destroy us? I know thee who thou art THE HOLY ONE of God." Such is the evidence that Christ did not bring himself under the curse. Some of these passages are quite as decisive in favour of the innocence of the Saviour's nature, as of that of his life. That he was not born under the curse is as unequivocally taught as that he did not bring himself under it. Indeed, an innocent life would seem to afford very satisfactory proof of an innocent nature. We can conceive of a holy nature lapsing into sin, as has been exemplified both in angels and men; but how a holy life, a life free from the slightest taint of corruption, could spring from a nature in every degree corrupt, is, we must say, to us utterly inconceivable. It seems a natural impossibility. An impure fountain cannot but send forth impure streams: a corrupt tree cannot but bear corrupt fruit. To contend therefore, as some have done, for the sinlessness of the Saviour's life, and yet to maintain the sinfulness of his nature, appears to us to be grossly contradictory and paradoxical. But of the strict innocence of the Saviour's nature, of its perfect freedom from whatever should entitle it to the character of fallen,' we should reckon his own words as decisive: -The prince of this world hath nothing IN ME. To the same effect is the testimony of the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, who is holy, (6105) signifying purity of nature, as distinguished from harmless' (axaxos) meaning freedom from evil in respect of external conduct, and also from 'undefiled,' (auíavros) which seems to denote purity of official qualifications and administration. Nor can there be any thing more unequivocal than the language of the angel, when, making known his miraculous. birth, he calls him that Holy thing,' (rò aycov). This refers to what was conceived and born of Mary; not 'fallen and sinful flesh,' but a 'holy thing,' essentially and naturally holy from the first moment of its existence. 6 6 The miraculous nature of the conception of our Lord's humanity affords additional proof of this point. By being born of a virgin, being in a peculiar sense the seed of the woman, the human nature of Christ escaped all connexion with the Adamic covenant. It was at once connected with the race of man, and yet free from the contamination springing from Adam's federal representation of his natural descendants. * Psalm xvi. 10; Is. liii. 9; Luke i. 35; John viii. 29, 46.—xiv. 30⚫ 2 Cor. v. 21; Heb. iv. 15.-vii. 26; 1 Pet. ii. 22; 1 John iii. 5 Mark vii. 37; Matt. xxvii. 4; Luke xxiii. 4; Mark i. 24. 'This is what constitutes the incarnation the great mystery of godliness, and but for this it is not only not easy to assign any good reason for the miraculous nature of his conception at all, but even difficult to vindicate it from consequences that are necessarily and positively injurious. If, even notwithstanding its miraculous production, his human nature was fallen and sinful, one can scarce help asking for what purpose a miracle was wrought at all in the matter, seeing that fallen and sinful humanity could have been produced without any miracle whatever. But the miracle was not only in this respect useless it was, at the same time, calculated to convey the impression that the human nature of Christ differed essentially, in this particular, from man's nature in general,— an impression which, on the supposition against which we are contending, was false and delusive. We wait not to argue the holiness of Christ's human nature from the oneness of his person; from the necessity of such holiness to his being a proper example to his people; from the impossibility otherwise of his death being voluntary; and from his having survived the conflict with the powers of darkness and the enemy death, which is not else to be accounted for. The discussion of these points would carry us too far away from our general design. But we deem it necessary to mention them. How full, and varied, and unequivocal the testimony of Scripture may be, there are many who will not hesitate unceremoniously to set aside the evidence of particular texts, by having recourse to some vague or loose mode of interpretation. For the sake of such, it must be made known, that the view taken of these particular texts is fully borne out and supported by certain general principles, which, while they harmonize with the meaning attached to individual passages of Scripture, themselves peremptorily and independently require us to admit the immaculate holiness of Christ's atoning sacrifice. The perfect innocence of the Saviour's nature and life— thus, we hope, satisfactorily established-enters essentially into that which constitutes the moral worth or intrinsic value of his vicarious sufferings. It shows him to have been free from all legal obligation to suffering in himself. The law of God had in this way no claim upon him for subjection to its curse; and he was thus far at liberty to suffer the penalty due to sin, on behalf of others. It is on this principle that the apostle speaks of his personal innocence as essential to his sacerdotal character and work. Such an high priest,' says he, became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, who needeth not daily to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins, and then for the people's.'. IV. It was further necessary to the validity of Christ's atonement that he should be entirely at his own disposal. creatures. It is not enough that the substitute, being innocent, is free from the claims of the law to which he gives satisfaction for others. He may be under obligations to another law, the fulfilment of whose demands may render it impossible for him to occupy the place of a surety. His whole time and energies may be thus, as it were, previously engaged, so as to put it out of his power to make a transfer of any part of them for the behoof of others. This is, indeed, the case with all Whatever service they are capable of performing, they owe originally and necessarily to God. They are, from their very nature, incapable of meriting any thing for themselves, much more for others. The right of self-disposal belongs not to creatures. They and all that pertains to them, are the property of Him who made and preserves them. They are under law to God, and at liberty to dispose of themselves only as that law directs. It thus appears that an angel of light, though perfectly innocent, and free from all the claims of that law which binds man over to punishment, could not have furnished a sacrifice, of value to atone for human guilt. Angels are creatures, and as such, are necessarily under law to God. It is true, they are not under the covenant which God made with man, but the law under which they exist has a claim upon them for the full amount of the service they are capable of performing, and thus denies them all right of giving satisfaction to another law, in behalf of a different order of creatures. But the Son of God, not being a creature, was not only not under the law which man had broken, but he was under no other law; he was not only innocent, but free to do, or to suffer as might seem to him to be fit. He was Lord of all, and subject to none. He, and he only, was entitled to assume such language as this:-Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself: I HAVE POWER TO LAY IT DOWN, and I HAVE POWER TO TAKE IT AGAIN." He here not merely claims to have acted voluntarily, but to have had a right, a legal right, (éžovola) so to do. This is what no creature could ever say. In giving his life a ransom for many, Christ gave what was strictly nis own, and entirely at his own disposal. Without this, it does not appear that what he did could have possessed any value; subjection to one law could not have been yielded without the violation of another, and this was sufficient to deprive it of all moral worth. V. Christ, in making atonement, was perfectly voluntary; and here we have another ingredient in its value. Without this, it is clear, all the other ingredients were of no avail. Let his person be ever so dignified; let him be ever so closely related to man; let him be as free as possible from all moral contamination; nay, let him be entirely at his own disposal; it is manifest that, unless he chose actually to dispose of himself in the manner in question, no validity could attach to what he did. Vicarious satisfaction can never be compulsory; voluntariness enters into its very essence. Every well-ordered mind revolts at the idea of one person being compelled to suffer for another. So much is this a dictate of reason, that even the heathen reckoned it an unpropitious omen, if the animal showed any reluctance. In all that he did to make atonement for sin, Jesus manifested no degree of reluctance. At every step we meet with evidence of the most perfect willingness. To the proposal in the eternal covenant he gave his cheerful consent,- Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, burnt-offering and sinoffering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.' (Psal. xl. 6-8.) It was the same spirit that dictated the well-known reply to his mother, when yet young,—' How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business.' (Luke ii. 49.) At a later period he said, 'I lay down my life: no man (ovdɛis, no one) taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. (John x. 17, 18.) In no instance did he manifest the slightest symptom of backwardness. The inspired writers speak of him as submitting to every suffering with a fixed determination of purpose which nothing could shake. 'He gave his back to the smiters and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair-He gave himself a ransom for all-He gave himself for us-He bowed his head and gave up the ghost.' (Is. 1. 6; 1 Tim. ii. 6; Eph. v. 25; John xix. 30.) His death was as voluntary as any part of his sufferings. The Roman soldiers, indeed, were employed in crucifying him; but we err egregiously if we suppose that he died otherwise than voluntarily. I lay down my life; no one taketh it from me,' is his own unequivocal and emphatic lan 6 guage. He died, neither from disease nor exhaustion. Just before he expired, he had strength enough to cry with a loud voice, It is finished.' He could then, or at any other moment, had it so pleased him, have stepped down from the cross, to the confusion of those who assailed him with the bitter taunt, If thou be the Christ, come down from the cross and save thyself.' But, then, the Scriptures would not have been fulfilled, nor the redemption of man have been effected. Nevertheless, his own decisive words, as well as the fact of his divinity, leave us without a doubt that, had he not cheerfully given it up of his own accord, neither earth nor hell could have wrung from him his life. The very time of his death was that of his own choice; for neither could the barbarities of his persecutors hasten, nor the lingering punishment of crucifixion protract it beyond the period in which he determined himself to yield up the ghost; and, accordingly, when the soldiers came to break his legs, they found that he was dead already. The voluntary nature of the Saviour's death, it may here be remarked by the way, affords a strong argument in proof of the divinity of his person, and also of the spotless innocence of his humanity. Had he been a creature, even a super-angelic creature, brought into being for the purpose of dying for us, his death could not have been said to be voluntary. Much less could this be said if his human nature had been in any sense sinful, for then he must have died of necessity, not of free-will; he must have died, as has been said; by the common property of flesh to die because it was accursed in the loins of our first parents,' and then the doctrine of atonement with all its comforting influences, must have been given up. This willingness of Christ to suffer and to die, was not the result of ignorance. A person may thoughtlessly engage to submit to treatment, of the amount of which he may not at the moment of engagement, be aware; and, when the reality comes to be known, he may, from the force of honour or some such principle, persevere in his determination to suf.. fer. But such suffering could scarcely be called voluntary. Such, at all events, was not that of Christ. He knew, from the first, the full amount of what he was to endure. It was, with the perfect knowledge of all that should befall him in the Jewish capital, that 'he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.' (Luke ix, 51.) He knew every bitter ingredient that was infused into the cup of woe, when he said, 'The cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drink it.' |