FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

NEW SERIES.

VOL. V.	B E T H A N Y,   V A.   AUGUST, 1841.	NO. VIII.

      You yet complain of my irrelevance to the point in discussion. In this I stand not alone; for of all, with whom you have publicly discussed any theological question, I find similar complaints. I have imputed it to the superiority of your logical acumen, with which few can compete. All who know me, know that I am a plain matter-of-fact man, and always endeavor to communicate in the plainest style. You must bear with me a little longer, and then I hope we shall close our friendly discussion, and labor more abundantly in reforming the hearts and lives of our readers.

      On page 247, in your first letter, you made a number of assertions, to which I objected, as speculations; (a word you did not like,) as that the death of Christ is interwoven with all the designs of the universe--that Christ crucified is the most transcendent mystery in the moral dominions of God--that it is the mainspring of all heavenly impulses--that it is itself the consummation of all wisdom and prudence. From my remarks on these speculations, page 113, you are brought to doubt their propriety; and yet endeavor to establish them by scripture; as, "great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh. All things were created by him, and for him, and he is before all things, and by him all things consist--in him dwells all the fulness of the godhead bodily--in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited--he upholds all things by the word of his power--God will gather all things together in him, both in heaven and in earth--he is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last." My dear sir, what have these texts to do with your assertions? I can see no coincidence, and verily think, that any other texts would have answered as well. Let any unprejudiced mind examine the texts with their context, and will he find any proof of your assertions?

      On page 118 you say, "In your second review you recur to your peculiar and favorite acceptation of the active transitive word kaphar, to cover with blood or water, and metonymically to cleanse." My peculiar acceptation! Where or when have I accepted this definition of the word? It is not my acceptation, and very far from being a favorite one with me. I have shown that its literal and scriptural definition is to cleanse, when connected with sacrifice for sin. Had I accepted this peculiar definition, I should have contradicted Paul; for I have proved that he defined this very word kaphar, by the Greek word katharizo, to purge or cleanse: never to cover. Heb. ix. 22. "Almost all things by the law are purged with blood." This same word katharizo, and on the same text, your favorite Parkhurst defines to cleanse, or purify. This same word, and on the same text, your version has it, to cleanse. Then Paul, Parkhurst, and yourself agree with me that kaphar is an active transitive verb, and literally (not metonymically) to cleanse. Our translators, as I have proved, have given the same translation of the word very frequently, and the Septuagint commonly. But our translators have not once translated the verb kaphar by to cover. Is it my peculiar and favorite acceptation of [369] kaphar, to cover with blood or water? It is not; for the word is frequently used and so translated, to purge or cleanse, and this, too, without either blood or water. See Exod. xxx. 15, 16, and xxxii. 30. Num. xvi. 46, 47, and xxxi. 50, &c.

      On page 119, you are surprized at my interpretation of the words kaphar, and nasa. With respect to kaphar, when connected with sacrifice, I interpret it to cleanse or purge, and have the highest authority on earth for it, as just shown above. Surely this should not surprize my brother, especially when to his own written authority I have appealed. This acceptation of the word I proved beyond fair debate in my second number. After you had read it, you expressed no surprize; but said, "I see in all you have said little or nothing from which to dissent." p. 297. Here was approbation.

      Your surprize must arise from my applying the word to men and things defiled ONLY, and not to the undefiled and holy God; nor to his holy law. This you plainly see is a death-blow to your system, and now you are surprized at my acceptation of the word kaphar, for if we admit that it, when connected with sacrifice, signifies to cleanse or purge, as the New Testament writers do, then it cannot apply to God, to cleanse or purify him. And yet! you do apply it to him; for you say, "We sometimes speak of vindicating and justifying God; and might, in the same latitude, speak of cleansing and sanctifying him." Yes, my brother, we can, and do, vindicate and justify God from all the hard speeches of ungodly sinners against him. We do the same for our innocent friends when calumniated by their enemies. But is this a justification from crimes they have done, or because they are defiled by sin? No. But can we, in the same latitude, say we have cleansed and sanctified them, when they were innocent and undefiled? But you say, indeed the scriptures speak of justifying and sanctifying God, and use these terms as active transitive verbs--as, that thou mayest be justified when thou judgest--sanctify the Lord God in your hearts. Was this a justification of God from guilt? Was this a sanctification or cleansing of God from defilement? No. How, then, can these expressions apply to him in the same latitude as they do to the guilty and defiled sinner? But we are speaking of the active verb kaphar. Is this word used in those texts adduced by you? This is the point.

      The definition of sanctification is, either to make holy, or to set apart for a holy use. To sanctify the Lord cannot mean the first; for he cannot be made more holy, more pure; it must and does mean the second; that we must sanctify him, or set him apart in our hearts, as the only proper object of our religious service, love, and worship. When Jesus said, "I sanctify myself," he doubtless meant, I set apart myself to finish the work I came to do. Indeed, my brother, if we are in error, such proof from a man of such acknowledged learning, knowledge, and goodness, is calculated to confirm us in that error.

      On page 119 you say, "But what say the Lexicons and Concordances on this word kaphar? Do they sustain you? They show, that to cover is the original and radical sense of this common verb; that the covering of the ark is called kaphoreth, a derivative from kaphar. The Arabic shows its ancient and common acceptation by the verb kafara, to hide or conceal; so does [do] the Syriac and Chaldea, as our best [370] Lexicons demonstrate." My dear sir, my authority for my definition of kaphar, to cleanse or purge, is paramount to all the Lexicons and Concordances on earth--it is revelation itself to which we must all succumb. I have just touched at this subject above, but will be a little more particular in order to set this matter forever at rest, that the verb kaphar, connected with sacrifice, signifies to cleanse, to purge, and not once in the Bible is it rendered to cover. This I shall first prove from the scriptures.

      1. Heb. ix. 29. "Almost all things by the law are purged with blood"--as, the tabernacle--the altar--the woman after child-birth--the leper--the man with a running issue--and every pardonable transgressor. In all these cases the word kaphar is used, and translated to make an atonement. Now the inspired New Testament writers mention these same cases, and universally render kaphar by the Greek word katharizo, and its cognate katharismos, the primary and only meaning of which is, to cleanse or purify; but never, in any case, to cover. No Grecian will deny this. In this all the Lexicons sustain me. This would appear to be sufficient authority; but I add--

      2. That the word kaphar signifies to cleanse or purge, I argue from the translation of king James' translators. See No. 2, pp. 291, 292. Here have I proved that the translators rendered kaphar to cleanse; but in no case have they rendered the word to cover, either literally or metonymically.

      3. The Septuagint by all is acknowledged good authority. They, as before proved, commonly, if not universally, translate kaphar, when connected with sacrifice by exilaskesthai; which all Greek scholars know never signifies to cover; and which word I have proved signifies to cleanse and purify; and you yourself render it to expiate.

      You complain of my mariner of quoting your words, and to my use of dictionaries and translations. I am not convicted yet of any error in these things; not even by what you have preferred as a wrong quotation of mine. I had said that the Greek word hilasmos signified purification, and said, With this my brother accords page 296, where he says, "Propitiation or purification is also an effect of atonement." You deny that this is a fair and veritable construction of language: I contend it is, and appeal to all good grammarians. You proceed--"Then may I say in reply, its scriptural meaning is pitch; and with this brother Stone accords: for he knows, and will admit, that it is so found in Genesis vi. 14!" I admit that kaphar, not hilasmos, is thus rendered in this one text; and will farther grant, that if I were to render the noun wherever it occurs by pitch, the reading would be ridiculous. I admit also with you, that the word may signify to cover metonymically, though not once in the Bible so translated. What says Paul? What say the New Testament writers? What say the Septuagint? What say King James' translators? I have proved that they all translate the word kaphar by a word which no where signifies to cover. All your references to the word, as meaning to cover, and all Parkhurst has made, have no relation to the subject of our discussion; because no one of them is connected with sacrifice; and in fact not one of them is translated to cover. As you say your Hebrew Bible and Lexicon are before you, please examine them, and conviction of the truth of my assertion will be the result.

      You wish and pray me to quit languages as old as the flood. Why? [371] Because the generality of our readers do not understand me. Of this I have heard no complaint. Ought we not to endeavor to inform their ignorance, and not suffer them to die in it? But you add, I put it to your good sense, if we had not better keep to the English and common sense. Did brother Campbell think of this when he gave the world a new version of the New Testament, with many critical notes on the original language? And will he blame me for giving a new version of but a few words from the Hebrew and Greek, and confirming that version by indisputable authority from the inspired Apostles and Prophets? I claim equal privilege with himself. I know my version stands much in the way of orthodoxy; but this is not my fault.

      On page 119 you say, "After reprobating my making the atonement the cause (of purification, reconciliation, and propitiation,) and purification, reconciliation, propitiation, &c. the effect of it, you come to the same conclusion yourself." What an inconsistent creature must I be! after laboring so long, and successfully too, to prove that atonement, purification, and reconciliation were the same; then afterwards to agree that atonement is the cause of these, and that these are only effects of it. I had said that your view must be that the victim itself by which the atonement was made, was called the atonement, and that if it were so, I should agree that purification, reconciliation, &c. were the effects. Who would deny this? You avow this to be your meaning. Now I ask my brother, By what authority do you call the victim for sacrifice the atonement? I cannot find it in the Bible, neither in the types nor antitype. If you can, I should be glad you would show me where. But you appeal to the majority of Christendom. This authority all weighed in the balance together, is not with me equal to one plain Bible text. But for what purpose do you appeal to the majority of Christendom? Is it to prove that the victim for sacrifice is called the atonement? This is the point. No: but to prove another thing, denied by nobody--to prove that they called the death of Christ the sacrifice, the atonement, the ransom. Now I am persuaded that all plainly see the difference between a victim and the sacrifice of the victim; and all will grant that the sacrifice of Christ is the cause of atonement, reconciliation, and purification. Now if you call the sacrifice the atonement, and say that atonement is the effect of it, then you make the atonement both the cause and effect of itself. We should be careful of blending metonymical and literal interpretations of truth. Christendom may be justified in calling the sacrifice of Christ the atonement metonymically, but literally it is the effect of it.

      On page 121 you say that the death of Christ is a cause of our reconciliation to God, and of his being well pleased with us. This I hope all Christendom will grant; for who will deny, with the Bible in his hand, that we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son? And who will deny that when we are reconciled to God, then, and not till then, God is well pleased with us? Not before; for he is angry with the wicked every day! But is it, brother Campbell, any where stated in the Bible that the blood of Christ is the direct cause of God's being well pleased with us? This is the point to which I have often called your attention--this is the point to which I wish you to come up. This is the great point of difference between us, and must be settled with better proof than the fallible assertion of Christendom.

B. W. STONE      

      Brother Stone--I HAVE had to divide your letter, because of its unusual length. I cannot find room for more of it at present, nor for a reply; and will only say, that, seeing you do not write for victory, but for truth, I regret that you should give your communications a single squinting that way. Anyone who will turn over to my remarks on kaphar and nasa In the March number, p. 118, will see that you must have mistaken the drift of them, or that you are discussing a point on which there is no difference. You do not deny a single fact that I have stated; and yet one would imagine from the above remarks, that there is a real contradiction between us as to the manner in which our translators have rendered those terms. You also intimate that my objections against your translations of disputed words, and my complaint touching your throwing such an air of learning over the subject, equally oppugns my own efforts in the way of recommending a new version. Were it not that no one could impute to you any thing uncandid, I should have thought that you were playing off the controvertist here. I do, indeed, object to every religious controvertist turning critic on the original, and manufacturing arguments out of his own translations. This is at once taking the advantage of the audience or of the readers, and equivalent to a man in a rencounter getting behind a tree to escape the fire of the adversary. I will, before a tribunal or Hebrew or Greek critics, at any time engage to show that a hundred volumes of such criticisms as you have given us on the words kaphar and nasa, cannot affect the question at issue as much as one grave or acute accent over the vowel a. You have led the way in this field--not I. And I only say you cannot make one iota out of it. But I must dismiss the subject now.

A. CAMPBELL.      

[The Millennial Harbinger (August 1841): 369-373.]

FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

NEW SERIES.

VOL. V.	B E T H A N Y,   V A.   SEPTEMBER, 1841.	NO. IX.

      LET us hear your scripture proofs that the death of Christ had a direct influence and effect on God to make him propitious to us, and well pleased with us. [389]

      On page 120 you introduce Romans v. 10, 11. "For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the reconciliation." That man is the person directly reconciled to God, this text declares in terms too plain to admit of doubt, and is abundantly confirmed by the same Apostle, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20--that the means of our reconciliation to God is the death of Christ, none can deny--and that this means produces this effect by faith in his blood, will readily be admitted by all. Yet my brother expresses a dark sentence on the word reconciliation; as "that which does reconcile us to God, and which makes it just and honorable for him to be propitious to us." This meaning, whatever it may be, you tell us is indicated by Heb. ii. 17. "He made an atonement or reconciliation for the sins of the people." You add, "That this is the meaning of the original term, all classic Greek, all synagogue Greek, all ecclesiastic Greek amply testify." On this permit me to make a few remarks.

      1. If this be the meaning of all the various classifications of Greek, why did not our brother render it so in his version of the New Testament? There he translates the words in Hebrews ii. 17, "In order to expiate the sins of the people." Here the sufferings of the High Priest are solely confined to expiate sins, or cleanse from sins--and these were the sins of the people. They had no direct effect upon God to expiate or cleanse from, and make him propitious; but upon the people.

      2. The rendering you have just given of the text, "He made an atonement, or reconciliation for the sins of the people," is not a just translation of the Greek words hilaskesthai tas hamartias. You well know that hilaskesthai is an active transitive verb, and signifies to cleanse, or, as you have it, to expiate. This action must pass upon the object, tas hamartias, sins; and therefore must read to cleanse or expiate sins. In your reading above, you have no object for the active transitive verb, and have to introduce the preposition for to govern the object.

      3. You have admitted that atonement and reconciliation are the same; and therefore atonement is not the cause of reconciliation, nor reconciliation the effect of atonement. Thus we are brought to an agreement again.

      You immediately introduce Hebs. ix. 26, to prove your position that the reconciliation in Romans v. 11, applies to God, to make it just and honorable in him to be propitious to us. The text is, "But now once, in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Your exposition of this is new indeed; for you say "sin was in the way--sin lay at the door--Gen. iv. 7, and prevented the friendly intercourse of the parties; but he came and took it out of the way. It was just as much in God's way of showing mercy as it was in our way of receiving it." p. 120. On this novel interpretation I will make a few remarks.

      1. In your version of the New Testament you sometimes, and very properly, render the word hamartia, sin, a sin-offering--as 2 Cor. v. 21. "He hath made him to be sin," you properly read it, a [390] sin-offering. And in Hebrews xix. 28. "He will appear the second time without sin," you read it, without a sin-offering. This is M'Knight's translation; and he translates the verse immediately in connexion (26) in the same way. Why did you not follow him in this instance also? I can see no reason--you have also given in your new version of Heb. xiii. 11. The same as, "The bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary for sin"--you read it, "as a sin-offering." This is Macknight's translation; and he translates the verse immediately in connexion (26) in the same way. Why you did not follow him in this instance also, I can see no reason--you have also given in your new version of Heb. xiii. 11. The same; as, "The bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary for sin--you read it, "as a sin-offering."

      2. You try to establish your novel idea by Genesis iv. 7. God speaks to Cain, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? But if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." By this you represent sin as lying in the way of all friendly intercourse between God and man. Now my brother does know, that as the Greek hamartia, sin, sometimes is taken for a sin-offering; so the correspondent Hebrew word hettah, or hettath, sin, is very frequently taken for sin-offering. Exod. xxix. 14. "But the flesh of the bullock thou shalt burn without the camp; it is a sin-offering"--hettath, the same word as is used in Genesis iv. 4. See also Lev. iv. 3.; Exod. xxx. 10., &c., where the word for sin-offering is hettath. So also Dan. ix. 24. "To make an end of sins" means to make an end of sin-offerings. So Hosea iv. 8. "They [the priests] eat up the sins of my people," means they eat the sin-offerings of my people. Now when the Lord says to Cain, "If thou doest not well," hettath, a sin-offering is lying at the door; there lies a lamb, a goat, or bullock; go, take it, and sacrifice it unto me as did Abel your brother, and you shall be accepted as he was. Do, sir, as you have your Hebrew Bible and Lexicon before you, turn up Parkhurst on the word hettath, and hear him, read his comment on Gen. iv. 7., and you will forever relinquish yours. In conclusion he says, "As for the expression of sin lying at the door, it is (to speak modestly) a very strange one, and hardly sense; though I am aware that it is become not uncommon in English, I suppose from this very mistranslation in Genesis."

      3. I have no objection to the idea that sin prevents that friendly intercourse between us and God. But where is sin? Not lying at the door, but in us, and not in God. To remove it from us, is to remove the cause or separation between us and God, and of course the friendly intercourse and union are restored between us and our God. This is the doctrine for which I have been contending throughout this discussion, and to illustrate it I borrowed the prophet's figure of sins as a cloud separating between us and God. A cloud obstructs the light and heat of the natural sun from us, hut has no effect upon the sun: light and heat remain the same. When the cloud is removed, the rays of the unchanged sun flow to us, and bring to us their enlightening, quickening, and cheering influence. The figure and application are plain and easy; yet my brother strangely thinks that the wind that removes the cloud, affects the, sun as much as us--or, without the figure, that the blood of Christ that removes our sins, affects God as [391] much as us. If any will think so, I cannot help it. To their own master they stand or fall.

      Now because I, for want of evidence, say that I do not believe that the blood of Christ had any direct effect on God so as to propitiate him to us, you are very sorry, and wish me to reconcile this with Rom. iii. 25, 26, as this is your strong hold, to which you, and the orthodox constantly resort; and as you have not designed to notice my former remarks on it; I will now endeavor to be more explicit. I will acknowledge that you have at my suggestion omitted two Words, own and also, contained in your new version of this verse, against which I objected, because they were not in the Greek text. As I expect to write no more on this subject forever--on the subject under discussion between us, I hope for indulgence in my prolixity.

      Rom. iii. 25, 26. I will give your version of the text, page 120. "Whom God hath set forth a propitiatory through faith in his blood, [a covering, or mercy-seat,] to declare his justice in remitting past sins, &c. To declare at this time his justice--that he might be just, and the justifier of the believer."

      1. From the old typical mercy-seat, God declared his will and truth, to his people, and from it communicated to them his blessings. So from the true mercy-seat, Christ Jesus, he declares his will to the world; for God spake by his Son, and from, or by him communicates his favors to them that believe and obey the gospel.

      2. What does he declare from the true mercy-seat especially? You say, his justice. Our translators, Macknight and a host of others, say, his righteousness. You alone, of all known to me, render it justice. Though the word dikaiosune is used near one hundred times in the New Testament, it is not once translated justice, but uniformly righteousness. You very often in your version translate the word justification, as therein is the justification of God revealed. Against this translation I have no objection. It fully includes my views of the truth intended. The righteousness or justification of God is that plan of God justifying by faith without the deeds of the Mosaic law. This plan is revealed by Jesus Christ in the gospel in all its clearness and fulness. True, it was witnessed by the law and the prophets; for it is written there, "The just by faith shall live." This plan of justification was but obscurely taught by the prophets; but they did teach it, and from their writings the apostle introduced it as a witness to induce the Jews to believe the truth.

      3. For what purpose does he declare his righteousness or justification? This is the important point of inquiry: the justification declared is, that God will freely pardon or graciously justify every one that believes in Jesus--that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. But the objection is, How can he be just in justifying and pardoning the guilty without the deeds of the law? We believe, says the Jew, that God has required us to be circumcised and to keep the whole law, or we cannot be saved, nor justified. Now, says Paul, (v. 19.) "We know that whatsoever the law saith it saith to them who are under the law--therefore the law speaks to the Jew only, for they only are under it; and not to the Gentiles, for they are not, and never were under the Mosaic law. The Jews under the law were guilty as were all the world. Therefore, (ver. 20.) by the deeds of the law shall no flesh [392] be justified in his sight, who sees the defiled heart and conscience. For by the law is the knowledge of sin, and therefore by the law none can be justified. But, says Paul, (ver. 21.) there is a justification without the law made manifest--and this justification is witnessed by the law and the prophets, even by Abraham, David, and all who are of the faith of Abraham--they were all justified without the works of the law. ch. iv. 1-14. Now this justification is by faith in Jesus Christ, and is to be preached and offered to all, both Jews and Greeks, and is actually possessed by all that believe. This is the justification God declares to the world, by or from Jesus Christ, the true mercy-seat. Will the Jew yet say, how can he be just in justifying without the law of Moses? Paul will ask, how was he just in justifying Abraham who lived before the law? In the same way he is just in justifying the Gentiles who believe in Jesus, as well as the Jews. He has declared it, and who shall reply against God? Every act of God is in accordance with every attribute of his nature. Who will deny it?

      To declare God just, and to make him just, are two distinct ideas. The first I receive, and the second, I think, my brother receives; for you introduce this text to prove that the blood of Christ so affected God that he can now be just in justifying the believer. That this is your meaning, you add--Then you have no faith in Christ's blood as affecting God, but only as affecting men! You speak correctly; for faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, and that word has no where said it to my understanding.

      On page 120 you object to the order in which I have placed faith, repentance, obedience, &c. Here I may have erred; but in this I refer you to your observations made to a "precise brother." In conclusion, permit me to wonder at you, when on the same page you say, Now a person who has no use for Christ's blood but to be reconciled by it, can have no faith in it! What, no faith in it? and yet be reconciled by it! Strange! Can he be reconciled to God by it without faith in it! You add as a reason of this strange sentiment, For why should he rely upon the death of the Messiah, as it can have no effect upon God! Your conclusion must then be, that none are Christians who do not believe that the blood of Christ has such a mighty effect on God, as to make him propitious, to appease or pacify him, to turn away his wrath, and please him; or, in the language of the poet, "to turn his wrath to grace." Take heed, my dear brother, lest your zeal for an untenable dogma become as intemperate as that of many, who deny your claims to Christianity, because you hold, in their view, doctrines subversive of true religion.

      You express much delight that the Christians in the East are opposing my views on atonement. Not all are opposing; for the Palladium, their best and most popular paper, is transferring to its pages my numbers in the present discussion. My dear sir, should the world oppose, as brother Russell has done, by transcribing Bucks Theological Dictionary on this article, atonement, I stand unmoved by such attacks. At your request I will publish his number when it shall appear in the Harbinger; but I expect to pay no attention to it myself. Others may. One brother is enough for an old man at the same time.

      Your old brother in the bonds of peace and love,

B. W. STONE. [393]      

BROTHER STONE:

      Dear Sir--PERMIT a single reference or two more to your Hebrew. I have no where said that our translators have translated kaphar, or its Septuagint representative, by the English word cover. But I do say that the word primarily signifies cover. Moreover, that the English words cover and coffer are derived from it. But you make this rather a figurative meaning, than its literal and common import. Now that kaphar does signify to cover, and that it is frequently translated by words and phrases equivalent to a cover or a covering, I appeal to all our standard Hebrew Lexicons. Parkhurst gives ten acceptations of the word, and he finds COVER in them all. Its first meaning with him is "to cover by smearing." 2d. To annul a covenant by smearing it. 3. To dye or color over. 4. The hoar frost which covers. 5. A village or place of covering. 6. A vessel with a cover--a covered bason. 7. A covert lion. 8. To atone, to expiate, or appease--I will cover his face with the present--cover our transgressions. Psalm lxxix. 9. 9. A bribe that covereth the eyes. 10. The lid or covering of the ark. Whence, adds Parkhurst, is derived the English words coffer and cover. All other Lexicons concur substantially with Parkhurst. To cleanse and to purify are its figurative meanings; and these happening to be its most usual scriptural acceptation, we most frequently find it, though not always, so rendered. Concerning this fact there never was any controversy between us.

      I have turned up Parkhurst on the word hettath, Gen. iv. 7., and find no reason to change my opinion. I do not understand the Lord to say, 'Cain, if you do not well, a lamb lies at the door; it coucheth at the door of your tent: you may take and sacrifice it for an atonement, as did Abel thy brother.' But if you will take Parkhurst for authority in this, I will take him for authority to the end of the sentence: for, adds he, "Hence in kal and hiph, to offer for a sin-offering--to expiate, cleanse, or purify by a sin-offering, is the proper meaning of hettath in Ex. xxix. 30.; Lev. ix. 15.; vi. 26., &c. &c. But, as you say you expect "to write no more on this subject forever," I shall hasten to matters more intelligible and comprehensible to our readers--Romans iii. 25, 26.

      I am truly sorry that you did not on this all-important passage, and on Heb. ix. 15., give us at least one essay, that we might fully understand you on passages which you admit are often quoted and much relied on by those who agree with me. Had you given to these passages only half the space occupied by outlandish terms which settle no American's mind on the subject, your readers would, no doubt, have rejoiced with me. [394]

      The view you give is briefly this:--'As from the typical mercy-seat God formerly declared his will and truth; so from Christ Jesus, the true mercy-seat, he now declares his will to the world. He declares the plan of justification without the deeds of the law;--that God will justify all who believe in Jesus, without the deeds of the Mosaic law.' This, in brief, is your interpretation of the passage. However, the reader can revert to it, and judge for himself. My objections to this interpretation are three:--1st. It misconstrues the typical mercy-seat, and converts it into a seat of intelligence. It was not an intelligence seat, but a mercy-seat. God did not "formerly declare his will and truth from the mercy-seat." His mercy sat there and dispensed blessings of forgiveness in answer to prayer and sacrifice: and when light was communicated from that place, it was in reference neither to truth nor the divine will in general, but in reference to some particular occurrence. 2d. It is not so much a revelation of the plan of salvation, as a vindication of it. Paul says he set him forth for a demonstration of his justice, or righteousness, [I care not which term,] in remitting sins. 3d. The reason assigned by the Apostle does not at all apply to your interpretation. His reason is, that God might be just not only in remitting sins under the gospel, but just in remitting sins committed under the law.

      Allow me to explain myself fully on these three points. And, first, what was the mercy-seat and its design under the law? Our readers know that it is properly called "the propitiatory," because "propitiation" was made upon it for the sins of the Jewish nation. In the common version it is called "the mercy-seat." Jerome called it "the oracle," because responses to special questions were sometimes given thence. Literally, however, it was the golden lid or covering of the ark of the covenant, from which were beaten out two golden cherubim, between, and upon which, the Divine Majesty was said to dwell. The golden lid, called hilasterion--(an adjective, neuter gender, with epithema, lid or cover understood,) concealed the two tables of the covenant or law of righteousness spoken from Sinai. Upon it, and before it, blood was sprinkled on the day of atonement. (Lev. xvi.) This lid or cover was, indeed, "the throne of grace" to the Jews--God was addressed as sitting between the cherubim; and while the covenant of righteousness was under that lid, it was beautifully said by David, "Justice and judgment are the basis of thy throne. Mercy and truth go before thy face." On the day of atonement the High Priest appeared there, and offered blood, which he sprinkled not merely upon, but seven times before "the throne of God." After which the Lord forgave and blessed the people. Now as the blood of Aaron's [395] offering so affected the mercy-seat as to cause a blessing to flow to Israel after the flesh; so the blood of Christ, carried by himself into the true holiest of all, the archetype of the old sanctuary, so affects the throne of God in the heavens as to cause the promised blessings of the New Covenant to flow to Israel according to the Spirit. But as Jesus is himself the altar, the victim, the priest, he becomes the mercy-seat only "through faith in his blood." God, says Paul, has exhibited him as a mercy-seat through faith in his blood--the solitary example which the Bible affords of the phrase "faith in his blood." This makes him a mercy seat to us. Without this he is no propitiatory to anyone. Blood sprinkled upon the lid and before the lid, made that lid a mercy-seat; and to no other worshipper was it a mercy seat but to him whose faith in the call, appointment, and acceptability of the Jewish High Priest and his services, brought him to his knees.

      I once said to you that "faith in his blood" was more significant than belief in Christ's person, mission, and death. It is confidence in his blood as the only and all-atoning blood that cleanseth from all sin. Jesus is, however, to all Christians, to all who repose confidence in his blood, a real "mercy-seat," a true "throne of grace." I lay the more emphasis on this, because I have met with professors, not a few, who have no more confidence in the blood of Jesus than in the blood of Stephen--they have as much faith in the one as in the other. To my mind this is a fatal mistake of the whole matter: for if it be faith in his blood that constitutes him the true mercy-seat, they have no mercy-seat who regard the blood of Stephen or of Paul as much a means of reconciliation as that of the Lord Jesus. You will, I doubt not, concur with me that it is faith in Christ's blood that makes him to any person a mercy-seat.

      But I have mentioned a second objection to your interpretation of this passage. You make Jesus Christ an oracle rather than a mercy-seat. That he is the oracle of God I do most sincerely believe. But that is another figure for another object than that in the eye of the Apostle, Rom. iii. Justification through faith in Christ's blood is the subject now before the Apostle; or rather, he says, "We are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Redemption in Christ Jesus! What can that mean!! Heb. ix. 15. "For this cause he is the Mediator of the New Institution, that by means of death for the redemption of transgressions." For the redemption of transgressions!! not of transgressors, but of transgressions!!--redemption by means of death, by means of blood! The redemption, then, is in his blood--in his death; and hence "by grace we are justified through the redemption that is in Christ, whom God has exhibited a [396] mercy-seat through faith in his blood, or death, for the redemption of transgressions."

      The connexion, brother Stone, stereotypes the sense of this passage, and demonstrates that not as a seat of intelligence, not as an oracle, but as a mercy-seat, Jesus is contemplated by the Apostle. The reason assigned illustrates this, placing it in a very strong light--that he might be just. Justice, the justice of God, is the point of demonstration here. The justice is sustained by the redemption that is in blood--the blood of the Messiah. Justice in pardoning sin rests upon the redemption that is in his blood. The argument is, justice with God in remission rests upon redemption of transgressions in the blood of his Son. They measure each other. As the redemption, so is the justice. If there be a failure in the one, there is in the other. If there be not a full redemption of transgressions, there is not full justice in forgiving them. I am sorry, brother Stone, that, in your interpretation of this verse, you seem not to have remembered the antecedent verse--"the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Now, to my mind, this is the very jut of the whole passage. For "that he might be just" has respect to the amplitude of the redemption respecting sins committed under two dispensations--sins committed during the forbearance of God, while as yet there was no real sin-offering; and sins committed since there was a real sin-offering under the gospel. Hence the distinction which is found in the third item of objections to your comment.

      The third item has primary respect to the demonstration which the Apostle deduces from the redemption that is in the Messiah. The common version says, "To declare his righteousness" for the remission of sins, past and present. You know that "to declare his righteousness" is not the proper translation of this passage: for we have no infinitive mood governing an accusative in the original, but a substantive in the accusative governing another in the genitive--"for a demonstration of his own righteousness"--"that he might be just," &c. Thus, most correctly, Dr. Macknight. But this only for your benefit, not for our readers: for in all controversy, till we have a better version agreed upon, I teach nothing that I cannot demonstrate from the common version. Now, my dear sir, let us consider the endeixin, the demonstration of righteousness which Paul gives.

      The demonstration is found in the redemption which is in the death of Christ; not found any where else in law or gospel, in heaven or earth. Two chapters of sins are to be forgiven: sins 'passed by,' before Christ died--during the forbearance of God; and sins committed since his death. The 'called' under the former dispensation were pardoned--i. e. those who under the law obeyed God--these were pardoned [397] during the forbearance, while as yet there was no redemption, no true deliverance from the guilt of sin; and those who are now 'the called'--those who obey the gospel are pardoned through the same redemption; and thus, if there be a good reason in the redemption--that is, in the blood of Christ, why the sins of those now living should be pardoned, there was by anticipation as good reason in it why the sins committed should have been 'passed by (1.) and finally forgiven. Hence Paul says, in all good logic, "Whom God has set forth a propitiatory through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that were past through the forbearance of God--to declare also his righteousness at the present time, that he might be just in justifying him that is of the faith of Jesus," as the true Messiah. (2.)

      Now, I ask, what point is there in this passage (Rom. iii. 25, 26.) if you convert Jesus into an oracle, and represent God as showing through him that justification by faith, without the deeds of the law, is according to the law and the prophets!--Nay, do you not manifestly labor in your mind in finding a rational exposition of these words, when you have to express yourself in such marvellous words as the following?--"But, (page 392,) the objection is, how can he be just in justifying and pardoning the guilty without the deeds of the law." I wonder who ever made such an objection!! No Jew! No Greek! No American! Pardon the guilty WITHOUT the deeds of the law! Pardon the guilty WITH the deeds of the law, was, is, and evermore shall be, as incomprehensible as to pardon them without those deeds--a guilty man condemned by law and justified by keeping it! No greater contradiction in the universe. You therefore wisely conclude that "by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified." But how feeble your commendation of the exhibition of this justification by faith--"God declares it by, or from Jesus Christ." He simply speaks it out by him! So that it all ends here--'God has declared by the lips of his Son that he will justify men by faith; and this simple affirmation confirmed by his death, is set forth as a propitiatory through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of God's righteousness--that he might not only be, but appear, just in justifying him who is of the faith of Jesus.' Paul, why then did you speak of the justification by grace resting upon the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, and not rather upon a simple "thus saith the Lord?" (3.)

      But we must look more attentively into the parallel passage, Heb. ix. 15.

      In the preceding verses Paul affirms that the blood of bulls and goats never took away a single sin from the conscience--that blood did, indeed, sanctify only to the purification of the flesh from legal or [398] municipal impurities; but went no farther. Yet from this he argues, if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a burned red heifer did sanctify so far as respected the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ cleanse the conscience from dead works--that men thus sanctified might serve the living God. "And for this reason," continues he, "he has become the Mediator of a New Institution, that by means of death, for the redemption of transgressions that were under the first Testament", (during the oblation of the blood of animals,) "those who were under it and had been called," (obeyed the Lord according to that dispensation,) "might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance,"--though dead as to Canaan, they might through the better blood, the real sin-offering of the New Institution, obtain a portion of the eternal inheritance.

      Nothing to my mind can be more evident than the following facts from these premises;--

      1. The legal sacrifices only purified the flesh--never the conscience. But they did actually release the offerers from all the penalties of transgressing the legal institution, so far as the temporal rewards and punishments of the Jewish commonwealth were concerned: all this, too, for typical purposes.

      2. Amongst the legal worshippers there were two classes--the really devout, and the legally devout. They equally enjoyed the benefits of the legal oblations: but the latter class enjoyed only these; whereas the former class in a believing anticipation of good things to come, confessed judgment at the altar, had their transgressions filed in blood, and obtained a stay of execution till the Lord should expiate their sins by his own death. "And for this cause," says Paul, "he is the Mediator of the New Institution, that by means of death for the redemption of those transgressions" [filed] "under the first covenant, they who, under that covenant, were truly God's people, might obtain the inheritance of the saints in light."

      3. The death of Christ was for the redemption of transgressions; and although he died as "the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world," yet only that portion of mankind who have "faith in his blood" do actually derive pardon and life through his death. But it was as much for the redemption of transgressions past under the law, as for the redemption of transgressions under the gospel, that Christ died. Consequently there was no real pardon of real sin in the Jewish sacrificial system. "The law made nothing perfect."

      4. The redemption that is through the death or blood of Jesus is necessary--that is, it is of right demanded: for to exact death, unless justice demanded it, would be to do unjustly. It was necessary, that [399] God might be just in forgiving sin. Thus Paul to the Romans and to the Hebrews represents redemption for sins in the death or blood of Jesus. This redemption or deliverance is what is usually, though improperly, called "the merits" or "worth" of his death. Certainly it is the efficacy of his death; for on this redemption justice rests its plea while consenting with mercy in forgiving sin. God has, then, set forth the person and blood of his Son as a mercy-seat, that he might be truly just, and appear so before the universe, in forgiving sins committed against him as Lawgiver of all rational and moral intelligences.

      If I am tedious here, brother Stone, it is because I delight to be tedious upon this basis of the basis of the whole remedial system. I pretend not to fathom the ocean, nor do I aim at comprehending the wonderful ways of the Infinite Intelligence; but when God speaks I must listen, and when he explains himself it is a sin not to endeavor to understand him. He has spoken often and through various persons on this transcendent theme. If it be orthodoxy or heterodoxy I care not; but I do believe that man is fallen--that the wages of sin is death--that death has passed through all generations of men because that all have sinned--that sacrifice had its origin here--that God sent man out of Eden not clothed in silk, or cotton, or the bark of trees, but in the skins of slain beasts--that all the blood of all slain animals never took away the deep stain of the least human sin against God's moral law--that the Jewish sacrifices and all divinely ordained sacrifices were but types of the sin-offering of my Lord the King--that the New Covenant has in it a real remission of all sins because mediated by Emanuel and sealed by his own blood--that God, as King, cannot now be just in forgiving sin--having, as lawgiver, said, "The soul that sinneth shall die," but through the death of his Son. I moreover believe that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin--not our tears nor our penitence, but his blood; and that blood must be seen, believed, and acquiesced in according to God's own appointed way. Hence the command, "Believe, repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins."

      I admire your scrupulosity about Bible terms and Bible ideas. It is a scrupulosity dear to every feeling of my heart. I venerate the man that venerates the word of God. God himself honors with special tokens of his favor the man that "trembles at his word." You know I have never been solicitous of reputation at the hands of downy and stall-fed orthodoxy. I never have courted such popular applause. Well, then, I am not to be suspected of any leaning that way. But after placing myself in every attitude favorable to an impartial consideration of all these great points, I do, while deprecating much of [400] their unauthorized, though consecrated jargon on trinity, unity, atonement, sacrifice, &c. &c. and lamenting the frequent caricatures, rather than expositions of the true doctrine, by weak and conceited expositors, of that school; nevertheless, the true and proper divinity or godhead of my Lord Messiah, and the real sin-expiating value and efficacy of his death, and of his death alone, based upon his peerless worth and divine majesty, are the rock of my salvation--the basis of all my hopes of immortality--the very anchor of my soul amidst the shakings of the earth, the upheavings of the ocean, and all the tumults and debates of the people.

      A religion not honoring God the Father of all--not relying upon the person, mission, and death of the WORD INCARNATE--not inspired, cherished, animated, and inflamed by the Holy Spirit dwelling in my soul, is a cheat, a base counterfeit, and not that athletic, strong, and invincible thing which armed the martyr's soul amidst all the terrors that earth and hell could throw around the name of the Redeemer, his cause, and people.--That this religion may be the solace of your heart, and the strength of your soul while passing through the dark valley and the deep shadows of death, is the prayer of

                  Yours, most benevolently,

A. CAMPBELL.      

      P. S. I hope to get through in one or two letters more.

      (1.) "Passed by."--The word paresin, found here, is not found in the Greek scriptures, Old Testament or New. It ought to here rendered as Macknight has it--"in passing by." A similar sentence is found in Micah vi. 18.--"Who is a God like to thee, that pardoneth iniquity and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of thine heritage?" To "pass by" iniquity is not to punish it. Thus the sins of the ancient saints, from Abel to the days of John the Baptist, were passed by till expiated by the redemption that was in the death of Christ.
      (2.) Many minor points in your letter are passed by--such as, my omitting the word own before justice. This I have done not from a conviction that it ought not to be there, but because it is not essential to my views, and to save unnecessary debate. Still when you notice the fact of my omitting it, I must say that it is necessarily implied in autou in the force of the passage; for the demonstration of justice is that he might be just; consequently it is for a proof of his own justice or righteousness. Take another example of minor points not replied to: Your comment on the words "faith in his blood," being obviously a misconception of my meaning, I passed in silence. I do not mean the belief of his blood, but confidence in his blood. Thousands believe in the blood of Christ as a means of faith and reconciliation, who have no confidence in his blood as the justifying means of their personal redemption. Now I not only believe in his death as a means of faith, or reconciliation, but I also confide in it as the essential cause of my redemption and deliverance from sin; without which God could not, with all my faith in the fact of kill death, righteously justify me. Father Stone, A this your faith in his blood? If so, we are virtually of one faith in this fundamental truth.
      (3.) Nothing in this epistle is more obvious to my mind than that Paul represents justification as an act of favor resting upon the virtue or significance of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. The justice of God in condemning and absolving sinners, as Lawgiver and Judge, occupies the first 24 verses of this chapter. Paul argues his justice [401] in both cases. He justifies him in condemning because of the wickedness of the Jew and the Greek. Then he justifies him in justifying freely through his grace because of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
      Permit me farther to state that apolutroosis denotes the redemption of a captive from death by paying a ransom for him. Jesus, says Paul, "gave himself not merely as a lutron, but as an antilutron for all." And the Saviour himself says, (Matth. xxii. 28.) 'The Son of Man wave his life a ransom for many.' Here it is lutron anti polloon. The Greeks say, any price paid for the ransom of a captive was called lutron; but where life was given for life, it was usually called antilutron. I do not, indeed, regard the term as literally used to represent a price paid for the deliverance of a captive from slavery or death in the vulgar sense; but as a life given for the life of many.

A. C.      

[The Millennial Harbinger (September 1841): 389-402.]