Imágenes de páginas



By night, by day, even to the perfect day, let us offer praise and thanksgiving, to the ineffable wisdom, to the "alone Father and Son, to the Son and the Father, to the "Son the instructor and teacher, and together also with them "to the Holy Ghost."[Clement of Alexandria, A.d. 194.]

"Christians, having then rejected the gods of Greece, still "worship that great man, who was crucified in Palestine,' &c.-[Lucian, (a heathen) A.D. 150.]

"On account of this, aud concerning all things, I praise "thee, and bless thee, and glorify thee, together with the "eternal and supercelestial Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son: "with whom, to thee, and to the Holy Ghost, be glory, both "now and for ever."-[Polycarp's prayer at Martyrdom. A.D. 147.]

"Him truly, inasmuch as he is the Son of God, we "adore," &c.-[Letter of Polycarp's flock, at Smyrna. A.D. 150.]


"WE are worshippers, not of insensible stones, but of the "only God, who is before all things, and above all things; and we are worshippers likewise of his Christ, truly God, "the Word, before all worlds."-[Melito of Sardis. A.D. 170.]

"In the person of God, the Son came into the garden, and "conversed with Adam."-[Theophilus of Antioch, ii. 22. A.D. 168.]

"WE do not speak foolishly, nor do we relate mere idle "tales, when we affirm, that God was born in the form of "man."-[Tatian. A.D. 165.]

[ocr errors]

"The Son of God is the Word of the Father in idea and energy. For by him and through him were all things "made, the Father and the Son being one."-[Athenagoras. Legat. pro Christ, ix. A.D. 174.]


"I glorify Jesus Christ, the God, who has thus endued you with wisdom."-[Ignatius, another disciple of St. John, who suffered martyrdom, A.D. 107.]



"After him (Carpocrates) arose the heretic Cerinthus, teaching similar doctrines. For he also said the world was made by them (Eons): he taught that Christ was born "of the seed of Joseph, affirming him to be a man only, with"out divinity, bringing in the law itself, given by angels: declaring the God of the Jews not to be the Lord, but an "angel. Ebion was his successor, not agreeing in all things "with Cerinthus, because he said the world was made by God "and not by angels; and because it is written the disciple is

[ocr errors]

"not above his master, nor the servant above his lord (Matt. "x. 24). He also proposed the law, to exclude the Gospel "and to establish Judaism."-Tertullian. De Præscript. Hæret. 48. A.D. 245.]


They who are called Ebionites, allow, indeed, that the "world was made by God: but those things which concern "the law they do not hold as do Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use only the gospel by Matthew, and they reject the apostle Paul, calling him an apostate from the law," &c.[Irenæus against Heresies, 1. vi. A.D. 203.]


[ocr errors]

The above quotations not only refute Mr. Rowntree and his authority, but shew what trust is due to Dr. Priestley, when he 66 says, ORIGINALLY CHRIST was NOT considered as a PROPER object of worship by Christians; and, consequently, NEITHER AS GOD, NOR as the Maker and Governor of the world under God."-(Works, vi. p. 30.)




There are a multiplicity of other "false statements," perversions of truth, and dishonourable prevarications, as to evidence from antiquity; to say nothing of his self-contradictions and self-refutations; in the works of Priestley, which here I cannot further allude to.

Should Mr. Rowntree demand the proof of my assertions, he shall have it, together with a disproof of Priestley's. Perhaps, he will be contented with what has already been done, and not think my expression "false statements," quite so unjust as he affected to believe, when my advertisement was published. That his "statements" were "false," has been sufficiently demonstrated, that he knew they were false, I should be sorry to assert or surmise: everything leads me to believe, that Mr. R. did not know it. Whether, however, ignorance be a recommendation to his congregation, is for them to consider, not me; if I have, in any way, prevented Mr. R.'s ignorant or conscious statement of historical and doctrinal fallacies, from deceiving those who have no means of ascertaining the grounds of that belief, which they receive on his assurances, I shall not consider the time I have spent in pointing out his erroneous views altogether misapplied. The value of souls is too precious to be sacrificed out of compliment to any one, whether learned or unlearned; and it is within the sphere of my duty, (seeing that Unitarianism has chalked up its opinions even in my pulpit,) to meet the challenge which has been thrown out.


No. 5.

Mr. Rowntree's notion of The Atonement.

Mr. R. tells us (Reply, p. 18), that "if, by the word atonement is meant, that Jesus Christ died to render God merciful, he does deny it." But, if it means "that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, (2 Cor. v. 19,) &c., the Unitarian rejects neither the atonement, nor the di vinity of Christ's mission!"

I must here point out three positions, all incorrect. 1st. We do not say that Christ died to render God merciful.God was already merciful, else he had not devised the means of man's redemption. 2nd, The text 2 Cor. v. 19, as employed by Unitarians, does not represent anything like the doctrine we call atonement, but its consequences. 3rd, The divinity of Christ's mission is not the point in dispute, (and it is most unfair to say so ;) it is the divinity of Christ's NATURE, which Mr. R. ought to have considered.

It is thus truth is smothered and kept out of sight by these mistatements of things; and it is such unworthy proceedings, which render argument with Unitarians so unwelcome. But I shall endeavour to clear away this delusion, in which Mr. R. wraps up the fact, by producing a few texts, which shew what Atonement is, and that though Mr. R. does deny it, the sacred writers affirmed it.

It will not be denied, I presume, that the sacrifices under the Jewish law were intended to be spiritually offered in typical allusion to the sacrifice of Christ. St. Paul, in the Ep. to the Hebrews, points out this fact, and shews, that "CHRIST WAS ONCE OFFERED TO BEAR THE SINS OF MANY"-(ix. 28)—and having "offered ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS, for ever sat down on the right hand of God," (x. 12) BY ONE OFFERING HAVING PERFECTED FOR EVER them that are sanctified" (v. 14). If, then, this sacrifice, or atonement, did not take place, in the sense of the sacrifices offered by the Jews, the Jewish sacrifices were a


vain and useless service; for St. Paul himself says," it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (Heb. x. 4).

Christ's sacrifice, therefore, was an atonement for sins-not what the reviewer of Ketley calls an "At-one-ment," but a propitiation for offences committed against God's law. It is true by this sacrifice God was reconciled to man; and, thus, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself," but such reconciliation could not have been, unless God's justice was satisfied, and so St. Paul tells us; "Whom God hath set forth to be a PROPITIATION through faith in his BLOOD, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins, that are past, through the forbearance of God-to declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness: THAT HE MIGHT BE JUST, and the JUSTIFIER of him which believeth in Jesus" (Rom. iii. 25, 26). Can any rational construction be put upon these words besides that which the Christian Church has put upon them, for 1800 years? Or will any one, pretending to reason, tell that when St. John says, us, "He is the PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS, and not for ours only, but FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD" (1 John ii, 2);—and St. Paul, "There is one Mediator, man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a RANSOM FOR all," (1 Tim. ii. 6,) "that he by the grace of God should taste death FOR every man" (Heb. ii. 9)-nothing more is meant, than that "God allowed for the wisest of purposes this public and painful act of obedience on the part of his son and servant" (Lecture, p. 6)—and that these strong expressions of the inspired writers are (if our interpretation be right,)" contradicted by every generous sentiment that rises in the human heart?" (p. 7.)

Let me ask Mr. R. what was the "WISEST OF PURPOSES, if not redeeming man from that death eternal, from which nothing less than a substitute in his place, to pay the penalties of his guilt, could deliver him?" Shall mortal man be more just than God?" (Job iv. 17.) Shall a man be condemned to death for robbing Mr. R. or myself of our dues, our paltry cash, and thus make atonement? And shall we rob God of HIS honour, break HIS laws with impunity, and set HIS authority at defiance? I tremble for Mr. R.

Again, what "generous sentiment that rises in the human breast," can compare with the "generous sentiment" which actuated Christ, when he laid aside his primeval glory, and emptied himself of his deity; when he was contented to put on humanity, with its sorrows and its cares, though not its

feebleness and frailties,' and finally to give himself a ransom FOR, or instead of, those who had defied and ridiculed and blasphemed his holy name? What says Scripture about this 66 generous sentiment ?" "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die : yet, peradventure, for a good man, some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love towards us, that WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS, Christ died FOR US. (Rom. v. 7, 8.). "Herein is LOVE, (not "a generous sentiment" merely,-but LOVE personified,) not that we loved God, but that GOD LOVED US, and sent his Son, to be the PROPITIATION FOR our sins." (1 John iv. 10.)

What becomes, then, of Mr. R.'s "generous sentiment?" What are we to say, of " his wisest of purposes ?"

But, in truth, the whole matter depends, however he may. think so, not upon what he conceives to be "a more delightful view of the divine character as given by the apostle in 2 Cor. v. 19," as he interprets the passage (see Lecture p. 7), but upon the language employed by the apostles; and as for the purpose of ascertaining the fact, we must go to the original Greek text, I hereby assert, without fear of any contradiction, that the expressions used by the apostles are such expressions as the Greek poets and historians employ, when they express what we mean in English by the words ransom; price paid to redeem another; instead of, &c. Take Пlasmos (used in 1 John iv. 10. &c.) and huper (Rom. v. 8; Heb. ii, 10, &c. &c.) and submit them to a classical scholar (who does not believe the gospel), and if he does not say, that the one means a propitiation or an expiation, and the other "instead of" "in the place of," I will be content to forfeit all claim to know what I am writing about. Let Mr. R. turn to Homer, Odyss. iii. 380, and he will find the verb, whence ilasmos is derived, used in the very sense in question; he may also see Il. i. 386 & 472. In the LXX, ilasmos is used to represent the Hebrew ashem a trespass-offering, hhethah a sin-offering, keperim atonements. I must beg Mr. R. to pardon me, if on so important a subject as my salvation, I prefer even Homer and the LXX, as to the meaning of Greek, to Mr. R. or his school of interpreters.

But I cannot help adding, that, to profess "not to reject the atonement," when he denies that word to mean "atonement," is beneath a critic who professes to honor truth. Does he think, that I am contending about nine letters of the English alphabet? Does he suppose, that I care a straw for the word Atonement, beyond the meaning it conveys? He

« AnteriorContinuar »