David Thom – The Scripture Doctrine of the Atonement (1868)
THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE
OF
THE ATONEMENT
BY THE LATE
DAVID THOM, D.D., Ph.D.
AUTHOR OF “DIVINE INVERSION,” “DIALOGUES ON UNIVERSAL SALVATION,”
“THREE GRAND EXHIBITIONS OF MAN’S ENMITY,” “SOUL AND SPIRIT,” ETC.
——-
LONDON:
H. K. LEWIS, 136, GOWER STREET.
1868.
PREFACE.
The following pages will be found to contain a mass of scriptural, and consequently to lovers of divine truth, of satisfactory and delightful information, on a subject of all others the most important that can engage human attention.
The Atonement forms the grand peculiarity and glory of the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; and to have a clear and correct understanding of it, is as essential to the possession of our own individual peace as Christians, as it is, to an intelligent acquaintance with the entire system of divine revelation of which it forms the central truth.
The work now introduced to public notice is the result of a long life of patient thought, and laborious enquiry, the product of one who felt deeply the importance of the theme on which he has written, and who brought to bear upon it all the powers of a mind, highly gifted by nature, eminently cultivated by profound learning, and above all deeply taught of God.
It is the work of an accomplished and divinely instructed theologian, and presents the clearest statement of the nature, extent, completeness, and glory of the atonement, ever submitted to the world.
It may not for a time occupy that place in the rank of [vi] theological literature which is undeniably its due, but it will ultimately acquire, and having once acquired, it will permanently retain the eminent position it deserves in the standard writings of our country.
The subject of the Atonement has been and still is variously regarded. No theme has probably been more obscured by merely human reasonings, and rendered perplexing and unintelligible by the metaphysical distinctions of scholastic divines.
By many writers on the subject, it has been defined as “a provision in the administration of a government instead of the infliction of punishment on an offender” — as “an expedient that will justify a governor in suspending the execution of the threatened penalty;1” while by others it has been represented on the principle of commercial transactions: — the Saviour’s sufferings constituting the exact equivalent to man’s demerit.2
1 See the writings of Drs. Magee, Wardlaw, Jenkyn, &c. passim.
2 See the writings of Dr. Marshall — James Haldane, &c. passim.
By the former class of writers, the Atonement has been regarded as legislatively designed for the sins of the whole world, but sovereignly made efficacious only in the case of the elect; while by the latter the Saviour has been represented as dying only for believers, the great majority of the human family having their sins unatoned for, and being ultimately consigned to eternal torments to glorify the divine justice.
Indeed, among those commonly denominated the orthodox, productions on the subject of the Atonement have scarcely been anything more than the ringing of changes with some [vii] slight modifications according to the taste of their writers, on the views just presented.
By those not ranged under the banner of orthodoxy — the subject of the Atonement has again been variously regarded, but chiefly as in its effect being wholly moral, that is, as presenting such a manifestation of the love of God as is adapted to subdue the enmity of the human heart, induce filial confidence, and give at once a pattern and a stimulus to self-sacrificing submission to the will of God.
How refreshing to be enabled to turn away from so much that is unsatisfactory — so much that was evidently felt to be unsatisfactory by the writers themselves, to such views as are unfolded in the treatise before us.
To the mind of our author, the Scriptures present as their view of the Atonement, no mere display, no expedient, no sort of commercial arrangement, no make-shift to adjust what had unexpectedly occurred to thwart the plans of the Creator: the whole scheme on the contrary being the result of the purpose which he purposed in himself before the world began.
The Redeemer, it is shewn, did not come into the world to interfere with and prevent the execution of the penalty of sufferings and death originally denounced against transgression3 — on the contrary he shews his conviction of the rectitude and suitableness of that penalty by undergoing it himself.
3 See Gen. 3:17-19. Rom 6:23.
God is not represented as having undergone any change in his views and purposes towards the family of man in consequence of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. — He is not through Christ reconciled unto the world, but he is in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
[viii] He does not, as some have represented, punish the innocent instead of the guilty, but he shews most impressively the combination of justice and mercy in man’s salvation.
Jesus, assumed a nature which although sinful in us, was rendered sinless by his assumption and purification of it, and this as preliminary to its sacrifice on the cross; and through his essential oneness with us, and by the power of his resurrection, he has transformed the earthly into the heavenly, the creaturely into the divine, the shadowy and figurative into the real and substantial — the old creation for the new. — Divine justice is exhibited primarily in inflicting on ordinary human beings sufferings and death, and then in inflicting the same on him who temporally assumed our nature in order to our eternal salvation.
Divine mercy is displayed in and through the resurrection of Christ, as having satisfied the claims of justice in his death, we are made alive for evermore.
He takes away sin by taking away the nature that had sinned. He changes and elevates that nature in himself sinless and immortal; and he fully bestows upon us not the nature which Adam originally had, and which was of the earth, earthy, but the divine and heavenly nature to which he himself has risen, and which he imparts to us through his onenesss with us as the second man, the Lord from heaven.
God is exhibited as at once perfectly just and perfectly merciful, the just God, and the Saviour.
Redemption is disclosed, as consisting, not in our being saved from undergoing the consequences of sin, but in our fully undergoing all those consequences and yet being raised to the enjoyment of everlasting life.
The curse originally denounced against sin takes its full effect, [ix] but is in Christ — the head of every man — turned into a blessing. God is true alike to His threatenings and His promises. Not after having made certain demands, is he represented as receding from the strictness of those demands in consequence of the work of Jesus Christ, but his attributes of justice and mercy are exhibited to their fullest extent and in perfect harmony in human salvation.
The Atonement it is seen, owes its entire efficacy to the divine nature and character of him by whom it was made. It was the divine person taking hold of human nature — the curse denounced against that nature in consequence of sin attaching to him as having assumed it; and borne by him, and exhausted by him — sin is henceforth swallowed up in divine righteousness, and death in divine life.
And the extent and efficacy of the Atonement are shewn to be universal. As the Saviour died for all, so he lives on the behalf of all. The benefit of his death and resurrection so far from being lost by any, all shall ultimately and certainly enjoy: by none shall the purposes of his love be frustrated, he not being overcome of evil but overcoming evil with good.
The temporary and limited reign of sin, is thus, necessarily and delightfully subservient to the unlimited reign of grace through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
To the preparation of this work for the press, a considerable amount of care and attention have been given, and it is devoutly hoped that while its publication may prove a source of interest and profit to all who may peruse its pages, it will be especially acceptable to those who are familiar with the other publications of its revered author, many of whom had the rare privilege of listening to his ministrations and enjoying [x] his personal acquaintance and friendship. It is sent forth with the full conviction that the views it contains will prove instructive and edifying, and with many prayers that the divine blessing may accompany its perusal.
THE EDITOR.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
BOOK I.
THE SUBJECTS OF THE ATONEMENT.
DIVISION I.
THE SHADOWY CONDITION OF HUMAN BEINGS.
CHAPTER I. Man’s Nature Shadowy – page 3
CHAPTER II. The Character Ascribed to Adam Figurative – page 4
CHAPTER III. Deduction of the Shadowy Nature of Man, from the Existence of One Substance Only – page 6
CHAPTER IV. Old and New Creations – page 7
CHAPTER V. The Supposed Immateriality and Immortality of The Human Soul – page 11
CHAPTER VI. Non Restoration of the Original State and Life Forfeited by Adam – page 16
DIVISION II.
THE ACTUAL SINFULNESS AND DEPRAVITY OF HUMAN BEINGS, OR MANKIND CONSIDERED AS ACTUALLY TRANSGRESSORS.
CHAPTER I. Sin Exists – page 19
CHAPTER II. What is Sin? – page 21
CHAPTER III. The One Sin of the World – page 23
CHAPTER IV. The Many Offences and One Sin of the Jews – page 28
CHAPTER V. Unbelief – page 33
CHAPTER VI. Mankind in General, and the Jews in Particular, Alienated from God, and Enemies to Him in Their Minds by Wicked Works – page 35
CHAPTER VII. Exceeding Hatefulness of Sin – page 37
DIVISION III.
THE ACTUAL SINFULNESS OF MAN TRACED TO THAT INNATE AND ESSENTIAL ENMITY TO GOD, THAT NECESSARY WORSHIP OF SELF, AND THAT COMPLETE INDISPOSITION AND INABILITY TO EFFECT ANY RECONCILIATION WITH GOD BY EFFORTS OF ITS OWN, WHICH CONSTITUTE AS WELL AS CHARACTERIZE HIS NATURE.
CHAPTER I. Downward Tendencies of Human Nature – page 41
CHAPTER II. Proofs and Illustrations – page 43
CHAPTER III. The Downward Tendencies of Human Nature Contrasted with the Upward Tendencies of the Divine Nature – page 47
CHAPTER IV. Sin the Immediate Offspring, Not of Flesh, but of Law – page 50
CHAPTER V. Enmity to God Perpetuated by Flesh – page 52
CHAPTER VI. The Law of Moses – page 54
CHAPTER VII. Law Worketh Wrath – page 58
CHAPTER VIII. Are Flesh and Law the Sole Principles Concerned in the Display of Creature Enmity to God? – page 60
CHAPTER IX. Satan – page 71
CHAPTER X. Entire Genealogy of Sin – page 80
CHAPTER XI. The Entrance of Sin Not Accidental – page 83
CHAPTER XII. Sin Not an End, but a Means to an End – page 86
CHAPTER XIII. Earthly Termination as Well as Origin of Sin – page 90
CHAPTER XIV. Destruction of Creature Enmity, Destruction of Creature Nature – page 94
CHAPTER XV. General Statement and Inference – page 96
BOOK II.
THE MEANS OF THE ATONEMENT.
DIVISION I.
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ALTHOUGH MORE REMOTELY CONNECTED WITH THE ATONEMENT, WERE NEVERTHELESS INDISPENSABLE, AS PRELIMINARIES, TO ITS EXISTENCE AND EFFICACY.
CHAPTER I. The Virgin Mary – page 103
CHAPTER II. There is One Mediator Between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus – page 106
CHAPTER III. Jesus Christ came in the Flesh, or Took Part of Flesh and Blood – page 109
CHAPTER IV. Second Man and Son of Man – page 111
CHAPTER V. Jesus at once Son of God, and Son of Man; or the Natures of God and Man United in His Person – page 114
CHAPTER VI. Substantial Humanity – page 116
CHAPTER VII. Personality – page 121
CHAPTER VIII. Jesus Knew No Sin – page 123
CHAPTER IX. Nevertheless He was Made Sin for Us – page 126
CHAPTER X. Law, Sin, and Death, Substantialized on the Son of God – page 130
CHAPTER XI. Jesus the Jew, as Well as the Man – page 135
CHAPTER XII. The Word was Made Flesh – page 138
CHAPTER XIII. Moses’ Law Ordained by Angels in the Hand of a Mediator – page 142
CHAPTER XIV. One Substantial Righteousness – page 145
CHAPTER XV. Jesus the King even while Upon Earth – page 147
DIVISION II.
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY CONNECTED WITH THE ATONEMENT.
CHAPTER I. Our Great High Priest – page 153
CHAPTER II. Sufferings of Christ Intense and Substantial – page 157
CHAPTER III. Peculiar to Himself – page 162
CHAPTER IV. Obedience Learned by the Messiah by the Things which He Suffered – page 169
CHAPTER V. The Destruction of Christ’s Flesh and Blood Nature Absolutely Necessary – page 174
CHAPTER VI. Death of Christ – page 176
CHAPTER VII. Accursed – page 182
CHAPTER VIII. Was the Death of Christ Vicarious or Substitutionary? – page 189
CHAPTER IX. No Diversion of Punishment from the Guilty – page 202
CHAPTER X. Concerning Those Churches which are the Offspring of the Fleshly Church and the Effects of the One Fleshly Church on Them – page 205
CHAPTER XI. The Book of Revelation – page 219
CHAPTER XII. Descent of the New Jerusalem from Heaven to Earth – page 223
CHAPTER XIII. Particular and Universal Redemption and Salvation – page 226
THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT.
BOOK I.
THE SUBJECTS OF THE ATONEMENT.
“YOU THAT WERE SOMETIMES ALIENATED, AND ENEMIES IN YOUR MIND BY WICKED WORKS.”
[3] DIVISION I.
THE SHADOWY CONDITION OF HUMAN BEINGS.
CHAPTER I.
MAN’S NATURE SHADOWY.
SCRIPTURE asserts this fact in language so clear, forcible, and oft repeated, that had the pride of man been less, and his understanding of divine things greater than they are, it would long ere this have been received and reasoned from as one of the leading axioms of the philosophy of human nature.
Let me direct attention to a few express declarations of the sacred volume, respecting the shadowy nature of man.
Man that is born of a woman, is of few days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not. Job 14:1,2. Indeed, the whole of the chapter from which these words are taken, may be referred to, in proof of my assertion. We are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow. Job 8:9. Verily, every man at his best state is altogether vanity. Psalm 39:5. Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away. Psalm 144:4. All the days of his vain life, which he spendeth like a shadow. Ecclesiastes 6:12. All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; surely the people is grass. Isaiah 40:6,7.
Perhaps the shortest, most graphic, and most affecting statement of the shadowy state and circumstances of man, which occurs in the holy scriptures, is that given by the Apostle James, in the following words: What is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. James 4:14.
Who that believes in the truthfulness of God’s word, will have the hardihood to assert, that declarations such as these are not to be pressed too closely, being merely orientalisms, or strained and hyperbolical modes of expression?
[4] CHAPTER II.
THE CHARACTER ASCRIBED TO ADAM FIGURATIVE.
WERE it possible, that, after such distinct and unequivocal averments of the Holy Ghost, any doubts could remain as to what is implied in the fact of man being merely a shadow, these would be removed by a consideration of such passages of scripture, as treat either directly or indirectly of the figurative character of Adam, and of Adam’s nature.
That Adam occupied no higher rank than that of a type or figure, is stated, expressly, in Rom. 5:14. Adam was the figure of him that was to come. The rest of the chapter in which these words occur, is a splendid comment on, and illustration of their meaning.
The figurative character and condition of Adam is brought under our notice indirectly in 1 Corinth. 15:21,22. Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. As also, in the 45th verse of the same chapter, where the first Adam is declared to have been made a living soul, in contradistinction to the last Adam who was a quickening spirit. The sense of both these passages evidently is, that, by the introduction of death, the first Adam, the creature, was the type, figure, or emblem, of the Christ, or second Adam, the Creator, who is the introducer of life everlasting; and that soul, the mind of the first Adam, the creature, was the figure, or emblem, of Spirit, the mind of the last Adam, the Creator. Besides, the eighth Psalm, 3-8, in which the language which was originally applied to Adam, as constituted typically or figuratively head of the natural creation, Gen. 1:26-28, is applied to Jesus, the second Adam, as antitypically, really and substantially head of all things; Heb. 2:6-8; the words of the Apostle Paul, in Ephesians 5:30-32, in which after speaking of marriage, with an evident allusion to the case and circumstances of Adam and Eve in Paradise, he adds, this is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church; with numerous other passages [5] which will readily suggest themselves to the attentive, scripturally-informed, and spiritually-enlightened reader; all concur in establishing the fact, that Adam himself and his nature were merely emblematic or figurative.
The fact thus established leads directly to the two following conclusions:
1. That, as being merely a type, figure, or emblem, Adam’s nature has no real existence: real existence being predicable only of that, of which it is the figure or representation.
2. That as every shadow owes its origin to and is projected by, something that is substantial; and has a tendency, in proportion to the increase and culmination of light, to be reabsorbed in its substance; so, in Christ’s nature, as constituting its substance, has the nature of Adam, which is a mere shadow, a tendency to be swallowed up and expire. — Such, indeed, is its actual destination. As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly: 1 Corinthians 15:49: a consummation which, as the subsequent part of the chapter from which the quotation is made shews us is accomplished, by the nature of the heavenly man, which is substantial, swallowing up into itself the nature of the earthly man, which is shadowy. (See, especially, verses 53, 54, and 57.)
[6] CHAPTER III.
DEDUCTION OF THE SHADOWY NATURE OF MAN, FROM THE EXISTENCE OF ONE SUBSTANCE ONLY.
ALTHOUGH, from that supreme and unqualified reverence which is due to God’s word, I have preferred bringing forward, in the first place, direct and positive declarations of scripture in order to establish the shadowy nature of man, it has not been for want of premises from which I might at once and satisfactorily have deduced the same thing, in the shape of a conclusion. But I have adopted my present line of argument, in order to shew the richness of the evidence by which my cause is borne out and supported.
The circumstance of the shadowyness of man’s nature being directly and necessarily deducible from the existence of God himself as the only substance, is a view of the matter which, it appears to me, deserves not to be overlooked or despised.
Be it observed, that there exists, and can exist, one substance or essence only. That is, God himself. In him, as the only substance, all creatures, are but manifestations or shadowings forth. In him, they live, and, move, and have their being. Acts 17:28. Thus, the existence of God as the sole substratum or basis of being, and the shadowy character of all persons and things besides, stand necessarily to each other in the relation of cause and consequence.
And yet, manifestation is, essential, not accidental, to Deity. Therefore, although manifestation, in one sense, implies and must imply, the shadowy nature of the beings manifested; there must, nevertheless, be another and a different sense, in which substantiality may with truth be predicated of divine manifestation. — Let us see what that is.
[7] CHAPTER IV.
OLD AND NEW CREATIONS.
CERTAIN passages of scripture make mention of a new, as distinguished from an old, creation; and the sacred writings, as a whole, are constructed on the principle of the existence of this distinction.
Creation, that is, the old or natural creation, is generally understood and defined to be, the bringing into existence or making of all things out of nothing.4 In this definition, all classes of religionists, with scarcely a single exception, have expressed their acquiescence. Such, however, is not the account of the matter given by the Holy Ghost. By faith we understand, that the worlds were framed by the word of God; so that things which are seen WERE NOT MADE OF THINGS WHICH DO APPEAR.5 Hebrews 11:3. According to this divinely inspired statement, it was not out of nothing, as is commonly supposed, but not out of things which fall under the cognizance of our bodily senses, that the objects and circumstances which surround us were produced.
4 The work of creation is God’s making all things of nothing by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good. — Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, answer to the 9th question.
5 Eίς το μη εκ φαινομενων τα βλεπομενα γεγονεναι.
The language of scripture, just quoted, condemns equally two theories of creation, which appear at first sight to stand diametrically opposed to each other, and which have had pretty extensive currency in the world. First, that which asserts the making of all things out of nothing. And, secondly, that which asserts their having been constructed out of ύλη, or elements and materials of the same nature as the things which now constitute the visible universe. Neither hypothesis, it will be observed, meets and satisfies the statements of revelation. He who maintains, that all things were produced originally out of nothing; and he who, rejecting this as absurd, alleges that God took atoms, or material elementary principles pre-existing in a state of chaos, and formed these into the world as we now behold it; both equally, although in different ways, contradict scripture and matter of fact. [8] The one says, God made the world out of nothing; the other, out of elements with which the senses are conversant: while the word of God, setting aside both, declares, that it was created out of things already existing, but not out of things which do appear.
While the above language of the Apostle condemns equally the popular and the philosophical theories, by whatever names in literature and theology they may have been supported, it proves also, that what is commonly denominated creation, is, properly speaking, one of two species of manifestation. Spiritual and divine objects have a necessary and everlasting existence. These, however, in consequence of their being spiritual and divine, cannot by any possibility be presented, as they really are, to beings situated and constituted like man; and, thereby, lie beyond the reach of their profoundest and sublimest conceptions. As during our continuance in flesh, it doth not appear what we ourselves, when spiritual shall be, no more can other spiritual objects be discerned by us now in their true light, and invested with their real attributes. But they are to be in due time disclosed. And God, with a view to prepare for the ulterior manifestation of these divine and spiritual realities, gave temporary being to an inferior state of things, or called into existence the old creation. The things of which this old creation consists, did not, before time began, exist in their present-state form, or condition, or in the state of visible and tangible elements; and, therefore, such things are not made out of previously-existing natural materials: but as, in reality, natural objects have no existence in themselves, being merely shadows or representations of true and spiritual substances, therefore, such objects, instead of being made out of nothing, must as shadows be projected by, and derive their origin from, substances which do not now appear. And farther, while they constitute the shadows of heavenly and divine substances, they are also so many veils, behind which, the objects which they dimly represent, lie concealed from mortal gaze. The objects of external creation, then, are not real existences, but shadows or representations of real existences; and God, in the work of creation which stands recorded in the book of Genesis, was not making something out of nothing, but was making shadowy representations out of substantial, but unseen realities.
Thus are we furnished with two species of divine manifes-[9]tation. An inferior, and a superior one; a manifestation which is representative; and a manifestation which is real. The old or natural creation constitutes the inferior or representative manifestation of Jehovah: being, indeed, merely a series and system of shadows, projected for a time from those realities, which stand necessarily connected with the divine existence and nature, or from that manifestation of God which is substantial and unchangeable. What is denominated the new creation, on the other hand, is merely that very system of divine realities, of which the things of the old creation are the shadows: and as it constitutes that true, essential, and everlasting manifestation of Deity, of which the other was merely representative, so does it in due time absorb or swallow up in itself the old and inferior manifestation, restoring it thereby to that state of nothingness from which it originally proceeded.
Does any man of an infidelish turn of mind, whether religious or otherwise, venture to dispute my statements? To such an one, I recommend a little attention to the discoveries of modern science, especially to those of chemistry, which indicate the possibility, should I not rather say, the high probability, of the firmest and most stable materials of the universe being ultimately resolved into the form of gas or vapour. Or, will he have the goodness to try to come to some satisfactory conclusion respecting the comparative merits of the atomic theory, and that which asserts the infinite divisibility of matter. I do not contend, that reflections of this kind will render the sceptic a believer in revelation; for, were I to do so, I should contradict the scripturally-taught fact of God reserving to himself the prerogative of opening the eyes of the understanding to the discovery and reception of divine truth: but I do think and say, that enquiries of the kind suggested, if prosecuted calmly and to a sufficient extent, may, by showing the fugitive and shadowy nature of what is commonly regarded as substantial, restrain a profoundly thinking and sensible man from precipitately condemning the view which it is my great object at present to enforce.
To return.
The old or natural creation, then, was not the calling of the materials of which it consists, out of nothing, into real existence; but was the conferring of a temporary form of being, upon the shadows of unseen and spiritual substances.
[10] Like the old creation, the new, likewise, is manifestation. As in the former, God was making himself known, in connection with time; so, in the latter, is he making himself known, in connection with eternity. Disclosure and development of the divine character constitute the aim, as they are the consequence of the one, no less than of the other.
But there exist the following most important differences between the old creation or manifestation, and the new: —
First. The old creation is merely subservient and preliminary to a higher manifestation of Deity: whereas the new constitutes that higher manifestation itself; a manifestation which is ultimate and everlasting.
Secondly. The old creation of itself affords no manifestation of Jehovah: it yields its revelations of the divine character, only in consequence of having light thrown upon it by the new. And
Thirdly, the old creation being merely a shadow or representation of the new; having not even its temporary existence, except in consequence of the previous and everlasting existence of the new; and being thus entirely, and in every point of view, dependent on the new; is, whenever the purposes for which it has been temporarily set up are served and answered, superseded by, and swallowed up in, that from which at first it derived its origin.
[11] CHAPTER V.
THE SUPPOSED IMMATERIALITY AND IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL.
HERE, perhaps, some may be disposed to allege, that, in the immediately preceding chapters, I have been needlessly wasting my time and pains, in adducing proofs of that which nobody denies. Who calls in question man’s shadowy nature? it may be asked triumphantly. Almost every sect of religionists — almost every preacher and every writer on the subject — is my reply.
“What! man generally, nay almost universally, denied to be a shadowy being! Surely you must be jesting, or, if serious, bereft of your senses, in venturing to make such a declaration”! I fancy, I hear the majority of my readers exclaim. “Is not the fact acknowledged in the Burial Service of the Church of England;6 and is not the view one that is held by every sober and correctly-minded man in the country?”
6 In the 39th Psalm, one of the two appointed to be read on occasion of the interment of the dead, the following passages occur: Behold thou hast made my days as it were a span long: and mine age is even as nothing in respect of thee; and verily every man living is altogether vanity. For man walketh in a vain shadow, and disquieteth himself in vain: he heapeth up riches, and cannot tell who shall gather them. And at the grave, there is said or sung: Man that is born of a woman hath but a short time to live, and is full of misery. He cometh up and is cut down like a flower; he fleeth as it were a shadow and never continueth in one stay.
So far from retracting or qualifying my assertion, I reiterate and repeat it in the strongest terms which I am capable of employing. Almost all human statements on the subject of religion, are more than a virtual, are nearly equivalent to a direct denial of the shadowy nature of man. While many, perhaps most, admit and affirm, in words that the nature of man is shadowy; almost all hold in reality, and that in flat contradiction to themselves as well as to Scripture, that, in so far as his mind at least is concerned, his nature is substantial.
And the proofs of this, it is not difficult to adduce.
Two media of evidence or two sets of proofs, in support of my allegation will, I presume, be sufficient: one to be treated of in this, and the other in the subsequent, chapter.
[12] In the first place, then, the almost universally prevalent doctrines of the immateriality and of the immortality of soul, are inconsistent with the fact of human nature being shadowy.
As to the doctrine of the immateriality of soul, the application of my charge is self-evident. To maintain that the Soul is immaterial, and that it is indestructible, are, as all who are conversant with writings on the subject know, identical and convertible modes of expression. But if the soul be indestructible, then it is substantial; and if substantial, then it is not a shadow. That is, in so far as his mind is concerned, man, upon such principles, is a self-existent and independent being. What, however, saith the scripture? Why, that Soul is a shadow; and, as such, capable of being swallowed up in and thus being destroyed by, Spirit, its substance. This is clearly laid down in 1 Corinthians 15:45, compared with Romans 5:14; and was exemplified in our Lord’s resurrection from the dead, as well as in the experience of the Apostle Paul, recorded in Galatians 2:20: in both of which cases soul, or the mind of flesh, fitted for existence in time, is represented as being swallowed up in Spirit, or divine and heavenly mind, fitted for existence in eternity. To maintain then, that soul is immaterial; and at the same time to maintain that human nature, and of course soul as a part of human nature, is shadowy; is to maintain two self-inconsistent and contradictory propositions. But, argue Philosophy and divines, and with them chime in the great bulk of religious professors, whatever you may allege to the contrary, soul is immaterial. And this, because its energies are not necessarily impaired by disease; because it seems to be a kind of instinct of human nature to believe it to be immaterial; and because: — but, indeed, it is scarcely worth while going over the reasons which the pride, ingenuity, and sophistry of man, have conjured up in behalf of this imaginary and self-delusive idea. Well! all I have to say at present is, that if soul be immaterial, it must be substantial and indestructible: as such, it must be perpetuated in its present form for ever; and as such, all those passages of scripture which represent Soul as the mere shadow of Spirit — its substance; and which represent the former, which is creaturely, as being ultimately swallowed up in the latter, which is divine; must be given to the winds. My Lord Brougham’s ingenious and elegantly-turned, but sophistical remarks, in a recent and well known production of his, in which he follows out and attempts [13] to corroborate the views of his predecessor, Paley, must, in that case, be allowed to outweigh the infallible declarations of the Holy Ghost.
Nor is the doctrine of the soul’s immortality, less inconsistent with divine truth and the shadowy nature of man. He only hath immortality, saith the inspired record, speaking of God himself. No, say philosophers and philosophic divines, the soul of man, likewise, is possessed of inherent and essential immortality! That is, mere fallible men take upon themselves to ascribe to creature nature, what the scriptures expressly ascribe and confine to the divine nature: the creatures of his hand thus venturing, without apparently the slightest compunction, to give the lie direct to God! Need we be surprised, after this, at the insurmountable difficulties which, in every age, have been experienced by those who have undertaken to reconcile the human and heathen dogma of the immortality of soul, with the scripturally-revealed doctrine that human nature, soul as well as body, is a mere shadow? Indeed, it would have been an event altogether miraculous, had such persons been successful in their unhallowed speculations. Just consider some other texts of scripture, to which, in maintaining their favourite position, they necessarily run counter. God pronounced sentence of death upon man viewed as a person, or as a being, consisting of soul and body. Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Gen. 3:19. No, say divines, immortality is an essential attribute of man’s soul; and therefore, death, although pronounced upon man, was not pronounced upon it! God, by the mouth of the wisest of earthly monarchs, has declared, that which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts, even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath, so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust; and all turn to dust again. Eccles. 3:19,20: the life of man upon earth, being thus evidently described as a merely animal life, like that of the inferior creatures; or, there being assigned to man, as possessed of a merely animal existence, a termination corresponding to that of other beings possessing the same. No, say the class of persons alluded to, man has inherent immortality: and, therefore, there does not happen to him, what happens to the beasts; he, even in dying, having that in his animal nature which gives him pre-eminence above a beast! Because I live, ye [14] shall live also, says the Son of God, addressing his immediate disciples, and, through them, the members of the church in every succeeding age. John 14:19. No, say the popular divines, we are immortal, as to our souls, by nature; and, therefore, so far from its being through Christ that we live, we live necessarily, and independently of him. — As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive, is the language of the Holy Ghost, by the instrumentality of an inspired apostle. 1 Corinth. 15:22. No, say the same rash and ill-advised objectors, Adam could not and did not forfeit immortality, either for himself or for others; and, therefore, neither in him, could men, as to their minds, die, nor in Christ, could men, as to their minds be made alive! In this respect, they neither died in Adam, nor are made alive in Christ Jesus! I say, considering these and other direct contradictions of God’s word, which are involved, necessarily involved, in the ordinary doctrine of the immortality of soul or creature mind, can we wonder at the utter and hopeless inability of men, even the most learned, profound, and sagacious, to reconcile such a doctrine with the Holy Scriptures? And, as inconsistent with the divine oracle, so likewise is the doctrine of the immortality of soul inconsistent with all that falls under our notice. Man’s mind, as a mere matter of fact, had a beginning, no less than his body. We can point to the time when both came into existence, and when his career as to both commenced. Now what had a beginning, may also have an end. And such is actually the case with the human soul. It can no more have a future than it had a past, immortality. As we perceive its commencement, so likewise do we perceive its termination. Its substance, Spirit, or the mind of Christ, is no doubt immortal; and he who is now mortal, as possessed of soul, becomes immortal as possessed of spirit: but to predicate immortality of spirit, or that which as divine mind, is substantial, is a very different thing from predicating immortality of soul, or that which, as creature mind, is merely shadowy. Immortality is substantial life; and nothing substantial can be the attribute or property of a shadow, such as the human soul is.
When I deny, that the human soul is immaterial, let no man allege, that I materialize mind, or represent it as merely a species of refined matter. I do no such thing. I certainly deny, that the human mind is immaterial, in the sense [15] of being substantial and indestructible; but, knowing as I do, that the human mind is the image or shadow of divine mind, I do not confound its nature with that of the human body, which is, as to the elements of which it consists, the image or shadow of the divine body. Immateriality, in the sense in which I employ the term, does not stand opposed to composition of gross and earthly ingredients; but, as equivalent to substantiality, to shadowyness of nature and existence. Observe, I do not ascribe substantiality to body, and suppose soul to be shadowy; nor do I ascribe substantiality to soul, and suppose body to be merely shadowy ; but I regard soul and body as being both and equally shadows, and as being both and equally connected with a shadowy system of things.
[16] CHAPTER VI.
NON RESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL STATE AND LIFE FORFEITED BY ADAM.
A SECOND proof of the deep and widely-spread ignorance which exists respecting the shadowy character of human nature, presents itself in the almost universally admitted hypothesis, that there is to be a restoration of human beings through Christ to the state in which Adam was created, and which he for a time occupied: the state from which by transgression he fell.
This hypothesis proceeds upon the principles, of Adam’s state in Paradise having been intended to be a fixed and permanent one; of its having come to an end accidentally, through his transgression of a law, which he was fully able to keep; and of the best thing that can happen to man being, his restoration to the holy and happy state, which was, by his original progenitors, thus forfeited.
That is, expressed in other words, those who maintain this theory necessarily suppose, that man’s state and nature, instead of having been from the very first shadowy, were originally substantial; and that in virtue of their having been so, he ultimately and for ever resumes the situation, and appears in the circumstances, in which the fleshly Adam was originally placed.
All this, however, although supported by some of the highest names in theology, is mere romance; not only being destitute of scripture authority, but actually contradicting the inspired record at every step.
Adam’s state in Paradise was not, and never was intended to be, fixed and permanent; seeing that, if so, the divine purpose of the manifestation of God’s character through Christ Jesus must have been frustrated: that state did not come to an end by mere accident, and in spite of our first parent’s ability to keep divine law, for the result took place necessarily, in consequence of the prohibition issued by Jehovah having been brought to bear upon a mind which is enmity against God; which is not subject to his law, neither, [17] indeed, is able to be so: Rom. 8:7: and, so far from the best thing that can happen to man, being his restoration to Adam’s paradisaical state, on the contrary, the best thing that has happened to him is the utter impossibility of his ever again being restored to it, and of his ever again being subjected to the trials, risks, and dangers, with which it was necessarily connected and encompassed. Gen. 3:24.
The fact is, that the original state of Adam in Paradise, was merely shadowy or emblematic of that ultimate state of joy and happiness, towards which all things are tending, and in which they are destined to terminate. Compare Gen. 3:24, with Rev. 2:7. That state, indeed, is fixed and permanent: the principle, not of law, but of love which is the essence of law, there exists, abides and operates in all its fulness and all its efficiency; and on the enjoyments connected with it, there is no possibility of imposing stint or limit. And the reason is, that in the heavenly Paradise, the true and substantial Adam, not he who was merely his shadow, lives and reigns for evermore. A state of permanency and real enjoyment, which could not exist in connection with him, who was but a figure of one that was to come, Rom. 5:14, is thus brought into existence and realized, or, rather, is manifested as existing, in connection with him, who was at once Adam’s Son, and Adam’s Lord.
Under such circumstances, can those be said, with any propriety, to have been losers by the fall, to whom the forfeiture of a shadow is thus rendered subservient to their complete and everlasting enjoyment of its substance?7
7 Perhaps, those by whom I am understood, may recognize my argument, expressed in other and sublimer terms, in the language of the Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinth. 15:53-57: especially, in verses, 55-57.
If these remarks be understood, it will appear, that, through Christ, there neither is, nor can be, any restoration of the Paradisaical state in which Adam was created. On the contrary, there is the superseding and swallowing up of the shadowy Paradise of Adam, of Adam’s nature, and of every thing else that is connected with Adam’s shadowy state and circumstances, in the substantial Paradise, substantial nature, and substantial blessings, of the second Adam, the Lord from Heaven. Not more certainly does the shadow of the gnomon of the sun-dial, when the sun at noon-day is vertical or in the zenith, disappear in conse-[18]quence of being absorbed in its substance; than is time, and are all the things, persons, and circumstances of time which are merely at the best shadows of eternal realities, swallowed up in their respective substances, at the period of the meridian brightness of divine manifestation.
God, therefore, does not restore through Christ the original Paradisaical state of Adam, and the natural advantages which by transgression he forfeited. These passed away at once and for ever. But God does what is infinitely better. He so overrules matters, as that the passing away of the shadowy Paradise, becomes the means of the spiritual and substantial Paradise being attained to, and enjoyed for ever, by the guilty children of men. In the expressive language of the New Testament Scriptures, sin reigned unto death, not in subserviency to the earthly life of which sin had deprived us being restored, but that grace might reign, through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ, our Lord. Rom. 5:21.
[19] DIVISION II.
THE ACTUAL SINFULNESS AND DEPRAVITY OF HUMAN BEINGS, OR MANKIND CONSIDERED AS ACTUALLY TRANSGRESSORS.
CHAPTER I.
SIN EXISTS.
THIS is established by the word of God in such various forms of language, and through the medium of representations so numerous and diversified, that the great difficulty which I experience is to select and condense.
It is related, as a matter of fact, in the Old Testament Scriptures, that God, after having created man, issued to him the following prohibition: of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; Gen. 2:16,17: and that man disregarding this prohibition, and setting God’s threat at defiance, was tempted by the Old Serpent, and prevailed on by the woman, to eat of the fruit of this very tree. Gen. 3:6. Thus was sin first committed.
What is mentioned as a fact in the Old, is corroborated by the language of the New Testament Scriptures. By one man, says the Apostle Paul, sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Rom. 5:12.
During Old Testament times, the existence of sin is proved by numerous exhibitions of the divine displeasure against it. For instance: the submerging of the antediluvian world, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the extirpation of the nations of Canaan, and the judgments denounced against and inflicted on the Philistines, Nineveh, Babylon, and Assyria, all concur in establishing the fact. But by nothing is the truth in question more fearfully evinced, than by God’s dealings towards his favourite, but rebellious, people, the Jews. Their frequent chastisements, the oppressive yoke of foreign nations to which from time to time they were subjected, the Babylonish Captivity, and, [20] leaving Old Testament times, the awful catastrophe which befell their capital city and nation forty years after our Lord’s resurrection, as well as their state and circumstances for the last eighteen hundred years, attest the existence, prevalence, and demerits of sin.
The law of Moses abounds with proofs to the same effect. Its constant expiatory sacrifices, all declared, in a manner the most awful and impressive, that sin existed.
And so, likewise, did the prophecies. The future advent of a Messiah who was to be wounded for transgressions, and bruised for iniquities, not his own; and who was to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself; necessarily established the melancholy fact of sin’s existence. Indeed, every allusion to the future Saviour, in the Old Testament, was a virtual recognition of it.
As a matter of course, the previous existence of sin is proved by our Lord’s appearance in flesh, death, and resurrection from the dead.
That sin existed at the period of the first preaching of the gospel, we have an inspired apostle thus asserting, chiefly in the form of a series of quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures: there is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre: with their tongues they have used deceit: the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know, that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Rom. 3:10-19.
And that, although sin, in a most important sense, be already taken away, there is another sense in which it exists at present, and will continue to exist till the end of time, as is proved by the fact, that death still exists, and must while time rolls on, continue to do so. Death, we are expressly informed, is sin’s wages. Rom. 6:23. But death exists and reigns over all the members of the human family. Therefore, death existing, sin must exist likewise. The body is dead because of sin. Rom. 8:10.
[21] CHAPTER II.
WHAT IS SIN?
ALWAYS transgression, not of the law of man, but of the law of God. For sin is the transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4; that is of the divine law.
Now it matters not, in order to the constituting of sin, in what form the law of God may be imposed on man. It may be in the form of prohibition, as in the case of Adam; of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; Gen. 2:17; or it may be in the form of command, as is the case with the law issued to the Jewish people, by the instrumentality of Moses; the Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken. Deut. 18:15. But whether given forth in the form of prohibition or command, in order to the existence of sin, the law violated must have been imposed by God himself, and the transgression, consequently, must be a direct attack upon the authority of God. No violation of a law imposed by inferior authority can constitute sin.
This being understood, a vast mass of theological rubbish is at once and completely cleared away. No violation of human law, however atrocious it may be, and however deserving of punishment, is sin. Nay, violations of natural conscience, to whatever lengths they may be carried, and however great the depth and extent of human depravity which they indicate, cannot, without a gross perversion and misapplication of the term, be denominated sins. Sin is violation of God’s law only. Conscience is the principle of man’s law, and of moral judgments pronounced by men upon themselves and others for breaches of that law; and as the dictates of this principle vary in different countries, among different individuals, and in the same individuals at different periods of their lives, of course, they can never, by a duly and deeply reflecting person, be confounded with the law of God, which is one and invariable. Violations of conscience therefore, whatever they may be indirectly and of this we shall speak afterwards, as they are not directly [22] violations of God’s law, so they cannot properly be denominated sins.
Let no man allege, that it is my purpose, in the immediately preceding paragraph to represent violation of conscience as a light matter, or to contradict what the scriptures assert respecting the earthly and depraved tendencies of human nature. I mean no such thing. So far from this being my object, few have a deeper sense of man’s worthlessness and inherent enmity to God, than the writer of these pages; and few are more desirous to bring these facts constantly under the notice of others. But this does not require, that he should be guilty of confounding things that differ. While he represents the ordinary violations of conscience by mankind, as melancholy proofs of what the human heart is, deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, it is not necessary, surely, that he should elevate them to the rank, and call them by the name, which scripture appropriates to transgressions of the law of God. Both classes of evil spring unquestionably from the same root of man’s earthly, fleshly, and selfish, nature; but the one class do not directly trample under foot the law of God. Now, it is the distinction between what do, and what do not, directly violate divine law, that the author aims at obtruding on the notice of his readers. Man has transgressed the law of God; and man is every day and hour violating the dictates of conscience. And it is true, that the violations of conscience spring from the previous transgression of divine law. But it is the transgression of God’s law, and not the transgression of the law of conscience, which, if we are to adhere to scripture phraseology, merits the appellation of sin.
[23] CHAPTER III.
THE ONE SIN OF THE WORLD.
Behold the Lamb of God, saith John the Baptist, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29. This passage is read and listened to by thousands, who appear never to have had revealed to them the remotest idea of its meaning.
According to the views of almost every sect and class of religionists with which I am acquainted, all human beings are constantly committing sins directly against God: sins of heart, and sins of life. These personal transgressions are supposed to be in part the cause of their forfeiture of this present life, or to concur with the one transgression of Adam in bringing down on the individuals by whom they are perpetrated the wrath of God here, and eternal torments hereafter.
Now all such theories, however plausible and however extensively they may be acquiesced in, are false. They have not scripture, but the mere imaginations and reasonings of men, for their basis. Every spiritually enlightened mind, therefore, is bound, I should rather say, is enabled, to reject them.
The fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, which is an abstract of what the inspired record avers relative to this point, has settled the matter beyond the possibility of dispute; and upon its simple and explicit declarations all that I have to submit to my readers is founded.
In that chapter we find
That as there is but one righteousness, even that of Christ, in which the saved appear righteous before God; so there is but one transgression, even that of Adam, in which the whole human race stand guilty before him. And, as it is of the one divine righteousness alone, that eternal life is the consequence; so is it of the one human transgression alone, that death is the consequence. Compare verse 21st with verse 12th; and read carefully verses 15-19. And
That, although more than one divine law, the law broken by Adam, was never given to the human race in general; yet a whole mass of divine laws and institutions were given to the nation of Israel in particular. And that thus, although [24] only one transgression directly against God could be committed by the ordinary individuals of mankind, yet abundance of transgressions against him might and did characterise the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh. The grand principle of this distinction between the cases of Jew and Gentile being, that without law there can be no transgression.
In a word, according to the doctrine laid down in the chapter alluded to, as embodying in a brief pointed and contrasted form the sense of the rest of scripture, there is but one sin of the world, or one sin only through the commission of which the human race, as a whole, stand guilty before God; while there were innumerable sins, through the commission of which the Jews, as a nation, stood guilty before him.
Concerning mankind as a whole it is declared, that through one offence, or through the offence of one, many were made sinners; verses 17-19; concerning Israel it is said, that to them the law entered, that the offence might abound, verse 20.
These facts and reasonings, which are divinely revealed, being believed in, and thereby understood, we perceive that,
1. The one sin of Adam, is the sin of human nature. The evils perpetrated by other human beings, are offences committed by individuals, and can only at the utmost injure themselves or a limited number of mankind. Adam’s sin, however, as having been the sin of him with whom the whole human family are naturally one, — they having been in him at the time of his transgression, and inheriting his nature, — is the sin of all, or perhaps to speak more correctly, of the nature common to all. It is not so properly the original sin, as the sin. In Adam, and as one with him, human beings, young as well as old, became chargeable with it: and into the world, therefore, every man comes with the guilt of this sin attaching to his nature, that is, to himself; and, as the necessary result of this, under sentence of death. By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that, or in whom, all have sinned. Rom. 5:12.
2. None of the offences committed by Adam, subsequently to the transgression by which he forfeited Paradise and this present life; and none of the offences of his posterity, [25] however atrocious they may have been, or may be, always excepting the sins of the nation of the Jews; were or have been committed directly against God. The reason of this being, that where no law is, there can be no transgression; and that no law has ever been issued directly by God to mankind as a whole, since the law of prohibition given to them, in the person of their common ancestor Adam, while he dwelt in Paradise. But the one sin of Adam gave birth in human nature to the principle of conscience, or at all events was the means of its development: man having thereby become acquainted with good and evil.8 Now, as conscience is in every human being naturally the law or principle to which he is directly subject; as this law had its basis and origin in, or at all events was developed by means of, guilt; Gen. 3:6,7; as it is a law which is by every one from time to time violated; Rom. 2:15; 3:19,20; and as thus, offences are by every human being constantly perpetrated, if not directly against God, at least against a principle which God implanted, or called into exercise, in human nature, in consequence of an offence committed directly against him; it clearly follows, that in all the evil deeds perpetrated by human beings, although they sin directly against conscience, they nevertheless sin indirectly against God. Another mode of presenting the subject to my readers, will perhaps occasion my meaning to be better understood. There has been no more than one sin committed directly against God, by mankind as a whole: or by human nature viewed in the mass. That sin was the eating of the forbidden fruit. Gen. 2:16,17; and 3:6; with Rom. 5:12, &c. and 1 Cor. 15:21,22. The subsequent offences of mankind, innumerable, and frequently atrocious, as they are, have been committed only indirectly against God; and this, because the law which they directly violate, is not the law of God, but the law of conscience; or the obligations which every human being severally imposes upon himself in virtue of that formation in human nature of the sense of good and evil which resulted from Adam’s one transgression, and according to that measure of natural light and information [26] which mankind severally possess. Adam, our common ancestor, committed the one sin of humanity against God; we, his descendants, when our thoughts the mean while accuse one another, Rom. 2:15, or when we are brought under the lashings of bitter remorse, are made to experience such feelings, in consequence of our having committed sins against that principle of natural conscience, which, through the medium of his guilt, was created or at least enabled to exercise its authority.9
8 The tree, the fruit of which was eaten in express violation of the divine prohibition, was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen. 2:9,17. — 3:5,7. The distinction between good and evil, therefore, remained unknown, or conscience was not developed, until the one transgression had been committed.
9 Although Adam’s descendants are condemned and die only for his one sin, as having been committed directly against God, which none of the offences of Gentiles are or can be; yet those very violations of natural conscience with which Adam’s posterity are chargeable, while they are not the formal ground of punishment, nevertheless indicate their possession of the same nature as their common ancestor, and thereby the justice and propriety of the punishment inflicted upon both. But of this more afterwards.
3. According to the views just presented, it must be obvious that all the offences of human beings committed since Adam’s one transgression, (except the sins of the Jews, which were perpetrated against express divine law,) have been included in his one transgression, have flowed from it, in a word, have been mere effects and consequences of it. They have had their origin, to be sure, ultimately, in that same human nature from which his great and grievous one transgression was derived; but they have flowed from it, in consequence and through the medium of his one transgression having been previously committed: for as, except by means of it, natural conscience could not have existed, or at all events could not have been called into exercise; so, except by means of it, not one of the ordinary offences of humanity could have existed either. As Adam’s one sin, then, gave birth to natural conscience; so from that one sin, as from a copious and exhaustless fountain, every violation of conscience, or instance of ordinary human guilt, has flowed, and will to the end of time continue to flow. But that which involves or includes in itself all human guilt, must of necessity be greater than any one of the natural evils, or than all the natural evils put together, which have since by human beings been perpetrated. Hence are we enabled to see through, and get rid of the absurd and preposterous notions which are but too prevalent with respect to the extent and enormity of human offences. Awful and flagitious crimes, most assur-[27]edly, are murder, robbery, rape, and other offences of a similar kind, striking as they do at the well-being, nay, at the very existence, of civil society; and, therefore, they require, by the strong arm of law, to be repressed, and signally punished. But hateful, as they are, they are not, as our judges, and others ignorant of the gospel would represent them to be, the worst exhibitions of human nature. They are depths of evil, unquestionably; but the mind of man is capable of disclosing depths of evil lower still. All such crimes, even the vilest and most flagitious of them, springing immediately from Adam’s one transgression or the sin of the world, and mediately or ultimately from that earthly or fleshly nature in which his one transgression originated, are consequently, never in point of atrocity once to be compared with the transgression which is their fruitful parent. Rather let me say, they ought never to be viewed by the believer in any other light, than as affording illustrations of the depth of the depravity, and the extent of the abominations, which characterize a nature common to all;10 and which for a transgression, which, as committed directly against God, was greater than any and all of them, was deservedly and for ever accursed. While, then, persons who are unacquainted with the truth on which I am insisting, are liable to be affected with extreme surprise at those glaring specimens of human wickedness which are from time to time exhibited, as if some strange thing had happened, — some enormity, of which it is impossible that they themselves could have been guilty; believers of the truth as it is in Jesus know that all these proceed from a nature which they, themselves, in common with the culprits, possess, and are merely to be classed among the number of the effects of that transgression by which sin entered. To be enabled thus to view Adam’s one sin, as the source of, and as consequently including in its ample and capacious bosom, every subsequent human offence, or all the violations of natural conscience which have since distinguished humanity; and to view human nature, which is of the earth, earthy, as the ultimate source of the whole: is to have communicated to us an understanding of the truth: and, as it is what alone imparts a clear, correct, and self-consistent, so is it also what alone imparts a truly humbling, estimate of ourselves.
10 See Gen. 6:5; Job 15:16, and Jeremiah 17:9.
[28] CHAPTER IV.
THE MANY OFFENCES AND ONE SIN OF THE JEWS.
IN the immediately preceding chapter, I have shown, that by the world in general, only one sin was or could have been committed against God, no more than one divine law, and that in the shape of a prohibition, having been issued to the human race as a whole in the person of their common ancestor, Adam; and that, consequently, all the subsequent offences of ordinary human beings have been committed by them directly, not against God, but against conscience, a principle which was called into existence and activity through Adam’s one transgression. In this chapter it will be my business briefly to shew, that, by the nation of the Jews, numerous offences against God were capable of being committed and actually were committed, in consequence of the numerous divine laws, prohibitory and otherwise, to which they were subjected; and yet, that all these offences ran up into, and terminated in, one grand transgression committed directly against God, a transgression inferring on their part a punishment vastly more severe and terrible, than that which, upon mankind as a whole, had been inflicted.
First. The Jews as a nation, and they only, were subjected to numerous divine laws; and were thus rendered capable of committing numerous offences against God.
What I have stated requires no long and elaborate demonstration. The fact lies on the surface of the Old Testament Scriptures, and is continually referred to and implied, in the language of the New. The law of Moses, as it stands recorded in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, was restricted to the nation of Israel alone: it being God’s express declaration, in the 147th Psalm, that he had shewed his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgements unto Israel. And that he had not dealt so with any other nation. Verses 19th and 20th. And from this fact, the Apostle Paul, in the second chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, infers the greater culpability of the Jew than the Gentile; seeing that, while the latter merely violated the law of natural conscience, the former violated a conscience expressly enlightened by divine law: (compare verses 17-27 [29] with 12-16:) as well as, in the fifth chapter of the same Epistle, argues, that the entry of the law of Moses, and its imposition on Abraham’s fleshly descendants, so far from implying that they could fulfil it, was by means of their constant breach of it, and the superabounding thereby of the offence, made to manifest their utter inability, and consequently the utter inability of any human beings, to act up to its provisions and requirements. Verse 20th. The truth is, that the law was weak through the flesh. Rom. 8:3. Every new divine prohibition issued to the Jews, then, implied the possibility of a new sin being committed by them, seeing that the number of possible offences, is always in direct and exact proportion to the number of laws by which they are forbidden; and the actual matter of fact is, as is proved by their history and the divine punishments which were from time to time inflicted upon them,11 that as opportunities were afforded, every one of these divine laws, their possession of and subjection to which constituted the grand subject matter of their glorying as a nation, was by them violated.12
11 For an abstract of which, see the 78th Psalm.
12 How painfully interesting, and yet conclusive when viewed as establishing this position, the 1st chapter of the prophecies of Isaiah. — Read also, in proof of what is advanced in the text, the 1st and 2nd chapters of Malachi.
Secondly. All the offences of the Jews, as a nation, ran up into, and terminated in, one grand and crowning transgression committed by them against God.
From the moment that the people of Israel were subjected to the Mosaic laws and institutions, God, foreseeing their breach of these, had provided for their numerous contingent offences, certain appropriate expiations. By the shedding of the blood of bulls and goats, and by various other expedients they were to be purified from the guilt incessantly contracted by them, in so far as pertained to the flesh. But the conscience could not thus be purged. And, besides, the various atonements or expiations were, in themselves, merely typical or shadowy. They all pointed to, and derived their efficacy from, that blood of Christ, that real substantial sacrifice, of which we are afterwards to speak. Purgation from the guilt of sin, as pertaining to the conscience, before the Messiah came, was connected with faith in his sacrifice as future; purgation from that guilt, after he had appeared, died, and [30] risen again, was connected with faith in his sacrifice as having been offered, and as having, by being the anti-type of all the preceding sacrifices, brought them to an end. At this point, it was, that the one grand transgression of the Jewish people came in. Faith in the Messiah, as the end, substance, and fulfiller of their law, Rom. 10:4, and especially as the glorious anti-typical sacrifice, John 1:29, Hebrews 9:11-14; 1 Peter 1:18,19; Rev. 5:6-10, was the grand, the indispensable, duty, incumbent on them as a nation. Deut. 18:15-19, Acts 3:22-26. Rejection of the Messiah, after his appearance, was thus the grand sin which as a nation, they were capable of committing; the grand guilt which they were capable of contracting. Other and preceding sins, his blood washed away. Acts 2:38, 3:19, 1 John 1:7.13 But for the sin of unbelief in him, or the rejection of him by them, no expiation was or could be provided. Ibid: verse 27. Hebrews 10:26,27.13 It sealed down upon their consciences all guilt thoroughly and for ever. It was emphatically the sin of the nation. As Adam’s transgression was the sin of the world; so was rejection of the Christ, the sin of the Jews. And as Adam’s sin occasioned to the world the first death, or loss of this life; Gen. 3:17-19; so did the transgression of the Jews, occasion to themselves as a nation the second death, or exclusion from the kingdom of Christ and of God. John 3:3,5, Matt. 21:43; 22:7; 8:12; Acts 13:40,41,46,47; 28:26-28; Rom. 11:7; 1 Thess. 2:14-16; Hebrews 4:1,2; Rev. 21:7,8. In one sin was human guilt summed up and concentrated, natural death having been the consequence; just so, in one sin was the guilt of the Jews summed up and concentrated, spiritual death having been the consequence.
13 Everything acted and spoken by them against the Son of man, or all the injuries which they inflicted on the Messiah, and even their crucifixion of him, might be forgiven; but a word spoken against the Holy Ghost, or the sin of rejecting the Apostolic testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus, delivered under the guidance and illumination of the Holy Ghost, and attested by the miracles which he enabled the apostles to perform, as having been the sin of sins, had and could have no forgiveness. It was the second sin; it exposed to the second death. Matt. 21:31,32. — Also, Hebrews 2:1-4.
Probably by this time some of my readers have obtained a glimpse of a divine fact, towards which, by gentle and easy steps, I have been attempting to lead them. I mean, [31] that, as Gentiles were capable of committing only one sin directly against God, so the Jews as a nation were capable of committing only one sin directly against God likewise. The one sin of the world having consisted in Adam’s eating of the forbidden fruit; Gen. 2:16,17, with 3:6,19; the one sin of the Jews having consisted, not in crucifying, but in subsequently rejecting, the Lord of Glory. Luke 24:47; Acts 2:23,36,38,39; 3:14-19; 13:27-41,46; &c. &c. And yet, Gentiles, as we have seen, were capable of committing many offences indirectly against God, by committing all their offences, subsequently to Adam’s one transgression, against natural conscience, a principle brought into existence and operation by Adam’s guilt. In like manner, Jews were capable of committing innumerable offences indirectly against God, by committing all their offences, previously to their one grand transgression, against that divinely enlightened conscience, which was brought into existence and operation by the giving to them of the Mosaic Law. Thus some striking analogies, as well as decided contrasts, between the cases of Gentiles and Jews, obtrude themselves on our notice. There are analogies: for in both cases, we have one sin committed directly against God; we have each of these sins connected with innumerable offences against conscience; and we have each of those sins leading to and issuing in a death. There are also contrasts: for, the one sin, or that of Adam, is against a prohibition, requiring, in order to compliance with it, the slenderest of all abstinences, Gen. 2:16,17, while the other sin, or that of the Jews, is against a command, proposing the greatest of all advantages, even admission into the spiritual kingdom of the Messiah, in the event of its being obeyed; the offences in the one case, or in that of Adam’s ordinary posterity, were violations of natural conscience, and were committed subsequently to their one transgression, whereas the offences in the other case, or in that of the Jews, were violations of divinely enlightened conscience, and were committed previously to their one transgression; and the consequence of the one, or of Adam’s transgression, was a death, which implied loss or forfeiture of natural blessings already possessed, while the consequence of the other, or of the transgression of the Jews, was a death, which implied exclusion from, or being kept out of spiritual blessings, which by the perpetrators never had been possessed. Still, it is interesting to observe, [32] that the violations of natural conscience, subsequently to Adam’s one sin, by mankind in general; and the violations of divinely enlightened conscience, previously to their one sin, by the nation of the Jews in particular; agree in this — that each was derived from, involved in, and brought to a head by, that one transgression, whether of the prohibition given in Paradise, or of the command issued by the Apostles of our Lord, with which Adam and the Jews were respectively chargeable.
[33] CHAPTER V.
UNBELIEF.
DIFFERING in many particulars as the one sin of man does from the one sin of the Jews, there is nevertheless one point in which they completely agree. They are both the offspring of unbelief.
When God menaced Adam with death, in the event of his transgressing the one prohibition imposed upon him, Gen. 2:16,17, had he believed that God was the threatener, and that what God had threatened, he was able and determined to execute, he never would have acted as he did.14 But he listened to the creature, flattering him and Eve with the prospect of their becoming as Gods, Gen. 3:5, in preference to believing and being influenced by the threat of the Creator, and the first sin was the consequence. Ibid. 6.
14 This is clear, from the effects of faith having been uniformly obedience. See Rom. 4 throughout; as also James 2:20-25 and Heb. 11 throughout.
When God menaced the nation of Israel with expulsion from his presence, the forfeiture of their privileges, and exclusion from the heavenly kingdom, that is, with the second death, in the event of their transgressing the one command to believe in the name of his son Jesus, as the Messiah or Christ, had they believed God and trembled at his word, knowing that his truth, combined with his other attributes, infallibly ensured the fulfilment of the threat, they would not have been despisers, have wondered and perished. Acts 13:41. But having listened to their rulers, and to the flattering suggestions of their own proud and wicked hearts, in preference to believing God and being influenced by his promises and warnings, the second sin was the consequence.
And so, in every age, has unbelief in the divine character and testimony been connected with, and the fertile source of man’s transgressions. In the Gentile world, it was unbelief that first produced, and afterwards confirmed, human apostasy, as well as led to all the idolatry, superstition, and crimes, into which they plunged. Among the nation of Israel, we find unbelief manifesting itself at every step and [34] stage of their progress, and drawing down upon them the severest chastisements. And, since our Lord’s ascension to his throne, ignorance of the divine testimony, or positive rejection of its statements, may be shewn to be in one way or another connected with all the criminality of the human race.
In the sense of thus lying at the root of all human guilt, unbelief, although more especially the sin of the Jews, may well be considered and denominated the sin of the world. And Jesus may well be spoken of as the Lamb of God, who was to take it away; John 1:29; seeing that, not only was sin expiated by his sacrifice, but that, in the light of the spiritual manifestation of himself which results from his resurrection, and which is the privilege of every member of his church, unbelief, being swallowed up, is taken away and brought to an end, for ever.
[35] CHAPTER VI.
MANKIND IN GENERAL, AND THE JEWS IN PARTICULAR ALIENATED FROM GOD, AND ENEMIES TO HIM IN THEIR MINDS BY WICKED WORKS.
NOTWITHSTANDING all the care and scriptural accuracy with which I have endeavoured to express myself on the subject of man’s sinfulness, it would not surprise me to find, that my meaning had been entirely misunderstood; and that I had rendered myself obnoxious to a charge of attempting to do away with, or at the very least, to diminish, the extent and enormity of human guilt. This, of course, would be founded on my refusal to recognize as strictly speaking sin, any act of man which was not a direct and positive violation of a divine law; and my confining of the sins of men to two, the sin of Adam, and the sin of the Jews. Grievously mistaken, however, would those be, who, upon such a ground, would represent me as an apologist for human wickedness, or as wishing to throw a veil over the depths of evil and depravity which lie concealed in the human breast.
So far from holding, that there are any holy and heavenly tendencies in human nature, I believe, that it is naturally, necessarily, and entirely earthly, in its nature, constitution, and pursuits.
So far from believing, that there is anything really generous in human nature, I hold it to be essentially selfish in all its motives and objects: any generosity which it may exhibit, being merely the shadow of a generosity which is real, substantial, or, rather, being merely at the utmost the selfish principle itself clothed with the generous form. And,
So far from believing, that man has any capacity, by means of the natural powers with which he is endowed, to rise in his contemplations to the living and true God, and to be affected by views which are spiritual and divine, I am satisfied that he is chained down to the worship and service of self, or of imaginary beings to whom the cogitations of his own mind have given birth.
While I do not believe, that Adam’s one transgression produced human nature, or rendered it what it is, seeing that, it was of the earth, earthy, from its very origin, I am nevertheless satisfied, that it was Adam’s one transgression, which, by alienating man from God, or by bringing to an [36] end his native creature state of purity, innocence, and peace, opened up the fountains of evil already existing in humanity, and afforded the opportunity of that display of iniquity in all its varied forms, by which human nature has ever since been distinguished, deformed, and degraded.
As I am satisfied that it is impossible for human nature to give birth to any effect that is holy, heavenly, and divine, seeing that whatsoever is born of the flesh is necessarily flesh; John 3:6; so do I also believe, that there is no evil, crime, iniquity, and enormity, into which it has not plunged, and into which it is not capable of plunging. My authority for this is the word of God throughout;15 and especially, that fearful abstract of the sayings and doings of human nature, — that awful catalogue of the crimes and criminal dispositions of man, — which we encounter towards the close of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.16 That advancing civilization, accompanied as it always and advantageously is, with the increasing influence of public opinion, and a strengthening of the restraints of natural conscience, is sufficient to a certain degree to reign in the grosser propensities of the human heart, or, at all events, tends to prevent that open, unblushing, and hideous exposure of vice which under less favourable circumstances has taken place, I am not prepared to deny. For, although the histories, and classic pages, of Greece and Rome may appear to render the proposition questionable, the effects stated have uniformly followed the introduction and progress of civilization by means of Christianity. But, in spite of all this, let temptation be strong, let the passions be fierce and tumultuary, or let restraint be removed, — above all, let these various circumstances combine, — and nothing more is wanted to shew what is in man, and what, if left to himself, he is capable of perpetrating.
15 Gen. 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9.
16 See also 1 Corinth. 6:9-11.
Human nature, in a word, is the nature of an earthly and a fallen being. As the former, it never, and even in its first estate, was capable of rising to spiritual heavenly desires and contemplations. But as the latter, it has, through Adam’s one sin, had the fountains of evil, always, and from its very origin, latent in itself, broken up; and has thence emitted that deluge of crime and wickedness by which the world has in every age been overwhelmed.
[37] CHAPTER VII.
EXCEEDING HATEFULNESS OF SIN.
EMPHATICALLY says the prophet Habakkuk, addressing Jehovah Aliem, Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil; and canst not look on iniquity. Hab. 1:13.
Would to God! that religious system makers, of every kind, whether Socinian or Orthodox, had but understood this language, and kept it in view, when engaged in concocting their various representations of Deity. Had they done so, we should not, on the one hand, have been pestered with theories, which take away from the enormity of evil, by treating of it as what may be pardoned without an atonement; or, on the other hand, have had the God whose very nature it is to hate evil, charged with making his own well-beloved Son the minister of sin, by rendering him the medium of raising wicked beings from their graves to sin and suffer for ever, and of thereby perpetuating to eternity, what, upon such principles, except for his intervention, must have come to an end with this present life. We should not have had, by the former class, sin made to be a matter of small importance, and the work of Christ to be perfectly superfluous; nor by the latter class, sin represented as acquiring an existence which is independent of God himself, and a power which not even the Son of God, by his death and resurrection can control or overcome. Is either notion consistent, can either notion be rendered consistent, with what scripture declares concerning the intensity of God’s hatred of sin? What grievous enormity is there involved in that, which creature virtue or repentance, or both combined, can remove? And where is the sovereign efficacy of the blood of him, who was God manifest in flesh, if sin, the quality or affection of a mere creature mind, is capable of successfully resisting it, and setting it eternally at defiance? With the supporters of both views, as equally and necessarily derogatory to the divine character, I deprecate all communion. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour be not thou united. Gen. 49:6.
God hates sin. This, taught by his blessed word, I lay down as a first and fundamental axiom. And, therefore, the [38] only question which suggests itself to our consideration is, how is the divine abhorrence towards sin manifested?
Scripture never permits us for a moment to suppose, that God’s aversion to sin is shewn, either by winking at it, as if it were a light and trifling matter; or by imparting an eternal existence to it, as if it could not be got rid of: on the contrary, it assures us, that he destroys it, and the nature by which it has been perpetrated, as fitted only to act a part subservient and subsidiary to something else, whenever the purposes for which they have been summoned temporarily into existence have been accomplished. God’s hatred to sin and sinners is shewn, by not permitting it and them to continue in being one moment longer than those services are indispensable.
He destroys sin. This is uniformly represented as the grand effect of that offering of Christ, of which we are afterwards more explicitly to treat. The Lord Jesus, as the Messiah, hath appeared in the end of the world, age or dispensation, that he might put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb. 9:28. And, his blood cleanseth from all sin. 1 John 1:7. Instead, then, of sin running up into, or there being any possibility of its existing in, another and a higher state, it appears from the texts quoted, and innumerable others testifying to the same effect, that it actually ran down into the Lord Jesus, the ocean of righteousness and life, and was in and by him swallowed up for ever. It is thus, by the very nature and necessity of the case, confined to this present life, and excluded from every other. And God manifests his hatred of sin, not, as the orthodox suppose, by giving it everlasting existence, and thereby keeping it in his presence for ever — a mode of displaying the divine sense of its loathesomeness, which certainly could never have had any other origin than the imagination of a mere creature — but by taking hold of it, crushing it under his feet, and thereby ensuring its utter, final, and everlasting, annihilation.
He destroys likewise the nature from which sin has emanated. It is in this way, indeed, that he destroys sin itself. For sin being a product, — a necessary product, of human nature, when subjected to divine law, — neither in its cause nor in its consequences, neither in its essence nor in its phenomena, could it have been taken away, while the nature from which it necessarily resulted was suffered to remain. The nature of sin, that is, the nature from which sin proceed-[39]ed, was, therefore, taken hold of by the Son of God, when he made his appearance in the likeness of sinful flesh. And taken hold of by him, not for the purpose of perpetuating it, but in order to its being destroyed by him, by means of his sacrifice on the cross. In this way, then, does God display his hatred of sin, by destroying, in the flesh and blood of his well-beloved Son, the very nature from which it has proceeded; and thereby, instead of opening up to it an entrance into the heavenly regions, and conferring upon it everlasting existence, rendering it impossible that it should ever exist again, or obtrude itself beyond the precincts of this present world. He has not contented himself with lopping off some of the branches of sin, but has, in the complete and everlasting destruction of human nature, eradicated its very cause. God hates sin, which rests upon us now, as bearing the image of the earthy; his hatred to sin he carries into effect and displays, not by perpetuating hereafter the image with which sin is inseparably connected, but by swallowing up it and all its consequences in that image of the heavenly, which he gives us, as one with the Son of God, to bear for ever.
The destruction of sin is rendered possible and ensured, in consequence of the nature by which it was committed being shadowy, and the nature by which it is destroyed being substantial. Had sin been a substance, or the act of a being possessed of a substantial and independent nature, it must without fail have been perpetuated for ever. For, as it would, in that case, have proceeded from a being who had at least equal power with the sinless one, it must have been able to maintain at least an equality of existence with him. We should thus have had the good and evil beings engaged for ever in a deadly and interminable conflict. That is, holding sin to be substantial, or the act of a substantial nature, we plunge into downright Manicheanism. And, indeed, what is the doctrine of the necessarily eternal existence of sin hereafter, as held by the orthodox, but merely a modification of the Manichean theory? What is it, but the setting up of an eternal and indestructible rival to Jehovah himself? Blessed be God! however, we know, that every view of sin as eternal, and, therefore substantial, is false. Sin entered, not independently of God, but in virtue of his decree; and entered not that it might exist for ever, but that, after having accomplished the purposes for which a temporary existence had been bestowed [40] upon it, it might be swallowed up and destroyed. Rom 5:21. It was a shadow, rendered necessary in the dawn of divine light; a foil, or set off, requisite to the display of the divine perfections. But when Christ, the substance, came; and when the light of God’s glory shone on him in all the bright effulgence of its noon-tide rays; every shadow, and sin among the rest, was in him, as a matter of necessity, absorbed for ever.
[41] DIVISION III.
THE ACTUAL SINFULNESS OF MAN, TRACED TO THAT INNATE AND ESSENTIAL ENMITY TO GOD, THAT NECESSARY WORSHIP OF SELF, AND THAT COMPLETE INDISPOSITION AND INABILITY TO EFFECT ANY RECONCILIATION WITH GOD BY EFFORTS OF ITS OWN, WHICH CONSTITUTE AS WELL AS CHARACTERISE HIS NATURE.
CHAPTER I.
DOWNWARD TENDENCIES OF HUMAN NATURE.
The first man, we are expressly informed by the word of God, was of the earth, earthy. 1 Corinth. 15:47. And as he was, such is also his posterity. Ibid. 48.
Assuming these divinely revealed facts as the basis of our present remarks, analogy would appear to suggest, that as the body of man had its origin in earth, Gen. 2:7, so into its primitive elements it must, from its very nature, have had a tendency ultimately to be resolved. Hence the appropriateness of the sentence pronounced upon man: Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Gen. 3:19.
But not merely his body, his mind likewise was earthy. It was called into existence subsequently to his body; it was accommodated in all its manifestations to the frame of that body, especially to its cerebral organization; and, beginning as well as ending with his body, it was made to depend on its corporeal partner, at every step, and throughout the whole period, of his mortal career. An earthly mind was thus suitably connected with an earthly body; or man’s nature, however superior in certain respects to that of the brutes, was essentially, and in every department of it, animal like theirs. The phrase, living creature,17 which frequently occurs in the first and second chapters of Genesis,18 with reference equally to man and beast, affords striking and irrefragable evidence of the truth of this.
17 Greek ψυχη ζωσα.
18 Chap. 1:20,21,24,30, Chap. 2:19.
[42] From the latter fact, of the earthliness, fleshliness, or animal nature, of man’s mind, or of its exact and thorough adaptation to his corporeal frame, an obvious conclusion follows. A mind that is essentially earthly, must have essentially earthly propensities. Its tendencies must all be downwards. To suppose the reverse, would be to suppose its possession of tendencies inconsistent with, and in opposition to, its nature. This, however, cannot be. As water, when left to itself, cannot rise above its own level; so no more can either the body or the mind of man, with an earthly origin and nature, when left to itself, be distinguished by higher than earthly propensities.
It affords no valid objection to this, that, in consequence of man having been created after the image of God, there was involved in his very nature a disposition to aspire, an instinctive tendency to elevate himself above his original state and condition. For this disposition and tendency, existing in a mind which was essentially earthly, necessarily exhibited itself in aiming at a mere earthly superiority, or through the medium of acts corresponding to its own earthly nature. In sinning, man’s object unquestionably was to become as God; Gen. 3:4-6; but as he was prompted to sin by an earthly mind, so the real tendency of what he did was to an earthly result. Ibid: 19. So decidedly earthward was every propensity of man’s natural and fleshly mind, that even his disposition to rise, urged him to conduct which precipitated his fall; or, by aspiring to an equality with God, he was reducing himself to a level with the brutes that perish. Thus it was, that his attempts to rise upwards, became in reality indications of the inherently downward tendencies of his nature.
Human nature, then, or the constitution of man’s mind as well as body, we conclude from the premisses with which we are furnished by scripture, of necessity tends downwards or away from God.
[43] CHAPTER II.
PROOFS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
LET no one imagine, from the manner in which I have just expressed myself, that the necessary and inevitable tendency of human nature to go downwards, and thereby to depart from God, is a mere inference of my own. So far from this, facts illustrative of it constitute no small portion of the divine record. Allusions to a few of the more important of these which are brought under our notice in the Old Testament Scriptures, together with a brief sketch of the argument which is prosecuted by an inspired Apostle in the New, will, I presume, be held sufficient to establish my position.
The earthly or downward tendency of man’s nature appears in the case of Adam. He was created naturally upright; but unable to avoid listening to the creature, rather than to the Creator, he fell from his integrity.
The same thing appears in the case of mankind before the flood. Not only did Cain’s posterity become worse and worse, committing every kind of violence, and plunging greedily into every species of iniquity; but even the sons of God, or descendants of Seth, by forming close and improper connections with these children of men, became themselves likewise fearfully and thoroughly deteriorated. Gen. 6:1-6. At last all, with very few exceptions indeed, appeared involved in one mass of corruption. The earthliness of their nature exhibited itself in the unrestrained indulgence of every earthly propensity. — Then came the flood, and swept them all away.
It appears in the case of the Gentiles, subsequently to the re-peopling of the earth by Noah, and his descendants. A few generations, perhaps one generation, had not passed away, before men of every description, forgetful of the deliverance vouchsafed to their fathers, were found rushing headlong into idolatry, with all its concomitant abominations. Checks upon this were occasionally imposed; and awfully severe judgments, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, were occasionally inflicted. But in vain. The progress of mankind downwards nevertheless went on. Barbarous nations exhibited the earthly tendencies of human nature, in [44] their grossest and most debasing forms. Nor did civilization and refinement do more than throw a veil, if they did even that, over the increasing indulgence of the worst passions, and vilest propensities. Greece and Rome, while they displayed the intellect of man in its highest state of cultivation, displayed, at the same time, his conscience thoroughly darkened and seared over; his moral feelings blunted; his affections perverted; and his sublimated notions of God either into mere abstractions, or embodied in the most revolting external forms and vices: in a word, displayed intellect actively engaged, not in leading men to God and shewing forth his praise; but, by pandering to the worst passions of humanity, and debasing man to the level of the brute, in pouring all the dishonour possible upon his holy and blessed name.
This downward tendency of human nature appears most strikingly and painfully exemplified in the case of the Jews. With a law given forth by Jehovah himself, possessed of privileges such as to no other people ever were conceded, and defended by constant visible interpositions of the Most High, no nation ever appeared to the eye of sense to have such inducements, or to be more likely, to advance in their intellectual, moral, and religious career, as did the highly favoured descendants of Abraham. But matters turned out quite otherwise. No nation ever departed from Jehovah to such lengths, or plunged into such depths of earthliness and wickedness, as they did. Their tendency downwards, indeed, when compared with that of the Gentile world, seems evidently to have been in the direct ratio of the superior privileges which they enjoyed. Scripture is full of their misconduct. It points it out as displayed in the Wilderness. It traces its growth through all the subsequent periods of their eventful history. It shews them subjected, from time to time, to the oppressive sway of neighbouring and hostile nations, on account of it. By means of perseverance in it, the ten tribes are shewn to have been at last removed from the land of Canaan, never again to resume possession of their former settlements. To the growing defection, rebellious conduct, and idolatry, of the remaining two tribes, the same scripture traces the Babylonish captivity; while to their stubborn perseverance, and even advance in wickedness, exhibited in rejecting the Apostolic message of mercy, and justifying their crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, it traces their [45] final and everlasting exclusion from heavenly blessings. In their case, human nature went backwards and downwards, as far as it could go; and upon their heads, therefore, divine justice descended clothed with its most terrific and yet righteous attributes.
Thus, then, in the cases instanced, the downward tendency of human nature is most impressively exhibited to us, by the Old Testament Scriptures, under four distinct forms. In Adam’s case, we perceive its tendency to go down earthwards, even when in a state of purity; in that of the antidiluvian world, when under the influence of mere appetite; in that of the post-diluvian Gentile world, when under the influence of intellect, refined and cultivated to the highest degree; and in that of the Jews, when under the influence of a conscience informed and enlightened,19 by direct and immediate divine communications. Does it not then appear, that the necessarily downward tendency of human nature, so far from being merely an inference of mine, deduced from man’s earthly origin and constitution, is expressly taught from above as a fact by the Holy Ghost?
19 Not renewed. To possess a spiritual and heavenly conscience, is the privilege, not of the Old Testament, but of the New Testament, Israel.
The argument from the New Testament Scriptures, in favour of the same grand although melancholy truth, remains. This we shall dismiss briefly.
We encounter the argument in the first and second chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. In the former of them, the Apostle shews, in general, that for God to vouchsafe any kind or degree of revelation of himself to man, while he is left under law, — whether it be the law of natural, or that of divinely enlightened, conscience, — is to ensure, not the advancement in divine knowledge, purity, and correct practice, of the individuals to whom the communication is thus made, but their progressive, and rapidly increasing, deterioration. Man never, under such circumstances, chooses to retain, because it is contrary to the tendencies of his nature to retain, God in his knowledge. Whatever views of God may be imparted to his fleshly mind, he necessarily and systematically parts with. He becomes vain in his imaginations, and his foolish heart is darkened. Rom. 1:21. From this, the plunge into idolatry, into the most abominable vices, and into an exhibition of the most hateful and debasing tempers, [46] is, from the native earthliness of his mind, certain and precipitous. — Ibid. 22, to the end. — In the latter of the two chapters, the question is taken up and considered specifically, with a reference both to Gentiles and Jews: it being shewn, that neither of them kept the laws to which they are respectively subjected. Gentiles violate continually the law of natural conscience; Jews, that of divinely enlightened conscience. And this, in such a way and to such an extent, that the increasing restraints of law, merely imply increasing breaches of them: Gentiles and Jews plunging into guilt, just in exact proportion to the degree in which they are subjected to law. A fact which lays the foundation of his grand inference, that divine law, so far from justifying, can only, in consequence of man’s necessary and incessant violation of it, contribute to the knowledge of sin, and thereby to the confirmation and perpetuation of a sense of guilt in his conscience. Rom. 3:19,20. Thus it is, that the charge which, in the first chapter, was proposed generally, is, in the second, rendered specific, by being fastened both on Jews and Gentiles; and human nature is, in the case of all, proved to have an invincible tendency, not in an upward, but contrariwise in a downward direction.
Let the chapters themselves be consulted, with a view to satisfaction on this point.
[47] CHAPTER III.
THE DOWNWARD TENDENCIES OF HUMAN NATURE CONTRASTED WITH THE UPWARD TENDENCIES OF THE DIVINE NATURE.
THE downward tendency of the human mind is, be it observed, not a mere accident, manifesting itself under certain disadvantageous circumstances and not otherwise; but is essential to its very nature and constitution.
Analogy, we have seen, favours this view. That earth and earthly things should be the ultimate objects of man, or that all his affections, desires, and purposes, should tend earthwards, seems to follow necessarily from his origin. As he came from the dust, so towards the dust it seems but reasonable to conclude that all his dispositions and propensities should be directed. Scripture, we have seen likewise, confirms this view. Let me say rather, states that as a matter of fact, which we had previously offered in the shape of a mere conclusion.
The truth is, that, from the earthly, fleshly, and animal, constitution of man, both as to body and mind, he is fettered down to the earth on which he treads; necessarily points thitherwards in all his thoughts, feelings, and desires; and labours under a total incapacity, by any means whatever, of directing his mind upwards.
It is in vain to allege, by way of refuting this, the amazing progress in literature, science, and civilization, which in every age, and particularly in these latter times, mankind have been making. Instead of invalidating, this very circumstance confirms, my proposition as to the necessarily earthward tendencies of human nature. Laying for the present the discoveries of Revelation out of the question, as springing from, and as being productive of, a nature superior to that of man, there is no mere human pursuit, nothing with which we are conversant as men, which points higher than this present world. Scientific and literary pursuits, nay, even the ends aimed at by the cultivation of human morals, are all bounded by time. Man’s mind, to be sure, is the grand instrument by which all schemes and projects are conceived of, embarked in, and carried on; and the improvement of his mind is one of the objects for which avowedly [48] many of them are undertaken. For what shall we eat or what shall we drink, or wherewithal shall we be clothed? do not formally exhaust the category of human aims and pursuits. But the mind itself, be it remembered, is merely one constituent portion of a nature, which, although compound, belongs essentially to the earth. The mind is fleshly; and, thereby partakes of the tendencies of the frame with which it is connected. It begins and ends with time; and therefore, its greatest and most boasted improvements can have but earthly, fleshly, and temporal results.
We are now prepared for considering the tendencies of God’s mind, as exactly and in every respect the opposite of the tendencies of man’s mind.
Knowing nothing of God, except as he is revealed to us in Christ; indeed, Christ being God to us, as well as with us; John 14:9; Matt. 1:23; it is from the divine nature as displayed in Christ, and not from abstract theories of our own, that all our acquaintance with, and all our conception of, the opposition subsisting between it and the nature of man, can by any possibility be derived.
As man’s nature went upwards from earth, or appeared for a while raised above it, and yet, this merely, that in due time it might return thither; Gen. 2:7; 3:19; so God’s nature came downwards from heaven, or appeared for a while depressed below it, and yet, this merely, that in due time it might return thither. Matt. 1:20-23; 1 Timothy 3:16; Acts 1:9. And not more certainly has the nature of man, in every age, notwithstanding its temporary elevation, tended downwards, or towards earth the place of its origin; than has the nature of God in Christ, and in the members of his church, notwithstanding its temporary depression, tended upwards, or towards heaven the place of its origin. So decidedly, indeed, do these respective tendencies take effect, that, as nothing could prevent the first Adam, with his posterity, from returning ultimately to the earth, from which he was temporarily raised; so could nothing prevent the second Adam, with his posterity, from returning ultimately to the heaven, from which he temporarily descended.
In these few simple facts, gathered from the scriptures, have we set before us the diametrical opposition, as to their respective tendencies, subsisting between the mind of man, and the mind of God. The one points constantly and necessarily in a direction exactly the reverse of that of the [49] other. The one, tends to the earth, downwards; the other, to heaven, upwards.
And this opposition is irreconcilable. By no efforts, either of God or man, can the tendencies of human nature be made to rise upwards; or the tendencies of the divine nature be directed downwards. While constraint is on the one or the other, as in the case of man raised above the clods of the valley, or in that of God depressed below the heavens, the persons of man, and of him who is man’s superior, may be retained for a time in situations adverse to their respective natures. But as the stone to whatever height it may be projected, when left to itself, returns, with gradually increasing velocity to the earth; and as the bow, when unstrung, resumes of necessity its straight form; so does each of these natures, the human and the divine, when left to itself, return, the one to the earth from which it was taken, and the other to the heaven from which it temporarily descended. Yet, let me correct myself; and this, by anticipating, what I am afterwards at greater length to demonstrate. There is not merely a possibility, there is an absolute certainty, of these diametrically opposite natures of God and man being reconciled. But it is not by both of them continuing as they are. For, while they both exist, they must, by the very necessity of the case, be at antipodes the one with the other. Their reconciliation is effected, by the one swallowing up into itself, and thereby destroying, the other. This is what the temporary restraint imposed by the divine nature upon itself, in the person of the Son of God, has accomplished. By descending from the heavens, the Messiah has met, and united himself to, the nature which was made to ascend from the earth. And although he has not succeeded in improving the nature of the earth-born man, an object, indeed, at which he never aimed; although that man, and his posterity, as they ever have been, so they ever must be, mentally as physically prone towards earth, the place of their origin; yet the heaven-born man has done what is infinitely better. By uniting the earth-born man and his posterity to himself, he has effected, through his own death, the destruction of their earthly nature; and swallowing up that nature, with all its consequences, in himself, by his resurrection, he has succeeded in carrying them upwards with him, conformed to his own divine nature, and partakers of his own heavenly felicity, for evermore.
[50] CHAPTER IV.
SIN, THE IMMEDIATE OFFSPRING, NOT OF FLESH, BUT OF LAW.
ATTENTION to the statements already made, and the scriptural reasonings by which I have enforced them, must satisfy every enlightened Christian, that I do not represent flesh, or the fleshly constitution of man, as being of itself and directly the source of man’s enmity to God.
To obviate all misapprehensions as to this matter, as well as to bring out my meaning more fully and distinctly, I observe, that,
1, Man, although created with a fleshly body and fleshly mind, did not on that account merely commit transgression. His tendencies were no doubt from his very origin suitable to his constitution, and as such earthly and fleshly like itself; but his feeling and acting agreeably to his nature, could never of itself have rendered him chargeable with guilt. Brutes, comply with the instincts of their respective natures, without incurring either praise or blame.
Such, likewise, must have been the case of man, had nothing more than his fleshly constitution been concerned. Considered merely as a being of flesh and blood, and as possessed of a mind and propensities corresponding to his corporeal frame, no action of Adam could by any possibility have inferred guilt.
2. When a divine prohibition was issued to a being created and constituted as Adam was, his state and circumstances relatively underwent a material alteration. An opening to the commission of sin was thereby made. His fleshly constitution, previously guiltless and incapable of incurring guilt, had now an opportunity of displaying itself in a new light, and invested with new attributes. It now became capable of transgression. And it did transgress. Man, by breaking God’s law, and not by merely indulging the propensities of his nature, shewed himself to be God’s enemy; and, in the one transgression of his, laid the foundation of evincing that innate and irreconcileable hostility of his nature to that of God, which was afterwards and by other methods fully and [51] satisfactorily brought out. What, except for divine law, might have obeyed guiltlessly the dictates of its own instincts and inclinations for ever, became, through disobedience to that law, involved in guilt and misery.
Understanding this, it appears, that from man’s fleshly nature alone and directly, sin did not emanate, and never could have emanated. Man created as he was, and left to himself without divine interference, never could have exhibited himself as the enemy of God. A divine law behoved to be issued to him, or it was requisite that something over and above the constitution of his nature should intervene, before he could become chargeable with transgression, that is, before an opportunity of evincing the enmity of his nature to that of God, could be acquired by him.
[52] CHAPTER V.
ENMITY TO GOD PERPETUATED BY FLESH.
AS in the fleshly constitution of the human mind, enmity to God began; so by that constitution is the enmity maintained and perpetuated.
Man’s mind is still earthly, limited, and unacquainted with any being superior in rank to himself. Consequently, all those elements are still in existence, and still in action and incessant operation, from which, as we have just shewn, the original exhibition of human nature proceeded. This being the case, every thing which stimulates into exercise the natural powers of man, must stimulate into exercise the principle of enmity to God. The various temptations addressed to fleshly appetite are productive of this effect.
The limited nature of man’s intellectual faculties leads to the same result. And this, by compelling him to attach an importance to human objects and pursuits which is utterly disproportionate to their real value. “His small horizon” being “bounded by a span,” and he contemplating with a microscopic eye whatever lies immediately before him, the employments with which he is occupied, and the pursuits in which he is engaged, sees them assuming a magnitude, and invested with a desirableness, which induces him to devote to them his entire and undivided energies. But this, not without checks from conscience. By acting in the teeth of such checks, has the principle of enmity to God another opportunity of manifesting itself. For, apart from the original imposition of divine law, and the consequent existence of the tribunal of conscience, man’s adopting views and embarking in pursuits, corresponding in their nature to the limitation of his own faculties, never could have rendered him amendable to a charge of guilt. Conscience suggests to him, that there is something of more importance than the concerns of gain, the struggles of ambition, and even the cultivation of intellect. Notwithstanding all this however, the pleasure which he derives from active and engrossing oc-[53]cupation, or from mental refinement, prompts him to disregard the checks and intimations of his internal monitor; and to throw himself, heart and soul, into the pursuit of whatever object may have arrested his fancy. And the more ardently and devotedly, in opposition to the warnings of conscience, he abandons himself to the prosecution of his aims, the more guilty must he appear to himself to be. In this way, then, by necessarily constraining to the violation of conscience, and thereby indirectly to the violation of divine law, is the limited nature of the human faculties, and of the pursuits and engagements to which human beings thereby are impelled, one means of bringing out and exhibiting the existence in man of the principle of enmity to God.
[54] CHAPTER VI.
THE LAW OF MOSES.
UPON the principles which have been laid down, all enmity to God on the part of ordinary human beings is exhibited through the medium of that necessary tendency to violate conscience, and those constant actual violations of it, by which fleshly mind is distinguished. For, although the fleshly mind has by nature tendencies contrary to those of the mind of God, yet in the mere contrariety of tendencies, the enmity itself does not properly speaking and formally consist. It was the resistance directly given by the mind of man to the revealed will of God, which, by manifesting man to be, constituted him, God’s enemy. In Adam, this resistance was given immediately to divine law; in his posterity, it is given immediately to conscience, and mediately to divine law, as that in the transgression of which conscience had its origin. This being the case, it is obvious, that as, in the violation of ordinary conscience, directly or indirectly, we have the ordinary exhibition of creature enmity to God; so if an extraordinary conscience could exist and be violated, there would in this way be brought to light an extraordinary exhibition of creature enmity. That is, under such supposed circumstances, creature enmity to God would be displayed in a higher, a more awful, and a more impressive form, than it assumes in the transgression of ordinary conscience by ordinary human beings. Now such an extraordinary conscience was, by means of the laws and institutions of Moses, formed in the minds of the nation of Israel; and, therefore, among them we seek for, and are entitled to anticipate finding, a more marked and appalling display of enmity to God, than ever appeared in the Gentile world.
Nor are we disappointed. In perusing the sacred volume, we discover violation of their extraordinary conscience, as well as of divine law, exhibited on the part of the Jewish people, in a form, with an intensity, and to an extent, such as in no other case ever had a parallel.
Every thing connected with the Israelites was extraordin-[55]ary or miraculous. They were separated miraculously from the other nations of the earth; a miraculous law, issued to the future Messiah, was, until he came, miraculously entrusted to their keeping; innumerable ritual observances, pointing to the fulfilment of that law, were, in the meantime, miraculously imposed on them; a covenant of a miraculous nature was entered into with them; they were protected from their enemies after a miraculous fashion; and a miraculous conscience was, as the result of the whole, formed in them. If ever human beings had inducements to act obediently, upon natural principles, held out to them, the Jews had. If there had been a law given which could have given life through obedience rendered to it by creatures, verily righteousness should have been by the law of Moses. Galat. 3:21. But instead of a miraculously formed conscience, in the case of the Jews, leading them to obedience, it merely afforded an opportunity for a more awful exhibition of disobedience. The dictates of their supernatural conscience, so far from having been the more carefully complied with, were, as if it had been of set purpose, constantly and flagrantly violated. As divine law, originally given to Adam, proved to be the occasion of the offence existing; so did divine law, afterwards imposed in a more stringent form upon the nation of the Jews, give occasion to the offence abounding. Rom. 5:20. At every period of their history, we find the scriptures filled with divine complaints of the conduct of this extraordinary people. In the wilderness, they are charged with being uniformly stiff-necked and rebellious. The numerous miracles which were performed in their sight, and the experience of the most wonderful deliverances, could not prevail on them to lay aside their perversity. After their settlement in the land of Canaan, exhibitions of the same unhallowed temper drew down upon them a succession of the most awful judgments. The removal from their own land and subsequent disappearance of the ten tribes, and the seventy years captivity of the remaining two, attest, that as time rolled on, their iniquities, so far from diminishing, became more aggravated and provoking. In a word, such was the enormity, as well as the flagrant and unblushing character of their guilt, that the Apostle Paul, quoting from Isaiah,20 brings against them the charge of having actually [56] caused the name of God to be every day blasphemed among the Gentiles. Rom. 2:24. Thus does it appear, that as the enmity of the fleshly mind to God made its appearance among Gentiles, by means of violations, direct or indirect, on their part, of natural conscience; so were the existence and operation of the same enmity among Jews exhibited, after a more awful fashion, by constant and aggravated violations, on their part, of a conscience which in them had been supernaturally formed and enlightened. For, if violations of an inferior principle by Gentiles, evinced hatred of Him who in their case did them good, naturally, giving them rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness; Acts 14:17; much more, surely, did the contempt poured upon the God of Israel and his institutions, in consequence of their daily violations of a principle of a far superior description, by those whom that God had selected from the other nations of the earth to be a peculiar people unto himself, and upon whom he had showered down benefits the most signal and extraordinary, tend to evince the malignity of fleshly mind, and its irreconcilable opposition to God, in a far higher, a far more affecting, and a far more loathesome, degree.
20 Chapter 52, verse 5th.
But every other manifestation of creature enmity on the part of that highly-favoured people, must yield to that which I am about to mention. The Jews had not merely divine laws indirectly issued to them, by means of the supernatural conscience which was from the earliest period of their history formed in them; they had also, in process of time, one divine law directly imposed upon them. They had violated their peculiar and miraculously enlightened conscience, in Egypt, in the Wilderness, and in the land of Canaan, and most particularly in their treatment of the long-promised and long-expected Messiah. By wicked hands they crucified and slew the Lord of glory. Acts 2:23, and 1 Corinth. 2:8. Immediately afterwards, and in consequence of their own act, a complete alteration in their state and circumstances took place. The law and supernatural conscience had now ended; and that divine law, which constituted the fundamental principle of their temporary recognition as Jehovah’s peculiar people, was brought to bear upon them. A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he shall say unto you. Acts 3:22; also Deuteronomy 18:18,19.
[57] Every conceivable inducement to obey the divine injunction was held out to, nay, pressed upon, them. Pardon of all past offences was proclaimed. Acts 2:38; 3:19,26; &c. The superiority of their nation was guaranteed to them. Luke 24:47; Acts 3:26. To the Gentiles the gospel could not be addressed, until they themselves had first rejected it. Acts 10, throughout; 13:46,47; &c. Every species of miracle was wrought, in their presence, in attestation of the divine mission of the Apostles. Acts 2:1-13; 3:1-11; 4:31; 5:1-11; 18-23; &c., &c. Signs from heaven in abundance, were vouchsafed to them. Hebrews 2:3,4. With them, as with their fathers in the wilderness, the Holy Ghost was pleased to bear, during the space of forty years. Compare Acts 1:3, and 7:36, with Heb. 3:7, to the end, and 4:1-11. But all in vain. As threatening had failed with Adam, so did promises fail with the Jews. They spurned from them their own mercies. They rejected him of whom Moses in their law, and the prophets had written. John 1:45; also Luke 24:27,44. They thus committed the second sin — that sin against the Holy Ghost, speaking and testifying by the instrumentality of the Apostles, for which there was no forgiveness, either in that age, or in the age, which was then to come. Matt. 12:32. In this way was the deadliest enmity to God, of which the creature is capable, exhibited. For upon record stands this sin of theirs as the unsurpassed and unsurpassable evidence of fleshly mind not being subject to God’s law; neither, indeed, being able to be so. Rom. 8:7.
[58] CHAPTER VII.
LAW WORKETH WRATH.
The law, says the Apostle Paul, worketh wrath; for where no law is, there is no transgression. Rom. 4:15.
Adam’s original manifestation of enmity, in eating of the forbidden fruit, cost mankind
The loss of Eden,
as well as all those sufferings and that death, which have since been incident to humanity. But the far greater manifestation of enmity, on the part of the Jews, in rejecting the Lord of Glory, cost them expulsion from their “high and palmy state” of Old Testament privileges, as well as exclusion from the heavenly paradise for ever. The former display of enmity, as inferior, merited and received only the inferior punishment of extinction of existence, or natural death; the latter display of enmity, as far more intense and devilish, drew down upon the heads of those from whom it proceeded, the far more dreadful punishment of being kept in existence as a nation during the whole progress of the Messiah’s kingdom, and of seeing despised Gentiles introduced into it, while from its precincts they are for ever and necessarily excluded, or the punishment of spiritual and eternal death. The former sin, only forfeited earth; the latter sin, besides forfeiting earthly privileges, involved in it exclusion likewise from heavenly ones. And this, because the first sin, as committed in ignorance, was never once, in point of enormity, to be compared with the second, which was committed against the highest measure of the knowledge of God, which, in its natural form, can be bestowed upon man; and because the display of the divine enmity to man in the shape of punishment, is always regulated by, and in proportion to, the extent of the previous display of the enmity of man to God, in the shape of transgression of divine law.
The grand scope and tendency of a subsequent part of this work will be, to illustrate the conclusion to which the fact of divine law necessarily working wrath to man, evidently con-[59]ducts. Divine law, being of necessity the occasion of man’s transgressing, and of his thereby displaying enmity to God, as well as of God’s wrath in the form of punishment descending upon man, is it not manifestly absurd and preposterous, to suppose a state of things in which divine law is imposed on the creature, to be capable of co-existing with a state of reconciliation between the Creator and the creature? If when divine law and man’s mind are brought into contact, man’s mind necessarily violates divine law: then where God and man are reconciled, there can be no divine law. And is not the exhibition of this glorious truth the very sum and substance of the New Testament Scriptures? When one Apostle declares, that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8:1; and another, that he that is born of God, sinneth not, 1 John 3:8; what person enlightened from above, and not entangled by the sophistry of human creeds, can fail to perceive, that in the state of things and circumstances of the redeemed, to which the language just quoted refers, neither fleshly mind, nor divine law, has, or can have any existence?
[60] CHAPTER VIII.
ARE FLESH AND LAW THE SOLE PRINCIPLES CONCERNED IN THE DISPLAY OF CREATURE ENMITY TO GOD?
THE answer to this question is shortly, the fact of man’s having been made after, or according to, the image of God. Man, as having been naturally like God, necessarily shewed himself to be God’s rival and God’s enemy.
However revolting to the large and constantly increasing class of superficial and humanly instructed religionists this assertion of mine may be, it is not only true, but capable of being proved from scripture with the ease and certainty of demonstration.
Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Coloss. 1:15. Adam, who was the type or figure of Jesus, was necessarily made after, according to, or in the similitude of, him. Rom. 5:14. In other words, as whatever was substantially in the Lord Jesus, was shadowyly in Adam, in being like him who was like God, Adam was himself necessarily at second hand like God.
Now, it is just because man was thus created after, according to, or in the resemblance of, him who was the express image of God’s person, that man has approved himself to be God’s enemy.
This may be best and most satisfactorily shewn, by entering upon a brief consideration of some of the leading features of the divine character, as these are displayed in the Lord Jesus, and set before us in the Holy Scriptures.
The six following facts or circumstances may be selected out of many others, as peculiarly characteristic of the divine nature:
1. Its self-existence. God is the Jehovah or I am. He is from everlasting to everlasting. Exod. 3:14; Psalm 90:2.
2. Its self-sufficiency. Instead of needing, or being capable of receiving, anything from his creatures, God is to them the source of all they are, have, or can attain to. He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. Acts 17:25. [61] Not even is the goodness of his own well beloved Son capable of extending to, or adding any thing to, him. Psalm 16:2. His very blessedness, indeed, consists in this, that he gives, not receives. Acts 20:35.
3. Its incapability of knowing any nature or being superior to itself. Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord? or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? Behold the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations are before him as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing and vanity. Isaiah 40:13-17.
4. Its perfect liberty of action. He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth. Daniel 4:35. He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. Eph. 1:11.
5. Its throwing off every restraint, and every attempt at restraint. None can stay his hand, or say unto him, what doest thou? Daniel 4:35. — See 1 Kings 20:28, &c.
6. Its being the end, as well as the beginning, of every thing that exists, and of every event that happens. To him are all things. Rom. 11:36.
And all these features of the divine character, thus submitted to my readers in an abstract form, are embodied in Christ, and manifested through him. For 1st, he is the 1 am; John 8:58; the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever; Heb. 13:8; and the being which is, and which was, and which is to come: the almighty. Rev. 1:8. 2nd. He is the all-sufficient one, who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree; 1 Peter 2:24; and is possessed of all power both in heaven and on earth; Matthew 28:18. 3rd, He knows no superior: for, he and the Father are one; John 10:30; and all things are put under his feet. 1 Cor. 15:25,27; Heb. 2:8; and Psalm 8:6. 4th, He has the most perfect liberty of action. I will; be thou clean. Matt. 8:3. I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again. John 10:18. The Son quickeneth whom he will. 5:21. 5th, He throws off all restraint; as witness his declaration to Peter, Matt. 26:53; the effects produced up-[62]on those who came to apprehend him, by his simply saying, I am he; John 18:6; and the fact of his resurrection from the dead, taken in connection with the language of Peter, Acts 2:24, it was not possible that he should be holden of death. And, 6th, that Jesus is the end of all, is expressly declared in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, verse 16th, all things were created for him. In all the respects adverted to, as well as in every other point of view, Jesus is the express image, or perfect representation, of the invisible God.
But man was made in, after, or according to, the image of God; that is, man was so created as in every respect to resemble, or to be like to the Lord Jesus, God’s image. Gen. 1:26-28, and Rom. 5:14, Coloss. 1:15, and Heb. 1:3.
Therefore it follows, as a matter of necessity, that Adam’s nature must bear a strict analogy or resemblance to the nature of Christ Jesus; or, that there must exist in human nature, features corresponding to those which essentially belong to the divine nature, as these are manifested exclusively in Christ Jesus.
What I have thus stated in the form of an inference, appears on the face of scripture, and in human nature itself, in the form of a fact.
1. Man, so far from thinking and acting as a being who has derived his existence from one higher than himself, has in every age arrogantly claimed for himself, the attributes of self-existence. Adam, not satisfied with a continued and dependent life upon earth, attempted to grasp at immortality or the divine nature, thereby forfeiting even his earthly existence. And so awfully does the delusion of their possessing life in themselves prevail among his posterity, that there is no doctrine to which human beings cling with more tenacity, and a denial of which calls forth more unpleasant feelings on their part, than that of the immortality of soul, or mere creature principles. God only hath immortality. 1 Tim. 6:16. And man resembles God, in fancying himself to possess immortality likewise.
2. Man also affects a self sufficient existence: for his personal identity, as a distinct and independent being, he conceives to belong to him so certainly and indefeasibly, that it is incapable, under any circumstances, of being subverted and brought to an end. Human beings appear not to possess the slightest idea naturally, that their personal identity or [63] individuality is a mere repetition of the personality of Adam; and that as Adam’s personality was merely figurative, Rom. 5:14, it is impossible that theirs, as nothing but a repetition of his can be more?
3. Man knows no being superior to himself: and hence, not only the fact of our first progenitors obeying the dictates of their own nature in preference to the law of God, but hence also the fact of every human being, through the medium of the operations of conscience, acting continually and necessarily as his own legislator and judge; nay, hence, still further, the grand concern of the fleshly conscience, when roused by a sense of guilt, or by the near approach of death, to secure, not the glory of God, but its own safety and happiness. Self is necessarily its all and in all.
4. Man claims for himself perfect liberty of action; and hence this practical assertion of a right to act as he thought proper on the part of Adam, as well as the dogma of creature free-will, or of creature independence in its feelings, aims, and conduct, and all the absurdities and blasphemies, which are therewith connected on the part of ordinary human beings.
5. Man’s great glory consists in throwing off every restraint, and every appearance of restraint. Hence the one transgression of Adam. Hence every subsequent violation of conscience, and the grand apostacy of the Jews. Hence the most approved statements of religion, on the part of those who are denominated divines.
A God self-made! Ambition how divine!
Young.
What, but this feature of the human mind, has rendered the character of Cato, and the tragedy in which his suicide has been immortalized by Addison, such favourites with thousands of the human race?
6. Man is to himself naturally and necessarily the sole end of all his pursuits and enjoyments. That God should be so is an utter impossibility; seeing that, as earthly and limited, man cannot rise above himself. He is to himself therefore, in this as well as in every other respect, his own God. To promote his own interests or supposed interests, is not only the highest object at which man aims, but the highest object at which he is capable of aiming.
Now, look carefully at these six distinct features of the [64] human or fleshly mind; compare them with the attributes of Jehovah, as these are set before us in the scriptures, and manifested through Christ Jesus; and then say if the resemblance between man and the Lord Jesus, and consequently between man and God, be not striking and complete. 1. Jesus hath immortality; man fancies that he himself is immortal; 2. Jesus himself is possessed of a personal existence or identity, over which death had no power; man fancies that his personal existence or identity is undestructible; 3. Jesus, as one with God, knows no superior to himself; man’s superiority over every other animal is so great and confessed, and his ignorance of any being superior to himself is so decided and incurable, that he cannot help thinking and acting continually as his own God; 4. Jesus is free in all his actions; man has taken it into his head, and labours under the impression, that he is subject to no control in his volitions; 5. Jesus threw off the restraint of temptation, the restraint of the tomb, and restraint of every other description; man, in yielding to temptation, no less than in striving to overcome it, and in every action of his life, shews, that he would fain emancipate himself, if he could, from his dependent condition; and, 6, Jesus does all things with a view to the glory of his heavenly father, which is in reality his own glory; while man makes his own pleasure, interest, or ambition, the end of what he does. Is there not, in all this, such an exact analogy and correspondence between the divine attributes of the Lord Jesus, and the creature lineaments of man; do they not form such complete counterparts, the one to the other; as to furnish us with a valid and satisfactory explanation of the reason, why man is represented in scripture, as having been made after, or according to him, who is the image of the invisible God?
And now, to the purpose for which these analogies have been introduced.
In the circumstance of man’s having been made in or after the image of God, by having been created so as to resemble Christ, have we presented to us, not merely an additional element, but the grand and material cause, of man’s enmity to God. Having been made like to God, man was necessarily constituted thereby Jehovah’s rival.
This may be evinced with the greatest ease, and with demonstrative certainty.
Man’s understanding, as shadowy, rises naturally no [65] higher than himself, his own circumstances and his own nature. To imagine it to rise higher, would be to imagine the absurdity of shadow being able to grasp substance, by means of understanding it. Man is, therefore, to himself the highest being of whom he has, and while possessed of mere fleshly mind can have, any conception whatever. And yet, although destitute of more than a shadowy nature and shadowy attributes, this very nature and these very attributes must be to man as acquainted with no being higher than himself, the same thing as if they were substantial. That is, although he himself is in fact a shadow, shadow cannot be distinguished from substance by him, to whom the shadow is all he knows, and all about which he is concerned. Shadow and substance are to him all one; no creature being able to comprehend a distinction between the one and the other, until the light of Christ, the substance, shines into his mind, and until his shadowy nature is thereby made to stand out distinguished from that substantial nature of which it is emblematic. To return from this digression. Adam was in reality nothing more than the image or shadow of him, who was God’s express image: but Adam having been incapable of rising above himself, and forming any conception of him who was his superior and substance, was tempted to act as if he had been the superior and substance himself. Ye shall be as Gods. His having been made after the image of God, by having possessed the shadowy qualities and attributes of mind which I have just enumerated; combined with his necessary and invincible ignorance of him in whom these qualities and attributes substantially existed; gave to the temptation its force and efficacy. It suited his fleshly mind, by appealing to, and flattering its shadowy sense of independence, and the other shadowy divine attributes, with which it was invested; and it could not be seen through by him, because, besides that every earthly and shadowy principle was enlisted on its side, he himself was the only substance that he knew, or was capable of knowing. His mind was the shadow of the divine mind, and, therefore, naturally inclined to act as God; and he was not restrained from invading divine prerogatives, by any knowledge of him in whom that mind dwelt substantially. Under such circumstances, when temptation was presented, he could not help acting as God; that is, he could not help assuming to himself, notwithstanding an express divine prohibition to the [66] contrary, to throw off restraint and act as if he were independent of any superior. It was thus the very constitution of Adam’s nature, as having been endowed with the shadows of divine attributes, combined with his necessary and invincible ignorance of him whose representative he was, which compelled him to set himself up in opposition to Jehovah; or it was the very circumstance of his having been made after the image of God, which was the chief and fundamental cause of his acting as the enemy of God.
Thus the very circumstance of Adam’s having been like God, was the very circumstance, which, by constraining him to act as God, rendered him God’s enemy. As having been like God, he knew no superior to himself; and was, therefore, incapable of submitting to restraint. To suppose divine law capable of being obeyed by him, is, indeed, evidently to suppose the grand feature of his resemblance to God destroyed. Hence it is, that, as made after God’s image, and, consequently, as possessed of a nature and qualities which bore an exact resemblance and analogy to those of God himself, he necessarily, in every circumstance in which be had an opportunity of doing so, affected to act as God; and as an attempt to subject him to divine law, afforded him the opportunity of proving his likeness to God by throwing off the restraint of that law, he necessarily and greedily availed himself of it: by this very fact evincing, that his likeness to God, so far from rendering him the friend and subject of his divine prototype, had exactly the opposite effect of forcing him to appear in the character of God’s rival and God’s enemy. The very fact of his resemblance to God, and of his thereby feeling and acting as God, not only resulted in his not being subject to the law of God, but shewed, that constituted as he was, he was totally unable to be so. Rom. 8:7.21
21 There is, it is true, another point of view in which Adam’s resemblance to Christ may be regarded. As Jesus was in reality subject to divine law, so there was in Adam for a time an apparent obedience to the same law. Shadow and substance in this respect also coincided. But with this subject we have not at present to do.
What appeared in the case of Adam, was still more strikingly exemplified in the case of the Jews. The same mind which, in the former, by leading him to act as God in the breach of the original prohibition, displayed the existence and malignity of creature enmity to the Creator; led the [67] latter to act as Gods, or in opposition to Jehovah, in every period of their history, but more especially in the closing portion of it, and thereby to evince, that the enmity to God which dwells in, nay constitutes, the human mind, is absolutely and awfully incorrigible. And this, too, occurred in the way of a climax. For, if Adam was like God, the resemblance borne by the Jews to God was still more manifest and striking. And if, by means of the inferior likeness of Adam to God, an opportunity was afforded to him of shewing himself to be God’s enemy; the fact of the likeness of the Jews to God having been far superior to his, only gave occasion to them to display an enmity to God far more intense, concentrated, and awful in its disclosures of what human nature is, than his was. Adam was merely on earth, and bore at the utmost an earthly resemblance to Deity; the Jews, by means of the religious privileges conferred on them, were actually elevated as it were to heaven, and were thereby endowed with a sort of heavenly resemblance to their divine benefactor. See Matt. 11:23, compared with Rev. 12:7-9. He called them Gods, Psalm 82:6, because that unto them alone, of all the nations of the earth, the word of God came. John 10:35. This rendering of human beings liker to God, than in any other case they ever had been or ever will be, had but the effect, however, as appears from the result, of exhibiting human nature in its bitterest and most uncompromising form of enmity to the Most High. A comparatively faint resemblance to God, on the part of Adam, had brought out a comparatively faint demonstration of hostility to God by him; a more decided resemblance, a closer approximation, of the nature of man to that of God, on the part of the Jews, drew out the essential hatred of human nature to God, in a way and to an extent which could not be surpassed. — The principle of the whole evidently being, that, while God’s nature always and necessarily acts consistently with itself; the nature which is shadowy or emblematic of that of God, has, from the very circumstance of its resemblance to God’s nature, always and necessarily a tendency to act inconsistently with itself. It is in reality a subject; and yet, as resembling the divine nature, it has a constant and irrepressible tendency to act as a sovereign. It is made after the image of God, and is, from that ignorance of, and inability to submit to, a superior, which is necessarily involved in such a constitution of mind, prompted irresistibly to assume divine attributes [68] and prerogatives: this conduct on its part, however, being a plain and undeniable usurpation of what belongs, not to itself, the shadow, but to him who is its divine substance. And another principle concerned in the whole of this being, that the tendency on the part of creatures who resemble God, to act as God, and thereby to usurp the prerogatives of God himself, increases always and uniformly in exact proportion as the resemblance between their nature and that of God himself increases. The more like the creature nature is to God, the more is it thereby constrained to assume and exercise the attributes of God. And thus does it happen, that, as enmity to God originated in man having been made at first after God’s image, and thereby having been constituted God’s rival; so has enmity to God been carried out to its greatest height, by the conferring upon a whole nation of the image of God in the highest degree in which human beings are capable of bearing it, and by thereby imparting to man’s rivalry with Jehovah a character of malignity and inveteracy, which, as it could not be excelled, so it could terminate in nothing but man’s utter destruction.
Difficult as the subject of which I am treating must be felt to be by ordinary, superficial, and fleshly thinkers, I almost fancy that some of my readers must by this time have caught a glimpse of my meaning.
Man was made after, or according to, the image of God. Genesis 1:26,27. This apparently high and desirable privilege, instead of rendering him capable of yielding obedience to God’s law, actually and necessarily prepared him for violating it. For, as having had imparted to him a nature which involved in itself the shadows of divine attributes, he was inspired with the disposition, whenever the suitable opportunity presented itself, to act as if he had possessed these attributes substantially. God knows no superior to himself; man, as having been created after his image, knows no superior to himself. Thus circumstanced, man could only continue acting in his own sphere as a creature, while no restraint from his divine superior was laid upon him. What flattered his pride, suited his nature. And so long as nothing occurred which was calculated to make him feel his dependence, and thereby to degrade him in his own eyes, all went on smoothly. But from the moment that divine law was imposed on him, his fancied sense of independence, as bearing the likeness of the divine nature, was liable to be shocked and outraged. [69] A temptation suitable to his nature as made after the image of God, and as thereby knowing no superior to himself, was all that required to be addressed to it, in order to rouse into active operation his delusive sense of freedom, and thus to bring out his otherwise latent rivalry and hatred to Jehovah. And this, we know, was what actually happened. — Just so, in the case of the Jews. To them privileges of a religious kind, and thereby a measure of the divine image, were communicated, vastly superior to what Adam, in a state of innocence, had possessed. But every new divine privilege conferred on them, by strengthening in them the divine image, merely contributed to strengthen the pride, and foster the sense of independence, by which as a nation, they were characterised.22 Consequently, instead of being, by their possession of such privileges, better prepared to receive divine law, they were thereby actually better prepared to resist and disobey.23 Upon beings so situated and constituted, divine law must have grated with a degree of offensiveness, and in them, it must have been productive of a degree of enmity, to which the case of Adam affords no parallel. Raised to the possession of the divine image in a higher degree than it had belonged to him, their pride was necessarily greater than his; and subjected to a law which, by compelling them to acknowledge themselves the murderers of the Lord of Glory, exacted from them, more humiliating compliances than his did, the feeling of pride, or fancied sense of independence, was, necessarily more revolted in them, than it had been in him. Hence, if enmity to God, springing from his having been made after God’s image, appeared in Adam, when subjected to the comparatively trifling law of prohibition, Gen. 2:16,17, seeing that his delusive sense of liberty, as thereby outraged, urged and compelled him to throw off the restraint, and assert his independence; much more did the same enmity to God, springing from their having had a larger measure of the divine image conferred on them, appear in the Jews, when subjected to the law of command to believe on the Lord Jesus, seeing that they were, from the greater strength of the divine image in them, urged and constrained with more violence than Adam had ever been to refuse obedience, and assert their delusive sense of liberty.
22 John 8:33,39,41.
23 See the Acts of the Apostles throughout. Especially, chapters 7, 13, and 22.
[70] By these scriptural lessons are we conducted to the discovery, and established in the conviction, that to render a creature mind like to God, is to render that mind the enemy of God; and that to increase the likeness of such a mind to God, is to increase its enmity to him: the creature mind which resembles God the most, being actually and inevitably the mind which hates him the most. The principle of this being, that a creature mind which resembles God, on the one hand, negatively, from that ignorance of a superior which is involved in the very notion of possessing the divine likeness, and on the other hand, positively, from that view of itself as God which arises from its being invested with shadowy divine attributes, necessarily tends to act as God. A circumstance which, it is obvious at a glance, stamps upon such a mind the essential character of self-idolatary;24 and which, so far from preparing it to acknowledge and yield submission to a superior when proclamation of his existence and authority is made, actually constrains it to spurn from it and trample under foot every thing, whether divine prohibition or divine command, whether direct law or the indirect dictates of conscience, the tendency of which is to impress upon it the painful consciousness of its own inferiority.
24 Query: Does not δαιμονιωδης, James 3:15, signify self-idolatrous. Let the Greek scholar examine, and compare with this, such passages in the original as Acts 17:22, 1 Corinth. 10:19-21; &c. &c. If correct in my conjecture, then James’s assertion is, that creature wisdom is επιγειος, earthly, as to its origin, ψυχικη, soulical, that is, merely shadowy of the wisdom of Christ, as to its nature, and δαιμονιωδης, self-idolatrous as to its tendency and end.
In a word, fleshly mind, from the very fact of its being made after God’s image, or constituted like to God, is necessarily God’s rival and God’s enemy. As ignorant of any superior, prone to its own gratification, and able to acknowledge no authority or supremacy except that of self alone, it is not subject to the law of God, neither, indeed, can be.
[71] CHAPTER IX.
SATAN.
HAVE any of my readers by this time found out, or at all events suspected, who Satan is?
Perhaps not.
It becomes, then, incumbent upon me, in the prosecution of my undertaking, to try to make them acquainted with this formidable personage.
The word Satan, in the original Hebrew, signifies, as is well known, adversary or enemy.25 But to fleshly mind, that is, to the earthly mind of Adam, as having enmity to God for its leading and essential characteristic, this epithet most appropriately belongs. For concerning it, scripture declares, that it is not merely an enemy, but enmity itself, against God: the proof afforded of which is, that it is not subject to the law of God; neither, indeed., can be. Rom. 8:7.
25 See Parkhurst’s Hebrew Lexicon, under the word שטך.
After the lengths to which in illustrating this subject I have already proceeded, a few additional observations may suffice to place the whole in a clear and convincing light. God knows no superior to himself. Man, in consequence of his having been made after the image or in the likeness of God, knows no superior to himself either. And, as a matter of course, the greater the resemblance borne by him to God, the deeper and more decided must be his conviction of his superiority to every other being. But to know no superior to oneself, is necessarily to resist and throw off every attempt to fasten upon one the sense of dependence or inferiority. That is, the being who is like to God, and is thereby conscious of superiority, must, by the very necessity of his nature, resist every attempt to make him conscious of inferiority, by subjecting him to divine law. And the greater his likeness to God, the more determined must be his resistance to every such attempt; seeing that, in a being thus elevated [72] above others by his greater assimilation to the Almighty, there must exist the stronger disposition to assert his fancied independence and supremacy. Thus it is, that resistance to God’s law, or a proneness and determination to throw off that which if submitted to, would be a badge of inferiority; and thereby, the exhibition of enmity to God, is implied in the very constitution of human nature: it being a nature resembling that of God, and, therefore, unacquainted with and incapable of acknowledging any superior to itself, even although that superior should be the glorious being of whom it is merely the image and representative.
To vary somewhat the manner of expressing myself: man’s nature is necessarily at variance with itself. As the nature of a creature, it is actually inferior to the nature of the Creator. As, however, made after the image of the Creator, who knows no superior to himself, man has, and while he continues to exist can have, no knowledge of any nature superior to his own. For, were he as man capable of becoming acquainted with any such superior nature, the main feature of the resemblance borne by human nature to the nature of the Creator, would at once and entirely be obliterated. But mark the consequence of man’s inability to rise to the conception of a superior nature. His nature is thus, at one and the same moment, really inferior, and yet consciously superior. It is in reality fulfilling in all respects God’s will; and yet it is, in so far as its own feelings are concerned, fulfilling in all respects its own will. That is, human nature is, by its very constitution and the necessity of the case, inconsistent with itself. And, therefore, although it should, as the nature of an inferior, be voluntarily subject to him who is its superior; it is, as bearing the likeness of the superior himself, in that very feature of superiority whereby he is distinguished from all others, unable voluntarily to yield subjection to him. Let me follow out a little farther, that inability of man voluntarily to obey divine law, which is involved in his resemblance to God. Man’s nature, as constituted after the image of God’s nature, is consciously superior to every thing by which it is surrounded, and both indisposed and unable to submit to restraint; whereas, intentional subjection to the restraints of God’s law on the part of man, would imply, that he was endowed with a sense of inferiority, and that he felt desirous to express that sense. That is, the voluntary subjection of a nature like that of man, made after [73] God’s image, to God’s law, would imply, that it was at one and the same moment determined to assert superiority to all restraint, and yet willing to yield an abject submission to restraint! A supposition which from the self-contradiction which it involves, is manifestly absurd. How obvious, from all this, that, although it is inconsistant with his state and character, for a being who is inferior, to assert the attributes of a superior, that inconsistency is nevertheless involved and inherent in human nature, from the circumstance of its having been created after the image of God; and that not more impossible is it for light and darkness to coalesce, than is it for the nature of man, constrained, by its likeness to the nature of God, to assert superiority over every restraint, voluntarily to submit to the restraints of even divine law. The mind of flesh is like God; and therefore, strange as to the mere natural understanding the proposition must ever appear, it is the enemy of God.
And have we not, by this simple induction of particulars, ascertained who the Satan of the scriptures is? Most assuredly we have. It is man himself. For, as having been created like God, and, therefore, unable to recognize or submit to a superior, not even to his Creator, Adam stood to God in the relation of enemy, adversary, or Satan. Not that this last term is applicable to him, considered merely as God’s creature; on the contrary he is Satan only, when viewed as setting himself up, by the very necessity of his nature, in opposition to God and to God’s law, and this in consequence of the resemblance borne by his fleshly mind to God.
Is there no shorter way of denoting Satan, or the Satanic principle as resident in human nature?
There is.
Satan, or that which specifically constitutes man the enemy of God, is the principle of self, individuality, or personality.
God is the I AM. He is the only really existing being; and the only source, as well as centre, of all that is called existence in others. When Adam was created after the image of God, there was conferred upon him the image or shadow of the I am, or the principle of representative individuality; with power to transmit it to his descendants. God is the real I or individual; Adam became by creation the shadowy I or individual.
The principle of enmity to God, inherent in the creature [74] mind, and specially connected with creature personality, first made its appearance, in the fact of the shadowy I quitting its place, and, by attempting to throw off the restraint of the sole divine prohibition addressed to it, invading the province of the substantial I. There was thus afforded the initial proof of self, or the principle of creature individuality, when brought into contact with God’s law, necessarily shewing itself to be Satan or God’s enemy.
The same principle of enmity to God, inherent in creature mind, was displayed in its utmost intensity and atrocity, when the Jews, inheritors of the shadowy I, resisted and crucified the substantial I, manifest in flesh; and when, rejecting and pouring contempt on the command to believe on him whom they had crucified, and thereby throwing off the yoke of divine law imposed on them in its mildest and most beneficial form, they still farther asserted to themselves divine prerogatives, and still farther invaded the province of the real and glorious I am. As that principle of self in the creature, which had in Adam originally quitted its first estate, and assumed to itself a right to act as God, was thus seen, in the case of the Jews, not merely to have been unable to drop the weapons of rebellion and return to its proper place, but actually to have been more desperately resolved to retain its Satanic position, and to exhibit itself in an attitude of still more daring hostility to the Most High, we have, in their procedure towards the Lord Jesus not merely while he was incarnate but after he was glorified, the most awful proof that can be afforded on the part of creatures, of their possession of Satanic mind; or of the absolute impossibility of the principle of self in the creature, appearing in any other character, than as the deadly and irreconcilable foe of the principle of self in the glorious Creator.
If successful in conveying my meaning, the following things must now be tolerably apparent: —
That Adam was the first who carried himself as Satan, or the enemy of God, by his disobedience to the divine prohibition; and that, through his transgression, the Satanic principle, or feeling of enmity to God, came to be developed as the grand characteristic of human nature. And
That the nation of the Jews exhibited the Satanic principle, or conducted themselves as the enemies of God, in a higher sense, and to a higher degree, than Adam did; indeed, that in a far more emphatic sense than it ever was to [75] him, the term Satan, or God’s enemy, was applicable, and is in the scriptures actually applied, to them. — See Psalm 109, throughout.
But it was the principle of self in both, or that principle of personal oneness by which Adam and the Jews were most closely assimilated to the one Jehovah, that prompted both to rise in rebellion against God. The principle of self, individuality, or personality, was, therefore, Satan in both.
Farther: understanding that the principle of creature self is Satan, we obtain an explanation hereby
Of David’s having been tempted by Satan to number the people. 2 Sam. 24:1, and 1 Chron. 21:1. It was in him the principle that self, or of principle which stimulates the creature to obey and indulge the suggestions of its own fleshly mind, even at the expense of manifesting itself to be the enemy of God, which was the source of his procedure on this occasion.
Of our Lord’s rebuke to Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan; Matt. 16:23; language in which the Saviour condemned in his apostle, that disposition to comply with the dictates of self or creature mind, which issued in his giving the lie, and thereby setting himself up in opposition to his divine master.26
26 Compare the Greek of Matt. 16:23, with that of Rom. 8:5-7.
Also, of such passages, as Acts 26:18, to turn them from the power of Satan, that is, of self, or creature mind, as God’s enemy, unto God: Rom. 16:20, the God of peace shall bruise Satan, or the principle of creature self, as evinced in enmity to God, by the rejection of his gospel, on the part of the Jews, and in temptations of various sorts on the part of Christians, under your feet shortly: 1 Thess. 2:18, we would have come unto you but Satan, or the mind of self, exhibiting itself as God’s enemy in the Jews by their persecutions of the Christian Church, and resistance to our labours, hindered us: &c.
To Eve it was suggested, that, by disobeying God’s law, she and her husband should become as Gods;27 and the Jewish people are expressly called Gods, in Psalm 82:6, explained by John 10:34,35.28 But as desirous to assert their godlike character, Adam and Eve were God’s enemies; and [76] as gods the Jews were God’s enemies likewise: the former, having manifested their hostility, in eating of the forbidden fruit; and the latter, in rejecting the message of salvation, and command to believe, which issued from the lips of the Apostles. That is, it was the very fact of their being gods, or being constituted after the likeness of God, which constrained both to act the part of Satan. Need we, after this, seek in the regions of imagination, or in systems of human theology, for Satan, when the scriptures show us, that in the very principle of self which constitutes creature mind, and in that enmity to God which self of necessity ever displays, Satan is continually manifesting himself?
27 Or God. See Hebrews.
28 Compare the Hebrew of Psalm 8:5, with Hebrews 2:7; and Psalm 96:7, with Hebrews 1:6.
Satan, then, is man, or the principle of self or personality in man. And Satan and the Lord Jesus Christ stand contrasted throughout the scriptures: Adam, as embodying in him the principle of creature self, or being the human person, being opposed to the Lord Jesus Christ, as embodying in him the principle of divine self, or being the divine person. The consequence of this is constant, necessary, and irreconcilable enmity between the one and the other of these personages: the flesh, or Adam, the representative I, individual, or person, warring against the spirit, or Lord Jesus, the true and substantial I, individual, or person; and the contrariety of the one to the other being such, that nothing but the destruction of the weaker by the stronger can terminate the controversy. Gal. 5:17. Rom. 7:23. Satan or Adam, or a creature, cannot, it is true, overcome Jesus, who is the Creator: but Adam, in his Satanic character, which is indeliable and unchangeable, will continue to display his enmity to Christ, until by the latter, in the making of all things new, the very existence of the former is finally or for ever extinguished.
To the fact of Adam being Satan or of the Satanic principle being the leading characteristic of the Adamic mind, the whole procedure of man in regard to God and God’s word, even in our day, bears ample and irrefragable testimony. Not more decidedly did it appear in Adam himself, and in the Jews, in the resistance given by them severally to express commands of Jehovah, than it manifests itself in the circumstance of fleshly mind’s indisposition and inability even now to receive and relish divine things. There are, it is true, no commands to believe now issued from above. For, these having gone forth to the [77] descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, and having been necessarily disobeyed by them under the influence of fleshly mind or Satanic principle, there is no occasion to repeat an experiment which has effectually answered every purpose for which it was made. But God’s word is now obtruded on the notice of thousands, and tens of thousands, of the human race, in a written form; and its claims to reception are urged upon their notice by multitudes of the self-styled ambassadors of Christ. And what is the result? Rejection of it by the open and avowed infidel; perversion of its meaning, by every sect and denomination of religionists; and inability to receive its sublime but simple discoveries on the part of all in whom nothing but fleshly mind is by our Heavenly Father permitted to operate. The man with a soul, or fleshly mind, is just as unable to receive the things of the Spirit of God, because they are foolishness unto him; and just as unable to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned, at the present moment, as he was in the Apostle’s, days. 1 Corinth. 2:14. In other words, his soulical or Adamic mind stands as decidedly opposed in all its views, notions, and reasonings, to the discoveries made by divine and spiritual mind, now, as it ever did. And by being opposed to them, it of course rejects them. But opposition or enmity to God, and the things of God, is the Satanic principle. And man, as displaying that opposition or enmity, is Satan. In man, therefore, even at the present day, and notwithstanding all the refinements of modern civilization, that principle of enmity to God which stamped upon Adam the character of Satan, is still, through the medium of the constant and necessary rejection by him of what is truly divine, reigning with as ample and undisturbed sway, as it did in our common ancestor at the period of his one transgression. Man as a whole is Satan; and his nature is the Satanic nature.
What, exclaim some of my readers, is Satan after all nothing but an appellation of man, considered as God’s enemy? And are all the feats of Satan recorded in the scriptures, nothing but so many allegories, under which is veiled the history of the display of man’s enmity to God? Even so, my dear friends. Sorry am I to think, that so many pious treatises which proceed upon the principle of Satan being a personage distinct from man; and so much magnificent poetry, in which the warfare waged by this dread being against [78] Jehovah is celebrated; should, by this discovery of Satan in ourselves, be deprived of their ascendancy over our minds. But it cannot be helped. And, surely, we sustain no real loss by all this. Better is it, in divine things, to be led and influenced by God’s word, than to be at the mercy of a fellow creature’s ignorance, or to be a sport to unauthorized fancies of our own. Better is it to know, that man, as having been invested with the shadows of divine attributes, and particularly as having been created the shadow of the divine I or person, became Satan, when afforded an opportunity of breaking divine law; than to ascribe to a creature of our own imaginations, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, or real divine attributes, and thereby to make him, not as man, the true Satan, really is, the temporary and conquered rival of the Messiah, but a rival who is destined for ever to dispute supremacy with the Messiah himself! O, how abominable the Manicheism which is involved in popular religion! Clear and simple are all the allegories in which Satan’s name is introduced, or in which the principle of enmity to God in man is personified, to those to whom the New Testament Scriptures have been opened up, and in whom the Spirit of God thereby condescends to dwell. And if from fleshly mind, even in its most pious form, the meaning of such allegories be withheld, is this any thing more than the following out of a principle which is laid down by our blessed Lord in Matt. 13:11-13,34,35, and upon which God hath uniformly acted towards the unregenerate portion of the world? See 1 Cor. 2:6-15.
Satan, the Devil, and the Old Serpent are phrases which always go together, and seem to be employed as nearly synonymous, in the scriptures. This circumstance is easily explained. Satan is the principle of shadowy self or personality in man, setting itself up in opposition to the substantial self or personality of Jehovah; or man’s mind shewing itself to be God’s enemy, as having been made after God’s image. The Devil, διαβολος, or the accuser, is the principle of self, or fleshly mind, regarded as constrained to bring against itself a charge of guilt, on the ground of its constant and self-convicted violation of law, whether that of God, or that of conscience.29 And the Old Serpent is the same principle of self, or man’s mind, considered as substituting its own διαλογισμοι, or [79] reasonings, for the express commands and declarations of the Most High — it being old, as a principle connate with human nature itself, and exhibited by man from the very commencement of his eventful history. — Thus, each of the three terms is expressive of the principle of self, or of fleshly mind; but of that mind as viewed under somewhat different aspects. As enmity against God, not subject to his law, neither indeed able to be so, Rom. 8:7, it is Satan. As constrained incessantly to bring against itself a charge of guilt, and to pronounce upon itself sentence of condemnation, Rom. 2:15, it is the Devil. And as subtle, tortuous, and crawling on the earth, prone to turn aside the threatenings of God, by ingenious senses of its own, and in general to substitute fleshly suggestions for express divine testimony, it is the Serpent. But although thus capable of being distinguished, these three features of creature self, or fleshly mind, are closely, nay, inseparably connected. The Serpent-like character of man’s mind is what paves the way for transgression: furnishing us with arguments to justify to ourselves the act of sin, as well before it is committed, as after it has actually taken place. The Satanic character of it, is that from which transgression directly springs. And the Devilish character of it, is that which, after transgression has been committed, converts us into self-accusers; that is, stirs up in us the principle of remorse or self-condemnation. In the person of Adam, these three characters of fleshly mind meet and are exhibited. Gen. 3:1-12. But, still more strikingly do they appear in the transgressing Jews. They were servants, emissaries, or angels, of Satan, 2 Cor. 11:14,15, and the synagogue of Satan; Rev. 2:9; they were Serpents and a generation of vipers, Matt. 23:33; and they were the children of the Devil, John 8:39,44, and as such stood self-convicted by their own consciences. Do I require to add a word more in confirmation of this view of the subject?
29 Examine John 5:45, in connection with Hebrews 2:14,15.
[80] CHAPTER X.
ENTIRE GENEALOGY OF SIN.
ABOUT the origin of sin, then, puzzling although the whole matter has been to philosophers and philosophic divines in every age, I experience no difficulty whatever. What reason finds perplexing, nay, what by means of its very attempts at explanation it has contrived to render more perplexing still,30 revelation shedding forth her glorious light makes so simple, that the wayfaring man, though a fool, cannot err therein.
30 See, in proof of this, the celebrated and ingenious treatise of Archbishop King, on the Origin of Evil.
How do the scriptures, or rather how does God speaking in the scriptures, solve the enigma?
By pointing us, it has been shown throughout the preceding part of this division, to man, first, as created out of the dust of the earth, secondly, as made after the divine image, and, thirdly, as having had law issued to him; and by rendering it manifest, that a being so created, constituted, and situated, behoved as a matter of necessity to sin.
The whole subject may be thus briefly opened up and condensed: —
1. The ultimate cause of sin was the union of mind with matter, or the calling into existence of a being endowed with earthly mind. This union was the cause sine qua non of sin; or the first and an indispensable step in the progress towards all that followed. By connecting mind with matter, first, mind was of necessity suited or accommodated to its previously existing earthly companion, or became of necessity earthly or fleshly itself; and, secondly, there were necessarily imposed upon it limited qualities or properties. Constituted after this fashion, the human mind was so far prepared for transgression, that as earthly it inherited earthly or downward tendencies, and as bounded in its capacity it was totally unfitted for comprehending and acting on the infinite purposes of Jehovah in his procedure towards it.
2. The mediate cause of sin was the circumstance of man having been created after the image of God, that is, of man [81] having been so constituted as to resemble God. Man was made in every respect to shadow forth his Creator; and yet the qualities with which he was endowed, as having been shadowy, stood in every respect contrasted with and opposed to the substantial attributes which they represented. Of this state of things, how obvious and certain the result. His mind, as having been the image or shadow of that of God, was incapable of recognizing and submitting to the authority of a superior; and yet in his inability to recognize God as his superior, and to submit to his righteous authority, man was evincing the attitude of hostility to God in which his possession of the shadows of divine attributes, necessarily placed him. To attempt to subject to law, a being whose nature as the representative of God thus prompted him to spurn at the restraints of law, was it is obvious necessarily to pave the way for transgression.
3. The proximate or immediate cause of sin, was the influence of temptation, operating in opposition to the restraints of divine law, upon the creature mind. When we consider the temptation, we find that it not merely exerted its power, by appealing to the fleshly appetites, or earthly and downward tendencies, of man; but that it also stimulated him to indulgence, by the prospect which it held out of those other tendencies of his being gratified, by which he bore a marked and direct resemblance to the Most High. The fruit was not only pleasant to the eyes and good for food; but, as the immediate and necessary effect of eating it, our first parents were to be as Gods. — To restrain from the meditated indulgence, the divine threatening was absolutely powerless; nay, its operation properly was that of a provocative or stimulant to transgression. It was powerless; because the divine threatening, as substantial, could not in reality take effect on the nature of man, which is shadowy, so as to restrain it from sinning, except at the expense of crushing and destroying it: a circumstance which, if human nature was to display itself and operate at all, rendered it necessary that it should be permitted to do so, without any actual and substantial restraint from divine law. And, it acted as a provocative to sin; for, the divine prohibition, as by its very nature interfering with man’s fancied sense of independence and affectation of God-like supremacy, operated, not to restrain him from transgression, but actually to induce him to transgress, as the only means of enabling him to throw off what he con-[82]ceived and felt to be a yoke. Thus, from the very constitution of the Adamic mind, combined with the circumstances in which our common ancestor was placed, sin necessarily flowed: seeing that, in a mind constituted like Adam’s, the temptation, and the prohibition, singularly enough, concurred to produce the same result, of transgression of divine law. This the temptation did directly, by promising the gratification of fleshly appetite, and flattering that sense of independence and supremacy which man possessed as made after the image of God; while divine law accomplished the same thing indirectly, as that, while in appearance it was restraining a mind which neither understood nor relished it, was in reality stimulating that mind to its own violation, by rendering sin the only means whereby man could, under the circumstances of the case, assert his independence, and prove his inability, as having been made after the divine image, to submit to the restraint of divine law.
In the earthliness of the mind, then, the foundation of sin was laid; in the conferring upon earthly mind of the divine image, sin became unavoidable; and in the tempting of earthly mind to gratify its earthly propensities, by the very same act by which it asserted its heavenly likeness, we have the direct, immediate, or proximate, cause of sin set before us.
The genealogy of sin of which I have just furnished my readers with an abstract, will abide, what theological romances on the subject never can do, the test of the most minute, searching, and vigorous investigation.
[83] CHAPTER XI.
THE ENTRANCE OF SIN NOT ACCIDENTAL.
BELIEVING as I do, upon the authority of God himself, that of him, and through him, and to him, are all things, I find it utterly impossible to attach credit to the popular notions respecting the introduction of evil. Professors of religion in general think, that sin entered in opposition to, and in some such way as to frustrate, the divine wishes and purposes. That is, they conceive sin to have made its appearance in the world accidentally. I, on the contrary, relying upon the declarations of the sacred records, feel certain, that it entered exactly at the time when, and by the means which, God had pre-determined: or, that its existence was necessary.
To express my meaning somewhat more minutely and satisfactorily.
Every being that exists, and every event that happens, makes its appearance and takes place, according to a fore-arranged and fore-appointed plan. There is nothing like chance in the divine procedure. For according to the purpose which God purposed in himself, before the world began,31 are all the phenomena of nature and grace gradually and successively developing themselves.32 Indeed, I am fully warranted in going still farther. Properly speaking, there is neither past nor future with him, who is the great I AM: preterition and futurity being predicable, not of the divine, but of the mere creature nature. Therefore, whatever occurs, or rather the whole course of the divine procedure from first to last, is merely a development successively to us creatures of the ever presently-existing, and presently-purposing, and presently-executing, divine mind.
31 Eph. 1:9; 3:11; 2 Timothy 1:9.
32 See Matt. 10:29-31.
This being abundantly clear to me in the light of scripture, the two following propositions I not merely receive as divinely authenticated, and, therefore, absolutely and infallibly [84] true, but also perceive to be corollaries involved in, and necessarily resulting from, the grand principle just laid down: —
First, that human nature was constituted with a view to the introduction of sin.
Sin, as has already been shewn at full length, resulted from the constitution of man, as, on the one hand, of the earth, earthy,33 and yet as, on the other, made in, or after, the image of God.34 The human mind derived its downward tendency from the former circumstance; and a blind and instinctive upward tendency, from the latter. These two discordant, and yet combined, tendencies, man inherited with the nature imparted to him by his divine and glorious Maker. And in these, was the basis of transgression laid.
33 1 Cor. 15:47, compared with Gen. 2:7.
34 Gen. 1:26,27; &c. &c.
Secondly. Circumstances, in the case of man, were so arranged, that sin, on his part, became necessary and inevitable.
These circumstances were, the issuing to man of a divine prohibition, sanctioned by a threatening of the forfeiture of life, in the event of its being transgressed; the causing of a temptation to violate this prohibition, to be presented to the creature mind; and the leaving of that mind to act according to the bias and tendencies of its own nature, thereby affording it an opportunity of shewing what it actually was. What, from a nature, which as earthly was prone to sensual indulgence, and which, as having been made in God’s image, was endowed with the feelings of personal independence and supremacy, when placed in such circumstances, could possibly follow, but actual transgression?
Thus did transgression necessarily flow from a nature which, by its very constitution, stood opposed to that of God. For as righteousness is characteristic of the divine nature, by belonging to Jehovah alone;35 so is sin, whenever it is subjected to divine law and exposed to temptation, equally characteristic of the nature of the intelligent creature.36 But although man’s nature thus stands diametrically opposed to God’s nature, the mind of flesh being enmity against God; Rom. 8:7; and although every attempt to impose divine law upon man’s nature, must of necessity be attended with trans-[85]gression of that law, seeing that it is not subject to God’s law, neither, indeed, can be; Ibid; it by no means follows from all this, that the nature of man is independent of God. The Manichees of old might contend for the existence of two independent, and eternally conflicting, principles of good and evil; and it may suit our modern Manichees to represent God as having been disappointed in his expectations from human nature as originally constituted, although deriving its constitution directly from himself. Such an idea, however, no one, who, on the authority of scripture, believes man to be God’s creature, can even for a single moment allow himself to entertain. On the contrary, as we go on to shew in the next chapter, every one who is enlightened from above must rejoice to think, that, while in transgressing divine law, the creature was both following out the bent of its own nature and fulfilling the purposes of him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will,37 it was thereby likewise preparing the way for the development of a scheme of love and mercy, which except through the medium of the entrance and temporary reign of sin, could not have been carried into effect.
35 Dan. 9:7. Compare this with Rom. 3:21,22; 8:3,4; and 10:3,4.
36 Rom. 5:20, and 7:7,10,11,13.
37 Eph. 1:11. See also Acts 2:23.
[86] CHAPTER XII.
SIN NOT AN END, BUT A MEANS TO AN END.
MEN of strong natural powers of mind, but characterised by infidel sentiments, have frequently attempted to shew, that God might have accomplished the purposes of his goodness towards the human race, by other methods than the introduction of sin. That is, they have ventured to assert, that the entrance of evil was not necessary and indispensable. All such imaginings, as not more blasphemous than absurd, are at once put aside by me. And this, by a very simple and obvious consideration. Knowing as I do upon God’s own authority, that his wisdom is perfect, and that he does nothing superfluously or in vain, it is enough for me to be informed, that he has adopted any particular course of procedure, in order to be satisfied, that, not merely is that course the best, but that it is the only one, by which his blessed and glorious designs could have been accomplished. The notions of men, however ingenious and however talented, as to what God, under certain supposed circumstances, might have done, are nothing to me, nay, become absolutely loathesome, when God himself, in opposition to, and as it were in contempt of, such lying vanities, condescends to acquaint me in his word with what he actually has done.
The two following are divinely stated and authenticated facts, deny them who will. First, that sin was committed, not by a being who was independent of Jehovah, but by one who was his creature and subject. And, secondly, that the commission of sin by the creature, has been rendered subservient to the taking away of sin by the Lord Creator: the infliction of death, as the consequence of the sin of the former, having been rendered subservient to the swallowing up of death in victory, as the triumphant result of the mediation and work, including the death of the latter.
Each of these facts, viewed in the light of revelation its only and its safe interpreter, is found to speak its own appropriate language. The former, that, as God’s creature, man, [87] in transgressing, so far from having acted in frustration of the divine purpose, must actually and exactly have been fulfilling it: and the latter, that, from the power combined with the wisdom of God, and from the glorious results to which the one transgression of man has been rendered subservient, that transgression must have constituted a necessary and indispensable part of a plan, which was of divine arrangement as well as of divine execution. The former of these consequences we have already dwelt on: it remains for us now to consider the latter.
Scripture is rich in general intimations to us who believe, of the subserviency of the entrance of sin, to the fulfilment of the divine purposes; as well as in bright and animating particular developments of the place which sin holds in the divine scheme, and of the manner in which, by its instrumentality, the ends aimed at by God are attained to.
In confirmation of the one assertion, let it suffice to quote an Old Testament fact, and a New Testament averment. The fact is, that, it was not until after sin had been committed, that the promise of the future deliverer from sin was given. Gen. 2, 3, especially, chapter 3:15. It being apparent, on the face of the inspired narrative, that as, but for the previous commission of sin, there could have been neither necessity nor opportunity for subsequent appearance of sin’s glorious destroyer, the one event, therefore, was subservient to the other. — And the averment is, that as sin hath reigned unto death, so shall grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. 5:21; shewing the subserviency of the temporary reign of the one, to the everlasting reign of the other.
My assertion as to Scripture abounding in particular developments of the place which sin holds in the divine scheme, falls to be illustrated at greater length.
1. It was by the entrance of sin, that death, sin’s appropriate38 wages, overtook the human family; and that thus human nature, which otherwise, in strict consistency with the claims of justice, must have been perpetuated upon earth for ever, was brought to an end. When God said to Adam with reference to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die, Gen. 2:17, it was [88] obviously implied in the threatening, that except by man’s eating of the fruit of this tree, death could not take place: and, therefore, in order to the effectuating of God’s ulterior purposes, sin and death behoved to enter.
38 Appropriate, because inability to obey, suitably stood connected with inability to live.
2. It was by the entrance of sin, that a way was opened up for the selection of a peculiar people from among the nations of the earth; for the giving forth of a peculiar law to them; for the manifestation of peculiar providences in their case; for the uttering of prophecies concerning them; and for the putting upon record of these manifestations and these prophecies: in a word, for the calling into existence of a typical people, and for the writing and completion of the Old Testament Scriptures. The people chosen were under sin, under the guilt of Adam’s one sin, like others: but they were beings under sin, in whose case, by a peculiar system of laws and institutions, the enmity of human nature to God was to be rendered more distinctly and impressively manifest, than it had been, or could be, in the case of men placed in ordinary circumstances. To them the law from Mount Sinai entered, not that their ability to obey it might become apparent but in order to bring out thoroughly, by means of their incessant violations of it, the worthlessness and decidedly Satanic character of human nature. Adopting scripture phraseology, to them the law entered, that the offence might abound. Rom. 5:20.
3. It was by means of the original entrance of sin through Adam, and the subsequent abounding of sin through the nation of the Jews, that a way was opened up for the coming of Christ Jesus, and the work which he accomplished in the taking of sin away. For, without sin, there could have been no occasion for a Saviour from sin; and, without the previous abounding of sin, the contrast between the sinful creature and the sinless Creator, and the wondrous power of the Creator in encountering and vanquishing sin in its worst, its strongest, and its most virulent form, could not have been fully exhibited. It was not, therefore, until after it had been shewn, not only in the case of previously innocent Adam, but also in the case of the Jews, a nation placed externally in the most advantageous circumstances, that divine law was invariably and of necessity weak through the flesh, or totally unable to procure obedience from the impotent fleshly nature of man, that God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Rom. 8:3. [89] For Jesus, after having obeyed divine law to the very uttermost, in the fleshly nature in which he was manifested, sacrificed that nature, as the only means by which sin could be brought to an end. Thus sin manifested in Adam, led to the manifestation of sin, in a far more atrocious form in the nation of the Jews; and sin, in this more atrocious form, having been assailed, grappled with, and overcome, was, by means of the sacrifice of himself as the crowning act of his obedience, finally destroyed, by the Son of God.
[90] CHAPTER XIII.
EARTHLY TERMINATION AS WELL AS ORIGIN OF SIN.
SPEAKING of the great bard and ornament of the English Commonwealth, I am reminded of his fanciful and glowing picture, derived from rabbinical and anti-Christian lore, of sin as having existed above, previous to its appearance below: of Satan as having, in heaven itself,
Defied the Omnipotent to arms,
in the first place; and of his expulsion from the celestial mansions, to recommence and prosecute his warfare against Deity, under very different circumstances, upon earth. A theory which, in one form or another, constitutes an item in all the religions of Christendom. — And now comes the question, is it, can it be, true?
Certainly not; if scripture is to have any weight or authority in the matter.
Evil, say the supporters of the popular doctrine whatever modification it may assume, began in heaven, and was thence transferred to earth. Evil, says the scriptures, began on earth; and where it began, there it terminates. Amidst such a marked discrepancy of statement, to which of the parties shall we listen? To man? Or to God?
Indeed, so diverse are the views and statements presented in the word of God, from those which have been coined in the imaginations of mere human beings, that, whereas men have represented sin as having had its origin in heaven or in an eternal state of things, as thence descending temporarily to earth, and as from earth carried up into an eternal state of things again, by means of the perpetrators of it being subjected to everlasting torments; on the contrary scripture represents sin as having had its origin upon earth, as having been from earth temporarily carried up into heaven, and as having been from heaven precipitated to the earth, there in the place of its origin to be destroyed. Let me open up this latter view rather more in detail.
Evil, I say, according to the scriptures, began on earth, [91] and was thence for a time transferred to heaven. How it began on earth has, in a former part of this book, been at length and I hope satisfactorily shewn. That it was from earth transferred temporarily to heaven, is an idea novel perhaps to some of my readers, and requiring some little care in the statement of particulars in order to its being even apprehended. My meaning may be best conveyed by briefly adverting to the rise, progress, and consummation of sin, which was as follows: — Enmity to God was first displayed by Adam, upon earth, in the shape of a direct breach of the divine prohibition: this display of enmity on his part having constituted the first sin, and having as its appropriate punishment been visited with the first death, or forfeiture of the earthly life. After the lapse of many centuries, God selected from among the nations of the earth, the descendants of Abraham to be his peculiar people, and to stand to him in the relation or capacity of a church. By this very fact, as well as by the manifestations of the divine character which it implied, and with which it was accompanied, the Jews were introduced into heaven: not the real and anti-typical, but the typical heaven; or what is frequently in scripture denominated the first heaven. This heaven was opened up in the utmost extent of its fulness and glory, when our Lord rose from the dead; and when, as the Jew, he carried up the other descendants of Abraham along with himself into it. Into the typical heaven, before the advent of the Messiah, disobedience had entered: but in it, subsequently to the death and resurrection of Christ, an opportunity for the display of human guilt, in the most awful and appalling form in which it ever has been exhibited, was to be afforded. The Jews had already spoken against, and crucified, the Son of man, in the lower state of their heaven, a crime which, upon our Lord’s authority we know, might be forgiven; they were now however, by means of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, advanced and carried up into a higher state of their heaven, and in it were addressed by the Holy Ghost, commanding them to believe on him whom they had crucified as the long-promised Messiah, or issuing to them the second law, disobedience to which, as being blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, they were informed, would expose them, without the possibility of forgiveness, to the punishment of the second death. Matt. 12:31,32. In this way, then, — by the Jews having been typically in heaven, as God’s fleshly church, and by their having been, as a nation, so far par-[92]takers of the resurrection power of Jesus, as to have been by him carried up with himself into the highest form of that heaven — when a divine law was under such circumstances addressed to them, an opportunity was given for sin being committed in heaven. And so it was. For the Jews, elevated to heaven,39 disobeyed the second law issued to them, just as decidedly as Adam, created and dwelling upon earth, had disobeyed the first law imposed upon him. And as the result of his disobedience, had been to our common progenitor, expulsion from the earthly Paradise; so was the result of disobedience to Abraham’s fleshly descendants, expulsion from those typical heavens which for a season they had occupied.40 The sinners, for so are the Jews frequently and emphatically denominated in the Book of Psalms and elsewhere, had for a while been raised to heaven, but they were thence cast down to the earth; and sin which, after having commenced on earth, had through their instrumentality been temporarily carried up into heaven, was with them expelled thence for ever, and sent back to earth, the place of its origin, there to be destroyed. To express myself otherwise: in the circumstance of the Jews, who had been for a time exalted to heaven, rejecting Jesus, proclaimed to them by the Apostles as the Messiah, consisted the second sin; and in the circumstance of the Jews being deprived of all their former religious privileges, and being for ever as a nation rendered incapable of enjoying the blessings of the heavenly kingdom, or in their being cast out of the first heaven, and being for ever excluded from the second, — consisted the second death. And for the destruction of sin, not for the perpetuation of it, did this expulsion from heaven of the nation of Israel take place: seeing that, as to earth, the members of that once highly favoured nation were made to descend, that like the other nations of the earth they might die or perish; Psalm 82:6,7;41 so to earth, was sin itself along with them precipitated, that, where it began, there it might be consumed for ever.
39 See Matt. 11:23.
40 See again Matt. 11:23.
41 See John 10:34,35.
There is another system represented in the scriptures as going on, which is an exact counterpart of this, and the understanding of which may tend to throw light on this. As sin, or the principle of enmity to God, after having begun on earth, was temporarily carried up into heaven, thence to be cast down again to earth the place of its origin, in order to [93] its final and complete destruction; so did righteousness, as springing from the principle of love to God, which had its origin in heaven, make a temporary descent to the earth, that it might thence return with accumulated triumphs to heaven again. It was by means of the temporary descent of the principle of righteousness to earth that it had an opportunity of encountering and subduing the principle of sin, elevated temporarily to heaven. Jesus rising from the dead carried upwards with himself the principle of sin or enmity to God in the persons of the Jews; Jesus, elevated to his throne, caused the principle of righteousness or love to God, to descend, and to enter into conflict with the other principle, in the persons of the Apostles and the Apostolic churches. The conflict between the two principles was severe, but not protracted. Its record or a full and divinely authenticated account of it, we have in the Acts of the Apostles. As the necessary result of the collision between the principles of righteousness and sin, the former overcame the latter. The Jews, who had been introduced into the first heaven, were, in consequence of their enmity to the risen Saviour, cast out of it with all their adherents and abettors. The body of believers, who had already likewise been in the first heaven, were, at the very time and in the very act of the expulsion of the others from it, carried up into the second heaven, with all who are one with them.
And thus was the scene of the conflict removed from heaven to earth. For then did the New Jerusalem begin its descent from heaven, or did there commence that inroad of the principle of righteousness upon the territories of the principle of enmity to God, which shall not terminate, until all things shall be subjugated under the feet of the Lord Jesus, in consequence of his utter and everlasting destruction of the principle of enmity by the making of all things new in himself. Thus, if sin got up temporarily into heaven, or the place of divine manifestation, in the persons of the Jews, it was that righteousness, which had previously descended to the earth, in the person of the Lord Jesus, might by his death and resurrection to heaven, have an opportunity of assailing it in its strong-hold, and there of routing and overwhelming it; and that casting it out of heaven, and dashing it to the earth, he might have a farther opportunity of following it to the place of its origin, and there in the exercise of that power whereby he subdues all things to himself, might effect its complete and everlasting annihilation.
[94] CHAPTER XIV.
DESTRUCTION OF CREATURE ENMITY, DESTRUCTION OF CREATURE NATURE.
ENMITY to God having been shown to be essential to the human mind, and thereby to the very nature and constitution of man as a human being, what inference are we entitled to deduce from this?
Why this obviously and certainly, that before you can destroy in man the principle of enmity to God, you must destroy the very nature of which man is possessed.
We shall not succeed in removing the enmity by improving human nature; for it was among the polished communities of Greece and Rome that some of the worst features of humanity made their appearance. Nor by strengthening human nature; for the Jews, in whom that nature was most decidedly confirmed by their divine privileges and institutions, were the most deadly and inveterate foes whom God ever had. And it is out of the question to attempt to remedy matters by weakening human nature; for, besides that the attempt would be in vain, seeing that the tendency of man is necessarily progressive, and towards the development of all his energies, such a mode of treatment would proceed upon the absurd principle of weak human nature being something else than human nature after all. The fact is, that the enmity of man to God, springing as it does from the resemblance which subsists between man and God, is inherent in man’s very nature. He is, as like God, unable to submit to the restraints of divine law. By being like God, he is necessarily God’s rival. What, under such circumstances, can be done to remedy the evil? If to leave man’s mind as it is, be to leave his enmity in existence; and if to strengthen his mind, be to strengthen his enmity; how shall that enmity be got rid of? Only in one way. The mind which is like that of God, as the mind of man is, must cease to exist or be destroyed, before that enmity to God, which is characteristic of the mind of man, can itself cease to exist or be destroyed.
[95] To unthinking and unenlightened persons, this statement of mine will not only sound harshly, but appear to be quite unwarranted. No one, however, who has even a very moderate acquaintance with the system of divine truth which is revealed in the scriptures, and especially with the doctrine of the atonement, will venture to dispute my position.
The simple truth is, that, according to scripture, human nature, after having answered all the purposes for which it was brought into existence, is destroyed; and that the doctrine of the atonement is neither more nor less than the explanation and development of the manner in which the destruction of human nature is carried into effect.
Each human being passes away; and thus human nature is, in so far as respects himself as an individual, at an end. The race of man itself passes away; and thus the whole human family comes to an end.
In Christ, the second Adam, as we shall afterwards see, the whole family of man exist and are summed up. As one with him, in him they obeyed divine law; in him they died; in him they rose again from the dead. Thus it is, that human beings who, as one with Adam, possess a shadowy nature, and come to an end; as one with Christ Jesus, possess a substantial nature, and live for evermore.
They live not, in Christ, however, as human beings. Human nature which, itself a shadow, had a shadowy termination in the death of Adam; ended substantially in the death of the Lord Jesus. Not to the perpetuation, therefore, but to the destruction, of human nature, did the death of Jesus contribute. In his resurrection, a new nature, even the divine, made its appearance. And it is with the divine nature, that those who are now human beings, live for ever. As one with Adam, they bear the image of the earthy; as one with the Lord Jesus, the second Adam, they bear the image of the heavenly. In the image of the heavenly, the image of the earthy being for ever swallowed up and destroyed.
Thus is enmity to God destroyed, by means of the destruction of that mind of flesh, of which enmity to God is the leading and essential feature. And it is destroyed, in consequence of the principle of likeness to God, from which the enmity springs, being swallowed up in the principle of sameness or oneness with God, from which enmity to God is excluded, and of which love to God is necessarily the characteristic for evermore.
[96] CHAPTER XV.
GENERAL STATEMENT AND INFERENCE.
THERE is no possibility of any of my readers, who have travelled along with me so far, failing to observe, that throughout this book it has been my object to establish the three following propositions with respect to human nature, as it existed in Adam, and as it exists in all his posterity: —
First, that it is a shadowy nature: nothing appearing in it that is real and positive, its whole character being merely emblematic and negative.
Secondly, that it has become chargeable with actual transgression of divine law, in that individual with whom the whole human family are one, and in that external and fleshly church with whom all external and fleshly churches are one; directly, in Adam’s violation of the divine prohibition, and in the Jews’ rejection of the divine command, and indirectly in infringement on the dictates of conscience, whether less enlightened as in the case of the Gentiles, or more enlightened as in the case of Abraham’s fleshly descendants. — And
Thirdly, that the actual transgressions of mankind are traceable to a principle of enmity to God existing in and essential to human nature: a principle connected with man’s earthly origin and constitution, as well as with the fact of his bearing the divine image, and being subjected to divine law; and a principle so inherent in and inseparable from his whole being, that nothing short of his complete destruction as man can expel and extirpate it.
Taken together, these three positions with respect to human nature justify three separate inferences, all bearing upon the same result, and rising one above another in the form of a climax: —
First. As shadowy, human nature is capable of being destroyed; that is, it presents no obstacle to destruction overtaking it.
Secondly. As actually chargeable with guilt, human nature deserves to be destroyed; or, as having sinned, its [97] merited destiny is, in the language of scripture, to return to the dust from which it was taken. — And
Thirdly, the actual sinfulness of man springing from a principle of enmity to God inherent in his very nature; and, so far from there being any possibility of altering for the better this state of things while human nature lasts, the tendency of that nature being to develop its enmity to God yet more and more; it necessarily follows, that human nature must be destroyed: unless we are prepared to hold one or other of the monstrous dogmas, so censurable in the school of ordinary and popular divines, either, that God, after having given temporary existence to sin, chooses to retain it everlastingly in being; or that, after having once given it existence, he has put it beyond his own power to effect its destruction: either of which hypotheses is of course blasphemous and absurd.
Every doctrine of the atonement, therefore, which is scriptural and self-consistent, must proceed upon the principle of the destruction of the Adamic nature, as that which, as shadowy, may be, as sinful, ought to be, and as vitally, essentially, and necessarily enmity to God, must be destroyed.
[98]
[99] BOOK II.
THE MEANS OF THE ATONEMENT.
IN THE BODY OF HIS FLESH — THROUGH DEATH.
[100]
[101] THE words of that portion of the Epistle to the Colossians selected by me as the groundwork of the present Essay, which are quoted on the preceding page, suggest two divisions of this branch of the subject. First. Those circumstances which, although more remotely connected with the atonement, were nevertheless indispensable, as preliminaries, to its existence and efficacy: particularly, our Lord’s appearance in a body of flesh. And, secondly, those circumstances which were directly and immediately connected with the atonement: particularly, his death. Each of these divisions demands, and shall receive, our attentive consideration.
[102]
[103] DIVISION I.
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH, ALTHOUGH MORE REMOTELY CONNECTED WITH THE ATONEMENT, WERE NEVERTHELESS INDISPENSABLE, AS PRELIMINARIES, TO ITS EXISTENCE AND EFFICACY.
CHAPTER I.
THE VIRGIN MARY.
OUR attention is first of all arrested by Mary, the mother of Christ Jesus. For the link which connected the Lord of Glory with the great chain of humanity, is surely of too much importance to be entirely overlooked in a work like the present.
Here I dismiss, with a passing remark or two, and as unworthy of a more detailed notice, certain topics, which, I am ashamed to say, have exercised the wits, and employed the pens, of some of the ablest and subtlest intellects which have embarked in the study of theology.
First. The assertion that the virgin Mary was conceived without sin. Putting out of view altogether the total want of scriptural evidence for the allegation, and many other formidable objections to which it lies open, it is enough for me to observe, that to maintain it is, however unaware its advocates may be of the consequences, equivalent to maintaining the impossibility of the world’s salvation. Had Mary been born without sin, that is, without the sin of Adam attaching to her nature, and without connection with that law transgressions of which were confined to Abraham’s descendants, as our blessed Lord in that case could not have been brought into personal contact with sin, and could not have had an opportunity of taking it upon himself, of course he never could have taken it away. To suppose Mary to have been conceived without sin, is, therefore, to insulate her, and thereby her divine Son, from the great mass of humanity. [104] It was absolutely necessary that the virgin mother should have been born in sin, as other human beings are, in order, as we shall afterwards have occasion to shew at full length, that sin might through her descend upon the head of the Lord Jesus her pure and heavenly offspring, and that thus by him it might be taken hold of, grappled with, and destroyed for ever.
Secondly. That Mary had no conjugal intercourse with her husband, after the birth of Jesus, is another of those popish fables, to which I am surprised and ashamed to find men calling themselves protestants, lending the weight of their authority. It may answer very well for the advocates of celibacy in the Church of Rome — for those who in every age have been actively employed in disparaging an ordinance and institution of immediate divine appointment — to represent it as impossible for Mary ever to have lived as a married woman should do with her husband. Marriage with them, forsooth, is a state of comparative impurity. And they may be permitted to teach their blinded and bigotted followers to thunder forth continually the Beata Maria, semper virgo. But that in the teeth of what is evidently implied in Matt. 1:25;42 of the express declaration of the Apostle, that marriage is honourable in all; Heb. 13:4; and of the respect which God has in every age shewn to be due to the nuptial relation;43 I say, that in the teeth of all this, protestants should be found countenancing one of the worst and most offensive dogmata of the Church of Rome, this, is distressing indeed.
42 And knew her not till, εως, she had brought forth her first-born, πρωτοτοκον, son.
43 Gen. 20:3-16; 2 Samuel 12:1-23; &c. &c.
Other and more important topics than those which I have thus briefly and hastily dismissed, demand our attention, when we think of Mary as the mother of the Son of God.
Jesus, as having had a virgin for his mother, was necessarily her first-born; and thereby in this, as well as in every other respect, he had secured to him the pre-eminence.
But it is as a woman, a Jewess, and a descendant of the royal house of David, that we are called on principally to regard Mary, the wife of Joseph, and mother of Emmanuel.
As a woman she imparted to our Lord the nature of man, and connected him with the whole human family. From the [105] first man, woman had originally proceeded; and now, as if by way of redressing the balance, from woman proceeded the second man. See 1 Corinth. 11:12. Compare also Gen. 2:21,22, with Rev. 12:5. And by this inverted process, all men were shewn to be supernaturally in Jesus, as naturally they had been all in Adam.
As a Jewess, Mary imparted to her heavenly offspring a close and peculiar connection with Abraham’s fleshly seed, and rendered him the inheritor of the blessings promised to Abraham. He became, through her, that seed of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed.
As a descendant of David, and, although in abject poverty, the lineal successor to his throne, Mary imparted her royal rights and immunities to her child. So that, when, in due time, Jesus sat down on the right hand of the majesty in the heavens as head of the house of Israel, he took possession of a dignity to which he could prefer claims natural as well as spiritual.
All this, be it observed, was of immediate divine appointment, and happened in fulfilment of express declarations of the Most High. First of all, it was the seed of the woman, that was to bruise the Serpent’s head. Gen. 3:15. Then, it was in Abraham’s seed, that the blessing was to be secured. Gen. 12:3; 15:4; 17:5-7; 22:18. And, lastly, to David it had been announced, that when his days should be fulfilled, and when he should sleep with his fathers, God would set up his seed after him, which should proceed out of his bowels, and would establish his kingdom; that he should build a house for God’s name, and that God would establish the throne of his kingdom for ever: 2 Samuel 7:12,13: a prophecy which we know to have been applied by the Archangel Gabriel to the future Son of Mary. Luke 1:32,33. See also Acts 2:30-36; and 13:23,34-37. — Thus, in the fact of our Lord being born of a woman, of a Jewess, and of one of David’s royal line, so far from there being anything like chance apparent, we perceive the revealed purpose of God completely, and in even the minutest particular, carried into effect.
Jesus was thus, through Mary his mother, according to divine appointment, the Man, the Jew, the King.
[106] CHAPTER II.
THERE IS ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MAN, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.
A CORRECT idea of the position occupied by our blessed Lord with respect to God on the one hand and man on the other, assists us materially in understanding, indeed, is indispensable to our understanding, his nature and character while on earth.
Now this very idea is afforded us in the passage which constitutes the heading of the present chapter. Jesus was the mediator between God and man; and, as such, he was the man.
The grand object of Jehovah, as we learn from the Scriptures, was to bring together into one, or reconcile, two parties between whom there had arisen a state of decided and deadly hostility. Man, by transgression, had proclaimed himself to be the enemy of God; and God thereby had been constrained to appear in the light and character of the enemy of man. Man had presumed to set up his will in opposition to the law of God; and God had fulfilled his will by the inflicting of sufferings and death upon his puny but guilty antagonist. But matters were not destined to stop here. God’s purpose was to carry into effect his will still farther. He had, from everlasting, fore-arranged, as well as foreseen, all the circumstances connected with man’s revolt, and pre-determined to convert the temporary curse into an everlasting blessing. Man, the enemy of God, was to be rendered the friend of God; and in the slaying of man’s enmity to God, God’s enmity to man was to cease. Nay, in the slaying of man’s enmity to God, it was to be made apparent, that God’s enmity to man had all along constituted a portion of a scheme by means of the fulfilment of which God was ultimately and everlastingly to appear, what he ever at bottom and in reality had been, the friend of man. How was this to be accomplished? In only one way, as we learn from the recorded result, could the divine purpose of love towards man have been carried into effect. There behoved to make his appearance a being one with God and one with man; a being [107] possessed of a nature, and partaking of properties, as well divine as human. As one with God, he should be able to dispose of himself, and of all persons and things besides, as he pleased; as one with man, he should include in himself the whole human family. He should have power with man, so as to dispose of him, and of his destinies, in disposing of himself; he should have power with God as a prince and should prevail, so as that in whatever he undertook to accomplish, there should be no risk or possibility of failure. Such a one, and such a one only, was qualified, first to destroy in himself the enmity cherished by man to God, arising from his having been made after the divine image by appearing in the form or likeness of man; and then, to destroy in himself the enmity on the part of God towards man, arising from the absolute irreconciliability of their respective natures, by appearing in the form or likeness of God. As appearing in the form of man, he behoved to destroy the enmity of man to God, by destroying or sacrificing himself; as appearing in the form of God, he behoved to destroy the enmity of God to man, by conferring upon human beings, as risen in himself, the nature of God. In a word, in order to the reconciliation of God and man, one occupying the place, and appearing in the character, of a mediator, or middle person, was requisite. And such a Mediator as the being whom I have attempted faintly to delineate, standing between the rival and hostile parties, could alone bring into a state of everlasting union, by the destruction of their mutual enmity in himself, those whom sin had necessarily but temporarily disunited.
In the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, there is presented to us in scripture the Mediator, or middle person, whom the exigencies of the case required. He was God and man. Not a god, and a man; but the God, and the man. That is, it is in the sense of his having been the Mediator, that we are to understand him as having been the man. He was the man because he was also the living and true God.
Nothing more strikingly indicates the dreadful perversity of the human mind in regard to divine things than its presuming to fasten upon such an expression as that now before us, and to argue from it as derogatory to the exalted rank and character, which all taught from above unite in ascribing to the Lord Jesus. He is denominated the man, say Socinians, because he was merely a man, and never pretended to any higher dignity. And this gloss of theirs is so far acquiesced in by thousands who profess a purer faith, that the [108] phrase in question, as well as corresponding ones, is supposed by the latter merely to indicate our Lord’s possession of a human nature in all respects the same as our own. Truly it is painful to witness bitter and uncompromising hostility to the revealed character of Jesus on the one hand, met by such feeble and incompetent advocacy of his rightful status and claims on the other. Scripture contradicts and disclaims both views. Jesus was not a man, such as ordinary human beings are. Nor, in connection with the divine nature, but distinct from it, did he possess a nature which is the same as ours. Ordinary theology is no more correct in its representation of this matter, than is bare-faced Socinianism. Jesus was the man. That is, he was the only man, properly speaking, who ever existed, or ever will exist. The words the man here are emphatic. They serve, not to degrade our Lord, either in person or nature, to the level of ordinary human beings; but to distinguish him from, and to elevate him above, all to whom the name and character of man are capable of being applied. They point to him as the being in whom all who are called human beings are summed up and exist; and of whom all who bear the name of man are mere shadowy or external representations. All besides are shadowy men; he is the substantial man. Of him, and of his nature, Adam and his nature were merely figures. And therefore, until he appeared, man, properly speaking, had not existed. He was the man. In him, humanity was summed up; in him, humanity, rendered pure and perfect, was destroyed; in him, humanity no longer such, appears changed into, and clothed with, the nature of God himself. How awful, under such circumstances, the delusion of those, who, because Jesus is called the man, instead of being enabled to behold him as the mediator — as not the man of the earth, earthy, but the man, the Lord from heaven, as not a creature, but the Creator, — on the contrary, in the ignorance of their minds, seize upon the phrase in question, as a convenient and appropriate handle, for degrading him to a level with mere children of the dust — for confounding him with the workmanship of his own hands!
Jesus, then, in his mediatorial character and capacity, is the man. That is, while he appeared on earth as a body of flesh and blood, and with mind in the form of soul, or with human nature entire, he appeared not as an ordinary man, but as the Lord from heaven or extraordinary man, the anti-type, Lord, and Creator, of Adam, the earthy man.
[109] CHAPTER III.
JESUS CHRIST CAME IN THE FLESH, OR TOOK PART OF FLESH AND BLOOD.
LET it not be supposed, either through ignorance or inadvertency, that it has been my purpose, in the immediately preceding chapter, to advocate a system like that of the Docetas of old; or to enlist myself under the banners of Strauss and his co-adjutors in modern times. Far be such a thought from me. Instead of my view of the nature and character of the Lord Jesus corresponding with either of theirs, it stands diametrically opposed to the theories of both.
According to the one, Jesus was but a phantom, or had only the appearance of man; and according to the other, his history is nothing more than a mythos or fable. According to my apprehensions, however, Jesus was really and substantially clothed with flesh and blood; and his history is, like himself, truth: truth literally, entirely, and throughout.
The history of Jesus, as recorded by the Evangelists, is of itself sufficient to establish the fact, that he was a being of flesh and blood. His birth, his growth, his having experienced hunger and thirst, his eating and drinking with a view to allay the cravings of appetite, and, above all, the circumstances attending his crucifixion and death, place this beyond the possibility of a doubt. And then, the express declaration of one Apostle, Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he, Jesus, also himself likewise took part of the same;44 combined with the allegation of another, every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God;45 and corroborated by innumerable other passages to the same effect, scattered throughout the sacred volume; all point to the same fact, and contribute towards establishing infallibly the same principle, that our Lord appeared, and during his abode on earth continued, in a body of flesh and blood.
44 Heb. 2:14.
45 1 John 4:3.
To this I may add, that all my statements and reasonings, [110] in this as well as in my other works, proceed upon this very principle. If Jesus, during his sojourn upon earth, had not real flesh and blood, and real soul, the reader may shut my book, and trouble himself no farther with what I have got to say. A being who was not in all things made like unto his brethren, and who had not a flesh and blood body to offer in sacrifice, is not the Saviour and Reconciler of whom I speak. Jesus was the man. Undoubtedly this imports, as has been already shewn, that he was more than an ordinary man: the particulars in which his superiority over ordinary men consists, being a subject afterwards to be treated of. But it also imports, that he was actually a being of flesh and blood, and not a mere phantom.
[111] CHAPTER IV.
SECOND MAN AND SON OF MAN.
ALTHOUGH in the case of our Lord, who is constantly presented to us in scripture as the antitype or substance of Adam, a strict analogy or resemblance is shewn to subsist between him and the being who constituted his type or figure, the characters of the one and the other are nevertheless brought out continually in broad and decisive contrast. The Holy Ghost evidently thus suggesting, the necessity of our always keeping in view the distinction which exists, and ever must exist, between the creature and the Creator.
As illustrative of this, let the following remarks be attended to.
Adam and Jesus receive from the inspired writers the same common appellation, man. Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 1 Corinth. 15:21. But we are guarded against confounding the one with the other by many distinguishing epithets. And among others, by,
1. Adam being denominated the first man, and Jesus the second man. 1 Corinth. 15:47. This suggests the idea of only two men, properly speaking, ever having appeared upon earth, Adam, and Jesus; and of the whole human race being contained and summed up, although after different modes or fashions, in the one and the other. First, came the earthly man, producing out of himself a posterity in all respects conformed to his own nature; and then came the heavenly man, producing out of himself a posterity in all respects conformed to his nature. Ibid. 48. But, though second in point of natural order, so superior in every respect is this heavenly man to the earthly man who preceded him, that in the heavenly man and his posterity, the earthly man and his posterity are actually contained or included; and, as a necessary consequence of this, to the heavenly man and his posterity, are the earthly man and his posterity ultimately and for ever conformed. Ibid. 49.
[112] 2. The distinction between Adam and Jesus is again obtruded on our notice, by Adam being denominated man, and Jesus the Son of man. For instance, we are presented with it in the language of the eighth psalm: what is man, Adam, that thou art mindful of him; and the son of man, Jesus, that thou visitest him. Verse 4.46 It is suggested, likewise, by the very facts themselves which stand recorded in the scriptures. Thus Adam was man, but, as having had neither human father nor mother, he was not son of man;47 whereas Jesus was son, or descendant of man, as having derived his existence, on one side, from a human parent. This fact, of Jesus, as the Messiah, having been the son or descendant of Adam, supplies us with the reason, why, in the New Testament Scriptures, he assumes to himself, and has applied to him by others, the epithet, Son of Man; and it also serves to explain to us, why the appellation Son of Man is so frequently, in the Old Testament Scriptures, given to those who were confessedly types or figures of him. It is impossible not to be struck by the constant application of the term to Ezekiel, the priest and prophet: indeed, there is one portion of his prophecies, in which Ezekiel is so obviously the type of Christ, that the most careless and superficial reader cannot fail to observe the analogy. See Ezekiel 37:1-14: especially verses 3, 9, and 11.
46 See Heb. 2:6-9.
47 He was, as having derived his existence directly from God, in a certain sense Son of God, and thereby a type of Christ. Luke 3:38.
Such, then, is the order in which Adam and the Lord Jesus are brought under our notice in scripture ; and such are some of the aspects under which the one stands distinguished from the other. Adam was the first man; Jesus, the second man. Adam was man; Jesus, the son of man. And this, upon the scriptural principle, simply and distinctly stated in the first epistle to the Corinthians, that, in the natural order of things, and according to the apprehensions of fleshly mind, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural: and afterwards that which is spiritual. 1 Corinth. 15:46.
But not so, the spiritual order: for, in it, matters are exactly and entirely reversed. If David, then, call the Messiah Lord, how is he his son? was the pointed and profound query addressed by Jesus to the Pharisees of his time, after they attempted to entangle him in his talk, by their insidious [113] questions. Matt. 22:45. They were puzzled and unable to answer, as we are informed by the inspired historian. Ibid. 46. We, having our Lord’s own words in the book of Revelation to guide us, I am the root and the offspring of David,48 know the solution of the difficulty to be, that Messiah was David’s Son according to the flesh; Rom. 1:3; seeing that, in the order of nature, David came first: Matt. 1:6; Luke 3:31; Acts 13:22,23: but that Messiah was David’s Lord, according to the Spirit; Matt. 22:43;49 Rom. 1:4; seeing that, in fact and with reference to his everlasting sonship, Messiah came first, having had an existence antecedent to that of David. John 8:58; Ibid. 17:5. Just so, in the case before us. Our Lord, according to the flesh, and in the natural order of things, was second man, and son of man: but, as of Adam, no less than of Abraham, Jesus was entitled to say, before Adam was, I am, John 8:58, Jesus having been Adam’s Creator, John 1:1-3, Coloss. 1:15-17, and Adam having been made in the likeness of Jesus, Rom. 5:14; it becomes obvious, that Jesus, in the spiritual, which is the real, order of things, was actually the first man, nay, man himself, Heb. 13:8; Rev. 1:8; with John 1:29, Rom. 8:3, 10:4, Philip 2:6-11, Coloss. 1:22; Heb. 9:25-28; 1 John 2:2.
48 Rev. 22:16.
49 David, IN SPIRIT, called him Lord.
[114] CHAPTER V.
JESUS AT ONCE SON OF GOD, AND SON OF MAN; OR THE NATURES OF GOD AND MAN UNITED IN HIS PERSON.
WHAT has just been submitted to my readers, paves the way appropriately for the views which I am now to present to them.
Jesus, as the Son of Mary, a woman produced as ordinary human beings are, inherited from her human nature, or became the son of man.
But as having derived his existence directly from God, in virtue of the word of promise and power, and without the intervention of a human father, he was, in a sense and after a fashion peculiar to himself, the Son of God.
He was thus, as born of a woman, Galatians 4:4, and as the only begotten of the Father, John 1:14, at once son of man, and son of God. Son of man, according to the flesh; Son of God according to the Spirit. Rom. 1:3,4.
The necessary result of this unparalleled birth was, the union of the divine and human natures in the person of the Lord Jesus. He was not an ordinary man, as having had God for his Father; nor was he merely and abstractly considered God, as having been born of a woman: but he possessed, in a state of conjunction and combination, the natures of both God and man. God manifest in flesh is, in spite of all the petty and infidel cavils of criticism, with reference to his appearance upon earth, his appropriate designation. Man’s nature was properly fleshly and of the earth; and the nature of God is properly spiritual and heavenly. But Jesus was not properly either the one or the other. He was of the earth, earthy, through his connection with a human parent; and heavenly, in virtue of his divine extraction. Two natures, in themselves discordant, and in a mere creature utterly irreconcilable, were thus in him the Creator, brought together, and presented in a state of wondrous, and to mere fleshly mind inconceivable, union. In him were exhibited, at one and the same moment, human nature sublimed and exalted, by its combination with the divine nature; and the divine nature, in a state of depression and humiliation, by [115] its combination with human nature. In a word, as at once the son of a woman, and the direct offspring of Deity, our Lord by birth inherited a twofold nature. He was the divine man.
And yet, correct as I am, I have not, as I have already expressed myself, succeeded in conveying exactly and thoroughly my own meaning, and that of scripture. In Jesus the nature of God and man meet. In Jesus, while in flesh, the nature of God modifies the nature of man; and in him, after his resurrection, the nature of man modifies the nature of God. But, properly speaking, Jesus does not appear with the two natures at one and the same time. His divine person is joined to the divine nature after his resurrection. So that, properly, there is no mixture or confusion of the natures. Upon this subject, however, I intend expatiating at greater length afterwards.
Perhaps, it may assist the apprehensions of my readers, if I observe, that Adam, and the Lord Jesus previous to his incarnation, had two entirely distinct and opposite origins. Adam had, so to speak, no father; but sprang full-grown from the earth, as his mother. Our Lord, before his appearance in flesh, had no mother; but was the everlasting Son of the everlasting Father. The nature of the former, was thus essentially earthly and passive; that of the latter, essentially heavenly and active. In the person of our Lord, when conceived and born of the Virgin Mary, the two natures met and were combined. The earthly nature, which had no father, became in him one with the heavenly nature, which had no mother. And in a state of combination or union, do they, in him, exist for ever.50
50 Understood in this sense, the 139th Psalm becomes extremely interesting. As having been conceived in Mary’s womb, our Lord was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Verse 15. See also, what follows.
[116] CHAPTER VI.
SUBSTANTIAL HUMANITY.
WE now approach to the consideration of a subject which has scarcely, if at all, entered into the deliberations of the family of God. I mean, the substantiality of the flesh and blood nature of the Lord Jesus.
Under a former division of this work, I laboured to shew, that ordinary human nature, whether in Adam, or in his posterity, is a mere shadow. That it is produced by, and depends on, a substantial nature, of which, in all respects, it bears the impress and image, was of course laid down and insisted on. But that it bears any one character of substantiality in itself, was denied. And many proofs from the scriptures were adduced, and many striking phenomena adverted to, all contributing to establish the fact, that although of another and a higher nature the nature of Adam might be emblematic, and although into another and a higher nature it might run up and be resolved, it was nevertheless in itself merely transient and shadowy. Man walketh in a vain shew.51 Psalm 39:6. The creature was made subject to vanity. Rom. 8:20.
51 See Margin. Heb. an image.
Now the flesh and blood nature of the Lord Jesus, is the substance, of which the flesh and blood nature of Adam, was merely the shadow. And this, because Adam was merely the figure of him that was to come; Rom. 5:14; and because, while Adam was merely of the earth, earthy, Jesus was the Lord from heaven.52 1 Cor. 15:47. While the soul and body of Adam, then, were shadowy, the soul and body of Jesus were substantial. Or, to express myself in other words, had not a substantial soul and body been in due time to be assumed and possessed by the Lord Jesus, the soul and body of Adam, as having been their shadows, and as having been consequently projected beforehand into time and space by them, never could have made their appearance. Am I asked [117] what I mean by a substantial, as distinguished from a shadowy, flesh and blood nature? My answer is ready. Taking scripture for my guide — and of this subject I know nothing, except by means of the information with which scripture supplies me — I find, that the shadowy flesh and blood nature could commit sin;53 whereas the substantial flesh and blood nature could set sin at defiance.54 Again: the shadowy flesh and blood nature, as it was liable to sin, so was it also liable to death;55 whereas, that which was substantial, as it could set sin at defiance, so could it set death at defiance likewise.56 While Adam, then, as subjected to divine law, behoved, the moment that he was exposed to the suitable temptation, to sin, and thereby to die, giving proof, in this way, of the shadowy nature of his fleshly constitution; on the other hand, the Lord Jesus, — who, while he was upon earth, was subjected to divine law, with a strictness of demand, and weight of obligation, which Adam never knew, — having triumphed over temptations of every kind, and thereby giving death no hold upon him on the score of personal transgressions, afforded evidence, in this way, of the substantial nature of his fleshly constitution. — But why attempt to exhibit the distinction between a shadowy, and a substantial, flesh and blood nature, in the way that I have now done, when a simpler, and probably a more efficacious, method of presenting it, has been already suggested? Adam’s nature was, as we have seen, that of a mere creature. Gen. 2:7. The nature of the Lord Jesus, on the other hand, was that of the Creator, in combination with, or more correctly speaking, under the form of, that of the creature. Philip 2:6-8. Also, Rom. 8:3. Surely, a nature, the basis of which was divine, as was that of Jesus, was alone fitted to be, as it actually was, the substance of a nature, which was solely creaturely, [118] as was that of Adam. And if the real flesh and blood nature of him who was at once Son of God and Son of man, cannot suggest to the mind of my reader a distinction between itself, and the shadowy flesh and blood nature of him who was merely the creature57 and image58 of his glorious descendant, I must abandon in despair all hopes of being able to convey any apprehension of my meaning.
52 Or, according to certain MSS., of heaven, heavenly.
53 And when the woman saw, that the tree was good for food — she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. Gen. 3:6.
54 Which of you convinceth, or convicteth, me of sin? was our Lord’s challenge to the Jews. John 8:46. See also Heb. 4:15, at the end of the verse.
55 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. 3:19.
56 No man ουδεις, no one, taketh it, my life, from me; but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. John 10:18.
57 John 1:3, &c.
58 Rom. 5:14.
Simply and easily does the understanding of this subject dispose of blunders and controversies innumerable, which have grown out of false, mistaken, and inadequate, notions concerning it. To take a few instances. The fiction of Adam’s originally spiritual nature is, by means of it, at once and completely got rid of. And this, because in the light of the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ as substantial, and, therefore, spiritual, we perceive the absurdity, as well as impiety, (upon scripture grounds,) of applying a term to the shadow, which belongs exclusively to the substance. Adam had, as he issued from God’s hands, a shadowy or soulical, not a spiritual nature; and it was a pure soulical nature, consequently, not a spiritual one, which he forfeited. — Again: the notion of creature immortality, in consequence of this subject being understood, also and necessarily drops off. For looking at scripture, and at matter of fact as illustrated by scripture, we perceive that immortality belongs to Jesus the substance, not to Adam the shadow; and that an immortality which Adam himself possessed not, he neither could forfeit, nor convey to his posterity. — Of many other popular errors of a similar kind, the view just given, that our Lord’s flesh and blood nature constituted the basis and substance of the flesh and blood nature of Adam, will enable believers of the truth to dispose with the utmost ease.
When I speak of the humanity of our Lord as having been substantial, let me not be misunderstood. In so far as his manifestation in flesh was concerned, his nature was substantial relatively, not absolutely. It was substantial, with reference to the shadowy humanity of Adam and Adam’s ordinary descendants. But it was itself shadowy, with reference to its capability of depositing its fleshly form, and to the heavenly form which it was capable of assuming, and in which it was destined to appear for ever. In other words, our Lord’s flesh and blood nature was the substance of Adam’s flesh and [119] blood nature; but the flesh and blood nature of our Lord was also and equally the shadow of his own divine nature. What I now state will, perhaps, be understood, by my referring to certain observations which have been already submitted to the reader. It has been shewn, that the Lord Jesus has appeared in two forms, or states of being. In one form, or while he was in flesh, the nature of God was conformed or accommodated to the nature of man. Philip. 2:6-8. In the other form, or after his resurrection from the dead, matters were exactly reversed, for the nature of man was then conformed or accommodated to the nature of God. Philip. 3:21. — Also 2 Corinth. 5:21. Understanding these things, it is obvious, that, although our Lord’s flesh and blood nature, or state upon earth, was substantial, with reference to the flesh and blood nature and state of Adam, seeing that our Lord’s flesh and blood nature constituted the united natures of the Creator and the creature, whereas that of Adam was merely creaturely; and seeing that our Lord’s flesh and blood nature could only be brought to an end, in that form, by an act and exercise of his own will, whereas that of Adam was made subject to vanity, or destruction, not willingly: nevertheless, on the other hand, our Lord’s flesh and blood nature was not substantial, with reference to the possibility of its flesh and blood form coming to an end, and of its afterwards making its appearance for ever in another, and a higher, and a more glorious form. Humanity was substantialized in Jesus, by its union in him with the nature of God: and yet, it was not rendered absolutely substantial in the form which it originally assumed in his incarnation, or in the conforming for a time of the divine nature to the human; for its absolute substantiality was connected with the form which through death and the resurrection from the dead it assumed, or with the conforming for ever of the human nature to the divine.
Certain illustrations may suggest my meaning more readily, than by the preceding didactic observations I have been successful in doing. The nature of our Lord in flesh is the nexus, or intermediate link, which stands between, and binds together, the fleshly nature of Adam, and our Lord’s own present heavenly nature. As intermediate, it has something in common with both natures. Like that of Adam, it was capable of being subjected to law, of having sin laid upon it, and of dying or being brought to an end. Like his own heavenly nature, law found in it a correspondency to itself, [120] sin by it was not personally committed, and death over it could not assert a continued power.
On the other hand, unlike the nature of Adam, the fleshly nature of Jesus was, although not in its fleshly form, to last for ever.59 And, unlike the heavenly nature of Jesus, the nature of Jesus upon earth was to pass away and come to an end.60 In a word, our Lord’s flesh and blood nature was so far conformed to the flesh and blood or shadowy, nature of Adam, as to be capable, whenever he pleased, of being brought to an end in its fleshly form;61 but it was so far conformed to the heavenly or substantial nature of which he is himself possessed now and for ever, as to be incapable of being destroyed:62 its termination in a lower form, being merely and necessarily preliminary to its assuming and appearing in another and a higher one.
59 Psalm 16:10, with Acts 2:31.
60 John 20:19,26 with Rom. 6:9, and Philip. 3:21.
61 John 10:18.
62 Acts 2:31.
Jesus, then, having been the substantial man, in contradistinction to Adam, the shadowy man, Gen. 3:19, Rom. 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:47, and all his shadowy posterity, 1 Cor. 15:48, James 4:14, the following are obvious corollaries from this fact:
That human nature itself, and thereby all the human race, became substantialized in Jesus, when he was manifest in flesh. In other words, that all human beings acquired a substantiality, or real existence, in him, which, in their natural and shadowy ancestor, they had failed to possess. John 17:2; Acts 17:28; Coloss. 1:17. And
That the fate of Jesus, the substantial man, as he in whom all others live, and move, and have their being, becomes necessarily the fate of the whole family of shadowy men. If in Adam, the shadow, with whom they were naturally one, all human beings sinned and died, much more in Jesus, the substance, with whom they are supernaturally and really one, have they become righteous, have they died, have they risen again from the dead, and are they invested with life and immortality. Thus was the relative substantialization of humanity, in the fleshly form, in the person of our Lord, when he appeared upon earth, or the giving of a relatively substantial existence to every human being in him in his fleshly manifestation, merely subservient to his destruction on the [121] cross of fleshly nature altogether; and to the imparting of an absolutely substantial existence to Adam’s nature and Adam’s descendants, by their being conformed, through the medium of his resurrection from the dead, to his own divine and heavenly nature for evermore.
CHAPTER VII.
PERSONALITY.
PERSON implies a being who is manifest and known; and manifestation, so far as it goes, implies limitation. Therefore it is, that I consider the term person to be totally inapplicable to God in his essence or substance, or to God in any other light than as manifested. I admit that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, imply personal distinctions in Deity. And yet, in as far as personal distinction is concerned, they are all terms, not of essence, but of manifestation. For, God is one. We know him manifestatively in the relation of Father, no less than in the relations of Son and Holy Ghost; but essentially he is one. Thus, then, to be manifest, and because manifest to be limited, — on account of all manifestation of necessity accommodating itself to the limited understanding of creatures, — being synonymous modes of expression; it follows, that it is not when we speak of God abstractly and essentially considered, but only when we speak of the Son of God, or of God as manifested, we are entitled to ascribe to the supreme and self-existent being personality. I can speak correctly of God as manifested or made known in the person, (εν προσωπω)63 of his Son; but I cannot scripturally [122] speak of the person of God, as manifest in the person of his Son.64 The infinite Jehovah, who, as such, has not and cannot have personality, is personified to us, by being manifested to us, through the person of his well beloved Son. In other words the being of the Infinite Jehovah appears in a form or state of limitation, and thereby of manifestation or adaptation to our limited capacities, in the person of Jesus Christ.
63 2 Corinth. 4:6.
64 I may, however, say, that the person of the Father is manifested through the person of the Son. For both Father and Son are terms of manifestation. See John 13:31, and 14:13.
And as Jesus is the divine person, so is he also, properly speaking, the only person, or manifested being, in existence.65 His personality is substantial. He is the I am. All personality, or individuality of existence in the creature, is merely the image or shadow of his. Hence, when we speak of God as united to man in the Lord Jesus Christ, we speak not of a divine person, but of the divine person, or of God as manifest, being united to human nature. The being, or personal subsistence, of Jesus was divine, or was that of the Creator: it was the nature with which that being or personal subsistence was for a time clothed, which it united inseparably to itself, and which in due time it succeeded in conforming to its own divine nature, which was that of the creature.
65 Hence, the glory or manifestation, δοξα, of Jesus, and of God in him, John 17 throughout, is necessarily the result as well as end, of all creation. Rev. 4:9-11, and 5:12-14.
[123] CHAPTER VIII.
JESUS KNEW NO SIN.
NOTHING can be more self-evident, than that the scriptures everywhere assert the entire freedom of the Lord Jesus personally, while in flesh, from all sin.66 Nay, the very suggestion of his having been personally sinful, or even inclined to sin, is always met and repelled by them with language expressive of the utmost abhorrence.67
66 Heb. 4:15; and 7:26,28. Also John 14:30. Also Matt. 4:1-11, &c. &c.
67 Gal. 2:17,18. See also Rom. 3:3-8.
The Old Testament Scriptures gave intimation beforehand of the purity and spotlessness of the Messiah’s character, by the nature of the types and ceremonies which prefigured him, and by the language of those prophecies which directly spoke of him. No lamb was to be offered in sacrifice, unless it was without spot and without blemish;68 and in that glowing and affecting passage of the prophet Isaiah, in which it is foretold concerning the future Saviour, that he should be despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, it is expressly added, that, so far from his sufferings having been undergone by him on account of sins which he himself personally had committed, on the contrary he was to be wounded for our transgressions, and to be bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was to be upon him, and with his stripes we were to be healed. The Lord was on him to lay the iniquity of us all. In short, so far from being personally a transgressor, his character was to be that of the righteous servant of Jehovah. See Isaiah 53 throughout.
68 Exodus 12:5; Leviticus 9:3; and 23:12. See also 1 Peter 1:19.
In the New Testament Scriptures, the same care is exhibited to separate between the Lord Jesus, and the supposition of his having personally committed any evil. In the epistle to the Hebrews, it is laid down as an irrefragable axiom, that, although tempted in all points like as we are, Jesus was nevertheless without sin; 4:15; and that, as the [124] High Priest of our profession, he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. 7:26.69 The Apostle Peter informs us that he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. 1 Peter 2:22.70 And the Lord Jesus himself, not only declared, that he did always those things which pleased his heavenly Father; John 8:29; but actually challenged the Jews, his bitter enemies, and eager if they could to obtain and avail themselves of the slightest pretext to condemn him, to bring against him any well founded accusation. Thus ran the challenge: — which of you convinceth, or convicteth, me of sin; Ibid. verse 46.
69 By the way, a comparison of these words with the language of the first Psalm shews, that he is the blessed man there spoken of.
70 Although applied to the followers of Christ in the first or individual, state of the church, 1 Peter 3:10,11, is it not obvious, by comparing the language of that Apostle towards the end of his second chapter, with the 34th Psalm, that it is of our Lord, primarily and principally, that the Holy Ghost is speaking, in the latter, as well as in the former, passage of Holy Writ?
With scripture testimonies so strong, so decisive, and so incontrovertible, in favour of the complete sinlessness and purity of our Lord’s personal character, what shall we think of those, Unitarians, Neologians and others, who, professing to attach any value whatever to the divine record, either broadly charge the Son of God with having been personally a transgressor like others, or, at all events, venture to insinuate, that, in respect of liability to transgress, he stood exactly upon a level with the ordinary children of men?
Even had not express declarations of the complete sinlessness of our Lord’s personal character been left upon record, his bare history would of itself, have afforded a groundwork for the doctrine. — For
He who voluntarily took hold of the nature of man, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, was not a being previously in a state of rebellion against God, but was his own pure, heavenly, and well-beloved Son. And as the person of Jesus, was thus the person of the eternal Son of God, it was obviously impossible that a being who was one with God, and the basis of whose mind was God’s mind, could ever be prevailed on to cherish any thought, or to engage in any act, of hostility to God.
The history of Jesus, as it lies before us recorded by the Evangelists, so far from exhibiting a single trace or instance [125] of yielding to temptation, or of the commission of sin, on his part, is nothing else than the exhibition of deeds of benevolence, in connection with a series of acts of resistance to evil, and of inroads on the domains of sin and Satan. He appears in it foiling the tempter; exposing the artifices of his emissaries; contemptuously turning from, and rejecting, earthly riches, honours, and dignities; healing the sick; giving eyes to the blind; curing the deaf; and making the lame to walk; preaching the gospel of the kingdom; and in all respects fulfilling the work which the Father had given him to do. In a word, while in flesh, he is presented to us, not merely as passively abstaining from all transgression, but as actively, during the whole of his career, going about doing good. — And,
After having approved himself, by his birth, language and whole demeanour, to be the sinless one, he finished his career upon earth, not by confirming sin either by precept or example, but by dying the just for the unjust,71 in obedience to the commandment which he had received of the Father:72 this act of self-sacrifice having constituted his one righteousness,73 and by it sin having been taken away at once and for ever.
71 1 Peter 3:18.
72 John 10:18.
73 Rom. 3:21-26; 5:17,18; 10:4, &c. &c.
Truly, he whose history is such as from the inspired records I have shewn it to be, must have been the sinless one.
[126] CHAPTER IX.
NEVERTHELESS HE WAS MADE SIN FOR US.
THEOLOGIANS and commentators while ready enough to assert the sinlessness of Christ, have shewn themselves most reluctant to admit his sinfulness, while in flesh. This has generally redounded to their credit. By the great majority of their readers and hearers, it has been ascribed to the most pious and praiseworthy motives on their part. But in reality it springs from ignorance of the subject. Like the Sadducees of old, in this, as well as in many other respects, they grievously err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. That Jesus was the sinner, however harshly the expression may sound in the ears of ignorant and prejudiced professors, is a doctrine just as true as that he was the Saint. If he knew no sin, he was nevertheless made sin for us. 2 Cor. 5:21.
The same text of scripture, it will have been observed, which asserts the one fact, also asserts the other. Nor can the doctrine, that sin attached to the Lord Jesus while in flesh, be got rid of by quibbling or evasion. It will not ensure a triumph to allege, as is commonly done, that αμαρτια,74 signifies here, not sin, but a sin offering. For this is to comment, not to translate. Undoubtedly, the Lord Jesus was the great sin offering; and it is by his mighty and efficacious atoning sacrifice that sin has been taken away. This glorious doctrine, maintained in passages of scripture innumerable, nay, constituting the very scope and substance of revelation, is the stay and delight of my heart, as it has supported and animated the hearts of God’s ransomed and spiritually enlightened ones in every age. But that Jesus was made the sin offering, however it may be implied in the term used by the Apostle, is not what we find to be actually and directly asserted by him. He was made sin,75 is the language which, under the dictation of the Holy Ghost, is employed. Now, all God’s words are pure words; they are [127] like silver tried in a furnace of earth, and purified seven times. Psalm 12:6. We have no right to carp and cavil at them. Much less, to put our own sense or interpretation on them. Our sole business is, to attempt to ascertain, if possible, in the light of other passages of the scriptures themselves, why an expression so very remarkable, and to our fleshly minds so very revolting, should be applied to the Lord Jesus.
74 Or rather הטאח.
75 αμαρτιαν εποιησεν.
Nor need the investigation, to a spiritual mind, be either long or difficult. While in the person of Jesus sin did not inhere, and by it could not by any possibility be committed; we find that sin belonged to the nature, which, in the womb of the virgin, he took hold of, and that it came down upon him in the very act of his uniting that nature to himself. Sin was neither in him, nor of him, but it descended on him by his conception and birth; or he was made sin, by becoming the son of man.
This subject may, I think, be rendered abundantly plain and intelligible to a spiritually enlightened mind, by a few brief and pertinent statements.
Let us begin by looking at, or considering, our blessed Lord, while in flesh, under three different aspects: —
1. With reference to his person.
2. With reference to the nature which he took hold of and in which he was manifested. And,
3. With reference to what necessarily resulted from the union of his divine person to human nature.
Upon these distinct topics, I shall endeavour to express myself as concisely as possible.
1. As to his person. It was not only sinless at his birth, but, as the person of the eternal Son of God, it was utterly incapable of contracting or committing sin.
2. As to the nature which he took hold of, we know, that it had in Adam committed sin, with the guilt of which it was loaded;76 and that it was in itself, as made after God’s image, and thereby essentially selfish, a nature from which placed under circumstances similar to those of Adam, nothing but sin, or the exhibition of enmity to God, could proceed. It was a thoroughly and essentially selfish, and, therefore, a thoroughly and essentially sinful nature.
76 Besides being the man, our Lord was also the Jew; and if, as the former, he bore Adam’s one sin, or the sin of the world, as the latter, he bore all the transgressions and iniquities, with which, previous to his coming, the fleshly descendants of Abraham had rendered themselves chargeable. See Isaiah 53:5,6, &c.
[128] 3. As to the union between Christ’s divine person and human nature, it was attended with two remarkable, and except under such circumstances totally irreconcileable, results. In the first place, his person, although united to sinful human nature, never became chargeable, because it was impossible that it could become chargeable, with sin, in thought, much less in deed. It continued in its state of union, as it had been before the union was effected, pure, spotless, and holy. But, in the second place, the nature of man, already loaded with sin in the creature, by becoming united to the person of the Son of God, acquired an increase and intensity of evil, appeared invested with a malignity, and became enmity to God to a degree, which, in its state of connection with the person of a mere creature, it was absolutely impossible that it could acquire, appear invested with, or become. That same union of the person of the Son of God to the nature of man, which, as we have seen, substantialized human nature, also gave all the substantiality to sin, its leading characteristic, which sin is capable of acquiring.
Thus considered, the subject of our Lord’s state and condition while in flesh, instead of three merely, actually presents itself to us under four, different aspects: in two of which, he appears sinless; and in two, sinful. Viewed, first, as to his divine and everlasting person; and secondly, as to his personal thoughts, feelings, and acts, when united to the nature of man, he is not only sinless, and utterly incapable of committing sin, but he appears keeping the nature to which he is united from the slightest transgression, and rendering it completely subservient to the will of his Heavenly Father. But viewed, thirdly, as to the nature itself which he took hold of, and, fourthly, as to what that nature became by having been united to his divine person, the nature appears loaded with sin, and, as united to his person, and thereby substantialized, as far as human nature can be so, its sinfulness, and character of enmity to God, appear strengthened and aggravated to the highest possible degree. — In not having rightly apprehended these very plain distinctions, lies the source of nine-tenths of the controversies, respecting our Lord’s state while upon earth, which have puzzled, agitated, and distracted, the members of the nominally Christian church.
Taking these distinctions into account, then, it appears,
1. That sin, which as committed by a mere creature, had, [129] like the creature himself, a finite or shadowy character, by coming down upon the Son of God, through his birth of a woman, became indefinite, or relatively substantial.
2. That Jesus, by his birth, was made sin in the abstract, and the sinner in the concrete. Hence the declaration, 2 Cor. 5:21, which we have already considered. And hence the numerous passages in the Book of Psalms, and elsewhere, in which we find him confessing sin, Psalm 32:5, speaking of himself as the sinner, Ibid. 51:1-5, and as thus loaded with sin, acknowledging the impossibility of himself, any more than other living men, being justified in the sight of God, while he continued in flesh. Ibid. 130 throughout. — And,
3. Hence the reason why, while on earth, he was the man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and why, when hanging on the cross, his anguish was so intense and intolerable. It was not the want of earthly riches and distinctions, nor the other disadvantageous circumstances of his earthly lot, which caused the pangs, and drew forth the agonizing cries, of the Son of God. Nay it was not even the intensity of his bodily sufferings, acute and overpowering as, from the delicate structure of his frame, they must have been, of which he complained. No. This his lot, he had voluntarily undertaken, and for the ordinary disadvantages connected with it he was prepared. But his peculiarly acute and agonizing sufferings had this for their cause, among others, that he, the spotless Lamb of God, as having taken hold of the nature of man, was loaded with sins, with sins not his own, having substantialized, by uniting to his divine person, the nature of sin; and that he was, although personally innocent and personally loathing the slightest approach to evil, obliged to bear at once its weight and punishment. Under sin, from the moment of his conception, he was placed; under it, during the whole of his life upon earth, he continued and groaned; and of it he only got rid, when, by the sacrifice of himself, he brought his fleshly nature, and with it sin as necessarily connected with and inherent in that nature, to an end.
[130] CHAPTER X.
LAW, SIN, AND DEATH, SUBSTANTIALIZED ON THE SON OF GOD.
THE person of the Son of God, by being united to the nature of man, imparted to that nature, as we have seen, a kind of substantiality upon earth, and real substantiality in the heavenly state. We have now to show, that the same kind of substantiality which he imparted to the nature of man itself in its earthly form, he imparted likewise, to whatever is connected with it.
When we look at man’s nature, the three following are among the leading characteristics of it, which arrest our attention: —
1. The way in which a sense of its dependence on, and obligation to obey, its Creator, is communicated to it.
2. That violation of the sense of duty, to which the fact of man’s having been made after God’s image, by unfitting and indisposing him to yield obedience to a superior, necessarily conducts him. And
3. The punishment which necessarily attends the violated sense of obligation.
To express myself otherwise, we observe, when taught by the scriptures, in connection with man’s nature, divine law, as productive of the sense of dependance and obligation; divine likeness, as unable to submit to restraint, and as thereby productive of violation of divine law; and divine displeasure as productive of the suffering, and ultimate dissolution, of that, which has manifested itself to be unable, because indisposed, to keep within its own legitimate sphere of obedience. That is, we observe, in connection with man’s nature, and in that order, law, sin, and death.
Now, in our Lord’s case, while he was on earth, law, sin, and death, were all equally, in reference to his flesh and blood nature, increased, aggravated, and substantialized.77
77 Always understand relatively not absolutely.
1. Divine law was substantialized upon it.
In Adam’s case, a shadowy nature was fitted to receive only a shadowy form of divine law. Hence there was given to him no more than a single prohibition; imposing a re-[131]straint of the most trifling description, and having reference merely to an act of external abstinence. Even this single, trifling, external, divine law, proved too much for our common ancestor, as was shewn by the result. But in the case of Jesus, the relatively substantial flesh and blood nature of the Son of God behoved to be dealt with after a totally different fashion. To him, every conceivable species of divine law was addressed; from him, an obedience was exacted, intense, constant, and unrelaxing; and, instead of contenting himself with the imposition of mere external restraints, God required of his own Son, that he should love him with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, and his neighbour as himself. In fact, the whole contents of the Old Testament Scriptures, in whatever form delivered, whether that of narrative, type, or prophecy, constituted law to Christ. Thus, instead of the sense of dependence and obligation touching him lightly in one point merely, as in the case of Adam it did, it actually surrounded, invested, and hemmed him in, on every side. He was shut up, by the law of God, as in a close prison or dungeon, from which, except by being obedient to it even unto death, there was no possibility of escape. That law rested upon him with its whole weight, which, by the union of the flesh and blood nature with his divine person, he behoved, Atlas like, for a while to bear, and ultimately to throw off. There is, in a word, no divine law or obligation, and no form or modification of divine law, conceivable, to which our Lord’s fleshly nature was not subject. And in this way, did divine law, formerly shadowy, acquire a substantial form, in his case.
2. Sin was substantialized on him.
As a matter of course, he came into the world, loaded with the guilt of Adam’s one sin, which, as then connected with and fastened on his substantial flesh and blood nature, acquired an intensity and aggravation, such as in the case of the creature Adam, and by attaching to his shadowy nature, it neither had nor could have had. And all the transgressions of the people of Israel, or fleshly church, also descended upon him, and were borne by him, aggravated and substantialized, after the same fashion. He, the Lamb of God, and great anti-typical sin-offering, having been destined, through the assumption of the nature of Adam and Abraham, first, to bear sin in all its weight, extent, and enormity, and, then, by the sacrifice of himself, to put it entirely away.
[132] 3. Death was substantialized on him.
Who sees not, at a glance, the amazing difference which there must be, between the death of Adam and ordinary human beings, and the death of the Son of God? And the more the subject is reflected on, the more marked and striking will this difference appear. For instance: —
1st. In the case of Adam, and his ordinary posterity, death seized on a nature, which, as originating in the dust, was, by its very constitution and tendencies, predisposed to die. Whereas, in the case of Jesus, a nature which was united to the person of the Son of God, to the Lord from heaven, must of itself have been capable, had such been the divine good pleasure, to live for ever.78 That which, in the case of the Lord Jesus, was the destruction of an indefinite or relatively-substantial nature, must, it is evident, have been widely different from, and vastly more awful than, the destruction, in the case of ordinary human beings, of a finite and merely shadowy one.
78 John 10:18.
2dly. Death, in the case of Adam and his posterity, did not operate as any barrier or obstruction in the way of the shadowy nature being raised, whenever it so pleased God, in a shadowy state, and to the possession of a shadowy existence, again. In such cases, of course, those who were so raised, lived a second time, merely, after the lapse of a few additional months or years, to die likewise a second time. Witness the instances of the son of the widow of Nain, of Lazarus, and others. Their death, it is thus proved, was like themselves, a shadow. But, when Jesus died, death appeared, for the first time, real or substantial: seeing that, it implied in him such a complete destruction of his flesh and blood nature, as that it was impossible for him to rise from the dead with his nature in its former or fleshly state. He having died once, could not rise with his nature subject a second time to death. As risen from the dead, he dieth no more: death having no more dominion over him. Rom. 6:9. Through death, then, there had been effected in our blessed Lord the entire and everlasting destruction of the flesh and blood nature in which, for a time, he had appeared; and, therefore, to him there was left no alternative, it having been absolutely necessary for him to appear again with his nature changed and converted into that holy, heavenly, and glorious [133] form, which had belonged to it before the world was. And, as his personal body, through his own death, necessarily underwent this change, so, in destroying by death his flesh and blood nature in himself, has he, by means of their essential oneness with him, effected its complete and everlasting destruction likewise in the children of men. He thereby changes the form of their vile bodies, and fashions them like unto his own glorious body. Phil. 3:21. Surely, the death of Christ, as being that which has effected so complete a destruction of human nature in the Saviour himself and the family of man, as that there is no possibility of human nature existing again beyond the precincts of this present world, merits the appellation of real and substantial death.
3. Death, in the case of mere human beings, was but preliminary to its own continuance: an ordinary man, in dying, being the slave of death, and, in so far as any thing which he himself could accomplish for his own escape and deliverance was concerned, left subject to its sway for ever. But the death of Jesus was preliminary, and immediately and necessarily preliminary, to the ultimate and complete destruction of death: seeing that, his submission to it having been voluntary, he having entered its territories, not as its slave, but as its conqueror, and it having, in the destruction of his flesh and blood nature, pure in itself, but loaded with sin, received the utmost extent of its demands, it ceased to have any further claims upon him, or right over him; and he thus became entitled and enabled, through the very fact of his dying, to swallow up death itself in life everlasting, no less than to swallow up the form of his flesh and blood nature, in that higher and more glorious form of the divine nature, in which it was thenceforward and for ever to appear. Is there any one so blind, as not to perceive in this the difference between shadowy and substantial death or, the difference between the death of those, who, in dying, are, and if left to themselves would for ever continue to be, passively subject to the sway of death; and the death of him, who voluntarily underwent its stroke, and whose death was the death of death, or who, in dying, was actively preparing the way, and arranging matters, for the swallowing up, through the medium of his resurrection, of death in victory?
Thus, then, did law, sin, and death, acquire a substantiality, in connection with the flesh and blood nature of the Lord Jesus, the Creator, which, in connection with the nature of a [134] mere creature, it was impossible for them ever to have attained to.
While, however, law, sin, and death were substantialized on the flesh and blood nature of Christ, they neither reached nor affected his divine person. This remained free from their contact. The essence or personality of Jesus’s being consisted of love, righteousness, and life, or of principles which appertain to God himself and alone; and over these, law, sin, and death,79 as being properties of a mere creature nature, could exercise no sway. Nay, so far from law, sin and death having had power, properly speaking, over the person of the Lord Jesus, during his abode upon earth, his person, through the medium of the properties belonging to it, possessed and exercised power over them. Allied although his person was to the nature of flesh and blood which had descended to him from Adam; loaded although that nature was with law, sin, and death; and aggravated and substantialized although these necessarily became, on that nature, as united to the person of the Son of God: nevertheless, not only did the principle of love, in him, prevent any act of disobedience to divine law, the principle of righteousness, in him, prevent his retaining that nature in existence by which obedience to divine law had been yielded, and the principle of life, in him, prevent the destruction of his person, when his nature, both body and soul, was sacrificed; or, in other words, not only had these divine principles, an indirect and negative influence upon him; but it was those very principles, in him, which directly and positively prompted to that complete subjection of himself to God’s law, that exhibition of complete destruction of death by swallowing it up in victory, which have resulted in his appearing in the heavenly state, with the nature of law, sin, and death, changed into a nature, the characteristics of which are love, righteousness, and life everlasting, or principles in all respects corresponding with those of his divine person.
79 Let me arrange these opposites, and what I mean will appear more clearly: —
| Principles of God and Christ’s person. | Principles of the creature nature. |
| Love. | Law. |
| Righteousness. | Sin. |
| Life Everlasting. | Death. |
[135] CHAPTER XI.
JESUS THE JEW, AS WELL AS THE MAN.
OUR Lord, as the Son of Mary, was of course a Jew by birth; and as such bore a closer affinity to the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, than he did to the rest of the human family. But upon this topic, I have said so much in the second of my “Dialogues” some time since published, that to enter into any further detail respecting it, would, it appears to me, be absolute waste of time.
Far more important is it for me to observe, that, as Jesus was not, properly speaking, a man, but the man, or the substantial man; so he was not, properly speaking a Jew, but the Jew, or the substantial Jew. He was the Jew as having been Abraham’s seed, not only outwardly, but also inwardly; and as having had, not only that circumcision which is outward in the flesh, but that also which is of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. See Rom. 2:28,29. In other words, as humanity became substantialized in the Lord Jesus, or as he became the man, by his having united the divine personality to human nature, in general; so Judaism became substantialized in him, or he became the Jew, by having united that same divine personality, after a special fashion, to the nation which by God himself had been separated from the other nations of the earth, had been blessed with peculiar blessings in its ancestor Abraham, and had for wise and holy purposes been subjected to the law of Moses.
The circumstance of our Lord having been the Jew, as well as the man, implied, not only a closer fleshly relation borne by him to the Jews, than to the rest of the human race, but also a closer conformity of his earthly or fleshly mind to the minds of Jews, than to those of ordinary human beings; a far stronger affection cherished by his mind, in its fleshly form, to them, than to others; and, in the event of his kingdom having become an earthly one, a disposition to confer upon them, as his kinsmen according to the flesh, a higher rank and higher blessings, than would have fallen to the lot of [136] any besides.80 To express myself somewhat differently; as by assuming flesh, our Lord conformed himself to human nature in general, so by assuming it as a descendant of Abraham, he conformed himself to the Jewish nature and circumstances in particular: subjecting himself thereby to Moses’ law; connecting himself especially thereby with Abraham’s descendants according to the flesh; and bringing himself thereby under an obligation to impart to these his fleshly kinsmen, the benefits of his mediatorial obedience, after a high and peculiar fashion, in the event of their recognizing him as the Messiah, and treating him accordingly.
80 Matt. 23:33,34.
Equally important with what goes before, is it to observe, that as human nature in general was united to the person of the Son of God, or as it became substantialized on him, not for the purpose of being preserved, but of being destroyed, after having been rendered righteous in him; so were the Jews as a nation specially united to the same divine person, not for the purpose of being preserved, but of being destroyed, after he had, by means of their rejection of himself glorified, shewn them to be utterly unrighteous, and unworthy of eternal life, in themselves. Jesus’ intention as the man, and the Jew, having been, not to perpetuate human beings in general, or the Jewish people in particular: but to bring the former to an end in himself; and, by allowing the latter to destroy themselves, to obtain the opportunity of creating anew, out of himself, the whole mass or lump of humanity, destroyed by him in its old or fleshly form on the cross.
Jesus was thus, as the man, the being in whom all human beings were summed up or became one: in whose death, the sin of the world, with all its consequences was swept away; in whose righteousness, all became righteous; and in whose life, all acquired life everlasting. — As the Jew, however, he was somewhat more. In him, as sustaining that character, all the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, were summed up, or became one: to him alone, as the mediator into whose hands it had been ordained, the law of Moses having been addressed, and from him alone it having exacted obedience, really and spiritually;81 in him alone, as the substance of that law, all its shadowy rites, ceremonies, and institutions, having received their accomplishment;82 and by [137] him alone, through the medium of his death as the great atoning sacrifice, all the transgressions which, previous to his appearance, had been committed against that law by the favoured people, having been at once and for ever taken away.83 What he, therefore, as the Jew, did, in obeying Moses’ law, — magnifying it, and making it honourable; and in becoming the end of it, for righteousness, by the sacrifice of himself; all the Jews did in him. So that, had fleshly mind been capable of understanding its own true interests — which it is not, never has been, and never can be — the moment that their brother, Jesus of Nazareth, the Jew, had ascended to his throne, and proclaimed his righteousness to be their righteousness on condition of their believing in it as such, with readiness would the Jews have acquiesced in, let me rather say, with greediness would they have seized on, the advantages held out in the divine proclamation. But it was not within the compass of fleshly mind, any more than it was God’s purpose, that they should do so. Their rejection of the privilege of becoming the Messiah’s kinsmen in his kingdom, as he had rendered himself their kinsman upon earth, was to mark the total blindness to its own interests spiritually considered, in the form of exhibiting its awful and inextinguishable enmity to God and to his law. And by means of Christ’s rejection of them, in consequence of their rejection of him, he was to acquire the opportunity of appearing as the Jew, no longer in a carnal, but a spiritual point of view: and this, by shewing himself kinsman to a church, not earthly, but heavenly, in its nature; and not required to fulfil even the condition of accepting his righteousness as its own, but having the blessings of his righteousness and life bestowed upon it freely.
81 Gal. 3:19, with Rom. 7:14, and 8:3,4.
82 Col. 2:16,17; Heb. 9, throughout.
83 Heb. 9:15, with Rom. 3:25.
But what was implied in our Lord’s character as the Jew, will it is conceived, be better understood, by a perusal of the following chapters.
[138] CHAPTER XII.
THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH.
THE meaning ordinarily assigned to this passage84 is, that the son, who is also the word of God, in due time became incarnate. Now the truth of this it is not my intention to dispute. Between it and the language of the context there is complete agreement. And also, most obvious is it, that as words constitute the grand medium whereby men give outward expression to, or make manifest, what otherwise must have lain concealed in their minds; so is that glorious being by whom God gives outward expression to, or makes manifest, what otherwise must have lain concealed in his mind, fitly denominated his word. And as he who is the eternal word, that is, the eternal manifestation, of Jehovah, appeared in our world clothed with flesh, of course the declaration of the Apostle, explained merely in this sense, receives a suitable and satisfactory interpretation.
84 John 1:14.
But this meaning, although true, is perhaps rather too abstract and far-fetched for ordinary apprehension: besides, it does not appear to me to have been that which the Holy Ghost had more immediately in view, when the words were committed to writing. A signification, not contradictory to, but thoroughly consistent with and even corroborative of that just mentioned, and, at the same time, the real and primary signification of the passage, I now proceed to bring under the notice of my readers.
By every one who admits the existence of a Divine Revelation, the Old Testament scriptures are recognized as the word of God; and, indeed, as the only portion of that word, delivered in a language used and understood by human beings, which existed previously to the advent of our Lord.
Viewing, then, these scriptures as the word of God, the sense commonly, perhaps almost exclusively, attached to the phrase, is, that the language in which they are composed, was not the offspring of human thoughts and volitions, but was inspired and dictated immediately by God himself. Pro-[139]phecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:21.85
85 See also Psalm 45:1, &c.
So far true. These scriptures certainly proceeded from God, he having dictated their contents to the prophets of old; and looked at under this aspect, they constitute his word.
But they are also the word of God, in another and an equally important sense. They speak throughout of, or concerning, God. He is not merely their author, but their subject. Their language was inspired by him: but this is not all; they are, from first to last, a representation, or series of representations couched in human language, of the character of him, who is over all, God blessed for ever!
Whether the style of narrative, or that of type, or that of prophecy, be adopted; whether it be persons or events that are presented to view; whether the subject treated of be man’s creation, or man’s redemption; whether the actions, language, and experience, set before us, be those of prophets, priests, or kings; it is always God himself, who, either directly, or under the veil of allegory, is obtruded on our notice. Not God considered as essential and invisible; but God as manifest. That is, the Lord Jesus Christ. For the testimony of Jesus, is the spirit of prophecy. Rev. 19:10. And these are the Old Testament scriptures, as treating throughout and exclusively of him who is the personal word or manifestation of God, or as rendering human language the transparent medium of presenting God manifest continually to our notice, themselves invested with the dignity of being the literal word or manifestation, of God.
These Old Testament scriptures, however, consisted merely of words, or of representations of Deity couched in human language; and in this state they continued for many centuries. During that long interval, there existed no being, whose nature and character corresponded to them. Until the Messiah appeared, they were merely and literally words: no one having arisen to embody their representations, and realize their import. But at last, they ceased to possess merely the character of an ideal. Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, was divinely conceived: and the moment that this event took place, what had been formerly a word, became flesh; or that manifestation of God which had been [140] formerly confined to words and sentences dictated by the Holy Ghost, and written under His immediate guidance, then appeared embodied in the form, nature and character, of a man. The Old Testament Scriptures constituted, if I may so express myself, the mould into which the Lord Jesus was to run, and all the parts of which he was to fill up: and thus, when he appeared, words were superseded by facts; or, rather, the word, by having been identified with, embodied in, and fulfilled by, him who was the subject of that word, was in him, its glorious and divine substance, swallowed up for ever.
Thus, then, when Jesus was conceived and born, the word was made flesh; or in Jesus, the essential word of God, the Old Testament Scriptures, as the literal word of God, became embodied, or received their accomplishment.
By drawing the attention of my readers to a few of the aspects, in which the Old Testament Scriptures stood related to Christ Jesus the eternal word of God, the fact of these scriptures having been embodied in him, or of what had been previously the word having become flesh when he appeared, may strike the mind with more force, and be productive of more satisfaction.
Well, then, be it observed,
That throughout the Old Testament Scriptures spoke of the Messiah: they having been, in every varied form which they assume, prophetical of his advent, obedience, sufferings, death, aud future glory. Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write concerning him. John 1:45. And his own declaration was, that it was necessary, that all things which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning him, should be fulfilled. Luke 24:44. Besides, as already quoted, the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy. Rev. 19:10.
That throughout these same scriptures spoke to him: they having, in all their forms, constituted so many commandments addressed to him by the Father, which it was incumbent upon him to obey. The Old Testament Scriptures were to him the law which was within his heart;86 they prescribed to him, as their sum and substance, perfect love to God, and equal love to man;87 and, until he had complied with the last injunction which they contained,88 he could not say, it is finished.89 And
86 Psalm 40:8.
87 Deutero. 6:5; Matt. 22:36-40; &c.
88 John 10:18.
89 John 19:30. — See Philip. 2:8.
[141] That throughout these scriptures spake in him: he, although in the form of man as to his body, and with the form of soul as to his mind, having actually had for the basis and essence of all his operations, nothing, but the sense, meaning, or import, of the Old Testament Scriptures.90 That is, while gradually increasing knowledge, the result of experience, and collected from various quarters, constitutes the minds of ordinary human beings; the divine testimonies, recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures, constituted the mind of the Lord Jesus, while he was upon earth. He needed not common sense, or human instructions, to guide him. For his thoughts, his experience, and even his very language, he found already prepared and detailed, in the sacred volume. Hence his meditation upon God’s law, a revealed testimony, as constituting his own mind, day and night. Psalm 1:2. And hence his constant employment of the Old Testament phraseology, not in the way of accommodation, but, as it really was his own. My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me? Psalm 22:1. Matt. 27:46. Father, into thy hands, I commend my spirit. Psalm 31:5. Luke 23:46.
90 See Psalm 119 throughout, especially verses, 11, 15, 16, 24, 30, 31, 97—100, &c. &c.
Apart from Jesus, the Old Testament Scriptures are alike destitute of sense, and incapable of application. They appear in the light of a mass or congeries of unconnected materials. But let our Lord’s character, as it is set before us in the New Testament, be applied as the key, and the Old Testament record immediately comes out in all its glorious sense, majesty, and fulness. We then behold it, as the literal word of God, identified with him who is the personal word of God. Jesus is then discovered to be the word made flesh; or, in him, the Old Testament Scriptures appear embodied in the human form.
How easily and delightfully, now, are we enabled to understand, that, by realizing in himself every person, circumstance, and event recorded, in its literal and shadowy form, in the Old Testament Scriptures, Jesus shewed himself to be the divine substance of all; or, to advert to phraseology connected with the immediately preceding chapter, that the perfect Jew of theory, who for ages lay wrapt up in the words of the Old Testament, at length was embodied and made his appearance, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the perfect Jew of fact.
[142] CHAPTER XIII.
MOSES’ LAW ORDAINED BY ANGELS IN THE HAND OF A MEDIATOR.
IN separating to himself a peculiar people, God issued to them a peculiar law. Its commands they were to obey, from every violation of its prohibitions they were to abstain, and its multifarious rites and ceremonies they were to be careful in observing. By means of this law, a peculiar knowledge was imparted to, and a peculiar conscience was created in, the tribes of Israel. Their natural minds, brought into a miraculous state, possessed a degree of illumination respecting God, such as to no other nation of the earth, in Old Testament times, was vouchsafed. Psalm 147:20. But as natural or fleshly mind never yet attained to the power of obeying divine law, and as, under such circumstances, to multiply divine laws, was to multiply opportunities of transgression,91 the necessary result of giving to the Jews their peculiar precepts and institutions was, a degree of violation of conscience on their part of which, as destitute of divine law, no other nation could be guilty;92 a sense and depth of remorse, which no other nation could experience; and accumulation of evil upon their devoted heads, which rendered them, in a way and to an extent peculiar to themselves, objects of divine vengeance and retribution. To them, the law, that is, the law of Moses, entered, not that they might obey it, but that, thereby, the offence might abound. Romans 5:20.
91 Rom. 4:15, and 1 John 3:4.
92 Rom. 2:17-24, &c, &c.
Jesus was, as the Son of Mary, a Jew by birth. Accordingly, he was, like the rest of his countrymen, made, or born, under the law. Galatians 4:4. But he was, as we have seen, more than a Jew. He was the Jew. He was, therefore, made under the law in a sense in which no other Jew ever had been; or, that law came to him after a fashion peculiar to himself. It was addressed to him, not externally, but internally; not for the purpose of being violated, but that by him it might be obeyed; not that he might perpetuate it, but that, having fulfilled or accomplished it, he might bring it to [143] an end, and destroy it, in himself. He was to be the end of the law, for righteousness. Rom. 10:4.
Still, however, what I have said is far from exhausting the peculiarity of our Lord’s situation and circumstances, with reference to the Mosaic Law. Not only was that law given to him the Jew in a peculiar sense, but, properly speaking, it was never given to any one, except to himself. In his hand, as the eternally constituted mediator, and in his hand alone, it had been from the very first ordained; Galatians 3:19: and to the nation of the Jews it was merely for a time entrusted, that, after it had been the means of forming in them a supernatural state of fleshly conscience; of shewing, through their constant transgression of, the total inability of human mind to obey divine law; and of thereby manifesting, in their case, the abounding of sin; it might, by them, as it were, be handed over to him whose law properly it was, and upon whom, in the eternal counsels of Jehovah, it had all along been imposed. The proper character of the Jews, therefore, was not so much that of persons who were themselves subjected individually to divine law, as of persons who were depositaries of a law, which in due time, they were to deliver over to him, whose business it was to obey it.93 Jesus, then, was properly the sole subject, as well as object, of divine law. And, until he made his appearance, that law remained without the person to whom it was to address itself, upon whom it was to fasten, and by whom it was to receive its accomplishment.
93 Rom. 3:1,2. — See, also, the parable of the unjust steward. Luke 16:1—8.
And O! how gloriously, upon the principle of the law of Moses, or second law, having been issued, properly speaking, to the Mediator alone, is that law reconciled with the promises of God. Immediately after the fall, a prospect of free and full deliverance to the creature was vouchsafed;94 and centuries afterwards it was declared to Abraham, in language clear, unequivocal, and clogged with no conditions, that in his seed should all the families of the earth be blessed.95 To impose upon the creature a single condition of inheriting spiritual and eternal blessings at any subsequent period, would, it is evident, have been to contradict and nullify this gracious promise. But to appearance, and in the appre-[144]hensions of many, this very thing took place. A law was subsequently issued by Jehovah. With conditions numerous severe, and inexorable, it was clogged. Such a procedure on the part of God certainly does seem, at first sight, to be perfectly and fatally irreconcilable with the foregoing promise. Nor, if we suppose the ordinary notion of divine law having been given to mere man to be correct, is it possible for human art and ingenuity to devise any expedient by which the system of things revealed in scripture can be rendered self-consistent. But that system is self-consistent; and the giving of the law, so far from having interfered with the previous promise, was actually, necessarily, and gloriously, subservient to its being carried into effect. Why? Simply, because the law was not issued to mere man. The law, to use the Apostle’s phrase, was not against the promises of God, because, it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Gal. 3:19,21. It was imposed, not on the Jews, but on the Jew. It was in reality, a law given to Christ alone. Thus understood, and most satisfactorily, has the Apostle Paul handled the argument, in the third chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians. We are there led to see, that a promise of blessings to be unconditionally bestowed on man, had to be reconciled with a conditional state of things, such as that in which man actually existed. Guilt already incurred had to be taken away, and a perfect righteousness to be brought in and exhibited. That is, paradoxical as the whole at first sight appears, conditions of the hardest kind had to be fulfilled, before divine blessings could be unconditionally enjoyed. How was all this to be accomplished? Certainly, not by a creature. And yet, accomplished in the minutest point, and to the very uttermost, they behoved to be. Every condition of salvation required to be fulfilled, before salvation itself could be unconditionally bestowed. Under these circumstances, the issuing of divine law, and the imposing of it upon the Lord from heaven, are found to solve every difficulty. Thereby every condition is fulfilled; nay, what is more, conditions themselves are absolutely exhausted. For, by the death of the Son of God, or by the destruction in him of the nature to which alone conditions could attach, the very principle of conditionality is brought to an end; and by his resurrection from the dead, or by the change in him of the nature of the creature into that of the Creator, that very principle of conditionality is swallowed up. Such being the [145] case, through the giving of the law to the Mediator, and through the fulfilment of all its conditions by him, the opportunity of bestowing salvation unconditionally upon the creature is acquired; or the original promise, so often referred to, of spiritual and eternal blessings being freely enjoyed by the creature, takes effect. Through conditionality, does conditionality come to an end; and through conditionality is the principle of unconditionality brought into full and everlasting operation. Thus only, and thus gloriously, when the law is seen to have been given to the Creator and not to creatures, do we behold a reconciliation effected between the law, and the promises, of God.
94 Gen. 3:15.
95 Gen. 12:3. See also, Ibid. 15:18, and 22:18; as also, Gal. 3:8.
Who, now, can help perceiving, and, if candid, acknowledging, that, in a system such as has just been described, divine law came neither accidentally, nor on a footing common to him with others, to the Lord Jesus; but that, as the one mediator between God and man, he was the person whom that law all along contemplated, and upon whom, consequently, when he made his appearance, it was imposed?
CHAPTER XIV.
ONE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTEOUSNESS.
UPON Jesus of Nazareth, then, as the Mediator and Messiah, the law of Moses was imposed; or, in his character as the substantial Jew, law came down upon him in its substantial form.
Law, as in his case substantial, required of him, its glorious subject, obedience of principle, as well as of conduct; obedience unintermitted, and not with relaxation and after intervals; obedience in points the most minute and apparently frivolous,96 as well as in such as might by natural mind be [146] deemed to be important. It permitted to him no deviation, at any time or under any circumstances, from the strictness of its exactions. Its language addressed to him was, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; and, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Mark 12:30,31. To the eye of his mind, every page, every sentence, every letter, of the Old Testament scriptures, presented itself as law to him:97 the import of the information which was thus conveyed to him having been, that not a jot or a tittle of that law could pass away, until all had been fulfilled in and by him its subject and substance. He behoved to realize in himself the characters of prophet, priest, and king; to combine sufferings with glory, death with life, and the lowest state of humiliation with the highest state of exaltation; and to finish, by the sacrifice, or destruction, of that very nature by which the requisite preliminary obedience was to be rendered. Such was the substantiality of the demands of divine law; such the substantiality of obedience with which alone it could be satisfied.
96 John 19:28,29.
97 Luke 24:25-27; Ibid. 44-48; Col. 2:16,17; Heb. 9:24, 10:1 Rev. 19:10. Besides, other passages innumerable, in which the same thing is either expressed or implied.
There were two grand points which required to be aimed at, kept in view, and accomplished, by the fulfiller of divine law. He required to take away previous transgression; and to bring in a righteousness, which should be, like its performer, everlasting.
Fully and gloriously have both these requirements been met and satisfied by the Lord Jesus Christ.
In the sacrifice of himself, he took away, first, as the man, the sin of Adam and all its consequences; and secondly, as the Jew, all the violations of Moses’ law, with which the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, had ever become chargeable. For, he was revealed as the spotless lamb of God, who was, by means of death, to take away the sin of the world, John 1:29, and to redeem from the transgressions that were under the first Testament. Heb. 9:15.
This is plain, and, by the majority of divines and professing Christians, unhesitatingly admitted. But I do not believe it to be so commonly understood, that it was in sacrificing himself, and in that act alone, our Lord brought in everlast-[147]ing righteousness. And yet, such is the fact. The fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans establishes it: for, it is not our Lord’s previous obedience to divine law, but solely his sacrifice of himself, which, as the one righteousness, there stands contrasted with, and yet is represented as being analogous to, the one sin.98
98 Especially, in verses 15-19.
CHAPTER XV.
JESUS THE KING, EVEN WHILE UPON EARTH.
TO Jesus of Nazareth, as the descendant of David, through Solomon99 and Nathan,100 was transmitted a double connection with the founder of Judah’s royal house. Indeed, when I consider the care with which our Lord’s genealogy has been recorded, it appears to me to have been the purpose of the Holy Ghost to intimate, that, poor as the Saviour’s external circumstances were, he was not only David’s descendant, but even upon earth the legitimate heir of David’s throne.
99 Matt. 1:6,7.
100 Luke 3:31.
Nor is the fact of Jesus having reigned, even while he was the man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, an unimportant one. Upon his possession of kingly power and authority, while here below, depended his right to dispose of himself and all things; and, consequently, the world’s salvation. As merely the man, he was loaded, and would have continued to be loaded, with sin. As merely the Jew, however strict and constant might be his obedience to Moses’ law, he nevertheless continued subject to its sway, and unable to relieve himself from its continually growing exactions and burdens. It was only as being likewise the King and as having thereby all things as well as persons given into his hand, that he could dispose of them as he pleased: that he could take away sin; could become the end of the law for right-[148]eousness; could destroy the fleshly nature of man; could overturn the Old Testament Dispensation; could bring the old creation to an end; and could thus prepare the way for afterwards, as the heavenly monarchy carrying his ulterior designs of love and mercy into effect.
As Jesus, then, was emphatically and substantially the man, and the Jew, so was he also emphatically and substantially the king; and this, even while he was a sojourner in this vale of tears, and apparently subject to his numerous and deadly enemies.
True, he was, while on earth, acting principally and properly, the part of priest, or servant: his enjoyment of the regal dignity having been reserved, strictly speaking, for his elevation to the right hand of the Majesty on High. But this did not hinder him from shewing himself, even during his incarnate state, to be a King: aye, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. And this, not only in trampling kings and kingdoms under foot, for this pride might have enabled him to do; but in subduing and reigning over the very principle, which confers upon earthly dignities their value, and renders them desirable in the estimation of the world. Who, except himself, ever refused, I do not say, a single kingdom, — Israel’s monarchy, when attempted to be thrust upon him by his admiring countrymen? But who except himself, had all the kingdoms of this world, and all the glory of them, been laid at his feet, would have spurned away from him, with contempt, the splendid proffer? This Jesus did. And this Jesus alone could have done. He, all the while, be it observed, living in a state of such abject poverty, that he had not where to lay his head! Surely, he who could thus reign, not over the most extensive and powerful of earthly empires, and the largest amount of human population, but over the very principle of ambition itself, must, poor as to outward appearance he was, have been a Monarch indeed! He ruled his own spirit; he was, therefore, the Holy Ghost himself being witness, better and mightier than he that taketh a city. Proverbs 16:32.
Considering the supreme importance of our Lord’s having been king even during his sojourn upon earth, — indeed, the absolute necessity of his having been so, in order to his finishing the work which the Father gave him to do, — it may not be amiss to supply my readers with some farther scriptural proofs of his right to the royal dignity, and of his having [149] exercised it previous to the period of his resurrection from the dead.
As to his right to it,
That was recognized by the angel Gabriel, when announcing his future birth to his virgin mother: The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Luke 1:32,33. It is alluded to, by the Apostle Paul, in his address at Antioch in Pisidia: He raised up unto them David to be their King; — of this man’s seed, hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus. Acts 13:22,23. And, with still more marked emphasis, is it set before us at the commencement of the same inspired writer’s Epistle to the Romans: God’s Son Jesus Christ our Lord, — was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh. Rom. 1:3.
But, if any ambiguity could attach to such language, it is completely removed by the following recorded facts, which place beyond a doubt our Lord’s right to the kingly dignity, even while in flesh. — In his earliest infancy, he was the recipient of presents and royal honours, from men who were divinely commissioned to wait upon him, and to pay them. Matt. 2:1-12. At the waters of Jordan, he had his first anointing as king conferred upon him, by the hands of God himself. Matt. 3:16,17. When entering upon the discharge of his kingly functions, he chose his ambassadors, furnished them with the requisite credentials, and sent them forth to execute his high behests; Luke 9:1-6, 10:1-16, and, after they had, on their return, reported to him their success, was pleased to approve of and ratify their procedure. All this he did, in the style and manner of an absolute monarch. Nay, not satisfied with reigning personally, we find him, even while on earth, disposing of crowns to his disciples: — I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me,101 is to them his sweet and endearing, and yet majestic, language. When arraigned at Pilate’s bar, he proclaimed himself to be a king. John 18:36,37. And in circumstances of the most appalling kind, — when dying the death of the vilest of malefactors, and enduring agonies both of mind and body the most excruciating, — he yet, as if on his throne, assigned to the believing and petitioning thief [150] the enjoyment of Paradise along with himself. Luke 23:43. Surely, never man was like to this man! Spoiling principalities and powers, making a shew of them openly, and triumphing over them, even on his cross! Coloss. 2:15. Could such things have happened to, or been done by, the spotless Lamb of God, unless his title to the kingly office had been, even during the days of his flesh, complete and undeniable?
101 Luke 22:29.
Suffice it to answer every caviller, by pointing to his solemn inauguration as king, no less than as prophet and priest, when the Spirit of God descended, and lighted upon him; and when the voice from heaven issued forth, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matt. 3:16,17.
As to our Lord’s exercise of kingly power,
Equally clear is it, that, from the manger to the cross, privately, and from the scene at the waters of Jordan to the close of his earthly career, publicly, he acted as the king of Israel, and Sovereign disposer of all things.
Jesus reigned over himself. From his nature as substantialized flesh and blood, and as thereby substantialized enmity to God, our Lord, so far from expecting to receive support, could look for nothing but determined and deadly opposition. Notwithstanding this, he exercised over it a constant, vigilant, and effective control. He rendered its most endearing affections subservient to the performance of his Father’s business. Luke 2:43-49. He resisted and overcame every temptation which could have been suggested by it, or connected with it. Matt. 4:1-10. Nay, not satisfied with causing it negatively to abstain from evil, he so ruled over it, so informed it, and so inclined it, as that it positively and actively yielded obedience to his Father’s will, and delighted in his commandments. John 4:32,34. Psalm 40:8, compared with Heb. 10:5-10. In the Garden of Gethsemane, while as personally sinless, his nature shrunk back instinctively and agonizingly from dissolution, nevertheless, its language to his Heavenly Father, as under his control, and one with himself, was, not my will, but thine be done. Luke 22:42. And, as the crowning exhibition of his complete ascendancy over his nature,102 he offered it up, pure from all transgres-[151]sion although it was, a sacrifice on the cross.
102 Should I not rather say, over himself? For, while in flesh, our Lord’s nature was himself. He was the divine person in the form of flesh and blood nature.
He reigned over the Jewish people. — Although, when he came to them as his own they received him not, they were nevertheless, even in their rejection and crucifixion of him, unconsciously subject to his sway, and fulfilling his purposes. Matt. 26:53. Acts 2:23. They could neither arrest him, nor put him to death, until his hour was fully come; John 7:30, 8:20; and until he chose voluntarily to put himself into their hands. John 10:17,18; 18:4-12. The designs of Herod, in his infancy, he baffled; Matt. 2:12; his intended murderers at Nazareth, Luke 4:29,30, and on the Mount of Olives, John 8:59, with the utmost ease, he eluded; the officers of the chief Priests and Pharisees, when sent to take him, he astonished and intimidated, compelling them to return to their employers, without even attempting to carry into effect their errand; John 7:32,45-49; and, on the night on which he was betrayed, he had only to say to the band of armed men who came to apprehend him, I am he, in order to make them go backward, and fall to the ground. John 18:5,6. Nay, a still more direct and potent sway even than this, did he exercise over his Jewish countrymen: for, when he made the scourge of small cords, and drove out of the temple, those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money, no resistance to this severity of discipline on his part seems to have been attempted; John 2:14-17; and, on occasion of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the multitude actually felt constrained to acknowledge his regal claims, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David! — Hosanna in the highest! Matt. 21:7-11. Having exposed the wiles, defeated the subtleties, and introduced a consciousness of their own ignorance, combined with a suspicion of his superior wisdom and power, into the minds of Herodians,103 Sadducees,104 and Pharisees105 in succession, he compelled them thenceforward so far to respect his kingly authority, as to abstain from open assault upon him, and to wait the progress of events.106
103 Matt. 22:20-22.
104 Ibid. 29:33.
105 Ibid. 37-40.
106 Ibid. 46; 26:3-5.
He reigned over all things. What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him? was the exclamation of his astonished disciples, after witnessing one of his stupendous miracles. Matt. 8:27. The fact is, that all [152] persons, and all things, were, even during the days of his humiliation, subject to his control. Not merely could he give the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, and the lame to walk, Matt. 11:4-6, but by him sins were forgiven, Ibid. 9:2, and the grave compelled to disgorge its prey. John 11:43,44. A few loaves and fishes were so multiplied at his command, as to suffice for the food of thousands. Mark 8:1-9. But, what is to me still more interesting, because, a still greater display of power, no human being, when he so pleased, could resist his command. The will of man, the most stubborn and impracticable of all things, was completely plastic in his hands. He could, with a word, induce Levi to abandon the receipt of custom; Luke 5:27,28; Nathanael, in spite of his incredulity, to acknowledge, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God! thou art the King of Israel! John 1:49; and even Pilate so to feel his power, that, had he chosen to prosecute the ascendancy which he obtained over him, that tyrannical, and yet time-serving, ruler, must have been compelled to let him go. John 18:36,37; 19:10,11. Has any earthly monarch, however extensive his empire, however uncontrolled his authority, and however mighty and splendid his achievements, ever possessed power once to be compared with this?
Thus, then, Jesus was, even while upon earth, the King: having derived his royal rights from David, his ancestor; having manifested his consciousness of possessing them, even from his earliest years; having entered upon the public exercise of them, from the period of his solemn inauguration at the waters of the Jordan; and having principally displayed them in that grand act of kingly power, no less than of priestly submission, the sacrifice of himself: an act which, while it brought to a close his reign, as well as his life and sufferings, here, was merely preliminary and subservient to his sitting down on his throne, and reigning, in a higher state, and under more exalted circumstances, for ever.
[153] DIVISION II.
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY CONNECTED WITH THE ATONEMENT.
CHAPTER I.
OUR GREAT HIGH PRIEST.
No man taketh this honour of the high priesthood, unto himself but he that is called of God, as was Aaron: so also Christ glorified not himself, to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedek. Heb. 5:4-6.
Every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts, and sacrifices for sins; Heb. 5:1; wherefore, it is of necessity that this man, Jesus, have somewhat also to offer; Ibid. 8:3. Christ being come, an high priest of good things to come, — by his own blood, — entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Ibid. 9:11,12. Once, in the end of the world107 hath he, Christ, appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Ibid. 9:26. We are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all. Ibid. 10:10.
107 Συντελεια των αιωνων, the end, or consummation, of the ages.
Such is a selection from those passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which the Apostle, after having stated, under immediate divine guidance and inspiration, what was required of the High Priest of the New Testament Dispensation, in order to his fulfilment of the types, ceremonies, and institutions, of the preceding economy, shews that every requisite is to be met with in the person, character, and work, of the great High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.
[154] The two following appear to be the chief requisites of the heavenly High Priest, and are in the preceding extracts both enumerated: —
1. That the spiritual High Priest should, like the carnal High Priest his type and predecessor, receive his appointment directly from God. Now this was exactly the case of our blessed Lord: in so far as, he was sanctified, by the peculiar mode of his conception, from his mother’s womb; was anointed, and thereby consecrated, to the priestly office, at thirty years of age, by God himself, through the descent of the Holy Ghost upon him, at the waters of Jordan; and, having been raised from the dead, was elevated to his Father’s right hand, where he sat down as a priest upon his throne.108 And all this, in virtue and fulfilment of his previous designation to the office, in the Old Testament Scriptures: in which his appearance was foretold, his character described, a shadowy history of which his should be the substance recorded, types and ceremonies significant of his actions and sufferings enjoined, and promises made which to him alone were and could have been realized. Thus Jesus took not the honour of High Priesthood to himself, but was called of God to the exercise and enjoyment of it, as was Aaron. — And,
108 Zechariah 6:13.
2. It was of supreme and indispensable necessity, that Jesus, in the right discharge of his functions as High Priest, should be the offerer of a sacrifice. This it was incumbent upon every priest to be; for all the descendents of Aaron stood daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices:109 so that, to be a priest, and to be under an obligation to sacrifice, were synonymous modes of expression. But if to do so was obligatory upon the ordinary possessors of the priestly office, much more on him who sustained the great and responsible character of High Priest. He, besides his other important sacrifical functions, behoved once a year to enter into the Holiest of all, with the blood of the victim slain on the great day of atonement. This, we are expressly informed by the Apostle, prefigured the entrance of Christ, the anointed one with his own blood, into heaven itself, there to appear in the presence of God for us. Heb. 9:24, with 12. — Enlarged comment upon a testimony so clear and explicit as this, would be superfluous. And yet, a few remarks, in illustration of its import, may be permitted. Jesus, as the [155] High Priest of the spiritual Dispensation, and consecrated to that office by God himself, in order to the filling up of all the legal types, and to the satisfaction of all the prophecies which respected his high and mysterious functions, behoved to present a sacrifice. That is, he behoved to destroy something possessed of life; and, in so doing, both to exhaust the demands of divine justice, and to open up a way for the exercise of divine mercy. But where was a sacrifice worthy of the offerer, suitable for God to accept, and calculated to take away sin, to be found? Not, certainly, in the blood of bulls and of goats. Heb 10:4. Nay, not in that of a mere man, or of the whole human race taken together: for, besides that the lives of human beings were already forfeited, and that nothing stained with guilt could be worthy of the divine acceptance, the destruction of the life of a mere creature, so far from having had any tendency towards the resurrection of that creature, would have been to bring it under the power of death for ever. The sacrifice of the nature of man, united to the person of Deity, was that which alone was fitted to accomplish the purposes aimed at. For, this alone was pure from sin,110 and yet loaded with sin;111 this alone could be voluntarily offered,112 and yet sacrificed in obedience to the divine commandment;113 this alone was able to die,114 and yet was entitled to live for evermore.115 Therefore it is, that in the body which had been prepared for our Lord, Heb. 10:5, or in his flesh and blood or earthly life, was that sacrifice found, which alone God could accept, and which alone was capable of removing sin, as well as of opening up the way into the Holiest of all. This sacrifice, then, Jesus offered. As the anti-type of the Jewish High Priest, he rendered his flesh and blood nature, loaded with sin, and yet in itself pure and stainless, the anti-type of the legal burnt offering: swallowing it up, and consuming it, in the fire of his own divine nature: and thus, by bringing his flesh and blood nature at once and for ever to an end, never again as such to be resumed by him, shewing that it was really and truly, not figuratively, a sacrifice. In thus acting, Jesus was at once [156] both the priest, and the offering: becoming all that the Old Testament Scriptures had declared, and the Old Testament ritual had exhibited, regarding the one and the other.
109 Heb. 10:11.
110 John 8:46; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; &c.
111 Isaiah 53, throughout; 1 Peter 2:24.
112 Phil. 2:8.
113 John 10:18.
114 Matt. 27:50. Rom. 6:10. Rev. 1:18.
115 John 10:18. Phil. 2:9-11. Acts 2:24. Psalm 16:8-11, compared with Acts 2:25-31, and Heb. 12:2.
To understand, then, what I am farther to enlarge on in this division of my subject, be it borne in mind, that in the character of Priest, that is, of בהך Kohen or servant of God, Jesus appeared upon earth. And that in this character was implied, not his life here for ever, but, after his having accomplished certain purposes, his laying down his earthly life. This was at once the import of his priesthood, Heb. 5:1, &c., and the great commandment which he had received of the Father. John 10:18. Phil. 2:8. For this consummation, all the previous part of his life was merely a series of preparatives. And as in the character of High Priest he had lived, both by previous preparation, and by actual consecration to the office, so when the appointed time, the great day of atonement, arrived, he found the requisite sacrifice in his own body and soul, which he offered up without spot unto God. An act of his which brought to an end at once and for ever, not merely his own earthly and Adamic life, but the entire Mosaic Economy and natural creation, as connected with it, and involved in it.116
116 This is the import of the 8th Psalm, from verse 3, to the end. Read, in illustration of this, Heb. 2:5-9.
[157] CHAPTER II.
SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST INTENSE AND SUBSTANTIAL.
JESUS, then, having been virtually invested with the priestly character from his very birth, having been expressly consecrated to it at his baptism, and having specially exercised it in the sacrifice of himself, let me, with a view to open up this part of his character more thoroughly, observe, that,
Two grand circumstances connected with our Lord’s discharge of his priestly functions demand our attention; the sufferings by which his death was preceded, and his death itself. By undergoing the former, he was acting as a priest in a minor degree; for his subjection to sufferings was as voluntary on his part, and as decidedly an offering of himself, as his death was: at all events, according to the declaration of the Apostle, his sufferings were of the nature of a preparation, or consecration, for the right discharge of his peculiar functions as priest; it having become God to make the Captain of our salvation perfect, or to consecrate him, through sufferings. Heb. 2:10.117 It was by the latter, or by the sacrifice of himself, however, that our Lord acted properly, and to the full extent of the term, in his capacity as Priest. And yet, as his sufferings, no less than his death, were indispensable to the completeness of his atoning work, and concurred to the perfecting of his priestly character, I intend treating of them, as well as of it.
117 Τελειωσαι. See Heb. 7:28, Greek and translation.
And, first, of our Lord’s sufferings.
1. The intensity of our Lord’s sufferings was owing to the fact of their having been real and substantial, not shadowy.
In a preceding part of this work, I have endeavoured to shew, that, in substantializing, or giving substance to, human nature, by uniting it to his own divine person, our Lord of necessity substantialized every circumstance connected with human nature: and, among the rest, law, sin, and death. [158] To this catalogue, I now add the article of sufferings. These, as undergone by him, were substantial. And that this was necessarily the case, a very little reflection, suggested by and growing out of scriptural facts and statements, may easily convince us.
Our Lord’s bodily frame in general, and his nervous system in particular, must, from the manner of his generation, have been of the most refined, delicate, and susceptible description. But constant liability to suffering, and intense anguish in the endurance of it, could not fail to be the result of such a state of things. For, it is a well ascertained physiological fact, that, in proportion to the nervous excitability of the individual, is his liability to pain and is the acuteness of his sufferings. As endowed, then, with the most exquisite sensibility, Christ’s whole existence upon earth must, even physically considered, have been one of constant, keen, and lacerating agony. He must have felt hunger and thirst as no other being clothed with the human form ever did. The weariness and watchings which he underwent, and the sleepless nights which he passed, must have been productive of a languor and an oppression to his corporeal frame at once inconceivable and indescribable. The crown of thorns driven into his sacred temples must have occasioned the most excruciating anguish. And his flesh must have quivered with a sensibility all its own, when his hands and feet were pierced with nails, and he was fastened thereby to the accursed tree. All this extent and constancy of agonizing sensations by him, resulted from the fact, that, as possessed of the most delicate nervous system, and the most acutely sensitive bodily frame, which ever existed, our Lord was more alive to pain, and experienced a greater degree of anguish, merely physically considered, than the grosser corporeal sensibilities of the ordinary children of men enable them to form any conception of.
But it is in the mind of the Son of God, that we are to seek for the principal sources of those intensely agonizing feelings, which it was his lot to experience while here below. He had the mind of God, in the form of the mind of man. Whatever, therefore, the human mind is able to endure, either from its subjective capabilities or from causes of suffering objectively presented to it, was, in Jesus Christ, indefinitely increased. His capability of suffering extended, as far as the divine mind, clothed with the form of human mind, was cap-[159]able of conceiving of evil, and of enduring it. And who will venture to say what that extent was? We creatures are liable to sorrows which are limited in point of number and intensity; and we frequently enjoy a respite from suffering, nay, even a species of happiness, by means of the temporary banishment of sorrow, and the causes of it, from our minds. No such advantage, however, if advantage it can be called, had the Lord Jesus. The floodgates of suffering of every kind, and arising from every cause, (except one, namely, personal guilt,) were opened upon him; were opened continually, and were opened to the full extent. Sufferings external, and sufferings internal; sufferings from foes, and sufferings from friends; sufferings from man, and sufferings from God; were the portion of this Holy One. Every species of suffering which man can endure or conceive of; as well as sufferings such as mere man never experienced, and such, consequently, as into the imagination of mere man never entered, were heaped upon his devoted head. To him was it given to see the vileness and worthlessness of human nature, as man himself never saw it; to feel his own necessary separation and alienation from God, as clothed with that nature, and burdened with its iniquities; and to look forward, without the possibility of escaping them, to the awful and agonizing pangs which it behoved him to undergo, in getting rid of his earthly state and condition, previously to the resumption of his pristine glory. Conceive, if you can, sufferings like these. And then, recollect, that they were not occasionally, but ever and growingly, present to, and pressing on, the Son of God; and that as having been experienced, not by the mere mind of man, they were necessarily possessed of a reality, an intensity, and a substantiality, such as can with truth be predicated of no sufferings, however acute and agonizing, to which mere creatures have ever been subjected. So situated, need we be surprised if joy, in so far at least as this world is concerned, was a stranger to our Lord’s bosom? True, he rejoiced in Spirit; Luke 10:21; and this, by contemplating and anticipating the joy that was set before him. Heb. 12:2. But gloom, deep, and settled, and growing gloom, and intense melancholy, nay, anguish the most keen and exquisite, arising from the circumstances of every source of suffering having been opened up to him, and of every species of evil having been substantialized upon him by the substantialization of his flesh and blood nature, must have [160] been the leading and invariable characteristics of his earthly condition.
Shall I be charged with having invented and forged this representation of the intensity of the Redeemer’s sufferings? Not, certainly, by those who understand the scriptures. Is not Jesus emphatically denominated by one prophet, the man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief? Isaiah 53:3. And is he not, by another, made to exclaim, behold and see, if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow? Lamen. 1:12. If so, what more is needed to establish my position?
Let me, however, accumulate evidence on this point: —
Are not the Old Testament scriptures, especially the Book of Psalms, filled with language expressive of the intense and unparalleled sufferings of the Son of God? Witness such passages as the following: In one place, speaking of his state and circumstances upon earth, Jesus prophetically says: The sorrows of death compassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid. The sorrows of hell compassed me about and the snares of death prevented me. Psalm 18:4,5. In Psalm 116:3, he uses similar language: — The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow. And, in another place, he describes himself, after his resurrection from the dead, as having been brought up out of an horrible pit, and out of the miry clay. Psalm 40:2. But all these expressions, forcible as they are, come short of the language in which he delineates his feelings, when speaking of the agonies undergone by him as the Saviour of sinners. Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy water-spouts: all thy waves and thy billows are gone over me. Psalm 42:7. Save me, God, for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me. I am weary of my crying; my throat is dried; mine eyes fail, while I wait for my God. Psalm 69:1-3. And so on, to the 14th and 15th verses, of the same inspired composition, in which casting a retrospective glance at the sources of sufferings previously enumerated, he prays agonizingly, 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 waterflood overflow me, neither let the deep swallow me up; and let not the pit shut her mouth upon me. In addition to the passages which I have quoted, which are merely a few out of many, the spiritual reader may be referred to the first twenty-[161]one verses of the 22nd Psalm, and to the petitions and communings at the beginning of the 77th Psalm, as places from which some additional ideas of the intensity of our Lord’s sufferings, while in flesh, may be gathered. The Book of the Lamentations of Jeremiah,118 especially the third chapter, is also, with reference to Christ’s sufferings, exceedingly instructive.
118 A greater than Jeremiah is there.
It is impossible to overlook the testimony borne by the New Testament writings to the same fact, of the depth and intensity of our blessed Lord’s sufferings. This is done, in such language as that which John represents him as having employed, in the near prospect of his crucifixion: Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? John 12:27. Still more, in his address to Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, when, in the garden, he began to be sorrowful, and very heavy: My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death. Matt. 26:38. But, above all, in the following narrative, recorded by the Evangelist Luke: And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done. 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 down to the ground. Luke 22:41-44. To all which may be added, as the fitting consummation of what went before, his agonizing cry on the cross, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matt. 27:46. These facts taken together, and considered in connection with the divine personality of the Lord Jesus, convey to us the idea of an anguish having been experienced by him, such as mere man never endured, and such as into the heart of mere man it has never yet entered thoroughly to comprehend.
Suffering was thus one of the grand, the constituent, the essential, elements, of our Lord’s earthly state and circumstances. He came into the world to suffer; to undergo agonies of every kind, from every quarter, and to the most fearfully aggravated extent and degree; and to have these continually growing upon him, until amidst the greatest diversity of woes, and under an accumulation of anguish which only the Creator can conceive of, or could have sus-[162]tained, he should offer up himself without spot unto God. To express myself otherwise, his divine personality substantialized the sufferings and anguish undergone by his flesh and blood nature; or imparted to these a pungency and intensity which God manifest in flesh alone could have experienced. Certain it is, that from a consideration of the past and the future, comfort, nay, more, intense enjoyment, mingled itself with our Lord’s intensest pangs: for it delighted him to dwell on the glory which he had had with the Father before the world was, John 17:5; and to anticipate the eternity of bliss which lay outstretched before him. Acts 2:25-28; Heb. 12:2. But, so far as in this world was concerned, his experience was exclusively that of the man of sorrows; for nothing but suffering, and suffering, too, continuous, always augmenting, and absolutely overwhelming, in a word, suffering that was not superficial and transient but substantial, was the very atmosphere in which he lived, moved, and had his earthly being.
CHAPTER III.
PECULIAR TO HIMSELF.
WE may proceed to consider the sufferings of Christ as having been peculiar, in the following points of view: —
1st, With reference to the Jewish people.
2nd, With reference to the experience of the New Testament or spiritual church. And
3rd, With a direct and simple reference to himself as the Messiah.
1st. With reference to the Jewish people.
The Jews, as men, were subjected to the trials and sufferings of human nature, in common with the rest of the human family. And to the same trials and sufferings was our Lord [163] pleased to subject himself, by his assumption of a nature of flesh and blood: only from that substantializing of the nature, together with its effects and concomitants, which was the result of his assuming it, he experienced these with a keenness, and underwent from them an anguish, peculiar to himself.
But, in addition to those mentioned, the Jews were subjected to trials and sufferings confined to themselves as the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, and arising from their having had imposed on them the obligations of Moses’ law. This, they had found productive of much wretchedness, and from the galling effects of it they had been incessantly struggling to set themselves free. To use the words of the Apostle Peter, when addressing an assembly of Jewish believers, it was a yoke — which neither their fathers nor they had been able to bear. Acts 15:10. Upon Jesus, as Abraham’s descendant, this same law was imposed as a matter of course;119 but imposed, without any of those alleviating circumstances, with which, in the case of ordinary Jews, it was attended. It descended upon him with its enormous, and all but crushing weight; it penetrated into his inmost soul, with all its keen, lacerating, and anguish-creating demands and scrutiny. Jesus understood this law, indeed, went to the very bottom of it,120 which no ordinary Jew had ever done, or could do; and thereby felt its awful pressure upon him internally as well as externally, uninterruptedly, and not with intermissions, and, above all, with continual increase of its demands, seeing that, so far from being satisfied with any obedience which he could render to it while in flesh, it required the ultimate and complete sacrifice of the nature by which it was obeyed. By no artifice, and to no artifice, as the truth, could he have recourse, — could he blind himself, to the awful, and, had he been a mere creature, the impracticable nature of the law’s demands; and by no expedient, therefore, could he shelter himself from the ever growing, and inconceivably agonizing feelings, of which his acquaintance with the real state of matters was productive. Suffering kept pouring in upon his pure and spotless soul, with a rapid and overwhelming flood. Thus it was, that our Lord’s perfection of knowledge, his complete sense of obligation, and the utter [164] impossibility of his mind admitting into it the slightest tincture of self-delusion, or of concealing from itself its own true position, so far from affording to him any diminution of anguish, were the very causes of the divine law resting upon him with a crushing weight, of his experiencing a suffocating sensation of being swallowed up in its deep waters, and of those fiery pangs and sufferings, which, from the incessant importunity of its demands, he was made to undergo without stint or alleviation. “The iron,” to avail myself of Sterne’s exquisitely beautiful idea, “entered into his very Soul.” What a Jew, then, experienced to be merely irksome and annoying, the Son of God, as the Jew, felt to be productive to his nature of flesh and blood of an anguish, which, but for the divinity of his person, would have been absolutely intolerable.
119 Indeed, he was, properly speaking, the only one of the Jews upon whom it was imposed. He was the end of the law. Rom. 10:4.
120 Psalm 119:96.
Let us now consider Christ’s sufferings,
2nd. With reference to the members of the New Testament or spiritual church.
It is at this point, that one of the greatest proofs of the ignorance of ordinary professors of religion, in relation to spiritual things, makes its appearance. According to them, what Jesus suffered while upon earth from sin, and as under an obligation to comply with the utmost requirements of the fiery law, the members of the spiritual church may, nay, actually do, suffer likewise. In other words, Jesus’ experience while in flesh, and the experience of his spiritual church while its members are in flesh, are in their apprehension, the same. Hence their notion of the spiritual church being, like their head while in his earthly state, under Moses’ law; being required, in one way or another, to comply with its demands; and being liable to condemnation, and future divine vengeance, in the event of their transgressing it. Above all, hence, their constant quotation of passages occurring in the Old Testament Scriptures, especially in the book of Psalms, in which the Messiah prophetically describes his earthly experience, confesses his lying under the weight of sin, complains of the injurious treatment which he met with from his fellow men, expresses his sense of desertion on the part of his heavenly Father, pants for God as a heart panteth for the water brooks, deprecates his continuance in the dry and thirsty land of this present world and the law, and gives vent to agonizing cries arising from the depth of his views of the evil and enormity of transgression, I say, hence the constant quotation of these with a reference to the state and [165] circumstances of the New Testament Saints; as if such language could be applicable to, or could with truth be employed as the appropriate language of their own experience by the redeemed of the Lord in a spiritual state of the church. That is, as if what belonged to Christ in flesh, could by any possibility belong to himself and his church in spirit. And hence, still farther, the confinement, by the class of persons alluded to, of spirituality of sentiments and feelings to attempts on the part of creatures, falsely represented as possessed of and thereby displaying the mind of the Lord Jesus, to realize in themselves ideas and an experience which, if they could succeed, would be merely earthly, but which the New Testament Scriptures shew us to have been only the ideas and the experience of the Son of God, during the period of his sojourn in flesh.
The fact is, that so far from that class of theologians upon whom I am animadverting being correct, in their notions on this subject, it is utterly impossible that they should be so. The sufferings undergone by the Lord Jesus, while he was upon earth, regarded as springing from and being connected with the law of God, with its severe and stringent demands, and with those incessant violations of it of which the Jews were guilty, neither have, nor can have, any counterpart in the minds of the members of the spiritual church. And this, because, altho’ he while upon earth was subject to the law of Moses, they are not so. Although he was loaded with the burden of all the transgressions that were under the first testament,121 from that burden they are altogether free. And although it behoved him to die in order to take sin away, they are under no such obligation. Nay, farther, even as respects the law which Adam violated, the guilt which he incurred, and the death to which consequently in common with other human beings they are subjected, they are, as to their consciences, set free entirely from all these, by the love, righteousness, and life everlasting of the second Adam, in which they see themselves to be interested. The experience of persons so situated must be totally different from that of our Lord, as labouring under the breach of Adam’s law, and yet subject to the law of Moses; as chargeable with the one sin of the world, and yet required, on pain of forfeiture of his privileges as Messiah, to avoid transgression, even in the [166] minutest point, of the law given from Mount Sinai; as required to die in order to atone for sin, and yet behoving to rise again from the dead in order to swallow up death in victory. Totally different, did I say? Why, the experience of the Church, in so far as its members possess the mind of the Spirit, must be the very reverse of the experience of the Son of God, while he was in flesh. The principle of love, not sense of obligation to obey law; the principle of righteousness, not the present conviction and feeling of sin; and the present enjoyment of life everlasting, not the anticipation and operation of death; are what reside and prevail in, as well as give birth to their experience, in so far as they are spiritually enlightened and renewed. Thus the sufferings undergone by our Lord, during his abode in flesh, are, when viewed with reference to the experience of the New Testament church, seen to have been peculiar to himself. And this, not in degree, but in kind.
121 Heb. 9:15.
We now consider our Lord’s sufferings simply and exclusively in the light of their having been peculiar to himself as the Messiah.
Thus considered, the three following circumstances obtrude themselves on our notice: —
First. One source of our Lord’s suffering was his conviction, that the treatment which he met with at the hands of his fellow men was totally undeserved on his part. They hated him without a cause. Psalm 35:19. John 15:25. Nay, it was his conviction, that while his sole, and constant, and, next to his love to his Heavenly Father, paramount object, was to do them good, their sole, and constant, and increasing aim was, to inflict upon him injury. They rewarded him evil for his good, and hatred for his love. Psalm 109:5; also, 35:12. Now sufferings such as these were clearly confined in their endurance to the Messiah himself. For, whatever any mere human being may have experienced from ingratitude, he never yet could say, much less think, that he has been, like Jesus, altogether free from blame in his procedure towards his fellow men; and surely still less, distinguished by supreme love to self as human nature is, can the idea of his having suffered from his constant, unvarying, and supreme attachment to others, having encountered nothing but returns of evil on their part, find a place in his bosom. Jesus, as a sufferer on the ground of nothing but attempts at good to men, having met with nothing but returns of evil from them, necessarily stands alone.
[167] Secondly. Jesus suffered, because, although the perfectly-obedient one, he was nevertheless exposed to the wrath, and made to undergo the curse, of his Heavenly Father. This was, of course, a specimen of suffering peculiar to himself. Men’s own hearts condemn them; and if so, much more must he condemn them, who is greater than the heart, and knoweth all things. 1 John 3:20.122 But Jesus’ heart condemned him not. It was his meat to do the will of his Father that sent him, and to finish his work. John 4:34. And, in furtherance of the object of his mission, he did always those things that pleased God. John 8:29. Yet, it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief. Isaiah 53:10. That is, his perfect obedience was connected with his encountering and undergoing the whole weight of divine vengeance. — One who was entirely innocent, and yet was made to experience judicially at the hands of God a degree of anguish beyond what the human mind can conceive, is certainly a most anomalous state of things! Anomalous as it is, however, it was the state of our blessed Lord while in flesh. — He, and he only, was the guiltless one; and, therefore, sufferings connected with guiltlessness of nature and character were what he, and he only, could experience. — And yet,
122 See Rom. 3:9-20.
Thirdly, our Lord’s sufferings were in him connected with the sense and desert of sin. This, as it constitutes the greatest of all the paradoxes involved in the Messiah’s character and situation upon earth, so does it present him to us in a point of light the most peculiar. He was at once guiltless, and guilty; conscious that he did not deserve, and yet conscious that he did deserve, to suffer at his heavenly Father’s hands, The explanation is easy. And, when made, it tends to show how intense, as well as peculiar, the sufferings of our Lord must have been. Jesus, in every respect, in heart no less than in life, complied with God’s commands; so that not the slightest flaw could, even by the eye of God himself, be detected in his obedience. Viewed in this light, he deserved not to suffer and die; and consequently, as personally guiltless, no one, (ουδεις,) in opposition to his own good pleasure to undergo them, could have inflicted either sufferings or death upon him. John 10:18. Nay, so far from deserving to suffer or die, our Lord’s obedience entitled him to the highest reward to which such unparalleled merit could lay [168] claim. Philip. 2:6-11. Sufferings undergone by a being thus innocent, and thus deserving of nothing but approbation, must have been felt by him with peculiar acuteness. — But, now, look at what the nature was which he rendered thus faultless and spotless in himself. A nature loaded with guilt in the person of him who had first borne it; and loaded with still greater guilt in the persons of a nation whom God had selected to be a peculiar people to himself.123 Nay, a nature which was so constituted as to be perfectly adverse to every divine law, whether delivered in the shape of prohibition, or in that of command; a nature which was enmity against God; not subject to his law, neither, indeed, able to be so. Rom. 8:7. This nature he undertook to render obedient to God, by its union with himself; and, by having been the God-man, he succeeded in his arduous undertaking. But the nature itself, notwithstanding its union with him, and notwithstanding the obedience to divine law which it thereby yielded, as having been the nature of transgressors, and still further, as having been of itself necessarily a transgressing nature, was accursed. And in rendering such a nature obedient in himself to God, he was drawing down the curse upon what did, and yet, to express myself paradoxically, upon what did not, deserve to suffer. He was thus situated as no other being clothed with flesh ever was, or ever can be. And his trial consequently, must have been peculiar. The fact of his deserving, and yet not deserving, to suffer, must have been to him a source of inconceivable and unutterable agony. Every pure and holy step which Jesus took, every act of obedience which he rendered, every sentiment of love to God and man which he cherished, as having been the perfecting of a nature which in itself and necessarily was accursed, was but plunging himself deeper and deeper into the mire of self-contradiction and suffering. Psalm 69:2. True; he was, by his obedience, rendering himself, as an individual, more and more worthy of continuing to live upon earth; but, in so doing, he was also necessarily rendering that nature more and more worthy of life, upon which the curse of God thoroughly and deservedly rested. He was, as it were, opposing and con-[169]tradicting God, in imparting by his obedience a right to live, to that to which God, as its due, had awarded everlasting and complete destruction. Such, was the anomalous situation of the Lord Jesus! Such, one of the grand sources of his sufferings! His perseverance in obedience, purity, and abstinence from evil, was actually giving a well-substantiated claim upon God’s regard, to that very nature of flesh and blood, upon which He had pronounced a curse, which nothing but its destruction could satisfy. Our Lord was actually, by his obedience, apparently laying the foundation for disobedience, or contradiction to the divine will and purpose. Hence agonies unutterable; agonies which the Son of God in flesh alone could undergo. For they had their origin in the consciousness, that, while personally he and he alone deserved not to suffer, yet the very purity and excellence of his flesh and blood nature were exhibited by that which at God’s hands deserved nothing else, and which was destined to receive nothing else, than sufferings and death as its portion.
123 Rom. 5:20. The law having entered that the offence might abound, of course a still greater mass of guilt was accumulated by the transgressions of Abraham’s descendants according to the flesh, than stood connected with the one transgression of Adam.
CHAPTER IV.
OBEDIENCE LEARNED BY THE MESSIAH BY THE THINGS WHICH HE SUFFERED.
CONTRASTED in all respects as the first Adam and his great antitype are, in no one particular do they stand out more distinguished from each other than when viewed with reference to the original circumstances in which they were respectively placed, and the results in which these appear to have issued. Adam was created naturally happy, and surrounded by every natural circumstance which was fitted to ensure the continuance and increase of his happiness: Jesus was born amidst sufferings, nay, for the express purpose of being a sufferer; and, so far from meeting with any thing, [170] in the course of his earthly career, which was calculated to allay or remove the pressure of calamity, every thing, in his case, tended to increase, strengthen, and aggravate it. Notwithstanding all his natural advantages, however, one of the first steps taken by the naturally happy man, the man to whom one species of abstinence alone was prescribed, — was an act of disobedience; whereas, the whole life of him, who was destitute of every natural advantage,124 and who was from first to last “the man of sorrows,” was one continued act of obedience, issuing at last in that grand and divine act of compliance with his heavenly Father’s will, by which sin was taken away at once and for ever.
124 Matt. 8:20.
Amidst sufferings, indeed, the whole of our Lord’s time upon earth was spent. He suffered from men; he suffered from God; but, above all, he suffered from himself.125 His situation was necessarily a self-inconsistent one. As the divine person manifest in flesh, he could not help loving and obeying divine law; and yet, as clothed with flesh, his obedience, so far from being attended with pleasing and satisfactory emotions, could be productive of nothing but anguish. For, the flesh and blood nature which he united to his divine person, having, when he assumed it, been burdened with sin, his substantializing of the nature, which was the necessary effect of the union, was likewise necessarily the substantializing of its sinfulness; and as the divine curse rested upon the nature, it necessarily likewise, in its most aggravated form, rested upon him, as the possessor of that nature substantialized.126 Nothing which he was capable of effecting, in the way of obedience, while he retained his fleshly nature, could contribute in the slightest degree towards the removal of the curse from it; indeed, so far from experiencing any tendency towards a removal of that curse, the more he obeyed, the more conscious was he of its resting upon him, the more did he feel his inability by any increase of obedience to throw it off, and the more decidedly satisfied was he of its having been deserved. For Jesus to obey divine law, then, so far from having been a source of enjoyment, was, on the contrary, attended with a constantly growing sense of misery: as, while, by every new instance of obedience, he suffered [171] from the consciousness of strengthening the claims of that nature to live which was in reality and justly doomed to die, he was also entering more deeply into the feeling of that curse, which sin, as his in its most concentrated form, had entailed upon him. To suffer, was thus necessarily characteristic of our Lord’s earthly state and circumstances. Amidst sufferings was his obedience rendered. And of sufferings was his every act of obedience productive. To obey, and to suffer, were in his case, synonymous terms. Beautiful, no less than true, is the idea of Calvin, with reference to this fact, that “his life was one continuous sacrifice from first to last.”
125 That is, from his earthly constitution; or, from the circumstance of his being invested, while here, with a flesh and blood nature.
126 Relatively, not absolutely, substantialized. See before.
Sufferings, as endured by our Lord, fall, however, to be viewed in another and a still more striking light. They constituted the Saviour’s education for eternity. By them he was taught; and in their school was all his progress made. Affliction was his early, his assiduous, his faithful instructor. His heavenly Father held out to him no earthly comforts, no bed of roses to be reposed on here, in order to stimulate his obedience. On the contrary, he was forewarned, through the medium of prophecy, that from one trial, and one instance of suffering, to another, and his trials and sufferings constantly although gradually augmenting, he was to advance to the consummation of his mediatorial work. And as it was foretold, so did it happen to him. He was entered in the school of affliction from his earliest years. The very first act of obedience performed by him, was the first inlet to suffering. Trials, in his case, indeed, always and necessarily trod on the heels of privilege and obedience. Scarcely had he on the banks of Jordan been declared to be the Son of God by the voice from heaven, when he was made to experience intense anguish from the number and violence of the diabolical temptations by which he was assailed. His trials during the brief remnant of his career went on constantly increasing. One lesson of suffering, but paved the way for another. While that again was in its turn succeeded by one still more acute and agonizing. It is true, these trials came not upon him unexpectedly. His mind was not merely disposed to obey, but was also prepared to undergo afflictions in consequence of his obedience, from the very outset of his career. But it pleased God, instead of bringing sufferings upon our Lord all at once with their whole weight, violence, and intensity, to accommodate the growth of them, practically and [172] experimentally, to the growth of his flesh and blood mind. Having been taught by every fresh instance of suffering as the result of his obedience, that for him to obey, was for him also and unavoidably to suffer, so far from having been deterred thereby from persevering in the path of obedience to his Father’s will, he was actually thereby furnished with motives for renewed, increasing, and still more strenuous efforts, to advance in the heavenward track. His lessons of obedience! strange fact, and yet not more strange than true! were actually taught him by those very sufferings of which his obedience was productive. He learned obedience by the things which he suffered. Heb. 5:8. The reason being, that he was thus better and better taught what he had to expect in the discharge of his mediatorial functions, as well as was thus nerved with increasing resolution to meet the brunt of sufferings and to overcome them. Good was it for him that he was afflicted. Psalm 119:71. Man in innocence, and when surrounded by every natural motive to obedience, had, like a lost sheep, gone astray; Ibid. 176; the external church of Israel, with the strongest motives of a similar kind, and before being afflicted, had copied its fleshly progenitor’s example; Isaiah 53:6: but Jesus the afflicted one, and because he was afflicted, kept God’s word. Thus did it happen, that the curse which rested upon the nature of man, and the intense, protracted, and continually augmenting sufferings of which that curse, as resting upon the flesh and blood nature of Jesus, was productive, constituted the very means by which he had an opportunity of displaying the nature, extent, and perfection of his mediatorial character. — Sufferings were the school in which he was trained. They furnished him with the materials of his obedience. And they were means of fitting and strengthening him for the successful prosecution of his arduous undertaking. From sufferings, he learned practically what his situation upon earth was, and what the discharge of his obligations implied. In subjecting himself voluntarily to the pangs and anguish which were inseparable from every act of obedience, he manifested the depth and reality of his devotedness to his heavenly Father’s will. And experiencing more and more the support under trials which God never failed to vouchsafe to him, he was encouraged to go forward without flinching to the performance of that last and crowning act of obedience, on which he well knew that agonies only short of infinite, behoved to be undergone by him.
[173] Not that, from any thing which I have said, my readers are authorized to conclude, that, in my opinion, sufferings imparted to our Lord the dispositon to obey God’s law, or constituted the ultimate motive from which his obedience sprang. For, his disposition to obey, at whatever cost of trial or suffering, was inherent in the very constitution of his being, and was brought into the world along with him. — A few observations may tend to throw light on my meaning. The mind of our Lord, while in flesh, was the mind of the Creator, in the form of the mind of the creature. It was therefore, capable of growth. And this, not in one, but in every respect. It could be educated. Hence, while it was from sufferings, and by means of the actual endurance of them, that our Lord’s opportunities of evincing obedience were derived, it was also by means of sufferings, as necessarily involved in every act of obedience which he performed, that his comprehension of the pangs to which in the prosecution of his mediatorial undertaking he was subjected was enlarged, and that his capacity for endurance was strengthened. He thus learned obedience — learned what was implied in obeying, was qualified more and more to obey, and actually increased in obedience — by the things which he suffered, or by his very sufferings themselves. His education as the man of sorrows, in this very way was carried on and completed. To obey and to suffer, were, in his case, as has been already stated, one and the same thing. One act of obedience, as necessarily attended with a certain amount of suffering, was to him one lesson of what was demanded and expected of him as the Mediator in flesh; and was to him a suitable preparation for the additional and severer lessons which were to follow. The next act of obedience, and thereby of self-inflicted suffering, carried on the course of instruction still farther. And thus he advanced. Every new instance of suffering, as necessarily implied in every new act of obedience, at once enlarging his views of the depth, extent, and awful weight of the curse which is deserved by sin, and strengthening his disposition and capacity for a still farther endurance of it. Until at last, by means of the whole previous course of training to which he was subjected, his views and apprehensions of the extent of the curse having been enlarged, and his disposition and capacity for bearing it having been strengthened, to the very uttermost, the final catastrophe took place. — As to the ultimate object of the Lord Jesus [174] in his obedience, this was not suffering, certainly, but the joy that was set before him. Heb. 12:2. And with a view to the attainment of this joy, it was, that he endured the cross, despising the shame. Ibid.127 Nevertheless, he courted the endurance of sufferings, during the whole of his mediatorial career, as affording him an opportunity of testifying his love to his heavenly Father, his devotedness to the divine will, and that temper of self-denial and self-sacrifice by which he was thoroughly imbued and actuated.
127 See also Psalm 16:10,11, compared with Acts 2:22-36.
CHAPTER V.
THE DESTRUCTION OF CHRIST’S FLESH AND BLOOD NATURE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
LET me, before proceeding to the consideration of the next branch of the subject, request the attention of my readers to the following facts: —
1. That sin was so inseparably connected with the flesh and blood nature of our blessed Lord; indeed, was so completely aggravated and substantialized, in consequence of the nature to which it attached having been united to his divine person; that, while the nature itself existed, sin in its most decided and appalling form behoved to exist likewise. Nay, the more pure, holy, and devoted to his heavenly Father’s will, our Lord evinced himself to be; and the more the nature which, in itself, is enmity against God, not subject to his law, neither, indeed, able to be so, thus became possessed, through its perfect obedience, in him, of a right to continue in existence for ever, and thereby to escape the death which on account of Adam’s one transgression it had incurred; the more awfully aggravated did sin, as having for its very [175] essence opposition to the divine will, shew itself in connection with that nature as purified, to be. In Adam and his posterity as transgressors, and, consequently, as dying, human nature yielded to its natural and deserved fate; but in Jesus Christ as righteous, and as thereby deserving to live on earth for ever, it was opposing the most formidable resistance possible to the purpose and sentence of Jehovah. Thus, the continuance of Jesus in flesh was not only the perpetuation of sin in its most aggravated form, as having been substantialized on him; but was also the clothing of human nature with a power of enmity to God, or of resistance to his will, by means of its very purity and thorough subjection to the divine law, and thereby of its right personally to continue for ever in existence, which in the mere creature it never possessed, and never could possess.
2. That sin, in its most aggravated form, attaching to our Lord’s flesh and blood nature, the curse or condemnation due to sin, in its most aggravated form, necessarily attached to that nature likewise; and that this curse or condemnation could, while the nature itself lasted, by no means or possibility be got rid of. Besides, from the growing nature of our Lord’s earthly mind, it was a curse or condemnation which was necessarily susceptible of growth; as sin became every day more and more aggravated in his estimation, so also did the curse, as inseparably connected with sin; until at last both sin, and the condemnation consequent on it, reached a point, beyond which it was possible for neither the one nor the other, to be inflicted or endured.
Take these facts together, consider them well, and then say, what is the only conclusion which is legitimately deducible from them?
Why, certainly, that a nature thus substantially sinful, and substantially accursed, as our Lord’s flesh and blood nature was; and a nature at the same time absolutely inconsistent with the holiness and happiness of the divine person to whom it was united; was not adapted for permanent existence in this present world. That it was merely assumed temporarily; and that, as soon as the purposes of its assumption were fully answered, it behoved to come to an end.
Now, take into consideration another fact, in proof of which it is surely unnecessary for me to adduce a single argument: the additional fact being,
That a nature so sinful and accursed, and so thoroughly in-[175]consistent with the divine nature of our blessed Lord, as human nature is, although it might, for certain wise and holy purposes, exist for a time upon earth in connection with the divine person, was totally unsuitable to be raised to a higher state of existence, and introduced into heaven.
I say, let this fact be taken along with the others which we have already considered, and what, then, is the conclusion from the whole?
This, most assuredly; that a flesh and blood nature, such as that of Christ, which was unfitted for permanent existence upon earth, and still less fitted for introduction into heaven, could tend to no other issue, and experience no other fate, than that of final, complete, and irremediable destruction.
CHAPTER VI.
DEATH OF CHRIST.
HAVING treated of the sufferings, we now,
Secondly, proceed to the consideration of the death of Christ.
This was the consummation of our Lord’s mediatorial character, the perfection of his righteousness, and the full endurance on his part of the curse. He thereby finished his connection with sin and this present evil world, and thereby paved the way for the swallowing up of death in victory.
Passing over many other species of reasoning, scriptural reasoning, I mean, by which the necessity of the death of Christ might be evinced, I content myself with remarking, that it was indispensable,
Upon the principle stated by himself, John 3:3. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jesus had been born once, when he came into our world, a descendant of Abraham and Adam, through his mother the [177] virgin Mary; Matt. 1:25; he behoved, through dying, to acquire the opportunity of being born a second time, as the first begotten, and first born, from the dead. Rev. 1:5; Coloss. 1:18.128
128 Πρωτοτοκος, is the Greek word used in both cases.
Also, upon the principle stated by the Apostle, 1 Corinth. 15:50, that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God. Jesus, therefore, required, by dying, to divest himself of flesh and blood; and by his resurrection, to put on that incorruptible and immortal nature, without which, he could not be qualified to enter into and preside over his own kingdom.
As to the circumstances of our Lord’s death, the only account of these to which I refer, indeed, the only one with which his people and followers can be satisfied, is that furnished by the inspired Evangelists. Let Matthew speak in the name of the rest: — (See Matt. 27:33-50).
Although I have merely referred to Matthew’s narrative of that stupendous event, the death of the Son of God, it is far from being my intention by so doing, to supersede the perusal of the accounts given by the other Evangelists. No man, indeed, can have a complete idea of what happened at the cross, without consulting the whole. The additional matter introduced by the Evangelist Luke, respecting the language addressed to the dying Saviour, by the two malefactors, is most interesting and instructive. And John, in representing him as having exclaimed, “It is finished,” immediately before giving up the ghost — no doubt the cry to which Matthew in the preceding quotation alludes — has supplied us with a fact of the utmost importance.
To our Lord’s death, succeeded his burial; and under the power of death did he continue during a portion of three days.
But now comes an important topic for consideration, namely, the nature of the death of Christ.
In order to bring out a suitable and scriptural view of this, we enquire,
Was the death undergone by our blessed Lord the same as that of other beings clothed with the human form? Was it the same as that of the other descendants of Adam?
It was; and it was not.
It was; for there was nothing of make believe, or of the [178] mere appearance of dying, in his giving up the ghost, as some, from an early period of the Christian church, have not scrupled to insinuate, or even to assert. His death was real. He really ceased to breathe and to live. The principle of consciousness, as connected with his flesh and blood nature, came to an end. In fact, his death was as complete a disruption of the tie formerly binding him to this present world, and as complete a cessation of the vital principle, as ever happened to any other descendant of Adam. Nay, so far from there having been merely the appearance, and not the reality, of dying, in what took place on the cross,
Our Lord’s death was not that of ordinary human beings, in so far as,
It was real and substantial death; whereas that of the ordinary children of men is, like their nature itself, merely shadowy. This difference, omitting, for the present, the proofs of it which are derivable from the necessary effect, in our Lord’s case, of a flesh and blood nature having been united to the divine person, is sufficiently established by a reference to the following simple, scriptural, facts. Ordinary human beings, who had undergone the stroke of death, were, we find, on several occasions, restored to life again. Instances of this present themselves to us in the child of the widow of Zarephath, the son of the Shunamite, the son of the widow of Nain, Lazarus, and some others. Now all these individuals lived a second time, merely to die a second time. But widely different was the case of our blessed Lord. He could only die once, and, having risen from the dead, death could have no more dominion over him. Rom. 6:9,10. Looking at these two distinct cases, who sees not, at a glance, the difference between the deaths which by mere creatures, on the one hand, and by the Lord Creator, on the other, had been undergone? A death, such as that of the former, which could be exchanged for life, that life being succeeded by death again, is by that very fact evinced to have been something shadowy. Whereas a death, such as that of the latter, which was undergone once and for ever, and by which ordinary death itself was swallowed up, is by that very fact evinced to have been something substantial. Jesus’ death, was the substance of death. It alone was real death. For, however real we may pronounce the death of mankind in general to be, and however accurately for the ordinary purposes of language when thus speaking we may express our-[179]selves, no death can in strict propriety be called real except that of the Son of God, it having implied, not merely the termination of human life, but the termination of it without any possibility of its being resumed or restored, and it having been the necessary preliminary, through the medium of the resurrection, to the termination or death of death itself.
But additional views of the peculiar nature of our Lord’s death, here suggest themselves. Take, for example, the two following: —
First. It was unnatural. The wages of sin being death, and sin attaching to human nature, it is natural for ordinary human beings to die. But the Lord Jesus was, as to his person, the undying one. By taking hold of flesh and blood, he united himself, it is true, to a nature which was loaded with sin, and condemned to die; nay, he aggravated indefinitely, by the very circumstance of his union with it, the sinfulness and desert to die of the nature which he assumed. And yet, the being upon whom sin and death, in all their weight and enormity, came down and rested — the being through their connection with whom sin and death became, as it were substantialized — was in himself sinless and immortal! How unnatural, does a moment’s reflection shew it to have been, for such an one to die. We die, in every point of view, naturally; he died, naturally, according to the nature which he had assumed, but unnaturally, according to his real and essential personality.
Secondly. Our Lord’s death implied and involved in it the death of every other. This is, perhaps, the most remarkable point of view, in which to contemplate his death, as distinguished from the death of ordinary human beings. Every ordinary descendant of Adam, in dying, dies for himself alone. Ransom for himself, from the power of the grave, still less ransom for any other, he is totally unable to give. See Psalm 49:7. His death is merely that of an individual. Not so, however, the death of the Son of God. As in him, by the very circumstance of his having been God united to flesh, all lived, and moved, and had their being; so in him, when he died, all flesh died likewise. His death, was the death of all. That is, every ordinary human being, when he dies, dies individually and shadowyly; whereas, when Jesus died, as he was the true and substantial man, all human beings died in him collectively and substantially. Indeed, [180] as connected with all nature, by his fleshly constitution, in his death, nature itself virtually died, or came to an end. When viewed in this light, then, is not the death of him, in whom all died; nay, in whose death human nature itself, and whatever is merely external, found their issue or termination; something very different, indeed, from the death of an ordinary human being?
The death of our blessed Lord, of which we have thus been treating, was at once the act of his creatures, and his own act.
It was the act of his creatures. The Jewish rulers conspired against him, got him betrayed into their hands, condemned him as a blasphemer in their Sanhedrin, roused the clamours of the multitude against him, and, having by dint of importunity and menaces procured the assent of Pontius Pilate the Roman Procurator to their impious and murderous request, nailed him to the accursed tree. He was, thus, by the wicked hands of men crucified and slain. Acts 2:23.
But his death was also his own act. Indeed, it is principally as his own act, that we are bound to regard it. All that happened took place, in virtue of the determinate counsel, and foreknowledge of God; Acts 2:23; and in consequence of his choosing voluntarily to offer up himself, as a pure and acceptable sacrifice to God. Phil. 2:8. Heb. 9:14. Inveterate as was the hatred cherished towards him by his Jewish countrymen, they could not have taken his life from him, in opposition to his own wishes; John 10:18; had he chosen to resist, and set at defiance, the execution of the unjust and impious sentence pronounced upon him, no earthly power could have carried it into effect: John 18:36; 19:11: legions of angels were at hand to obey his behests, Matt. 26:53, and he shewed by what took place in the Garden of Gethsemane, that a word from himself at any time was sufficient to have disconcerted and baffled all the projects of his enemies. John 18:6. But how, in the event of his having declined to suffer and die, could the scriptures have been fulfilled? Matt 26:54. How, in the event of his having successfully resisted the attempts of Jew and Gentile to crucify him, could his father’s will, which was also his own, have been accomplished? John. 5:30; 6:38. No. The time had come. The period foretold by ancient prophets had arrived, when there was to be an end of sins, and when reconciliation was to be made for iniquity. Daniel 9:24. [181] Therefore it was, that, not unwillingly, but himself officiating as at once the priest and the victim, Jesus took advantage of the malignant schemes, and hostile intentions, of his own creatures towards him, and of the sentence of death which they had chosen to pronounce, at the exactly pre-determined æra, to offer up himself, the great atoning sacrifice.
Wonderfully, thus, in the wisdom and power of Jehovah, were two things, to mere human apprehension the most opposite and irreconcilable, viz. the deepest human malignity, and the most perfect divine-human love, made to concur and harmonize in the production of the same effect. It was indispensably necessary, in order to a full display of the respective characters of God and man, that it should be so. But for the active participation of Jews and Gentiles in our Lord’s death, we should have wanted a most intense and awful expression of man’s enmity to God; but for the voluntary nature of our Lord’s sacrifice, his death would have been exclusively the act of others, not his own. Motives human, and motives divine, both prompted to the same result. Man’s hatred of God, issued in the crucifixion of him who was God manifest in flesh; and God’s love to man, issued in a cheerful submission, on the part of our blessed Lord, to man’s nefarious procedure. But, O, how different the results, when viewed with reference to the designs of the respective parties. Man, in nailing Jesus to the tree, trusted that he had extinguished his name and cause for ever; whereas, in reality, he thereby overreached himself: having, by the putting of Jesus to death, defeated his own purposes, subverted his own authority, and destroyed his own nature. Jesus, on the other hand, by sacrificing himself, accomplished exactly, and to the very uttermost, all that he aimed at; for, in dying, he destroyed death, and him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and in dying, he paved the way for the elevation of human nature, changed in himself into the divine nature, to the enjoyment of complete, heavenly, and everlasting felicity.
[182] CHAPTER VII.
ACCURSED.
MEN of a Socinianized turn of mind, whether arising from ignorance of the nature and import of our Lord’s death, or from having been early imbued with strong and uncontrollable prejudices against the truth, shrink back with the utmost abhorrence from the idea of Jesus, in his death, having been the object of the divine vengeance, or from that of the death of Jesus having afforded the most awful display possible of the divine displeasure against sin.
And yet, to all who have been enlightened from above on this subject, the fact of Jesus having been made, in his death, a curse for us,129 is one of the grand truths by which they are sustained, comforted, and animated, in passing through this present world.
129 Galat. 3:13.
To him, whose mind is made to acquiesce and rejoice in the statements of divine revelation, the fact of Jesus having been the accursed one is speedily settled.
Such a person, when he finds the Lord Jesus, by the Spirit of prophecy, in the Book of Psalms, deprecating his heavenly Father’s wrath, and confessing to him, thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore; Psalm 38:2; declaring farther, respecting himself, to the same glorious being, deep calleth unto deep, at the noise of thy water spouts; all thy waves, and thy billows, are gone over me; 42:7; and, in the greatest agony, exclaiming, thy fierce wrath goeth over me, thy terrors have cut me off; 88:16; can have no hesitation as to our Lord, especially at the close of his life, not only having undergone the most excruciating agony, but having done so, as the effect of the divine displeasure, on account of sin. The convictions thus produced, he will find confirmed, by a consideration of the case of Jonah, which our Lord expressly declares to have been emblematic of his [183] own;130 and by a careful perusal, as well as spiritual understanding, of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah throughout. His having seen, that our Lord’s flesh and blood nature, as loaded with sin, nay, as having had sin substantialized upon it, could not fail to be the object of the most intense divine displeasure, will contribute still farther to the strengthening of the conviction, of Jesus’ having been made a curse, which he may have derived from other and independent sources. But all other evidence on the subject will give way to, and be superseded by, the distinct and unequivocal statements of the New Testament scriptures themselves. Our dear Redeemer’s language, when hanging on the cross, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,131 shew in what light he himself regarded the agonies to which he was subjected; and the declaration of the Apostle, that God hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin,132 conjoined with the position which he lays down in Galatians 3:13, that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, leave not the shadow of a doubt, as to the Lord Jesus having had sin embodied in his flesh and blood nature, and as to the curse of God having been made thereby to descend on him, to its fullest and most awful extent.
130 Jonah 1:17; 2:2-9; Matt. 12:40.
131 Matt. 27:46.
132 2 Cor. 5:21.
By many, I am well aware, that the word curse is disliked, as applied to the sacrifice of Christ. And yet, no other word, within the whole compass of language, expresses the idea which the sacred writers, or, rather, the Holy Ghost speaking by the sacred writers, has intended to convey.
Unquestionably, the term condemnation approaches very near it, and furnishes us with a notion of things upon the whole very similar. Our Lord as having taken hold of human flesh and blood, and thereby rendered himself a partaker of the nature which stood condemned completely and for ever in Adam, as a matter of course, drew down upon himself the condemnation which necessarily attached to man’s nature, by whomsoever it might be borne. He thus, although pure and holy in himself, stood condemned from his very birth, as possessed of a condemned nature; and the state of condemnation in which he had all along lived, was merely brought out to view, and satisfactorily evinced, by the execution of the sentence of condemnation upon him on the cross. The wages of sin was death to him, no less than to [184] the rest of Adam’s descendants. And the wages thus due to him, were paid, to their full amount, when he suffered upon Calvary.
But condemnation, strong and appropriate as the phrase is, does not give us entirely the sense of inspiration, with reference to this subject. The word curse introduces us to still profounder, and far more important views. It implies the utter loathesomeness of our Lord’s flesh and blood nature in the eyes of Jehovah, the impossibility of its ever becoming any thing else than an object of the divine abhorrence, and that the only fate which could overtake it was that of its being, by means of its complete destruction, cast for evermore out of God’s presence. Now those who are given to understand the subject are aware, that, although we speak the truth, when we say, that our Lord’s flesh and blood nature was under condemnation, we nevertheless do not speak the whole truth: nothing short of the ideas implied in the word curse, as these have just been briefly hinted at, conveying a full and accurate view of the dreadful weight of divine vengeance, which, in consequence of the thorough opposition of our Lord’s earthly nature to God, and the intensity of its sinfulness, lay upon it; and of the complete and irremediable destruction, which was its only, its appropriate, and its necessary fate.
I put aside with disgust, and as unworthy of serious refutation, the attempts made by Socinian critics and commentators to explain away the meaning of the term curse, when applied to our Lord’s death, by representing it as a mere accommodation to the Old Testament phraseology and ritual, if not even to heathenish usages. The fact is, that the very reverse is true. Language is not employed, when Christ’s sacrifice is spoken of, with a view to accommodate it to the Old Testament sacrifices; but the language employed, in reference to these Old Testament sacrifices, was, as far as possible, to accommodate them to the future sacrifice of our blessed Lord. These sacrifices were all of them the types, or emblems, of that which he himself in due time was to offer. Whatever, then, was said concerning them, was said as fore-shadowing it. When they, in the language of ancient narrative or prophecy, were represented as accursed, it was with reference to the curse, which with all its tremendous violence and weight, was to alight upon him. The accommodation, therefore, was not on the part of our [185] Lord’s sacrifice, to the sacrifices, offered under the law; but these legal sacrifices, as in themselves mere types or shadows, were all so many accommodations to his great and glorious sacrifice, their true and only substance. They were all so many “shadows of the coming event” thrown before. Upon them the typical curse descended, because upon him the antitypical curse was in due time to descend.
Agreeably to the scope of the whole of my preceding statements, wherever in the Old Testament Scriptures, any person or thing is declared to be accursed, he or it is represented as an object of divine vengeance, and as devoted to destruction. It matters not, whether the Israelites as a nation, the city of Jericho, private individuals, or inferior animals, were subjected to the curse. In every case in which it was pronounced, the thing implied was, that the divine displeasure impended, and that it would ultimately display itself in the destruction of whatever was obnoxious to it. Are we not, by all this, furnished with a scriptural, and thereby a true and satisfactory, explanation, of what was implied in the curse, as having been sustained by our blessed Lord? Was not his human nature, as loaded with sin, the mark against which divine vengeance was directed? And could any thing appease this vengeance, short of the complete and everlasting destruction of that by which it was occasioned?
Great and, it is to be presumed in their own apprehension, insurmountable objections to the doctrine of Christ having been made a curse for us, have been advanced by persons who seem to triumph in the notion of their having thereby completely exposed its fallacy. It has been charged by them with making God changeable; with representing him as having contradicted the most essential principles of justice, in hating one, who is admitted on all hands to have been most worthy of his love; and with being inconsistent with the revealed character of God as love. Each of these objections all of which have their origin in complete ignorance, and a complete misapprehension, of divine truth, is, when we take to ourselves the weapons with which we are furnished by Scripture, met and overcome without the slightest difficulty.
1. Had the doctrine in question represented God as at one time regarding his Son in flesh with love, and at another time with hatred, then undoubtedly upon such principles the charge of changeableness would have attached to God, and [186] a system which involved in it a charge so atrocious would have been utterly indefensible. But is this the case? Certainly not. God never looked on Jesus in flesh, except in one and the same light. He uniformly viewed him as the devoted one, devoted to the curse and to destruction, and treated him accordingly. The fact is, that, in the procedure of God towards his Son while upon earth, he was merely carrying into effect a purpose which he himself had devised before time began; and now that our blessed Lord is exalted to glory, the view taken of his state and circumstances while he was in flesh, and of the propriety of the usage which he then met with at the hands of his heavenly Father, is in no respect whatever changed from what it was, while he was engaged in the prosecution of his mediatorial undertaking. Changeable, therefore, in having made his Son a curse for us, God cannot fairly be charged with being. He is in one mind; and who can turn him?133 He never alters, he never can alter, in his view of persons and events, however much his conduct towards the creatures of his hands may be accommodated to existing circumstances. And a general principle, which is applicable to all, is applicable more especially to the case of our blessed Lord. According to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, which is the fountain of every event, were all the actions of Jesus performed, and all his sufferings undergone. Any appearance of change, then, in his case, as in the cases of all others, was merely a development of the character of Jehovah, as the unchangeable one.
133 Job 23:13.
2. The curse did not attach to Christ’s person, but to his flesh and blood nature. Jesus was the only, and the well-beloved, Son of God. John 1:18. Matt. 4:17. Mark 12:6. But he had taken hold of, and appropriated to himself, a nature upon which the curse rested; and, by so doing, had both in his own case aggravated that curse, as well as exposed himself to the utmost extent of the consequences which it involved. While, therefore, our Lord was in flesh, although personally the object of his Father’s constant, intense, and unchanging love, his servant whom he upheld, and his elect, in whom his soul delighted,134 he was, nevertheless, as to his nature, made to experience the full effects of that state of condemnation and death, upon which he had voluntarily [187] entered. This distinction between divine love to himself personally, as actuated by perfect love to God, and as always doing those things which were well pleasing in God’s sight; and increasing manifestations of divine wrath135 towards the nature which he had assumed, as radically, essentially, and unchangeably sinful; appeared more and more during his mediatorial career. At last, divine love towards himself, and divine hatred towards his nature, flamed forth together and in the greatest perfection, when, as the anti-type of the burnt-sacrifice of old,136 he offered up to God, without the slightest stain of personal guilt, the soul and body which, by his heavenly Father, had from everlasting been prepared for him.137
134 Isaiah 42:1.
135 At bottom, and in reality, a mode of manifesting divine love.
136 See Leviticus 1, throughout.
137 Heb. 10:5,10. Isaiah 52:10.
3. Our Lord, even when undergoing the curse, was actually and intensely the object of his Father’s love. Nothing serves to illustrate more thoroughly and painfully the low state of men’s theological conceptions, than the ignorance evinced by all classes, and by almost all individuals, as to what we mean, when we speak of divine hatred, and of the divine curse. Why, divine hate, is merely one mode of expressing divine love; and, whenever and wherever displayed, it is always in subserviency to the exhibition of higher degrees of that love. God cannot hate, as creatures do, which is always with the desire, and, if able, for the purpose, of ultimately inflicting injury; but he hates in a manner peculiar to himself, that is, for the purpose of ultimately doing good.138 He is not overcome of evil, but overcomes evil with good. Rom. 12:21. In our Lord’s case, this grand feature of the divine character is strikingly apparent. God loved his Son too well, to allow him to continue upon earth, in a state, and amidst circumstances, from which it was impossible for him to derive real enjoyment. Hence in pushing matters to extremity, — in causing our Lord to feel the entire weight of the curse, and bringing about the destruction of his flesh and blood nature, — God, so far from doing him an injury, was consulting his best interests, and his most ardent wishes: seeing that he was thereby relieving him from the dry and thirsty land, where no water was,139 and where nothing but accumulated and continually increasing trials awaited him, and [188] bringing him to his own presence, where there was a fulness of joy, and to his own right hand, where there were pleasures for evermore.140 Thus, that awful and inconceivable sense of divine wrath which our Lord experienced on the cross, was but one of the modes of the expression of divine love; and became subservient, through his death, and the exchange of human for the divine nature, to enjoyments on his part, of which, otherwise, he never could have been a partaker. By having been obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, wherefore, hath God highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. Philip. 2:8,9. In other words, it was only by descending to the lowest depths of humiliation, that he became qualified to ascend to the heights of heavenly exaltation. The whole curse, then, which was sustained by our Lord, as it was of divine arrangement, so was it an expression towards him of divine love, and a prelude to the highest possible exhibition of that love. Jesus, it is true, did not, by his sufferings and death, influence God, otherwise unwilling, to love himself, and, in him, to love the church and the family of man; for the goodness even of the blessed Saviour could not, in that sense, by any possibility, reach, or extend, to God: Psalm 16:2:141 but God, having loved his Son from everlasting, sent him, in the fulness of time, into the world; and took the opportunity, by his temporary appearance in flesh, by the sufferings which he underwent, and by the death to which he voluntarily submitted, in other words, by his voluntary subjection to the curse, of shewing to him, and to those whom by appearing in flesh he had made one with him, through the medium of his and their resurrection from the dead, an extent, intensity, and unchangeableness of love, borne towards them from everlasting, to which, otherwise, they must have remained of necessity and for ever, utter strangers.
138 Jeremiah 24:5-7. See, also, Gen. 50:20, &c.
139 Psalm 63:1.
140 Psalm 16:11.
141 It could not go upwards, it could not succeed in rendering God changeable.
[189] CHAPTER VIII.
WAS THE DEATH OF CHRIST VICARIOUS OR SUBSTITUTIONARY?
To this question, the answer returned must be yes, or no, according to the sense attached by the querist to the terms substitute and substitution.
Does he understand the word substitution in its strict and literal sense, that is, as signifying, that Christ’s sufferings and death were undergone by him instead, or in place, of ours? Or, that in consequence of his suffering and dying we personally are exempted from sufferings and death?
Then, it is not true, that Jesus was, in this sense, our substitute. — For,
First, notwithstanding his having suffered and died, we all of us suffer and die likewise; a thing which, of course, could not have happened, had he literally been our substitute. An observation or two may suffice to prove this. God, as thoroughly just, can never inflict punishment twice for the same offence. If punished in the person of a substitute, we could not have been punished in our own persons; if punished in our own persons, we could not have been punished in the person of a substitute. The notion of punishment by substitution, if words have any meaning, is perfectly incompatible, with the notion of our own personal punishment. If, then, Jesus, in the character of a substitute, for others, understanding the word substitute in the sense which it commonly and properly bears, whether these others be few or many, underwent the punishment due to their sin or sins, these others must, as a matter of necessity, be exempted from punishment altogether. But is it true, that any are exempted from sufferings and death? Certainly not. All, without any exception, suffer and die. And sufferings and death they undergo formally as sin’s wages, or as the punishment due to sin. Evident, then, is it, looking at the language of facts as these are interpreted by scripture, that Jesus did not suffer and die as the substitute, or in the stead, of any class of human beings.
[190] Secondly. Substitution in happiness, is no less conceivable than substitution in misery: substitution in reward, than substitution in punishment. And to this, as a self-evident consequence, the popular doctrine leads. Jesus, say its supporters, suffered and died in the stead of others. But if so, what is to hinder him from also rising and living in the stead of others? The one idea, is just as conceivable as the other. And not only so, but common justice, on popular principles, absolutely requires that our Lord’s happiness should be vicarious or substitutionary. For, if I take upon me all the disadvantages attaching to the state and circumstances of another, are not all the advantages to which my substitution may give rise, fairly mine likewise? If I consent to die instead of another, may I not live, nay, do I not acquire a positive right to live, instead of that other? Thus, then, by representing our Lord to have died in our stead, as, if words are to be understood according to their common usage, popular divines do away with our personal death; so, reasoning analogically, does their sentiment lead to the conclusion, that our Lord lives also in our stead, or compliment away our personal existence hereafter.
The force of these reasonings cannot be parried, far less got rid of, by alleging, that the sufferings and death which Jesus underwent vicariously were not ordinary sufferings and death, but the peculiar sufferings and death which are to be undergone in a future state of existence. And this, because, first, the fact of sufferings and death having been threatened to any hereafter, in connection with Adam’s transgression, is a mere gratuitous assumption of divines, totally unwarranted by the language of the inspired record itself. See Genesis 2:16,17; 3:19. Because, secondly, supposing such imaginary eternal sufferings and death to have been threatened and incurred, God could not, consistently with truth, have abstained from inflicting them, any more than he could abstain from inflicting the temporal sufferings and death, which, the scriptures shew us, were actually threatened and incurred. And because, thirdly, supposing such eternal sufferings and death to have been threatened and incurred, and supposing Jesus to have been able to prevent their infliction on any, or on all men, without interfering with, or compromising, the truth of God, then the same act which delivered from eternal sufferings and death, must have delivered from temporal sufferings and death [191] likewise; and this, owing to the inseparable connection subsisting between the one class of consequences and the other, their having been the subject of the same threat incurred at one and the same time, and the one and indivisible nature of the act by which, according to the acknowledgement of popular divines, the eternal sufferings and death have been taken away. Indeed, what man, however acute and hair-splitting he might be, ever yet ventured to separate the atoning act of Christ into two parts, and to point out the part which was sufficient to remove the sufferings and death which were eternal, and the part which left in full operation those which were temporal? And what man, that chose to make the attempt, would not at once be met by the strong and insurmountable à fortiori objection, “Even supposing you to succeed in establishing a distinct and double reference of the atonement, must not that which was able to remove such eternal consequences, much more have been able to remove as were merely temporal”? — To bring the matter to a point. The facts of the case are, that concerning eternal sufferings and death, as the wages of sin, the scriptures are silent; and that the temporal sufferings and death which are on all hands admitted to have been threatened, are actually inflicted. What, from all this, is the only legitimate inference? Why, obviously, that no sufferings and death, except such as are connected with time, were threatened; and that Jesus, in the literal sense of the term, did not suffer and die as our substitute, seeing that his sufferings and death do not prevent our personal sufferings and death.
Thus, if our Lord’s sufferings and death be alleged to be vicarious or substitutionary, using these terms in their literal acceptation, it is clear, that whether regarded as matter of fact, or matter of inference, the system combated by us is equally and totally baseless.
But when the terms vicarious or substitutionary are applied to the sacrifice of Christ, is there not a sense, in which, without pressing their literal meaning, they are seen to be admirably descriptive of it? — Certainly, there is.
Almost every difficulty connected with this subject disappears, when, not human ingenuity and the reveries of schoolmen, but the facts recorded in scripture, are allowed to speak. We suffer and die. Jesus, with us suffered and died. — Jesus lives for evermore. We live for evermore with him. — Such is a summary, a very brief but correct sum-[192]mary, of the facts with which the word of God presents us. Well, what is the inference which they suggest? Or, rather, what are these very same facts themselves, expressed in different, but equivalent language? Why, evidently, that Jesus did not suffer and die in our stead, but that he suffered and died along with us; and that he lives for ever, not in our stead, but along with us. Sufferings and death continued reigning over Adam and his descendants, for a period of four thousand years. At last, the Lord Jesus, one of Adam’s descendants, made his appearance; and over him, sufferings and death reigned likewise, as they had reigned over us: the wages of sin having been death, to him, as well as to us. But life and happiness everlasting are the portion of the Lord Jesus, as risen from the dead. And these are not confined to himself alone, but through him, are conveyed to all, as they become partakers of his divine nature. If understood in these remarks, it appears, then, that there was, on our Lord’s part, while in flesh, not substitution for us, but participation with us, in human nature, and all its consequences; just as, now that he is exalted to glory, there is, on his part, not substitution for us, but participation with us, in the divine nature, and all its consequences. Allowing the facts of scripture to speak, how clearly thus are dying and living along with us, not dying and living instead of us, on the part of the Lord Jesus, seen to rank among the grand and essential doctrines of Revelation. God hath made him to be sin for us, that is, along with us and on our account,142 that143 we might be made the righteousness of God in, or, along with, him. 2 Corinth. 5:21.
142 υπερ here means properly on our account, although it takes in likewise the senses of, along with us, and the final cause, which is more expressly brought out in the following conjunction.
143 ινα in order that, or to the end that, the evolving of the final cause which is even suggested, or at all events prepared for, in the preposition υπερ.
Taking the view presented in the preceding paragraph, of course substitution drops its ordinary meaning, and the sense of participation is put upon it.
And yet, if the phrase instead of does not give us accurately and perfectly the sense of scripture with regard to the death of Christ, so neither does along with.
For, although it is most true, that Jesus appeared along with us in a body of flesh and blood, and along with us suffered and died; and although it is likewise most true, that, in [193] glorious bodies, he gives us, along with himself, to live and enjoy unbounded and everlasting felicity hereafter: yet even the ideas suggested by along with fall to be modified by the consideration, that his sufferings and death were connected with the termination and exhaustion of sufferings and death, which ours are not; and that he is the source of life and immortality, while we are merely recipients of these blessings from him. In consequence of this it is, that, while in one sense our Lord suffered and died along with us, seeing that sufferings and death are common to him with us, in another sense, he suffered and died alone, seeing that his sufferings and death, in their depth, intensity, and consequences, differ materially from ours. And while, in one sense, we live for ever along with him, in another sense, he, as the source and author of life everlasting, is separated by a wide interval from those to whom he communicates it. To say, then, that Jesus suffered and died along with us, and that we live for ever along with him, however true in certain respects, and however glorious and important the fact may be, is not the whole truth, but only a part of it.
A view differing from that of substitution for us, and also from that of participation with us; or, rather combining, and thereby modifying, both views; appears to me, after much reflection on the subject, to be that which the scriptures suggest to us.
Jesus was a partaker of flesh and blood, as well as of sufferings and death, with us; and we partake of the divine nature, and thereby of life everlasting, with him. So far correct. But by appearing in flesh, along with us, our Lord was providing a vehicle in which flesh, and everything connected with our fleshly nature, were to be swallowed up. For, as his life in flesh, was the substantializing of our life in flesh, and as his death was the substantializing of our death, it follows, as a matter of course, that in his fleshly life, we lived, and in his death, we died. And so, in rising again from the dead, with a glorious, heavenly, and spiritual body, into which his flesh and blood had been changed, and in which it had been swallowed up, Jesus was providing the vehicle, out of which were to be developed the glorious, heavenly, and spiritual bodies of others, in all cases and for ever. Thus, as his death, was our death, or, as in his death, human nature, and all human beings as such, came to an end, and were everlastingly destroyed; so his life is our life, [194] or, in his life are human beings raised again, new-created, and made to live for ever, and this, by becoming in him partakers of the divine nature. If this is what is meant by popular divines, when they maintain that the Lord Jesus died and rose again in our stead, or as our substitute, the sense is at once and cheerfully admitted. He died for us, having undergone a death, which we personally could not have undergone, and yet, in which we are interested, and by which we are benefited; and he lives for us, having risen to the possession and enjoyment of a life, of which, except as conferred upon us in and through him, we never could have been the recipients.
Observe, I pray, how different this view of substitution is from that which is commonly held and insisted on by religious professors. According to them, Jesus underwent sufferings, and a death, which, had the divine threatening been carried literally into effect, it behoved us creatures to have undergone; and, unless he had thus acted as our substitute, salvation by us would have been unattainable. My objections to this view, some of them, I mean, for I have neither time nor inclination to state all, are, first, that it attacks the veracity of God, representing him as having declared his intention to do, what in reality he does not carry into effect; as having threatened his creatures with everlasting torments, and yet as not executing them: and, secondly, that it lands us in the grossest absurdity, representing creatures, who as such of necessity have but finite natures, as undergoing that which, in order to their endurance of it, would require them to be possessed of an infinite nature; as undergoing that, which no creature nature, nay, which not even the divine person clothed with creature nature, could undergo.144 Such an idea of substitution as involves consequences like these, is perfectly inadmissible. It had its origin in, and has been propagated by, the brains of scholastic divines. The word of God repudiates it; for the doctrine with which it makes us acquainted is, not that our Lord appeared in a fleshly state, to undergo sufferings, and to submit to a death, which should [195] be considered an equivalent for sufferings and death otherwise to be inflicted on us in a spiritual state; but that he appeared upon earth in order to undergo sufferings and a death which creatures never underwent, never were capable of undergoing, and never were either required or expected to undergo. The import of the language of scripture respecting the grand purpose of our Lord’s advent is, that he came to suffer and to die, just as he made his appearance in flesh, after a substantial fashion; that is, in a way peculiar to himself as at once Son of Man, and Son of God. And that he underwent these substantial sufferings, and this substantial death, not instead of the same sufferings and death otherwise to be inflicted upon mere creatures, — for of such sufferings and death they are utterly incapable: but that, by suffering and dying as no creature ever could suffer and die, he, as the Creator, might bring sufferings and death to an end in himself for ever; and that he might through his resurrection from the dead, as necessarily connected with his death, open up the way for the free bestowment upon the guilty children of men, of glory, honour, and immortality.
144 Our Lord’s sufferings were indefinite not infinite. His indefinite form in flesh, could be changed into, and swallowed up in, his infinite form in Spirit; but how one infinite could do away with, or bring to an end, another infinite, (which must be the case, if sin be infinite, and yet was, by our Lord, through his death, put away,) far, I confess, surpasses my comprehension.
To express my meaning briefly, when we speak of the mediatory work of Christ, we cannot properly apply to it the term substitution, nor is it exactly and exclusively participation; but a scriptural view of it is best conveyed by saying, that in consequence of Jesus the Creator assuming our nature, and bestowing upon us his, he has been enabled to suffer and do for us, that is, in our behalf and for our benefit, what we creatures could not have suffered and done for ourselves.
Anxiety to guard against the destructive ravages of the Socinian system, which may be pleaded in behalf of the supporters of the popular theory of substitution, can never, in my estimation, form a sufficient apology for having recourse to statements and reasonings which are at variance with the word of God. And besides, it so happens, that, never did the cause of truth stand less in need of such support, than in the present case. The system which denies the Supreme Deity of the Lord Jesus is as completely, and far more satisfactorily because scripturally, assailed, by the views which I support, than by the ordinary dogmas of Calvinistic divines. — I proceed, first of all, upon the broad principle, that neither in Genesis 3:19, nor in any other passage of scripture in which Adam’s one transgression and its effects are alluded to, do we find more than sufferings here, terminating in the [196] forfeiture of the life that now is, represented as the consequences of sin. The wages of sin is death. Rom. 6:23. And this death consists in man’s returning to the dust from which he was taken. Gen. 3:19. Such are the simple facts of the case. Metaphysical reasonings upon the subject I care nothing about. God’s word declares, that death, or the termination of this present life, is the utmost extent of the punishment which is due to Adam’s transgression; and that is enough for me. — Now, mark, how the manifestation of God in flesh has effected the salvation of human beings. Although, in consequence of Adam’s one sin, brought under the power of death, and constrained to continue in that state without the power of relieving or extricating themselves, the death to which they were in consequence of that one sin subjected was not accompanied by, and did not issue in, eternal torments. It was from the reign of death, therefore, and from the power of the grave, not from hypothetical eternal torments, that our Lord came to deliver them.145 And this, in the following way. As a consequence of Adam’s one transgression, having been the transgression of human nature; and of the death which was threatened as its punishment, having been the punishment of human nature; it follows, that wherever a descendant of Adam, or one clothed with human nature, makes his appearance, sin and death necessarily attach to him. Upon this principle, they attached to the Lord Jesus. For he was Adam’s descendant.146 And he appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh.147 But sin and death did more than attach to him, as they attach to ordinary human beings. They attached to him in a superlative degree and to the greatest possible extent; for, flesh and blood having been substantialized on him by the union of human nature to his divine person, sin and death, as necessarily and essentially connected with human nature, were substantialized on him likewise. That is, sin and death on him came to a head. Or, on him, and in connection with the nature which he had assumed, they appeared invested with their greatest strength. Blessed be God, however, in him, they also found their termination, For, he having been the ocean, as well as source, of righteousness and life, sin and death, by coming down upon him, and thereby, as it were, running in-[197]to him, were, in his divine person, absorbed for ever. Sin, in reigning over him unto death, effected its own destruction. It could not, in his case, as in that of a creature, keep him under its sway; but, by destroying the nature which he had temporarily assumed, it afforded to him the opportunity of destroying it. By temporarily conquering him, he was enabled everlastingly to conquer it. Thus, the conquest of sin and death was accomplished, and the children of men were withdrawn from their sway, not in consequence of God having threatened everlasting torments as the wages of sin, and of Jesus having endured them, or what was an equivalent for them; but in consequence of God having threatened death, or the forfeiture of this earthly life, as the wages of sin and of Jesus, who was made sin, and subjected to death, for us, having, by his voluntary forfeiture of this present life, destroyed in himself sin and death in their most substantial form. The conquest, as it surpassed creature power, was one worthy of God; and God manifest in flesh alone could achieve it. — A mere creature, it is freely admitted, could not, by his death have brought the reign of sin and death to an end; so far from that, indeed, by having been subjected to death, death in his case would be confirmed: it having been requisite, that the Creator himself, appearing in flesh, should die, in order that sin and death might be destroyed. But what I contend for is, that God did not originally threaten mankind with eternal torments, and then, at the expense of his veracity, deliver them, or any portion of them, from these, through the medium of something like an equivalent for such torments having been undergone by his well-beloved Son; those who, maintain that such torments were threatened, and that such a deliverance from them took place, being required to prove their assertion from scripture. It is the sum and substance of the doctrine which I advocate and which I know to be the doctrine of scripture, that God originally threatened to man, neither more nor less than death, or the forfeiture of this present life, as the wages of sin; carrying his threatening into full effect, by the infliction of death in one form or another upon every human being;148 and yet rendering the complete execution of his threatening, consistent with the [198] fullest exhibition of mercy, in freely bestowing upon us eternal life; not by saving us from anything which we behoved otherwise to have undergone, or by a series of metaphysical expedients and equivalents,149 but by inflicting sufferings and death shadowyly upon us, and substantially upon Christ Jesus, indirectly by means of the former, and directly by means of the latter, bringing human nature to an end, and thereby paving the way for death, through the resurrection of the Son of God, being swallowed up in victory.
145 Compare Hosea 13:14, with 1 Cor. 15:53-57.
146 Luke 3:38.
147 Rom. 8:3.
148 Upon mankind in general, by their returning to the dust, and Enoch, Elijah, and those who are found on the earth at the close of time, by their undergoing the destruction of all human principles, and thereby a change equivalent to death.
149 Which is the import of the doctrine of substitution.
According to the popular system of substitution or vicarious sufferings and death, God threatens what he does not execute, and inflicts upon creatures, what mere creature nature never can undergo. According to the system maintained and developed in these pages, God’s threatenings are as literally, as exactly, and as fully carried into effect, as are his promises; every being clothed with human nature dying, and Jesus, God-man among the rest: and God, after allowing creature nature to suffer, all that it was able, and all that it deserved, to suffer, in every human being, and in the person of his own Son, brought it to an end and destroyed it in the death of the latter; the resurrection of Jesus becoming the medium through which divine and spiritual blessings flow, not to creature nature, but to creature nature swallowed up in, and changed by, him, into the nature of the Creator. Thus it is, then, that the Lord Jesus appeared in flesh, not to interfere with and prevent the execution of, God’s denunciations of vengeance against creature nature, which, if literally our substitute in sufferings and death, he must have done, — but to evince the truth and justice of these denunciations, by becoming the means of their being carried, through the destruction of creature nature in himself, into full effect; and also to evince, that creature nature having been destroyed in himself, and thereby having received its entire and condign punishment, the channel is opened up for God bestowing through him a life, which man originally had not, which man originally did not forfeit, and which, therefore, in the strictest conformity with the divine attributes, and not by means of any interference with them, or compromise of them, is bestowed.
Supposing me, in the observations which precede, to have failed in conveying my meaning, perhaps, in what follows, I [199] may be more successful. — Jesus, if popular notions be correct, saves a few of the human race, or saves all, by making God a liar; for, according to these notions, God, after threatening to punish the elect, or to punish all, contents himself, instead of executing his menace, with punishing his own well-beloved Son. Jesus, in reality, in saving all, shews God to be the truth, by taking care, that creature nature, in others and himself, shall undergo the utmost iota of the punishment threatened: and, therefore, saves, not by perpetuating creature nature, which would have been to make it the object of his mission to give the lie to God, but by destroying creature nature, in assigning to it, even in himself, death as the wages which are its due; and then by bestowing eternal life on those who had formerly been human beings, not as possessed of Adam’s nature, but as possessed of his own divine nature, that is, by bestowing eternal life on beings possessed of a nature, which, as it never sinned, so it never deserved to be the subject of punishment.
Can a system of salvation like this, which involves in itself necessarily the previous destruction of creature nature, deserve to be represented as vicarious or substitutionary?
In the remarks which precede, I have, with the utmost care avoided every allusion of a strictly critical nature. The reason being, that I always prefer, where they are attainable, broad, comprehensive, and scriptural views of any divine topic; to those petty and specious, but unsound, conclusions, to which the art of criticism but too often leads. Now, views that are perfectly satisfactory, without having recourse to the treacherous aids of human learning, it strikes me that in the present case we have. In presenting to us Jesus, the Son of God manifest in flesh, suffering and dying; and, by his death and subsequent resurrection, both bringing death itself to an end, and opening up the way for life everlasting being freely bestowed upon guilty creatures; the scriptures present to us such a series of matters of fact, as, when understood and combined into a system, supersede entirely the necessity of mere verbal hair-splitting. Indeed, I confess that I have no taste for the ordinary critical mode of discussing divine subjects. A professed retainer, whether of Orthodoxy, or of Socinianism, first, making up his mind that υπερ signifies either instead of, or on account of; and, then, as he can contrive to twist passages to the one sense or the other, fancying that he has either established, or overthrown, [200] the supreme deity of the Lord Jesus; keeping out of sight altogether those broad and satisfactory views of the subject, with which the word of God, taken as a whole, furnishes us; is apt, by his writings, to excite in my mind disgust rather than conviction. Those whose natural acuteness of mind, whose situation in life, or whose fondness for critical enquiries, have directed their attention towards the import and value of a Greek preposition, as it occurs in the sacred or profane writers, will of course be gratified to meet with works by which their particular propensity may be gratified. A simple-minded and divinely-taught Christian, with his Greek New Testament in his hand, and the knowledge of it in his heart, will be at no loss to perceive, by a comparison of two passages of scripture with each other, that the Holy Ghost himself has, in so far as mere parts of speech are concerned, settled the controversy. The two passages to which I allude are, Matt. 20:28, and 1 Timothy 2:6. In the former we read, και δουναι την ψυχην αυτου λυτρον αντι πολλων, and to give his life as a ransom for many; and in the latter,ο δους εαυτον αντιλυτρον υπερ παντων, who gave (giving) himself a ransom for all. Such a divinely-taught critic, as we have supposed, observing, that by separating, in the latter passage, αντι from λυτρον with which it is combined, we have both the prepositions αντι and υπερ so placed, as to afford us at a glance a distinct and satisfactory view of their respective significations, and so placed as to shew the close resemblance and affinity subsisting between the two passages, soon find every difficulty removed, who gave himself, λυτρον, a ransom, αντι, instead of, the numerous typical ransoms of the law; and this, υπερ, on account of, or, for the sake of, all human beings; is evidently the meaning of the passage in Timothy:150 which, shedding back light on the other passages in Matthew, shews, that to give his life an antitypical ransom, instead of the many typical ransoms, (λυτρον αντι πολλον λυτρον, a ransom, instead of many ransoms151 and not αντι πολλων ανθρωπον, instead of many men, as it is commonly interpreted to signify,) is the only meaning which consistently with the scope of [201] the context, and the character and circumstances of the men whom our Lord was addressing, the words are capable of bearing.152 Αντι is thus ascertained to signify instead of,153 while the sense of υπερ is on account of, or for the sake of. And these distinct radical meanings, however much modified and diversified they may be by the words with which they stand connected, αντι and υπερ will always, throughout the New Testament, be found to carry along with them. For, although in the current phraseology of ordinary life, it may not be amiss to speak of the same words being susceptible of diverse significations, those who, like my dear and learned friend, Mr. Richard Roe, of Dublin, or Mr. Smart, of London, have been imbued with the philological spirit of Horne Tooke, know, that no word bears, or can bear, more than one distinct and definite radical meaning.
150 Where αντι instead of refers to things, and υπερ on account of refers to persons.
151 The word αντι again, in its sense of instead of, referring to things. Indeed, both in this, and in the former case it is used in connection with that great sacrifice which came instead of, and thereby superseded, the Mosaic sacrifices.
152 For the first hint of the meaning of Matt. 20:28, here given, indeed, of the communication subsisting between it and 1 Timothy 2:6, I confess myself indebted to John Hamilton, Esq. of St. Ernan’s, in the county of Donegal.
153 This meaning, has, by that celebrated critic, Dr. George Campbell, of Aberdeen, been assigned to the word αντι, in the note on John 1:16, which occurs in the 4th volume of his Gospel translated with preliminary Dissertations and Notes. “Is it, as Doddridge, Wesley, and Wynne, render it,” (χαριν αντι χαριτος) “grace upon grace, that is grace added to grace? I should not dislike this interpretation, if their meaning of the preposition αντι in scripture were well supported. It” αντι, “always there denotes, if I mistake not, instead of, answering to, or in return for.” Vol. iv. p. 394. Edn. 1804. Dr. M’Knight says nothing of αντι in his enumeration of particles; nor, except to make a general remark as to the resemblance of the phraseology in Matt. 20:28, does he say anything of the preposition in his note on 1 Timothy 2:6. Besides, his proofs of υπερ, signifying, instead of, are lame and meagre in the extreme. In behalf of, his alternative translation, comes much nearer to the sense of the passages quoted. The quotation from Philemon, (verse 13,) is the only one that will bear for a moment to be spoken of, as proving, instead of, to be one of the senses of υπερ; and yet in behalf of, is, upon examination and reflection, seen to be its meaning there likewise. I say nothing of Schleusner, great as was his Biblical learning, his obvious Socinian bias always renders him with me a suspicious authority.
Should any of my readers deem it worth his while to look at the remark which I have made, on the doctrine of Substitution, in one of my former publications, he is referred to volume second, of my Assurance of Faith, pp. 100-117, as well as to Appendices K and L of the same work.
[202] CHAPTER IX.
NO DIVERSION OF PUNISHMENT FROM THE GUILTY.
THAT God has remitted the claims of strict justice, does not inflict punishment to its full and merited extent upon the heirs of salvation, the death and resurrection of his own Son having enabled him to dispense with the literal execution of the penalty originally denounced against transgressors personally, are dogmas maintained by every popular writer on Theology, with whose works I happen to be acquainted.
Statements such as these furnish the Socinian party with their principal handle against pure and evangelical religion. Of the inconsistencies involved in them, they have not failed frequently and triumphantly to remind their opponents. From the days of the two Socini, down to those of Noah Worcester, and Mr. Martineau, Unitarian pulpits and Unitarian publications have not ceased to ring the changes, on the hopelessness of any attempt to reconcile with itself or with scripture, a system in which a violation of the claims of truth and justice is necessarily involved.
The whole difficulty is got rid of, and the falsehood equally of Calvinism and Socinianism detected, on the principles laid down and maintained in these pages.
1. We contend, that whatever God threatened to man, he executes upon him. He did not, first, denounce against him a greater punishment, and then content himself with inflicting a lesser. So far from doing so, the wages of sin having been declared to be death, death, or the termination of human nature, is, in one form or another, the lot of all.
2. We contend, that Jesus, as man, had death threatened to him, and, therefore, underwent its stroke. The truth of God which required that death should be undergone by others, required that it should be undergone likewise by him.
Thus, then, what God threatened to man, man, and Christ as man, actually suffer.
[203] If so, however, in what way can God’s purposes of mercy, in regard to man, be carried into effect?
Why, evidently,
1st, Not at the expense of his truth, by God’s either inflicting no punishment at all, or a lighter one than he threatened; for, whatever God threatened, man must undergo.
2ndly, Not at the expense of his justice. The guilt of violating divine law, having been incurred by human nature, from human nature it could never be removed. As a necessary consequence of this, the only way of removing human guilt, was by removing, that is, by destroying, human nature itself.
But how was salvation, consistently with this, to be effected?
Not, certainly, by the death of mere creatures. For, in undergoing the stroke of death, they not only come under its power, but, as having in themselves no other life than the present, in losing it, they lose all; and, for any efforts which they could have made to extricate themselves from their dismal condition, they must have remained under the power of death for ever. Ordinary men are entirely passive in submitting to death, or they die because they cannot help dying.
Here the value of the divine personality of the Son of God in flesh is brought into view.
He died, as we die, forfeiting human nature as we do. — But, to speak paradoxically, he died not, as we do; for although his human nature died, his divine personality could not; secondly, this divine personality having qualified him to be active in dying, or to sacrifice himself, qualified him, also, to be active in rising again from the dead; thirdly, in dying, he destroyed his human nature, and in rising, he changed it into, and swallowed it up in, his divine nature; and fourthly, his human nature having been a nature common to him with all, and this, by his having been the divine person in whom all live, and move, and have their being, in rising with human nature, changed and elevated in himself into the divine nature, he became the means of changing and elevating it in all into the divine nature likewise. — And thus salvation is effected through Christ, not by any perpetuation of human nature on his part, any more than upon ours, for by him, as well as by us, it is parted with; but by such a change of human nature in him into the divine nature, as, in consequence of our one-[204]ness with him, is productive of a corresponding change of human nature into the divine nature in us.
Such is the salvation of Christ.
It interferes not with any divine attribute. For death having been threatened to man, and having been incurred by man, as the desert of sin, care is taken, that every human being shall die. Thus do all passively satisfy God’s truth and justice in dying.
But Jesus, the Son of God in flesh, having died; having thereby, not merely passively satisfied God’s truth and justice, as all do, but actually and actively exhausted their demands, a thing peculiar to himself; and having, by his resurrection, swallowed up death in victory; God now, not at the expense of truth and justice, but in the strictest consistency with these attributes, bestows righteousness and life everlasting, not on human nature, for that in Jesus ended and was swallowed up, but on that divine nature, into which human nature is in himself and others, for ever and gloriously changed and elevated. No threat had gone forth against the divine nature, and no punishment could be incurred by it: therefore, heavenly blessings it can, without any violation of the truth and justice of God, enjoy.
Where, according to this system, is there any diversion of punishment from the guilty?
Where, according to it, is there any threatening which is not executed?
Where, according to it, is there any exhibition of God compelled to exercise mercy at the expense of justice?
God, in it, appears just, in the complete destruction of human nature in man, and in his own Son, as a guilty nature; and he appears merciful, in bestowing upon his Son, and upon us, who were formerly clothed with the guilty nature of the creature, the heavenly nature, of himself the glorious Creator.
[205] CHAPTER X.
CONCERNING THOSE CHURCHES WHICH ARE THE OFFSPRING OF THE FLESHLY CHURCH, AND THE EFFECTS OF THE ONE SIN OF THE FLESHLY CHURCH ON THEM.
HITHERTO we have considered the exhibition of sinfulness on the part of man, after the fashion of a climax. We have laid it before our readers, 1, in Adam’s transgression of the one divine law of prohibition; 2, in violation of the ordinary dictates of conscience by Gentiles; 3, in the violation of their extraordinarily enlightened conscience by Jews; and 4, in the transgression, by that highly favoured people, of the one divine law of command. From which it appears, that the first step in the climax, necessarily involved, in it the second; and that the third was preliminary and subservient to, as well as ran up into and terminated in, the fourth. The whole is seen to have advanced from the lowest exhibition of sinfulness on the part of the one man, to the highest, on the part of Abraham’s fleshly descendants; from the first death of Adam, to the second sin and second death of the Jews.
We have now to present the subject in a light that is in a great measure if not entirely novel; and one in which it will be found to have a bearing, not immediately upon individuals, but upon bodies of individuals.
Sufficiently evinced it has been from the express language as well as uniform tenor of scripture, that the whole family of man being one with, because included in, the first Adam, therefore, his one sin is the sin of the whole human race; and that the sacrifice of Christ Jesus, as the second man, with whom, likewise all human beings are one, and in whom, therefore, they are all included, has been the means of sweeping away, at once and for ever, from the whole human family, this one sin, with all its effects and consequences. We are now to evince, that upon a principle of analogy, as well as according to the express suggestions of scripture, the Jews, as a church or body of individuals, having been one with, and having included in themselves, all external and flesh-[206]ly churches, therefore, the one sin of the Jews, is the sin of all such churches; and that as, in consequence of no sacrifice having been offered, and of there existing no possibility of any sacrifice being offered, for this sin, this second sin, irremediable and everlasting condemnation and death overtook the Jewish church,154 so are the same irremediable and everlasting condemnation and death the portion of all fleshly churches, through their oneness with her, and their descent from her.
154 Compare together Matthew 22:31,32, Hebrews 10:26-33, and 1 John 5:16,17.
Let me proceed to the illustration of these statements.
In the first place,
Adam as one with, included in himself, the whole human family; and, therefore, the one sin which he committed was their sin, and the death which in consequence of so doing he incurred, was their death. This, by many, will not be disputed. Little however, is it understood, that, in exact conformity with this, all external bodies assuming to themselves the rank and character of churches, are one with, and included in, the nation or church of the Jews: as a necessary consequence of which, the sin of the Jews, or the second sin, is their sin, and the death of the Jews, or the second death, is their death. And yet, so it is. Ignorance of this fact, — a fact which is established by every species of divine analogy and allusion, it is, which has contributed to throw a mist so dense and long continued over that glorious portion of God’s inspired record, the Book of Revelation.
The Babylon of that Book has, by almost all protestant commentators of any eminence, been interpreted to signify the church of Rome. In this, they are mistaken. It no more means the Church of Rome originally and exclusively, than it means Pagan Rome, the sense commonly assigned to it by the most approved Roman Catholic Expositors.
Babylon, when used in a mystical sense, signifies the Jewish church and dispensation. This may be shewn, both by a reference to scripture, and by matter of fact.
By reference to scripture. For, on comparing what is said regarding Babylon in Rev. 17, 18, and 19:4, with the language of the prophet Isaiah, in his thirteenth and fourteenth chapters, as well as elsewhere; and after examining these passages in the light of portions of Holy Writ which [207] express the matter more plainly, such as Matt. 24, and Luke 19 and 21, and especially Rev. 18:24, in the light of Matt. 23:34-36; we can scarcely fail to perceive, that the iniquity of God’s chosen people the Jews, and the awful vengeance thereby to be incurred, are, in all such descriptions of Babylon, of her crimes and of her woes, set before us. It is strikingly confirmatory to us of this view, when we are led to observe, that the judgments denounced against Babylon, Palestine, Moab, Damascus, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Tyre, from the thirteenth to the twenty-fourth chapters of Isaiah, are, by the language of Isaiah 17:4-11, compared with what precedes and follows, suggested to have had a reference to the nation of Israel, all the countries enumerated having been, in one way or another, emblematic of it; and that, in the Book of Revelation itself, a passage occurs, which acquainting us, in so many words, with the fact, that two heathen countries were symbols of Jerusalem, or the Jewish nation, furnishes us thereby with a hint as to the typical signification of all the rest. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Revelation 11:8.155
155 See this principle of interpretation laid down in Galatians 4:22-27.
By matter of fact. For the Jewish nation was the only people of this world whom God ever adopted in an external and fleshly church capacity; Deut. 7:6-8; Psalm 147:19,20; to whom he gave externally a supremacy in point of religious privileges over other nations of the earth; Rom. 3:1,2; 9:1-5; in whom the pride of superiority wrought a sense of spiritual intoxication; John 8:33-18; Rev. 17:5,6; and by whom, in every age, the saints and prophets of God had, on account of the divine messages of which they were the bearers, been put to death. Matt. 23:27-36, with 21:33-46; and 22:1-7, with Rev. 17:6, and 18:24. In them alone was realized in a religious point of view the supremacy which Babylon, Nineveh, and Tyre, enjoyed secularly over the other nations of the earth; by them alone were perpetrated crimes, in point of atrocity analogous to, and yet in point of fact, far surpassing, the crimes of those celebrated heathen countries; and upon them alone was executed a vengeance, of which God’s vengeance upon those [208] countries affords but a faint parallel. When facts are allowed to speak, then, of what nation, except of the Jews, could Babylon be the type? Did God impart to Babylon a superiority in respect to secular power over other nations? He gave to Israel alone religious superiority. — Was Babylon one of the most corrupt and depraved of Gentile communities? Judea in respect to depravity surpassed even her prototype. — Was Babylon’s doom severe? That of the Jews was still severer. — And of no body of persons, or fleshly church, can these things with truth be predicated, except of Israel according to the flesh. Obviously, they can have no direct application to any fleshly church which, since the period of the destruction of the national church of the Jews, has been called into existence, seeing that by no external religious body can God be claimed and gloried in as its immediate founder, as He could by the Jewish commonwealth. In speaking of Babylon in the 17th, 18th and beginning of the 19th chapters of the Book of Revelation, and in alluding to Tyre in the 18th, it thus becomes manifest, that the delinquencies of a greater than either of these celebrated cities, even of Jerusalem and the nation of the Jews which they emblematized, were in the eye and mind of the Holy Ghost, when John, as his amanuensis, was inspired to compose that sublime portion of the sacred record.
Babylon, however, and terms of a similar import which occur in the Book of Revelation, signify not properly the Jewish people in the state in which they were previous to Christ’s advent in flesh. It points properly to that people as carried up into a state, as possessed of privileges, which they could never have attained to, except through the medium of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
Very few are aware, that the Jewish people were, by means of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus placed in a situation and made partakers of privileges, such as previous to those events they had not possessed, and such as unless those events had happened they never could have possessed. The fact being, that, as in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus their fleshly state and privileges necessarily came to an end; so in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus a new state of things was opened up, into which they were invited, nay urged and entreated by every conceivable method of persuasion, to enter. They were informed, that the death of the Messiah, with which they had rendered themselves charge-[209]able, had swept away, not only the sin of the world, but all their own transgressions under the first testament; Heb. 9:15; and that, believing on this, they were justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses. Acts 13:39. As Jews, they had been in the first heavens, or first stage of divine manifestation, which was opened up to their fathers at Mount Sinai; now they were invited to enter into the second heavens, or upon that second stage of divine manifestation, which by their own criminality, and yet in entire subserviency to the divine purposes, they themselves by putting the Messiah to death had been the means of opening up. As Adam had been originally placed in an earthly paradise, so were they, in a certain sense, elevated to a heavenly one. But no more to last unconditionally, than his. For as he, stationed in the earthly paradise, was subjected to a first law, even the law of prohibition; so were they, raised to the heavenly paradise, subjected to a second law, even the law of command. It now became incumbent on them, in compliance with the dictates of their own scriptures, Deut. 18:18,19, to believe on Jesus of Nazareth, whom they had recently crucified, as the Messiah, as well as the prophet, who had so long been promised to their fathers and themselves. Acts 3:22-26. Without obeying this injunction, not only was it impossible for them to rise to the enjoyment of the second heavens; but it was impossible for them to continue even in the first heavens, or in the state and circumstances in which they then were. Adam’s transgression had involved in it the loss of the earthly paradise; so was theirs to involve in it, not only exclusion from a higher state of the heavenly paradise than that in which they were, but loss even of the lower state which they then possessed. And transgress they did. The same mind of flesh, which had led Adam to disobey a divine prohibition in the earthly paradise, constrained them to refuse obedience to a divine command in the heavenly one. As the necessary result of thus waging war with him who is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, they were defeated. And as the appropriate punishment of their disobedience and rebellion, they were expelled from their former heavenly abodes. Jehovah had said to them, Ye are gods, and all of you children of the Most High; but now they were made to die like men, and to fall like one of the princes. Psalm 82:6,7. To earth from heaven were the Jews precipitated. And as Adam forfeited by his [210] guilt the earthly paradise entirely and for ever; so was the forfeiture by the Jews of their former heavenly state and privileges, through the medium of their guilt, entire and everlasting likewise.
Babylon, then, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency; Isaiah 13:19; Babylon, which had said in her heart, 1 will ascend unto heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, and which nevertheless, was brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit; 14:13,15; was neither more nor less than the posterity of Jacob, elevated for a time to heaven, or to the enjoyment of the highest religious privileges which a mere nation of this world could acquire,156 and in the pride of their hearts aspiring after more;157 and yet, instead of realizing their object, cast down to hell, or deprived of even what they had formerly possessed.158 Their state of probation had lasted for ages before our Lord made his appearance. It was continued for forty years longer after his resurrection from the dead. At the expiration of that period — a period exactly corresponding to that during which their ancestors had been tried and proved in the wilderness159 — the iniquities of the Jews having become fully ripe, and thus in consequence of the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, or the second sin, having been committed and persevered in, divine vengeance overtook them to the very uttermost, and from the heights of their previous state of exaltation they were cast down at once and for ever.160 Then arose the cry, Babylon the great161 is fallen, is fallen, and become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird; Rev. 18:2; and then was fulfilled the language of our blessed Lord, in Matt. 23:34,35, which we have already shewn is referred to in Rev. 18:24.
156 Psalm 147:19,20.
157 See Matthew 20:20-28; John 3:1-6; 8:33 to the end. Acts 22:21-23, &c.
158 Matt. 11:23.
159 Hebrews 3:7 to the end, 4:1-11.
160 1 Thess. 2:13-16.
161 Not the typical, but the anti-typical Babylon. See Isaiah 13:21,22, and 34:11-15.
Thus far the parallel between the case of Adam and that of the Jews is complete. On account of the one sin of which he was guilty, he forfeited the earthly paradise; and on account [211] of the one sin with which they were chargeable, they forfeited the type of the heavenly one. Besides, his one transgression inferred the complete and everlasting destruction of the fleshly state of mankind in general, considered as a whole; and their one transgression inferred the complete and everlasting destruction of the fleshly state of the church, or of a particular fleshly portion of mankind, considered as a whole. — Does the parallel hold farther?
Yes, certainly. Adam, after he fell, begat a son in his own likeness, after his image. Gen. 5:3. And as to that son was transmitted the nature, so upon him descended the curse, which his father had incurred. Just so, after Babylon, the Jewish church, fell from her “high and palmy state,” she begat fleshly or external churches, that is, a posterity, in her likeness, after her image. And as they inherited her nature, so also did they incur her condemnation. For, be it observed, Adam, although thrust out of Paradise, debased and degraded, and under sentence of death, had his earthly life for a season continued to him; just as the Jews, although thrust out of the typical heavens, debarred and degraded, and under sentence of the second death, have had their earthly existence, as a nation, for a time continued to them likewise. — Again, as Adam’s offspring are one with him, and as their procreation did not take place until after his expulsion from Paradise, Gen. 4:1,4, they are necessarily involved in his fate; so the Jewish church being one with all fleshly churches, and not having given birth to this offspring of hers until after her expulsion from the typical heavens, they also are necessarily involved in her fate. The consequence of which has been, complete and everlasting exclusion from the earthly Paradise, and much more from the heavenly one, with their common ancestor, of the whole human family;162 and complete and everlasting exclusion from the typical heavens, much more from those which are real and anti-typical, with their common ancestor, of all fleshly churches, or external bodies of individuals calling themselves churches of Christ.
162 As such, or as human beings; for none live hereafter as partakers of human nature. Flesh and blood cannot enter into the kingdom of God. See 1 Corinth. 15:49, and Philip. 3:21.
Satisfactorily does it appear from all this, then, that as Adam is the common ancestor of the whole human family, so is the Jewish church the common ancestor of all external or [212] fleshly churches. That as Adam is one with all his posterity, so is the Jewish church one with hers. And that as the condemnation and death which Adam incurred, have, in consequence of their oneness with him, and of their having been begotten subsequently to his fall, descended to all his posterity, as their portion; so have the condemnation and death which Jerusalem, the mother of harlots, incurred, in consequence of their oneness with her, and of their having been born subsequently to her fall, descended from her to all that harlot brood of external or fleshly churches, which she has already produced and is still continually producing.
May I be permitted to enlarge somewhat further on the novel, and necessarily startling, proposition to which I have just been calling the attention of my readers?
The reason why Adam’s sin, is our sin, and his death our death, is not because his sin is arbitrarily imputed to us, as many divines have alleged. On the contrary, it is, 1st, because all human beings having been in him, and thereby one with him, when he transgressed, his transgression was necessarily that of human nature as a whole; 2nd, because human beings, on deriving their nature from him by ordinary generation, receive and possess that nature loaded with all the consequences, with which it became loaded in him; and, 3rd, because the sin which he committed, having been the sin of human nature as a whole, necessarily attaches to that nature by whomsoever it may be possessed.
In exact analogy with this, the one sin of the Jews, is the sin of every external or fleshly church, and their death is the death of every such church, not in consequence of any arbitrary imputation to these churches. On the contrary, the sin of the Jewish church, is the sin of such external churches, 1st in consequence of their having been included in, and thereby having been one with, that church when she transgressed; 2nd, in consequence of every such church being descended from the Jewish church, and thereby inheriting her nature, loaded with all that pressed heavily upon it in her; and, 3rdly, in consequence of the sin committed by the Jewish church, having been the sin of external or fleshly churches considered as a whole, it necessarily attaches to such a church wherever and under whatever circumstances it may be found.
Every external church thus labouring under the guilt incurred by its parent the Jewish church, would just as de-[213]cidedly require to get rid of that guilt before it could become acceptable to God, as a human being must have the guilt of Adam his natural progenitor removed from him, before he can become acceptable to God. For, as it is not the personal violations of conscience by ordinary human beings, however great and atrocious these may be, which constitute formally the ground of their condemnation in the sight of God, but the one sin committed by their ancestor Adam; so it is not any of the delinquencies of external churches, whereby they have trod in the footsteps of their harlot mother, however numerous and appalling these may be and actually have been, which cause them to stand condemned in the sight of Jehovah, but the one sin of their common parent the Jewish church, which we have just shewn is the mystical Babylon of scripture. The transgressions against conscience perpetrated by human beings, it is true, prove that they have the nature of him who transgressed against divine law, that under similar circumstances they must have acted as he did, and that God, therefore, is justified in inflicting upon them the punishment which he originally incurred; just as the transgressions against conscience of fleshly churches, in like manner, prove that they possess the nature of that church which sinned against divine law, that they in her situation would have acted as she did, and that God, therefore, justly visits them with her punishment. But, then, the fact of the church of Rome evincing the spirit, and acting after the manner, of the fleshly Jewish church, which unquestionably she does, no more demonstrates that she is the Babylon against whose crimes the vengeance of God was originally denounced, than the fact of every human being by nature evincing the spirit, and acting after the manner, of Adam, proves that he individually was the being who, by transgression, incurred in the garden of Eden the sentence of temporal death. Oneness of nature with, and certainty of descent from, their respective parents is undoubtedly in both cases, by means of the character exhibited, distinctly proved. But the church of Rome is no more directly and originally the Babylon of scripture, than I am directly and originally the Adam who trangressed in Paradise.
What has preceded enables me now to observe, in such a way as to be understood, that as Adam and his posterity constitute a whole, or as the term man is applicable, not merely to Adam as an individual, but to himself and his posterity [214] viewed as forming one compound being; so does the term Babylon in scripture take in all fleshly churches along with the Jewish church, as constituting one whole with her, or is the term Babylon applicable, not to the Jewish church exclusively, but to her considered as one with all her posterity of fleshly churches. And that as the nature and character of Adam are the nature and character of his posterity, and as his punishment is their punishment, in consequence of their thus constituting one whole; so are the nature and character of the Jewish Church, the nature and character of all fleshly churches, and is her punishment their punishment, in consequence of their thus constituting one whole. When, therefore, we read of the history and fate of Babylon the Great in the Book of Revelation, we are made acquainted with the history and fate, not merely of the fleshly church of the Jews, but of every fleshly church that ever has existed, or ever will exist.
Objections derived from the allegation, that my representation of fleshly Churches being the posterity of the Jewish church is perfectly gratuitous, are easily disposed of. Throughout the Book of Revelation the doctrine in question is set forth. Indeed, it seems to have been one of the grand objects of the Holy Ghost, in the composition of that wonderful portion of the divine record, to make it known. Without, however, at present entering upon any examination of that Book, I may just observe, 1st, that only one fleshly man, and only one fleshly church, ever had God for their direct and immediate Creator; and, 2nd, that as no other man could have come into existence, except for the original divine formation of Adam, so no more could any other fleshly church have come into existence, except for the original divine formation of the fleshly church of the Jews. All who have been divinely taught, and who are capable of reflection, will, in these analogous facts, recognize the necessity of the descent of fleshly churches from the fleshly church of the Jews, as decidedly as they recognize the necessity of the descent of human beings from the first or earthly Adam.
In the second place,
Having treated of the oneness of all fleshly churches with the Jewish church, and of such churches being involved consequently in the transgression and death of their common parent, in exact analogy with the case of all human beings, who, as naturally one with Adam, are involved in his sin and [215] death, I now proceed to advert to a very remarkable contrast between the fate of individuals and the fate of fleshly churches. For the sin of the former, an atonement could be made, and actually was made; but as, in consequence of no atonement having been provided for it, the sin of the latter cannot be washed away, their punishment was irremediable, irreversible, and everlasting. Their sin is indeed emphatically a sin unto death. 1 John 5:16.
Statements and arguments to this effect abound throughout the epistle to the Hebrews. This portion of the divine record, was written to believing Jews, and that during the forty years of probation conceded to the Old Testament church between the resurrection of our Lord, and the overturn of the fleshly dispensation. In the third and fourth chapters of the Epistle, the exclusion of the unbelieving Israelites of Moses’ time from the land of Canaan, is shewn to have been the type of the exclusion of their unbelieving posterity from the enjoyment of the heavenly rest. In the sixth chapter, those Jews who, after having made a profession of Christianity, drew back to associate with their unbelieving brethren, are charged with crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him to an open shame; and they are compared to the earth, which being often rained upon, and yet bringing forth nothing but thorns and briers, is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing, whose end is to be burned. And in the tenth chapter, all professors of Christianity among the Jews are warned, that if they sinned wilfully after having received the knowledge of the truth, or joined with their unbelieving brethren in rejecting him whom they had previously recognized as the Messiah, there remained no more, no other, or no additional, sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which should devour the adversaries.
So also in the Book of Revelation, broad and frequent intimations are given, that for those who had incurred the second death, there neither was nor could be any remission of punishment. Into the city of God, the new Jerusalem, or the glorified church, none are admissible or admitted, but those who are born again, or become new creatures in Christ Jesus, the Lord: being descendants of him, through his union with the Bride, the Lamb’s Wife. While from that city are excluded the unbelieving Jews, and all bodies of individuals who, as descended from them, inherit their nature, and are involved in their guilt. This exclusion, be it observed, is [216] everlasting. For, he that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still. Rev. 22:11.
And not only excluded from the heavenly kingdom is the fleshly Jewish church, and are all her fleshly descendants, but cast down likewise into the lowest Hell. For when Jesus carried up his spiritual church, into the everlasting enjoyment of the kingdom prepared for her before the foundation of the world, at the close of the forty years of probation which followed his resurrection, he consigned the apostate church of the Jews, and all who are one with her, to everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.
It thus appears, that at the very moment, when the Old Testament Church, or nation of the Jews, as having incurred the second death, was thrust out of the first heavens, did the New Testament church, or body of believers in Christ, become partakers of the first resurrection, or enter into the second heavens. A complete and obvious line of demarcation was thenceforth drawn between the two bodies. While the body of believers, or New Testament church, had a sentence of blessedness pronounced upon them, and upon all their offspring, which is irreversible, and were carried into Abraham’s bosom; the body of unbelievers, or Old Testament church, and all external churches as its descendants, were by an equally irreversible sentence declared to be accursed, and consigned to the place of torment. Individual descendants of Adam, the first transgressor, whether Jews or Gentiles, are saved, either by introduction into the spiritual church now, or by being made new in consequence of the putting forth of the mighty power of Christ hereafter; and this because for all transgressions committed previous to our Lord’s first coming, an atonement has been provided: but upon the fleshly church of the Jews as having committed the second sin by rejection of the Lord Jesus the Messiah, and upon all fleshly churches as acquiescing in and homologating her act, a condemnation and death rest and shall be executed, from which, as no atonement has been provided,163 there can be neither rescue nor deliverance.
163 Heb. 10:26.
And right, indeed, is it, that it should be so. Whatever has the audacity to oppose the Most High, deserves to be punished, and that in proportion to the degree of knowledge [217] which it violates, and of loving kindness which it outrages. Adam’s criminality was appropriately visited with the deprivation of this present life. But his guilt was trifling, when compared with that incurred by the Jewish people, the chosen and highly privileged Old Testament church of God. They were beloved for the father’s sakes; they had a law entrusted to their keeping, which emanated directly from Jehovah himself; they were protected by him from all their enemies round about; among them, according to the flesh, was the Messiah born; and to them, first of all, after his resurrection from the dead, was the message of salvation sent. Yet, notwithstanding all these advantages, and all these cogent and apparently irresistible inducements to compliance with his will, they disobeyed. Where, under such circumstances, shall we find a punishment adequate to their dreadfully aggravated demerits? It would not do merely to deprive them of existence as a nation: for deprivation of existence had already been inflicted upon Adam, as the punishment of his confessedly inferior offence. Appropriately then do we see them visited, according to scripture, not merely with sufferings, during the whole progress of the Messiah’s kingdom upon earth, and with complete exclusion from that kingdom, but finally with everlasting destruction. And such a destruction as admits not of their being ever afterwards set up, either in a fleshly or in any other form. But established churches, and dissenting bodies, of professing Christians, are one with the Jewish church. They agree with her in rejecting the risen and spiritual Messiah of the Scriptures, as well as the spiritual church which he hath established and dwells in: preferring with her a fleshly Messiah and a fleshly church. They are thus assisting her in the attempt to build up, what God, in her case, proclaims himself to have destroyed. The anti-typical Jericho, which God has rased to the ground, and swept away with the besom of destruction, they would fain re-erect; and this, notwithstanding the curse pronounced upon all who should be guilty of doing so, and their abettors. Joshua 6:26. Taking part with the Jews, then, in their crime of setting up an external church, in opposition to the true internal and spiritual church of the living God, such churches become necessarily chargeable with her sin; and, as the inevitable result, they must be content, likewise, to share with her in her plagues. Tormented, and finally destroyed, she is; tormented, and finally destroyed, they also must be.
[218] True it is, that scripture alludes to a second resurrection. But nothing of reigning power, or superior privilege, is therewith connected. Blessed and holy only are they who have part in the first resurrection, by being introduced into the spiritual and heavenly church of the Messiah; for on such only hath the second death no power. Rev. 20:6. To be raised at the second resurrection, is to witness, not the continuance, but the termination, of all that is peculiar and privileged: all things which were formerly natural, being then made new, and being placed upon one and the same level, by the subjugation on the part of the Son of God, of all things unto himself. Those who are partakers of the first resurrection, or resurrection of the just, are privileged to reign; Luke 14:14; Rev. 20:6; of those who are the subjects of the second resurrection, all that can be said is, they are reigned over. 1 Cor. 15:24-28; and Philip. 3:21.
Thus, then, although to individuals there is a second resurrection, to external churches, there is none. For their sin, no sacrifice is offered, no atonement is made. Therefore it is, that, when in the persons of the Jewish nation, such churches incurred the divine vengeance, it came down upon them irremediably and for ever.
[219] CHAPTER XI.
THE BOOK OF REVELATION.
THE time has not yet arrived for the complete understanding of this most precious portion of God’s word. But various signs and circumstances conspire to render it manifest, that the period for its development is fast approaching.
To a charge of grievous obscurity, this book has long been obnoxious. And justly. For it is to us, and it has been to all who have preceded us, the most puzzling and unintelligible portion of divine revelation. But its difficulties have had then origin in a cause exactly the opposite of that which has been supposed to occasion them. It is not a dark book. On the contrary, it shines with a brightness and brilliancy which are perfectly glorious. It is the excess of its light which is overwhelming. Like the natural sun, it is
Dark with excess of light.
Its inherent brilliancy, and not its darkness, is what then renders it to us obscure and dazzling. It is too clear for the spiritual optics of the church as at present situated and constituted. Men are so immersed in worldly things and pursuits, and even those who, as members of the spiritual church have a certain measure of divine illumination, possess this in so slender a degree, are otherwise so carnal, and are so devoted to seek in external bodies calling themselves churches of Christ, what can never be discovered except in the internal and spiritual church alone, that to look at the Book of Revelation steadily, and comprehend its meaning, lies utterly beyond their power. Volumes have been written upon it; but its real signification is still as much a desideratum as ever. When opened up, it will be found to be the most simple of all writings; and to have had this very simplicity, for the grand cause of its obscurity.
I do not profess to have any thing like a profound, extensive, or consistent understanding of this book. But I have obtained some little glimpse of what it actually does mean. [220] And I can perceive, that all who have hitherto written upon the subject, have either in whole or in part been mistaken. The general notion of its contents which I do possess — for to a complete acquaintance with its meaning, I do not pretend — I now proceed to lay before my readers.
Passing over with a remark or two topics, which, however important, I have neither time nor leisure to discuss within the limits assigned to a work like this, and referring those who may be desirous to see these topics treated at length to the learned pages of Sir Isaac Newton, Tilloch, &c, I observe that I assume unhesitatingly John to have been banished to the Isle of Patmos by the Emperor Nero, one of whose names was Domitian, and that the Book of Revelation, instead of having appeared subsequently, was actually written previously, to the year of our Lord 70, and consequently, to the destruction of Jerusalem. I am far, however, from giving into Mr. Tilloch’s notion of its having been composed anterior to the Epistles, and of its being alluded to in them; for I am satisfied, upon grounds which I have neither leisure nor inclination to detail, that it was committed to writing the last of all the Books of the New Testament.
This being premised, it will be noticed, that, according to Revelation 1:19, the command to John was, write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter. By this we are furnished with a key to the understanding of this glorious portion of God’s word.
The book of Revelation, considered with reference to its machinery, consists of a series of pictures presented to the mental eye of John, and of a series of commands addressed to him, both having been of a heavenly and supernatural description. And considered with reference to its meaning, it consists of a series of views of the state of the church at the time when John wrote, or of the church in the latter part of its external and fleshly form, and also of the state of things which should exist, after the church was to be brought into its second and internal form, till the end of time. The whole being a combination and condensation of the figures and figurative language employed in the Old Testament scriptures, and the rendering of these subservient to the expression of divine and spiritual ideas.
Let me endeavour to state the same thing, after a somewhat different fashion. The Book of Revelation is the open-[221]ing up of the mind and views of the church, as invested with its second or spiritual form. And the understanding of the book, is just in proportion to the degree in which the members of the church have their views rendered spiritual and heavenly. As this spirituality of mind increases, the more that the second coming of Christ approaches, so likewise does their comprehension of the meaning of this book increase, the more that this event approaches. It could scarcely be understood in the first ages of the second or spiritual form of the church at all, on account of the remoteness of our Lord’s second coming. Even yet, the period for its complete development is far from having arrived, because the second coming of Christ is far from being nigh. And the full understanding of the book will be, in some future age, the proof of that event being near, even at the door. The church, introduced into its second or spiritual form, is, through the medium of this book, and in proportion to the degree in which its contents are opened up, enabled to understand the position which itself at the present moment occupies, as well as the previous states and circumstances through which its members have in former ages passed. The rendering of this book a Revelation, is God’s creation of spiritual mind; and his giving evidence that he is doing so, by the light which is thereby thrown back upon the whole of the previous portion of the sacred record.
John was living in the first or external form of the church, when these revelations were made to him. But by means of them, heaven was opened up to him; or, he was carried forward, by the spirit of prophecy, unto the second heavens, or into the spiritual form which was immediately to succeed, and which was to continue to the end of time. Of the third heavens, or that state of things which opens up to and is enjoyed by the saints, in body as well as mind, when time is no longer, at the fulness of Christ’s second coming, as no human language can describe it, and no conceptions can be formed of it, so no record could be made of it. See 2 Cor. 12:4. In this revelation of his second coming to John, our Lord appears to have fulfilled the implied promise recorded in John 21:22; and concerning it, I would only remark farther, that as the commencement or dawn of Christ’s second coming, in the setting up of the earnest of his spiritual kingdom, was to take place quickly, after the period when John wrote; so shall the fulness and reality of that second coming take place [222] quickly, after the period when the meaning of the Book of Revelation shall be developed in its fulness to the members of the church. The moment the book is fully understood, may the second coming of Christ, and the end of time as necessarily connected therewith, be looked for as just at hand.
Before finishing this section, there is one passage of the Book in question which I cannot help quoting, and briefly commenting on, as affording a key to the understanding of many more. It occurs, chapter 12, verses 7, 8, 9. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his Angels, &c. What is all this, but a condensed view of the whole history contained in the Acts of the Apostles? Jesus and his New Testament Churches, by the preaching of the gospel, the exhibition of miraculous gifts, and the exercise of discipline, contended against the Jews, and their carnal notions of things; and the Jews contended against them. In heaven, or in the church in its first state of fleshly and external elevation, this warfare took place. Its termination was, the complete triumph of our Lord and his church; and the complete discomfiture of their enemies. And thenceforward, the first or fleshly form of the church having been dissolved, the principle of unbelief had no longer any part or lot in the spiritual church, and the Jews were deprived of all their former privileges, and cast down from heaven to the earth, or placed upon a level with other nations; while the spiritual members of the church were made to enter into the second heavens, and in proportion as they do so, to utter the language of triumph, praise, and thanksgiving, for evermore. See verses 10th and 11th.
[223] CHAPTER XII.
DESCENT OF THE NEW JERUSALEM FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH.
IN spite of all the absurdities which have been broached by Baron Swedenborg on the subject of the New Jerusalem, and of the ridiculous pretensions advanced by him to miraculous divine communications in his Arcana Celestia, his De Coelo et de Inferno, and his other works, it nevertheless holds true, that the New Jerusalem has been brought down from heaven to earth, and that there are now, as there have been in ages past and as there will be to the end of time, persons who partake of its privileges, and who by means of it are in possession of the earnest of eternal glory.
An enlightened perusal of the twenty-first chapter of the Book of Revelation shews us, that the New Jerusalem began its descent from heaven to earth, not in 1757, as is alleged by the enthusiast just named, but at the period of Jerusalem’s destruction, which was the period of the commencement of the earnest of our Lord’s second coming, and of his setting up the second or spiritual state of his kingdom. Then the order of things began to be reversed. The spiritual order then began to supersede the natural. Previously to that time, the earthly church had been carrying up or heavenwards; for the purpose of exhibiting the enmity of human nature to God under its worst and most offensive aspect. But now the heavenly church was to be carried down or earthwards; for the purpose of shewing, that what human mind could not effect, God, through the communication of his own mind, was able to accomplish. Jesus had, in rising from the dead, received for his inheritance all nations. See Psalm 2 and compare with Acts 13:33-35. Of this magnificent grant he began to take possession at the period of his destroying Jerusalem, and overturning the earthly church. The whole chapter before us contains a description of the state of things which was to be the result of the Lord thus bringing down the church from heaven to earth, or of his en-[224]tering into the hearts and consciences of the members of the spiritual Israel, and making them new by the manifestation to them of his own divine and glorious character. He was thenceforward to take up his permanent abode with them; verse 3; to impart to them a mind of peace and joy, instead of that mind of anguish, sorrow, and bondage, under which they had previously laboured; verse 4; and, in a word, instead of improving their old or former state, was to introduce them into a state of things altogether new. So completely was this to be the case, that in the New or spiritual Jerusalem, blessings were to be bestowed unconditionally, verse 6; all things, without any reserve, were to be the inheritance of its members, verse 7; and every member of the mere fleshly church, as well as all possessed merely of the principles of human nature, were, from this new state of things, to be entirely and everlastingly excluded; nothing, indeed, but destruction, awful and irremediable, awaiting human nature, and the fleshly church. Verse 8. The rest of the chapter contains, in highly figurative language, borrowed almost entirely from the Old Testament Scriptures, an account of the situation and circumstances of this second or spiritual state of the Church; and this, in the form of a marked and decided, although implied, contrast between the imperfection of the Old Testament or earthly church, which was for a time carried upwards; and the perfection of the New Testament or spiritual church, which is for evermore carried downwards. — The 21st chapter of the Book of Revelation is, therefore, not, as many have supposed, a description of heaven in its future and highest state, or of the Third heavens, which can only be revealed at the period of the fulness of our Lord’s second coming; but is a description of the state of the spiritual church upon earth, or of the church after she had entered upon her second or spiritual form at the period of Jerusalem’s destruction: in which form, as she is possessed, not of the mind of Adam improved, but of the earnest of the new and heavenly mind of Christ Jesus, 2 Cor. 5:17, every thing connected with her is perfect and spiritual, and she appears as a beautiful first fruits of what shall ultimately take place, when, in the highest and most emphatic sense of the term, all things shall be made new. She is the earnest of that mighty inheritance which has been made over to our blessed Lord; and, therefore, in his dwelling in her, and in his treatment of her, he is affording a specimen of the manner in [225] which he shall ultimately dwell in all, and dispose of, all things.
When, therefore, this portion of the book of Revelation is understood, it is found to be neither more nor less than an assertion of that grand principle for which I have been all along contending, namely, that, in the second or spiritual state of the church, Jesus is not taking fleshly mind, and a fleshly church, upwards, but is causing spiritual mind, and the spiritual church, to come downwards. And that, instead of the New Jerusalem, or spiritual church consisting of men, whose fleshly minds have been improved, it consists of persons whose fleshly minds have been more or less swallowed up in the divine and resurrection mind of the Son of God; men of whom it holds true, that, being in Christ, they, in so far as their minds are concerned, are not old creatures improved, but the subjects of a new creation. See 2 Cor. 5:17; compared with Ephesians 4:22-24, and Colossians 3:9,10.
As to the pretensions of Swedenborg and others, this I am willing to concede, that, although the New Jerusalem began its descent from heaven to earth, at the period of the Old Jerusalem’s destruction, the descent in question has not been completed yet, and will not be completed, until it shall have succeeded in establishing completely those new heavens and that new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. That is, until the fulness of our Lord’s second coming shall have taken place. And farther, that, in exact proportion as there is an additional opening up to any man, or set of men, of God’s true and spiritual character, in the same proportion is the descent of the New Jerusalem made to progress, and is the new creation more thoroughly and extensively carried into effect. Thus, I have no doubt, that there was an additional descent of the New Jerusalem into the mind of Martin Luther; as there is into the mind of every man, however mean and obscure, to whom the truth of God is spiritually revealed, and in whom, consequently, it is made spiritually to dwell.
[226] CHAPTER XIII.
PARTICULAR AND UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION AND SALVATION.
COMPREHENDING what has gone before, we are now prepared to encounter one of the most important, one of the most controverted, and at the same time one of the least understood, points of Christian Theology.
Did Christ die for the whole human race? Or did he die only for a limited portion of them?
In attempting to answer this, professors of religion have generally begun, by ranging themselves under the banners either of Augustine and Calvin on the one hand, or of Arminius, Episcopius, and their followers, on the other. And, according to the system which they set out with adopting, are the texts of scripture which, in support of it, they are in the habit of quoting. Tell me whether a man be a Calvinist or an Arminian, and I can tell you, with scarcely a possibility of mistake, the string of proofs, and line of argumentation, by which he will strive to vindicate himself in his party attachments. When men thus, without having duly examined both sides of the question, and untaught by the Holy Ghost to discriminate between what is true and what is false in the assertions of heated and thorough-going partisans, begin by determining that one of the two theories must at all hazards and in every respect be right, is it surprising if by persons of more enquiring minds and less sanguine temperaments, they be found, along with a certain measure of truth, to have swallowed a very considerable admixture of error?
Surely, some middle path may be discovered between the two extreme theories; or, rather, some common principles, by which systems which at first sight appear to be absolutely irreconcilable, may turn out to be in reality thoroughly harmonious.
Let us see.
Instead of treating the subject after the ordinary fashion, I deem it best to begin by laying down certain scriptural [227] facts and statements. Let us hear what God, the Lord, hath spoken. Psalm 85:8.
1. Jesus was the son of Adam. Luke 3:23-38.
Jesus was also the son of Abraham. Matt. 1:1-18.
2. The human race having been one with Adam, or having constituted a whole in him, in him, without a single exception, sinned and died. Rom. 5, to the end; 1 Corinth. 15:20, &c.
The nation of Israel having been one with Abraham, or having constituted a whole in him, became thereby inheritors of those most valuable and important temporal blessings which, on account of his personal faith, God was pleased to bestow on him. Gen. 22:16-18; John 4:22; Rom. 3:1,2; 9:1-5; 11:11-28.
3. It is expressly asserted, that Jesus tasted death for every man; Heb. 2:9;164 that he gave himself a ransom for all; 1 Timothy 2:6; and that he is the Saviour of all men. Ibid. 4:10.
164 Ψπερ παντος γευσηται θανατου, that he should taste of every death, or of the whole of death, says Obadiah How, in his Universalist Examined, Chap. xi. pp. 149, 150. The Greek, I suspect, cannot, except with the greatest violence, be made to bear this construction. Indeed, cannot be made to bear it at all.
It is also expressly asserted, that Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it; Eph. 5:25; in his intercessary prayer, he petitions not for the world, but for them which God had given him, John 17:9, and for them also which should believe on him, through their word; Ibid. 20;165 and, in John 3:3, our Lord declares, in language which it is impossible by the utmost stretch of human ingenuity to pervert or explain away, that except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
165 Although confining his petitions in the passages quoted to a few, our Lord, in verses 21 and 23, shews that the privileges originally conferred upon a few, are designed ultimately to redound to the advantage of all.
Now what is the inference which an unprejudiced and enlightened mind, satisfied that all the statements of God’s word are absolutely and infallibly true, would be disposed to draw from facts and declarations like the foregoing? That a few have an interest in Christ? or that all have an interest in him? That a few are saved by his death? or that all are saved by his death? That redemption and salvation are particular? or that they are universal? My impression is, that [228] a rightly constituted, and properly disciplined mind, would hesitate about adopting either of these sets of alternatives unqualifiedly. Our Lord’s special connection with a few of the human race, and his general connection with all; his special temporal favours conferred upon a few, and his general goodness extended to all; and, above all, express declarations of special redemption and salvation, combined with equally express declarations of a redemption and salvation which embraced all the descendants of Adam; arresting such an one’s attention, would, I think, induce him to conclude, that there is a sense in which Christ died only for a part of the human race, and a sense in which he died for all; that if there be a sense in which he redeems and saves only a part of mankind, there must likewise be a sense in which he redeems and saves the whole.
And, it is interesting to observe, that what we suppose to be the conclusion of an honest and enlightened mind, deduced from a careful and unprejudiced consideration of the materials with which it is furnished by Scripture, is actually what two Apostles, writing under the immediate influence of inspiration, have declared to be matter of fact. Paul, who, in 1 Tim. 4th chapter, and 10th verse asserts, that the living God is the Saviour of all men, combines with this the assertion, that he is the Saviour specially of those that believe; and John who, in his 1st Epistle, 2nd chapter, and 2nd verse, speaks of Jesus Christ, the righteous, as being the propitiation for our sins, adds these striking words, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
But has not this been said hundreds and hundreds of times already, by writers on both sides of this much controverted question? Have not many Calvinists alleged,166 that Christ is made over to all in the offer of the gospel; although made over in reality only to the destined heirs of salvation? And is it not a favourite doctrine of the Remonstrant school, that Christ hath redeemed all, although, through the fault of those who are lost, he saves ultimately only a part? Nay, is it not one of the fundamental doctrines of the Church of England, that our Lord’s death was a sufficient atonement for every human being, although rendered efficient only to a portion of our race? See Article XXXI. How, then, do you propose [229] to advance the cause of truth, by establishing a distinction between Christ’s dying for all, and his dying only for a part of the human family, a distinction which theologians of all descriptions have made and contended for ages before you were born?
166 Not, certainly, by that class of Calvinistic divines which represents the gospel as addressed exclusively to the elect.
It is at once and cheerfully conceded, that the idea of the existence of such a distinction is not new. But the exact nature of the distinction appears to have been by few, if by any, rightly apprehended. At all events, we meet with no correct representation of it, on the part of any of the sects of religionists of whom we have just been speaking.
The Calvinist who alleges, that Christ is made over to all in the offer of the gospel, but in reality destined only for a few, lays himself open to such insurmountable objections as the following: — 1st. Even admitting the doctrine of Christ being offered in the gospel to be correct, — which it is not, — as Christ has not even been heard of by infants, heathens, and a large majority of the human race, it is obvious, that he cannot be offered to all. And, 2ndly, to suppose God to offer Christ, is to suppose it to be in the power of human beings to receive or reject him; which is not true: Christ being offered, neither to all nor to any, but, by the grace of God, the knowledge of him being sovereignly and irresistibly bestowed upon those who are heirs according to his purpose.167 [230] Again: the followers of the Arminian or Remonstrant schools make a distinction between redemption and salvation, which is totally unwarranted by scripture. Frequently has it been shewn by Calvinists, with irresistible force of argument, that whom Christ redeems, he also saves; and that to represent salvation as dependent on the act of the creature in believing in Christ, and bringing forth good works, as is done by Arminians, is to make that which according to scripture depends solely and entirely upon what Christ hath done, to depend in whole or in part upon man’s fulfilment of conditions, which they suppose God to have prescribed to him. In other words, Calvinists have shewn, that Arminians by their system, rob Jesus of the glory of being the sole redeemer and saviour, and permit the creature, to say the least of it, to share with him the honours of salvation. And, lastly, the Church of England, between the sufficiency of Christ for all, and the efficiency of his salvation only in the case of the elect, deserves no better epithet, than that of a metaphysical fetch. It is either another mode of saying, that Christ, in the case of a vast majority of the human race, has died in vain; or of representing, with the Remonstrants, the blessed and perfect, work of him, the Creator, as being worthless, unless and until followed up and corroborated by a work of mere creatures! While objections so strong and insuperable to all these modes of explaining the distinction, laid down in God’s word, between Christ’s dying for all, and his dying for a part of, the human family, exist, it is impossible that any of them can be admitted by a spiritually enlightened, and scripturally judging mind.
167 In the case of the nation of the Jews, there was something like an offer of Christ made to them, or, rather, they were commanded and exhorted to believe on him. This we learn, by a perusal of the Acts of the Apostles. But, as appears by the result, the object of all the offers, commands, and exhortations, addressed to the house of Israel, was to bring out and evince, not the power of man’s mind to believe on Christ, but the reverse. See John 1:12,13, compared with Isaiah 5:1-7, especially verse 4. And, this object having been accomplished in the final rejection of Christ by the Jews, commands to believe, or, if my reader prefer the phrase, offers of Christ, thenceforth, immediately, and for ever, came to an end. Christ is now offered to none, but the knowledge of him is, by means of divine appointment, and in virtue of a fore-ordained purpose, bestowed upon a few. The Old Testament Church was commanded to believe on Christ crucified and risen again, that, by its rejection of him, the second sin having been committed, and the second death incurred, the way might be opened up for the establishment of the New Testament, or spiritual, church, not upon command complied with by the creature, but upon promises made and fulfilled by the glorious Creator. It is the not understanding of this distinction between the case of the Jews before ceasing to be God’s church, and that of the spiritual family who have constituted God’s church since, which has led to the blunder respecting offers of Christ being now made to an unregenerate world.
No system of Theology is or can be true, which represents any act or work of the creature, connected with salvation, as requiring to be added, or as capable of being added, to the act and work of the glorious Creator; John 17:4; Ibid. 19:30; Rom. 10:4; and which represents the knowledge of God in any other light, than as a gift bestowed freely, and out of his sovereign good pleasure, by the Creator upon the creature. Ephes. 2:8; 2 Corinth. 4:6.
Keeping these principles in view, I am enabled, in the light of scripture, to perceive the following facts, which, classified and rightly understood, afford the key to this otherwise intricate, self-inconsistent, and unintelligible, subject: —
1. That all mankind naturally appear as a whole, and are dealt with as a whole, in the person of Adam. His sin and his death are theirs. Rom. 5:12, &c.
[231] 2. That a portion of mankind, the people of Israel, naturally appear as a whole, and are dealt with as a whole in the person of Abraham. His faith, and, consequently, his righteousness are, in so far as their existence as a fleshly church, and their enjoyment of temporal benefits is concerned, theirs. Gen. 22:16,17. Rom. 11:11-24.
Thus have we two wholes; the human race, as a whole; and a portion of the human race, as a whole.
This latter whole, or portion of the human race, is, it is obvious, contained in the former whole, or all the human race. And yet, for certain important and gracious purposes, the one is distinguished from the other.
Now, do we find in scripture any spiritual distinctions spoken of, as corresponding to these natural ones?
Yes, we do. But in the inverse or opposite order, in which the natural distinctions are presented to us. For,
1. We perceive spiritually a portion of mankind, corresponding to the nation of Israel, and, indeed, expressly denominated a spiritual Israel or Israel of God, Rom. 2:28,29; 9:6-8; Galat. 6:16; dealt with as a whole, in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, viewed as the spiritual Abraham. John 17:22-23,25-26; Rom. 5:1, &c.; 8:1, &c.; Gal. 3:29; 1 Peter 1:23.
2. We perceive all mankind spiritually, corresponding to all mankind naturally, dealt with as a whole in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, viewed as the spiritual Adam. Rom. 5:12, &c. to the end; 1 Corinth. 15:20-22,28,45; Rev. 21:5.
Here, as formerly, we find one of the wholes, contained in the other whole. Only, in the opposite order to that which obtained in the former case. Instead of a part of mankind being contained in all, now it is all contained in a part. All mankind viewed as a whole, ran into a part of mankind viewed as a whole, naturally; while a part of mankind viewed as a whole runs up into all mankind viewed as a whole, spiritually and supernaturally. But the two wholes with which we are presented naturally and supernaturally are nevertheless the same. They are, all mankind, and a part of mankind.
After having requested my readers, first of all, to arrange the four wholes, the two natural, and the two spiritual, of which I have been speaking, in the two following ways: —
| [232] 1st Way. | ||||
| All mankind naturally. | ——— | A part of mankind naturally. | ||
| All mankind spiritually. | ——— | A part of mankind spiritually. | ||
| 2nd Way. | ||||
| Natural order. | Spiritual order. | |||
| All mankind. | A part of mankind. | ——— | A part of mankind. | All mankind. |
I have to request their particular attention to the difference between the arrangement of the natural and the spiritual wholes, thus in a twofold manner presented to them.
Supposing this to be done, I go on to observe: —
1. That as there existed a particular nation of this world, the nation of the Jews, separated from all other nations, and possessed of peculiar natural privileges; so does there exist a body of individuals, the spiritual Israel or Israel of God, separated from all other human beings, and possessed of peculiar spiritual privileges. And that the former, or natural Israel, as a fleshly church, was evidently the type or shadow of the latter, or spiritual Israel, as a spiritual church. Unless there had previously existed the fleshly church, the spiritual church, by which it was succeeded, would have had no type, shadow, or figure of itself, and would thus have differed from every thing else that is spiritual, of which we always discover a previously existing type or figure.
2. That as the possession of the peculiar natural privileges by the nation of the Jews, was not exclusive of, and did not prevent, God’s showering down natural blessings on the rest of the family of man generally;168 so, neither is the possession of peculiar spiritual privileges by the people of God, exclusive of general spiritual blessings being conferred ultimately upon the world. Were not this the case, the analogy would be defective; we should have a type, without any corresponding anti-type: whereas, viewed in the light in which it has now been presented by me, the analogy is perfect.
168 Nevertheless, he left not himself without witness, in that he did good and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. Acts 14:7.
3. That as the creation of mankind as a whole naturally, was subservient to the natural separation of the nation of the Jews from the other nations of the world; and as the natural [233] separation of the nation of the Jews was, through the death and resurrection of Christ, subservient to the separation of the true Israel of God from the rest of mankind; so, unless the analogy is to limp, and the separation of the spiritual church is to become an end, instead of being a means to an end, the separation of the spiritual Israel must be subservient to the making of all things new, or to the conferring of spiritual blessings ultimately upon all.
Taking these different facts, circumstances, and analogies into account, we are now prepared to shew, in what sense Christ died for all, and in what sense he died only for a part of mankind.
With Jesus, as the Son of Adam, and as having substantialized humanity in himself, all mankind have such a general, natural, and fleshly connection, as that generally his life was their life, and his death, their death; and so, with him, as the spiritual Adam, all mankind have such a spiritual and heavenly connection, as that generally in his resurrection, they all rise again, and live for evermore. And yet, although all mankind naturally are thus connected with all mankind spiritually, the connection is not direct and immediate. On the contrary, it is carried into effect, through the intervention and interposition of a special natural body of individuals, and a special spiritual body of individuals; as well as through the medium of Christ’s death and resurrection from the dead.
With Jesus, as the Son of Abraham, and as having substantialized the Jewish state and character in himself, the nation of the Jews had such a particular natural and fleshly connection, as that his life was in a special manner their life, and his death, their death; and so far did this special connection reach, that, even after his resurrection from the dead, to them was the gospel first preached, and by their own act alone, in rejecting him, could that connection between him and them, be dissolved and broken off.169 But the Jews having, by the rejection of Jesus risen again, brought their own special natural connection with him, as a fleshly church, to an end, a new and spiritual Israel, enjoying a special spiritual connection with him, was thereby brought out to view: the members of this spiritual Israel being so connected with their head, that in his resurrection and ascension to God’s right [234] hand, they rise and ascend likewise; that, instead of earthly, they inherit with him heavenly blessings; and that, instead of their privileges being temporary and conditional, they are bestowed upon them, and enjoyed by them, unconditionally and for ever.
169 They judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life. — See Acts 13:46.
Thus, in a word, Jesus died generally in behalf of all, and bestows eternal life generally upon all. And having died specially in behalf of some, he bestows everlasting life specially upon some. — Those whom he redeemed generally, he saves generally; those whom he redeemed specially, he saves specially.
Again: in Jesus, as God, the whole human race ever have existed, and ever will exist. In him, they live, move, and have their being. Acts 17:28. In him, as manifest in flesh, they all existed naturally; in him, as glorified, they all, after having first died and risen with him, exist spiritually. — But this general connection of our Lord with all mankind naturally, did not prevent his forming a more special connection with, and bestowing more special favours on, the people of Israel, a portion of the human race, naturally. And, just so, his general connection with all mankind spiritually, is not inconsistent with, nay, is brought to light and carried into effect by, his having formed previously a peculiar spiritual connection with a few human beings, and having distinguished them by peculiar tokens of his favour and love.
There is another way of stating this subject, by which my readers may be more effectually put in possession of my meaning.
Christ, by means of his death, in one sense, redeems and saves all; by means of it, in another sense, he redeems and saves some. But in whatever sense he redeems, in the same sense he saves: salvation being always and necessarily co-extensive with redemption. As our Lord himself was a partaker of flesh and blood transmitted to him from Adam, all human beings are connected with his substantial humanity, and interested in his atoning sacrifice: for, as, by his one offering up of himself, he destroyed human nature as a whole, and thereby destroyed sin which affected that nature as a whole, so he thereby paved the way for sin and death, in the case of all, being ultimately swallowed up in victory. But the love which he bears towards the members of the human family, viewed as having been all redeemed and saved by him, is just as diverse in the circumstances of its manifesta-[235]tion, as are the circumstances of human beings in this present world; is just as visibly different in its manifestation towards the Church, and towards the world; as was the difference visible, in Old Testament times, between God’s treatment of the Jews, and his treatment of heathen nations. As risen from the dead, and as having made all alive in himself, 1 Cor. 15:22, Jesus, nevertheless, evinces discrimination in the application of his resurrection power; carrying his redemption and salvation into effect, when and how it seemeth to him good. Towards some, his love is special; towards others it is of a general description. To the former, he imparts the knowledge of himself, and thereby the earnest of the divine nature, during the period of their abode upon earth; from the rest, he witholds that knowledge, and thereby any intelligent interest in him, until the period of his delivering up the kingdom to the Father. The former, have a relation to him as the spiritual Abraham, and are permitted to sit and reign with him in his heavenly kingdom; the latter to whom he becomes known as the spiritual Adam, never enter into his kingdom, but are reigned over by him and the members of his Church. All are thus ultimately saved, as well as redeemed; while to some, redemption and salvation are applied after a special manner. There is no clashing, no inconsistency, between the general redemption and salvation, and the special redemption and salvation. On the contrary, the carrying of our Lord’s redemption and salvation into effect in the case of a few, is merely in subserviency to its being carried into effect ultimately and completely in the case of all.
To present the subject in another light. As Adam, by his one transgression, incurred, on behalf of mankind viewed as a whole, a first death, from which all are redeemed and saved by our Lord’s death; so the nation of Israel, by their one transgression in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, incurred, in behalf of their nation viewed as the fleshly church, a second death, from which the members of the spiritual church alone are redeemed and saved by our Lord’s resurrection from the dead. The specially redeemed and saved are thus, by divine grace, made partakers of the first resurrection, the second death having no power over them; Rev. 20:6; whereas the ordinary mass of mankind are only interested in that general redemption and salvation, which are connected with, and brought to light at the period of, the second resurrection.
[236] According to what I have just stated, there is no interference of one part of scripture with another, or of one part of the theory contended for with another. God does not offer salvation, but he bestows it; he does not call upon creatures to perform their part in the work of salvation, telling them, that although Christ has performed his, it can be of no avail unless followed up by a work of their own, but on the contrary, he ascribes all the glory to Christ alone, by exhibiting the work of salvation as completed by him on the cross; nor does he make Christ to have died in vain, by representing him as having offered a sacrifice sufficient for the salvation of all but rendered efficient only in the case of a few. So far from this, the salvation which the gospel proclaims, as it is sufficient for all, is ultimately likewise rendered efficient in the case of all. God in Christ is, according to scripture, himself alone both the author and finisher of the creature’s salvation. And while, in applying the benefits of the Saviour’s work, he proceeds agreeably to a fixed plan, and by means of a regular progress, first bringing many sons and daughters to glory, and then, rendering this step subservient to the manifestation of himself to the rest, there is no possibility of the creature, at any step of the progress, taking the merit, or any part of the merit, of his own salvation to himself: the almighty power, and sovereign grace, of the Creator, being visibly and legibly inscribed upon every part of it, from first to last.
Altogether different is the system which I advocate, from that bastard scheme of universal redemption, and universal pardon, of which the followers of Mr. Campbell, late of Row, the Plymouth Brethren, and many others, appear to be so deeply enamoured. In clinging to it, its supporters appear never to have been enabled to rise above that mere natural order of things which the Old Testament scriptures present; and never to have had the remotest conception of that spiritual state of things which stands in the inverse order of the natural one, and by which the natural one has been superseded. Naturally, a whole led to a part of the human race; or mankind viewed as a whole, ran down into a portion of mankind, that is, into the Israelites, as the fleshly church. But, spiritually, the order is so completely changed or inverted, that the part runs up into the whole; or the salvation of the spiritual church, paves the way for the salvation of the whole human race. Ignorance of this fact is what character-[237]izes the adherents of the system alluded to. Hence it is the natural order, or the tendency of the whole to terminate in a part, for which they contend. They perceive, under the former dispensation, the whole human race in Adam, exchanged for a portion of the human race in Abraham; or the many abandoned for the few, and they fancy, that a similar state of things obtains under the present dispensation. Absurdities of every description have been the natural and necessary result of adopting such a system. — “Christ who died for all, actually saves only a part of mankind; Christ’s work, although perfect, is yet of no avail to us, unless perfected by a work of faith performed by ourselves; and instead of glorying in the redemption and salvation of the Son of God, while we glory in his redemption, we glory in our having so appropriated that redemption, as to have ensured to ourselves our own salvation!” They speak great swelling words of vanity as to the universal extent of Christ’s redeeming love, and the privileges to which the creature hath attained in him, but when the system is probed to the bottom, it is found to be utterly hollow and worthless. It is merely Pelagianism vamped up anew. It is God doing something, and calling upon the creature to complete what he himself hath begun. — “Christ hath died. Christ hath taken away our sins. Christ is ours.” Well; the truths contended for are apparently most glorious. But, presto! begone. “Christ is nothing to us, unless we embrace the gospel offer; his righteousness can never belong to us, unless we appropriate it with a living faith.” In other words, the main part of the work of salvation still remains to be finished by ourselves! Christ is nothing, unless the creature be and do something! And this, in the estimate of the supporters of the theory in question, is gospel or glad tidings! Alas! when will professors of religion be brought to understand, that the work of salvation, no less than that of redemption, has been completed by the Son of God; that faith is not our taking hold of this work, but the manifestation and application of it to us by God himself; and that Christ’s finished salvation is made known to a portion of the human race here, not in an exclusive sense, but as the only and the certain means of its being made known ultimately to all.
Cheerfully is it conceded, that, under the former Dispensation, the tendency of God’s procedure was to limit and restrict his natural love to man yet more and more. His [238] natural love to mankind as a whole, was exchanged for a more special love to the Israelites as a portion of mankind; and his special love to them, was exchanged for a still more special love to Christ, one of their number. An entirely opposite system of things, however, presents itself, when we look at the matter, with reference to the Christian Dispensation. God’s love, then, no longer natural but spiritual, appears gradually and constantly enlarging in the sphere of its operation. His love to his Son risen from the dead, is subservient to and issues in love to his Son’s spiritual church; and his love to this church is subservient to and issues in love to all. — Does not this furnish us with the true clue to the understanding of the distinction between universal redemption and salvation, and special redemption and salvation? There is a redemption, and consequently a salvation of all mankind effected by Christ Jesus; or redemption and salvation are general and universal. But the redemption and salvation which, as having taken place in behalf of all, ultimately reach to all, are rendered effectual in time to comparatively speaking a very few; or redemption and salvation are likewise special and particular. The fact is, that a part of mankind only were chosen in Christ, as the spiritual Abraham, before the foundation of the world, that they, as the antitype of the fleshly Israel, might be holy, and without blame before him in love. In consequence of this, they only, while on earth, are born again. To them, and to them only, a little flock, is it the Father’s good pleasure to give the kingdom. But their special state and privileges are not final: being merely a means to an end, or subservient to the manifestation and development of a still higher state of things. Christ’s redemption and salvation are in themselves, in consequence of his having been the substantial man or second Adam, general and universal; and the special redemption and salvation which, as spiritual Abraham, he vouchsafes to the members of his church, thus merely constitute the means by which, as spiritual Adam, he carries into effect his general purposes of love and mercy towards all. Hence, in reigning with their head, a privilege which belongs to the members of the Church alone, Christ’s specially redeemed and saved ones are not labouring for the perpetuation of their own exclusive state and circumstances, but are actually concurring with their adorable and exalted Lord, in bringing their own special privileges to an end; or, rather, in render-[239]ing these subservient to that ultimate subjugation of all things to him, by which his character as spiritual Abraham becomes merged in that of spiritual Adam, and a redemption and salvation that are special and particular, become merged in a redemption and salvation that are general and universal.
Thus do a redemption and salvation that are sufficient for all, likewise become efficient for all. Christ did not, therefore, die in vain: and hence are the triumphs of grace seen to be, not less than, as popular systems represent them, but co-extensive with, the previous reign of sin. See Rom. 5:20,21; 6:23.
END.
THE REFORMED UNIVERSALIST 