which the word for sustained, in course is less clearly and definitely the preceding head of discourse, is explained, than the preceding one. plainly changed. For, in the sense The simple idea of one's suffering of, for the benefit of, in the room of, for the sins of another, is, that the or instead of; is very easily and penalty due to the other was inflictnaturally applied to persons.

But ed on him. At least this is the we cannot say that one suffers original Scriptural idea. We in instead of, the sins of another, or,

our vernacular language commonly for the benefit of, the sins of anoth- employ the term in a greater !ati

We are necessitated to under- tude. We speak of children bearstand the phrase in another way, ing the iniquities of their fathers, viz. to suffer on account of, the sins

when evil of any kind has come upof another. The meaning in such on them, in consequence of their a case is, to endure suffering which fathers' sin. Thus, the children of another who had sinned himself de- robbers and murderers suffer in served; to undergo the penalty their feelings, their property and which he had brought upon himself, their good name, on account of their but which (for some reason or oth

fathers' ofiences; yet they do not er) was not inflicted upon him. suffer the specific punishment which Whetber the penalty to be endured their fathers deserved, viz. that of by the substitute shall be specifically death upon the gallows. But in the same as that which was de- Scripture, (the case of Christ's sufnounced against the original trans ferings excepted,) the phrase is usugressor, must depend, of course, on ally employed in a more strict and the will of him in whose power is literal manner, and is equivalent to the administration of punitive jus- suffering the penalty which another tice. An equivalent is in most ca

had deserred. In respect, however, ses, plainly all that the nature and to Christ's suffering for sinners, that ends of punitive justice require.

he did not endure the specific penThe Scriptures are filled with as- alty which they deserved, is out of sertions, that Christ died for our all question. The horrors of a guilsins. Mr. D. has selected passa- ty conscience, the endless woe of ges appropriate to his purpose. hell, and the despair which tortures But when he says, (as in the expla- its agonizing sufferers, Christ never nation just quoted,) that to die for did and never could suffer. When sin, is " to suffer death as a mani- it is said, then, that he died for our festation of the displeasure due to sins, the phrase is plainly employed sin," and again, at the bottom of p. with a latitude of meaning, some. 26, that“ Christ suffered death, as what resembling that which we asthe manifestation of the anger of sign to it in our own vernacular lanGod due to our sins," we are not guage, viz. On account of our sins, sure that we understand exactly he endured sufferings. Yet, that what he means. We suppose him he endured them in our room or to mean that the sufferings inflicted stead, is necessarily implied by the upon Christ, were a manifestation usage of the phrase in question ; i. of divine displeasure against sin, in- e. the sufferings which he bore, asmuch as he stood in the place of were equivalent to those which we sinners, who deserved that displeas- deserved, and were endured in the

If this be his meaning it is room or stead of them. This we not plainly expressed. He ought apprehend to be the simple, natural, to say, that by the sufferings of and Scriptural meaning of the phraChrist a manifestation was made of seology in question. God's displeasure against sin.

3. Christ died for the forgiveness On the whole, this head of dis- or pardon of our sins. Forgive


ceeds ;

ness is defined by Mr. D. to be “ the offering was offered in sacrifice in orremission of punishment.' To die der that the sins of the offender might be for our forgiveness is then, as he forgiven : in other words that he might avers, “to die in order that we may

be delivered from the punishment of his be delivered from the punishment

sins.-pp.28, 29. of our sins. The passages quoted

After showing that the writers of by him from the Scriptures, suffi

the New Testament entertained ciently establish the position laid

such a view of the nature of sin and down.

trespass-offering, our author proBut Mr. D. has not marked here ilie new relation which the word

Bit was Christ a Sacrifice for sin, or for sustains. It is neither suffer- a Sin-offering ? Isaiah predicted that ings for men, nor for sin, but for he should be : “ Thou shalt make his the remission of sin. The sense of soul an offering for sin.” To the Corit then, is like that of the Greek eis inthians, Paul writes, “ He hath made (which in this case corresponds to

him to be sin (adaptiav, a sin offering) it) viz. for the sake of, in order that,

for us, who knew no sin :" and to the i. e. in order that the remission of Ephesians, “ Christ also hath loved us

and given himself for us, sins might be obtained.

an offering But this

and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smellmight be said, if Clirist by his death ing savour.” To the Hebrews he ofonly promoted the moral influence ten declares this truth" Christ needof truth upon us, and its efficacy eth not daily, as those high priests, to in bringing us to repentance. It offer up sucrifice first for his own sins cannot, therefore, be considered as and then for the peopie's, for this he did one of the phrases which certainly

once, when he offered up himself.determine the vicarious or expia. hath he appeared to put away sin, by

“ Now once in the end of the world, tory nature of the Saviour's death.

the sacrifice of himself.Christ was 4. Christ was a sin offering and once offered to bear the sins of many." a sacrifice for our sins.

Here we 6. This man after he had offered one come to a more definite and satis- sacrifice for sin, forever sat down on the factory view of the expiatory nature right hand of God.” of the death of Christ. All the

As therefore Christ died as a Sacri. terms heretofore considered are ca- fice for the sins of men, or as a Sin-offerpable (in themselves) of another in

ing for us ; and as the design of sacri

fices for sin or sin-ofrerings, was to terpretation. Whether those now

procure the forgiveness of sins, or the rebefore us are so will be seen in the

mission of their punishment ; it follows sequel.

that the design of Christ's death was Mr. D. thus defines sacrifice for to procure the forgiveness of our sins, or sin.

the remission of their punishment.pp.

29, 03. A sacrifice for sin was an animal slain, and" offered to God, in behalf of further illustrated and confirmed,

The sentiment of this passage is the sinner ; and the design of it is thus explained by the Lawgiver who pre

in a striking and satisfactory manscribed it: * If the whole congrcga

ner, by adducing the assertion of tion sin through ignorance, they shall Paul, that “ Christ our passover is offer a young bullock for the sin, and sacrificed for us," and explaining the bullock shall be killed before the

the reference which is made in this Lord ; and the priest shall make alone- phraseology to the ancient passment for them, and it shall be forgiven them.“If a soal sin, and commit a

On the question, whether trespass against the Lord; he shall bring the passover was properly a sacri. a ram without blemish for a trespass fice, Mr. D. remarks, that it was a offering and it shallbe forgiven him." lamb slain and offered to God, and

By the very terms of the institution, that the apostle speaks of “ Christ therefore, a sin-offering or a trespass- our passover as sacrificed.Cer


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. But 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 inthe same nature.

flicted in the present world. Men But there is one part of the sub- therefore, who had offended against ject, now under consideration, to the laws of Moses, and brought which Mr. D. does not appear to their sin and trespass offering, were have adverted ; one which is of civilly and ecclesiastically pardondeep interest to every inquirer after ed. The blood of bulls and goats the true nature and object of the could not take away their spiritual sacrifice prescribed by the law of guilt,” nor purge their conscienMoses. Mr. D. has told us, that ces from dead works, to serve the the sacrifice of beasts was prescri- living God.” All this was type ; bed, in order that sin and trespass but it was very significant and strimight be forgiven. But he has not king type of the great atoning sactold us whether this forgiveness was rifice of “the Lamb of God which of a spiritual or temporal nature ; was to take away the sins of the i. e. whether it related to punish- world.” In our view, it is very imn ment in a future world, or only in portant that the true nature and rethe present one. We cannot dis- al effect of Jewish sacrifices should cern whether this important inqui- not be overlooked, or passed in ry came before his mind, while wri- silence. The espistle to the Heting the paragraphs which we have brews had cleared away whatever just reviewed. He speaks of sin darkness once ręsted on that sub, being forgiven on account of a legal ject. sacrifice, and sin being forgiven, on 5. The death of Christ was an account of the sacrifice of Christ, in atonement for the sons of men. one and the same way ; although we Mr. D. thus defines the word atone. can hardly suppose him to have ment. mcant that the two cases were just alike. The writer of the epistle to brew 102; and signifies, 1. To coret,

The word To ATONE, is in the He. the Hebrews has forever settled the to overlay. This is probably its originquestion, whether legal sacrifice al meaning.–And because sins are procured spiritual pardon when he metaphorically covered, or hidden from says, “ It is impossible for the blood the sight, when they are forgiven, it de. of bulls and goats to take away notes, 2. To forgive, to be merriful to. sins ;” and again, “every priest Hence, as a causative verb, it denotes, standeth daily ministering, and of

3. To procure forgiveness, to erpiate, to

mike atonement ; and is the word, in fering oftentimes the same sacrifi- the original of the old Testament, unices, which can never take away formly answering to the phrase, to sin,” Heb. 10 :4, 11. In another make atonement.- p. 32. passage, he tells us how much was affected by sacrifices of this nature ; To this passage, Mr. D. has ap☆ The blood of bulls and goats, and pended a note which must have the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling cost much labour, and which is of the unclean, sanctifieth to the puri- solid value, as directing the inquifying of the flesh ;' i. e. externally, rer where he may go to find confiror, in their external relations the mation of the important positions men who offered such sacrifices be- which the author advances. The game clean, that is, they were hence result of Mr. D.'s investigation, be forth to be considered or treated as briefly states as follows;

.כפר respond to the Hebrew word

p. 33.

Thus of the 154 instances, in which offer expiatory sacrifice, vicarious the word u occurs, 13 appear to refer sacrifice, the effecting of reconcilidirectly to its original meaning, to cover; 12 to the second meaning, to forgive; sense Mr. D. obviously employs

ation by such an offering. In this and 129 to the third, to make atonement.

them; and in this only do they corOf these last, 80 are rendered Alone

. ment in our version, and 49 by nouns or verbs of a cognate signification.- Mr. D. next proceeds to show the

various kinds of offerings, which

were prescribed by the Levitical law The word atonement itself, Mr. as the means of atonement. He D. has not attempted to define. has arranged these under five differThe origin of this word is not very

ent heads. From these it appears, obvious. Most etymologists seem

that atonement was sometimes made inclined to derive it from atone, by the payment of a sum of money, that is, to be at one, which means as we!l as by the offering of beasts ; to be at peace, or, in a state of con- sometimes by the offering of incord. Thus Shakspeare scerns to

cense; and in other cases by the have employed the word to atone, offering of an ephah of fine flour. when he says,

But all these were cases sui gene

ris, exceptions to the general prin“ He and Aufidus can no more alone, ciple, which was that " without the Than violentest contrariety.”

shedding of blood, there was no

remission of sin.” The secondary meaning of the

In two instances, atonement was word, (and it seems to be truly a sec

made for offences, by the sacrifice ondary one,) is, to stand as an equiv- of human life. But this was not alent for any thing, as Johnson de

done by divine command, nor prefines it; and in this sense it is partic. scribed by Jewish custom. In the ularly applied to expiatory sacrifices.

first case, that of Zimri, the man had But this sense of the word is quite forfeited his life, by trespass against an easy and natural one, as derived

the law of Moses; in the second, the from its first and literal meaning,

sons of a murderous tyrant were deto unite, to reconcile. An equiva

stroyed, as a means of appeasing lent, or "expiatory equivalent," as

those whom he had injured. pp. 35 Johnson detines atonement, may be

-37. But let it be remembered, the any thing which is the means of victims, in this case, were victims producing or effecting reconcilia

only in an ordinary way, that is, they tion or concord. To


were merely slain. No offering of Christ made atonement, then, is

them was made to God. No such saying nothing more, (if we regard sacrifice is any where required by the former and original meaning of the Mosaic law, but an utter abomthe word,) than that he was the oc

ination of it is expressed. In this casion of reconciliation or peace be

respect, the system of Jewish sactween God and man; in what


ritice differed heaven-wide from or by what means, would not be

that of most heathen nations, who, at all decided by the mere force of in some form or other, have nearly this expression, as formerly employ- all endeavoured to propitiate their ed and understood. Still, by usage,

deities with human blood. the original sense of the words to

It is quite evident, therefore, as atone and atonement has been some

Mr. D. avers, (p. 37,) the word what changed; and as generally atonement, used in respect to these employed for some time past by human sacrifices (if we may so call theological writers in our vernacu

them, for offerings they were not,) l'ar language, these words mean to

has only a secondary sense, or is

applied to them only in the way of imputed, where there is no law." accommodation.

The cases " where there is no To the question, in what did law,” must be the cases where atonement properly consist, in the there is an involuntary ignorance of case of an animal sacrifice, Mr. D. the law ; for the law itself exists, replies, that it was “ in the blood independent of the particular cirthereof, which was the life there- cumstances of any class of men. of," and adduces Lev. xvii. 11 to Ignorance of law, then, if involunestablish the position.

tary, is a reason why sin “ should Mr. D. next proceeds to exhibit not be imputed.” To speak therethe various kinds of offences and oc- fore, of sinning ignorantly, or incasions, on account of which sacrifi- voluntarily is to use expressions in ces were to be offered. He has themselves incorrect; and which, divided these into “ cases of dis- if employed, should be employed case ; cases of ceremonial unclean- in a sense at once both defined and ness ; cases of consecration; for qualified. It is a pity that ow sins of ignorance ; for sins of great- translation has misled plain Christer aggravation ; for the sins of ians on so important a subject as priests ; for the sins of the nation this. The Bible never speaks of at large; pp. 38-41.

But we

sins of ignorance, except of crimincan hardly agree with him, when he al ignorance, where the persons tells us that the sins of ignorance who were guilty might have acqui. were those which were committed red better knowledge, and where involuntarily. We should find it the only reason they did not was, difficult to conceive of an involun- that they “ hated the light, and tary sin, and more so to define would not come to it, lest their what it is. At any rate, we cannot deeds should be reproved." Sureconceive of a man's contracting ly to sin navs, through error, moral turpitude, who has no will in forgetfulness, rashness, is a very that which he does. The action different thing from sinning through itself may be prohibited ; and for ignorance or involuntarily, in the having done the action, a mulct common sense which these words may be imposed in order to main

convey. tain the authority of the law; and Mr. D. has most evidently a ¿if this be all which Mr. D. means, mind capable of entering, at once, (as indeed we must suppose it is,) into all the distinctions which seem then we have no controversy with to separate things that differ; and him in regard to the subject. But therefore to have hinted the subthe expression, “sins involuntari- ject in question, is enough. We ly,” is one which needs some ex- have no doubt, if our hints are well planation. The scriptural expres- founded, that he will make the best sion is, “sins ignorantly;" we use of them, in future editions of mean that it is thus in our English his work. Version. But we consider it as an To proceed ; Were all sins to unfortunate translation. Certain it be atoned for, under the Mosaic is, that the original Hebrew affords dispensation ? To this question no room for such a translation. It our author answers, as he must do, runs thus, “ If a soul sin 711e, in the negative, and shows that that is, through crror, through orer- murder, adultery, incest, various sight or haste, through forgetful- species of impurity, filial impiety, ness, Lev. iv. 1, 13, 22, 27. Numb. and idolatry, admitted of no atone.

Paul affirms, that “where ment or expiation. The offender there is no law, there is no trans- must himself suffer death. gression;" and that "sin is not The bearing which this has an

XV. 22,

« VorigeDoorgaan »