the force of this passage. Admitting even that it signifies, as Dr. Priestley contends, righteous, the argument remains much the same; since, in this view, the reasoning of St. Paul goes to reconcile with the righteous dealings of God, which in respect of sin must lead to punishment, that forgiveness granted through Christ's propitiation, whereby the sinner was treated as if he had not offended, or was justified. This sense of the word just, namely, acting agreeably to what is right and equitable, cannot be objected to by Dr. Priestley, it being that which

because the arguments employed by the learned author are shaped in such a manner, as to meet the Unitarian objections in that form, in which they have made their latest appearance, and which has been given to them by the joint labours and collective erudition of the party. In the year 1801, a challenge had been thrown out to the Unitarians, in the first edition of the present work, (see pp. 135, 136, of this edition, calling upon them for an avowed translation of the Scriptures on their peculiar principles. Whether it has been in compliance with this demand, or not, that they have given to the world their "Improved Version of the New Testament," is of little consequence. But it is of great consequence, that they have been brought to reduce their vague and fluctuating notions of what the New Testament contains, to some one determined form; and that they have afforded to the able author of the "Remarks" upon their version, an opportunity of exposing the futility of the criticisms, the fallaciousness of the reasonings, the unsoundness of the doctrines, and the shallowness of the information, which have combined to produce this elaborate specimen of Unitarian exposition. Spanheim has said, Controversiæ quæ cum hodiernis Socinianis, vel Anti-Trinitariis etiam extra familiam Socini, intercedunt, sive numero suo, sive controversorum capitum momento, sive adversariorum fuco et larvâ quadam pietatis, sive argutiarum nonnunquam subtilitate, sive Socinianæ luis contagio, in gravissimis merito censentur. (Select. De Relig. Controv. p. 132.) If this observation of Spanheim is admitted to be a just one, the friends of Christianity cannot surely be too thankful to the compilers of the "Improved Version," for bringing together into one view the entire congeries of their cavils on the New Testament; nor to the "Remarker" upon those cavils, for their complete and triumphant refutation.

he himself adopts, in his violent application of the word, as relating to the Jews, compared with the Gentiles.

Doctor Doddridge deserves particularly to be consulted on this passage. See also Raphelius. The interpretation of Sixouos in the sense of merciful, adopted by Hammond, Taylor, Rosenmuller, and others, seems entirely arbitrary. Whitby says, that the word occurs above eighty times in the New Testament, and not once in that sense.

The single instance adduced in support of this interpretation, is itself destitute of support. It is that of Mat. i. 19.-Joseph, being a just man, and not willing to make Mary a public example, was minded to put her away privily. Now this means clearly, not, that Joseph being a merciful* man, and therefore not willing, &c. but, that being a just man, that is, actuated by a sense of right and duty, he determined to put her away according to the law, in Deut. xxiv. 1. and yet, at the same time, not willing to make her a public example, he determined to do it privately. See Lightfoot, and Bishop Pearce, on this passage.

That the force of tamen, yet or nevertheless, which

* Campbell, although from his not discerning the adversative relation of the members of the verse, Mat. i. 19. he has not ascribed to the word the signification of just in this place, is yet obliged to confess that he has "not seen sufficient evidence for rendering it humane, or merciful:" Four Gospels, &c. vol. iv. pp. 6, 7.The force of the Syriac word which is here used for dixos, seems not to have been sufficiently attended to in the decision of this question: if the learned reader will take the trouble of examining the several passages in the Syriac New Testament, where the word or its emphatic, occurs, he will be satisfied that in every case where it does not signify just in the most rigorous sense, it at least implies that which is founded in right. For its use in the former acceptation, see Joh. v. 30. vii. 24. Rom. ii. 5. iii. 26. 2 Thess. i. 5. 2 Tim. iv. 8. Apoc. xix. 2.

has been here ascribed to the word xa, is given to it both by the New Testament and profane writers, has been abundantly shewn by Raphel. tom. ii. p. 519. Palairet, pp. 41. 96. 221. 236. Elsner, tom. i. p. 293. and Krebsius. p. 147.-see also Schleusner Lex. in Nov. Test. Numb. 11. and the observations at p. 164 of this volume.

NO. XLIII. ON THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE REASONING WHEREBY THE DEATH OF CHRIST IS MAINTAINED TO HAVE BEEN BUT FIGURATIVELY A SACRIFICE.

PAGE 29. (v)-It has been well remarked, that there is great inconsistency in the arguments of some writers upon this subject. They represent the death of Christ, not as a proper, but merely as a figurative, sacrifice; and establish this by proving that it cannot be either. For, whilst they argue, that it is not a proper sacrifice, upon principles which tend to shew that no such sacrifice can exist, they prove at the same time that it is not a sacrifice figuratively, since every figure presupposes reality. The writers of the New Testament, who perpetually apply the sacrificial terms to the death of Christ, must surely have been under a strange mistake, since neither in a proper, nor in a figurative sense, did those terms admit of such application.

Upon the whole, the opposers of the proper sacrifice of Christ, on the ground of necessary inefficacy, are reduced to this alternative;-that no proper sacrifice for sin ever existed, and that consequently, in no sense whatever, not even in figure, is the death of Christ to be considered as a sacrifice; or, that the efficacy which they deny to the sacrifice of Christ, belonged to the offering of a brute animal,

Besides, if they allow the sacrifices under the law to have been proper sacrifices, whilst that of Christ was only figurative: then, since the apostle has declared the former to have been but types and shadows of the latter, it follows, that the proper and real sacrifices were but types and shadows of the improper and figurative.

On the pretence of figurative allusion, in the sacrificial terms of the New Testament, which has been already, so much enlarged upon in several parts of this work, Dr. Lawrence, in the discourse which he has lately published on "The Metaphorical Character of the Apostolic Style," has thrown out some valuable, ideas, which well deserve to be considered.

NO. XLIV.-ON THE NATURE OF THE SACRIFICE FOR SIN.

PAGE 29. (w) —I have not scrupled to adopt, in the page here referred to, the definition of the sacrifice for sin, as it stands in the 2d. vol. of Theol. Rep. Numb. 1: to the judicious author of which paper I am indebted for some valuable reflections on this subject. On the true nature of the sacrifice for sin, see Hallet's Discourses, 2d vol. p. 293. Although both these writers, in adopting the premial scheme of atonement, endeavour to establish a principle entirely different from that contended for in these discourses, yet are the observations of both upon the subject of atonement particularly worthy of attention.

NO. XLV. ON THE EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT IN PRODUCING SENTIMENTS FAVOURABLE TO VIRTUE AND

RELIGION.

PAGE 31 (2)-Doctor Priestley (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 419.) offers, upon this head, some very extraordinary remarks. He admits, that "the apprehensions of the divine justice, and of the evil and demerit of sin," excited by the scheme of redemption here maintained, are "sentiments of powerful effect in promoting repentance and reformation." But, he adds, "that in proportion as any opinion raises our idea of the justice of God, it must sink our idea of the divine mercy:* and since a sense of the mercy of God, is at least as powerful an inducement to repentance, and as efficacious a motive to a holy life, especially with ingenuous minds, as the apprehension of his justice; what the doctrine of atonement gains on the one hand, it loses on the other."

Now does Dr. Priestley seriously think, that the abstract love of excellence, or the hope of distant reward, can produce upon the minds of men, impressions as powerful as the habitual fear of offending?

Bishop Watson, in speaking of that arrogant and dogmatical theology, that decrees the rejection of the doctrine of atonement, as inconsistent with the divine attribute of mercy, uses the following just observations."We know assuredly, that God delighteth not in blood; that he hath no cruelty, no vengeance, no malignity, no infirmity of any passion in his nature; but we do not know, whether the requisition of an atonement for transgression, may not be an emanation of his infinite mercy, rather than a demand of his infinite justice. We do not know, whether it may not be the very best means of preserving the innocence and happiness not only of us, but of all other free and intelligent beings. We do not know, whether the suffering of an innocent person, may not be productive of a degree of good, infinitely surpassing the evil of such sufferance; nor whether such a quantum of good could, by any other means, have been produced."-Two Apologies, &c. pp. 466, 467.

VOL. I.

49