66

former view; but, if another circumstance connected with this rite is duly considered, it will be seen to be not less strongly corroborative of the latter, for the high priest was to confess over the animal all the iniquities of the children of Israel, PUTTING THEM UPON THE HEAD OF THE GOAT,” and this as a preparatory step to his being “sent away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness.”*

It is also worthy of notice, that these original terms, when they occur in connection with sins or iniquities, never signify to bear away, but to bear a burden ; to sustain a load ; to bear the punishment of sin, the suffering due to iniquity. Hence the doctrine of this prediction is, that the load of guilt, the burden of punishment, was borne by the Messiah, that is, that his sufferings were punitive. 2. “ The chastisement of peace was upon

him.” 5. 09. Lowth, Rosenmueller, and P. Smith, agree with the common version. Michaelis, Seiler, and Gesenius employ the word punishment. Each of these supposes sin or guilt, and consequently determines the view of Messiah's sufferings we are now attempting to set forth.

3. "He was wounded for transgressions-bruised for iniquities.” v. 5. The critics employ different words here, but always such as convey the idea of crime or moral turpitude.

4. “He bare sin." v. 12. The same remark applies to this expression.

5. “ Thou shalt make his soul a sin-offering.” v. 10. bWx. A propitiatory sacrifice. (Lowth.)—A sacrifice for sin. (Smith.)--A trespass-offering. (Mich., Seil., Gesen.)— An atoning sacrifice. "(Rosen.) This requires no comment.

Thus ample is the evidence of the punitive character of Messiah's sufferings. These sufferings were not mere calamities, then, or afflictions which came upon the person without any reference to guilt, but partook

а

any deceit.

66

directly of the nature of a punishment or penalty, judicially inflicted, somehow or other, on account of moral transgression.

IV. It remains to examine whether the guilt, for which Messiah suffered a legal punishment, was his own; and on this point, the evidence is no less full, which this prediction supplies, of the substitUTIONARY character of the punishment the Messiah endured.

1. “He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.” v. 9. No wrong, neither any guile. (Lowth.)—No injustice, no guile. (Smith.)- No unrighteousness, no deceit. (Mich.)—No wrong, neither

(Seil.)-No injustice, and no deceit. (Gesen.)-Nor violence, nor deceit. (Rosen.) Language strongly affirmative of the personal innocence of the sufferer.

2. He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows." "He was wounded for our transgressions ; bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him.” v. 4, 5. Language as strongly implying that the guilt for which he suffered was that of others.

3. “ The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” v. 6. “ He shall bear their iniquities.” v. 11.

” “ He bare the sin of many." v. 12. Language in which the substitution of one for another is not merely supposed, but most distinctly expressed.

Some of these phrases have an undoubted reference to the ancient ceremony of the scape-goat. Let us, by an effort of imagination, suppose ourselves witnessing this expressive rite. The animals are selected. The sins of the people of Israel are typically transferred. The priest pronounces the imprecation of vengeance due to these sins.

The whole congregation stand round in silent awe. As the one goat is immolated and laid on the aitar, a prophet of the Lord, wrapt in holy visions, pronounces these words, “He was wounded for our transgressions.” And, as the other animal bounds from the view into the land of oblivion, the same sacred person exclaims under the same divine influence, “Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows." Would there be one, we ask, in all the solemnized assembly, who could fail to perceive that the person to whom the prediction referred was pointed out as a real vicarious sacrifice ?

Such is the testimony of this remarkable passage of holy writ to the doctrine of Christ's atonement. The more it is examined, the more decided will the evidence it affords appear.

The doctrine is interwoven with its very texture, so as not to be separated from it but by a process which must effect the destruction of the fabric itself. While the prophecy holds a place in the volume of inspiration, it will not be possible to rob the church of this precious truth. “If the Scriptures," to adopt the words of Dr. Smith, “ are of any use to mankind ; if they convey any definite sentiments, if we can at all rely on the meaning of the words, if the strength and variety of phrase here employed by the wisdom of inspiration can avail to inforın and impress our minds,

,—WE MUST believe that the Messiah would devote himself as a voluntary SACRIFICE, a real and effectual EXPIATION, suffering the heaviest woes, and all the bitterness of death, in concurrence with the gracious intentions of Jehovah, and for the salvation of rebellious men."*

The other prophecy to which we refer is

DANIEL ix. 24-27.

The reference of this splendid prediction to the Messiah is admitted on all hands. Indeed the express mention made in it of “ Messiah the Prince” precludes all doubt on this point. And its fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth is not less plainly established, by the agreement of the description with his general character and history, and by the seventy weeks, when dated from the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, terminating in the year of his crucifixion.

The death of the Messiah is obviously meant by his being “cut off;” phraseology which implies a painful, violent, and untimely death at the hands of others,

a

9

66

The character under which he should die, namely, as a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of others, is distinctly marked by a variety of impressive language. The sacrificial nature of his death is, first of all, clearly implied in the circumstance that immediately on its taking place the sacrifice and oblation should cease : thus pointing him out as the great antitypical sacrifice, the offering of which necessarily put an end to every other. To this circumstance there is supposed by some to be a reference in the clause, “to make an end of sins," v. 24, or “ sin-offerings," as the word may signify.There, is next, the very remarkable clause, “but not for himself," in which his death is most explicitly taken off the ground of personal demerit.-While the expiatory and propitiatory nature of his sacrifice is directly affirmed, in its object being declared to be “to finish transgression, to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness." v. 24.

It is unnecessary to go more at length into this part of scripture; or even to dwell longer on this department of proof. These passages of Isaiah and Daniel are sufficient to show, that evidence in support of our doctrine is not wanting in the writings of those prophets who were prompted, by the divine Spirit, to testify beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow. So conclusive, indeed, is the testimony thus supplied, that after duly considering its amount, we can only express our wonder at the wilful blindness or lamentable perversity of mind by which its force is resisted.

SECTION VII.

PROOF-THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.

The circumstance on which we are now to found is matter of fact. The sufferings of Jesus Christ are recorded in indubitable history. The argument derivable from this source, is of a stronger nature than any of the preceding. History is so much more plain and distinct than prophecy, that the evidence it affords must be higher than that which is derived from the latter.

The facts regarding the sufferings of the Son of God are not affected by the sentiments that are entertained respecting the nature and design of these sufferings. The doctrinal opinions of men may differ, but historical truths must ever remain one and unalterable. There is no room for diversity here; whoever admits the canonical authority of the writings of the evangelists, must give credit to the statements they contain ; these are subjects of belief, not of opinion. And how stands the matter of fact with regard to the sufferings of Emanuel? It will be admitted by all who believe the New Testament history, that in their nature, variety, intensity, and continuance, these sufferings were of no ordinary character.

His whole life was a scene of suffering. From his birth to his death, from the cradle to the cross, from the manger at Bethlehem to the tomb of Joseph, sorrow and suffering seem to have marked him as their

While yet a babe in his mother's arms, he was driven into exile, to escape the fury of those who sought his life; when but a youth, he was doomed to follow a servile employment, that he might procure the means of bodily subsistence; and when he became a man, he was successively reproached, persecuted, accused, condemned, and crucified. At every period of his abode on earth we meet with the same general features of suffering; we see them in the weeping infant, the pensive youth, the man of sorrows, and the bleeding victim of Calvary. He seems to have been marked out as the object of bitter hatred, the moment he entered our world ; to have been followed throughout with deadly malice; and to have been at last hunted down with implacable revenge. The cup of woe, put to his lips at his birth, was never removed till he wrung out its bitter dregs on the cross. Called to dip his feet, so soon as he was born, in the troubled