Ivt' ^r^-!v^.#^.f;-ti
i» v-t, t; ^v
. U 1': tji 1^
, ^ ,, ., w |rf^trt>"^r^^^ ^^ ^- ^••^" *^^ ^.^ -:
j< >; :\ '; '^ a 4 »^ i.t ." V* ?.:V 1 t >;-^^ * V "5^ ^ ^ t'"^'-.
■if^^^M'^-^-M-fM-^^.U-i^f: ,, 4: i; I: *! ;i
v tvl; *■; i. <i-^U-
vi:,f
^^■*,-*f ^.<i.*j.*^.^4«.»v#<iii -^v^'i-^ *^4' *^-^^ M4« 4^*i^ 't^ *^ i^^*^ .•*v||.^ *:^.^ f<'i<-t« *t*'^1^ "^H^ il'^^ '^^ i^M4iiA-M n H UMul^
"i't-fm H'ti *tf #f *H ii ^M-^m-iiiiM a mi u h uh « m'
*;-'tt*1*'1^t!-1**' *m imi^M:^ *IU.UU U ^ *i*« ■«■*:* a lie i ■f^*5.*i*?-*«^4t-«-tf-#4fij 4*4^*^ *^ iti.;.j^-M 44.*;*.^ia w.f*.vv.i^ 4*.i
o5".
Srom t^e fei6rari? of
(profeBBor ^amuef (tttiffer
in pernor)? of
3ubge ^amuef (gXiffer QBrecftinribge
^amuef (gitffer QBrecfeinribge feong
to t^ feifirari? of
(pxincdon C^eofogicaf ^eminarg
Sec
DISCOURSES AND DISSERTATIONS
ON THE
SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES
OP
ATONEMENT Sf SACRIFICE.
?o
DISCOURSES AND DISSERTATIONS
ON THE
SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES
OF
ATONEMENT Sf SACRIFICE:
AND
ON THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, AND THE MODE OV
KEASONING EMPLOYED, BY THE OPPONENTS OF THOSE DOCTRINES
AS HELD BY THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH:
WITH
AN APPENDIX,
CONTAINING SOME STRICTURES ON MR. BELSHAM'S ACCOUNT
OF THE UNITARIAN SCHEME,
IN HIS REVIEW OF MR. WILBERFORCE'S TREATISE.
WILLIAM MAGEE, D. D.
SENIOR FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, AND PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATIOr, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.
THE THIRD EDITION. WITH ADDITIONS.
VOL. I.
LONDON:
rrintfd by J. & E. Hodson, Cross Street, Ilatton Garden, FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, IN THE STRAND.
1812.'
TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLl]!
WILLIAM CON YNGHAM PLUNKET.
JLN placing at the head of these sheets, a name, to wliich the respect and the admi- ration of the Pubhc have attached so much celebrity; and in avowing, at the same time, that I have selected the name of a Friend, with whom I have been united, almost from childhood, in the closest habits of in- timacy; I am aware, that I subject myself to the imputation of acting as much from a motive of pride, as from a sentiment of af- fection. I admit the imputation to be well- founded. To enjoy the happiness of such a Friend, and not to exult in the possession, would be not to deserve it. It is a pride, which, I trust, may be indulged in without blame: and the distinction of having been associated with a character, so transcend- ently eminent for private worth, for public virtue, and for intellectual endowments, I shall always regard as one of the most ho- nourable circumstances of my life,
a 3
VI
But, independently of these considera- tions, the very nature of my subject supphes a reason for the choice which I have made. For I know not, in truth, to whom I could, with greater propriety, inscribe a work, whose chief end is to expose false reasoning and to maintain true religion, than to one, in whom the powers of just reasoning are so conspicuously displayed, and by whom the great principles of religion are so sincerely reverenced.
With these views, I trust, that I shall stand excused by you, my dear Sir, in hav- ing, without your knowledge, tlms availed myself of the credit of your n?ane. The fol- lowing treatise, in which so many additions have been made to a former publication, as in some measure to entitle it to the appella- tion of a new work, I submit to your judg-^ ment: well satisfied, that if it meet your approbation, it will not find an unfavourable feceplion from the public. I am, my dear Sir,
With the truest attachment. Your affcictionate Friend and Servant,
THE AUTHOR.
Tiinity College^ Dublin^ Sept 21, 1809,
CONTENTS.
Vol; I. Prefatory Address to the Students in Divinity, in
the University of Dublin P- xHi
Advertisement to the Second Edition xxni
Advertisement to the Third Edition xxv
Discourse I.— On the scriptural dqctrine of Atonement 1 Discourse 11. —On the ecriptural doctrine of Sacrieice 41
Illustrations and ExplAUAtortt DisSEUTAttONS.
■^Q^ I.— On the Pre-esistence op Christ, and the species of arguments by which this article of the Christian Doctrine has been opposed 69
j^o, II._Unitarlan objectioue to the religious observ.
ance of stated days - 8S
No. III.— On the importance of t\\Q doctrine of Re- do demption .,..,.-» •'^
No. IV.— Pardon not necessarily consequent upon Re-
pentauce ^ ...... *'
I^fo. v.— The sense entertained by mankind of the «a- tural inefficacy of Repentance, proved from the history of human sacrifices SO
-^Q Y[.__On the muUipUetji operation of the Divine
acts ^ i^^
No. VII.— -Deistical reasoning instanced in Chubb ... 130
No. VIII.— Oo the consistency of Prayer with the (f/- tine immutability • •■•• « * * • ^^^
CONTENTS.
Vol. I.
No. IX. — On the granting of the divine forgiveness
fhiougli a Mediator or Intercessor 140
No. X. — On Unitarians, or Jxational Dissenters .. 148
No. XI. — On the distinction between Unitarians and
SOCINIANS 150
No. XII. — On the corruption of man's twtural state . . 154
No. X[II. — On i\ie misrepresentation of the doctrine of
Atonement by Unitarians 171
No. ^IV.— On the disrespect of Scripture manifested
by Unitarian Writers r 173
No. XV. — On the Heathen notions of merit entertained
by Unitarians « 17S
No, XVI. — Oa Dr. John Taylor's scheme o{ Atone.
ment 181
No. XVII. —The doctrine of Atonement falsely charg. ed with the presumption of pronouncing on the necessifj/ of Christ's death 1 88
No. XVI 1 1. — On tlie mode of reasoning, whereby the sufficiency of good tsorUs zdthout mediation is at- tempted to be defended from Scripture 194
No. XIX. — The izant of a discoverable connexion be- tween the means and the end, equally applies to every Scheme of Atonement , % 199
No. XX. — On the Scripture phrase of owt^ being recon.
died to God 202
No. XXI. — On the true distinction between the laying aside our enmity to God, and being reconciled to God 207
^0. XXri. — On the proofs from Scripture, that the
Sinner is the object of the Divine displeasure .... 208
No. XXIII.— Iwstance from the book of Job, of Sacri.
Jice being prescribed^ to avert God^s Anger 21^
Ko. XXIV. — On the Attribute of the divine jus- tice . . . 214
CONTENTS.
Vol. I.
No. XXV. — On the text in Jokriy describing our Lor(\ as the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world 216
No. XXVI. — On the meaning of the word propitia- tion in the New Testament 220
No. XXVII. — On the texts describing Christ's death as
a SACRIFICE FOR SIN 222
No. XX VIII. — On the word KATAAAAFH, translated
ss Atonement in Rom. v. 11 243
No. XXIX.— On the Denial that Christ's death is de- scribed in Scripture as a sin-oifering 245
No. XXX. — On the scnse^ in which Christ is said in
Scripture to have died for us 247
No. XXXI. — On the pretence of figurattve allu- sion in the Sacrificial terms of the New Tes- tament 253
No. XXXII. — Arguments to prove the sacrificial lan» guage of the New Testament figuraVrce^ urged by II. Taylor and Dr. Priestley 256
No. XXXIII. — On the sense entertained generally by all, and more especially instanced amongst the Jews, of the necessity of propitiatory expl. Ation 257
No. XXXIV. — On H. Taylor's objection, of the zsant of a literal correspondence between the mosaic sacrifice and the death of christ 293
No. XXXV. — On the arguments by which it is at- tempted to prove the passover not to be a sa- crifice , , 297
No. XXXVI. — On the meaning of the word translated
atonement, in the Old Testament 322
No. XXXVII.— On the efficacy of the Mosaic atone- ment, as applied to cases of moral transgres- sion 333
CONTENTS.
Vol. I. ^
No. XXXVIII.-^On the vicarious import of the
Mosaic sacrifices 352
'ijio, XXXI X.— On the imposition of hands upon the
head of the victim . . . , 368
No. XIj« — On the sufficiency of the proof oi the pro»
PITIATORY NATURE OF THE MosAlC SACRIFICES,
independent of the argument which establishes their vicarious import « 379
No. XLl. — On the divine institution of sacrifice^ and the traces thereof discoverable in the heathen cor. ruptions of the rite 379
No. XLII. — On the Death of Christ as a true pro- pitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of mankind . . 395
No, XLIII. — On the inconsistency/ of the reasoning whereby the death of Christ is maintained to have been but figuratively a sacrifice 483
No. XLIV, — On the nature of the sacrifice for sin 484
No. XLV. — On the effect of the doctrine of Atonement^ in producing sentiments favourable to Virtue and Religion 48i|
Vol. II.
No. XLVI. — On the supposition that sacrifice origin
iiated in Priestcraft 1
No. XLVII. — On the supposition that the Mosaic sa.
crifices originated in human invention 2
No. XLVIII. — Sacrifices explained as gifts by vari- ous writers . ^ • . 3 «S
No. XLIX. — Sacrifices explained as federal rites . . 21
No. L. — Bishop Warburton's Theory of the Origin
of Sacrifice 28
Nq. LI. — The supposition that sacrifices originated in
gifts, erroneous 30
CONTENT*
Vol. II.
No, LTI. — On the date of the permission of animal
FOOD to man ; . i 3 L
]^o. LHI.— On the divine origin of language .... 46 No. LIV. — On the natural itnycasonablencss of the »S'«-
crificial rite ^ 70
No. LV. — On the universality of Sacrifice . ,* 71
No. LVl. — On the imiversalitt/ of the rMotion of the
EXPIATORY VIRTUE of Sacrifice 74
No. LVIl. — On the objections against the supposition
of the DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE 76
No. LVIII. — On the sacrifice of Abel as evincing
the divine institution of Sacrifice St
No. LIX.— On the history and the book of Job 91
No. LX. — On Grotius^s strange misconception of the
nature of AbePs sacrifice 203
No. LXI. — On the difference in the divine reception of
the sacrifices of Cain and Abel 208
No. LXII.— On the true meaning of the phrase, ITAEI-
ONA 0YSIAN, attributed to the Sacrifice of Abel 213
No. LXIII. — On the nature and grounds of the faith
evidenced by the Sacrifice of Abel 224'
No. LXIV. — On the probable time and occasion of
the institution of sacrifice 223
^o» LXV.— On the true interpretation of the passage. Gen. iv. 7. containing God's expostulation with Cain 235
No. LXVI.—- On the comparison between the sacrifice
of Abel and that of Christ 250
No. LXVII. — On the nature of sacrifice before the law: tending to shew its confinement to animal sacrifice^ except in the case of Cain * 250
No. LXVIII. — On the disproportion between the ef- fects of the Mosaic and the Christian Sacrifices . . 254
CONTENTS*
Vol. II.
No. LXIX.— On the correspondence between the sa^ crifickd language of the Old Testament^ and that employed in the NeiD to describe Redemption by the Death of Christ: and the original adaptation of the former to the subject of the latter 262
Postscript to Number LXIX; on Boltngbroke and
Hume 299
'No. LXX. — On the correspondence between the An. nual Expiation under the Law^ and the One Great Expiation under the Gospel 342
No, LXXI. — On the natureand import of the ceremony
of the SCAPE GOAT 344
No. LXXII. — Sociuian objections urged by a Divine of the Established Church, against the doctrine of the vicarious import of the Mosaic sacrifices, and against other doctrines of the Church of England ^ 347
1:^0. LXXIII. — The Atonement by the sacrifice of Christ more strictli) vicarious^ than that by the Mosaic sa. crifices whereby it was typified 380
No. LXXIY.— Concluding Number 381
Appendix, containing an account of the Unitarian
Scheme, as described by Mr. Belsiiam 385
Index of the V rincipal Mcdters 497
Index of Texts 522
List of Books 634
PREFATORY ADDRESS.
=3
TO THE
STUDENTS IN DIVINITY
IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.
The following Discourses, originally composed with a view to your instruction, are now with the same design submitted to your more deli- berate examination t
In these latter days, Christianity seems des- tined to undergo a fiercer trial, than it has for many centuries experienced. Its defenders are called upon, not merely to resist the avowed in- vader, who assails the citadel from without, but the concealed and treacherous foe, who under- mines the works, or tampers with the garrison within. The temporising Christian, who^ under the mask of liberality, surrenders the funda- I
XIV
mental doctrines of his creed; and the imposing Rationahst, who, by the illusions of a factitious resemblance, endeavours to substitute philosophy for the gospel; are enemies even more to be dreaded, than the declared and systematic Deist. The open attacks of the one, directed against the Evidences of Christianity, have but served to strengthen the great outworks of our faith, by calling to its aid the united powers of its adhe- rents: whilst the machinations of the others, se- cretly employed against the Doctrines of our religion, tlireaten, by eluding the vigilance, and lulling the suspicions, of its friends, to subvert through fraud, what had been found impregnable by force. To aid these machinations,, a modern and depraved philosophy hath sent abroad its pernicious sophistries, infecting the sources of jnorality, and enervating the powers of manly thought; and the better to effect these purposes, clad in those engaging colours, which are pecu- liarly adapted to captivate the imaginations of young and ardent minds. Against arts and ene- 4jaies, such as these, the most strenuous exertions i)f all who value the religion of Christ, are at this nioment imperiously demanded. 1
XV
In what manner to prepare for this conflict, we are informed on high authority. We are to take unto us the ivJwle armour oj God — having on the hreast'plate of righteousness ; and our feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace: above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith we shall he aUe to quench all the fiery darts of the ivicked : and taking the hel- met of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is THE WORD OF GOD. These are the arms, which are to ensurc us victory in the con- test:— and without these arms, we neither can, nor ought to stand. A conspiracy the most deep and deadly has been formed against Christianity. The Poivers of darkness have combined their miglitiest efforts. If then the sentinels of the Gospel sleep upon their posts, if they do not in- stantly rouse to its defence, they are guilty of the blackest treason to their heavenly master. There is no room for truce or accommodation. The Captain of ^ our salvation has declared, tliat he that is not with hi?n is against him. The force of this declaration is at this day peculiarly manifest. It is now become necessary, that a
broad and distinct line should be drawn, betweea those who truly acknowledge the authority of Revelation^ and those who, whilst they wear the semblance of Christians, but lend the more effec- tual support to the enemies of Christianity,
These reflexions, though befitting all who pro- fess the religion of Christ, press peculiarly on those, who are destined to teach and to enforce his word. To you, my young friends, who look forward to the clerical office, they are impor- tant beyond description: and, if allowed their due weight upon your minds, they cannot fail to stimulate to the most zealous and effectual exer- tions in your pursuit of sacred knowledge. Al- ready, indeed, has a more enlivened spirit of religious inquiry been manifested amongst you. To promote that spirit, and to supply some addi- tional security against the prevailing delusions of the day, these Discourses, on the doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice, — doctrines against which, above all others, the Deist, and the Ra- tionalising Christian, direct their attacks, — were originally delivered, and are now published.
XVll
The desire expressed for their pubhcation, by the existing divinity classes, had been long since complied with, but for the addition of certain arduous Academic duties to the ordinary engage- ments of the Author's Collegiate situation. To those, who are so well acquainted with the labo- rious employment, which those duties and en- gagements necessarily impose, no apology can be requisite on the ground of delay. More than twelve months have elapsed, since the greater part of these sheets were committed to the press: and the prosecution of the subject, has been un- avoidably suspended during a considerable por- tion of the intervening period.
The form, in which the work is now present- ed, seems more to require explanation. The first design extended only, to the publication of the two discourses, with a few occasional and sup- plementary remarks : and on this plan, the ser- mons were sent to press. But on farther con- sideration, it appeared advisable to enter into a more accurate, and extensive, examination of the subject: even though a short text should thereby be contrasted with a disproportionate body of
VOL, I. h
XVlll
Notes. The great vice of the present day, is a presumptuous precipitancy of judgment: and there is nothing, from which the cause of Chris- tianity, as well as of general knowledge, has suffered more severely, than from that impatience of investigation, and that confidence of decision upon hasty and partial views, which mark the literary character of an age, undeservedly extolled for its improvements in reasoning and philosophy, A false taste in morals, is naturally connected with a false taste in literature: and the period of vicious dissipation, is not likely to prove the era of dispassionate, and careful, enquiry. There is, however, no shoit way to truth. The nature of things will not accommodate itself, to the lazi- ness, the interests, or the vices of men. The paths, which lead to knowledge, are unalterably fixed; and can be traced, only by slow and cau- tious steps.
From these considerations, it was judged ex- pedient to reduce the subject of these discourses, and the crude and superficial reasonings which have of late been exercised upon it, to a stricter and more minute test of enquiry. For this pur- l
XIX
pose, the present plan has been adopted as the best suited to that exactness of critical investigation which is due to the importance of the subject : and as the most fitly calculated, to direct the thoughts of the student, to the most useful to- pics of enquiry, and the most profitable sources of 'information. Such a plan, I have little doubt, will be favourably received by those, whose minds, trained in the habits of close deduction, and exercised in the researches of accurate sci- ence, cannot but be readily disposed to accept, in the place of general assertion and plausible de- clamation, a careful review of facts, and a cautious examination of scripture.
One circumstance, which is of no mean value in the method here pursued, is, that it enables us, without interrupting the thread, of enquiry, to canvass and appreciate the pretensions of cer- tain modern writers, whose high tone of self- admiration, and loud vaun tings of superior know- ledge, have been but too successful in obtaining for tiiem a partial, and temporary, ascendancy in public opinion; and who have employed the
influence derived from that ascendancy, to vveaken
b 2
XX
the truths of Christianity, and to sap the dearest interests of man. 1 trust, that you, my young readers, will see enough in the Illustrations and Ex2)lanatory Dissertations accompanying these Discourses, to convince you of the emptiness of their claims to that superiority, which, did they possess it, would be applied to purposes so injurious. You will, probably, see sufficient reason to pronounce, that their pretensions to philosophic distinction, and their claims to cri- tical pre-eminence, stand on no better grounds, than their assumption of the exclusive profession of a pure Christianity. The confident and over- bearing language of such men, you will then regard as you ought: and from the review of their reasonings, and the detail of their religious opinions, you will naturally be led to feel the full value of the duly regulated discipline of the youthful understanding, in those severer exercises of scientific study, which give vigour to the in- tellect, and steadiness to the judgment; and the still greater value, of that early reverence for the mysterious sublimities of religion, which teaches the humility becoming mans highest powers, when directed to the yet higher things of God. —
1
XXI
The half learning of modern times, has been the fruitful parent, of multiplied evils: and it is not witiiout good cause, that the innovating theorist of the present day, makes it his first object to abridge the work of education, and under the pretence of introducing a system of more immediate practical utility, to exclude that wholesome discipline, and regular institution, wdiich are essential to conduct the faculties of the young mind, to sound and manly strength.
I cannot conclude this prefatory address, with- out indulging in the gratifying reflexion, that, whilst the deceptions of wit, and the fascinations of eloquence, combined with a wily sophistry, and an imposing confidence, have but too fre- quently produced their pernicious effects, to the detriment of a true Christian faith, on the minds of the inexperienced, and unreflecting; these au- dacious attempts have seldom found, in this place, any other reception, than that of contempt and aversion: — and with true pleasure I feel myself justified in pronouncing with confidence, that, so long as the Students of this Seminary, intended for the office of the ministry, continue to evince
b3
XXll
the same serious attention to religious subjects, which has of late years so honourably distinguish- ed numbers of your body, and so profitably re- warded the zealous labours of your instructors in sacred literature, Christianity will have little to fear in this land from such attempts.
That you may gloriously persevere, in these laudable efforts to attain the most useful of all learning, and in the conscientious endeavour to qualify yourselves for the due discharge of the most momentous of all duties : that so the work of God may not suffer in your hands ; but that be- ing judged fit dispensers of that ivisdom ivJiich is from ahove^ you may hereafter be enabled to turn many to righteousness, and finally to ob- tain the recompence of the good and faithful servants of Christ, is the ardent wish and prayer, of your very sincere friend,
THE AUTHOR.
Aphil 22, 1801.
ADVERTISEMENT
TO THE
SECOND EDITION.
It is now nearly seven years^ since appli-- cation was made to the Autlioi\ by his Bookseller^ for a new Edition of the Dis- courses ON THE Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice. It being his intention to introduce into the worh^ con^ siderable alterations in point of form, and considerable additions in point of matter; he deferred complying icith the BookseU ler^s desire^ until he should be able to ac^ complish this intention. The same prevent tive causes^ to ichich in the prefatory ADDRESS TO THE STUDENTS he had occasiou formerly to advert^ again operated to pro-* duce delay ; and have occasioned this late appearance of the pi^omised publication. The worli^ which now issues from the press^
XXIV
icas^ he is almost ashamed to avoii\ com'* mitted to it in the June of 1807 — It is only to those^ however^ who are unacquainted with the nature of the Author'^ s academic occupations^ that he feels any explanation to he necessary upon this head. He takes this occasion also to apologize^ on the same ground, for the non-appearance of certain other works, for which he stands engaged to the public; andivhich, although for some years nearly comj)leted, he has not had time to carry througlt the press.
Sept. 21, 1809.
ADVERTISEMENT
TO THE
THIRD EDITION.
IN the Edition now given to the public, additional matter^ which, it is hoped, may bestow some additional value, has been in^ troduced ; and a few changes (conceived to be improvements) inform and arrangement, have been adopted. The principal addition^ will be found in Numbers VII. VIII. XII. XIV. XVII. XXVII. XXX. XLI. XLII. LIII. LXV. LXIX. and its Postscript; and in the last forty pages of the Appendix. The Index of Matters, and List of Books, are likewise enlarged : and a new Index, of Texts, is introduced. The alterations of ar^ rangement chiefly affect Numbers XXXV. LIX. LXIX.— T//e Syriac quotations are printed in their proper character; which
XXVI
could not be done in the former Editions^ from the icant of a Syriac type. It should be remarked also^ for the better understand'- ing of certain parts of the work^ especially the notes in page 160 and page 479 of the ^first volume^ that the Edition^ was sent to press early in the year 1810; although^ from unavoidable delays it only now makes its appearance.
January Ist, 1812.
TWO DISCOURSES
OX THE
SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES
OF
ATONEMENT S( SACRIFICE;
DELIVERED IN THE
CHAPEL OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN;
ON
GOOD FRIDAY,
IN THE YEARS 1798^ AND 1799.
DISCOURSE L
1 Cor. i. 23, 24.
•^ But we preach christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called — CHRIST, the power of god^ and the wisdom of
GOD."
A. HAT the sublime mystery of the Redemption, should have escaped the comprehension, both of the Jew, and of the Greek : that a Crucified Sa- viour, should have given offence to the worldly- expectant of a Triumphant Messiah, whilst the proud philosopher of the schools, turned with dis- dain, from the humiliating doctrine, which pro- claimed the insufficiency of human reason, and threatened to bend its aspiring head before the foot of the Cross— were events, which the matured growth of national prejudice, on the one hand, and the habits of contentious discussion, aided by a depraved moral system, on the other, might, in the natural course of things, have been expected to produce. — That the Son of God had de- scended from Heaven : that he had disrobed hini-
B
self ^of the Glory, which he had with the Father, before the world began: that he had assumed the form, of the humblest, and most degraded, of men : that submitting to a life of reproach, and want, and sorrow, he had closed the scene, with a death of ignominy and torture ; and that through this voluntary degradation and suffering, a way of reconciliation with the Supreme Being had been opened to the whole human race ; and I an atonement made for those transgressions, from the punishment of which unassisted reason could have devised no means of escape ; these are truths, which prejudice and pride could not fail, at all times, to have rejected : and these are truths, to which the irreligion and self-sufficiency of the present day, oppose obstacles not less insurmount- able than those which the prejudice of the Jew, and the philosophy of the Greek presented, in the age of the Apostle. For, at this day, when we boast a wider diffusion of learning, and more extensive acquirements of moral knowledge, do we not find these fundamental truths of Revela- tion questioned ? Do we not see the haughtiness of lettered scepticism, presuming to reject the proffered terms of Salvation, because it cannot trace, with the finger of human science, the con- nexion between the cross of Christ and the redemption of man? But to these vain and presumptuous aspirings after knowledge placed beyond human reach, we are commanded to ^ See No, I.
preach CHktsT crucified : which, however it may, to the self-fancied wise ones of this world^ appear as foohshness, is yet, to those who will humble their understanding to the dispensations of the Almighty, the grandest display of the divine perfections ; Christ, the power of' God, and the wisdom of God.
To us also, my Brethren, who profess a con* viction of this truth ; and who are called on by the return of this day, more ^particularly to re- collect the great work of Salvation, wrought out for us by the memorable event which it records ; it may not be unprofitable, to take a short view of the objections, that have been urged against this fundamental *" doctrine of our religion : that so we may the better discern those snares, which beset the Christian path ; and that being guarded against the obstructions, which are insidiously raised, against that true and gospel faith, whereby alone 2ve can hope for acceptance and happiness, we ma}^ be able to place the great pillar of our hopes, upon a basis, which no force can shake, and no art can undermine.
In the consideration of this subject, which eve- ry Christian must deem most highly deserving the closest examination, our attention should be directed to two different classes of objectors : those, who deny the necessity of any mediation whatever; and those^ who question the particular .natuie of
' S^eNo.II. *= See No. Ill,
B 2
4
that mediation, which has been appointed. Whilst the Deist, on the one hand, ridicules the very- notion of a Mediator : and the philosophizing Christian, on the other, fashions it to his own hypothesis : we are called on to vindicate the word of truth, from the injurious attacks of both; and carefully to secure it, not only against the open assaults of its avowed enemies, but against the more dangerous misrepresentations, of its false, or mistaken friends.
The objections, which are peculiar to the for- mer, are upon this subject, of the same descrip- tion with those, which they advance against every other part of Revelation ; bearing with equal force, against the system of Natural Religion, which they support, as against the doctrines of Revealed Re- ligion, which they oppose. And indeed, this sin- gle circumstance, if weighed with candour and reflexion ; that is, if the Deist were truly the Phi- losopher he pretends to be ; might suffice to con- vince him of his error. For the closeness of the analogy between the works of Nature and the word of the Gospel, being found to be such, that every blow, which is aimed at the one, rebounds with undiminished force against the other: the convic- tion of their common origin, must be the infer- ence of unbiassed understanding.
Thus, when in the outset of his argument, the Deist tells us, that as obedience must be the object of God's approbation, and disobedience the ground of his displeasure ; it must follow by na-
tural consequence, that when Men have trans- gressed the divine commands, repentance and amendment of hfe will place them, in the same situation, as if they had never offended : — he does not recollect, that actual experience of the course of Nature, directly contradicts the assertion; and that, in the common occurrences of life, the man, who by intemperance, and voluptuousness, has injured his character, his fortune, and his health, does not find himself instantly restored to the full enjoyment of these blessings, on repenting of his past misconduct, and determining on future amendment. Now, if the attributes of the Deity demand, that the punishment should not outlive the crime; on what ground shall we justify this temporal dispensation ? The difference in degree^ cannot affect the question in the least. It matters not, whether the punishment be of long, or of short duration ; whether in this world, or in the next. If the justice or the goodness of God, re- quire, that punishment should not be inflicted, when repentance has taken place ; it must be a violation of those attributes, to permit any pun- ishment whatever, the most slight, or the most transient. Nor will it avail to say, that the evils of this life attendant upon vice, are the effects of an established constitution, and follow in the way of natural consequence. Is not that established constitution itself, the effect of the divine decree ^ And are not its several operations as much the
b3
6
appointment of its Almighty framer, as if they had individually flowed from his immediate di- rection ? But besides, what reason have we to suppose that God's treatment of us in a future state, will not be of the same nature as we find it in this; according to established rules, and in the way of natural consequence ? Many cir- cumstances might be urged, on the contrary, to evince the likelihood that it will. But this is not necessary to our present purpose. It is sufficient, that the Deist cannot prove that it will 9iof, Our experience of the present state of things evinces, that indemnity is not the consequence of repentance, liere : can he adduce a counter-experience to shew, that, it will, here- after ? The justice and goodness of God are not then necessarUy concerned, in virtue of the sinner's repentance, to remove all evil consequent upon sin in the next life, or else the arrange- ment of events in this, has not been regulated by the dictates of justice and goodness. If the Deist admits the latter, what becomes of his Natural Religion ?
Now let us enquire, whether the conclusions of abstract reasoning, will coincide with the de- ductions of experience. If obedience be at all times our duty, in what way can present repent- ance release us from the punishment of former transgressions ^ ? Can repentance annihilate what is past ? Or^ can we do more, by present obe- d See No. IV.
dience, than acquit ourselves of present obliga- tion ? Or, does the contrition we experience, added to the positive duties we discharge, con- stitute a surplusage of merit, which may be trans- ferred to the reduction of our former demerit? And is the justification of the Philosopher, who is too enlightened to be a Christian, to be built, after all, upon the absurdities of supererogation? " We may as well affirm,'' says a learned Divine, " that our former obedience atones for our present sins, as that our present obedience makes amends for antecedent transgressions." And it is surely with a peculiar ill grace, that this sufficiency of repentance is urged by those, who deny the pos- s'lhle efficacy of Christ's mediation; since the ground, on which they deny the latter, equally serves for the rejection of the former : the we- cessary connexion, between the merits of one being, and the acquittal of another, not being less conceivable, than that which is conceived to sub- sist between obedience at one time, and the for- giveness of disobedience at another.
Since then, upon the whole, experience (as ff far as it extends) goes to prove the natural in- efficacy of repentance to remove the effects of past transgressions; and the abstract reason of the thing, can furnish no link, whereby to con- nect present obedience, with forgiveness of former sins : it follows, that however the contemplation of God's infinite goodness and love, might excite
B 4
a
some faint hope, that mercy would be extended to the sincerely penitent; the animating cer- tainty of this momentous truth, without which the religious sense can have no place, can be derived from the express communication of the Deity alone. ^
But it is yet urged by those, who would measure the proceedings of divine wisdom by the standard of their own reason ; that, admitting the necessity of a Revelation on this subject^ it had been sufficient for the Deity, to have made known to man his benevolent intention : and that the circuitous apparatus of the scheme of redemption, must have been superfluous, for the purpose of rescuing the w^orld from the terrors and dominion of sin ; when this might have been effected, in a way infinitely more simple, and intelligible, and better calculated to excite our gratitude and love, merely by proclaiming to mankind a free pardon, and perfect indemnity, on condition of repentance, and amendment.
To the disputer, who would thus prescribe to God, the mode, by which he may best conduct his creatures to happiness, we might as before reply, by the application of his own argument, to the course of ordinary events : and we might de- mand of him to inform us, wherefore, the Deity should have left the sustenance of life, depending on the tedious process of human labour and con- trivance, in rearing from a small seed^ and con* See No. V.
ducting to the perfection fitting it for the use of man^ the necessary article of nourishment; when the end might have been at once accomphshed^ by its instantaneous production. And will he contend^ that bread has not been ordained for the support of man ; because that, instead of the present circuitous mode of its production, it might have been rained down from heaven, like the manna in the wilderness? On grounds such as these, the Philosopher (as he wishes to be called) may be safely allowed to object to the notion of forgiveness by a Mediator.
With respect to every such objection as this, it may be well, once for all, to make this general observation. We find, from the whole course of nature, that God governs the world, not by in- dependent acts, but by connected system. The instruments which he employs, in the ordinary works of his Providence, are not physically ne- cessary to his operations. He might have acted without them, if he pleased. " He might, for instance, have created all men, without the in- tervention of parents: but where then had been the beneficial connexion between parents and children; and the numerous advantages resulting to human society, from such connexion ?" The difficulty lies here: the uses, arising from the con- nexions of God's acts may be various ; and such are the pregnancies of his works, that a single act may answer a prodigious variety of purposes. Of these several purposes we are, for the most
10
part, ignorant : and from this ignorance are deriv- ed, most of our weak objections against the ways of his Providence; whilst we foohshly presume, that, Hke human agents, he has but one end in view. ^
This observation we shall find of material use, in our examination of the remaining arguments, adduced by the Deist, on the present subject. And there is none to which it more forcibly applies than to that, by which he endeavours to prove the notion of a Mediator to be inconsistent with the divine immutahiUtjj. It is either, he affirms,^ agreeable to the will of God, to grant salvation on repentance, and then he ivill grant it without a Mediator : or it is not agreeable to his will, and then a Mediator can be of no avail, unless we ad- mit the mutability of the divine decrees.
But the objector is not perhaps aware, how far this reasoning will extend. Let us try it in the case of prayer. All such things, as are agreeable to the will of God, must be accomplished, whe- ther we pray or not, and therefore our prayers are useless, unless they be supposed to have a power of altering his will. And indeed, with equal con- clusiveness it might be proved, that Repentance itself must be unnecessary. For if it be fit that our sins should be forgiven, God will forgive us without repentance : and if it be unfit, repentance can be of no avail. ^ * See No VI. ^ See No. VIII. ^ See No. Villa
II
The error in all these conclusions is the same. It consists in mistaking a conditional for an ab- solute decree; and in supposing God to ordain an end unalterably, without any concern as to the in- termediate steps, whereby that end is to be ac^ complished. Whereas the manner is sometimes as necessary as the act proposed: so that if not done in that particular way, it would not have been done at all. Of this observation, abundant illustration may be derived, as well from natural, as from revealed religion. " Thus we know from natural religion, that it is agreeable to the will of God, that the distresses of mankind should be re- lieved : and yet we see the destitute, from a wise constitution of Providence, left to the precarious benevolence of their fellow-men ; and if not re- lieved by them, they are not relieved at all. In like manner, in Revelation, in the case of Naaman the Syrian, we find that God was willing he should be healed of his leprosy; but yet he was not will- ing that it should be done, except in one particu- lar manner, Abana and Pharpar were as famous as any of the rivers of Israel. Could he not wash in them, and be clean? Certainly he might, if the design of God had been no more than to heal him. Or it might have been done without any washing at all. But the healing was not the only design of God, nor the most important. The manner of the cure was of more consequence in the moral design of God, than the cure itself: the effect being procluced, for the sake of manifesting to
12
the whole kingdom of Syria, the great power of the God of Israel, by which the cure was per- formed." And in like manner, though God willed, that the penitent sinner should receive forgive- ness ; we may see good reason, why, agreeably to his usual proceeding, he might will it to be granted in one particular manner only ; through the intervention of a Mediator.*
Although in the present stage of the subject, in which we are concerned wdth the objections of the DEIST, the argument should be confined to the deductions of natural reason; yet I have added this instance from Revelation, because, strange to say, some who assume the name of Christians, and profess not altogether to discard the written word of Revelation, adopt the very principle, which we have just examined. For what are the doctrines of that description of Christians,^ in the sister kingdom, who glory, in having brought down the high things of God, to the level of man's understanding? — That Christ was a person sent into the world, to promulgate the will of God: to communicate -new lights, on the subject of religious duties : by his life, to set an example of perfect obedience : by his death to manifest his sincerity : and by his resurrection, to convince us of the great truth which he had been commissioned to teach, our rising again to future life. This, say they, is the sum and sub- stance of Christianity. It furnishes a purer mo* ? See No. IX. ''SeeNo. X.
13
rality, and a more operative enforcement: its morality more pure, as built on juster notions of the divine nature : and its enforcement more operative, as founded on a certainty of a state of retribution.^ — And is then Christianity nothing, but a new^ and more formal promulgation of the religion of nature? Is the death of Christ but an attestation of his truth ? And are we after all left to our own merit for acceptance; and obligea to trust for our Salvation, to the perfection of our obedience? Then, indeed, has the great Author of our Religion, in vain submitted to the agonies of the cross; if after having given to mankind a law, which leaves them less excusable in their transgressions, he has left them to be judged by the rigour of that law, and to stand or fall by their own personal deserts.
It is said, indeed, that as by this new dispensa- tion, the certainty- of pardon on repentance, has been made known, mankind has been informed of all, that is essential in the doctrine of media- tion. But granting, that no more was intended to be conveyed, than the sufficiency of repentance; yet it remains to be considered, in what way that repentance was likely to be brought about. Was the bare declaration, that God would forgive the repentant sinner, sufficient to ensure his a- mendment? Or was it not rather calculated, to render him easy under guilt, from the facility of reconciliation? What was there to alarm, to rouse, the sinner from the apathy of habitual trans- » See No. XI.
14
gression? What was there to make that hnpres- sion which the nature of God's moral govern- ment demands ? Shall we say, that the grateful sense of divine mercy would be sufficient ; and that the generous feelings of our nature, awakened by the supreme goodness, would have secured our obedience ? that is, shall we say, that the love of virtue, and of right, would have maintained man in his allegiance ? And have we not, then, had abundant experience of what man can do when left to his own exertions, to be cured of such vain and idle fancies? What is the history of man, from the creation to the time of Christ, but a continued trial of his natural strength? And what has been the moral of that history, but that man is strong, only as he feels himself weak ? — strong, only as he feels, that his nature is corrupt, and from a consciousness of that corruption, is led to place his whole reliance upon God? — What is the description, which the Apostle of the Gentiles has left us, of the state of the world, at the coming of our Saviour ? — being filled with all luirighte- ousness, for nlcation, icickedness, covetousnessy maliciousness ; full of envy, rtiurder, debate, deceit, malignity; ichisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without un^ derstandlng, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful — who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit 2
15
si.idi things are worth}/ of death, not oyihj do the same, hut have pleasure in them that do them, -f-
Here were the fruits of that natural goodness of the human heart, which is the favourite theme and fundamental principle, with that class of Christ- ians, with whom we are at present concerned. And have we not then, had full experiment, of our natural powers? ""And shall we yet have the mad- ness, to fly back to our own sufficiency, and our own merits^ and to turn away from that gracious support, which is offered to us, through the medi- ation of Christ? No: lost as men were, at the time Christ appeared, to all sense of true Religion : Jost as they must be to it, at all times, when left to a proud confidence in their own sufficiency ; nothing short of a strong, and salutary terror, could awaken them to virtue. Without some striking expression, of God's abhorrence of sin, which might work powerfully on the imagination, and the heart, what could prove a sufficient coun- teraction, to the violent impulse of natural pas- sions? what, to the entailed depravation, which the history of man, no less than the voice of Revelation, pronounces to have infected the whole human race ? Besides, without a full and adequate senseof guilt, the very notion of forgiveness, as it relates to us, is unintelligible. We can have no idea of forgiv'eness,
f Rom. i. 29, 30, 31, 32. °» See No. XII,
16
unless conscious of something to be forgiven, lo-norant of our forgiveness, we remain ignorant of that goodness which confers it. And thus, with- out some proof of God's hatred for sin, we remain unacquainted with the greatness of his love.
The simple promulgation then, of forgiveness on repentance, could not answer the purpose. Merely to hnow the condition could avail nothing. An inducement, of sufficient force to ensure its fulfilment, was essential. The system of suffi- ciency had been fully tried, to satisfy mankind of its folly. It was now time to introduce a new system, the system of humility. And for this purpose, what expedient could have been devised more suitable, than that which has been adopted? — the sacrifice of the Son of God, for the sins of men : proclaiming to the world, by the greatness of the ransom, the immensity of the guilt : "^ and thence, at the same time evinc- ing, in the most fearful manner, God's utter abhorrence of sin, in requiring such expiation; and the infinity of his love, in appointing it.
To this expedient for man s salvation, though it be the clear and express language of Scripture, I have as yet sought no support from the authority of Scripture itself. Having hitherto had to contend, with the Deist, who denies all Revelation ; and the pretended Christian, who rationalizing away its substance, finds it a mere moral system, and can discover in it no trace of a Redeemer » See No. XIII.
17
to urge the declarations of Scripture, as to the particular nature of redemption, would be to no purpose. Its authority disclaimed by the one, and evaded by the other, each becomes unas- sailable on any ground, but that which he has chosen for himself, the ground of general reason. But, we come now to consider the objections of a class of Christians who, as they profess to derive their arguments from the language and meaning of ° Scripture, will enable us to try the subject of our discussion, by the only true standard, the word of Revelation. And indeed, it were most sincerely to be wished, that the doctrines of Scripture, were at all times collected purely from the Scripture itself: and that pre- conceived notions, and arbitrary theories were not first to be formed, and then the Scripture pressed into the service of each fanciful dogma. If God has vouchsafed a Revelation, has he not thereby imposed a duty of submitting our understandincrs to its perfect wisdom? Shall weak, short-si o-hted man presume to say ? " If I find the discoveries of Revelation, correspond to my notions of what is right and fit, I will admit them : but if they do not, I am sure they cannot be the genuine sense of Scripture : and I am sure of it, on this principle, that the wisdom of God cannot disagree with itself." That is, to express it truly, that the wisdom of God, cannot but agree with what this judge of the o See No. XI V". C
18
actions oF the Almighty, deems it wise for himL to do. The language of Scripture must then, by every possible refinement, be made to surren- der its fair, and natural meaning, to this prede- termination of its necessary import. But the word of Revelation being thus pared down to the puny dimensions of human reason, how differs the Christian from the Deist? The only difference is this : that whilst tlie one denies, that God hath given us a Revelation ; the other, compelled by evidence to receive it, endeavours to render it of no effect. But in both, there is the same self- sufficiency, the same pride of understanding, that would erect itself on the ground of human reason, and that disdains to accept the divine fa- vour, on any conditions, but its own. In both, in short, the very characteristic of a Christian spirit is wanting — Humility. For in what consists the entire of Christianity, but in this; that feeling an utter incapacity to work out our own salvation, we submit our whole-selves, our hearts, and our understandings, to the divine disposal ; and relying on God's gracious assistaiace, en- sured to our honest endeavours to obtain it, through the mediation of Christ Jesus, we look up to him, and to him alone, for safety? Nay, what is the very notion of religion, but this humble reliance upon God ? Take this away, and we become a race of independent beings, claiming as a debt, the reward of our good works^ ; a sort P See No. XV.
19
of contracting party with the Almighty, contri- buting nought to his glory, but anxious to maintain our own independence, and our own rights. And is it not^ to subdue this rebelhous spirit, which is necessarily at war with Virtue and with God, that Christianity has been introduced ? Does not every page of Revelation, peremptorily pronounce this ; and yet, shall we exercise this spirit, even upon Christianity itself? Assuredly, if we do ; if, on the contrary, our pride of un- derstanding, and self-sufficiency of reason, are not made to prostrate themselves before the awfully mysterious truths of Revelation ; if we do not bring down the rebellious spirit of our nature, to confess that the wisdom of man is but fool- ishness ivlth God ; we may bear the name of Christians, but we want the essence of Christianity. These observations, though they apply in their full extent, only to those who reduce Christianity to a system purely rational ; yet are, in a certain degree, applicable to the description of Christ- ians, whose notion of Redemption we now come to consider. For what but a preconceived theory, to which Scripture had been compelled to yield its obvious and genuine signification, could ever have led to the opinion, that in the death of Christ, there was no expiation for sin ; that the word sacrifice has been used by the writers of the New Testament, merely in a figurative sense; and that the whole doctrine of the
c 2
£5
Redemption, amounts but to this, "that God, wiUing to pardon repentant sinners, and at the same time wilHng to do it, only in that way, which would best promote the cause of virtue, appointed that Jesus Christ should come into the A\'orld; and that he, having taught the pure doc- trines of the Gospel ; having passed a life of exemplary virtue ; having endured many suffer- ings, and finally death itself, to prove his truth, and perfect his obedience ; and having risen again, to manifest the certainty of a future state ; has, not only, by his example, proposed to mankind a pattern for imitation ; but has, by the merits of his obedience, obtained, through his intercession, as a reward, a kingdom or government over the world, whereby he is enabled, to bestow pardon, and final happiness, upon all who will accept them, on the terms of sincere repentance."^ That is, in other words, we receive salvation through a Mediator: the mediation conducted, through intercession: and that intercession successful, in recompence of the meritorious obedience of our Redeemer.
Here indeed, we find the notion of redemp- tion admitted: but in setting up, for this purpose, the doctrine o^ pure intercession, in opposition to that of atonement, we shall perhaps discover, when properly examined, some small tincture of that mode of reasoning, which as we have ^een, has led the modern Socinian to contend " See No. XVI.
21
against the idea of Redemption at large ; and the Deist, against that of Revelation itself.
For the present, let us confine our attention, to the objections, which the patrons of this new system, bring against the principle of atonement, as set forth in the doctrines of that church, to which we more immediately belong. As for those, which are founded in views of general reason, a little reflexion will convince us, that there is not any, which can be alleged against the latter, that may not be urged, with equal force, against the former : not a single difficulty, with which it is attempted to encumber the one, that does not equally embarrass the other. This having been evinced, we shall then see, how little reason there was, for relinquishing the plain and natural meaning of Scripture; and for opening the door, to a latitude of interpretation, in which it is but too much the fashion to indulge at the present day, and which if persevered in, must render the word of God, a nullity.
The first, and most important of the objections we have now to consider, is that which repre- sents the doctrine of atonement, as founded on the divine implacahiliti/ — inasmuch as it sup- poses, that to appease the rigid justice of God, it was requisite that punishment should be in- flicted; and that, consequently, the sinner could not by any means have been released, had not Christ suflfered in his stead.f Were See No. XVlf.
22
this a faithful statement of the doctrine of atonement, there had indeed been just ground for the objection. But that this is not the fair representation of candid truth, let the objector feel, by the application of the same mode of rea- soning, to the system which he upholds. If it was necessary to the forgiveness of man, that Christ should suffer; and through the merits of his obedience, and as the fruit of his intercession, obtain the power of . granting that forgiveness ; does it not follow, that had not Christ thus suffered, and interceded, we could not have been forgiven? And has he not then, as it were, taken us out of the hands of a severe and strict judge ; and is it not to him alone that we owe our pardon ? Here the argument is exactly pa- rallel, and the objection of implacability equally applies. Now what is the answer? '' That although it is through the merits and intercession of Christ, that we are forgiven ; yet these were not the procuring cause, but the means, by which God, originally disposed to forgive, thought it right to bestow his pardon." Let then the word intercession be changed for sacrifice, and see whether the answer be not equally conclusive.
The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed by any who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement, to have made God placable, but merely viewed as the means, appointed by divine wisdom, by which to bestow forgiveness. And
23
agreeably to this, do we not find this sacrifice every where spoken of, as ordained by God himself? — God so loved the worlds that he gave his only begotten Son, that ivhosoever helieveth in kirn should not perish, but have everlasting lif'e^ — and hereifi is love, not that ive loved God, but that he loved us, and. sent his Son to he the propitiation for our sins-^ — and again we are told, that we are redeemed ivith the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without hlemish, and ivithout spot — ivha verily wasfore^ ordained before the foundation of the ivorld^ — and again, that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the ivorld,^ Since then, the notion of the efficiency of the sacrifice of Christ contained in the doctrine of atonement^ stands precisely on the same foundation, with that of pure intercession — merely as the means, where- by God has thought fit to grant his favour and gracious aid to repentant sinners, and to fulfil that merciful intention, which he had at all times entertained towards his fallen creatures: and since, by the same sort of representation, the charge of implacability in the Divine Being, is as applicable to the one scheme, as to the other ; that is, since it is a calumny most foully cast upon both ; we may estimate, with what candour this has been made, by those who hold the one doctrine, the fundamental ground of their objec-
* John, iii. 16. +1 John, iv. 10.
t I Pet, i. 18, 19, 20. ^ Revel, xiii. 8.
24
tions against the other. For, on the ground oF the expressions of God's unbounded love to his creatures every where through Scripture, and of his several declarations that he foro^ave them freely^ it is, that they principally contend, that the notion of expiation by the sacrifice of Christ, can not be the genuine doctrine of the New Tes- tament.^
But still it is demanded, " in what way, can the death of Christ, considered as a sacrifice of expia- tion, be conceived to operate to the remission of sins, unless by the appeasing a Being, who other- wise would not have forgiven us?" — To this the answer of the Christian is, "I know not, nor does it concern me to know, in ivhat manner the sacri- fice of Christ is connected with the forgiveness of sins: it is enough, that this is declared by God to be the medium, through which my salvation is effected. I pretend not to dive into the councils of the Almighty. I submit to his wisdom: and I will not reject his grace, because his mode of vouchsafing it is not within my comprehension.'' But now let us try the doctrine of pure interces- sion by this same objection. It has been asked, how can the sufferings of one Being, be conceived to hav^e any connexion with the forgiveness of another. Let us likewise enquire, how the me- ritorious obedience of one Being, can be conceived to have any connexion with the pardon of the trans- gressions of another:^ or whether the prayers of sSee No. XVIH « See ]Xo. XIX,
25
a righteous Being in behalf of a wicked person, can be imagined to have more weight in obtain- ino- forgiveness for the transgressor, than the same supphcation, seconded by the offering up of hfe itself, to procure that forgiveness? The fact is, the w^ant of discoverable connexion has nothing to do with either. Neither the sacrifice, nor the in- tercession, has, as far as we can comprehend, any efficacy whatever. All that we know, or can know of the one, or of the other, is, that it has been ap- pointed as the means, by which God has deter- mined to act with respect to man. So that to object to the one, because the mode of operation is unknown, is not only giving up the other, but the very notion of a Mediator ; and if followed on, cannot fail to lead to pure Deism, and perhaps may not stop even there.
Thus we have seen, to what the general objec- tions against the doctrine of atonement amount. The charges of divine implacahillfij, and of ineffi- cacious means, we have found to bear with as little force against this, as against the doctrine, which is attempted to be substituted in its room.
We come now to the objections, which are drawn from the immediate language of Scripture, in those passages, in which the nature of our re- demption is described. And first, it is asserted, that it is no where said in Scripture, that God is recon- ciled to us by Christ's Death, but that we are every where said to be reconciled to GodJ Now, in ySee No. XX.
26
this objection, which clearly lays the whole stress upon our obedience, we discover the secret spring of this entire system, which is set up in opposition to the scheme of atonement: we see that reluc- tance to part with the proud feeling of merit, with which the principle of Redemption by the sacri- fice of Christ, is openly at war : and consequently, we see the essential difference there is, between the two doctrines at present under consideration; and the necessity there exists, for separating thern, by the clearest marks of distinction. But to re- turn to the objection that has been made, it very fortunately happens, that we have the meaning of the words in their Scripture use, defined by no less an authority, than that of our Saviour himself — If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought AGAINST THEE, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way— first be reconciled to thy Brother, and then come and offer thy gift,^ Now from this plain instance, in which the person offending is expressly described, as the party to he reconciled to him who had been offended, by agreeing to his terms of accommodation, and thereby making his peace with him ; it manifest- ly appears, in what sense, this expression is to be understood, in the language of the New Testa- ment. The very words, then, produced for the purpose of shewing, that there was no displeasure on the part of God, which it was necessary by ♦Matt. V,— 23, 24.
27
some means to avert, prove the direct contrary : and our being reconciled to God, evidently does not mean, our giving up our sins, and thereby laying aside our enmity ^' to God (in which sense the objection supposes it to be taken) but the turning away his displeasure, whereby we are en- abled to regain his favour. And indeed it were strange, had it not meant this. What! are we to suppose the God of the Christian, like the Deity of the Epicurean, to look on with indifference, upon the actions of this life, and not to be offend- ed at the Sinner ? The displeasure of God, it is to be remembered, is not like man's displeasure, a resentment or passion, but a judicial disapproba- tion: which if we abstract from our notion of God, we must cease to view him as the moral governor of the world. And it is from the want of this distinction, which is so highly necessary ; and the consequent fear of degrading the Deity, by attributing to him, what might appear to be the weakness of passion ; that they, who trust to reason, more than to Scripture, have been with- held from admitting any principle, that implied displeasure on the part of God. Had they at- tended but a little to the plain language of Scrip- ture, they might have rectified their mistake. They would there have found, the wrath of God against the disobedient, spoken of in almost every page.'' They would have found also a case, which is exactly in point to the main argument "See No. XXI. «See No. XXII
28
before us ; in which there is described, not only the wrath of God, but the turning away of his displeasure by the mode of sacrifice. The case is that of the three friends of Job, — in which, God expressly says, that his ivrath is kindled against the friends of Job, because they had not spoken of him the thing that was right*; — and at the same time directs them to offer up a sacrifice, as the way of averting his anger/
But then it is urged, that God is every where spoken of, as a Being of infinite Love. True ; and the whole difficulty arises from building on partial Texts. When men perpetually talk of God's justice, as being necessarily modified by his goodness,' they seem to forget, that it is no less the language of Scripture, and of reason, that his goodness should be modified by his justice. Our error on this subject proceeds from our own nar- row views, which compel us to consider the attri- butes of the Supreme Being, as so many distinct qualities, when we should conceive of them as in- separably blended together; and his whole nature as one great impulse to what is best.
As to Gcd's displeasure against sinners, there can be then upon the whole no reasonable ground of doubt. And against the doctrine of atonement, no difficulty can arise, from the Scripture phrase, of men being reconciled to God : since, as we have seen, that directly implies, the turning away
* Job. xliii. 7. ' See No. XXIII. * See No. XXIV. 2
29
the displeasure of God, so as to be again restored to his favour, and protection.
But, thougli all this must be admitted, by those who will not shut their eyes against reason, and scripture; yet still it is contended, that the death of Christ cannot be considered as a propitiator^/ sacrifice. Now, when we find him described, as the Lamh ^of God^ which taheth awaij the sins of the world^ ; when we are told, that Christ hath given himself for us, an offering and a saci^ificeto God^; diX\d ih^it he needed not, like the High Priests under the law, to ojfer up sacrifice daily, first for his own sins, and then for the peoples ; for that this he did once, ivhen he offered up himself j^ ; when he is expressly as- serted to be the propitiation for our sins^ ; and God is said to have loved us, and to have sent his son to he the propitiation!' for our sins § ; when / Isaiah ^ describes /iw soul as made an offering | for sin "; when it is said that God spared not his ( own Son, but delivered him up for us all * ; and i that hy him we have received the^ atonement -J-; when these, and many other such passages, are to be found; when every expression, referring to the death of Christ, evidently indicates the notion of a sacrifice of atonement and propitiation ;
* Joli i. 29. t Eplies. v. 2. % Hebr. vii. 27 II I Job. ii. 2. § 1 Joh. iv. 10. f liii. 10.
* Piom. viii. 32. + Rom. v. 11.
» See No. XXV. " See No. XXVI.
" See No. XXVil. ' See No. XXVfrr,
30
when this sacrifice is particularly represented^ as of the nature of a ^7*/? offering; which was a spe- cies of ^sacrifice " prescribed to be offered upon the commission of an offence^ after which the of- fending person was considered as if he had never sinned:" — it may well appear surprising, on what ground it can be questioned, that the death of Christ is pronounced in Scripture to have been a sacrifice of atonement and expiation^ for the sins of men.
It is asserted, that the several passages, which seem to speak this language, contain nothing more than figurative allusions : that all that is intended is, that Christ laid down his life^br, that is, on account ofi mankind^: and that there being circumstances of resemblance between this event and the sacrifices of the Law, terms were borrowed from the latter, to express the former, in a manner more hvely and impressive. And as a proof that the application of these terms is but 2 figurative, it is contended, ^ 1st. That the death of Christ did not correspond literallij, and exactly, to the ceremonies of the Mosaic Sacrifice: Sndly. That being in different places, compared to dif- ferent kinds of sacrifices, to all of which it could not possibly correspond, it cannot be considered as exactly of the nature of any : and lastly, that there was no such thing as a sacrifice of propiti- ation or expiation of sin, under the Mosaic dis-
« See No. XXIX. ^ See No. XXX.
s See No. XXXI. »^See No. XXXII.
31
pensation at all ; this notion having been entirely of Heathen origin/
As to the two first arguments, they deserve but little consideration. The want of an exact similitude to the precise form of the Mosaic sacrifice, is but a slender objection. It might as well be said^ that because Christ was not of the species of animal, which had usually been offered up; or because he was not slain in the same manner; or because he was not offered by the High Priest, there could have been no sa- crifice.k But this is manifest trifling. If the formal notion of a sacrifice for sin, that is, a life offered up in expiation, be adhered to, nothing more can be required to constitute it a sacrifice, except by those who mean to cavil, not to disco- ver truth.
Again, as to the second argument, which from the comparison of Christ's death to the dif- ferent kinds of sacrifices, would infer that it was not of the nature of any, it may be replied, that it will more reasonably follow, that it was of tlie na- ture of ally Resembling that of the i Passover, in- asmuch as by it we were delivered, from an evil yet greater than that of Egyptian bondage ; par- taking the nature of the Sin offering, as being accepted in expiation of transgression; and simi- lar to the institution of the Scape Goat, as bearing the accumulated sins of all: may we not reason- ably suppose, that this one great sacrifice con- ^SeeNo. XXXHI. ''See No, XXXIV. » See No.,XXXV.
32
tallied the full import and completion of the whole sacrificial system ? And that so far from being spoken of in figure, as bearing some resemblance to the sacrifices of the Law, theij were on the con- trary, as the apostle expressly tells us, -^ but fi- gures, or faint and partial representations, of this stupendous sacrifice, which had been ordained from the beginning? And besides, it is to be remarked in general, with respect to the figurative apphca- tion of the sacrificial terms, to the death of Christ; that the striking resemblance between that and the sacrifices of the Law, which is assigned as the reason of such application, would have produced just the contrary effect, upon the sacred writers; since they must have been aware, that the con- stant use of such expressions, aided by the strength of the resemblance, must have laid a foundation for error, in that which constitutes the main doctrine of the Christian faith. Being addressed to a people, wdiose religion was entirely sacrificial, in what but the obvious and literal sense, could the sacrificial representations of the death of Christ, have been understood?
We come now to the third and principal ob- jection, which is built upon the assertion, that no sacrifices of atonement (in the sense in which we apply this term to the death of Christ) had existence under the Mosaic Law: such as were called by that name, having had an entirely different import."^ Now that certain offerings + Ilebr. X. 1. ^ See No, XXXVI.
33
under this denomination, related to things, and were employed for the purpose of purification, so as to render them fit instruments of the ceremo- nial worship, must undoubtedly be admitted. That others were again appointed to relieve persons from ceremonial incapacities, so as to restore them to the privilege of joining in the services of the temple, is equally true. But that there were others of a nature strictly propitiatory, and ordained to avert the displeasure of God from the transgressor not only of the ceremonial, but, in some cases, even of the ^ moral law, will ap- pear manifest upon a very slight examination. Thus we find it decreed, that if a soul sin and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his ?ieighbour in that which ivas delivered \ to him to keep — or have found that which was k, lost, and lieth concerning it, and swearetu FALSELY, then, because he hath sinned in this, f he shall not only make restitution to his neif^h- ^ hour— but he shall bring his trespass-offerin<r unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock ; and the Priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord, and it shall be for- given HiM.^ And again in a case of criminal connexion with a bond-maid who was betrothed, the offender is ordered to bring his trespass- offering, and the Priest is to make atonement for him ivith the trespass-offering, for the sin
« See No. XXXVII. + Levit. vi. 2—7.
VOL. I. ' 1)
34
ivhich he hath done ; and the sin which he hath do7ie shall be forgiven hini,^ And in the case of all offences which fell not under the descrip- tion of presumptuous^ it is manifest from the slightest inspection of the book of Leviticus, that the atonement prescribed was appointed as the means, whereby God might be propitiated, or reconciled to the offender.
Again, as to the vicarious^ import of the Mo- saic sacrifice ; or in other words, its expressing an acknowledgment of what the sinner had de- served ; this not only seems directly set forth in the account of the first oflfering in Leviticus, where it is said of the person who brought a free- will offering, he shall lay his hand upon the headv of' the hurnt'Off-ering, and it shall he ACCEPTED FOR him, to make atonement for him "^ ; but the ceremony of the Scape-Goat on the day of expiation appears to place this matter beyond doubt. On this head however, as not being necessary "i to my argument, I shall not at present enlarge.
That expiatory sacrifice (in the strict and pro- per sense of the word) was a part of the Mosaic institution, there remains then, I trust, no suf- ficient reason to deny. That it existed in like manner amongst the Arabians, ^ in the time of
* Levit. xlx. 20, 22. » See No. XXXVIII. p See No. XXXIX. t Levit. i. 4. *» See No. XL. ' See No. LIX.
35
Job, we have already seen. And that its univer- sal prevalence in the Heathen world, though cor- rupted and disfigured by idolatrous practices, was the result of an original divine appointment, every candid enquirer will find little reason to doubt. ^ But be this as it may, it must be admitted, that propitiatory sacrifices not only existed through the whole Gentile world, but had place under the law of Moses. The argument then, which from the non-existence of such sacrifices amonscst the
o
Jews, would deny the term when applied to the death of Christ to indicate such sacrifice, neces- sarily falls to the ground.^
But, in fact, they who deny the sacrifice of Christ to be a real and proper sacrifice for sin, must, if they are consistent, deny that aiii/ such sacrifice ever did exist, by divine appointment. For on what principle, do they deny the former, but this? — that the - suflTerings and death of Christ, for the sins and salvation of men, can make no change in God : can not render him more ready to forgive, more benevolent, than he is in his own nature ; and consequently can have no power to avert from the oflfender, the punish- ment of his transgression. Now, on the same principle, everi/ sacrifice for the expiation of sin, must be impossible. And this explains the true cause, why these persons will not admit the lan- guage of the New Testament, clear and express
• SeeNo. XLI. * See XII.
D 2
36
as it IS, to signify a real and proper sacrifice for sin : and why they feel it necessary, to explain away the equally clear and express description of that species of sacrifice in the Old. ^ Setting out with a preconceived erroneous notion of its na- ture, and one which involves a manifest contra- diction ; they hold themselves justified, in reject- ing every acceptation of Scripture, which sup- ports it. But, had they more accurately ex- amined the true import of the term in Scripture use, they would have perceived no such contra- diction, nor would they have found themselves compelled to refine away by strained and unna- tural interpretations, the clear and obvious mean- ing of the sacred text. They would have seen, that a sacrifice for sin, in Scripture language im- plies solely this, " a sacrifice wisely and gra- ciously appointed by God, the moral governor of the world, to expiate the guilt of sin in such a manner, as to avert the punishment of it from the offender. "w To ask why God should have ap- pointed this particular mode, or in ivhat way it can avert the punishment of sin ; is to take us back to the general point at issue with the Deist, which has been already discussed. With the Christian, who admits redemption under any mo- dification, such matters cannot be subject of enquiry.
" See No. XLIII. ^ Sec No.XLIV.
37
But even to our impeifect apprehension, some circumstances oF natural connexion and fitness, may be pointed out. The whole may be consi- dered, as a sensible and striking representation of a punishment, which the sinner was conscious he deserved, from God's justice : and then, on the part of God, it becomes a public declaration of his holy displeasure against sin, and of his merciful compassion for the sinner ; and on the part of the offender, when offered by or for him, it implies a sincere confession of guilty and a hearty desire of obtaining pardon : and upon the due performance of this service, the sinner is par- doned, and escapes the penalty of his trans- gression.
This we shall find agreeable to the nature of a sacrifice for sin, as laid down in the Old Testa- ment. Now is there any thing in this, degrading to the honour of God ; or in the smallest degree inconsistent with the dictates of natural reason ? And in this view, what is there in the death of Christ, as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, that may not in a certain degree, be embraced by our natural notions ? For according to the explana- tion just given, is it not a declaration to the whole world, of the greatness of their sins; and of the proportionate mercy and compassion of God, who had ordained this method, whereby, in a manner consistent with his attributes, his fallen creatures might be again taken into his favour, on their
d3
38
making themselves parties in this great sacrifice: that is, on their complying with those conditions, which on the received notion of sacrifice, would render them parties in this ; namely, an adequate conviction of guilt, a proportionate sense of God's love, and a firm determination, with an humble faith in the sufficiency of this sacrifice, to endea- vour after a life of amendment and obedience ? Thus much falls within the reach of our compre- hension on this mysterious subject. Whether in the expanded range of God's moral government, some other end may not be held in view, in the death of his only begotten Son, it is not for us to enquire ; nor does it in any degree concern us : what God has been pleased to reveal, it is alone our duty to believe.
One remarkable circumstance indeed there is, in which the sacrifice of Christ dififers from all those sacrifices, which were oflfered under the law. Our blessed Lord was not only the Subject of the ofl^erins:, but the Piiest who offered it. There- fore he has become not only a sacrifice, but an intercessor ; his intercession being founded upon this voluntary act of benevolence, by which he offered hbnself without spot to God. We are not only then in virtue of the sacrifice, forgiven ; but in virtue of the intercession admitted to fa- vour and grace. And thus the Scripture notion of the sacrifice of Christ, includes every advan- tage, which the advocates for the pure interces-
39
sion, seek from their scheme of redemption. But it also contains others, which the}^ necessarily lose by the rejection of that notion. It contains the great advantage ^ of impressing mankind with a dae sense of their guilt, by compelling a com- parison with the immensity of the sacrifice made to redeem them from its effects. It contains that, in short, which is the soul and substance of all Christian virtue — Humility. And the fact is plainly this, that in every attempt to get rid of the Scripture doctrine of atonement, we find feelings of a description, opposite to this Evange- lic quality, more or less to prevail : we find a fondness for the opinion of man 3 own sufiiciency, and an unwillingness to submit with devout and implicit reverence, to the sacred word of Reve- lation.
If now upon the whole it has appeared, that natural reason is unable to evince the efficacy of repentance : if it has appeared, that for the pur- pose of forgiveness, the idea of a Mediatorial scheme is perfectly consistent with our ordinary notions : if it has appeared, that Revelation has most unequivocally pronounced, that through the mediation of Jesus Christ, the son of God, our redemption has been effected : if it has ap- peared, that Christ is declared to have effected that redemption, by the sacrifice of himself for the sins of matikind : if it has appeared, that
'^ See No. XLV. D 4
40
in the Scripture meaning of sacrifice for sin, is included atonement for transgression : and if it has appeared, that the expression has been ap- phed to Christ, in the plain and literal sense of the word, as the propitiation of an offended God: I trust we are sufficiently fortified ; againj^t the Deist, who denies the divine mission ; against the Socinian, who denies the redeeming medi- ation ; and against the modern rationalizing Arian, who denies the expiatory sacrifice of Christ : in short, against all, who would deprive "US of any part of the precious benefits, which on this day our Saviour died to procure for us : against all, who would rob us of that humble feeling of our own insufficiency, which alone can give us an ardent, and animating faith in the death and merits^ of our blessed Redeemer.
u
DISCOURSE II.
Hebr. ix. 22.
And without Shedding of Blood is no Re*
mission.
\J^ the last commemoration of the awful sub- ject of this day's observance, it was attempted in this place, to clear the important doctrine of Re- demption, from those difficulties, in which it had been artfully entangled, by the subtle speculations of the disputatious Deist, and of the philosophising Christian. The impotence of Reason to erect the degraded sinner to an assured hope of the sufficiency of repentance, pointed out to us the necessity of an express revelation, on this head : that revelation, in announcing the expedient of a Mediator, was seen to fall in with the analogies of the Providential economy: the Mediatorial scheme was shewn to have been accomplished, through the sacrifice of the only begotten Son of God; and this sacrifice, to have been effective to the expiation of the sins of the whole human race. What the pe- culiar nature, and true import of this sacrifice, are ; and in what sense, the expiation eflfected by it, is
42
strictly to be understood, it is my purpose on this day to enquire. And as, on the one hand, there is no article of Christian knowledge, of deeper con- cern; and, on the other, none that has been more studiously involved in obscurity; I trust, that you, my young Brethren, will not refuse your patient attention, whilst I endeavour to unfold to your apprehension, the genuine, because the Scripture, interpretation of that great sacrifice, whereby we are redeemed from the power of sin and have received the promise of an eternal inheritance.
In the mode of enquiry, which has been usually adopted on this subject, one prevailing error de- serves to be noticed. The nature of sacrifice, as generally practised and understood, antecedent to the time of Christy has been first examined; and from that, as a ground of explanation, the notion of Christ's sacrifice has been derived: whereas, in fact by this, all former sacrifices are to be inter- preted; and in reference to it only, can they be understood. From an error so fundamental, it is not wonderful, that the greatest perplexities should have arisen, concerning the nature of sacrifice in general; and that they should ultimately fall, with cumulative confusion, on the nature of that par- ticular sacrifice, to the investigation of which, fan- ciful and mistaken theories, had been assumed as guides. Thus, whilst some have presumptuously attributed, the early and universal practice of sa- crifice, to an irrational and superstitious fear of an 2
43
imagined sanguinary divinity; and have been led in defiance of the express language of Revelation, to re • jectand ridicule the notion of sacrifice, as originat- ing only in the grossness of ^superstition: others, not equally destitute of reverence for the sacred word, and consequently not treating this solemn Rite, with equal disrespect, have yet ascribed its origin to human ''invention; and have thereby been compelled, to account for the divine -institution of the Jewish Sacrifices, as a mere accommodation to prevailing practice ; and consequently to admit, even the sacrifice of Christ itself, to have grown out of, and been adapted to, this creature of hu- man excogitation.
Of this latter class, the theories, as might be expected, are various. In one, sacrifices are re- presented in the light of gifts^, intended to sooth and appease the Supreme Being, in like manner as they are found to conciliate the favour of men : in another, they are considered di% federal rites^^ a kind of eating and drinking with God, as it were at his table, and thereby implying the being restored to a state of friendship with him, by re- pentance and confession of sins; in a third, they are described as but symhoUcal actions, or a more expressive language, denoting the gratitude of the oflferer, in such as are eucharistical; and in those that are expiatory, the acknowledgment of, and
y See No. XLVI. - See No. XLVII. * See No. XLVIII. ^ See No. XLIX.
44
contrition for sin, strongly expressed by the death of the animal, representing that death, which the offerer confessed to be his own desert.""
To these different hypotheses, which in the order of their enumeration, claim respectively the names of Spencer, Sykes, and fVarhurton, it may generally be replied, that the fact of Abel's sa- crifice seems inconsistent with them all : with the first, inasmuch as it must have been antecedent to those distinctions of property, on which alone ex- perience of the effects'* of gifts upon men could have been founded: with the second, inasmuch as it took place several ages prior to that period, at which both the words of Scripture, and the opi- nions of the wisest commentators, have fixed the permission^ of animal food to man : with the third, inasmuch as the language, which Scripture ex- pressly states to have been derived to our first pa- rents from divine^ instruction^ cannot be supposed so defective, in those terms that related to the wor- ship of God, as to have rendered it necessary for Abel, to call in the aid of actions, to express the sentiment of gratitude or sorrow ; and still less likely is it, that he would have resorted to that species of action, which in the eye of reason must have appeared displeasing to God, the ^laughter of an unoffending animal^.
«= See No. L. ^ See No. LL
« See No. LIT. ^ See No. LIII.
' See No. LIV.
45
To urge these topics of objection in their full force, against the several theories I have mention- ed, would lead to a discussion, far exceeding the due limits of a discourse from this place. I therefore dismiss them for the present. Nor shall I, in refutation of the general idea of the human invention of sacrifice, enlarge upon the universalifij^ of the practice; the sameness^ of the notion of its efficacy, pervading nations and ages the most remote ; and the unreasonableness of supposing any natural connexion between the slaying of an animal, and the receiving pardon for the violation of God's laws, — all of which appear decisive against that idea. But, as both the ge- neral idea and the particular theories which have endeavoured to reconcile to it the nature and origin of sacrifice, have been caused by a depar- ture from the true and only source of knowledge ; let us return to that sacred fountain, and whilst we endeavour to establish the genuine Scripture notion of sacrifice, at the same time provide the best refutation of every other.
It requires but little acquaintance with Scrip- ture to know, that the lesson, which it every where inculcates, is, that man by disobedience had fallen under the displeasure of his Maker ; that to be reconciled to his favour, and restored to the means of acceptable obedience, a Re- deemer was appointed ; and that this Redeemer
b See No. LV, ^ See No. LVI.
2
46
laid down his life, to procure for repentant sin- ners forgiveness and acceptance. This surrender of hfe, has been called by the sacred writers, a sacrifice ; and the end attained by it, expiation or atonement. With such, as have been de- sirous to reduce Christianity to a mere moral system, it has been a favourite object, to repre- sent this sacrifice as entirely figurative, ^ founded only in allusion and similitude to the sacrifices of the law ; whereas, that this is spoken of by the sacred writers, as a real and proper sacrifice, to which those under the law bore respect but as types or shadows, is evident from various pas- sages of holy writ, but more particularly from the epistle to the Hebrews ; in which it is ex- pressly said, that the law, having a shadow of good things to come, can 7iever tvith those sa- crijices, which they offered year hy year con- tinually, make the comers thereunto perfect : — but this man, after he had offered one sa- crifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right ^ hand of God,* And again, when the writer of this epistle, speaks of the High Priest entering ; into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the / sacrifice, he asserts, that this was a figure \ for the time then present, in which were of- fered both gfts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect; but ^ Christ being come, an High Priest of good
^ See Nos. XXXI. and XUV. * Hebr. t. 1. 12,
47
things to come; not hi/ the blood of goats and\ calves, hut hy his oivn blood, he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal re- J demption for us; for, he adds, if the blood of hulls and of goats sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, hoiv much more shall the blood of \ Christ, ivho through the eternal spirit, offered > himself without spot to God, purge your con- science from dead works to serve the living \ God 9-^- It must be unnecessary to detail more I of the numerous passages, which go to prove, that the sacrifice of Christ was a true and ef- fective sacrifice, whilst those of the law, were but faint representations, and inadequate copies, intended for its introduction.
Now, if the sacrifices of the Law, appear to have been but preparations for this one great sacrifice, we are naturally led to consider, whether the same may not .be asserted of sacrifice from the beginning; and whether we are not war- ranted by Scripture, in pronouncing the entire rite to have been ordained by God, as a type of that ONE SACRIFICE, in which all others were to have their consummation.
That the institution was of divine i ordinance, may, in the first instance, be reasonably inferred from the strong and sensible attestation of the divine acceptance of sacrifice in the case of"*
f Hebr, ix. 9—14. 'See No. LVII.
"^ See No. LVIII.
48
Abel, again in that of Noah, afterwards in that of Abraham, and also from the systematic es- tablishment of it, by the same divine authority, in the dispensation of Moses. And whether we consider the Book of" Job, as the production of Moses; or of that pious worshipper of the true God, among the descendants of Abraham, whose name it bears ; or of some other person who lived a short time after, and composed it from the materials left by Job himself; the repre- sentation there made of God, as prescrihing sacrifice to the friends of Job, in every suppo- sition exhibits a strong authority, and of high antiquity, upon this question.
These few facts, which I have stated, unaided by any comment, and abstracting altogether from the arguments which embarrass the contrary hypothesis, and to which I have already alluded, might perhaps be sufficient to satisiy an en- quiring and candid mind, that sacrifice must have had its origin in divine institution. But if in addition, this rite, as practised in the earliest ages, shall be found connected with the sacrifice of Christ, confessedly of divine appointment ; little doubt can reasonably remain on this head. Let us then examine, more particularly, the circumstances of the first sacrifice, offered up by Abel.
n See No. LIX.
49
It is clear from the words of Scripture, thai both Cain and Abel made oblations to the Lord. It is clear also, notwithstanding the well known fanciful interpretation of an eminent commen- tator,° that Abel's was an animal sacrifice. It is no less clear, that Abel's was accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Now what could have oc- casioned the distinction ? — The acknowledgment of the Supreme Being and of his universal do- minion, was no less strong in the offering of the fruity of the earth by Cain, than in that of the firstlings of the flock by Abel: the intrinsic ef- ficacy of the gift must have been the same in each, each giving of the best that he possessed: the expression of gratitude, equally significant and forcible in both. How then is the differ- ence? to be explained? If we look to the writer to the Hebrews, he informs us, that the ground on which Abel's oblation was preferred to that of Cain, was, that Abel offered his m. faith; and the criterion of this faith also appears to have been, in the opinion of this writer, the animal sacrfiice. The words are remarkable — By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacri^ fice than Cain, hy which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts'\'. The words here translated, a more ex- cellent sacrifice, are in an early version rendered a much nwre sacrifice, i which phrase, though ^ See No. LX. p See No. LXI. f Hebr. xi. 4.
•> See No. LXII.
VOL. I. E
60
uncouth in form, adequately conveys the original. The meaning then is, that by faith Abel offered that, which was much more of the true nature of sacrifice, than what had been offered by Cain* Abel consequently was directed by faith, and this faith was manifested in the nature of his offering. What then are we to infer ? — Without some reve- lation ^ granted, some assurance held out as the object of faith, Abel could not have exercised this virtue: and without some peculiar mode of sacrifice enjoined, he could not have exemplified his faith by an appropriate offering. The offering made, we have already seen, was that of an animal. Let us consider, whether this could have a connexion with any divine assurance, communicated at that early day.
It is obvious, that the promise made to our first parents, conveyed an intimation of some future deliverer, who should overcome the tempt- er that had drawn man from his innocence; and remove those evils which had been occasioned by the fall. This assurance, without which, or some other ground of hope, it seems diflicult to con- ceive how the principle of religion could have had place among men, became to our first parents the grand object of faith. To perpetuate this funda- mental article of religious belief among the de- scendants of Adam, some striking memorial of the fail of man, and of the promised deliverance,
' See No. LXIIL
51
would naturally be appointed.^ And if we admit, that the scheme of Redemption by the death of the only begotten Son of God, was determined from the beginning ; that is, if we admit, that when God had ordained the deliverance of man, he had ordained the means : if w-e admit, that Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ; what memorial could be devised more apposite, than that of animal sacrifice ? — exemplifying, by the slaying of the victim, the death which had been denounced against man's disobedience : — thus exhibiting the awful lesson of that death which was the wages of Sin, and at the same time representing that death which was actually to be undergone by the Redeemer of mankind : — and hereby connecting in one view, the two great cardinal events in the history of man, the fall, and the recovery : the death denounced against Sin, and the death appointed for that Holy One, who was to lay down his life, to deliver man from the consequences of sin. The institution of animal sacrifice seems then to have been peculiarly significant, as containing all the elements of religious knowledge: and the adop- tion of this rite, with sincere and pious feelings, would at the same time imply an humble sense of the un worthiness of the oflferer ; a confession that death, which was inflicted on the victim, was the desert of those sins which had arisen from man's
!SeeNo.LXIV. E 2
52
transgression ; and a full reliance upon the pro- mises of deliverance, joined to an acquiescence in the means appointed for its accomplishment.
If this view of the matter be just, there is no- thing improbable even in the supposition, that that part of the signification of the rite, which related to the sacrifice of Christ, might have been in some degree made known from the beginning. But not to contend for this, (scripture having furnished no express foundation for the assump- tion,) room for the exercise of faith is equally preserved, on the idea, that animal sacrifice was enjoined in the general as the religious sign of faith in the promise of Redemption, without any intimation of the way in which it became a sign. Agreeably to these principles, we shall find but httle difl^culty in determining, on what ground it was, that Abefs offering was accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Abel, in firm reliance on the promise of God, and in obedience to his command, offered that sacrifice, which had been enjoined as the religious expression of his faith ; whilst Cain, disregarding the gracious a3surances that had been vouchsafed, or at least disdaining to adopt the prescribed mode of manifesting his belief, possibly as not appearing to his reason to possess any efficacy or natural fitness, thought he had sufl^ciently acquitted himself of his duty, in acknowledging the general superintendance of God, and expressing his gratitude to the Su-
53
preme Benefactor, by presentirg some of those good things, which he thereby confessed to have been derived from his bounty. In short, Cain, the first born of the fall, exhibits the first fruits of his Parents' disobedience, in the arrogance and self sufficiency of reason rejecting the aids of Re- velation, because they fell not within its appre- hension of right. He takes the first place in the annals of Deism, and displays, in his proud re- jection of the ordinance of sacrifice, the same spi- rit, which, in later days, has actuated his eii- lightened followers, in rejecting the sacrifice of Christ.
This view of the subject receives strength, from the terms of expostulation, in which God ad- dresses Cain, on his expressing resentment at the rejection of his offering, and the acceptance of Abel's. The words, in the present version are, if thou doest well, shalt thou not he accepted? — and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door^ — which words, as they stand connected in the context, supply no yery satisfactory mean- ing, and have long served to exercise the inge- nuity of Commentators to but little purpose. But if the word, which is here translated sin, be ren- dered^ as we find it in a great variety of passages in the Old Testament, a sin offering, the read- ing of the passage then becomes, if thou doest well, shalt thou not he accepted ? and if thou
* Gen, iv. 7. E 3
54
doest not well, a sin offering lleth even at the door^. The connexion is thus rendered evident. God rebukes Cain, for not conforming to that spe- cies of sacrifice, which had been offered by Abel. He refers to it, as a matter of known injunction ; and hereby points out the ground of distinction, in his treatment of him and his brother: and thus, in direct terms^ enforces the observance of animal sacrifice.
As that part of my general position, which pronounces sacrifice to have been of divine insti- tution, receives support from the passage just recited; so, to that part of it, which maintains, that this rite bore an aspect to the sacrifice of Christ, additional evidence may be derived from the language of the writer to the Hebrews, inas- much as he places the blood of Abefs sacrifice in direct comparison with the blood of Christ, which he stiles pre-eminently the blood (tf sprinkling'^ : and represents both, as speaMng good things^ in diflferent degrees^. What then is the result of the foregoing reflexions ? — The sacrifice of Abel, was an animal sacrifice. This sacrifice was ac- cepted. The ground of this acceptance was the faith, in which it was offered. Scripture assigns no other object of this faith, but the promise of a Redeemer : and of this faith, the offering of an animal in sacrifice, appears to have been the le- gitimate, and consequently the instituted, ex-
t See No. LXV. + Hebr. xii. 24.
' See No. LX VI.
515
pression. The institution of animal sacrifice then, was coeval with the fall, and had a reference to the sacrifice of our redemption. But as it had also an immediate, and most apposite, applica- tion to that important event in the condition of man, which, as being the occasion of, was essen- tially connected with, the work of redemption, that likewise we have reason to think was in- cluded in its signification. And thus, upon the whole, SACRIFICE appears to have been ordained, / as a standing memorial of the death introduced '^ hy sin, and oj that death ivhich was to he suf- j fered hy the Redeemer,
We accordingly find this institution of animal sacrifice continue, until the giving of the law. No other offering than that of an animal, being recorded in Scripture down to this period,^^ except in the case of Cain, and that we have seen was rejected. The sacrifices of Noah and of Abraham are stated to have been burnt-oflTerings. Of the same kind also were the sin-oflferings presented by Job, he being said to have offered burnt-oflferings accord- ing to the number of his sons, lest some of them might have sinned in their hearts'^. But when we come to the promulgation of the law, we find the connexion between animal sacrifice and atone- ment, or reconciliation with God, clearly and dis- tinctly announced. It is here declared, that sacri- fices for sin should, on conforming to certain pre-
« See No. LXVII. * Job? »• 5-
e4
56
scribed modes of oblation, be accepted as tbe means of deliverance from the penal consequences of transgression. And with respect to the /;ecM- liar efficacy of animal sacrifice, we find this re- markable declaration, — the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to mahe atonement for the Soul \ : in reference to which words, the sacred writer, from whom I have taken the subject of this day's discourse, formally pronounces, that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Now in what conceivable light can w^e view this institu- tion, but in relation to that great sacrifice, which ivas to make atonement for sins : to that blood of sprinkling, which was to speak letter things than that of Abel ^, or that of the law ? The laiv itself is said to have had respect solely unto him. To what else can the principal institution of the law refer ? — an institution too, which unless so referred appears utterly unmean- ing. The oflfering up an animal cannot be ima- gined to have had any intrinsic efficacy in pro- curing pardon for the transgression of the offerer. The blood of bulls and of goats could have pos- sessed no virtue, whereby to cleanse him from his oflTences. Still less intelligible is the application of the blood of the victim, to the purifying of the parts of the tabernacle, and the apparatus of the ceremonial worship. All this can clearly have had no other than an instituted meaning ; and can be
+ Lev. xvii. 11. § Heb. xii. 24,
57
understood, only as in reference to some blood- shedding, which in an eminent degree possessed the power of purifying from pollution. Jn short, admit the sacrifice of Christ to be held in view in the institutions of the law, and every part is plain and intelligible ; reject that notion, and every theory devised by the ingenuity of man, to ex- plain the nature of the ceremonial worship, be- comes trifling and inconsistent.
Granting then the case of the Mosaic sacrifice, and that of Abefs, to be the same ; neither of them in itself efficacious; both instituted by God ; and both instituted in reference to that true and efficient sacrifice, which was one day to be of- fered : the rite, as practised before the time of Christ, may justly be considered as a sacramen ' TAL MEMORIAL, shewing for til the Lord's death ( until he came * ; and when accompanied with a I due faith in the promises made to the early be- I Hevers, may reasonably be judged to have been equally acceptable with that sacramental memo- rial, which has been enjoined by our Lord himself to his followers, for the shewing forth his death until his coming again. And it deserves to be noticed, that this very analogy seems to be inti- mated by our Lord, in the language used by him at the institution of that solemn Christian rite. For in speaking of his own blood, he calls it, in di- rect reference to the blood wherewith Moses esta- blished and sanctified the first covenant, the
* 1 Cor. xi. 26.
58
hlood of the new covenant, which ivas shed for the remission of sins -j- : thus plainly marking out the similitude, in the nature and objects of the two covenants, at the moment that he was prescribing the great sacramental commemora- tion of his own sacrifice.
From this view of the subject, the history of Scripture sacrifice becomes consistent throughout. The sacrifice of Abel, and the Patriarchal sacri- fices down to the giving of the law, record and exemplify those momentous events in the history of man, — the death incurred by sin, and that in- flicted on our Redeemer. When length of time, and mistaken notions of religion leading to idola- try and every perversion of the religious principle, had so far clouded and obscured this expressive act of primeval vrorship, that it had ceased to be considered by the nations of the world, in that reference, in which its true value consisted : when the mere rite remained, without any remembrance of the promises, and consequently unaccompanied by that faith in their fulfilment, which was to render it an acceptable service : when the nations, deifying every passion of the human heart, and erecting altars to every vice, poured forth the blood of the victim, but to deprecate the wrath, or satiate the vengeance of each oflfended deity : when with the recollection of the tru6 God, all knowledge of the true worship, was effaced from
+ Matt. xxvi. 28,
59
the minds of men : and when joined to the ah- surditi/ of the sacrificial rites, their cruelty, de- voting to the mahgnity of innumerable sangui- nary gods endless multitudes of human victims, demanded the divine interference ; then, we see a people peculiarly selected, to whom, by ex- press revelation, the knowledge of the one God is restored, and the species of worship ordained by him from the beginning, particularly en- joined. The principal part of the Jewish ser- vice, we accordingly find to consist of sacrifice ; to which the virtue of expiation and atonement is expressly annexed : and in the manner of it, the particulars appear so minutely set forth, that when the object of the whole law should be brought to light, no doubt could remain as to its intended application. The Jewish sacrifices therefore seem to have been designed, as those from the beginnino- had been, to prefigure that one, w^hich was to make atonement for all mankind. And as in this, all were to receive their consummation, so with this they all conclude : and the institution closes with the completion of its object. But, as the gross per- versions, which had pervaded the Gentile world, had reached likewise to the chosen people ; and as the temptations to idolatry, which surrounded them on all sides, were so powerful as perpetually to endanger their adherence to the God of their fathers, we find the ceremonial service adapted to their carnal habits. And since the law itself, with
60
its accompanying sanctions, seems to have been principally temporal ; so the worship it enjoins, is found to have been for the most part, rather a public and solemn declaration of allegiance to the true God in opposition to the Gentile idolatries, than a pure and spiritual obedience in moral and religious matters, which was reserved for that more perfect system, appointed to succeed in due time, when the state of mankind would permit.
That the sacrifices of the law should therefore have chiefly operated to the cleansing from exter- nal impurities, and to the rendering persons or things fit to approach God in the exercises of the ceremonial worship ; v^hilstat the same time they were designed to prefigure the sacrifice of Christ, which was purely spiritual and possessed the transcendent virtue of atoning for all moral pollu- tion, involves in it no inconsistency whatever, since in this the true proportion of the entire dis- pensations is preserved. And to this point, it is particularly necessary, that our attention should be directed, in the examination of the present subject ; as upon the apparent disproportion in the objects and effects of sacrifice in the Mosaic and Christian schemes, the principal objections against their intended correspondence have been founded'^.
The sacrifices of the law then being preparatory to that of Christ; the law itself being hut ct,
» See No. LXVIII.
61
schoolmaster to bring us to Christ ; the sacred ' writers in the Neiv Testament, naturally adopt / the sacrificial terms of tlje ceremonial service, ( and by their reference to the use of them as em- ployed under the law, clearly point out the sense, in which they are to be understood, in their ap- plication under the gospel. In examining, then, the meaning of such terms, when they occur in the JVeiv Testament, we are clearly directed to the explanation that is circumstantially given of them in the Old. Thus, when we find the virtue of atonement attributed to the sacrifice of Christ, in like manner as it had been to those under the law ; by attending to the representation so mi- nutely given of it in the latter, we are enabled to comprehend its true import in the former y.
Of the several sacrifices under the law, that one which seems most exactly to illustrate the sacrifice of Christ, and which is expressly compared with it by the writer to the Hebrews, is that which was offered for the whole assembly on the solemn anniversary of expiation^. The circumstances of this ceremony, whereby atonement was to be made for the sins of the whole Jewish people, seem so strikingly significant, that they deserve a particular detail. On the day appointed for this general expiation, the Priest is commanded to offer a bullock and a goat, as sin-offerings, the one for himself, and the other for the people: y See No. LXJX. » See No. LXX.
62
and having sprinkled the blood of these in due form before the mercy-seat, to lead forth a second goat, denominated the scape-goat ; and after laying both his hands upon the head of the scape- goat, and confessing over him all the iniquities of the people, to put them upon the head of the goat, and to send the animal, thus bearing the sins of the people, away into the wilderness: in this manner expressing by an action^ which can- not be misunderstood, that the atonement, which it is directly affirmed was to be effected by the sacrifice of the sin-ofFering, consisted in removing from the people their iniquities by this symbolical translation to the animal. For it is to be re- marked, that the ceremony of the scape-goat, is not a distinct one : it is a continuation of the process, and is evidently the concluding part, and symbolical consummation of the sin-ofTering^. So that the transfer of the iniquities of the people upon the head of the scape-goat, and the bearing them away to the wilderness, manifestly imply, that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the sin-offering, consisted in the transfer and con- sequent removal of those iniquities. What then are we taught to infer from this ceremony ? — That as the atonement under the law, or expiation of the legal transgressions, was represented as a translation of those transgressions, in the act of sacrifice in which the animal was slain,
^ See No. h^^l. 2
63
and the people thereby cleansed from their legal impurities, and released from the penalties which had been incurred ; so, the great atonement for the sins of mankind, was to be effected by the sacrifice of Christ, undergoing for the restoration of men to the favour of God, that death, which had been denounced against sin ; and which he suffered in like manner as if the sins of men had been actually transferred to him, as those of the congregation had been symholically transferred to the sin-offering of the people.
That this is the true meaning of the atonement effected by Christ's sacrifice, receives the fullest confirmation from every part of both the Old and the New Testament : and that thus far, the death of Christ is vicarious, cannot be denied without a total disregard of the sacred writings.
It has indeed been asserted, by those who op- pose the doctrine of atonement as thus explained, that nothing vicarious appears in the Mosaic sa- crifices.^ With what justice this assertion has been made, may be judged from the instance of the sin-offering that has been adduced. The transfer to the animal of the iniquities of the peo- ple, (which must necessarily mean the transfer of their penal effects, or the subjecting the animal to suffer on account of those iniquities) — -.this ac- companied with the death of the victim ; and the consequence of the whole being the removal of the ^ See No. LXXU.
61
punishment of those iniquities from the offerers, and the ablution of all legal olFensiveness in the sight of God : — thus mujch of the nature of vica- rious, the language cf the Old Testament justifies us in attaching to the notion of atonement. Less than this we are clearly not at liberty to attach to it. And ^vhat the law thus sets forth as its express meaning, directly determines that which we must attribute to the crpeat atonement of which the ^losaic ceremony was but a T^-pe : always re- membering, carefully to distinguish between the figure, and the substance ; duly adjusting their relative value and extent ; estimating the efficacy of the one. as real, intrinsic, and universal; whilst that of the other is to be viewed as limited, derived; and emblematic'^.
It must be confessed, that to the principles on which the doctrine of the Christian atonement has been explained in this, and a former discourse, several objections, in addition to those already noticed, have been advanced.'^ The^e however cannot now be examined in this place. The most important have been discussed ; and as for such as remain, I trust that to a candid mind, the general \iew of the subject which has been given, will prove sufficient for their refutation.
One word more, mv vouni:^ Brethren, and I
have done. — On this day we have assembled to
commemorate the stupendous sacrifice of him-
« Sfe€>'o. LXXIII. ^ Se^No. LXXIV.
2
self, offereil up by our blessed Lord for our re- demption from the bondage and wages of sin : and on next Sunday, we are invited to participate of that solemn rite which he hath ordained for the purpose of making us partakers in the benefit of that sacrifice. Allow me to remind you, that this is an awful call, and upon an awful occasion. Let him who either refuses to obey this call, or pre- sumes to attend upon it irreverently, beware what his condition is. The man who can be guilty of either deliberately, is not safe.
Consider seriously what has been said, and may the God of Peace, that brought again from the dead, our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the Sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good uvrk to do his will, working in you that which is well- pleasins in his sisht. through Jesus Christ : to whom be glory for ever and ever — Amen.
VOL. I.
ILLUSTRATIONS
AND
EXPLANATORY DISSERTATIONS.
IJLILUSTRATIONS
AND
EXPLANATORY DISSERTATIONS,
NO. I. ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST,
AND THE SPECIES OF ARGUMENTS BY WHICH THIS ARTICLE OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE HAS BEEN OPPOSED.
Page 2. Ercevucsv soivrov — strictly, emptied himself— 'Viz, of that form of God — that Glory which he had icith God before the world teas — see Phil. ii. 6, 7, compared with John xvii. 5.— see also Krehs, Ohserv. Flav, p. 329. Fortuita Sacra, p, 217 — 219. Eisner Obs.Sac, ii.p. 240 —245. See also Schleusner, on the word exs- vu}(r£v. On the whole of the passage from Philip- pians, I would particularly recommend the obser- vations of the Bishop of Lincoln, Elements, &c* vol. ii.p. Ill — 115. Middleton likewise (Doc- trine of the Greek Article, p. 537 — ^^9-) deserves to be consulted.
. It has indeed been pronounced, in a late extra- ordinary publication, distinguished at least as
F 3
JrO PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST,
much by strength of assertion as by force of ar- gument^ that " a person, who has not paid parti- cular attention to the subject, would be surprised to find, how very few texts there are which even seem, directly to assert, the pre-existence of CHRIST." — How this matter may appear to those who have " not paid particular attention to the subject/' I leave to the author of this work to determine. With those, who have, it is unneces- sary to say, what must be the reception of an ob- servation so directly opposed, not more to the plain and uniform language of Scripture, than to every conclusion of a just and rational criticism applied to the sacred text. Bold however as this writer appears in assertion, he seems by no means deficient in prudence; for whilst he afl!irms, that even those few texts, (as he chuses to represent them,) furnish no real support, to the doctrine they are adduced to confirm ; he has on this, as on almost every other position throughout his book affecting the interpretation of Scripture, declined exposing his proof to hazard. We are referred, indeed, to " the Commentary of Grotius, Dr. Lardner's Letter on the Logos, Mr. Lindsey's Apology for resigning the vicarage of Catterick, and the Sequel to that apology, Hopton Haynes on the attributes of God, and Dr. Priestley's history of early opinions." These, we are told, will completely overturn the unscriptural notion, of the pre-emtence of Christ, And this they
AND NATURE OF OBJECTION?. fl
are to accomplish, by shewing, that all such pas- sages, as contribute to its support, ^' are either in- terpolated, corrupted, or misunderstood" — (see Mr. Thomas Belshams Review of Mr, ffllber^ Jhrce's treatise, pp. 272, 273.) Entrenched be- hind this oddly marshalled phalanx, this gentle- man feels perfectly secure* It seems indeed some- what strange, that, encouraged by such powerful aid, he has not thought fit, to offer a single text, in support of his own opinion ; nor a confutation of any one of those, which have been urged by his adversaries in defence of theirs.
In the face however of this polemic array, and in defiance of those extraordinary powers of mo- difying Scripture which we find here ascribed to it, I have not hesitated to cite the passages refer- red to in the beginning of this Number. And "when we find the great jierson who is there spo- ken of, described repeatedly, as having come down from Heaven, as from a place of settled abode previous to his appearance among men, (see John iii. 13. 31. vi. 38. 62. xiii. 3. xvi. 28, &c.): when we find him declared by St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 47.) to be the Lord from Heaven: and again (Phil. ii. 6, T, 8.) to have been in the form of God, yet to have taken %tpon him the form of a servant, and to have been made in the likeness of man: when again we find him represented (Hebr. i. 2, 3.) as that Being, hj whom God made the worlds ; and as the brightness of his glory : which glory, as F4
72 PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRISt,
has been already noticed, he had with God before the ivorld was : and when again we are told (Coloss. i. 15, 1 6.) that he is the image of the in- visible God; and that by him were all things created^ that are in heaven, and that are in earth : when these, and numerous other passages of the same import, are to be met in the Evange- lic and Apostolic writings, and the whole tenor of Scripture is found perfectly corresponding; I own, I can not feel this essential article of the Christian faith much endangered, either from the confidence of this writer's assertions, or from the force of those arguments, under whose mighty shade he is content triumphantly to repose.
Lest however curiosity may have been excited with respect to those uvoiTroSsiJcroi cuXXoyia-fjioi, which Mr. B. and his friends, profess to have at their command; I subjoin the following speci- men.— ^The passage in Heb. i. 2. which directly assigns the work of creation to Christ, will be admitted to be one of those, that " seem to assert his pre-exis fence,'" In what manner is this fal- lacious semblance to be removed? — Ai ^ tcui rac ecicovocg S'TToivjasv, Grotius translates, for whom he made the worlds : and thus gives to the word ^loc, a signification, which not only has no parallel in the entire of the New Testament, but is in direct opposition to the established rule of all Grammari- ans: JiiSj, with a genitive case commonly signifying the means by which ; but never implying the final
2
AND NATURE OF OBJECTIONS. J3
cause, unless when joined with the accusative. See Phavoriiius*, Scapula, Stepha7Tus, Hoogeveen in Piger, Glasslus, &c. See also, on the appli- cation of the word in the New Testament, Sykes on Redemption, pp. 196. 221. 241. — but parti- cularly Schleusner's enumeration of its various senses-}", which seems to be quite decisive on the point. The solitary instance which Grotiush^iS been able to discover in defence of his translation of the word Sicx., is to be found in Rom. vi. 4; in which it is manifest that his criticism cannot be maintained. Schleusner so pronounces upon it in the most peremptory terms.
Whilst Grotius thus violates the rules and analogy of the language, in one part of the sen- tence, later Socinians,;}: finding this mode of dis-
•tojij ^iot ffi t7ro»>)(7iX To^i. Phuvor, p. 480,
+ Amongst the multiplied texts which Schleusner has col- lected, the only one, which seems to hira not to coincide ia the general result, is from 2 Pet. i. 3. But this is manifestly a mistake, as may be clearly seen on consulting RusenniuUer^ Newcome^ and indeed almost every commentator, upon the passage. It is to be noted also, that under the head of ^k» coupled with the genitive^ the 20th sense ascribed by Schleusner, bears no reference to the final cause, though the Latin term which he makes use of, may at first sight seem to imply it.
I I do not mean hy this expression to intimate, that Gro- tius is, strictly speaking, tobc ranked among the followers of Socinus. I am aware that this charge advanced against him by the author of I/Esprit de M. Arnauld has been refuted
74 rnE EXISTENCE OF CHRIST,
torting the sense indefensible, have betaken them- selves to another, where they have exercised an equal violence on the original. — Ty^ ocitovug^ which elsewhere in this very Epistle (xi. 3.) is allowed to mean the material w orld ; and w hich is always used pluralh/ by the Jews, as implying the in- ferior and superior worlds ; and in its connexion here, exactly corresponds with the things in Heaven, and the things in Earth (Col.i. l6); and upon the whole clearly means the physical world, or the Heavens and the Earth^\ is yet strained by the Socinians, to imply the Evangeli- cal dispensation : so that the entire passage is made to signify, merel}^, that by Christ's miiiistn/, there should be, as it were, a neiv creation; that
(see Bayle's Diet. Vol. V. pp. 581, 582.) And his single treatise, Be Sutisfactione Christi contra Faustum Socinuniy might be judged sufficient to redeem hira from the appella- tion. But his exposition of most of the passages of Scrip- ture relating to the divinity of Christ, is so clearly favour- able to the main principle of the Socinian scheme, that with some latitude the term Socinian is not unfairly applicable. — Dv. Lav dner^'mh'is Lett er on the Logos , (vol xi. p. 112.- Kippis's Edition of his Works) written expressly for the purpose of establishing the proper humanity of Christ, af- firms, that "^ Grotius explains texts better than the professed Socinians." — Whether Lurcher^ then, viewed him as far re- moved from the pale of the Fratres Poloni, is surely not dif- ficult to decide.
* See Whilbij and Rosenmuller, in loc. and Col. i. 16. likewise Peirce and Hallet : — also Krebs. Observ, on Col, L 17. 2
AND NATURE OF OBJECTIONS. 75
is, a new church begun upon earth. Now it de- serves to be considered, on what principle of just interpretation, such a translation can be adopted. It is true, that Christ, in some of the Greek ver- sions of Isai. ix. 6. has been stiled^ ttocttjo ra f^eX- XovTog uimo;. Rut, admitting the word here to imply a dispensation that was to come, does it follow that this one dispensation is to be expressed by the plural word uiuvccg ? To force upon it this meaning, is again to do violence to grammar and usage. And yet this is done, because the plural interpretation, by ivliorn he constituted the ages or DISPENSATIONS, lets in the obnoxious idea of pre-existence, as completely as the sense of a ma- terial creation can do.
It may be worth while to enquire, in what way Mr. Lindsey has treated this subject, in an Essay written by him, in the 2nd. vol. of the Theolo- gical Repository, entitled " Brief Remarks con- cerning the two creations f the express object of which is to shew, that none but a moral or spiri- tual creation was to be ascribed to Christ. He never once notices this passage of Hebrews; but directs his attention almost entirely, to the text in Colossians, and to that in Ephes. iii. 9. And this is the more remarkable, as he refers to a passage to the same purport, in the very same chap, of Hebrews. The reason of this however, it may not be difHcult to discover, when it is con- sidered, that in the passages which he has ex-
76 PRE-EXISTEKCE OF CHRIST,
amined, though manifestly repugnant to his con- clusion, there was not to be found so brief and stubborn an expression^ as mi; etimocg CTroiTjasv* As to the arguments derived by him, from the passages which he has thought proper to notice, they do not seem entitled to very minute atten- tion: they amount merely to a note of Mr. Locke on the one ; and an assertion, on the other, that the natural creation cannot have been intended, " because this is uniformly spoken of, throughout the Bible, as effected by the immediate power of God, without the interposition of any other being whatever."
Thus Mr. Belsham's assertion, that Mr. Lindsey would overturn the notion of the pre- existence of Christ, is maintained by Mr. Lind- sey's own assertion that he has done so. He ad- mits indeed, that his argument is not likely to '• have any effect upon those who are Tritheists, or Orthodox in the vulgar and strict sense ; who can with the same breath, and in the same sen- tence, without being astonished at themselves, assert, that there are three Creators and yet but one Creator. There is no arguing (he adds) with men that can swallow, without feeling, downright contradictions." Mr. Belsham in his engage- ment, that the champions of his tenets, would be able fully to establish them, by proving, that all such passages of Scripture as contradicted them, were ** either interpolated, corrupted or misun-
AND NATURE OF OBJECTIONS. 77
derstood/' forgot to make the excoption, which is here very properly introduced by Mr. Lindsey : — for sound aroument must surely be lost upon such men as the above.
But let us examine farther, in what way the parallel passages in Colos. i. l6. and Ephes. iii. 9. which by attributing the work of creation to Christ, seem to intimate his pre-existence, are explained by other writers, who are fellow-la- bourers with Mr. Belsham, in the laudable work of reducing the exalted dignity of our blessed Sa- viour to the common standard of human nature. It is true, says Mr. Tyrwhitt (Commentaries and Essays, vol. 2.) that it is said (Ephes. iii. 9.) that God created all things hy Jesus Christ, But these words are thus to be interpreted ? — things must be taken for persons, because there are pas- sages where the word is so understood: — by things that are, must be intended persons pecu- liarly chosen by God, as the Jews were, in op- position to the Gentiles, who are described as things that are not. But as we now speak of the Christian dispensation, by all things must be understood, all persons, whether Jews or Gentiles, ivho believe in the Gospel : and by the word created, is meant to be conveyed, " not the giving being, or bringing into existence; but the conferring benefits and privileges, or the placing m a new and more advantageous state of being." — And thus these few slight and obvious transi- tions being admitted, Mr. Tyrwhitt easily ex- plains the crea^iow of all things by Jesus Christ,
78 PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST,
to be, the bestowing i(}ion all persons ivho would accept thein, the privileges of' the Gospel, by the ministry of Christ.
Again, on Col. i. l6, we are informed by the German divines, Ernestiis and Teller, in a similar felicity of interpretation, that when it is said, that by Christ ivere all things created, that are in Heaven y and that are in earth; visible and invisible, 8^c, it is meant to express by an EASY FIGURE, a new moral creation ivrought in the ivorld by the gospel of Christ : — the things that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, meaning the Jeivs and Pagans : — and the things visible and invisible, the presort and future ge- verations of men !!! See Rosenmuller's Scholia —on Col.i. 16.=^
To remind these writers, that St. John has placed this matter beyond dispute, in his first chapter, by declaring, that the world which was made by Christ, was a world which 7/c^ hnew him not, and therefore could not have been the work of a spiritual creation, the very nature of which was to bestow the true knowledge of Christ and his Gospel : to remind them, I say, of this, and
* What says the learned dissenter Mr. Peirce upon such treatment of this passage of Colossians ? — *' The interpreta- tion -which refers what is here said of our Saviour, to the new- creation, or the renovation of all things, is so forced and violent, that it can hardly be thought, that men would ever have espoused it, but for the sake of an hypothesis. The reader may meet with a confutation of it in most commenta-? tprs." Paraphrase J &c, p. 12, note w»
AND NATURE OF OBJECTIONS. 79
of the other express declarations in that chapter, on the subject of Christ's pre-existence in general, as well as on that of the creation by him in parti- cular, is but to little purpose. It is replied, that in that chapter, the Logos, to whose o])erations the effects there spoken of are ascribed, does not \m^\y ?i yerson, but :in attribute: and that the work of creation is consequently not attributed to Christ, but to the wisdom of God the Father. This is not the place to discuss this point. Who- ever wishes to see it fully examined, may consult Whitby, Doddridge and Rosenmuller. To the enquiring reader I would more particularly re- commend upon this head, Pearson on the Greedy J). 116 — 120: Le Clerc, A^ov. Test. tom. i. p. 392—400: IFits, Misc. Sacr. torn- ii. p. 88 — 118: IFIiitaker's Origin of Arianism, P-39 — 114: Howes's Critical Observations, vol. iv. p. 38 — igs: Bishop ' of Lincoln's Elements, Art. ii. and Dr. Laurence's Dissertation upon the Logos.
Bat I am content to rest the whole issue of the question, upon the state of the case furnished by the Socinian or Unitarian writers them- selves. Let the reader but look into the trans- lation of this chapter by Mr. Wakefield, and let him form iiis judgment of the merits of the So- cinian hypothesis, from the mode of expounding Scripture, which he will there find employed for its support. Let him try, if he can even com- prehend the distinct j)ro|3ositions contained ia
80 PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST,
the first fourteen verses. Let him try, if he can annex any definite notions to the assertion, that wisdom (meaning thereby an attribute of God) ivas God: or to the assurance so strongly en- forced by repetition, that the wisdom of God was ivith God; in other words, that the Deity had not existed before his own essential attri^ butes: — or again, if he can conceive, how the Evangehst (supposing him in his senses) could have thought it necessary, after pronouncing the true light to be God, formally to declare that John was not that light: or how he could athrm, that the wisdom which he had spoken of but as an attribute, was made flesh, and be- came a person, visible, and tangible: — in short, let him try, if he does not find, both in the translation and the explanatory notes, as much unintelligible jargon as was ever crouded into the same compass ; nay, as is even, according to Mr. Wakefield's notion, to be found in the Athanasian creed itself. This however is called a candid and critical investigation of Scripture; and this, it is to be remembered, is the latest, =**= and
* Notes on all the Books of Scripture, by Dr. Priestley, have issued from the press since the first edition of this work ; and to the exposition there attempted of the intro- 4u6tion of St. John's Gospel, the remarks, which I have made on Mr. Wakefield's translation, apply as aptly, as if for that they had been originally designed. Whoever has a curiosity to discover whether xJr. Wakefield or Dr.
AND NATURE OF OBJECTIONS. 81
therefore to be supposed the best digested, pro- duction of the Socinian school: it conies also from the hands of a writer certainly possessed of classical erudition, a quality of which few of his Unitarian fellow labourers in the sister country are entitled to boast.
But to add one instance more, of the inge» nious mode of reasoning, employed by these writers on the subject of Christ's pre-existence : in the 8th chap, of John we find our Saviour arguing with the Jews ; who, on his asserting that Abraham had seen his day, immediately reply, TJiou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? Jesus said unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am. The inference from this, that our Saviour here declared himself to have existed before the time of Abraham, appears not to be 0 very violent one; his answer being im- mediately and necessarily applied to the remark made by the Jews upon his age, which ren- dered it impossible that he could have seen Abra-
Priestley be the more unintelligible, may consult Notes^ &c. vol. ill. pp. 18, 19, compared with Mr. Wakefield's comment already referred to. In addition to this work, there has yet more lately beert given to the public from the Socinian press, what the authors are pleased to call An improved Version of the New Testament. What new lights this improved Version has thrown upon this part of Scripture, will be seen when we come more particularly to notice this performance in another part of these volumes.. VOL. I. G
82 PRE-EXISTENCE OP CHRIST,
ham : so that this passage will be admitted to be one of those, that " seem directly to assert the pre-existence of Christ." Now in what way have Socinus, and his followers, got rid of this seetnwg contradiction to their opinions?" U^iv A^pccocfji, ysvecrOui, eyu eifJLi, must be thus trans- lated: Before Ahram can be Abraham, that is,
THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS, / lllUSt he
THE Messiah, or Saviour of the world. This famous discovery, which belongs to Socinus, was indeed esteemed of a nature, so far above mere imman apprehension, that his nephew Faustus Socinus informs us, he had received it from di- vine inspiration. — Non sine multis precibus ip- sius, Jesu nomine invocaio, impetravit ipse, (Socinus contr, Eutrop. tom. 2. p. 678.) This sublime interpretation has, it must be confessed, been relinquished by later Socinians, who in imitation of Grotius, consider Christ as asserting only, that he was before Abraham in the decree of God. But how this could serve as a reply to the objection of the Jews, respecting priority of actual existence ; or how in this, Christ said any thing of himself, that was not true of every human being, and therefore nugatory; or why the Jews upon a declaration, so innocent, and so unmeaning, should have been fired with rage against him as a blasphemer ; or (if the sense be, that Christ existed in the divine mind antecedent, Bot to Abraham's birth, but to his existence in
AND NATURE OF OBJECTIONS. 83
the divine 7nlnd likewise) what the meaning can be of a piority in the divine foreknowledge;-— I leave to Mr. Belsham and his assistant com- mentators to unfold. Indeed this last interpre- tation seems not to have given entire satisfaction to Socinians themselves, as we find from a paper signed Disclpulus, in the 4th vol. of the Theol. Repos. in which it is asserted, " that the modern Unitarians, have needlessly departed from the interpretation given by Slichtingius, Enjidinus, and other old Socinians, and have adopted ano- ther in its stead, which Is not to he supported hy any just grammatical construction^ This gentleman then goes on to furbish up the old Socinian armour, and exults in having rendered it completely proof against all the weapons of Orthodoxy.
Mr. Wakefield however seems to think i< safer to revert to the principles of Grotius's in- terpretation: and accordingly having fortified it against the charge o^ grammatical inaccuracy, he presents it in somewhat of a new shape, by translating the passage, Before Abraham ivas horn, I am he — viz. the Messiah, By which, he says, Christ means to imply, that " his mis- sion was settled and certain before the birth of Abraham." That Mr. Wakefield has, by this construction, not only avoided the mystical con- ceits of Socinus's interpretation, but also some of the errors chargeable on that of Grotius, cannot
G 2
84 r RE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST,
be denied: but, besides that he has built his en- tire translation of the passage, upon the arbitrary assuniption of an ellipsis, to which the texts quot- ed as parallel furnish no support whatever, it re- mains, as before, to be shewn, what intelhgible con- nexion subsists between our Lord's answer, and the question put to him by the Jews. If he meant merely to say, that his mission as the Messiah had been ordained before the birth of Abraham, (which is in itself a tolerable strain upon the words even of this new translation,) it will require all Mr. Wakefield's ingenuity, to ex- plain in what way this could have satisfied the Jews, as to the possibility of Christ's having ac- tually seen Abraham, which is the precise diffi- culty our Lord proposes to solve by his reply. Doctor Priestley, in his later view of this subject, has not added much in point of clearness or con- sistency to the Socinian exposition. He confesses, however, that the " literal meaning of our Lord's expressions" in the 56th verse was, that "he had lived before Abraham," and that it was so consi- dered by the Jews: but at the same time he con- tends that our Lord did not intend his words to be so understood: and that when he afterward^ speaks of his priority to Abraham, his meaning is to be thus explained ; " that in a very proper ^^nse of the words, he may be said to have been even before Abraham, the Messiah having been held forth as the great object of hope and joy for
AND NATURE OF OBJECTIONS. 83
the human race, not only to Abraham, but even to his ancestors." (Notes, &c. vol. iii. pp. 329, ^30, 333, 334.) Such is what Dr. Priestley calls the j^roper sense of the words. Before Abraham
WAS, J AM.
I have here given a very few instances, but such as furnish a fair specimen, of the mode of reasoning, by which those enlightened commenta- tors to whom Mr. Bel sham refers, have been en- abled to explain away the direct and evident mean- ing of Scripture. I have adduced these instances, from the arguments which they have used relating to the pre-existence of Christ, as going to the very essence of their scheme of Christianity^ (if such it can be called,) and as being some of those on which they principally rely. I have not scru- pled to dwell thus long, upon a matter not neceS" sarilt/ connected with the subject of these dis- courses, as some benefit may be derived to the young student in divinity, (for whom this publi- cation has been principally intended,) from ex- posing the hollowness of the ground, on which these high-sounding gentlemen take their stand, whilst they trumpet forth their own extensive knowledge, and the ignorance of those, who differ from them. These few instances may serve to give him some idea, of the fairness of their preten- sions, and the soundness of their criticism. He may be still better able to form a judgment of their powers in scriptural exposition, when he
G 3
86 PRE EXISTENCE OF CHRIST,
finds upon trial, that the formulae of interpreta- tion, which have heen applied to explain away the notion of Christ's p re-existence, from the pas- sages that have been cited, may be employed with the best success in arguing away such a mean- ing, from any form of expression that can be devised.
Thus, for example, had it been directly asserted, that our Lord had existed for ages, before his ap- pearance in this world : it is replied, all this is true, in the decree of God, but it by no means relates to an actual existence. Had Christ, as a proof of his having existed prior to his incarnaticm, expressly declared, that all things had been created by him : the answ^er is obvious — he must have been ordained by the divine mind, long be- fore he came into being, as by him, it had been decreed, that the great moral creation, whereby a nevv people should be raised up to God, was to be wrought. Should he go yet farther, and affirm that he had resigned the God-like station which he iilled, and degraded himself to the mean con- dition of man: aready solution is had for this also — he made no ostentatious display of his miracu- lous powers, but oifered himself to the world like an ordinary man. If any stronger forms of ex- pression should be used (and stronger can scarcely be had, without recurring to the language of Scripture) they may all be disposed of in like manner.
AND NATURE OF OBJECTIONS. 87
But should even all the varieties of critical, logical, and metaphysical refinement, he found in any case insufficient, yet still we are not to sup- pose the point completely given up. The mo- dern Unitarian Commentator is not discomfited. He retires with unshaken fortitude within the citadel of his philosophic conviction, and under its impenetrable cover, bids defiance to the utmost force of his adversary's argument. Of this let Dr. Priestley furnish an instance in his own words. Endeavouring to prove, in opposition to Dr. Price, that the expressions in John, vi. 62, What, and if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before ? furnish no argument in favour of Christ's pre-existence, he uses the following re- markable language — that " though not satisjied ivith any Interpretation ol this extraordinary pas- sage, yet rather than believe our Saviour to have existed in any other state before the creation of the world, or to have left some state of great dignity and happiness when he came hither, he would have recourse to the old and exploded Socinian idea of Christ's actual ascent into heaven, or of his imagining that he had been carried up thither in a vision ; which, like that of St. Paul, he had not been able to distinguish from a reality : nay, he would not build an article of faith, of such magni- tude, on the correctness of John s recollection and representation of our Lord's language-, and so strange and incredible does the hypothesis of a
G 4
68 UNITARIAN OBJECTIONS TO THE
pre-existent state appear, that sooner than ad- mit it, he would suppose the tchole verse to he an interpolation, or that the old apostle dic- tated ONE THING AND HIS AMANUENSIS WROTE
another/* {Letters to Dr. Price, pp. 57, bSy &c.) — Thus is completed the triumph of Uni- tarian philosophy over revelation: and thus is the charge of incredulity against the pretended philosopher of the present day refuted. For what is there too monstrous for his helief^ if you except only the truths of the Gospel ?
NO. 11. unitarian OBJECTIONS TO THE RELIGI- OUS OBSERVANCE OF STATED DAYS.
Page 3. (^) That the day, on which the Sa- viour of men laid down his life for their trans- gressions, should have attached to it any feelings of reverence, or should be in any respect dis- tinguished from the number of ordinary days, has long been denied by different classes of dissenters from the established form ; forgetting, that its celebration was designed, to awaken livelier feelings of devotion, by associating cir- cumstances; and not reflecting, that the argu- ment which went to prove, that no one day could possess a sanctity above another, should have carried them much farther, and have ended in the abolition of the Sabbath itself. The writer however^, already alluded to in the last
OBSFRVANCE OF STATED DAYS. 89
number, has, in his answer to Mr. Wilberforce's most excellent and ti- ly pious work on the pre- sent state of Religion, completely removed the charge of inconsistency, by directly asserting, that " Christianity expressly abolishes all dis- tinction of days." " To a true Christian,'' he observes, *^ every day is a sabbath, every place is a temple, and every action of life an act of devotion' — " whatever is lawful or expedient upon any one day of the week, is, under the Christian dispensation, equally lawful and ex- pedient on any other." (Belsham's Review^ &c, p. 20.)
Lest we should however imagine, that this writer means to impose upon Christians so se- vere a duty, as to require them to substitute for occasional acts of devotion, that iinceashig ho- mage, which the unbroken continuity of the Christian's Sabbath, . and the ubiquity of his Temple, might seem to demand; he informs us (p. 133.) that '^ a virtuous man is performing his duty to the Supreme Being, as really, and as acceptably, when he is pursuing the proper bu- siness of life, or even when enjoying its innocent and decent amusements, as when he is offering direct addresses to him, in the closet, or in the Temple." And thus we see the matter is ren* dered perfectly easy. A Christian may be em- ployed, through the entire of his life in worsliip- ping his God^ by never once thinking of him,
90 IMPORTANCE OF THE
but merely pursuing his proper business or his innocent amusements. This, it is true, is a natural consequence from his first position ; and gives to the original argument a consistency, which before it wanted. But is consistency of argument a substitute for Christianity? Or could the teacher of divinity at Hackney, have ex- })ected, that from such instructions, his pupils should not so far profit, as to reject not only Christianity, but many of them the public wor- ship, and with it the recollection, of a God? — It may be worth while to enquire, what has been the fact^ respecting the Students of the late Academy at Hackney: and, indeed, what is the state of all the Dissenting Academies throughout Great Britain into which the subverting prin- ciples of Unitarianism have made their way. Do any of this description now exist? — And wherefore do they not? — But on this subject more in the Appendix.
NO. III. — ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION.
Page 3. {""), There is no one article of the Christian faith, which considered in itself, is more deserving of our closest attention, than that of our redemption by Jesus Christ. This is in truth, the veiy corner-stone of the fabric. Against this, accordingly, every framer of a
2
DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. 9I
new hypothesis directs his entire force. This once shaken, the whole structure falls in ruins. We therefore find the collective j)ovvers of heterodox ingenuity summoned to combat this momentous doctrine, in a work published some years back, entitled the Theological Repositorij, Of what consequence in the frame and essence of Christianity, it was deemed by the principal marshaller of this controversial host, may be in- ferred, not only from the great labour he has bestowed on this one subject (having written five different essays in that work, in opposition to the received doctrine of atonement) but also from his express declarations. In Theol. Rep, v. 1 . p. 429, he pronounces this doctrine to be *^ one of * the radical^ as well as the most generally pre- ( vailing corruptions of the Christian scheme:" and * in p. 124, he calls it " a disgrace to Christianity, and a load upon it, which it must either throw f off, or sink under." And lest the combined ex- ertions of the authors of this work might not prove sufficient to overturn this unchristian tenet, he renews his attack upon it with undiminished ?:eal in his History of the Corrujitions of Chris^ tianify ; among which he ranks this as one of the most important, stating (v. 1. p. 152) that " as the doctrine of the Divine Unity was in- fringed by the introduction of that of the Divi- nity of Christ, and of the Holy Gho^t (as a person distinct from the Father) ; so the doctrine of the
92 IMPORTANCE OF THE, &C.
natural placability of the Divine Being, and our ideas of the equity of his government, have been greatly debased by the gradual introduction of the modern doctrine of atonement." And on this account he declares his intention, of shewing in a fuller manner, than with respect to any other of the corruptions of Christianity, that it is totally unfounded both in reason and Scrip- ture, and an entire departure from the genuine doctrine of the Gospel. Indeed the avowed de- fender of the Socinian heresy, must have felt it indispensable to the support of his scheme, to set aside this doctrine. Thus (Hist, of Cor. V. 1. p. 272) he sa3^s, " it immediately follows i from his" (Socinus\s) ^' principles, that Christ I * being only a man, though ever so innocent, his . death could not in any proper sense of the word, j atone for the sins of other men." Accordingly, 1 both in liis History of the Corruptions, and in I the Theological Repository, he bends his prin- cipal force against this doctrine of our church. Shall not then so determined a vehemence of attack upon this doctrine in particular, convince us still more of its importance in the Christian scheme; and point out to the friends of Gospel truth, on what ground they are chiefly to stand in its defence ?
93
NO. IV. — PARDON NOT NECESSARILY CONSEQUENT UPON REPENTANCE.
Page G. ('^) Balguy in bis Esscti/ on Redemp' tion (and, after him, Dr. Holmes*) has argued
* The late Dr. Holmes, for some years Canon of Christ Church in Oxford, and afterwards Dcaii of Winchester. I cannot mention tliis gentleman's name, without paying to it that tribute of rcspedl Avhich it so justly claims. To his indefatigable and learned research, the public is in- debted for one of the most valuable additions to biblical literature, which at this day it is capable of receiving. Tread- ing in the steps of that great benefactor to the biblical stu- dent, Dr. Kennicot, he devoted a life to the collection of materials, for the emendation of the text of the Scptuagint Scriptures, as his distinguished predecessor had done for that of the Hebrew. After the most assiduous, and, to a person not acquainted with the vigour of Dr. Holmes's mind, al- most incredible labour, in the collation of MSS. and ver- sions, he was enabled to giye to the public the valuable re- sult of his enquiries, in one complete volume of the Penta- tcucli, and the Book of Daniel. That it was not allotted to him to finish the great work in which he had engaged, is most deeply to be regretted. It is, however, to be hoped, that the learned University, on whose reputation his labour;? have reflected additional lustre, will not permit an under- taking of such incalculable utility to the Christian world, to remain unaccomplished, especially as the materials for its prosecution, which the industry of Dr. Holmes has so amplj supplied, and which remain deposited in the Bodleian Li- brary, must leave comparatively but little to be done for its final execution. The preface to the volume which has been published; concludes with thQSc words ; <* Hoc unumsupcr-
2
94 PARDON NOT NECESSARILY
this point, with uncommon strength and clear- ness. Tlie case of penitence, he remarks, is clearly different from that of innocence : it im- plies a mixture of guilt pre-contracted, and punishment proportionably deserved. It is con- sequently inconsistent with rectitude, that both should be treated alike by God. The present conduct of the Penitent wall receive God's appro- bation: but the reformation of the Sinner can- not have a retrospective effect. The agent may be changed; but his former sins cannot be thereby cancelled: the convert and the sinner are the same individual person: and the agent must be answer- able for his whole conduct. The conscience of the Penitent furnishes a fair view of the case. His sentiments of himself, can be only a mixture of approbation and disapprobation, satisfaction and displeasure. His past sins must still, how- ever sincerely he may have reformed, occasion
est monendum, quod Collationes isfae ex omni gcnere, quas ad hoc opus per hos quindecim annos, jam fuerunt elaborataj, in Bibliotheca Bodleian^ rcponautur, atquc vel a me, si vivam et valcara, vel si aliter accident, ab alio quodam Edi- tore, sub auspicio Colendissimorum Typographei Clarendo- niani Oxoniensis Curatorum, in publicum emittcntur."— The language also of the valuable and much to be lamented au- thor, (with whom I was personally acquainted, and had for some years the satisfaction of corresponding,) was always such as to encourage the expectation here held out. That this expectation should be gratified, and with all practicable dispatch, cannot but be the anxious wish of every persoa interested in the pure and unadulterated exposition of Scrip- ture truth.
CONSEQUENT UPON REPENTANCE. 95
self-dissatisfaction : and this will even be the stronger, the more lie improves in virtue. Now as this is agreeable to truth, there is reason to con- clude, that Ciod beholds him in the same liglit — see Balgui/s Essaij, 1785. p. 31 — 55, and Mr. Holmes's Four Tracts, p. 138, 139* — The author of the Scripture Account oj" Sacrifices, Part 1. Sect. 6. and Part 4. Sect. 4. has likewise exa- mined tliis subject in a judicious manner. — It may- be worth remarking also, as Dr. Shuckford has done, that Cicero goes no farther on this head than to assert, Oueni poenitet peccasse, peiie est innocens.
Lamentable it is to confess, that the name of JVarhurton is to be coupled with the defence of the deistical objection, against which the above reasoning is directed. But no less true is it than strange, that in the account of natural religion, which that eminent writer has given, in the ixth. book of the Divine Legation, he has pronounced, in terms the most unqualified, upon the intrinsic and necessary efficacy of repentance: asserting, that it is plainly obvious to human reason, from a view of the connexion that must subsist between the creature and his Maker, that whenever man forfeits the favour of God by a violation of the moral law, his sincere repentance entitles \\\m to the pardon of his transgressions. — I have been led, with the less reluctance, to notice this per- nicious paradox of the learned Bishop, because it
96 PREVALENCE OP
affords me the opportunity of directing the reader's attention to the judicious and satisfactory refutation, which it has lately received, in a prize essay, in one of the Sister Universities. See 3Ir. Pearson's Critical Essay on the ixth Book of the Divine Legation, p. 25 — 34. The reasons that induced Warburton to adopt so heterodox a posi- tioU;, are assigned by himself in one of his private letters to his friend Dr. Hurd, and are to the full as insufficient as the position is untenable. These, together with the alarm given to Dr. Hurd by the new doctrine taken up by his friend, will be found noticed in the Letters froyn a late Eminent Prelate, p. 421—423.
NO. V. THE SENSE ENTERTAINED \IY MANKIND
OF THE NATURAL INEFFICACY OF REPENTANCE, PROVED FROM THE HISTORV OF HUMAN SA- CRIFICES.
Page 8. (^) If we look to the practices of the Heathen world, we shall find the result of the rea- soning, which is advanced in the page referred to, confirmed from experience by abundant proof. We shall find, that almost the entire of the religion of the Pagan nations, consisted in rites o^ deprecation* Fear of the Divine displeasure, seems to have been the leading feature, in their religious impressions ; and in the diversity, the costliness, and the cruelty of their sacrifices, they sought to appease Gods, to
HUMAN SACRIFICES. Qf
whose wrath they felt themselves exposed, from a consciousness of sin, unrelieved by any informa- tion as to the means of escaping its effects. So strikingly predominant was this feature of terror in the gentile superstitions, that we find it ex- pressly laid down by the father of Grecian his- tory, TO Qeiov wccv (pSovsoov ts tcoci Toiooi^coosg (He- rod, Lib. 1. cap. 32) : and Porphyry directly as- serts, " that there was wanting some universal me- thod of delivering men's souls, which no sect of philosophy had ever yet found out." (August, de civit. Dei. Lib. x. cap. 32.) — that is, that something besides their own repentance, was wanting to appease the anger of their Gods.
The universal prevalence of human sacri- fices, throughout the Gentile world, is a decisive proof of the light, in which the human mind, un- aided by revelation, is disposed to view the divi- nity; and clearly evinces, how little likelihood there is in the supposition, that unassisted reason could discover the sufficiency of repentance, to re- gain the favour of an offended God. Of this savage custom, Mr. De Paauw (Reck. PJiiL sur les Americ. v. 1. p. 211) asserts, that there is no nation mentioned in history, whom we cannot reproach with having, more than once, made the blood of its citizens, stream forth, in holy and pious ceremonies, to appease the divinity when he appeared angry, or to move him when he appeared indolent."
VOL. I. H
98 PREVALENCE OF
Of this position, both antient and modern his- torians, supply the fullest confirmation. Helio- dorus (j^tldopic, lib. 10, p. 465— ed. l630) informs us, that the Ethiopians were required by their laws to sacrifice boys to the Sun, and girls to the Moon. Sanchoniathon, as quoted by Vh\lo^ (Eiiseh. Pra?p. Evang, lib i. c. 10.) asserts, that among the Phoenicians, " it was customary in great and public calamities, for princes and magistrates to ofier up in sacrifice to the avenainec demons, the dearest of their off- spring," Big XuToou rotg nfAioooig docifjuocri. This prac- tice is also attributed to them by Porphyry. (Emeb. P. Ev, lib. iv.) Herodotus (lib. 4. cap. 62) describes it as a custom with the Scythians, to sacrifice every hundredth man of their pri- soners to their God IMars. And Keysler, who has carefully investigated the antiquities of that race, represents the spreading oaks, under which they were used to perform their sanguinary rites, as being always profusely sprinkled with the blood of the expiring victims. (Antiq. Septent7\ Dissert, iii.) Of the Egyptians, Diodorus relates it (lib. i. p. 99. ed. PFessel.) to have been an established practice, to sacrifice red haired men at the tomb of Osiris; from which, he says, misunderstood by the Greeks, arose the fable of the bloody rites of Busiris. This charge brought by Diodorus against the Egyptians, is supported by Plutarch, on the authority of Manetho. (Isid.
HUMAN SACRIFICES. 99
^t Osir. p. 380.) At Heliopolis also, three men were daily offered up to Lucina, which practice Porphyry informs us, was put a stop to by Ama- sis (see IVessel. Diod. p. 99. n. 86.) And we are told by an Arabian writer, Murtadi, that it had been customary with the Egyptians, to sacrifice to the river Nile, a young and beautiful virgin^ by flinging her, decked in the richest attire, into the stream: and, as Mr. Maurice remarks, a ves- tige of this barbarous custom remains to this day ; for we learn from Mr. Savarys Letters on Egupt, (v. 1. p. 118) that the Egyptians an- nually make a cla}^ statue in the form of a wo- man, and throw it into the river, previous to the opening of the dam — see Maurices Indian Antiquities, p. 433.
That this cruel practice existed also among the Chinese, appears from their histories, which record the oblation of their monarch Chingtang, in pacification of their offended Deity, and to avert from the nation the dreadful calamities, with which it was at that time visited. This sacrifice, it is added, was pronounced by the Priests to be demanded by the will of Heaven: and the aged monarch is represented as suppli- cating at the altar, that his life may be accepted, as an atonement for the sins of the peo])le. (Martin, Hist, Sin, lib. 3. p. 75. ed. 1659.)— Even the Persians, whose mild and beneficent religion appears at this day so repugnant to this
H 2
100 PREVALENCE OF
horrid usage, were not exempt from its con- tagion. Not only were their sacred rites, like those of other nations, stained with the blood of immolated victims, as may be seen in Herodotus, (lib. 1. cap. 132. and lib. 7. cap. 113.) Xenophon, (Cyrop, lib. 8.) Arrian, (De Exped, Alex, lib. 6. ad finem.) Ovid, (Fast. lib. 1.) Strabo, (lib. 15. p. lo65. ed. 1707-) Suidas, (in MiO^a); and as is fully proved by Brisso- nius, (De Reg, Pers, Princ. lib. 2. a cap. 5. ad. cap. 43.): but Herodotus (lib. 7. cap. 114.) ex- pressly pronounces it to have been the Persian custom, to offer Jiuman victims by inhumation; Uepo-iKov Se ts?$- ^uovrag kocto^uo-cbiv : and in sup- port of his position adduces two striking instances of the fact; in one of which, his testimony is corroborated by that of Plutarch. The mys- teries also of the Persian God Mithra, and the discovery of the Mithriac sepulchral cavern, as described by Mr. Maurice, have led that writer, in the most decisive manner to affix to the Per- sian votary, the charge of human sacrifice. (In- dian Antiquities, pp. 966, 984, &c.) The
ancient Indians likewise, however their descen- dants at this day may be described by Mr. Orme, (Hist, of Indost, v. 1. p. 5.) as of a na- ture utterly repugnant to this sanguinary rite, are represented both by Sir W. Jones, (Asiat. Res. v. 1. p. 265.) and Mr. Wilkins, (in his ex- planatory notes on the Heetopades, note 292^)
HUMAN SACRIFICES. 101
as having been polluted by the blood of human victims. This savage practice appears also to have been enjoined by the very code of Brahma, as may be seen in the Asiatic Researches, as above referred to. The self-devotions so com- mon among this people, tend likewise to confirm the accusation. On these, and the several species of )neritorious suicide extracted from the Ayeen Akbery, by Mr. Maurice, see Ind. Antlq, p. l6i — 166. The same writer asserts (p. 434.) that the Mahometans have exerted themselves, for the abolition of this unnatural usage, both in India and Egypt. This author indeed abounds with proofs, establishing the fact of human sacri- fice in Antient India.
Of the same horrid nature were the rites of the early Druids, as may be seen in Diod, Sic. (v. 1. pp. 354, 355. ed. Wess.) The Massilian Grove of the GalUc Druids, is described by Lucan, in his Pkarsalia, (lib. iii. 400, &c.) in terms that make the reader shudder: — "^ that every branch was reeking with human gore," is almost the least chilling of the poetic horrors, with which he has surrounded this dreadful sanc- tuary of Druidical superstition. We are in- formed, that it was the custom of the Gallic Druids, to set up an immense gigantic figure of a wicker man, in the texture of which they entwined above an hundred human victims, and then consumed the whole as an offering to their
H3
102 PRi; VALENCE OF
Gods. For a delineation of this monstrous spec- tacle, see ClarJi'es Cccsar, p. 131. fol. ed. 1712. Nor were the Druids of Mona less cruel in their religious ceremonies, than their brethren of Gaul: Tacitus (v. 2. p. 172. ed. Brot.) represents it as their constant usage, to sacrifice to their Gods, the prisoners taken in war: cruore captivo ado- lere aras, fas habebant. In the Northern nations, these tremendous mysteries were usually buried in the gloom of the thickest woods. In the ex- tended wilds of Arduenna, and the great Her- cynian forest particularly, places set apart for this dreadful purpose, abounded.
Phylarchus, as quoted by Porphyry, affirms, that of old, it was a rule with every Grecian state, before they marched against an enemy, to supplicate their Gods by human victims; and accordingly we find human sacrifices attributed to the Thebans, Corinthians, Messenians and Temessenses, by Pausanias ; to the Lacedaemo- nians by Fulgentius, Theodoret and Apollodorus; and to the Athenians by Plutarch, (Themist. p. 262. et Ar'ist. p. 300. ed. Bryan) and it is no- torious, that the Athenians, as well as the Mas- silians, had a custom of sacrificing a man ^very year, after loading him with dreadful curses, that the wrath of the Gods might fall upon his head, and be turned away from the rest of the citizens — See Suidas on the words Treoi-i^'/i^ocs ^f^feo^as, and Oaoi^oc^cg^
HUMAN SACRIFICES. 103
The practice prevailed also among the Ro- mans, as appears, not only from the devotions so frequent in the early periods of their history, but from the express testimonies of Livy, Plu- tarch, and Pliny. In the year of Rome 657, we find a law enacted in the Consulship of Len- tulus and Crassus, by which it was prohibited : but it appears notwithstanding to have been in existence so late even as in the reign of Trajan; for at this time, three Vestal virgins having been punished for incontinence, the l^ontiffs, on consulting the books of the Sibyls to know if a sufficient atonement had been made, and find- ing that the offended Deity continued incensed, ordered two men and two women, Greeks and Gauls, to be buried alive. (Unlv, Hist, v. xiv. p. 588, ed. Dub.) Porphyry also assures us, that even in his time, a man was every year sacrificed at the shrine of Jupiter Latialis.
The same cruel mode of appeasing their o - fended Gods, we find ascribed to all the other Heathen nations: to the Getae, by Herodotus, (lib. iv. c. 94 ); to the Leucadians, by Strabo, (lib. X. p. 694.); to the Goths, by Jornandes, (De Reb, Getic. cap. xix.) ; to the Gauls, by Cicero, (pro Fonteio. p. 487. ed. l684.) and by Ceesar, (Bell. Gall lib. 6. §. 15.); to the He- ruli, by Procop. (Bell. Goth. lib. ii. c. 15.); to the Britons, by Tacitus, (jlmial. xiv. 30.) and by Pliny, (lib. xxx. cap. 1.); to the Germans, by
H 4
104 PREVALENCE OF
Tacitus, (De, Mor, Germ.cdi^, ix.); to the Car- thaginians, by Sanchoniathon, (Euseh. P. Ev. hb. i. cap. 10.) by Plato, (in M'lnoe, Opera p. 565. ed. 1602.) by PHny, (Hb. xxxvi. cap. 12.) by SiHus Itahcus, (hb. iv. hn. 767, &c.) and by Justin, (hb. xviii. c. 6. and L xix. c. 1.). Ennius says of them, (ed. Hess. 1707? P* 28.) Poenei sont sohti sos sacruficare puellos. They are re- ported, by Diodorus, to have offered two hun- dred human victims at once; and to so unnatural an extreme was this horrid superstition carried by this people, that it was usual for the parent liimself, to slaughter the dearest and most beau- tiful of his offspring at the altars of their bloody deities. Scripture proves the practice to have existed in Canaan, before the Israelites came thither. (Levli. xx. 23.) Of the Arabians, the Cretans, the Cyprians, the Rhodians, the Pho- caeans, those of Chios, Lesbos, and Tenedos, the same may be established; see Porphijr. apud Eiiseh. P. Ev, lib. iv. cap. 16. Monimus, as quoted by Clem. Alexand. (Euseh. ibid.) affirms the same of the inhabitants of Pella. And Euripides has given to the bloody altars of the Tauric Diana, a celebrity that rejects additional confirmation. — So that the universality of the practice in the ancient Heathen world, cannot reasonably be questioned.
In what light then, the Heathens of antiquity considered their deities, and how far they were
HUMAN SACRIFICES. 105
under the impression, of the existence of a Su- preme Benevolence requiring nothing but re- pentance and reformation of hfe, may be readily inferred, from this review of facts. Agreeably to the inference which these furnish, we find the reflecting Tacitus pronounce, (Hist, lib. i. c. 4.) " that the Gods interfere in human con- cerns, but to punish" — Non esse curae Diis secu- ritatem nostram, esse ultionem. And in this, he seems but to repeat the sentiments of Lucan, who in his Pharsalia, (iv. I07, &c.) thus ex* presses himself:
Felix Roma, quidem, civesque habitura beatos, Si liberlatis Superis tarn cura placeret, Quam vindicta placet
On this subject, the Romans appear to have in- herited the opinions of the Greeks. Meiners (Hist or la doctrince de. vero Deo, p. 208.) as- serts, that the more ancient Greeks imagined their Gods to be envious of human felicity; so that, whenever any great success attended them, they were filled with terror, lest the Gods should be offended at it, and bring on them some dread- ful calamity. In this, the learned professor but affirms, what we have seen in p. 97. is the formal declaration attributed to Solon by Herodotus: a declaration repeated and confirmed by the His- torian, in the instances of Polycrates and Xerxes: in the former of which, the prudent Amasis
J06 PREVALENCE OF
grounds his alarm for the safety of the too pros- perous prince of Sanios, on the notoriety of the envious nature of the divine being, to 6eiov STTig'ccf^svca c^g eg-i (p6ovepov (hb. iii. cap. 40.) — and in the latter, the sage Artabanus warns Xerxes, that even the blessings which the Gods bestow in this life, are derived from an envious motive, 0 Se deog yXvzw y<iV<Tocg rov uioovoc, (pSovsoog ev uutco evoicrycsTcii i'uov (lib. vii. cap. 4b\) That fear of the Gods, was not an unusual attendant on the belief of their existence, may be inferred likewise from the saying of Plutarch, (De Superst.) TfiX©>j T\i [^7j vofjii^eiu 9ei^g, fjivj (po^6icr9a,i: and Pliny, (lib. 2. cap. 7.) speaking of the deification of death, diseases, and plagues, says, that " these are ranked among the Gods, whilst with a tremb- ling fear we desire to have them pacified," — dum esse placatas^ trepido metu cupimus. Cudworth also, (InfelL Sijst. p. 664.) shews, in the in^ stances of Democritus and Epicurus, that terror was attached to the notion of a divine existence: and that it was with a view to get free from this terror, that Epicurus laboured to remove the idea of a providential administration of human affairs. The testimony of Plato is likewise strong to the same purpose: speaking of the punishment of wicked men, he says, all these things '^ hath Nemesis decreed to be executed in the second period, by the ministry of vhidictlve terrestrial demons, who are overseers of hitman
HUMAN SACRIFICES. lOj
affairs ; to which demons, the supreme God hath committed the government of this worlds — De Anima Mundi. Opera p. IO96, ed. Franc. l602.
Thus the Gentile Rehgion, in early ages, evidently appears to have been a religion o^fear. The same it has been found likewise in later times, and continues to this day. Of the length of time, during which this practice of human sa- crifice continued among the Northern nations, Mr. Thorkelin, who was perfectly conversant with Northern literature, furnishes several in- stances, in his Essay on the Slave Trade, Dit- mar us charges the Danes with having put to death in their great sacrifices, no fewer than ninety-nine slaves at once. {Loccen, Antiq. Sue, Goth, lib. i. cap. 3.) In Sweden, on urgent oc- casions, and particularly in times of scarcity and famine, they sacrificed kings and princes. Loc- cenius (Histor, Rer, Suecic, lib. i. p. 5.) gives the following account: "Tanta fame Suecia afflicta est, ut ei vix gravior unquam incubuerit ; cives inter se dissidentes, cum pcenam delictorum divinam agnoscerent, primo anno boves, altero ho- mines, tertio regem ipsum, velut ir(c coclestis piaculum, ut sibi persuasum habebant, Odino immolabant:" and we are told, that the Swedes, at one time, boasted of having sacrificed five kings, in a single day. Adam of Bremen, (Hist, Eccles, cap. 234.) speaking of the awful grove of Upsal, a place distinguished for the celebration of
108 PREVALENCE OP
those horrid rites^ says, "there was not a single tree in it^ that was not reverenced, as gifted with a portion of the divinity, because stained with gore, and foul with human putrefaction." In all the other Northern nations, without exception, the practice is found to have prevailed ; and to so late a period did it continue, that we learn from St. Boniface, that Gregory II. was obliged to make the sale of slaves for sacrifice by the German converts, a capital offence; and Carloman in the year ?43, found it necessary to pass a law for its prevention. Mallet, whose account of this horrid custom among the Northern nations deserves par- ticularly to be attended to, afhrms that it was not abolished in those regions until the ninth century. {Northern Antiqidties^ vol. i. p. 132 — 142.) And Jortin (Remarks on E coles. Hist. v. 5. p. 233.) reports from Fleury, an adherence to this custom, in the island of Rugia, even so late as to the close of the twelfth century.
The same dreadful usage is found to exist, to this day, in Africa ; where, in the inland parts, they sacrifice the captives, taken in war, to their fetiches : as appears from Snelgrave, who in the king of Dahoome's camp, was witness to his sa- crificing multitudes, to the deity of his nation. Among the islanders of the South seas, we like- wise learn from Captain Cook, that human sa- crifices were very frequent : he speaks of them as customary, in OtaheitC; and the Sandwich Islands j
HUMAN SACRIFICES. iflQ
and in the Island of Tongataboo, he mentions ten men offered at one festival. All these however are far exceeded by the pious massacre of human beings, in the nations of America. The accounts given by Acosta, Gomara and other Spanish writers, of the monstrous carnage of this kind, in these parts of the world, are almost incredible. The annual sacrifices of the Mexicans, required many thousands of victims; and in Peru, two hundred children were devoted for the health of the Ynca. {Acost. Hist, of Ind. p. 379-388 ed. \m\.— Anton, de Soils, and Clavig. Hist of Mex. lib. vi. sect. 18, 19, 20.)-Mr. Maurice also mforms us, that at this day, among certain tribes of the Mahrattas, human victims distinguished by their beauty and youthful bloom, are fattened like oxen for the altar, {Ind. Antiq. p. 843.): and the same writer (pp. J077, 1078.) instances other facts from Mr. Crauford's SketcJws of Indian mythologji, from which he concludes, that the notion of the efficacy of human sacrifice is by no means extinct in India at the present time. This position is certainly contradictory to the testi- monies of Dow, Holwel, and Grose. But as the laborious research of Mr. Maurice, has drawn together numerous and authentic documents in corroboration of his opinion, it may fairly be questioned, whether the authority of these writers IS to be considered as of much weight in the opposite scale. Tlie learned professor Meiners
1
ilO PREVALENCE OF
{Historla Doct.de vera Deo. Sect, iv.) does not hesitate to pronounce the two former, unentitled to credit: the first, as being of a disposition too credulous; and the second, as deserving to be reckoned, for fiction and folly, another INIegas^ thenes.* Mr. Dow's incompetency, on the sub-
* In addition to the authorities already referred to upon this head, J AVould suggest to the reader a perusal of Mr* Mickle's Enquiry into the Brahmin Philosophy^ suffixed to tiie seventh Book of his Translation of Camoens'* Lusiad* lie will find in that interesting summary, abundant proofs not only of the existence of the pra6lice of human sacrifice in modern India, but also of the total incredibility of the romances of Dow and Ilolwel : and he will at the same time discover the reason, wliy these authors are viewed with so much partiality by a certain description of writers. The philosophic linCiurc of their observations upon religion, and the liberties taken, by Mr. Holwel especially, with both the Mosaic and Christian' revelations, were too nearly allied to the spirit of Unitarianism not to have had charms for the advocates of that system.— The superiority of the revelation oi Brahma over that of Moses, Mr. Ilolwel instances in the creation of man. In the former, he says, "the creation of the human form is dogged u:llh no difficulties^ no ludicrous unintelligible circumstances, or inconsistencies. God pre- viously constru6ts mortal bodies of both sexes for the re- ception of the angelic spirits." (Middens Lusiad, vol. ii. p. 253.) Mr. Ilolwel, also, in his endeavours to prove the re- velation of Birmah and of Christ to be the same, gravely proceeds to solve the difiiculfy which arises from their pre- sent want of resemblance, by asserting, that " the doctrine of Christ, as it is delivered to us, is totally corrupted : that age after age has discoloured it; that even the most ancient
HUMAN SACRIFICES. 1 1 1
J€ct of tlie Indian theology, has also been proved by Mr. Hal lied, who lias sliewn, in the preface to his translation of the Gentoo Code, (p. 32. ed. 1776.) that writer's total deficiency, in the know- ledge of the sacred writings of the Hindoos: and as to Mr. (irose, 1 refer the reader to the Indian Antiquities, (pp. 249. 255.) for instances of his superficial acquaintance with the aflTairs of Hindostan. It is of the greater importance, to appreciate truly the value of the testimony given by these writers, as on their reports has been founded a conclusion, directly subversive of the fact here attempted to be established.-}-
record of its history, the new Testament^ is grossly cor- rupted ; that St. Paul by his reveries^ and St. Peter bj/ his san6iion to kill and eat^ began this w oful declension, and perversion of the doctrines of Christ.'* {Mickle''s Lusiudy vol. ii. p. 25-J.) After this, can avc m under, that Dr. Priestley considered this writer sufliciently enlightened^ to be admitted as undoubted evidence, in the establishment of whatever idS.s he might be pleased to vouch? Yet it is whimsical enough, that this writer, who is so eminently philosophical, and as such is so favourite a witness with Dr. Priestley, should have disclosed an oi)iniou with respect to philosophers^ so disreputable as the following. " The devil and his chiefs, have often as well as the good angels, taken the human form, and appeared in the character of tyrants, and corrupters of morals, or philosophers, who are (he asserts) the devil's faithful deputies.^'* (Mi(^Idc's Lusiad, vol. ii. p. ^50.)
+ To the curious reader, who may wish to see the latest and most interesting account of the sanguinary superstitions 2
112 PREVALENCE OF
The subject of this number may derive addi- tional hght, from the nature of the representa- tions of the Divinity, throughout the Heathen nations. Thus in the images of the Deity among
of the Hindoos, and of the general state of that people in point of civilization, at the present day, I would strongly recommend Dr. Buchanan's Memoir on the Expediency of an Ecclesiastical Establishment for British India : in which he will not only find ample confirmation of Mr. Maurice's statements, as to the dreadful extent of human sacrifice among the natives of Hindostan, (see pp. 33, 34, 47 — 50, 91 — 104), but also the most afi'ecting exposition of the de- caying state of religion amongst their conquerors.
In this latter point of view it is a work that cannot be too generally known nor too attentively perused. The contrast •which it exhibits, between the indifference of Protestantism and the zeal of Popery, in those distant regions, is strik- ingly illustrative of the prevailing character of each. An establishment of eighteen military chaplains, of whom not more than twelve are at any one time in actual appoint- ment,— with three churches, (one at Calcutta, one at Madras, and one at Bombay,) constitutes the entire means of religious instruction, for the vast extent of the British empire in the East : whilst, at the various settlements and factories, at Bencoolen, Canton, and the numerous islands in that quarter in the possession of Bri(ain, not a single clergyman of the English Church is to be found, to perform the rite of baptism, or any other Christian rite whatever. British armies, also, have been known to be not unfre- quently in the field without a chaplain : and it is said, that Marquis Cornwallis was indebted to the services of a British officer, for the last solemn offices of interment. The consequence (as Dr. Buchanan states) has been, that '^ all respect for Christian institutions has worn away ; and that
HITMAN SACRIFICtg. 113
the Indians, we find an awful and terrific power the ruling feature. Thousands of outstretched arms and hands, genemlly filled with swords and daggers^ bows and arrows, and every instrument
the Christian sabbath is now no otherwise distinguished^ than by the display of the Dritish flag" ! ! I So that '' we seem at present," he says, '' to be trying the question,
WHETHER RELIGION BE NECESSAUY FOR A STATE : whether a
remote commercial empire, having no sign of the Deity, no type of any thing heavenly, may not yet maintain its Chris- . tian purity and its political strength, amidst Pagan supersti- tions, and a voluptuous and unprincipled people." The effedl also of this want of religious instruction, Dr. Bucha- nan describes to be such as might naturally be expc6ted, — a general spread of profligacy amongst our own people ; and a firm belief amongst the natives, that '* the English have
no RELIGION."
Now in what way does Dr. Buchanan describe the exer- tions of the ROMISH CHURCH to propagate its peculiar tenets? An establishment of three archbishops and seventeen bi- ihops, with a proportional number of churches and inferior clergy, is indefatigably employed in sending through the Kast, and particularl ' through the dominions of Protestant Britain, that form of religious faith, which Protestants con- demn as perniciously erroneous. In Bengal alone, he states, there are eight Ilomish churches, besides four Armenian, and two Greek: and it afl'ords matter of melancholy re- flexion, that we are compelled to derive a consolation un- der the consequences of our own religious apathy, from the contemplation of those beneficial effects, which Dr. Bucha- nan ascribes to the influence of this Romish establishment, in its civilizing operation on the minds of the Asiatics.
The sentiments which an acquaintance with these facts must naturally excite^ in the minds of such as retain any
VOL. I. I
114 PREVALENCE OF
of destruction, express to the terrified worship- per the cruel nature of the God. The collars of human sculls, the forked tongues shooting from serpents' jaws, the appendages of mutilated corses,
sense of the value of true religion, make it particularly de- sirable that this work should be known to all ; especially to those, who have the power to promote the means of rec- tifying the dreadful evils which it authenticates. To a reli- gious mind the perusal of the work must undoubtedly be distressing. But from the gloom which the darkness of Pagan superstition, joined to the profligacy of European irreligion, spreads over the recitals it contains, the pious heart w ill find a relief, in that truly evangelical production of pastoral love, presented in Archbishop Wake*s primary charge to the Protestant missionaries in India ; and yet more in that delightful piclure which is given of the church of Malabar: — a church, which, as it is reported to have been of Apostolic origin, carries with it to this day the marks of Apostolic simplicity; and which presents the astonishing phenomenon of a numerous body of Hindoo Christians, exceeding, both in their practice and their doctrines, the purity of any Christian church since the age of the Apostles. *' Such are the heresies of this church," said their Portuguese accusers, that •' their clergy married wives ; that they owned but two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper ; that they denied transubstantiation ; that they neither invoked saints nor believed in purgatory; and that they had no other orders or names of dignity in the church than bishop or deacon.'* Such was found to be the state of the church of Malabar in the year 1 599 ; and such there is good reason to believe, had been its state, from its foundation in the earliest times of Christianity, (See Dr, Buchanan's Memoir^ pp. 1—8. 12. 18. 55— 6<2. 73 — 79') To the question which Popery triumphantly pro-
HUMAN SACRIFICES. 115
and all the other circumstances of terrific cruelty which distinguish the Black Goddess, Seeva, Haree, and other of the idols of Hindostan, (Mau- rices Ind. Antiq. pp. 182. 2bS. 3<^7 , 3S1, 382. SbQ. 857. 882.) sufficiently manifest the genius of that religion, which presented these, as ob- jects of adoration. To the hideous idols of Mexico, one of which was of most gigantic size, seated upon huge snakes, and expressly denomi- nated TERROR, (Clavig, hb. vi. sect. 6.) it was
poses to the Protestant, " where was your religion be- fore LUTHER :" the answer, " in the bible," derives now an auxiliary from this most important and interesting fact.
I should deem it necessary to apologize to the reader for this digression respecting the contents of Dr. Buchanan's publication, were I not convinced that in 'rawing attentioa to its subjedt, I am doing a real service to Christianity.
As a most valuable Appendix to this publication, I must beg leave also to recommend to the reader the xviith. article of the 1st. volume of the Quarterly Review, The impious policy that would impede the introduction of the Christian religion into India, is there treated as it deserves. The fashionable sophistry, which had for a time prevailed upon this subject, is most happily exposed by the Reviewer : And with no common talent and address, it is unanswerably proved, to be no less the interest than the duty of the con- queror, to spread the light of the gospel far and wide through the regions of Hindostan. Melancholy it truly is, that such arguments should be wanting to convince a Chris- tian people. Great is the power of the British Empire most undoubtedly. Yet surely if its interests are found to be incompatible with the interests of Christ's kingdom, it can- Bot be difficult to pronounce which of the two must fall.
1
Il6 PREVALENCE OF
usual to present the heart, torn from the breast of the human victim, and to insert it, whilst yet warm and reeking, in the jaws of the blood- thirsty divinity. (Ibid. lib. vi. sect. 18.) The supreme God of the ancient Scythians was wor- shipped by them, under the similitude of a naked SWORD {Herod, lib. iv. cap. 62.): and in Val- halla, or the Hall of Slaughter, the Paradise of the terrible God of the Northern European regions, the cruel revelries of Woden were cele- brated, by deep potations from the sculls of ene- mies slain in battle.
Consistent with this character of their Gods, we find the worship of many of the Heathen nations, to consist in suffering and mortification, in cutting their flesh with knives, and scorching their limbs with fire. Of these unnatural and inhuman exercises of devotion, ancient history supplies numberless instances. In the worship of Baal, as related in the book of Kings ; and the consecration to Moloch, as practised by the Ammonites, and not infrequently by the Hebrews themselves, the sacred volume affords an incon- testible record of this diabolical superstition. Similar practices are attested by almost every page of the profane historian. The cruel auste- rities of the Gymnosophist both of Africa and India, the dreadful sufferings of the initiated vo- taries of Mithra and Eleusis, (see Maurices Ind. ^ntiq. p. 990 — 1000) the Spartan SiuiAM^iyuart^
HUMAN SACRIFICES. llf
in honour of Diana, the frantic and savage rites of Bellona, and the horrid self-mutilations of the worshippers of Cybele, but too clearly evince the dreadful views entertained by the ancient Hea- thens of the nature of their Gods. Of the last named class of Pagan devotees, (to instance one as a specimen of all) we have the following ac- count from Augustine — " Deae magnae sacerdotes, qui Galli vocabantur, virilia sibi amputabant, et furore perciti caput rotabant, cultrisque faciem musculosque totius corporis dissecabant ; morsi- bus quoque se ipsos impetebant." (August, de Civ. Dei. pp. 140. 156. ed. l66'l.) And Seneca, as quoted by the same writer, (lib. vi. cap. 10.) confirms this report, in the following passage, taken from his work on Superstition, now no longer extant : " Ille viriles sibi partes amputat, ille lacertos secat. Ubi iratos deos timent, qui sic propitios merentur ? — Tantus est perturbata? mentis et sedibus suis pulsae furor, ut sic Dii placentur quemadmodum ne homines quidem teterrimi. — Se ipsi in templis contrucidant, vul- neribus suis ac sanguine supplicant." And it de- serves to be remarked, that these unnatural rites, together with that most unnatural of all, human sacrifice, are pronounced by Plutarch {Opera, tom. ii. p. 417. ed. Franc. 1620.) to have been instituted for the purpose of averting the wrath of malignant demons.
Nor have these cruel m.odes of worship beei\
118 PREVALENCE OF
confined to the Heathens of antiquity. By the same unworthy conceptions of the deity, the Pa- gans of later times have been led to the same un- worthy expressions of their religious feelings. Thus, in the narrative of Cooke's voyages, we are informed, that it was usual with the inhabitants of the Friendly Islands, when afflicted with any dangerous disorder, to cut off their little finger as an offering to the deity, which they deemed effi- cacious to procure their recovery : and in the Sandwich Islands, it was the custom to strike out the fore-teeth, as a propitiatory sacrifice, to avert the anger of the Eatooa, or divinity. If we look again to the religion of the Mexicans, we meet the same sort of savage superstition, but car- ried to a more unnatural excess. Clavigero (lib. 6. sect. 22.) says, " it makes one shudder, to read the austerities, which they exercised upon themselves, either in atonement of their trans- gressions, or in preparation for their festivals :'* and then proceeds, in this and the following sec- tions, to give a dreadful description indeed, of the barbarous self-lacerations, practised both by the Mexicans and Tlascalans, in the discharge of their religious duties : and yet he afterwards as- serts, (v. ii. p. 446. 4to. ed. Lond.) that all these, horrid as they are, must be deemed inconsider- able, when compared with the inhumanities of the ancient Priests of Bellona and Cybele, of whom we have already spoken ; and still more so, when
HUMAN SACRIFICES. 119
contrasted with those of the penitents of the East Indies and Japan.
With good reason, indeed^ has the author made this concluding remark : for of the various auste- rities, which have been at different times practised as means of propitiating superior powers, there are none, that can be ranked with those of the devotees of Hindostan, at the present day. Dreadful as Mr. Maurice represents the rites of Mithra and Eleusis to have been, dreadful as we find the other rites that have been noticed, yet their accumulated horrors fall infinitely short of the penitentiary tortures endured by the Indian Yogee, the Gymnosophist of modern times — " to suspend themselves on high in cages, upon trees considered sacred, refusing all sustenance, but such as may keep the pulse of life just beating; to hang aloft upon tenter-hooks, and voluntarily bear inexpressible agonies ; to thrust themselves by hundreds, under the wheels of immense ma- chines, that carry about their unconscious Gods, where they are instantly crushed to atoms ; at other times, to hurl themselves from precipices of stupendous height ; now to stand up to iheir necks in rivers, till rapacious alligators come to devour them ; now to bury themselves in snow till frozen to death ; to measure with their naked bodies, trained over burning sands, the ground lying between one pagoda and another, distant
perhaps many leagues ; or to brave, with fixed
I 4
J 20 prevaleince or
eyes, the ardor of a meridian sun between the tropics ;' these^ with other penances not less tre* mendous, which Mr. Maurice has fully detailed in the last vol. of his Indian Antiquities, are the means, whereby the infatuated worshippers of Brahma hope to conciliate the deity, and to ob- tain the blessings of immortality: and by these, all hope to attain those blessings, except only the wretched race of the Chandalahs, whom, by the unalterable laws of Brahma, no repentance, no mortification can rescue from the doom of eternal misery ; and against whom the gates of happiness are for ever closed. — See Maur, Ind, Antlq. pp. 960, 9G1.
Now, from this enumeration of facts, it seems not difficult to decide, whether the dictate of untutored reason be, the conviction of the di- vine 3ENEVOLENCE, and the persuasion that the Supreme Being is to be conciliated, by good and virtuous conduct alone: and from this also we shall be enabled to judge, what degree of credit is due to the assertions of those who pronounce, that " all men naturally apprehend the Deity to be propitious;" that '' no nation ivhatever, either Jew or Heathen, ancient or modern, ap- pears to have had the least knowledge, or to betray the least sense of their want^ of a7ii/ ex- pedient of satisfaction for sin, besides repentance and a good life: and that ^^ from a full review of ^he religions of all ancient and modern pj^tions,
HUMAN SACRIFICES. 121
they appear to be utterh/ destitute of any thing like a doctrine of proper atonement,'^
These assertions Doctor Priestley has not scrupled to make; (Theol, Rep. v. i. pp. 401. 411. 416. and 421.) and boldly oiTers " the range of the whole Jewish and Heathen world" to sup- ply a single fact in contradiction. He professes also to survey this wide-extended range himself; and for this purpose, begins with adducing a single passage from Virgil, whence he says, it appears, that " even the implacable hatred of Juno could be appeased;" and an instance from the Phccdon of Plato, from which he concludes, that Socrates, although " the farthest possible from the notion of appeasing the anger of the Gods by any external services, yet died without the least doubt of an happy immortalitij ;"* notwith- standing that in p. 31, when treating of another subject, he had found jt convenient to represent this philosopher as utterly disbelieving a future state; and even here, he adds, what renders his whole argument a nullity; provided there were any such slate for man. Having by the former of these, established his position, as to the re- ligion of the vulgar, among the Greeks ancj Komans; and by the latter, as to the religion of the philosophers : he yet farther endeavours to fortify his conclusion by the assertion, that no facts have been furnished either by Gale or Clarke, to justify the opinion, that the ancients were at a loss as to the terms of divine accept
129 PREVALENCE OF
tance; notwithstanding that not only Clarke, (Evidences, v. ii. pp. 662— -670. fol. 1738.) but Leland, (Christ. Rev. vol. i. pp. 259. 270. 473. 4to. 1764.) and various other writers have col- lected numerous authorities on this head, and that the whole mass of heathen superstitions speaks no other language, insomuch that Bo- lingbroke himself (vol. v. pp. 214, 215. 4to.) admits the point in its fullest extent. He next proceeds to examine the religion of the ancient Persians and modern Parsis: and to prove this people to have been free from any idea of atone- ment or sacrifice, he quotes a prayer from Dr. Hyde, and a description of their notion of future punishments from Mr. Grose: and though these can at the utmost apply only to the present state of the people, (and whoever will consult Dr. Hyde's history, pp. 5/0. 574. on the account given by Tavernier, of their notion of absolu- tion; and on that given by himself, of their ceremony of the Scape-Dog, will see good rea- son to deny the justness even of this application) yet Dr. P. has not scrupled to extend the con- elusion derived from them to the ancient Per- sians, in defiance of the numerous authorities referred to in this number, and notwithstanding that, as Mr. Richardson asserts, (Dissert, pp. 25, 26. 8vo. 1778.) the Parsis acknowledge the original works of their ancient lawgiver to have been long lost ; and that, consequently, the cere- monials of the modern Guebres, preserve little
HUMAN SACRIFICES. 123
or no resemblance to the ancient worship of Persia. See also Hi/dey Rel, Vet, Pers, p. 574. ed. Oxon. 1760. Our author, last of all, cites the testimonies of Mr. Dow and Mr. Grose, to establish the same point concerning the religion of the Hindoos; and particularly to shew, that it was " a maxim with the Brahmans, never to de- file their sacrifices with blood." The value to be attached to these testimonies, may be estimated, from what has been already advanced concern- ing these writers ; from the terrific representa- tions of the Gods of Hindostan; the cruel aus- terities with which they were worshipped; and the positive declarations of the most authentic and recent writers on the history of the Hin- doos.
Thus, not a single authority of those adduced by Dr. Priestley, is found to justify his position. But admitting their fullest application, to what do they amount? — to an instance of relenting hatred in Juno, as described by Virgil ; an ex- ample of perfect freedom from all apprehension of divine displeasure, in the case of Socrates; and a quotation or two from Mr. Dow and Mr. Grose, with a prayer from Dr. Hyde, to ascer- tain the religious notions of the Parsis and the Hindoos. These, with a few vague observations on the tenets of certain Atheists of ancient and modern times; the tendency of which is to shew, that men who did not believe in a moral Go-
124 PREVALENCE OF
vernor of the Universe, did not fear one ; com- plete his survey of the religious history of the Heathen world: — and in the conclusion, derived from this very copious induction, he satisfactorily acquiesces, and boldly defies his opponents to produce a single contradictory instance. — (N. B. His abstract of the Jewish testimonies, I reserve for a distinct discussion in another place: see No. XXXIII.)
When Dr. Priestley thus gravely asserts, that by this extensive review of facts, he has com- pletely established the position, that natural re- ligion impresses no fears of divine displeasure, and prescribes no satisfaction for offended justice beyond repentance; it seems not difficult to de- termine, how far he relies upon the ignorance of his readers, and upon the force of a bold asser- tion. As to the position itself, it is clear, that never was an ocurog £(pcc, more directly opposed to the voice of history, and to notoriety of fact. Parkhurst, in his Hebrew Lexicon, on the word □'X\y, says, '^ it is known to every one, who is acquainted with the mythology of the Heathens, how strongly and generally they retained the tradition of an atonement or expiation for sin,'* What has been already offered, in this number, may perhaps appear sufficient to justify this affir- mation. But, indeed, independent of all his- torical research, a very slight glance at the Greek ^nd Roman Classics, especially thq Poets^ th^
HUMAN SACRIFICES, 125
popular divines of the antients, can leave little doubt upon this head. So clearly does their language announce the notion of a piopitiatori/ atonement, that if we would avoid an imputation on Dr. Priestley's fairness, we are driven of ne- cessity, to question the extent of his acquain- tance with those writers. Thus in Homer, fIL i. 386.) we find the expression Qeov iXocg-kbo-Qoci so used, as necessarily to imply the appeasing the anger of the God: and again (II. ii. 550.) the same expression is employed, to denote the pro- pitiation of Minerva by sacrifice, Evdoc^s ^jliv TuvooKTi }cocL ocovBioig iXocovToci. Hesiod, in like manner, {Eoy. yccci H^. 338.) applies the term in such a sense as cannot be misunderstood. Having declared the certainty, that the wicked would be visited by the divine vengeance; he proceeds to recommend sacrifice, as amongst the means of rendering the deity ^ro/?i7/oz/.s — AXXore irj (TTTovdria-i 6vs(r(riT£ iKcco-aeo-Qcct. Plutarch makes use of the word, expressly in reference to the anger of' the Gods, e^iXoc(rcc(r9oci to ijuvivi^jloc rrjg 6sii, Tliat the words tXc^(ry.e(r9oci, iXoca-fjco;, &c. carry with them the force of rendering propi- tious an offended deity, might be proved bv various other instances from the writers of an- tiquity: and that in the use of the terms octto- TaoTnotcrfJix or ocTrorpoTrixa'fjcog, %oc6oco^oc, TreoiT^yjf^x, and (pccDfjLccKog, the antients meant to convey the idea of a piacular sacrifice averting the anger
126 PREVALENCE OF
of the Gods^ he who is at all conversant with their writings needs not to be informed. The word weot'^/YifJia. particularly, Hesychius explains by the synonimous terms, ccvtiXvtoovj ocvn'S^uxoV' and Suidas describes its meaning in this remark- able manner, Ourcog eweXsyov {aGtivuioi) tco kkt BvtocuTov cvvsxovTi nTccvTc*)]/ JiocKu' (tliis Schlcusncr affirms to be the true reading) — 7r6o;iJ/iy^a TjfjLcov ysva, TjToi (Turmicc ycoci viWoXvTou(Tig. Koct ovrcog eveCoiXXov ttj BoiXoccra'T}, co(rocv£i ro) Tlo(reioa)Vi Svaocy aTTOTivvvvreg.
Nor is the idea of propitiatory atonement, more clearly expressed by the Greek, than it is by the Latin, writers of antiquity. The words placare, propitiare, expiare, litare, placamen, pi- aculum, and such like, occur so frequently, and with such clearness of application, that their force cannot be easily misapprehended, or evaded. Thus Horace, (lib. ii. sat. 3.) Prudens placavi sanguine Divos: and (lib. i. Ode 28.) Teque placula nulla resolvent: and in his second Ode, he proposes the question, cui dabit partes scelus expia}tcll JupiteY} ("to whicli,'* says Parkhurst whimsically enough, " the answer in the Poet is, Apollo — the second person in the Heathen Trinity.") Caesar likewise, speaking of the Gauls, says, as has been already noticed. Pro vita ho- minis nisi vita hominis reddatur, non posse de- orum immortalium numen placari arbitrantur. Gicero (pro Fonteio. x.) speaking of the same
HUMAN SACRIFICES. 127
people, says, Si qnando all quo metu adducti, deos placandos esse arbitrautur, humanis hos- tiis eorum aras ac templa funestant. The same writer (De Nat, Deor, lib. iii. cap. 6.) says, Tu autem etiam Deciorum devotiomhus placatos Deos esse censes. From Silius Italions and Justin, we have the most explicit declarations, that the object of the unnatural sacrifices of the Cartha- ginians, was to obtain pardon from the Gods. Thus the former (lib. 4. lin. 767, &c.) —
Mos fuit in populis, quos condidit advcna Dido Poscere ccede Deos veniam^ ac flagrantibus aris (Infandum di<5lu) parvos impouere natos —
And in like manner the latter (lib. xviii. cap. 6.) expresses himself ; Homines ut victimas immola- bant : et impuberes aris admovebant ; pacem sari- guine eorum exposcentes, pro quorum vita Dii rogari maxime solent. Lucan also, referring to the same bloody rites, usual in the worship of the cruel Gods of the Saxons, thus speaks of them (PkarsaL lib. i. lin. 443. &c.)
Et quibus immitis placatur sanguine diro Teutates, horrensque feris altaribus Hesus, Et Tharamis Scythiae non mitior ara Diauac-—
Virgil likewise, (j^n. ii. lin. 116.)
Sanguine lAacastis veiitos, et Yirgine ca?sa, Sanguine quairendi reditus^ animdqus lUandum Argolic^
128 PREVALENCE OP
Suetonius relates of Otlio. (cap. 70 Per omnia piaculorum genera^ manes Galbse propitiare ten- tasse. And Livy (lib. vii. cap. 2.) says^ Cum vis morbi nee humanis consiliis, nee ope divina leva- retur, ludi quoque scenici, inter alia coelestis irce placamina institui dicuntur : and the same writer, in another place, directly explains the object of animal sacrifice ; Per dies aliquot, hostiae majores sine Utatione csesse, diuque non inipetrata pax Deum, The word litare is applied in the same manner by Pliny, (De Viris Illust, Tull. Host.) Dum Numam sacrificiis imitatur, Jovi Elicio litare non potuit ; fulmine ictus cum regia con- flagravit. This sense of the word might be con- firmed by numerous instances. Servius, (j^n, iv. lin. 50.) and Macrobius, (lib. iii. cap. 5.) inform us, that it implies, '' facto sacrificio placare numen:'' and Stephanus says from Nonius, that it differs from sacrificare in this, that the signifi- cation of the latter is, veniam pet ere, but that of the former, veniam impetrare.
But to produce all the authorities on this head, were endless labour : and indeed to have produced so many, might seem to be an useless one, were it not of importance to enable us to appreciate with exactness, the claims to literary pre-eminence, set up by a writer, who on all oc- casions pronounces ex cathedra ; and on whose dicta, advanced with an authoritative and impos- ing confidence, and received by his followers with
HUMAN SACRIFICES. 129
implicit reliance, has been erected a system, em- bracing the most daring impieties, that have ever disgraced the name of Christianity. If the obser- vations in this number, of the length of which I am almost ashamed, have the effect of proving to any of his admirers, the incompetency of the guide whom they have hitherto followed with unsuspecting acquiescence, I shall so far have served the cause of truth and of Christianity, and shall Iiave less reason to regret the trouble occa- sioned both to the reader and to myself, by this prolix detail.
NO. VI. — ON THE MULTIPLIED OPERATION OF THE DIVINE ACTS.
Page 10. (^) — This thought we find happily conveyed by Mr. Pope, in his Essay on Man :
^' In human works, Iho' laboured on with pain, '' A thousand movements scarce one purpose gain; *• In God's, one single does its end produce ; ^' Yet serves to second too, some other use." —
In the illustration of this part of my subject, 1 have been much indebted to the excellent Ser- mons of the Bishop of London, 07i the Christian doctrine of Redemption : and also to the sixth Letter of H. Taylor's Ben Mordecais Apology — a work, which though it contains much of what must be pronounced to be erroneous doctrine, is
VOL. I. K
130 DEISTICAL REASONING
nevertheless, in such parts as do not take their complexion from the tinge of the author's pecu- liar opinions, executed with acuteness, learning, and research.
NO. VII. — DEISTICAL REASONING INSTANCED IN CHUBB.
Page 10. (^) — The objection stated in the page here referred to, is urged by Chubb, in his reason^ ing on Redemption.
The species of argument here employed, is a favourite one with this deistical writer. He ap- plies it on another occasion, to establish a conclu- sion, no less extraordinary, than that the conver- sion of the Jews or Heathens to Christianity was a matter of little consequence, either as to the favour of God, or their own future safety ; J'or, adds he, if they ivere virtuous and good men, they ivere secure without such conversion ; and IF they ivere had vicious ?nen, they ivere not se^ cured hy it ! ! ! (Posthumous IForhs, vol. 2. p. 33.) Thus with the simple apparatus of an if and a dilemma, was this acute reasoner able, on all occasions, to subvert any part of the system of revelation against which he chose to direct his attacks. The AOS UOT TTXl was never want- ing to this moral Archimedes ; and the fulcrum and two-forked lever were always ready at hand> to aid the designs of the logical mechanician*
I>JStANCED IN CHUBB. 131
Vet this man was one of the enlightened in his day. And even at the present time, there is good reason to think, that he is held in no small estimation, by those, who claim to be distin- guished by that appellation, amongst the profes- sors of Christianity. For in the treatises of Uni- tarian and other philosophic Christians of these later times, we find the arguments and opinions of this writer plentifully scattered ; and at the same time all ostentatious display^, of the source, from which they are derived, most carefully avoided: — circumstances, from which their serious reverence of the author, and the solid value they attach to his works, may reasonably be inferred.
Now, as this is one of the oracles, from which these illuminating teachers derive their lights, (without however confessing it,) it may afford some satisfaction to the reader, who may not have misemployed time- in attempting to wade through the swamp of muddy metaphysics which he has left behind him, to have a short summary of his notions concerning Christianity laid before him.
Having altogether rejected the Jewish revela- tion, and pronounced the New Testament to be a '' fountain of confusion and contradiction ;" and having consequently affirmed every appeal to Scripture to be " a certain way to perplexity and dissatisfaction, but not to find out the truth :" he recommends our return from all these absur-
K 2
1S2 DEISTICAL REASONING
dities to "that prior rule of action, that eternal and invariable rule of right and wrong, as to an infalHble guide, and as the sohd ground of our peace and safety." Accordingly, having himself returned to this infallible guide, he is enabled to make these wonderful discoveries — I . That there is no particular providence ; and that, consequently, any dependance on Providence, any trust in God, or resignation to his will, can be no part of re- ligion ; and, that the idea of application to God for his assistance, or prayer in any view, has no foundation in reason. 2. That we have no reason to pronounce the soul of man to be immaterial, or that it will not perish with the body. 3. That if ever we should suppose a future state in which man shall be accountable, yet the judgment, which shall take place in that state, will extend but to a small part of the human race, and but to a very few of the actions which he may perform: to such alone, for example, as affect the public weal.
Such are the results of reason triumphing over Scripture : and such is the wisdom of man when it opposes itself to the wisdom of God !— Yet this strange and unnatural blasphemer of divine truth declares, that the work, which con- veys to the world the monstrous productions of insanity and impiety above cited, (and these are but a small portion of the entire of that descrip- tion,) he had completed in the decline of life,
I
INSTANCED IN CHUBB. 133
With the design to leave to mankind " a valuable legacy/* conducing to their general happiness. The reader will hardly be surprised, after what has been said, to learn, that the same infallible guide, which led this maniac to revile the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and to condemn the Apostles and first publishers of Christianity as blunderer's and impostors, prompted him at the same time to speak with commendation of the religion of f Mahomet. ^' Whether the Maho-
+ It deserves to be noticed, that a complacency for the religion of Mahomet, is a chara6ler, by which the liberality of the Socinian or Unitarian is not less distinguished, than that of the Deist. The reason assigned for this by Mr. Van Mildert is a just one. Mahometanism is admired by both, because it sets aside those disiinouishing doctrines of the Gospel, the divinity of Christy and the sacrifice upon the Cross; and prepares the way for what the latter are pleased to dignify with the title of Natural Religion, and the former with that of Rational Christianity. — Fan MilderVs Boyle Lect. vol. i. p. 208. The same writer also truly remarks, (p. 202.) that, besides exhibiting a strange compound of Heathen and Jewish errors, the code of Mahomet com- prizes almost every heterodox opinion, that has ever been entertained respecting the Christian faith.
Indeed the decided part, which the Unitarians have here- tofore taken with the Prophet of Mecca, seems not to be sufficiently adverted to at the present day. The curious reader, if he will turn to Mr. Leslie'' s Theolog. Works, vol. i. p. 207, will not be a little entertained to see con- veyed, in a solemn address from the English Unitarians io the Mahometan embassador of Morocco, in the reign of Charles the second; a cordial approbation of Mahomet and
K 3
134 DEISTICAL REASONING
tnetan revelation be of a divine original or not, there seems (says he) to be a plausible pretence, arising from the circumstances of things, for stamping a divine character upon if ! ! ! —
the Coran. The one is said to have been raised up by God, to scourge the idolizing Christians, whilst the other is spoken of as a precious record of the true faith. Mahomet they represent to be ^^ a preacher of the Gospel of Christ ;" and they describe themselves to be his ''fellow champions for the truth." The mode of warfare they admit, indeed, to be different; but the obje(5l contended for they assert to be the same. *' We, with our Unitarian brethren, have been in all ages exercised, to delend with our pens the faith of one su- preme God ; as he hath raised your Mahomet to do the same with the sword, as a scourge on those idolizing Christians." (p. 209.) Leslie, upon a full and deliberate view of the case, admits the justice of the claim set up by the Unita- rians to be admitted to rank with the followers of Ma- homet; pronouncing the one to have as good a title to the ajipellation of Christians as the other, (p. 337.) On a disclosure by Mr. Leslie, of the attempt which had thus been made by the Socinians, to form a confederacy with the Mahometans, the authenticity of the address, and the plan of the proje6lcd coalition, at the time were strenuously denied. The truth of Mr. Leslie's statement, however, (of which from the charader of the man no doubt could well have been at any time entertained,) has been since most fully and iticontrovertibly confirmed. — See JVhitaker^s Origin of Ariam'sm, p. 399. Mr. Leslie also shews, that this Unitarian scheme, of extolling Mahomctanism as the only true Christianity, continued for a length of time, to be a6ied on with adtivity and perseverance. He establishes this at large, by exiradts from certain of their publications, in which it is endeavoured to prove, " that Mahomet h^^
IKSTAKCED IN CHUBB, 135
However at other times he seems disposed not to elevate the rehgion of Mahomet decidedly above that of Christ; for he observes, that "the turning from Mahometanism to Christianity, or from Christianity to Mahometanism, is only laying aside one external form of religion and making use of another, which is of no more real benefit than a man s changing the colour of his clothes/' His decision upon this point, also^ he thinks he can even defend by the authority of St. Peter, who, he says, has clearly given it as his opinion, in Acts X. 34, 35, that all forms of religion are indifferent.
I should not have so long detained my reader v^ith such contemptible or rather pitiable ex- travagances, but that the specimen they afford cf the wild wanderings of reason, when eman-
no other design but to restore the belief of the Unity of God, which at that time was extirpated among the Eastern Christians by the do<5trincs of the Trinity and Incarnation : that Mahomet uu'ant not, that his religion should be es- teemed a new religion, but only the restitution of the true intent of the Christian religion : that the Mahometan learned men call themselves the true disciples of tlie Messias :" -r-and, to crown all, " that Mahometanism has prevailed so greatly, not hy force and the szourd, — but by that one truth in the Coran^ the Unity of God.^* And, as a just consequence from all this, it is strongly contended, that "the Tartars had a6ted more rationally in embracing the sect of Mahomet, than the Christian iaith of the Triuityi Jacarnation, «S^c.'' Leslie^ vol. 1. pp. 216, 217. .
Iv4
136 PRAYER CONSISTENT WITH
clpated from revelation, may prepare his mind for a juster view of what is called rational Christianity,
NO. viii. — on the consistency of prayer
WITH THE DIVINE IMMUTABILITY.
Page 10. (^)-— See Price's Dissertations — 2d. Edit. pp. 209, 210. There are some observations of this excellent and serious writer upon the na- ture of prayer, which are not only so valuable in themselves, but with some extension admit so direct a bearing upon the subject before us, that I cannot resist the desire I feel of laying them before the reader. In answer to the objection derived from the unchangeableness of God, and the conclusion thence deduced that prayer cannot make any alteration in the Deity, or cause him to bestow any blessings which he would not have bestowed without it; this reply is made. If it be in itself proper, that we should humbly apply to God for the mercies we need from him, it must also be proper, that a regard should be paid to such applications; and that there should be a different treatment of those who make them, and those who do not. To argue this as implying changeableness in the Deity, would be extremely absurd: for the unchange- ableness of God, when considered in relation to the exertion of his attributes in the govern-
THE DIVINE IMMUTABILITY. 13/
ment of the world, consists, not in always acting in the same manner, however cases and circumstances may alter; but in always doing what is right, and in adapting his treatment of his intelligent creatures to the variation of their actions, characters and dispositions. If prayer then makes an alteration in the case of the sup- plicant, as being the discharge of an indispensible duty; what would in truth infer changeableness in God, would be, not his regarding and an- swering it, but his not doing this. Hence it is manifest, that the notice which he may be pleased to take of our prayers by granting us blessings in answer to them, is not to be considered as a yielding to importunity, but as an instance of rectitude in suiting his dealings with us to our conduct. Nor does it imply that he is back-p ward to do us good, and therefore wants to be solicited to it : but merely that there are certain conditions, on the performance of which the effects of his goodness to us are suspended: that there is something to be done by us before we can be proper objects of his favour; or before it can be lit and consistent with the measures of the divine government to grant us particular be- nefits. Accordingly, to the species of objection alluded to in page 10, (namely, that our own worthiness or unworthiness, and the determined will of God, must determine how we are to be treated, absolatehjy and so as to render prayer
138 PRAYER CONSISTENT WITH
altogether unnecessary,) the answer is obvious, that before prayer we may be unworthy; and that prayer may be the very thing that makes us worthy: the act of prayer being itself the very condition, the very circumstance in our cha- racters, that contributes to render us the proper objects of divine regard, and the neglect of it being that which disqualifies us for receiving blessings.
Mr. Wollaston, in his Religion of Nature, (pp. 115, 116.) expresses the same ideas with his usual exact, and ( I may here particularly say ) mathematical, precision. " The respect or rela- tion, (he observes,) which lies between God, considered as an unchangeable being, and one that is humble, and supplicates, and endeavours to qualify himself for mercy, cannot be the sa7ne with that, which lies between the same unchangeable God, and one that is obstinate, and will not supplicate,^- or endeavour to qualify himself: that is, the same thing, or being, can- not respect opposite and contradictory charac- ters in the same manner."^ It is not in short
* rio;? a.<j loi-^ ru tt^o; ra; o^ixcx.<; uvri^Hffiu fi-zi airnvn 0 ^toovxi 7r6(pvy.u(; Qeoq. Hierocl.
■I- This position he cxliibits thus, in language which Mill be inteliigible to mathematicians only. " The ratio of Cr to M-fq, is different from that of G to M— q: and yet G remaius unaltered," — To the opponents of the argu, n^ent, this formula of its exposition will no doubt ali'or(i
THE DIVINE IMMUTABILITY. 139
that by our supplications we can pretend to pro- duce any alteration in the Deity, but by an alteration in ourselves we may alter the relation or respect lying between him and us."
The beautiful language of Mrs. Barbauld, upon this subject, I cannot prevail upon myself to leave unnoticed. Having observed upon that high toned philosophy, which would pronounce prayer to be the weak effort of an infirm mind to alter the order of nature and the decrees of provi- dence, in which it rather becomes the wise man to acquiesce with a manly resignation ; this ele- gant writer proceeds to state, that they who cannot boast of such philosophy, may plead the example of him, who prayed, though with meek submission, that the cup of bitterness iTiight pass from him; and who, as the moment of separa- tion approached, interceded for his friends and followers with all the an^iiety of affectionate ten- derness. But (she adds) we will venture to say, that practically there is no such philosophy, — If prayer were not enjoined for the perfection, it would be permitted to the weakness of our nature. We should be betrayed into it, if we thought it sin; and pious ejaculations would
ground rather of jocularity than of convi6lion. For of raen capable of maintaining a contrary opinion, there can be no great hazard iu pronouncing, that they are Jiot mathema* ticiuns.
140 THE DIVINE FORGIVENESS
escape our lips, though we were obhged to pre v face them with, God forgive me for praying! — To those (she says) who press the objection, that we cannot see in what manner our prayers can be answered, consistently with the govern- ment of the world according to general laws; it may be sufficient to say, that prayer, being made almost an instinct of our nature, it cannot be supposed but that, like all other instincts it has its use : but that no idea can be less philo- sophical, than one v.hich implies, that the ex- istence of a God who governs the world, should make no difference in our conduct; and few things less probable, than that the child-like submission which bows to the will of a father, should be exactly similar in feature to the stubborn patience which bends under the yoke of necessity. Re- marks on U^akefield's Enquire/, p. 11 — 14. See also the excellent remarks of Doctor Percival to the same purport, cited in the Appendix to these volumes.
NO. IX. ON THE GRANTING OF THE DIVINE FOR- GIVENESS THROUGH A MEDIATOR OR INTER- CESSOR.
Page 12. Q— See H, Taylorrs Ben. Mord, 5th Letter: in which, a number of instances are adduced from the Old Testament, to shew that God's dealing with his creatures is of the nature
GRANTED THROUGH INTERCESSION. 141
here described. Thus we find, that when God had declared, that he would destroy the entire nation of Israel, for their idolatry at Horeb, (Numh. ch. 14.) and again, for their intended violence against Caleb and Joshua, (Dent, ch.g.) yet upon the intercession of Moses, he is said to have forgiven them. In like manner for the sake of ten righteous persons, he would have spared Sodom. (Gen, xviii. 32.) In remembrance of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacobs and for their sakes, he is represented, as being merciful to their posterity. (Gen, xxvi. 24). — He forgave Abimelech also upon the prayer of Abraham, (Gen, XX. 7-) and the friends of Job, upon the solicitation of that patriarch, (Job xlii. 10.): — and, Avhat renders these two last instances par- ticularly strong, is, that whilst he declares the purpose of forgiveness, he at the same time ex- pressly prescribes the . mediation, by which it was to be obtained. To quote more of the nu- merous instances, which the Old Testament sup- plies on this head, must be unnecessary. What has been urged, will enable us to form a true judgment of that extraordinary position, on which Dr. Priestley relies not a little, (Hist, of Cor, vol. 1. p. 156.) viz. that "the declarations of Divine Mercy are made without reserve or limi- tation to the truly penitent, through all the books of Scripture^ ivithout the most distant hint
14!^ THE DIVINE FORGIVENESS
of any regard being had to the sufferings of merit of any being ivhatcver,'^
Very different indeed were the- sentiments of the pious writer referred to in the last number. He not merely admits the contrary of this po- sition to be founded in the facts of revelation ; but he maintains the abstract reasonableness of the principle, with a force and feeling, that must render his remarks upon this head particularly acceptable to the reader. If it be asked, he says, what influence our prayers can have upon the state of others; what benefit they can de- rive from our intercessions; or whether we can conceive, that God, like weak men, can be per- suaded bv the importunity of one person to be- stow upon another blessings which he would not else have bestowed: the proper answer is to be derived from the consideration, that it is by no means necessary to suppose, that the treatment which beings shall receive, depends, in all cases, solely, on what they are in themselves. This, without doubt, is what the universal Governor, chiejiy regards; but it is not all. And though there are some benefits of such a nature, that no means can obtain them for beings who have not certain qualifications^ there are other benefits which one being may obtain for another, or for which he may be indebted entirely to the kind offices of his fellow-creatures. An advantage may become proper to be granted to another^ in
CRANTFD THROUGH INT^RCEFSION. 143
consequence of some circumstances he may be in, or some relations in which he may stand to others, which abstracted from such circumstances and relations, would not have been proj^er. Nothing more frequently happens in the com- mon course of events.
The whole scheme of nature seems, indeed, to be contrived on purpose in such a manner, as that beings might have it in their power in numberless ways, to bless one another. And one great end of the precarious and mutually dependent condi- tion of men, appears plainly to be, that they might have room and scope for the exercise of the beneficent atlections. From this constitution of things it is, that almost all our happiness is conveyed to us, not immediately from the hands of God, but by the instrumentality of our fellow beings, or through them as the channels of his beneficence, in such a sense, that had it not been for their benevolence and voluntary agency, we should have for ever wanted the blessings we enjoy.
Now with respect to prayer, he asks, Why may not this be one thing that may alter a case, and be a reason with the divine Beins: for shewing favour? Why by praying for one ano- ther, may we not, as in many other ways, be useful to one another? Why may not the uni- versal Father, in consideration of the humble and benevolent intercessions of some of his chil-
1
144 THE DIVINE FORGIVENESS
dren for others, be pleased often, in the course of his providence, to direct events for the ad- vantage of the persons interceded for, in a man- ner that otherwise would not have been done ? — No truly benevolent and pious man (he adds) can help lifting up his heart to the Deity in behalf ofj his fellow-creatures. No one whose breast is properly warmed with kind wishes to his brethren about him, and who feels within himself earnest desires to do them all possible good, can avoid offering up his kind wishes and desires to the common benefactor and ruler, who knows what is best for every being, and Vv^ho can make those we love infinitely happy. In reality, (he contends) supplications to the Deity for our friends and kindred, and all in whose welfare we are concerned, are no less na- tural than supplications for ourselves. And are they not (he demands) also reasonable ? What is there in them, that is not worthy the most exalted benevolence ? May it not be fit^ that a wise and good being should pay a regard to them ? And may not the regarding and answer- ing them, and in general, granting blessings to some on account of the virtue of others, be a proper method of encouraging and honouring •virtue, and of rewarding the benevolence of beings to one another ? Perhaps, (he adds) there may not be a better way of encouraging righte- ousness in the creation, than by making it as
GRANTED THROUGH INTERCESSION. 145
much as possible the cause of happiness, not only to the agent himself, but to all connected with him : since there is no virtuous being, who would not, in many circumstances, chuse to be reward- ed, with a grant of blessings to his fellow-beings, rather than to himself.
That our prayers for others may be attended with beneficial eifects upon their condition, he considers also to be a prevailing sentiment: other- wise wherefore should we feel ourselves impelled to offer them ? Our immediate view in praying must be to obtain what we pray for. This^ which is true as applied to prayers on our own behalf, must be also true of our supplications for others. We cannot mean, in addressing to the Deity our desires for others, merely to obtain some benefit to ourselves. And this in itself proves, he adds, that the effect of prayer is not merely to be estimated by its tendency to promote our moral and religious improvement.
At the same time, I cannot but lay before the^ reader the edifying and delightful representation, given by the author, in another place, of the beneficial influence of inter cessionary prayer on. the mind of him who offers it. " No one can avoid feeling how happy an effect this must have in sweetening our tempers, in reconciling us to all about us, and causing every unfriendly pas- sion to die away within us. We cannot ufler up prayers to God for our fellow-men, without
VOL, I. L
146 THE DIVINE FORGIVENESS
setting them before our minds in some of tlie most engaging lights possible; as partaking of the same nature with ourselves, liable to the same wants and sufferings, and in the same help- less circumstances; as children of the sam.e father, subjects of the same all-wise government, and heirs of the same hopes. He who prays for others with understanding and sincerity, must see himself on the same level with them; he must be ready to do them all the good in his power ; he must be pleased with whatever hap- piness they enjoy; he can do nothing to lessen their credit or comfoit ; and fervent desires will naturally rise within him while thus engaged, that his own breast may be the seat of all those good dispositions and virtues, which he prays that they may be blessed with. Resentment and envy can never be indulged by one, who, when- ever he finds himself tempted to them, has re- course to this duty, and sets himself to recom- mend to the divine favour the persons who excite within him these passions. No desire of retalia- tion or revenge, nothing of unpeaceableness, ill. nature, or haughtiness, can easily shew itself in a heart kept under this guard and discipline. How is it possible to use him ill, for whom we are constant advocates with God? How excellent a parent or friend is he likely to make, who always remembers before God the concerns and interests of his children and friends, in the same manner
GRANTED THROUGH INTERCESSION. 14J
that he remembers his own ? Is there a more ra- tional way of expressing benevolence than this? or a more effectual way of promoting and en- larging it? Nothing is more desirable or more delightful than to feel ourselves continually under the power of kind affections to all about us. Would we be thus happy? Would we have our hearts in a constant state of love and good-will ? Would we have every tender sentiment strong and active in our breasts ? — Let us be constant and diligent in this part of devotion, and pray continually for others, as we do for ourselves/' (Price's Four Dissert atio7is, pp. 207, 221 — 227, 237—239.)
Such was the language of a man, who, whilst (unlike Dr. Priestley and his Unitarian associates) he really possessed, and by the habits of his studies daily strengthened, the powers of accu- rate thinking, had not rationalized away those just and natural sentiments, which belong to the truly religious character, and which, whilst the highest exercises of mere intellect cannot reach, its soundest decisions cannot but approve. At the same time, how deeply is it to be deplored, that, in certain of his theological opinions, such a man should have departed widely from the truth of Scripture !
I have willingly permitted myself in this ex- tract to wander beyond what the immediate sub- ject demanded: because amidst the thorny maz€Ts
L 2
148 ON unitarians; oh
of polemics, the repose and refreshment which these flowers of genuine piety present, would, I apprehended, afford to the reader a satisfaction not less than they had yielded to myself.
NO. X. ON UNITARIANS ; OR RATI€>N4L DIS- SENTERS.
Page 11. (^) It is obvious, that the Sect^ to which I here allude^ is that known by the title of Unitarians : a title, by which it is meant modestly to insinuate, that they are the only worshippers of One God, From a feeling simi- lar to that, which has given birth to this deno- mination, they demand also, to be distinguished from the other Non-conformists, by the appel- lation of Rational Dissenters.
Mr. Howes has observed, (Critical Ohserv. vol. iv. p. 17.) that the term Unitarian, has been used with great vagueness, by the very writers, who arrogate the name : being applied by some to a great variety of sects, Arians, Ebi- onites, Theodotians^ Sabellians and Socinians ; to any sect, in short, which has pretended to preserve the unity of the Deity, better than the Trinitarians according to the council of Nice: whilst by others, and particularly by Dr. Priest- ley, it is attributed exclusively to those who maintain the merQ humanity of Christ. Oti
TtATIONAL DISSENTERS. I49
this account, Mr. Howes proposed to substitute the word Humanist, as more precisely express- ing the chief principle of the sect intended : and this word he afterwards exchanged for Humani- tartan, Mr. Hobhouse and other Unitarians having adopted that appellation. (Crit, Ohs. vol. iv. p. 91.) — However as I find the latest writers of this description prefer the denomination of Unitarian, I have complied with their wishes, in adopting this term throughout the present work; perfectly aware, at the same time, of the impropriety of its appropriation, but being un- willing to differ with them merely about names, where so much attention is demanded by tilings.
For a full account of the doctrines of this new Sect, (for iieiv it must be called, notwith- standing Doctor Priestley's laboured, but un- substantial, examination of '^ Early Opinions,") the reader may consult the Theological Repo- sitory, the various Theological productions of Doctor Priestley, and particularly Mr. Belsham's Review of Mr. Wilherforce's Treatise, Indeed this last publication presents, on the whole, so extraordinary a system; and conveys so com- prehensive a view of all the principles and con- sequences of the Unitarian scheme, not to be found in any other work of so small a compass; that I think it may not be unacceptable, to sub- join to these pages, a brief abstract of it as de-
J^3
a 50 UNITARIANS DISTINGUISHED
scribed by the author. A summary of the tenets of this enlightened sect^ may furnish matter of speculation, not merely curious but instructive, to those who are not yet tinctured with its principles; and to those who are, it may per- haps suggest a salutary warning, by shewing it in all its frightful consequences. — Unitarianism, it is true, has not yet made its way into this Country, in any digested shape; but wherever there are found to prevail, a vain confidence in the sufficiency of human reason, and a conse- quent impatience of authority and controul, with a desire to reject received opinions, and to fritter away by subtle distinctions, plain and established precepts; there the soil is prepared for its recep- tion, and the seed is already sown.
NO. XI. — ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN UNITA- RIANS AND SOCINIANS.
Page 12. Q The doctrine stated in the text is that maintained by all the Socinian writers. It may be found so laid down (Theol. Rep. vol. i.) in the first article, written by Dr. Priestley, under the title of Clemens, It is however to be noted, that Doctor Priestley, his follower Mr. Belsham, and others of the same Theological opinions, disclaim the title of Socinia?i; and desire to be distinguished by that of Unitarian^ for the reason assigned in the preceding number, I
FROM SOCINIANS. 151
Mr. BeUham goes so far as to say, (Review, &c. p. 22/^) that his " Creed is as far removed from that of Sociiius, as it is from the peculiar doctrines of Mr. Wilberforce.'* Indeed^ to do Socinus justice, it must be admitted, that the Creed of the Unitarian differs materially from his. He had not reached the acme of modern illumination. He had not sufficient penetration, to discern the various mistakes in the application of Scripture, and the numerous errors in rea- soning, committed by the Evangelists and Apos- tles, which have been detected and dragged to light, by the sagacious Unitarian. He had not discovered, that Christ vi^as the human offspring of Joseph and Mary, He had not divested our Lord, of his regal, as w^ell as his sacerdotal cha- racter, and reduced him to the condition of a mere Prophet. He had weakly imagined, that by virtue of his regal office, Christ possessed the power of delivering his people from the punishment of their sins. But Doctor Priestley has rectified this error. In his Hist, of Cor, (vol. i. p. 272.) he expressly points out the dif- ference between himself and Socinus, on this head. " It immediately follows," he says, " from his (Socinus' s) principles, that Christ being only a man, though ever so innocent, his death could not, in any proper sense of the word, atone for the sins of other men. He was, however, far from abandoning the doctrine of Redemptio?i,
l4
152 UNITARIANS DISTINGUISHED
in the Scripture sense of the word, that is, of our deUverance from the guilt of sin, by his Gospel, as promoting repentance and reforma- tion; and from the punishment due to sin, by his power of giving eternal Ufe to all that obey him. — But indeed, if God himself freely for- gives the sins of men, upon repentance, there eould he no occasion, property speaking, for any thing farther being done, to avert the punishment with which they had been threat- ened.'*
This passage, whilst it marks the distinction
between the Socinian and the Unitarian, fully
opens up the scheme of the latter. But on this
system, it may be curious to enquire, in what
light the death of our blessed Lord is represent-
\ ed. Dr. Priestley (Theol, Rep. vol. i. p. 39.)
/ gives us this information. — " Christ being a
j man, who suffered and died in the best of causes,
. there is nothing so very different in the occasion
/ and manner of his death, from that of others
who suffered and died after him in the same
' cause of Christianity, but that their sufferings
\ and death may be considered in the same light
with his'' — This extraordinary assertion exactly
agrees with what is recorded of Solomon Eccles,
a great preacher and prophet of the Quakers.;
who expressly declares, " that the blood of
Christ was no more than the blood of any other
gaint." (Leslies works, foL vol. ij. p. ip^.)-^?*
TROM SOCINIANS. 15S
Thus strangely do the philosophy of Doctor Priestley, and the fanaticism of the Quaker, con- cur with that, which both would pronounce to be the gross absurdity of Popery. For if the d^ath of Christ be viewed in the same light, with the death of any other martyr, the invoca- tion of the Popish Saints may appear a conse- quence not so revolting to Christian piety. That the lines of error, in their manifold directions^ should sometimes intersect, if not for a certain length of way coincide, is not however matter of surprise. <
But, the death of Christ being treated in this manner, by Doctor Priestley and his Unitarian followers, one is naturally led to enquire what their notions are of his state, subsequent to his resurrection. Mr. Belsham (Review, &c. p. 74.) gives us satisfaction on this head. The Unita- rians, he says, here entirely differ from the So- cinians: for that the latter hold the ^^ unscr'ip^ tural and most incredible notion, that since his resurrection he has been advanced to the go^ vernment of the Universe: but a consistent Unitarian, acknowledging Jesus as a man in all respects like to his brethren, regards his kino'- dom as entirely of a spiritual nature." We are not, however, to suppose our blessed Lord alto- gether banished from existence ; for this gentle- man admits again, (p. 85) that he is '' now alive" jfomewhgre, " ^md without doubt employed ii^
154: THE CORRUPTION OF
offices the most honourable and benevolent;" — ■ in buch, of course, as any of his brother-men, to whom he is above described as in all respects similar, might be engaged. —On this, and other such wild blasphemies of this sect, as represent- ed by Mr, Belsham, see the Appendix.
NO. XII. — ON THE CORRUPTION OF MAN's NATU- RAL STATE.
Page 14. (^) They who may wish to see this subject extensively treated, will find it amply discussed, in Leland's work on the Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Revelation, In Mr. Wilberforce's Practical View also, we meet with a description of the state of unassisted nature, distinguished not less, unhappily, by its truth, than by its eloquence.
After a forcible enumeration of the gross vices, into which the heathen world, both ancient and modern, had been sunk; and this not only amongst the ilHterate and the vulgar, but also amongst the learned and the refined^ even to the decent Virgil and the philosophic Cicero ; he proceeds, in the following animated tone, to ex- amine the state of morals among those who have been visited by the lights of the Gospel.
" But," says he, " you give up the heathen na- tions as indefensible; and wish rather to form your estimate of man, from a view of countries,.
man's natural state. 155
which have been blessed with the light of reve- lation.— True it is, and with joy let us record the concession, Christianity has set the general tone of morals much higher than it was ever found in the pagan world. She has every where improved the character, and multiplied the com- forts of society ; particularly to the poor and the weak, whom from the beginning she professed to take under her special patronage. Like her divine Author, " who sends his rain on the evil and on the good," she showers down unnumber- ed blessings on thousands who profit from her bounty, while they forget or deny her power, and set at nought her authority. Yet, even in this more favoured situation, we shall discover too many lamentable proofs of the depravity of man. Nay, this depravity will now become even more apparent and less deniable. For what bars does it not now overleap? Over what motives is it not now victorious ? Consider well the superior light and advantages which we enjoy, and then appreciate the superior obligations which are im- posed on us. Consider well," &c.
" Yet in spite of all our knowledge, thus powr erfully enforced and pressed home upon us, how little has been our progress in virtue? It has. been by no means such as to prevent the adop- tion, in our days, of various maxims of antiquity, which when well considered, too clearly esta- blish the depravity of n^an." Having adduced
156 THE CORRUPTION OF
several instances in proof of this assertion, he thus proceeds; '^ But surely to any who call themselves Christians, it may be justly urged as an astonishing instance of human depravity, that we ourselves, who enjoy the full light of reve* lation; to whom God has vouchsafed such clear discoveries of what it concerns us to know of his being and attributes ; who profess to believe that in him we live, and move, and have our being; that to him we owe all the comforts we here enjoy, and the offer of eternal glory purchased for us by the atoning blood of his own Son ; that we, thus loaded with mercies, should every one of us be continually chargeable with forgetting his authority, and being ungrateful for his be- nefits; with slighting his gracious proposals, or receiving them at best but heartlessly and coldly."
" But to put the question concerning the na- tural depravity of man to the severest test : take the best of the human species, the watchful, diligent, self denying Christian, and let him decide the controversy ; and that, not by in- ferences drawn from the practices of a thought- less and dissolute world, but by an appeal to his personal experience. Go with him into his closet, ask him his opinion of the corruption of the heart ; and he will tell you, that he is deeply sensible of its power, for that he has Jearned it from much self-observation, and long
man's natural state. 157
ticquaintance with the workings of his own mind. He will tell you, that every day strength- ens this conviction; yea, that hourly he sees fresh reason to deplore his want of simplicity in intention^ his infirmity of purpose, his low views, his selfish unworthy desires, his backward- ness to set about his duty, his languor and cold- ness in performing it: that he finds himself obliged continually to confess, that he feels within him two opposite principles, and that he cannot do the things that he would. He cries out in the language of the excellent Hooker, '' The little fruit which we have in holiness, it is, God knoweth^ corrupt and unsound: we put no confidence at all in it, we challenge nothing in the world for it, we dare not call God to reckoning, as if we had him in our debt books; our continual suit to him is, and must be, to hear with our injirmities, and pardon our of- fences T (IVilherforce's Practical Plew, p. 28—37.)
Such is the view which a pious and impres- sive writer has given, of what, all who reflect must acknowledge, to be the true condition of man. Another writer, not less pious and im- pressive, (Mrs. Hannah More,) has, with her usual powers of eloquence, presented the same picture of the moral and religious history of the- wprld, in her admirable Strictures on the mo-
1
158 THE CORRUPTION OF
dern System of Female Education. To obser- vations similar to those of Mr. Wilberforce, on the doctrine of human depravity, she adds this remark. " Perhaps one reason why the faults of the most eminent saints are recorded, in Scrip- ture, is, to add fresh confirmation to this doc- trine. If Abraham^ Moses, Noah, Elijah, David, and Peter sinned, who, shall we pre- sume to say, has escaped the universal taint?" (H. Move's works, vol. iv. pp. 330, 331.
How easily is this question answered by the follower of Priestley: — or I may add, (strange as the combination may appear,) of Wesley I The former produces his philosopher, the latter his saint, in refutation of such unworthy and disparaging notions of human nature. They differ indeed in one material point. The one contends, that by his oivn virtuous resolutions he can extricate himself from vicious propen- sities and habits; whilst the other is proud to admit, that the divine favour has been pecu- liarly exerted in his behalf, to rescue him from his sins. The one denies, that he was ever subject to an innate depravity : the other confesses that he was, boasts even of its inve- teracy, but glories that he has been perfectly purijied from its stains. But both are found to agree most exactly, in that vain self-com- placency, which exults in the reflexion that
man's natural state. 159
they ^^ are not as * other men are ;" and in the arrogant presumption^ that they are hfted above that corruption of nature from which the more humble and more deserving Christian feels him-
* The contemptuous language, Avhich the over weening Methodist is too apt to employ, with respect to all who are not within his sanctified pale, but more especially with rc- spe6t to the Clergy of the establishment, aflfords but too strong a justification of this charge as it applies to him. The clergy are uniformly with religionists af this descrip- tion, " dumb dogs," " watchmen who sleep upon their posts," ^' priests of BaaU" " wolves in sheep's cloathing," &c. &c. Indeed Mr. IVhitefield informs us in his works, (vol. iv. p. 67.) that " Mr. Wesley ihowght meanly oi Abra- ham^ and, he believes, of David also:" whilst, of Mr. Wesley himself we are told, that " wherever he went, he was received as an Apostle ;" and that " in the honour due to Moses he also had a share, being placed at the head of a great people by him who called them," &c. {Hampsoii's life of Wesley^ vol. iii. p. 35. Cokeys life of Wesley^ p. 520.) —Mr. Wesley has taken care to let mankind know, thafe Methodism " is the only religion worthy of God :" {Uamps, vol. iii. p. 30.) and the miracles, which repeatedly attested his divine mission for the propagation of this religion, he has most copiously recorded throughout his Journals,^-' Whoever wislies to form a just idea of the pernicious ex- travagances of this arch enthusiast and of his followers, will find ample satisfaction in Bishop La'dngton''s Enthusi- asm of Mtiliodists and Papists compared^ (a book, which B. Warburton, in one of his private letters to his friend Hurd, very unfairly describes, as '' a bad copy of Stilliiig- Jleet's famous book of the Fanaticisjn of the Church of Romey") and in the later publication of Null's Religious Enthusiasm considered.
l66 THE CORRUPTION OF
self not to be exempt. In the philosophising Christian all this is natural and consistent. But in the Methodist, (I speak of the Arminian Methodist, or follower of Wesley,) it is altoge- ther at variance with the doctrines which he professes to maintain. Accuracy of reasoning, however, is not among the distinctive marks of this latter description of religionists. A warm fancy, with a weak intellect; strong passionsy and vehement conceit, almost always go to the composition of the character. That such qua- lities should find many minds of congenial apti- tude, is a thing not to be wondered at. And therefore, that this mixture of fanaticism, hy- pocrisy, vanity and ignorance, should be widely spreading in both * countries, is perfectly na- tural.
* At the annual conference of the preachers in the Wes- ley connexion, held at Bristol in July 1808, the number of Methodists of that connexion in Great Britain and Ire- land alone, was stated to exceed 151,000, that is, more by above 8000 than in the year preceding. — At the succeed- ing annual conference, which took place at Manchester, in the July of the last year, the number of the same con- nexion, throughout the two islands, has been stated to have received within the year, an cncrease of nearly 7000, (of which the encrease in Ireland alone has been J 300^ making the whole to amount very nearly to 158,000; whilst the numbers of the society in the West Indies and America have at the same meeting been stated to exceed 173;000.
man's natural state. l6l
It is however to be lamented, that such a mis- chievous corruption of true rehgion should re- ceive countenance from any of its real friends: and it is matter equally of surprize and concern, that a system, which no longer covertly, but openly and avowedly, works in continued hos- tility to the established religion, has not met with more effectual resistance from those who may be supposed to take an interest in the well- being of the establishment. On the contrary, examples are not wanting of cases, in which the clergy have been set aside in the work of religious instruction; whilst men, who uphold the Wesleian chimera of perfection, who openly reject the ^^ Liturgy and Articles, and oppose
* The treatment which the Liturgy and the Articles have experienced from Mr. Wesley, is, I apprehend, very little understood by the generality of those, who are disposed to look with complacency upon the se6l of which he has beea the founder. Professing to adopt the Liturgy of the Church, of England, he has framed one for his followers, differing from it in many and essential particulars. He confesses indeed that he has made some slight alterations; which he enumerates in such a way, as would naturally induce the supposition, that the difference is altogether unimportant: "whilst, in truth, he has not only newly modified the com- mon prayer, and nearly abolished the whole of the baptis- mal office ; but, besides mutilating above sixty of the Psalms, has discarded thirty-four others, and newly ren- dered many of the remainder. Of the Psalms, Mh::h he has discarded, six at least are admitted to be eminently prophetic of our Saviour, of his incarnation, bis sufferings, VOL. I, M
162 THE CORRUPTION OF
the doctrines of the EstabHshed Church, have been deemed fit objects of preference to the re- cognized rehgious teachers of the land.
and his ascension; whilst the reason assigned for the ex- purgation is, their being " improper for the mouth of a Christian congregation !!" But this is not all, the Rubrick and the appointed lessons are in most places altered ; and the Catechism^ and the two Cieeds (the Nicene and Atha- uasian) totally discarded. Of these last mentioned altera- tions, it is also particularly to be observed, that Mr. Wesley gave to his followers no notice whatever; whilst the former were represented by him as of a nature altogether unim- portant: so that the ignorant amongst his adherents were led to imagine, that they were not materially departing from the forms of the establishment, when in truth they were altogether drawn away from the of&ces of the Church, — To complete the whole, Mr. Wesley provided his Com- munion also with a new set of Jirtides^ reducing the num- ber from thirty-nine to twenty-five; and making such, changes, in those which he retained, as he found most con- venient. Not to dwell too long upon this subje6l, suffice it to adduce two instances of omitted Articles, from which the spirit that governed the whole may easily be divined. The eighteentli Article, which pronounces, that " Eternal salvation is to be obtained only by the name of Christ;" and the fifteenth, which asserts, " that Christ alone was without sin," are two of those, which the founder of Me- thodism has declared to be unfit objefts of a Christian's belief. Thus it appears, tliat the Socinian is not the only sectary that would degrade the dignity of Christ. — Such are the people from whom certain weak members of the Establishment aj)proJiend no mischief. — On the points which have been here noticed, sec particularly Noit's Rdi^^ Entlu p, 150—167.
man's natural state. 163
Against abuses such as these, and particularly against the open outrages upon decency and upon the rights of the estabhshment, of which many of this wild and fantastic sect have been guilty, I am happy to say, that some i*espectable mem- bers of the national church have hfted their voices in both countries. Amongst these I al- hide with particular pleasure to my respected friend and brother academic, Dr. Hales: and I allude to him the more willingly, not only be- cause he has with much ability and good temper combated and confuted the extravagant dogmas^ of sinless 'perfection^ and miraculous i7?ipulses^ which are the distinguishing tenets of this sect; but because he has, in opposition to their wild rhapsodies, exhibited such a portrait of the true Christian, and of the nature of that perfection which it is permitted him in this life to attain, as is strictly warranted by Scripture, and highly edifying to contemphtte. I therefore here sub- join it, both as being naturally connected with the present subject, and as being calculated to aftord satisfaction and improvement to the Christian reader.
" The perfect Christian, according to the re-^ presentation of holy writ, is he, who as far as the infirmity of his nature will allow, aspires to W7?z- versal holiness of life; uniformly and habitually endeavouring to ' stand perfect and complete in all the will of God,' and to ' fulfil all righteous-
M 2
l6'4 THE CORRUPTION OF
Tioss,' in humble imitation of his Redeemer: who daily and fervently prays for ^ increase of faith,' like the Apostles themselves ; and strenu- ously labours to ^ add to his faith, virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, tem- perance; and to temperance, patience; and to patience, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, charity.' Such is the assemblage of virtues necessary to constitute the character of the perfect Christian; ever aiming at, though never attaining to^, ah- solute or smless perfection, in this present state of trial, probation^ and preparation for a better ; and meekly resting all his hopes of favour and acceptance with God, not on his own defective and imperfect righteousness, but on ^ the free grace of God, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus f ^ for by grace we are saved through faith, and this not of ourselves, it is the gift of God; not of v^orks, that no one should boast.'" — Methodism Inspected, pp. 30, 31, — This is the language of reason and of * Scripture, by which
* Doctor Stack also uses a language of like sobriety and scriptural correctness, in those passages of his very useful Lectures on the Ads, and on the Romans, in which he has occasion to speak of the influence of the Holy Spirit, See particularly pp. 35, 36, of the former work, and p. 148 — 150, of the latter. Attend also to the excellent obser- vations of the B. of Lincoln, on the degree of purity attain. a|)Ie by the Christian, and the nature of the endeaiours
I
man's natural state. 165
the Christian, though ever aspiring to a higher and a hetter nature, is still reminded of that na- ture which belong-s to him, and against the in- tlrniities of which he can never either relax in vigilance, or remit in exertion.
How strongly contrasted with such language are the dogmas alluded to in page 16*3, and the authorities adduced in their support! That the nature of those dogmas, and the extent to which they are maintained, may be the better under- stoodj I must here detain the reader with a few passages from the writings of Mr. Wesley. As possessing the advantages of education, talents, and knowledge of mankind, in a degree which places him much above the level of those, who have succeeded him in the Methodist Ministry, he may well be supposed not to have propounded the opinions of the sect in a shape more extra- vagant than that, in which they are embraced by his followers. And first, on the subject of mira- culous manifestations and impulses in the for- giveness of sins and assurance of salvation, he tells us: '^ God does now as aforetime give remis- sions of sin, and the gift of the Holy Ghost to us ; and that always suddenly, as far as I have known, and often in dreams, and in the visions of God." (Hampsoji's Life of Weal. ii. 81) — Again: " I am one of many witnesses of this
vhteh he is to make after perfection. E,lem. of Christ, Huol. vol. ii. p, 285.
M 3
l66 THE CORRUPTION Or
matter of fact, that God does now make good this his promise dail}^, very frequently during a representation (how made I know not, but not to the outward eye,) of Christ, either hanging on the cross, or standing on the right hand of God." (Hanips, ii. 55.) — Again: ** I saw the fountain opened in his side — we have often seen Jesus Christ crucified^ and evidently set forth before us." (B. Lavingt, vol, i. part. i. p. 51) — And CofiCf in his Life of JVesley, says, that '^ being in the utmost agony of mind, th^ e was clearly represented to him Jesus Christ pleading for him with God the Father, and gaining a free pardon for him." — Secondly, as to the tenet of perfection, Mr. Wesley affords us the following ample explanation. — " They" (the puri- fied in heart) " are freed from self will : as desiring nothing, no not for a moment, but the holy and per- fect will of God : neither supplies in want, nor ease iri„ pain, nor life, nor death, but continually cry in their inmost soul. Father, thy ivlll he done'' " They are freed from evil thoughts,* so that they can-
* That he, who could use such language as this, would feel it necessary to reject the fifteenth Article of the Church, as the reader is already apprised Mr- Wesley did, will not appear surprising on a perusal of that article. — " Christ, in the truth of our nature, was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his ftesh and in his spirit. lie came to be a Iamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made should take way the sins of the world: and sin, as St. John saith, was Bot in him. But all we the rest, although baptized and
AfAN's NATURAL STATE. iGj
not enter into them, no not for an instant. Afore- time, (i. e. when only justified) when an evil thought came in, they looked up, and it vanished away: but now it does not come in; there being no room for this in a soul, which is full of God.
born again in Christy yet offend in many things : and if we saj/ wc have no sin, zee deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,^^ Such is the dodtrine of the Established Church; and such is the dircdl contrary of the do6trine, which Mr. Wesley and his followers hold upon the subje6l of this ar- ticle : for Avhich reason, they have with perfect consistency riijedled it from their code of Christian belief. And, for the same reason, the cry of the party is every where loudly raised, against every work, that intimates the corruption of man's nature, in the language of the article.
As to the rejection of the Eighteenth Article, Mr. Wes- ley's language has not been so explicit, as to enable us to pronounce upon the precise ground of that rejc6>ion, with perfect certainty. But when we consider, that in that ar- ticle there is contained, a condemnation of the assertion, '' that every man shall be saved by the law or se6l which he professeth;" and that it is at the same time affirmed, that " Holy Scripture doth set out unto us, o?ili/ the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved:" and when at the same time we recollect, that " the name of Jesus Christ" implies certain belief and do6lrines respecting the nature of the Saviour and the religion which he has taught; whilst Mr. AVeslcy considers do(5trines, or right opinions, to be of little value, and holds the religious feelings which distinguish the true Methodist to be the only sure pledge and passport of salvation: — when wc compare these things together, wc seem to run no great risque in concluding, that this article was condemned by the founder of INIctho^
M 4
iGS THE CORRUPTION OF
They are freed from wanderings in prayer : they have an unction from the Holy one, which abideth in them, and teacheth them every hour what they shall do, and what they shall speak.'* — (Pref, to ^d vol, of Wesley s hymns, Hamps. iii. 52, and Coke's life of IVes. pp. 278, 344).
These extracts from the writing^s of the father of Methodism, fairly open up to us the tvv'> great fundamental doctrines of the sect: viz. 1. That the assurances of forgiveness and of salvation, arise from a sudden infusion of divine feeling, conveyed by some sensible and miraculous ma- nifestation of the spirit: and 2d. That the true believer attains in this life such perfection, as to be altogether free from sin, and even from the possibility of sin. Holding such doctrines, it is not at all wonderful that the Wesleian Methodist is indifferent about every other. Mr. Wesley fairly says upon the subject of doctrines, " 1 will not quarrel with you about any opinion: believe them true or false!" (Third Appeal, i^. 135.) In another place, he confesses, " the points we chiefly insisted upon were, that Orthodoxy, or Right Opinions, is, at best a very slender part
dism, as clearly marking, that religious opinions were by no means a matter of indifference: that on the contrary just notions concerning Christ were requisite for salyation ; and that for the want of these, no association with any particular se(5l or religious description whatever could mak© compensation.
man's natural state. 1G9
of Religion, * if it can he allowed to he any fart of It at all!! T — This, it must be admitted, is an excellent expedient for adding to the num- bers of the sect. A perfect indifference about
* On this favourite position of Mr. Wesley, Bishop War- burton justly remarks, that here is a complete separation between reason and religion. For when reason is no longer employed to distinguish right from wrong opinions^ religion has no further connexion with it. But reason once separated from religion, must not piety degeneraie either into nonsense or madness ? And for the fruits of grace Mhat can remain but the froth and dregs of enthusi- asm and superstition ? In the first ages of Christianity, the glory of the Gospel consisted in its being a reasonable ser* vice. By this it was distinguished from the several modes of Gentile religion, the essence of which consisted in fana* tic raptures and superstitious ceremonies ; without any ar* tides of belief or formula of faith ; right opinion beings on the principles of the Pagan priesthood, at baty but a verjj slender part of religion^ if firiy part of it at all. But Christianity arose on different principles. St. Paul considers right opinion as one full third part of religion, where speak- ing of the three great fundamental principles on which the Christian Church is erected, he makes truth to be one of them. The fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness^ righ- TEOusNESSj and truth. — So different was St. Paul's idea, from that entertained of Christianity by Mr. Wesley, who comprises all in the new birthy and makes believing to con- sist entirely in feeling. On the whole, therefore, we may fairly conclude, (with Warburton) that that wisdom which divests Christianity of truth and reason, and resolves its essence rather into mental and spiritual sensations, than tries it by moral demonstration, can never be the nisdem which is from above^ whose first chara6leristic attribute is
170 THE CORRUPTION OF
doctrines, and a strong persuasion that the divine favour is secured, whilst the fancy of each indi- vidual is counted to him for faith, — are such recommendations of any form of rehgion, as can scarcely be resisted. But what can be more mischievous than all this ? What more destruc- tive of true religion ? The sound j)rinciples of Christian Doctrine disparaged, as of no value to the believer: and the serious feelings of Christian Piety caricatured, and thereby brought into ge- neral disrepute: whilst the sober and regulated teaching of the national Clergy is treated with contumely and contempt ; and separation from the national Church deemed a decisive criterion of godly sincerity! — In the contemplation of such a state of things, it seems as if one were survey- ing the completion of the following prospective description given to us by Sir Walter Raleigh. " When" says he, '^ all order, discipline and Church government shall be left to newness of opinion, and men's fancies ; soon after^, as many kinds of Religion will spring up as there are parish churches within England ; every conten-
purity. The same writer truly adds, that if Mr. Wesley's position be well founded, the first Reformers of Religion from the errors of Popery, have mucli to answer for: who, for the sake of right opinion^ at best a slender part of re- ligion^ if any part of it at all, occasioned so much turmoil, and so many revolutions in civil as well as in religious sys- tems—See Warburton's Principles of Nat, and Rev. Relis, gion, vol. i. p, 263—267.
man's natural state. 171
tious and ignorant person, clothing his fancy with the Spirit of God, and his imagination with the gift of Revelation : insomuch as when the Truth, which is but one, shall appear to the simple multitude, no less variable than contrary to itself, the faith of men will soon after die away by degrees, and all Religion be held in scorn and contempt."— //mw^ of the World, B. II. ch. v. sect. I.
NO. XIII. ON THE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE
DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT BY UNITARIANS.
Page 16. {^) — On this subject Dr. Priestley (Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. J 53.) thus represents the arguments of the Orthodox. " Sin being an offence against an infinite Being, requires an in- finite satisfaction, which can only be made by an infinite person ; that is, one who is no less than God himself. Christ, therefore, in order to make this infinite satisfaction for the sins of men, must himself be God, equal to God the Father." —With what candour this has been selected, as a specimen of the mode of reasoning, by which the doctrine of Atonement as connected with that of the divinity of Christ, is maintained by the established church, it is needless to remark. That some few indeed have thus argued, is cer- tainly to be admitted and lamented. But how poorly such men have reasoned, it needed not
172 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT
the acuteness of Dr. Priestley to discover. On their own principle, the reply is obvious, — that sin being committed hy a finite creature, re- quires only a finite satisfaction^ for which pur- pose a finite person might be an adequate victim. But the insinuation, that our belief in the divi- nity of Christ, has been the offspring of this strange conceit, is much more becoming the de- termined advocate of a favourite cause, than the sober enquirer after truth. Our mode of reason- ing is directly the reverse. The Scriptures pro- claim the divinity of Christ; and so far are we from inferring this attribute of our Lord from the necessity of an infinite satisfaction, that we infer from it, both the great love of our Al- mighty Father, who has " spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all ;'* and the great heinousness of human guilt, for the expia- tion of which, it was deemed fit that so great a Being should suffer. The decent manner, in which Mr. Belsham has thought proper to re- present the orthodox notion of the atonement, is, that man could " not have been saved, unless one God had died, to satisfy the justice, and appease the wrath of another." (Revieiv, S^c. p. 221.) This is language, with which I should not have disgraced my page, but that it may serve to shew how dangerous a thing it is, to open a door to opinions, that can admit of treating
MISREPRESENTED BY UNITARIANS. 173
subjects the most sacred with a levity, which seemi 80 nearly allied to impiety.
NO. XIV. — ON THE DISRESPECT OF SCRIPTURE MANI- FESTED BY UNITARIAN WRITERS.
Page 17. (°) — Perhaps I may be charged with having made a distinction in this place, which gives an unfair representation of Unitarians, in- asmuch as the}^ also profess to derive their argu- ments from Scripture. But whether that profession be not intended in mockery, one might be almost tempted to question ; when it is found, that in every instance, the doctrine of Scripture is tried by their abstract notion of right, and rejected if not accordant : — when by means of figure and allusion, it is every where made to speak a lan- guage, the most repugnant to all fair, critical interpretation ; until emptied of its true meaning, it is converted into a vehicle for every fantastic theory, which under the name of rational, they may think proper to adopt : — when in such parts, as propound Gospel truths of a contexture too solid to admit of an escape in figure and allusion, the sacred writers are charged as bunglers, pro- ducing " lame accounts, improper quotations, and inconclusive reasonings," (Dr, Priestley's \2th Letter to Mr. Burn) and philosophy is con- sequently called in to rectify their errors : — when, one writer of this class (Steinbart) tells us, that
1
1^4 DISRESPECT OF SCRIPTURE
*^ the narrations'* (in the New Testament) '^ true or false, are only suited for ignorant, uncultivated minds, who cannot enter into the evidence of natural rehgion ;" and again, that ^^ Moses ac- cording to the childish conceptions of the Jews in his days, paints God as agitated by violent affec- tions, partial to one people, and hating all other nations :" — when another, (Semler) remarking on St. Peter's declaration, that prophecy came not in old time hij the ivill ofman, hut Holij men of God spake as they ivere moved hy the Holy Spirit, says, that " Peter speaks here according to the conception of the Jews, and that '' the prophets may have delivered the offspring of their own brains as divine revelations :" (Dr, Ersldne's Sketches and Hints of Ch. Hist, N° 3. pp. 66. 71.) — when a third (Engedin) speaks of St. John's portion of the New 1 estament, as written with ^' concise and abrupt obscurity, inconsistent with itself, and made up of allegories ;" and Gagneius glories in having given '' a little light to St. Paul's darkness, a darkness, as some think, industriously affected :" — when we find Mr. Evanson, one of those able Commentators referred to by Mr. Belsham in his Review^ &c. p. 206, assert, (Dis* sonance, &c. p. i.) that " the Evangelical his- tories contain gross and irreconcileable contradic- tions,'' and consequently discard three oat of the four, retaining the Gospel of St. Luke only, at the same time drawing his pen over as much of this.
BY UNITARIAN WRITERS, 175
as either from its infelidtif of style, or other suck causes happens not to meet his approbation : — when we find Dr. Priestley, besides his charge ao-ainst the writers of the New Testament before recited, represent in his letter to Dr. Price, the narration of Moses concerning the creation and the fall of man, as a lame account ; and thereby meriting the praise of magnanlmlfij bestowed on him by theologians, equally enlightened: — when finally, not to accumulate instances where so many challenge attention, we find the Gospel openly described by Mr. Belsham, (Review, &c. p. 217.) as containing nothing more than the Deism of the French Theo-Philanthrope, save only the fact of the resurrection of a human being (see Appendix) ; and when, for the pur- pose of establishing this, he engages, that the Unitarian writers shall prune down the Scriptures to this moral si/steni and this single fact, by shewing that ivhatever supports any thing else is either " interpolation, omission, false reading, mis- translation, or erroneous interpretation," (Review, pp. 206. 217. 272.):— when, I say, all these things are considered, and when we find the Bible thus contemned and rejected by the gentlemen of this new light, and a new and more convenient Gospel carved out for themselves, can the occa- sional profession of reverence* for Scripture, as
* The fathers of the Socinian School are as widely distin- guished from their follower of the present day, by their.
176 DISRESPECT OF SCRIF^URE
the word of God, be treated in any other light, than as a convenient mask^ or an insulting sneer ?
modesty and moderation, as by their learning and their talents. Yet, that it may be the more plainly discerned, how remote the spirit of Socinianism has been at all times, from the reverence due to the authority of Scripture, 1 here subjoin, in the words of two of their early writers, specimens of the treatment, which the sacred volume commonly receives at their hand.-^Faustus Socinusy after pronouncing with sufficient decision against the received doctrine of the Atonement, proceeds to say, " Ego quidem, eiiamsi non semely sect scepe id hi sacris monimentis scriptiim extaret ; non idcirco tamen ita rem prorsus se habere crederem.'* Socin, Opera, torn. ii. p. 204. — And with like determina- tion, Smalcius affirms of the Incarnation ; <' Credimus, etiamsi non semel atque iteruniy sod satis crebro et disertis^. sime scripium extaret Deum esse hominem factum, multo satius esse, quia haec res sit absurda, et sanae rationi plane contraria, et in Deum blasphema, modum aliquem diceridi cojnniinisci, quo ista de Deo dici possint, quam ista shnpliciter ita ut verba sonant intclligere.'*^ (Homil. viii. ad cap. 1. Joh.) — Thus it appears from these instances, joined to those "which have been adduced above, to those which have been noticed at the end of Number I. and to others of the like nature which might be multiplied from writers of the Socinian School without end ; that the most explicit, and precise, and emphatical language, announcing the doctrines which the philosophy of that school condemns, would, to its disciples, be words of no meaning ; and the Scripture which adopted such language, but an idle fable. Non pcrsuadebls etiamsi persuaseris, is the true motto of the Unitarian, And the reader, I trust, will not think that I have drawn too strong conclusions upon this subject in the three last pages of the first number, when he finds the proof of what is there advanced strengthening so powerfully as we proceed.
BY UNITARIAN WRITERS. l^^
It might be a matter of more than curious speculation, to frame a Bible, according to the modifications of the Unitarian Commentators. The world would then see, after all the due am- putations and amendments, to what their respect for the sacred text amounts. Indeed it is some- what strange, that men so zealous to enlighten and improve the world, have not, long before this, blessed it with so vast a treasure. Can it be, that they think the execution of such a work, would impair their claim to the name of Christians ? Or is it rather, that even the Bible so formed, must soon yield to another more perfect, as the still encreasing flood of light poured in new knowledge ? That the latter is perhaps the true cause, may be inferred, as well from the known magnanimity of those writers, which cannot be supposed to have stooped to the former consi- deration, as from Dr. Priestley's own declara- tions. In his Letters to a Philosophical Un- believer (Part 2. p. 33-^35.) he informs us, that he was once " a Calvinist, and that of the straitest sect.' Afterwards, he adds, he " l)e- came an high Arian, next a low Arian, and then a Socinian, and in a little time a Socinian of the lowest kind, in which Christ is considered as a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, and na- turallij as fallible and peccable as Moses or am/ other Prophet'' And after all, he tells us (Jyef. of Unit, for I787. ]). ill.) that he " does not
VOL. I.' N
178 HEATHEN NOTIONS OF MERIT
know, when his creed will be fixed." Mr. Bel- ^ham Imving set out and ended at the same point with Dr. Priestle}r; it is not improbable that he has gone through the same revolution : and that he, and others who have enjoyed the same progressive illumination, would equally with Doctor Priestley still contend for the freedom of an unsettled creed, is not perhaps too violent a presumption. Now, as every step, in such an indefinite progress, must induce a corresponding change of canon, it is not wonderful that they whose creed is in a perpetual state of variation, and whose Bible must be, like their almanack, suited only to a particular season, should not have attempted any fixed standard * of the Sa- cred Word.
NO. XV. ON THE HEATHEN NOTIONS OF MERIT
ENTERTAINED BY UNITARIAN WRITERS.
Page 18. (p) — A writer, whom I cannot name but with respect, — to the beauties of whose com- position, no one that possesses taste or feeling, can be insensible, — speaking of Dr. Price, in her
* Since the date of the above observation in the last edi- tion of this work, a Testament has been published by the Unitarians, under the title of An Improved Version of (he New Testament, Of this Improved Version, some notice has been already taken in the preceding pages, and more shall be said hereafter.
EKTEKTAINED BY UNITARIANS. 1 7f)
captivating defence of public worship against Mr. Wakefield, (to which pubHcation I have ah'eady referred the reader in a preceding number,) uses this extraordinary language: "When a man like Dr. Price is about to resign his soul into the hands of his maker, he ought to do it not only with a reliance on his mercy, but his jus- tice'' (Mrs, Barhaulcts Remarks on Mr. IVake- JieMs Enquiry, p. 72.) In the same stile, do Unitarian writers, in general, express them- selves on this subject, representing good w^orks as giving a claim of right to the divine accep- tance.
Indeed the manner, in which some Socinians of the new school^ speak of their virtues, their merits, and their title to the rewards of a happy immortality, is such as might lead us to suppose ourselves carried back to the days of the old heathen schools of the Stoics, and receiving les-* sons not from the followers of the humble Jesus, but from the disciples of the arrogant, and mag- niloquent, Chrysippus, Seneca^ or Epictetus. When Chrysippus tells us, that " as it is proper for Jupiter to glory in himself, and in his own life, and to think and speak magnificently of himself, as living in a manner that deserves to be highly spoken of; so these things are becom- ing all good men, as being in nothing exceeded by Jupiter:" (Pint. De Stoic. Repugn. Oper. torn. ii. p, 1038. ed. Xyl.) : when Seneca pro-
ISO HEATHEN NOTIONS OF MERIT, &C.
nounces, that " a good man differs only in time from God" (De Provid. cap. 1 . ) ; that " there is one thing, in which the wise man excels God, that God is wise by the benefit of nature, not by his own choice" (Epist. 5 3.); and that "it is shameful to importune the Gods in prayer, since a man's happiness is entirely in his own power," (Epist. 31.): and when Epictetus, (Disc, lib. iv. cap. 10.) represents the dying man mak- ing his address to God, in a strain of self-con- iidence, without the least acknowledgment of any one failure or neglect of duty; so that, as Miss Carter with a becoming piety remarks, it is such an address, " as cannot without shocking arrogance, be uttered by any mie born to die ;" — — when, I say, we hear such language from the ancient Stoic, what do we hear, but the sen- timents of the philosophising Christian of the present day ? and on casting an eye into the works of Priestley, Lindsey, Evanson, Wake- field, Belsham, and the other Unitarian writers, do we not instantly recognize that proud, and independent, and I had almost said heaven-de- fying, self-reliance, which had once distinguished the haughty disciple of the Stoa ?
181
NO. XVI. — ON DR. JOHN TAYLORS SCHEME OF ATONEMENT.
Page 20. (^i) — The scheme of Atonement, as it is here laid down, is that which has been maintained in the letters of Ben Morclecai, by the learned and ingenious, but prejudiced and erroneous, H. Taylor. It is substantially the same, that has been adopted by other theolo- gians, who admitting a mediatorial scheme in the proper sense of the word, have thought right to found it upon the notion of a pure be- nevolence, in opposition to that of a retributive justice, in the Deity» But I have selected the statement of it, given by this writer, as being the best digested and most artfully fortified. It seems to avoid that part of the scheme of Dr. Taylor of Norwich, which favours the Socinian principles : but as will appear on examination, it cannot be entirely extricated from them, being originally built on an unsound foundation.
With respect to the system of Dr. Taylor of Norwich, as laid down in his Key to the Apos- tolic writings, and his Scripture doctrine of' Atonement, it is obvious to remark, that it is nothing more, than an artificial accommodation of Scripture phrases, to notions utterly repugnant to Scripture doctrine. A short view of his scheme will satisfy us on this head. By a Sa-
n3
182 DOCTOR JOHN TAYLOR's
crijlce, he says (Script, doctr, ch. 2. No. 24, 25.) is meant *^ a symbolical address to God, in- tended to express before him the devotions, affec- tions, &c. by significant, emblematical actions:** and consequently, he adds, " whatever is ex- pressive of a pious and virtuous disposition, may be rngJitly included in the notion of a Sacrifice ; as prayers J thanksgivings, labours,'' &c. &c.
Having thus widened up the notion of Sacri- Jice, it becomes necessary that sacrificial atone- ment should be made of equally extensive sig- nification: and accordingly, because the word 123, which we commonly translate as making atone- ment, is, as he says, found to be applied in the Old Testament, in its general sense, to all means used for procuring any benefit, spiritual or temporal, at God's hands, whether for our- selves or others, such as obedience, a just life, sacrifices, prayers, intercessions, self-denials, &c. &:c. he therefore thinks himself justified in ex- tending to all these, that particular species of atonement, whicli is effected by sacrifice: and thereby is enabled to pronounce the Sacrifice of Christ to be a ground of atonement, without taking in a single idea, that truly and properly belongs to sacrifice, or sacrificial atonement. And so, he triumphantly concludes, (Script, doctr, kc. No. 152.) that he has made out the Sacrifice of Christ to be " truly and properly, iu tlje highest manner and far beyond any othery
I
SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. 183
piacular and expiatory, to make an atonement for sins, or take them away ; not only to give us an example, not only to assure us of remission, or to procure our Lord a commission to publish the forgiveness of sin: but moreover, to obtain that forgiveness, by doing what God in his wis- dom and goodness judged fit and expedient to be done, in order to the forgiveness of sin."
But in what, according to this explication, consists the efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice, and how has it made atonement for Sin? — He informs us himself (^A'ez/, &c. No. 148.): " Obedience, or doing the will of God, was the sacrifice of sweet smelling savour, which made atonement for the sins of the world ; in this sense, that God, on account of his (Christ's) goodness and perfect obedience, thought fit to grant unto mankind, the forgiveness of those sins that were past ; and farther, erected a glorious and perfect dispensa tion of grace, exceeding any which had gone be- fore, in means, promises and prospects, at the head of which he set his Son our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. &c. — Thus then, the obedience of Christ was the sacrifice : and the benefits procured to us by that obedience, constitute the atonement effected by it. And the nature of these benefits, and the way m which they are wrought out for us by Christ's obedience, as we find them explained by this writer, will help us to a just view of the
N 4
184 DOCTOR JOHN TAYLOR'S
true nature of that, which he calls our atone* inent.
"Truth requn-ed, says he, (Kei/y &c. No. 149.) that grace he dispensed, in a manner the most proper and probable to produce reformation and holiness. Now this is what our Lord has done. He has bought us by his bloody and procured the remission of sins, as what he did and suffered was a proper reason for granting it, and a fit way of conveying and rendering effectual the grace of God/' &c. — '' Now, he says, this could be done no otherwise, than by means of a moral hhid, such as are apt to influence our minds, and engage us to forsake what is evil, and to work that which is good," &c. — " and what means of this sort could be more effectual, than the heavenly and most illustrious exaviple of the Son of God, shewing us the most perfect obe- dience to God, and the most generous goodness and love to men, recommended to our imitation, by all possible endearments and engaging con- siderations ?" — And again he says, (Script, Doct. No. 170.) " By the blood of Christ, God dis- charges us from the guilt, because the blood of Christ is the most powerful mean of freeing us from the pollution and jiotcer of Sin," — and he adds, " it is the ground of redemption, as it is a mean of sanctificationr — What then means the blood of Christ ? — " not a mere corporeal sub- stance; in which case, as he says, it would be of
SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. 185
no more value in the sight of (lod^ than any other thino; of the same kind: nor is it to be considered, merely in relation to our Lord's death and sufferings, as if mere death or suffering could be of itself pleasing and acceptable to God :'' no, the writer informs us, (Kei/, &c. No. 146.) that the " hlood of Christ is his perfect obedience and goodness; and that it implies a character,'* which we are to transcribe into our lives and conduct. And accordingly he maintains^ (Script. Doctr. No. 185.) that " our Lord's sacrifice and death is so plainly represented, as a powerful mean of improving our virtue, that we have no sufficient ground, to consider its virtue and effi- cacy in ani/ other light.''
To what then, according to this writer, does the entire scheme of the Atonement amount? — God being desirous to rescue man from the con- sequences and dominion of his Sins, and yet desirous to effect this in such a way, as might best conduce to the advancement of virtue, thougiit fit to make forgiveness of all sins that were past, a reward of the meritorious obedience of Christ : and by exhibiting that obedience, as a model for universal imitation, to engage man- kind to follow his example, that being thereby improved in their virtue, they might be rescued from the dominion of sin : and thus making the example of Christ a " mean of sanctification," Redemption from Sin might thereby be effected.
18f6 DOCTOR JOHN TAYLOr's
This, as far as I have been able to collect
it, is a faithful transcript of tlie author's doctrine. And what there is in all this, of the nature of Sacrifice or Atonement, (at li t so far as it affects those who have lived sn]e the time of Christ,) or in what material respect, it differs from the Socinian notion, which represents Christ merely as our instructor and example, I profess myself unable to discover.
I have been thus full in my account of this writer's scheme, because by some strange over- sight, and possibly from his artful accommoda- tion of scripture phrases to his own notions, whereby he is enabled to express himself in the language of Scripture, his works have received considerable circulation, even among those whose opinions on this subject are of an opposite de- scription. Nay, the erroneous tenets of this au- thor, have been conveyed in a collection of Theological Tracts, some time since published by an able and learned Prelate, in the sister country: and the candidates for orders in this, are by authority enjoined, to receive part of their
theological instruction from his writings.
Those who wish to see the errors of this scheme more amply reviewed and refuted, I refer to the examination of the doctrine, in the Scripture Account of Sacrifices, by Mr. Portal, and in the Criticisms on modern Notions of Atonement by Dr. Richie: in the latter of which particii-
SCHEME OF ATONILMENT. 18^
larly, the fallacy of the author's principles, and the gross anihigiiity of his terms, are exposed with no less truth than ingenuity.
With respect to H. Taylor, who in his B. Mord. partli/ coincides with this writer in his explication of atonement, it is but justice to say, that he gives a view of the subject, in the main materially different : inasmuch as he represents Christ's concern for mankind, and his earnest inter- cession recommended by his meritorious obedience, to be the appointed means of his obtaining from God that kingdom, which empowers him to dis- pense forgiveness, &c. — Whereas Dr. J. Taylor makes the ohedience of Christ (with regard to such as have lived since his time) the means of redemption, as being the means of mail's im- provement in virtue : and so far from attributing any efficacy to Christ's obedience, as operating through intercession, {to which, we find from Scripture^ God has frequently bestowed his bless- ings, see Number IX. pp. 140, 141.) he considers the intercessions and prayers of good men for others, in no other light, than as acts of obe- dience, goodness and virtue. So that, in fact, the whole of his scheme, when rightly consider- ed, (excepting only with respect to those who Jived before Christ, in which part he seems in- consistent with himself, and on his own prin- ciples not easy to be understood) falls in w^th the notion of good works and moral ohedience.
188 PRESUMPTION FALSELY IMPUTED
as laid down by the Socinian. And here lies th6 secret of Mr. Belsham*s remark, (Review, &c. p. 18.) that '^ Dr. Taylor has, in general, well explained these Jewish phrases'* (viz. propitla- tio)ij sacrifice, j^edemptioti through Christ's blood, &c.) " in his admirable Key." — As Mr. Belsham rejects the notion of redemption by Christ, and of faith in Christ, in toto, (see Review, &c. pp. 18. 104. 145.) it is not difficult to assign the cause of this commendation.
KO. XVII. THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT FALSE- LY CHARGED WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF PRO- NOUNCING ON THE NECESSITY OF CHRIST's DEATH.
Page 21. (0 That men could not have been forgiven, unless Christ had suffered to purchase their forgiveness, is no part of the doctrine of Atonement, as held by the Church of England. What God could or could not have done, it pre- sumes not to pronounce. What God declares he has done, that merely it asserts : and on his express word alone is it founded. But it is to be remembered, that on this, as on many other occasions, that a priori reasoning, which so fre- quently misleads those who object to the doc- trines of OLir Church, is imputed by them to us. Not being themselves in the habit of bowing with humble reverence to the sacred word, they
TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. I89
consider not that we speak merely its sugges- tions : ^ and that if we do at any time philoso- phize, it is hut to follow, not to lead the mean-
* The language of Witsius upon this subjedt is worth at- tending to. " Supposilo cxtare ilevelationem de mystcriis, at inquiri in scnsum verborum quibus ista Rcvclatio mihi exponitur: non est in ista inquisitione ita procedendum, ut primo rationeni mcam consulam, quid ea, in idcarum ac nolionum suaruni scriniis, rei de qua agitur simile aut ad- versum habeat, ut secundum cas quas ibi inveuio notiones Terba revelationis cxponam, id unicc opcrani dans, ut sen- sum tandem aliquem quanta maxima possum commoditate lis dem ; qui istis raeis prajnotionibus optime conveniat. Sed attendendum est ad ipsa verba, quid in omnibus suis cir- cumstantiis significare apta nata sint, quidque secundum Scripturaj stilum significare solcant : atque hac via reperto sensu quem verba sme torsione per se fundunt, secure in eo acquiescendum est, omniaque rationis scita subjicicnda sunt isti sensui quem iis me verbis docet Deus." To these observations he subjoins an example of the opposite modes of investigating the sense of Scripture by the philosophizing and the humble enquirer, applying the former epithet to Socinus, and taking for the particular subje(5l of investiga- tion the passage in Joh. i. 14. 0 >.oyoq ca,^^ tyimo. — " Soci- nus ita procedit: nihil invenit in toto rationis sua? penu^ quod ipsi repraesentet, Deum ita humanse unitum naturae, ut ea unam cum ipso conslituat personam; ideoque talem con- ceptum absurdum Deoque injuriosum esse sciscit. Id sup^ point ad horum verborum cxplicaiionem se accingens: idcirco cranes ingenii sui nervos intendit, ut sensum aliquem iis ap- plicet, qui ab isthac assertionc rcmotissimus sit. Solliciiat verba singula^ solliciiat nexum eorum, Jie6tit, torquet, am* nia agit, ne id dicerc vidcantur quod dicunt. Nos longe aliterprocedendum existiraamus. Acccdimus ad banc peri-
190 PRE5LMFTI0N FALSELY IMI^UTED
ing of Scripture. To enter into the councils of the Almighty, and to decide what infinite wis- dom iniist have determined, under a constitution of things different from the present, were a spe- culation not less absurd, than it is impious. Of this, even the few writers, whose language has, by a rigorous interpretation, been forced into a ground for the above charge against the doctrine of atonement, are perfectly innocent: for it never occurred to them, to suppose a constitution of
fopam simplici atque humili mente audituri atque accepturi quidquid Deo tios placeut docere. Considcramus yerba in nativo suo significatu, et prout passim in sacris literis usur- pantur; expeudimus quid Xoyoj notet secundum phrasia Johannis, quid ytpsfj^ai, quid cra§|: considcramus quomodo alibi de hac re sacrae literae loquantur. Ex his omnibus for- mamus sensum, quern rccipimus humili fidei obsequio lir- miterque apud aniraum nostrum statuimus, Filium Dei hu- manam naturam tarn ar6le sibi junxisse, ut idem et Deus ct homo sit: et quamvis nostra ratio nihil unquam huic rei simile invenerit, tamen eam verissimam esse, quia verba Dei hoc docent. Qui ita, ut Socinus, instituunt, eos ex suo penu multa in verbum Dei inferre necesse est: qua re ci insignis fit injuria. Qui uti^ nos illi cogitationes suas ex verbo Dei hauriunt, quibus rationis suae penum locupletent, quod Deo gloriosum est," — Misc. Sacr, tom. ii. pp. 591, 692. — If the spirit which governed Socinus in his critical investigation of the sacred text, has been fairly described by Witsius in the passage which has just been cited, it must be unnecessary to add, that his followers of the present day have iu uo repeat departed from the example of t^eir Master. .
TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. I9l
things different from that, which divine wisdom has appointed.
When therefore, Grotius, StilHngfleet, and Clarke are charged ( as they are in //. Taylors B. Mord. Let. b.) with contending for " the we- cessity of a vindication of God's honour, either by the suffering of the offenders, or by that of Christ in their room," they are by no means to be con- sidered as contending, that it was impossible for God to have established such a dispensation, as might enable him to forgive the Sinner without some satisfaction to his justice, which is the sense forcibly put upon their words : but that, accord- ing to the method and dispensation which God's wisdom has chosen, there results a moral necessity of such vindication, founded in the ivisdom and prudence of a Being, who has announced himself to mankind, as an upright Governor, resolved to maintain the observance of his laws.
That by the necessity spoken of, is meant but a moral necessity, or in other words 2i fitness and propriety. Dr. Clarke himself informs us : for he tells us, (Sermon 137. vol. ii. p. 142. fol. ed.) that " when the honour of God*s laws had been diminished by sin, it was reasonable and neces- sary, in respect of God^s ivisdom in governing the world, that there should be a vindication," &c. And again, (Sermon 138. vol. ii. p. 150.) in an- swer to the question, " could not God, if he had pleased, absolutely, and of his supreme authority.
192 PRESUMPTION FALSELV IMPUTED
without any sufferings at all, have pardoned the sins of those, whose repentance he thought fit to accept ?" he says, " it becomes not us, to presume to say he had not power so to do :" but that there seems to be 2i fitness, in his testifying his indig- nation against sin : and that " the death of Christ was necessary, to make the pardon of sin recon- cileable, not perhaps absolutely with strict justice (for we cannot presume to say that God might not, consistently with mere justice, have remitted as much of his own right as he pleased) — but it was necessary, at least in this respect, to make the pardon of sin, consistent with the wisdom of God, in his good government of the world ; and to be a proper attestation of his irreconcileable hatred against all unrighteousness."
That the word necessary is imprudently used by Dr. Clarke and others, I readily admit ; as it is liable to be misunderstood, and furnishes mat- ter of cavil to those, who would misrepresent the whole of the doctrine. But it is evident from the passages I have cited, that so far from considering the sacrifice of Christ, as a debt paid to, because rigorously exacted by, the i\^i\'\\\e justice, it is re- presented by Dr. Clarke, and generally under- stood, merely as dijit expedient, deuianded by the ivisdoin of God, whereby mercy might be safely administered to sinful man. Now it is curious to remark, that H. Taylor, who so warmly objects tg this notion of a necessity of vindicating God's
TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 1 93
honour, as maintained by Clarke, &c. when he comes to reply to the Deist, in defence of the scheme of Christ's mediation, uses a mode of reasoning, that seems exactly similar. " God, he says {B, Morel ec. Let. 5.) was not made placable by intercession ; but was ready and willing to forgive, before, as well as after : and only waited to do it in such a manner, as might best shew his regard to righteousness'' — Is not this in other words saying, there was ^ fitness^ and conse- quently a moral necessity, that God should have forgiven sins through the intercession and meri- torious obedience of Christ, for the purpose of vindicating his glory as a righteous Governor ? The profound Bishop Butler makes the follow- ing observations upon the subject of this Num- ber.— Certain questions (he says) have been brought into the subject of redemption^, and de- termined with rashness,. and perhaps with equal rashness contrary ways. For instance, whether God could have saved the world by other means than the death of Christ, consistently with the general laws of his government. And, had not Christ come into the world, what would have been the future condition of the better sort of men ; those just persons over the face of the earth, for whom, Manasses in his prayer asserts, repent- ance was not appointed. — The meaning of the first of these questions is greatly ambiguous : and neither of them can properly be answered; with-
VOL. I, O
!94 tnlZ NOTION OF MEmAtiOK
out going upon that infinitely absurd supposition^ that we know the whole of the case. And per- haps the very enquiry, what would have followed if God had not done as he has, may have in it some very great impropriety, and ought not to be carried on any farther, than is necessary to help our partial and inadequate conceptions of things. (Butler's Analog?/, p. 240.) — Such were the re- flexions of that great divine and genuine philoso- pher, who at the same time maintained the doctrine of Atonement in its legitimate strictness. Will it then still be said, that divines of the Church of England uphold, as a part of that doctrine, the position, that men could not have been saved, had not Christ died to purchase their forgiveness ?
NO. XVIII. — ON THE MODE OF REASONING WHERE- BY THE SUFFICIENCY OF GOOD WORKS WITH- OUT MEDIATION IS ATTEMPTED TO BE DE- FENDED FROM SCRIPTURE.
Page 24. (^) — Dr. Priestley enumerates a great variety of texts to this purpose, in his 3rd. paper of the signature of Clemens, (Theol. Repos, vol. i. ) Dr. Sykes, in the 2d. ch. of his Scripture Doctrine of Redemption, and H. Taylor, in his 5 th and 6th Letters, (B. Mord.) have done the same. Dr. Priestley adds to these texts, the in- stances of Job, David, Hezekiah, Nehemiah, and Daniel, to shew that on good works alone^ de-
COMBATED AS UNSCRIPTURAL. I95
pendance was to be placed for acceptance : and that the pardon of sin is every where in Scripture represented, as dispensed soldi/ on account of man's personal virtue, without the least regard to the sufferings or merit of any being whatever.
A great display is constantly made of texts of this nature, by all who oppose the received doc- trine of atonement. But it is to be remarked, that as they all amount merely to this, that repent- ance and a good life are acceptable to God ; the inference derived from them can only have weight against that doctrine, when its supporters shall disclaim repentance and a good life, as necessary concomitants of that faith in Christ's merits, whereby they hope to be saved : or when it shall be made to appear from Scripture, that these are of themselves sufficient. But do those writers, who dwell so much on good works, in opposition to the doctrine of atonement, seriously mean to insinuate, that the advocates of this doctrine, en- deavour to stretch the beneficial influence of Christ's death, to the impenitent and disobedient? — Or can it be necessary to remind them, that obedience and submission to the divine will, are the main ingredients of that very spirit, which we hold to be indispensable to the producing and perfecting of a Christian faith ? And again, do they wish to infer, that because these qualities are acceptable to God, they are so in themselves, and independent of all other considerations? Is it
O 2
196 THE NOTION OF MEDIATION
forgotten, that whilst some parts of Scripture speak of these, as well pleasing to God ; others, and not less numerous, might be adduced to shew, that beside these something more is required ? Dr. Priestley indeed fairly asserts, that nothhig more is required, and that the language of Scrip- ture every where represents repentance and good works, as sufficient of' themselves to recommend us to the divine favour. (Hist, of Cor, vol. i. p. 155.) How then does he get over those decla- rations of Scripture? — He shall speak for himself. It certainly must be admitted, he says, (TheoL Hep, vol. i. p. 252.) " that some texts do seem to represent the pardon of sin, as dispensed in consi- deration of something else than our repentance, or personal virtue ; — and according to their literal sense, the pardon of sin is in some way or other procured by Christ." But he adds, that '' since the pardon of sin is sometimes represented, as dispensed in consideration of the sufferings, sometimes of the merit, sometimes of the resur- rection, and even of the life and obedience of Christ : when it is sometimes Christ, and sometimes the Spirit, that intercedes for us : when the dispensing of pardon is sometimes said, to be the proper act of God the Father ; and again, when it is Christ that forgives us : we can hardly hesitate in con- cluding, that these must be severally, ^arh'a/ re- presentations^ in the nature of figures and allu- sions, which at proper distances are allowed to he inconsistent : — and from so vague a representation
COMBATED AS UNSCRIPTURAt. I97
of a matter of fact, founded on texts, which carry with them so much the air of figure, allusion and accommodation, reason and common sense, he says, compel us to appeal to the plain general te- nor of Scripture," which he pronounces to be in favour of the sufficiency of good works. — And thus a great part of Scripture is swept away at one stroke, under tht name of figure, allusion, &c. &c. And because Christ is pointed out to us, as the means of our salvation, in every light in which he is viewed, (for as to the Father and the Holy Spirit being spoken of, as also concerned in the w^ork of our Redemption/ this creates no diffi- culty) reason and common sense compel us to pronounce him, as not connected with our salva- tion in any.
This furnishes an additional specimen of the way in which Scripture is treated, by our modern rational Commentators.- A number of texts, en- forcing a spirit of humble submission to God's will, which is by no means inconsistent with, but on the contry includes in its nature, a spirit of Christian faith, are taken literally, as not imply- ing this faith, because it is not expressly named. And then another set of passages, in which this faith is expressly named, and literally required, are set aside ^% figurative. And it is pronounced upon the whole, that common sense is to decide the matter. — And thus, by rejecting one set of passages entirely as figurative ; and then by ex-
0 3
198 THE NOTION OF MEDIATION
plaining another set literally and independently, with which the former were connected, and would have perfectly coalesced, so as to afford a satisfac- tory and consistent meaning ; the point is clearly made out. Relying upon this method^ which Dr. Priestley has discovered, of retaining whatever estahlishes his opinion, and rejecting whatever makes against it, Mr. Belsham may indeed baf^ly challenge the whole body of the orthodox, to pro- duce a single text, that shall stand in opposition to his and Dr. Priestley's dogmas.
But moreover it has been well remarked, that all such declarations in Scripture^ as promise par- don to repentance, and are thence inferred to pro- nounce repentance of itself sufficient, as they were subsequent to the promise of a Redeemer, must be altogether inconclusive, even viewed in a distinct and independent light, inasmuch as it may have been in virtue of the pre-ordained atonement^ that this repentance was accepted. And as to the force of the wordi freely, on which not only Dr. Priestley relies very much, but also Dr. Sykes in his Scrip. Docfr. of Redemp. and H. Taylor in the beginning of his Sixth Letter, (B. Mord. ApoL) it is obvious, that nothing more is meant by pas- sages that employ this expression in describing God's forgiveness of Sinners, than that this for- giveness was Jree with respect to any merits on the fart of man, or any claim which from re- pentance, or any other cause^ he might be sup«
COMBATED AS UNSCRIPTURAL. 199
posed to possess : since admitting such claim it would be not free, but earned. And in this very sense it is, that Dr. J. Taylor himself, in his Kei/y 8^x. (No. Q'J,) contends, that the word free is to be understood : " the blessing of redemption be- ing, as he says, with regard to us, of free grace —that is, not owing to any obedience oj oursr — Any other application of the term, must make the word free synonimous with uncondi- tional; in which case, forgiveness could not be a free gift, if repentance were required to obtain it ; that is, unless it were extended indiscriminately tp the impenitent as well as the penitent. So that, in fact, the very use of the word free, as applied to God's forgiveness of men, is so far from sup-r porting the opinion of the sufficiency of repent- ance in itself, that it goes to establish the direct contrary: clearly evincing, that repentance can give no claim to forgiveness. — See some excellent reasoning on this subject, in the judicious dis- courses, delivered at the Bampton Lecture, by IMr, Veysie, Serm. 6, and 7'
NO. XIX. — THE WANT OF A DISCOVERABLE CON- NEXION BETWEEN THE MEANS AND THE END, EGLUALLY APPLIES TO EVERY SCHEME OF ATONE- MENT,
Page 24. (^)— Dr, J. Taylor illustrates this matter by a famiHar parallel. (Key, S^c, No. 151.)
O 4
flOO UNDISCOVERABLE CONNEXION
*— To the question " wherein is Christ's love and obedience, a just foundation of the divine grace ?'* he answers, that he knows not how to explain himself better than by the following instance. — There have been masters willing, now and then, to grant a relaxation of study, or even to remit deserved punishment, in case any one boy, in be-^ half of the whole school, or of the ofFeuder, would compose a copy of Latin verses. This at once shewed the master's love and lenity, was a proper expedient for promoting learning and benevolence to the society of little men, training up for future usefulness, &c. — and one may say, that the kind verse-maker purchased the favour in both cases, or that his learning, industry, goodness, and com- pliance with the governor's will and pleasure, was a just ground and foundation of the pardon and refreshment, or a proper reason of granting them. This Dr. T. declares to be the best explanation he can give, of his scheme of man's redemption by Christ. And that in this there is any natural connexion between the exertions of the indivi- dual, and the indulgence granted to the rest of this little society, it is not even pretended. The whole contrivance is admitted as a good expedient or means, whereby the intended kindness of the master was to be shewn. If, in order to supply a link, whereby they may be drawn into connexion, the indulgence granted be supposed as a reivard to the exertions and obedience of the individual, as
APPLICABLE TO ALL SCHEMES. 201
is done by H. Taylor, in bis Ben. Mord. Apology : tben, unless tbis reward, in the case of Christ, be but ostensihli/ such, and intended solely as a public exhibition to mankind, of the favour with which obedience and good conduct will be viewed by the Deity, (in which case it is not a real reward, but merely a prudent expedient as before,) it must of necessity be admitted, that the trial of Christ's obedience was a principal object in the scheme of his incarnation, for without some trial of his obedience how could it merit a reward ? Now in what just sense of the word, there could have been any trial of Christ's obedience, it is for those to consider, who do not mean to degrade the Son of God to the Socinian standard.
The author of the Scripture Account of Sacri- Jices, has devised a scheme, the chief object of which is to remedy the want of connexion. In this, the sacrifice of Christ is not considered, as a wise expedient of an instituted nature merely, but as a natural inducement, whereby God*s displeasure against mankind was literally averted, by Christ's intercession and mediation recom- mended by his great zeal and interest in the sal- vation of men, manifested in the offering up his life in the cause. The author of this scheme has, with great ingenuity, accommodated to his notion, the nature of the Patriarchal, and Jewish Sacrifi- ces ; making their efhcacy to consist entirely in the force of supplication or intercession, and their nature to be that of a gift, strongly expressive of
20^ IN WHAT SENSE MAN IS SAID
homage and devotion. This author^ however, although his work contains most excellent and instructive matter, is not perfectly consistent : since, to have appointed a scheme of intercession, whereby, agreeably to rectitude, God might be in- diiced to grant forgiveness, (and that God did ap- point this scheme, the author is obliged to con- fess,) is in other words to have planned the re- demption of man through the medium of inter- cession, but not in consequence of it: — in which case, this theory falls in with the notion of insti- tuted means adopted by the rest.
But surely, upon the whole, it is not wonderful, that the grand and mysterious scheme of our Re- demption should present to the ambitious curiosity of human intellect, the same impediment, which restrains its inquisitive researches in every part of nature: — the modus operandi, the connecting link of cause and effect, being itself a mystery impe- netrable to human sagacity, equally in things the most familiar and the most obscure. On this ;5ubject, it were well, that the old distinction, laid down by Mr. Locke, were remembered by those, who would deem it an insult to have it supposed, that they were not perfectly acquainted with the writings of that eminent philosopher.
NO. XX. ON THE SCRIPTURE PHRASE OF OUR
BEING RECONCILED TO GOD,
Page 25. 0) — See TheoL Repos. vol. i. pp. 177? 17s. in which several texts are adduced, to
TO BE RECONCILED TO GOD, 203
establish this proposition. It is likewise at-: tempted to maintain it on the general ground of the divine immutability: in virtue of which, it is asserted, the sufierings of Christ can produce no change in God : and that in 7nan, conse- quently, the change is to be brought about. God is therefore not to be reconciled to men, but men to God. H. Taylor also (Beti. Mord, Apot. p. 692 — 694) contends, that " God is never said to be reconciled to the world, because he was never at enmity with it. It was the world that was at enmity with God, and was to be reconciled by coming to the knowledge of his goodness to them." He adduces texts, simi- lar to those above referred to, in confirmation of his opinion: and upon the whole peremptorily asserts, that " the New Testament knows no such language, as that God was reconciled to the world." The same ground had been before taken by Sykes, ni his Scrip. Doctr. of Redemp. (pp, 56.426.) and in his Comm. on Hehr. — "There could be no need," he says, (on Hebr. vii. 27.) " of reconciling God to man, when he had already shewn his love to man so far, as to send his Son to reconcile 7nan to God,'^
The argument adopted by these writers had been long before urged by Crellius, in support of the system of Socinus. And it deserves to be remarked, that all these writers have built their arguments, upon an erroneous acceptation of the 1
504 IN WHAT SENSE MAN IS SAID
original word, which implies reconciliation. Hammond, and after him, Le Clerc (on Matt. V. 24 ) remark, that the words KaTccXXccrjea-Qoci and ^iuXXex^TJeo-dcct have a pecuHar sense in the New Testament: that, whereas in ordinary Greek Authors they signify to be pacijied, and so reconciled, here on the other hand, in the force of the reciprocal Hithpahel among the He- brews, is imphed to reconcile one^s self to ano- ther, that is to appease, or obtain the favour of that other: and in support of this interpretation, they adduce instances from Rom. v. 10. 1 Cor. vii. 11.2 Cor. V. 20, and especially Mat. v. 24, in which last SiocXXocyyjSi rco cc^eX(pco must necessarily signify, take care that thy Brother be recon- ciled to thee, since that which goes before, is not, that he hath done thee injury, but thoii him: and this they derive from the force of the Hebrew word TVD transferred to the Greek verb, in the use of it by Jewish writers. In this sense of the words KocTocXXocTTS(r&oci and licy^XXocrrBU-Scci^ as applied in the New * Testament, all the Com- mentators concur. See Rosenmuller and Wall on 2 Cor. v. 20. and Whitby on the words, wherever they occur. Schleusner^ in his excel- lent Lexicon, confirms by several instances, the explication of the terms here contended for: and
* The application cf the word ^ia7^>^u.Tria^ai is precisely the same, as is made by the Seventy^ in their translation of 1 Sam. xxix. 4. where they speak of David's appeasing iht
TO BE RECONCILED TO GOD. 20^
Palairef, in his Ohserv. Philolog. in Nov. Test. Mat. V. 24. maintains, that this use of the terms is not confined to the Jewish writers, trans- ferring the force of the verb TTD to the Greek expression, but is frequent among writers purely Greek : he instances Theano in Opusc. Mytho- log. and Appian. Alexandr. de BelL Civil, and explains it as an elliptical form, the words ug ;^ci/o;v being understood.
It is evident then, that the writers, who have founded their objection against the propitiation of the divinity, on the use of the word recon- ciled in the New Testament, have attended rather to the force of the term, as applied in the language of the translation, than in that of the original. But, even without looking beyond the translation, it seems surprising, that the con- text did not correct their error, clearly determin- ing the sense, not only in Mat. v. 24. where it is perfectly obvious and unequivocal, as is shewn in page 26; but also in 2 Cor. v. 19, in which
anger of S^aul. E» rm illAAAArHSETAI ru Ky^w avroV, IVhercKith shall he reconcile himself to his master? according to oar comraon version. Not surely, how shall he 7'emove his own anger against his master; but, how shall he remove his master^ s anger against him; how shall he restore himself to his master's favour? If any additional instance had been wanting, to establish the use of the word in this sense among the Jewish writers, this one must proFC decisive.
206 IN WHAT SENSE MAN IS SAID
the manner of reconciling the world to God is expressly described, viz. his not imputing their trespasses unto them, that is, his granting them forgiveness. There are upon the whole but five places in the New Testament, in which the term is used icith respect to God; Rom. v. 10, and xi. 15. 2 Cor. v. 18, I9, 20. Ephes. ii. 16, and Col. i. 20, 21. Whoever will take the trouble of consulting Hammond and Whitby on these passages, will be satisfied, that the applica- tion is diametrically opposite to that, for which the Socinian writers contend. There are but two places besides, in which the term occurs, Mat. V. 24. and 1 Cor. vii. 11. in both of which the application is clear. And it deserves to be particularly noticed, that Dr. Sykes (Scrip. Doctr. of Redemp. p. 57.) sinks the former pas- sage altogether, and notices the latter alone, as- serting that this is the only one, in which the word is used, not in relation to the reconcilia- tion of the w^orld to God: and this, after having inadvertently stated in the preceding page, that there were two such passages. This will appear the less unaccountable, when it is considered, that the expression as applied in Matthew, could be got rid of by no reiinement whatever: but that the application in 1 Corinthians, (not in- deed in our translation which is not sufficiently explicit, but examined in the original,) will ap-
To BE RECONCILED TO GOD. 207
pear as little friendly to his exposition, Ham- mond and Le Clerc have abundantly evinced by tlieir interpretation of the passage.
NO. XXI. — ON THE TRUE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LAYING ASIDE OUR ENMITY TO GOD, AND BEING RECONCILED TO GOD.
Page 27. ('^) — It is well remarked in the The- ological Repository, by a writer under the sig- nature Verus, * that the laying aside our enmity to God must be a necessary qualification fovy though without constituting the formal nature oJ\ our reconciliation to God. This judicious distinction places the matter in a fair light. That God will not receive us into favour so long as we are at enmity with him, is most certain; but that thence it should be inferred, that on laying aside our enmity, we are necessarily restored to his favour, is surely an odd instance of logical de- duction.
* This writer I find to have been the Rer. Mr. Brekell ; a writer certainly deserving of praise, both for the ability with which he combated the sophistry of the heterodox, and for the boldness with which he carried the war into the very camp of the enemy.
( 20S )
\0. XXII. — ON THE PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE^ THAT THE SINNER IS THE OBJECT OF THE DI- VINE DISPLEASURE,
Page 27. (^)~Heb. x. 26, 27, For if we sin tmlfidlyi after that ive have received the hioiv^ ledge of the truth, there remaineth no more SACRIFICE FOR SINS, hut a Certain fearful
LOOKING FOR OF JUDGMENT AND FIERY INDIG- NATION, ivhich shall devour the adversaries : and again^ For we know him that hath said, vengeance helongeth unto me, I will recommence, saith the Lord: and again, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God: and again, (Rom. v. 9, 10.) Much more then, being noiv justified hy his blood, we shall be saved from ivrath through him— for if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through his Son, &c. In this last passage, it is not only clearly expressed, that we are from dis- obedience exposed to the divine displeasure, but also that the way, whereby we are rescued from the effects of that displeasure, or, as is here held an equivalent form of expression, reconciled to God, is by the death of Christ.
To quote all the passages that speak a si- milar language, were a tedious task. Nor in- deed was the voice of Revelation wanted to in- form men, that the Sinner is the object of God's 1
THE SINNER THfe OBJECT OF, ScC. 209
displeasure. Reason has at all times loudly pro- claimed this truth : and in that predominating terror, that AecmSociiA.ovtoc, which, as shewn in Number V. hag in every age and clime, disfigured or rather absorbed the religion of the Gentiles, the natural sentiment of the human mind may be easily discerned.
What is the language of the celebrated Adam Smith on this subject ? — " But if it be meant, that vice does not appear to the Deity to be, for its own sake, the object of abhorrence and aversion^ and what^ for its own sake, it is fit and right should be punished, the truth of this maxim can, by no means, be so easily admitted. If we consult our natural sentiments, we are apt to fear, lest before the holiness of God, vice should appear to be more w^orthy of punishment, than the weakness and imperfection of human nature can ever seem to be of reward. Man^ when about to appear before a being of infinite perfection, can feel but little confidence in his own merit, or in the imperfect propriety of his own conduct. In the presence of his fellow- creatures, he may often justly elevate himself, and may often have reason to think highly of his own character and conduct, compared to the still greater imperfection of theirs. But the case is quite different when about to appear before his infinite Creator, To such a being, he can scarce imagine, that his littleness and weakness
VOL. I. P
210 THE SINNER THE OBJECT OF
should ever seem to be the proper object, either of esteem or of reward. But he can easily con- ceive, how the numberless violations of duty, of which he has been guilty, should render him the object of aversion and punishment ; neither can he see any reason why the divine mdignct' tion should not be let loose without any re- straint, upon so vile an insect, as he is sensible that he himself must appear to be. If he would still hope for happiness, he is conscious that he cannot demand it froiii the Justice, but that he must intreat it from the mercy of God. Repen- tance^ sorrow, humiliation, contrition at the thought of his past conduct, are, upon this ac- count, the sentiments which become him, and seem to be the only means which he has left for appeasing that wrath which, he knows, he has justly provoked. He even distrusts the effi- cacy of all these, and naturally fears, lest the wisdom of God should not, like the weakness of man, be prevailed upon to spare the crime, by the most importunate lamentations of the criminal. Some other intercession, some other sacrifice, some other atonement, he imagines, must be made for him, beyond what he himself is capable of making, before the purity of the divine justice can he reconciled to his manifest offences.
" The doctrines of revelation coincide, in every respect, with those original anticipations of na-
THE DIVINE DISPLEASURE, 211
4ure ; and, as they teach us how little we can depend upon the imperfection of our own virtue, so they shew us, at the same time, that the most powerful intercession has been made, and the most dreadful atonement has been paid for our manifold transgressions and iniquities'' (Theory of Moral Sentiments, p. 204 — 206.)
Such were the reflexions of a man, whose powers of thinking and reasoning will surely not be pronounced inferior to those of any even of the most distinguished champions of the Uni- tarian school, and whose theological opinions cannot be charged with any supposed tincture from professional habits or interests. A layman, (and he too the familiar friend of David Hume,) whose life was employed in scientific, political and philosophical research, has given to the world these sentiments as the natural suggestions of reason. * Yet these are the sentiments which
* When these observatians were before committed to the press, I was not aware, that the pious reflexions, to which they particularly advert, arc no longer to be found, as constituting a part of that work from which they have been quoted. The fa6t is, that in the later editions of the 77^^?- ■ory of Moral Sentiments^ no one sentence appears of the extra6l which has been cited above, and which 1 had de- rived from the first edition, the only one that I possessed. This circumstance, however, does not in any degree affedl- the truth of what had been said by the author, nor the justness of the sentiments which he had uttered in a pure
P 2
212 SACRIFICE PRESCRIBED
are the scoff of sciolists and witlings. — Compare these observations of Adam Smith with what has been said on the same subject in Numbers IV. IX. and XV.
no. xxiii. instance from the book of job,
of sacrifice being prescribed, to avert god's anger.
Page 28. (y) — It was not without much sur- prise, that after having written the sentence here referred to, I found on reading a paper of Dr. Priestley's in the TheoL Bep. (vol. i. p. 404.) that the Book of Job was appealed to by him, as furnishing a decisive proof] not only, '' that mankind in his time had not the least appre- hension that repentance and reformation alo7je, without the sufferings or merit of any Being whatever, would not sufficiently atone for past offences :'* but that " the Almighty himself give^ a sanction to these sentiments." Let the Book of
and unsophisticated state of mind. Jt evinces indeed, that he did not altogether escape theinfeaion of David Hume's soci- ety ; and it adds one proof more to the many that already existed, of the danger, even to the most enlightened, from a familiar contaa with infidelity. Hovi^ far Adam Smith's partiality to Hume did ultimately carry him, may easily be collefted from his emphatical observations on the character of his deceased friend, to \v hich I shall have occasion to di- rect the reader's attention in another part of these volumes.
TO AVERT god's ANGER. 213
Job speak for itself: — The Lord said to Ellphaz the Temanite, my wrath is hindled against thee and till/ friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my Servant Job hath — Therefore take unto you now seven hullochs and seven rams, and go to my Servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering ; and my Servant Job shall pray for you : for him will I accept, lest I deal with you after your folly, (Job. xlii. 7, 8.) If this be not a suffi- cient specimen, we are supplied with another in ch. i. 4, 5. in which it is said, that after the sons of Job had been employed in feasting, Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt-offerings accord- ing to the number of them all: for Job said,
JT MAY BE THAT MY SONS HAVE SINNED, AND CURSED GOD IN THEIR HEARTS, TkuS did Joh
continually, — I leave these without comment, to confront the assertions of Dr. Priestley and to demonstrate the value of his representations pf Scripture. I shall only add, that in the very page in which he makes the above assertions, he has quoted from Job a passage, that immediately follows the former of those here cited.
p 3
{ 214 )
NO. XXIV. -ON THE ATTRIBUTE OF THE
DIVINE JUSTICE.
Page 28. (^)— Dr. Priestley (Theol Rep, vol, i, p. 41/.) asserts, that "Justice in the Deity^ can be no more than a modification of that goodness or benevolence^, which is his sole go- veming prmciple ;" from which he of course infers, that '' under the administration of God, there can be no occasion to exercise any severity on penitent offenders;" or in other words, that repentance must of itself, from the nature of the Deity, cancel all former offences ; and that the man, who has spent a life of gross vice and au- dacious impiety, if he at any time reform, shall stand as clear of the divine displeasure as he, who has uniformly, to the utmost of his power, walked before his God, in a spirit of meek and pious obedience. This is certainly the necessary result of pure benevolence : nay, the same prin- ciple followed up, must exclude punishment in all cases whatever ; the very notion of punish- ment being incompatible with pure benevolence. But surely it would be a strange property of JUSTICE, call it, with Dr. Priestley, a modifica- tion of benevolence, or whatever else he pleases, to release all from punishment, the hardened and unrelentinc^ olTender no less than the sincerely contrite, and truly humbled, penitent.
THE DIVINE JUSTICE. 215
But in his use of the term justice, as applied to the Deity, is not Dr. Priestley guilty of most unworthy trifling? Why speak of it, as "a mo- <lification of the divine benevolence/' if it be nothing different from that attribute ; and if it be different from it, how can benevolence be the '^ SOLE governing principle" of the divine admi- nistration ? — The word justice then is plainly but a sound made use of to save appearances^ as an attribute called by that name has usually been ascribed to the Deit}^ ; but in reality nothing is meant by it, in Dr. Priestley's application of the term, different from pure and absolute bene- volence. This is likewise evident, as we have iseen, from the whole course of his argument. Now could it be conceded to Dr. Priestley, that the whole character of God is to be resolved into simple benevolence, then the scheme, which by rejecting the notion of. divine displeasure against the sinner involves impunity of guilt, might fairly be admitted. But. as it has been well re- marked, "^ if rectitude be the measure and rule of that benevolence, it might rather be presum- ed, that the scheme of Redemption would carry a relation to Sinners, in one way as objects of mercy, in another as objects of punishment; that ^ God might he just, and yet the justijier of ] him that believeth in the Redeemer." See the 2d of Holmes's Four Tracts, in which he con- / firms by parallel instances, the use of the word
p4
2l6 TEXT IN JOHN DESCRIBING
zoii as applied in the above passage by Whitby in his Paraphrase. — On the subject of this Num- ber at large, see also Numbers IV. XXII. and Balguy's Essay on Redemption.
NO. XXV. ON THE TEXT IN JOHN DESCRIBING
OUR LORD^ AS THE LAMB OF GOD, WHICH TAK- ETH AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD.
Page 29. (^) — What efforts are made to get rid of those parts of Scripture, that lend support to the received doctrine of the Sacrifice of Christ, is evident from the remark made on this pas- sage, by the ingenious author of Ben Mordecai's Apology, " The allusion here/' he says, " seems to be made to the 53d chapter of Isaiah, but the Lamb is not there considered as a Lamb to be sacrificed, but as a Lamb to be sheared,'^ (Let. 7. p. 794. 2d Ed. 8vo.)— Now, upon what principle this author is enabled to pronounce, that the allusion in this place, is made to the Lamb spoken of in Isaiah, rather than to the Paschal Lamb, or to the Lamb, which under the Jewish Law was offered daily for the sins of the people, it is difficult to discover. His only reason seems to be, that in admitting the refeiv ence to either of the two last, the notion of sa- crifice is necessarily involved; and the grand object in maintaining the resemblance to a Lamb
OUR LORD AS THE LAMB OF GOD, &€. 21/
that was to be sheared, not slain, was to keep the death of Christ out of view as much as possible.
But of the manner, in which Scripture is here used to support a particular hypothesis, we shall be better able to form a right judgment, when it shall have appeared, that the reference in John is not made to Isaiah; and also, that the Lamb in Isaiah is considered as a Lamb to be slain.
The latter is evident, not only from the en- tire context, but from the very words of the prophet, which describe the person spoken of (liii. 7.) to be " brought as a Lamb to the slaugh- ter;'* so that one cannot but wonder at the pains taken to force the application to this pas- sage of Isaiah, and still more at the peremptory assertion that the Lamb here spoken of, was a Lamb to be sheared only. It is true indeed, there is subjoined, a7id as a sheep before her SHEARERS is diimh I but if Mr. Wakefield's re- marks on Acts viii. 32, in which he contends that the word translated shearer should have been rendered slayer, be a just one, the objec- tion vanishes at once. Retaining, however, the clause as it stands in the present version, that which follows, — so he openeth not his mouth, — clearly explains, that the character intended to be conveyed by the Prophet, in the whole of this figurative representation, was that of a meek
218 TEXT IN JOHN DESCRIBING
and uncomplaining resignation to suffering and death.
And this also shews us, that the passage in Isaiah, could not have been the one immediateli/ referred to by John; because in it the Lamb is introduced but incident ally, and as furnishing the only adequate resemblance to that character, which was the primary object of the Prophet's contemplation : whereas^ in the Baptist's decla- ration, that Jesus was the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the worlds the reference must naturally be to a Lamb before described, and understood, as possessed of some similar or corresponding virtue, such as St. Peter alludes to when he says, (l Peter i. 18, 19.) Ye were jtEBEEMED — ivitJi the jwecious blood of Christy as of a Lamb ivithoiit blemish. In this an allu- sion is evidently made to a Lamb, whose blood, under the Jewish Law bore analogy to that of Christ : that is, either to the Paschal Lamb, by the sprinkling of whose blood the Israelites had been delivered from destruction; or to the Lamb, that was daily sacrificed for the sins of the people, and which was bought with that half shekel, which all the Jews yearly paid, eig Xvr^ou rrjg "iffvxy]^ ot\JTuVj s^iXocG-oc(r9cx,i wspi rcov ipLi%^i' ocurtav, as the price of redemption of their Lives, to make an atonement for them. (Exod. xxx. 12. 14. 16.) With a view to this last, it is, that St. Peter most probably uses the expressions.
OUR LORD AS THE LAMB OF GOD, &C. 219
Ve ivere not redeemed icith Silver and Gold — hut ivitli the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb, &c. i. e. it is not by a Lamb purchased with Silver and Gold that you have been redeem- ed, but by Christ, that truly spotless Lamb, which the former was intended to prefigure ; who, by shedding his blood, has effectually redeemed you from the consequences of your sins; or, as the Baptist had before described him, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world; and, as St. John, who records these expressions pf the Baptist, again speaks of him in the Apo- calypse, (v. 9.) the Lamh which had been slain, and by its Blood redeemed men out of every hindred and tongue and people and nation, or in other words, that had taken away the sins of the world.
The author indeed admits, (what it was im- possible for him to deny,) that in the Apoca- lypse, Christ " is spoken of as a Lamb that was slain ;" but then he says, that " he is not spoken of as a vicarious sacrifice, for the Jews had no sacrifices of that nature." (Vol. ii. p. 789.) Be it so for the present: it is clear however, that the Lamb, to which the allusion is made in the figurative representations of Christ in the New Testament, is a Lamb that was slain and sacri- ficed; and that nothing, but the prejudices aris- ing from a favourite hypothesis, could have led this writer to contend against a truth so notori- ous, and upon grounds so frivolous.
i
( 220 )
NO. XXVI. ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD
PROPITIATION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Page 29. (^)— The word tXotcfJLot;, translated propitiation, occurs in the New Testament, but in the two passages noticed in the page here re- ferred to; viz. 1 John ii. 2. and iv. 10. Its true force, however, is obvious; since, as appears from the appHcation of the words iXcco-fjLog, iXcca-' KOfjLoci, ePiXoca-^cofjLcci, by the Seventy in the Old Testament, it corresponds to the Hebrew word ")SJ, and therefore implies, the mahing atone^ vient, and therehi/ effecting a reconciliation with, or propitiating the Deiti/,-— The Greek translation of Ezekiel (xliv. 29.) has made it sy- nonimous with nKIon, a sin offering : and thus, H. Taylor (B. Mord, p. 808.) asserts, the word should be here translated.
But it is curious to remark, that this writer has been so far led away by a desire to maintain the system which he has adopted, that in two pages after, he goes on to shew, that no one cir- cumstance belonging to the sin-offering, is ^to be found in the sacrifice of Christ. As producing indeed '^ the effect of the sin- offerings, remission of sins," he concludes it may be ^0 called, though possessing no one ingredient that enters into the composition of a sin-offering. His ra-^ dical error on the scripture use of the word re-»
THE WORD PROPITIATION. 221
Conciliation^ (which has been already examined^) prevented him from admitting the term propiti- ation^ or propitiato?'!/ sacrifice: sin-offering, he therefore substitutes^ and then endeavours to fritter this away. — It deserves to be noticed, that even Sykes, whose attachment to the orthodox opinions will not be suspected to have much biassed his judgment on this subject, considers e'^iXo^tr-jCBo-doci to be correspondent to ^23, and ex- plains both by the words expiate^ atone, propi- tiate, '' whatever the means w^ere, he adds^ by which this was to be done." Essay on Sacrifices^ pp. 132. 135.
In Rom. iii. 25. iXocgmm ^ is translated in the same sense with iXua-fjiog, a propitiation or pro- pitiatori/ offering, 9vf^o(, or is^siov being under- stood as its substantive ; and although it be true, as Krebsius observes, that the Seventy always apply this term to the Mercy-Seat, or cover- ing of the ark, yet strong arguments appear in favour of the present translation. See Sclileusner
* IAar>3fto»/— subaudiendum videtur n^nfiv aut ^y^aa, expia. toriiim sacnficium, quemadmodum eadem ellipsis frequen- tissima est apud taq 6 in voce curi^^iov, et in ^ot^irri^iov apud Auctores. Hesychius exponit KaGa^crtov eadem ellipsi, nisi substantive sumptura idem significare malis quod iXoctr^jLov pro- pitiationem, ut Vulgatus veitit consentiente Beza. Ejus generis substantiva sunt ^txarji^tov, Syo-tarw^iof, <pv\ccxrri^ioff et similia; adeoque Christus eodem modo vocabitur »^ar»!^»o»5 quo .^ao•/xo5 1 Job. ii. 2. et iv. 10. Eisner. Obs. Sacr. tonj. ii. pp. 20, 21.
222 CHRIST S DEATH DESCRIBED
on the word: also Josephus, as referred to by Krehsius and ^ Mlchaells, Feijsie, (Bampf, Led, pp. 219, 220, 221,) has well enumerated its various significations.
NO. XXVII. — ON THE TEXTS DESCRIBING CHRIST's DEATH AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN.
Page 29. (^)— Isai. liii. 5—8. Mat. xx. 28. xxvi. 28. Mark x. 45. Acts viii. 32, 33. Rom. iii. 24, 25. iv. 25. v. 6—10. 1 Cor. v. 7. xv. 3. 2 Cor. v. 21. Eph. i. 7. Col. i. 14. 1 Tim. ii. 6. Heb. i. 3. ii. 17. ix. 12—28. x. 10. 14. 18. 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. 1 Joh. iv. 10. Rev. v. 9— 12. xiii. 8. — All which, and several other passa-
* Michaelis says {Translation by Marshy vol. i. p. 187.) ** Josephus, having previously observed that the blood of the martyrs had made atonement for their countrymen, and that they were aa'^ri^ avn-^vxpv (vidlima substituta) t»$ ts i^vaq ecfjt,(x^riac, continues as follows^ xaj okx. ra onfAxroq rat sva-tQ<i)v eKsivcJV; nxi T8IAASTHPI0Y ts Gavara uvruv » ^na, 7r^ovoi» *ros Icr^uviX hio-ua-B.^^ On the usc of the "word tAar'?^*©? amongst Jewish writers, and the siridl propitiator^/ sense in which it was used by the Hellenistic Jews, I deem this passage from Josephus decisive; and I have but little hesitation in de- fying the utmost ingenuity of Socinian exposition to do away the force of its application to the subject before us.— ^ii- chaelis in p. 179, remarks, that " in Rom. iii. 25. ^^a^>?^«ol' has been taken by some in the sense of mercy-scat^ but that Kypke has properly preferred the translation, propitiatory SACRIFICE." — Michaelis was surely no superficial nor bigoted expositor of holy writ.
AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN. 223
^'es, speak of the death of Christ, in the same sa- crificial terms, that had been applied to the siii- ofFerings of old. So that they, who would reject the notion of Christ's death, as a true and real sacrifice for sin, must refine away the natural and direct meaning of all these passages : or in other words, they must new model the entire tenor of scripture language, before they can accomplish their point.
Dr. Priestley indeed, although he professes (TheoL Rep. vol. i. p. 125.) to collect " ^ll the texts, in which Christ is represented as a sacrifice either expressly or by plain reference," has not been able to find so many to this purpose, as have been here referred to. After the most careful re- search, he could discover but a very few ; and of these he remarks, that " the greater part are from one Epistle, which is allowed in other respects to abomid with the strongest figures, metaphors, and allegories :" and these being rejected, " the rest he says are too few to bear the very great stress, that has been laid upon them :" — and thus they are all discarded with one sweeping remark, that they carry with them the air of figure, and that had Christ's death been considered, as the intended antitype of the sacrifices under the law, this would have been asserted in the fullest manner^ and would have been more frequently referred to. We are here furnished with an instance, of the most expeditious, and effectual method, of evading;
1
f
224 CHRIST S DEATH DESCRIBED
the authority of Scripture. — First, overlook a con^ siderable majority, and particularly of the strong- est texts, that go to support the doctrine you op- pose : in the next place assert, that of the re- mainder, a large proportion belongs to a particu- lar writer, whom you think proper to charge with metaphor, allegory, &c. &c : then object to the residue, as too few on which to rest any doctrine of importance : but lest even these might give some trouble in the examination, explode them at once with the cry of figure, &c. &c.— This is the treatment, that Scripture too frequently receives, from those who choose to call themselves rational and enlightened Commentators.
There are two texts, however, on which Dr. Priestley has thought fit to bestow some critical attention, for the purpose of shewing, that they are not entitled to rank even with those few, that he has enumerated as bearing a plausible resem- blance to the doctrine in question. From his reasoning on these, we shall be able to judge, what the candour and justice of his criticisms on the others would have been, had he taken the trouble to produce them. The two texts are, Isai. liii, 10. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin : and 2 Cor. v. 21, He made him sin for us, ivho hnew no sin, that ive might he made the righteousness of God in him.
Against the first, he argues from the disagree- ment in the versions, which he observes may lead
AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN. 225
US to suspect some corruption in our present co- pies of the Hebrew text. Our translation, he says, makes a change of person in the sentence — HE hath put him to grief— when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, &c. in which, he adds, it agrees with no ancient version whatever. In the next place, he asserts, that the Syriac alone retains the sense of our translation, and at the same time remarks that this version of the Old Testament is but of little authority. He then gives the reading of the clause, by the Seventy and the Arabic, If ye offer a sacrifice for sin, your Soul shall see a long- lived offspring. He concludes with the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan, which is different from all. And from the whole he draws this result, that the uncertainty as to the true reading of the original, must render the passage of no authority. (TheoL Rep, vol. i. p. 127.)
But the real state of the case is widely different from this representation: for 1. our translation does not absolutely pronounce upon the change of person, so as to preclude an agreement with the ancient versions. 2. The Syriac is not the only version that retains the sense of ours : the Vulgate, which Dr. P. has thought proper to omit, exactly corresponding in sense. 3. The Syriac version of the Old Testament, so far from being of little authority, is of the very highest. 4. The concurrence of the LXX and the Arabic is not
VOL. I. ^ Q
226 Christ's death described
Ti joint but a single testimony, inasmuch as the Arabic is known to be httle more than a version of the *LXX, and consequently can lend no far- ther support, than as verifying the reading of the LXX, at the time when this version ivas made : and that it does not even authenticate the reading of the LXX at an earlij day, may be collected from the Prolegom. of Walton^ and Kennicot's State of the Hebr, text, as referred to in the note below. 5. The Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan. is remarkable (as Bishop Lowth states in his Pre-- Urn, Dissert,) *' for a wordy allegorical explana- tion/' so that an exactness of translation is not here to be expected. And, lastl}^, the apparent differences of the versions, may be explained by^ and fairly reconciled to, the present reading of the Hebrew text.
These several points will be best explained, by beginning with the last. The state of the Hebrew text, as it stands in all our present bibles, at least in such of them as I have consulted, viz. Walton's Polyglot, Michaelis, Houbigant, Kennicot, Doe-f derlein, &c. and scarcely undergoing any variation however minute, from the prodigious variety of copies examined by Kennicot and De Rossi, is as follows, tyty in^*> )^^\ m^^"* w-:^ a^i^ u^'^wn ax. Now these words, as they stand, manifestly admit
* Sec Bishop Lozotli's PreUininary Dissert, to his Transla- Hon of Isaiah — and Walton's Polyglot Prolegom. 15. — also Kennicofs State of the Hebr, Text. vol. ii. pp. 453, 454,
AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN. 227
of a two-fold translation, according as the word :yt'D is considered to be of the second person fnasciiline, or the third person feminine, — viz. wJien THOU slicilt mahe his sotd an offering Jor sin, or when his soul shall make an offering for sin : and though, witii Ludovicus de Dieu, our present translation of the Bible has followed the former in the text, yet has it with Cocceius, Mon- tanus, Junius and Tremellius, Castellio, and al- most every other learned expositor of the Bible, retained the latter, inserting it in the margin, as may be seen in any of our common Bibles. It de- serves also to be remarked, that in the old edi- tions of our English Bible, (see Matthewes, Cranmers or the Great Bible, and Taverner's; see also the Bibles in the time of Elizabeth, viz. the Geneva and Bishops Bibles ; see all in short that i^xece&^dJamess translation,) this latter read- ing is the only one that is given : and it should be observed, (see Newcome''s Historic. Vleiv, p. 105) that one of the rules prescribed to the tran- slators employed in the last named version, which is the one now in use, was, — '- that where a He- brew or Greek word admitted of tico proper senses, one should be expressed in the context, and the other in the margin." Thus it appears, that Dr. Priestley must have glanced his eye, most cursorily indeed, upon our English transla- tion, when he charges it so peremptorily with the abrupt change of person.
GL 2
228 CHRIST S DEATH DESCRIBED
Again^ this very translation, which, beside tlie older expositors above referred to, has the support of Vitringa and Bishop Lowth, and is perfectly consistent with the most accurate and gramma- tical rendering of the passage in question, agrees sufficiently with the ancient versions. In sense there is no difference^ and whatever variation there is in the expression, may be satisfactorily ac- counted for from a farther examination of the original. Thus in the Vulgate it is rendered, IVhen he shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see, &c. — and in the Syriac^ the penalty o^ sin is laid upon his soul, (i. e. in other words, his soul is made an offering for sin ) that he might see. See. Now the first is a literal translation of the Hebrew^ if only instead of ty^DT) be read D''C>%* which we may readily suppose some copies of the Hebrew to have done, without introducing the smallest uncertainty into the text. The se- cond will also be found a literal version, if for L^^n be read U^^r\, which may be taken passively, shall be made. Now it appears from Kennicot's various readings, that one MS. supports this read- ing. But there is a remark on this head made by Houbigant, (and which has been overlooked both by Bishop Lowth, and the commentator on
* Doetlerlciu translates as if the word were CZ)''U;>, ubi vitam suam^ ut piaciilum^ infcrposucrlt ; and adds, that the book 6'o/iar (Purascha aiyi) particularly warns us that it is, so to be read, not CDii^rj.
AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN. 229
Isaiah who has succeeded him, ^) that seems to deserve considerable notice. The word, he says, should he dt^D, in the passive voice : for that:* as Morinus observes, the Jews, before the vowel points were introduced, were used to mark the passive by the letter *> interposed ; and that here, this Chaldaism had been allowed to remain by the transcriber — see Houbigant in locum.
Again, with respect to the LXX version of this passage, (for as to the Arabic, it need not be taken into account, for the reasons before stated,) the difference between it and the last mentioned translation is not so great, as on the first view might appear. It is true, the reading of the LXX, as given in our Polyglot, is eav Scots, if ye offer: but it is remarked by Bishop
* Mr. Dodson was here intended, as being the only per- son, who (at the date ot tiie first publication of this work) had given to the public a version of Isaiah later than that of Bishop Lowth, But the observation equally applies to Bishop Stock, who has given the latest translation of the Prophet, and who has in like manner overlooked this re- mark : for whilst he renders the word in 2l passive sense, If Ins life shall be made a trespass-offering, he assigns for it a wrong reason ; deriving the passive signilication from a sup- posed leilective import of the verb — should be made, or (he says) should render itself, forgetting, that if this latter sense belonged to the verb, it would have been given in the form Ilithpahel, which clearly is not that of the verb CD^u;n. ' — Dathe's translation of the passage is decisive for the passive signification of the verb : Quodsi vita ejus ut sacrificiu/n pro pcccads oblatafuerit.
a 3
230 CHRIST S DEATH DESCRIBED
Lowth, that some copies of the LXX read Scoroci, shall be offered; which agrees exactly with the Syriac. Indeed^, as Mr. Dodson very properly observes^ Scotch may be considered the true read- ing of the LXX^ not only on the authority of Clemens R. and Justin, who read it so ; but also from the custom, which prevails in Greek MSS. of writing g instead of a;. This practice is no- ticed by Walton, in his edition of Clem. R. (p. 1 42) on the words TTooToewsrs '/ifjuocg stt' avrco, and is well known to all, who are conversant in Greek MSS as obtaining not only at tlie termi- nation of words, as in tlie instance taken from Clemens^ but in all parts of the word indiffer- ently. This reading is likewise approved by Capellus.* Thus far then, (and this it is to be noted is the most important clause in the pas- sage,) the disagreement between the LXX and the other ancient versions is done away. That it differs both from them, and the Hebrew text, in some other parts of the sentence, must be al- lowed; but that from an extensive collation of the several MSS. (which has now happily been
* ^' Aliquando diversitas citationis-a LXX posita est in tliccrsa le(51ione variantiiim Codd. Grcecorum tuv LXX \\t Esa. liii. 10, editio Sixtina twj- LXX habcf, £«> ^arz vi^i^ otfjta^Tioci, si dederitis pro pcccato^ quae corrujita est le6tio. At Justinus cum quibusdam codicibus habetj zxv oarui, si datus fuerit. quae genuina est lectio rcspoiidens llebrcco." Criiica ^Acra.i Ludov, CapeL pp. 529, 530.
AS A SACRIFtCE FOR SIN. 231
at length undertakeii^*^) even these differences may yet be removed, there is much reason to expect. The confirmation of the present read- ing of the Septuagint by the Arabic version, is by no means an argument against this ; as that version is not above 900 years old, and may therefore have been derived from copies of th© Septuagint, not the most perfect. Besides, it deserves to be remarked, that Bishop Lowth (Prelim. Diss.) pronounces the Septuagint ver- sion of Isaiah, to be inferior to that of any other book in the Old Testament; and in addition to this, to have come down to us in a coadition ex- ceedingly incorrect.
Upon the whole then, since the present state of the Hebrew text has been shewn to agree with the Syriac, the Vulgate, (both of which, it should be noted, were taken from the Hebrew ; one in the first, the other in the fourth century,) with our English translation, and in a material part even with the LXX, we may judge, with what fairness. Dr. Priestley's rejection of the present text, on the ground of the disagreement of the translations with it and with each other,
* Unhappily^ I must now add, the prosecution of that most valuable work, the completion of which was so eagerly anticipated at the date of the first publication of this trea- tise, has been interrupted by the stroke of death, (see p. 93.) so that the collation here alluded to still remains ? mighty desideratum.
&4
232 Christ's death described
has been conducted. His omission of the Vul- gate: his overlooking the marginal translation of our present, and the text of our older English Bibles, and pronouncing peremptorily on their contents in o})position to both : his stating the Arabic as a distinct testimony, concurring with the LXX: and his assertion, that the Syriac version of the Old Testament is confessed to he of little authority, when the direct contrary is the fact, it being esteemed by all biblical scholars as of the very highest: — and all this done to darken and discard a part of holy writ, — cannot but excite some doubt, as to the knowledge, or the candour, of the critic.
With respect to the Syriac version, Bishop Lowth, in his Prelim. Dissert, thus expresses himself. After describing the Chaldee para- phrase of Jonathan, which he states to have been made about or before the time of our Sa- viour, he says, " the Syriac stands next in order of time, but is superior to the Chaldee in use- fulness and authority, as well in ascertaining, as in explaining, the Hebrew text : it is a close translation of the Hebrew, into a language of near affiiiitij to it : it is supposed to have been made as early as the first century^ — Doctor Kennicot also (State of the Hehr. text, vol. ii. p. 355) speaks in the strongest terms of this ver- sion, " which he says, being very literal and very ancieiit, is of inestimable value ;" — he con-
AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN. 233
eludes it to have been " made about the end of the first century, and that it might consequently have been made from Hebrew MSS. almost as old as those, which were before translated into Greek :" and he of course relies on it, for many of the most ancient and valuable readings. The language of De Rossi is, if possible, still stronger. " Versio haec antlquissima ordinem ipsum ver- borum sacri textus et literam presse sectatur ; et ex versionihus omnibus antiquis purior ac te- nac'ior hahetury (Var, Led, Vet, Test, Pro- leg, p. xxxii.) Dathe, also, both in his preface to the Syriac Psalter, and in his Opuscula, pro- nounces in the most peremptory terms in favour of the fidelity and the high antiquity of the Sy- riac Version. In the latter work particularly, he refers to it as a decisive standard by which to judge of the state of the Hebrew text in the second century. Dath, Opusc, Coll. a Rosenm.p. 1/1. In this high estimate of the * Syriac ver-
* Although I am here only concerned with the Syriac \ Version of the Old Testament, yet I cannot omit the op- 1 portunity of noticing a judicious and satisfactory defence of the high antiquity of what h called the Old Syriac Version of the NezG Testament, lately given to the public by Dr. > Laurence. That this version, or the Pcshito as it is usually named for distin<5tion, was the production of the Apostolic 1 age, or at least of that which immediately succeeded, had . been the opinion of the most eminent critics both in early f and modern times. The very learned J. D. Michaelis has maintained the same opinion, in hi« Introduction to the New
234 CHRIST S DEATH DESCRIBED
sion, these great crlticks but coincide with the suffrages of Pocock, Walton, and all the most learned and profound Hebrew scholars, who in general ascribe it to the Apostolic age — (see Po* cock, pref. to M'lcah. and JValton's Prolegonu
13.) DR. PRIESTLEY howcvcr has said, that
" it is confessed to be of little authority ! /"
I have dwelt much too long upon this point: but it is of importance that it should be well un- derstood, what reliance is to be placed on the hnowledge, and what credit to be given to the assertions, of a writer, wdiose theological opini- ons have obtained no small degree of circulation in the sister island, and whose confident assump- tion of critical superiority, and loud complaints against the alleged backwardness of divines of the established church in biblical investigation, might draw the unwary reader into an implicit admission of his gratuitous positions.
I come now to examine his objections against the second text — He made him sin for us, who
Testament, vol. ii. p. 29 — 38. But in this he has not re- ceived the support of his English annotator, Mr. Marsh, who contends that we have no sufiicient proof of the exist- ence of this version at a period earlier than the fourth cen- turyj ibid. p. 551—554. Dr. Laurence has, however, clearly shewn, that Mr. Marsh's objediions are not formi* dablc ; and has treated the subje6i in such a manner as to evince, that the alleged antiquity of the Version stands upon the strongest grounds of probability. See Laurence' i Dissert* upon Hie Logos f p. 67 — 74*
AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN. 235
knew no sin, that ive might be made the righ- teousness of God in him. — In this passage, the word ocfjLuoTioc, which is translated sin, is con- sidered by Hammond, Le Clerc, Whitby, and every respectable Conunentator, to mean a sin ojfering or sacrifice for sin ; it is so translated expressly by Primate Nevvcome in his new Ver- sion. That this is the true meaning of the word, will readily be admitted, when it is considered that this is the application of it in the Hebrew idiom; and that Jews translating their own lan-^ guage into Greeks would give to the latter^ the force of the corresponding words in the former. And that they have done so, is evident from the use of the word through the entire of the Greek version of the Old Testament, to which the Apostles, when speaking in Greek, would natu- rally have adhered. Dr. Middleton, in his an- swer to Dr. Bentley, remarks, that " the whole New Testament is written in a language peculiar to the Jews; and that the idiom is Hebrew or Syriac, though the words be Greek." Michaelis also says, '' the language of the New Testament is so intermixed with Hebraisms, that many native Greeks might have found it difficult to understand it." (Introd, to N. T. vol. i. p, 100.) Ludovicus Capellus, (in speaking of the Greek translators of the Old Testament, whose style he says is followed by the writers of the New,) asks the question, " Quis nescit, verba quidem
236 Christ's death described
esse Graeca, at phrases et sermonis structurani esse Hebraeani?" (Crit, Sacr. p. 522.) And Doc- tor Campbell, in his Preliminary Dissertations, pronounces almost in the words of Capellus, " The phraseology is Hebrew, and the words are Greek." =^ The justice of these observations,
* Ernesti affirms, "Stilus No vi Testamenti recte dicatur heir ceo-gr (ecus, ^'' See p. 82, Inst. Interp. Nov, Test, Indeed the observations of this writer (p. 73 — 88.) are par- ticularly worthy of attention. If the reader should be de- sirous to see this curious and interesting subjedl of the style of the New Testament fully and satisfa6torily handled, I refer him to the last named work ; also to Michaelis's IVth chapter on the Language of ilte New Testametit^ (IntrO' duction^ &c. vol. i. p. 97—200) and particularly to Dr. Campbell's first and second Preliminar}j Dissertations to his Four Gospels^ &c. At the same time, 1 must differ widely from Dr. Campbell, when he refers (as he docs in p. 20. vol. i.) to the Bishop of Gloucester's Doctrine of Grace^ for the best refutation of the objections against the inspiration of Scripture derived from the want of classic purity in its language. I would on the contrary direct the reader's attention to the Dissertation on the principles of Human Eloquence^ in which the bold paradoxes of the Bishop are set aside, and the argument placed upon a sound and legitimate basis, by the learned Dr. Thomas Leland, formerly a Fellow of this University.
The Bishop, it is well known, had held, that the want of purity in the writings of the New Testament supplies in itself a proof of their divine original ; and had defended this position upon reasons nearly subversive of every just notion of the nature of human eloquence. Dr. Leland, on the contrary, with a duG regard to the principles of eloquence,
I
AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN. 237
as applying particularly to the expression in the present text, is evinced in numerous instances, adduced by Hammond and Whitby in locum. And to this very text, the passage from Isaiah,
of taste, and of common sense, and in the direct mainte* nance of them all against the attacks of this formidable assailant, more discreetly and successfully contended for the truth of this proposition, that '' whatever rudeness of style may be discoverable in the writings of the New Tes- tament, it can afford neither proof nor presumption that the authors were not divinely inspired." See p. 97, or rather indeed the whole of the judicious discussion from p. 88 to p. 118 of the Dissertation. This drew forth a reply in defence of the Bishop, which was distinguished more for point and sarcasm than for ingenuity and strength. Suspi- cion early fixed upon Dr. Ilurd as the author. The letters of Warburton and Ilurd lately published, prove the suspicion to have been just. It appears also, that Warburton himself took considerable pains to have the pamphlet printed and circulated in Ireland, {Letters, &c. pp. 352. 354.) in the confident expedlation, that the Irish Professor would be completely put to silence. The effect however was other- wise. The Professor returned to the charge with renovated vigour ; and by a reply, distinguished by such ability as proved to the opposite party the inexpediency of continuing the contest, closed the controversy. How complete in the public opinion, was Dr. Leland's triumph over both his mitred opponents, may easily be collected from the fa6l, that however anxious to give extended circulation to the castigatory Letter before it received an answer, they both observed a profound silence upon the subject ever after; and that the Letter to Dr, Lclancl, remaining unacknow- ledged by the author, was indebted for its farther publicity to the very person against whom it was dire(5lcd, who
238 Christ's death described
which has just been discussed bears an exact correspondence : for, as in that his soul, or hfe, was to be made a:Di^, uiJLoi^nx, or as the LXX render it, ttbdi uf^ocoriccg, a shi offering, * so here
deemed it not inexpedient, in a new edition of his tradls, to give it a place between the Dissertation which caused it and the defence which it occasioned. The critical decisions of the day were decidedly in favour of Dr. Leland, A late Review pronounces, that Leland " in the opinion of all the world completely demolished his antagonist." (Edinb. Rev. vol. xiii. p. 358.) The Critical reviews for July and November, 1764, contain some n\astcrly pieces of criticism upon the Dissertation and the Letter. But in no work is there a more striking or more honourable tes- timony borne to Dr. Lcland's superiority in this controversy, than in that which is entitled Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian ; particularly in the Dedication and Preface prefixed to the Tzdo Tracts^ which the eloquent editor de- scribes as " Children, whom their parents were afraid or ashamed to acknowledge," and which he therefore (com- passionately it certainly cannot be said) determines to pre- sent to the public notice. Of these Tzco Tracts Dr. Hurd's well known Letter to Dr. Jortin On the delicacy of friend* ship is one, and his Letter to Dr, Leland is the other : and on the subje<5t of these tracts, by which, it is added, AVar- burton was most extravagantly llattercd, Leland most pe- tulantly insulted, and Jortin most inhumanly vilified, severe justice is iniiicted upon the author, by the indignant vin^ dicator of the two respectable characters that had been so
*In reference probably to the very words in this passage it is, that our Saviour declares, (Matt. xx. 28.) that he gave T*}* -^v^vit uvTn Ayr^ov avT» <7ro70\uv, or as St. Paul after- wards expresses it, (1 Tim. ii. 6.) «vT»^yT§o» VTreg ^rayTwir.
1
AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN, 239
Christ is said to have been made ccf^oconoc, a sin offering; and /b/* iis, as it vmst have been from what is immediately after added, that he hneiv no sin. For the exact coincidence between these
unworthily attacked. General opinion has long appropri- ated this publication to a name of no mean note in the republic of Letters. Undoubtedly the vigour of concep- tion, the richness of imagery, and the splendour of didlion, displaced in those parts of the work which the Editor claims as his own, are such as must reflect honour upon any name. At the same time, it is much to be lamented, that talents and attainments of so high an order as manifestly belong to the writer, should have been devoted to pur. poses so little congenial with the feelings of benevolence ; and that the same spirit, which pressed forward with such generous ardour to cast the shield over one reputation, should dire<5t the sword with such fierce hostility against another; and exult in inflicting the very species of wound, which it was its highest glory to repel.
The eulogium pronounced upon Dr, Leland, I here seize the opportunity of extracting from this performance. It is sketched by the hand of a master, and is too creditable to the memory of the individual, to be passed over by any one who takes an interest in what relates either to the man, or to the University of which he was an ornament. " Of Leland, my opinion is not, like the Letter-writer's, founded upon hear-sa} evidence; nor is it determined solely by the great authority of Dr. Johnson, who always men- tioned Dr. Leland with cordial regard and with marked respedt. It might, perhaps, be invidious for me to hazard a favourable decision upon his Jlistorjj of Ireland; because the merits of that work have been disputed by critics; some of whom, are, I think, warped in their judgments, by lite- rary, others by national, and more, I have reason to be-
240 Christ's death described
passages, Vitringa (Isai. liii. 10) deserves par- ticularly to be consulted. Among other valuable observations, he shews, that Treoi ocf^ocpriocg, vttbo ufJLocoTiocg, and ccfjuotoTtoCy are all used by the
lieve, by personal prejudices. But I may Avith confidence appeal to Writings, which have long contributed to public amusement, and have often been honoured by public approbation ; — to the Life of Philip^ and to the Transla- tion of Demosthenes^ which the Letter'Writer professes to have not read, — to the judicious Dissertation upon Elo- quefice, which the Letter-ixriter did vouchsafe to read, before he answered it, — to the spirited Defence of that Dis- sertation which the Letter ^writer ^ probablij^ has read, but never attempted to answer. The Life of Philip contains many curious researches into the principles of government established among the leading states of Greece: many saga- cious remarks on their intestine discords; many exa6l de- scriptions of their most celebrated characters, together with an extensive and correal view of those subtle in- trigues, and those ambitious projects, by which Philip, at a favourable crisis, gradually obtained an unexampled and fatal mastery over the Grecian Republics. In the Trans- lation of Demosthenes^ Iceland unites the man of taste, with the man of learning, and shews himself to have possessed, not only a competent knowledge of the Greek language, but that clearness in his own conceptions, and that anima- tion in his feelings, which enabled him to catch the real meaning, and to preserve the genuine spirit, of the most perfect orator that Athens ever produced. Through the Dissertation upon Eloquence, and the Defence of it, we see great accuracy of erudition, great perspicuity and strength of style, and, above all, a stoutness of judgment, which, in traversing the open and spacious walks of literature,
AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIV. $4 I
Greek writers, among the Jews, in the same sense. Several decisive instances of this in the New Testament, are pointed out by Schleusner, on the word ccfjcocoricc.
disdained to be led captive, either by the sorceries of a self-deluded visionary, or the decrees of a self-created despot.'* Tracts by Warburton and a JVarburioniariy pp. 193, 194. In the very year, in which these observa- tions on Dr. Leland's literary chara6ler were given to the public, three volumes of his Sermons issued from the Dub- lin press ; and, though posthumous, and consequently not touched by the finishing hand of the author, they exhibit X specimen of pulpit eloquence, not unworthy of ths Translator of Demosthenes and the Historian of Ireland, To these Sermons there is prefixed a brief but interesting and well-written life of the author, from which it appears, that the amount of his literary produdlions exceeded what have been here enumerated, — The extract which I have made from the Tracts^ although I do not accede to its justice in every particular, being disposed to attribute some* zshat less io the Translation of Demosthenes^ and a vast deal more to the History of Ireland^ yet I could not deny myself the gratification of noticing, in connexion with tha fiame of Leland ; not only, as being highly creditable to the memory of a distinguished member of the University with which I am myself so closely conne6ted ; but, as supply- ing one of the few instances, in which a provincial writer of this part of the empire has obtained due honour in the sister country. — In concluding this long uot^, which has been almost exclusively dedicated to Do6tor Leland, I cannot forbear asking the question, whether it is to be ascnbed to ignorance or to fraud, that in a recent London edition of his Translation of ths Orations of Dsmosthsncs, (viz. 3805.) his designation in the tiila is that of Fello-ji of Tri- VOL. I. R
242 CHRIST S DEATH DESCRIBED
Now from this plain and direct sense of tfe passage in 2 Cor. supported by the known use of the word ocf^uoricc in Scripture language, and maintained by the ablest Commentators on Scripture^ Dr. Priestley thinks proper to turn kway, and to seek in a passage of Romans (viii. 3.) to which this by no means necessarily refers, a new explanation, which better suits his theory, and which, as usual with him, substitutes a figurative, in place of the obvious, and literal sense. Thus, because in Romans, God is said to have sent his Son in the likeness of sinful fleshy ev ofjLOtufJLocn cocoKog oif/^ocor^g, he would in- fer, that when in 2 Cor. God is said to have made him sin, it is merely meant that God had made him in the likeness of sinfulfesh. Nor is he content with this unwarrantable departure from the language of the text, but he would also insinuate (Th. Rep, vol. i. p. 128.) that the words •oTgji oc^oc^Tixg, which occur in the text in Romans, and which, we have already remark- ed, are commonly used in Scripture language for a sin offering, and are so rendered in this place by Primate Newcome, merely imply for tis, availing himself of our present version, which translates the words, ybr sin. Such vague and
niti^ College, Oxford. Was the translation of the Greek orator supposed too good to have come from Ireland; or was it imagined, that the knowledge of its true origin would diminish the profits of ita circulation I
AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN. 24.1
^uncritical expositions of Scripture may serve any purpose, but the cause of truth. I have already dwelt longer upon them than they deserve: and shall now dismiss them without farther remark.
NO. XXVIII. ON THE WORD KATAAAAFH TRANS- LATED AS ATONEMENT IN ROM. V. IK
Page 29. (^) — The word ycocrotWocy/i, which is here translated atonement, it is remarked by Sykes, (On Redemp. pp. 56, 201.) and H. Taylor, (B, Mord, p. 807.) and others who oppose the received doctrine of the atonement, should not have been so rendered, but should have been translated reconciliation. The jus- tice of this remark I do not scruple to admit. The use of the verb and participle in the former verse, seems to require this translation. And this being the single passage in the New Tes- tament, in which it is so rendered, being else- where uniformly translated reconciling or recon- tiUation, (Rom. ch. xi. 15.2 Cor. v. 1 8, 19.) and being no where used by the LXX in speaking of the legal atonements^ and moreover there being an actual impropriety in the expression, WE have received * the atonement, I feel no difficulty in adopting this correction.
*It will be worth the while of those common f.itors, who contendj (as we ha?e noticed in Number XX.) that the
R 2
244 ON THE USE OF THE WORD
But whilst I agree with these writers, in th« use of the word reconciliation in this passage, I differ from them entirely in the inference they would derive from it. Their notion of recon- ciliation altogether excludes the idea of propiti- ation and atonement, as may be seen in Number XX. pp. 202, 203, whereas by these, it is manifest both from the reason of the thing and the ex- press language of Scripture, reconciliation is alone to be effected, as is proved in the same Number. It deserves also to be observed, that though the word atonement is not used in out version of the New Testament, except in the single instance already referred to, yet in the original, the same, or words derived from the same root, with that w^hich the LXX commonly use when speaking of the legal atonement, are not infrequently employed in treating of the death of Christ. Thus iXoca-KOfjioct and s^iXoia-Jcofjioci, which signify to appease, or make propitious, are almost always used by the LXX for nSD, which by translators is sometimes rendered to make atonement for, and sometimes to recon-^ die: and in Hebrews ii. If. we find it said of
reconciliation spoken of in the N. T, means only our being reconciled to God, or laying aside our enmity against him, —to consider, in what sense we are said, in this passage, to hafc RECEIVED the reconciliation* What rules of language can they adopt, who talk of a man's receiving the laying aside of his otvh sfipiities.
ATONEMENT IN ROM. V. 11. 245
our Lord, that he was a merciful and faithful high Priest^ to make reconciliation for {Big to iXcca-icea-Soci) the sitis of the people; and again, he is twice in 1 John, entitled iXcca-fjcog, a propi^ tiation, &c. see Number XXVI. p. 220. Now in all these, the word atonement might with propriety have been used; and as the reconcili- ation which we have received through Christ, was the effect of the atonement made for us by his death, words which denote the former simply, as ycocTocXXoiyrj and words derived from the same root, may when applied to the sacrifice of Christ, be not unfitly expressed by the latter, as con^ taining in them its full import.
NO. XXIX. — ON THE DENIAL THAT CHRISt's DEATH IS DESCRIBED IN SCRIPTURE AS A SIN OFFERING,
Page 30. (f) — I have, in the page here referred to, adopted the very words of Dr. Priestley himself. (Theol. Rep. v. i. 123.) Dr. Priestley, however, is far from admitting the death of Christ, to be of the nature of a sin-offering. That it is but compared in Jigure to that species of sacrifice, is all that he thinks proper to concede. — H. Taylor (Ben. Mord, p. 811 — 821) contends strenuously, and certainly with as much ingenuity as the case will admit, in support of the same point. — What has been urged, in Num- ber XXVI I. upon this head, will however \
R 3
246 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
trust be found sufficient, At all events, it fur- nishes a direct reply^ to an argument used by the former of these writers, (TheoL Rep, vol. i. pp. 128^ 129.) in which, for the purpose of proving that the " death of Christ was no pro- per sacrifice for sin, or the antitype of the Jew- ish sacrifices," he maintains, that " though the death of Christ is frequently mentioned or al- luded to by the Prophets, it is never spoken of as a sin-offering ;" and to establish this po- sition, he relies principally on his interpreta- tion of Isai. liii. 10, which has been fully ex- amined and refuted in the aforementioned Number.
In addition to what has been advanced, in that Number, upon the other text discussed in it, namely 2 Cor. v. 21, I wish here to notice the observations of Dr. Macknight and Rosenmiil- ler. The note of the former upon it is this : " Af^oiDTiccv, a sin offering. There are many passages in the Old Testament, where ufjuoconocj sin, signifies a sin-offering. Hosea iv. 8. Ihei/ (the priests) eat tip the sins (that is, the sin- oflferings) of my people, — In the New Testament likewise, the word sin hath the same significa- tion, Heb. ix. 26. 28. xiii. 11." — To the same purport, but more at large, Pilkington, in his Remarks, &c. pp. l63, l64. — Rosenmiiller ob- serves as follows, *^ AfjLocDTiu, victima pro peccato^ Vit Hebr. ptt^K Levit. vii, 3. HKOn et rWiU^, quod
DENIED TO PE A SJN OFFERING, 24/
saepe elliptice ponitur pro TNOT HX ut Ps. xl. 7, Exod. xxix. 14. pro quo JLXX usurpant ttboi ct[jLocoTiocg, sc. ^ua-iocy Levit. v. 8. 9* H.aliisque locis. Aliis abstractuni est pro concreto, et sub- audiendum est co^b, pro: ug oc^jlocdtocvovtoc eTToirjo'ej/y tractavit eum ut peccatorem ; se gessit erga euni, uti erga peccatorem. Sensus est idem."
NO. XXX. — ON THE SENSE IN WHICH CHRIST IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE TO HAVE DIED FOR US,
Page 30. (^) — Dr. Priestley's remarks on this subject deserve to be attended to, as they fur- nish a striking specimen of the metaphysical ingenuity, with which the rational expositors of the present day, are able to extricate them- selves from the shackles of Scripture language. Christ being frequently said in Scripture to have died FOR us, he tells us that this is to be inter- preted, dying on our account, or for our hene^ Jit. " Or if, he adds, when rigorously inter- preted, it should be found, that if Christ had not died, ive must have died, it is still however only consequentially so, and by no means pro- perly and directly so, as a substitute for us: for if in consequence of Christ's not having been sent to instruct and reform the world, mankind had continued unreformed ; and the necessary consequence of Christ's coming, was his death
R 4
248 IN WHAT SENSE
by whatever means, and in whatever manner it was brought about: it is plain, that there was, in fact, no other alternative but his death or ours ; how naturally then was it, especially to writers accustomed to the strong figurative ex- pression of the East, to say that he died in our STEAD, without meaning it in a strict and proper sense?" — Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 199.
Here then we see, that had the sacred writers every where represented Christ, as dying in our stead, yet it would have amounted to no more, than dying on our account, or for our henefit, just as under the present form of expression. And thus Dr. Priestley has proved to us, that no form of expression v/hatever, would be proof against the species of criticism, which he has thought proper to employ: for it must be re- membered, that the want of this very phrase, dying in our stead, has been urged as a main argument, against the notion of a strict propiti- atory sacrifice in the death of Christ. To at- tempt to prove then, in opposition to those who use this argument, that when Christ is said in Scripture to have died for us, it is meant that lie died instead of us, must be in this writer's opinion a waste of time: since, when this is ac- complished, we are in his judgment only where we set out. As however there have been some, who^ not possessing Dr. Priestley's metajjhysical powers, have thought this acceptation of the
CHRIST DIED FOE US. 249
\Tord for, conclusive in favour of the received doctrine of atonement, and have therefore taken much pains to oppose it, I will hope to be ex- cused, if I deem it necessary to reply to these writers.
Dr. Sykes, in his Essay on Redemption, and H. Taylor, in his Ben, Mord, pp. 786, 787. have most minutely examined all the passages in the New Testament, in which the preposi- tion for is introduced. And the result of their examination is, that in all those passages, which speak of Christ, as having given himself ybr us, for our sins, having died for us, &c. the word for must be considered as on account of, for the henejlt of, and not instead of. The ground, on which this conclusion is drawn, as stated by the latter, is this; that " if the true doctrine be, that these things were done 2ipon our account, or for our advantage, the word for will have the same sense in all the texts: but if the true doc- trine be, that they were done instead of, the sense of the word will not be the same in the different texts." — But surely this furnishes no good reason, for deciding in favour of the former doctrine. The word Jor, or the Greek words ctvTt, VTTeoj Sioc, Treoij of which it is the translation, admitting of different senses, may of course be differently applied, according to the nature of the subject, and yet the doctrine remain un- changed. Thus it might be perfectly proper to
250 IN WHAT SENSE
say, that Christ suffered instead of us, although it would be absurd to say, that he suffered in- stead of our offences. It is sufficient, if the different applications of the word carry a consis- tent meaning. To die instead of us, and to die on account of our offences, perfectly agree. But this change of the expression necessarily arises from the change of the subject. And ac- cordingly, the same difficulty will be found to attach to the exposition proposed by these writ- ers : since the word Jor, interpreted o;z account of, i. e. for the benefit of, cannot be applied in the same sense in all the texts. For, although dying Jor our benefit is perfectly intelligible, dy- lug for the benefit of our offences is no less ab- surd than dying instead of our offences.
The only inference that could with justice have been drawn by these writers is, that the word for does not necessarily imply substitu- tion in all these passages, and that therefore it is not sirfficient to lay a ground for the doctrine, which implies that substitution. But that, on the other hand, it is evident that it does not im- ply it in any, can by no means be contended: the word vweo, being admitted to have that force frequently in its common application; as may be seen in Plato Conviv. p. 1197? and again 11 78, where cc7ro6vr}(T}csiv VTre^, is manifestly used for ^ying in stead, or place of another. — That the Greeks were accustomed by this expression to
CHRIST DIED FOR US» 251
imply a vicarious death, Rapheliiis on Rom. v, 8. directly asserts; and produces several indispu- table instances from Xenophon^, in which vttso and ocvn have the force of substitution. ^ In like
*Raphelius's observations upon this subject are so valu- able, that I apprehend his entire note will be acceptable to the critical reader. — " Rom. v. 8. Ytte^ vfAuv wm^uvt — id est arxj, loco^ vice nostra mortiius est^ ut nos mortis poena libe- raremur, Vicariam enim mortem hoc loquendi gencre Grasci declarant. Neque SocinianiSj qui secus interpretan- tur, quenquam ex Graecis credo assensorem esse. Nostras sentcntiae Xenophon adstipulatur. Nam cum Seuthes pu- erura formosum bello captuni occidere vellet, Episthenes autem, puerorum amator, se pro illius more deprecatorem prajberet, rogat Seuthes Episthcnem: H xat sSg^o*? av, u EirK7ee»i?, YHEP TOYTOY AnO0ANEIN ; Fellesne, mi Epis* ihenes^ pro hoc mori? Cumque is nihil dubitaret pro pueri vita cervicem praibere, Seuthes vicissim puerum interrogate ct ircciamv avrov ANTI sxiiva; num hunc feriri pro se vellct?
De Exped. Cyri, &c. Et Hist. Grsec. &c. U^oniruv ^i o
Ay£7■^^ao^, or»5 Tra^sp^oiTo i'^t'ttov kui OTrAa x.cci xv^^oc ^oKiyt^ov, oTt
c^xiy uaTTB^ av tk to» YHEP AYTOY AnO0ANOYMENON v^oQvfxui ^»3To»>?. Quumque Agesilaus denunciasset fore^ ut, quicimque darct equum et arma et perifum homi?iem, immunis esset a militia: effecit^ ut hcec nan alUer magna celeritate facerent^ atque si quis alacriier aliquem suo loco moriturum quKreret, De Venat. pag. 768. Am^oxo? ra Trar^og YnEPAnO©ANf2N, •To<7a.i;T>j$ trv)(iv iVuXBKtff uft i*-oyoq (phXovuru^ 'rafcc To»f EA^>?<r»i' Mocyo^tv^nvai* Antilochus PRO PATRE morti sese objicie?iSy tantum glorice consecutus est, ut solus apud Grcecos amans pairis appelletur. — Et quid opus est aliis exemplis ? cum fuc^ileAtissmum sit. Job. jti. 50, ubi mortuus dicitur Salvator
252 IN WHAT SENSE, &C.
manner, (2 Sam. xviii. 33.) when David saith concerning Absalom, ng Sutj tov 6ocvoctov fji^a dvri (TUf there is clearly expressed David's wish, that his death had gone instead of Absalom's.
But indeed this force of the word neither can be, nor is, denied by the writers alluded to. The actual application of the term then, in the se- veral passages, in which Christ is said to have died for us, to have suffered for us, &c. is to be decided by the general language of Scripture upon that subject. And if it appears from its uniform tenor, that Christ submitted himself to suffering and death, that thereby we might be saved from undergoing the punishment of our transgressions, will it not follow, that Christ's suffering stood in the place of ours, even though it might not be of the same nature, in any respect, with that which we were to have un- dergone,
vTTt^ re Xas. Quod quale sit, mox exponitur^ ma. /^n? o^o» to f^voq a9roX>3Ta(." RuphelU Annot. torn. ii. pp. 253, 254.
How forcibly the word vtfi^xs felt to imYi\y substitution is indirectly admitted in the strongest manner even by Uni- tarians themselves: the satisfaction manifested by Commen- tators of that description, whenever they can escape from the emphatical bearing of this preposition, is strikingly evinced in their late Version of the Ncio Tt^siamait, Sec their observations on Gal. i. 4.
( 253 )
KO. XXXI. ON THE PRETENCE OF FIGURATIVE
ALLUSION IN THE SACRIFICIAL TERMS OF THB NEW TESTAMENT.
Page 30. (&) — On the whole of this pretence of Jigurative apphcations, whereby H. Taylor, {B. Mord.) Dr. Priestley, and others endeavour to escape from the plain language of Scripture, it may be worth while to notice a distinction, which has been judiciously suggested upon this subject, by Mr. Veysie. {Bampt. Lecture^ Sermon 5.) — Figurative language, he says, does not arise from the real nature of the thing to which it is transferred, but only from the imagination of him who transfers it. Thus a man, who possesses the quality of courage in an eminent degree, is figu- ratively called a lion ; not because the real nature of a lion belongs to him, but because the quality which characterizes this animal is possessed by him in an eminent degree : therefore the imagi- nation conceives them as partakers of one com- mon nature, and applies to them one common name. Now to suppose, that language, if it cannot be literally interpreted, must necessarily be of the figurative kind here descr^lbedy that is^ applied onli/ by way of allusion, is erroneous ; since there is also a species of language, usually called analogical, which though not strictly pro-
254 UNFOUNDED OBJECTION OF
per, is far from being merely figurative : the* terms being transferred from one thing to ano- ther, not because the things are similar, but be- cause they are in similar relations. And the term thus transferred, he contends, is as truly signifi- cant of the real nature of the thing in the rela- tion in which it stands, as it could be were it the primitive and proper word. With this species of language, he observes^ Scripture abounds.
And indeed so it must ; for if the one dispen- sation w^as really intended to be preparatory to the other, the parallelism of their parts, or their several analogies, must have been such, as neces- sarily to introduce the terms of the one, into the explanation of the other* — Of this Mr. V. gives numerous instances. I shall only adduce that, which immediately applies to the case before us : viz. that of " the death of Christ being called in the New Testament, a sacrifice and sin-off eririg. This, says he, is not as the Socinian hypothesis 2isserts,figurativeli/, or merely in allusion to the Jewish sacrifices, but analogically^ because the death of Christ is to the Christian Church, what the sacrifices for sin were to the worshippers of the Tabernacle f (or perhaps it might be more correctly expve.-sed, because the sacrifices for sin were so appointed, that they should be to the worshippers of the Tabernacle, what it had been ordained the death of Christ was to be to the Christian Church:) " And accordingly, the Ian-
JPIGURAtlFE ALLUSIOIf. 255
guage of the New Testament does not contain mere Jigur at Ive allusions to the Jewish sacrificesy but ascribes a real and immediate efficacy to Christ's death, an efficacy corresponding to that, which was anciently produced by the legal sin- offerings." This view of the matter will, I appre- hend, be found to convey a complete answer, ta all that has been said upon this subject, concern- ing Jigure, allusion, &c.
Indeed some distinction of this nature is abso- lutely necessary. For under the pretence of Jigm^e, we find those writers, who would reject the doctrine of atonement, endeavour to evade the force of texts of Scripture, the plainest and most positive. — Thus Dr. Priestley (Hist, of Cor, vol, i. p. 214) asserts, that the death of Christ may be called a sacrifice for sin, and a ransom ; and also that Christ may in general he said to have died in our stead, and to have home our sins : and that figurative language^ even stronger than thisy may he used by persons, who do not consider the death of Christ, as having any immediate relation to the forgiveness of sins, but believe only, that it was a necessary circumstance in the scheme of the gospel, and that this scheme was necessary to reform the world. — That however there are parts of Scripture, which have proved too powerful, even for the figurative solutions of the Historian of the Corruptions of Christianity, may be inferred from this remarkable concession. " In this then let us I
256 UNFOUNDED OBJECTION OF, &C.
acquiesce, not doubting but that, though not per^ haps at present, we shall in time be able, with- out any effort or straining, to explain all parti^ cular expressions in the apostolical epistles, &c.'* (Hist, oj Cor, vol. i. p. 279.)— rHere is a plain confession on the part of Dr. Priestley, that those enlightened theories, in which he and his followers exult so highly^ are wrought out of Scripture only by effort and straining : and that all the powers of this polemic Procrustes, have been exerted to adjust the apostolic stature to certain pre-ordained dimensions, and insome cases exerted in vain.
The reader is requested to compare what has been here said, with what has been already noticed in Numbers I and XIV, on the treatment given to the authority of Scripture by Dr. Priestley and his Unitarian fellow-labourers.
NO. XXXII. ARGUMENTS TO PROVE THE SACRI- FICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT FIGURATIVE, URGED BY H. TAYLOR AND DR. PRIESTLEY.
Page 30. (^^) — The several arguments enume- rated in the page here referred to, are urged at large, and with the utmost force of which they are capable, in the /th Letter of Ben Mordecais Apology, by H. Taylor. — Dr. Priestley has also endeavoured to establish the same point, and by arguments not much dissimilar. Theol, Rep, vol. i. p. 121—136.
( 257 )
NO. XXXIII. — ON THE SENSE ENTERTAINED GENE- RALLY BY ALL, AND MORE ESPECIALLY INSTAN- CED AMONGST THE JEWS, OF THE NECESSITY OF PROPITIATORY EXPIATION,
Page 31. (f) — ^The last of the three arguments here referred to, is urged by H. Taylor (Ben, Mord, pp. 784, 785. 797) ^^ applied particularly to the notion of vicarious sacrifice : but it is clear from the whole course of his reasoning, that he means it to apply to all sacrifice, of a nature pro- perly expiatory ; that is, in which by the suffering and death of the victim, the displeasure of God was averted from the person for whom it was offered, and the punishment due to his offence remitted, whether the suffering of the victim was supposed to be strictly of a vicarious nature or not.
Such a notion of sacrifice applied to the death of Christ, this writer ascribes to the engrafting of Heathenish notions on Jewish customs ; whereby the language of the Jews came to be interpreted, by the customs and ceremonies of the Heathen philosophers, who had been converted to Christi- anity. Whether this notion be well founded, will
VOL. I. 8
258 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION
appear from the examination of the origin of sa- crifice, in the second of these Discourses, and from some of the Explanatory Dissertations connected with it. But it is curious to remark, how Dr. Priestley and this author, whilst they agree in the result, differ in their means of arriving at it. This author traces the notion of sacrifice strictly expiatory, to heathen interpretation. Dr. Priest- ley on the contrary asserts, that the Heathens had no idea whatever of such sacrifice. He employs almost one entire essay in the Theological Repo^ sitory (vol. i. p. 400, &c.) in the proof, that in no nation, ancient or modern, has such an idea ever existed : and, as we have already seen in Number V, pronounces it to be the unquestionable result of an historical examination of this subject, that a//, whether Jews or Heathens, antient or mo- dern, learned or unlearned, have been " equally strangers to the notion of expiatory sacrifice ; equally destitute of any thing like a doctrine of proper atonement J" To pass over, at present, this gross contradiction to all the records of anti- quity, how shall we reconcile this gentleman to the other ? or, which is of greater importance, how shall v/e reconcile him to himself? For whilst in this place he maintains, that neither antient nor modern Jews ever conceived an idea of expiatory sacrifice, he contends in another^, (ibid. p. 426) that this notion has arisen from the
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 259
Hrcu instance, of the simple reri;;ion of Christ Slaving been " entrusted to such vessels, as were, the Apostles :" for, adds he, " the Apostles were Jews, and had to do with Jews, and consequently- represented Christianity in a Jewish dress,'* — and this more particularly, " in the business of sacri- fices/*— Now, if the Jews had no notion whatever of expiatory sacrifice, it remains to be accounted for, how the cloathing the Christian doctrine of redemption in a Jewish dress, could have led to this notion. It is true, he adds, that over the Jewish disguise, which had been thrown on this doctrine b^/ the Apostles, another was drawn by Christians. But if the Jewish dress bore no rela- tion to a doctrine of atonement, then the Chris- tian disguise is the only one. And thus the Christians have deliberately, without any founda- tion laid for them, either by Heathens or Jeivs, superinduced the notion- of an expiatory sacrifice, oil the simple doctrines of the Gospel : convert- ing figurative language, into a literal expo- sition of what ivas hioivn never to have had a real existence ! ! !
To leave however this region of contradictions, it may not be unimportant to enquire into the facts, which have been here alleged by Dr. Priestley. And it must be allowed, that he has croudcd into this one Essay, as many assertions at variance with received opinion, as can easily be found, comprized in the same compass^, on any
s ^
260 PROPITIATORY EXPlJTIOlf
subject whatever. He has asserted, that no trace of any scheme of atonement , or of any requisite for forgiveness save repentance and reformation^ is to be discovered either in the book of Job ; or in the Scriptures of the antient, or any writings of the modern Jews ; or amongst the Heathen world, either ancient or modern. — These asser- tions, as they relate to Job, and the religion of the Heathens, have been already examined ; the former in Number XXHI. the latter in Number V. An enquiry into his position, as it affects the Jews, with some farther particulars concern- ing the practices of the Heathen, will fully satisfy us, as to the degree of reliance to be placed on this writer s historical exactness.
With respect to the sentiments of the antient Jews, or in other words, the sense of the Old Testament upon the subject, that being the main question discussed in these Discourses, especially the second, no enquiry is in this place necessary : it will suffice at present to examine the writings of the Jews of later times, and we shall find that these give the most direct contradiction to his assertions. He has quoted Maimonides, Nach- manides, Abarbanel, Buxtorf and Isaac Netto, and concludes with confidence, that among the modern Jews no notion has ever existed, " of any kind of mediation being necessary, to reconcile the claims of justice with those of mercy:" or, as he else- where expresses it, of '^ any satisfaction beside re-
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 2G1
pentance being necessary to the forgiveness of sin/' (TheoL Rep. vol i. p. 409—4 1 1 . )— Now in direct opposition to this, it is notorious, that the stated confession made by the Jews, in offer- ing up the victim in sacrifice^ concludes with these words, let this (the victim) be my expiation*^ And this the Jewish writers directly interpret as meaning, 'Met the evils which injustice sliould have fallen on my head, light upon the head of the victim which I now offer/' Thus Baal Aruch says, that " wherever the expression, let me be another's expiation^ is used, it is the same as if it had been said, let me be put in his room, that I may bear his guilt ; and this again is equivalent to saying, let this act ivhereby I take on me his trans g) ession, obtain for him his pardon.'" In like manner, Solomon Jarchi (Sanhedr. ch. 2.) says, " Let us be your expiation, signifies, let us he put in your place, that the evil which should have fallen upon you may all light on us :" and in the same way, Obadias de Bartenora, and other learned Jews, explain this formula.
Again, respecting the burnt offerings, and sacri- fices for sin, Nachmanides, on Levit. i. says, that " it was riijht, that the offerer's own blood should be shed, and his body burnt : but that the Cre- ator, in his mercy, hath accepted this victim from
* See the form of confession in Maim, de Cult, Divin. d&
Veil. pp. 152, 153.
S3
262 PROriTIATGRY EXPIATION
him, as a vicarious substitute (n^llD-Ti), and au atonement (12^), that its blood should be poured out instead of his blood, and its life stand in place of his life." R. Beehai also, on Lev, i. uses tae very same language. Isaac Ben Arama, on Levi- ticus ^ likewise says, that " the offender, when iie beholds the victim, on account of his sin, slain, skinned, cut in pieces, and burnt with fire upon the altar, should reflect^ that thus he must have been treated, had not God in his ciemencv ac- cepted this expiation for his life.''' David de Pomis, in like manner, pronounces the victimj the vicar^ious suostitute (miDn) for the offerer. And Isaac Abarbanel affirms, in his preface to Levit. that " the offerer deserved^ that his blood should be poured out, and his body burnt for his sins ; but that God, in his clemency, accepted from him the victim as his vicarious substitute (rrn^^Dn), and expiation (nSD). whose blood was poured out in place oj his bloody and its life given in lieu of his lifeS
I should weary the reader and myself, were I to adduce all the authorities on this point. Many more may be found in Outram de Sacrijiciis, p. 251 — 259. These however will probably satisfy most readers, as to the fairness of the representa- tion which 13r. Priestley has given^ of the notion entertained by modern Jews concernmg the doc- trine of atonement, and of their total ignorance of any satisfaction for sin, save only repentance and
"I
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 2^3
amendment. — One thing there is in this review, that cannot but strike the reader^ as it did me, with surprise : that is, that of the three writers of eminence among the Jewish Rabbis, whom Dr. Priestley has named, Maimonides, Abarbanel and Nachmanides, the two last, as is manifest from the passages already cited, maintain in direct terms the strict notion of atonement : and though Maimonides has not made use of language equally explicit, yet on due examination it will appear, that he supplies a testimony by no means incon- sistent with that notion. — Dr. Priestley's method of managing the testimonies furnished by these writers, will throw considerable light upon his mode of reasoning from antient authors in sup- port of his favourite theories. It will not then be time misemployed, to follow him somewhat more minutely through his examination of them.
He begins with stating, that Maimonides con- sidered sacrifice to be merely an Heathen cere- mony, adopted by the Divine Being into his own worship, for the gradual abolition of idolatry. This opinion, he says, was opposed by R. Nach- manides, and defended by Abarbanel, vi^ho ex- plains the nature of sacrifice, as offered by Adam and his children, in this manner — viz. " They burned the fat and the kidneys of the victims upon the altar, for their own inwards, being the seat" (not, as it is erroneously given in Theol. Rep. Qs the aeal) " of their intentions and purposes ;
s 4
264 PROPITIATORY EXPlATIoy
and the legs of the victims for their own hands and feet ; and they sprinkled their blood, instead of their own blood and life, confessing that in the sight of God, the just judge of things, the blood of the offerers should be shed, and their bodies burnt for their sins — but that through the mercy of God, expiation was made for them by the vic- tim being put in their place, by whose blood and life, the blood and life of the offerers were re- deemed." Exordium Comment, in Levit, De VeiL pp. 291, 292.) Now it deserves to be noted, that Sykes, whose assistance Dr. Priestley has found of no small use, in his attempts upon the received doctrine of atonement, deemed the testimony of this Jewish writer, conveyed in the above form of expression, so decisive, that without hesitation he pronounces him to have held the notion of a vica- rious subsHtute, in the strictest acceptation, {Essay 07i Sacrifices, pp. 121, 122,) and, that the sense of the Jewish Rabbis at large is uniformly in favour of atonement by strict vicarious substi- tution, he feels himself compelled to admit, by the overbearing force of their own declarations, al- though his argument would have derived much strength from an opposite conclusion. (Ibid. pp. 149, 150. 157, 158.) The same admission is made by the author of the Scripture Account of Sacrifices, (Append, pp. 17, 18.) notwithstand- ing it is equally repugnant to the principles of his theory. But, after stating the passage last quoted.
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 265
at full length, what is Dr. Priestley s remark ? — That '' all this is eVidewtXy Jigur at ive, the act of sacrificing being represented, as emblematical of the sentiments and language of the offerer." And the argument, by which he establishes this, is, that " this writer could never think, that an ani- mal could make proper satisfaction for sin,'' &c. What then is Dr. Priestley's argument ? — The modern Jews have never entertained an idea, of any expiation for sin save repentance only ; Jvr we are told by Abarbanel, that expiation was made for the offerer by the victim being put in his place ; and by this he did not mean, that the ani- mal made expiation for the sin of the sacrificer, because he could never think that an animal could make satisfaction for sin ! ! Now might not this demonstration have been abridged to much ad- vantage, and without endangering in any degree the force of the proof, by putting it in this man- ner ? — Abarbanel did hold, that by the sacrifice of an animal, no expiation could be made for sin, for it is impossible that he could have thought otherwise.
Complete as this proof is in itself, Dr. Priestley however does not refuse us still farther confirma- tion of his interpretation of this writer's testimony. He tells us, that " he repeats the observation al- ready quoted from him, in a more particular ac- count of sacrifices for sins committed through ignorance^ such as casual uncleanness, &c. in
Q66 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION
which no proper guilt could be contracted :" and that he also " considers sin-ofFerings-as fines, or mulcts, by way of admonitions not to offend again." (TheoL Rep. v. i. p. 410.) — Now, as to the former of these assertions^ it is to be noted, that Abarbanel, in the passage referred to, is speaking of an error of the High Priest, which might be attended with the most fatal consequen- ces by misleading the people, perhaps in some of the most essential points of their religion. And as the want of sufficient knowledge, or of due consideration, in him who was to expound the law, and to direct the people to what was right, must be considered as a degree of audacity highly criminal, for which he says the offender deserved to be punished with death, ignorance not being admissible in such a case as an excuse, therefore it was, that the sin-offering was required of him, ^^ the mercy of God accepting the sacrifice of the animal in his stead, and appointing that in offer- ing he should place his hands on the animal, to remind him that the victim was received as his (nniDin) vicarious substitute." (De Veil, Exord, p. 313 — 317.) For the same reasons, he says, (p. 317) the same method was to be observ^ed in the sin-offering of the Sanhedrim; and he adds also (p. 325) that " in the case of an error com- mitted by 2i private person, whereby he had fallen into any idolatrous practice, the sin-offering ap- pointed for him was to be of the same nature ex-
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 26/
actly, and the animal ofFered the same, as in the case of a similar error in the Higli Priest or the Prince : and for this reason, that aUhouo-h in all other offences, the criminality of the High Priest or Prince exceeded that of a private individual, yet in this, all were equal ; for the unity of the true God haviag been proclaimed to all the people, at Sinaij no one was excusable in his ignorance of this fundamental truth."*
Thus the crimes of ignorance, of which this writer speaks in the passages referred to^ are evi- dently not of the nature represented by Dr. Priest- ley, namely casual and accidental lapses, in which no proper guilt could be contracted : and conse- quently his argument, which, from the application of the same form of sacrifice to these cases as to those in which guilt did exist, would iufer^ that in none was it the inteiition by the sacrifice to make expiation for transgression, must necessarily fall to the ground. Had however Dr. Priestley taken the pains to make himself better acquainted with the works of the writer, whose authority he has cited in support of his opinion, he would never have risqued the observations just now alluded to. He would have found, that in the opinion of this, as well as of every other, Jewish writer of emi-
* Mairaonides gives ihe same account of this matter— see Maim, de Sacrif. Dc FeiL p. 116. also Morch Nevochim^ pp. 464, 465.
268 PROFITJATORY EXPIATION
nence, even those cases of defilement^ which were involuntary, such as leprosy, child-hearing, &c. uniformly implied an idea of guilt. Thus Abar- banel, speaking of the case of puerpery in the 12th chapter of Leviticus, says, that '^ without com- mitting sin no one is ever exposed to suffering ; that it is a principle with the Jewish Doctors, that there is no pain ivithoiit crime, and that therefore the woman who had endured the pains of childbirth, was required to offer a piacular sa- crifice." And again, on the case of the Leper in the 1 ith chapter of Leviticus, the same writer re- marks, that the sin-offering was enjoined, " be- cause that the whole of the Mosaic reliction beingr founded on this principle, that whatever befalls any human creature is the result of providential ap- pointment, the leper must consider his malady, as a judicial infliction for some transgression." And this principle is so far extended by Maimonides, (Moreh Nevochim^ p. 380) as to pronounce, that ^^ even a pain so slight as that of a thorn wound- ing the hand and instantly extracted, must be ranked as ^ penal infliction by the Deity for some offence :" see also Clavering Annot, in Maim, De Pienitentia, pp. 141, 142. Other Jewish writers carry this matter farther. Thus R. Bechai, on Levit. xii. 7^ says, that " the woman after childbirth is bound to bring a sin-offering, in ex- piation of that original taint, derived from the common mother of mankind, by whose trans^
I
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 269
gression it was caused, that the procreation of tlie species was not like the production of the fruits of the earth, spontaneous and unmixed vvitli sen- sual feehno^s.'*
Whether these opinions of the Jewish Rabbis be absurd or otherwise, is a point vvith which I have no concern. The Jact, that such were their opinions, is all I contend for. And this I think will satisfy us respecting the competency of Dr. Priestley, as an interpreter of their writ' ings: when we find him thus arguing from the actual impossibility that they could hold an opinion, which they themselves expressly assert they did hold; and maintaining the rectitude of his theory by their testimony, whilst he explains their testimony by the unquestionable rectitude of his theory. This is a species of Logic, and a mode of supplying authorities from antient writers, in which Dr. Priestley has been long exercised, as may abundantly appear, not only from several parts of these illustrations, but from the collection of very able and useful Tracts pub- lished by the late Bishop Horsley.
A few words more concerning the Rabbis. — Dr. Priestley endeavours to insinuate, as we have seen p. 266^ that " Abarbanel considers sin-offerings as fines or mulcts, by way of ad- monition not to offend again.*' Now whoever will take the trouble of consultino; that writer himself, will find, that this subordinate end of
270 PROPITIATORY EXPIATIOK
sacrifice is mentioned by him, only in connec- tion with offences of the shghtest kind, and amounting at the most to the want of a suffi- cient caution in guarding against the possibihty of accidental defilement. When this want of caution has been on occasions, and in stations so important, as to render it a uigh crime and capital offence, as in the case of the High Priest, the expression used is, that the offender deserves to be mulcted with death, but that the victim is accepted in his stead, &c. (De Veil Ahar^h. Exord, pp. 313. 315.) Whether then the sin- offering was intended to be considered by this writer merely as a fine, the reader will judge. Indeed Dr. Priestley himself has already proved that it was not; inasmuch as he has asserted, that he has represented sacrifices for sin, as em- blematical actions. Now if they were solely emblematical actions, they could not have been fines: and if they were solely lines, they could not have been emblematical actions. But if the author, whilst he represented them as fines, con- sidered them lihewise as emblematical actions, then the circumstance of his having viewed them in the light of fines, is no proof that he might not likewise have considered them as strictly propitiatory. Tiie introduction therefore of this remark by Dr. Priestley, is either superfluous or sophistical.
The observations applied to Abarbanel, extend
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 2"!
with equal force to the opinions of Maimonides: for the former expressly asserts more than once, (Exord. Comment, in Levit. pp. 231. 235.) that he but repeats the sentiments of the latter, on the import of the sacrificial rites. Nor will the assertion of Maimonides, (which has been much relied on by Sykes,) viz. that " repentance ex- piates all transgressions," invalidate in any de- gree what has been here urged ; for it is evident, that in the treatise on repentance, in which this position is found, he is speaking in reference to the Jewish institutions, and endeavouring to prove, from the peculiar condition of the Jews since the destruction of their temple, that repen- tance is the only remaining expedient for resto- ration to the divine favour : " since we have no longer a temple or altar, there remains no ex- piation for sins, but repentance only — and this will expiate all transgressions." (Maim, De Pcenit. Clavering, p. 45.) And with a view to the proving its sufficiency, now that sacrifice was no longer possible, and to prevent the Jews, who had been used to attribute to the sacrifice the principal efficacy in their reconciliation with God, from thinking lightly of that only species of homage and obedience which now remained, it seems to be, that both here, and in his Moreh Nevochinif p. 435. he endeavours to represent prayer and confession of sins, as at all times con- stituting a main part of the sacrificial servicco
2/2 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION
But this by no means proves, that the sacrifice was not in his opinion expiatory, on the con*- trary it clearly manifests his belief that it was; since it is only, because it was no longer possible for the Jews according to the Mosaic ordinances, that he considers it as laid aside ; for if repen- tance and prayer were in themselves perfectly sufficient, then the reason assigned for the ces- sation of sacrifice, and the efficacy of repentance per se under the existing circumstances, would have been unmeaning.
But this writer's notion of the efficacy of re- pentance and of the ceremonial rites, may be still better understood from the following re- marks. Speaking of the Scape Goat, he says (Moj^eh Nevochim, p. 494.) that " it was be- lieved to pollute those that touched it, on account of the multitude of sins which it car- ried:" and of this goat he says again, (De Pcejiit. pp. 44, 45.) that '^ it expiated all the sins re- counted in the Law; of whatever kind, with regard to him who had repented of those sins ; but that with resj^ect to him who had 7iot re- pented, it expiated only those of a lighter sort:" and those sins of a lighter sort, he defines to be all those transgressions of the Law, against which excision is not denounced. So that, according to this writer, there were cases, and those not a few, in which repentance was not necessary to expiation. And again, that it was not in
HELD nv JEWS AND HEATHENS. 273
itself sufficient for expiation^ he clearly admits, not only from his general notion of sacrifices throughout his works, but from his express de- clarations on this subject. He says, that with respect to certain oifences, '^ neither repentance, nor the day of expiation/* (which he places on the same ground with repentance as to its ex- piatory virtue) " have their expiatory effect, un- less chastisement be inflicted to perfect the explatlonP And in one case, he adds, that " neither repentance followed by uniform obe- dience, nor the day of expiation, nor the chastise-* ment inflicted, can efl^ect the expiation, nor can the expiation be completed but by the death of the oflfender." (De Pcenit. pp. 46, 47.)
The reader may now be able to form a judg- ment, whether the doctrines of the Jewish Rab- bis really support Dr. Priestley's position, that amongst the modern Jews no notion of any scheme of sacrificial atonement, or of any requi- site for forgiveness save repentance and reforma- tion, has been found to have had existence. And I must again remind him of the way, in which the authorities of the Jewish writers have been managed by Dr. Priestley, so as to draw from them a testimony apparently in his favour. The whole tribe of Rabbinical authors, who have, as we have seen, in the most explicit terms avowed the doctrine of atonement, in the strictest sense of the word, are passed over without a mention,
VOL. I. T
274 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION
save only Nachmanides, who is but transiently named, whilst his declarations on this subject, being directly adverse, are totally suppressed. Maimonides, and Abarbanel indeed, are adduced in evidence: but how little to Dr. Priestley's purpose, and in how mutilated and partial a shape, 1 have endeavoured to evince. These writers standing in the foremost rank of the Rabbinical teachers, as learned and liberal expo- sitors of the Jewish law, could not but feel the utility of the sacrificial system, unexplained by that great sacrifice, which, as Jews, they must necessarily have rejected. Hence arises their theory of the human origin of sacrifice; and hence their occasional seeming departure from the principles of the sacrificial worship, main- tained by other Rabbis, and adopted also by themselves, in the general course of their writ- ings. From these parts of their works, which seem to be no more than philosophical struggles, to colour to the eye of reason the inconsistencies of an existing doctrine, has Dr. Priestley sought support for an assertion, which is in open contra- diction, not only to the testimony of every other Rabbinical writer, but to the express language of these very writers themselves.
But Dr. Priestley is not contented with forc- ing upon these more remote authors a language^ which they never used, but he endeavours to ex- tract from those of later date, a testimony to
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 275
the same purpose, in direct opposition to their own expHcit assertions. Thus, in Buxtorf's ac- count of the ceremony observed by the modern Jews, of kilHng a cock, on the preparation for the day of expiation, he thinks he finds additi- onal support for his position, that amongst the modern Jews, no idea of a strict propitiatory atonement has been known to exist. Now, as to Dr. Priestley's representation of Buxtorf I cannot oppose a more satisfactory authority than that of Buxtorf himself, I shall quote the pas- sage as given in that writer; and that no pre- tence of misrepresentation may remain, 1 give it untinged by the medium of a translation.
" Ouilibet postea paterfamilias, cum gallo prae manibus, in medium primus prodit, et ex Psal- mis Davidis ait; Sedentes in tenebris, &c.— item, Si ei adsit Angelas interpres, unus de mille, qui ilU resipiscentiam exponat, tunc mi^ serehitur ejus, et dket, redime eum, ne de-
SCENDAT IN FOSSAM : INVENI ENIM EXPIATIONEM
(gallum nempe gallinaceum^ qui peccata mea ex- piabit.) Deinde expiationem aggreditur, et capiti suo gallum ter allidit, singulosque ictus his voci-
bus prosequitur, m ""r^isD m '>nnn H? '•rs'-^n n;
pt^ — Hie Gallus sit permutatio pro me,
kic IN LOCUM MEUM SUCCEDAT, hlC sit EXPIATIQ
FRO ME, hide gallo mors afferetur, mihi vera et toti Israeli vitajortimata. Amen, Hoc ille tei:
T 2
276 PROPITIATORY EXPIATOJf
ex ordine facit, pro se, sc. pro filiis suis, et pro peregrinis qui apud ilium sunt, uti Summus Sa- cerdos in vet. test, expiationem quoque fecit. Gallo deinde imponens manus, ut in sacrificiis olira^ eum statim mactat, cutemque ad collum ei primum contrahit et constringit, et secum repu* tat, se, qui prcefocetur aut stranguletur, dignum esse : hunc autem gallum in suum locum sub- STiTUERE et ofFerre ; cultello postea jugulum re- sol vit, iterum animo secum perpendens, semetip- sum^ qui gladio plectatur, dignum esse ; et con- festim ilium vi e manibus in terram projicit, ut denotet, se dignum esse^, qui lapidihus ohriiatur : postremo ilium assat, ut hoc facto designet, se dignum esse, qui z^/?evitam finiat : et ita quatuor haec mortis genera, pro Judaeis gallus sustinere debet. Intestina vulgo supra domus tectum jaci- unt. Alii dicunt id fieri, quia quum peccata in- ternum quid potius quam externum sint, ideo galli intestinis peccata hcerere : corvos itaque ad- renire, et cum Judaeorum peccatis in desertum avolare debere, ut hircus in vet. test, cum populi peccatis in desertum aufugiebat. Alii aliam red- dunt causam. Causa autem, cur gallo potius quam alio animante utantur, hsec est, quia vir ebraice ^1:1 Gebher appellatur. Jam si Gehher pecca- verit, Gehher etiam peccati pcenam sustinere debet — Quia vero gravior esset poena, quam ut illam subire possent Judaei, gallum gallinaceum qui Talmudica seu Babylonia dialecto ni:i Ge6-
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 277
her appellatur, in locum suum substituunt, et ita justitiae Dei satisfit ; quia quum nn:i Gebher pec- caverit, ii:i Gebher etiam, i. e. Gallus gallinaceus plectitur/' — Synagoga Judatca, ed. 4. p. 509 — 512.
I leave this extract, without comment, to con- front Dr. Priestley's representation of it; viz. that it indicates nothing of the strict notion of atonement. (Tlieol. Rep, vol; i. pp. 410, 411.) He adds indeed, for the purpose of confirming his account of this passage, that this cock is afterwards eaten, as if thence to infer, that the offerers could not consider the animal as a real substitute for them, in respect to their sins and their punishment; and yet Buxtorf expressly asserts, that when it had been the custom to distribute amongst the poor the animals slain in the manner above described, it created much murmuring ; the poor recoiling with horror from the gift, saying that they were required to eat the sins of the rich : and that the rich offerers were therefore obliged to bestow their charitable donations on the poor in money, to the amount of the value of their offering; and " thus having redeemed the offering from God, by its equi- valent in money, they then feasted upon it.'* (Syn, Jud. pp. 515, 51 6.) Again, Dr. Priestley insinuates, that the Jews could not consider this offering as a strict expiation, because that '^ when they themselves die, they pray that their own
T 3
2/8 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION
deaths may be considered as an expiation or satisfaction for their sins." — Dr. Priestley does not recollect, that the atonement made at the day of expiation^ extended only to the sins of the past year ; and that those which were com- mitted after that day, must remain unexpiated until the day of expiation in the succeeding year. The dying person had consequently to account for all the sins committed since the last pre- ceding day of expiation. And as every natural ill was deemed by the Jews a penal infliction for sin, death was consequently viewed by them in the same light, and in the highest degree; and therefore it was reasonable, that they should hope from it a full atonement, and satisfaction for their transgressions.
Thus we see, that even the authorities quoted by Dr. Priestley, as supporting his theories, are found to be in direct contradiction to them. And from this, and the numerous other instances, of his misrepresentation of antient writers, which may be found in the course of these remarks, we may learn a useful lesson, respecting his reports of authors, in those voluminous writings, in which he has laboured to convert the religion of Christ into a system of Heathen morality. I have, for this purpose, been thus copious on his represen- tations of the opinions of the modern Jews ; and without dwelling longer on this point, or adverts ing to Isaac Netto, who happened in a *' very
HELD MY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 279
good Sermon' to speak with confidence of the mercy of God, without hinting any thing of nne- diation as necessary to satisfy his justice, [ThcoL Rep. vol. i. p. 41 1.) I turn back to what we are told three pages before, concerning Philo and Joseph us.
These writers, who were nearly cotemporary with our Saviour, Dr. Priestley informs us, fur- nish no intimation whatever, in any part of their works, of'' any ideas that have the least connection with those that are suggested by tlie modern doc- trine of atonement :" (pp. 408, 409.) ^"^ accord- ing to his usual practice, he produces one or two insulated passages from the voluminous works of these authors, to prove that their sentiments on the subjects of sacrifice, and of the divine placa- bility, correspond with his own. Now were it true, with respect to Josephus, as Dr. Priestley asserts, that he suggests no idea in any degree similar to the received notion of atonement, yet could this furnish no proof, that he entertained no such idea, because he himself expressly informs us, (Ant. Jud, lib. iii. cap. 9. sect. 3. p. 121. & cap. 11. sect. 2. p. 125 — vol. i. ed. Huds.) that he reserves the more minute examination of the nature of the animal offerings^ for a distinct treatise on the subject of sacrifice, which has either not been written, or has not come down to us. But although the historian, in conse- quence of this intention, has made but slight and 4 T
280 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION
incidental mention of the nature of sacrifice ; yet has he said enough to disprove Dr. Priestley's as- sertion, having, in all places in vshich he has oc- casion to speak of the sin-offering, described the victim as sacrificed in deprecation of God's wrath, and in supplication of pardon for transgression. IlocDaiTyicrig ci[x,ccor7][^ciTuv is the expression he con- stantly employs on this subject*: and in treating of the scape goat, he calls it uTrorooTrtao'f^og ycoa 7rccoa.iTrj(ng vttbo ccfjto^oTTjf^aLreov. (See p. 9^:) as 1*6- ferred to in the note below.) And as to the dis- tinction made by this writer, between the sacri- fices of Cain and Abel, on the strength of which Dr. Priestley ranks him as an auxiliary on the subject of the sacrificial import, it deserves to be remarked, that this, as far as it can be understood, seems not to be in any degree inconsistent with the commonly received notions of sacrifice, inas- much as it relates rather to the sentiments of the offerers, than to the intrinsic nature of the things offered. -f"
But besides^ we find in the very section, in which this distinction is pointed out, an observa-
* Xtjua^^ov T£ E9ri 5ra§«»Tt30"£i 0.^10.^x^^1x1: uv — Again, m^av virt^ aiA-oeru^uv — and, xuto. '?roc^a,nriaiv ccfxa^rKtiv E^i<pn. — See Josephi Opera. Ant. Jud. lib. iii. pp. 90. 92. Edit. Genev. 1633.
•r See the translation by l^'Estrange, p. 5. who appears to have hit on the true meaning of the original ; and compare the preceding sentences, ia which the characters of the two brothers are described.
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 281
tion respecting a sacrifice offered by Cain, which, had Dr. Priestley permitted his eyes to wander but a few Hnes from the passage he has quoted, might have convinced him, that Josephus ad- mitted, equally with the supporters of the present doctrine of atonement, the propitiatory virtue of sacrifice: for, having related the murder of Abel by his brother, and God's consequent resentment against Cain, he adds, that upon Cain's " offering up a sacrifice, and by virtue thereof, (^l oiVTTjg) supplicating him not to be extreme in his w^rath, God was led to remit the punishment of the mur- der.*' Thus the ivrath of God was averted by sacrifice ; and that life, which, according to strict justice, was to be paid for the life which had been taken away, was preserved through virtue of the offering made. With what reason then, upon the whole. Dr. Priestley has claimed the support of Josephus's testimony, it is not difficult to judge. Whether he has had better grounds for appeal- ing to that of Philo, remains to be considered.
This distinguished and philosophic Jew. whose resemblance to Plato, both in richness of diction and sublimity of sentiment, gave birth to the Greek proverb, vi UXocrtov (piXuvi^Bi, tj ^iXcav -zsrAa- Tccvi^Sij has indeed exercised upon the Jewish doc^ trines an extraordinary degree of mystical refine- ment : he is. also pronounced, by some of the highest authorities, to have been entirely ignorant both of the language and customs of the Jews ;
I
282 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION
and consequently to have fallen into gross errors, in his representation of the doctrines of their re- ligion.''^ And yet from two detached passages in this author's writings, one of which is so com- pletely irrelevant, that it were idle even to notice it, Dr. Priestley does not hesitate to decide upon the notion entertained by the Jews of his day, re- specting the nature of sacrificial atonement. He also asserts indeed, that in no part of his works, does he suggest any idea, in the slightest degree resemhlino: the modern notion of atonement. To hazard this assertion, is to confess an entire igno- rance of the writings of this author : for on the contrary, so congenial are his sentiments and lari^ guage, to those of the first Christian writers^ on the subject of the corruption oj mans nature, the natural insufficiency of our best works, the necessity of an intercessor, a redeemer, and ra?i' som for sin, together with the appointment of the divine Aoroz, for these purposes, that the learned Bryant has been led to conclude, that he must actually have derived these doctrines from the sources of Evangelical knowledge. That he had indeed the opportunity of doing so, from an intimate intercourse witii St. Peter, is attested by Hieronymus, (Catalog, Scrij^tor, Eccles.) Pho-
* See Phoiius Bihlioth. cr. ed. 1635.— Thes. Temp. Jos. Scalig. Animad, p. 7. ed; 1658 — and Grotius^ in Mat. xxxvi. 18
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 283
tins, (Bihlioth. cv.) and Suidas, (Historic.) by whom, as well as by Eiisehins, (Hist. Eccles, lib. ii.) it is affirmed, that the beautiful eulogium contained in this writer's treatise, riso/ Br^? Bscao, was pronounced on the Apostolic Christians settled at Alexandria, who were the followers of St. Mark, the disciple of Peter. The arguments of Dr. Allix, however, in his Juclgmetit of' the Jeivisk Church, &c. (p. 7^ — 83.) though they may justly be deemed invalid, as to the impossibility of Philo's intercourse with the first Christians, for which he contends in opposition to the above au- thorities, yet seem sufficient to warrant us in pro- nouncing, that however similar his notions and expressions may be to those of the early Chris- tians, they yet were not derived from Christian sources : and that consequently, they exhibit the doctrines of the Jewish church, such at least as they were held by the Jews of iVlexandria in his day.
But to instance a few of the numerous passages in the works of this author, of the import above alluded to. — He informs us, (Jliot (Pvra^y. p. 21 7. ed. 1640.) that "man was made in the image of God" — that he was placed in a state of perfect happiness (ibid. pp. 219, 220. & No/^. le^. AXXTjy, pp. 56, 57.) — but that, " having disgraced and deformed this likeness, by his fall from virtue, he likewise fell from happiness ; and from an im- mortal state, was deservedly doomed to misery and
284 PROPITIATORY EXPIATIOI^
death," (llgf/ Y.\jy^v. p. 906.)--that being now « na- turally prone to vice," (0gi. Il^oiy. KXt^j. p. 522,) and so degenerate^ " that even his virtues are of no value, but through the goodness and favour of God," (rigfi T^ TO Xei^. p. 166.) — mankind are, con- sequently, obliged '' to trust to this alone for the purification of the soul ; and not imagine, that they are of themselves capable, without the divine favour and influence, to purge and wash away the stains, which deform their nature." (Ue^i rcav Omo. pp. 1111,1112.) And so great does he re- present this corruption of the human mind, as to exclaim, that " no man of sound judgment, ob- serving the actions of men, can refrain from call- ing aloud on the only Saviour God, to remove this burden of iniquity, and by appointing some ransom, and redemption for the soul, (Xvt^o. y.oct e-ug-occ ycccTocGstg rvjg t^^vxv?^) ^^ restore it to its ori- ginal liberty." {Ue^i i:vyX' ^^<^>^* P- ''^^^') " ^^^ a race, by nature thus carried headlong to sin^*' he pronounces '^ some mode of propitiation to be necessary,'* {Ylsoi ^vyaS. p. 465.) — and for this purpose, he says, " an advocate and intercessor for men" (liceTyjg ra SvTjTa) has been appointed, viz. " the Divine Logos, that Archangel, ihejlrst horn son of God, ordained by him to stand as a mediator {Ms9ooiog) between the creature and the Creator, acting as a surety to each party, {ocfJL(po' reootg ofJLTjoevcov) and proclaiming peace to all the world, that through his intercession men might
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 285
have a firm faith in God •/* (0s/. n^a-}/. KXyj^. p. 609.) — that same Aoyog, who is also called by him " an High Priest, free from all sin ;" (Tle^i <^vyuS, p. 466. and Flgj/ tcov Ovei^. p. 597.) of whose mediation he acknowledges the interces- sion of Aaron to have been but a type; {Us^i ^vyscS. p. 466. and 05/. Uoocy. KAi?^. p. 508.) and whom he describes to be that ^' substitute and re- presentation" of the Deity, (vTTuox^g Osa) through whom, he is related in the Old Testament to have conversed with man. {Us^i rcov Ovsi^. p. 600.) — And when he speaks of that part of the Law, wherein it is said, that the man of guilt should fly to an appointed city of refuge, and not be ac- quitted, till the death of the High Priest, he confesses {Ue^i (L>vycc^. pp. 465, 46d,) that by this the Levitical High Priest cannot be literally meant, but that he must be in this case the type of one far greater : for " that the High Priest alluded to, is not a man, but the Sacred Logos, who is inca- pable of all sin, and who is said to have his head anointed with oil:" and that the death of this High Priest is that, which is here intended : — thus admitting the death of the Logos, whom he describes as the anointed, and allows to be typi- fied by the Jewish High Priest, to be the meana of recovery from a state of spiritual bondage, and of giving liberty to the soul. It is true, he alle- gorizes away this meaning again, according to his usual custom. But whilst he refines u])on the
286 PROPITIATORY EXPIATIOJ^
doctrine, he at the same time testifies its existeace in his day.
The reader will now judge, whether this writer deemed '^ repentance and good works sufficient for divine acceptance/' or whether he entertained " any ideas, resembhng those that are suggested by the modern doctrine of atonement." Dr. Priestley however contends, that he considered sa- crifices but as gifts, and this he infers from the account given by him, of the preference of Abel's sacrifice to that of Cain : viz. that " instead of inanimate things, he offered animate ; instead of young animals, those that were grown to their full
size ; instead of the leanest, the fattest," &c.
Dr. Priestley should at the same time have stated, that the whole of the account given by this writer of the history of Cain and Abel, is one continued allegory : that by the birth of the two brothers, he understands " the rise of two opposite princi- ples in the soul ; one, ascribing all to the natural powers of the individual, and thence represented by Cain, which signifies possession ; the other re- ferring all to God, and thence denominated Ahet^ {llm tov iBoovoy. p. 130) : that this latter principle he also holds to be implied in the occupation of Abel, inasmuch " as by a tender of sheep, is meant a controller of the brute powers of the soul ; and that Abel therefore, from his pious reference of all to God, is properly described as a Shepherd ; and Cain, on the contrary, from the deriving all
1
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 28^
from his own individual exertions, is called a tiller of the ground." (Ibid. pp. 136, I37.) The sa- crifice of Abel consequently denotes the offering of the pious and devout affections of the heart, this being " what is meant by the firstlings of the flock, and the fat thereof," (ibid. pp. 137. 145. 154.) whilst that of Cain^ on the other hand, re- presents an offering, destitute of those affections, an offering of impiety, inasmuch " as the fruits of the earth import the selfish feelings ; their being offered after certain days, indicates the back- wardness of the offerer ; and the fruits, simply, and not the Jirst^fruits, shew that the first honour was held back from the Creator, and given to the creature." (Ibid. pp. 13/. 141, 142. 145.) And in this sense it is, that Abel is said by this writer, " neither to have offered the same thino^s, nor in the same w^ay ; but instead of inanimate, things animate ; instead of young and inferior animals, the matured and choicest :" in other words, that the most animated and vigorous sentiments of ho- mage, are requisite to constitute an acceptable act of devotion.
In this light, the due value of Dr. Priestley's quotation from this writer, as applied to the pre- sent question, may easily be estimated. But had Dr. Priestley looked to that part of this author's works, in which he treats expressly of the animals offered in sacrifice, he would have seen, that he
288 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION
describes the sacrifice for sin, as being the ap- pointed means of*' obtaining pardon, and escaping the evil consequences of sin,'* — tcxzuv ccTrocXXczyr] — xxKcou (puyri — a.fjcvrig'iuv o(.dix.7j[A,ocTcov utrsKrdoci : [Hsoi Xutov. pp. 838. 843.) ; and that in the case of an injury committed, he represents the reparation made to the person injured, joined to contrition for the offence and supphcation of pardon from the Deity, as not sufficient to obtain the divine for- giveness, without offering an animal in expiation. (Ibid. p. 844.) — Had Dr. Priestley indeed as- serted, that this writer's notion of sacrifice, was that of a symbolical and mystical representation, he had given a fair account of the matter. For, when he informs us, that '^ the blood of the victim was poured in a circle round the altar, because a circle is the most perfect figure ; and that the soul which is figured by the blood should througlx the entire circle of thought and action worship God :'' when he tells us that " the victim was separated into parts, to admonish us, that in order to the true worship of the deity, his nature must be considered and weighed in its distinct parts and separate perfections;" (ibid. p. 839.) it will readily be admitted, that he soars into regions, whither a plain understanding will not find it easy to follow him. But to have stated this, would not have answered the purpose of Dr. Priestley's argument : because this high strain of
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHEMS. 289
mysticism would have clearly disqualified him, as an evidence on hehalf of Dr. Priestley's, or of am/ intelligible, theo'y of sacrifice.
Indeed with respect to this ancient writer, the truth seems to be,"^ that viewing the Jewish sys- tem without that light, which alone could give it shape and meaning, he found it impossible to ac- count for it on any sound principles of reason. He therefore made his religion bend to his philosophy, and veiled in allegory whatever would not admit a satisfactory literal solution. And this he must have found still more necessary, if what is related concerning his intercourse with the early Chris- tians be well founded. For in his controversies with them, the sacrificial system, which they would not fail to press upon him as requiring and receiving a full completion in the sacrifice of Christ, he would have found himself compelled to spiritualize, so as to give it a distinct and inde- pendent import.
Now if to these considerations be added, what has been already stated, that this writer had not the means of being perfectly acquainted with the nature of the Hebrew rites, it will follow, that
* The above observation may supply an answer to many who have objected against the alleged existence of a doctrine of vicarious atonement amongst the early Jews, the silence of Philo upon that head, even when treating expressly upon the choice of victims for sacrifice. — See particularly Scrip^ i are Account of Sacrifice Sy App. p. 17.
VOL. I. U
290 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION
his testimony cannot be expected to bear strongly upon the present question. The same has been aheady shewn with respect to that of Josephus, So far liovvever as tliey both do apply to the sub- ject, instead of justifying Dr. Priestley's position, they are found to make directly against it. Their silence on the subject of the vicarious import of animal sacrifice, cannot for the reasons alleged, be urged by Dr. Priestley, as an argument in sup- port of that part of his system, which denies the existence of that notion amongst the Jews : whilst the explicit declarations of Josephus, on the expiatory virtue of sacrifice ; and those of Philo, on the necessity of mediation and propiti- ation to render even our good works acceptable to a God offended at the corruption of our nature, and of some means of ransom and redemption to restore man to his lost estate, sufficiently evince the existence of those great leading principles of the doctrine of atonement, expiation and propi- tiation, which Dr. Priestley utterly denies to have had any place amongst the Jews, in the days of these two celebrated writers.
The value of Dr. Priestley's assertions concern- ing these writers, as well as of those respecting Jews of later date, being now sufficiently ascer- tained, I shall conclude this long discussion with a few remarks on the ideas entertained by the an- cient heathens, with regard to the nature, and efficacy, of their sacrifices. To adduce arguments
HELD liY JEWS AND HEATHENS. S91
for the purpose of shewing, that they deemed their animal sacrifices, not only of an expiatory, but of a strictly vicarious nature, will to those, who are conversant with the history and writings of the ancients^ appear a waste of time. But as Dr. Priestley, in the rage of refutation, has con- tended even against this position, it may not be useless to cite a few authorities which may throvr additional light, if not upon a fact which is too glaring to receive it, at least upon the pretensions to historical and classical information, of the writer who controverts that fact. What has been already urged in Number V. might perhaps be thought abundant upon this head; but as the testimony of Caesar respecting the Gauls, in p. 1 26, is the only one, which goes to the pre- cise point of the substitution of the victim to suffer death in place of the transgressor, it may not be amiss to add the testimonies of Herodotus, (hb. ii. cap. 39.) and of Plutarch, (Isid. et Osir. p. 36*3. tom. ii. ed. 1620.) respecting the Egyp- tian practice of imprecating on the head of the victim, those evils which the ofterers wished to avert from themselves : as also those of Servius, {JEn. 3. 57.) and Suidas, (in voc. Tre^r^Tjf^x,) ascrib- ing, the same sacrificial sentiment, the first to the Massilienses, and the second to the Grecian states. Hesychius likewise in substituting for the word TTB^iT^yjucx, an expiatory or redeeming sacrifice, the word uvTL^uxov, (as has been noticed, p. 126,)
u 2
292 PROPITIATORY EXPIATION
marks with sufficient clearness^ that the expiation was made by offering life for life, And^ not to dwell upon the well known passage in Plautus, * (Epid, p. 412. ed. 1577.) which clearly defines the expiation as effected by a vicarious suffering ; or, upon that in Porphyry, -^ (De Ahstin. lib. iv. p, 396. ed. 1620.) in which it is asserted to have been the general tradition, that animal sa- crifices were resorted to in such cases as required life for life, T^/vx'^y ccvri ^vx'yjg ; it may be suffi- cient to state one authority from Ovid, who in the sixth book of his Fasti, particularly describes the sacrificed animal as a vicarious substitute, the several parts of which were given as equiva- lents, or though not strictly such, yet hoped to be graciously accepted as such, in place of the offerer :
Cor pro corde, precor, pro fibris sumite fibras. Ilanc animam vobis pro meliore damus.
The observations contained in this Number, joined to those in Numbers V. IX. XXII. and XXIII. when contrasted with the position main- tained by Dr. Priestley, that in no nation, antient or modern, Jew or Heathen, has any idea of a doctrine of atonement, or of any requi-
^ Men* piacuhm oportet fieri propter stultitiam tuam, Ut meujH tergum stultitioi iuce suhdas succedaneum ? f Two h riveti Kcct^a^ 'me^rov te^nov ^V70(,i /xw6eyo»Tai -^v^viv avn
HELD BY JEWS AND HEATHENS. 293
site for forgiveness, save repentance and refor- mation, ever existed, — may enable the reader to form a just estimate of that writer's competency ; and may perhaps suggest an useful caution in the admission of his assertions.
NO. XXXIV. — ON H. Taylor's objection of the
WANT OF A LITERAL CORRESPONDENCE BE- TWEEN THE MOSAIC SACRIFICE AND THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
Page 31. (^) — H. Taylor goes so far, as to use even this argument gravely. (Ben. Mord. p. 811—814.)
Indeed the bold liberties which this writer has been urged to take with the language of Scrip- ture, and the trifling distinctions to which he has been driven for the purpose of divesting the death of Christ of the characters of the sin-offeriiig prescribed by the law, render it desirable that his whole argument upon this particular point should be laid before the reader. When ingenuity, like that of this author, is forced into such straits, the inference is instructive.
" It is true" (he says) " that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews labours to shew a simi- larity between the Mosaic and the Christian sa- crifices : which no doubt there was ; and to make
U 3
294 WANT OF A LITERAL CONFORMITY
out the analogy, uses very hard figures : as when he compares the sprinkhng the blood of the victim^ to the sprinkling our hearts from an evil conscience; and the tabernacle to the body of Christ ; and the flesh of Christ to the veil which opened the way into the Sanctum Sanctorum : and calls it a new and a living way ; and consi- ders Christ both as the High-Priest and Victim, But were the analogy ever so exact, it would not make the expressions literal : and in many par- ticulars there is no manner of likeness between them. For in the sacrifice of Christ there was iiG salting with salt, no imposition of hands, no hlood sprinhled by the Priest, in which consisted the atonement ; for the atonement was not made by the death of the victim, but by the sprinkling of the hlood ; since the offender did not offer him to God, nor begged forgiveness of his sins : all which things were custornary^ and most if not all of them necessary, in a Mosaic expiatory sacri- fice of a victim. But this was not the case with Christ. He was crucified and slain, as a common malefactor."
" If it be said, that Christ was the sacrifcer, and he offered himself up to God ; it should be considered, that the sacrifices of the Mosaic law- were offered to gain forgiveness to the person who sacrificed ; but this could not be true of Christy for he had no sin to be forgiven."
^^ If it be said, that he sacrificed as a Priest,
TO THE MOSJIC SACRIFICE, OBJECTED. 295
to gain forgiveness for others ; it should be ob- served, that, according to the Mosaic law, he was incapable of such an oflice : for the law requires, that the priests should be of the tribe of Levi, or thQ family of Aaron. But he (Christ) of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe,of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out ofJudah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priest-hood. (Hebr,v'\\. 13,14.) And therefore St. Paul, who was aware of this objection, when he speaks of Christ as a Priest, tells us, that he was a priest of a superior order to the Aaronical priesthood, being a priest for ever ajter the order of Melchisedek. (ver. 17.) This is a plain concession, that according to the Mosaic law, Christ was incapable as a priest to offer any sacrifice. But supposing he had been of the tribe of Levi, the case would have been just the same with regard to all mankind, except the Jews : for the Jewish sacrifices did not ex- tend beyond the circumcision. The sacrifice of Christ could not therefore be a propitiatory sacri- fice, according to the Mosaic law; and much less a propitiation for the sins of the whole world."
" If it was therefore a literal offering or sa- crifice made by Christ as a Priest, it icas of a higher nature, and of a prior and superior dis- pensation to the Mosaic ; such as was offered in the days of Melchisedek, the Priest of the most u 4
296 WANT OF A LITERAL COKFORMITY
high God. But we have no reason to think that any offerings before the law were meant to be expiatory, but all of them eucharistical,"
Thus, after labouring to prove that St. Paul was extravagant in his comparison of the Chris- tian and Mosaic sacrifices ; and that all his hard Jigares had not enabled him to make out a re- semblance between them : and labouring to prove this by shewing that Christ was neither^ literally, a Mosaic victim nor a Mosaic priest (a point which no person was ever mad enough to contend for) — thus^ I say, after all this, our author in his concluding paragraph admits the whole nature and force of the Christian sacrifice, and the true distinction which points out the reason why it should not conform in everv minute ceremonial with the formalities of the Mosaic ; namely, that it was of a higher nature^ and of a prior and su- perior dispensation. For as to the accompany- ing observation intended to do away the effect of this admission ; viz. that there is no reason to thinhy that any ojfferings before the law were meant to he expiatory ; this is a mere gratis dic- tum, the contradiction of which it is hoped is satisfactorily made out in other parts of this work. And thus it appears, upon the w^hole, that on a single gratuitous assumption, the author rests the entire weight of the preceding argument ; and on its strength he has presumed to set up his own doctrines in opposition to those of St. Paul,
TO THE MOSAIC SACRIFICE, OBJECTED. 207
Whether then in the present instance, this au- thor, ingenious and learned as he undoubtedly is, deserves more to be condemned for his trifling as a reasoner, or for his presumption as a critic, it is not an easy naatter to decide.
NO. XXXV. — ON THE ARGUMENTS BY WHICH IT IS ATTEMPTED TO PROVE THE PASSOVER NOT TO BE A SACRIFICE,
Page 31. (') — It is a curious fact, that the de- claration of St. Paul, (1 Cor. v. 7.) that Christ our Passover is sackiyiceb Jbr us, is adduced by Dr. Priestley^ (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 215.) as a convincing proof that Christ was not sacrificed at all. It follows, he says, '^ from the allusion to the Paschal lamb,'* contained in this passage and others of the New Testament " that the death of Christ is called a sacrifice, onhj hy way of figure, because these two" (namely, sacrifice, and the paschal lamb) "are quite different and incon" sis tent ideas :" and the argument by which he endeavours to establish this, is not less extraordi- nary than the position itself, as it brmgs forward an ilistance, in which one of these totally different and inconsistent ideas is expressly called in the Old Testament by the name of the other : the Passover being, in the passage which he quotes
298 THE PASSOVER SHEWN
from Exod. xii. 2/. directly termed the Sacrifice
of the Lord's Passover. This seems an odd
species of logic. Dr. Priestley however hopes to mend the argument By asserting, that " this is the onlij place in the Old Testament, in which the Paschal lamb is termed a sacrifice :' and that here, '^ it could be so called, only in some secon- dary and partial, and not in the proper and pri- mary sense of the word :" and for these reasons — namely, that " there was no priest employed upon the occasion ; no altar made use of; no burning ; nor any part offered to the Lord : all which circumstances (he adds) were essential to every proper sacrifice." — Now in answer to these several assertions, I am obliged to state the direct contradiction of each : for 1st, the passage in Exodus xii. 27. is not the only one^, in which the Paschal lamb is termed nil, a sacrifice ; it being expressly so called, in no less than four passages in Deuteronomy, (xvi. 2. 4, 5, 6.) and also in Exodus, xxxiv. 25, and in its parallel passage.
xxiii. IS. 2. A Priest teas employed. — 3. An
altar ivas made use of. — 4. There ivas a burning, and a part offered to the Lord : the inwards being burnt upon the altar, and the blood poured out at the foot thereof. — Dr. Priestley adds, for the com- pletion of his proof, that '' the paschal lamb is very far from having been ever called a sin-offerhig, or said to be killed on the account of sin." But neither is the burnt -offering " ever called a sin-^
TO BE A SACRIFICE* ^99
offering ^ nor is the animal slain in any of the various kinds of peace offering, whether in the votive, the free-will, or the sacrifice of thanks- giving, ever " said to be killed on account of sin." In other words, one species of sacrifice is not the same with, nor to be called by the name of another. — I agree with Dr. Priestley in this posi- tion ; and shall not dispute with him any con- clusion he may draw from so productive a pre^ miss.
But so evident is it, that the Passover was truly a sacrifice, that even Sykes himself, (whose work on Redemption has been the great armory, whence Dr. Priestley and the other combatants of that doctrine have derived their principal weapons of attack,) found it impossible to deny the position. He accordingly fully admits the point. (Essaif on Sacrifices, p. 41.) And indeed whoever con- siders what are the essential characters of a sacri- fice, can have little difficulty upon this head, as the Passover will be found to possess them all.
1 . It was a Corban, or offering brought to the Tabernacle or Temple , as we find it expressly enjoined in Deut. xvi. 2. 5, 6. and exemplified at the solemn passover in the reign of Josiali, 2 Chron. xxxv. 5, 6. 10, 1 1. That the taberna- cle, or temple, is intended by the expressions used in the passage of Deuteronomy above referred to, and not Jerusalem at large, is evident from this, that the very same expressions are employed.
300 THE PASSOFER SHEWN
when speaking of all the sacrifices and offerings, in Deut. xii. 5^ 6. 11. 14. where it is manifest, that the temple^ the pecuhar habitation of God is necessarily meant. This still farther appears from 1 Kings, viii. 29. and 2 Chron. vii. 16. Moreover, we find the Passover expressly called a Corhan (Numb. ix. 6. 7 13) : and it is certain that nothing was so called, but what was brought and offered up to God at the tabernacle or temple — see Cudw. hit, Syst, Discourse, &c. p. 13. We may also add that it is actually specified by Maimonides, as the reason why the Jews of later times cannot kill the Paschal lamb, that they have no temple to offer it in^ — see Ainsio, on Exod.
xii. 8. 2. The blood of the paschal lamb was
poured out, sprinkled, and offered at the altar by the Priests, in like manner as the blood of the victims usually slain in sacrifice, as appears from
* Bishop Patrick in a note on Exod. xii. 21, makes the following observation — '• Here it may be fit to note, that the lamb being first killed in Egypt, it was killed in CFcry man's house, for they had no altar there, nor any other place where^hey had liberty to kill it. But after they came to the land of Canaan, it was not lawful to sacrifice it any where, but in the place which God appointed for his worship, Deut. xvi. 2. From which Maimonides concludes, that whatsoever they did with other sacrifices^ yet this could not be offered in the high places^ but only at the temple. And it is likely they did so in i\\Q, wilderness, the tabernacle beina newly erected at the keeping of the second passover, Numb. ix. 5."
To BE A SACRIFICE, 301
Kxod. xxiii. 18. and xxxiv. 25. — 2 Chron. xxx. 15, 1(5. and xxxv. 11. And in this sprinkling of the blood consisted, as we are told by the Jewish doctors, the very essence of a sacrifice — see Cudw.
lit supra, p. 10. 3. The fat and entrails were
burnt upon the altar, as may be collected from the accounts given of the ceremony of the Pass- over in the passages already referred to ; as also from the declarations of the Jewish doctors, the descriptions of the paschal sacrifice in the Misna of the Talmud, and the testimony of the Kar- raites, who are known to reject all the Talmudical traditions not founded on Scripture.* Thus then, all the distinguishing characters of a sacrifice,-}-
* See Cudzs, Int. Si/st, Disc, &c. pp. 12. 14, 15, 16.— see also Beausobre's Introd.\)^. 134, 135. ed. 1790 — and Sijkes's Essay o?i Sacrifices, p. 41.
+ *' Pascha nimirura erat sacrijicium proprie di6lum, Exod. xxiii. 18. xxxiv. 25, Hinc Pascha Gys^Oat dicitur, Marc. xiv. 22. Scd praecipuum est, quod sanguis agni a 8acerdote spargebatur, 2 Par. xxx. 16. xxxv. 11. in quo radix^ seu essentia^ sacrijicii est, inquit canon Judagorum iiotissimus. Adde quod in Egypto ubi nullum erat altare ad quod spargeretur sanguis, huic tamen analogum fuit, quod postes illinebant sanguine agni. Deinde Pascha in loco sacro ina6lari oportuit, Deut. xvi. 5.'' — PoH Syn. in Exod. xii. 27. — In like manner Bishop Patrick expresses himself on the subject of the Passo?er. '' It is" (he observes) *' frequently called by the name of a sacrifice^ Exod. xxiii. 18. xxxiv. 25. Deut. xvi. 4, 5, 6.— And it is called a Cor^ Mn ; which is a name given only to those things which were brought to be offered up to God. See Numb. ix. 13. where^
502 THE PASSOVER SHEAVN
we find to belong to the offering of the Paschal lamb. It was brought to the temple^ as a Cor- bun, or sacred ofiering to the Lord. It was slain in the courts of the temple ; and the blood was received by the priests, and handed to the High Priest ; who pouring it forth, and sprinkling it before the altar, offered it together with the fat and entrails, which were burnt upon the altar.
One circumstance indeed has been urged, which wears the appearance of an objection ; namely, that the Paschal lamb was slain not by the priest, but by the person who brought it to the temple. Philo, in his Life of Moses , (p. 686) has stated this, as distinguishing the Passover from all other sacrifices (which, by the way, clearly implies that he considers that to be a sacrifice as w^ell as the rest ; and so indeed he expressly calls it, Ilotvdvi(JLoq GTLIA—De Sept. ^^ Fest. p. 11 90.) In this, however, as in many other particulars of the Jewish rites, Philo is manifestly mistaken, this being by no means peculiar to the Passover : for that, in every kind of sacrifice, the individual that offered it might kill the sacrifice, is evident from the instance of the burnt-offering, in Levit. i. 4,
as it is called Corhan^ so the same word is used for bringing it, which is commonly used about other sacrifices. And it further appears to have been properly a sacrifice^ by the rites belonging to it : for the blood of it was sprinkled by the priests, 2 Chron. xxx, 16. xxxv. 11,"— Pa^r. on Exod xii. 27.
i
TO BE A SACRIFICE, 303
5 ; from that of the peace- ofiering, iii. 2 ; and from that of the sin-ofFering, iv. 24 : the proper duty of the priests behig only to sprinkle the bloody and to place upon the altar whatever was to be offered. ^ — it must certainly be admitted, that the ceremony of laying hands upon the head of the victim, which was usual in other sacrifices, w^as not adopted in that of the passover. This distinction, however, at the same time that it is noticed by Sykes, (Essay, &c. p. 41.) is suffi ciently accounted for by that writer, inasmuch as " the paschal lamb was the sacrifice of a com- 'pany : and where a company are concerned, no one can act for the whole, unless there be a pro- per representative ; as the elders of a congrega- tion are for the congregation, or persons deputed are for those who depute them, or governors may be for their people/'
If farther confirmation can be yet wanted to shew that the Passover w^as truly a sacrifice, we are supplied with this by the express testimony of Josephus ; who in the third book of his Antiqui- ties, treating of the subject of sacrifices, calls it the sacrifice which the Israelites had been ordered to sacrifice when leaving the land of Egypt — ttjv 0TSIAN 7]v TOTS e^iovTocg AiyvTTTH ©T^AI ttoosittov
* Sec Levit. i. 4—9. iii. 2—5. Iv. 24— -26.— see also the Jewish dodlors, as quoted by Cud worth, Discourse, kc. pp. 11, 12, and Jennings Jen), Antiq, vol. ii. p. 191.
304 THE PASSOVER SHEWN
yjfjLotg, nAS)XA Xeyof^LBVYjv'* — The authority of Jo-' sephus^ himself a priest^ and one of the most in- telligent of his nation, will hardly be disputed as to what was considered by the Jews to be a sacri- fice in his day.
Thus then upon the whole it appears, that when St. Paul declares, that Christ our passover has been sacrificed for us, there can be no ques- tion, that he means a true and effective sacrifice : and that Christ has been to Christians that spe- cies of sacrifice, which the passover had been to the Jews.
The question now arises. What was the nature of that sacrifice ? The name of the institution, and the circumstances of its appointment, fully explain its import: the original word signifying to pass over^ not merely in the sense of change of place^ but in the sense of sparing, passing without injury ; Jehovah in his work of destruc- tion having passed over, and left in safety, the houses of the Israelites, on the door-posts of which the blood of the sacrificed lamb was sprinkled, w^hilst he slew the first born in all the houses of the Egyptians.
Now, that the blood of the sacrificed lamb had any natural virtue, whereby the family, on whose door-posts it was sprinkled, might be preserved from the plague; or that Jehovah,-}- in pass-
* Aniiq. Jud.Wh. iii. cap. x — Josephi Opera, p. 93. A. + E/A£^A£> 8» 0 ©S05 ir^avxfflcn e( (A-n to <xr}y.no¥ tsto ettj t^v ^v^u» I
TO BE A SACRIFICE, 305
iiig, needed any such signal to distinguish be- tween the Egyptians and the Israehtes, (although the philosophy of Dr. Priestley has not scrupled to admit the supposition, see Th, Rep. vol. i. p. 215.) — it cannot be necessary to controvert. For what purpose, then, can we conceive such a cere- mony to have been instituted, but as a sensible token of the fulfilment of tlie divine promise of protection and deliverance ? And are we not, from the language of Scripture, fully authorized to pronounce, that it was through this, intended as a typical sign of protection from the divine justice, by the blood of Christ, which in reference to this is called, in Hebr. xii. 24. " the blood of sprinkling" ? Indeed the analogy is so forcible, that Cud worth does not hesitate to pronounce the
sysyovti ; e (pr,ijn syu^ aXX' ot« v^osKVj^vaa-t rviv ^iXKacrui ^t uiiaxtoq TH X^ira yiyncna-^cci yurmxt ru ysvst ruv uy^^uTruv, Just. Mart. Thirlb. p. 3/4.
Patrick on Exod. xii. 13, remarks that the blood was '' a sigKj by which the Israelites were assured of safety and de- liverance."— -And indeed the words of the original are, ths blood shall be to you for a token. — Patrick adds from Epiphanius, that there was a memorial of the transaction preserved even among the Egyptians themselves, though ignorant of the original of the rite. For at the Equinox, (which was the time of the Passover,) t\\&y marked their cattle, and their trees, and one another, (k h*iXt£wj, with red ochre, or some such thing, which they fancied would be •; preservative to them. See Patrick as above. VOL. I. X
306 THE PASSOVER SHEWN
slaying of the paschal lamb, in its first institution, to be an expiatory sacrifice ; the blood of the iamb sprinkled upon the door-posts of the houses, being the appointed means of preservation, by Jehovah's passing over. In confirmation also of the typical import of the ceremony, he notices a very extraordinary passage, quoted by Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, from the antient copies of the bible: in which Ezra ex- pounds, in a speech made before the celebration of the passover, the mystery of it as clearly relat- ing to Christ : and which Justin concludes, was at a very early day expunged from the Hebrew copies by the Jews, as too manifestly favouring the cause of Christianity. The passage is too re- markable to omit. ^^ This passover^'' saith Ezra to the people, " is our Saviour and refuge ;^ and
* Kat uffiv EiT^^aj Tw Aaw' Taro to 'kokt^x q curvi^ vn^oiiy k«i v
tT* iJLt>^o^A.tv otvrof rxnuvHv iv a-Y)[/,nu, xa» (abtx ruvrx tXTricroJixev ix tivrov, « /x*7 e^TfA.(i}^vj 0 totto? afro? sif rov xttuvtoc X^^*°** ><sysi o 0£of tu» ^vvxfjLeav' Eocv oe fx») virivaiire uvrUf fXTj^e ncrocKHarni rk xyi^vyfAxroi at;Ttf, eatcrOe imx^^l^x to»5 t^vea-i. (Just, Mart, Thirib, Vp. 292, 293.) — Justin says that this passage was among the ef»;ytj(7£i; uv t^Y,yYiaxtQ Ecrogaj eij Toi» vo^ov rov ttspi m tixa'vx I and hence Mr. Whitaker concludes (Origin of Arianism^ p. 305.) that it originally stood in Ezra vi. 19 — 22, and pro- bably between the 20th and 21st verses. It must however be confessed, that the reasons assigned by the learned Corn- men tatof on tho pa;>siage here q^uotcd by Justin, leave some
TO BE A SJCniFICE. 30/
if you can feel a firm persuasion, that we are about to humble and degrade him in this sign, and af- terwards should place our sure trust and hope in him, then this place shall never be made desolate^ saith the Lord of hosts : but if yon do not believe in him, nor listen to that which he shall announce, ye shall be a derision to all nations." (Cadiv. Inf. Syst, Disc. p. 16.) L'Enfant thinks the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. v. 7* are a direct allu- sion to the first sentence of the passage here cited — see Doddridge on 1 Cor. v. J. AUix in his Judgment of the Jew. Ch. p. 333, says, that when John the Baptist speaks o^the Lamb, which takes away the sins of the world, the type of the paschal lamb is alluded to : and that this appears the more clearly from two things taught amongst the Jews : 1. That the Shechinah delivered Israel out of Egypt: 2. That the Shechinah was typi- fied by the paschal lamb. — But, in proof that the paschal lamb was a type of Christ, it is not necessary to resort to Jewish traditions. Scrip- ture supplies the most decisive testimonies on the
reason to doubt its having existed in any genuine copy of the Old Testament, Grabe gives it as his opinion, that the senteuce which Justin thus testifies to have stood in the antient copies of Ezra, is rather to be considered as having crept in from a marginal addition by some early Christian, than as having been expunged from the later copies by Jewish fraud.
X 2
308 THE PASSOVER SHEWN
point. St. John, and St. Paul, both directly assert it, (Joh. xix. 36. 1 Cor. v. 7-) ^^^ ^^^ Lord himself seems to affirm it in his institution of the Eucharist at the last supper. (Mat. xxvi. 26.) But whoever wishes to see this point fully examined;, may consult Wits. (Econ, Feed, de paschate ; or the selection from that work in Jen- nings Jew, Ant, vol. ii. p. 201 — 208 ; or a yet more brief, and perhaps not less satisfactory, re- view of the subject, in Beausoh. 8$ L'Enfant's Introd.ip, 133—138.
Dr. Priestley's mode of evading the force of the passage in 1 Cor. v. 7. as a proof that the death of Christ was a sacrifice, has been stated in the beginning of this Number. I shall conclude it by noticing a different mode, adopted by a celebrated fellow labourer of his in the work of refining away the fair and natural meaning of Scripture language, Dr. Sykes. In the words, Christ our passover is sacrijicedfor us, a plain unbiassed un- derstanding would find it difficult 7iot to discover, that the passover is affirmed to be a sacrifice ; and that, in some corresponding sense, Christ is said to be sacj^ificed for us. Dr. Priestley, as we have seen, avoids the latter position, by a direct denial of the former. Dr. Sykes, on the other hand, admits the former, and yet peremptorily rejects the latter. Now though Dr. Priestley's assertion, that the passover is not here pronounced to be a
TO BE A SJCRTfTCE. 309
Sacrifice, may appear sufficiently bold : yet the position, that it is called a sacrifice, and that Christ is not in the same sentence said to be 5a- crificed, seems a flight of criticism, still more wor- thy of our admiration. On what ground an ex- position so extraordinary is founded, it is natural to enquire. Christ, we are told, is called our 2)assover, inasmuch as by his means our sins are passed over, just as by means of the paschal Iamb the children of Israel were passed over in Egypt. So far is well. But how is he said to be sacrificed for us ? — why, hy not being sacrificed at all; but, hy being compared to the paschal lamb, ivhich ivas a sacrifice!!! Here is true logic, and rational criticism. — If the reader should doubt this to be a fair representation of Dr. Sykes's argument, I refer him to the learned Doctor himself, Scripture Doctrine of Rede mp^ Hon, no. 640. p, 220.
In justification of what has been advanced in the preceding Number (p. 304.) on the significa- tion of the word nD2, 1 subjoin the following ob- servations.
This Hebrew word which we translate P^^^ot'er, was rendered by almost all the early interpreters, in the sense which the English word implies; namely
X O
510 TRUE MEAN ITS G OF THE WORD
passing over. Josephus, who calls it Ttacrx^^f ^^^ sometimes (poca-jccc, expressly affirms, that the He- brew word signifies vTre^Qoca-ix, or passing over ; in commemoration of God's having passed over {vTreo^ocq) the Hebrews, when he smote the Egyp- tians with his plague. (Antiq, p. 65.) — Philo, in two distinct parts of his works, explains the word by the term Sioc^aa-ig, which he uses unequivocally in the sense of passing over, i. e. from place to place. (Opera, pp. 392. 439.) And again, in p. 686, he employs the term rcc Sio.Qocrr^^iO'.f the passings over, or from place to place. — -Aquila in his version renders the word by vTre^^oco-ig^ a pass- ing over, using nearly the same term with Jose- pl^us. — And Jerome adopts the word transituSy as the just equivalent of the Hebrew.
Thus far there appears a perfect agreement amongst the antient versions ; affording at the same time a full justification of the phrase by which we render the Hebrew term in our commoij English bibles. Some commentators however, and those of no mean note, for example Vitringa and Lowth, Dathe and Rosenmuller, have raised doubts as to the propriety of the sense conveyed by the word passover, in explication of the origi- nal term nD2. The difficulties, that weigh with the two latter, are however of a nature, to which, I cannot help thinking, these critics have attached an importance beyond what is justly due. That
TRANSLATED PJSSOVEE. 311
the Arabic language does not ascribe the sense of fra?isltio to the word, seems by no means a proof that it cannot admit that meaning, as these au- thors contend. (Dath, and Rosenm, on Exod. xii. 11. and Datfie more fully, in Glass, Phil, Sacr. pp. 968, 96'9.) Objections drawn from the kindred dialects ought to be admitted, only in the case of such words as are in themselves of doubtful signification, receiving no illustration either from corresponding passages, or from early versions. Very different is the case of the term in question. Not only, as we have seen, do some of the earliest and most competent translators attribute to it the sense already stated, but several passages of Scrip* ture justify that sense by a corresponding use of the verb from which the word is derived. This will appear by considering the several verses of the twelfth chapter of Exodus, in which the institu- tion of the Passover is prescribed, and the reason of its designation by that term expressly assigned.
The communication is first made to Moses by Jehovah. — 11. " It is the hord' s passover, (riD .) 12. For I will pass ("»mi>n) through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the first born in the land of Egypt. — 13. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, ( d::^ ^nnD2l) and the plague shall not be iipon you for destruction, whilst I smite the land
X 4
312 TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD
of Egypt." — Again in verse 23. this communica^ tion of Jehovah is conveyed by Moses to the el- ders of the people in the following words: — "For the Lord will pass ("lliyi) thro' to smite the Egyp- tians, and when he seeth the blood, &c. the Lord will pass over the door (nnsn ^y mrr nDE;l) and will not suffer the destruction (or destroying plague) to come into your houses to smite you." — And lastly in the 27th verse, when Moses in- structs them as to the manner in which they are to explain the rite to their descendants, he tells them that they shall say, " it is the sacrifice of the hord's pa ssover (v^D^nyi) who passed (w^) over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians and delivered our houses." Now it is evident, that if the verb nos has been rightly interpreted throughout these passages, the noun derived from it has been rightly explained. — Let us then here consult the versions. The Septuagint, which uses the Hebrew term through- out for the noun, (viz. Trao-^a — and so through the Pentateuch; but in Chron. (pc^cen,) employs different words in rendering the vej'b. In verse 23, it renders by TruaiX^vcrsTca, the very same word by which it translates the verb 1:1^ in the same verse. That the Seventy therefore admitted the word to bear the sense of transltus, or passing eve?', there can be no question. Tliey have, it is true, translated the verb by the word o-KiTra^coy ia
TKA}iSlATED PASSOVER* 313
the 13th and 27th verses : but the sense, in which they intend that word, may well be doubted, when we find it employed by them in 1 Samuel xxiii. 26. to denote the tumultuous and eager haste of David to accomplish his escape. If however we suppose it in this place to imply protection or preservation, the Seventy have then substituted the effect of that act of passing over for the act it- self: and felt themselves justified in doing so, as they had at the same time secured the word against abuse by giving (as has been mentioned) its literal acceptation. In like manner we find that the other Greek translators, Aquila, Theodo- tion and Symmachus, have rendered the participle mDi) by vTTB^Socivcov (passing ever) in Isai. xxxi. 5, where the term is commonly conceived to be used in direct reference to its application here. The LXX there use the term Tre^iTroiTjasToci, instead of which Ms. Pachom. reads TreoiSTjo'eTccti which Bi- shop Lowth deems the true reading.
There are versions however yet to be noted, which assign to the word noS;, as it occurs in Exod. xii. a sense different from that which we have hitherto assigned. In verse 11, the Targum and Persic both render the noun by pardon ^ spar- ing mercy, Sacrificium propitiation is (Arab.) — Sacrif. pro miser icordid coram Domino fCh.) — And again, verses 13, 23,2/, Syr. Arab. Pers. and Targ. render the verb in the same sense, that
314 TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD
of sparing ; quod 7nisertus est. (Ch.) propitiatus* (Syr. Arab.) with which, as we have hinted, the a-zBTTucrs of the LXX possibly concurs. — The Com- plufenslar?, in deference to the above authorities, has interpreted the verb throughout this entire chapter by the words misereriyparcere : and many respectable commentators have adopted the same interpretation.
But how does this connect with the sense of pass- ing over, supported by the former versions ? Per- haps a Httle attention to the radical meaning of the verb nv^ may point out that connexion. Fa* gius, in locum, says, that the primary signification of the verb nos is saltare, transilire ; unde et claudum Hebraei nD2 appellant, quod cum ingre- ditur, quasi saltare et siibsllire videtur. Hence he adds, the name is derived a saltn angeli devas- tatoris : and he adduces the authority of R. D. Kimchi to this head. That of R. Sol. Jarchi^ adduced by Dr. Geddes, is more precise. " Obla- tio ista (agni paschal is) vocatur Pesach^ propter saltum, quo sanctus ille Benedtctus transibat domos Isnielitaram inter domos Egyptiorum, et saliebat de Egy})tio in Egyptium: Israelita autem intermedins incolumis relinquebatur." This pri- mary sense of springing rapidlij, or with a hound^ is that which is admitted generally by Hebrew scholars, and seems undoubtedly to be the true one. il tieu we consider it in this light, Jeho-^ yah, who is represented as carrying with him the
TRANSLATED PASSOVER. 315
destroying plague, in mercy to the Israelite passes rapidly over his house, and thereby saves it from the destruction which is borne along to the man- sion of the Egyptian, on which it is allowed to rest and execute its fatal work. Thus the pass^ ing of Jehovah ouer, (that is, his rapidly passing over) the houses of the Israelites, and the sparing^ or showing mercy to the Israelites, become na- turally connected: and therefore either might reasonably be used by interpreters^ as the signi- fication of the term in this part of Scripture.
From this view of the case it appears, that Dr. Geddes, in his translation, and still more in his Critical Remarks, was not very far from a just idea of this subject : but unfortunately for himself, (from a quaintness, a love of singularity, and a total destitution of taste^ which always made what was even right appear wrong in his hands — nullum quod tetigit non deformavit — ) he clothed this just idea in a dress so grotesque, that even he himself was afterwards brought to see and admit the ludicrousness of the garb, which he had fixed upon this part of holy writ. — It is curious enough to trace tlie origin of the ridi- culous epithet skip-offering, which has been adopted by this translator, in the writings of one of the most elesrant and classical of our Hebrew cri- tics, the celebrated Bishop Lowth ; who expressly describes " the common notion of God's passing over the houses of the Israelites to be, that see-
.1l6 TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD
ing the blood, he passed over^ or skipped, those houses," &c.
This last named critic, following the steps of Vitringa, has in a note upon Isaiah xxxi. b, given an explanation of the term HDD, with which the signification of the English word Pass-over is totally^ at variance. Both he and Vitringa admit the primary sense of the verb to be that of springing Jbrivai^d, or leaping forward, with rapidity, as it has been before explained; and seem to have altogether adopted the exposition of the word which we have quoted from Fagius. But the notion entertained by these distinguished critics, that two agents were concerned in the preservation of the Israelites on the night of the passover, has led them to assign to the word, as applied in Exodus, the signification of covering, i. e. protecting hy covering (as f^itringa), or springing forward to cover and protect (as LowthJ. '' Here are manifestl) " (says the Bi-hop) *' two distinct agents, with which the notion of passing over is not consistent; for that supposes but one agent. The two agents ai-e, the destroy- ing angel passing through to smite every house ; and Jehovah the protector, keeping pace with him ; and who, seeing the door of the Israelite marked with the blood, the token prescribed, leaps forward, throws himself with a sudden mo- tion in the way, opposes the destroying angel ; and covers and protects that house against th« destroying angel^ nor suffers him to smite it."
TRANSLATED PASSOVER. 317
Here is undoubtedly an imposing picture of the transaction, presented to the imagination of the reader; but certainly without any foundation, save what exists in the fancy of the writer. An inaccurate translation indeed of the 23d verse seems to afford some colour to this view of the transaction ; ^^-b D^^ni'^N^ >?1^ r^^TWr^n |n"' ^?^^, be- ing rendered in our common version, '' And will not suffer the destroyer to come into your houses to smite you." Rosenmuller attributes this wrong translation to the Septuagint. — "LXX verterunt o oXoOpevcav, secuti Judaeorum opinionem^ tribuentium angelo cuidam, fati ministro, fulgura, pestem et similia hominibus fatalia : quod com- mentum et multi Christiani interpretes repeti- erunt. Sed nil tale in textu/' SchoL in Exod. xii. 23. Rosenmuller is undoubtedly right in asserting, that there is nothing whatever in the text to justify the idea of a second agent. Who- ever reads over the entire chapter with any degree of care, will see, that the Jehovah, who prescribes the rite, is himself the agent throughout, w^ithout the least intimation of any other being concerned. For as to the verse above referred to, its true tran- slation, which I have given in a former part of this discussion, removes at once every semblance of support which it could be supposed to afford to the contrary opinion ; the word n^ntt^D, (the same which is used in the 13th verse as well as in the 23d,) signifying perditio, vastatio, corrupfio,
1
3 IS TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD
extermination (as see Pol. Syn, also Vatahl. on Exod. xii. 13.) and the m^vmd^ ^yi of the 13th verse signifying exactly the same as the ^^i^ n^rWD of the 23d, i. e. in both places, the destroying plague. Besides it must be remarked, that the expression suffer in the 23d verse, which seems to imply a distinct agent who would enter the house of the Israelite if not prevented, has no au* thority from the original ; the strict translation being " he will not givey' or " caused' (jn> ih) ; the word ]TS1 never being used in the sense oi per^ miitiiig, without the b marking the dative case of that to which the permission was granted : but the word Ty^n^D not only wants the sign of the dative here, but has actually that of the accusative (JIN^) in MS. 69 of Kennicot's.
It appears then, upon the whole, that the fancy of a twofold agent indulged in by Vitringa, Lowth, and some other Commentators, derives no support whatever from the text of Exodus ; and therefore the objections, which that fancy alone suggested in opposition to the explanation which has been given of the word nD2, fall to the ground ; whilst the admissions of those writers, as to the primary acceptation of the word, must be allowed to stand in confirmation of those very conclusions which they were desirous to overturn.
The passage in Isaiah indeed which they were engaged in elucidating, in some degree naturally led them to the view of the subject which we have
TRANSLATED PASSOVER, 319
just noticed. The Prophet having there de- scribed Jehovah as protecting Jeriusalem, in hke manner as mother birds protect by hovering over their young ; and this being impossible to be conveyed by a term which merely wTi^Xied passing over, and which, so far from indicating an over- shadowing protection, on the contrary necessarily induced an exposure of the defenceless young, and this only the more sudden the more rapid was the transition : the commentators deemed it indispen- sable to extend the meaning of the word nD3 ( here employed ) beyond the latter sense, and to give to it such a signification as would admit the former ; and perceiving a strong similarity be- tween the application of the term here, and to the deliverance in Egypt, they endeavoured to explain it in such a sense as would embrace both transac- tions; and were accordingly led to that interpre- tation of the term which required the twofold agency of which we have spoken. But why re- cur upon every occasion to the primary sense of a word ? Are there not in every language nume- rous wordS;, in which the derivative becomes the prevalent and appropriate sense? And if we sup- pose the deliverance from Egypt to have been al- juded to by the Prophet, (which, as well from the general similitude of subject^ as particularly from the use of the terms nOD and ^t:in which are con- jointly used in speaking of the passover and its
effect in JGxod. xii. 27, seems scarcely to admit
1
520 TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD.
of doubt), what could be more fit than to adopt that form of expression, which, from its famihar association with the dehverance from Egyptian bondage, had long been employed to designate that dehverance without any reference whatever to its primary acceptation. In other words, was it not most natural, that any providential preservation or deliverance of the Jewish people should be called by the word Pesach, the term used to deno- minate that recorded act whereby the first great preservation and deliverance of Israel was effected ? Might not then the Prophet have properly and beautifully employed the word mD3, in the pas- sasfe referred to, in the sense of God's actinsr a^rain as a protector and deliverer of his people, in like manner as he had done at the time of the riDS ? This gives new beauty to the original passage, and relieves the comparison between its subject and the deliverance in Egypt from all embarrass- ments ; whilst it retains all that attractive imagery, with which the prophet embellishes the original idea. The passage would then stand thus.
As the OTo/Aer-birds hovering over their young ; So shall Jehovah, God of hosts, protect Jerusalem, Protecting and delivering, preserving {as by a second Pass- over) and rescuing her.
Bishop Stock, in his translation, has much dis- figured the beauty of this passage; neither display- ing taste in the expression, nor judgment in th^
TRANSLATED PASSOVER. 321
criticism: — Birds protecting tJie winged race, be- ing neither elegant nor quite intelligible : a:yJ HOPPING round and over, which is rather an odd signification of the word ryoTi, being a still odder reason for translating the word by flying round.
Some have charged the Greeks with corrupting the original word TOD Pesach, by writing it 77oc(rxiX' ; and have seemed to intimate that the word was so used by them as if it were derived from 7ra<rx'-o pat lor, intimating the sufferings of our Lord, of which the inlaying of the passover was a type. Tliat such an allusion may have some- times been made as might afTord some apparent justification to the charge, there seems reason to admit. (See Glass. Phil. Sacr. i. 693. also Greg. Naz. Serm. de Pasch. and JVolf, Cur. Phil. i. 365. ) Yet the fact is, that the nOB of the Hebrew is writ- ten ,SfnD2 Pascha in the Chaldee, from which the 7r^,^%ai of the Greek has immediately flowed.
On the subject of the word Passover, I shall only add the following enumeration of its various applications. 1. It signifies the passing over of Jehovah who spared the Israelites when he smote the first-born of the Egjptians. 2. It signifies by a metonymy the lamh slain in memory of that deliverance. 3. It signifies the feast day on which the paschal lamb was slain— viz. the 14th of the first month. 4, and lastly, It signifies the entire continuance and the whole employment of tlie festival, which commenced with the slaying of the lamb, and continued for seven clays.
VOL. I. \
( 322 )
NO. XXXVI.— ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD TRANSLATED .ITONEML'NT IN THE OLD TES- TAMENT.
Page 32. ('") — The meaning of the word ISD, the original of the term atonement: in tlie Old Testament^ lias been modelled, like that of other scripture phrases, so as to fall in with the theories of those, who are more anxious that scripture should speak their language, than that they should speak the language of scripture. The common artifice, bv which the terms of revelation have been discharged of all appropriate meaning, has been here employed with considerable eflect. By a comparison of the various passages, in which the term occurs, its most general signification is iirst explored ; and in this generic sense it is afterwards explained, in all the particular cases of its application. The manner, in which Doctor Taylor has exercised this strange species of criti- cism on the word atonement, in his Scripture Doctrine, has been already noticed, p. 181 — 18G. One or two additional remarks, will more fully explain the contrivance, by which this writer has been enabled to shape this expression to his purpose. \
Having laid it down as a principle, " that those passages in the Levitical law, in which atonement is said to be made for persons by sacrifice^ supply
MEANING OF ATONEMENT, &C. 323
not SO many different instances of a known sense of the word, atonement ; but are to be considered as exhibiting one single instance of a sense which is doubtful ;" (Scrip. Doct. ch. iv. § 69. ) he pro- nounces, (ch. V. "^ 7^ ) that " the texts, which are to be examined, are those, where the word is used extra-levitically, or with no relation to sacrifices ; that we may be able to judge, what it imports when applied to them." And agreeably to these notions, he conducts his enquiry. Now what is this, but to pronounce first upon the nature of the thing unknown, and then to engage in its investi- gation ? The meaning of the term, in the several instances of its Levitical a])plication, though as yet supposed unknown, is presumed to be the same in all : and this, notwithstanding these cases of its application must be as difterent as its ob- jects ; persons, and things ; moral, and ceremo- nial, disqualifications.
But not content with thus decidincr on the uniformity of an unknown signification, he pro- ceeds to discover the meaning of the term, in. those passages which relate to sacrifice, by exam- ining it in others, in which it has no such relation. The result of this singularly critical examination is, that from 37 texts, which treat of extra- leviti- cal atonements, it may be inferred, " that the means of making]: atonement for sin in diflerent cases, are widely difterent ; being sometimes by
the sole goodness of God, sometimes by the prayers
Y 2
324 MEANING OF ATONEMENT
of good men, sometimes by repentance, some- times by disciplinary visitation, sometimes by sig- nal acts of justice and virtue : and that any mean, whereby sinners are reformed, and the judgments of God averted, is atoning, or making atonement, for their sins;" (cap. 6. § 112.) What then follows respecting the Levitical atonement ? Not, that the word, which when used extra-levitically is taken in various senses according to the natural efficacy of the ditferent means employed, is to be applied in its Levitical designation in a sense yet different from these, agreeable to the difference of means introduced by the Levitical institutions. Quite the contrary. When specifically restricted to an appropriate purpose, it ceases to have any distinguishing cha- racter : and the term, whose signification when it had no relation to sacrifice, was diversified with the nature of the means and the circumstances of the occasion, is upon assuming this new relation pronounced incapable of any new and characte- ristic meaning. This argument furnishes a strik- ing instance of that species of sophism ; which, from a partial, concludes a total agreement. Having discovered, by a review of those passages, which treat of extra-levitical atonements, that these and the sacrifices which were offered for sin, agreed In their effect ; namely, in procuring the pardon of sin, or the removal of those calamities which had been inflicted as the punishment of it ;
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 325
tlie writer at once pronounces the extra-levitical and the sacrificial atonements to have been of the same nature througliout^ without regarding the utter dissimilarity of the means employed, and without considering that the very question as to the nature of the atonement^ is a question involv- ing the means through which it was effected.
But whilst Doctor Taylor has thus endeavoured to overturn the generally received notion of atone- ment, by an examination of such passages, as treat of those atonements which were not sacrificial : Doctor Priestley professes to have carefully re- viewed all those instances of atonement, which were sacrificial ; and from this review to have de- duced the mference, that the sacrificial atonement merely implies, " the making of any thing clean or holy, so as to be fit to be used in the service of God ; or when applied to a person, fit to come into the presence of God : God being considered, as in a peculiar manner, the king and the sove- reign of the Israel itish nation, and as it were keeping a court amongst them." (Hist of Cor. vol. i. p. 193.) Doctor Priestley, by this repre- sentation of the matter, endeavours to remove from view, whatever might lead the mind to the idea of jiropitiating the Deity ; and by taking care to place the condition oVpersons and things on the same ground, utterly discards the notion of offence and reconciliation. But in order to effect this, he has been obliged wholly to overlook the force of the original word, which is translated atonement ;
Y 3
326 MEANING OF jITONEMENT
as well as of that^ which the LXX have used as its equivalent.
The term ns::, in its }3rimary sense, signifies to snieay^ or cover' with pitchy as appears from Gen. vi, 14: and from this covering with pitchy it has been metaphorically transferred to things of a dif- ferent nature ; insomuch that, in all the 37 in- stances of extra-levitical atonement adduced by Doctor Taylor, he asserts, that the word "13D re- tains something of this original sense (Scrip, Doctrine, ch. vi. § 115.): and agreeably to this, he pronounces " atonement for sin to be the co- vering of sin." This position seems fully con- firmed by Nehem. iv. 45. Psal. xxxii. 1. Ixxxv. 2. and other passages in Scripture; in which the pardon of sin is expressed by its being covered,and the punishment of it by its not being covered. And Schindler, in his Lexicon Pentaglotton, having in like manner fixed the general significa- tion of the word to be texit, operuit, modifies this generic signification, according to the change of subject, thus : — de facie, seu irfi^ placavit, recon- ciliavit; de peccato, rcmisit, condonavit, expi- avif; de sordihws, exjmrgavit ; de aliis, ahstuUt^ removit.
Agreeably to this explanation of the word, in which Hebrew critics almost universally concur, the LXX render it by e^tXcc(ncof/,oci, to appease, or m?ike propitious, and the antient Latmby exorare, and sometimes deprecari : (see Sahatiers Vet, Ital.) the concealing, and removing from view^
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 327
whatever is offensive and displeasing to a person being necessary to reconcile him and render him propitious. And indeed, in a sense agreeable to this, that of bringing into a state of concord and reconciliation, the word atonement itself had beeu originally used by our old English writers ; with whom, according to Junius, Skinner, and Johnson, it was written at-one-ment, signifying to he at one, or to come to an agreement : and in this very sense we find it used by our own translators, in Levit. xvi. \6, 20, where speaking of the act, whereby the High Priest was directed to make atonement for the holy place, they immediately after call it reconciling the holy place.
But Doctor Priestley has not only neglected the original and strict signification of the term im- plying sacrificial atonement, and imposed upon it a sense which at best is but secondary and re- mote, but he has also decided on a partial and hasty view of the subject, even as confined to the English translation : for surely, although it be in every case of atonement evidently implied, that the thing or person atoned for was thereby cleansed, and so rendered fit for the service of God ; it must likewise be admitted, that by this they were rendered pleasing to God, having been before in a state impure and unfit for his service, and being now rendered objects of his approbation and acceptance as fit instruments of his worship. The fallacy of Doctor Priestley's interpretation
Y 4
;i28 MEANING OF ATONEMENT
consists in this, that he assumes that to be the sole end of the atonement, whicli although an un- doubted consequence from it^ was inseparably connected with, and subservient to, another and more important effect : the atonement indeed purifying, so as to qualify for the service and wor- ship of God ; but this purification consisting in the removal uf that, which unfitted and disquali- fied for such sacved purposes ; bringing what be- fore was undeserving the divine regard into a state of agreement with the divine purity, and rendering it the object of the divine approbation. To make atonement then to God, was to remove what was offensive; and thus by conciliating the divine favour, to sanctify for the divine service.
This general meaning of the expression, modi- fied by the circumstances of its application, will lead us to its true value and force in each particu- lar instance. Thus, in the atonements at the con- secration of the tabernacle, altars, vessels and priests ; the several instruments and persons de- stined for the offices of worship, being in their natural state unworthy of tljis sacred use, were thereby purified from all natural pollution, and rendered fit objects of the divine acceptance. The same may be applied to those atonements ap- pointed for restoring persons to the privileges of public worship, who had been disqualified by cir- cumstances of external impurity, such as were oc- casioned by natural infirmities, diseases and accU
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 32.9
dental events. But whilst in these cases, in which moral character could have no concern, the puri- fyino; rite of atonement was enjoined, to render both things and persons worthy and approved in- struments of the divine w^orship; so in those where moral character ivas concerned^ the atone- ment made by the sacrifice for sin, qualified the transgressor for the divine service, by removing what had been offensive from the sight of him, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity ; the repentance of the offender aided by the pious observance of the enjoined rite, averting the divine displeasure, and effecting a reconcihation with his offended sovereign : whilst those who were guilty of a presumptuous and deliberate defiance of the divine authority, were cut off from all con- nexion with their God, and no atonement what- ever allowed for their transgressions. . Epis- copius seems to state the case very satisfactorily — " Sacrificia pro peccato, esi erant, quee offerebantur ad impuritates expiandas, sive eae essent morales, sive pkysicce aut potius ceremoniales. Morales impuritates voco, istas quae animorum sunt : id est, quae culpam aliquam ex animae sive ignoran- tia, sive errore, sive imbecillitate ortam in se ha- bent : impuritates enim, quae per superbiam, &c. contrahebantur, sacrificiis expiari non poterant. Physicas sive ceremoniales impuritates voco, fae- ditates, sive maculas illas corporis, quae nulla culpa hominis contrahi possunt; quales sunt qu^e
330 MEANING OF ATONEMENT
ex leprosl, mortui contractu/' &c. — Inst, TlieoL Lib. III. Sect. II. cap. iii. vol. i. p. 71.
This view of the matter^ seems to give to the whole of the Levitical atonement, a consistent and satisfactory meaning. The atonement, in all cases, producing the effect of fitting for the divine ser- vice : — this, in such as involved no consideration of moral character, (as in the consecration of in- animate things, or the atonement for persons la- bouring under corporeal impurities,) could consist only in the removal of the external impurity, for in such cases this impediment alone existed : whilst in those, in which moral character was concerned, as in cases of sin, whereby man having incurred the displeasure of his God, had disquali- fied himself for the offices of his worship, the unfitness could have been removed only by such means, as at the same time removed that dis- pleasure, and restored the offender to the divine favour : — or in other words, the atonement was in such cases an act of propitiation. And to such cases it is, that it may be applied in the strict se'nse of the word reconciliation ; so that the doc- trine of atonement, as far as relates to sin, is no- thing more than the doctrine of reconciliation.
As to the manner, in which the sacrifice for sin may be supposed to have operated, to the effecting this reconciliation, this is of no concern to the present enquiry. That a reconciliation ivas thereby effected, insomuch that the penalty of the transgression was remitted, and the offender re-
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 331
stored to the privileges which he had forfeited by his oiience, is abundantly manifest. The instan- ces in scripture, in which the eiiect of the atone^ ment is expressly described as the removal of the divine displeasure, are too numerous to be recited. Let a few suffice. — In Exod. xxxii. 30,32, Moses addressing the Israelites, after the great crime which they had committed in w^orshipping the golden calf, says, ye have s'mned a great sin ; and noiv I will go up unto the Lord ; peradven- ture I shall make an atonement for your sin : and these words he immediately after explains, by his prayer to God, that he nught Jbrglve their sin. Again we find a stop put to an infliction of punishment, by the atonement made by Aaron for the people, in the rebellion of Korah. ^tid Moses said, take a censer ; and go quicldy unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them; for there is wrath gone out from the Lord ; the plague is begim : and Aaron took as Moses commanded him; and made an atonement for the people — a7id the plague ivas stayed. Numb, xvi. 46, 47, 48. The atonement made by Phi- nehas, and the efi[ect of it, are not less remark- able : God says of him, he hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, (while he was zealous for my sake among them) that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jeal- ousy— he was zealous fojr his God, and made an atonement /o/' the children of Israel. Numb. XXV. 11, 13.
332 MEANING OF ATONEMENT
The instances of atonement here adduced, are not indeed of the sacrificial kind; but they equally serve to evince the Scripture sense of the term, in cases of transgression^ to be that of reconciling the offended deity, by averting his displeasure : so that, when the atonement for sin is said to be made by sacrifice, no doubt can remain, that the sacrifice was strictly a sacrifice of propitiation. Agreeably to this conclusion, we find it expressly declared, in the several cases of piacular oblations for transgression of the divine commands, that the sin, for which atonement was made by those ob- lations, should hQ forgiven.^
Doctor Priestley and H. Taylor have of late endeavoured to subvert this notion, by represent- ing sacrifices merely as gijts, and atonement as nothing but a ceremonial purifying and setting apart from common use, for the divine service, without any idea whatever of propitiation : see TheoL Repos, vol. i. p. 199 — 205. and B, Moi^d, V* 7^99 — ^^^* How far this theory is invalidated by the observations contained in the present Number, it remains for the reader to judge. I shall only add, that Doctor Sykes, whose autho- rity both these writers are in general very willing to acknowledge, does not hesitate to pronounce the sacrificial meaning of the word rT\'2t'2 atone"
* See Levit.. iv. 20, 2i% 31, 35. v. 10, 13, 16, 18. vi. 7. xix. 22. Numb. xv. 25, 26, 28. Consult also Ilallct's Notes and Discourses, toI. ii. p. 270—274.
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 333
ment, to contain the notion of pi^opitiafion ; de- riving it, as has been here done, from the original signification of the word n2D to cover, that is, '* to remove or take away anger or offence, by so co- vering it that it may not appear:" (Essay on Sa- crifices, pp. 152. 158, 159,) and '' to make atone- ment Jo r sins'^ he says " is to do something by means of which a man obtains pardon of them." (p. 306.)
How strongly the propitiatory import of the sacrificial atonement, contended for in this note, was attributed to it by modern Jews, has been already amply detailed in Number XXXIII. — In Doctor Laurence's Sermon on ike 3Ietaphorical character o/*the Apostolical Style, (pp. 17. 32.) there are some good observations on the Targum of Jonathan, tending to confirm the position, that the ideas, of atonement, and of forgiveness, were held by the Jews in the time of our Saviour, as perfectly equivalent.
NO. XXXVII. ON THE EFFICACY OF THE MOSAIC
ATONEMENT AS APPLIED TO CASES OF MORAL TRANSGRESSION.
Page 33. (") — For the purpose of reducing the sacrificial atonement to the simple notion of ! external purification^ it has been thought neces-
334 MOSAIC ATONEMENTS APPLICABLE
sary^ to deny the appointment of any expiation for the transgressor of the moral law. It has been argued ;, that those sins and iniquities, for which, it is in several instances expressly said, that forgiveness was procured by the atonement, *^ do not in the language of the Old Testament necessarily imply a deviation from moral rectitude, or a transgression of the moral law; but are fre- quently used, when nothing more can be under- stood, than a privation of that bodily purity, which the ceremonial law required; as we read of the iniquity of the sanctuary, (Numb, xviii. 1.) and of the iniquity of the holy things, (Exod. xxviii. 38.); and as we find the ashes of the burnt heifer, though applied only for the purification of external uncleanness, expressly called ' the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin;' (Numb, xix. 7-) and in like manner, the oblation required from him who had recovered from a leprosy, a *?7i-offering: the unclean person, though free from blame in a moral point of view, yet in the eye of the law being deemed a sinner." These observa- tions, it is but fair to confess, are to be found in the pages of one of the ablest advocates of the doctrine of atonement. It is also urged, that the sins, for which atonement were appointed, were at most but sins of ignorance ; to which scarcely any moral character could attach, and W'hich deserved to be ranked in the same class withanere natural or accidental infirmities. This
TO CASES OF MORAL TRAlsfSGRESSION. 335
latter point is largely insisted on by writers, who oppose the received doctrine of atonement ; and is particularly enforced by a writer in TheoL Rep, vol. iii. who signs himself Eusebius; and who professes to enter fully into an examination of the several cases of atonement^ recorded in the Old Testament.
In reply to the first of these arguments, let it be remarked, 1. That the expressions so much re- lied on, iniquiti/ of the holy things^ iniquUt/ of the sanctuary, mean merely the j)rofanation, or impj^oper use of the holy things, &c. ; so that the iniquity here refers to the persons making this improper use of the holy things not to the things themselves: and thus the entire objection, derived from the use of this expression, falls to the ground. This appears, as well from the force of the term in the original, which is translated iniquity; as from the context of the passages referred to. The Hebrew word p^ being derived from rTi>% the strict signification of which is to turn, or he turned, aside from the projier state or destination, applies with peculiar propriety to the improper, or pro- fane use of the holy things of the sanctuary. And this sense is supported by the passages in which the expression occurs: the Priests hearing the iniquity of the Sanctuary, (Numb, xviii. 1.) and Aaron hearing the iniquity of the holy things, (Ex. xxviii. ^S.) manifestly relating, and being understood by every commentator to relate, to 1
336 MOSAIC ATONEMENTS APPLICABLE
the care to be taken that no improper use or legal defilement should profane the sacred things ; in- asmuch as^ in such case^ it would rest with Aaron, and with the priests^ to bear the punishment of, or make atonement for, such profanation. Tims Jarchi on Num. xviii. 1. " Upon you I will bring the punishment of the strangers, that shall sin concerning the sanctified things that are de- livered unto you." Houbigant translates the words in Numb. sust'mehU sanctiiarii noxas ; i. e. as he explains it, reus erit delicti in sanctuarium admissi — and in Exodus, susclpiet maculas dono- riim. — See also Ainsioorth, Patrick^ Calmet, Le Clerc, Da thins, and in short, all the commenta- tors, who concur in this interpretation, and in like manner explain the passage in Exodus: see like- wise Levit. xvi. l6 — 19.
But as the word iniquity y thus applied to the sacred things, will not prove, that by sin, in the Levitical law, nothing more was intended than external defilement ; so neither will, 2. The ap- plication of the term sin and 6 m offering to per- sons labouring under mere corporeal impurities. Respecting the case of the burnt heifer, in which though intended solely for the purification of ex- ternal uncleanness, the ashes are expressly called the ashes of the burnt heifer of piirijicationfor sin, it must be noted, that the argument here is chiefly derived from the words of the translation, without attending sufficiently to the original: the
TO CASES OF MORAL TRANSGRESSION. 337
words in the Hebrew signifj^ing literally, the ashes x)f the burnt sin-offering,^ Purification for sin then is not the language of the original; and from this consequently nothing can be inferred. But ad- mitting even, that the corporeal impurities arising from leprosy, puerpery, contact of the dead, and other such causes, are spoken of as sins committed by the persons labouring under them, in like manner as the direct and voluntary transgressions of the divine commands; admitting, that it is pro- nounced of the former^ equally as of the latter, that in virtue of the atonement, the sin vJilch had been committed, ivas forgiven them: admitting, that the sin-ofFering, on these occasions, looked solely to the uncleanness, without having any re- spect to the general sinfulness and unworthiness of the person seeking to be restored to the pri- vileges of the public worship of God: and ad- mitting, that in looking to the particular instance of uncleanness, it could not have been intended (as the later Jews explain it, see p. 268.-1-) through that, to have referred to that original guilt in- curring the penalty of death, from which this and the other infirmities, of man's nature, had taken their rise; or to some specific crime, by which
♦ See Alnszcorth^ Patrick, and Dathe^ on Numb. xix. 17. also Richie's PecuL Doctr. vol. i. p. 212,
+ See also Ainszcurth^ on Numb. xix. Ifi. I-^ev. xli. 7, and SIT. 32. 34. 41). and Jenningi's Jew. Jnliq. toI. L p. 322.
VOL. I. Z
538 MOSAIC ATONEMENTS APPLICABLE
these bodily inflictions had been incurred:'^' — ad- mitting, I say, all these things, (which however it would be extremely difficult to prove,) and consequently admitting, that the terms, sin, and iin-ojiering, as applied to these, could merely signify external uncleanness, and the appointed means of removing it; yet can this furnish no inference whatever, affecting those cases, in which the disqualification to be removed by the sin- offering, is expressly stated to be, not that of ex- ternal uncleanness, but resulting from a trans- gression of the divine commands. This, however it may be called a legal offence, cannot be thereby divested of its intrinsic nature, but must still in- evitably remain a moral transgression. And when atonement is said to be made for siiis committed against any of the commandments of the Lord, it must surely be a strange species of interpreta- tion, that can confound such sins with mere exter- nal pollution; 2iX\dii\\Q forgiveness gYdintQd to such offences, with the mere cleansing from an acci- dental impurity. It will appear yet more strange, when we come to notice under the next head, some specific violations of the moral law, for which atonements were appointed.
But it is contended, that those transgressions ©f the divine commands, for which atonements were appointed, were merely sins of ignorance:
* See Eptscopius, de lepra, Inst, Tkeol, L, III, sect. ii. cap. 3. § 33. — also p. 2C8, of this volume.
TO CASES OF MORAL TRANSGRESSION. 339
to which, as the writer in the Theol. Rep, pro- nounces, scarcely any moral character could at- tach ; and which therefore might justly be ranked in the same class^ with the former cases of acci- dental defilement. As this argument has been a good deal relied on, it becomes necessary to con- sider more particularly, the nature of those trans- gressions, for which atonements were appointed ; and the force of that expression in the original, which has been usually understood as implying sins of ignorance.
And 1. it must certainly be admitted, that sins of Ignorance, in the direct sense of the word, are intended by the expression, since we find it ex - pressly stated in some places that they ivist it not ; and again that the sins were do7ie ivithout their knowledge, and tvere hidden from them, and had come to their knowledge after they were com- mitted. (Levit. iv. 13, 14, 23, 28. v. 2,3, 17, 18. Numb. XV. 24.) Yet even here, the igno- rance intended cannot have been of a nature ab- solute and invincible, but such as the clear pro- mulgation of their law, and their strict obligation to study it day and night, rendered them account- able for, and which was consequently in a cer- tain degree culpable. Thus Houbigant, on Lev. iv. 2. Nos per impriidentiam, ut multi alii per errorem ; melius quam Vulgatus, per ignorantl- am. Nam leges per Mosen promulgatas, et sa.'pe it^ratas, ignorare Israel itae non poterant. This is
Z 2
340 MOSAIC ATONEMENTS APPLICABLE
also agreeable to the general language of Scrip- ture ; in which, crimes said to be committed by persons, kxtoc ccyvotocv, in ignorance, are neverthe- less represented strictly as crimes, inasmuch as that ignorance might have been removed by a careful and candid search after their duty ; and thus, being voluntary, their ignorance itself was criminal. See Acts iii. 17, where the Jews, who crucified Christ, are said to have acted zocro^ ayvoic/.v. St. Paul also ascribes the enormous wick- edness of the Heathen world to the ignorance that was in them, Eph. iv. 18. And their vicious de- sires, St. Peter calls, &v ttj ocyvoicc e7ri9vf^iccig, lusts in ignorance, 1 Pet. i. 14.*
Thus then, even though the expression in the original were confined to sins of ignorance, yet would it not follow, that it meant such acts as were incapable of all moral character, and might be classed with mere corporeal infirmities to which the notion of punishment could not pos- sibly attach. But, that the expression, beside sins of ignorance, includes likewise all such as were the consequence of human frailty and inconsideration, whether committed knowingly and wilfully or otherwise, will appear from considering the true force of the original term r\yyDy or r\yDt2, which to- gether with its root ^yi), mtt^, or ym, is found, in numerous passages of Scripture, to signify the spe-
* See also A6l9 xvii. 30r Rom. x. 3. 1 Tim. i. 13. and itumeroHs other passages of the New Testament. I
TO CASES OF MORJL TRANSGRESSION. 341
cies of offence here described, in opposition to that which involves a deHberate and presumptuous contempt of God's authority. Cocceius thus ex- plains if — " Si, putantes licitum, fecerint illicitum, ignorantid verbi : aut, si jjrceoccupatus egerit, quod novit esse iUicitum," The v^^ord, he says, as it occurs in Numb. xv. 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, is directly opposed to r\tT\ TJi, in verse 30, sinning ivith a high hand, that is, deliberately and pre- sumptuously. He also explains it, as implying a full and entire engrossment of mind and affec- tion, producing a temporary oblivion of what is right: which is nothing more than the common effect of any passion which has taken strong hold of the mind. For this he instances Isai. xxviii. 7. In like manner Doctor Taylor, in his Concor^ dance, understands the word — " Jiy^^ to err, to do what is wrong, through ignorance, mistake, bad advice, or persuasion — -or through the violence of some strong passion or affection,'" Doctor Richie also, (PecuL Doct, vol. i. pp. 226, 227.) adduces a great number of passages to prove, that the word in question " denotes any sin, which doth not proceed from a deliberate contempt of authority, but from human frailty or infirmity only." See also Hammond, Le Cletx, and Rosenmilller, in Hebr. ix. 7. — where they supply numerous in- stances to prove, that both ocyvoeiv, and nw, are used in the sense here given, as extending to all sins that were not of the class of presumptuous,
z3
342 3fOSJIC ATONEMENTS APPLICABLE
or such as by the law were necesssarily to be pu- nished with death. Rosenmiiller adds, that for every sin^ except those to which death was an- nexed, atonement was made on the day of expia- tion. Now it is remarkable, that for the sins atoned for on that day, the very word which is used by the Apostle in his Epistle to the He- brews, (ix. 7,) is ocyvQviiJLXToc,'^ But, in fact, the
* Schleusner in his Spicileg, Lexic, in Int. Grccc. V. T, p. 3. thus explains the words uyvosu and ayvor,ix,u, '' Ayvoaa notat simpliciter jiecco^ sine adjuncia notione ignoranti(i\ Erravit Biclius, qui uyvonv tantum ex ignoraniia peccare no- tare dicit. Cf. Slrac, v. 18. ev fjnytO^u xai fjux^a /«.»} uyvon, IJi.y,h Bv : h, e. nullum plane peccatum committe, nee grave nee leve. llaec notio etiam ex Ilcbraicis verbis JJiu;, tzsiit^, ct nWf quibus ccyvo£iv in verss. graec. respondet, apparet."— ^^ Ayvor,f/.aiTaj peccata simpliciter. 1 Mace. xiii. 39. ubi cum vocabulo a{ji.ci^rYiiJLarcc permutatur. (Cf. Levit. xxvi. 39. ubi H^^braicum p2? Aqu. ayioiuv reddit.) Locum e Philone hue facientem dedit cl. Loesnerus ad Hebr. ix. 7. Sic ayvu^ fjLovtiv apud Xen» Hist, Grcec. I. 7. 10. simpliciter inique agcre notat : ubi bene praecipit S. R. Morus, verba apud Gr^cos, vi originis scicntiam aut inscientiam exprimentia, uti in omnibus Unguis, notare virtutes et vitia, quae illam scicntiam et inscientiam, vel necessario, vel plerumque scqui soleant."
Loesner also remarks thus on the words, vjrtq buvtu xai rojv T« Ac;8 AFNOHMATI^N, in Ilcbr. ix. 7. — " Apud Aiex- andrinos Interpp. locis pluribus «y>ojas vel ayvor.[xccroi de peccails et delictis quibusvis ad exprimeudum Hebraicum Hi^ir^n dici, ignotum esse harum literarum amanfibus non potest. AdjiinganiUsP/??7owewi lib. de Flant. Noe. p. 229. c. ccribentem^ 6y<7»a> v^roixtiMr^ay.effi rcc^ txuruv AFNOIAS n x&k 1
TO CASES OF MORAL TRANSGRESSION. 343
Opposition already alluded to in Numb. xv. 27, 30, seems at once to decide the point. For there we find the sins implied by the word m:!*^:;, di- rectly opposed to sins o^ pr^esumption : that is, to
5'tA//tfifc^Tiac, vi61ima2 in memoriam rcvocant singiilorum pec cata et deli6la."
The observations also of Danzius, on the word ocyvov)tA,ccrot in the aforementioned passage of Hcbr. deserve particularly to be attended to. " Peccata quae expianda sunt, vocantur hie uyvoviuocTa. Qux Socinlanis hand alia sunt, qnam qace vel ignoraniid she oblroionejnria altcitj'is dicini^ vel ex igno^ rantiafacti et circumstantianim^ vel etiam ex hiimana qiia^ dam imbecillitate profidscuntur, Equidem concedenduni omnino est, ocyvQvuia.rcc hinc inde in scriptis sacris ac profanis pro hujus generis extare peccatis. Quod autem etvoluntaria ac graviora hand raro denotet, satis superque docent didla Psal. XXV. 7. ubi ^^Q (quod quam magnum designet pecca- lum, mox didluri sumus) LXX reddiderunt per uyvoiocp, IIoseiE iv. 15. spiritualis Tsraelitarum scortatio per verbum ayvoiu^ pro Ebraico n:? positum, exprimitur ; quae sane leve ac ex i2;norantia comraissum peccatum non fuit : prouti ex toto hoc capite satis clarc apparet. Etiam Jud. v. 19, 20. pro quibusvis deli«5lis idem vocabulum ponitur. Ilinc et Sy- rus interpres pro ayvovifxeca-i Apostoli in loco citato, (viz.- Hcbr. ix. 7.) posnit |/nv«^m : qua voce quaevis designan- tur peccata (vide Matth. xviii. 35), etiam illud ab Adamo perpetratum (vid. Rom. v. 16. sqq.), quod carte nee leve fuit, nee ex ignorantia commissum. Imo ex collatione loci L3V. xvi. sole lucidius patet, hie sub voce ruv uy9oy)^scrui ora- nis generis contineri peccata. Siqnidem ibi satis perspicue docetur, omnia peccata, in anniversario isto sacrificio expi- ari. Et quidem omnia ilia, quae supra vocibus fiis I?u;D, ac n^^n erant exprersa. Atque sub se continent quidquiu om- Bino venit sul? pcccaii nomine." The writer then proceeds,
Z 4
344 MOSAIC ATONEMENTS APPLICABLE
such as proceeded^ not from human frailty, but from a dehberate and audacious defiance of the divine authority, which appears to be the true meaning of presumptuous sins, as may be col- lected from Numb. xv. 30, 31. Exod. xxi. 14 — and V. 2. compared with xviii. 11. Deut. i. 42, 43. xvii. 12, 13. xviii. 22, and various other pas- sages. See Pec, Doct. vol. i. pp. 229, 230. also Maim, Mor, Nev, part 3. cap. 1 . And hence it appears, that so far as the force of the original term is considered, the efficacy of the atonement was extended to all sins, which flowed from the infir- mities and passions of human nature ; and was withheld only from those, which sprung from a presumptuous defiance of the Creator.
The word uyc^a-iuq^ used by the LXX in the translation of the term, though it seems to imply an involmitary acty is yet by no means inconsis- tent with this exposition. The force of this term, as applied by the LXX, is evidently not incompa- tible with a perfect consciousness of the crime com- mitted, and is used only in opposition to sKna-tug, by which they every where describe such an act as
from a strict invesiigation of the exact sense of these Hebrew words, as well as from a copious enumeration of the opi- Bions of the great Jewish doctors, to confirm his position, that in the word uytoviiAoira, as used by the apostle, (Ilcbr. 5x. 7.) sins of every description arc indiscriminately alluded to. See Danz. Fund. Pontif. Max. in Adyt, Anniv, ia Meuschen's Nov, Test, ex Talm, p. 1007—1012.
TO CASES OF MORAL TRANSGRESSION. 345
is entirely spontaneous and deliberate, which in the words of Episcopius is performed, plena volun- tate ; or as he again explains it, which Is done wil- fiillij, and ivith a fixed and deliberate purpose of transgressing, (Inst. TheoL Lib. iii. sect. ii. cap. 3. § 9, 14.) ATcaa-iug then is not to be consi- dered, as denoting an act strictly speaking invo' luntary ; but as opposed to what was deliberate and ivllful : it is therefore applied with propriety to all sins of infirmltij. The use of the word ixna-icog in Hebr. x. 26, throws abundant light on the force of this expression. See Alnsworth on Lev. iv. 2. See also the authorities adduced by Eisner, Observat. Sacr, vol. i. p. 494.
But 2ndly, the conclusion, which has been here derived from the signification of the original word, is fully confirmed by the cases of atonement referred to in the text ; since the offences there described are clearly such, as can by no means be brought within the description of sins of igno' ranee : it being impossible that a man could deny, or keep back, that which was entrusted to him by another ; or take from another his property by violence or deceit ; or deny upon oath, and with- hold from the proper owner, what he had found, without a consciousness of the guilt. Besides, it is to be observed, that neither in these, nor in the case of the bond-maid, is it said that the sin was committed in ignorance : but, on the contrary, the very expressions used in the original, unequi-
346 MOSJIC ATONEMENTS APPLICABLE
vocally mark a consciousness of crime in the several instances alluded to, as may be seen parti- cularly in Out ram De Sacrif. lib. i. cap. xiii. § 4. where this point is fully established in opposition to Episcopius. These crimes indeed of fraud, perjury, violent injustice, and debauchery, the writer in the Theol. Rep, seems disposed to treat as venial offences, being criminal, as he says, hut hi a loiv degree. (Vol. iii. p. 412.) But for the purpose of proving, that no atonements were ap- pointed for transgressions of the moral law, it would be necessary to shew that these acts were not in ani/ degree criminal : this however he has not attempted, and is consequently in the conclu- sion compelled to admit, (p. 414.) that the Levi- tical atonements extended to violations of the moral law. Sykes also, it must be observed, is obliged to confess, that the cases here alluded to, are cases of " known and open wickedness." (Scr. Doct, of Rede mp. p. 33 1.) Hallet expressly says, ^^ it is certain^ that there were sacrifices under the law appointed to make atonement for moral evil, and for moral gwWt ; particularly for lying, thefts frauds extortion, perjury ^2i?, it is written. Lev. vi. 1, 2, &c." — Notes and Discourses, vol. ii. p. 27r> 278.
Now, that these atonements in cases of moral transgression, involved a real and literal remission of the offence, that is of the penalty annexed to it, will appear from considering, not only th^
TO CASES OF MORAL TRANSGRESSION. 347
rigorous sanction of the Mosaic law in general, by which hCj who did not continue in all the ivords of the law to do them, was pronounced accursed,. (Gal. iii. lO. Deut. xx^ii. 26.) and consequently subjected to the severest temporary inflictions; -but also the particular cases, in which the piacu- lar sacrifices are directly stated, to have procured a release from the temporal punishments speci- fically annexed to the transgression : as in the cases of fraud, false-swearing, &c. vvhich, with the punishments annexed by the law, and the remission procured by the piacular oblation, may be seen enumerated by Grotius (De Sat is fact. Chi\ cap. X.) and still more fully by Richie. (Pecul. Doct. vol. i. p. 232 — 252.) Houbigant also speaks of it, as a matter beyond question, that in such offences as admitted of expiation under the Mosaic law, a release from the tem- poral penalty of the transgression was the neces- sary result of the atonement: on Levit. v. 4. he describes the effect of the atonement to be, " ut post expiationem religione factam, non sit am- plius legum civilium poenis obnoxius.'* Hallet says, til at the sacrifices '^ procured for the offen- der, a deliverance from that punishment of moral guilt, which was appointed by the lawf and in- stances the case of theft y in which ihougii the offender was liable to be cut off by the miracu- lous judgment of God, yet the sacrifice had the virtue of releasing from that immediate death.
34S MOSAIC ATOH^EMENTS APPLICABLE
which the law had denounced against that par- ticular sin. Notes and Disc. p. 276 — 2/8.
That the remission of sins obtained by the Levitical sacrifices, was a remission only of tem- poral punishments, cannot weaken the general argument ; as the sanctions of the law, under which the sacrifices were oflfered, w^ere themselves but temporary. The remission of the penalty due to the transgression w^as still real and sub- stantial : the punishment was averted from the offender, who conformed to the appointed rite: and the sacrificial atonement was consequently, in such cases, an act of propitiation. The sacri- fices of the law, indeed, considered merely as the performance of a ceremonial duty, could operate only to the reversal of a ceremonial forfeiture, or the remission of a temporal punishment: that is, they could propitiate God only in his temporal relation to his chosen people, as their Sovereign: and for this plain reason, because the ostensible performance of the rite being but an act of ex- ternal submission and homage, when not accom- panied with an internal submission of mind and a sincere repentance, it could acquit the offender only in reference to that external law, which ex- acted obedience to God as a civil prince. In such cases, the Jewish sacrifices, merely as legal ob- servances, operated only to the temporal benefits annexed by the Levitical institution to those expressions of allegiance: but, as genuine and
TO CASES OF MORAL TRANSGRESSION. 34^
sincere acts of worship and penitence, whenever the piety of the offerer rendered them such, they must Hkewise have operated to procure that spi- ritual remission and acceptance, which, antece- dent to and independent of the Levitical or- dinances, they are found in several parts of Scrip- ture to have been effectual to obtain.
The author of the Scripture account of Sa- crifices, (p. 168.) thus reasons upon this sub- ject.— ^" This people, (the Jews) as to their inward state, were doubtless under the same controul, both of the law of nature and of the divine pro- vidence, as they were before the law ; this having introduced no change in this respect. They were consequently entitled to the pardon of all their sins, of what nature soever, upon the same terms as before." And then he goes on to shew, that with the sacrifices of the law, they continued to offer such also as had been customary in the Pa- triarchal times. And in proof of this, he adduces instances from the law itself, in which such sa- crifices are referred to and recognized. They appear manifestly alluded to in the two first chapters of Leviticus, in which the language marks the offering to be of a purely voluntary nature, and merely prescribes the manner in which such an offering was to be made; whereas, when specific legal and moral offences are to be expiated, the law commands the offer- ing, and the specific nature of it. He adduces
350 MOSAIC ATONEMENTS APPLICABLE
also the cases of David, and of Eli's house, to shew that Scripture supplies instances of '* sacrifices offered out of the occasions prescribed by the law, for averting the divine displeasure upon the occasion of sin." (p. 17^-) What this writer justly remarks, concerning sacrifices distinct from those prescribed by the law, I would apply to £ill ; and consider the penitent and devout sentiments of the offerer, as extending the effi- cacy of the Levitical sacrifice to the full range of those benefits, which before the Levitical insti- tution were conferred on similar genuine acts of worship.
Nor let it be objected to this, that the Apostle has pronounced of the Levitical offerings, that they could not inahe perfect as 'pertaining to the conscience, (Hebr. ix. 9. x. 1.) The sacred writer here evidently speaks in comparison. He marks the inferiority of the figure to the suh^ stance : and the total insufficiency of the type, considered independently of that from which its entire virtue was derived, to obtain a perfect re- mission. It might indeed, he argues, by virtue of the positive institution, effect an external and ce- remonial purification, but beyond this it could have no power. The blood of bulls and of goats could 77ot, of itself, take away sins. It could not render the mere Mosaic worshipper perfect as to conscience. It can have no such operation, but as connected, in the eye of faith, with that more
TO CASES OF MORAL TRANSGRESSION. 351
precious blood-sheddlng, which can purge the conscience from dead tvorks to serve the livhig God. It could not, says Peirce, on Hebr. ix. 9, " with reference to the conscience, make perfect the worshipper, who onli/ worshipped with meat and drink-offerings and washings, &c." — In this view of the subject, the remarks contained in this Number, seem no way inconsistent with the lan- guage of the Apostle.
One observation more, arising from the passage of the Apostle here referred tO;, I would wish to offer. — In pointing out the inferiority of the Mo-^ saic to the Christian institution, we find the wri- ter, in the tenth chapter, not only asserting the inefficacy of the Mosaic sacrifice for the full and perfect remission of sins, but taking considerable pains to prove it. Now from this it seems, that the Jews themselves, so far from confining their legal atonements to the mere effect of ceremonial purification, were too prone to attribute to them thevirtue of 21 perfect remission of all moral guilt. Of this tnere can be no question as to the later Jews. Maimonides expressly says in his treatise, De Pcenit. cap. i. § 2. that " the scape-goat made atonement for all the transgressions of the law, both the lighter and the more heavy transgres- sions, whether done presumptuously or ignorant- ly : all are expiated by the scape-goat, if indeed the party repent." I would remark here, that
552 VICARIOUS IMPORT OF
though Maimonides evidently stretches the virtue of the atonement beyond the hmits of the law, (presumptuous sins not admitting of expiation,) yet he seems to have reasoned on a right princi- ple, in attributing to the sincere and pious senti- ments of the offerer, the power of extending the efficacy of the atonement to those moral offences, which the legal sin-offering by itself could never reach.
NO. XXXVIII. ON THE VICARIOUS IMPORT OF
THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES.
Page 34. (f) — I have, in the page here re- ferred to, used the expression vicarious import^ rather than vicarious, to avoid furnishing any co- lour to the idle charge, made against the doctrine of atonement, of supposing a real substitution in the room of the offender, and a literal translation of his guilt and punishment to the immolated victim ; a thing utterly incomprehensible, as neither guilt nor punishment can be conceived, but with reference to consciousness, which cannot be transferred. But to be exposed to suffering, in consequence of another's guilt ; and thereby, at the same time to i^epresent to the offender, and to release him from, the punishment due to his transgression, involves no contradiction whatever. In this sense, the suffering of the animal may be
THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES. 353
conceived a substitute for the punishment of the offender ; inasmuch as it is in virtue of that suf- fering, the sinner is released. If it be asked, what connexion can subsist between the death of the animal and the acquittal of the sinner, I answer without hesitation, I know not. To unfold di- vine truths by human philosophy, belongs to those who hold opinions widely different from mine on the subject of atonement. To the Chris- tian it should be sufficient, that Scripture has clearly pronounced this connexion to subsist. That the death of the animal could possess no such intrinsic virtue is manifest ; but that divine ' appointment could bestow upon it this expiatory ^ power, will not surely be denied : and as to the ' fact of such appointment, as well as its reference to that great event from which this virtue was de* ' rived, the word of revelation furnishes abundant i evidence, as I trust appears from the second of the Discourses contained in this volume.
Now, that the offering of the animal slain in, sacrifice, may be considered vicarious in the sense here assigned, that is, vicarious in symbol, (or as representing the penal effects of the otferer*s de- merits, and his release from the deserved punish- ment in consequence of the death of the victim) — seems to require little proof, beyond the passages of Scripture referred to in the text. If farther evidence should however be required, we shall find it in a more particular examination of that most
VOL. I. A A
354 VICARIOUS IMPORT OF
solemn service of the yearly atonement, de- scribed in pp. 6 1, 62, of this volume. Mean time, it may be worth while to enquire, how far the arguments urged in opposition to the vicari- ous nature of the Mosaic sacrifices, will operate against this acceptation. And for this purpose, it will be sufficient to examine the objections, as stated by Sykes, and H. Taylor ; inasmuch as the industry of the former, and the subtilty of the latter, have left none of the arguments of Socinus, Crellius, or the other learned antagonists of the doctrine of atonement, unnoticed or unimproved; and the skirmishing writers of the present day, have done nothing more than retail, with dimi- nished force, the same objections.
They are all reduced by Sykes and Taylor un- der the following heads, 1. It is no where said in the Old Testament, that the life of the victim was given as a vicarious substitute for the life of him who offered it. 2. The atonement was not made by the death of the animal, but by the sprinkling of the blood at the altar. 3. No atonement could be made, where life was forfeited. 4. Atonements were made by the sacrifice of animals in some cases where no guilt teas involved. And 5. Atone- ments were sometimes made vnthout the death of an animal, or any blood-shedding whatever.* — This is the sum total of the arguments, collected
* See Sijkes's Essay on Sact\ p. 121 — 141. Ben. Mord, p. 797—799. and CrelL contra Grot. cap. x.
THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES.. 335
by the industry of these writers, against the no- tion of the vicarious nature of sacrifice : and it must be remembered, that Sykes a})plies these to the idea, that " the taking away the hfe of the animal was designed to put the oiferer in mind of his demerits," no less than to the idea, that " the life of the animal was given in lieu of the life of the sinner;" (pp. 120, 121.) so that they may fairly be replied to, on the principle of atonement here contended for.
Now, to the first of these objections it may be answered, that it is again and again asserted in the Old Testament, that in cases where punish- ment had been incurred, and even where (as we shall see hereafter) life itself was forfeited, the due oblation of an animal in sacrifice was effectual to procure, the reversal of the forfeiture, and the pardon of the offender ; that is, the death of the animal was so far represented as standing in place of the offender's punishment, and in some cases even of his death, that through it, no matter how operating, the offerer was enabled to escape. This however is not deemed sufficient. Some precise and appropriate phrase, unequivocally marking a strict vicarious substitution, is still required. But as a strict vicarious substitution, or literal equiva- lent, is not contended for, no such notion belong- ing to the doctrine of atonement, it is not neces- sary that any such phrase should be produced. The words^ -)SD; and Ni:^3, in their sacrificial appli- A a 2
356 VICARIOUS IMPORT OF
cation, sufficiently admit the vicarious import ; and the description of the sacrificial ceremony and its consequences, especially in the instance of the scape-goat, positively prove it; and beyond this nothing farther can be required.
But it is curious to remark, that both Sykes and Taylor^ in their eagerness to demonstrate, that the sacrificial terms conveyed nothing what- ever of a vicarious import, have urged an objec- tion, which rebounds with decisive force against their own opinion. "The life of the animal," say they, *^ is never called, in the Old Testament^ a ransom ; nor is there any such expression, as XvTDov, oiVTiXvToov, (zvTi^vxov, equivalent, exchange^ substitute, &c." Essay on Sacr, p. 134. B. Mord. p. 197. — Now, not to speak of their criticisms on the expressions in the original, (particularly on the word *)S)D,) which merely go to prove, that these words do not necessarily convey such ideas, inasmuch as being of a more extended significa- tion, they are not in all cases applied exactly in this sense : — an argument, which will easily strip most Hebrew terms of their true and definite meaning, being, as they are denominated by Gro- tius, (De Satis. Chr, cap. viii. § 2, 3.) 7roXu(ry}fjLot —not to speak, I say, of such criticisms, nor to urge the unfairness of concluding against the meaning of the original, from the language used in the Greek translation ; have not these writers, hy admitting, that the words Xvtpov^ ocvtiKvtdov^ &c.
THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES. 357
if applied to the Mosaic sacrifices, would have con- veyed the idea of vicarious substitution, thereby established the force of these expressions, when applied in the New Testament to the death of Christ, (Mat. xx. 28. Mark x. 46. 1 Tim. ii. 6.) which being expressly said to be a sacrifice for the sins of men, and being that true and substa7i- tial sacrifice, which those of the law but faintly and imperfectly represented, consequently reflects back upon them its attributes and qualities, though in an inferior degree.
Again, secondly, it is contended, that the atone- ment was not made by the death of the animal, but by the sprinkling of the blood. — True; and by this very sprinkling of the blood before the altar, it was, that according to the prescribed rites of sacrifice, the life of the animal was offered ; as appears from the express letter of the law, which declares the life to be in the blood, and subjoins as a consequence from this, that it is the blood, (the vehicle of life, or, as it is called a few verses after, the life itself) that makefh an atonement Jbr the soul, or life, of the offerer. See Ainsworth, and Patrick, on Levit. xvii. 11. and for the concur- rent opinions of all the Jewish doctors on this head, see Outram De Sacrif, lib. i. cap. xxii. '^ 1 1. — The rendering of the above verse of Leviti- cus in the Old Italic version is remarkable : Ani- ma enim omnis carnis sanguis ejus est : et ego dedi earn vobis, exorare pro animabus vestris ; A a 3
S58 VICARIOUS IMPORT OF
sanguis enim ejus pro anima exorahit, Sahatier. Vet, Ital. And even Dr. Geddes's translation is decidedly in favour of the sense, in which the pas- sage has been apphed in this Number. " For the life of all flesh being in the bloody it is my will, that by it an atonement shall be niade^ at the altar, for your lives ^
But thirdly, the sacrifice could not have im- plied any thing vicarious, as no atonement could be made where life was forfeited. — There is no argument advanced by the opponents of the doc- trine of atonement, with greater confidence than this; and there is none which abounds with greater fallacies. It is untrue, in point of fact : it is sophistical, in point of reasoning : and it is impertinent, in point of application.
1. It is untrue ; for atonements were made in cases, where without atonement life was forfeited. This appears, at once, from the passage of Levit. last referred to ; which positively asserts the atonement to be made for the lije of the offerer : it also appears from the unbending rigour of the law in general, which seems to have denounced death against every violation of it, (see Deut. xxvii, 26. Ezech. xviii. 19 — 23. Gal. iii. 10. James ii. 10) and in particular, from the specific cases, o^ perjury, (Levit. vi. 3.) and of projane sivear^ ing, (v. 4.) for which atonements were appointed, notwithstanding the strict sentence of the law was death (Exod. xx. f . — and Levit. xxiv. 1 6.) —
• THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES. 359
see on this Grot. De Sat Is f. cap. x. § 3. Halle fs Notes and Disc. p. 275 — 278. and Richie s Pecul. Doct. vol. i. p. 245 — 249. i280. This latter wri- ter^ it is to be observed, though opposing the doc- trine of vicarious suffering, and wishing to avail himself of the objection here urged, yet finds himself not at liberty to advance farther than to state, that it seldom happened that death was denounced against any offences, for which atone- ment was appointed.
2. It is sophistical ; for from the circumstance of atonement not being appointed in those cases in which death was peremptorily denounced, it is inferred, that no atonement could be made where hfe was forfeited ; whereas the true statement of the proposition evidently is, that life was forfeited where no atonement was permitted to be made. It is true indeed, that death is not expressly de- nounced, in those cases, in which atonements were allowed ; but this w^as because the atonement was permitted to arrest the sentence of the law, as ap- pears particularly from this, that where the pre- scribed atonement was not made, the law, no longer suspended in its natural operation, pro- nounced the sentence of death. The real nature of the case seems to be this : the rigid tendency of the law being to secure obedience, on pain of forfeiture of life ; all such oflfences, as were of so aggravated a kind as to preclude forgiveness, were left under the original sentence of the law, whilst A a 4
360 VICARIOUS IMPORT OF
such as were attended with circumstances of miti- gation, were forgiven on the condition of a pubHc and humble acknowledgment of the oflfence, by complying with certain prescribed modes of atonement. It should be remembered also, that the law was not given at different times, so as that its denunciations and atonements should be pro- mulged at different periods; both were announced at the &ame time, and therefore in such cases as admitted of pardon, the penalty being superseded by the atonement, the punishment strictly due to the offence is consequently not denounced, and can only be collected now from the general ten- dency of the law, from some collateral bearings of the Mosaic code, or from the inflictions which actually followed on the neglect of the atone* ment. The whole strength of the present ob- jection rests then upon this : that we have not both the atonement prescribed, and the punish- ment denounced : that is, the punishment both remitted, and denounced, at the same time.
But I have dwelt too long upon this; espe- cially when, 3dly, the whole argument is inap- plicable. For even they who hold the doctrine of a vicarious punishment^ feel it not necessary to contend, that the evil inflicted on the victim, should be exactly the same in quality and de- gree, with that denounced against the offender: it depending, they say, uj)on the will of the legislator, what satisfaction he will accept in
THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES. SGl
place of the punishment of the offender, see Outram De Sacr. hb. i. cap. xxi. § 1. 2. 9. But still less will this argument apply, where vicarious pttnisJuticnt is not contended for, but merely an emblematic substitute, the result of institution, and which in no respect involves the notion of an equivalent.
Fonrthli/, The atonement by animal sacrifice, in cases not involving moral guilt, can only prove, that there were sacrifices which were not vicarious, inasmuch as there were some that were not for sin: but it by no means follows, that where moral guilt was involved, the sacri- fice was not vicarious. Now it is only in this latter case, the notion of a vicarious sacrifice is contended for, or is indeed conceivable. And accordingly, it is only in such cases, we find those ceremonies used, which mark the vicarious import of the sacrifice. The symbolical trans- lation of sins, and the consequent pollution of the victim, are confined to those sacrifices which were offered confessedly in expiation of sins, the most eminent of which were those offered on the day of expiation, and those for the High Priest, and for the entire congregation, CLev. xvi. 15 — 28. iv. 3 — 12. and l3--2i^.) in all of which, the pollution caused by the symbolical transfer of sins, is expressed by the burning of the victim without the camp: see Outr. De Sacr, lib. i. cap. xvii. §1,2. Thus it appears, that the very
362 VICARIOUS IMPORT OF
mode of sacrifice, as well as the occasion of its being offered, clearly ascertained the case of its vicarious import.
But it deserves to be considered, whether even the cases of the puerpera, the leper, and the Nazirite, on which, as they seem to imply no- thing of crime, Sykes and other writers of that class lay so much stress, do not bear such a rela- tion to sin, as to justify the oblation of the animal sacrifice in the view here contended for. It deserves to be considered, whether the pains of childbearing, and all diseases of the human body, (of which leprosy in the Eastern countries was deemed the most grievous,) being the sig- nal consequences of that apostacy, which had entailed these calamities on the children of Adam, it might not be proper on occasion of a deliver- ance from these remarkable effects of sin, that there should be this sensible representation of that death, which was the desert of it in general, and an humble acknowledgment of that personal demerit, which had actually exposed the offerer on so many occasions to the severest punish- ment. That this was the notion entertained by the Jewish doctors, with the additional circum- stance of the imputation of actual crime, in these cases of human suffering, has been already shewn, pp. 268, 269. — see also Vitringa on Isai. liii. 4. There seems likewise good ground to think, that the idea of distempers, as penal in-
THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES. 363
flictions for sins, was prevalent in tlie earliest a£jes even among the heathen, see Harris's Coin- jnent. on the liiid. ch. of Isai. p. 235, also Mar- tini, as quoted by llosenm. Schol. in Jesai. p. 909. 'I'he case of the Nazirite, it must be confessed, seems more difficult to be reconciled to the principle here laid down. And yet, if with Lightfoot (Hor. Hehr, in Luc. i. 15.) it be admitted, that " the law of the Nazirites had a reference to Adam, while under the prohibition in his state of innocence," and that it was " de- signed in commemoration of the state of inno- cence before the fall,*' (an idea for which he finds strong support in the traditions of the Jews) it may seem not unreasonable to conclude, that the sacrifice offered by the Nazirite polluted hj the DEAD, was intended to commemorate that death, which was the consequence of Adam's fall from innocence, and which was now become the de- sert of sinful man. And thus the case of the Nazirite, as well as those of the puerpera and the leper, seems sufficiently reducible to the notion of sacrifice here laid down. But let this be as it may, it is clear, that to prove that a sacrifice may be vicarious, it is not necessary to shew that every sacrifice is so : no more than, for the purpose of proving that there are sacrifices for sins, it is necessary to shew that every sacri-r fice is of that nature.
364 VICARIOUS IMPORT OF
We come now to \he Jif'th, and last^ objec- tion ; in which it is urged, that atonements for sin being made in some cases without any ani- mal sacrifice, but merely by an offering of flour; by piacular sacrifice it could never be intended to imply the vicarious substitution of a life. To this the answer is obvious, that although no vi- carious substitution of a life could be conceived, where life was not given at all : yet from this it cannot follow, that where a life was given, it might not admit a vicarious import. It should be remembered, that the case here alluded to was a case of necessity ; and that this offering of flour was accepted, only where the offerer was so poor, that he could not by any possibility procure an animal for sacrifice. Can then any thing be inferred from a case, such as this, in which the ofierer must have been altogether precluded from engaging in any form of wor- ship, and shut out from all legal communion with his God, or indulged in this inferior sort of offering? Besides is it not natural to conceive, that this offering of flour being indulged to the poor man, in the place of the animal sacrifice which, had he been able, he was bound to offer, he should consider it but as a substitute for the aniuial sacrifice? And that being burnt and de- stroyed upon the altar^ he might naturally con- ceive of it, as a symbol and representation of that destruction, due to his own demerits ? And
2
THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES. 365
to all this it may be added, that this individual might be taught to look to the animal sacrifices, offered for all the sins of all the people on the day of atonement, for the full and complete con- summation of those less perfect atonements, which alone he had been able to make.
These constitute the sum total of the argu- ments, which have been urged against the vica- rious nature of the legal piacular atonements. How far they are conclusive against the notion of their vicarious import here contended for, it is not difficult to judge. It deseiTCs to be noted, that in the examination of these arguments, I have allowed them the full benefit of the advan- tage, which their authors have artfully sought for them ; namely, that of appreciating their value, as applied to the sacrifices of the law con- sidered independently of that great sacrifice, which these were but intended to prefigure, and from which alone they derived whatever virtue they possessed. When we come hereafter to consider them, as connected with that event in which their true significancy lay, we shall find the observations which have been here made ac- quiring a tenfold strength.
What the opinions of the Jewish writers are upon the subject of this Number, has been al- ready explained in Number XXXIII. Whoever wishes for a more extensive review of the testi- monies which they supply, on the three points,
366 IMPOSITION OF HANDS
— of the translation of the offerer s sins, the con- sequent pollution of the animal, and the redemp- tion of the sinner by the substitution of the victim, — may consult Oiitram De Sacr'if. lib. i. cap. xxii. § 4 — 12.
NO. XXXIX. ON THE IMPOSITION OF HANDS
UPON THE HEAD OF THE VICTIM.
Page 34. (p) — The ceremony of the imposi- tion of hands upon the head of the victim, has been usually considered, in the case of piacular sacrifices, as a symbolical translation of the sins of the offender upon the head of the sacrifice ; and as a mode of deprecating the evil due to his transgressions. So we find it represented by Aharbinel^ in the introduction to his commen- tary on Leviticus, (De VieL p. 301.): and so the ceremony of the Scape Goat in Lev. xvi. 21. seems directly to assert. And it is certain, that the practice of imprecating on the liead of the victim, the evils which the sacrificer wished to avert from himself, was usual amongst the hea- then, as appears particularly from Herodotus, (lib. ii. cap. 39.) who relates this of the Egyp- tians, and at the same time asserts that no Egyp- tian would so much as ^^ taste the head of any animal," but under the influence of this religious
2
ON THE HEAD OF THE VICTIM. 36/
custom flung it into the river. This interpre- tation of the ceremony of the imposition of hands, in the Mosaic sacrifice, is however strongly contested by certain writers, particularly by Sykes, (Essay on Sacrif, p. 25 — 50) and the author of the Scripture Account of Sacrifices^ (Append, p. 10,) who contend, that this cere- mony was not confined to piacular sacrifices, but was also used in those which w^ere eucharistical, " iu which, commemoration was made, not of sins, but of mercies:*' it was not therefore, say they, always accompanied with confession of sins, but v/ith praise^ or thanksgiving, or in short such concomitant as suited the nature and intention of the particular sacrifice. But in or- der to prove, that it was not attended with ac- knowledgment of sin, in sacrifices not piacular, it is necessary to shew, that in none but piacu- lar was there any reference whatever to sin. In these indeed, the pardon of sin is the appro- priate object; but that in our^ expressions of praise and thanksgiving, acknowledgment should be made of our own un worthiness, and of the general desert of sin, seems not unreasonable. That even the eucharistic sacrifices, then, might bear some relation to sin, especially if aninml sacrifice in its first institution was designed to represent that death v.hich had been introduced by sin, will perhaps not be deemed improbable. And in ccnlirmatioa of this, it is certain, that
36s IMPOSITION OF HANDS
the Jewish doctors combine, in all cases, con- fession of sins with imposition of hands. " Where there is no confession of sins," say they, " there is no imposition of hands.'* See Outi^am De Sacr. Hb. i. cap. xv. § 8.
But, be this as it may, it is at all events clear, that if the ceremony be admitted to have had, in each kind of sacrifice, the signification suited to its peculiar nature and intention; it necessa- rily follows, that when used in piacular sacri* fices, it implied a reference to, and acknowledg- ment of, sin : confession of sins being always undoubtedly connected with piacular sacrifices, as appears from Levit. v. 5. xvi. 21. and Numb, V. 7* The particular forms of confession, used in the different kinds of piacular sacrifice, are also handed down to us by the Jewish writers; and are given by Outram (De Sacr, lib. i. cap. xv. § 10, 11.) The form prescribed for the indivi- dual, presenting his own sacrifice, seems par- ticularly significant, " O God, I have sinned, I have done perversely, 1 have trespassed before thee, and have done so and so. Lo! now 1 re- pent, and am truly sorry for my misdeeds. Let then this victim he my expiaiion'' Which last words were accompanied by the action, of laying hands on the head of the victim ; and were con- sidered by the Jews, as we have seen from several authorities, in pp. 26 1, 262, to be equivalent to this; " let the evils, which in justice should
ON THE HEAD OF THE VICTIM. SGg
have fixllen on my head, hght upon the head of this victim. See Outranu De Sacr. lib. i. cap. xxii. § 5, G. 9.
Now that this imposition of hands, joined to the confession of sins, was intended symbohcally to transfer the sins of the offerer, on the head of the victim ; and consequently to point it out as the substitute for the offender, and as the accepted medium of expiation ; will appear from the bare recital of the ceremony, as prescribed on the day of expiation. Aaron shall lay both Ids hands iqmn the head of the live goat, and coyifess all the iniquities of the childreti of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their
si)7S, PUTTING THEM UPON THE HEAD of the gOttt
— and the goat shall bear upon him all their INIQUITIES," &c. (Levit. xvi. 21, 22.) The sins of the people being thus transferred to the ani- mal, it is afterwards represented to be so polluted, as to pollute the pers()n, that carried it away ; (Lev. xvi. 26.) and by the entire ceremony, ex* piation is made for the sins of the people. Nov/ it is to be remarked, that this is the only pas- sage in the entire Scripture, in which the mean- ing of the ceremony, of laying hands on the head of the victim, is directly explained : and from this, one would naturally think, there could be no difficulty in understanding its true import in all other cases of piacular sacrifice.
VOL. I. B B
570 IMPOSITION OF HANDS
But the ingenuity of the writers above men- tioned;, is not to be silenced so easily. The goat, says Dr. Sykes, (Essay, p. 37.) was so polluted, that it was 7iot sacrificed, but sent away : " it was not, then, to transfer sins upon the sacrifice, that hands were laid upon the head of the victim : as men would not offer unto God, what they know to be polluted." In this notion, of the pollution of the scape-goat render-* ing it unfit to be offered in sacrifice, H. Taylor concurs with Sykes. (Ben, Mord. pp. 827^ 828.)
Now to the objection here urged it may be answered, 1. that the scapegoat was actually a part of the sin-offering for the people, as is ghewn more particularly in page 62, and Num- ber LXXI ; and as is confessed by the author of the Scripture Account of Sacrifices, (Ap- pend, p. 12.) who agrees with Sykes in the main part of his objection; and as may be directly collected from Levit. xvi. 5. 10. in which the two goats are called a sin-offering, and the 8cape-goat described as presented before the Lord, to make an atonement with him* See Patrick on these verses.
Secondly, Admitting even the scape-goat to have been entirely distinct from the sin-offering; .iince the same ceremony, which is allowed by Sjkes and H. Taylor to be a proof that tha scape-goat was polluted by tlie translation of the
ON THE HEAD OF THE VICTIM. 371
people's sins; namely, the person, who carried it away beins: obliijed to wash, before he vvas again admitted into the camp ; since, I say, this same ceremony was prescribed with resptct to the bullock, and the goat, which had been sa- crrficed as sin- offerings; it follows, that they likewise were polluted; and that therefore, tliere was a translation of sins to the animals, that were actually sacrificed in expiation of those sins. Now this translation being accompanied wdth, is§ also to be considered as expressed by, the impo- sition of hands; a ceremony, which it was the less necessary sj^ecially to prescribe here, as this was already enjoined for all cases of piacular sa- crifice^ in Lev. ch. iv. — and that this ceremony did take place, we can have no doubt, not onlv from this general direction in the 4th chapter, but also from the express testimonies of the Jewish writers on this head, (Ainsiv, on Levif, xvi. 6. 11.) and from the description in 2 Chr. xxix. 23. of the sacrifice offered by Hezekiah, to mahe an atonement Jor all Israel. — Theij hrouglit forth the he-goats for the sin-offering;, he fore the king and the congregation, and they LAID THEIR HANDS UPON THEM — and the pricsts lei lied them, &c.
Thirdly, The entire of the notion, that what
■W2iS polluted (?is it is symbolically called) by sin,
could not be offered to God, is founded in a
mistake, arising from the not distinguishing he-
B b 2
372 IMPOSITION OF HANDS
tween the natural* impurities and blemishes of the animal, (which with good reason unfitted it for a sincere and respectful expression of de- votion,) and that emblematical defilement, which arose out of the very act of worship, and existed but in the imagination of the worshipper. It should be remarked also, that this notion of the defilement of the victim by the transfer of the offerer^s sins, so far from being inconsistent with the Mosaic precepts, concerning the pure and unblemished state of the animal chosen for sa- crifice, (Ex. xii. 5. Lev. xxii. 21. Num. xix. 2. Mai. i. 14, &c. ) as is urged by Sykes and H. Taylor, and by Dr. Priestley, (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 213.) seems absolutely to require and pre- suppose this purity, the more clearly to convey the idea, that the pollution was the sole result of the translated defilement of the sinner. In like manner we are told in the New Testament, that Christ ivas made a curse, and also sin (or a sin- offering) for us; whilst to make it more
* The word in the original used to denote the perfect state of the animals to be offered in sacrifice is O dd, ^vhich Roscnm. explains by " pcrfcdiuny i. e. sine vitio ct defcctu corporis, sine aegritudine ct membrorum debilitate; id quod Graec. uiauiaov, quod Alexandrini liic habcnt." Josephus (Antiq. Lib. Ill, cap. x.) calls these animals oXoxXr^a xa« Kara fcyj^sv >>i>\u^nij.im, entire and zciihoiU blemish, Herodotus also (Lib. II. cap. xlii.) testifies that the animals offered bj the Egyptians were of the like description : ri>? KaOa^y; a^.
ON THE HEAD OF THE VICTIM. 373
clear, that all this was the effect of oui sin, it is added that he knew no sin himself. And indeed they who consider the pollution of the victim as naturally irreconcileable with the notion of a sacrifice, as Doctor Priestley evi- dently does, would do well to attend to the x.Di,&oc^lJLocT(x. of the antientSj who, whilst they re- quired for their gods the rsX&ia, 9u(nc6, the most perfect animals for sacrifice, (see Potter on the Religion of GreecCy ch. iv. and Ontr, De Sacr. lib. i. cap. ix. § 3.) at the same time sought to appease them, by offering up human victims whom they had first loaded with imprecations, and whom they in consequence deemed so pol- luted with the sins of those, for whom they were to be offered, that the word KocQaof/^oc became sy- nonymous to what was most execrable and im- pure, and with the Latins was rendered by the word sCELUS, as if to mark the very extreme and essence of what was sinful. See Stephanas on Koticcpfjioc, and Stiidas on the words jcocSocof/^oc and
It must be confessed, indeed, that the author of
the Scrip, Account of Sacr. has gone upon
grounds entirely different from the above named
authors. He positively denies, that either the
scape-goat, or the bullock, incurred any pollution
whatever ; and maintains, that the washing of the
persons who carried them away, indicated no
pollution of the victims, inasmuch as the same B b 3
374 IMPOSITION OF HANDS
washing was prescribed in cases of holiness^ not of pollution, ( A pp. p. 11.) But, besides that this author is singular in his notion that the scape- goat was not polluted, he proceeds altogether upon a wrong acceptation of those passages, which re- late to persons and things that came into contact with the sin-offering ; it being commonly tran- slated, in Lev. vi. 18, and elsewhere, he that toucheth them (the sin-offerings) shall he holv, whereas it should be rendered, as Wall properly observes, in quite a contrary sense, sliall he sanc- tified, or CLEANS!: D, shall be under an obligation^ or necessity, of cleansing himself, as the LXX understand it, ocyicca-dvia-SToci. See Wall's Critical Notes, Lev. vi. 18, where this point is most satis- factorily treated.
Upon the whole then, there appears no reason- able objection against the idea^ tirat the imposi- tion of hands, in piacular sacrifices, denoted an emblematical transfer of ^^guilt ; and that the
* Dr. Ceddes's authorify, when it happens to be on the side of orthodoxy, is not without its weight: because having no very strong bias in that direction there remains only the vis veri to account for his having taken it. 1 therefore willingly accept his assistance on this subjccSl of the imposi- tion of hands upon the head of the vi6Hni. He renders Jjevit. i. 4. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the victim^ that it may he an acceptable atonement foj^ him. And on the words, lay his hand., &c. he subjoins this remark— *' Thereby devoting it to God : and transferring, as it were, ms own guilt upon the victim." A mere typical
ON THE HEAD OF THE VICTIM. 3^5
ceremony consequently implied the desirC;, that the evil due to the sinner might be averted, by what was to fall on the head of the victim. This receives farther confirmation, from the consider- ation of other parts of Scripture, in which this ceremony of imposition of hands was used with- out any reference to sacrifice. In Levit. xxiv. 14, 15. we find this action prescribed in the case of the blasphemer, before lie was put to death ; it being at the same time added, that tvhosoever curseth his God, shall hear his sin : thus as it were expressing by this significant action, that the evil consequences of his sin should Jail upon his head : and in these words, Maimonides expressly says, the blasphemer was marked out for punish- ment, by those who laid their hands upon his head, '' thy blood be upon thine own head," (see Outram. De Sacr, lib. i. cap. xv. •§ 8.) " as if to say, the punishment of this sin fall upon thyself, and not on us and the Vest of the people." The expressions also in Joshua ii. 19. 2 Sam. i. 16. Esth. ix. 25. Ps. vii. l6. and several other pas- rite, (he aJds,^ derived, probably, from the legal custom of the arcusing witness laying his hand upon the head of the criminal. As to Dr. Geddes's mode oi txplaining the matter I am indifferent. Valcat quantum. Ilis admission of the emblematical transfer of guilt upon the victim 1 am perfc(5tly contented with : and indeed his illustration, by the witness pointing out the object with whom the guilt lay, does no|; tend much to weaken the significancy of the a6lion. Bb4
37^ IMPOSITION OF HANDS
sages of the Old Testament, respecting evils falU ing upon the head of the person to suffer, may give still farther strength to these observations.
It deserves to be remarked^ that the sacrifice referred to in the passage cited in the text, was that of a burnt offering, or holocaust ; and as the language in which it is spoken of, as being ac- cepted for the offerer, to make atonement for him, obviously falls in with the interpretation here given of the ceremony of laying hands on the head of the victim, it appears, that it was not only in the case of the sin-offering enjoined by the law, that this action was connected with an acknowledgment of sin, but with respect also to that kind of sacrifice, which existed before the law ; and which, as not arising out of the law, is accordingly not now prescribed ; but spoken of in the very opening of the sacrificial code, as al- ready in familiar use, and offered at the will of the individual ; Jf any man bring an offering — a burnt sacrifice, &c. That the burnt-sacri- fice was offered in expiation of sins has indeed been doubted, but so strongly is the reference to sin marked in the description of this sacrifice, that Dr. Priestley, on the supposition of its being a voluntary offering, feels himself compelled even to admit it as a consequence, "that in every sa- crifice the offerer was considered as a sinner, and that the sacrifice had respect to him in that cha- racter" (TheoL Rep. vol. i. pp. 204, 205. )— a con-
ON THE HEAD OF THE VICTIM. 377
elusion, SO directly subversive of his notion of sa- crifices as mere gifts^ that in order to escape from it, he is obliged to deny, in opposition to every commentator, that the burnt-sacrihce here spoken of was a voluntary offering. Nov^^, that the v^ord, yyrb, should not be translated, as it is in our com- mon version, of his own voluntary will, J admit with Dr. Priestley. It should be rendered, as appears from the use of tlie word immediately after, and in other parts of Scripture^ as well as from the Greek, the Chaldee, the Syriac and the Arabic versions, yb/* his acceptance,* SeeHouhig. Ainsiv, and Purver, But the present version of this word is far from being: the strength of the cause. The manner in which the subject is in- troduced, and the entire of the context, place it beyond doubt, that the sacrifice spoken of, was the voluntary burnt-offering of an individual. And thus Dr. Priestley's argument holds good against himself, and he admits that in every sacri- fice there was a reference to sin. On the expl- atory nature of the burnt-offering, we shall see more hereafter, in Number LXVII.
* The words, mn^ ^:dV iJnV, Rosenni. renders, id acccp^us sit Deoy Dei favorem sibi cojicilict* hc'cit, i. 3.
( 378 )
NO. XL. — ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOF OF THE PROPITIATORY NATURE OF THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES, INDEPENDENT OF THE ARGUMENT WHICH ESTABLISHES THEIR VICARIOUS IM- PORT.
Page 34. (^) — That the Jewish sacrifices were pr^opitiatorij, or in other words, that in conse- quence of the sacrifice of the animal, and in virtue of it either immediately or remotely, the pardon of the offender was procured, is all that my argu- ment requires, in the place referred to by the present Number. The vicarious import of the sacrifice seems indeed sufficiently established by shewing, as has been done, that the sins of the offender were transferred in symbol to the victim, and immediately after, expiated by the death of the animal, to which they had been so transferred. But this has been an argument ex abundanti ; and has been introduced, rather for the purpose of evincing the futihty of the objections so confi- dently relied on, than as essential to the present enquiry. The effect of propitiation is all that the argument absolutely demands. For further dis- cussion of this important subject, I refer the reader to Number XLII.
( 379 )
NO. XLI. — ON THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRI- IICE : AND THE TRACES THEREOF DISCOVER- ABLE IN THE HEATHEN CORRUPTIONS OF THE RITE.
Page 35. (^) That the rite of sacrifice was not an invention of man, but an ordinance of God ; thatj however in passing among the nations of the earth, it might have become deformed by idola- trous practices, it yet had not sprung from an ido- latrous source, — it is the principal object, of the second of the Discourses contained in this volume, and of many of the Dissertations which are to fol- low in the next, to establish.* I shall not there-
* Dr. Randolph in his interesting and valuable volume of Advent Sermons, has expressed himself with felicity upon this subjeft. — " From those who presumptuousl)' deride the do6lrine of Atonement, we would ask some reasonable so- lution of the origin of sacrifice. Will they make it consist- ent with any natural idea, will ihcy discover in the blood of an innocent viclim, any thing recommendatory in itself of the offerer's suit and devotions ? Though they should clear away, what they term, a load of superstition from the Chris- tian worship, they will find it encumbering every altar of their favourite natural religion ; they will find these absur- dities forming the significant and generally indispensable part of all religious ceremonies : and however disgraced, as wc are ready to allow, with every abominable pollution, though retaining nothing to perfect the service, or to purify
1
380 HEATHEN CORRUPTIONS OF THE
fore here enter upon a discussion of this question, but confine myself merely to a few extracts from Eusebius, with some accompanying observations, upon this subject.
That learned writer having deduced from the scripture account of the sacrifices of Abel, Noah, and Abraham, and from the sacrificial institutions by Moses, the fact of a divine appointment, pro- ceeds to explain the nature and true intent of the rite in the following manner. — **' Whilst men had no victim that was more excellent, more precious, and more worthy of God, animals were made the price and ransom* of their souls. And their sub- stituting these animals in their own room bore indeed some affinity to their suffering themselves; in which sense all the antient worshippers and friends of God, made use of them. 'I'he holy spirit had taught them, that there should one day come a Victim, more venerable, more holy, and more worthy of God. He had likewise instructed them how to point him out to the world by types and shadows. And thus they became prophets, and vrere not ignorant of their having been cho-
thc offering, still in its expiatory form, in its propitiatory hopes, the sacrifice of heathen nations preserves the features of that sacred and solemn office, which was ordained to keep up the remembrance of guilt, till the full and perfett sacri- fice, oblation, and satisfaction was made by an eternal Me- diator, for the sins of the whole world." Sermons during Advent, pp. 46, 47.
1
DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE. 381
sen out to^epresent to mankind^ the things which God resolved to accomphsh/'=^ — In other words he pronounces, that the ancient sacrifices, those prescribed to the patriarchs, and those enjoined by the law, were types and figures^ and known to be such, of that one great sacrifice, which was, at a future day, to be offered upon the cross for the sins of the whole human race.
Of the practices which grew out of this original institution, and of the abuses to v/hicli it led amongst the heathen world, perhaps the most re- markable may be discovered in the account of the mystical offering of the Phenicians recorded by the same writer from Sanchoniatho ; which, as well from the extraordinary circumstances of the transaction itself, as from the interesting and im- portant bearing given to it by a late ingenious writer, I here submit to the reader in the words of the historian.
•^ " It was an established custom amongst the antients" (speaking of the Phenicians,) " on any
* Euseb. Demonsi. Evang. lib. I. cap. x. p. 36. The whole of the tenth chapter is well worth attention.
m,ni rr,q Tcawuv ^Soga?, to -/j^aTrn/xEvov Tuv ny.vuv raj K^ocrnvTaq
Karta^ctTTovTO ^i o» ^ioo|y,£r;» MYSTIKfiE.— — K^ovoj toju-j/, ov oi
382 HEATHEN CORRUPTIONS OF THE
calamitous or dangerous emergency, for the ruler of the state, to offer up, in prevention of the gene- ral ruin, the most dearly beloved of his children, as a ransom to avert the divine vengeance. And
SKccXovv, (t» [ji,ovoytv8q STWj et; xat vvv xaXawsvy "Traga rot? ^o»v»|i) mvhjvuv sx TroT^sfie ^iyifc^f aacrnX'/iiprjTuv rviv ^cu^a-v, QacnXiKcj xoa- (/.Yiffuq a-^vif/.ctTi TOv v^oVi Qoojaqv re KxruaftevxaufAevog KXTt^vaeVo Euseb. Prcep. Evang. Lib. I. cap. x. p. 4v0. and Lib. IV. cap. xvi. pp. 156, 157.
It will be remarked here that the word la-panT^, in this ex- traft of Eusebius, I have written II in the translation. — This I have done upon the authority of the ablest critics. Gro- tius^ VossiuSj and others, are of opinion, that the transcriber of Eusebius meeting with X\ (II) supposed it to be a contrac- tion of the word la-paviX, (Israel) often abridged thus in the MSS, of the Greek Christian %yriters, and w rote it at full length as we now find it. This is confirmed by the circum- stance of Kronus being elsewhere called //, as we learn from Eusebius himself, (pp. 36, 37.) — On this see Grotius in Beut. xviii. 10. Vossius de Idol. lib. I. cap. xviii. p. 143. Marsham Can. Chron. p. 79. and BryanVs Observat. on Hist, p. 288. The last named writer says, " Kronus origi- nally esteemed the supreme deity, as is manifest from his being called //and Ilus. It was the same name as the El of the Hebrews ; and according to St. Jerome was one of the ten names of God. Phcsnicibus II, qui Ilebrceij El, quod est unum de decern nominibus Dei. Damascius, irj the life of Isidorus, as it occurs in Photius, mentions that Kronus was worshipped by the people of those parts, under the name of El. OotPiKE^ xai Xv^oi TOV K^ovov HA, xai BojA, xai BoXuQr,y bttovo' pta^acrt." Observations, &c. p. 289. — It should be observed that the Vi^ (E/) of the Hebrews is written V'w (//) in Sy- riac ; and consequently is the II of the Phenicians : so that 11 and El are without doubt the same name.
1)IVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE. 383
they who were devoted for this purpose, were offered mysiicalUj. For Kronus truly, whom the Phemclans call II, and who after his death was translated with divine honours to the star which bears his name, having, whilst he ruled over that people, begotten by a nymph of the country, named Anobret. an only son, thence entitled Jeud, (it being to this day usual with the Phenicians so to denominate an only son,) had, when the na- tion was endangered from a most perilous war, after dressing up his son in the emblems of roy- alty, offered him as a sacrifice on an altar speci- ally prepared for the purpose."
On the Phenician rites, and parcicularly upon their mystical offering here described, the late very learned Mr. Bryant has offered some curious and striking observations, from which I have made the following selection, which I trust will not be unacceptable to the reader.
It should not, however, be dissembled, that Stilling Jieet^ (after Scaliger and others) is of opinion, that the word might have been written Israel by Eusebius, as we now find it, and that by that Abraham might have been intended, (Orig, Sacr, p. cjl.) He has not, however, advanced any thing to place this matter beyond doubt. And the authority of Euse- bius himself as already given, with the other references that have been noticed, renders it highly probable that // was the word as originally written. Vossius also (p. 143) re- marks, '' Parura credibile est, Phoenices pro DiiO summo, hoc est Molocho, sive Saturno, habituros Israele?ti, pareatem gentis vicina?, maximeque cxosse ; quod satis sacra testatum historia.'*
384 HEATHEN CORRUPTIONS OF THE
After speaking of the sacrifices customary with various nations, especially their liuman sacrifices, he goes on to say, — " These nations had certainly a notion of a federal and an expiatory sacrifice. It was derived to them by tradition ; and though originally founded in truth, yet being by degrees darkened and misapplied, it gave rise to the worst of profanations, and was the source of the basest and most unnatural cruelty. I have shewn at large that human victims were very common among the Phenicians : and Philo BMiiis tells us from Sanchoniatho, that in some of their sacri- fices there was a particular mystery : ^ they who were devoted for this purpose, were oflfered mifsti- cally ;' that is, under a mystical 7'epresentation : and he proceeds to Inform us, that it was in con- sequence of an example tvhich had been set this people hy the God Kromts, ivho in a time of dis- tress offered up his only son to his father Oura" nus,"^ — He observes, that there is something in the account so very extraordinary as to deserve most particular attention ; and after quoting the passage from Eusebius, which 1 have given at full kngth in page 381, he remarks, that " if nothing more be meant by it, than that a king of the
* It is to be noted that Eusebius has given this account of the matter, in a passage different from that, which I have already quoted from him. Aojfta o« yivoixivHf x«i (p^opaq, ro» letvre ^oyoyitvi t/»o* K^ovoc Qv^otyu «7«T^i o^oxagwcj. Prcep. JiiVan^, p. 38.
DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE. 385
country sacrificed his son, and that the people af- terwards copied his example, it supplies a cruel precedent too blindly followed, but contains no- thing in it of a mystery.'' " When a fact" (he adds) ^* is supposed to have a mystical reference, there should be something more than a bare imi- tation. Whatever may have been alluded to un- der this typical representation, it was, I believe, but imperfectly understood by the Phenicians; and is derived to us still more obscurely, by be- ing transmitted through a ^secondary channel." ' Our author, having cleared the history from some obscurities and apparent contradictions, pro- ceeds to his final result. — " This is the only in- stance of any sacrifice in the Gentile worlds, which is said to be mystical i and it was attended with circumstances which are very extraordinary. Kronus, we iind^ was the same with El, and Eli- oun ; and he is termed Ti^ig-og, and T^apxviog. He is moreover said to have the Elohim for his coad- j utors : l^vfjifA^ccx^i I^^ "^^ Kpova EAwsz/a 67reKX7jd''yi(rocv,
* Bryant here alludes to the circumstance of our not be- ing possessed of Sanchoniatho^i' history itself, but merely of a fragment of a Greek translation of it by Philo Bt/biius, handed down to us by Eusebius ; who, as well as the transla- tor, appear to have mixed with the original some observa- tions of their own. On this fragment ol Sanchoniatho^ see GngdeVs Orig. of Laws, vol. i. p. 370 — 384 : Banier's Mj/- thologj/, Sfc. vol. i. p. 88 — 102: and particularly Boch, Phum leg. (Opera, torn. i. p. 771 — 777.)
VOL. I. C C
386 HEATHEN CORRUPTIONS OF THE
(Prcep* Evang. p. 37-) He had no -f- father to make any offering to ; for he was the father of all, and termed Kxtpiog Ovpccvn, by the confession of the author, by whom the account is given. These sacrifices, therefore, had wo reference to any thing past, but alluded to a great event to be accomplished afterwards. They were instituted, probably, in consequence of a prophetic tradition, which, I imagine, had been preserved in the fa- mily of Esau, and transmitted through his poste- rity to the people of Canaan, The account is mixed with much extraneous matter, but, divesting it of fable, we may arrive at the truth which is concealed beneath. The mystical sacrifice of the Phenicians had these requisites ; that a prince
* This seems a direct contradiction to what has been just before quoted from Eusebius. Bryant, however, explains this by shewing, that, in truth, Ouraniis, the father, to whom Kronus is said to have offered up his only son, is the same as £/, or Elioun, or Kronus, being only another title for the same person. This also he asserts to be the same with th» HAiogof the Greeks, and refers to Servius in Virg. iEneid. Lib. I. de Belo Phoenice, " Omnesin illis partibus Solem co- Junt, qui ipsorum lingua Hel dicitur." BrijanVs Observ. &c. p. 290. — Servius adds to this quotation from him by Bryant what deserves to be noticed: '*unde"(ex Hel scil.) " et H^i»j. Ergo, additi digamma, et in fine fact^ derivatione a lole, Regi imposuit nomen Beli.*'— This last formation b/ the digamma, Yossius however rejects. Bel us he says came from ^r)\, contracted from BtiX, from which Btt\erciiJiint and Other words. Voss, de Idol, Lib. IL cap. iv. tom, i. pp. 322; 323.— See the whole of that chapter of Yossius.
DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE. 387
was to offer it ; and his only son was to he the victim : and^ as 1 have shewn^ that this could not relate to any thing prior, let us consider what is said upon the subject, ^^ future , and attend to the consequence. For^ if the sacrifice of the Pheni- cians was a type of another to come, the nature of this last will be known from the representa- tion, by which it was prefigured. According to this, El, the supreme Deity, whose associates were the Elohim, wdis in process of time to have a son ; ccyocTTvjTov, well beloved ; f^ovoyevv], his only begot- ten : who was to be conceived, as some render it* of grace, but according to my interpretation, of the fountain of light. He was to be called Jeoudy-^- whatever that name may relate to ; and
* " I cannot help thinking that Anobret is the same as Ouranus', and however it may have been by the Greeks dif- ferently constructed, and represented as the name of a wo- man, yet it is reducible to the same elements with Ouranus; and is from the same radix, though differently modified. I take it to hare been originally Ain Ober^ the fountain of light ^ the word *i^H being rendered variously, Aiir^ Aver, Aber^ Obery — Now Ouranus^ Bryant had before derived in lika manner, making it, the transposition of Ain Aiir or Our^ the fountain of light ; written Our ain, and thence by the Greeks Ouranos. — BryanVs Ohserv, &c. pp. 295, 291. — Bochart however derives the word^wo^re^ differently: thus, r^i^^^in, An-oberet, i. e. ex gratia condpiens : which, hesays, is a just appellation for Sara^ the wife of Abraham. — Boch. PhaL (Opera torn. i. p. 712.)
f Th« Hebrew word '^'n'^Jehid^ signifies unicus^ soiiiariut^ C C 2
388 HEATHEN CORRUPTIOlSS OF TH£:
to be offered up as a sacrifice to his father, Xu- TDOv, by way of satisfaction, and redemption, rif/.w- ooig ^ocifA^oTh to atone for the sins of others, and avert the jnst vengeance of God ; ocvn rvjg ttocvtcjov (p^ooocg, to prevent universal corriiptioyi, and at the same time general ruin. And, it is farther remarkable, he ivas to mahe this grand sacrifice^ C^otG-iXiycu (TXTifJiocTi, Ke>co(rf^Yj[JLSvog, invested with the emblems of royalty. — These surely are very strong expressions ; and the whole is an aggregate of circumstances higiily significant, which cannot be the result of chance. All that I have requested to be allowed me in the process of this recital, is this simple supposition, that this mystical sacri- fice ivasa type of something to come. How truly it corresponds to that, which I imagine it alludes to, I submit to the reader's judgment. I think it must necessarily be esteemed a most wonderful piece of history/' — Bryanfs Observations on va- rious parts of Ancient History, p. 286 — 292.
A most wonderful piece of history, undoubt- edly, this must be confessed to be : and a most wonderful resemblance to the one great and final sacrifice is it thus made to present to the view. One impediment^ however, in the way of a full and entire assent to the conclusion of the learned writer, arises from the consideration, that if we
2kn{\ li. frequently applied io an only son. It is the verjr i^crtl used of Isaac in Gen. xxii. 2.
DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE. SSg
suppose this mystical sacrifice of the Phenicians,to have contained the typical allusion contended for, we must then admit, that among that most idola- trous and abandoned people, (as we learn from the Scripture history the people of Canaan or Phenicia were,) a more exact delineation of the great fu- ture sacrifice was handed down by tradition, than was at the same early age vouchsafed to the fa- voured nation of the Jews. The prophetic tra- dition, giving birth to the institution, had pro- bably, Bryant observes, been preserved in the fa- mily of Esau, and so transmitted through his pos- terity to the people of Canaan. But was it not at least as likely that such a tradition would have been preserved in the family of Isaac, and so transmitted through his posterity to the people of the Jews ? I am upon the whole therefore rather disposed , to think, that this sacrifice of the Phe- nicians. grew out of the intended sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, to which the circumstances of the history seem to correspond in many particulars.
First, it is remarkable, that the very name, by which God describes Isaac, when he issues his order to Abraham to offer him in sacrifice, is TiT,^ Jehid, agreeing with the Phenician name Jeud given to the son of Kronus. Again, i? Ano^ hret has been justly explained by Bochart, as sig-
* "Take now thy son, (irn^) thine only son." Gen, xxii. 2,
390 HEATHEN CORRUPTIONS OF THE
nifying ^' ex gratia concipiens/' no epithet could be with greater propriety appHed to Say^a, the wife of Abraham ; of whom the apostle says, " Through faith Sara received strength to conceive, — when she was past age.** Again, that Abraham should be spoken of by the Phenicians, as a king, who reigned in those parts, is not unlikely, con- sidering his great possessions and rank=^ amongst the surrounding people: and if the name assigned by the history be actually Israel, or iX, as the ab- breviation of Israel, little doubt can then remain as to its application, there being nothing unrea- sonable, (notwithstanding Vossiiis's remark no- ticed in p. 383,) in supposing him called by the title of the famous Patriarch whose progenitor he was, and from whom a whole people took its name. If even we should suppose the true read- ing to be //, as equivalent to the El of the He brews, and so consider him as ranked amongst the divinities of the Phenicians, as the other parts of the history undoubtedly describe Kronns to have been, there is nothing in this so very surprizing; especially when it is remembered, that Kronns is related to have been advanced from a mortal to the heavens. There is also an expression used of Abraham in Gen. xxiii. 6, which, by a slight va- riation of the rendering, would actually represent him as a supreme God, in perfect correspondence
* See Gen. xxiii. 6. where Abraham is addressed as ;| Jving. " Thou art a mighty prince among us."
DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE. 391
with all that we have seen applied to Kronus, The expression I allude to is wrhi^ i^'^m^ which is strictly rendered a prince of God, a known He- braism for a MIGHTY prince^ as it is accordingly given in the common bible, the literal English being placed in the margin. Now this might with equal accuracy, (d'TT^j^ being a plural word) be rendered, a 'prince o/'GoDS, and would accord- ingly by those who held a plurality of Gods, as the Canaanites did, be so rendered : and thence he would come to be considered as supreme^ or chief among the gods. And accordingly we find the Elohim, described as the associates of Kronus :
(Euseb. Prcep. Evang. p. 37.) But yet farther, another circumstance remains to be noticed, which seems to give confirmation to the idea, that Abraham was the Kronus of Sanchoniatho, We are told of Kronus by this writer, (Prcep, Ev. p. 38.) that he was the author of the rite of dr- cumcision, Kai roc ociookz TreptTefjcveroci, tocuto ttoi^ TiCroci Koci rag a^' ocvrco (ruf^f^cocxi^g ycocTocvocyyca,(rocg i Etiam pudenda sibi ipse circumcidit, sociosgue omnes ad simile factum per vim adigit. This ex- actly corresponds to what is said of Abraham, in
Gen. xvii. 27. See Stilling. Orig. Sacr. pp.
371, 372. Shuchford's Connexion, i. pp. 326, 327, and particularly Bochart Phaleg, torn. i.
pp. 711, ri2.
c c 4
392 HEATHEN CORRUPTIONS OF THE
Thus, upon the whole, it appears to me, that the reference of the mystical sacrifice of the Phe- iiicians, to the intended sacrifice of Isaac by Abra- ham, is natural^ and striking. Nor perhaps, after
* This application of the history of Sanchoniatho, (as re- ported by Eitsebius,) to the circumstances of the birth and intended sacrifice of Isaac recorded by Moses, will appear yet more satisfadlory to him who will take the trouble of consulting either StilUngJieet^ or Bochart, on the whole of the Phenician Theogony, as derived from SancliGmaiho, Those writers abundantly prove, that the particulars of that Theogony are borroAved from the fa6is referred to in the Mosaic history, and its various fables founded upon the mis- take or perversion of the language of the Hebrew records. — Stilling. Orig. Sucr. p. 3G8--372. Boch. Phal. Opera tom. i. p. 704—712. See also Earner's Myth, vol. i. p. 88—101, and GogueVs Origin of Lazos, &c. vol. i. p. 370 — 3S4. Pre- sident Kirzi^an likewise, in a learned paper On the Origin of Polytheism^ &c.(in the xith. volume of the Trans, of the Royal Irish Acad.) has treated of this subjedt. Some of these wri- ters indeed, particularly Goguet, have doubted whether San- cboniatho was acquainted Avith the sacred books. But to the main point with which we are concerned, it seems to be of little consequence, whether the fadls as they are reported by Moses, or the general tradition of those fadls, formed the ground-work of the Phenician mythology.
It should be noted, that Bishop Cumberland, in his San- choniatlio p. 134 — 150, maintains an opinion, direetly re- pugnant to that which has been advanced in this Number, on the subje6l of the Fhcnician sacrifice. But it must be ob- served, that the learned Bishop's arguments are founded on the want of a perfect agreement between the particulars of Abraham's history, and those of Kronus as detailed by San- choniatho : whereas nothing more ought to be expe6led in 1
DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE. 393
all, do I, in holding this opinion, differ very sub- stantially from the learned Mr. Bryant : inas- much as that intended sacrifice is acknowledged to Ijave been typical of a great sacrifice to come ; and it may reasonably be supposed, that a tradi-
such a case, than that vague and general resemblance, which commonly obtains between truth and the fabulous represen- tation of it. Of such resemblance, the features will be found, in the instance before us, to be marked with peculiar strength. But the fear of tracing the idolatrous prac5iiccs of the Phenicians, especially that most horrid practice of human sacrifice, to the origin of a divine command, rendered this excellent prelate the less quick-sighted in discovering such similitude. Indeed, the professed obje6t for which he entered upon his Review of Sanchoniatho's history, must in a great degree detra6l from the value of his researches upon that subje6l. The account given by his biographer and panegy- rist Mr. Payne, states of him, that " he detested nothing so much as Popery, was affedted with the apprehensions of it to the last degree, and was jealous almost to an excess of every thing that he suspe6led to favour it : that this depravation of Christianity ran much in this thoughts, and the enquiry how religion came at first to degenerate into idolatry, put him upon the searches that produced the work in question ; inas- much as the oldest account of idolatry he believed was to be found in Sanchoniatho's fragment ; and as leading to the discovery of the original of Idolatry he accordingly made it the subject of his study." Preface to Cumb. Sanch. pp. x. xxviii. With a pre-conceived system, and a predominant terror, even the mind of Cumberland was not likely to pur- sue a steady and unbiassed course. The melancholy prospect of atlairs in the reign of James the 2nd, his biographer re- marks, had inspired him with extraordinary horrors.
394 HEATHEN CORRUPTIONS OF THE
tion* of its mystical nature would pass down through thebranches of the Abrahamic family,and so by the hue of Esau descend to the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. And thus eventually, the Phenician sacrifice, founded upon the typical sacrifice of Isaac^ would derive from that, a rela- tion to the great offering of which it was the mo- del ; and from its correspondence with the type, acquire that correspondence with the thing typi- fied, for which Mr. Bryant contends^ but in a form more direct.
Thus then in this mystical sacrifice of the Phenlcians which, taken in all its parts, is cer-
* Were we to accept of Bishop Warburton's idea of the scenical nature of the intended sacrifice of Isaac, reprcserrt- ing by a6^tion instead of words the future sacrifice of Christ, (whose ddij. as that writer urges, Abraham was by this en- abled to ace^) we might here positively pronounce, that a precise notion of that future sacrifice did a6lually exist in the time of Abraham : and that a foundation for the tradition was thus laid in an anticipated view of that great event. But without going so far as this ingenious writer would lead us, may it not fairly be presumed, that, in some manner or other, that patriarch, who enjoyed frequent communication with the deity, was favoured with the knowledge of the ge- neral import of this mysterious transa6lion, and that from him there passed to his immediate descendants the notion of a mysterious reference at least, if not of the exa6l nature, of its objedt. On this subject see Warb. Div. Leg. ii. p. 589 — C14; an^iSiebbings Examination of IVarburton^ p. 137— 149; and his History of Abraham,
DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE. 399
talnly the most remarkable that history records amongst the heathen nations, we find, notwith- standing the numerous notions and corruptions that disturb the resemblance, marked and obvious traces of a rite originating in the divine command, (as the intended sacrifice of Isaac indisputably was,) and terminating in that one grand and com- prehensive offering, which was the primary object and the final consummation of the sacrificial in- stitution.
hO. XLII. ON THE DEATH OF CHRIST AS A TRUE
PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND.
Page 35. (*) — Not only are the sacrificial terms of the law applied to the death of Christ, as has been shewn in Numbers XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX; but others, which open up more fully the true nature of atone- ment, are superadded in the description of that great sacrifice, as possessing in truth and reality, that expiatory virtue, which the sacrifices of the law but relatively enjoyed, and but imperfectly reflected. Reasonable as this seems^ and arising out of the very nature of the case, yet has it not failed to furnish matter of cavil to disputatious criticism: the very want of those expressions, which in strictness could belong only to the true
396 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, being made a ground of objection against the propitiatory na- ture of the Mosaic atonement. Of this we have already seen an instance in page 356, with respect to the words^- Xvroov, and ocvTiXuroov, The expressi- on, BEARING SIN, furnishes another : the author of the Scripture Account of Sacrifices, (p. 146.) urging the omission of this phrase in th^ case of the legal sacrifices, as an argument against the vicarious nature of the Levitical atone- ment.
Such arguments, however, only recoil upon the objectors, inasmuch as they supply a reluc- tant testimony, in favour of the received sense of these expressions, when applied to that sa- crifice, to which they properly appertained. But from this these critics seem to entertain no ap- prehension : and their mode of reasoning is cer- tainly a bold exercise of logic. From the ivant of such expressions, as being of vicarious im- port, they conclude against the vicarious nature of the Mosaic sacrifices: and, this point gained, they return, and triumphantly conclude against the vicarious import of these expressions, in that
* In addition to what has been already offered upon the meaning of these words, I beg to rcler the reader to the judicious observations, in Mr. Nares's Remarks on the Version of the Ne:o Tcsta?ncnt by the Unitarians^ p. 125— 130: and to those of Danzius, in his treatise D<? AYTPfl Meitsch. Nov, Test, ex Talm. pp. 869, 870.
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, 397
sacrifice to which they are a})pliecl. Not to disturb these acute reasoners in the enjoyment of their triumph, let us consider, whether the terms employed in describing the death of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice, be sufficiently precise and significant, to remove all doubt with respect to its true nature and operation.
To enumerate the various passages of Scrip- ture, in which the death of Christ is represented to have been a sacrifice, and the effect of this sacrifice to have been strictly jpropitiatory, must lead to a prolix detail, and is the less necessary in this place, as most of them are to be found occasionally noticed in the course of this en- quiry; especially in p. 222, and Numbers XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII. There are spme, however, which, as throwing a stronger light upon the nature and import of the Christian sa- crifice, demand our most particular attention ; and the more so, because from their decisive testimony in favour of the received doctrine of atonement, the utmost stretch of ingenuity has been exerted, to weaken their force, and divert their application. Of these, the most distinguish- ed is the description of the sufferings and death of Christ, in the liiid. chapter of Isaiah. We ther^ find this great personage represented as one, on whom the Lord hath laid the Iniquity of lis all; as one, who was niimhered ivith trans- gressors, ctnd bare the sins of manjj; as one,
39fi THE DEATH OF CHRIST
who consequently ivas ivounded for our tvans- gressionSy and bruised Jor our imqidties; and who, in mailing his soul an {iDW^<^) offering for sin, suffered the chastisement of our peace, and healed us h/ his stripes. Thus we have here, a clear and full explanation, of the nature and .efficacy of the sacrifice offered for us, by our blessed Redeemer. And as this part of Scrip- ture, not only seems designed to disclose the whole scheme and essence of the christian atone- ment ; but, from the frequent and familiar refer- ences made to it by the writers in the New Testament, appears to be recognized by them, as furnishing the true basis of its exposition ; it becomes necessary to examine, with scrupulous attention, the exact force of the expressions, and the precise meaning of the Prophet. For this pur- pose, I shall begin with laying before the reader the last nine verses of the chapter, as they are ren- dered by Bishop Lowth in his admirable trans- lation, with the readings of the ancient versions, and some occasional explanations by Vitringa, Dathe and other expositors.
4. Surely our infirmities he hath borne*: And our sorrows he hath "* carried -(^ them; Yet we thought him judicially stricken j Smitten of God and afHicted.
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 395
5. But lie was wounded for our transgressions; Was smitten for our iniquities:
The ^chastisement, by which our peace is
effected, was laid upon him; And by his bruises we are healed.
6. We all of us like sheep have strayed :
We have turned aside, every one to his own
way ; And Jehovah hath made to light^ upon him
the iniquity of us all.
7. It was exacted,^ and he was made answer-
able ; and he opened not his mouth : As a lamb that is led to the slaughter ; And as a sheep before her shearers. Is dumb: so he opened not his mouth. S. By an oppressive judgment he was taken "off; And his manner of life who would declare ? For he was cut off from the land of the
living; For ^the transgression of my people he wa» smitten to death. 9. And his grave, &c.
Although he had done no wrong, Neither was there any guile in his mouth. 10. Yet it pleased Jehovah to crush him with affliction. If his soul shall make a propitiatory sa- crifice^, He shall see a seed, &c.
400 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
11. Of ^ the travail of his soul he shall see (the
fruit,) and be satisfied. By the knowledge of him shall my servant
justify ^ many ; For the punishment of their iniquities he
shall »bear*.
12. Therefore will I distribute to him the many
for his portion^ And the mighty people shall he share for his
spoil : Because he poured out his soul unto death ; And was numbered with the transgressors : And he ^bare-}- the sin of many : And made intercession for the transgressors.
* (Carried) Bajulavit. Vitr, — Sustinet. Dath. and JDoederL — rag TTov^g VTrsf^sivsv. St/mm. — also Aq. and Theod. — See Crit, Sac. tom. iv. p. 5S06.
^ (Chastisement.) Poena exemplaris ad im« petrandam nobis reconciliationem cum Deo. lltr, — Ejus castigatio nostrae cum Deo recon-
ciliationis causa facta est. Dath. Mulcts
correctionis nostrae ei imposita fuit. Tig.
1D)!2, po^na publica ad deterrendos spectantes a peccando; exemplo poenarum, ut Ezech. v. 15. Gusset, Lex. p. 332. Poena exemplaris, qua ahus moneatur et cohibeatur a peccando. Ucc^oi,-
* V3D. t «^^«
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, 401
Ssiyfict. Coco. Lex. — Michaelis (in loc.) likewise supplies many authorities, in support of the trans- lation given by Lowth and Vitringa. — Castigatio saliifis nostrce super ipsiim, patet esse sensus ver- boruni ex iis quae sequuntur, ):h X£)"i:d )rn:i.'ny)plaga sua curatio nobis jit, dum ille insons acerbissimos dolores sustinuit, nos sontes a peccatorum pcenis liberi manebauius, quasi Jehova ipsi nostrorum peccatorum pcenas luendas imposuerit. Rosenm,
N. B. the LXX version, ttohSeix, which
seems the principal ground of Mr. Dodson's ob- jection to the Bishop's translation, supplies no argument against it, inasmuch as this expression is frequently used by the LXX, in the sense here contended for: see Levit. xxvi. 18. 23. 28. Deut. xi. 2. xxi. 18. xxii, 18. 1 Kings, xii. 11. 14. 2 Chr. X. 11. 14. Ps. vi. 1. xxxviii. l.xxxix. 11. cxviii 18. Prov. iii. 11. xiii. 24. xix. 18. xxii. 15. Isai. xxvi. l6*. Jer. ii, I9. 30. v. 3. x. 24. xxx. 11. 14. xxxi. 18. xlvi. 28." Ezech. v. 15. xxiii. 48. Wisd. iii. 5. Hos. vii. 12. These passages, in which the words^ TrociSsia, and TToadevu, are used by the LXX to express the Hebrew nOT-), and ^DS are all instances of their application in the sense of chastisement : to these there might be added many examples of the Greek word, used in this sense, from the book of Ecclesiasticus ; and we find one passage in the book of Job, (xxxvii. 13.) in which the Greek translator has employed the word Trcci^sicn, as expressive of the
VOL. I. D D
402 THE DKATH OF CHRIST
Hebrew DD'^, a 7'od ; so familiarly did they con- nect with it the notion of correction. — The word is also frequently used in this sense by th^ writers of the New Testament: see Scldeusn. Lex, on TrociosLcc and Troadevu,
^ (Made to light upon him the iniquity of its all.) Fecit incurrere in ipsum j)(rnam iiiiquitatis omnium nostrum. Vitr. — Jova ah eo exegit poenam peccatorum nostrorum omnium. Dath,
is the present reading of the LXX : and the Old Italic as given by Augustin, as well as the several readings collected by Sabatier, follow this very nearly ; rendering it Dominus eum tradidlt propter iniquitates nostras : but Symm. corres- ponds with the received reading, Is^v^tog ycocTotvTTjtTui S7T0i7}(Tev eig ocurov ttjv ccvof^iocv ttocvtuv tj^ccv. The Si/riac reads, Dominus fecit ut occurrerent in eum peccata nostra. The Vulgate, Dominus fecit occurrere in eum iniquitatem omnium nos- trum: and Castellio, Jova in eum omnium nos- trum crimen conjecit. Crellius, indeed, to avoid the force of this clause, translates it, Deum, per Christum, iniquitati omnium nostrum occurrisse: and is refuted by Outram, lib. ii. cap. v. § 3. — Rosenmuller renders the words, incursare in eum jussit crimina nostrum omnium, h. e. poenas im- pietati nostroe debitas ilium unice perferre jussit Jehova. And upon the whole of the 4th, 5th, and 6th verses, he gives this general exposition :
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 403
Ouem nos ob sua crimina atrocissimis malis a Deo afFectiim existimavimus, illuin eos dolores suslinuisse nunc intelligimus, qui nobis pro pec^ catis subeundi fuerunt.
^ (It ivas exacted.) Exigebatur debitum. Fitr.
Exactionem sustinuit, vel solutio exacta fuit»
Mkhaelis. — Exigitur debitum, et ille ad diem respondit. Duth. — Mr. Dodson seems upon very slender grounds, to object to Bishop Lowth's translation of this clause. Dr. Taylor having, in his Concordance, pronounced the word w^:, to be a forensic term, signifying, he was brought forth^ and Sf/nunachus having rendered it by the word TtroocTTjvsx^y], appear but weak reasons for deciding this point: especially as the word Tfooa-vjvsx^'yi might have been use<l by Symni* in the sacrificial sense, in which it so frequently occurs: and that it was so in this instance, is highly probable from the rendering of the Vulgate ; ohlatus est, he teas offered . — and though this does not come up to the Bishop's idea^ yet still less does it favour that, which Mr. Dodson lias adduced it to sup- port. — For the numerous and weighty arguments, supporting the Bishop's translation of the word )Dyi:> see Fltr. and Pole's St/n. — see also Calasios Concord, where under Number II. not less than twent3^-one passages are cited, which coincide with this application of the word. One autlio- rity more I shall only add : it is that of the Jews themselves, who allow that wyi signifies^ to de-- D d 2
404 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
viayid rigorousli/ what is due. Of this see a strong proof in the words of Kimchi, quoted in IF Jutes Co)?im. on Isai.
* (For.) It is curious to observe the Wiiy, in which Mr. Dodso??, who in his note on verse 1], charges the Bishop with " early prejudices and an undue attachment to estabhshed systems/' has laboured to distort the obvious meaning of this passage, manifestly in support of a system, though not an established one. For the ivick- edness of my people, he would translate through the ivichedness, &.c. upon little better grounds than that it viai/ be so translated : for as to the authority of the LXX rendering the preposition t2 by (x,7To, which is his principal argument, it yields him no support ; the word octto being fre- quently used in the sense of propter, as is satis- factorily shewn by Schleusner (Lex, Number 17.) who cites several instances to prove it, and amongst them Ex. vi. 9. Deut. vii, 7* Pi'ov. XX. 4. Nah. iii. IL evincing its agreement \vith the preposition D in this respect: to the same purport see Biellus's Lexic. in LXX, on the word : and accordingly, octto is in this very place translated ob, by Procopius ; (Crit. Sac. vol. iv. p. 5300.) and Sym. renders • the words by AIA rviv adiKiccv, But that the word does in this place imply propter, the antecedent and iin- pulsive cause, is not only fully proved by Vi- iringa, and Pole on verse 5. (see also Nold. Con*
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 405
cord. p. 467 ) but is even admitted by Crellius in his Answer to Grot Ins, p. 25. Nay, what is more, Mr. Dodson himself has in verse 5. allowed to the verz/ same expression which occurs Fiere, Vi^^S^, the signification which in this place he refuses to it, translating with the Bishop and the other Commentators, he was wounded for our transgressions. Perhaps prejudice and attach- ment to system mai/ sometimes stray beyond the pale of the establishment : and tempting as those emoluments may appear, which an established church has to bestow, (Dods. Let. to D?*, S f urges, p. 24.) there 7na7/ be passions, which influence the human breast, with a sway not less powerful than that of avarice. I say not this, from disrespect to Mr. Dodson, whose well meant, and in many respects ably executed, plan of reconciling the distinguished prophet of the old with the writers of the New Testament, de- serves well of every friend of Cliristianity. But on most occasions, it may not be amiss to con- sider, whether prejudice may not lie at more than one side of a question, and whether he who is animated by an ardent spirit of opposition to established opinions, may not be influenced (though perhaps unconsciously) by other feelings than a love of truth.
^On this clause see Number XXVII: and in addition to the observations there offered upon the passage^ I would recommend to the learned D d 3
406 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
reader the copious discussion of its structure and inpaiiing by Danzius iu his treatise De ATTPvQ, Meusch, Nov, Test, ex 2 aim, p. 851 — 854.
s (Of,) In this, the Bishop, as well as Mr, Dodson, and our present English version, de- parts from the uniformity of the preposition D, throughout this entire section. Propter laborem aniniee suss videbit. f^itr, — Propter has quas perpessus est afflictiones. Dath. — — Propter la- bores ipsius. Rosenm. — So Crellius himself ex^ plains the word, in his Ansiver to Grotms, p. 25. — The LXX version of this book, which, (as has been already observed in p. 231, and is admitted also by Mr. Dodson, pref. p. vii.) is in many parts erroneous and even absurd; and from which, Vitringa remarks on verse 11," but little aid is to be looked for in this book," (see also the tes- timony of ZivingUus in Glass. PhiL Sac. con- tinued by Bauer, p. 250.), — is here totally un- intelligible: but the Pulgate renders the clause, pro eo quod laboravit anima ejus: and the Doway, agreeably to this, translates ; for that Jiis soul has laboured, &c. — in which it has the advantage of the Protestant English versions.
^ (Justify.) Justitiam adferet multis. Vitr^
'^ Justiticationem conciliabit multis. Cocc. —
Justitiam dabit multis : i. e. justificabit multos. Michael. — Justificabit ipse multos. Viilg, — Mr, Dodson indeed renders it, " turn many to right- eousness;" and quotes the authority of Taylor'^
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, A(f[
Concord, and Dan. xii. 3. He cites Grotius also, who on tliis occasion is the less to be attended to, as he most unaccountably applies the pro- phecy to Jeremiah, so as to render this sense of the word unavoidable. See litr, particularly on this word. — Cloppenb. asserts, that the most usual signification of the word "|''Tin, as of the Greek diKotioco, is to absolve, to acquit: see Pole's Sijn, Justification, he says, is opposed to con- demnatlon, and is a forensic term, signifying acquittal. Albert, on Rom. viii. 33, (Ohserv. Phil.) says of ^ikociou, it is a forensic term, im- plying a declaration of acquittal, of the person charged with any crime, and answers to the word "I^Tiil. Parkhurst in like manner explains it as being a forensic term, implying to absolve front past offences, and corresponding to '^''l^irT, for which he says, the LXX have used it in this sense, in Deut. xxv. 1. 1 Kin. viii. 32. 2 Chr. vi. 23. Isai. v. 23. — he might have added Exod. xxiii. 7. Ps. Ixxxii. 3. Prov. xvii. 15. and many others which may be collected from Trommius and! Calasio. The passage last referred to, places justification (TiTin, Sucocioct),) in direct opposition to coyidemnation: — he that just ifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord. — Isai. 1. 8. sup- plies a strong example of the same opposition. See also Schleusner on SiKcciou, which corres- ponding to 1"Ti, is used, he says, " in a forensic D d 4
408 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
sense : and signifies to be acquitted, to be pro- nounced innocent, and is put in opposition to x,ocTocSMoc^£a-9ccr," of which he furnishes several instances.
^ (For the punishment of their iniquities he shall hear.) Siquidem eorum peccata bajulavit: Titr, — Nam pro peccatis eorum satisfecit. Dath,
Nam poenas eorum sustinuit. Doederl,
Et iniquitates eorum ipse portabit. Vulg, — Pec- cata illorum ipse sustinebit. Old Italic as given by August. Sahat, in loc. Mr. Dodson con- tends against the propriety of the Bishop's trans- lation ; and maintains, that the vi^ords will bear no other meaning than, '^ tlieir iniquities he shall hear awayT In this he considers himself sup- ported by the authority of the Seventy, who ren- der, Ka/ Tocq ocfjLocoT kocg ocurcov ocuroq ANOIXEI. He does not how^ever state, that Sym. translates the clause. Ttx.g oco-s^Eiocg dlvtcov ocvrog TnENEFKEr. (Grit, Sac, torn. iv. p. 5300.) — and besides, as we shall see hereafter, the word ocvcc(p£^u yields him no support. Bishop Stock renders, " Of their iniquities he shall hear the weight :" in which he agrees with Rosen muller, who says, De formula hac bene monuit Martini, peccata propter mala, quse sibi adjuncta habent, ab Ori- entalibus ut grave onus reprsesentari, quo pre- mantur, qui iis se inquinaverint, in cujus rei testimonium adducit locum Thren. v. 7« ^t ex Corano plura loca. Hinc apud Arabes, inquit^
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 409
verbum, quod proprie est, grave onus sustlnuit, dicitur pro, crimine gravatas fuit : itemque sarclna vocabulum solenne est de criminibus eorunique poenis.
^ (He hare, &c.) Peccatum multorum tuUt,
Vitr, Fro multorum peccatis satisfecit. Dath,
Multorum poenas sustinuU* DoederL — Pec-
cata multorum tallt. Pidg. — Peccata multorum sustimiit, August. — pertuUt, Cypr. — and both add, after the LXX^ et propter iiiiquitates eorum traditus est: Sahat. in loc. Mr. Dodson ob- jects as in verse 11. and renders it, he took away the sins, &c.
I have thought it necessary, to take this ac- curate survey, of this celebrated prophecy ; and to state thus fully, the various renderings of the most respectable versions, and commentators ; lest any pretence might remain, that in deriving my arguments from this part of Scripture, I had either unguardedly, or uncandidly, built on any inaccuracy in our common English translation. The plain result of the whole is obviously this; — That the righteous servant of Jehovah, having no sin himself, was to submit to be treated as the vilest of sinners; and having the burden of our transgressions laid upon him, to suffer on account of them ; and by offering up his life a propitia- tory sacrifice, like to those under the law, to procure for us, a release from the punishment
410 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
which was due to our offences. And thus, from that prophet, justly called Evangelical, who was the first commissioned to lift up the veil that covered the mystery of our redemption, and to draw it forth to open view from beneath the shade of Jewish ceremonies, and tvpes, through which it had been hitherto but faintly dis- cerned, we have a description of that great pro- pitiatory sacrifice, whereby our salvation has been effected, as plain as it is possible for lan- guage to convey it. That Christ is the person described by the prophet throughout this chap- ter, cannot with any Christiari be matter of question. St. Matthew, (viii. 17.) and St. Peter, (1 Ep. ii. 24.) directly recognize the prophecy as applied to Christ : and yet more decisive is the passage, in Acts viii. 35; in which, the eunuch reading this very chapter, and demand- ing of Philip, of whom speaketh the prophet this? it is said, that Philip began at the same scripiure, and preached unto him Jesus.
Indeed so evident and undeniable is the ap- plication to Christ, that Dr. Priestley himself, whilst he is laboriously employed, in withdraw- ing from the suppoH of Christianity, most of the prophecies of the Old Testament, (which, he says, Christians, by " Jbllowing too closely/ the writers of the New Testament,'' have been erroneous' ' led to attribute to Christ, Theol, Rep. vol. V. p. 213.) yet pronounces it impossible to
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, 4 1 1
explain this of any other hut Jesus Christ (p. 22b\) ; and considers the apphcation of it to Je- remiah by Crotius as not deserving a refutation. White also, who in his Commentary on Isaiah professes to follow Grotnis as his oracle, is yet obliged to abandon him in his explication of this prophecy, which he says cannot ])ossibly be- long to any other than Christ : and this he thinks so evident, that he concurs with A. Lapide, in pronouncing, that '" this chapter may justly challenge for its title, The Passion of Jesus Christ according to Isaiah.'" See also Kenni- cofs Dissert, vol. ii. p. 3 73.
But whilst Christ is of necessity allowed to be the subject of this prophecy ; the propitiatory sacrifice, which he is here represented as offer- ing for the sins of men, is utterly rejected. And for the purpose of doing away the force of the expressions, which so clearly convey this idea, the adversaries of the doctrine of atonement, have directed against this part of Scripture, their principal attacks What has been already ad- vanced in Number XXVII. may shew how im- potent have been their attempts to prove, that Christ is not here described, as an D^vi'J^, or sa- crificejor sin. And their endeavours to evince, that this sacrifice is not likewise described as one truly propitiatory^ we shall find to be equally unsupported by just argument^ or fair and ra- tional criticism.
412 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
The usual method of proceeding has been, to single out one expression from this entire pas- sage ; and by undermining its signification, to shake the whole context into ruins. The per- son, who is made an DDK, or sin-offering, is said to hear the sins of many. Now, it is con- tended, that to BEAR sins, signifies merely to bear them aivay, or remove them ; and that, con- sequently, nothing more is meant here, than " the removing away from us our sins and ini- quities by forgiveness."* In support of this position, the application of the prophet's words by St. Matthew, (viii. 17.) and the force of the expressions which in this prophecy are rendered by the words hearing sins, are urged as unan- swerable arguments.
1. It is said, that " the words in the 4th verse, our infirmities he hath home, and our sorrows, he hath carried them, are expressly interpreted by St. Matthew, of the miraculous cures per- formed by our Saviour on the sick : and as the taking our infirmities, and hearing our sick- nesses, cannot mean the suffering those infir- mities and sicknesses, but only the bearing them away, or removing them, so the bearing our iniquities is likewise to be understood, as remov- ing them away from us by forgiveness."
* B. Mord. p. 825. see also Taylor's Key, No. 162. Mr. DodsoTi's notes on this chapter of Isaiah — and particu- larly CrelL Re&p, ad Grot, p. 24, &c.
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, 413
It must be owned, that this passage of St, ^Matthew has given great difficulty to commen- tators. His applying, what the prophet seems " to say of ^ins, to hod'dij bijirmities ; and the hearing; of the former, to the curing of the latter; has created no small degree of perplexity. Some have, accordingly, contended,^ that St, Matthew has applied the prophecy merely in accommo- dation; in which case, he supplies no authority as to the precise meaning of the words of the prophet: others-}- again, that the expressions admit that full and comprehensive signification, that will include both bodily and spiritual dis- eases, and which consequently received a twofold fulfilment: others:}; again, that Christ might be said to have suffered the diseases, which he re- moved ; from the anxious care, and bodily harass- ing, with which he laboured to remedy them, bearing them as it were through sympathy and toil: and Bishop Pearce is so far dissatisfied with all of these expositions, that he is led to concede the probabilily, that the passage in Matthew is an interpolation. Now, if these several commen- tators, acquiescing in the received, have pro-
* See Calixt. Eniest. Schol. Proph, p. 230. Sj/kes
Essay on Christ. Ret. p. 231. Beausob. Ro'ienni. and
IVakefidd, in loc.
+ Sec Ilamm. fVhilbi/, Le Clerc, and Lighffoot in loc.
X See Vilr. on Isai. liii. 4. and RaphcL Grot, and Dod* dridge, iu locum.
414 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
ceeded on an erroneous, acceptation of the pas- sages, in Isaiah, and Matthew; we shall have lit- tle reason to wonder at the difficulties, which they have had to encounter in reconciling the prophet and the evangelist. It must surely then be worth our while to try, whether a closer exami- nation of the original passages, will not enable us to effect this point.
For this purpose, it must first be observed, that all the commentators have gone upon the sut)PO- sition, that the prophet, in the 4th verse, which is that quoted by St. Matthew, speaks only of the sufferings of Christ, on account of our sins : into which they have been led^ partly by the Greek version, ccf^cconocg; and partly by the supposition, that St. Peter refers to this same passage, when he speaks of Christ's bearing our sins vpon the cross. But the reference of St. Peter is not to this 4 th verse, but to the 11th and 12th: the words of St. Peter, rccg cc[y.a,Driocg otvrog ocvTivsyzsv, corresponding to the original in both these verses, and being the very same used by the LXX: rag ctf/.a.pncx.'; ccurog ocvoL(rii, and ocDTog ocfjiotgriocg uvriveyKS, being their translation of them respectively. Again, with regard to the word aucconocg, which is now found in the Greek version of the 4th verse, there seems little reason to doubt from what Dr. Kennicot has advanced, in his Diss. Gen. § 79. that this is a corruption, which has crept into the later copies of the Greek ; the old 2
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 415
Italic^ (as collected from Augustiii, Tertullian, and Athanasius,) as well as St. Matthew, reading the word, ao-^£j'e/a^, and thereby proving the early- state of that version. Besides Dr. Owen, (Modes of Quo f. p. 31.) mentions two MSS. that read at this diiy 0,0-9 evBiocg; and one uxXaziccg : and from the collection in which the late Dr. Holmes was eni^aged, if happily it should he prosecuted, it is not unlikely that more may appear to justify this read- ing. I find also, that in 93 instances, in which the word here translated c/.f^txpnoi, or its kindred verb, is found in the Old Testament in any sense that is not entirely foreign from the passage be- fore us, there occurs but this one in which the word is so rendered; it being, in all other cases, expressed by a,j-9susiC6, ^xXooacc, or some word de- noting bodily disease. See Calas. Cone, on r6n N"*. I. That the Jews themslves, considered this passage of Isai. as referring to bodily diseases, appears from fVliithy,'2in& Lightfoot, Hot. Heb, on Mat. viii. I7. and also Pole's Syiu on Isaiah liii. 4. Pes. and Alsch, And that the word ^Tb'^^ is to be taken in this sense, appears not only from the authority of the Jews, but from that of most of the ancient translations ; being rendered by Man- ster and the Tiguriney infirmitates; and mnrhos, by Tremelllus, Piscator and Cast alio. — Iren. and August, who give us the early Latin version from the Greek, read injinnltates ; and TertuU lian, imbecHlltates, Coccelus^ and all the lexi-.
AlG THE DEATH OF CHRIST
cons, explain it in the same sense; and the seve- ral passages, in which it occurs in the Old Testa- ment, as collected both by Taylor and Calasio^ place the matter beyond dispute. So that the word infirmities, by which Lowth, and Vitringa, in agreement with the old English versions, have rendered it in this place, cannot possibly be rejected. Mr. Dodson entirely concurs in this interpretation: and Kennicot asserts positively, that the word always denotes bodily diseases, (Diss. Gen. § 79-) Dathe, and Doederlein, in- deed, explain it by the general expressions, mala, and miseriam; but Doederl. at the same time admits, that morbus is its literal signification.
Havino; thus ascertained the true sense of the word I3'''rn, we next proceed to ^^2; which, I agree with Mr. Dodson, is not here to be rendered in any other sense, than that of iollo, aiifero. This, when not connected ivith sins, iNiauixiEs, &c. is not infrequently its signification. Dr. Kennicot (Diss. Gen. § 79- ) takes it in this place in ihe ^en^e o^ abstulit ; and thus Tertul- lian expressly reads the word from the early Latin. So that the first clause, ^m KH ^^bn, will then run, surely our injirmities he hath taken^ i. e. taken away, exactly corresponding to St. Matthew's translation and application of the words: and thus Cocc. (on Ktt;3 N«. I.) expressly renders it: ^^Morbos nostros ipse tulit, i. e. ferens abstulit.'* 2 . '
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, Al'J
But the second, or antithetical clause 1]^lN:5J:il Q^IID mi, relates, as we shall see, not to bodily pains and distempers, but to the diseases and tor- ments of the mind. That tlie word IJ^DD is to be taken in this sense, Kennicot affirms. (Diss, Gen. § 7 9-) ^t is evidently so interpreted, Ps. xxxii. 10. Many sorrows shall he to the ivicked: and again, Ps. xxxviii. 17. where the Psalmist grieving' for his sin, says, niij sorrow is continu- allij before me: and again, Ps. Ixix. 29. hut I am j)oor and sorrowful : and again in Proverbs xiv. 13. the heart 2^- sorrowful: and Eccles. i. 18. he that encreaseth knoivledge,encreasethsoRRo\v: and ii. 18. what hath man of all his labour, of the vexation of his heart ? For all his days are sorrows: and Isai. Ixv. 14. my servants shall sing for joy, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart: and Jerem. xxx. 15. tliy sorrow is in-' ctirable, for the multituile of thine iniquity. Agreeably to this, the word is translated by Bi- shop Lowth, our common, and most of the early English versions, ^orrozt'6'. The Vulg. Vitr. and Dath. render it by dolor es ; and the LXX by cSvvccTUi. — Uovog, which is the word used by *Sym.
* Synimachus render?, ra? -ffova; weuum ; as see page 400. It is observable, that (he reiideiir)'^ of the word ac^DO, in tin's place, by nONOT, in the versions of Aquila, Synunaclius, and Theodotion, has been omitted in Tromunu^''s Concordance^ in the Lexicon Grcecum ad IJexapia, in Biel's Lexicon in LXX. kc, and in Schlemnei^s Spicilegiuin mtiiud^d as an ad- VOL. I. E E
418 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
Aqiiil. and Theofl. (see Procop. Crit. Sac. tom.iv. pp. 5199, 5300.) agrees with this^ signifying, accor- ding toHesychiuSjCijX^o^. svs^y'.if/.ccoovv/jr, and being used commonly in this sense in the Greek oF tlie Old Testament. Yet, in opposition to all this, Mr. Dodson contends, that the Hebrew word is here to he rendered sicknesses : and this, upon no better ground, than that the word 7?iaij signify bodily disorders, as well as diseases of the mind: and in suppoit of this assertion, he refers to Tay- lors Concordance, But on consulting both Tay- lor-AxxiX Calash, I find, that of about thirty pas- sages of Scripture^ in which, exclusive of the one at present before us^ the word :2NOD or its kind- red verb is found, there is scarcely one, that bears any relation whatever to bodily disease^: and there is but one, (Job xxxiii. 19.) in which the LXX have rendered it, by any word implying corporeal ailment. In this one place, they have
(Jition to the Lexicon oF Bid. Trommiiis indeed notices this rendering of the word n.^:] by Symmachus in Job xvi. G. and xxxiii. 19; and of the word /DI? by Aquila in Job xvi. 2. and by boti) Aqiiila and Symmachus in Ps. xiv. But none of these instances have been cited by Biel. — A complete Concor- dance for the fragments of Aquila, S3 nimaclius, and Theo- dotion seems still a desideratum.
* And what is singular, the very authority, to w hich Mr. Dod-on refers, pronounces decisively against him in the pas- sage before us, rendering the word by .sorrows in this 4th verse as well as in the verse Avhich precedes it. See Tay- lor's Concord' on at^D Nos. '23, 25. 2
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 419
used the wmd i.ta,\a,yuxy uhich however they do TU)t ahvays apply to bodily disease; and which thev have employed in the 3d verse of this very cha])ter, g^d^^ (pso^^Lv f.tocXc6:uc^v, where ^Ir. Dodson renders the words, acquainted with griek. But it is j)articularly worthy of remark, that this word u:''l^^DD, which Mr. Dodson in this 4th verse would translate sicknesses, he has himself rendered in the preceding verse, in the descrip- tion to which this immediately refers, by the word, SORROWS, and yet pronounces this expres- sion utterly inapplicable here: thus allowing the person spoken of, to be a man of sorrows, in one verse; and denying that the same expression, which was there used, referred to those sorrows, in the next where it came to be explained, what and whence these sorrows were.
The secret, however, of this inconsistency of criticism, lies in the. Hebrew verb, annexed to this word. — The verb b^D, to hear, in the sense of bearing a burden, could not be applied to sicJinesses, as it might to sorrows : and as the object with those, who deny that Christ suffered on our account, is to deprive the verb of this sig- nification, the reason of contending for the ad- junct sickness, in opposition to such a weight of evidence, is sufficiently obvious. The word, b2D, however, Mr. Dodson cannot prove to be taken here in the sense of removing. He says, " it ha* been already proved by many learned men," Ee 2
420 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
and refers to Crellius, Whistoii, and Taylor. But in what manner these learned men have proved it, we shall presently see. In his ansvv'er to Dr. Sturges, p. 21, he advances indeed his own reasons, in defence of his exposition of the word b2V'. but, except the citation from Isai, xlvi. 4, which shall be noticed hereafter, his whole argument turns upon the supposition, that the Hebrew word with which it is connected, as well as its corresponding expression in St. Mat- thew, is to be understood as signifying bodily disorders: in which case, he says, " ^:iD must be considered as synonymous to i^w^y All this, then, together with the accompanying remark concerning tlie use of the w^ord e^^ocg-oca-ev by Hip- pocrates, must fall with the hypothesis, on whicli it is built ; and the strength of this hypothesis has been now sufficiently ascertained.
But, to proceed with the verb ^ID. — The word, or its derivative noun, occurs in 2b* passages of the Old Testament, one of wdiich is the verse now under examination : tw^o others relate to sins; one, the 11th verse of this chapter; the other, Lament, v. 7. both of which we shall hereafter discuss more particularly : and the re- maining 23 belong literally to bearing burdens on the shoulder : and so strictly, and exclusively, is this signification appropriated to the word, that we find the bearers of burdens employed in the work of the temple, called (2 Chr. ii. 2. 18.
A PROPITIATORY SACJilFICE, 421
xxxiv. 13.) □"'^no, blD W'^i^; by the LXX, vc^To(po^or^ and in one passage, it is even used to express a t/olie (Isai. x. 27.) LXX, ^li>'0? : see Ca las. smd Kircher : see also Buxt, Cocc. and SchindL they seem decisive on the point. Buxtorf supplies several instances of the application of the word, from the Jerusalem Targum; all of which coin- cide with the sense here contended for. Schindler quotes a remarkable use of the word, in the Syriac translation of St. Mark, v. 26. it being there applied to the woman, who is said to have SUFFERED mauij tilings (TTfljfej-a TToXXoc) of the physicians. For other instances of a similar use of the word in the Syriac, see Schaaf's I'est, Syriac, 1 Cor. xiii. 7. 2 Tim. ii. 9. 1 Pet. iii. 17, also Schaaf's Lexicon Syriac. on the word \kii». NoWj when in addition to all these authorities, we find the Greek versions uniformly giving to the word, in this place, the sense of sustaining^ or suffering, ( vTTEfjLSivsv being, as we have already seen, the reading of Aq. Sym. and Theodot. and the LXX expressing both the noun and verb by the one word, oSuvocToct :) the Latin ver- sions also rendering it in like manner, (the old Italic as given by August, strictly following the LXX, pro nobis in doloribus est; the Vulg. Pagn. and Piscat. expressing the word by por^ tavit ; Montan. and Tremell. by hajulavit; Munst. by sustinidt; and Castal. by toleravit :J E e 3
422 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
and our own English translation supported in the same sense by the most eminent biblical scholars, Vitr. Lowth. Datli. DoederL and Ro- senmuller; it is natural to enquire, what argu- ments have been used by those learned men, to whom Mr. Dodson refers us for his proof.
But the reader will be surprized to find, that confidently as Mr. Dodson has appealed to them, they furnish wo poo/ a ^ all. Mr. Whi?- ton merely translates the passage as Mr. Dod- son has done, without advancing a single reasori in support of it: (see Boyle's Lectures, fol. ed. vol. ii. pp. ^70. 281.) Dr. Taylor (Key, kc, § 162.) only says, that b^D will admit the sense o^ carrying off] or away; and in support of this, instances one solitary passage from Isai. xlvi. 4. which a single glance will prove not to convey this sense"^. And as to Crellius, he even con- fesses, that he cannot find in the Old Testament, a single instance of the use of the word, ^ID, in the sense of bearing away ; and is obliged to
* It is particularly remarkable also, that Dr. Taylor, in his Concordance, has not only not adduced a single jmssagc in which the sense of bearing otherwise than as a burden is conveyed; but lie actually cxp/am^ the Avord in this sense: — '' to bear, or carry a burden^ as a porter." In the pas- sage at present in dispute, indeed, he introduces the sense of bearing aro«j/ ; but then he does this avowedly on the supposiiion, that this passage is to be explained by the dis-. eases spoken of by St. Matthew.
A PKOPITIATOBY SACRIFICE 423
confine himself to the repetition of the argument of Socinus, derived from the application of this passage hy St. Matthew to bodUi/ diseases, which Christ could be said to bear, only in the sense of bearing away.* But, to suppose this clause ap- plied by St. Matthew to bodily diseases, is a petitio prmcipii : the sense, in which it was un- derstood by the Evangelist, being part of the question in dispute. And that it was differently understood and applied by him, will, I trust, presently appear. Thus we find these learned men, to whom Mr. Dodson has referred for a complete proof of the^ point he wishes to esta- blish^ fulfilling his engagement in a manner not very satisfactory. Mr. Whiston offers no proof. Dr. Taylor gives a single, and inapplicable, in- stance. And Crellius begs the question, admit- ting at the same time the general language of Scripture to be against him. This may furnish a useful hint to unsuspecting readers. — But to proceed.
That this second clause in the 4th verse, re- lates not to Christ's removing the sicknesses, but to his actually bearing the sorrows of men, has, I trust, been sufficiently established. Let us now consider the corresponding clause in St. Matthew's quotation, rocg voG-ag eSag-occrep. This
* See CrclL Re:p, ad Gr. p. 24 : also Socin. Dc Jen, Chr, pars 2. cap. 4. Opera, torn. ii. p. lia. E e 4
424 THE DEATH CF CHRIST
has commonly been referred, it must be con- fessed, to bodily diseases ; but, whether the oc- casion on which it is introduced, joined to the certainty that the preceding clause is applied in this sense, may not have influenced to this interpretation of the words, is worthy of en- quiry. Tliat the word voa-og is primarily applied to bodily diseases, there can be no question. Dr. Kennicot contends (Diss, Gen. § 79.) that it is used here to express diseases of the mind. In this he adopts the notion of Grot, on Matt. viii. 17: and certain passages both in the Old and New Testament, undoubtedly apply the word in this sense. Thus Ps. ciii. verse 3. whoforgiveth all thine imqidties ; who healeth all thy dis- eases. Wisd. xvii. 8. They that promised to drive away terrors and troubles from a. sick soul. Also 1 Tim. vi. 4. He is proud, doting (or rather distracted, vocrcov) about questions and strifes of tvords, Schleusner also explains the word vocreco, as metaphorically applied to the mind; and quotes in confirmation of this, iElian, and Juhus Pollux. To the same purpose, Eisner (Ohserv Sac. tom. ii. p. 30 7.) appeals to Plu- tarch, Lucian, &c. And if vocrog^ as all Lexicons agree, corresponds to the morbus of the Latins, there can be no question of its occasional appli- cation to the disorders of the mind.
Now, if the word be taken in this sense in this passage of Matthew, it will exactly agree
A propitiatohy sacrifice. 425
with the sorrows, or sufferings, of Isaiah. Or if, supposing it to denote be dily disease, it be used by metonymy (as Vitringa, on Isai. Hii. 4. explains it) for pains and ajflictions, the cause being ])ut for the effect ; or if again, with Glas- sius, (Phil, sacr, Datfi p. 972.) Doederlein, (on Isai. hii. 4.) and other distinguished bibhcal cri- tics, it be supposed merely to express the punish- ment of sins, bodily diseases being viewed by the Jews familiarly in that light; or if, waving these interpretations, which some may consider as too strongly figurative, the word be taken in its largest sense, as comprehending ills and afflictions in general, without regarding what their cause might be, — it will equally correspond with the expression of the prophet.
And that it is to be taken in tiiis large sense, and by no means to be confined to mere bodily disease, is yet farther. confirmed by the empha- tical verb ^ccg-cc^siVy which is connected with it, and which so adequately conveys the force of the Hebrew, blD. " In this word," Grotiiis (on Mat. viii. 17.) remarks, " as in the Hebrew ^^D, and its corresponding ^i * which is here used by the Syriac version, is contained the force of burden and sujferingr Thus Mat. again, (xx. 12.) have
* On the force of (he Syriac word \^l consult Schaaf. Lexlc, Si/riac. So cniphatical is this wore], that the noun ^1 v^ derived from it, is used to signify onus, pouilus^ sarcina^ &c.
426 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
BORNE the burden and heat of the day. And Luke (xiv. i?/.) Whosoever doth not bear his cross. John (xvi. 12.) But he ca?i)wt bear them voiv. Acts. (xv. 10.) A yoke on the neck of the disciples, ivhich neither our fathers nor ice were able to BEAR. And in the same sense we find it used by St. Paul (Gal. vi. 9.) lihAR ye one ano- ther s BURDENS; also (v. 10.) He that troubleth you shall bear his judgment : and again (Rom. XV. 1.) I'Fe that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the iveak. It must be unnecessary to cite more passages. There are in all, 26 in the New Testament, in which the word ^ccg-a,^co oc- curs, exclusive of this of Mat. viii. 1/: and in no one, is the sense any other, than that of bearing, or lifting as a burden: (see Steph. Concord.) The 4 passages which are adduced by Taylor, (Key, l6'2.) viz. Mark xiv. 13. Luke vii. 14. Joh. xii. 6\ and xx. 15, ail of them imply this very idea : for even though the thing spoken of were eventually to be carried away, yet this necessa- rily requires that it should he carried or borne, as a burden, But what makes this objection the more extraordinary is, that the carrying away is not necessarily implied in any one of them: the carrying (bajulare, Fulg. and Ter- tulL and Cod. Brix.) the pitcher of water, wliich is spoken of in one ; and the bearing the dead man's bier, that is referred to in another; con- veying simply the idea of hearing. The two
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 4 2/
passages in John also, one relating to Judas bearing the bag, and the other to the taking away the body of Jesus, are by no means con- clusive: the interpretation of carri/hig ciwcnj, or stealings what was put into the bag, though supported by B. Pearce and others, being but conjectural, and standing without any support from the Scripture use of the word: and lifting being all that is necessarily meant with respect to the body of Christ, although the consequence of that lifting was the carrying it away, and that our version attending to the general sense more than to the strict letter, has rendered it, home him hence.
I will only remark in addition, that Dr. Tay- lor has contrived to exhibit a much more rm- merous array of texts, in support of his sense of the word Qocgcc^co, than those here examined. He has cited not fewer than ten. But this is a sort of deceptio visus; there being but the four above referred to m which the term occurs. The word ^^ocgotorBv he had joined with two others, eXaCe and otv/ivzy/.s, and pursued the in- vestigation of them jointly : thus the text in wliich anjj of these words was contained, be- came necessary to be cited, and appeared to be applied to alL Whether this be an accurate mode of examining the signification of words, which may difier in meaning or force; or whe- ther it may not tend to make a false impression
428 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
on the hasty reader^ by presenting to his view, a greater number of authorities, than really exist, in support of a particular acceptation^ it would not be amiss for those who are used to talk largely about candour to consider. This digres- sion, though it somewhat retards the course of the argument, I thought it right to make, as perhaps there is nothing more useful, than to put young readers on their guard against the arts of controversy. — To proceed.
The use of the word ^ocgoct^co in the Old Tes- tament, by the LXX, Sym. and Aq. confirms the acceptation here contended for^ (see ^Trom,
* It is to be observed, that it is not only the Concordance itself that is to be consulted, but more particularly, MonU faucon's Lcxic. Grcec. ad Hexapla, which Tromjuius has placed at the end of his Concordance, and which is to be esteemed as a most valuable collection from the fragments ofAquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Of this Lexicon, as well as of the labours of Trommius, Biel has freely availed himself, in the compilation of his valuable Lexicon in LXX et alios Inierp. Sec. From these works it will be seen, that Aquila has employed the words C^ray/^a and Qarcc^u, for the Hebrew \>2D in Kxod. i. 11. and for DDl? in Zcch. xii. 3: — and that Symmachus has applied it to :^'e word huD in Exod. i. 11. and Ps. Ixxx. 7. Now these in- stances from Aquila and Sjjinmachus arc singularly important upon the present occasion, because the original word which they have thus rendered, is the word VnD, which I have already endeavoured to shew, unequivocally implies the bearing of a burden; and also because the version of the former is eminently distinguished by its literal agree*
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 4i29
Concord, and Bid.) Amongst profane writers also we find additional authorities. Albert {Ohserv. Phil, on Job. xvi. 12.) snppHes a strong instance from Epictetiis. Rapbelius likewise, (on John XX. 15.) altboiigh his mistake respecting the meaning of IMat. viii. 17. has led him to give the force of asportare to the word, adduces another equally strong from Polybius. In conformity with this acceptation also, we find Tremellius's and Scbaaf 's versions from the Syriac, and Beza's from the Greek, as well as the Vulg. and the Old Latin, render the word by portat ; the plain and direct meaning of v^hich is to hear' as a burden. It may be likewise remarked, that Rosenmuller, although embarrassed with the notion that voa-^t; here implied bodily disease, is yet obliged by the force of the verb Eag-fij^^d, to apply it in the above signification, notwithstanding it makes little less than nonsense of the .passage: oneri sanandi morhos rwstroSj humeros supposuit, is his ex- plication of the words.
If the remarks which have been made be just, the result of the whole is, that the Prophet and the Evangelist entirely agrte. They use the same language, and in the same sense: and
ment with the original Hebrew (as see particularly Dath. Opusc. Dissert, in Aquit. p. 1 — 15.) The words V^D and QxTOL^u thus appear exaci]}' to correspond. — See also Stock' ius's Lexicon in Nov. Test, and Pasor's Greek Lexicon edited by Schocitgen. 2
^30 THE DlrATH OF CHRIiT
the translation, which Bishop Lowth has given, will, with a slight variation, accurately convey the sense of both. Our Injirmitles he halh borne (away;) and our sorrows, he hath carried fheni: or as Dr. Kennicot translates both, Morbos nos- tros abstiiUt, et wgriiudhies nostros porfavlt. And this last is very nearly the version of the Old Latin, as given by Tertullian (see Sabatier on Is. liii. 4.) ImbecUUtates nostras aufert, et languor es nostros port at ; or as Ambros. cporz- tudines nostras porta vit : and it is accurately conveyed by the old version of Coverdale, which Dr. Kennicot (Diss, Gen. p. 45. note a.) does not scruple in many instances to prefer to our present English translation, He onli/ taketh
AWAY our TNFIRMITE, and BEARETH OUr PAINE.*
Thus are Isaiah and Matthew perfectly recon- ciled: the first clause ni each, relating to dis- eases REMOVED ; and the second, to sufferings endured. For it should be remarked, in ad-
* The late Principal Campbell lia.% 1 find, been led by a close examination of the subject to tlie translation of tlic Evangelist which has been here contefuled for: '' lie hath himself carried off our ixfirmitif.s, and borne our dis- tresses." In his note on the passage, he falls, indeed, into the common mistake of supposing, that St. Peter and St. Matthew refer io the same part of the prophecy of Isaiah ; remarking, that '' we should rather call that the fulfdmcnl
of the prophecy, which is mentioned 1 Pet. iv. 21."
CampbeWs Four Gospels^ lol. iii. p. 66. and vol. iv. p. 74.
A PROPJTJJTORY SaCEJFJCE. 431
dltion to what has l^een ah'eady said, that sAaS« and 6^ocg-cc(T£ in Matthew, bear to each otr.er the proportion of the verbs n^'^d and blD in Isaiah : the former in each of these uairs being; oeneric, 'TToXvG-vjfzov, and extending to all modes of tahhig, or bearing, on, or awaij : and the latter being specific, and confined to the single mode of bearing, as a burden* And now by the same steps, by which the Prophet and the Evangelist have been reconciled, we find the original objec- tion derived from St. Matthew's application of the prophecy completely removed: since we now see, that the bearing, applied by the Evangelist to bodily disease, is widely different from that which the Prophet has applied to sins ; so that no conclusion can be drawn from the former use of the word, whicfi shall be prejudicial to its commonly received sense in the latter relation.
One point yet, however, demands explana- tion. It will be said, that by this exposition, the prophet is no longer supposed to confine himself to the view of our redemption by Christ's sufferings and death ; but to take in also the consideration of his miraculous cures : and the evangelist, on the other hand, is represented as not attending merely to the cures performed by Christ, with which alone he was immediately concerned ; but as introducing the mention of his suffering for our sins, with which his subject had no natural connexion.
432 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
Now to this I reply, first with regard to the prophet, that it is not surprising, that so dis- tinouishinor a character of the Messiah, as that of his heaVnig all manner of diseases with a tvord; and one, which this prophet has else- where (xxxv. 5.) depicted so strongly that our Saviour repeats his very words, (Batfs Diss. 2d edit. p. 109.) and refers to them in proof that he was the Messiah; (Mat. xi. 4. and Beau- sohre in loc.)— it is not, I say, surprising, that this character of Christ should be described by the prophet. And that it should be introduced in this place, where the prophet's main object seems to be to unfold the plan of our redemp- tion, and to represent the Messiah as suffering for the sins of men, will not appear in any de- gree unnatural, when it is considered, that the Jews familiarly connected the ideas of sin and disease ; the latter being considered by them the temporal'^ punishment of the former. So that
* For abundant proof of this see Whilh) on Mat. viii. 17, and particularly on ix. 2. See also Grot. Bcausob, and Rosenm. on IMat. ix. ^. Dnidiis on the same, Crit» Sac. foin. vi. p. 28S; and Docderl. on Isaiah liii. 4. il/ar- tini also on the same passage observes '' Ipsa vero dicendi formula interpretanda est ex opinione constante turn popu- lorum antiquiorum omnium, turn maxime Orientalium, quil grav lores calamitatts quascunque^ sive illjs morbis et cor- poris cruciatibus-', sivc aliis adversitatibus continerentur, im- mediate ad Deum, peccatorura vindicem refcrre, easque tanquam poenas ab irate numine inilidtaSj considerare sole- baut." See Rosenm, oa Isaiah liii. 4.
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, 433
he, who was described, as averting, by what he was to suffer, the penal consequences of sin, would naturally be looked to, as removing, by what he was to perform, its temporal effects: and thus the mention of the one would reason- ably connect with that of the other; the whole of the prophetic representation becoming, as Kennicot happily expresses it, " Descriptio Mes- sise benevolentissime et agentis et patientis** (Diss. Gen. ^ 79.)
That the Evangelist, on the other hand, though speaking more immediately of the re- moval of bodily diseases, should at the same time quote that member of the prophecy, which related to the more important part of Christ's office, that of saving men from their sins, will appear equally reasonable, if it be recollected, that the sole object, in referring to the prophet concerning Jesus, was to prove him to be the Messiah; and that the distinguishing character of the Messiah was, to give hnoivledge of sal- vation unto his people hi/ the remission of their sitis. (Luke i. 77.) So that the Evangelist may be considered, as holding this leading character primarily in view ; and, at the same time that he marks to the Jews, the fulfilment of one part of the prophecy, by the healing of their bodily distem|3ers, or as Dr. Taylor well expresses it, represents our Lord, as acting one part of his saving work described by the prophet, he directs
VOL. I, F F
434 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
their attention to that other greater object of our Saviour's mission, on which the prophet had principally enlarged; namely, the procuring for- giveness of their sins by his suffering. And thus, the present fulfilment of the prophecy was, at the same time, a designation of the person, and a pledge of the future more ample completion of the prediction. Grotius, notwithstanding he has fallen into the common error, respecting the word Xi'h'n in Isaiah, and the supposition that St. Peter and St« Matthew refer to the same part of the prophecy, deserves particularly to be consulted on this passage of Matthew. Cocceius also, in his Lfixicon, (on the word ^ID) gives this excellent explanation ; " he hath taken on himself (susce- pit) our sorrows or sufferings, eventually to bear them away, as he has now testified by the carry- ing away our bodily distempers."
If it should be asked, why, if it were a princi- pal object with the Evangelist to point out the great character of the Messiah as suffering for sins, he did not proceed to cite those other parts of the prophecy, which are still more explicit on that head; I answer, that having to address him- :jelf to those, who w^ere perfectly conversant in the prophecies, he here, as elsewhere, contents himself, with referring to a prediction, with the jjarticulars of which he supposes his readers to be familiarly acquainted; merely directing them to the person of whom it treats, and then leaving it
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 435
to themslves, to cany on the parallel between the prophecy and the farther verification of it in Jesus. On St. Matthew's peculiar mode of citing the prophecies, see some excellent observations of Dr. Townson. Disc. iv. Sect. ii. § 5. and Sect. iv.
If, after all that has been said, any doubt should yet remain, as to the propriety of thus connecting together, either in the Prophet or the Evangelist, the healing of diseases and the for- giveness of sins, I would beg of the reader to at- tend particularly to the circumstance of their being connected together frequently by our Lord himself. Thus, he says to the sick of the palsy, vt^hen he healed him, thy sins be forgiven thee, (Mat. ix. 2.) And, that bodily diseases w^ere not only deemed by the Jews, but were in reality, under the first dispensation, in many instances, the punishment of sin, we may fairly infer from John V. 14. where Jesus said to him whom he had made whole : Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. It should be observed also, that what in Mark iv. 12. is expressed, and their sins should he forgiven them, is given in Mat. xiii. 15, and I should heal them. See also James v. 15. and Isaiah xxxiii. 24. and observe the maledic- tions against the transgresssors of the law in Peut. xxviii. 21, See also, in addition to the authors named in p. 432, Grot, on Joh. v. 14. Ff2
436
THE DEATH OF CHRIST
Glass, Phil. Sac. a Dath, p. 972, and Le Clere, and particularly Poles Syn. on Mat. ix. 2.
I have dwelt thus long upon this head, because there is no point, on which the adversaries^ not only of the doctrine of atonement, but of that of the divine inspiration of the Evangelists, rely more triumphantly, than on the supposed dis- agreement between St. Matthew, and the prophet from whom he quotes in the passage before us. We come now to the second head of objection; namely, that the words in the original, which S
are rendered bv hear ins: sins, do not admit the "
signification of suffering for them : but are, both in this prophecy, and elsewhere throughout the Old Testament, understood in the sense of taking them aivay.
The two words, which are used by the prophet to express hearing sin, are as we have seen, p. 400, ^:io in the 11th verse, and m^'l in the l2th. Let us then enquire, in what sense these words are used, in other parts of the Old Testament. The word Kt:^:D, it is true, as we have already seen with respect to the 4th verse, is often applied in the signification of hearing away; but being (like the v^^ord bear in English, which has no less than 38 different acceptations in Johnson's Diet.} capable of various meanings, according to the nature of tlie subject with which it is connected; so we find it, when joined with the word sin, con- stantly used throughout Scripture, either in
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 437
the sense oi Jar giving it, on the one hand ; or of sustaining^ either directly or in figure, the penal consequences of it, on the other. Of this latter sense, I find not less than 37 instances, exclusive of this chapter of I ^aiah ; in all of which, bearing the burden of sins, so as to be rendered liable to suffer on account of them, seems clearly and un- equivocally expressed. In most cases, it implies punishment endured, or incurred: whilst in some few, it imports no more than a representation of that punishment, as in the case of the scape goat, and iu that of Ezechiel lying upon his side, and thereby hearing the iniquity, i. e. represent- ing the punishment *due to the iniquity, of the house of Israel, But in no one of all this num- ber, can it be said to admit the signification of carrying away, unless perhaps in tlie case of the scape-goat, Lev. xvi. 22. and in that of the priests, Ex. xxviii. 3$. and Lev. x. 17: and of these no more can be alleged, than that ihey maijhQ so interpreted See on these at large, p. 440 — 449. To these inslances of the word i^im, connected with K^on, PVj sins, iniquities, &c. may fairly be add- ed those, in which it stands combined with the words nS'^n, HD^::, disgrace, reproach, shame, &c. of which there are 18 to be found: and in all of them, as before, the word is used in the sense o^ enduring, suffering. The idea therefore of a burden to he
* See Newcotnep Munsi* VatabL and Clarius on Ezech, U, 4, 5.
F f3
438 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
sustained is evidently contained in all these pas- sages. Of the former sense of the word^ when connected with sins, iniquities, offences, either expressed or understood, namely that oijorgivingy there are 22 ; in all which cases^ the nominative to the verb iw^ is the person who was to grant forgiveness. 'Tojbrgive then, on the part of him^ who had the power so to do; and t<^ sustain, on the part of him^ who was deemed either actually or figuratively the offender, srem to exhaust the significations of the word ^?t:>3, when connected with sins, transgressions, and words of that im- port. In conformity with this induction, Schind- ler (Lex, Pentag, in j^tio. N« III.) affirms, that this verb, when joined with the word sin, always signifies either io forgive it ; or to hear it, i. e. to suffer for it : remittere, condonare ; vel luere, dare poenas.
Now it has been commonly taken for granted, and Socinus even assumes it as the foundation of his argument, (De Jes. Chr. pars 2. cap. 4.) that this signification of forgiveness, which evidently is not the radical meaning of the word, has been derived from the more general one of /^earing aioay, removing. But this seems to have had no just foundation: hearing away, necessarily im- plying something of a burden to be carried, it seems difficult to reconcile such a phrase with the notion of that Being, to whom this act of forgive- ness is attributed, throughout the Old Testament,
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 439
May not the word have passed to this acceptation, through its primary sense of hear'mg; namely^ miiff'erbig through patience, enduring, or hearing WITH ? And it is remarkable that Cocceius, at the same time that he comphes with the general idea, of referring the signification of the word in the sense oi forgiving sin to its acceptation of iol^ Icre, atfferre, admits, that '' in this phrase is con- tained the notion oi hearing ; Jerendi, nempe per patlentlamS (Le.r/c. on ^^:^*i Number IX.) It is certain that the mercy of God is represented throughout Scripture, as being that of long suj^ Jering, and of great patience. See Ps. Ixxxvi. 1 5. and particularly Ex. xxxiv. 6, J, and Numb. xiv. 18. where this very character is joined with the word ^^% as that under which the Deity is re- presented as forgiving iniquity. And it is de- serving of remark, that in the verse following the passage in Numbers, the forgiveness expressed by the word i^z% is described to be of that nature, that implies patient endurance, for it is said, as thou hast forgiven, nr\>^n this people, from EGYPT EVEN UNTIL NOW. Agreeably to this rea- soning, Houbigant translates the word iwi, in both the last passages, parcere. I'hus then, upon the whole, the generic signification of the word ^z% ivhen applied to sins, seems to be that of hearing, suffering, enduring : and then on the part of the sinner, it implies, bearing the hurden, or penal consequences of transgression: and o« Ff 4
440 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
the part of him against whom the offence has been Committed, hearing with, and patiently endur- ing it.
We are now enabled to form a judgment of the fairness of Dr. Taylor's criticism, (Key, No. 162.) on which Mr. Dodson, (Isai. liii. 4.) and all the writers, who oppose the doctrine of Christ's vicarious suffering, so confidently rely. We here see, that the language of Scripture furnishes no authority, for translating the word Kr2, when con- nected with iniquities, in the sense of hearing AWAY. Dr. Taylor, indeed, adduces instances of this use of the term, but they are almost all in- applicable to the present case ; none of them re- lating to iniquities, except the three which have been already alluded to in p. 437? viz. Ex. xxviii. 38. Lev. X. 17' and xvi. 22. If then these three be found not to justify his explication, he is left without a single passage, of that great number, in which this word is used in reference to iniquities, to support his interpretation.
Now, as to the first of these, in w hich Aaron is said to hear the iniquity of the holy things ; be- sides that the iniquity here spoken of, being a profanatio7i of the holy things scarcely supplies an instance of p>;, in the direct sense of iniquity, combined with the verb; there seems no reason w hatever to doubt that Kti/3 is here to be taken in its usual signification of hearing the hlame of, leing made ansicerahlejor, as in the passage in 1
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, 441
Numb, xviii. 1. which exactly corresponds to this, and as Houbigant here translates it, susclpiet ma- culas donorum. See Number XXXVII. pp. 335, '636: and in addition to the autliorities there named^ Munst. f^itahl, CLar\ Fag. and Grot, on Numb, xviii. 1. It must be remarked also, that the word ^s^^octoco, used in this passage by the LXX as equivalent to i^W2, furnishes no support to the objection: the term applied by the Seventy to ex- press the same thing in the parallel passage in Numb, xviii. 1. being Xoc[Ji(^ocm, which is the term commonly made use of by them to render K'li;:, in those cases, where bearing the burden of sins by suffering for them, is understood. See on this p. 467.
The word i^'^^, in the 2d passage. Lev. x. 1 7.
* If Ihe use of the word sfai^w by the Seventy, for the hebrew ^^u;^ supplied a proof that they understood the ori- ginal word in the sense of bearing away, then must thej have understood Levit. ix. 22. in the sense of Aaron's bear^ ing AWAY his hand, and Numb, xxiv. 2. in the sense of Balaam's bearing away his eyes ; for in both of these places have they rendered wii>: by t^on^u. But this, it is clear, would make actual nonsense of those passages: the sense being manifestly that of lifting up in both. In this sense, indeed, it will be found upon examination, that the word i|a*^-/ has been applied by the LXX, in every case where it has been substituted for the hebrew b<u.>J throughout the Bi- ble : the only places where it has been so used being these which follow. — Gen. xxix. 1. Ex. xxviii. 38, Lev. ix. 22, Numb. xxiv. 2. Jcr. li. 9. Ezech. i. 19, 20, 21. iii. 14. X. 16. XX. 15. 23. Dan. ii. 35. Zech. v. 7.
443 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
has been pronounced, upon the authority of the LXX, which renders J^^?*^^ here by kvoc cx.(psX7iTB, to relate to the priests, and consequently to signify- not hearing, but bearing away. But, even ad- mitting the word in this place to be connected with the priests, and not with the victim, yet would it not thence necessarily follow, that the word could be used only in the sense of hearing away: it having appeared from what has been just said, that in its strict sense it might be ap- plied with propriety even to the priests; and in this way we find it explained by Jun, and Trem. who thus expound it in this place; '^ut a coetu iniquitatem in vos transferaiis et recipiatis ex- piandam;" and, a.t the same time, to denote the manner in which this bearing the sins of the con- gregation was uncjerslood, refer to Lev. xvi. 21, 22, in which the priest is described as personating the people, l^y^^g his hands on the head of the victim, and \\l'ilst he placed the sins of the peo- ple thereon, making confession in their name, and as their representative, so that he might be considered, as bearing their sins until he placed them upon the Iiead of the goat. In like man- ner Patrick, — '■ the priest here, by eating of the sin-offering, receiving the guilt upon himself, may well be thought to prefigure one, who should be botli priest and sacrifice for sin/' Houbigant translates, *' qua plebis iniquitatem suheatis;' and Stanhope (Boyle's Led, fol. vol. i. p. 779-) like-
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, 443
wise explains it, by the priests ^' taking the sin upon themselves." Vatablus again, who also re- fers the word ^^lLO to the priests, and yet does not explain it in the sense of bearing, that is sustain- ing, interprets it in the absolute signification of forgiveness, without hinting, that this was to be effected in the sense of bearing away: " that you should forgive^' he says, " that is, declare the forgiveness of, Sec." And indeed, it is remarkable, that the only passages, in which the LXX have rendered i^'d^'l when connected with sins, by the verb occpcctoscoy are, besides the present one, these two, Ex. xxxiv. 7. and Numb. xiv. 18: in both of which God is represented as long suffering and FORGIVING iniquity, &c. and in which, what has been said in pp. 438, 439. may perhaps be sufficient to shew, that the sense of bearing away is not in- cluded. So that, were we to argue from analogy, the word cc(psX7jTS in this place, referred by the LXX to the priests, should be taken in the sense of forgiveness simply: in which sense* it is also used by the LXX in Ex. xxxiv. 9. where the original is n^D, condono. And thus, no argu- ment arises in favour of the signification of bear- ing away.
But moreover the sense of the word oi(pccmsuj in
* It should be observed also that in Vs. xxxii. 6. mIicfc l^U^J is undoubtedly used in this sense oi forgiveness^ and is accordingly rendered by the JiXX uipiy)[xij the word used by Symmachusis ucpui^iu,
1
444 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
the application of it by the LXX, is not to be conckided from its ordinary derivation. We find it, all through Levit. and Numb, especially in the 18th chapter of the latter, used to express the offering heave-offerings and w^ave-ofFerings to the Lord: and it seems remarkable, that in that chapter^ special directions are given, that all such parts of the offerings as are to be waved and pre- sented to the Lord, should be eaten by the priests ; mid with respect to these, the v.'ord cc(pociDsij) is con- stantly used, and they are declared to be most holy (see Munst, Fag. F^atab. Clai\ in Numb, xviii. 8.) These things certainly bear a strong resemblance to the particulars of the passage in Leviticus. But this I do not offer, as fixing the meaning of the LXX in this place. The word a//,a^T;av fol- lowing the verb in the sense of iniqidti/, py, seems inconsistent with this application of the word a(pocioiu here. It serves however to shew, that the use of the word, ccCpeX'^re by the LXX, is not deci- sive of their rendering the original in the sense of bearing away. And indeed, when the word aIIO- (pBoto has been used by them as a translation of n^^L'D, in a sense manifestly different from that of bearing away^ (see pp. 468, 469.) the mere derivation of the word cx.(p(XioBCt) should not be deemed demonstrative of their applying it in that sense.
But besides, there seems no sufficient reason, for rendering the sentence so as to apply the ex- pression to the priests, and not to the sin-offering. Commentators, indeed, seem generally to have
A PTIOPJTIATORY SACRIFICE. 445
assumed this point; and CrelUus (torn. i. p. 20.), in his answer to Grotius^ builds on it with per- fect confidence. The system hkewise of the au- thor of the Scrip. Ace, of Sac. is in a great mea- sure founded upon it. (pp. 123. 145.) But bating the authority of the LXX, there appears no ground whatever for this interpretation; and ac- cordingly, not only does Grotius (De Satisfact, Chr. cap. i. § 10.) positively affirm^ that this pas- sage affords an instance of " the victim being said to bear the iniquity of the offerer," but even Sykes himself, at the same time that he notices the ver- sion of the LXX, seems to admit the same. (Ess, on Sac. p. 144,) And I will venture to say, that whoever attends carefully to the original, will see good reason to concur in this interpretation. The passage exactly corresponds in structure with that in Lev. xvii. 1 1 : and the comparison may throw light upon the subject. Here, the priests are re- buked for not having eaten the sin-offering, and the reason is assigned; for it is most holy, and God hath given it to you, to hear ( ntwb, for the bearing,) the iniquity of the congregation, &c. There, the Jews are ordered not to eat blood, and the reason is assigned ;ybr the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make atonement (nsr^ for the making atone- inent) for your souls, &c. Now, because the word you happens to lie nearest to the verb ^^b in this sentence, are we to infer, that the psrsons spoken
446 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
to^ were to make the atonement, and not the bloody which though it happens to be placed farthest from the verb, is yet the subject evidently carried through the whole sentence, and is immediately after pronounced to be that, which made the atonement? Yet this is the reasoning applied to the former passage, which is precisely parallel.
Indeed I cannot help thinking, that the whole of this passage in Lev. x. 17. has been hitherto misunderstood; and although, independent of the explanation which I am going to offer, the sense of the word hear which I contend for, seems already sufficiently established : yet since this is an interpretation^ which appears generally to have been overlooked, I must beg to propose it here. Moses rebukes the sons of Aaron, be- cause they had not eaten the sin- offering, as he had before commanded should be done, in the 6th chapter. Now, in that chapter he had ^
di^cted, that the offering for the priests should not be eaten, but entirely consumed with fire^ (verse 23.) but that the sin-offering for the people, should be eaten by the priests (verse 26.) In the 9th chapter we find Aaron, under the direction of Moses, presenting a sin-offering for himself, and another for the people; but, in- stead of obeying Moses's commands respecting the sin-offering for the people by eating it, he had burned i<f, as well as the sin-offering for himself. This is the occasion of Moses's dis-
*
f
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, AAf
pleasure, (x. l6.) and he reminds the sons of Aaron (verse 17.) that the goat being the sin- offering ^or the people, being appointed to hear the iniquity of the congregation, (not that of the priests,) it sheruld therefore have been eaten. The force of the passage then is not, God hath given it YOU to (eat, that by so doing ye might) hear (away) the iniquity of the congregation^ &c. but, God hath given you it (to eat, it being the offering appointed to bear, or as is the strict translation) for the hearing (in whatever sense the sacrifice was usually conceived to bear) the iniquity of the congregation. This seems the most obvious and intelligible construction of this passage; and if this be admitted, it is evident, that this text furnishes no support to the opinions of those, vi^ho object to the sense of the word hear contended for in this Number.
As little support will the remaining text sup- ply, which relates to the scape- goat, Lev. xvi. 22. That the scape-goat was represented as going into the wilderness, whilst he symbolically bore the sins of the people, which had been laid upon him, is certain ; and that he conse- quently bore them away, is equally certain ; but, that it thence follows, that the word used to ex- press his bearing those sins, must of itself sig- iiify to bear away, seems an unwarrantable con- clusion. Their being borne away, was a neces- sary consequence of the goat's going away, whilst
448 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
the symbolical burden lay upon his head, and therefore proves nothing as to the meaning of the word here rendered to hear. Any word, which implied the sustaining a burden in any way, might have here been equally applied, unless it at the same time conveyed the notion of standing still under the burden, of which language (as far as I know) does not supply an instance. So that, in fact, the argument here seems to amount to this : that the word hear, leads the mind to bearing away^ ivhen the ivord away is connected with it : — a position not necessary to combat.
It deserves also to be remarked, that the Seventy have not here used any of those terms, which might be supposed to countenance the sense of bearing away. AvQi(pepca, airoCpsotay occpoLiosu), e^octoca, which Dr. Taylor, and those who adopt his no- tions, are so desirous of bringing forward on other occasions, as proving the Septuagint interpretation of K*^i in that sense, are all rejected by the LXX in this case; in which, if bearing aivai/ was in- tended, these, or some Vt ord, which might mark that meaning, would most naturally have been adopted : and the Xa^i^^ccvc^, by which KliO is con- stantly rendered by the LXX in those cases where the actual sustaining of sins and their consequences is concerned, is the term employed.
We have now seen, what is the full amount of Dr. Taylor s objections against our account of the Scripture acceptation of the word i^wji, when ap-
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 449
piled to sins. The three instances, whose value we have just considered, being all that he is able to oppose to a collection of 34 passages, which un- equivocally apply the word s**,LO to the sustaining o/'sln, or its consequences; together with 18 more, which^ without exception combine the word in the same sense with the terms shame ^ reproach^ &c. And it is curious to observe^ that from a signification of the word, established upon such grounds, and in opposition to such evidence, it is, that he has deduced the force of the expression when applied to the forgiveness of iniquities; contending, that it derives this signification from its more general meaning of bearing away., pre- viously ascertained in the way we have described. Crellius, who is appealed to by Mr. Dodson on the signification of this word h^t^^i, as he was before on that of ^ID, (see pp. 420, 423.) adds but little strength to the cause. He mentions, indeed, an admission by Grotius, and an interpretation by Vatablus, but he refers us for the complete proof to Soclnus, as Mr. Dodson had referred us to him. Socinus is to prove the point by examples, " pro- latis exemplis." (Crell. Resp. ad Grot. p. 24.) Now, the examples adduced by Soclnus, to prove that the word ^^::r:, applied to sins, may propecly be translated in the sense of bearing away, are the two, which have been already noticed in p. 439. viz. Ex. xxxiv. 7- and Numb.xiv. 18. And these, he says, clearly prove it, because here the word is
VOL. I, G G
450 THE DEATH OP CHRIST
applied in the sense of forgiving, and that was done by bearing awai/ or reynoving sins^ or their punishment. 8eeSoci?i. Opera De Jes. Chr. pars. 2. cap. 4. pp. 148, 149. But, surely, since the dictum of this father of Socinianism was at last to decide the point, it had been sufficient had he at once affirmed it, without the circuitous form of an example.
Sykes, indeed, has discoverd, as he thinks, one instance, which clearly establishes the acceptation of the word in the sense of bearing away iniquiti/. It is that of Exod. x. 17. And I confess, were I confined to a single passage for the proof of the opposite, I think it is the one I would select, as marking most decidedly, that this word has not acquired the sense oi forgiving, through the sig- nification of hearing away. Pharaoh says unto Moses, FORGIVE (m) I pray thee my sin only this once, and intreat the Lord that he may take AWAY (iD^) from me this death. Now, if the wordK*^ were rendered, with Dr. Sykes, take away, it must then be, take away the punish^ ment of my sin; taking away the sin itself be- ing unintelligible, and this being the very sense in which the word is said to acquire the force of forgiveness. See Socin. Opera, tom. 2. p. 149. But surely, to desire Moses to take away his pu- nishment, and after that, to entreat the Lord that he would take away the same punish- ment, seem not perfectly consistent. Whereas, if we suppose the word expressing forgiveness, to
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, 451
eoiivey the force of enduring, hearing with, all is perfectly natural: and Moses, having thus for- given the sin of Pharaoh, might reasonably be called on to entreat, that the Lord would remit the punishment. Besides, it is observable, that where the punishment is spoken of, there the word used is not i^t% but ivn, which unequivo- cally signifies to takeaway.
What then is the result of this unavoidably pro- lix enquiry? That the wordi^*2)^, when connected ivlth the word SYS ^, or in igluities, is throughout the entire of the hlhle to he understood in one of these two significations: bearing, I. e. sustain- ing, on the one hand; and forgiving, on the other: and that, in neither of these applications, does there seem any reason for interpreting It In the sense of hearing away: nor has any one unequivocal instance of its use, in that sense, ever been adduced.
So far as to the word i^m. The meaning of ^jD is, if possible, yet more evident. Being used, as we have already seen, pp. 420, 421. in every passage, where it is not connected with the word sins, or sorrows, in the literal sense of hearing a burden, we can have but little difficulty to discover its signification, where it is so connected. In its re- ference to sorroivs, it has also been specially exa- mined, and the result, as we have seen, has con- firmed its general application. Its relation to sins is exemplified but in tw^o passages, one of which occurs in the 11th verse of the chapter of
Gg2
452 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
Isai. under consideration, and the other is to be found in Lament, v. 7. Now it happens^ that this last passage is such^, that the meaning of the word cannot be misunderstood. Our fathers have sin- ned, and are not ; and ive have home (yh:iD) their iniquities; or, as Dr. Blayney renders it, we have undergone the punishment of their iniquities. The force of the word ^ID^ then, will not admit of question: and if any additional strength were wanting to the argument concerning the verb iWl, this word hlD standing connected with iniqiiity in the 1 1th verse, exactly as ^^lto is with sin in the 12th, would abundantly supply it. That h?::^^ in- deed, in all cases where the sense oi forgiveness is not admissible, has the force of bi'D when used in relation to sins, will readily appear on exami- nation. Their correspondence is particularly re- markable, in the parallel application of the two words in the passage of Lamentations just cited, and in those of Numb. xiv. 33, and Ezech. xviii. 19, 20, in which Kti^i is used to express the sons' bearing the wickedness of their fathers, in pre- cisely the same sense, in which b^D is applied in the former.
These two words then, ^m and ^ID, being clearly used in the common sense of hearing sins, in the llth and 12th verses of this chapter of Isaiah, it remains yet to ascertain, what is the Scripture notion conveyed by that phrase. Now, this is evidently in. all cases, the sufpering, or being
1
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 453
liable to suffer, some infliction on account of sin, ivhich in the case of the offender himself would proper^li/ he called punishynent. This I take to be the universal meaning of the phrase. The famiUar use of the words \y, rs'i^ur], iniquity, sin, for the punishment^ of iniquity ; ov, as I would prefer to call it^ the suffering due to ini- quity; fully justifies this explication of the phrase: and so obtrusive is its force^ that we iind this meaning conceded to the expression even by Sykes, (Essay on Sac. p. 146.) Crel- lius, (Resp. ad Grot. p. 20.) and Socinus him- self. (De Jes. Chr. pars ii. cap. 4.)
But, although the phrase of hearing sin is admitted by all to mean, hearing the 'punish- ment or consequences of' sin, in the case where a man's own sin is spoken of, yet it is denied, that it admits that signification, where the sin of another is concerned: see Scrip. Ace. of Sacr, p. 142. Now in answer to this, it is sufficient to refer to the use of the expression in Lament. V. 7. compared with Jer. xxxi. 29, 30. and to the application of it also in Ezech. xviii. 19, 20.
* See 2 Kings vii. 9. and Zech. xiv. 19. and besides all the antient commentators, consult Bishop Lozcth on Isai. xl. 2. Dr. Blaijney on Jer. li. 6. and Primate Newcome oa Hos. X. 13. — the last of whom subjoins the remark, that <' this particular metonymy, of the cause for the effecit, was natural among the Jews, whose law abounded with tempo ral sanations, which God often inflicted."
Gg3
454 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
and in Numb. xiv. 33. In all of these, the sons are sjoken of, as heart f?g the st7is of their fathers; and in none can it be pretended, that they were to bear them in the sense of bearing them aivay^ or in any other sense than in that of suiferbig for them: and the original term employed to express this, is ^^D in the ])assage in Lamenta- tions, and K'l^O in all the rest. Dr. Blayney translates the passage in Lamentations, Our fa- thers have sinned, hut they are no more, and
WE HAVE UNDERGOISE THE PUNISHMENT OF THEIR
iNiauiTiES. Dathe renders the expression, both here, and in Ezechiel, by luere peccata ; and at the same time affirms, (on Jer. xxxi. 29.) that the meaning of the proverb adduced both in Jeremiah and Ezechiel is, '• that God punishes the sins of the fathers in the children." The proverb, to which he alludes, is that of the fa^ thers having eaten a sour grape, and the chil- dren s teeth heing set on edge. I'he time is approaching, Jeremiah says, in which this shall not be any longer, hitt every man shall die FOR HIS OWN iNiauiTY. And this time, he sub- joins, is to be under the neiv covenant, which was to be made with the Jewish people, and which was to dilier from that which preceded, in that God was not, as hitherto, to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children, but to visit each individual for his ow^n transgressions.
A PROPITIJTORY SACRIFICE. 45 5»
The same subject is more largely and expli- citly treated by Ezechiel. The proverb used by Jeremiah is repeated by this prophet ; and as Primate Newcome observes, is well rendered by the Chaldee, " The fathers have sinned, and the sons are smitten." This, he says, refers to the second commandment ; and on the peculiar principles of the Jevash dispensation, he admits the reasonableness of it as a judicial infliction. Dr. Blayney, indeed, thinks otherwise, although he has expressly translated the passage in La- mentations, PVe have undergone the punish- ment of their imquities. This seems not con- sistent.' Yet he peremptorily rejects the notion of this as 2. judicial infliction. Had Dr. Blayney however considered, that the penalties thus in- flicted, were such as belonged to the old cove- nant, namely temporal, he would have seen no difficulty in this dispensation, as affecting the equity of God's proceeding's ; nor would he have been reduced to the inconsistency of calling that a punishmefif, in one place, which he contends cannot be a judicial infliction in another.
Let us follow the prophet a little farther:— he declares, as Jeremiah had done, that this shall no longer be. The judicial dispensation of the new covenant shall be of a different nature. In future, the soul that siuneth, it ^hall die— if a man he just he shall live; but if he hath done abominations, he shall surely
Gg4
456 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
die; /lis blood shall be upon him (upon his own head) and 7/et ye say, why? doth not
THE son bear the INiaUITY OF THE FATHER?
The prophet rephes; True, but this shall no longer be; when the son hath done judgment and justice he shall surely live. The soul that sin- neth, IT shall die; the son shall not bear (i^^^) the iniquity of the father, neither shall the fa- ther hear dwn) the iniquity of the son, Tlie passage from Numbers, in which the sons are said to bear (Kt!'^) the abominations of their fathers, exactly accords =^ with those which we have now considered : and it appears incontes- tably from the whole, that to bear the sins of others,^ is an expression familiarly used^ to de-
* Hammond, on 1 Pet. ii. 24. supported by the Chaldee and Fagius^ readers the passage here, bear the imnishment ofi/our sins: — see also Ainszcoj^h, on Numb. xiv. 33.
+ The observations of Martini on this subjetl; deserve to be quoted. *' Quicunque nimirum malis atqiie incommodis tolerandis aliorum miseriam avertit, eorumque saliitem pro- movet, qiiacunqne demum ratione id fiat is pocnas pec- catonim coriim luere, taiiquam piaculum pro iis apud Deum intcrct'dcre dicitur, ut hominibiis priscis fere omnibus, ita imprimis llebraeis. Eadem fere ratio est formula; Arabibus frequentissimae, redemptio tiia sit anima mea, scil. apud Deum, h. c. acerba quaevis, quin ipsius adeo mortis discri- men subire non recusarem, modo te juvare, liberationem a periculis, salutem atque incolumitatcm tibi praistare pos- sem. Ad explorationem vero ejusmodi formularum si per- venire veils, redeundum omnino est ad opinionem, ut veterum populorum omnium, ita imprimis Hebrseorum^ ex
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 45 7
note the suffering evils, Injlivted on account of those sins.
I will not contend, that this should be called suffering the punishment of those sins, because the idea of punishment cannot be abstracted from that of guilt : and in this respect, I dilier from many respectable authorities, and even from Dr. Blaynev, who, as w^e have seen, uses the word punishment in his translation. But it is evident, that it is notwithstanding a judicial in- fliction ; and it may perhaps be figuratively de- nominated punishinent, if thereby be implied a reference to the actual transgressor, and be un- derstood that suiFering which was due to the offender himself; and which, //'inflicted on him, would then take the name of punishment. In no other sense, can the suffering inflicted on one, on account of the transgressions of another, be called a punishment ; and, in this light, the bearing the punishment of another's sins, is to oe understood as bearing that, which in relation to the sins, and to the sinner, admits the name of punishment, but with respect to the individual on whom it is actually inflicted, abstractedly
qua calamitatcs qiiascunque, praescrtim atrociores, tanquani ])i£nas peccatorum ab ipsis diis prassentibus inflidlas consi- dcrare solcbant, casque non alia ratione averti posse puta- bant, quam si viollma iunoccMis loco hominis ejusmodi p(cnas
subeundo, iiurainis infcsti irain sedaret." See Roscnin^
on Isat. iiii. 6.
458 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
considered^, can be viewed but in the light of suffering. Thus the expression may fairly be explained: it is however upon the whole to be washed, that the word, jmnisliment, had not been used. The meaning is substantially the same without it; and the adoption of it has furnished the principal ground of cavil, to the adversaries of the doctrine of atonement, who affect to consider the word as applied in its strict signification, and consequently as implying the transfer of actual guilt. I could therefore wish, that such distinguished scholars, as Bishop Lowth, Primate Newcome, and Dr. Blayney, had not sanctioned the expression.
That the term pimisJiment, indeed, has fre- quently been used, where infliction only, with- out any reference to guilt in the individual suf- ferer, was intended, must be allowed. Cicero affords us a memorable instance of this ; " Silent leges inter arma ; nee se expectari jubent, cum ei qui expectare velit, ante injiista poena luenda sit, quam justa repetenda." The application of the word is yet more justifiable, where the suf- ferings endured have a relation to the guilt of another, on whom had they been inflicted, they would have received the name of punishment in its strictest sense. They are, to use an expres- sion of Crellius, the materia ponnas with respect to the offender ; and when borne by another in his stead, that other may in a qualified sense b«
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 459
jsaid to bear the punishment of the offender, as bearing that burden of suffering, which was due to him as the punishment of his offence. And thus in all cases, except where forgiveness is intended, the expression p>r ^m, or ]i>* biL), is to be understood ; namely, as sustaining, or bear- ing the burden of that materia poen^e, which was due to the offences, either of the individual who suffered, or of him, on whose account, and in whose place, he suffered. In this sense, we may justify the use of the expression bearing PUNISHMENT, in cases of a vicarious nature : but to avoid all cavil, and misrepresentation of the phrase, it were better perhaps, to adopt the phrase of suffering jor sins.
This view of the subject, completely removes all those objections, derived from a rigorous accep- tation of the nature of punishment, which have been urged by Socinus, and Crellius, and repeat- ed by every dissenter from the received doctrine of atonement since their day. And it is curious to observe, that Dr. Benson, though contending for the notion of Christ's bearing our sins in the sense of bearing them away, and supporting this on the ground of Dr. Taylor's interpretation of K::o, blV, and the corresj)onding Greek words in that sense, is yet obliged to admit the justness of the explication here proposed. " Sin, he says, is frequently, in Scripture, put for sufferings, or afflictions. Bearing iniquity, or siti, is likewise 1
460 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
hearing pinushment^ or enduring affliction: and when that punishment, or affliction, was death ; then bearing iniquity, or sin, and being j)iit to death, were phrases of hke import." And he admits, in consequence of this reasoning, that Christ's hearing our sins, or, as he thinks right to call it, " bearing them away, was by his suf- fering death; which to us, is the penalty of SIN." (Benson on 1 Pet. ii. 24 ) So that we seem to have the authority of Dr. Benson for saying, that Christ hore our sins, by suffering the penalty due to them.
It has now, I trust, sufficiently appeared, that the expressions used in this chapter of Isaiah to denote bearing sins, are elsewhere in Scripture employed to signify, not bearing them away, in the indefinite sense of removing them, but sus- taining them as a burden, by suffering their venal consequences: and this, not only where the individual was 'punished for his oivn sins, but where he suffered for the sins of others. We may now therefore proceed to enquire into the true meaning of the phrase, in the prophecy be- fore us : and indeed so manifest is its application in this place, that were it even ambiguous in other parts of Scripture, this alone might suffice to determine its import: so that, but for the ex- traordinary efforts, that have been employed to perplex and pervert the obvious meaning of the words, it could not have been necessary to look
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, 46 1
beyond the passage itself, to ascertain their ge- nuine signification to be that which has just been stated. In the description here given by the prophet, we are furnished with a clear and accurate definition of the words, and a full ex- planation of the nature of the thing. We are told, that God made the Iniquities of us all to fall upon him, who is said to have home the iniquities oj many : thus is the bearing of our iniquities explained to be, the bearing them laid on as a burden ; and though a reference is un- doubtedly intended to the laying the iniquities of the Jewish people on the head of the scape- goat, which was done (as is urged by Socinus, Crellius, Taylor, and other writers who adopt their notions) that they might be borne, or car- ried, aivay ; yet this does not prevent them from being borne as a burden. The great object in hearing our si?is, was cerl^ainly to bear them aivai/ ; but the manner in which they v\ ere borne, so as to be ultimately borne away by him who died for us, was by his enduring the afflictions and suflferings which were due to them ; by his being numbered with the transgressors ; treated as if he had been the actual transgressor; and ?nade answerable for us, and consequently ivound- ed for our transgressions, and smitten. J'or our iniquities, in such manner, that our peace was effected by his chastisement, and we healed by his bruises ; he having borne our iniquities, hav-
4G2 THE DEATH OF CHltlST
ing suffered that which was the penalty due to them on our part, and having offered himself a sacrifice for sin on our account.
Now it deserves particularly to be remarked, that these strong and decided expressions, which are clearly explanatory of the manner in which our sins are to be home, and borne aivay, are but little attended to by the Socinian expositors, whilst they endeavour by a detached examination of the words denoting the bearing oj sins, and by directing our attention to the ceremony of the scape-goat, to exclude from the view those accompanying circumstances, which so plainly mark a vicarious suffering, and a strict propiti- atory atonement. In contending, however, for the reference to the scape-goat in the expression hearing sins,^^ as it is here used, these writers furnish us with an additional argument, in proof of the scape goat having been a sin- offering, (see pp. 069. 396.):. he, who was to bear our sins, and to procure our pardon, being here de- scribed expressly as a sacrifice Jor sin, DtLW. So7ne arguments, indeed, are offered by Socinus, (Opera, tom. ii. pp. 150, 151, 153.) and Crellius, (Ilesp. ad Gr, p. 23 — 30.) to weaken the force of the expressive passages of the prophet's de- scription, above referred to. But, after what
* See Socin, Opera, tom. ii. p. 149. CrelL Resp, ad Gr^ p. 21. and Taijlofs Kei/^ §. 1C2.
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 463
has been said, it is unnecessary to add to the length of this discussion^ by a refutation, vvliich must instantly present itself, on the principles already laid down.
To bring, then, this tedious investigation to a conclusion^ it appears : 1 . That neither the expres- sions used by Isaiah in the 4th verse, nor the ap- plication made of them by St. Matthew, are in any degree inconsistent with the acceptation of the phrase hearing sins, here employed by the pro- phet, in the sense of sustaining, or undergoing the burden of them, hy suffering for them : 2. That the use of the expression in other parts of the Old Testament, so far from opposing, jus- tifies and confirms this acceptation: and, 3. That the minute description of the sufferings of Christ, their cause, and their effects, which here accom- panies this phrase, not only establishes this inter- pretation, but fully unfolds the whole nature of the Christian atonement, by shewing, that Christ has suffered, in our place, what was due to our transgressions; and that by, and in virtue of his sufferings, our reconciliation with God has been effected.
I have gone thus extensively into the examina- tion of this point, both because it has of late been the practice of those writers, who oppose the doc- trine of atonement, to assume familiarly, and pro concesso, that the expression beari?ig sins signi- fied in all cases, where personal punishment was
464 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
not involved, nothing more than bearing them away, or removing them ; and because this chap- ter of Isaiah contains the w hole scheme and sub- stance of the Christian atonement. Indeed so ample and comprehensive is the description here given, that the v^riters of the New Testament seem to have had it perpetually in view^, insomuch that there is scarcely a passage in either the gospels^ or epistles, relating to the sacrificial nature, and aton- ing virtue, of the death of Christ, that may not obviously be traced to this exemplar : so that in fortifying this part of Scripture, we establish the foundation of the entire system. It will, conse- quently, be the less necessary to enquire minutely into those texts, in the New Testament, which relate to the same subject. We cannot but re- cognize the features of the prophetic detail, and consequently apply the evidence of the prophet's explanation, when we are told, in the words of our Lord, that the son of man came to give his
LIFE A RANSOM FOR MANY, Matt. XX. 28*. that, aS
St. Paul expresses it, he gave himself a ransom FOR all, 1 Tim. ii. 6: that he ivas offered to
BEAR THE SINS OF MANY, Hcb. ix. 28 *. that God
made iiim to he sin for us, who knew no sin, 2 Cor. V. 21 : that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. Gal. iii. 13: that he suffered for sins, the just FOR THE unjust, I Pet. iii. 18: that he died for the ungodly, Rom. v. 6; that he gave himself
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. AGb
FOR US, Tit. ii. 14: that he died for our sins, 1 Cor. XV. 3: and loas delivered for our of- fences, Rom. iv. 25: that he gave himself for
us AN OFFERING AND A SACRIFICE TO GOD, Eph.
V. 2: that ive are reconciled to god by the DEATH of his Son, v. 10: that his blood ivas shed
FOR MANY, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, Matt.
xxvi. 28. — These, and many others, directly refer us to the prophet ; and seem but partial reflec- tions of what he had before so fully placed before our view.
One passage, however, there is, which deserves a more pai'ticular attention ; because, being an ac- knowledged translation of the most important part of the prophetic description, it has, jointly with the prophecy, experienced the severity of Socinian criticism. It is that passage in 1 Pet. ii. 24. where it is said of Christ, that he, his own self', bare OUR SINS, in his own bodij, on the tree. This has been referred to the 4th verse of the liiid ch. but, as we have already seen (p. 414.), on grounds totally erroneous. With the same view, namely, that of weakening the force of the prophecy, the use of the word ocvvivey%iv by the apostle, to ex- press the hearing sins, of the prophet, has been largely insisted on. The word otvtxcp&oca, it is con- tended, is to be understood in the sense of bear- ing=^ away: and Dr. Benson, on 1 Pet. ii. 24.
* See Dodson on Isai. liii. 11. also Socin. Dc Jes, Chr, pars 2. cap. vi. & CrclL Resp. ad Gr. p. 21. VOL. I. H H
466 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
positively asserts, that the word ava.(pe^u is never used by the LXX^ in any of those places, in the Old Testament, where bearing iniquity is taken in the sense of hearing punishment^ or enduring affliction. Now, as St. Peter s words may fairly be considered, as a translation of the words of the prophet, or rather^ as an adoption of the language of the LXX, (see p. 414 ) it becomes necessary to examine the force of the expressions here used, as being a strong authority respecting the true meaning of the original passage in the prophet. And in this examination we shall find abundant confirmation of the conclusion we have already arrived at.
The word ocvoi(pe^c;o, which strictly signifies to bear, or carry, up ; and is therefore commonly ap-« plied in the sense of offering up a victim, as car- rying it up to the altar ; and may with equal pro- priety be applied to Christ bearing up with him, in his own body, rug cx.fA>ocoTicx,g 7i[a,oov STrt ^vXov, our sins to the cross, (see Schleusn, Lex, and Hamm. in locum) — admits of course the signification of iearing as a burden; and joined with the word sins, as it is here, it corresponds to the Hebrew H^% or ^^D:, in the sense of bearing their punish^ meiit, QV sustaining the burden of suffering which they impose. In this very sense, the Seventy have used it, in direct opposition to Dr. Benson's assertion. For, in Numb. xiv. 33. where the sons ^re said to bear the whoi^edoms, or idolatrous sins^
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. AG'J
of their fathers, the word used by the LXX to ex- press the Hebrew ^^t^% is ocvcc(p6oco: now the Chal- dee, in this place, employs the word b^p, which is universally allowed to signify susclpere, to under- go, or sustain, (see Biixt, Lex.) and translates the whole passage thus, They shall bear your sins, and I will visit the iniquities of the fathers in the children. Munster, Vatablus, Fagius, and Clarius pronounce the expression to be a hebraism, for suffering the punishment of the father's sins. Houbigant expressly translates, pcenas luent. That this passage, also, is precisely of the same import with those in Lament, v. 7. and Ezech. xviii. 12, 20, sNhevQ suffering for sins \sex]yve%%\y marked out, has been already noticed (p. 452 — 456.) Now, in these passages manifestly denoting the very same thing, hearing sins, in the same way and on the same account, the version of the LXX is L»7r£(r%6i/, in the former ; and XctfjL^ocvu, in the latter. The force of i;7re(r%£i/ requires no confir- mation : if it did, its application in Ps. Ixxxix. 50. the only remaining place wdiere it is used by the LXX, would supply it. And Xocfz^ocuu is the expression commonly applied by the LXX, throughout Leviticus, to express the bearing of sin, in those cases, in which the offender was to suffer the actual punishment of his transgressions. And in the very next verse, we find the word ccvoi- ^sota applied to denote the bearing these very sins in the persons of the offenders themselves, which^ n h 3
468 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
they hiid been told in the preceding verse, their sons should likewise bear, ocvckthg-i. So that these expressions, ocva,(p6^co, and Xcc[jlQocvu, being employ- ed by the LXX in passages precisely parallel, fur- nish a complete contradiction to Dr. Benson's assertion.
Indeed the Seventy seem to have used the com- pounds of (peoco, without much attention to the force of the adjoined preposition. This is evident in their use of the word cc'7ro(p£^co, for the Hebrew >5t:?3, in Lev. XX. 19. where the sin was not to be borne aivai/, as the word would strictly imply, but to be borne by suffering the punishment of death: and likewise, in Ezech. xxxii. 30. where BEARit^G shame, is applied by the prophet in the same sense. And in this passage, whilst the P^a- tic, reads a,7Tc(peDco, the Alex, reads Xoc^jl^ocvu ; thus using the two words indifferently, although Aa/^- Q,otvcjo is employed by the LXX, almost univer- sally, in cases implying the actual sustaining of guilt and suffering. Now, if even the word AIIO- (pe^ca"^ has been used by the LXX. for i^W':^, in the simple sense o^ (peou, and in no other, throughout the bible; upon what ground is it to be argued, that ANA(pef 0) cannot be used by them in the
* Biel, on Ihe word wrroips^u, remarks, that the Doric stTToiffT) is expounded by Phavorinus ho[a,ktyi, rcportabis : thus it appears, that the force of the preposition is, in some cases, entirely lost in the compound : and, accordingly, the wordi f^metimcs signifies ttf/duco.
A Propitiatory sacrifive. 469
iame sense; and particularly, when it is em- ployed by them in the translation of the same Hebrew word, and similarly connected with the same subject, shis ? But, to decide the accepta- tion of the word by the LXX, it will be suffi- cient to observe^ that, of 133 passages of the Old Testament, in which, exclusive of those of Isaiah at present under consideration, it is used as a translation of the Hebrew, it never once occurs in the sense of bearing away : (see Tro7n. Con- cord,) and that in those places, in which it occurs in the relation of hearing sins, it is given as equivalent to the vvords iWI, and ^^D ; being em- ployed to render the former in Numb. xiv. 33, and Isai. hii. 12; and the latter, ibid. liii. 11. And these three are the only passages in which the word is found so related.
Now, in addition to what has been already said, on the words translated hearing sins, in these passages, and especially, on the word S^D, let it be remarked, that the word uTTBvsyxzv, is used by Stjmm, for the ccvoktsi of the LXX, in the last mentioned text: and that the very word^ ^ID, which in the 11th verse is translated, ccvoc- (psou, by the LXX, is, by the same, rendered in the 4th verse, in the sense of sustaining ; the term employed by them being o^vvocnxi, enduring griefs or affliction; as if they had said oSvvocg, or 7rov\iq rriEMEINEN, which is the expres- sion used by Aq. Symm. and Theod. in this H h 3
470 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
place. Now, as St. Peter, in his description of Chri.st's bearing our sins, not only refers to Isaiah J but evidently quotes his very words, and quotes them in the language of the Seventy, we can have no question of his stating them in the same sense, in which they manifestly used them ; and that when he says, that Christ hore^' our sins^ in his oivn body, on (or to) the cross, he means to mark;, that Christ actually bore the burden of our sins, and suffered for them all that he endured in his last ao'onies. That there mav also have been implied a reference, in the word cx,vGi(p£^co, to its sa- crificial import so familiar both with the LXX and the New Testament, I see no reason to deny. This^ by no means, interferes with what has been now urged, but rather confirms it, and explains more fully the manner in which our sins were borne by our Lord, namely as by a sacrifice. So that the entire force of the passage may be, as V/hitby has stated it: he hare our s'ms in his oivn body, offered (as) upon an altar for us : and by this interpre- tation, we find a perfect correspondence with the only remaining passage in the New Testament, ia
* The Syriac rendering of the passage is remarkable.
i'ORTAviT peccata nostra onmia, ct sustulit ilia in corpora suo ad crucem. Here the word Woa, poriahat quasi port" dus, is unequivocal and decisive. — N. B. Schaaf has ren- dered tlie Syriac, cum corpore suof whilst it more naturally admits the renderhig^ z.v corpore suo^ agreeably to the common trgmslation.-
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, 47 1
which the phrase otfjLoc^TLcx,; ecva,(p£^Biv is found ; namely, Hebr. ix. 28. where it is said, that Christ was once offered, to bear the sins ofmaiiy.
The observations contained in this Number^ will enable lis to form a just estimate of Dr. Priestley's position; that neither in the Old Testament, nor in those parts of the New, where it might most naturally be expected, namely, in the discourses of our Lord and his apostles, as recorded in the gospels and acts, do we find any trace of the doctrine of atonement. On this Dr. Priestley observes, with no little confidence, in the Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 327—353. and again in his Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 158-— 164. Surely, in answer to such an assertion, nothing more can be necessary, than to recite the prophecy of Isaiah, which has just been examined, and in which it is manifest, that the whole scheme of the doctrine of atonement is minutely set forth : so manifest, indeed, that notwithstanding his assertion. Dr. Priestley is compelled to confess, (Th, Rep. vol. i. p. 530.) that " tliis prophecy seems to represent the death of Christ, in the light of a satisfaction for sin."
But the emptiness of the position is not more clearly evinced by this, and other parts of the Old Testament which might be adduced, than by the language of our Saviour and his apostles, in those very parts of the New Testament, to which this writer chooses to confine his search^ H h 4
4/2 THE DEATH OF CJlRlST
the gospels^ and acts. For, when the angel de*^ clares to Joseph, that his name shall he called Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins, Mat. i. 21 : when John, who was sent to announce the Messiah, and to prepare men for his reception, and from whom a sketch at least of our Saviours character and the nature of his mission might be expected, proclaims him the Lamb of God, which taheth aivaij the sins of the ivorld; (Joh. i. 29.) thus directing the atten- tion of his hearers to the notion of sacrifice and atonement (see Number XXV): when we find St. John (xi. 50, 51, 52.) relating the saying of Caiaphas, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people, and that the whole NATION PERISH NOT; and remarking on this, that Caiaphas, had said this under a prophetic impulse, for that Jesus should die for that na- tion, AND NOT FOR THAT NATION ONLY, hut that
also he should gather together in one the chil' dren of God, that ivere scattered abroad : when we find our Lord himself declare, that he catne to give his life a ransom for many, (Mat. xx. 28.) and again, at the last supper, an occasion which might be supposed to call for some explana- tion of the nature and benefits of the death which he was then about to suffer, using these remarkable words; This is my Mood of the neio testament, ivhich is shed for many for the remission of ^ins, (Mat. xxvi. 28.) which
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, 4^3
words Dr. Priestley himself admits (Theol, Rep, vol. i. pp. 345, 346.) to imply, " that the death of Christ in some respects resembles a
sin-offering under the law" -when, I say,
these passages are to be found, all referring, more or less directly, to the notion of atonement : when it is considered, also, that this notion of atonement was rendered perfectly familiar by the law ; and when to these reflections it is added, that the prophecy of Isaiah, to which reference is made in some, possibly in all of these, had, by describing Christ as a sin'offering, already pomted out the connexion between the atonements of the law, and the death of Christ: there seems little foun- dation for the assertion, that nothing whatever appears in the gospels or acts, to justify the no- tion of atonement.
But admitting, for the sake of argument, that no instance to justify such a notion did occur, what is thence to be inferred? Are the many and clear declarations on this head, in the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John, to be pro- nounced surreptitious? Or, have these writer* broached doctrines, for w^hich they had no au- thority ? Let Dr. Priestley take his choice. U he adopt neither part of the alternative, his ar- gument goes for nothing.
But why, it may still be urged, are not the communications upon this subject, as frequent, and forcible in the gospels and acts, as in the 1
4/4 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
epistles ? Why did not our Lord himself unfold to his hearers, in its fullest extent, this great and important object of his mission ? — Why, I ask in return, did he not, at his first coming, openly declare that he was the Messiah? Why did he not also fully unfold that other great doc- trine, which it was a principal (or as Dr. Priest- ley will have it, Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 175. the sole) " object of his mission to ascertain and ex- emplify, namely, that of a resurrection and a future state?'' The ignorance of the Jews at large, and even of the apostles themselves, on this head, is notorious, and is well enlarged upon by Mr. Veysie (Bampt. Lect. Sernu p. 188— 198.) There seems, then, at least, as much reason for our Lord's rectifying their errors, and supplying them w^ith specific instructions on this head, as there could be on the subject of atonement.
But besides, there appears a satisfactory rea- son, why the doctrine of atonement is not so fully explained, and so frequently insisted on, in the discourses of our Lord and his apostles, as in the epistles to the early converts. Until it was clearly established, that Jesus was the Messiah ; and until, by his resurrection crowning all his miraculous acts, it was made manifest, that he who had been crucified by the Jews, was he who was to save them and all mankind from their sins, it must have been premature and useless to explain, Jww this was to be effected. To gain
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 473
assent to plain facts, was found a sufficient trial for the incredulity, and rooted prejudices, of the Jews, in the first instance. Even to his imme- diate followers our Lord declares, / have many things to saij to you, hut ye cannot hear them now: Joh. xvi. 12. And accordingly, both he, and they afterwards following his example, pro- ceeded by first establishing the fact of his divine mission, before they insisted upon its end and design, which involved matters more difficult of apprehension and acceptance. Besides, it should be observed, that the discourses of our Lord and his apostles, were generally addressed to persons, to whom the ideas of atonement were familiar, whereas the epistles were directed to those who were not acquainted with the principles of the Mosaic atonement ; excepting only that addressed to the Hebrews, in which, the writer solely en- deavours to prove the death of Christ, to fall n> with those notions of atonement, which were already familiar to the persons whom he ad- dressed.
But Dr. Priestley is not content to confine himself to those parts of Scripture, where a full communication of the doctrine of atonement was least likely to be made. Having from long ex-^ perience learnt the value of a confident as- sertion, he does not scruple to lay down a posi- tion yet bolder than the former ; namely, " that in no part either of the Old or New Testament, 1
4/6 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
do we ever find asserted, or explained, the prin- ciple on which the doctrine of atonement is founded: but that, on the contrary, it is a sen- timent every where abounding, that repentance and a good hfe, are of themselves sufficient to recommend us to the favour of God." (TheoL Rep, vol. i. p. 263.) How httle truth there is in the latter part of the assertion, has been already considered, in Numbers IX. and XVIIL That the former part is equally destitute of foundation, will require but little proof. The entire language of the epistles is a direct contradiction to it. The very prophecy, wliich has been the principal subject of this Number, overturns it. It is in vain, that Dr. Priestley endeavours to shelter this assertion under an extreme and exaggerated state- ment of what the principle of atonement is; namely, *' that sin is of so heinous a nature, that God cannot pardon it without ah adequate sa- tisfaction being made to his justice."
It is an artifice not confined to Doctor Priest- ley, to propound the doctrine in these rigorous and overcharged terms; and, at the same time, to combat it in its mDvc moderate and qualified acceptation: thus insensibly transferring to the latter, the sentiment of repugnance excited by the former. But, that Ciod's displeasure against sin is such, that he has ordained, that the sinner shall not be admitted to reconciliation and fa- vour, but in virtue of that great sacrifice, which
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 477
has been offered for the sins of men, exempli- fying the desert of guilt, and manifesting God's righteous abhorrence of those sins, which re- quired so severe a condition of their forgiveness: that this, I say, is every where the language of Scripture, cannot possibly be denied. And it is to no purpose, that Dr. Priestley endeavours by a strained interpretation, to remove the evidence of a single text, when almost every sentence, that relates to the nature of our salvation, conveys the same ideas. That text, however, which Dr. Priestley has laboured to prove, in opposition to the author of Jesus Christ the Mediator, not to be auxiliary to the doctrine of atonement, I feel little hesitation in re- stating, as explanatory of its true nature and import. fFhoni God had set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness, for the remission of past sins, through the forbearance of God: to declare, I saij, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and (i. e. altho') the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, Kom. iii. 25, 26.=^
* I had, in the former editions of this work, adopted Pri- mate Newcome's explanation of the word hy.cnoavvr,; con. ceiving the idea of justification, or method of justification, to be better calculated than that of righteousness, (the term employed by the common version,) to convey an adequate sense of the original. On perusing tlie observations of Mr. Nares, in his Remarks on the Unitarian Version of the Neva Testament^ p. 150— ISS, I am now iuduced to alter ir.^
4'^S THE DEATH OF CHRIST
To argne here, as is done by Dr. Priestley and others, that the word Siza.iog, cannot mean just with regard to jjunishnienty will avail but
opinion : being fully satisfied, that that learned and ingenious writer has caught the true spirit of the original passage ; and that the object of the inspired reasoner is not so much to shew, how, iii the method adopted for the remission of sins, mercy was to be displayed, as how, notwithstanding this dis- play of mercy, justice was to be maintained. In either Tiew the sense undoubtedly terminates in the same point, the re^ conciling with each other the two attributes of mercy and justice; but the emphasis of the argument takes opposite directions; and that, in the view which Mr. Nares has pre- ferred, it takes the right direction, must be manifest on con- sidering, that, in the remission of sins, mercy is ihe quality that immediately presents itself, whilst justice might seem to be for the time superseded. On this principle of interpreta- tion, the sentence will stand thus. Whom God had set forth to he a propitiation through faith in his bloody for the ma. nifcstation of his justice (his just and righteous dealing) concerning the remission of past sins^ through the forbear^ mice of God: for the manifestation^ at this time^ of his jus~ TiCEy that he might be just^ and (i. e. although) the justi. TIER of him that believeth in Jesus. The justice of the Deity, or his regard to what is righteous and just^ is thus de- clared not to have been departed from in the sch.eme of re- demption : this scheme bearing a twofold relation to sinners, in such a manner, that whilst it manifested the mercy of God, it should at the same time in no degree lay a ground for the impeachment of \i\?, justice. This view of the case will be found exactly to agree with what has been already advanced at p. ^15. The reader, who will turn to the Annotcdions of Diodati^ p. 117, will be pleased with the observations which he will there find upon this subject, .:
A PnOPITIATORY SACRIFICE, 45*9
little in evading the force of this passage. Ad- mitting even that it signifies, as Dr. Priestley contends, jnghteous^ the argument remains much
Having been led by the discussion of this text to the men- tion of Mr. Nares's work, I cannot avoid expressing my re- gret, that the present edition has travelled thus far on its way to the public eye, without those aids, which an earlier ap- pearance of that valuable performance would have secured to it. Being, like that respectable writer, engaged in the en- deavour to vindicate the purity of Scripture truth from Uni- tarian misrepresentation, I am naturally desirous to avail myself of the exertions of so distinguished a fellow labourer. That these volumes, therefore, and the cause which they sup- port, may not be altogether deprived of the advantages of such co-operation on the subjects which have been already displayed in the foregoing sheets, I shall here subjoin a refer- ence to those parts of Mr. Nares's work which bear upon the same subjects, and bestow upon them additional enforcement and illustration. I beg then to direct the reader's attention to pp. 60-- 124. 173, 174. 181, 182. 217. 220, on the doc- trine of the pre-existence treated of in Number I: — to pp. 126—130. 231—236. lS4— 164, on t\\e ransom or price of redemption treated of in Number XXV, on the sense ia which Christ is said to have been made a sacrifice for sin^ and a sin-offering^ as in Number XXVII. p. 234 — 242, and Number XXIX, and to have died for us^ as in Number XXX: — to p. 144 — 154, on the meaning oi propitiation^ as treated of in Number XXVI, and of Atonement as in Number XXVIII: and lastly, to p. 131—140, on the meaning of the phrase bearing sinSy which has been treated of in the present Number.
I have referred the reader to the discussion of these several subjects in Mr. Nares's work, not only because the view, which has been taken of them in the preceding Numbers, will
480 THE DEATH OF CHRIST
the same; since, in tliis view, the reasoning of St. Paul goes to reconcile with the i^ighteoiis deahngs of God, which in respect of siu must
be found thereby to receive ample courirmation ; but, more especially, because the arguments employed by the learned author are shaped in such a manner, as to meet the Unitarian objections in that form, in which they have made their latest appearance, and which has been given to them by the joint labours and collective erudition of the party. In the year 1801, a challenge had been thrown out to the Unitarians, in the first edition of the present work, (see pp. 177, 178 of this edition,) calling upon them for an avoAved translation of the Scriptures on their peculiar principles. Whether it has been in compliance with this demand, or not, that they have given to the world their Improved Vcrsioii of the Ncz;> TesiamcJit, Is of little consequence. But it is of great con- sequence, that they have been brought to reduce their vague and iluctuating notions of what the New Testament contains, to some one determined form ; and that they have afforded to the able author of the Remarks upon their version, an op- portunity of exposing the futility of the criticisms, the falla- ciousness of the reasonings, the unsoundness of the doctrines, and the shallowness of the information, which have combined to produce this elaborate specimen of Unitarian exposition. Spanheim has said, Controversijs qua? cum hodiernis Soci- nianis, vcl Anti.Trinitariis etiam extra familiara Socini, intcr- cedunt, sive numero suo, sive controversorum capitum mo. mcnfo, sive adversariorum fuco et larva quadam pietatis, sive argutiarum nonnunquam sabtilitatc^ sive Socinianae luis con. tagio^ in gravissimis merito censentur. (Select. De Relig. Controv. p. 132.) If this observation of Spanheim is admitted to be a just one, the friends of Christianity cannot surely be too thankful to the compilers of the Improved Version^ for bringing together into one view the entire congeries o^
A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. 481
lead to punishment, — that forgiveness granted through Christ's propitiation, whereby the sinner was treated as if he had not offended, or was justified. This sense of the word just, namely, acting agreeably to what was right and equitable, cannot be objected to by Dr. Priestley, it being that which he himself adopts, in his violent ap- plication of the word, as relating to the Jews, compared with the Gentiles.
Doctor Doddridge deserves particularly to be consulted on this passage. See also RapheUus. The interpretation of Sizonog in the sense of wer- ciful, adopted by Hammond, Taylor, Rosenmul- ler, and others, seems entirely arbitrary, Whitby says, that the word occurs above eighty times in the New Testament, and not once in that sense.
The single instance adduced in support of this interpretation, is itself destitute of support. It is
that of Mat. i. 19. Joseph, being a just mariy
and not willing to make Mary a public example^ was minded to put her away privily. Now this means clearly, not, that Joseph being a ^merciful
their cavils on the New Testament; nor to the Remarker upon those cavils, for their complete and triumphant re- futation.
* Campbell, although from his not discerning the adver- sative relation of the members of the verse, Mat.i. 19. he has not ascribed to the word the signification oijust'mih'xs place, is yet obliged to confess that he has ^' not seen sufficient evi- dence for rendering it humane^ or merciful :^^ Four Gospels^ &c. vol. iv. pp. 6, 7.— The force of the Syriac word
VOL. I. I I
482 THK DEATH OF CHRIST &C.
man, and therefore not willing, &c. but, that be^ m^^just man, that is, actuated by a sense of right and duty, he determined to put her away accord- ing to the law, in Deut. xxiv. 1 : and yet, at the same time, not wilHng to make her a pubhc ex- ample, he determined to do it privately. See Lightfoot, and Bishop Pearce, on this passage.
That the force of tamen, yet or nevertheless, which has been here ascribed to the word Koti, is given to it both by the New Testament and pro- fane writers, has been abundantly shewn by Raphel, torn. ii. p. 519. Palairet, pp. 41. 96. 221, 236. Eisner, torn. i. p. 293. and Krehshis p. 147. — see also Schleusjier Lex. in Nov Test, Numb. 1 \ . and the observations at p. 215. of this volume,
which is here used for ^uajo?, seems not to have been suf- ficiently attended to in the decision of this question : if the learned reader will take the trouble of examining the several I)assages in the Syriac New Testament^ where the word ^-*V^, or its emphatic p)^, occurs, he will be satisfied that in every case where it does not signify jw5/ in the most rigo- rous sense, it at least implies that which is founded in right. For its use in the former acceptation see Job. v. 30. vii. 24. Rom. ii. 5. iii. 26. 2 Thess. i. 5. 2 Tim. iv. 8. Apoc.
( 483 )
KO. XLIII. — ON THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE REA^ SONING WHEREBY THE DEATH OF CHRIST 18 MAINTAINED TO HAVE BEEN BUT FIGURATIVE'' LY A SACRIFICE.
Page 36. C)— It has been well remarked, that there is great inconsistency in the arguments of some writers upon this subject. They represent the death of Christ, not as a proper, but merely as a figurative, sacrifice ; and establish this by proving, that it cannot be either. For whilst they argue, that it is not a proper sacrifice, upou principles which tend to shew that no such sacri- fice can exist, they prove at the same time that it is not a sacrifice Jiguratively, since every figure presupposes reality. The writers of the New Testament, who perpetually apply the sacrificial terms to the death of Christ, must surely have been under a strange mistake, since neither in a proper, nor in a figurative sense, did they admit of such application.
Upon the whole, the opposers of the proper sa- crifice of Christ, on the ground of necessary in- efficacif, are reduced to this alternative; — that no proper sacrifice for sin ever existed, and that con- sequently, in no sense whatever, not even in fi- gure, is the death of Christ to be considered as a sacrifice; — or, that the efficacy which they deny to the sacrifice of Christ, belonged to the offering of
a brute animal,
I i 3
484 THE SACRIFICE FOR SIN.
Besides, if they allow the sacrifices under the law to have been proper sacrifices, whilst that of Christ was only figurative: then, since the Apostle has declared the former to have been but types and shadows of the latter, it follows, that the pro- per and real sacrifices were but types and shadows of the improper and figurative.
On the pretence of figurative allusion, in the sacrificial terms of the New Testament, which has been, already, so much enlarged upon in several parts of this work, Dr. Laurence,'\K Jie discourse which he has lately published on The Metapho' rical Character of the Apostolical Style, has thrown out some valuable ideas, which well de- serve to be considered.
NO. XLIV. — ON THE NATURE OF THE SACRIFICE
FOR SIN,
Page 36, (^^') — I have not scrupled to adopt this definition, as it stands in the 2d. vol. of TheoL Rep, Numb. 1: to the judicious author of which paper I am indebted, for some valuable reflexions on this subject. On the true nature of the sacri- fice for sin, see also Hallefs Discourses, 2d .voL p. 293. Although both these writers, in adopt- ing the premial scheme of atonement, endeavour to establish a principle entirely different from that contended for in these discourses, yet are the observations of both upon the subject of atone- ment particularly worthy of attention*
( 485 )
NO. XLV. — ON THE EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT IN PRODUCING SENTIMENTS FA- VOURABLE TO VIRTUE AND RELIGION.
Page 3g. ('^)— Doctor Priestley (TheoL Rep. vol. i. p. 419.) offers upon this head some very extraordinary remarks. He admits, that " the apprehensions of the divine justice^ and of the evil and demerit of sin," excited by the scheme of redemption here maintained, are " sentiments of powerful effect in promoting repentance and reformation.'' But he adds, "that in proportion as any opinion raises our idea of the justice of God, it must sink our idea of the divine=^ mercy: and since a sense of the mercy of God, is at least as powerful an inducement to repentance, and as effi-
* Bishop Watson, ia speaking of that arrogant and dog- matical theology, that decrees the rejection of the doctrine of atonement, as inconsistent with the divine attribute of mercj/, uses the following just observations. — *' We know assuredly that God delighteth not in blood ; that he hath no cruelty, no vengeance, no malignity, no infirmity of any pas- iiion in his nature; but vvc do not kuow, whether the re- quisition of an atonement for transgression, may not be an emanation of his injinite mercy^ rather than a demand of his infinite justice. We do not know, whether it may not be the very best means of preserving the innocence and happi- ness not only of us, but of all other free and intelligent be- ings. We do not know, whether the suffering of an inno- cent person, may not be productive of a degree of good, in- finitely surpassing the evil of «uch sufferance; nor whether such a quantum of good could, by any other means, have been produced." — Tuo yipoiogies, &c, pp. 466, 467.
486 DOCTRINE OF* ATONEMEKT CONDUCIVE
cacious a motive to a holy life, especially with in-' genuoiis minds, as the apprehension of his jus- tice; what the doctrine of atonement gains on the one hand, it loses on the other.
Now does Dr. Priestley seriously think, that the abstract love of excellence, or the hope of dis- tant reward, can produce upon the minds of men, impressions as powerful as the habitual fear of of- fending? That the desire of happiness acts upon us but through the medium of present inquietude; that we seek after it, only in the degree, in which we feel uneasy from the want of it : and that fear is in itself, however remote its object, an instant and perpetually acting stimulus, Dr. Priestley is too well acquainted with the nature of the human mind not to admit. And, I apprehend, he would consider that civil government but badly secured, which rested upon no other support than that of gratitude and the hope of reward, rejecting alto- gether the succour of judicial infliction. But be- sides, in comparing the effects, upon the human mind, of gratitude for the divine mercies, and fear of the divine justice, it is to be remembered, that one great advantage, which we ascribe to the lat^ ter,isthis; that those humble feelings, which the apprehension of the great demerit of sin and of the punishment due to our offences must naturally excite, dispose us the more readily to place our whole reliance on God, and not presuming on our pwn exertions, to seek in all cases his sustaining
TO RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS. 48^
aid. Farttier, admitting that the bulk of man- kind, (who, after all, and not merely ingenumis minds, are, as Doctor Priestley confesses, " the persons to be wrought upon,") were as strongly influenced by love of the goodness of God, as by fear of his justice, it by no means follows^ that " the doctrine of atonement must lose in one way what it gains in another*/' because it is not true, that " the fear of the divme justice must sink our ideas of the divine mercy." On the contrary, the greater the misery from which men have been re- leased, the greater must be their gratitude to their deliverer. And thus, whilst the divine rectitude rendered it unavoidable, that the offender should be treated in a different manner from the obedi- ent; the mercy which devised a method, whereby that rectitude should remain uninfringed and yet the offender forgiven, cannot but awaken the strongest feelings of gratitude and love.
Dr. Priestley however contends, that even the advantage ascribed to the doctrine of atonement, namely, that of exciting apprehensions of the di- vine justice and of the evil and demerit of sin, does not strictly belong to it; *' for, that severity should work upon men, the offenders themselves should "^feel it." Now, this 1 cannot understand. It seem.s much the same as to sav, that in order to feel the horror of falling down a precipice, on
* The^'ne non timerc quidcm sine aliquo timore possi- pus" of Tully, seems an idea quite inconceivable to Dr.
1
488 DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT CONDUCIVE &C,
the edge of which he hangs, a man must be actu- ally dashed down the steep. Will not the dan-' ger produce sensations of terror ? And will not the person who snatches nie from that danger, be viewed with gratitude as having rescued me from destruction? Or is it necessary, that I should not he saved, in order to know from what I have been saved? Can any thing impresip us with a stronger sense of God's hatred to sin^ of the severe punish- ment due to it, and of the danger to which we are consequently exposed if we comply not with bis terms of forgiveness, than his appointing the sa- crifice of his only begotten son, as the condition^ on which alone he has thought it right to grant us forgiveness? Do we not in this see every thing to excite our fear? do we not see every thing to awaken our gratitude?
Priestley. — On this subject I beg to direct the reader's attention to the words of the late Bishop Porteus, and par- ticularly to the striking and beautiful expression in the coHo eluding clause, taken from Scoffs Christian Life. — " By accepting the death of Christ instead of ours, hy laying on him the iniquity of us all, God certainly gave us i\\e most as- tonishing proof of his mercy : and yet, by accepting no less a sacrifice than that of his own son, he has, by this most ex- pressive and tremendous act, signified to the whole world such extreme indignation at sin, as may well alarm, even while he saves us, and make us tremble at his severity, §ven while we are within the arms of his mercy, ''^ Porteus's Ser- mons, ii. p. bQ,
END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
Hnnteu hy J. & E. Hodson Cross Street, Hatton GardeDi London.
CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS,
In Vol. I.
Page 10 line 30 for VIII. read VII.
— — 28 30 — xliii. ■ xlii,
35 so — XII. XLTI.
46 30 — XLIV. XLIII,
148 7 — 11 12
150 19 — 12 13
154 9 — 11 15
_ 190 24 — Qui uti, nos — - Qui uti nos,
230 9 — Walton • Wotton
234 23-27 ■— Mr. • Dr.
274 1 1 — utility futility
' 362-;^ — 15 — apostacy apostasy
381 — 29 — ETi^jtfgtofrj " ETrj^ftr^ja?
418 2 — 5199 5299
430 2y — iv. ii,
457 14 — 12 19
Vol. I, page 115. At the end of the note add — That the reader may feel the full force of the observations contained in the above note, he is requested to peruse the extraordinary details, authenticated by Dr. Buchanan^ in his recent pub- lication, entitled Christian Researches in Asia; particularly those relating to the worship of Juggernaut, and the present condition of Cei/lon, which are to be found at p. 129 — 147, and p. 182—190 of that work. These details must be alarm- ing indeed to every serious mind.
Vol. I. page 162. To the note, what follows may be added —It may be satisfactory to the reader to know exactly, what are the Articles and Psalms that have been rejected by Mr. Wesley. — -The Articles rejected are, the third, eighth, tlie greater part of the ninth, thijteenth, /iftee?ith, seventeenth, eighteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, toc;?(3/.^/i/r^, twenty-sixth, much of the twenty- seventh, incenty. ninth, thirty-third, and three others of the less important ones at the end. Those
TOL, I, BL K
CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS IN VoL. I»
marked in Italics are more particularly to be noticed. The Psalms rejected are, the 14th5 Slst, 52d, 53d, 54th, 58th, 60th, 64Mi, 72d, 74th, 78th— 83d, 87th, 88th, 94th, 101st, 105tb, 106th, lOSth—llOth, 120th, 122d, 129th, 132d, 134th5 136th, 137th, 140th, 149th. The general character of the rejected Articles and Psalms will pretty clearly establish what has been allowed throughout Number XII. as to the na- ture of the opinions, which Mr. Wesley and his followers maintain, or at least of the doctrines which they reject.
The pamphlet published by Mr. Hare, in refutation of the charges against the Methodists contained in the former edition of this work, (a pamphlet which reflects credit upon its author for the ingenuity more than for the fairness with which he treats his subject,) reached my hands too late for a revision of its arguments at the time when I was preparing the above Number for the press. The new matter, however, which had been intro- duced into that Number, joined to the list now given of the rejected Articles and Psalms, and assisted by the avowals of opinion made by Mr. Hare himself on the part of those whosa cause he espouses, may possibly be considered as superseding the necessity of a more specific reply. It is but fair to add, that certain inaccuracies, (that one especially of ascribing to Mr. Wesley what belonged to a letter of Mrs. E. Hutton.) I have corrected, although at the expense of cancelling two leaves : and I return Mr. Hare my thanks for enabling mfe to make the due corrections ; although they certainly have not been suggested in that pure spirit of Christian meekness, which belongs to the character of Christian perfection, so fa- miliarly claimed by him for his brethren of the Wesley con* nexion.
•s- ^^ •;>■
f^^^'f^n^^^-'^v^^^
f >i< ;-p ;i %^ ^ jr- V4^. y. i4
^•^ 4- ^ k5^ *4-
|
• »^ |
• ^ |
|
v|C' |
,> |
|
U' |
Sfe |
|
'^^ w |
|
|
u- |
1*- |
|
:>.• |
;> |
|
^f |
r^W. |
|
2^^ |
1?- |
|
;>' |
W- |
|
;4- |
i'f' |
|
i> |
v^ |
|
l^ |
A |
|
^k |
''f |
|
i> |
; *" |
|
i^ |
th |
' ^t :t -? ?f ?f *f f? >f ^r- .r>^ ^* ^». \*. Vi- Wii 4i ■ ■"' -■■■ ? ^ '^ r*' rf W' ** V* >r i«k j.^. ,«. i,j.. j.^, ^j, ci^ ^>. ^4 i i, si^
^t ^t^r tn t" tt ■'^ rn^ ?*■ '^ /?' 't ^'^ f^ ?^' ^^ jM* w u.^ >v ^».>
;.2.:>>f ^^.^i^H ^^.^ _ ^ ^__ ___.,^ ^ _,_^^ ,,
p-f^^^^^H
■\^.t>ivi^liM
'f r-.^i" i ^' ^f-'ir^ 5;^.t■^ ?^-^-t
:t |t4.-^ i> -^^ ^ .^ ,^.^^ ^ . V^.;
■>»*- ;.'>e. 5a- ^»k >i,. Xa.. ^ ki r-^.
triiK. >>-»;k •■.-a,.\^.
^|• 5'*^ k.^ ii- %k- ^M 1^ ^1
¥i^M-4i
¥:'M^H'^4vM-'^ii
■<;4i 4:? -^j:.- *\ • ^< • n • It 4*:; i; i>i ; - v
^•f ;4v-4t ^'^ "-^ "^^ -^'^ -^^ -f ^'^ ^-i t^ ^v ^ ^^< <-vi
»T5',-
<(, 4c |4 r? it-ij
4i^--^-4:i4N^ M-ii4f^4>i< i!
4iiv4^4<'^
Ir^Vi?'^"^ ^' *
4%-k-MM -4^1^^ its ■il-i'^ 'U M. i\- i^ i ^
4^ 44-4f •ti:(f #C'^t-t! *i^f t^( 4-i ^1 ^'; i^. ^'
^•^^'?^l^4^4
Hil^ U-'^yi'
*-■ % i¥ 5f- -f ^- 'ik' '{Y >f • if jf i*- j>- if U- ?• ■ > f V- >t h' v> -{V U- :*. i^. f f t* '■
k'^t ■>, V. 'M 'i^ % i>, i|i.. i^. U .. , *■-;#•.■;*, ;.4^ >■. it- ,!«> w
rV ,•«■..*
:>ft*-V
?'>■ ;.»■ }■*-■ ■ ^f ^i-i- li--
f ^- f i-;;:!' i if' ^^ .-i- If i;hi ^^I V %^ u^ lJ^. :^<r w
^ f H-> if j^ ^^ H^ ^-i^^^^ if d^^^^^-V- ^ ^if^^'^ ^^ A^' ;f f^^)s^' ^4- 1^ ?4-.W- ^*^- i^r Vp- 1^-
,\
ll