Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

NO. XX. ON THE SCRIPTURE PHRASE OF OUR BEING RE

CONCILED TO GOD.

PAGE 25. (v)-See Theol. Repos. vol. i. pp. 177, 178, in which several texts are adduced, to establish the proposition laid down in the text here referred to. It is likewise attempted to maintain it on the general ground of the divine immutability: in virtue of which, it is asserted, the sufferings of Christ can produce no change in God: and that in man, consequently, the change is to be brought about. God is therefore not to be reconciled to men, but men to God. H. Taylor also (Ben. Mord. Apol. 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, similar 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, in his Scrip. Doctr. of Redemp. (pp. 56. 426.) and in his Comm. on Hebr.-"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 man 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 original word, which implies reconciliation. Hammond, and after him, Le Clerc (on Matt. v. 24.) remark, that the words καταλλατίεσθαι and διαλλατίεσθαι have a pecu

liar sense in the New Testament: that, whereas in ordinary Greek Authors they signify to be pacified, and so reconciled, here on the other hand, in the force of the reciprocal Hithpahel among the Hebrews, is implied to reconcile one's self to another, 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 διαλλαγηθι τω αδέλφω must necessarily signify, take care that thy Brother be reconciled to thee, since that which goes before, is not, that he hath done thee injury, but thou him: and this they derive from the force of the Hebrew word transferred to the Greek verb, in the use of it by Jewish writers. In this sense of the words καταλλατίεσθαι and dia22areola, as applied in the New Testament, all the Commentators concur. See Rosenmuller and Wall on 2 Cor. v. 20. and Whitby on the words, wherever they occur. Schleusner, in his excellent Lexicon, confirms by several instances, the explication of the terms here contended for: and Palairet, in his Observ. Philolog. in Nov. Test. Mat. v. 24. maintains, that this use of the terms is not confined to the Jewish writers, transferring the force of the verb to the Greek expression, but is frequent among writers purely Greek: he instances Theano

*

*The application of the word dana 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 the anger of Saul. Εν τινι ΔΙΑΛΛΑΓΗΣΕΤΑΙ τω Κυρίω αυτού ; Wherewith shall he RECONCILE HIMSELF to his master? according to our common version. Not surely, how shall he remove 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 prove decisive.

in Opusc. Mytholog. and Appian. Alexandr. de Bell. Civil. and explains it as an elliptical form, the words as yapı 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 reconciled 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 context did not correct their error, clearly determining the sense, not only in Mat. v. 24. where it is perfectly obvious and unequivocal, as is shewn in p. 26; but also in 2 Cor. v. 19, in which 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 with respect to God; Rom. v. 10, and xi. 15. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 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 application 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 passage altogether, and notices the latter alone, asserting that this is the only one, in which the word is used, not in relation to the reconciliation of the world 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 refinement whatever: but that the application in 1 Corinthians, (not indeed in our translation, which is not sufficiently explicit, but examined in the original,) will appear as little friendly to his exposition, Hammond and Le Clerc have abundantly evinced by their 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. (w)-It is well remarked in the Theological Repository, by a writer under the signature Verus, that the laying aside our enmity to God must be a necessary qualification for, though without constituting the formal nature of, 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 deduction.

NO. XXII. ON THE PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE, THAT THE SINNER IS THE OBJECT OF THE DIVINE DISPLEASURE.

PAGE 27. (x)-Heb. x. 26, 27. For if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more SACRIFICE FOR SINS; but a certain FEARFUL LOOKING FOR OF JUDGMENT

This writer I find to have been the Rev. 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.

AND FIERY INDIGNATION, which shall devour the adversaries: and again, For we know him that hath said, vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, 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 now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through himfor 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 disobedience 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 similar language, were a tedious task. Nor indeed was the voice of Revelation wanted to inform men, that the Sinner is the object of God's displeasure. Reason has at all times loudly proclaimed this truth : and in that predominating terror, that Δεισιδαιμονία, which, as shewn in Number V. has 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 worthy 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

« ZurückWeiter »