for, or the Greek words avi, vnep, dia, eρi, 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 unchanged. Thus it might be perfectly proper to say, that Christ suffered instead of us, although it would be absurd to say, that he suffered instead of our offences. It is sufficient, if the different applications of the word carry a consistent 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 accordingly, the same difficulty will be found to attach to the exposition proposed by these writers: since the word for, interpreted on account of, i. e. for the benefit of, cannot be applied in the same sense in all the texts. For, although dying for our benefit is perfectly intelligible, dying for the benefit of our offences is no less absurd 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 substitution in all these passages, and that therefore it is not sufficient to lay a ground for the doctrine, which implies that substitution. But that, on the other hand, it is evident that it does not imply it in any, can by no means be contended: the word vaep, being admitted to have that force frequently in its common application; as may be seen in Plato Conviv. p. 1197, and again 1178, where aлоonσxew vлeρ, is manifestly used for dying in stead, or place of another. That the Greeks were accustomed by this expression to imply a vicarious death, Raphelius on Rom. v. 3. directly asserts; and produces several indisputable instances from Xenophon, in which rep and arti - CHRIST DIED FOR US. have the force of substitution.* In like manner, 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 several passages, in which Christ is said to have died for us, * Raphelius's observations upon this subject are so valuable, that I apprehend his entire note will be acceptable to the critical reader." Rom. v. 8. Tлg nuav azdan-id est art, loco, vice liberaremur. Vicariam nostra mortuus est, ut nos mortis pœna enim mortem hoc loquendi genere Græci declarant. Neque Socinianis, qui secus interpretantur, quenquam ex Græcis credo assensorem esse. Nostræ sententiæ Xenophon adstipulatur. Nam cum Seuthes puerum formosum bello captum occidere vellet, Episthenes autem, puerorum amator, se pro illius morte deprecatorem præberet, rogat Seuthes Episthenem: H x x αν, ω Επισθενες, ΥΠΕΡ ΤΟΥΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΘΑΝΕΙΝ; Vellesne, mi Episthenes, PRO HOC MORI? Cumque is nihil dubitaret pro pueri vita cervicem præbere, Seuthes vicissim puerum interrogat, u miru autoy ANTI ; num hunc feriri PRO SE vellet? De Exped. Cyri, &c.— Et Hist. Græc. &c. Προωπων δε ο Αγεσίλαος, οςις παρέχοιτο ιππον και όπλα και άνδρα δοκιμον, οτι εξεςι αυτώ μη ςρατεύεσθαι, εποίησεν έτω ταυτα συντομως πραττεσ θαι, ώσπερ αν τις των ΥΠΕΡ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΘΑΝΟΥΜΕΝΟΝ προθύμως ζητοιη. Quumque Agesilaus denunciasset fore, ut, quicunque daret equum el arma et peritum hominem, immunis esset a militia: effecit, ut hæc non aliter magna celeritate facerent, atque si quis alacriter aliquem suo Loco moriturum quæreret. De Venat. pag. 768. Αντίλοχος το πατρος ΥΠΕΡ ΑΠΟΘΑΝΩΝ, τισαυτης ετυχεν ευκλείας, ως μόνος φιλοπάτωρ παρά τοις Έλλησιν αναγορευθήναι. Antilochus PRO PATRE morti sese objiciens, tantum gloriæ consecutus est, ut solus apud Græcos amans patris appelletur.-Et quid opus est aliis exemplis ? cum luculentissimum sit, Joh. xi. 50, ubi mortuus dicitur Salvator υπες το λαό. Quod quale sit, mox exponitur, ινα μη όλον το εθνος απόληται. Raphelii Annot. tom. ii. pp. 253, 254. How forcibly the word g is felt to imply substitution, is indirectly admitted in the strongest manner even by Unitarians themselves: the satisfaction manifested by Commentators of that description, whenever they can escape from the emphatical bearing of this preposition, is strikingly evinced in their late Version of the New Testament. See their observations on Gal. i. 4. 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 undergone. NO. XXXI-ON THE PRETENCE OF FIGURATIVE ALLUSION IN THE SACRIFICIAL TERMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. PAGE 30. (g)-On the whole of this pretence of figurative applications, 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 figuratively 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 imagination conceives them as partakers of one common 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 described, that is, applied only by way of allusion, is erroneous; since there is also a species of language, usually called analogical, which though not strictly proper, is far from being merely figurative: the terms being transferred from one thing to another, not because the things are similar, but because they are in similar relations. And the term thus transferred, he contends, is as truly significant of the real nature of the thing in the relation 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 dispensation was really intended to be preparatory to the other, the parallelism of their parts, or their several analogies, must have been such, as necessarily 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-offering. This, says he, is not as the Socinian hypothesis asserts, figuratively, 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:" (or perhaps it might be more correctly expressed, 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 language of the New Testament does not contain mere figurative allusions to the Jewish sacrifices, 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 apprehend, be found to convey a complete answer, to all that has been said upon this subject, concerning figure, allusion, &c. VOL. I. 27 Indeed some distinction of this nature is absolutely necessary. For under the pretence of figure, 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 be said to have died in our stead, and to have borne our sins: and that figurative language, even stronger than this, may be 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 acquiesce, not doubting but that, though not perhaps at present, we shall in time be able, without any effort or straining, to explain all particular expressions in the apostolical epistles, &c." (Hist. of Cor. vol. i. p. 279)-Here 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 in some 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. |