Obrazy na stronie

conciliation, (which has been already examined,) prevented him from admitting the term propitiation, or propitiatory 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 haye much biassed his judgment on this subject, considers Eimao xeo has to be correspondent to 30, and explains both by the words expiate, atone, propitiate," whatever the means were, he adds, by which this was to be done." Essay on Sacrifices, pp. 132. 135.

In Rom. iii. 25. sætnpsov * is translated in the same sense with waruos, a propitiation or propitiatory offering, dupa or tepelov being understood as its substantive; and although it be true, as Krebsius observes, that the Seventy always apply this term to the Mercy-Seat, or covering of the ark, yet strong arguments appear favour of the present translation. See Schleusner


* Ilasngior-subaudiendum videtur rightov aut Juuce, expiatorium sacrificium, quemadmodum eadem ellipsis frequentissima est apud Tes ó in voce owongsor, et in xagisngior apud Auctores. Hesychius exponit Kabagonoy eadem ellipsi, nisi substantive sumptum idem significare malis quod incopor propitiationem, ut Vulgatus vertit consentiente Beza. Ejus generis substantiva sunt δικαςηριον, θυσιαςηριον, φυλακτηριον, et similia ; adeoque Christus eodem modo vocabitur sasngton, quo inaouos 1 Joh. ii. 2. et iv. 10. Elsner. Obs. Sacr. tom, ii. pp. 20, 21.

on the word: also Josephus, as referred to by Krebsius and * Michaelis. Veysie, (Bampt. Lect. pp. 219, 220, 221,) has well enumerated its various significations.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

PAGE 29. 0-Isai. liii. 5-8. Mat. xx, 28. xxvi. 28. Mark x. 45.

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. 912. xiii. 8.--All which, and several other passages, speak of the death of Christ, in the same sacrificial terms, that had been applied to the sinofferings 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.

* Michaelis says (Translation by Marsh, vol. i. p. 187.) « Josephus, having previously observed that the blood of the martyrs had made atonement for their countrymen, and that they were ωσπερ αντιψυχον (victima substituta) της το εθνες αμαρτιας, continues as follows, και δια τε αιματος των ευσεβων εκείνων, και το ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΥ το θανατο αυτων η Sala

προνοια τον Ισραηλ διεσωσε.” On the use of the word ελατηριον amongst Jewish writers, and the strict propitiatory 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.Mi. chaelis ia p. 179, remarks, that “ in Rom. iii. 25. sasngiem has been taken by some in the sense of mercy-seat, but that Kypke has properly preferred the translation, PROPITIATORT SACRIFICE.” -Michaelis was surely no superficial nor bigoted expositor of holy writ.


Dr. Priestley indeed, although he professes (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 125.) to collect “ ALL 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 research, 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 abound 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 the authority of Scripture.- First, overlook a considerable majority, and particularly of the strongest texts, that go to support the doctrine you oppose : in the next place assert, that of the remainder, a large proportion belongs to a particular 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 resemblance 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, ile made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Against the first, he argues from the disagreement in the versions, which he observes



us to suspect some corruption in our present copies 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 longlived 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



« PoprzedniaDalej »