456 The Doctrine of Commm Sense with regard to Sacrifices. Letter II. consciences. The far greater part of this kind of sacrifices was appointed for sins of ignorance, though it is doubtful whether all of them were; and it ought to be known, that some of these sin-offerings were not slain animals, but an ephah of meal, about a gallon, an handful of which was to be thrown on the fire of the altar, and the rest was for the priest. See Levit. v. 11, and two following verses. In fact, we may describe these sacrifices as so many acts of homage to God by his subjects, and as fines to the theocratic government, paid by transgressors for the support of the national worship; at the same time that sin-offerings were expressive of the penitence and devotion of the worshippers, but by no means expiatory in the sight of God or in their own nature. It is evident that the holocausts always, and the other voluntary thank-offerings commonly, were slain animals, while in the case of the poor, the sin-offering, that is, the sacrifice of atonement, was nothing more than a handful of meal scattered upon the altar, the residue being the perquisite of the priest. If, then, the burnt-offerings were typical, and known to be so by the believing Israelites, which of them was typical of the death of Christ? Was it the handful of meal or the whole burnt-offering? If any one of them was typical, then what was its value to the worshipper, if he did not understand the application of the type? How is it that Moses or Aaron never explained the meaning of prophetic sacrifices to the people, when they are directed to be so particular, and even minute in other, and we should think minor circumstances? We can prove that the best and wisest of the Israelites laid no sort of stress on the mere offering, whatever might be its nature, to recommend them to God; and it cannot be proved from any thing said on the subject in the Jewish scriptures, that the Mosaic ceremonial taught the doctrine of a future state. That weak and wicked man Saul, the King of Israel, like many other weak and wicked people in all ages, misunderstood or wilfully perverted the meaning of sacrifice, and Samuel reproves him accordingly. See 1 Samuel, xv. 22, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord: be: hold to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams!" The acceptance, therefore, of the offering, as in the first age of the world, depended upon the spirit and character of the worshipper; read that fine Psalm, 1., see also, Psalm li., vers. 16, and 17, For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it thee; thou delightest not in burnt offering, the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit." Read the first, and beginning of the last, chapters of Isaiah. We are now, I hope, prepared to hear what the New Testament says concerning the atonement for the soul, that is, the life: "The blood (the life) is the atonement for the soul;" the appointed and accepted sacrifice was the mean and sign of reconciliation; the ilasterion, or mercyseat in the tabernacle was the reconciliation residence, and this seat, like the altar, &c. was atoned,* that is, at-one-ed with the people by the blood of the atonement, or covenant of reconciliation combination, or fellowship, so Rom. v.; “we being reconciled (to God) shall be saved by Christ's life, by whom we have now (at length) received the atonement." The Gentile believes, the sinner repents; they enter into covenant with their God and he receives and forgives them, 1 John i. 1, 3, “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ," that is, we are in covenant with God and invite you to enjoy the same privilege. I challenge biblical critics to shew a single passage in all the New Testament, in which the Greek word rendered atonement is used in any other sense than that of reconciliation, or where God is ever said to be reconciled to man by the death of Christ; or any one instance in all the scriptures, in which an atonement is represented as an expiatory sacrifice, by the tranfer of guilt from the sinner's conscience to the devoted creature or person. There are two passages particularly, in *The word "one" was formerly pronounced "own," and is so still in some parts of the west of England. Persons in covenant with God are his own people, he appropriates them to himself. individual of the human race, and the apostacy of an angelic being. We hoped that our translator would, in his notes, have offered reasons for putting this construction upon the inquiry. He has produced none: and the comment, we believe, rests on no other authority than his own. We are entirely at a loss to understand why he should conceive of the word man as being emphatic in these verses. Was it not the natural and proper term by which to speak of the hero of the poem? In Num. xxvii. 18, God says unto Moses, "Take thee Joshua, the son of Nun, a man," &c. Now, is this a marked description? Does not the same mode of expression occur very frequently The truth is, Mr. Good sat down to his labours with a fixed persuasion that the Satan of the book of Job is the prince of the fallen angels; an opinion altogether gratuitous! He therefore readily perceives, even in the words a man, a confirmation of his hypothesis. In the process out of which such interpretations arise there is nothing uncommon: how ever, the gloss on which we are animadverting, is not a little singular. But, though the translator has in this case unconsciously deceived himself, we trust that his error will be seen and avoided by those of his readers with whom it is an object to study the Scriptures on the principles of fair and solid criticism. There is a material difference between Ch. ii. 9, as it stands in the Hebrew text, which most of the modern translators strictly follow, and as if appears in the Septuagint and some other ancient versions. Mr. G. has, in his notes, translated the addition: nor do we blame him for giving it an English dress; though he seems as fully convinced as we are of its spuriousness. We shall take this opportunity of remarking, that some of the commentators on Job have been disposed to aggravate, and others, with as little reason, to soften, the offence of the patriarch's wife, in the question, "Dost thou hold fast thine integrity?" Scott's comment upon it is truly curious, and alike violates taste and courtesy: "The rashness," he observes, " of this poor * As in Gen. xli. 33, 38, Josh. iii. 12, 1 Sam. xi, xiii. xvi. 16, &c. &c. distressed lady, cannot be altogether excused,-but candour will make favourable allowances for the frailty of her sex and the severity of her trial." Whose good opinion could this ingenious man (for such he was) hope to conciliate by so extraordinary a piece of criticism? How unworthy is it of the correctness of judgment which, for the most part, pervades his version!" On chap. iii. 8, "Let the sorcerers of the day curse it!" Mr. G. writes thus: "A belief in divination or enchantment, has, from some cause or other, been exhibited, from a very early period of time, over every quarter of the globe. To exalead us too far from the object of our pursuit. It is enough to observe at present that various passages in the Bible indicate, that such a sort of supernatural power was, in the earlier ages of the world, committed to different persons of very different characters, and even religions." mine into the nature of such causes, would In support of this most extraordinary assertion, our annotator refers to Melchizedek and Balaam. But where shall we find any proof or presumption, of the former having been "thus miraculously endowed?" All which can be learned from Gen. xiv. 19, is that "this priest of the most high God" blessed Abram. Jacob also "blessed Pharaoh," Gen. xlvii. 10. And is such an act of benediction independent evidence that Jacob had miraculous endowments? Mr. G., however, subjoins that Melchizedek "prophesied concerning the prosperity" of Abram's family. Now from what passage of scripture is such a fact to be deduced? We can discover none, and must therefore pronounce this instance irrelevant to the author's purpose. Nor is there even the appearance of truth in the position that Balaam possessed supernatural qualifications. That he pretended to some, may be conceded. His claims and his character are strongly reprobated in the sacred writingst. He was one of the jugglers of the east; though, in a single instance, and for the purpose of defeating his impious views, the Supreme Being inspired him with the gift of prophecy. Elymas (Acts xiii. 8,) and the Jewish exorcists at Ephesus (Acts xix. 13), were of the same profession with Balaam: and their † 2 Pet. ii. 15, Jude 11, Rev. ii. 14. 172 Review. Good's Translation of the Book of Job. claims and their art were, like his, a gross imposture. It is so far from being "probable" (as Mr. G. pleases to faucy) that "to many of these persons was communicated, not only an insight into futurity and a consequent spirit of predicting happiness or misery, but a power of conjuring into open view, apparitions of the most hideous monsters; of forms that perhaps had never any real existence, and even the 'wha, or images of the dead," that the fact is directly the reverse. They had " power," indeed, "to cheat the eye with blear illusion," a power derived partly from their own skill in legerdemain and in part from the credulity of their votaries: but this was all. The case of the sorceress of Endor, has been explained, though on mutually different principles, by Dr. Chandler and by Mr. Farmer and either of the interpretations is far more consistent with itself and with scripture than the vulgar hypothesis. Scripture uniformly discriminates between" the lying wonders" of men and the miracles which demonstrate a prophet's mission. The latitude of belief in which Mr. G. indulges on this matter, is little honourable to revelation, is subversive of its evidences and inconsistent with its authority. Yet certain modern missionaries, it would seem, are of the annotator's opinion he even adduces their sentiments as corroborating his own. Speaking of a "sick man" in one of the South-Sea islands, they say, "We are informed, that the condition the brethren saw him in, was owing to his having been cursed by the priest, who was chanting over him for his recovery. There is such a mystery of iniquity in the execrations used by the natives, that the wisdom which is from beneath is very manifest by them. Though we cannot credit all that is reported concerning them, yet we think that the powers of darkness are busy agents with the execrators and execrated, in a manner beyond their common influences, and that the bodies of the execrated are in reality affected thereby." Transactions of the Missionary Society, Vol. i. The motives of those who labour for the conversion of the Heathens, we, assuredly, respect: and we wish success to all measures for this purpose which are framed with wisdom and executed by men of enlightened piety. Let our readers judge of the qualifications of the missionaries who could gravely form and transmit the opinion recorded in the preceding paragraph! Mr. Good waives an examination into "the nature of the causes" of the ancient and general “ belief in divination or enchantment." Such an undertaking, he tells us, "would lead" him "too far from the object of” his “pursuit." In truth, however, the inquiry is neither long nor difficult. All these causes may be summed up in one word, and that is IGNORANCE. When we observe that certain effects disappear under a particular state of things, we can have little hesitation in determining to what circumstances the former existence of them should be attributed. On Christianity being preached with success at Ephesus (Acts xix. 17, &c.) "many of them who used curious arts, brought their books together, and burned them before all men; so mightily grew the word of God, and prevailed!" It was the triumph of Christian knowledge over the miserable artifices of men who gratified their avarice at the expense of the deluded rabble. This passage represents the character and the overthrow of " the Jewish exorcists at Ephesus:" and the same victory has been gained in other countries and ages since the publication of the gospel. Let Mr. Good say, how it happens that we read of divination and sorcery in periods and regions distinguished by mental darkness, while these wretched pretensions are seldom advanced, and never with general and permanent success, in spots where science and genuine religion take up their abode? "In the deep windings of the grove, no more The hag obscene, and grisly phantom dwell; Nor in the fall of mountain-stream, or roar Of winds, is heard the angry spirit's yell; Swoon. We must not dismiss the note which has called forth these remarks, before we declare that we are far from being satisfied with Mr. G's rendering, “the sorcerers of the day." The public translation is not only more literal, It is finished. All that depended upon bim was finished before he died, and some time before he died he enjoyed calmness of mind: the wrath of God was not therefore poured out upon him on the cross, nor was the atonement or satisfaction made by his death. We may look at this matter in another point of view. On the popular scheme, all the efficacy of Christ's death depends upon his divinity; but upon the same scheme, it was impossible that he should suffer: the Deity is unchangeable and impassible; and even if a God could have suffered, all suffering must have been light to him; omnipotence is equal to itself and could easily have borne what omnipotence could inflict. But in whatever strains the pseudo-orthodox may sing of a bleeding and dying God, they will not soberly reason in favour of so Pagan a notion; and therefore, according to them it was only the man Christ Jesus that suffered and died, and if that death and those sufferings made the atonement and gave the satisfaction, the whole work was accomplished by the much-vilified human nature. It is pleaded, I am aware, that the union of the divinity with the humanity, stamped an infinite value upon the sufferings of the latter; but how idle to talk of an union between two natures, of which one was agonized and torn in pieces, and the other was at its ease and absolutely incapable of a painful sensation! The popular preachers and poets sometimes talk and write as if it were the blood of Christ (physically so) which satisfied and appeased the wrath of God. There is no arguing against metaphors considered in any other light than a metaphor, however, this may be pronounced a foul and abominable supposition. From the actual death of Christ, the advocates of the doctrine of satisfaction will probably flee to the agony in the garden; for we have seen that Christ did not die under the wrath of God, and that before he died all that depended upon him was finished: but if the atonement were made in the garden, it was made without death and without blood. On this supposition, Christ might suffer, but he did not * Luke's language [ch. xxii. 44,] is "his sweat was as it were great drops of blood." die, for us: a living man made the satisfaction, and, for aught that appears, he might have continued to live and his work been complete. And it behoves the popular teachers to determine what was the nature of Christ's sufferings in the garden? Was he oppressed by the consciousness of imputed guilt: then with what propriety can it be said that he knew no sin, since the propriety and efficacy of his punishment must have consisted in his knowledge or consciousness of sin? Was he overwhelmed with the wrath of God: then God was angry with him; and who was it at the same time that sent an angel to strengthen him? Consider the sufferer in the garden as God as well as man, and what a scene of contradiction rises up to view! A divine person praying, trembling, sinking! Oppressed by God, imploring the sympathy of the apostles, comforted by an angel! The writer to the Hebrews supposes that Christ's sufferings consisted in the fear of death: * let those who defend the common scheme of atonement explain how this fear was possible to one who was conscious of all the strength of deity, and also how the shrinking from death is consistent with the benevolence of Christ, if he knew both that no suffering could exceed or equal his infinite power, and at the same time that upon his suffering and death depended the salvation of the human race, or a great part of them, from everlasting torments? If the atonement were made neither by his death nor his agony singly, it would be difficult to prove that it was made by them both together; especially since there is no necessary connexion between them, but on the contrary they form two distinct scenes in our Lord's history, marked by obviously different states of mind. Taking atonement in the sense of reconciliation, the true scriptural sense, the idea of redemption or salvation is clear. Mankind were alienated from God by wicked works, Jesus Christ brought them back to their heavenly Father by his example and commandment of all righteousness. Vice and iniquity wrought in reflecting minds a sense of guilt and fear, Jesus Christ banished despair and inspired hope by * Heb. v. 7. 174 Review.-Good's Translation of the Book of Job. tain's vessel in that far-famed voyage, of the "Critical Dissertation on the was celebrated, we know, for speed.* We have no pleasure in detecting and exposing the mistakes of the worthy annotator. Yet our readers should be informed that his imagination often triumphs over his judgment, and that he too easily beholds Pagan as well as Rabbinical mythologies in this ancient poem. Let us next attend to some of his remarks upon ch. xiv. 12, &c. "It has been a subject of dispute among the commentators, whether Job, in the present place, refers to a definite term in which a resurrection will take place, or denies it by the strongest figure he could command. Yet I think the latter part of the sentence, in vers. 14, 15, is so strongly in favour of the former opinion, that no man can refuse his assent to it, who gives it the attention it is entitled to: nor do I well know how a full persuasion of such a belief could be more definitely drawn up. It appears to me so strong as to settle the question of itself, and without the concurrence of other passages that might be called in to its aid.' It would seem then that, in Mr. Good's judgment, the doctrine of a resurrection is "definitely" taught in this book, instead of being only developed! Yet in the sentences just quoted, he has done nothing more than express the confidence of his own persuasion, without the use of reasoning to illustrate its soundness and to vindicate it from objections, Heath (not. in loc.) is equally confident on the other side: and Rosenmüller considers the 14th and 15th verses as referring to the catastrophe of the poem: "hic tatur tacitèque innuitur historiæ exitus." In the first instance Job wishes to be concealed in the grave (13), till the storm of the divine anger be past. However, he immediately corrects himself; apprehensive (14) that, if he die, he shall not live again. In consequence, he determines upon waiting till God shall appear (15) in his behalf. spec The learned and very able authort *Euripid. Medæa. 1. 1. Book of Job," interprets the verses in the same manner with Mr. G. He thus paraphrases vers. 7-11: "After a tree is cut down, we see, nevertheless, the old stock flourish again, and send forth new branches: and shall man then, when he once expires, be extinct for ever? Is there no hope that he shall revive, and be raised again hereafter?" 187. According to this paraphrase, Job reasons from the renewal of vegetation in the spring, to the resurrection of the human body: expectation prevails over doubt in the speaker's mind; and he institutes a comparison rather than a contrast. We think, however, that King James's translators have accurately rendered the particle at the beginning of the tenth verse by a word denoting opposition: "But man dieth," &c. It is remarkable, too, that in those supposed analogies of nature, which many Christian writers consider as presumptive of the doctrine of a resurrection, the Heathen poets saw nothing which was thus animating and consolatory, but the reverse. Concerning xvi. 18, "hide no blood shed by me," Mr. G. affirms, “ The passage has an evident reference to the cry of the blood of Abel from the EARTH." Gen. iv. 10. This gentleman must excuse us if we say that, whenever he speaks of gratify them: all that we know of him is, Contrast the declamation of Minucius Felix (Octavius. xxxiv.) —❝ Vide adeo quam in solatium nostri, resurrectionem futuram omnis natura meditetur, + The Rev. Charles Péters, A. M. Rec- expectandum nobis etiam corporis ver est" tor of St. Mabyn, Cornwall. His "Disser--with the well-known plaintive strains of tation," which every theological student ought to read, is characterized by erudition, piety and acuteness. In a recent number of one of the monthly publications inquiries are made concerning the place of his birth, &c. We lament that we cannot Moschus (Idyll. iii. 104-112). The force of this imagined analogy, has been ably estimated in a sermon on "The Necessity of Revelation to teach the Doctrine of a Future Life," by John Kenrick, M. A. pp. 14-17 (2nd. Ed.). |