Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

the doctrine of sacrifices, and the
modification which it must necessa-
rily occasion, in regard to any uni-
versal principle respecting them, is
a subject which we do not remem-
ber to have seen adequately treated.
We earnestly hope Mr. D. will turn
his attention to it, when he comes
It
again to publish his discourses.
is a topic worthy of his considera-
tion and of his pen.

The efficacy of atonement made according to the prescription of the law, comes next under our author's consideration. But here we must let him speak for himself.

The owner of the unruly ox, paid a sum of money as a civil penalty "for the ransom of his life." In the case of numbering the people it was atonement-money paid, by each man, "for the ransom of his life." In the case of the Gibeonites, the anger of God was turned away, and the famine prevented. In the various cases of recovery from disease, the sins of the individual were forgiven. In the cases of unceremonial uncleanness, the ceremonial sins of the individual were pardoned; and without making the prescribed atonement it is expressly said that the individual "shall be cut off from Israel." In the case of consecrations, it procured the pardon of the priests and the levites. In every case of a sin of ignorance, where atonement was made, as well as in every case of more aggravated sins, the sin was forgiven. On the great day of Atonement it procured the forgiveness of "all the iniquities, and all the transgressions in all the sins" of both priests and people, for the preceding year. This language is universal, including every offence which was capable of expiation. In the case of CORAH, as soon as AARON had made atonement; as well as in that of the Moabitish women, when PHINEAS had made atonement; the plague was stayed, and the people ceased to die; and in the latter God said of PHINEAS, "He hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, that I comsumed them not-he was zealous for his God and made an atonement for the children of Israel. In addition to this it is said, in the official explanation of the nature and design of the Atone

ment, "For the life of the flesh is in
the blood, and I have given it to you
upon the altar, to make an atonement
for your lives; for it is the blood, that
maketh an atonement for the life." If
then, by the phrase vicarious suffering,
we denote any evil inflicted on one being
to expiate the sin of another, that is,
to save the other from punishment,
and
procure the pardon of his sins;
then it is certain, that the sufferings
and death of the animals, sacrificed to
make atonement under the Levitical

Dispensation, were in the strictest
sense vicarious. In other words, in
the sufferings inflicted on the animal
in taking away his life, there was a ty-
pical manifestation of the anger of
God, which was instead of the real
manifestation of it in the punishment
of the sinner; and the former was ac-
cepted by God in lieu of the latter.-

pp. 42, 43.

Mr. D. then proceeds to inquire, whether the death of Christ was an atonement for the sins of men? He admits, that our English translation makes use of this phraseology only once, Rom. v. 11; where the Greek xaraλλayvis rendered atonement, which he thinks should have been rendered reconciliation. But at the time when our version was made, there can be no doubt that the words atonement and reconciliation were often employed synonymously; so that no error is fairly to be charged upon the translators here. The proofs that the words Κλασκομαι, εξιλασκομαι, ἱλασμος, ἱλασ τήριον, εισφορα, λυτρον, and αλλαγμα, employed by the writers of the New Testament, in reference to the death of Christ, mean substantially atonement, propiatory sacrifice, sinoffering, is ample, and well executed. pp. 43-46. Mr. D. thus concludes his argument:

The death of Christ, therefore, was inflicted to save men from the punishment of their sins or to procure their pardon. God "laid on him the iniquities of us all," or manifested his anger against our sins in his sufferings and death, that he might not manifest it in our punishment. His sufferings there

fore were a substitute for the punish ment of our sins. p. 46.

6. Christ died to reconcile us to God. In Scripture, the word reconcile is always employed in respect to the offending party. He is to be reconciled to the party offended; not the party offended to him. The English language now employs the word in the latter sense; but it was not so used, when our version of the Scriptures was made. An attention to this exclusive mode of employing the word reconcile in Scripture, would make the head which we are now reviewing more definite and exact. The consequence of our reconciliation to God is, that he does not impute our trespasses to us. But the reconciliation itself is a different thing from

this.

7. Christ bore our sins or ini

quities in his sufferings and death. Here is a fundamental point, on which the doctrine of vicarious suffering mainly rests. Our author felt it to be so, and has advanced to his work, by aiming (as he should do) at plain and perspicuous definitions.

To the phrase to bear sin, two very different meanings have been attached: 1. That of bearing them away, in the sense of removing them; and 2. That of bearing them as a burden, in the sense of bearing with them, or enduring them, on the part of him who is offended, and of bearing or enduring their punishment, on the part of the offender, or of a third party who takes his place, or suffers on his account.

In investigating this point, it may be proper to ask, What is meant by the phrase to remove our sins, or to remove our iniquities?-Does it mean, to annihilate our sins? That, in the very nature of things is impossible. A sin is a fact, a transgression actually committed-and to annihilate a fact, to bring it to pass, after a sin is once committed, that it shall not have been committed,-is not within the reach even of Omnipotence.-Dees it mean

to annihilate the guilt of our sins? That is equally impossible. As it must forever be a fact, that a given sin now past was committed; so it must forever be a fact, that he who committed it is guilty of its commission. The guilt is equally a fact with the sin itself. Does it mean, to transfer our sins to another? That also is physically impossible. A given sin when committed, is an act, past, and irrevocable: an act concerning which it must forever be true, that it was performed by the sinner himself, and not by another. Does it mean, to transfer the guilt of our sins to another? This is no less an impossibility. Guilt is inseparably connected with sin; and as it never can be true, with regard to a given sin, that any one but the sinner committed it, so it never can be true, that any one else is guilty of its commission. Will it be said that it denotes to remove our sinfulness?—I ask again, What is the meaning of the phrase to remove our sinfulness ?---Does sinfulness here mean guilt? But to remove the guilt of sin, we have just seen impossible. Does it mean, to remove our sinful dispositions?—our propensities to sin? and thus to reform us or sanctify us?--After a careful examination, I have not been able to find a passage in the sacred volume, in which either of the verbs translated to bear. is connected with a word, the appropriate or customary meaning of which is sinfulness, sinful dispositions, or propensities to sin;--not a passage in which it is not connected with sin, or transgression, as a fact, an act committed, or with iniquity, as guilt actually incurred by such an act. To explain it by the phrase, to remove our sins, in the sense of removing our sinful inclinations, is therefore to take for granted the point in debate, and that too in direct opposition to the uniform language of the scriptures; and to explain it by the phrase, to remove our sins, in the sense of causing them to cease to exist, i. e. of annihilating them, implies as we have seen a direct absurdity. pp. 49, 50.

It is indeed true, as Mr. Dwight avers, that sin, ¡w iniquity, and y transgression, are every where employed in the Old Testament, to denote acts of sin, and not evil or sinful disposition. sinful disposition. There can be

no doubt, that the prominent object of the sufferings of Christ, as represented by the Scriptures, was, to remove the penalty due to sinners, for the violation of the divine law. But Mr. D. will surely (as we do) accord with the apostle, in Heb. ix. 13, 14, who tells us, that "if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean sanctified to the purifying of the flesh; much more shall the blood of Christ purge our consciences from dead works, to serve the living God." The operation of atoning blood in purifying the conscience or mind, (for duvadnis here means animus,) is not only expressly asserted here, but in Heb. ix. 9. x. 1, 2, the imperfection of legal sacrifices is argued, from the fact that they did not purge or purify the conscience or mind, of those who presented them. There can be no doubt then, that Jesus' atoning blood in some way effects for the soul, what the legal sprinkling with blood, under the Levitical law, effected for the body; for this constitutes the very gist of the apostle's comparison.

And why should we scruple to admit this? When the angel declared, that the child who was about to be born of a virgin should be called Jesus (that is, Saviour,) because he would save his people from their sins, Mat. i. 21, did he not mean to aver, that he would deliver them from the power as well as from the penalty, of their sins? Beyond all doubt he did; and there is as little doubt that Mr. D. himself believes this. But he seems, in the extract above, not to admit that atoning blood is applied to remove the sinful disposition or propensity of men, that is, not to affect their state of mind, but only to remove the penalty which they may have incurred. We are quite persuaded, that he does not hold to such an opinion, and that on reviewing the considerations just sugVOL. I.--No. VI.

41

gested, he will guard, in his next edition, against that mode of representing the subject, on which we have now remarked.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, to bear sin or iniquity is expressed by using the verbs 30, which signifies to bear a burden or heavy load, and

, which means to raise or lift up, and more commonly to bear away, to suffer, endure, to bear the guilt of any one, to take, to take away.

The first of these words, as connected with sin, Mr. D. states is employed only twice in the Scrip tures. The other is very common, and is used in a variety of senses, according to the relation which the subject of the verb (the bearer) sustains to the offence. When it is said of the party offended, that he bears sin, the meaning is, that he bears with it, that is, he overlooks it, pardons it, remits the penalty due to it. When spoken of the offender himself, the meaning is, and always is, that he endures the penalty due to his offence. When it is spoken of a third party, that is neither of the offended, nor the offender, but of some other person or thing, which bears the sin of the offender, the meaning is necessarily somewhat different still. It can imply, in this latter case, only that this third person or thing, bears, that is, endures, the penalty which was due to the offender, or, endures a suffering, which, on the part of the lawgiver or sovereign, is accepted as an equivalent for it, so that the offender is liberated from the punishment which was due to him.

All these positions Mr. D. has well illustrated, in pp. 50--57. We recommend the attentive peru sal of this to all our critical readera, not only on account of the im portance of the subject, but as a specimen of the happy manner in which Mr. D. pursues an impor tant philological investigation.

In the New Testament, as one

might very naturally expect, since it was written by Hebrews, the phrase to bear sin has the same meaning as in the Old. When applied to Christ, (who is a third party, so to speak,) it means, of course, to endure sufferings due to sinners, that is, to endure that, which was accepted by the lawgiver 'and judge of the world, as an equivalent for the penalty due to sinners. There is one consideration here, which Mr. D. does not appear to have noticed, but which will help to cast light on the phraseology that we are examining. It is this: the Hebrew words,, w, and yw all signify the consequences of sin, that is, punishment, suffering, as well as the crime itself. When Christ, therefore, is said to bear our sins, the meaning is plainly, that he bore the consequences of our sins, viz. the penalty due to them, that is, sufferings equivalent to the penalty due to them.

There is a difficulty, also, in regard to the phrases, which Mr. Dwight quotes, as indicative of the vicarious sufferings which Christ endured, which he has not noticed. We allude to the verbs and which the evangelist Matthew has translated by έλαβε and εβάστασε, Mat. viii. 17, that is, took off, took away, removed. In this passage, they cannot well have any other meaning, as applied by the writer. Christ had been healing the sick, and casting out evil spirits, Mat. viii. 16. By doing this, says the evangelist," he fulfilled that which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself (λaße) removed, bore away, our infirmities, and (Barrass) removed, took off, our diseases." Now Jesus did not do this by enduring sickness and disease in his own body, in order to cure those who were afflicted with them. He took away, removed, sickness and infirmity, by a single word or command. Why now may not an objector to the vicarious suf

ferings of Christ, building upon the interpretration of the evangelist in this case, aver that to bear our sins, is, in all cases, only to bear them away, to remove them; and this by any means whatever, whether by instruction, by moral suasion, or by an example which excites to virtue? This is a difficulty, which Mr. D. does not seem to have taken inte view, but which we earnestly recommend to him for examination, in a future edition of his discourses.

8. We are said to be redeemed or ransomed by the death of Christ. This might be said, if his death had served only as an example to excite us to virtue. But does it not, as said by the sacred writers, mean something more? Mr. D. has well answered this question.

In another passage, his [Paul's] language is if possible still more incapable of being misunderstood: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree." The curse of the Law is not the transgression of the Law. The Law does not say in pronouncing its curse on the sinner, If you transgress once, you shall continue to transgress. No Law was ever written in this manner. It says, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." The curse of the Law is its penalty, the punishment which it threatens to inflict on the transgressor. The evil then from which Christ is here said to redeem us, is that manifestation of the anger of God to which we were doomed by the condemning sentence of his Law. But when did he thus redeem us?--The

Apostle replies, When he died on the tree.--And in what way?-He again answers, By being made a Curse for us: i. e. by enduring sufferings and death, as an infliction for our sins. But how came he to be nailed to the tree? The whole company of the Apostles inform us that he was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God; and from Isaiah we learn that put him to grief;" and that JEHOVAH "it pleased JEHOVAH to bruise him, and laid on him the iniquities of us all." It was JEHOVAH then who inflicted upon

hin sufferings and death as a Curse, that we might be redeemed from the curse of the Law, the punishment to which we were doomed in consequence of our sins. If then Christ had not been made a Curse for us, we must have endured the punishment due to our sins. His sufferings were therefore in the stead of the punishment of our sins. pp. 59, 60.

With this head Mr. D. concludes the second part of his discourses. Of all the considerations presented, we deem those most important, and most directly to the author's purpose, which have respect to Christ as a sin-offering, a sacrifice, and as bearing our sins. Explained and urged as these are, and certainly explained and urged as they may be, could the author have leisure to pursue this very important investigation, they exhibit an argument for the vicarious sufferings of Christ, which is unanswerable. It remains for those who oppose this doctrine, at any rate, either to answer it, or renounce the authority of the sacred writers to decide the point.

We come now to the third part of the discouses before us, which is appropriated to the examination of various theories respecting the object effected by the death of Christ. We shall pass them briefly in review, in the order in which they are presented.

I. The great end of Christ's death was, to prove his sincerity.

The refutation of this is ample, and even superabundant. We present our readers with one of the considerations which Mr. D. adduces.

If this theory be true, all the martyrs deserve the title of Redeemers, Saviours and Mediators, as truly as Christ; for they proved their sincerity as fully, and in the same manner. Is it then true that Paul died for us, that he died for our sins, that he died for the forgive ness of our sins; that he "became a sin-offering for us;" that his death was an atonement for our sins, that he bare our sins in his own body on the tree;

that he hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; and that by his death we are reconciled to God? Do the Scriptures say this of Paul?--But why not?--The death of Jesus merely proved his sincerity, and the death of Paul proved his; and both were preachers of the same gospel. If then the phrases, bearing our sins, being made a curse for us, and others like them when applied to Christ, mean nothing but his dying to prove his sincerity; they are just as applicable to any other martyr, as to Jesus; and Paul is, in the same sense of the word with Jesus, the Saviour of the world, and the Redeemer of mankind. Then too we may lawfully say, “I am determined to know nothing among you save Paul and him crucified." "We preach Paul crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness, but unto them who are saved the power of God." pp. 64, 65.

This paragraph shows the manner in which the author of these discourses can urge home an argument, that cannot fail to be felt by his opponents.

II. Christ died in order to set us an example of fortitude.

The utter improbability that this was the special object of his death, is shewn by nine considerations. Two or three of these would be amply sufficient; as the theory which Mr. D. is here opposing, is only a subordinate part of the views of some of his opponents, and hardly needs any thing more than to be prostrated en passant. This Mr. D. has not only done, but stamped upon it after it is down, and "triturated it fine as the dust."

III. The end of Christ's death was to perfect his obedience.

Here too, our author enters the camp of his adversaries triumphant. But then we have the same remark to make as before. This is only a subordinate consideration with most who reject the doctrine of atonement. Indeed, the thing asserted is hardly intelligible. To perfect his obedience! And was not his obe

« VorigeDoorgaan »