Notice of earlier opinions on the subject, I said I would take notice of the quotations from ancient writers on the point of Christ's vicarious life and living sufferings. What I have already said will have proved that views of His sufferings, in which, what I avow is to me more precious than clearness, true piety may be found, not only fail, in clearness but are superficial in their nature. And this is real loss, for far from losing the piety and the holy affections which should accompany the thoughts of Christ's sufferings, a deeper scriptural knowledge of what they were gives seriousness to our spirits, and makes Him more prominent in our thoughts, emptying us of self. What we have to seek is that everything our mind is engaged in should be filled with Christ, or rather the fullness of the truth of Christ be that in which our minds are engaged. All other things are thus judged, received as belonging to him, or we are freed from them. This enlarges and sanctifies the mind, for, indeed, he fills all things. We lose ourselves thus even in him, and there is very real enlargement of heart. If we have peace and a single eye, scripture does thus feel the soul; sets before it a scene that embraces all things, according to the divine view of all things; gives a large, divine view of things in contrast with, and to the exclusion of a fleshy narrow one, of which self and the worldly mind, and its narrow and confined interests and apprehensions, are always more or less the center; and, moreover, because scripture is the word of God, this gives submission and certainty to the mind, and clearness of judgment as to the walk
I avow, I could not tie myself to any of the ancients, nor own their authority in any way. I may learn, from them; I would, I trust, gladly from any one, and own, thankfully, what was given them of God. I see in. Luther an energy of faith, for which millions of souls ought to be thankful to God—and I can certainly say I am, I may see a clearness and recognition of. the authority of Scripture in Calvin, which delivered him and those he taught, yet more than Luther, from the corruptions and superstitions which have overwhelmed Christendom, and through it the minds even of most saints. But present these to me as a standard of truth—I reject them with indignation. They were not inspired. Their teachings are not the word of God. To this I hold fast tenaciously. It is the safeguard and guide of the Church and of the saints under grace at all times, and especially in these days. The gifted men I respect, when presented to me as such would become a horror to me if they are in any way substituted for, or made to complete with, the word of God.
I am not surprised if eminent servants of God, not vessels of inspiration, did not all at once cast off every trammel, in which all Christendom, save a few persecuted ones (at that time almost rooted out by persecution, but precious in God's sight) had been bound up. I thank God, heartily, for the light and courage He gave them. But no one can say they were freed from everything that had overburthened the truth. I do not see that these eminent men were so free from human views, and what governs human judgment, according to this world, when they were framing systems for the countries they belonged to, as when they were wielding truth for the deliverance of souls from error. I do not wish to dwell upon the evil which accompanied so much good—evil for which man was responsible—because I do not see that it would be edifying, but I do not wish to blind myself where history shows me facts which ought to have their weight with my conscience. I am writing in peace, because God has delivered us through the instrumentality of these men, some of whom laid down their lives, for the gospel and their love to Christ and to souls. I have no wish to depreciate them or the work in which they were engaged—I wish I had the faith of many of them: but do not bring their doctors or their systems to me as authority. You are trenching on the authority of the word of God. Am I to believe consubstantiation? Am I to believe in baptismal regeneration? No honest man can deny that it was, generally speaking, the reformed faith, or at least the faith of the reformers, and that forgiveness of sins was obtained in it. I may be told, but they preached-justification by faith, so that it cannot be. They did preach justification by faith for the deliverance of souls, and taught baptismal regeneration when establishing a system, and tortured themselves to reconcile both. The evangelical party among the reformed have, at the present day, cast baptismal regeneration off, as freer in their ecclesiastical habits. The stricter Lutherans, at least confessional Lutherans, torture themselves to this day to reconcile both. In England every one knows where we are as to it.
But to refer to the points which engage me at this moment: it is remarkable enough that the term, “righteousness of God,” is not found in Luther's New Testament—the most unfaithful translation I know. He always says the righteousness which is valid before God—die Gerechtigkeit die vor Gott gilt. Calvin is quoted as an authority to show that Christ's living sufferings went to make up righteousness by atonement; that His life, as well as His death, were needed to complete our righteousness. But if I take his doctrine, I cannot stop here; I must believe that his suffering the torment of hell (dreadful thought!) was needed too. These are his -words: “Nor indeed is it right that the descent into hell should be omitted, in which was what is of no little moment for the effecting of redemption.... Nothing was done if Christ had departed by only a corporal death; but it was, at the same time of consequence (worth while) that He should feel the severity of divine punishment whence also it was proper that He should struggle hand to hand with the powers of hell and the horror of eternal death. We have lately cited from the prophet, that the chastisement of our peace was put on him; that He was smitten of the Father for our crimes; bruised for our infirmities; by which he signifies, put in the place of surety for the wicked; and therefore he was bound, like the guilty, to pay and satisfy all the penalties which were to be exacted from them.” Am I to adopt Calvin's view in this, of what -made out a believer's righteousness; or is it true that by one offering He has perfected forever them which are sanctified? But it is alleged, I am to receive his doctrine as to the vicarious merit of His living sufferings. Here are Calvin's words: Furthermore, as a curse, because of guilt, awaited us at the heavenly tribunal of God, in the first place is related condemnation before Pontius Pilate, President of Judaea: that we may know that the penalty to which we are liable was inflicted on the just. We could not escape the horrible judgment of God. That Christ might snatch us thence, he supported being condemned before a mortal man; yea, a wicked and profane one. Nor is it merely to secure credibility to his history that the name of the perfect is expressed, but that we may learn what Esaias teaches, “the chastisement of our peace was upon him, by his bruises we have been healed” —previously, this made hell necessary, not scourging by an unjust judge—which is right? I must confess that such a statement, as to the sufferings of Christ, is very far indeed from carrying any moral weight to my spirit—our deserving God's wrath met in any way by his standing before a human judge. Does this, in any sort of way meet or correspond to God's wrath against sin? And when it is said that with His stripes we are healed, does any person taught of God, for a moment suppose that this refers to a bodily scourging by the soldiers of Pilate, or Pilate himself, precious as this may be in our eyes? I avow, while fearing to say an irreverent word, while touching on such a subject, such interpretation is (to my judgment, and I am persuaded to every rightly taught mind) in the highest degree revolting, whether we think of the true character of Christ's sufferings, or of the true deserts of sin.
Witsius states it more simply and less offensively, yet as a system of doctrine more strongly. “Still more specially do Isa. 53:55But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5), and 1 Peter 2:2424Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Peter 2:24), assert that our healing is due to the scourging of Christ, as a part of His sufferings, when they say, by His bruises we are healed. For by that dreadful scourging, by which the whole body of the Lord Jesus was disfigured, as by one bruise, joined with other sufferings, He has merited for us, that we should be free from the buffetings of Satan, and the rod of divine burning wrath," He adds, that “besides healing by example, there remains in the scourging of Christ a demonstration of the righteousness of God.”
You have now, reader, the statements which are relied on to prove that Christ's living sufferings were vicarious and atoning. The proof drawn from Calvin and Witsius is, that “with His stripes we are healed!” refers to His scourging by Pontius Pilate and that He was judged before a tribunal of man to meet our being arraigned as guilty before God. I do not feel that this requires an answer with any sober Christian The word stripes does not even mean scourging, but the lividness left by blows. Such teaching is simply deplorable. A passage of Isaiah is quoted, “Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows,” quoted in Matt. 8:1717That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. (Matthew 8:17), “And he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses.” Now I believe that in the sympathetic exercise of His power in love Christ never remedied an ill that He did not bear it on His spirit. But this is not atonement. That atonement may be righteously necessary, that He might sympathize with sinners, in respect of what was the fruit of sin, I can well understand; but bearing on the heart in sympathy is quite another thing from atonement. To apply the principle of atonement here is simple nonsense. Was Christ sick in our place when He made atonement on the cross? He did suffer wrath and bore our, sin so as to come under it. But in these healings He was exercising power. He healed, it is true, not indifferently; He entered into our sorrows when He relieved us. Thus the passage is as precious as it is intelligible, but the only act referred to is His healing by His power. What did that atone for? Was healing vicarious to make up for our not healing? Will it be said, for our want of health? But then He should have suffered the consequence of it Himself. What was healing an atonement for? Nay, infirmity and sickness were not to be atoned for. It needed what the compassionate Lord accomplished—healing. To say that His healings, showing that He bore our sicknesses, means that healing was vicarious, has no kind of sense. The truth, moreover, is that the word is not at all that which is used for bearing sin as a burden imputed. Nor would the Spirit here accept the LXX. translation, which has ἁμαρτίαδ φέρει—bears our sins. It is the word employed in Rom. 15:11We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. (Romans 15:1): “We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please ourselves.” Was this atoning? The quotation of such passages skews only the extreme poverty of scriptural intelligence to be borne with when produced in the first dawn of light or held in systematic and traditional piety; but when reproduced as pretending to the dogmatic maintenance of truth, is as poor as it is unfounded. “The miracles themselves were the manifestation of His sin-bearing work and character.” This language shows the real character of the statement and the force of what I have said. If sin be borne before God, man must suffer; but was the exercising power in love bearing sin? It is not said in Matthew's explanation, He bore sin but took our infirmities, which are not sin, and bore our sicknesses. Wrath of God is due to sin, if it be borne; healing the sick is not bearing the wrath of God. What Matthew says may be a proof of Christ's entering in the fullest way into the sorrows of those who are healed; I believe it is. But this doctrine would destroy all the gracious, sorrowing sympathies of Christ in love: they are but bearing wrath upon Himself. The 53rd of Isaiah is the recognition by the converted Jew, in the latter day, of the way they had treated Christ, which we, of course, anticipate, but is literally applicable to the Jew. It looks at all Christ's course and appearance in the flesh, His sorrows and the way He was received. He was despised and they esteemed Him not. He bore Israel's griefs and carried their sorrows, but besides that, He was wounded for their transgressions. Was that healing the sick? The Lord laid the iniquity of them all upon Him, so He was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of my people was He stricken. This remark is connected with His death. “It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when he shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed.” Because he hath poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many,” The chapter speaks of His sorrows, and in doing this goes to their full extent and speaks of His being cut off for sin, and connects His death with this bearing of sin in the most explicit way. This is not saying that all His sorrows were sin-bearing. To say that His healing the sick was His own being wounded for our transgressions, is introducing confusion into all truth and neutralizing the value of Christ's death. Besides, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” On whom? On Christ, Jehovah's servant. But then He was the Christ before it was laid on Him. Further, “when thou shalt make His soul an offering-for sin.” Why when, if it was always? Besides, who offered himself through the eternal Spirit without spot to God! The divine person in heaven? Clearly not. If Christ was always the sin-bearer, He did not offer Himself through the eternal Spirit to God, He was always by position under sin. The free love of Christ—man—in offering Himself is entirely set aside. This is a very important point. The 53rd of Isaiah gives the general picture of the sorrows of Christ, so opposite to the unbelieving nation's estimate, and pursues them up to that great truth that He was numbered with transgressors and bare the sins of many.
The statement as regards Dr. Owen is a mis-statement. It is said, that he shows that Christ's strong crying and tears which He offered in the days of His flesh were concomitants of his sacrifice,” and in his Exposition of the Hebrews he enters fully into this, skewing that “the days of his flesh” means his life on earth, though specially consummated in Gethsemane. These life-time prayers he calls sacerdotal prayers. He quotes the psalms already quoted in proof of his averment, and shows that thus it was with Him: “not for a few days, or a short season only, but during his whole course in this world.” I do not agree with Dr. Owen in many things on this point, but it is here stated that his life-time prayers were sacerdotal prayers. And that it was thus with Him during his whole course in this world. Now, Dr. Owen states, “There was no time wherein he was not, as to his human nature, the king, priest, and prophet of his church;” but, “as to his priestly office, he neither did nor could enter upon the exercise and discharge of it, until the end of his prophetical ministry.” He speaks of unction in incarnation, declarative unction at baptism. Then, thirdly, to both these there succeeded an especial dedication to the actual performance of the duties of this office; and this was his own act which he had power for from God. This himself expresses. (John 17:19.)... In that prayer therefore of our Savior (John 17) do I place the beginning and entrance of the exercise of His priestly office.” Not only so where Dr. Owen states that from His cradle to His grave He bare all the infirmities of our nature, &c., he adds, as to His sacerdotal prayers, “But yet respect is not had here unto this whole space of time.” That is, he declares exactly the contrary of what he is made to state. Whoever reads the Thirty-first Exercitation may easily see that the whole doctrine of Dr. Owen is opposed to what is stated. “His oblation was at the same time and in the same action with His blood shedding.” His entering into the holy place “was consequential to that offering of Himself whereby He made atonement for us.” “His obtaining eternal redemption for us was by the sacrifice of Himself in His death. For redemption was by price and exchange. And the Lord paid no other price for sin and sinners but His own blood. (1 Peter 1:18, 1918Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: (1 Peter 1:18‑19).)” As regards 1 Peter 2:2424Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Peter 2:24), it is alleged that its true meaning is that Christ bore our sins up to the tree—not on it. He carried our sins during the whole of His humbled state. This ——is only want of acquaintance with the use of the expression; and the passage is only an additional proof of what I feel to be important for our souls in this matter. Avαφέρειν ἐπὶ τό is a sacrificial expression, signifying the proper offering up of the victim on the altar. Peter here compares Christ to a victim laid on the altar as our sin offering with our sins upon it. The reader has only to consult Gen. 8:2020And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. (Genesis 8:20) or Lev. 3:5, 11, 165And Aaron's sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is on the fire: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord. (Leviticus 3:5)
11And the priest shall burn it upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord. (Leviticus 3:11)
16And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savor: all the fat is the Lord's. (Leviticus 3:16) and iv. 10, 19, 26, 31, Where he will find the formula of ἀvαφέρειν ἐπὶ τό exactly what there is in Peter used for hala and katar in Hebrew; that is, the positive offering up on the altar as a sacrifice—the causing it to ascend to God or burning it. The words do not mean at all what they are stated to mean. The cross was as the altar where the victim was consumed by the fire of the proving and just judgment of God about sin and all was a sweet savor, though also for sin.
In result, this doctrine of an expiatory sin-bearing life (I will touch on the righteousness farther on) is built on no scripture ground. It sets aside the declaration that, without shedding of blood there is no remission. It denies the offering up of Christ by Himself, when a man, to be a sacrifice, a most valid truth—for He is it all His life. It perverts, in the most shocking way, such passages as, “with his stripes we are healed,” and casts, at once, both Christ's sufferings under divine wrath, as the wages of sin, and His living sympathies, into the shade, by confounding them together; making death and blood-shedding to be unessential to the first, and turning the latter into sufferings for sin under God's hand. And see the fruits. “If Paul could say, ‘die daily,' how much more Christ. His life was a daily dying. He was always 'delivered unto death.' “Was Paul suffering for sin, then, in so dying, and in an expiatory way? What an absolute proof of entire confusion of mind, as to the very nature of these things, is here displayed! We are told a whole undivided life is our expiation. Mark that, reader!—life an expiation. I ask, if such a statement be not in opposition to the universal testimony of the word of God. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” So that “without shedding of blood there is no remission.” It separates redemption from expiation, or gives redemption without blood. No sacrifice is needed for expiation. And what is death when it comes, but the consummation of a life the same in legal character as itself? He was born “under the law;” He lived “under the law;” He died “under the law.” Isaiah then, one keeping the law in life, so as to be in the perfectness of divine favor, the same thing as being under the curse of the law, because it had been broken? But it will be replied to me, but we say, that He was under that during the whole course of his life. Yes, but scripture says quite the contrary; it declares that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, as it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. I admit fully an obedience running through life, always perfect, and unto death, when it was consummated; I admit that Christ was in death perfectly agreeable to His Father. The question is not there, but in this—what expiates sin? Is wrath, and the curse, and the cup the Lord had to drink on the cross, the same as His life?
Reader, the word declares that the wages of sin is death; and Christ died to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. If the corn of wheat had not fallen into the ground and died, it had remained alone. He was once offered to bear the sins of many. We are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ. Where were we without redemption? And this is forgiveness. Where would you be without that? He hath once suffered for sins, being put to death in the flesh. If death be not written on the old man, you must be judged for its deeds. But it is only in Christ's dying it is so. “Now, once in the end of the world, he has appeared to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself.”
One passage I would yet desire to refer to God “has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” We knew no sin? Does he speak of the eternal Son before His incarnation? Clearly not. That would say nothing. It was Christ incarnate in this world. It was when by His path through this world in which His sinlessness was put to the test, it could be said He knew no sin, then it was He was made sin. God did not make the Eternal Son sin in His becoming a man, in the Word being made flesh. It would be hard to say which would be worst, the absurdity or the evil of such an assertion. If not, it was when Christ had been fully tested, and in result it could be said He knew no sin, then He was made sin. It is alleged that “during His life He was made sin for us.” When? And, remark, being made sin is clearly as an offering.
It is asked, In what sense and for what purpose was He made under the law, if from His very birth He were not the very Substitute on whom our sins were laid? Scripture will answer. “He was made under the law that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” Besides, he magnified the law and made it honorable; a matter, not without its moral importance. It was of moment to honor the law, the measure of God's requirement from His creature, at the moment he was going to take him entirely from under it, to deliver him from it. But this touches on the ground of righteousness, which I reserve for another paper.