66

who live, are always delivered unto death for Jesus sake." (a) Did Christ suffer in our behalf, or for our sake? Paul says to the Philippians "unto you it is given, in behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but to suffer for his sake." Does he say to the Christians at Ephesus that "Christ hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God?" (b) To those at Rome (c) he says, "I beseech you, therefore, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God." To the Philippians he says, (d) If I be offered upon the sacrifice of your faith, I joy and rejoice with you all :" and to Timothy he says, when he feels that his labours must soon close, “I am now ready to be offered," or more correctly, I am already poured out as an offering (e) What is meant, by this language, but that the aged apostle was exhausted, that he had worn himself out, in the discharge of the duties of the office to which he had been called of God? Can we suppose that Paul considered himself as a literal sacrifice? that he presented himself, or besought the Roman Christians to present themselves to God, as a propitiatory offering? If not, why should we not give a metaphorical construction to similar, but not stronger language, in relation to Christ; who also fell a victim,-a nobler and a spotless victim, to the cause that had been committed to him?-Paul was the minister of Christ unto the Gentiles, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the same Holy' Spirit. (f) Has Christ given himself for us a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour? (g) The charity, which the Philippians sent by Epaphroditus to Paul, was an odour of sweet smell, a sacrifice, acceptable, well pleasing unto God. (h) Were the Gentiles offered as a literal sacrifice to God? Do we give a strict construction to that language which calls the charitable contributions of Christians to each other a sacrifice? If not, it is according to the usages of language, and especially of the language of the New Testament, to apply to persons and things indifferently, and in a figurative sense, the language which was strictly applicable to the proper sacrifices of the Mosaic law.

In as much, then, as the sacrificial language of the New Testament when applied to all persons may be, and applied to all except Jesus must be, understood figuratively; it certainly may be so understood when applied to him. And, in as much as a literal construction of that language in the several texts where he is the subject of discourse, would make those texts contradictory to

(a) 2 Cor. iv. 2. (d) Phil. ii. 17. (g) Eph. v. 2.

(b) Eph. v. 2.
(e) 2 Tim. iv. 6.
(h) Phil. iv. 18.

(c) Rom. xii. 1. (f) Rom. xv. 16.

other passages of scripture, to facts, and to themselves, we conclude that the metaphorical sense must be adopted.

Or shall we, disregarding the opposition of these texts when literally construed to each other, to plain declarations of scripture, and to multiplied scriptural as well as other historical facts— shall we still insist upon construing them literally? and, giving up our reason and our faith to the consequences of such a construction, shall we believe, as the letter would compel us to believe, that our Lord was not only a real sacrifice, but every sort of sacrifice?-that he is now, a federal or testamentary sacrifice, (a) whose blood is to ratify a covenant: now, a piacular offering, whose blood is to make an atonement for sin : (b) aud now, a passover, to commemorate our deliverance from sin and death? Shall we believe now, that he was offered, (c) and now that he offered up (d) or sacrificed (e) himself? Shall we believe that he is now the offering, and now the priest who makes the offering? (f) If we are prepared to plunge into depths of belief like these, looking to the letter as the only guide of our faith, what shall restrain us from going on, and believing that Jesus is a vine, (g) and a way, (h) and a door, (i) and a corner-stone ; (j) and all this, at the same time that he is a shepherd (k) and a lion (1) and the bright and morning star? (m) Are we prepared to adopt a system of construing the scriptures which shall lead us into such gross inconsistences? and shall we delude ourselves with the idea that these are the deep things of God? Shall we follow the letter, when it will compel us to believe that our Lord has assumed so many different forms, and that he acted and suf fered in so many inconsistent characters, at the moment when, on the same principle, we are required to believe that Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, to-day, and forever? (n)

Shall we not rather believe that, in much of what the early disciples of Jesus said of him, they spoke, as all orientals speak, in a highly figurative style? Regarding him as the greatest of the prophets, and the most illustrious of the teachers who had come from God, was it wonderful that they should apply to him every title of dignity and glory? Recently converted, as they had been, from a religion abounding in sacrifices, was it not natural for them, especially when addressing those who had been edu

(a) Matt. xxvi. 28. Mark xiv. 24. Luc. xxii. 20. 1 Cor. xi. 24. (b) 1 Pet. ii. 24. 2 Cor. v. 21.

Eph. v. 2.

(c) Heb. ix. 28. (f) Heb. ix. 11. (i) John x. i. 7. 9.

(k) John x. 11.

(m) Rev. ii. 28.

(n) Heb. xiii. 8.

cated in the same religion, to speak of their new faith in terms which had been familiar to them from their childhood. Admiring, as they did, the virtues of their Lord, and deeply affected, as they must have been, by the sufferings by which those virtues were called forth and proved; their feelings must have been excited, whenever he was the subject of their thoughts or their discourse, to more than their ordinary warmth, and to a neglect of the cold and studied correctness of the careful rhetorician. When they considered that their master had fallen a victim to his own fidelity, and to the envy of others, what was more natural than that they should speak of him as a sacrifice ?-a sacrifice, now of one kind and now of another, according to their own circumstances at the time they were speaking, or to the other subjects of their discourse, or to the particular benefit which had resulted to the world from what he had done or suffered? When, either in prophetic vision, or in a rational anticipation of what must be effected by the religion of Jesus, they looked forward to the ultimate reformation of mankind-to the dispelling of the darkness of ignorance and sin from the face of the earth, what more natural than that they should call him "the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." If the new covenant is sealed or ratified by his death, his is "the blood of the covenant," and the gospel itself is "the new covenant in his blood." If an apostle is comparing the new converts to a mass of unleavened bread, this bread, being eaten at the passover, brings that festival to his mind; but Christ was crucified on the eve of the feast of unleavened bread; and then "Christ is himself our passover who was sacrificed for us."

The same kind of construction will guide us in other similar passages, and enable us to preserve, unimpeached, the best faculties of our nature, our reverence for the sacred oracles, and, above all, the adorable excellence of the divine character. It will enable us more correctly to understand the documents of our religion, more gratefully to rejoice in the light which they shed upon our path here, and upon our prospects hereafter, and more readily to convert to our spiritual nourishment and strength, the bread of life which came down from heaven in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

REMARKS ON 1 CORINTHIANS ii. 14.

[The following remarks from an esteemed correspondent may serve to illustrate a difficult and frequently misinterpreted passage of scripture.]

"BUT THE NATURAL MAN RECEIVETH NOT THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD; FOR THEY ARE FOOLISHNESS UNTO HIM; NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED."--1 Cor. ii. 14.

THESE words have been frequently understood as denoting the natural inaptitude or incapacity of man to receive and discern the truths of religion; and they have been regarded by many christians as an evidence of the corrupt and disordered nature of man before it is regenerated by the special influences of the spirit of God. A candid examination of the passage, however, may show that this is not its meaning, and point out the important instruction it really conveys.

The word natural in this passage, has no relation to the condition or character of men by nature, or as they are formed by the hand of their Creator. If we consider simply the nature of man, we shall find in him nothing worthy of blame or deserving of punishment; nothing, which violates any law, or is opposed to goodness; for that nature is the work of God, and the works of his hand are good. But rational beings, who are formed aright, may become sinful by the voluntary perversion of those powers, which were originally pure. This is admitted by all to have been the case with the angels, who sinned, and with our first parents. The single fact then, that mankind betray an inclination to sin, when they become capable of moral action, is no proof of any thing wrong in their nature, or in their original constitution. If temptation could operate on angels in heaven, and on Adam and Eve in Paradise, without a sinful nature, then it may operate on mankind in the early period of their existence, without indicating, that they are sinners by birth, or are born with depraved hearts.

Our first inquiry is, what is meant by the natural man? The answer, which most readily suggests itself to many, and with which they rest contented, is, that it denotes man, as he comes from his Creator, as he is born, or created. And at this answer from one, who confines himself wholly to the import of the word as it stands in our translation, and has no other means of understanding its sense, we should not have occasion to be much surprised. But he, who undertakes to be a teacher, and should quote this passage as a proof of what man is in his natural state, convicts himself of ignorance, or of something worse, for which he has no excuse. The truth is, the word here translated natural,

(agreeably to the interpretation of Doddridge, Macknight and many judicious critics) has no relation to the character or condition of men, as they are formed, or as they come into the world. It denotes not what they are by nature, nor any part of their original constitution, but what they are by the perversion or abuse of their nature, or a character, which is strictly unnatural. The word should have been rendered sensual, vicious, corrupt; and it denotes the character of those, who are under the dominion of base and depraved passions, who have rendered themselves slaves to their animal propensities, and who have no higher or holier object than the gratification of their animal appetites. We have the same word twice, at least, rendered in this manner in our common translation. It is said in James, "This wisdom descendeth not from above; but is earthly, sensual, (or natural Yuxixos) devilish." Jude, speaking of those whom he terms ungodly sinners, declares, "These be they, who separate themselves, sensual, not having the spirit." No intimation is given, that this term is applicable to mankind in a state of infancy, or that it describes their natural state or character. On the other hand, the period of childhood and youth is peculiarly favourable for receiving the things of the spirit of God; the instructions and precepts he has given in his word. Then is the mind most susceptible of those impressions, which the truths of the gospel are designed and fitted to produce. Then is there the least opposition to the genuine influence of Christianity. As yet those evil habits are not formed, which are subdued with so much difficulty, that the change is compared to the "Ethiopian changing his skin, and the leopard his spots." But when men have corrupted their ways, voluntarily abused or perverted their nature and faculties; when they have indulged their vicious inclinations, and by indulgence converted them into habits; it becomes exceedingly difficult for them to return to the right way: their aversion to the gospel acquires strength; and they become more and more insensible to the influence of religion and virtue. The course, which they pursue, marks their dislike to the gospel; they undervalue its instructions, promises, and rewards; the cousolations it yields here, and the everlasting honors, which it encourages the righteous to expect hereafter. While this is their disposition, they cannot perceive the value, beauty, or excellence of those truths, which the scriptures unfold.

This leads to a second inquiry, very important to a correct interpretation of this passage. In what respects is the sensual, or vicious man incapable of knowing the things of the spirit of God? i. e. as we may understand it, of apprehending the truths and objects of religion? Has he any want of capacity of know