The Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning of 'mere' as 'pure, unmixed,

undiluted', and 'absolute, entire, sheer, perfect', and only in the last

definition does it give 'barely' or 'only'.  Shakespeare uses the word in the

primitive sense when he makes the herald announce that, upon the arrival of

the tidings of 'the mere perdition of the Turkish fleet', bonfires, sports

and revels should mark the welcome news.  Today the news of 'the mere'

perdition of an enemy fleet would lead to no such confidence.  Thus it will

be seen that the attempt to compel the word kaphar never to grow as other

words grow; to confine its meaning to its primitive, etymological root,

instead of allowing it the expansion of its usage and fruit, is just as

unscientific and bad as to compel every modern Englishman to use the word

'mere' as did the Dutchman, whose acquaintance with the language was after

all at second -hand.  In the next place, we must be aware of the fact that

there is no aversion in the Old Testament or New Testament Scriptures to

using, with good intent, the expression 'to cover sin'.  The phrase does

occur, and kaphar is avoided, an entirely different word, from an entirely

different root, being used.  In Leviticus 17:11 the words, 'to make

atonement' occur twice, and twice they are the rendering of the Hebrew

kaphar.  Now if 'covering' be actually the meaning of this word, what an

opportunity was missed in the thirteenth verse of the same chapter, to

demonstrate the fact once and for ever:

'He shall even pour out the blood thereof, and Cover it with dust.

it is the life of all flesh' (Lev. 17:13,14).

Moses could have so interlinked this 'covering' with the 'atonement' of

verse 11, as to establish, beyond dispute, the idea that 'atonement' means a

mere covering -- yet he did not do so.  We have said 'Moses' did not do this;

we have said, 'What an opportunity was lost', but the reader will readily

understand that we speak after the manner of men.  What we really affirm is,

that the Holy Ghost, Who inspired Moses, avoided such a usage of set purpose.

And so must we.  If the very idea of 'covering' sin is to be reckoned as an

intrusion into Christian doctrine, how can we account for David's

pronouncement of blessing on such a fact and its endorsement by Paul?  In the

32nd Psalm, David is not limiting his remarks to the sacrifices of the

Levitical law, he looks forward, as the companion Psalm (Psa. 51) reveals, to

a cleansing that washes 'whiter than snow', yet he does not hesitate to speak

of that greater Sacrifice as providing a covering for sin, and as there is no

other sacrifice that is conceivably greater than the Levitical sacrifices,

except the One Offering of the Lord Himself, then David must be credited with

ascribing to the Sacrifice of Christ this effect, the covering of sin:

'Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,

Whose sin is covered.

Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity,

And in whose spirit there is no guile' (Psa. 32:1,2).

The genius of Hebrew poetry places 'the forgiveness of transgressions'

over against 'the covering of sin', and pronounces a blessing on both.  It

has been maintained that the Old Testament word 'atonement' means 'to cover'

as over against the New Testament word, 'take away'.  Unfortunately for this

theory, but blessedly for us all, the very word 'forgiven' in Psalm 32:1 is

the Hebrew nasa, which is translated 'take (away or up)' 116 times

in the A.V. of the Old Testament.  Here, therefore, in the estimate of David,

'lifted up' or 'taken away' transgression, was synonymous with 'covered' sin,

and this is what we maintain is the teaching of Scripture.  If we continue in