CHAP. IX. Consideration of the chief Scriptural Expressions respecting the Death of Jesus. It is no uncommon mode of proving the doctrine of atonement as usually received, to make the reasonings and expressions in the Epistle to the Hebrews the basis of argument, and to explain other passages by them. This, however, is precisely the way to obscure the truth. If the Gospels, the Acts, and the undisputed Epistles of Paul, Peter, and John, do not contain this doctrine, the metaphors and allusions of the Epistle to the Hebrews cannot be admitted in proof of it, while so much uncertainty remains as to the genuineness of the Epistle; its evidence may be employed as a corroborative, but never as an independent ground of argument. What I conceive to be the true method in this state of doubt, is, first to consider the doctrine of Paul as contained in his undisputed writings, and then examine the amount of the expressions in the Hebrews; and it is my opinion, that if we do the Writer the justice fully to consider the purpose for which he was writing, to take into account the nature of the figures and imagery which he employs, and to allow it to be highly probable that he did not propose to teach any other doctrines than those which Jesus and his Apostles had taught, we shall find that all his expressions admit of a satisfactory explanation agreeably to them. 1.] The most important point is, in what light our Saviour himself represents the purposes of his sufferings and death. He must have been fully acquainted with the ends which they would answer, in effecting the salvation which he brought; and he expressly declares, All things which I have heard from my Father, I have made known unto you.' And however much some ill-understood passages in the Gospel of John (ch. xiv. xv. xvi.) may seem to justify the supposition, that by the miraculous communications of the spirit some new knowledge was imparted, to myself it appears clear, that Jesus had declared to the Apostles the whole round of Christian truth, and that the real efficacy of the spirit, in this point of view, was to remove the darkness of Jewish prejudice, and thereby to enable them to comprehend and recollect those truths.-Respecting the ends of his death, he speaks generally in John x. 11,-15, I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep."I lay down my life for the sheep.' No one, I presume, can infer hence, that Jesus died for those who might believe in him, with a purpose different from that for which a good shepherd would lay down his life for his flock. The passage clearly means no more, than that he was about to lay down his life for the good of his disciples, to rescue them from spiritual danger: and if we turn to vs. 10, we shall 1 See note (1) p. 271. gain some idea as to the way in which his death would benefit them: I am come,' says he, that they may have life, and that they may have it abundantly. In vs. 17, we find a specific purpose for which he laid down his life,-that he might receive it again. And though he does not in this discourse say that his death would be the means of diffusing Gospel-blessings among the Gentiles, he clearly declares, vs. 16, that other sheep, besides those of Israel, would be brought into his fold. 2.] In John xii. 32, our Saviour states distinctly one important consequence of his public death,that mankind at large would be led to attend to his religion, and great numbers, both Jews and Gentiles, to embrace it. A similar mode of expression occurs in ch. iii. 14; 'As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, the Son of Man must, in like manner, be lifted up; so that every one who believeth in him [may not perish, but] may have everlasting life.' That by the last clause our Saviour here means, 6 may possess the hope, may become the heir, of everlasting life,' is probable from ch. 24, where he says; He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life,'-not surely hath it in actual possession, but in prospect, in hope". How the death of Jesus gave that hope to every believer must be obvious to every one: it was itself the strongest confirmation he could himself give of the doctrine of life; and his consequent resurrection m This mode of expression illustrates the language of our Lord in John xvii. 5. See page 247. was by the Apostles regarded as a divine pledge of it; see particularly 1 Pet. i. 3, 4.-We yet find not the slightest reference to vicarious punishment or satisfaction, &c. The next expression is stronger. 3.] Matt. xx. 28. Even as the Son of Man came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many, douval Ty ψυχην αύτου λυτρον αντι πολλων So also, Mark x. 45, Jesus came to bring pardon and everlasting life, by Gospel promises and declarations to redeem men from iniquity: to assure and extend the blessings which he brought, he gave up his life; he could not otherwise have completed the grand scheme of spiritual redemption or deliverance, of which he was appointed the Mediator. He procured for us, then, the possession of those blessings by means of his death; and it was therefore. our ransom or means of deliverance. I do not know how to express my own sense of the importance and value, and, to us, the merit of his death, than by this, his own representation of it. It was, as we have already seen, the necessary means of our deliverance, yet was voluntary on his part; it was our ransom. If any imagine that the expression means more,-that it was literally speaking, the price paid to some one for our deliverance, I have only to say, that they must consistently maintain that the price was paid to God: but the Scriptures declare, that we are redeemed by the blood of Christ, from our vain conversation" (or conduct), and by his death reconciled to God.I Pet. i. 18. • Rom. v. 10. The import of this expression of our Lord appears to me so simple and clear, and so obviously accordant with Unitarianism, that I cannot see why it should ever have been cited against it. 4.] Assuming (what I regard as doubtful) that the words of our Lord at the institution of the Supper have a primary reference to his death, the first part, This is my body which is given for you,' implies no more than it says,-that his death was on our account, or for our benefit; and the second, though more particular, in no degree authorizes the doctrines of vicarious punishment or satisfaction, nor do I perceive how it can in any way imply them. Matthew has these words, This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins".' Mark has the same words, except the last clause, for the remission of sins.' Luke has, This cup is the new covenant by my blood, which is poured out for you.' And Paul, This cup is the new covenant by my blood '.' As Paul expressly declares, that he received his account of the institution from the Lord himself, and states it in order to correct certain abuses which had been connected with the Lord's-supper, I cannot but suppose that the preference should be given to his account. If so, our Lord made the cup the symbol of the new covenant, * Luke xxii. 19 ὑπερ. q See Matt. xxvi. 28. I Cor. xi. 25. * Τούτο γαρ εστι το αίμα Mark xiv. 24. Luke xxii. 20. μου, το της καινής διαθήκης, το περι πολλών εκχυνημενον εις αφίσιν ἁμαρτιων. * Τούτο το ποτηρίον, ή καινη διαθηκη εστιν εν του εμώ αίματι. * P |