addressed to God against a sinful people; and it appears to have about the same sense in the report of Festus to Agrippa and his court concerning Paul: "Ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me," or made intercession with me. These are all the passages in the New Testament which contain the term in question, and in every one of them it signifies to appear before God, or a human ruler, with some reason or plea, in favor or against another party. It never denotes an intervention or effort in behalf of God, or the ruler, to change the moral attitude of the sinful subject. Josephus makes use of the word in a single instance, saying, "Lucius Lentulus, the consul, freed the Jews that are in Asia from service in the army, at my intercession for them" (Ault. xiv. x. 13); and its meaning is precisely the same as in the New Testament. It is also worthy of note as making against the exposition of Dr. Bushnell, that neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit is ever said in the New Testament to intercede for unbelievers. It is only for believers, for those who love God and seek his favor, that the Saviour appears as a sponsor or advocate in heaven. In conclusion, we are required to say that Dr. Bushnell has interpreted this important term without any proper regard to its actual meaning and use, and by so doing has saved his theory at too great a sacrifice; for a theory which can only be saved by perverting the sense of God's Word costs more than it is worth. III. FORGIVENESS. Why is an unexampled meaning given to this word by Dr. Bushnell? The question need not be answered; but of this we are certain, that the principles of his religious philosophy demand this unexampled meaning. For if righteousness is nothing but love, then penalty is but a means of reformation; and if reformation is once effected, nothing more is to be done, punishment has no office to perform, and falls away of course. But if there is need of pardon after repentance, penalty must be retributive as well as restorative, and righteousness is not one and the same with benevolence. Let us, then, look at a few sentences of his work: "The very light notions prevalent concerning remission, or forgiveness, make it necessary to revise our impressions at this point." And, having noticed briefly the prevalent notions, he goes on thus: "What, then, is remission, more sufficiently conceived? The word, both in Greek and English, is a popular word, which signifies, in common speech, a letting go; that is, a letting go of blame. . But though God accommodates our understanding, in the use of this rather superficial word, we can easily see, that his relations to a sinning soul under his government, taken hold of, as it is, already, by the retributive causes arrayed in nature itself for the punishment of transgression, are so different from those of a man to a wrong-doing fellow-man, that a mere letting go, or consenting no longer to blame, really accomplishes nothing as regards the practical release of sin. We ought to be sure beforehand, that the Scripture will not leave the matter here, but will somehow manage to strike a deeper key. And we find, as we go into the inquiry, that we have, at least, three distinct forms of expression given us, to accommodate our uses. Thus, if we are thinking of God's displeasure, we have the word 'remission,' that speaks of releasing the blame; and we often use the much deeper word, 'forgiveness,' in the same superficial sense. If, again, we think of our sin as a state of moral incapacity and corruption, fastened upon us by the retributive causes which our sin has provoked, we are allowed to speak of 'forgiveness as the taking away' of our sin; just as we may of being healed,' 'washed,' 'reconciled,' 'delivered,' 'turned away,' 'made free.' Here we conceive that God is able, in the declaration of his righteousness, to get such a hold of the souls sweltering in disorder, under the natural effects of transgression, as to bring them out of their disorder into righteousness. They receive the executed fact of remission, or spiritual release. Otherwise, under a mere letting go, the bad causes hold fast like fire in brimstone, refusing to be cheated of their prey. The same is true of forgiveness." (423, seq.) On these sentences it may be remarked: (1.) That they comprise the substance of the writer's argument for setting aside the common idea of forgiveness as insufficient for the purposes of theology;1 (2.) That they reveal the state of mind in which he is ready to interpret the word of God, -"We ought to be sure beforehand, that the Scriptures will somehow manage to strike a deeper key; "2 (3.) That they betray an astonishing levity in speaking of God's displeasure at sin; — 1 Dr. Bushnell does not attempt to show that the meaning which he gives to "remission" and "forgiveness" is required by the context in any passage of the New Testament where one of these words is used. He does not even seem to have inquired whether other and deeper terms are not employed, along with pardon or remission, making the common, "superficial" sense of these the only tenable one, the only one that will save the writers from the charge of tautology. 2 This "being sure beforehand " is one of the worst states of mind in which to study the Scriptures on a doubtful point. To make sure of a religious theory beforehand, on philosophical grounds, and then come to the Sacred Record for confirmation, is, to say the least, unwise, especially if that theory contradicts the obvious or prima facie sense of passages in that Record; for the chances are that the mind will set aside the true meaning or the inspired Word, and interpret its own theory into that Word. God's letting go his displeasure, consenting no longer to blame, is a very light matter indeed, and a term which signifies only that has but a superficial sense; (4.) That they suggest a very careless use of the New Testament; for the words "remission" and "forgiveness forgiveness" commonly represent the same Greek term, aphesis; (5.) That they prove him to understand by forgiveness of sin the "taking away" of our sin, regarded as a state of moral incapacity and corruption;" and (6.) That all these positions may be traced to the writer's view of instituted penalty as their proximate_ source, and to his view of the nature of moral law as their original source. Instituted penalty is a light matter with him; or, rather, it is a great good; to remit it would be an injury rather than a blessing. The removal of the natural effects of sin is the only thing which has a look of importance to or can have such a look. him, The word aphesis occurs seventeen times in the New Testament, and fourteen times it is followed by the word "sins," or an equivalent term. Eight times it is translated in the common version Ce remission," and six times "forgiveness." In one other instance, "Without shedding of blood there is no remission," "of sins" is doubtless to be supplied to complete the sense. It may be well to transcribe these passages for the reader's conven |