On the atonement and intercession of Jesus Christ

Front matter

OF THE

Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N.J.

Pe alll oh BT 265.2 .S96 [YC Ss Symington, William, 1795- es Oza B On the atonement and

Preface

Tue subjects discussed in the following pages, are, without doubt, the most deeply interesting that can engage the thoughts or feelings ofmen. Of the manner in which they are treated others must judge. To prevent disappointment, it may be remarked, that it was not so much the Author’s intention to treat them practically, as to explain, establish, and vindicate them, as grand leading rrurus of the gospel of the Son of God, which are, unhappily, much misunderstood, neglected, and impugned in the present day.

The writers,to whose labours he has been indebted for assistance, will be found referred to, and the extent of his obligations acknowledged, in the course of the work itself. He has often, since he commenced this undertaking, had occasion to regret the remoteness of his situation, at a distance from those stores of learning to which he might otherwise have had access, and from which he might have been enabled to enrich his pages. j

On the subject of Atonement, writers of the greatest eminence have, in every age, exerted their talents. The labours of Archbishop Magee, and of Dr. J. PyeSmith, stand pre-eminent in modern times. The former writer has accumulated a body of proof for the reality of the atonement, which will serve to transmit to posterity his fame for biblical knowledge, acute thinking, and learned research. But, besides regretting that his varied materials had not been arranged in a more orderly and useful form, the friends of true religion have to lament that the opinions of this distinguished author, on some vital points, should have been not only defective but erroneous. These defects of the Archbishop have been supplied by the labours of Dr. Smith, who, in his Four Discourses, has given a masterly view of what may be called the philosophy of the Atonement.

There are other writers who treat, some of the necessity, and others of the extent, of the Atonement. But it appeared desirable that there should exist a work embracing a view of the whole subject ; so comprehensive as not to fatigue the mind on any one topic, and yet so copious as not altogether to disappoint the serious and anxious inquirer, who should wish to obtain an adequate acquaintance with all the leading branches of this interesting and absorbing theme. ‘To furnish such a work has been the aim of the present wniter. He is not aware of the existence of any treatise on precisely the same plan. ‘That of Dr. Dewar, he believes, comes nearest to it. This opinion, however, is formed, simply from the title of the doctor’s volume. As it appeared after the present undertaking was projected, the Author —whether wisely or not he pretends not to say—abstained from reading so much as a sentence of it, as he did not reckon its publication any good reason why he should abandon his purpose, and he was anxious not to embarrass his mind with any coincidences that might exist betwixt that writer’s plan and his own. The subject is ef sufficient magnitude and importance to warrant the employment _ofmany minds. It is but a narrow and contracted view that could ui)

Mi! PREFACE.

lead any one to suppose, on such a subject, that because some had already written upon it, others should refrain from directing the attention of the public to it again. No. The theme is one on which all the moral creatures of God may profitably exert their powers without interruption. The subject is indeed exhaustless—it is a theme for eternity! Every writer, too, has hisown mode of treating a subject, and his own proper circle of readers, who will peruse with interest what he has written, while the superior productions of others on the same topic may never be known to exist.

On the subject of the Intercession, the number of writers has been much more limited. It is, of course, introduced in works of systematic theology, as one of the functions of the Saviour’s priesthood ; but it has seldom received a full and separate discussion. ‘To be sure, it admits not of the same amplitude of remark as the other topic ; but, in a practical and consolatory point of view, its interest is not exceeded even by the Atonement. ‘Thetwo are, however, inseparably connected ; although we fear that, in this instance, men have not been always sufficiently aware of the evil of putting asunder what God has joined together. The treatise of Charnock on this point is the most complete that has come under the Author’s notice.

The present work was undertaken from the impulse of motives with which, perhaps, the reader is not greatlyconcerned. ‘Tosupply what he conceived to be a desideratum in theological literature—to counteract the evils of prevalent erroneous sentiments—and to leave, in the district which has been the scene of his labours, some memorial of those official services which have been based on the principles of Atonement and Intercession, are among the inducements by which he was stimulated to enter upon, and to prosecute, this work. When it had been little more than begun, all progress was suspended for nearly a year, in consequence of bodily indisposition. And, even after it pleased God to give health to resunie it, it has been carried forward only at such snatches of leisure as could be obtained, amid a considerable variety both of official avocation and domestic affliction.

The writer cannot close without giving expression to the gratitude he feels to Him who has permitted him to complete a work on which he had set his heart. And he now commends it, with all due humility, to the blessing of that divine Intercessor, who can render the feeblest services of his people useful to men, and acceptable to God.

STRANRAER, May, 1834.

Section I. Nature Of Atonement

PAGE.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS THE THREE SYSTEMS ' . : ° : : . 2 Socinian ; ; i : : . : ; PF ib.

Middie ..? x : : : : : ‘ : 3 Catholic ‘ . : ; ‘ : : : : 4 Definition of Atonement . 5 : , : : » edi 1S Terms explained . : : ; : : : : 7 Atonement : . ; ; : ‘ ; ° ib.

Reconciliation : : : . : ‘ . : 8 Redemption - . ; ; ; : ; . ib, Propitiation , ; , : . : : ° 3 Satisfaction ‘ > ° . ; ; ° : 10 Substitution ; : : ; : ‘ : ’ Il Vicarious , ; . , - : ‘ : 12 Expiation : , . : é » : ib, SECTION If, OBJECTIONS TO ATONEMENT CONSIDERED. i, Ossec. It represents the Deity in an unfavourable light : 16 Repty 1. The objection proceeds ona mistaken assumption of what the atonement is designed to effect : 17 2, It assumes, what is not pr ed. that God is ready to pare don sin without satisfaction : ; 18 II, Ossxc. It is inconsistent with the Divine Immutability - 20 Repty 1. The inspired writersuse sense which seems to imply 4; achangeinGod_ . : ; : ; ; 21 2. The change i is not in God but in man 25 III. Ozssecr. It is incompatible with the eragieus nature of pardon E , 27 Repuy I. Justice and mercy are not opposed to one another. 28 2, The objection overlooks the ea of Christ’s satisfaction : : ; 29 3. The bestowment of pardon i is an act of grace - : ib. 4. Pardon could not be shown to be gracious without atonement. ai . 31 IV. Onsec. It supposes the innocent to suffer for the guilty ; be Repuy |. The innocent do suffer for the guilty. ; iby eos = 2, The sentiment of our opponents supposes the same ae vill CONTENTS.

$. Christ was legally, though not personally guilty :

4. Christ suffered by divine ase and his own volun-~ tary agreement .

5. The ends of punishment are more completely subserved by this arrangement : . : ‘ : The case admits of a compensation . : : 7. The case altogether peculiar : : . . ’ V. Oxzsec. An Atonement is unnecessary . : . °

Repxy 1. The objection is presumptuous. _ 2. There may be reasons for its necessity of which we are ignorant. . 3. The objection ee. an inadequate view of the evil of sin 4, It proceeds on an | imperfect notion of the nature of salvation e ° ° e ° ° ° ° °

Section II. Necessity Of Atonement

Term necessity explained, ° : : : . . . Necessity proved from I, The perfections of God, . . : : ‘ .

Majesty : : . . . : Truth . : . : . .

Holiness : : : , . .

Justice == - : : d : : F Goodness : ‘ . .

Il. The nature of God’s moral government — . d ° : The letter ofthe law. : . : The nature of the law . : :

The law cannot be relaxed : The purposes of moral government, III. The mefficacy of every other thing to procure pardon ofsin . Inefficacy ofrepentance .

Inefficacy of future amendment IV. The assertions of Holy Writ

Luke xxiv. 26 4 OR is ia: AE ILOME

Heb, 1X. 22, Q3 e e e . e ° .

Section IV

PROOF OF ATONEMENT—ANCIENT SACRIFICES. Antiquity of sacrifices : : : . : Universal prevalence of sacrifices. . ‘ : : ‘ : The ancient sacrifices expiatory . 5 : . : : The origin of ancient sacrifices 3 5 5 e 4 Objections to their divine origin answered, ‘ : -

The design ofancient sacrifices. ; : ; ;

Section V. Proof—levitical Sacrifices

Sacrifices a part of the Levitical services. < : The Jewish sacrifices propitiatory . : . ;

116 118

CONTENTS.

Not in themselves sufficient to take away sin : : 4 , Designed to prefigure Christ. . : . : . : Argument hence in favour of atonement ’ . . .

Section VI. - Proof—prophecy

Tsaitah li, . Pe. tak 5 . § 4 a ° " Daniel ix. 24—27 é 5 ; : F 3 ; :

Section VII. Proof—the Sufferings Of Christ

The facts of the case . : . . : . . ’ ,

The explanation of the facts . , Not explained on the principle of retributive justice : Not possibly disciplinary . . : : Not merely confirmatory of his doctrine : . . Not only exemplary . . : : : : .

Section VIII. Proof—new Testament Writings

Passages which speak of atonement or reconciliation ., . ’ Passages which treat of propitiation Fs . . Passages in which the term ransom or redemption occurs Passages in which Christ is said to be made sin or a curse Passages in which Christ is said to have been made a sacrifice. Passages in which the language of substitution is employed .

Section IX. Matter Or Substance Of Atonement

Christ’s sufferings alone, : . . . : .

The whole of his “sufferings

The sufferings of his soul, and of the concluding period of his life in particular .

The sufferings of Christ and those of the wicked in the place of woe not precisely the same os ,

Section X. Value Of Atonement

Relation of cause and effect

The circumstances which constitute the value of Christ’s death are The dignity of his person . . . . . . His relationship to man ; : His freedom from all personal obligation tothelaw His being at his own disposal ‘ . : : . His being voluntary . . ‘ . . . . The appointment God. , : . :

ix

148 158

190 195

197 201

208 216 217 224 226 231

- x CONTENTS.

= SECTION XI.

EXTENT OF ATONEMENT.

Pace. i. Explanations 237

The infinite intrinsic worth of Christ’s atonement admitted on the one hand . : 238 The limited application of it admitted on the other . . 239

‘The divine intention with regard to the extent of its objects, is the point in dispute ° ; i : 240 If. Arguments for a definite’atonement ‘ : ‘ ‘ ‘ 241 The divine purpose . : . ‘ P ; ; ib. The rectitude of God. . ‘ : : , ‘ 244 The covenant of grace. ° : . F , 245 The very nature ofatonement d : ; 246 The resurrection and intercession of Christ : ' 249 The work of the Spirit . ; : ib.

The limited application and revelation of atonement. 253 The absurdity of all other suppositions . é . : 255 The direct testimony of scripture ; ‘ . f 259 III, Objections to a definite atonement considered : ‘ : 265 It is derogatory to the honour and merits of Christ : ib. It supposes a redundancy of merit . : : } : 267 The universal gospel offer . ‘ ° : . 270 The universal terms employed in scripture : Q277

The possibility of those perishing for whom Christ died 294

Section XII. Results Of Atonement

It illustrates the character of God : : ; : : . 304 It vindicates the divine moral government : : : : 307 It demonstrates the evilofsin . i F : , ‘ 310 It secures a perfect and eternal salvation A : 312

It opens a way for the exercise of Divine mercy, encourages sinners to rely on the mercy of God, and awakens in saints plousemotions . : ‘ : 317 It affects the divine dispensations toward our world A 322 It furnishes an eternal theme of contemplation to the whole universe of moral creatures . ’ ’ ‘ ‘ ‘ . 330 PART II,

INTERCESSION.

SECTION I, REALITY OF INTERCESSION, Intercession the correlate of atonement 3 4 A , 333

Necessary to the fulfilment of the covenant of grace ‘ ‘ 334 Supposed in the perfection of Christ’s priesthood : wh 5) ee

CONTENTS.

‘The necessities of God’s ih oo require it . . Not inconsistent with God’s love to his people . Not derogatory to the honour of Christ : :

Section II. Nature Of Intercession

Terms explained . } . é . : :

Inwhatitconsists . . .

Appearing before God, . ° A Exhibiting his sacrifice . : : : Intimating his will. : . . :

Whether vocal orsymbolical . . : ;

Section III. Matter Of Intercession

The persons for whom Christ intercedes The elect only , ‘ ° ‘ Saar All the elect ’ x . < ; Each of the elect s : ; : ‘ The things for which he intercedes § “Being brought into astate of grace « 3 Daily pardon of sin : ° : : Protection from Satan ; : 4 .

Progressive sanctification . 5 ‘ Peace and intercourse with God § ; Acceptance of services . ‘ A Complete and eternal salvation ‘ A be SECTION IV.

PROPERTIES OF INTERCESSION:

Skilful S : ; é ; ; Holy . . . : . . . . : Compassionate . : : : F ‘ : Prompt . : : : ‘ : . ’ : Earnest ° . ° ° F ° ° ° Authoritative 3 P . ; d 5 : Peculiar . 3 A : ; fi i f Prevalent F - F ; : é - Constant . errs ; - ; é é

Section V. Results Of Intercession

It displays the love of God and of eee ¥ : :

It proves the divinity of Christ . : : It shows the efficacy of Christ’s death. ‘ , It affords security to the people of God : : The sin of dishonouring Christ’s intercession. :

The duty of daily seeking an interestin it , ,

351 354 305

387 389 390 gra i 5 i) t } frit Nd Ce HBL Et f i ; AZ s j C nd CL. ar if ae aior ei hore / , s j \ : : at Rad wn i Oo 1 a i 7 »% > + : “eh i i ee i = * Z ; eee tds woe U : | 3 bid | i loa ! ~. i a ee J M Oma. ss Pt Aye % ter. Ay? i te eS erie: ; ie ae : i e alaahy 4 at» af, OTe, a ih Oar et Be 10, ; aks \ Zs eo : é ’ 2, ie F f a 4 m Bostisi | tae tr ee a <f Kt

‘ 4 CI 3957 4 , ; \ ' ' 4 : Rit | a q ey 7, Y ‘ ‘ ’ j fier og y aes . a te ara 5 y aa Off y i 5 of). ! fF. :

és c P Sp!

ay nl

j > ~ s o> r j Se Soe ae ‘oleae “f § te eben ) x;

} , is’ o em id, ey eile vi ae oe “ i roviekien:)

¥, 5

Salas 3h Bem. hay Ve yt sg Saag Ny 32 ie j ae ad “us

_ PART FIRST.

ane: eo

EMEN i NT

RBA, Ti ao

Section I. Nature Of Atonement

How can man be justified with God? This is the most important, by far, of all the questions that can ever awaken human inquiry. From the universal consciousness of guilt, it may be presumed, that every individual of our race, has, at’ one time or another, been forced to utter a similar interrogation.

The very language in which it is expressed con-- veys the idea of difficulty ; and one can scarce conceive of its being used without being accompanied, in the countenance of the inquirer, with at least a look of deep anxiety, if not an air of utter despondency. It is a question, too, on which the mind of man, unassisted by revelation, finds itself utterly undone. The light of reason, the lamp of philosophy, the torch of science, have been unable to shed a single ray of hope on this momentous sub- — ject; and, left to these, we should have been doomed to the blackness of darkness for ever. Not that there have been no attempts to answer, without the aid of inspiration, the all-momentous question ; but the answers have ever been such as were calculated: to bewilder and deceive, rather than to quiet the apprehensions of an awakened conscience, or to © impart true peace of soul. The utmost that school-

B be 1

= men, or philosophers, or natural religionists, have been able to effect in this department, has tended only to apply palliatives to the wounded heart, or to administer stupifying opiates to the patient. ‘Forgers of lies, physicians of no value’ were they all, leaving their patients, so soon as the temporary effect of their worthless expedients went off, as ready as ever to exclaim, in mental agony, Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there ?

_ To the light of divine revelation alone does it belong to irradiate this moral gloom ; to the wisdom of Jehovah was it reserved, to point out a sovereign remedy for the deep-rooted malady of human guilt. This he has done in his word, which contains full, multifarious, and satisfactory information on the most important of all human inquiries. All who believe the scriptures, profess to regard the work of Christ as the only remedy for moral evil. They all agree in considering that he has conferred the greatest possible benefit on the world, and that he is to be regarded as the only Saviour of men from sin and wrath. But by those who agree thus far very different views are taken respecting the nature of the remedy Christ has provided. These views may be conveniently reduced to three, which have been distinguished by the names of the Socinian, the Middle, and the Catholic.

‘The Socinian system is founded on the supposition, that pure goodness, or unmixed benevolence, constitutes the whole character of God. Discarding vindictive justice, the abettors of this opinion represent him as ready to forgive the sins of his creatures, simply on their repentance. Nothing requires to be done by Christ to procure pardon ; he has only to reveal or make it known. His priestly office is obliterated, or merged into the prophetical. His work is to instruct mankind by doctrine and by example; andthe sole value of his sufferings and death springs from their tendency to confirm his doctrinal testimony. ‘To this system they ingeniously accommodate all the language of scripture regarding the gospel remedy. When it is said, Christ ‘died for us,’ the meaning is, that he died for our benefit. He is called *‘ Mediator,’ only because he came from God to make known the divine mercy to men. He ‘saves from sin’ by the influence of his precepts and example, in leading men to the practice of holiness. His ‘blood cleanseth from all sin,’ because it was shed in confirmation of that doctrine which is the strongest incentive to virtue. ‘ We have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins,’ in as much as we are led, by the consideration of his death, to that repentance which is sure to obtain forgiveness under the merciful constitution of the divine government. Respecting this system, it is only necessary, at present, to request our readers to consider how ill it accords with the views given in scripture of the exceeding malignity of sin; how inconsistent it is with other features of the divine | character; how much at variance with the letter and spirit of revelation ; and how utterly irreconcilable with the exalted nature of the mediatory reward. .

The Middle system rests on the supposition that a certain power to pardon sin was conferred on Christ in consequence of what he did. Like the former, it discards the idea of anything being done to procure pardon, but holds that Jesus, by his obedience and sufferings, acquired a power to save. The friends of this system, while they allow that God could freely forgive the sins of his creatures without any satisfaction, conceive it right in itself that some distinction should be put between innocents and penitents—that, while the former are accepted for their own goodness, the acceptance of the latter should proceed on some principle which shall serve to mark their character as transgressors, and to prevent them from feeling on a perfect equality with those who have never deviated from the commandments of God. These purposes are supposed to be served by sinners being pardoned, on. profession of penitence, for the sake of something done by Christ, which entitles him to intercede for their deliverance as one friend intercedes on behalf of another. In some respects this scheme may be thought nearer the truth than the former, but it is open to substantially the same objections. It gives a most defective view of the divine character. It does not serve to explain the tenor of scripture language respecting the work of Christ: not to speak of its failing to account for the peculiarity and severity of the Redeemer’s sufferings. The Catholic system, so called because it seems to have been held by the great body of Christians since the days of the apostles, is founded on the ers that God is just as well as merciful. It maintains that the pardon of sin is procured by the | work of Christ, by which he gave satisfaction to the : Justice of God on behalf of those to be redeemed i

This is what is commonly known by the doctrine of ATONEMENT, deemed, in every age of the church, of such transcendent importance as to deserve the most complete and patient discussion. Such is the system which it is our object to explain, prove, and defend. In doing so, the others must, of course, necessarily fall to be refuted; and the objections against them, which have already been hinted at, will be more fully illustrated and confirmed.*

It is important, at the outset, to have a correct definite idea of the doctrine of which we are to treat. Many definitions have been given. Perhaps the substance may be comprehended in the following :—The atonement means, THAT PERFECT SATISFACTION GIVEN TO THE LAW AND JUSTICE OF GOD, BY THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST, ON BEHALF OF ELECT SINNERS OF MAN- KIND, ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THEY ARE DELIVERED FROM CONDEMNATION.

This statement supposes that mankind have offended against the law and justice of God. The fact of man’s sin cannot be denied. And that sin is an offence against the almighty moral Governor, which calls forth his high displeasure, cannot be questioned, without blasphemously supposing that he makes no distinction between moral good and moral evil; that obedience and disobedience, righteousness and sin, are to him objects of equal indifference or complacency.

That God, being offended, requires to be satisfied,

* For a more complete delineation of the three systems, see Principal Hill’s Lectures in Divinity (vol. ii, pp. 398 —434), to which we have been indebted in drawing up the above abstract.

B?

PTET

AO pT is also supposed in the statement. This is a point, the evidence of which will fall to be presented afterwards. We now call the attention to it as a matter of fact, and content ourselves with remarking, that the contrary supposes either a want of truth in his professing to be offended, or a want of power to punish the offender.

It is farther supposed, in our definition of the doctrine, that the requisite satisfaction is given by a substitute, not by the offenders themselves. Satisfaction may be given by the offender himself, when what is required for this purpose is not previously due to the party offended ; but where this is the case, if satisfaction be given at all, it must be by a substitute. The case before us is of the latter kind. To whatever men can perform, the divine Lawgiver has a prior claim on other grounds, a claim as strong as he has to that the non-performance of which constitutes the original ground of offence. Into the scripture doctrine of atonement the idea of substitution enters as an essential element.

On account of the satisfaction given by the substitute, the party offended is pleased to pardon the offenders, and to be reconciled to them. This is another thing supposed in the doctrine. Thére — could be no atonement without this. God is pleased to accept the satisfaction offered by his Son, and on this ground to dispense pardon and reconciliation to sinners.

The only other thing included in the definition is, that the persons on whose behalf the atonement is made, are a definite number of mankind; not angels, but men; not all men, but elect sinners of the human family.

To prevent ambiguity, it may be proper, before proceeding farther, to give a brief explanation of the principal terms in common. use on this subject.

ATONEMENT. (4p53—xaraddAnyn.)—This is the characteristic appellation of the doctrine. It occurs frequently in our English translation of the scriptures, but only once in the New Testament. The Hebrew word which is so translated signifies a covering. The verb means to cover, to draw over ; whence it comes, by an easy and natural process, to signify to forgive, to expiate, to propitiate ; that is, to cover an offence from the eye of offended justice by means of an adequate compensation. | The term is applied to the mercy-seat, which was the lid or covering of the ark of the covenant, a divinely appointed symbol closely connected with the presentation of sacrifices on the day of.expia- _ tion. The idea that seems to be expressed by this word, is that of averting some dreaded consequence by means of a substitutionary interposition. It thus fitly denotes the doctrine of salvation from sin and wrath, by a ransom of infinite worth.—The Greek word more closely harmonises with the English term atonement. It signifies reconciliation, or the removal of some hinderance to concord, fellowship, ° or good agreement. This is the true import of the term AT-ONE-MENT, the act of reconciling or uniting parties at variance. ‘The next day, he (Moses) showed himself unto them, as they strove ; and would have set them aT ONE again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?* Sin has placed God and man apart from one another ; all harmony between them has been broken up; and those who once dwelt together in perfect concord have been separated and disjoined. What Christ has done has had the effect of reconciling the parties—of restoring them to a state of one-ness with each other. The Deity is at-oned ; God is brought to be at-one with his people; the work of the Redeemer is a proper at-one-ment. ‘We joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom - we have received the aT-ONE-MENT.’

ReEconciLiaTion.—This term occurs in both the Old and New Testaments several times. But it is generally, if not always, used as a translation of the original words above explained. Indeed, as has already been remarked, it is quite synonymous with the term atonement, involving the same ideas and serving the same purposes. It supposes bringing into a state of good agreement parties who have had cause to be at variance, as is the case with God and his sinful creature man. It may farther be understood to express the effecting of harmony between two seemingly incompatible principles in the character and government of the the great legislator—equityfand sovereignty, justice and grace.

REDEMPTION. (Ni12—aodurgwois.)—This term is borrowed from certain pecuniary transactions among men, as the release of an imprisoned debtor by

liquidating his debt, or the deliverance of a captive by paying aransom, These are transactions with