Chapter XXII: Preface (5)

In three or four instances, it is true, a sin-offering is demanded
from the perpetrator of some act of _moral wrong_. But in all these
cases a suitable punishment was ordained also; a circumstance
inconsistent with the idea, that the expiation procurred remission of
guilt. The _sacrifice_ appended to the _penal infliction_, indicates
the two-fold character of the act;—at once a _ceremonial defilement_
and a _crime_; and requiring, to remedy the one, an atoning rite,—to
chastise the other, a judicial penalty. See an excellent tract by Rev.
Edward Higginson, of Hull, entitled, “The Sacrifice of Christ
scripturally and rationally interpreted:” particularly pp. 30-34.

Footnote 376:

Heb. viii. 2. 5.

Footnote 377:

ix. 1, 23, 24.

Footnote 378:

vii. 16; viii. 1.

Footnote 379:

viii. 3.

Footnote 380:

Heb. ix. 15.

Footnote 381:

viii. 5.

Footnote 382:

x. 3.

Footnote 383:

ix. 7, 25.

Footnote 384:

Heb. x. 4.

Footnote 385:

vii. 25.

Footnote 386:

ix. 25-27, 12; x. 12, 14.

Footnote 387:

ix. 8.

Footnote 388:

vii. 17, 24-28.

Footnote 389:

vii. 27. Let the reader look carefully again into the verbal and
logical structure of this verse; and then ask himself, whether it is
not as plain as words can make it, that Christ “once for all” _offered
up_ “_a sacrifice first for_ HIS OWN SINS, and _then for the
peoples_.” The argument surely is this; “he need not do the _daily_
thing, for he has done it _once for all_; the never-finished work of
other pontiffs, a single act of his achieved.” The sentiment loses its
meaning, unless that which he did once is _the self-same thing_ which
they did always; and what was that?—the offering by the High-priest of
a sacrifice first for his own sins, and then for the people’s. With
what propriety, then, can Mr. Buddicom ask us this question: “Why is
he said to have excelled the Jewish High-priest in _not_ offering a
sacrifice for himself?” I submit, that no such thing is said: but
that, on the contrary, it is positively affirmed that Christ _did_
offer sacrifice for his own sins. So plain indeed is this, that
Trinitarian commentators are forced to slip in a restraining word and
an additional sentiment, into the last clause of the verse. Thus
Peirce; “Who has no need, like the priests under the law, from time to
time to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins, and after that for
the people’s. For this _latter_ he did once for all when he offered up
himself; _and as to the former, he had no occasion to do it at all_.”
And no doubt the writer of the epistle _ought_ to have said just this,
if he intended to draw the kind of contrast, which orthodox theology
requires, between Jesus and the Hebrew priests. He limits the
opposition between them to _one_ particular;—the Son of Aaron made
offering _daily_,—the Son of God _once for all_. Divines must add
_another_ particular; that the Jewish priest atoned for _two_ classes
of sins, his own and the people’s,—Christ for the people’s only.
Suppose for a moment that this was the author’s design; that the word
“_this_,” instead of having its proper grammatical antecedent, may be
restrained, as in the commentary cited above, to the sacrifice for
_the people’s_ sins; then the word “daily” may be left out, without
disturbance to the other substantive particular of the contrast: the
verse will then stand thus; “who needeth not, as those High-priests,
to offer up sacrifice for his own sins; _for_ he offered up sacrifice
for the people’s sins, when he offered up himself.” Here, all the
reasoning is obviously gone, and the sentence becomes a mere inanity:
to make sense, we want, instead of the latter clause, the sentiment of
Peirce,—_for_ “he had no occasion to do this at all.” This, however,
is an invention of the expositor, more jealous for his author’s
orthodoxy, than for his composition. I think it necessary to add that,
by leaving out the most emphatic word in this verse (the word _once_)
Mr. Buddicom has suppressed the author’s antithesis, and favoured the
suggestion of his own. I have no doubt that this was unconsciously
done; but it shows how system rubs off the angles of Scriptural
difficulties.—I subjoin a part of the note of John Crell on the
passage: “de pontifice Christo loquitur. Quid vero fecit semel
Christus? quid aliud, quam quod Pontifex antiquus stata die
quotannis[a] faciebat? Principaliter autem hic non de oblatione pro
peccatis populi; sed de oblatione pro ipsius Pontificis peccatis agi,
ex superioribus, ipsoque rationum contextu manifestum est.”

The sins which his sacrifice cancelled must have been of the same
order in the people, and in himself; certainly therefore not moral in
their character, but ceremonial. His death was, for himself no less
than for his Hebrew disciples, commutation for the Mosaic ordinances.
Had he not died, he must have continued under their power; “were he on
earth, he would not be a priest,” or have “obtained that more
excellent ministry,” by which he clears away, in the courts above, all
possibilities of ritual sin below, and himself emerges from legal to
spiritual relations.

Footnote a:

_This is_ obviously the meaning of καθ’ ἡμέραν in this passage; _from
time to time, and in the case_ alluded to, _yearly_; not, as in the
common version, _daily_.

Footnote 390:

Heb. ix. 13, 14.

Footnote 391:

x. 16, 19, 20, 24.

Footnote 392:

Mr. Buddicom’s Lecture on the Atonement, p. 471.

Footnote 393:

See Mr. M‘Neile’s Lecture, pp. 302, 311, 328, 340, 341.

Footnote 394:

Mr. M‘Neile’s Lecture, p. 338.

Footnote 395:

Phil. iii. 15.

Footnote 396:

Eph. iv. 13.

Footnote 397:

John i. 12.

Footnote 398:

Rev. D. James, in his Lecture entitled “The doctrine of the Trinity,
proved as a consequence from the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ,” pp.
366-375.

Footnote 399:

Tillotson’s Works, London, 1717, vol. i. p. 405.

Footnote 400:

Tillotson’s Works, London, 1717, vol. i. p. 579.

Footnote 401:

Socinus thus states the opinion which he attempts to confute:
“Receptior hodie sententia est, homini naturaliter ejusque animo
insitam esse divinitatis alicujus opinionem, cujus vi cuncta regantur
ac gubernentur, quæque humanarum rerum imprimis curam gerat, hominibus
consulat atque prospiciat. Hæc sententia, quam nos falsam esse
arbitramur,” &c.—_Prælectiones Theol. Fausti Socini Senensis_, c. ii.

Footnote 402:

Mr. James’s illustration of the nature of a _spirit_.

Footnote 403:

Introduction to the Analogy.

Footnote 404:

Lecture, p. 371.

Footnote 405:

Modern Infidelity considered, p. 18.

Footnote 406:

Lecture, p. 451.

Footnote 407:

Remarks on the commonly-received Doctrine of Atonement and Sacrifice,
by Rev. W. Turner, jun., A.M. Note A. second edition.

Footnote 408:

Lecture, p. 414.

Footnote 409:

Ibid. p. 410.

Footnote 410:

Ibid. pp. 412, 413.

Footnote 411:

Ibid. p. 411.

Footnote 412:

Lecture, p. 492.

Footnote 413:

Ibid. p. 507.

Footnote 414:

Ibid. pp. 511, 512.

Footnote 415:

Ars Critica, P. I. sect. i. cap. ix. § 11.

Footnote 416:

Magee on the Atonement, vol. iii. p. 335. Note. 5th Edition. This note
is a broad caricature of the discussion in the Monthly Repository: and
shows that the Author might have been the Cruikshanks of theology, had
his _humour_ always been _good-humour_.

Footnote 417:

Magee on the Atonement, vol. iii. pp. 343, 344. Note.

Footnote 418:

Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature, vol. x. p. 481.
1815. I quote from this work, rather than from Mr. Aspland’s “Plea for
Unitarian Dissenters,” in obedience to the Archbishop’s own reference.

Footnote 419:

Preface to Mr. Byrth’s Lecture, part i. p. vii.

Footnote 420:

Newcome and Whitby _in loc._

Footnote 421:

Magee on the Atonement, vol. iii. p. 222.

Footnote 422:

In the 2nd Edition it is p. 78. All my citations are made from this
edition of Mr. B’s work, published in 1816; and from the 5th Edition
of Archbishop Magee’s, published in 1832.

Footnote 423:

Magee on the Atonement, vol. iii. pp. 223, 224.

Footnote 424:

There is a possibility, which I think it right to suggest, of a
difference between the two Editions of Mr. B’s work; as, however, the
accusation is still found in the newest Edition of the Archbishop’s
book, I conclude that this is not the case. Indeed, even if the
Prelate’s quotation had been _verbally_ true, it would _in spirit_
have been no less false: for, at all events, Mr. B. cites the Vulgate,
to give evidence as to the _text_, not the _translation_; and had he
used the word _renders_, it would only have been because the term
naturally occurs when a VERSION is adduced to determine a READING.

Footnote 425:

Page 38.

Footnote 426:

Magee on the Atonement, vol. i. p. 170.

Footnote 427:

Vol. iii. p. 57.

Footnote 428:

Vol. ii. p. 387.

Footnote 429:

Vol. iii. p. 248.

Footnote 430:

p. 203.

Footnote 431:

p. 210.

Footnote 432:

p. 296.

Footnote 433:

p. 249.

Footnote 434:

p. 274.

Footnote 435:

p. 239.

Footnote 436:

p. 82.

Footnote 437:

p. 91.

Footnote 438:

p. 132.

Footnote 439:

p. 64.

Footnote 440:

p. 242.

Footnote 441:

p. 275.

Footnote 442:

p. 66.

Footnote 443:

p. 145.

Footnote 444:

pp. 275, 276.

Footnote 445:

Magee on the Atonement, Preface, p. vi.

Footnote 446:

Vol. iii. p. 108.

Footnote 447:

Vol. i. xii.

Footnote 448:

iii. 204.

Footnote 449:

p. 47.

Footnote 450:

p. 100.

Footnote 451:

p. 67.

Footnote 452:

pp. 57, 58.

------------------------------------------------------------------------