were exposed to the stroke of vengeance, as those wandering creatures to the ravenous beast; the good Shepherd interposed, and the just God made that ven. geance to fall upon him, which must otherwise have been executed upon us. He suffered, says another inspired writer, the just for the unjust, that, by expiating our guilt, he might bring us to God-now, to his gracious favour-hereafter, to his blissful presence. You will permit me to add a passage from our common favourite Milton, because it is no less beautiful in itself than it is pertinent to the occasion; must please the critic, and may expound the apostle. Messiah, pleading in behalf of fallen man, thus addresses his Almighty Father: tempt of a learned writer to interpret away the force and spirit of this text. He says, the word we translate hath laid is the same that we render meet, Exod. xxii. 4. If thou meet thine enemy's ox or ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring them back to him again; and the meaning is, by him the Lord hath caused to meet, and stop the iniquities of us all, wherein we have wandered from him." To this I might object, that, though the verb is the same, the construction is by no means parallel. The prefix occurs in one case, is omitted in the other. I might farther inquire, whether the language be conformable to the laws of grammar, and such as sufficiently expresses, what I suppose is intended, the Lord caused our iniquities to be met, and to be stopped." But these particulars I waive, and shall only examine whether the sense is suitable to Scripture. According to this gentleman's idea, the prophet's doctrine is as follows: Our sins were running away like a stray sheep, or like a wandering ox. But they were met by Christ, who graciously turned them back, and restored them to their rightful owner. To avoid this glaring impropriety, our Author has added a kind of salvo: to turn us back to himself, who is the Shepherd of souls.' But this is to depart from the prophet's subject, who is speaking not of us, but of our iniquities. This is to depart from the tenor of his own explication; if he adheres to the clue which he borrows from the book of Exodus, what I have represented, is the unavoidable consequence. See! to what wretched shifts, dishonourable to the word of God, and even to the art of criticism, they must have recourse! Who refuse to acknowledge the real substitution of Christ in our stead, and the proper atonement made by his death. How much more like a true critic, and like a true Christian has Vitringa explained the passage! Cum nos instar ovium dispersarum essemus in erroribus, et pœna criminum nostrorum, instar lupi aut bestia voracis nos persequeretur ad exitium: intervenit servus Jehova justus, qui illam pœnam in se suscepit; in quem irruit ad necem usque; quique adeo medius inter pœnam et nos, eandem pœnam tulit, et nos ab exitio vindicavit. 1 Pet. ill. 18. Man, dead in sins and lost, Well pleas'd; on me let death wreak all his rage. Ther. The fine imagination of a poet will hardly pass for a decisive argument. When we are searching after truth, we must attend to the dictates of reason, not follow the vagaries of fancy. And reason, Aspasio, remonstrates against your notion of a vicarious sacrifice. Reason! that primary guide, and final test, both in discovering and determining the sense of Scripture. Asp. Suppose you then, my dear Theron, that none are in possession of reason, but the pupils of Socinus, and the zealots for deism? Or, that none make use of reason in their religious inquiries, but men of this mould? Wrong not Christian, think not reason yours; Poets, you see, are far from disclaiming reason, equally far is Christianity from discarding the sober, the sanctified use of this noble faculty. When reason is under the influence and direction of the divine Spirit, we have the same high opinion of her excellence as yourself; and, when thus regulated, we have, I am persuaded, the sanction of her authority for all our sentiments. Reason, as she operated in the sages of the heathen world, instead of rejecting, approved and adopted this very scheme. Approved it, even under the disadvan tage of a mutilated and defective, or rather of a perverted and dead form. The current language of the classic authors, and almost every historian of Greece and Rome are vouchers for the truth of this observation. As the Gentiles were unanimous in the custom of offering sacrifices, and equally unanimous in sup Milton, book iii. 233. Night Thoughts, N. iv. See the note in Dialogue iii. page 60. posing their vicarious nature, so also are the Jewish writers. Ther. What man of sense pays any regard to the Jewish writers? Legendary they are, and extravagant to the last degree. Dotards I might call them rather than writers. Asp. They are, I believe, extravagant enough in their comments upon Scripture. But they relate, with sufficient exactness and fidelity, the prevailing belief of their nation. In this case, their testimony is as unexceptionable as in the other, their notions are chimerical. Now, had it been a mistaken belief, surely our blessed Lord, that infallible Judge, and impartial Reprover, would have testified his disapprobation of it. Surely his disciples, who were actuated by the unerring and undaunted Spirit of their Master would have entered their protest against it. Surely St. Paul, in his epistle to that very people, and in his treatise on that very subject, would have set himself to rectify such an error; and have weeded out the targbefore he sowed the good seed. But there is not the least hint of this kind in all the discourses of our Saviour, or in all the writings of his apostles. They speak to a people who are accustomed to look upon their sacrifices as piacular oblations, and a typical expiation of guilt. They speak of our Redeemer's crucifixion and the benefits of his death in the sacrificial terms, that were of current use and established signification. If therefore the popular opinion was improper, their manner of expression and address must be calculated rather to authenticate error, than to propagate truth: So that I think, even the silence of the inspired penman on this occasion, is but little inferior to a loud attestation. Did they only say nothing against the doctrine of satisfaction by sacrifice, it would in effect and circumstances considered, be saying abundance for it. But they are very copious and explicit upon the point. Ther. Where are they so copious? if you have such a heap of their allegations, it will be easy to pick out a few, and give us a specimen. This I think is incontestably proved by Outram, in his treatiso De Sacrificiis. Asp. It is as easy, Theron, as it is delightful. Messial shall be cut off,' says the prophet Daniel, 'but not for himself." For whom then, and for what? Isaiah informs us concerning both: For the transgression of of my people was he striken.'t Because this is an article of the last importance, it is repeated, it is confirmed, it is explained with the most remarkable particularity: He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are. healed. Our Lord himself asserts the same truth in the very same style: I am the good shepherd, and lay down my life for the sheep.'s St. Paul, in a multitude of passages, sets his seal to this momentous doctrine, St. Peter maintains it in very forcible words: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." The sacred writers not only assert this capital article, but use every diversity of speech, in order to give it the fullest evidence, and the strongest establishment. 'He made reconciliation for the sins of his people.' 'Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for our sins." He loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.' He was made sin for us, though he knew no sin.' Ther. No body makes any objection to these texts. But the sense, the true sense of such phrases, is the thing in question. Asp. What you call the question, to me appears so plain, as not to want a decision, or admit of a doubt. However, since you seem to demand a critical scrutiny, it will not be thought pedantic if I make an observation or two upon the original languages: or rather, as you are not acquainted with the Hebrew, on that language, of which you yourself are a judge and a master. The prepo 'If one died for all, then were all dead.' Dan. ix. 26. + Isa. liii. 8. Isa. liii. 5. John x. 15, 1 Pet. ii. 24. Very forcible words indeed.-Ogαυτός αμαρτίας ημών εν τω βώματι αυτού he bare -himself bare-our sins-in his own body.' Intended, one would imagine, to make the article of our Lord's vicarious sufferings, clear beyond all misapprehension, and sure beyond all doubt. ** 1 John ii. 2. # 2 Cor. v. 21. Heb. ii. 17. + Rev. i. 5. sition rep, in this connexion, must necessarily sig nify more than, on our account, or for our advantage. Because, if it be taken in this unsettled rambling sense, the apostle's argument is vague and inconclusive. In case our Lord had suffered, only to free us from some evil, and procure us some benefit; this would by no means imply, that 'all were dead;' under the sentence of condemnation; obnoxious and doomed to death. The utmost you can infer from such premises, is, that all stood in need of a delivrance from some evil, or wanted the procurement of some good. Whereas, supose the sacred writer to intend, that our Lord's death was truly vicarious and undergone in our stead; that he suffered what was our due and our doom; then the reasoning is just, and the inference undeniable. 'He gave himself avriλUTpov uwep,t a ransom for all." If this does not imply the notion of vicarious, I very much question whether language itself can express it. AUTρov, is a ransom, which conveys a vicarious sense in its most common and authorized acceptation. AvT, which is equivalent to instead,t still more ascertains and strengthens the idea. Yep, which is translated for, and denotes a substitution of one in the place of another; this added to all, renders the expression as de *2 Cor. v. 14. +1 Tim. ii. 6. AVT, Matt. ii. 22. By this word the Septuagint translate the Hebrew Ann. And that Ann denotes the substitution of one instead of another, no student of the sacred language will venture to deny. See Gen. xxii. 13. 2 Sam. xviii. 33. 2 Kings x. 24. ή Δεομεθα υπερ Χριστου, 6 we beseech you in Christ's that in stead,' 2 Cor. v. 20. Iva væеp Bov diaкоvη μoι, thy stead he might have ministered unto me,' Philem. ver. 13. As I was considering the force of this argument, a certain sourlooking gloomy mortal came in my way; and desired I would introduce him to Theron and Aspasio, as an evidence for fixing the signification of the preposition rep, when relative to the death of Christ. I must confess, I did not like either his character or his aspect; and cannot certainly tell, whether any person has made use of him on this occasion. But St. John stood by, and said; Introduce him. He prophesies in this instance. Perhaps the reader is at a loss to guess whom I mean. To keep him no longer in suspense, I meau Caiaphas the highpriest. He bears the following testimony: It is expedient for us, that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. Now, as to perish signifies, not only to die, but to die |