AN EXAMINATION OF THE THREE PRINCIPAL SCHEMES, WHICH HAVE BEEN DEVISED, FOR EXPLAINING AWAY THE LANGUAGE OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES, ON THE SUBJECT OF SACRIFICE AND REMISSION OF SINS.

1. The scheme, which first presents itself for consideration, may thus be stated: "The doctrine of atonement is a mere accommodation to Jewish prejudices. It was a necessary expedient, for reconciling the Jews to the loss of their rites of religious worship, and preparing them to fall in with the grand conception of the author of Christianity," of a pure, spiritual, and rational religion," adapted to the wants and circumstances of all mankind.'

This is a serious charge against the writers of the New Testament, who claim that they "teach the way of God in truth." Is it not in the highest degree dishonorable to their character? How far does it come short of those base designs, which "the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth" has impiously termed "pious frauds," and which she has pursued with the view of lauding "His Holiness," "the Vicar of God, and the successor of St. Peter"? But if the integrity of Christ and his apostles be not above suspicion, how can we pay any regard to them as teachers of truth? If their honesty consisted of such doubtful and plastic materials as to permit them, for the sake of securing the favor of the Jews, to give a wrong coloring to their doctrines, how can we hesitate to reject their instructions, any pretences to inspiration notwithstanding?

But let us appeal to facts. Facts are worth a thousand theories. Did Jesus and his apostles show such a tender regard to Jewish prejudices, as is here supposed? Were they so very solicitous to ingratiate themselves with the house of Israel? Look at their conduct, read their language, and form a conclusion for yourselves. Ост. 1829.

68

You hear Christ calling the Jews hypocrites and deceivers; accusing them of "shutting the kingdom of heaven against men," "neither entering in themselves, nor suffering those that were entering to go in ;" of "compassing sea and land to make proselytes," and "making them two-fold more the children of hell than themselves;" telling them that they were "like unto whited sepulchres," which, though beautiful outward, were "full of all uncleanness;" that they "omitted the weightier matters of the law;" that they made his Father's house "a den of thieves;" that they made long prayers to cover their hypocrisy and iniquity; that they were "serpents, a generation of vipers, that could not escape the damnation of hell." Is this accommodation to Jewish prejudices? What then would opposition to them be? In what language could it be set forth? If the above was time-serving policy, to make the Jews well-disposed toward Christianity, in what strains would he have spoken, had he meant to impugn them?

But perhaps the apostles were more accommodating than their Master. Let us hear them upon the point, then, before coming to a conclusion. And how often do we hear them upbraid the Jews for their unbelief, and charge them with denying the Holy One and the Just-killing the Prince of Life-and preferring a murderer to him? Did they not accuse them of crucifying the Lord of Glory, of putting from them eternal life, of always resisting the Holy Ghost, of being stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, of not keeping the law which was received by the disposition of angels, and of betraying and murdering him whom God had proved to be Lord of all? Did they not appeal directly to their consciences, when charging on them all this guilt, and ask whether it were right to hearken unto them, more than unto God?

In what respect, then, do we discover such compliance with Jewish notions as is supposed? On the contrary, did not their whole conduct show, that they "knew no man after the flesh;" that they were neither awed by threats, nor allured by favor, to adulterate the word of God; and that they sought not to please men, aware that if they did, they should not be the servants of Christ?

But, for the sake of testing the strength of this hypothesis, let us for a moment admit that our Saviour and his disciples were desir ous of ingratiating themselves with the Jews. What need was there of saying any thing on the subject of sacrifice and atonement? It will be answered, doubtless, that these things were so inwrought into all the notions of the Jews, that it would have been shocking to their prejudices to propose to them Christianity, without making a substitute for their sacrifices. But what necessity was there for Christ to say or do any thing to reconcile them to the loss of their ritual? Had he ever said any thing of abolishing their ritual? Look over the gospels, and tell us if he ever hinted such an idea, as that his death was to demolish the fabric which Moses had

erected? Was there any ground, then, on the hypothesis in question, for the Saviour to say, "the Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many;" and that his "blood was shed for the remission of sins"? Such declarations were not called for to reconcile the Jews to the abrogation of their sacrifices; for Christ had never adverted to this subject.

Besides, how happened the forerunner of Christ, John Baptist, to speak of him whom he would manifest to Israel, as "The Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world?" What principles of accommodation made way for this, when John had said nothing of the overthrow of Jewish sacrifices?

But supposing that the apostles, who did speak of the abrogation of the Mosaic ritual, had adopted the phraseology in question to reconcile the Jews to their loss; how shall we account for what they everywhere said to the Gentiles, that "God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation for the remission of sins;" that "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us;" that "He gave himself a ransom for all;" that "He made peace by the blood of his cross;" and that men are justified by his blood, and saved from wrath through Him?" These and the like sentiments run through all their epistles to the Gentile churches. But would the doctrines of rational religion be more readily received by Gentiles, for being tinctured with Jewish notions? Would the apostles have taken such pains, on every occasion, to show that men are pardoned and sanctified through the propitiation of Christ, and have formed their whole system of doctrines in conformity to this, for the very purpose of clogging their religion with Jewish absurdities? Would they have thus "interwoven these sentiments with all their practical instructions," merely on principles of accommodation, where there was no call for such a measure, but where common sense would have urged to an opposite course? Believe it who can.-But enough of this wild and romantic notion that the doctrine of the atonement had its origin in the accommodation of Christ and the apostles to Jewish prejudices.

2. The next scheme proposed for explaining away this great doctrine may be thus stated: "The apostles, being Jews, and "strongly tinctured with the notion of sacrifices, atonements, and purifications," could not explain and defend the pure doctrines of Jesus, without giving them a Jewish complexion. They could not but run into the phraseology, to which they had been accustomed from their youth; and, therefore, in construing their language concerning the death of Jesus and the remission of sins, the rational principles of exegesis require us to make allowances for their early opinions.'

In remarking upon this hypothesis, it should be observed, that it casts dishonor upon the Saviour in the choice of his apostles. If

he chose men that were unsuitable to propagate his religion, for what reason, can we suppose, did he make such a selection? It must have been from ignorance, or prejudice, or want of love to the truth, or indifference to the wants of mankind. But if Christ chose his apostles through ignorance, or error in judgement, he was not himself qualified for the great work which he undertook. Nor would prejudice have been a better qualification, in one who was sent to enlighten and save the world. And who will take it upon himself to say, that Christ had not a love to truth, or that he was indifferent whether men were rightly instructed or not? Would not this have been inconsistent with one of the objects for which he appeared on earth; which was to unfold the will of God, that men "might know the truth, and have life by believing on his name"? If then he felt the importance of truth, and wished to enlighten and regenerate the world, why did he not appoint to the office of inspired teachers those who were not tinctured with Jewish prejudices? It surely will not be said, by those who praise Socrates, and Cicero, and Cato, and a host of such men, and who tell of the excellent precepts of the Vedant system, and the wise sayings of Rammohun Roy, that there were none in the world who were suitable, and might have been put in requisition, to propagate the Gospel!

But is it true, in fact, that the apostles could not undergo such a change in sentiment and habits of thought, as would fit them to publish the pure doctrines of Jesus? While we admit that they "were slow of heart to believe;" that they had many prejudices to overcome; and that it was a work of difficulty to change their early associations and feelings; do we not actually see them giving up one thing after another, and coming at length to count all things as loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus their Lord? Was it not their aim to abandon the traditions of the fathers, and to follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth? Did they not take joyfully the spoiling of their goods, and even amidst the flames of martyrdom preach Jesus and the resurrection, and die in the hope of salvation by his blood?

These things will perhaps be granted, since they cannot be denied; and yet it will be said, 'They might not have conquered all their early impressions.' But if it be intended by this, that the apostles were not fully qualified to preach the Gospel, and that they did make mistakes in doctrine; then is the sentiment nothing short of infidelity. For Christ certainly promised the Holy Spirit to his apostles, to abide with them continually, not only "to bring all things to their remembrance," which he had taught them personally, but " to guide them into all the truth." And, surely, this implies that they should be kept from errors in point of doctrine. For those are not guided into all truth, who still are left to fall into errors. Besides, the apostles claimed that they were

inspired, and that what they taught was "not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth."

We are not then to doubt, that Jesus fulfilled the promise which he made to the apostles, "that he would guide them into all truth," and must therefore maintain, that they were prepared to preach the Gospel of salvation without giving it a wrong coloring. If, however, any will insist, that Christ did not fulfil his great promise; that he left his apostles to fall into mistakes; or that they did not give their instructions," in words which the Holy Ghost teacheth;" we must leave them, with other infidels, to be instructed from the light of nature. For those are not to be reasoned with from the Scriptures, who will not admit that the truths contained in them were spoken and written according to the inspiration by the Holy Ghost.

Leaving then this scheme for explaining away the atonement of Christ, and the doctrine of remission by his blood, since it cannot be maintained without running into infidelity, I proceed,

3. To consider the remaining system. This is an ingenious contrivance to blind the minds of people, and lead them to give up the doctrine, without shocking their prejudices. Orthodox phraseology is curiously wrought into it, Jesus is called "our Saviour," men are said to be "saved by the death of Jesus," and "all blessings are conferred through Jesus Christ our Saviour." But does it allow that "Jesus has become the author of eternal salvation?" No; but only that he is the channel of communication. Christ is not the author of those spiritual and everlasting blessings which are prepared for the friends of God, any more than an aqueduct is the author of the water that passes through it. The scheme in question is the following; Those strong expressions, which represent the death of Christ as our ransom for sin, our redemption, our peace with God, the propitiation for our sins, and others of a similar import, are figurative illustrations, meaning only that" Christ fell a sacrifice in the cause of human welfare and happiness, and that his tragical death, and exalted virtue, present such a powerful motive to repentance and reformation, as will lead to true piety, and procure the remission of sins."'

This system is preached under all the varieties of which it is. susceptible, and with all the Orthodox phraseology that can be wrought into it, for the sake of "beguiling unstable souls," and conveying the idea that there is very little difference between Orthodoxy and Unitarianism. But let us examine the merits of the scheme.

It is true, indeed, that there is a connexion between the death of Christ and our repentance and reformation. It affords an example of patience, of obedience, of virtue, which is suited to make a strong impression upon the heart, and to make mer believe that