NO. XXXVI.-ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD TRANSLATED PAGE 32. (m)-The meaning of the word 55, the original of the term atonement in the Old Testament, has been modelled, like that of other scripture phrases, so as to fall in with the theories of those, who are more anxious that scripture should speak their language, than that they should speak the language of scripture. The common artifice, by which the terms of revelation have been discharged of all appropriate meaning, has been here employed with considerable effect. By a comparison of the various passages, in which the term occurs, its most general signification is first explored; and in this generic sense it is afterwards explained, in all the particular cases of its application. The manner, in which Doctor Taylor has exercised this strange species of criticism on the word atonement, in his Scripture Doctrine, has been already noticed, p. 138 -141. One or two additional remarks will more fully explain the contrivance, by which this writer has been enabled to shape this expression to his purpose. Having laid it down as a principle, "that those passages in the Levitical law, in which atonement is said to be made for persons by sacrifice, supply not so many different instances of a known sense of the word, atonement; but are to be considered as exhibiting one single instance of a sense which is doubtful;" (Scrip. Doct. ch. iv. § 69.) he pronounces, (ch. v. § 70.) that "the texts, which are to be examined, are those, where the word is used extra-levitically, or with no relation to sacrifices; that we may be able to judge, what it imports when applied to them." And agreeably to these notions, he conducts his enquiry. Now, what is this, but to pronounce first ན upon the nature of the thing unknown, and then to engage in its investigation? The meaning of the term, in the several instances of its Levitical application, though as yet supposed unknown, is presumed to be the same in all: and this, notwithstanding that these cases of its application must be as. different as its objects; persons, and things; moral and ceremonial, disqualifications. any But not content with thus deciding on the uniformity of an unknown signification, he proceeds to discover the meaning of the term, in those passages which relate to sacrifice, by examining it in others, in which it has no such relation. The result of this singularly critical examination is, that from 37 texts, which treat of extra-levitical atonements, it may be inferred, "that the means of making atonement for sin in different cases, are widely different; being sometimes by the sole goodness of God, sometimes by the prayers of good men, sometimes by repentance, sometimes by disciplinary visitation, sometimes by signal acts of justice and virtue: and that mean, whereby sinners are reformed, and the judgments of God averted, is atoning, or making atonement for their sins;" (cap. 6. § 112.) What then follows respecting the Levitical atonement? Not, that the word, which when used extra-levitically is taken in various senses according to the natural efficacy of the different means employed, is to be applied in its Levitical designation in a sense yet different from these, agreeable to the difference of means introduced by the Levitical institutions. Quite the contrary. When specifically restricted to an appropriate purpose, it ceases to have any distinguishing character: and the term, whose signification when it had no relation to sacrifice, was diversified with the nature of the means and the circumstances of the occasion, is upon assuming this new relation pronounced incapable of any new and characteristic meaning. This argument furnishes a striking instance of that species of sophism; which, from a partial, concludes a total agreement. Having discovered, by a review of those passages, which treat of extra-levitical atonements, that these and the sacrifices which were offered for sin, agreed in their effect; namely, in procuring the pardon of sin, or the removal of those calamities which had been inflicted as the punishment of it: the writer at once pronounces the extra-levitical and the sacrificial atonements to have been of the same nature throughout, without regarding the utter dissimilarity of the means employed; and without considering, that the very question as to the nature of the atonement, is a question involving the means through which it was effected. But, whilst Doctor Taylor has thus endeavoured to overturn the generally received notion of atonement, by an examination of such passages, as treat of those atonements which were not sacrificial: Doctor Priestley professes to have carefully reviewed all those instances of atonement, which were sacrificial; and from this review to have deduced the inference, that the sacrificial atonement merely implies, "the making of any thing clean or holy, so as to be fit to be used in the service of God; or, when applied to a person, fit to come into the presence of God: God being considered, as in a peculiar manner, the king and the sovereign of the Israelitish nation, and as it were keeping a court amongst them." (Hist. of Cor. vol. i. p. 193.) Doctor Priestley, by this representation of the matter, endeavours to remove from view, whatever might lead the mind to the idea of propitiating the Deity; and by taking care to place the condition of persons and things on the same ground, utterly discards the notion of of fence and reconciliation. But in order to effect this, he has been obliged wholly to overlook the force of the original word, which is translated atonement; as well as of that, which the LXX have used as its equivalent. The term 5, in its primary sense, signifies to smear, or cover with pitch, as appears from Gen. vi. 14: and from this covering with pitch, it has been metaphorically transferred to things of a different nature; insomuch that, in all the 37 instances of extra-levitical atonement adduced by Doctor Taylor, he asserts, that the word 5 retains something of this original sense (Scrip. Doctrine, ch. vi. § 115.:) and agreeably to this, he pronounces "atonement for sin to be the covering of sin." This position seems fully confirmed by Nehem. iv. 45. Psal. xxxii. 1. lxxxv. 2. and other passages in Scripture; in which the pardon of sin is expressed by its being covered, and the punishment of it by its not being covered. And Schindler, in his Lexicon Pentaglotton, having in like manner fixed the general signification of the word to be texit, operuit, modifies this generic signification, according to the change of subject, thus:-de facie, seu irà, placavit, reconciliavit; de peccato, remisit, condonavit, expiavit; de sordibus, expurgavit; de aliis, abstulit, removit. Agreeably to this explanation of the word, in which Hebrew critics almost universally concur, the LXX render it by eğiλaoxouau, to appease, or make propitious, and the ancient Latin by exorare, and sometimes deprecari: (see Sabatier's Vet. Ital.) the concealing, and removing from view, whatever is offensive and displeasing to a person being necessary to reconcile him and render him propitious. And, indeed, in a sense agreeable to this, that of bringing into a state of concord and reconciliation, the word atonement itself had been originally used by our old English writers; with whom, according to Junius, Skinner, and Johnson, it was written at-one-ment, signifying to be at one, or to come to an agreement : and in this very sense we find it used by our own translators, in Levit. xvi. 16. 20, where speaking of the act, whereby the High Priest was directed to make atonement for the holy place, they immediately after call it reconciling the holy place. But, Dr. Priestley has not only neglected the original and strict signification of the term implying sacrificial atonement, and imposed upon it a sense which at best is but secondary and remote, but he has also decided on a partial and hasty view of the subject, even as confined to the English translation: for surely, although it be in every case of atonement evidently implied, that the thing or person atoned for was thereby cleansed, and so rendered fit for the service of God; it must likewise be admitted, that by this they were rendered pleasing to God, having been before in a state impure and unfit for his service, and being now rendered objects of his approbation and acceptance as fit instruments of his worship. The fallacy of Doctor Priestley's interpretation consists in this, that he assumes that to be the sole end of the atonement, which although, an undoubted consequence from it, was inseparably connected with, and subservient to, another and more important effect: the atonement indeed purifying, so as to qualify for the service and worship of God; but this purification consisting in the removal of that, which unfitted and disqualified for such sacred purposes; bringing what before was undeserving the divine regard into a state of agreement with the divine purity, and rendering it the object of the divine approbation. To make atonement then to God, was to remove what was offensive; and thus by conciliating the divine favour, to sanctify for the divine service. VOL. I. 34 |