Page images
PDF
EPUB

which the word for sustained, in the preceding head of discourse, is plainly changed. For, in the sense of, for the benefit of, in the room of, or instead of, is very easily and naturally applied to persons. But we cannot say that one suffers instead of, the sins of another, or, for the benefit of, the sins of anoth

er.

We are necessitated to understand the phrase in another way, viz. to suffer on account of, the sins of another. The meaning in such a case is, to endure suffering which another who had sinned himself deserved; to undergo the penalty which he had brought upon himself, but which (for some reason or other) was not inflicted upon him. Whether the penalty to be endured by the substitute shall be specifically the same as that which was denounced against the original transgressor, must depend, of course, on the will of him in whose power is the administration of punitive justice. An equivalent is in most cases, plainly all that the nature and ends of punitive justice require.

The Scriptures are filled with assertions, that Christ died for our sins. Mr. D. has selected passages appropriate to his purpose. But when he says, (as in the explanation just quoted,) that to die for sin, is to suffer death as a manifestation of the displeasure due to sin," and again, at the bottom of p. 26, that "Christ suffered death, as the manifestation of the anger of God due to our sins," we are not sure that we understand exactly what he means. We suppose him to mean that the sufferings inflicted upon Christ, were a manifestation of divine displeasure against sin, inasmuch as he stood in the place of sinners, who deserved that displeas

ure.

If this be his meaning it is not plainly expressed. He ought to say, that by the sufferings of Christ a manifestation was made of God's displeasure against sin.

On the whole, this head of dis

course is less clearly and definitely explained, than the preceding one. The simple idea of one's suffering for the sins of another, is, that the penalty due to the other was inflicted on him. At least this is the original Scriptural idea. We in our vernacular language commonly employ the term in a greater latitude. We speak of children bearing the iniquities of their fathers, when evil of any kind has come upon them, in consequence of their fathers' sin. Thus, the children of robbers and murderers suffer in their feelings, their property and their good name, on account of their fathers' offences; yet they do not suffer the specific punishment which their fathers deserved, viz. that of death upon the gallows. But in Scripture, (the case of Christ's sufferings excepted,) the phrase is usually employed in a more strict and literal manner, and is equivalent to suffering the penalty which another had deserved. In respect, however, to Christ's suffering for sinners, that he did not endure the specific penalty which they deserved, is out of all question. The horrors of a guilty conscience, the endless woe of hell, and the despair which tortures its agonizing sufferers, Christ never did and never could suffer. When it is said, then, that he died for our sins, the phrase is plainly employed with a latitude of meaning, somewhat resembling that which we assign to it in our own vernacular language, viz. On account of our sins, he endured sufferings. Yet, that he endured them in our room stead, is necessarily implied by the usage of the phrase in question; i. e. the sufferings which he bore, were equivalent to those which we deserved, and were endured in the room or stead of them. This we apprehend to be the simple, natural, and Scriptural meaning of the phraseology in question.

ог

3. Christ died for the forgiveness or pardon of our sins. Forgive

ness is defined by Mr. D. to be "the remission of punishment." To die for our forgiveness is then, as he avers, "to die in order that we may be delivered from the punishment of our sins. The passages quoted by him from the Scriptures, sufficiently establish the position laid down.

But Mr. D. has not marked here the new relation which, the word for sustains. It is neither sufferings for men, nor for sin, but for the remission of sin. The sense of it then, is like that of the Greek si (which in this case corresponds to it) viz. for the sake of, in order that, i. e. in order that the remission of sins might be obtained. But this might be said, if Christ by his death only promoted the moral influence of truth upon us, and its efficacy in bringing us to repentance. It cannot, therefore, be considered as one of the phrases which certainly determine the vicarious or expiatory nature of the Saviour's death.

4. Christ was a sin offering and a sacrifice for our sins. Here we come to a more definite and satisfactory view of the expiatory nature of the death of Christ. All the terms heretofore considered are capable (in themselves) of another interpretation. Whether those now before us are so will be seen in the sequel.

[blocks in formation]

the

After showing that the writers of New-Testament entertained such a view of the nature of sin and trespass-offering, our author proceeds;

But was Christ a Sacrifice for sin, or a Sin-offering? Isaiah predicted that he should be: "Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin." To the Corinthians, Paul writes, " He hath made him to be sin (auapriav, a sin offering) for us, who knew no sin :" and to the and given himself for us, an offering Ephesians, "Christ also hath loved us and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour." To the Hebrews he often declares this truth-" Christ needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the people's, for this he did once, when he offered up himself." hath he appeared to put away sin, by "Now once in the end of the world, the sacrifice of himself." Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.' "This man after he had offered one sacrifice for sin, forever sat down on the right hand of God."

[ocr errors]

As therefore CHRIST died as a Sacrifice for the sins of men, or as a Sin-offering for us; and as the design of sacrifices for sin or sin-offerings, was to procure the forgiveness of sins, or the remission of their punishment; it follows that the design of Christ's death was Mr. D. thus defines sacrifice for to procure the forgiveness of our sins, or the remission of their punishment.—pp. 29, 03.

sin.

A sacrifice for sin was an animal slain, and offered to God, in behalf of the sinner; and the design of it is thus explained by the Lawgiver who prescribed it: If the whole congregation sin through ignorance, they shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and the bullock shall be killed before the Lord; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them." "If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord; he shall bring a ram without blemish for a trespass offering,and it shall be forgiven him."

By the very terms of the institution, therefore, a sin-offering or a trespass

[blocks in formation]

the same nature.

But

tain it is, that although the passover no longer guilty, as no longer ob is no where in the Old Testament noxious to the punishments which called a sin or trespass offering, yet the Levitical law threatened. it has all the essential requisites of what were these? Temporal peneither; and in its original design, alties; civil and ecclesiastical punit was appropriated to a purpose of ishments; those which could be inflicted in the present world. Men therefore, who had offended against the laws of Moses, and brought their sin and trespass offering, were civilly and ecclesiastically pardoned. "The blood of bulls and goats could not take away their spiritual guilt," nor purge their consciences from dead works, to serve the living God." All this was type;

But there is one part of the subject, now under consideration, to which Mr. D. does not appear to have adverted; one which is of deep interest to every inquirer after the true nature and object of the sacrifice prescribed by the law of Moses. Mr. D. has told us, that the sacrifice of beasts was prescribed, in order that sin and trespass might be forgiven. But he has not told us whether this forgiveness was of a spiritual or temporal nature; i. e. whether it related to punishment in a future world, or only in the present one. We cannot discern whether this important inquiry came before his mind, while writing the paragraphs which we have just reviewed. He speaks of sin being forgiven on account of a legal sacrifice, and sin being forgiven, on account of the sacrifice of Christ, in one and the same way; although we can hardly suppose him to have meant that the two cases were just alike. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews has forever settled the question, whether legal sacrifice procured spiritual pardon when he says, "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins ;" and again, ' every priest standeth daily ministering, and of fering oftentimes the same sacrifiwhich can never take away sin," Heb. 10: 4, 11. In another passage, he tells us how much was affected by sacrifices of this nature; The blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh;" i. e. externally, or, in their external relations the men who offered such sacrifices became clean, that is, they were hence forth to be considered or treated as

ces,

66

66

but it was very significant and striking type of the great atoning sacrifice of "the Lamb of God which was to take away the sins of the world." In our view, it is very important that the true nature and real effect of Jewish sacrifices should not be overlooked, or passed in silence. The espistle to the Hebrews had cleared away whatever darkness once rested on that sub, ject.

5. The death of Christ was an atonement for the sons of men. Mr. D. thus defines the word atonement.

brew ; and signifies, 1. To cover, The word To ATONE, is in the Heto overlay. This is probably its original meaning. And because sins are metaphorically covered, or hidden from the sight, when they are forgiven, it denotes, 2. To forgive, to be merciful to. Hence, as a causative verb, it denotes, make atonement; and is the word, in 3. To procure forgiveness, to expiate, to the original of the old Testament, uniformly answering to the phrase, to make atonement.—p. 32.

To this passage, Mr. D. has appended a note which must have cost much labour, and which is of solid value, as directing the inquirer where he may go to find confirmation of the important positions which the author advances. The result of Mr. D.'s investigation, he briefly states as follows;

Thus of the 154 instances, in which the word occurs, 13 appear to refer directly to its original meaning, to cover; 12 to the second meaning, to forgive; and 129 to the third, to make atonement. Of these last, 80 are rendered Atonement in our version, and 49 by nouns or verbs of a cognate signification.p. 33.

The word atonement itself, Mr. D. has not attempted to define. The origin of this word is not very obvious. Most etymologists seem inclined to derive it from atone, that is, to be at one, which means to be at peace, or, in a state of concord. Thus Shakspeare seems to have employed the word to atone, when he says,

"He and Aufidus can no more atone,
Than violentest contrariety."

The secondary meaning of the word, (and it seems to be truly a secondary one,) is, to stand as an equivalent for any thing, as Johnson defines it; and in this sense it is particularly applied to expiatory sacrifices. But this sense of the word is quite an easy and natural one, as derived from its first and literal meaning, to unite, to reconcile. An equivalent, or "expiatory equivalent," as Johnson defines atonement, may be any thing which is the means of producing or effecting reconciliation or concord. To say that Christ made atonement, then, is saying nothing more, (if we regard the former and original meaning of the word,) than that he was the occasion of reconciliation or peace between God and man; in what way, or by what means, would not be at all decided by the mere force of this expression, as formerly employed and understood. Still, by usage, the original sense of the words to atone and atonement has been somewhat changed; and as generally employed for some time past by theological writers in our vernacuTar language, these words mean to

offer expiatory sacrifice, vicarious sacrifice, the effecting of reconciliation by such an offering. In this sense Mr. D. obviously employs them; and in this only do they correspond to the Hebrew word 33.

Mr. D. next proceeds to show the various kinds of offerings, which were prescribed by the Levitical law as the means of atonement. He has arranged these under five different heads. From these it appears, that atonement was sometimes made by the payment of a sum of money, as well as by the offering of beasts; sometimes by the offering of incense; and in other cases by the offering of an ephah of fine flour. But all these were cases sui generis, exceptions to the general principle, which was that "without the shedding of blood, there was no remission of sin."

In two instances, atonement was made for offences, by the sacrifice of human life. But this was not done by divine command, nor prescribed by Jewish custom. In the first case, that of Zimri, the man had forfeited his life, by trespass against the law of Moses; in the second, the sons of a murderous tyrant were destroyed, as a means of appeasing those whom he had injured. pp. 35 -37. But let it be remembered, the

victims, in this case, were victims only in an ordinary way, that is, they were merely slain. No offering of them was made to God. No such

sacrifice is any where required by the Mosaic law, but an utter abomination of it is expressed. In this respect, the system of Jewish sacrifice differed heaven-wide from that of most heathen nations, who, in some form or other, have nearly all endeavoured to propitiate their deities with human blood.

It is quite evident, therefore, as atonement, used in respect to these Mr. D. avers, (p. 37,) the word human sacrifices (if we may so call them, for offerings they were not,) has only a secondary sense, or is

applied to them only in the way of accommodation.

To the question, in what did atonement properly consist, in the case of an animal sacrifice, Mr. D. replies, that it was "in the blood thereof, which was the life thereof," and adduces Lev. xvii. 11 to establish the position.

Mr. D. next proceeds to exhibit the various kinds of offences and occasions, on account of which sacrifices were to be offered. He has divided these into "cases of disease; cases of ceremonial uncleanness; cases of consecration; for sins of ignorance; for sins of greater aggravation; for the sins of priests; for the sins of the nation at large; pp. 38-41. But we can hardly agree with him, when he tells us that the sins of ignorance were those which were committed involuntarily. We should find it difficult to conceive of an involuntary sin, and more so to define what it is. At any rate, we cannot conceive of a man's contracting moral turpitude, who has no will in that which he does. The action itself may be prohibited; and for having done the action, a mulct may be imposed in order to maintain the authority of the law; and if this be all which Mr. D. means, (as indeed we must suppose it is,) then we have no controversy with him in regard to the subject. But the expression, "sins involuntarily," is one which needs some explanation. The scriptural expression is, "sins ignorantly;" mean that it is thus in our English Version. But we consider it as an unfortunate translation. Certain it is, that the original Hebrew affords no room for such a translation. It runs thus, "If a soul sin 2, that is, through error, through oversight or haste, through forgetfulness, Lev. iv. 1, 13, 22, 27. Numb. xv. 22. Paul affirms, that "where there is no law, there is no transgression;" and that "sin is not

we

imputed, where there is no law." The cases "where there is no law," must be the cases where there is an involuntary ignorance of the law; for the law itself exists, independent of the particular circumstances of any class of men. Ignorance of law, then, if involuntary, is a reason why sin "should not be imputed." To speak therefore, of sinning ignorantly, or involuntarily is to use expressions in themselves incorrect; and which, if employed, should be employed in a sense at once both defined and qualified. It is a pity that our translation has misled plain Christians on so important a subject as this. The Bible never speaks of sins of ignorance, except of criminal ignorance, where the persons who were guilty might have acquired better knowledge, and where the only reason they did not was, that they "hated the light, and would not come to it, lest their deeds should be reproved." Surely to sin nav, through error, forgetfulness, rashness, is a very different thing from sinning through ignorance or involuntarily, in the common sense which these words convey.

Mr. D. has most evidently a mind capable of entering, at once, into all the distinctions which seem to separate things that differ; and therefore to have hinted the subject in question, is enough. We have no doubt, if our hints are well founded, that he will make the best use of them, in future editions of his work.

To proceed; Were all sins to be atoned for, under the Mosaic dispensation? To this question our author answers, as he must do, in the negative, and shows that murder, adultery, incest, various species of impurity, filial impiety, and idolatry, admitted of no atonement or expiation. The offender must himself suffer death.

The bearing which this has on

« PreviousContinue »