« PrécédentContinuer »
tuted him "ungodly.” He neither worshipped God nor cared for him. In the third place, he was still sinning against God's goodness —for God was yet kind to him;—"giving him rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling his heart with food and gladness." Yet, still, man refused to acknowledge his kind providence, and continued to transgress his law. Ungodliness is the negative, and sinfulness the positive, of man's preternatural state. But to consummate the whole, he is actually a rebel, an outlaw, an enemy of God. Now in these four ideas, we have the four cardinal points of human misery. And Paul, in this attempt to set forth the superabundance of God's grace, in our reconciliation, justification, sanctification and adoption, briefly alludes to this outline of man's ruin without a divine arid gracious interposition. While we were "without strength's Christ died for “the ungodly;" and God commendeth his love in sending his Son to die for us while "sinners,” and when "enemies' in our hearts “by wicked works" we were “reconciled to God” by the death of his Son;-brought into a state of amity, confidence and love; and now we rejoice in God--in hope of his glory through him by whom we have received (not the atonement, for God received that, but) the reconciliation.
Olympas. Very just, brother Ephraim, katallagee is contemplated in two points of view. To Godward it is “atonement;" to manward it is sreconciliation.” It has at least two aspects-one towards heaven and one towards earth-to heaven it is atonement; to earth it is reconciliation. To God it is justice; to man it is mercy. “Now thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift:” for “the unsearchable riches of Christ”!! We shall now hear you, brother Clement, on the eight verses touching the philosophy, or reason, of this great deliverance.
Clement. I regard this passage as the most difficult of interpretation, or of a clear and satisfactory exposition, of any passage in the whole New Testament. I have, as you know, been rummaging your library for light on it. I have just been reading Chalmers, Stuart, Barnes, Tholuck, Calvin, Boothroyd, &c., &c., and am now more perplexed than ever. I have presumed even to inspect the Greek text of Scholtz, with the readings, both textual and marginal, of Griesbach, and the variations of sundry editions from 1550 to 1633, and am s'ill not fully satisfied in some points. But I will state some of my difficulties to you; fearing, however, that they may not be edifying to the family.
In the first verse of this paragraph, the 12th of the chapter, the version you read has—"in whom all have sinned,” instead of “be. cause that all have sinned.” Making it refer to all men sinning in | Adam. Thus, instead of all men dying for their own sin, this version
makes them all die because of their sinning in the person of another as their representative. I see that you have good authority for this version; still it is not sustained by your best authorities-Stuart, Tholuck, Macnight, &c. Before I proceed farther I would like to have your present opinion of it.
Olympas. It does not seem to nie that much depends upon either version of the words eph ho. Whether we read, “because that all have sinned" or "in whom all have sinned.” Connexion with Adam is the cause of human mortality. Every child of the first man dies temporally because Adam sinned. No infant sins in its own person. “Death reigns over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression," who did not, like Adam, viotate any precept of God. They die because he sinned. He communicated to them a fallen nature. If, then, he did not represent them, they die without sin, personal or imputed, and death, in their case, is not the wages of sin. It is to them rather the reward of innocence than the wages of sin. I own that it may be better, in one sense, to follow these who translate it, “because all have sinned,” than to follow those who read it, "in whom all have sinned, inasmuch as the idea of any one sinning in the person of another is more revolting to most minds than his dying because of his unfortunate connexion with a very remote ancestor. Still, as children live eternally because of “the obedience and death of the second Adam,” I see no damage to them in dying temporarily in virtue of the sin of their father Adam being placed to their account. But on all the premises before me, I would as soon, with Stuart and Tholuck, follow the common version, in this particular case, as deviate from it.
Ephraim. How do you view the next five verses, with regard to their grammatical construction?
Olympas. I regard them as a parenthesis, and so read them. In this, also, I have with me a decided majority of learned critics and translators. These verses, indeed, make a long parenthesis, but on this account we cannot, with Tholuck, demur against so viewing them. He regards it as unusual for Paul to make so long parenthetic explanations. It may be so in some of his more practical epistles, but not so in the more argumentative. The whole sixth chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews may be, indeed must be, viewed as a parenthesis, or as a digression, explanatory of some things intimated SERIES IN-VOL. VI.
at the close of the fifth. For were we to erase from the text every verse from the 10th of the 5th to the 1st of the 7th chapter the argument would be just as complete and intelligible as it is.
In the case before us, when the 12th and 18th verses are read in connex. ion, we cannot but see their intimate relation in his mind, and are logically compelled to regard the intermediate five as explanatory of what ha assumes in the last clause of the 12th. It will then read thus: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Therefore, as by the offence of one, (sentence) came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, (sentence) came upon all men unto justification of life.” Or, to make the whole connexion in his mind still more evident, we may read them more intelligibly thus: “Therefore, as by the offence of one Adam a sentence of death came upon all men, even so by the righteousness of one Adam a sentence of life came upon all men." Or according to another version, in the margin of our most approved common
text: “Therefore, as by one offence (a sentence came) upon all men cordemning them to death, so by one righteousness (a sentence came) upon all men to justification of life.” The phrase "justification of life" is a solecism in the New Testament style. It appears to have been adopted for this special case, as a contrast to condemnation to death. Whether the “all men” relates to every individual man, or to all sorts of men, Jews and Gentiles, is also a question on which the most learned speak with a becoming diffidence. It is not literally true that all men have died; for Enoch and Elijah never tasted death; but it is strictly true that all sorts of men, Jews and Gentiles, good and bad die.
Indeed, the argument does not require us to understand the phrase justification of life,” or “condemnation to death,” as extending to every individual of the human race. Nor to any definite number on either side. It is not an argument on the comparative number that die by the first Adam, or live by the second, for that may depend upon other provisions or conditions. But so far as our connexion with the first and second Adam is contemplated the sentence is of equal extent. All are subjected to death by the first Adam; all are respited to life by the second Adam. But on what conditions all or any shall enjoy life, or suffer death, is a matter of after special arrangement or provision. All citizens of the United States are, by our constitution, equally and universally enfranchised;—the right of suffrage belongs to them all; but in consequence of other provisions and par. ticular relations all may not be permitted to vote. The relations of all man. kind, nationally and individually, to the two Adams are precisely alike; but how many may die by the one, or live by the other, is a matter of special provision. There are thousands of our American citizens sick, abroad, in prisons and penitentiaries that cannot vote, nowithstanding the right of suffrage belongs to every American citizen as such. Millions will die by reason of unbelief, although by the second Adam a sentence of justifica. tion to lise is as universal as the seutence of death, and while all may die by the first Adam or live by the second, other provisions and conditions cho limit both.
The Apostle does not assume that there is a perfect similarity, or parallelism, between these two Adams and our relations to them. One great point is, indeed, evident, that the actions of neither terminated on himself;—all connected with either of them participate in the consequences of their respective acts. But they do not equally so participate, neither here nor hereafter. One offence incurs death on one side; but one righteousness on the other side transcends ten thousand offences and delivers from them all, and more than delivers from them all, conferring innumerable blessings, spreading throughout the universe and reaching to eternity. Christ's work did much more than countervail the sin of Adam, while it does not counteract it in every case.
But let us consider the parenthesis. It commences iu the 13th verse, but originates from a position asserted in the 12th. There Paul affirms that “Death passed” (or seized) "upon all, because all have sinned," by or in Adam. The parenthesis proves that all have sinned, and comments upon the fact. In the Patriarchal age they died, while as yet there was no law inflicting death. From Adam to Moses they died. Therefore sin was imputed to them, for those who died during that time violated no written law -after the similitude of Adam's transgressing a positive precept. Paul then asserts that Adam in this respect, transmitting sin and death, was a type, a "figure of him that was to come.” But not in all respects an exact figure. For one sin of one man ruined the whole race from Adam to Moses, excepting where grace, prospective of the second Adam's one rightousness, interposed. And in this there is not an exact figure, for they died during the first 2500 years because of one sin; but the free gift, or the grace . of the second Adam, triumphed over untold multitudes of sins and transgressions. And in the second place its triumphs are infinitely more glorious because there is not a mere remission of the sins committed in all those cases as respected punishment, nor is there a mere restoration of those forgiven to such a life as that which Adam forfeited in Paradise; but the gift of an endless life, a triumphant reigning in life, by and with the Lord Jesus Christ.
This parenthesis not only illustrates the point on hand, but also strength ens the conclusion expressed in the 18th verse. “Therefore, as by one offence of one man a sentence was issued commanding all men to die temporarily; even so, on the same principle of imputation, another sentence was issued conferring eternal life upon all men connected with the second Adam;--faith in the second Adam being the cause of imputation as consanguinity with the first Adam is the cause of a condemnation to death temporal. 19th. “For as by one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners”-regarded and treated as sinners, so "by the obedience of one" other person "many shall be constituted righteous."
Moreover the law entered that the offence might abound-that sins
might be named and counted; but where sin abounded grace has supera bounded. That as sin has reigned over men to bring them to the grave, even so might grace reign through righteousness—through Christ's own blood, unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. And here we shall close our present lesson.
CAMPBELL versus ROBERTSON. Decision of the case of Alexander Campbell versus “Reverend James Robertson," of Edinburgh, Scotland, for slander and imprisonment, before the Lords of Council and Session, held in Edinburgh, June, 1849,-by a verdict of damages of two thousand pounds sterling, approximating, in our curreney, to ten thousand dollars, and costs-instituted and prosecuted by our brethren in Great Britain.
“DECREE FOR PAYMENT.
“8th February, 1849. “At Edinburgh, the eighth day of February, one thousand, eight hundred and forty-nine, in the summons and action of Damages, dated and signeted the seventh day of November, one thousand, eight hundred and forty-eight, instituted before the Lords of Council and Session, at the instance of the Reverend Alexander Campbell, President of Bethany College, Virginia, United States of America, and Alexander Paton, merchant in Glasgow, his Mandatory, against the Reverend James Robertson, residing at Twenty-seven, Gilmore Place, Edinburgh, Defender, complaining that while the Pursuer was in Scotland, in eighteen hundred and forty-seven, the Defender commenced a system of virulent and malicious abuse of the Pursuer in the allegations that he was a Slaveholder, &c., Printing and circulating cards in which the Pursuer was represented as a Manstealer, &c., and also that the Defender had maliciously and illegally caused the Pursuer to be apprehended under a warrant as in meditatione fugae granted by the Sheriff of Lanarkshire on or about the six.h day of September, eighteen hundred and forty-seven, all as more fully libeled: Setting in judgment the said Lords of the Couneil and Session, in absence, decerned and ordained and hereby decerned and ordain the said Defender to make payment to the Pursuer of the sum of two thousand pounds sterling in the name of damages and as a solatium for the injuries sustained by him as aforesaid, and of the further sum of twelve pounds, twenty shillings and four pence, being the taxed expenses of Process, besides the further sum of seventeen shillings and sixpence, being the dues for extracting the decree, and the said Lords grant Warrant to Messengers at Arms, in her Majesty's name and authority, to charge the said Defender personally or at his dwelling place, if in Scotland, and if forth thereof, by delivering a copy of charge at the