God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Heb. 1. 8, 9.
—Thou art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec:
Psalms 110. 4.
—
first,
KING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, and
after that,
KING OF PEACE.
Heb. 7. 1, 2.
PAUL'S HOPE IN DEATH. I have kept the faith: hence forth there is laid up for me a
Crown of Righteousness.
2 Tim. 4. 6-8.
Compare this with Phillipians 3. 9. and Revelations 19. 8.
PETER, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us, in the
Righteousness
of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
2 Pet. 1. 1.
JOHN. These things write I unto you that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ
the Righteous:
and he is the propitiation for our sins.
1 John 2. 1, 2.
REVELATIONS. These things saith the AMEN.—I counsel thee to buy OF ME gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and
white raiment,
that thou mayest be cloathed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear.
Rev. 3. 14-18.
—Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was
granted,
that she should be
arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the Righteousness of the saints.
Rev. 19. 7, 8.
Upon this ground we may say,—I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God, for he hath cloathed me with the garments of Salvation, he hath covered me with the ROBE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with jewels. Isa. lxi. 10. Thus we see how this doctrine runs through the whole Bible.
OBJECTION VIII.
"
THE
DEATH of
Christ is that obedience by which we are made righteous. Christ's death was a voluntary act of obedience to the commandment of his Father; so he says,
"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."
The will of God which he came to do, and by which his people are sanctified, was the offering up of his body once. By this act of obedience he at once fulfilled the law to the utmost, exercising the perfection of love to God and man, and satisfying all its penal demands upon his guilty people. The spotless holiness of his heart and life qualified him for this obedience, and the divine dignity of his person gave it infinite worth and efficacy.
See Mr. M'CLEAN'S illustration of the Commission given by Christ to the Apostles: page 51, 52.
—
In his life (says this Author in another place) he obeyed
the law for us as our
example
, but in his death he obeyed it for us as our substitute; the holiness of his heart and life in conformity to the moral law, qualified him for performing that obedience by which we are made righteous, but in his death he actually performed it.—And although I could have no hope from his death or mediation, did I not consider him as perfectly holy and free from sin through the whole course of his life, yet I do not find that the scriptures ascribe our justification directly to this, but always to what he did in his death.
"
Answer.
Some things in this objection have been already considered, viz. what is said about Immanuel
qualifying
himself in holiness by his obedience to the moral law; and also what is said of his obedience to the law as an
example.
I mention these particulars now, only to make other parts of the objection more plain to the Reader; for I find that many persons who read the book referred to above, do not understand the Author, upon the subject in hand. The
Argument
contained in the objection, shall be considered presently; but I shall first make a few observations upon the
sentiment
which that argument is intended to support.
1. This sentiment, understood in the most favourable light, will stand thus:—Christ did not begin to act as the Surety or Substitute of his people, until about the time of his
death:
his foregoing obedience and sufferings were not substitutional, but intended for our example, and for his own personal qualification: but in his death he suffered the penalty, and also obeyed the commandments of the moral law, as his people's substitute and in their stead. And if we ask, How could he obey the commandments of the moral law in his
death?
the answer is,—In his death he manifested the perfection of love to God and man, which is the end of the commandment and the fulfilling of the law.
2. This appears to me to be a very dangerous sentiment. It seems to approach so near the Truth, and it is supported (in some instances) by such plausible reasoning, and by so able an Advocate, that those who are weak in the Faith are in danger of being carried away by it.—But the Good Shepherd has said,—My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish; neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.
3. This sentiment is, I suppose, perfectly
new.
It is no new thing, indeed, to deny that Christ fulfilled the commandments of the moral law in his people's stead; but it is of
late
that we have been told he did this in his death only, and not in his life. I cannot speak with absolute certainty upon the
novelty
of this sentiment; but am of opinion that it was not thought of until the close of the eighteenth Century. It has not, however, come too late to find footing in the world; for it seems to be adopted by several congregations in north and south Britain, and perhaps it may give birth to another denomination of Christians.
4. At times I fancy I understand this sentiment pretty clearly; but at other times I find myself rather at a loss. This uncertainty is owing to the principles upon which this sentiment is sometimes desended, and from which it's Advocates reason in order to oppose what they call the common popular doctrine: for, these principles seem to me as inconsistent with their own doctrine, as with that which they reject. For instance,
1. Christ's obedience to the law is set before us as an
example
for us to copy after, which shews
(they
say) that he did not obey this law as our substitute, in his
life.
—Now these same people know that Christ's obedience in his
death
is also set before us as an example to copy after; how then can
they
believe that he obeyed this law even in his death
as our substitute?
2. They tell us that if Christ had obeyed the law for us in his life, it would have superseded his expiatory sufferings. Strange!—But, waving all other remarks, what is the reason that Christ's vicarious obedience to the law in his life, should supersede his expiatory sufferings; and yet his vicarious obedience to the law in his death, should
not
supersede them?—To this it has been replied,—
"His fulfilling the law for us in his death, includes his expiatory sufferings, and therefore cannot supersede them."
But this answer leaves me just where I was. To tell me that,
The suffering of the penalty is included in Christ's vicarious obedience to the precepts of the law,
is not to shew me
the use and necessity of this;
which is the thing I am inquiring after. It is the opinion of the Objector, that if Christ had obeyed the precepts of the law in his life as our substitute, then his sufferings, considered as expiatory, would be superfluous. Seeing this is his opinion, and seeing he professes to believe that Christ did obey these precepts
for us
(that is, as our substitute) in his death, I am at a loss to conceive what necessity
he
finds for the sufferings of Christ,
considered as expiatory.
To tell me that his obedience to the law in his death, includes his expiatory sufferings; is only to provoke a repetition of the question—Why?—why must this substitutional obedience include expiatory sufferings? Or, seeing this obedience does in fact include these sufferings, how is it that the former does not render the latter superfluous?
3. When we plead for our Suretie's vicarious obedience and sufferings all through his life even unto death; the Objector tells us, that it is impossible to shew where the law makes this
"
double demand.
"
He insists upon it that the law has not a double demand, but an alternative, requiring either perfect obedience, or else the suffering of its penalty.
I have considered this sentiment before, and mention it in this place only to point out the Objector s inconsistency.
—This way of talking makes it very difficult to understand what these people intend to admit. One would think that what is here said, makes as much against their own sentiment, as it does against ours; and when they are reminded of this, their explanation only tends to involve their sentiment in complicated obscurity. When we tell them that their own sentiment, also, infers a double demand of the law upon the sinner's Surety, they seem inclined to admit that it does so; but not
such
a double demand as we plead for: and they say that the double demand which they admit, may be reduced to a
single
one. Upon this I would observe.
(1.) If they realy intend to admit that Christ did, at any time, living or dying, not only bear the curse, but also sulfil the precepts of the law
as our substitute;
this is the double demand we plead for. The difference between the life and death of Christ, affects not the question concerning a
double
demand of the law; for it is not length of time, but the two things demanded which constitute the
double
demand. If our Surety had
only
to obey the precepts, or if he had
only
to suffer the penalty of the law, this would be but a
single
demand, although he had been bound thus to obey, or else to suffer, all through life even unto death; and upon the other hand, if he was bound to obey, and also to suffer for us, this is a
double
demand, although he had thus obeyed and suffered only in the hour of death.
(2.) When they talk of reducing what they seem to admit, to a
single
demand, I am altogether at a loss to know their method of doing so. If I were acquainted with their method of reducing, I could try it upon my own view of this doctrine; but as I do not, my sentiment must needs remain as it is. What their's will look like after it is reduced, I cannot tell; but it seems that,
(3.) To be consistent with themselves, they must not only reduce a double demand to a single one, but that single one must be an
alternative,
in contradistinction to a double demand; that is, Obedience to the precepts of the law, including the suffering of it's penalty, must be reduced to either one or the other of these two: for, they say, The law has not a double demand, but an
alternative,
requiring
either perfect obedience, or else
the
suffering of it's penalty.
But whatever obscurity may attend this sentiment in other respects, one thing is plain, viz. It stands opposed to the belief of our Suretie's having acted in our name all through his state of humiliation,—from the time he was made under the law to redeem, until he said,—
It is Finished.
I am not sure, indeed, from whence
they
date the commencement of his substitutional work,—
when
he finished the righteousness which (according to them) is appropriated to his own personal qualification, and
when
he began the other righteousness unto which our justification is directly ascribed: but their argument seems to confine the latter to his death; meaning thereby. I suppose, the whole of his voluntary sufferings, from the time he was nailed to the cross, until his resurrection. Taking the sentiment in this view, we are now to consider the main argument upon which it rests, It is said,
"The scriptures do not ascribe our justification directly to what Christ did through the whole course of his life, but always to what he did in his death."
To this we reply,
1. The inspired writers do indeed, and that very frequently, ascribe our justification and salvation to what Christ did in his death; and, considering his death as the
completion
of his substitutional undertaking, it would be strange if they did not ascribe our justification to it. But when the inspired writers ascribe our justification to the death of Christ, how does it appear that they intend to
exclude,
as
substitutional,
his foregoing obedience and sufferings?
To ascribe salvation in all it's parts to the death of Christ, and to believe, at the same time, that Christ acted as our Surety all through his state of humiliation, are not such inconsistent things as to render it impossible for an accurate speaker or writer to do both. Indeed I do not know an author of any note, who held the doctrine I contend for, but what does, nevertheless, ascribe our salvation to what Christ did in his
death.
I shall give a few instances out of many:
OWEN: Mercy, Pardon and Grace, could find no other way to issue forth from the heart of the Father, but by the heart's
blood
of the Son.
WITSIUS: A right to all the blessings of the covenant of grace was purchased
at once
to all the elect by Christ's
death.
MC. LAURIN: We must believe that Salvation is the purchase of Christs
death.
HERVEY: The
death
of Christ procured the pardon and acceptance of believers.
SANDEMAN: Ask a Christian, What is his faith, the spring of all his hope? He answers you in a word, The
Blood
of Christ.
BOOTH: O remember! that grace has erected her throne. This forbids despair. For her wonderful throne is erected, not in the ruins of justice, not on the dishonour of the law; but, on the
Blood
of the Lamb.
Now it is well known that these Authors had no intention to
confine
the Suretiship of Christ to his death It is well known that they considered Christ as the substitute of sinners all through his state of humiliation; yet they ascribe salvation in all it's parts to his
death,
in language-
as strong
as that used by the Apostles.—The intelligent reader will readily perceive how far I intend this argument should go. I have no thoughts of supporting any doctrine by human authority; and therefore I do not quote these Authors to that end. It is sufficient if they are allowed to be men who knew how to express their own thoughts with propriety of speech, and that they have actually done so upon this occasion. And why should not this be admitted? They considered the
death
of Christ as the
completion
of his vicarious work, and in this view they ascribe salvation to it. Is this to express their own thoughts improperly? I suppose no one will say so. What does this prove? It proves that to ascribe salvation to the death of Christ, does not amount to a denial of his having acted as our substitute all through his state of humiliation; and consequently, when the Apostles ascribed salvation to his death, it does not prove that they intended to exclude, as substitutional, his foregoing obedience and sufferings.—I may here remind our opposers of what certain of their
own
poets have said, and which they themselves repeatedly sing, viz.
" Tis
finished
—THIS
his dying groan
" Shall sins of every kind atone:
" Millions shall be redeem'd from death
" By THIS
his
LAST
expiring breath.
"
The reasoner who should attempt to prove from this verse, that the poet who made, or that the persons who sing it, consider nothing in the sufferings of Christ, as substitutional, but his dying groan, and last expiring breath, would serve the poet, and those who adopt his words, as some men do the apostles.
2. It is past dispute that the scriptures do, in other cases,—cases too which are closely connected with that in hand, ascribe effects to the
death
of Christ, which belong also to the whole of his humiliation, obedience, and sufferings. For instance: Christ is represented as saying,
"Therefore doth my Father love me,
because I lay down my life.
"
John 10. 17.
Does this warrant us to say, that laying down his life was the
only
thing for which his Father loved him? No verily; not even though we should soften the matter by adding the words,
"immediately and directly."
For, all that Christ did upon the earth, were immediate and direct causes of the Father's love.
Luke 2. 40, 52. Chap. 3. 22.
John 4. 34. Chap. 8. 29. and 15. 10.
—Again: Paul says,
"Jesus was crowned with glory and honour,
for the suffering of death.
"
Heb. 2. 9.
Does this warrant us to say, that his death was the
only
direct cause for which he was crowned? Was he not highly exalted for the
whole
of his humiliation, obedience, and sufferings?
Phil. 2. 6-9.
—for loving righteousness, and hating iniquity?
Heb. 1. 9.
—for
all
that he did to glorify his Father upon the earth?
John 17. 4.
Certainly he was: yet the scriptures ascribe it to his
death.
Therefore, when the scriptures ascribe
salvation
to the death of Christ, why should we not understand them as including his foregoing obedience and sufferings? To understand the scriptures thus, is only to take them for their own interpreter, and to explain what they say of the death of Christ, in one place, by what we are sure they intend, in another.
3. When the scriptures ascribe salvation to the
death
of Christ, it cannot be with a view to exclude, as substitutional, his foregoing obedience and sufferings, because it is impossible to find an adequate cause or end for this obedience, or for these sufferings, (especially some of them) without admitting that they were substitutional. For instance: What adequate cause or end shall we find for his dreadful sufferings in the garden, and from thence to Calvary, if we deny that they were substitutional? Was it merely for the sake of setting us an example, and qualifying himself in holiness, that he began to be sore amazed, and very heavy? that his soul was exceeding sorrowful, even unto death? that he was in an agony, and sweat great drops of blood falling to the ground? that he was taken from hence, bound, smitten, spit upon, blindsolded, mocked; stripped and scourged?—If the Objector should admit that these instances of suffering were substitutional, he must then abandon his argument, and be reduced to the necessity of begging the question: for these sufferings were no more undergone
on the tree,
than were any other sufferings of our Redeemer's life. And it must be noticed, that the Apostles not only ascribe our salvation to his last sufferings and
death,
but also expressly to what he endured while hanging on the Tree.
Gal. 3. 13.
—But if the Objector should go so far as to deny that the sufferings of Christ in the garden, and from thence until he was led forth to be crucified, were substitutional, he ought to provide a good reason for so doing; which, I am persuaded, is absolutely impossible. I conclude, therefore, that when the scriptures ascribe our justification to the
death
of Christ, it is not with any intention to exclude, as substitutional, his foregoing obedience and sufferings.
But the Objector has not only said that the scriptures always ascribe our justification to the
death
of Christ, but also that they never ascribe it, directly, to his foregoing obedience and sufferings. We have therefore now to consider what authority he has for this part of his argument. In doing this, I shall (1) lay before the reader some passages of scripture which appear to ascribe our salvation to the
sufferings
of Christ
in general;
and (2) make some further observations upon the
Righteousness
of our divine Surety.
First:
I shall lay before the reader some passages of scripture which appear to ascribe our justification and salvation to the
sufferings
of Christ
in general.
Poverty, Persecutions
and
Temptations,
are remarkable instances of the sufferings of Christ, and the scriptures ascribe our salvation to each of them.
Poverty.
"Ye know the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich,"
2 Cor. 8. 9.
Now Christ
became
poor, when he was born of a woman, brought forth in a stable, and laid in a manger; he
continued
poor all through his life upon this earth; and at length died in the most dreadful kind of poverty. When any period of this state of poverty is contrasted with his original state, and with what he had a right to enjoy, as the Son of the Highest, from the first moment of his birth, it ought not to be esteemed a small matter. We should also remember that a state of life, such as our divine Surety led in this world, was part of the original curse pronounced upon sinful man.—
"Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in
sorrow
shalt thou eat of it ALL THE DAYS OF THY LIFE. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth unto thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
Gen. 3. 17, 18, 19.
Persecution.
"Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord God of hosts, be ashamed,
for my sake:
let not those that seek thee be confounded,
for my sake,
O God of Israel: BECAUSE for thy sake I have born reproach: shame hath covered my face.
Psalm. 69. 6,
.
—Upon this text we have to observe, (1) Christ is the speaker. (2) He is praying for his people, who deserve eternal shame and confusion of face, because they have sinned against God. (3) The reason why this shame and confusion is not to come upon his people, to whom it belonged, is, because their Surety bore reproach, shame covered his face. Now although this took place in its most eminent degree upon the Cross, it is plain from the context that Christ is here speaking of
all
that shame and reproach which he endured upon the earth.—It is past dispute with those who admit the authority of the New Testament, that the sufferings mentioned in this Psalm, upon the ground of which our Advocate intercedes, are the sufferings of Christ
in general.
Compare verse 4. with John 15. 25. And verse 9. with John 2. 17.
Temptations.
"In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful High Priest, in things pertaining to God,
to make reconciliation for the sins
of the people:
for in that he himself hath
SUFFERED,
being
TEMPTED; he is able to succour them that are tempted."
Heb. 2. 17, 18.
It is readily granted that the
succour
here mentioned, includes that continual support, relief and protection, which the tempted christian receives from Christ, who learned, by painful experience, how to feel for his people: but it is plain that this is not the only, nor yet the chief thing which the Apostle teaches. The particulars which relate to the case in hand, are (1) Paul ranks the temptations which Christ endured, amongst his
sufferings:
(2) These sufferings are amongst the
all things
in which it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren; to the end he might
make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
—Now Christ was tempted, not only in his death, but in all points like as we are.
Heb. 4. 15.
By what authority, then, do we exclude from his atonement, all those temptations which he endured before his death; and particularly those of which we read when he was led into the wilderness, away from the habitations of men,
to be tempted
of the chief of the infernal spirits? In this horrid situation he continued during forty days and nights, without food.—How different this from the delightful abode of sinless Adam! How different from the proper habitation of Adam's Lord! This, indeed, is a fit situation for guilt and despair; but how came the Holy One of God in such a place!—in such company!
"Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows."
Isa. 53.
—This chapter gives a comprehensive view of the sufferings of Christ,
from first to last,
—from his growing up as a tender plant, to his being cut off out of the land of the living. It speaks (1) of the mean and despised appearence of the Messiah, while
growing up
as a root out of a dry ground:
Isa. 53. 3.
(2) of the general hatred and contempt with which he should be treated:
Isa. verse 3.
(3) of the sorrows and griefs which were to be his constant companions:
Isa. verse 3.
(4) of his being wounded, bruised, and scourged:
verse 5.
(5) of his being brought as a lamb to the slaughter—taken from prison and Judgment—and cut off, &c.
verse 7. 8.
Now the prophet was sure that all these griefs, and all these sorrows, were
ours.
He knew that these afflictions could not come upon him without an adequate cause; and although the jews in general thought that Jesus of Nazareth deserved them all; although they esteemed him as one stricken, smitten of God for his own sins, and afflicted; yet the prophet knew that he was no less a person than Immanuel,
Isa. 7. 14.
the mighty God;
chap. 9. 6.
and that his condition in this world was infinitely below, and contrary to, his own true character; and consequently, that every kind and degree of sufferings which he endured, must be
ours.
The Messiah was presented to the thoughts of this prophet, as growing up in the meanest condition, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; but, says he, Surely these are
our
sorrows,
our
griefs:
Isa. 53. 3, 4.
he saw him wounded and bruised; but when, or wheresoever this was, Isaiah was confident it must be for
our iniquities:
verse 5.
he saw him scourged; but he knew that these stripes were to be our healing:
verse 5.
he saw him, at length, as a lamb brought to the slaughter, and as a criminal led from prison and judgment to the fatal, the accursed tree; but he knew that in this, as in every other instance, it was for the transgressions of God's people that he was stricken.
verse 7, 8.
— I think the man must be rather perverse who will insist upon it that this chapter speaks
only
of the sufferings of Christ in his
death;
or that all the sufferings mentioned are not referred to our sins as the cause, and to our salvation as the end.
"Our High Priest, in the days of his flesh, offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard, in that he seared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the Author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him."
Heb. 5. 7-9.
—This chapter, from the first verse to the ninth, consists of two parts, (1) a description of the office and duties of the high priest under the law:
verse 1-4.
(2) the application of this to the Person and Priesthood of Christ.
Heb. verse 5-9.
I do not intend to enter fully into the discussion of this remarkable portion of scripture; my limits only admit, and my design only requires, that I point out such circumstances as go to prove that the sufferings of Christ,
in general,
are included in his expiatory sacrifice; and that our salvation is ascribed to his death on the cross, considered as the
perfecting,
and not as the
only
instance of his expiatory sufferings.
1. The Apostle is evidently speaking of Christ under the character of a PRIEST; by which he leads us to consider all the sufferings he mentions in this place, as belonging to the atonement made by Christ for the sins of the people.
verse 1.
2. The Apostle mentions the
time
in which our High Priest endured these sufferings, viz.
the days of his flesh.
Heb. 5. 7.
Now, the DAYS
of his flesh,
are more than the HOURS of his crucifixion:—the days of his flesh, are the days of his humiliation, wherein he appeared in the form of sinful flesh;
Rom. 8. 3.
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
3. The sufferings of which the Apostle speaks in this place, and which he represents as belonging to Christ's priestly office, are of such a nature that, we have reason to believe, he certainly did endure them, all through the days of his flesh—He offered up prayers and supplications with
crying
—with
strong
crying,—with strong crying and
tears.
Heb. 5. 7.
Now compare this with the history of Christ's life, given by the Evangelists. There we read of his sending the multitude away, dismissing his disciples also, and then retiring, not to repose after the labours of the day, but to a desert mountain to pray, and continuing there until about the fourth watch of the night.
Mat. 14. 23, 25.
—At another time we read of his rising up in the morning, a great while before day, and departing into a solitary place to pray.
Mark 1. 35.
And again we are told of his going out into a mountain to pray, and continuing
all night
in prayer to God.
Luke 6. 12.
Now, from these instances, we should conclude that it was common for him thus to spend his nights. Indeed the Evangelist in one place, telling us of his retiring at night to the mount of Olives, says expressly,
"
As he was wont.
"
Luke 22. 39.
—The last night which the Saviour of sinners spent in prayer to God, he permitted three of his disciples to be with him; and we know the awful account they give of what they saw and heard:—this was in the garden of Gethsemane. I do not positively affirm that all his nightly prayers were attended with
equal
sorrows; but this I know, that the Apostle speaks in a
general
way, when he tells us of the state of mind in which our High Priest offered up his prayers and supplications. When he tells us they were offered up with
strong crying and tears,
he does not appear to be speaking of what was done on some one particular occasion; but he seems to be speaking, in general, of what he did
in the days of his flesh.
Moreover, these prayers and supplications which our High Priest offered up, with strong crying and tears, were a subject of
Prophecy;
and they are spoken of as being offered up,
day and night, incessantly.
Thus the Redeemer weeps:
"O my God, I cry unto thee in the
day time,
but thou
hearest not;
and in the
night-season,
and
am not silent.
Psalm. 22. 2.
Upon these memorable words, I would make the following remarks: (1) We are sure that Jesus is the speaker. (2) This bitter complaint cannot refer meerly to the scene in Gethsemane, because that scene took place at
night;
and the complaint is,
"O my God, I cry in the
day-time.
"
Neither can it refer
only
to what Jesus suffered on the Cross, because he was taken down from the Cross
before sunset;
and the complaint is,
"I cry in the day-time, and in the
night-season.
"
(4) This complaint cannot well be
confined
to any one particular day and night, because the words are more properly expressive of daily, continued sorrow:—
O my God, I cry unto thee
in the day time, but thou hearest not, and in the night season, and am not silent.
"
This way of speaking calls to our mind what the Evangelists tell us of his continuing whole nights in prayer, on mountains and in solitary places; and of this being his usual custom. (5) It appears from this
second
verse of the twenty-second Psalm, that our Redeemer had occasion, more than once, to use the words of the
first
verse, viz. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, &c. We have just now mentioned some considerations which go to prove that the complaint uttered in the
second
verse, cannot be
confined
to the awful scene in Gethsemane; nor yet to that on the Cross; and if the
second
verse cannot be thus confined, no more can the
first,
as may appear from hence: The two verses seem to be closely connected together, and to form
one
complaint:—
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not, and in the night season, and am not silent."
—Does not the suffering Redeemer connect, in this instance, his
unheard cries,
with his being
forsaken of God?
And when he himself complains of crying thus unto God,
day and night, continually;
shall
we
say, He never had occasion thus to complain, except during the six hours in which he hung upon the Cross? Let it be far from christians to contradict their Lord in any thing; and especially when his sufferings are in question. When he intimates, in any particular instance, that he suffered for our sins; the least we can do is to acknowledge that he did so.
4. And being made perfect, (continues the Apostle) he became the Author of eternal salvation.—
And being made perfect:
this is just the form of expression which we might have expected, if, as we maintain, the Apostle had been speaking of our Great High Priest, as gradually advancing, all through the days of his flesh, in the great work of Atonement. Considering all the sufferings of his life in this light, it was natural to add,—
and being made perfect.
—Our Great High Priest was made perfect by his last sufferings on the Cross, where, according to his own words, he
Finished
his work. Being thus made perfect, he became the Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. By this one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. There is no need of repeating this sacrifice, like those which were offered under the law: (for then must he often have suffered
since the foundation of the world;)
but now once, in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear, the second time, without sin, unto salvation.—I shall conclude what I have to say upon the
sufferings
of Christ, in the words of WITSIUS: not with any view to strengthen the argument by the authority of his Name; but because he expresses my own views more clearly, perhaps, than I could have done myself.
"I remember to have learned," says he, "in the communion of the reformed church, to the following effect: 1st. That the death, wherewith God threatned man for sin, comprizes in its whole extent all that misery, which, by the justest despleasure of God, has followed upon sin, and to which the sinner man is obnoxious all his life, the principal part of which consists in the want of the favour of God, and in the keenest sense of the divine curse, to be chiefly inflicted, when it shall so please God. 2dly, That Christ, by the interposition of his engagements for the elect, took upon himself all that curse, which man was liable to, on account of sin; hence it was, that, in order to the payment of the debt he engaged for, he led a life, in the assumed human nature, subject to many vicissitudes of misery, just like the life of a human sinner. 3dly, That, as God uses much forbearance with respect to sinners, and moderates the bitterness of life with some sweetness of patience, till the day of vengeance, and of the retribution of his righteous judgment, when the whole weight of the curse shall light upon the condemned sinner; so also Christ, when in the form of sinful flesh, had not always the same sense of the painful effects of the sins that were laid upon him, but sometimes rejoiced in an eminent mixture of favour; till the hour and power of darkness came, when, being called to the bar, he had every thing dreadful to undergo. 4thly, That as the death, which consists in the separation of the soul and body, is inflicted on the sinner man, as the fad effect of the wrath of God; so in like manner Christ underwent the same death, that, in this respect also, making satisfaction to divine justice, he might remove all the curse of that death from the elect. 5thly, In fine, that as all those miseries, taken together, are what sin deserves; so Christ, who, by his engagement, took upon himself all the debt of the elect, did, by all these miseries, to which he was subject all his life, satisfy divine justice; so that, taken all together, they constitute the ransom, which was due for our sins.—All the sufferings which Christ endured both in soul and body, through the whole course of his life, constitute his one and perfect satisfaction; though it be certain that those were the most greivous sufferings with which he encountred on the last night and day; and that what he bore in his body, were far exceeded by those that oppressed his soul: just as the whole of Christ's most holy obedience is imputed to us for righteousness, tho' he gave an eminent demonstration of it, when he was obedient in death."
—We come now,
Secondly,
to make some further observations upon the
Righteousness
of our Divine Surety. I do not intend to enter fully into the consideration of this glorious Subject: if I had ability suited to such a task, my limits would not admit of it. All that I intend is, to propose one argument more, taken from what the Scriptures say of the
Righteousness
of Christ, in reply to the Objection now before us.
The Objector will not admit that Christ obeyed and suffered, all through his life upon earth, as the Surety or Substitute of sinners. He cannot find, he says, that the Scriptures ascribe our justification directly to what Christ did in his life, but always to what he did in his death.—In reply to this we have shewn (1) that when the Scriptures ascribe our justification to the death of Christ, it is not with any intention to exclude, as substitutional, his foregoing obedience and sufferings: (2) That the Scriptures do, in many places, ascribe our justification and salvation to the sufferings of Christ in general; that is, to
all
the sufferings he endured in the days of his humiliation. To these considerations we have now to add, (what we have before proved) that our justification is ascribed, and that "
directly,
" to the Righteousness of Christ. This alone, one might imagine, is sufficient to decide this question. But the Objector has found out a new way to evade the force of this argument. Hitherto, the question has been—Is the Righteousness of Christ (including his sufferings) the immediate and direct cause of our justification? This question being decided in the affirmative, the dispute was ended. The reason was, there existed no dispute about what was meant by the
Righteousness
of Christ. It was admitted upon all hands, that the Righteousness of Christ, is his conformity to the Rule of Righteousness; or in other words, the whole of his obedience to the Moral Law. For men had not as yet learned to distinguish between his obedience to the precepts of the moral law in his life, and his obedience to the precepts of the moral law in his death, and to assign different kinds of influence to this obedience in the justification of the ungodly. But by the help of these distinctions, the Objector can admit, in words, that our justification is ascribed directly to the Rightcousness of Christ and yet deny that it is directly
The Reader must impute the frequent repetition of the word "
directly,
" to the singularity of the sentiment I am opposing.
ascribed to the holiness of his heart and life, in conformity to the moral law.
If the Reader doubts whether this be a fair representation, let him read the Objector's own words, page
of this Essay.
So that it is not enough for us to prove that the scriptures ascribe our justification directly to the Righteousness of Christ; we must also prove that the Righteousness of Christ is the whole of his conformity to that Rule of Righteousness under which he was made:—which, one would think, is so self evident, that it does not require, and that it hardly admits of proof. It is almost like attempting to prove, that the Righteousness of Christ is—the Righteousness of Christ. And perhaps some Readers may blame me for saying any more upon a subject which is already so plain. Such as are thus minded, may here close the book. To others, we shall propose the following remarks:—
1. The Righteousness of which we speak, is the Righteousness of CHRIST. It is not the Righteousness of the Eternal WORD, considered
only
as God, and as the Governor of the World; but it is that Righteousness which this Person wrought in our nature, after he was made of a woman, and
while he was under the Law.
It is that Righteousness of his which consists in a
perfect conformity to every jot and title of the Law.
If it be asked,—Is every action of his life from his birth to his death, included in this Righteousness? I answer directly, YES. Upon which I fancy I hear some exclaim,—What! did he conform to the
Ceremonial
Law as our Substitute? Did he work miracles as our Substitute?—Yes,
in so far as his conformity to the
MORAL
Law was concerned in these things.
When he attended to the ceremonial law, he did so in obedience to the command of God; which is not a ceremonial, but
moral
duty.
1 Cor. vii. 19.
And while he wrought miracles, he was going about doing good;
Acts x. 38.
which is also a
moral
duty.—But the moral law never bound
us
to observe the ceremonial law: it never bound
us
to work miracles!—True; but it bound us to obey God, and to do good to man; and it is only in this sense that we consider the Righteousness of Christ as concerned in Ceremonies and Miracles.—Indeed these things are very inconsistently objected to us, by the persons we now speak to.
They
also profess to believe that Christ obeyed the moral law as our substitute. And how do they say he did this?—By dying to redeem lost sinners.—But the moral law never commanded us to perform such a work as this! This was the greatest miracle of all! Yet if any one was to object this to them, they would, and very justly, consider it as an impertinent cavil. At least they would know how to answer it; and one answer will equally suit us both. Neither party need be afraid if the only thing that can be objected to us is, that Christ obeyed the law for us in a different, and far more excellent manner, than could be expected from us:—this is our Glory. The Righteousness of our Divine Surety does not exceed that which was demanded of the Elect, more than his
Person
exceeds their persons. But who ever objected to the Suretiship of Christ, meerly upon account of the excellency of his Person? Yea, I have heard one man, and only one, go thus far.
"I cannot admit the doctrine of imputed righteousness," he said, "for this reason;—The works of an
Infinite
Person, cannot be imputed to one that is finite."
—But this seems to proceed upon a mistaken notion of the nature of that imputation of which we speak. It is indeed impossible that any finite person should perform the works which are peculiar to one who is infinite. And as the judgment of God is always according to truth, it is equally impossible that he should
so
impute the Righteousness of Christ unto us, as to judge that this Righteousness is our own
personal
work. This therefore is not what the scriptures teach, neither is it what any christian pleads for.—But it was not impossible for the Eternal Word, who is an infinite Person, to take on him a finite nature; to unite himself to his elect, and become their surety: it was not impossible for him, in their nature, and as their Surety to obey every jot and tittle of the moral law, and suffer its penalty; nor is it impossible for God to impute this unto the persons for whom it was done; that is, it is not impossible for God to place it to their account, and, upon this ground, to justify them from all things, from which they could not be justified by their own personal performances. This is not impossible, but divinely true.—The Righteousness of our Incarnate God, is
"unto and upon all them that believe;"
but neither he who wrought, nor he who imputes this Righteousneis, nor they unto whom it is imputed, ever mistake it for the workmanship of a finite person. It is
ours
because it was wrought for us, and is imputed unto us; not because it is our own personal performance. There is indeed such a close union between Christ and his elect, that, because he died, rose, and reigns, and because his Righteousness is divine; they also are represented as dead, risen, reigning, and as made the Righteousness of God; but they are all this IN HIM, who is their Head and Representative. To obey and suffer
in the second Adam,
is one thing; and to do so
in our own Persons,
is another.—Considering therefore the nature and grounds of this imputation, the infinity of the Person of our Surety is so far from making the imputation of his Righteousness impossible, that the reverse is true: for had he been a meer creature, he could have yeilded no obedience to the law of God beyond what was necessary for himself: much less could he make reconciliation for the innumerable sins of the whole redeemed company, and work a Righteousness which should be adequate to the demands of the law upon them all. It was necessary, indeed, that he should be
man;
for otherwise he could neither obey the precepts nor suffer the penalty of the law given to man; but it was his DIVINITY that gave sufficient worth and efficacy to the whole.—There is, then, a likeness, and there is also a difference, between the
Person
of our Surety, and our persons; and there is also a likeness and a difference between what the law demanded of us, and what he performed as our Surety. As the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same: as we were under the law, he was made under it: as the law bound us to
continue
in
all
things that are written therein, he came to fulfil
every jot and tittle
of the law, and he
always
did those things that were pleasing in his Father's fight: and as we were exposed to the righteous curse of a broken law, so the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all, and he suffered the just for the unjust. Thus far there is a likeness. But mark the difference: we were mere creatures, He was the Great Creator: the obedience which the law demanded of us, was only the obedience of mere men: but His is the Righteousness of God: because we could never satisfy divine justice for our sins, we were doomed to endless misery; but he being fully able to do this, his sufferings had an end.
2. I think it has been proved that Christ
suffered
for the sins of his people, not only in his
death,
but also through the whole course of his life; consequently he must have stood as our Surety all that time: and if he did so in suffering the penalty of the law, why not in obeying its precepts?
3. I think we have also proved, that the Incarnate God had no occasion to obey the moral law for himself; at least not in the manner in which he did obey it all through his state of humiliation; consequently it was for us he did so, and not for himself.
4. Although the love which Christ manifested in his death, is undoubtedly included in his Righteousness, and is the most eminent instance of it; yet we cannot think that this was all he intended, when he said he came to fulfil
every jot and tittle
of the law. This expression evidently includes, not only the
"
weightier matters of the law,
"
such as perfect love to God and man; but also all
"
the least of those commandments,
"
wherein that love should be expressed. And we find that the Righteousness of Christ does in fact answer to the most minute, as well as the most important duties of the law. It is universal, and in every respect perfect. Neither the greatest nor the least precept was neglected by him. He laid down his life for his brethren, in obedience to the high command of his Father, and he was subject to Joseph and Mary,
Luke, 2. 51.
in conformity to the fifth precept of the law. And it should be observed that he did all this
because
it was easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for
one tittle
of the law to fail.
5. Christ's obedience to the law was not only
universal,
but
constant.
Nor was this unnecessary; for although this law could have had no dominion over him, if he had not been made under it to redeem; yet, after he was made under it, he was bound to obey it in all points, and to
continue
his obedience unto the end. Therefore all that Christ did in obedience to this law, is
essential
to his
Righteousness.
6. I think it must be granted that the
Righteousness
of Christ, taken in the most proper and complete sense of the word, includes the whole of his obedience, from his infancy to his death; and why should we understand it as intending any thing short of this, when our justification is ascribed directly to it. But,—
7. We call upon the Objector to produce one single text of scripture, wherein the Righteousness of Christ must necessarily be understood as not including the
whole
of his conformity to the moral law, or eternal rule of Righteousness.
I shall conclude this Essay in the words of DR. J. OWEN.
"I cannot but judge it sounds ill in the ears of all Christians," says he, "That the obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ as our Mediator and Surety unto the whole Law of God, was for himself, and not for us; or that what he did therein, was not that he might be the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth;—especially considering, that the saith of the church is, That he was given to us, born to us; that for us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and did, and suffered what was required of him."
"It is said,
That this obedience was necessary as a
QUALIFICATION
of his Person, that he might be
MEET
to be a mediator for us; and therefore was for himself.
—But this I positively deny. The Lord Christ was every way
meet
for the whole work of Mediation, by the
ineffable union
of the
Human Nature
with the
Divine,
which exalted it in dignity, honour, and worth, above any thing, or all things that ensued thereon. For hereby he became in his whole Person the Object of Divine Worship and Honour; for
"
When he bringeth the First Begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the Angels of God worship Him.
"
Again, That which is an
effect
of the Person of the Mediator as constituted such, cannot be a
Qualification
necessary unto its constitution."
"Whereas therefore he was neither made man, nor of the posterity of Abraham for himself, but for the Church, namely, to become thereby the
Surety of the Covenant,
and
Representative
of the whole, his obedience as Man unto the Law in general, and as the Son of Abraham unto the law of Mofes, was for his people, and not for himself; it was so designed, so performed, and without a respect unto the Church, was of no use unto himself.
He was born to us,
and
given to us, lived for us,
and
died for us; obeyed for us,
and
suffered for us,
that
by the obedience of one, many might be made Righteous.
This was the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and this is the Faith of she Church. And what he did
for
us, is
imputed to us.
This is included in the very notion of his
doing it for us,
which cannot be spoken in the true and proper sense, unless what he so did, be
imputed unto us.
And I think men ought to be cautious that they do not, by
distinctions
and studied
evasions
for the defence of their own private opinions, shake the foundations of the Christian Religion. And I am sure it will be easier for them, as it is in the proverb, to wrest the club out of the hand of Hercules, than to disposses the minds of true Believers of this persuasion, viz, That what the Lord Christ did in obedience unto God according unto the Law, he designed in his love and grace to do it for them. He needed no obedience for himself, he came not into a capacity of yielding obedience, for himself, but for us; and therefore for us it was, that He fulfilled the Law in obedience unto God, according unto the terms of it. The obligation that was on him unto obedience, was originally no less for us, no less needful unto us, no more for himself, no more necessary unto him, than the obligation that was on him as the Surety of the Covenant, to suffer the penalty of the Law, was either the one or the other." Which may be illustrated thus: "When the Apostle Paul wrote those words unto Philemon concerning Onesimus (ver. 18.)
If he hath wronged thee,
dealt unrighteously or injuriously with thee,
or oweth thee ought,
wherein thou hast suffered loss by him, put it on my account, or impute it all unto me; I will repay it, or answer for it all: He supposes that Philemon might have a double action against Onesimus, the one of wrong or injury, the other of loss or debt: If he hath
wronged thee, or oweth thee ought.
Hereon he proposeth himself, and obligeth himself by his express obligation,
I Paul have written it with my own hand,
that he would answer for both. Hereby he was obliged in his own person to make satisfaction unto Philemon; but yet he was to do it for Onesimus, and not for himself."
"Some of the ancients disputed, That the Son of God should have been incarnate, although man had not sinned and fallen; but none of them once imagined, that he should have been so made man, as to be made under the law, and be obliged thereby unto that obedience which he hath performed: But they judged that immediately he was to have been a Glorious Head unto the whole Creation. For it is a common notion and presumption of all Christians, (but only such as will sacrifice these notions to their own private conceptions,) That the obedience which Christ yielded unto the law on the earth, in the state and condition wherein he did yield it, was not for himself, but for the Church, which was obliged unto perfect obedience, but was not able to accomplish it."
FINIS